Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks. -Karl Marx
Where to begin?
Think of this ...The idea that capitalism can be replaced by Communism.
Imagine that? Your life would no longer be controlled by wealth. Everything you worked for would be praised just as much as the next person in your community. Your belongings would no longer go to show that you accomplished wealth in this society.
Could you handle that?
In this society how could we erase our values? Values that have been instilled in us from our parents, the media, our education? Values that are formed with the drive to be successful, which in our terms is to generate capital to show for what we have accomplished in our lives.
In the world of Communism you could chase after your dreams, whatever they may be, and there would be no criticism about your life choices. No one would question whether your career path would be able to support you and bring much success in your life. Your success in life would simply be to do your part, whatever that may be, and to contribute to society equally. We would live in a "classless" society, filled with common ownership, distribution, and exchange (Barry, 156). Marxism believes there are no natural forces behind our choices and influences.
Liberal humanism takes on the debate.
Marxism believes in equal distribution, but liberal humanism is based on human ideology. The ideas and concepts of the "American dream". This adds competition to society. Everyone wants to achieve their goals, pushing to the top. Every man is out for himself in the world of business, trying to get the higher position, in return for more capital.
What would Marx do?
He would go crazy. Marxism feels no need for competition, and feels working together is the only way. Liberal humanism promotes human values, therefore promoting competition. Liberal humanism believes in individuality, something securely possessed within each of us as our unique essence (Barry, 18).
Could it be argued that you lose all individuality in a communist society? You no longer compete to achieve your goals, you do your part, and that is it. Does liberal humanism give you the sense of your self, being an individual, believing in ideas that transcend through time? You experience passions and emotions that are apparent through history. Is this allowed in Marxism?
I leave you with those questions from the great debate between Karl Marx and liberal humanism.
Could you handle Marxism? Forget your values? Work to benefit society as whole, not yourself?
I know I couldn't ...
But that is the "Right Fish" in me.
5 comments:
Very interesting post, although I suppose it leaves one key question, whether or not one's individuality is expressed through the art of competition or, as Marx would suppose, out of a group mentality? I'd like to agree that competition seems to work, and I think that history agrees but as to the question of individuality, that's anyone's guess.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with a little competition. It drives us to be more, to become better and to fight for what we want. I agree with certain Marxist points, but this is one that I would have to leave. I think that our individuality, especially in this cuntry wouldn't allow for this kind of Marxist society.
I don't think we have to think of OCmmunism as all or none. There are some aspects of communism that work in a capitalist society, public schools for instance. i do not totally support the public school system but such is a socialist idea that we have adopted. If socialist school systems work in America's capitalist society why not socialist health care?
After reading, you definitely have posed some intereting points in your post. Marx would for sure go nuts with our society today given the amount of competition within it, however, at times I feel as though competition may be a good thing. Isn't that what spurs on the "American Dream"? - even just a little bit? We, as Americans, are all striving to beat our competitors - not matter how big or small they are. We are concerned they are going to get the job over us, they are going to make more money than me. But, it is that small fear which makes us driven in our goals - to be the best we can be because sometimes our best gets us that job we all desire. Isn't that what we believe the American dream to be? - start off with nothing and work to be the best?
I'm glad to see you are asking questions and looking for alternatives on this blog.
Competition is best suited for the animal kingdom...Marx and Engels were trying to tell people that we are better than we have so far shown ourselves to be!
We are ideologically programmed to compete with each other; there is nothing inherent in so-called "human nature" (which is a manipulable ideological construct) that makes us instinctively driven to stab others in the back, talk trash, treat others in a hostile manner, feel vindicated when other people lose out, etc.
We often hear that men "naturally" are prone to competition because of testosterone. Nonsense! I am a masculine, hairy, heterosexual man and I have always thought that competition was idiocy. Grown men are programmed today to act like spoiled, selfish children and there's nothing commendable about this.
Human beings thrive on cooperation, not competition. Early human societies depended upon cooperation for their very survival, and were a lot happier than we are today as "rugged individualists." As Marx said, it's only capitalism that reduces all human relationships to "naked self-interest" and "callous cash payment."
Besides, competition and hostility are bad for your health! And the sort of individuality we are encouraged to act out today is actually a form of pathology, I think.
Post a Comment