My Thoughts on Karl's Thoughts on Bruno's Thoughts
Having just studied Locke and Smith’s views on property, I was intrigued by how Marx used private property laws to explain the transition from man as a social being in society to an egoistic being. I am somewhat cynical about his description that all people act as the egoistic man does, only on self-interest and being unable to function in a community, as I believe there are some clear exceptions to this in our modern capitalist society. I will elaborate on these two thoughts in this post.
According to Locke, man enters political society (and creates a social contract) to protect his natural rights, including property. Marx argues that the political suppression of private property fails to abolish property, rather it “presupposes its existence” (33) Merely creating laws to prohibit the existence of private property, he argues, fails to eliminate it entirely. Instead, Marx believes, by suppressing this right to private property, property is still being used to separate inherently social people from each other. The only way to eliminate private property is then to abolish the private ownership of any commodities, a right that Locke categorizes as a natural right. Marx writes that “it is the right of self-interest. This individual liberty, and its application, form the basis of civil society. It leads every man to see in other men, not the realization but rather the limitation of his own liberty” (Marx 42). Marx argues that the liberal state perpetuates inequality and personal interests that are a natural part of private property, contradicting its original goal of equal rights. He believes the only thing that bonds men is their natural private interest and “the preservation of their property and egoistic persons” (Marx 43).
Additionally, Marx’s perspective of egoistic people in a capitalistic society seems to me false when considering certain groups who don’t act only on self-interest and function perfectly well as communal individuals. Two examples include soldiers and volunteer workers (using the U.S. as an example of a capitalist society). Soldiers risk their lives to selflessly protect other Americans (often for reasons other than the compensation) and still own private property, etc. Volunteers, especially those who are full-time and could have paying jobs but help others instead, volunteer to help others while holding property and/or maintaining their religion. Though I am missing seminar this week, I would be interested to discuss this outside of class.
- Eliot
ReplyDeleteW post. I had similar reservations about his analysis in my reading. While I can understand why the authors we have read so far might pragmatically disregard human altruism due to its unreliability, Marx's claim that man fails to realize their true nature is problematic as it confuses a simplification of man's character with how man actually is.
It is my understanding that Marx's theories are derived from the framework that rather than man solely creating the conditions of the world, material conditions have a reciprocal influence on defining the morality of man. And while I wholeheartedly agree with the framework, I think that Marx runs into issues in classifying man as either acting egoistically or civically. Just as I agree that man alienates themself when they use the otherworldly concept of religion to justify themselves, I believe it is alienating to claim that a man is not authentic if they engage in egoism (Marx 46 and 52).
Perhaps the desire to misunderstand oneself is not wholly problematic, as it is hard to define what man is more authentically than a collection of compelling stories we tell about ourselves. I do believe that there are some qualities or inclinations of man that are more often true (shared aspects of morality for instance), and therefore we should seek to change the material conditions as to best enable/prevent unreasonable applications of these often truths. Admittedly, while I feel Marx's analysis relies upon a similar oversimplification of human character as the other authors we have read, it seems to lack a pragmatic justification of this simplification for reasons I do not entirely understand. Maybe its because it requires a further alienation from how we act than someone like Locke? Or it's also likely that it just seems more unrealistic because I've grown up in a society that pushes values more directly against what he suggests?
I probably posted too late for class discussion, but I'm still curious if anyone has clarifying thoughts.
Have a cool day,
Aidan