The Philosophy Thread

[DLC]

Karl Marx didn't believe in human nature, which explains why all his theories were unworkable.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Karl Marx didn't believe in human nature, which explains why all his theories were unworkable.

Over forty years ago, I wrote an essay for a university course on why Marx's theories were unworkable - and from what I recall it was because of bad economic theory - not an understanding of human nature. I would be interested in hearing how you think Marx did not understand human nature and what that had to do with his theory.

 

[DLC]

If all get the same reward, why should I work harder? Pretty much all there is to it, we're not ants.

 

[Louanne Learning]

If all get the same reward, why should I work harder? Pretty much all there is to it, we're not ants.

I'm not sure that anywhere he said all should get the same reward - "To each according to their ability" - and all that - but I think he did put a lot of faith into humans that maybe they did not deserve - that, once relieved of "their chains" they would suddenly become cooperative.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Marx essentially ignores human nature. His utopia disregards basic human things like competition, ego, power, desire, in favor of an inevitable collective uprising, the likes of which, would have been an unprecedented act of human cooperation. Sharp dude with lots of insight, but I'm not sure what species he was referring to. From what I remember, he never worked a day in his life and was supported by fellow travelers in London after being kicked out of Germany, but I could be remembering that incorrectly. And the real communist uprisings that followed where the antithesis of what he predicted. Rural movements characterized by abject poverty, illiteracy, and preexisting authoritarianism. Societies with an industrial, bourgeois structure were largely unaffected and trended more toward fascism if anything.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Thinking about this a bit more, it's interesting that communism has its own ethos and godfather in Marx, but petered out as a sociological movement, despite a wide spread popularity. Fascism on the other hand, has no ethos and no real historical backbone, but has had much more staying power. Not that fascism is a monolith by any means, but it's a direct reaction to communism and the evils of bourgeois society and liberalism. And every society has its own take on it, be it the Italians, Germans, or modern West.

 

[DLC]

Ok there's a children's story The Little Red Hen. In Marx's world, little red hen would be sent to gulag.

 

[JLT]

Fascism on the other hand, has no ethos and no real historical backbone, but has had much more staying power. Not that fascism is a monolith by any means, but it's a direct reaction to communism and the evils of bourgeois society and liberalism.

But has there ever been a fascist democracy? I think that's a contradiction in terms. The hallmark of Fascism, and the thing that made it worked, was strict authoritarianism, with power concentrated in private enterprise and a leader. One of the first things that Hitler did was abolish unions and collective bargaining, two of the things that constituted a check on the absolute power of corporations that was spreading in the US.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

I think it's a mistake to say that Hitler's regime was fascist, because it wasn't. There are many key differences between fascism and Nazism.

The word "Fascism" (derived from the Latin fasces) was a purely Italian phenomenon. A fasces was a bundle of rods with a projecting axe blade, carried by a lictor in ancient Rome as a symbol of a magistrate's power - i.e. telling everyone who even thought of breaking the law that he could use either the rod or the axe (i.e. punish criminals by either whipping or beheading). The fasces was used as an emblem of authority in Fascist Italy.

Hitler's regime was Nazi (formally named Nationalsozialismus, i.e. National Socialism). It is a political ideology rooted in the nineteenth-century German racialist (völkisch) movement, emerging in the context of Germany's defeat in WW1, the counter-revolutionary movement, and the rise of fascism in Italy.

There are several key differences between fascism and Nazism. The main difference is that Nazism is characterised by its extreme focus on the supposed superiority of the "Aryan race" and the use of this belief to justify genocide, whereas fascism (like that of Mussolini's Italy) prioritised the state and national prestige over racial purity.

Also, Nazism viewed the state as a tool for racial advancement (advancing and expanding the "master race" through policies like racial expansion and eugenics), while fascism viewed achieving state prestige and power as the ultimate goal.

In Nazi Germany, the racial ideology was central and all-consuming, leading to the Holocaust and other genocides. In Italy, Fascism did not have a central racial doctrine, though it later adopted antisemitic laws.

Finally, Nazism sought to unite the nation by eliminating class distinctions in favor of racial unity. But Fascism accepted and sought to preserve the class system, with class collaboration serving the state.

But has there ever been a fascist democracy? I think that's a contradiction in terms. The hallmark of Fascism, and the thing that made it worked, was strict authoritarianism, with power concentrated in private enterprise and a leader. One of the first things that Hitler did was abolish unions and collective bargaining, two of the things that constituted a check on the absolute power of corporations that was spreading in the US.

Fascism and democracy cannot sustainably coexist as core governing logics. Apparent coexistence is temporary, superficial, or a stage in democratic decay. Long-term stability requires either the preservation of democratic institutions that restrain fascist tendencies or the replacement of democracy by an authoritarian system.

Democracy is liberal, and gives rights and liberties to citizens and to unions. Fascism absolutely subordinates the individual citizen to state power and outlaws unions.

It's essentially the difference between the Second Athenian League and the Power of Sparta after the Peloponnese War, or the Delian League (under Athens's leadership) and the Persian Empire. It is impossible for them to coexist in the same place in a stable way.

 

[JLT]

I think that's a good description of Fascist history, especially the reference to the "bundle of staves" that represent the power of unity. But over time, the definition has morphed into this one by the American Heritage dictionary;

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
3. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

So you see that when people are alarmed at the drift to authoritarianism, they believe that they have reason to do so.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

I think that's a good description of Fascist history, especially the reference to the "bundle of staves" that represent the power of unity. But over time, the definition has morphed into this one by the American Heritage dictionary;
...
So you see that when people are alarmed at the drift to authoritarianism, they believe that they have reason to do so.

Absolutely -- and they are right to be alarmed. I only wish they would use the correct word for this system of government, that's all.

Rather than "fascism", I believe a more correct term would be "despotism" or "tyranny". Racism was never a component of Fascism until later in its history, at least in Italy. *nods*

The definition that the American Heritage Dictionary uses sounds -- to me, at least -- more reminiscent of Nazism than Fascism. But that's just me.

 

[Louanne Learning]

After a thought from Albert Camus:

Is the world divided into the just and the unjust, or into masters and slaves?

 

[Rath Darkblade]

That depends on how you define justice, and who does the defining.

If a hypothetical society is divided into masters and slaves, and the "masters" define what justice is, then it's not really justice, it's just a way to keep other people down.

In real life, though, no society was that simple. Ancient Rome had the upper class and the slave class, but also freemen (mostly artisans and merchants), and other people of both sexes whose status was less strictly defined.

Also, two things that must be kept in mind about ancient Rome:

1. A slave and a servant were not the same thing. A servant was paid, whether in cash or in room and board.

2. A slave's status and prospects depended very much on who his/her master was. A slave who worked in a mine could only look forward to an early death, but a slave whose master was relatively kind could receive favours, education and cash. If the slave was very, very lucky, he could also take over the master's business when the master passed away.

A female slave's situation was less complicated. She was entirely owned by her master or mistress, and had to do any work required of her. Laws were passed to prevent female slaves from becoming prostitutes, but the laws were often circumvented. The best a female (or male) slave could look forward to was manumission, i.e. being freed by their master.

Early medieval society was similar -- nobles at the top, villeins at the bottom, and priests holding everybody to a kind of spiritual account. The only justice was whatever the nobles (and, more rarely, members of the clergy) meted out.

Even so, by the 1200s, things changed considerably. Now, just as there were ranks of nobility, there were different ranks of what a peasant was. Slaves were right at the bottom, followed by villeins and/or serfs (who were tied to the land, and could be sold with it). Above them were free tenants, who leased the land from a lord and still had to work it for him, but they still had more rights than serfs.

The landlord could be a knight, a priest, or more rarely, the king. Not all knights were rich and not all of them could afford warhorses, but they were much richer than even the richest free tenant.

Is this justice? By our modern viewpoint, clearly not. But it was the only system at the time. So, to summarise: justice depends on who defines it and who writes the laws.

 

[Louanne Learning]

If a hypothetical society is divided into masters and slaves, and the "masters" define what justice is, then it's not really justice, it's just a way to keep other people down.

Well said, and this echoes what Camus was saying in the Introduction to The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt

In the Introduction, Camus examines of the problem of murder in the context of absurdism, and comes up with a contradiction inherent in absurdism with respect to killing other people. (It’s relevant that he was writing in the wake of the excesses of WW2)

On the one hand, Camus says that with an awareness of absurdism, murder becomes a “matter of indifference” – whether it is committing the act oneself, or allowing the murder of others:

"If we believe in nothing, if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then everything is possible and nothing has any importance."

So then, if nothing is neither good nor bad, true nor false, then who rules will be determined by the strongest, and according to Camus:

"Then the world will no longer be divided into the just and the unjust, but masters and slaves."

So, if we adopt the absurdist attitude, we must “prepare ourselves to commit murder” – if logic is more important than scruples.

But then, he goes on to say, that even though absurdism logic proves that murder is an act of indifference, that “absurdism analysis, in its most important deduction, finally condemns murder” – since it ends the encounter between human inquiry and the silence of the universe – and absurdism cannot consent to that:

“But it is obvious that absurdism hereby admits that human life is the only necessary good since it is precisely life that makes this encounter possible and since, without life, the absurdist wager would have no basis. To say that life is absurd, the conscience must be alive.”

 

[JLT]

The landlord could be a knight, a priest, or more rarely, the king. Not all knights were rich and not all of them could afford warhorses, but they were much richer than even the richest free tenant.

As I understand European feudalism, all of the land was technically the king's. He granted the nobility the right to use pieces of it for their benefit, but they were in fealty to him, recognizing that they used the land at his pleasure. It was a two-way agreement.... in return for the use of the land, they were expected to contribute goods or soldier's for the king's use. They, in turn, granted to lesser nobles the right to use some part of the land that they held in trust for the king, and so on down the line. These agreements were renewed by oaths of fealty every time there was a change in the succession, and could be terminated at any time.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

As I understand European feudalism, all of the land was technically the king's. He granted the nobility the right to use pieces of it for their benefit, but they were in fealty to him, recognizing that they used the land at his pleasure. It was a two-way agreement.... in return for the use of the land, they were expected to contribute goods or soldier's for the king's use. They, in turn, granted to lesser nobles the right to use some part of the land that they held in trust for the king, and so on down the line. These agreements were renewed by oaths of fealty every time there was a change in the succession, and could be terminated at any time.

This is true. All I meant by saying that "The landlord could be a knight or a priest" was that even though all the land was owned by the king, the peasants or tenants worked for, and paid their duties to, the knight/priest -- not directly to the king. *nod*

In medieval London, for instance, female prostitutes worked in the Liberty of the Clink, an area in Southwark on the south bank of the River Thames, opposite the City of London. This area was outside the jurisdiction of the City of London, and brothels, theatres, bull baiting, bear baiting, and other activities not permitted within the city could be found there.

This area was owned and licensed by the Bishop of Winchester, and these women were therefore known as "Winchester Geese". They were buried in an unconsecrated graveyard called Cross Bones, which was set aside for them, the poor, and unbaptized children. As many as 15,000 people were buried there before it was closed in 1853 due to gross overcrowding.

The 'Clink' mentioned above, for those interested, was a prison in Southwark which operated from the 12th century until 1780. (This prison is the source of the modern slang word 'clink', meaning 'prison').

 

[Louanne Learning]

In the Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus says that there are two different orientations of mind with which we approach “essential problems” -

On all essential problems (I mean thereby those that run the risk of leading to death or those that intensify the passion of living) there are probably but two methods of thought: the method of La Palisse and the method of Don Quixote. Solely the balance between evidence and lyricism can allow us to achieve simultaneously emotion and lucidity…

He links La Palisse with evidence and truth, and Don Quixote’s romantic quest to lyricism and emotion.

According to Don Quixote vs. La Palisse (Or: Meaning vs. Truth) –

Camus’s choices—a dead Frenchman who spawned comic tautologies and a mad Spaniard who jousted with windmills—are absurd choices. And that, of course, is his point. Lapalissades embody meaningless lucidity, stating truths so obvious as to be comically pointless; Don Quixote represents a meaningful lyricism hilariously out of touch with reality. La Palisse represents an absurd lucidity, Don Quixote an absurd lyricism.


So, the question becomes – does our need for meaning come at the expense of truth?

 

[JLT]

So, the question becomes – does our need for meaning come at the expense of truth?

Damn good question. For some people, yes. Some derive truth from meaning, and others derive meaning from truth. The former might be the ones who take the Bible as fact and look to science to confirm it, and the latter are the ones who start with basic science and history and see patterns that they find significant and meaningful.

Im in the latter camp. I don't think I've ever discarded a fact because I found it uncomfortable. But I've discarded many a belief when I found it untenable.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I don't think I've ever discarded a fact because I found it uncomfortable. But I've discarded many a belief when I found it untenable.

Good way of putting it, and I hope I follow this pattern, too. But I am afraid there are a lot of people whose frame of reference is so narrow, that they will choose the comforting unreality over how things really are.

 

[GrahamLewis]

So I guess we are back at the old and Biblical query, "what is truth?" Because I would postulate that every rational person seeks truth, and tries to live according to its lights, but not all agree on how to find or define it. If one's beliefs include the miraculous or supernatural, then that influences what that person regards as true, and for that person science would simply be a case of over-reliance on objective facts as humankind's limited scope perceives them,, seen through a lens of skepticism; if one rejects the miraculous or supernatural, one relies on science and its logical extensions to define truth, and regards the belief in miracles and supernatural intervention as misguided.

I would postulate a 3d, middle-path, that regards all attempts to intellectually define truth, with or without science or other logic, as being inherently futile and ultimately irrelevant.