TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

You are a Marxist – but don't worry

138 pointsby retroafromanabout 11 years ago

30 comments

michaelsbradleyabout 11 years ago
The article reminded me of Pope Benedict XVI&#x27;s short commentary on Marx in his 2007 encyclical letter <i>Spe Salvi</i>[1]:<p>&quot;Together with the victory of the revolution, though, Marx&#x27;s fundamental error also became evident. He showed precisely how to overthrow the existing order, but he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter. He simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized. Then, indeed, all contradictions would be resolved, man and the world would finally sort themselves out. Then everything would be able to proceed by itself along the right path, because everything would belong to everyone and all would desire the best for one another. Thus, having accomplished the revolution, Lenin must have realized that the writings of the master gave no indication as to how to proceed. True, Marx had spoken of the interim phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessity which in time would automatically become redundant. This &#x27;intermediate phase&#x27; we know all too well, and we also know how it then developed, not ushering in a perfect world, but leaving behind a trail of appalling destruction. Marx not only omitted to work out how this new world would be organized—which should, of course, have been unnecessary. His silence on this matter follows logically from his chosen approach. His error lay deeper. He forgot that man always remains man. He forgot man and he forgot man&#x27;s freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. He thought that once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right. His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment.&quot;<p>[1] <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.vatican.va&#x2F;holy_father&#x2F;benedict_xvi&#x2F;encyclicals&#x2F;d...</a>
评论 #7387694 未加载
shornlacunaabout 11 years ago
&gt; [Marx] thought we should abolish private property. People should not be allowed to own things. At certain moments one can sympathise. But it&#x27;s like wanting to ban gossip or forbid watching television. It&#x27;s going to war with human behaviour.<p>A common misconception is that &#x27;private property&#x27; here is to be equated with &#x27;personal property&#x27;. Marx and marxists do not believe that personal property should be abolished, or indeed that it makes sense to try and do so.<p>Generally speaking, the private property that Marx advocated abolishing was private ownership of land and the &#x27;means of production&#x27;, the latter being a category akin to &#x27;fixed assets&#x27;.
评论 #7387629 未加载
评论 #7387675 未加载
评论 #7388748 未加载
评论 #7387792 未加载
评论 #7387565 未加载
_deliriumabout 11 years ago
An aside from the article&#x27;s subject, but where I thought it was going from the title is another way in which many people (esp. technologists) are Marxist in a sense: methodologically viewing society and history as constructed in large part through the interplay of material &#x27;systems&#x27;, like technologies, the natural world, trade patterns, etc. It&#x27;s since become a common enough view that it&#x27;s no longer exclusively Marxist, but it was one of the big departures of Marxist historiography from classic historiographies (aristocratic ones, romantic-nationalist ones, etc.), which focused on the role of people and culture, especially leaders (and other Great Men) and nations, in shaping history. The idea that you could explain things about how a society is organized by investigating the development of steel mills, tracing money flows, and looking at employment relationships (the &quot;base&quot;), rather than only looking at what happens in a society&#x27;s parliament or culture (the &quot;superstructure&quot;), was pretty unusual.
glenraabout 11 years ago
&gt; <i>Why are we all so anxious all the time? Marx had a diagnosis. Because capitalism makes the human being utterly expendable...</i><p>I&#x27;m sorry, but that&#x27;s just nuts unless you can point to a society - of any sort anywhere - that contains no anxious people. People are (sometimes) anxious for the same reason deer and mice and all other animals on the planet are anxious: <i>being anxious has survival value</i>.<p>Suppose we <i>completely solved</i> the need to pay for food and housing; people would be anxious about health care. Suppose we solved that too? People would be anxious about the need for <i>pet</i> health care. Or <i>better</i> housing. Or social validation. Or we&#x27;d start inventing <i>brand new threats</i> to be anxious about, like catastrophic global warming or nuclear meltdowns or economic collapse or being hit by a meteor.<p>We worry because worrying is part of being human.
评论 #7387704 未加载
评论 #7387805 未加载
评论 #7388228 未加载
评论 #7387839 未加载
评论 #7388082 未加载
评论 #7388039 未加载
评论 #7387973 未加载
评论 #7387804 未加载
评论 #7388788 未加载
sharkweekabout 11 years ago
<i>He also observed how in the modern world, fewer and fewer jobs have this characteristic of allowing us to see the best of ourselves in what we do. </i><p>Reminds me of my favorite quote from The Wire:<p>&quot;We used to make shit in this country; build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy&#x27;s pocket&quot;
评论 #7387723 未加载
评论 #7388201 未加载
评论 #7387700 未加载
bcoatesabout 11 years ago
This article takes some pretty big liberties with the present to make Marx look more prescient than he was.<p>The idea that people are being forced out of inherently fulfilling object-manufacturing jobs into inherently unsatisfying service jobs isn&#x27;t particularly true, and even if it were, that&#x27;s not what alienation means. While many service jobs suck in ways Marx can be applied to, mass production was the original alienating job.<p>It&#x27;s the lack of agency that&#x27;s alienating, not the transitory nature of the produced work, or even the job being inherently pointless (people cheerfully do non-productive things all day)<p>The part about specialization is questionable as well. While there&#x27;s not much use for a casual architect, the modern, deep-specialization economy means it&#x27;s impossible to hire if you limit your search to people who made the life decision at 12 that they wanted to be an packaging technology specialist.<p>This creates a system where it is not just acceptable but expected that individuals will have various careers throughout life: What we do for a living can&#x27;t be a fundamental characteristic of our identity if it isn&#x27;t what we were doing a decade ago and isn&#x27;t what we&#x27;re likely to be doing a decade from now.<p>This is kind of a problem for the article author&#x27;s defense of Marx because it&#x27;s the alienating, interchangeable nature of 21st century work that allows the individual to increasingly have an existence outside of their job. Just look at all the weirdos over at tumblr: many of these people have jobs that are so non-identifying that they have to get together and brainstorm new identities to label themselves with.
评论 #7387997 未加载
评论 #7388041 未加载
zeteoabout 11 years ago
&gt; [Marx] thought we should abolish private property. People should not be allowed to own things.<p>I don&#x27;t think that&#x27;s accurate. Marxists want to abolish private property <i>of the means of production</i>. So it&#x27;s OK to have a house and car for your own use, but not a factory where others work for you - because in such circumstances, Marx thought, exploitation and dehumanization become inevitable. I&#x27;m not saying I agree with this analysis, but in a world where Silicon Valley executives conspire to depress wages and many people are stuck in &quot;bullshit jobs&quot; it can&#x27;t be completely disregarded either.
评论 #7388741 未加载
评论 #7388796 未加载
atmosxabout 11 years ago
&quot;The biggest crime the 60&#x27;s and 70&#x27;s European socialist movement, was the failure to severely limit the average working hours&quot; - TechieChan<p>I know most people, especially in a neo-liberal western society, would never give this a chance, but IMHO it&#x27;s really life-changing. As <i>scarcity is a virtue</i> and many people still believe that worker&#x27;s <i>productivity</i> in the secondary and primary economy sector is still of importance.<p>ps. I&#x27;m all for free-lancers working 24&#x2F;7 if they choose too. But for things housing&#x2F;food&#x2F;clothes&#x2F;energy&#x2F;internet&#x2F;etc. 3 hours per 5 days a week should be enough all over our planet.
评论 #7387970 未加载
coldteaabout 11 years ago
&gt;<i>Few ideas have been more thoroughly discredited and rejected by history than those of Karl Marx.</i><p>Actually no. USSR and the &quot;really existing socialism&quot; states had little to do with the theories of Karl Marx (besides the basic lip service paid to it).<p>If you want to discredit Marx&#x27;s theories do it based on what HE wrote (that&#x27;s his theories), not what others did afterwards.<p>And arguments from economists that work as policy makers (instead of as objective scientists) and whose models and proposed policies have failed historically in every single case they were enforced do not count much.
评论 #7388450 未加载
captainmuonabout 11 years ago
Marx != Marxism... There is a huge gap between Marx&#x27; writings and what Marxists made of it. I guess most people agree that Marxism was bad. Not just that it didn&#x27;t work economically, but that it led to undesirable, authoritarian societies. Problem is, Marx didn&#x27;t advocate what was later called Marxism. In fact, he famously said &quot;je ne suis pas un marxiste&quot; - &quot;I am not a Marxist!&quot;.<p>That article is misleading and tendentious in many ways. I was going to write a post debunking it, but I honestly didn&#x27;t manage to get to the end. I found it&#x27;s just not worth getting worked up (&quot;Someone&#x27;s wrong on the Internet!&quot;). Just some short ideas:<p>- The author seems hung up on one aspect of Marx&#x27;s thinking, the concept of alienation. While it is an important concept for Marx, I think if you just single out one aspect, you risk making a similar mistake to the Marxists (who emphasized the expropriation of workers&#x27; surplus value, and the need to get control over that surplus through class war).<p>- People who most vocally criticize Marx usually haven&#x27;t read him. I&#x27;m no fan of the Soviet Union, but Marx doesn&#x27;t advocate a state like that. His main opus, the Kapital, is a theory of Captialism, not of Communism. Most economists and many other academics don&#x27;t use Marx nowadays, but not because he is <i>wrong</i> per se, but rather because his work-value theory does not have much quantitative predictive power. You can&#x27;t use it to calculate much, but that wasn&#x27;t his goal anyway. Rather, (as I&#x27;d describe it in modern terms) he shows how from simple axioms you automatically get all the injustice and crisis-proneness he criticizes in capitalism (a la: Assume there&#x27;s a society where most people work, get paid wages, and buy the products of their labor on a open market.... BAM people who own the means of production get richer, etc.). I personally was really surprised how relevant his writings still are today.
评论 #7388563 未加载
gatehouseabout 11 years ago
I can&#x27;t tell if this is a parody site or not: <a href="http://www.philosophersmail.com/310114-relationships-stewart.php" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.philosophersmail.com&#x2F;310114-relationships-stewart...</a><p>The superficial resemblance to the daily mail leads me to instantly discredit the whole site.
评论 #7387819 未加载
评论 #7387806 未加载
评论 #7387765 未加载
irremediableabout 11 years ago
&gt; Frankly, the remedies Marx proposed for the ills of the world now sound a bit demented. He thought we should abolish private property. People should not be allowed to own things.<p>I was given to understand he didn&#x27;t believe this at all! He believed that people should not be allowed to own the means of production. He was fine with people owning e.g. toothbrushes.
评论 #7387798 未加载
评论 #7387895 未加载
foobarquxabout 11 years ago
Chomsky on Marxism: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8GMidDRn2k" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=A8GMidDRn2k</a>
tdees40about 11 years ago
This is why it&#x27;s important to differentiate between Marx&#x27;s preferred political system (Communism) and the ideas of Marx more holistically (Marxism). Many of Marx&#x27;s ideas remain compelling ways to explain our modern world (alienation, false consciousness, just to cite two), even if Marx&#x27;s political ideas turned out to be a disaster.
评论 #7387722 未加载
crussoabout 11 years ago
The author makes a lot of excuses for Marx&#x27;s philosophy based upon the times in which he existed, ignoring the fact that The Age of Enlightenment had already occurred. The Founding Fathers of the USA had already set the USA experiment in motion, based upon the thoughts of Locke and Montesquieu - among others.<p>There were already abundant answers to the problems that Marx was witnessing, but rather than celebrate the liberty of the individual, Marx subjugated every individual to the limitless needs and exigencies of the &quot;masses&quot;.<p>Great, so a few of Marx&#x27;s tenets out of context of his larger theme made some sense. His context, though, was completely screwed up.
评论 #7388368 未加载
alexeisadeski3about 11 years ago
What the author describes are not the defining features of Marxism. Marxism is a political philosophy the details of which we are all familiar.<p>Marx also had many insights into modern society, human psychology, and history. Not all of his insights were incorrect - indeed there are precious few humans who are cursed with uniformly incorrect insights. However, agreeing with some of Marx&#x27;s insights does not make you a Marxist.<p>This is the converse of &quot;Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is evil&quot; fallacy.
BrainInAJarabout 11 years ago
&quot;He thought we should abolish private property. People should not be allowed to own things.&quot;<p>No. that&#x27;s just straight wrong. Property is revenue generating, it&#x27;s not the stuff you own. Marx wanted to abolish private ownership of the means of production (ie, factories)
bayesianhorseabout 11 years ago
I think the most detrimental thing in communism (or socialism or whatever the local variety) versus most other forms of government was the lack of risk management. Wealth is alwas the end result of an exponential growth process.<p>But there is no growth without risk, and especially Mao has been guilty of all sorts of bad ideas &quot;tried out&quot; on a grand scale, ignoring risks and just aiming for the newest get-wealthy-quick scheme. That&#x27;s why China today is extremely conscious about their growth. Not too high, not too low.<p>The only way to achieve this risk-managed growth is through a large and lucrative financial sector.
threepipeproblmabout 11 years ago
As someone who has read most everything Marx has written... no, I am not a Marxist. And the fact that some of Marx&#x27;s points about alienation and such have become memes does not make me, or anyone else, Marxist.
评论 #7388354 未加载
EthanHeilmanabout 11 years ago
This article doesn&#x27;t understand what Marxism is, many of the ideas represented as &quot;Marxism&quot; were shared by many philosophers prior to, during and after Marx&#x27;s life. They don&#x27;t in anyway define Marxism.<p>Why some people insist on referring to all leftist critiques of the status quo&#x2F;capitalism as Marxism and then complain about the intellectual babbage attached to that term is beyond me.
veganarchocapabout 11 years ago
I felt slightly sick when I read that title.
评论 #7388487 未加载
johngaltabout 11 years ago
I&#x27;m a marxist as much as I&#x27;m an astrologist. It&#x27;s easy to make broad statements like &#x27;work should be meaningful&#x27;. Who would disagree with that? #4 might as well say &quot;As a Libra you believe that specialization deadens the soul&quot;.<p>What a laughable article.
ctdaviesabout 11 years ago
Wow it&#x27;s like no one has actually read Marx.
fiatpandasabout 11 years ago
Is &quot;maker&quot; culture Marxist?
评论 #7388342 未加载
giantrobotheadabout 11 years ago
I was never worried about being a Marxist.
firstOrderabout 11 years ago
&gt; He thought we should abolish private property. People should not be allowed to own things.<p>Marx had very little interest in discussing property or things. He called focus on property and things &quot;commodity fetishism&quot;. Marx talked about relations of production - relations between people.<p>&gt; It&#x27;s going to war with human behaviour.<p>All humans lived communistically from the time of cave paintings, Venus figurines, advanced tools etc. of 50,000 years ago, to 10,000 years ago.<p>Go back to the time of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE - Japan, Australia, North America, Sub-Saharan Africa etc. are all still communistic hunter-gatherer tribes. People in New Guinea were living in a more &quot;advanced&quot; mode of production then people living 200 kilometers north of modern Stockholm.<p>If there was some genetic component of humans which made the recognition of rented property, interest-lended money, profit-extracting capital etc. some innate human feature, then we wouldn&#x27;t have to be repeatedly told that how production and relations of production organized themselves in the past two centuries is normal, and any changes to that are &quot;against human nature&quot;. Unquestionable, repeated, &quot;accepted wisdom&quot; of man&#x27;s nature has been part of propaganda models for millennia - centuries ago priests and reverends would be telling us it is obvious man is depraved, man is sinful, only saved by the grace of god etc. When considered, it&#x27;s obviously nonsense.
评论 #7387976 未加载
michaelochurchabout 11 years ago
I think I&#x27;m a neo-Marxist. Marxist materialism gives us the most accurate lens into what human societies actually are: people either cooperating or competing for resources. Culture and religion and politics mostly derive from that. On the small scale, there is much about us as humans that is extra-economic; but, on the larger scale, our operations and fluid mechanics come from economic causes.<p>Like the OP, I don&#x27;t buy into Marx&#x27;s solution. I don&#x27;t claim to know how to build the perfect society, because the feedback cycle takes too long and the costs of experimentation are very high. He diagnosed the problem perfectly. Greed <i>is</i> what is (at least, at risk of) killing us and the planet.<p>Artificial scarcity is also a cause of much misery, and I agree that it must be struck down. The modern, technological world has no place for these artificial scarcities. I probably sound repetitive when I rail against closed allocation, but that&#x27;s a perfect example of an artificial scarcity (in that case, of ways for a person to distinguish herself and succeed) in all its moronic and evil glory.
评论 #7390231 未加载
FD3SAabout 11 years ago
There are many local maximums between pure socialism and pure capitalism. Capitalism, in its purest form, is winner take all no holds barred competition. Ruthless, dirty and vicious. Pure socialism is stagnation, with no rewards for additional efforts beyond the bare minimum.<p>There are many countries that have realized this, and have implemented capitalism&#x27;s competitive force in a controlled, positive sum manner while simultaneously leaving a generous safety net for those getting started or recovering from failure.<p>However, I believe that in the past few decades, modern nations have had no guiding principles other than economic growth. This begets a huge host of problems, mainly resulting from parasitic and wasteful economic practices which tend to be zero or negative sum when all externalities are accounted for.<p>If we look closely at history, our guiding principles have always been based on fear in the form of massive wars, whether waged or theoretical (WWI, WWII, Cold War, etc.). Increasingly I&#x27;ve become convinced that in order to address all of the failings of modern societies, we need to have national principles based upon something other than pure economic performance and&#x2F;or war.<p>I sincerely hope that someday, modern nations will adopt scientific research as their guiding principle, and structure society around the continuous quest for knowledge. Research would be the economic engine that drives growth, and national spending would be based upon catalyzing scientific and technological progress. Professional science would be the developed world&#x27;s biggest industry, which would facilitate implementations in private industry when technologies mature. Universities, hacker spaces, and all academic institutions would provide a plethora of training opportunities that would be sponsored by national spending, ensuring a citizenry that would be incredibly educated and willing to engage in research at all levels, from lab technicians to principal investigators.<p>As such, there would always be a job available in the nation&#x27;s scientific infrastructure for every citizen at some level. The state would be the employer of last resort, but would also allow opportunities for incredible advancement. Furthermore, this would result in an extremely informed voter base, with the time to participate in direct and&#x2F;or representative democracy.<p>I see this as being an incredible opportunity going forward. As automation proceeds to rapidly destroy middle and low class jobs, the entire concept of employment will have to be reevaluated. Capital will eclipse labor in the economic factors of production, leading to a necessity for people to find another meaning in life other than just &quot;jobs&quot; for the sake of survival. We&#x27;ll need a guiding principle to structure our society around.<p>Thus, I humbly nominate the pursuit of science as our prime directive.
评论 #7388334 未加载
评论 #7388766 未加载
评论 #7388681 未加载
评论 #7390644 未加载
maxjones1about 11 years ago
ok, so can we now no longer expect comments on the internets from semi-educated types whose every other word is socialist or marxist?
pikachu_is_coolabout 11 years ago
I thought this was going to be about free software.