This week we deal
with communism. Not Soviet
communism, but communism as defined
by the German social philosopher,
Karl Marx. Guiding us through his
ideas will be Sidney Hook, a
lifelong student of Marxism.
Marx's story is fascinating- but beware-
his ideas are interpreted in many
different ways. Capitalism at work:
abundance produced by human beings
and machine. This automation would
have been inspiring to Karl Marx.
For Marx, work was the most vital
element of any culture. But the
work he had in mind was very
different. Marx's ideas came in
large part from reflections on the
lives of the textile workers of
19th century England. These are
20th century workers. Every day,
they give a demonstration of
textile making. Quarry Bank Mill in
Cheshire, England is a last working
remnant of an industrial revolution
that was to change human lives
throughout Marx's life. Here in a
typical English green and pleasant
valley, rural England's peace was
to be shattered by the first beats
of the machine culture. Gone
forever was the steady spindling of
cottage weaving. Now the machine
rolled. A thousand spindles rattled
miles of yarn, which demanded that
hundreds of workers: men, women
and children paced their lives to the
thwack of the flying shuttles.
Here, capital forced the pace,
driving the lives of those in the
weaving shed. And the capitalists
who owned the capital ruled.
Industrial capitalism, for Marx,
was not an accident of human
history. It's not because human
beings thought of free trade; or
discovered the division of labor
that came about. No, rather it was
a necessary part of humanity's
development. Humanity went through
several stages. At first came its
infancy, the tribalist stage; then
its childhood during feudalism; and
now we are in capitalism, its
adolescence. Industrial capitalism
brings about the machine, which is
a liberating tool for Marx. It
frees human beings from menial
labor, from chores, and allows them
to engage in creative work. It
makes man a master of nature; not
nature a master of man. Nineteenth
century Europe was period of great
optimism and progress.
With industrialization came railways,
bridges and factories; and changes
in how the world looked.
Achievement- it was felt- came from
the application of science.
For scholars, it was vitally important
to be scientific... and Marx was no
exception. This is the herbarium at
Kew Gardens in London. It's one of
the world's largest collections of
botanical specimens: a database
for botanists. A full record of the
natural history and evolution of
plants. In a similar way, Marx, the
scientific philosopher, sought his
database in the known developments
of human society. He considered
himself a natural historian of
humanity, tracing its inevitable
evolutionary improvement, but with
a difference. Marx's perspective,
however, was revolutionary and not
evolutionary. And when Marx was
studying humanity's development, he
was not referring to individual
human beings, but that of the human
species as an organic whole.
These students are from Berlin's
free university. They relish intense
political debates. They are doing
exactly what Marx loved to do; when
as an 18-year-old- he came to Belin
to study. Marx was a ferocious
debater. Aggressively shouting down
those who disagreed with him,
attacking both their motives and
personality. In Berlin, he found
his intellectual roots. In the same
way that these students are
influenced by their teachers,
Marx's ideas reflected those ideas
of his, the philosopher Hegel.
Hegel's influence was enormous.
He had worked out a system for
analyzing the progress of ideas
through history. His central
principle was the dialectic.
A series of clashes between new ideas
and actual reality. I suppose one
way to understand this is somewhat
the way in which this film is being
made. First you have an idea.
Then, certain steps are taken to
institute the idea, and then that
modifies the idea of the film.
And that goes on until finally you
have a resolution in the thing that
you're looking at right now. So, to
Hegel, the truth about the world
changes through time. And the
actual world is what interested
Marx. He had also been greatly
taken by the ideas of Ludwig
Feuerbach, a philosopher who
insisted on the scientific approach;
that we only know what we
can perceive through our senses.
Marx got the idea of the
dialectical process from Hegel, but
he was a materialist, which he
learned from Feuerbach. This is why
it's said of him that he turned
Hegel upside down. Now, materialism
to Marx meant that we are always
living with the direct involvement
in the concrete natural world
around us. Hence, there is no room
for spiritual reality, no room for
religion. Marx was quick to apply
his ideas to the concrete social
world of human beings. This is
Trier, a small middle-class town on
the Moselle, not far from Cologne,
in Germany. Marx knew the region
and its people. He was born and
brought up here. His father was a
middle-class lawyer, living in this
house. Leaving university, Marx had
joined a newspaper in Cologne, the
Rheinische Zeitung, which covered
events in this area. Near Trier,
the Moselle River winds through a
deep valley. Beneath the forests at
the top lie hundreds of vineyards.
These are the vines which produce
the Moselle wine. If you've ever
drunk Piesporter, this is Piesport.
Families have worked these small,
steep vineyards for centuries.
Andre Shven's (phonetic) used to be
his father's- before that- his
grandfather's. Winter here is
bleak. In Marx's day, when harvests
failed, there was appalling
poverty. Villagers would climb to
the forests and gather wood, to
bring it back down the steep slopes
for their fires. The owners of the
forests had traditionally turned a
blind eye to this foraging; the
wood would have been considered
common property. However- after a
succession of bad harvests- the
landowners realized their wood
resources were valuable, and began
to prevent the villagers from collecting.
Now, Marx took note of
these developments, and began to
formulate several of his ideas that
would eventually become the
centerpiece for his political economy.
At Trier then, Marx saw clear
examples of the influence of
the institution of private property
and worker exploitation, the
determination of human relations by
economic forces and the role of
class conflict. We might even say
that this was the birth of
scientific socialism; that the
clash between landowners was
economic, and that it might lead to
a new historical reality or vital
early insights for Marx's science.
He was only beginning to formulate
his ideas. Tibor... Why is it that
Marx became convinced of the
significance of economic factors in
the development of societies?
Marx realized that the nature of
property is defined not so much by
the use of what people make of what
they own, but by the power to
exclude others from the use of what
they own. And then you have a very
definite power over them as human
beings. In other words: property
meant power. But Marx's real
contribution arose from his claim
that it was the way in which
property relations are organized
that determined the aspirations,
the motivations, the institutions
of society. Was it really valid to
generalize from that case of the
wood theft to all property relations?
After all, there are some property
relations that come from creativity,
not from natural abundance.
Yes. The fundamental distinction,
however, that Marx makes
is between personal property
and what he calls "social property."
Was this also the source
of Marx's belief in class conflict
and the different outlooks of
members of classes? Naturally, it
would follow as he reflected upon
the importance of the property
relationship that the appeal that
the peasants would make to the
benevolence of the feudal lords
were not likely to lead to
redistribution of property. And it
was at this point that he stresses
the inescapable necessity of struggle.
He begins to see all of
history in terms of the class struggles.
Now, this is obviously an
exaggeration; because history is
not only the history of class
struggles; it's the history of
class cooperation. Society is not
always involved in struggles.
But, his contribution was to stress the
importance of the struggle and its
pervasiveness. Mid-nineteenth
century Europe was a continent of
enormous inequalities. Dynastic
monarchs inherited huge palaces.
This one belonged to the King of
Prussia. Social status and
privilege were determined by birth.
A preoccupation with class was
quite normal. Facing up to these
entrenched privileges were many
thinkers and writers who called
themselves "socialists."
Their vision: the end of privilege
and the common management of
all property. Marx, who read with an
intensity which scholars even today
find remarkable, absorbed their
ideas and began adapting them to
his view of the world. These were
dangerous politics to adopt. Marx,
despite his studying, found time to
get married. Jenny Westphalen was
the daughter of a local nobleman.
She was only 22, and she might have
thought twice if she had known what
lay ahead. Marx was looking for
adventure as an active radical. He
chose Paris to find out more about
socialist ideas. Since the
revolution of 1789, Paris had been
a hothouse for democratic
experiment, particularly socialist
theorizing. As intellectuals do
even today, Marx shunned the grand
establishments near the royal
palaces. Instead, he settled for
the south, or Left Bank, a warren
of narrow streets awash with human
variety. Marx spent his days here
reading, learning and fraternizing
with new friends: Heinrich Heiner:
a radical poet; Arnold Ruge: a
journalist and socialist. He met up
with Proudhon, doyen of the Utopian
Socialists, and Friedrich Engels,
manager of a textile mill in
England, but a socialist. They were
to begin to build a lasting
friendship here. Marx and Jenny
spent too much money in places like
this, frittering away a legacy from
Jenny's parents amongst their
newfound socialist friends.
Marx liked to debate the marriage of
collective ownership of the means
of production. But, what really
interested him now was the
achievement of this go-through
revolution. Some people think that
philosophers, including political
thinkers, merely engage in idle
chatter... are full of hot air.
They believe that only concrete
material forces have an impact on
the world around them, such as:
technology... maybe our genes.
Even Marx was thought to have held
this view at one time. Yet Marx, and
many like him, put the line to this
point. They have certainly had an
enormous impact on the world
around us, especially on our legal
institutions. Marx's radicalism
also offended the institutions of
France. The authorities became
suspicious of his activities and
threw him out of Paris. He went to
Belgium, to Brussels where he and
Jenny found lodgings in a scruffy
tenement building. Their money was
already running out. The secret
police in Brussels watched them
constantly. For Jenny, the
following months were to be a
nightmare. Marx would go carousing
with friends late into the night,
leaving her alone and pregnant in
their damp rooms. Once, she was
thrown in prison for a night
amongst prostitutes. They were kept
afloat financially by Engels, an
irony since his money came from his
capitalist connections. It was at
this time that Engels also involved
Marx in writing a tract, which was
to become one of the best-known
documents of history: The Communist
Manifesto. It's a heady propaganda
piece; but it lays out the
quintessential assault of Marx, the
revolutionary. The aims today
actually look rather tame. But for
their time, they were explosive. To
have them circulated in print
amongst worker groups was
outrageous. The intensity of the
radical Marx- fermenting revolt- is
still the fuel of the revolutionary
wing of contemporary Marxism. If
you think of them as tabloid
headlines, these communist slogans
are superb incitements to action,
especially to the hotheaded and the
desperate. Marx now traveled
widely, talking to worker groups
and organizing revolutionary
activity. Soon he was to witness
the events of 1848, known as the
Year of Revolutions. The "beautiful
revolution" in Paris, in which a
class struggle between workers,
bourgeoisie and new capitalists led
to a provisional government, and
the declaration of a new republic,
that lasted only a few months. He
attempted to start a revolution
also in Cologne, publishing the
Neue Rheinische Zeitung, a
vituperative attack on class
interests, printed in red ink. That
got him thrown out of Germany.
Exiled to London, he involved
himself in the International
Workers' Association. Here- not for
the last time- different strands of
socialism were to clash. Marx
attacked what he called the
"bourgeois utopian socialism" of
the French, led by Proudhon. He
attacked anarchic socialism, whose
main proponent was the Russian
Bakunin. Marx always believed that
initially the State had a role to
play in socialism. He set himself
up as the theorist of revolutionary
socialism, which gradually he came
to call "communism." In fact,
internal contradictions in the Pan
European Socialist movement-
exploited by Marx himself- were to
prove the downfall of the
International Workers' Association.
To prevent others taking part, Marx
and Engels manipulated the IWA into
moving its offices to- of all
places- Philadelphia. There it
simply withered away. Thirty years
after Marx's death the IWA was, in
fact, reborn- holding meetings in
Basil and Geneva. The Geneva
meeting was significant in several
ways. Not least for the presence of
one man, whose interpretation of
revolutionary Marxism- as we'll see
in another program- was to have
enormous importance... Lenin. As an
exile in London, not only had Marx
run out of countries, he had run
out of money. He and Jenny lived in
rooms above a laundry in SoHo. Once
again, he relied on Engels for a
living, never giving him any
thanks, behavior consistent with
his communist views. By now, he
wasn't averse to simply scrounging
for funds from others. Ironically,
Marx's slum dwelling is now on the
fourth floor above one of the
better restaurants in SoHo. Here
Marx was to live working late into
the night, smoking his foul cigars,
mulling over the failure over
revolutionary process to
immediately bring about the
socialist phase of history. In
these two rooms, he and Jenny lived
with his four children, two of whom
were to die here. Marx had a
revolutionary approach. He believed
that capitalism needs to be
overturned, changed into socialism.
How did this idea evolve in his own
theoretical view? It is interesting
to observe that Marx did not assume
that there would be a political
party to lead in the workers. But
they would learn- in terms of the
discipline and consequences of
their own opposition to capitalism.
And as their need intensified, it
would culminate in taking power.
What is the major difference
between scientific and utopian
socialism? The great difference is
that Marx did not believe that you
could introduce socialism any time
and anywhere. He assumed that there
had to be certain objective
conditions to be fulfilled. Now, if
you look more closely at that view,
I don't think that it could stand
up to analysis because we would
have to abandon the whole notion of
inevitability- or even overwhelming
probability. But, I think Marx
would say, well the inevitable
comes about through the activity of
the working class, which itself is
inevitable under the circumstances,
so that he would not regard this as
a contradiction. Now, this was a
time of political upheaval. Was
Marx changing his own behavior as a
result of these political changes?
At this period he often denounced
those who were always invoking the
necessity of using force at any
time. And he would also criticize
those who were interested only in
tepid reforms, and did not aim at
the transformation of the entire
system. So that there is a
pragmatic element in the political
aspect of his activity. Exiled from
Europe, Marx was now to research
the material basis of scientific
socialism. He wanted to find the
elements within the forces of
history which could transform
capitalism through socialism into
communism. Engels hometown,
Manchester England, was the world's
first industrial city. Its massive
growth was produced by the newly
mechanized textile industry. These
were the canals where the cotton
was rushed in from America to feed
the looms of the Industrial
Revolution. Today, the looms are
gone, but many mills still stand.
You can almost imagine them
throbbing with vibration of
steam-fired belts and pulleys,
while the looms created the
superabundance of capitalism. And
along with capital came labor...in
droves. It's said these clog
dancers black their faces because
their origins lie in the tin mines
of Cornwall, hundreds of miles from
Manchester. These dancers came to
Manchester with the vast influx of
labor, the working class.
From all over the country, men,
women and children came to
serve as the capitalist machinery.
Their back-to-back houses clustered
around the mills, creating northern
England's unique urban landscape.
Overcrowding- compounded by a rapid
birth rate- soon produced fetid
slums. Marx never visited factories
or slums. He collected data from
evidence and correspondence, and
through an obsessive fascination in
arcane statistics. He studied at
the British Museum and here, at
Chesham's Library, in Manchester.
You can see the books he used here,
where he and Engels did their
research. Just look at these
statistics: how much land is to be
given to the poor for relief, death
rates, land taxes. Political
thinkers: they hope to have an
influence in the way the world
works. Marx, for example,
complained that philosophers had
thus far only interpreted the
world; the point is to change it.
For Marx, the contrast between the
good fortune of the capitalists,
and the misery of the workers was
the key to how his communist vision
would come about. Quite simply, the
workers would revolt. Their lives
delineated by what Engels called
the "rhythm of the machine" would
inevitably be subjected to mere
subsistence, as any extra wages
were dissipated in more children.
They would become increasingly
alienated from the very system
which spawned them; and
increasingly unemployed as
machinery took their work from
them. The capitalists would
decrease in numbers. Penny-pinching
with ever-increasing competition,
they would experience falling rates
of profit. The capitalists would
then lower wages even further; the
working class would become even
more immiserated, until eventually,
the whole capitalist system would
destroy itself in an inevitable
communist revolution. In his
efforts to convert people to his
ideas, Marx wrote a book. It was to
be his great work, explaining in
detail how capitalism would
inevitably fail, and socialism
emerge triumphant. He called it Das
Kapital ...Capital. This is Adam
Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Marx
studied this book, just as he did
David Ricardo's and Thomas
Malthus's works. It was at the time
that he was writing Das Kapital,
his major work- which was addressed
to these economists- which was
meant to convince those who were
impressed with this economic
analysis of society. But, of
course, it contained Marx's own
extremely revised views of these
ideas. But its tone, its style was
that of the classical economists.
The language of Das Kapital is to
us today obscure in the extreme.
But you can still see traces of
what Karl Marx meant in our
contemporary industrial culture. He
claimed that the value of what we
make is created by the labor which
goes into its making. It's an idea
borrowed from the economist David
Ricardo, except Marx altered it,
declaring it true whatever and
however much capital is employed,
once created, the product, of
course, is owned by the capitalist.
Once costs and wages are
subtracted, the remaining surplus
value is appropriated by the
capitalist. The worker, in Marx's
phrase "is exploited." This life of
wage labor- where one is exploited
because of the private property
owned by the capitalist- gives him
power over your social being...
leads to alienation. You are
alienated from yourself. Your labor
is sold; and isn't an expression of
your own creativity. You are
alienated from the production
process. Division of labor taps
only a fraction of your
creativity. You are alienated from
others; you see them as antagonists
in the marketplace when you go to
buy something. And you are
alienated from the product. It
isn't yours; and you will have to
pay the capitalists to obtain its
benefits, although you've created
it by your own efforts. Das Kapital
is a sustained critique of the
industrial capitalist system. But
what is offered instead? What is
the vision of social order to take
capitalism's place? Marx never
fully explained. He envisioned
mankind free to enjoy creative
social labor, including a little
philosophizing. In their later
years, Marx and Jenny moved to
middle class Hempstead, a legacy
helping many of their financial
problems. Here on Hempstead Heath,
Marx and his family and friends
could grasp a bit of the vision.
Marx proposes that practical work
be serious but joyful...activity
for the love of it. He denied that
there should be anything but
collective property in the means of
production. Alienation would be
impossible with a classless society
living in communist freedom and
harmony. Human beings would have
developed to their full maturity,
in perfect union with the material
world around them. ...and what I
find very dangerous about this is
the vision of a society in which
everyone will automatically love
everyone else; in which the
individual strangeness of people-
their peculiarities- will be
abolished. But couldn't you say
that here is a community where we
can tolerate individuals... and
differences? Marx himself believed
that individuals always will be
found distinguishable from one
another. He was not an egalitarian
in the sense that he believed all
human beings acted alike. So what
then is the Marxist vision... what
is the Marxist vision? Marxism is
an ideal... that's to say it's not
the essence- he's projecting the
ideal of the world in which the
norm of human activity is
creation...creation in all fields.
He says in his future society there
will be no painters; there will be
men who paint. There will be no
musicians; there will be men who
write music. That's a very specific
conception of human nature...don't
you think so? No, I think it's an
optimistic conception of human
nature. Marx spent his last years
writing the final volumes of Das
Kapital. He was never to finish
them. His undisciplined ways were
leave to Engels the task of
collating and publishing his final
writings. His beloved Jenny died in
1881; and Marx- desolated and
almost friendless- died fifteen
months later. Today, his memorial
is a granite plinth from which his
bust stares at his many visitors.
Here too, lies a tale, because the
monument dates only from 1956. Marx
died in obscurity, a little-known
philosopher. You can find his first
grave deep amongst the trees; a
strange anonymity considering the
infamy of the name Karl Marx today.
Marx enjoyed his greatest triumphs
after his death, rather than during
his life. Today the question is:
how should we interpret his
ambiguous legacy? There are some
who seize upon some aspects of his
doctrines, have tried to transform
it into a form of totalitarianism.
There are others who will remain
faithful to the democratic
tradition which was central to his
teaching. Today, we've had time to
reflect on Marx's ideas. What's
left when we analyze the evidence
of history in the spirit of his own
scientific method? One place to
begin is with what many
contemporary admirers regard as his
democratic ideals: his criticism of
the power and privilege of the
capital-owning class. For
centuries, this house was occupied
by landowners. And for centuries,
it was only landowners who were
permitted to vote in the
parliamentary system of Great
Britain. Now, in Marx's time, great
changes were taking place. This is
the Reform Act of 1832. It extended
the franchise- that is the vote- to
a great many more people, and would
eventually bring democracy through
a series of other reforms to Great
Britain. Through pressure from many
who called themselves socialists,
the vote was eventually given to
the proletariat. So here in
Beckham- the hometown of the clog
dancers- it wasn't economic forces
alone bringing change. In Victoria
Street, the houses back onto a mill
and stream, a stream which marks
the first boundary dividing
Lancaster into what would be
consecutively smaller
constituencies, a reform instigated
by the middle classes in Parliament
for the workers. Scholars still
debate whether political democracy
contradicts Marxism. At least, we
must grant that a socialist state
could begin democratically. But
would such a radical change ever
occur? Thousands of working class
men marched out of their mills and
off to the trenches in the first
World War. For communists- it was a
terrible disappointment. This was
patriotic nationalism...a cultural
loyalty. Seemingly deeper than the
economic bonds of working class
life. Marxists declared that the
working class were duped into
fighting a war between capitalists
that was none of their business.
But can we really explain the
courage of these individuals and
the grief of their families by
uniform confusion as to what was
good for them? Revolutionary
Marxists have- since Marx's death-
been waiting for the revolution.
But it didn't come in the
depressions of the 1870s, or the
1930s; it didn't come in 1914; nor
against Hitler. Each time, some
other social or cultural factor has
prevented the economic clash from
toppling capitalist progress. There
is another thing about this house
that is of significance. This is
where Winston Churchill lived. This
was his study. Now, Churchill was
one of these people who was of
great significance in human
history. Is there any room for such
people in Marx's theory? Dr. Hook
how does the idea of a hero in
history- a significant figure-
square with Marx's theory that
there is an inevitable development
in human history? Only in a very
limited sense. In a sense... we
always need a great man. But
whether or not he appears- cannot
be determined by the economic
factors that Marx was concerned
with. There are certain crucial
periods at which the action of a
great man may be decisive. It is
questionable whether Marx's own
life and influence could be
explained in terms of his own
theory. And perhaps the most
decisive illustration is provided
by the activity of Nicholai Lenin.
There is one other overriding
development which is difficult for
Marxists to explain. Where in
capitalist countries are the
immiserated masses which were
predicted in Marx's writing? In
1849, the year Marx went to London,
thousands of immigrants came to San
Francisco in search of gold. Most
of them were almost penniless. Not
many found gold, but an enormous
number of them got wealthy. Today
downtown San Francisco is full of
the mutual funds and other
institutions holding the savings of
the American working people. Anyone
who has commuted daily onto the San
Francisco Peninsula across the
famous bridges will be aware that
the superabundance of the
substantially capitalist economy has
produced something unexpected.
The primary product industries
traditional to California are being
superseded here in a latter day
industrial revolution: new
capitalist bosses and new workers
in new factories. What about Marx's
economic theories here? Can the
skills in this plant sensibly be
explained as those of the working
class? The jobs here are varied and
different. Any division into
warring classes of participants in
this economic system does not seem
sensible. And does what Marx called
"socially necessary" or skilled
labor fully explain the value of
the products people produce? The
work of these people alone does not
explain the value of what they
make. That's determined by how well
they serve the legitimate wants of
consumers. Marx also largely missed
the entrepreneurial element
required in production. One of its
results can be a whole team of
research engineers. Their work is
paid for as an economic adventure
by the capitalist owner. What of
alienation? Marx's view is hard to
divorce from his many problematic
assumptions, but if we ask people-
and it has been done- we find that
most are fulfilled by their work.
But what about unskilled workers?
Mr. Quang Tang is one of
the Vietnamese boat people. He
lives with other immigrants in
Santa Clara County. He's got two
major interests in his life: one is
his music. He has played for the
San Jose Orchestra, and is
continuing to improve his skills
with lessons. The other is
electronic engineering. Mr. Quang
doesn't see the shop floor as the
end of the line for him. He isn't
alienated by any reasonable
standard, a locked in member of the
working class. He's going to
college to improve himself and
continues to exploit the
opportunities in his work. What we
must accept is that there are those
who see Marx less democratically.
By their interpretation, Marxism
requires force. Given the claims of
the East German and other Eastern
European states about their
relationship to Marxism, what are
we to make of this wall here? I
think it is demonstrable that this
wall symbolizes the extent to which
these societies represent the
betrayal of the fundamental
principles of Marxism. Isn't it
still arguable that these are the
consequences of his ideas? Would
one argue that the Medieval
Inquisition is a consequence of
what Christ taught on the Sermon on
the Mount? After all, in history we
have many other illustrations where
there are legitimate applications
of common doctrines. As I interpret
Marx, he was a champion for human
freedom, mistaken as he might have
been in many of his historical
convictions. One need not blame Marx
for everything that's happening
here. But one could still say that his
ideas were the closest to being
supportive of this sort of thing.
He talks, for example, of the
abolition of private property and
the socialization of the means of
production. But labor is the means
of production, and the socialist
societies here have taken labor and
claimed it their collective
property. And therefore, they don't
allow people to escape out. That
labor is theirs- it's not the
private individual's labor. And
that interpretation of Marxism runs
counter to Marx's view that the
working class would determine its
own future. There is no line in his
doctrine where he identifies the rule
of a working class with the rule of a
minority over the entire society.
Interpretations of Marxism are
frustrating. Could one be sure
of Sidney's Marxism? Would other
western Marxists agree? Whatever the
answer, the wall was getting to me.
This is the vital point of our
discussion: on which side of the
wall would Karl Marx stand if he
were alive today? He is a man who
concluded his introduction to
capital by quoting from Dante
"Follow your own course and let
people talk." He represented the spirit
of freedom and independence. And
whether one agrees with him or not,
it seems to me he belongs to this
side of the wall, in the hope that
someday this wall will be razed,
and all human beings enjoy freedom.
Professor Altvater of Berlin's Free
University teaches Marx as part of
his university courses. There are
more than 300 similar courses
taught in the United States.
Altvater himself was a '60s radical
revolutionary Marxist.
Revolutionary Marxists are more
interested in direct action than in
theory. Today, he is very critical
of Soviet Marxism, but still
believes that Marxism has clear,
practical significance. What is the
major criticism of western-type
Marxists of the Soviet-type
Marxists? Soviet-type Marxism is:
in the first instance, let us say,
very orthodox. Marxism is not a
state ideology. And you can't
transform, through critique, into a
positivist science to base planning
systems on it. This has nothing to
do with Marxism. What would be a
healthiest version of applying
Marxism in your view? In my view,
Marx, in theory, should best be
applied in analyzing your
situation...your social situation;
your society in which you are
living; in which you are fighting
sometimes. We are living in
so-called democracies. And in such
a democracy it should be possible
to analyze the society and to
change the society; conforming, of
course, with some constitutional
boundaries. Is it possible to still
think in terms of the coming
socialist or the coming communist
societies, or is that all out now?
Is that all obsolete? It's not
obsolete; everybody needs his own-
or his social utopias. Without
utopias- there will be no
change...no reform- structural
reform of contemporary societies.
But on the other hand, I think that
the question of revolution today is
much more complicated than a
hundred years ago. So, it's no
longer a matter of capitalists and
workers or anything like that?
No...not at all. We have always to
ask ourselves what's the
proletariat today? What's the
working class today? What's work?
Work today is another thing than
100 years ago. Class is another
thing than 100 years ago. Changing
society by reform or revolution is
another thing today than 100 years
ago. In the end... is there any
really authentic and fruitful
Marxism left? I do not believe
there is any authentic Marxist
movement. Marx would have said I am
not a "Marxist" with reference to
all of those tendencies that are
claimed to be Marxist today, but
what is left is a series of
insights that can be used by
scholars- whether they call
themselves Marxists or not- who are
trying to understand the world. In
that sense, Marx belongs to the
ages. This does not deny that there
are phenomena in our modern
democratic world which Marx would
have seen as unjust. Socialists
today say that our western
liberties are meaningless for those
who lack the wealth required to
take advantage of them. In San
Francisco, the less successful
under capitalism huddle south of
Market Street, looking up toward
the wealth on Nob Hill. The moral
indignation or guilt some of us
feel about this is endemic in
western culture. What part has
Marx's vision to play in this?
Sidney Hook was a convinced Marxist
and activist in the 1930s. He was
involved in public protests and was
known as a radical leftist. Since
then, in a distinguished academic
career, he has reassessed Marx's
science of society, and stripped
away its outdated elements. He has
firm views on the remaining value
of Marx's vision. Scientific
socialism seems really to be dead.
Does that mean that Marx goes back
to utopian moralistic socialism?
Well...no. Myself- would
characterize "socialism" today in
quotation marks as a belief in
democracy as a way of life, and a
dedication to the principles of
democracy extending them in other
areas in which human beings command
too much power in respect to other
human beings. Is this sort of a
reintroduction of the Christian
ideal of the brotherhood of man,
but brought back down to earth from
the other world? I do recognize
that in the history of thought what
religion generally has meant is an
awareness of the sense of
community. It seems to me that the
animating drive behind people who
call themselves Marxists of any of
a variety is moral. American
individualism stresses an
alternative vision through
socialism. That of free, self-
starting individuals protected in
their person, their belongings and
what they believe by a
constitutionally limited and
democratically administered
government. If Marxism is mere
economic democracy, does it clash
with the American tradition?
Capitalism is based on private
property and freedom of the
individual. This meeting at Gensler
Associates- a famous San Francisco
architect- is discussing a project
that none of these individuals can
complete on their own. Wells Fargo
is really in need... Ask any
architect what skills are needed to
carry out a building project; the
list will be almost endless; from
steel workers to electricians...to
carpet makers; all with their own
knowledge of what they do.
Gensler's has thousands of samples
from hundreds of suppliers to
choose from for their interior
designs. What do you think of
these? I wasn't very satisfied with
these here... Voluntary exchange of
property among thousands of
individuals and firms creates our
prosperity. Furthermore,
instituting collective - albeit
democratic decisions as a
substitute for this is very
hazardous to our political liberty.
Socialists would say that
competition here in San Francisco
is destructive of human
cooperation. But in fact- isn't it
the case that commercial
relationships sometimes give rise
to many other relationships:
friendship, respect, camaraderie?
That commerce really isn't as
insidious as imagined. If a
collective were to decide that
selling teddy bears, skim milk or
calculators was unacceptable, then
it's not only that the property
rights of the trader would be
infringed, many of our other vital
values would go as well. It is no
coincidence that many who live
behind the Iron Curtain find life
dull, as well as short on
prosperity. I believe the moment
one acts in the spirit of the
Marxist vision, either through
abridging private property or even
economic regulation, one infringes
fundamental liberties which America
has cherished from its foundation.
Sidney Hook disagrees. The basic
issue today especially is the
preservation of the right of a
community to determine for itself
the economic system under which it
wants to live. And all other
institutions. Well...you see? Here
is where I have a problem with
this. Because I don't see
communities as having rights;
individuals have rights.
Communities are not beings with the
capacity to have rights. Let me
make the point further- I agree
with you. All rights are centered
in individuals. And when I speak of
community rights, I'm speaking of
the rights of individuals. And
therefore- I recognize that
property is a human right. But it's
not the only human right. We have a
cluster of rights. It's a matter of
using your intelligence; in case-to
-case how far you will go with
extending human freedom and
restricting it. And we do that all
the time. But sometimes you need a
certain amount of security,
predictability in a society. So
that, for example, the right to
private property over a few years.
You need to know whether you can
invest; or whether you can sell; or
whether you are in control of your
own destiny in as much as it's tied
in with property- We would say yes,
you can own as much property as you
want to until the point is reached
where your control of property
affects the public welfare, the
public good. It almost introduces a
dictatorship. No...on the contrary.
So long as you've kept the
processes of freely given consent
open- then there is no dictatorship
involved. Well, you seem to think
that somehow the people will rise
with wisdom to the occasion to do
this. Well, one has to have a
certain faith in democracy
sometimes. I cling to it by the
skin of my teeth. But what are the
alternatives? There is the
alternative of a limited democracy
like the American Constitution has
instituted amongst us. Democracy
limited to the selection of our
representatives...not to
everything; not to science,
education, economics. That's
true...it's limited to government.
But, in the American system we
certainly have the right to
introduce legislation that affects
the welfare of the community. I
consider that the erosion of the
American system, unfortunately.
Well, I'm prepared to accept the
American Constitution and its aims:
to provide for common defense,
provide for the public welfare, and
very often- if you want to provide
for the public welfare you may have
to modify the absolute right of
individuals to exclude others from
the use of what they own. I, on the
other hand, would recommend that we
really keep the government out of
it as much as possible. I think
that's the difference.
The difference between
us...that's the difference.
For more infomation >> Keep your existing number. - Duration: 1:30. 
For more infomation >> DAY 2 The Total Yoga Body Workout Challenge - Duration: 24:44. 
For more infomation >> Relocating The DIY Ultimate Polytunnel / Greenhouse Part 1 - Duration: 17:31. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét