Does anyone here belive in Marx's philosophy. I think it's a good theory, but I don't think that it would ever work. Even if human nature changes I still think it wouldn't work. It would be great if we all did get the same wages and shit, but all the money that a company would get from selling their product isn't going to go to every single employee on the company. There would still be money left over and that's got to go somewhere. I starting to think that all systems suck because none of them don't really work out very well in practice.
Marx was a terrible philosopher. It does not make sense to apply the dialectic method in a materialist metaphysics. The Young Hegelians just got ahead of themselves. Marx was just an expansion of Feuerbach, whose name no one knows today. A hundred years from now, no one will know the name Marx either.
Marx may have been in your opinion a terrible philosopher, but he is nonetheless one of the most influential of modern times. It seems very unlikely that he will be forgotten given the scope and scale of his influence. In fact, who knows, he may even be set one day to enjoy a reniassance.
Haha i bet more people know the name of Marx now than they do of the names of the founders of the capitalist system. to say he will be forgotten in 100 years is just foolishness to call him a terrible philosopher is even more retarded
I'd imagine it's probably close to a tie. No real way to verify that though. No, it's speculation. So is saying the revolution will come. Now this isn't speculation. I'd call it a fact. First of all, and I already said this, it does not make sense to apply Hegel's dialectic method in a materialist metaphysics. Also, the revolution has not come yet; it probably never will. Marxism faced a real crisis after World War II, not only had the revolution not come, but fascism had risen out the economic conditions that were supposed to spark the revolution. Germany, which was the most likely candidate to go Communist, went Nazi. So then you end up with philosophers like Adorno, Marcuse, and Habermas, all very good philosophyers, even if they couldn't part with Marxism. Now the USSR has collapsed, and China isn't even recognisably Communist anymore. A Marxist rennaisance does not seem likely, at least not in the forseeable future. Who was it that said Marxism is on the rubbish heap of history? I'd say that Marxism will soon be on the rubbish heap of academia too, at least once postmodernism stops worshipping Freud and Marx and completely gives up on the Enlightenment. I also find it interesting, Mui, who you haven't actually given an argument as to why Marx is a good philosopher, unless you call "if you don't think Marx was great, you're a retard" an argument. I also know you spend a lot of time in the politics forum. Politics is a wasteland. There are no good arguments for any political system because they're all based on unjustified ethical assumptions. There are a few exceptions, of course. I'll even admit that Marx was one of them. He thought Communism was inevitable; he didn't lower himself to moral arguments. But today Communism is contaminated with a lot of endless moralising. Maybe the revolution never came because Communism destroyed itself from the inside out.
As a philosopher Marx is limited, and you may be right in saying that his extension of Hegel's dialectic to a theory of history is illigitimate. However, the facts are that in the discipline of sociology, Marx is still a 'big gun'. I myself did a short course in sociology back in the mid 90's, and Marxism, and neo-marxist social theories are still taken seriously and taught in British colleges. I feel that perhaps it is too soon to dismiss Marxism. I also think it would be undesirable to do so, as the capitalist apologists such as Fukayama etc, shouldn't have it all their own way! I also have to say that IMHO socialism is superior to capitalism in many respects.
Well, hold on a second. There's nothing wrong with applying to the Hegelian dialectic to the philosophy of history. Hegel himself did this. My point is that, being an idealist, Hegel could. For Hegel, everything is a part of the absolute consciousness, so it's possible for anything to be in itself (thesis), for itself (anti-thesis), and in and for itself (synthesis). This does not make sense in a materialist metaphysics. Marx tries to make up for this with the concept of class consciousness, and nullifies individuality in the process. But it's a poor substitute. Oh, without a doubt Marx still a big gun, though I'm a little surprised to hear that he still holds influence in the UK. I don't know much about sociology, but in philosophy Marx is still a real force on the European continent. I don't think that he will be for long, however. Now that postmodernism is really starting to catch on, there's not going to be any room for Marx or any of his Enlightenment ideals like progress. You've still got people like Habermas and Lyotard, but Critical Theory is on the way out, and I never found Lyotard's argument that if you like Kierkegaard or Nietzsche, you're a Nazi, convincing.
Quite happy to concede the point that Hegel applied his dialectic to history. As you rightly say, marxism has come in for much criticism from post-modernism/post-structuralism in general. It is interesting to note that none other than Jaques Derrida has been quoted as saying 'ok - I might be a post-marxist of sorts, but I was never an anti-marxist! I have always accepted the marxist spirit of opposition' and again - 'Hegel too! we must reclaim him from right-wing liberals like Fukayama'. I am not a philosopher, and have never studied it formally, my knowlede comes mainly from my studies of sociology and private reading (quite extensive over the years). I too was quite surprised to learn just how large marx still looms in the world of social theory as taught on sociology courses. I doubt that many 'leading edge' social theorists would accept much marxist theory as such, but they seem to extract bits and pieces, so to speak. I also agree that being interested in Nietszche is in no way the mark of a facist! It is unfortunate that many see it thus, and I suspect that the ursurpation and perversion of Nietszche's ideas by the Nazi's has played a big part in this. Even though Nietszche himself was appalled by the racism of Wagner, the other great Nazi icon. I must admit a sympathy with a socialist agenda in general, but this doesn't have to be based in marxism. As you say, it is doubtful if these ideas will be taken seriously in the future. For one thing, the social conditions are so radically different today than when Marx was writing 150 years ago. That in itself, without po-mo criticism will probably ensure it is consigned to history.
