On most reciprocating multiengine aircraft, automatic propel…
On most reciprocating multiengine aircraft, automatic propeller synchronization is accomplished through the actuation of the
On most reciprocating multiengine aircraft, automatic propel…
Questions
On mоst reciprоcаting multiengine аircrаft, autоmatic propeller synchronization is accomplished through the actuation of the
In 2011, the Mаrxist literаry critic Terry Eаgletоn wrоte Why Marx Was Right. The title might actually be better retitled Why Yоu Are Wrong About Marx. The book is written as an apology, a genre in which one defends a belief from its detractors. Thus, Eagleton’s ten chapters are all organized around common critiques of Marx and then his defenses of Marx. I present you the highlights here to provide you an alternative point of view. Eagleton addresses Popper’s critique to some degree in points 4 and 8. I also present you Eagleton’s arguments so that you can see a wide spectrum of reasonable debate and make up your own mind. Objection 1: “Marxism is finished. It might conceivably have had some relevance to a world of factories and food riots, coal miners and chimney sweeps, widespread misery and massed working classes. But it certainly has no bearing on the increasingly classless, socially mobile, postindustrial Western societies of the present” (1). Answer: “Capitalism has brought about great material advantages. But through this way of organizing our affairs has had a long time to demonstrate that it is capable of satisfying human demands all round, it seems no closer to doing so than ever. How long are we prepared to wait for it to come up with the goods? Why do we continue to indulge the myth that the fabulous wealth generated by this mode of production will in the fullness of time become available to all” (10). Objection 2: “Marxism may be all very well in theory. Whenever it has been put into practice, however, the result has been terror, tyranny and mass murder on an inconceivable scale” (12). Answer: “Taken overall, Maoism and Stalinism were botched, bloody experiments which made the very idea of socialism stink in the nostrils of many of those elsewhere in the world who had most to benefit from it. But what about capitalism? As I write unemployment in the West is already in the millions and is mounting steadily higher, and capitalist economics have been preventing from imploding only by the appropriations of trillions of dollars form their hard-pressed citizens” (15) “It is true that capitalism works some of the time, in the sense that it has brought untold prosperity to some sectors of the world. But it has done so, as did Stalin and Mao, at a staggering human cost. This is not only a matter of genocide, famine, imperialism, and the slave trade” (15). In other words, we have never actually had the Marxism that Marx and Engels describe. Capitalism has its own history of colonialism and murders to answer for as well. Objection 3: “Marxism is a form of determinism. It sees men and women simply as the tools of history, and thus strips them of their freedom and individuality. Marx believed in certain iron laws of history, which work themselves out with inexorable force and which no human action can resist… As such, Marx’s theory of history is just a secular version of Providence or Destiny. It is offensive to human freedom and dignity, just as Marxist states are” (30). Answer: “His view of the origins of capitalism, he warns, should not be transformed ‘into an historico-philosophical theory of the general path prescribed by fate to all nations whatever the historical circumstances in which they find themselves.’ If there were certain tendencies at work in history, there were also countertendencies, which implies that outcomes are not assured” (51). Objection 4: “Marxism is a dream of utopia. It believes in the possibility of a perfect society, without hardship, suffering, violence or conflict… The fact that we are naturally selfish, acquisitive, aggressive and competitive creatures, and that no amount of social engineering can alter this fact, is simply overlooked. Marx’s dewy-eyed vision of the future reflects the absurd unreality of his politics as a whole” (64). Answer: “When it comes to the everyday use of the word, however, it should be said that Marx shows not the slightest interest in the future free of suffering, death, loss, failure, breakdown, conflict, tragedy or even labour. In fact, he doesn’t show much interest in the future at all. It is a notorious fact about his work that he has very little to say in detail about what a socialist or communist society would look like. His critics may therefore accuse him of unpardonable vagueness; but they can hardly do that and at the same time accuse him of drawing up utopian blueprints” (65). “The prophet, by contrast, is not a clairvoyant at all. It is a mistake to believe that the biblical prophets sought to predict the future. Rather, the prophet denounces the greed, corruption and power-mongering of the present, warning us that unless we change our ways we may well have no future at all. Marx was a prophet, not a fortune-teller” (67). “So was Marx a utopian thinker? Yes, if by that one means that he envisaged a future which would be a vast improvement on the present. He believe in the end of material scarcity, private property, exploitation, social classes and the state was we know it” (100). Objection 5: “Marxism reduces everything to economics. It is a form of economic determinism. Art religion, politics, law, war, morality, historical change: all these are seen in the crudest terms as nothing more than reflections of the economy or class struggle” (107). Answer: “Marx’s work is all about human enjoyment. The good life for him is not one of labor but of leisure. Free self-realization is a form of ‘production,’ to be sure; but it is not one that is coercive. And leisure is necessary if men and women are to devote time to running their own affairs. It is thus surprising that Marxism does not attract more card-carrying idlers and professional loafers to its ranks. This, however, is because a lot of energy must be expended on achieving this goal. Leisure is something you have to work for” (126-7). Objection 7: “Nothing is more outdated about Marxism than its tedious obsession with class. Marxists seem to not to have noticed that the landscape of social lass ha changed almost out of recognition since the days when Marx himself was writing. In particular, the working class which they fondly imagine will usher in socialism has disappeared almost without a trace” (160). Answer: Pointing out the casualization of professional labor, the impoverishment of workers in the service economy, and many in the third world who labor in poverty: “The demise of the working class, then, has been much exaggerated” (177). Objection 8: “Marxists are advocates of violent political action. They reject a sensible course of moderate, piecemeal reform and opt instead for the bloodstained chaos of revolution” (179). Answer: “Why, though, do Marxists look to revolution rather than to parliamentary democracy and social reform? The answer is that they do not, or at least not entirely. Only so-called ultra-leftists do this (190). “Nor do revolutionaries necessarily reject parliamentary democracy. If it can contribute to their goals, so much the better” (191). Which of these objections and responses do you find persuasive? Why or why not?