Karl Marx: Philosopher or social scientist?

[Nick]

Karl Marx has a lot of great theories that link together different types of human behavior and culture based on class struggle, i.e. humans are creatures dominated by their social conditions which are continuously evolving as intended and unintended consequences of social or class struggle.

He never seems to get to the root of why humans are so dominated by their social conditions, namely unconsciousness, i.e. a lack of awareness of truth and ultimate reality.

For this reason I think he is more scientist than philosopher.

Did he ever go beyond the material and into the spiritual, but just decided not to write as much about it, or was this something he never really opened his eyes to?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick,

Did he ever go beyond the material and into the spiritual, but just decided not to write as much about it, or was this something he never really opened his eyes to?

I don't think Marx opened his eyes very wide, as his solution for class struggle was to change the entire economic system, his attitude was that if the society changing the outward structure, then the inward structure of humanity will change, poor reasoning in my opinion, inward reasoning is the only solution for inward confusion, so basically he is was a political scientist. However, his communist experiment around the world is the evidence of his poor understanding of human nature and economics.

[Philosophaster]

For Marx, "spiritual views" are merely a result of economic and social conditions. "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness." Since he thinks that philosophies are merely an epiphenomenon, a tool used by the ruling class to justify itself, he doesn't care very much about abstract philosophical matters. He primarily considered himself an economist and social scientist, as far as I know.

[David Quinn]

Given that he was very much a product of his time, with his thoughts now very outdated, it is understandable why he would think that. A very limited thinker.

-

[Unidian]

In my view, Marx was essentially right regarding this aspect of human nature. As people's material and social conditions change, so does their mentality.

Thousands of years worth of attempts to change the human condition starting with the content of the mind have accomplished little or nothing. Undoubtedly Marx recognized this.

[DHodges]

For Marx, "spiritual views" are merely a result of economic and social conditions. "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness." Since he thinks that philosophies are merely an epiphenomenon, a tool used by the ruling class to justify itself, he doesn't care very much about abstract philosophical matters. He primarily considered himself an economist and social scientist, as far as I know.

This came up a few months ago. It seems clear enough to me that Marx thought himself capable of independant, rational thought, not strictly determined by his social conditions.

I was studying Marx in college the same time as I was studying economics. To a great extent, what he says is the same as what mainstream economic says, although he puts it in different terms (for instance, when he talks about capitalism "exploiting" labor).

In the places where he actually differs (e.g., the labor theory of value), his theory is not as good.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

his attitude was that if the society changing the outward structure, then the inward structure of humanity will change, poor reasoning in my opinion, inward reasoning is the only solution for inward confusion, so basically he is was a political scientist. However, his communist experiment around the world is the evidence of his poor understanding of human nature and economics.

It seems you have the classic misconception here. For Marx there's no 'inward structure of humanity' to change. In his analysis the human being, including his consciousness, constitutes the social construct he participates in. In that sense he was a true materialist, no inward or outward, only Hegelian law.

Also another misconception is that Marx wanted to 'change' a society - he never suggested this as such. His theories pointed to this change as inevitable, through various processes in consciousness and economical realities simultaneously. To him this was how the world worked, all matter, all spirit, all of existence.

Later Marxist thinkers like Lenin, Trotsky et al took the Marxist 'announcement' further and constructed a revolutionary movement out of this that facilitates the change. In other words: constructing a self-fulfilling prophecy. A bit like starting a war since Armageddon is already an established fact of faith.

[Philosophaster]

Also another misconception is that Marx wanted to 'change' a society - he never suggested this as such. His theories pointed to this change as inevitable, through various processes in consciousness and economical realities simultaneously. To him this was how the world worked, all matter, all spirit, all of existence.

Actually, Marx did have a desire that the world change: "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it" (from his Theses on Feuerbach).

Also, it's good to see you around, Unidian.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Did he ever go beyond the material and into the spiritual, but just decided not to write as much about it, or was this something he never really opened his eyes to?

Marx his main philosophical view is historical materialism following Hegel's rules of the Dialectic quite a lot but with the addition that since our minds are caused by various material processes [as proposed 'fact'] jumping to the conclusion all material processes will essentially follow similar dialectic as evidenced by various scientific and economical factoids.

One important criticism against Marx, and as well against Hegel could be that they're too much trying to formulate laws, averaging behavior and scaling up and down principles which then have to work on all levels. It's based on the assumption all of reality only works in some kind of rational, conceivable way. And it only does appear to do that in those fields we allow reality to be experienced: in contemporary conscious thought, in those areas our brains are willing to deal with for its own purposes. If we decide to call that reality and existence then Hegel and Marx their efforts would be monumental indeed.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Actually, Marx did have a desire that the world change: "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it" (from his Theses on Feuerbach).

Nah, the point of what? Better one is this: "The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice".

I do agree that he had, like in his manifesto, a feverish, Utopian, up-beat vision that conflicts with his own theory in places. As David wrote: a child of this time.

[Nick]

However, his communist experiment around the world is the evidence of his poor understanding of human nature and economics.

It wasn't his experiment though. Like Diebert said, it was certain people trying to fulfill Marx's predictions about the direction of humanity. Marx himself just interpreted what he seen as inevitable, although I'm sure he wanted to accelerate the process.

In my view, Marx was essentially right regarding this aspect of human nature. As people's material and social conditions change, so does their mentality. Thousands of years worth of attempts to change the human condition starting with the content of the mind have accomplished little or nothing. Undoubtedly Marx recognized this.

I agree. By saying that people are for the most part a product of their social conditions, he is also, IMO without realizing it, implying that people are also unconscious.

It seems clear enough to me that Marx thought himself capable of independant, rational thought, not strictly determined by his social conditions.

But did his thoughts translate into him actually living in a way that reflected the change he wanted to see? From what I've read he still carried out an average life, not much different from others within his class. Maybe his point is that even if one's thoughts are clear and wise, the overwhelming forces of one's social conditions wont allow them to bear much fruit, at least in a materialist sense, or maybe one's conscious thoughts were never considered at all in Marx's interpretations.

In the places where he actually differs (e.g., the labor theory of value), his theory is not as good.

I actually think this is the one place where he had a portion of of human society down to a science which was about as air tight as any science can get.

One important criticism against Marx, and as well against Hegel could be that they're too much trying to formulate laws, averaging behavior and scaling up and down principles which then have to work on all levels. It's based on the assumption all of reality only works in some kind of rational, conceivable way. And it only does appear to do that in those fields we allow reality to be experienced: in contemporary conscious thought, in those areas our brains are willing to deal with for its own purposes. If we decide to call that reality and existence then Hegel and Marx their efforts would be monumental indeed.

Right, it's like he was trying to micro manage the fabric of all human history and society into one neat and tidy package, and I think he did a very good job at what he did manage to do. Ultimately though, his method, or philosophy, will have an endless amount of information to crunch, and it will always need to be readjusted to account for the unexpected and other variables.

Although this isn't really surprising given that he did appear to leave out the factor of man's consciousness. For that reason I don't think he deserves the lofty title of philosopher that so many ascribe to him.