I love your emails. I don't always get the time to read through them all, but I should. I think I'm going to upgrade to a paid subscriber. I have a little bit of an understanding of philosophy as I have a BA in it, but that's where my studies ended. What is most interesting to me is that the arguments you make about man's nature can all be found in the Torah and are exhaustively discussed in the Talmud. In many ways your writing sounds like it could have come from a Talmudic Rabbi. I am not Orthodox, but I have spent more time on my Jewish education than I did my philosophical education - but back then I do remember thinking, even then at the age of 19 - that Marx fundamentally misunderstood human nature. I hope this article is seen by a very wide audience and all I can say is, "Preach, brother. Preach."
Madison pretty much pre-destroyed Marx in Federalist 51 but the theory of communalism has found expression over and over again whether it be Islam, Catholic social theory and the notion of intermediate social institutions. Madison clearly identifies the tension between communal thought and individualism and posits a way to resolve it. What makes Marx (and Mussolini) uniquely evil is the centralized role of the state.
Marx’s influence has been vast but he cannot be judged simply by the bloodshed later carried out in his name. To collapse Marx’s writings into Stalin’s gulags or Mao’s famines confuses a critique of capitalism with its authoritarian caricatures. Marx identified real tensions—alienation, the way self-interest becomes structural under capitalism—that even his critics concede are worth engaging. He overreached in imagining that such tensions could be dissolved by abolishing private property and aligning all life to communal ends. His belief that history could produce a new form of human being ignored the resilience of plural interests and was blind to the limits of social engineering.
Marx’s project is dangerous at the hands of many of its adherents--wrong and even deadly. But to blame a teacher for the worst behavior of his students would leave Christ himself in peril--and mimic the extremism it deplores.
Marx just rediscovered Aristotle and the Regime and updated it for technological progress. Just as Aristotle wasn't Alexander, Marx was not Lenin. If Aristotle had to lead to Alexander and Marx to Lenin that is a theory of historical determinism, that is severable.
"His task, in short, is to take from a man his own powers, and to give him in exchange alien powers which he can only employ with the help of other men."
Man from his own power, even a man as considerable as Newton didn't have the capacity to turn lead into gold. So a job as say CERN on a Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that is an alien power which can only be employed with the help of other men.
That is to some extent there is physics which an individual can understand, and then there is physics which an individual as "phosita" can understand, then there is Physics which is understood as something "we" know which is not even understood completely by the "phosita" except in working together. "[a]s individuals express their life, so they are. Hence what individuals are depends on the material conditions of their production"
If CERN is a form of physicists as species-being, I suppose one could say of such communism/materialism that it is better in theory than in practice. But the hope is that the practice can catch up to the theory.
"By philosophic design, Marxism(Physics) in power must always use force to achieve its ends. Any government that expropriates and redistributes private property(US history, see Patents issued by our founding fathers), any government that seeks to control the economy(all governments), any government that violates the rights of its citizens on a daily basis(In a large republic, especially to the extent that rights are robust, ours and daily) any government that seeks to reconstitute human nature will and must use force as a matter of course."
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” What this principle means in practice is that the work and wealth of those with greater(or lesser) abilities will be redistributed according to the needs of those with lesser(greater) abilities."
Maybe. It could also refer to sharing classified intel. Certain people can produce intel, and only those within a system that need such intel can access it. So that may be a theory of the Deep State, or certain corporations.
"Human nature is just the opposite of what Marx said it is. Man’s nature was far better understood by the philosophers of the classical-liberal tradition."
Or by the Ancient philosophers...or Marx is correct about Homo-Faber and human nature is contingent upon its technology.
"Karl Marx never seems to have considered the possibility that actual human beings—and the proletariat in particular—might not want to be liberated from their egoism and they might not want to serve the common good. There’s a sense in which Marx had to know that, otherwise he would not have felt the need to use the “guillotine” to achieve his desired end. And the guillotine is, metaphorically speaking where Marxism must end."
The sanitized version of the "Guillotine" is basically Cloture or a motion to force a vote and bring debate to an end. "Philosophers have heretofore merely contemplated the world; the point is to change it."
God created mankind with free will - so truly free even God himself will not violate it. He says of fallen mankind that his heart is desperately wicked. Yet He set about a plan of redemption wherein mankind can freely choose a path back to their creator. This is the root error and evil of Marxism - to presume mankind can by guile and wit return to that original state - while truth is only by freely choosing God’s way can man have hope. Mankind is unable to do so independently and every attempt, Marxism notably, fails.
Last year I met a pleasant couple from a Scandinavian country. I was taken by their world view that, simply put boiled down to “if we can be nice, pleasant, not confrontational and understanding of others all will be fine”. Two months later I learned their nation, largely unreported, had experienced 300 bombings in the first half of the year. It seems their voluntary softly cooperative Marxism isn’t working. Sad to say, they were so very pleasant.
I love your emails. I don't always get the time to read through them all, but I should. I think I'm going to upgrade to a paid subscriber. I have a little bit of an understanding of philosophy as I have a BA in it, but that's where my studies ended. What is most interesting to me is that the arguments you make about man's nature can all be found in the Torah and are exhaustively discussed in the Talmud. In many ways your writing sounds like it could have come from a Talmudic Rabbi. I am not Orthodox, but I have spent more time on my Jewish education than I did my philosophical education - but back then I do remember thinking, even then at the age of 19 - that Marx fundamentally misunderstood human nature. I hope this article is seen by a very wide audience and all I can say is, "Preach, brother. Preach."
Madison pretty much pre-destroyed Marx in Federalist 51 but the theory of communalism has found expression over and over again whether it be Islam, Catholic social theory and the notion of intermediate social institutions. Madison clearly identifies the tension between communal thought and individualism and posits a way to resolve it. What makes Marx (and Mussolini) uniquely evil is the centralized role of the state.
"In the end, all decent people must see that Marxism is evil—absolutely evil."
By what absolute standard? Absent a god, there are no absolutes.
Marx’s influence has been vast but he cannot be judged simply by the bloodshed later carried out in his name. To collapse Marx’s writings into Stalin’s gulags or Mao’s famines confuses a critique of capitalism with its authoritarian caricatures. Marx identified real tensions—alienation, the way self-interest becomes structural under capitalism—that even his critics concede are worth engaging. He overreached in imagining that such tensions could be dissolved by abolishing private property and aligning all life to communal ends. His belief that history could produce a new form of human being ignored the resilience of plural interests and was blind to the limits of social engineering.
Marx’s project is dangerous at the hands of many of its adherents--wrong and even deadly. But to blame a teacher for the worst behavior of his students would leave Christ himself in peril--and mimic the extremism it deplores.
Marx just rediscovered Aristotle and the Regime and updated it for technological progress. Just as Aristotle wasn't Alexander, Marx was not Lenin. If Aristotle had to lead to Alexander and Marx to Lenin that is a theory of historical determinism, that is severable.
"His task, in short, is to take from a man his own powers, and to give him in exchange alien powers which he can only employ with the help of other men."
Man from his own power, even a man as considerable as Newton didn't have the capacity to turn lead into gold. So a job as say CERN on a Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that is an alien power which can only be employed with the help of other men.
That is to some extent there is physics which an individual can understand, and then there is physics which an individual as "phosita" can understand, then there is Physics which is understood as something "we" know which is not even understood completely by the "phosita" except in working together. "[a]s individuals express their life, so they are. Hence what individuals are depends on the material conditions of their production"
If CERN is a form of physicists as species-being, I suppose one could say of such communism/materialism that it is better in theory than in practice. But the hope is that the practice can catch up to the theory.
"By philosophic design, Marxism(Physics) in power must always use force to achieve its ends. Any government that expropriates and redistributes private property(US history, see Patents issued by our founding fathers), any government that seeks to control the economy(all governments), any government that violates the rights of its citizens on a daily basis(In a large republic, especially to the extent that rights are robust, ours and daily) any government that seeks to reconstitute human nature will and must use force as a matter of course."
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” What this principle means in practice is that the work and wealth of those with greater(or lesser) abilities will be redistributed according to the needs of those with lesser(greater) abilities."
Maybe. It could also refer to sharing classified intel. Certain people can produce intel, and only those within a system that need such intel can access it. So that may be a theory of the Deep State, or certain corporations.
"Human nature is just the opposite of what Marx said it is. Man’s nature was far better understood by the philosophers of the classical-liberal tradition."
Or by the Ancient philosophers...or Marx is correct about Homo-Faber and human nature is contingent upon its technology.
"Karl Marx never seems to have considered the possibility that actual human beings—and the proletariat in particular—might not want to be liberated from their egoism and they might not want to serve the common good. There’s a sense in which Marx had to know that, otherwise he would not have felt the need to use the “guillotine” to achieve his desired end. And the guillotine is, metaphorically speaking where Marxism must end."
The sanitized version of the "Guillotine" is basically Cloture or a motion to force a vote and bring debate to an end. "Philosophers have heretofore merely contemplated the world; the point is to change it."
God created mankind with free will - so truly free even God himself will not violate it. He says of fallen mankind that his heart is desperately wicked. Yet He set about a plan of redemption wherein mankind can freely choose a path back to their creator. This is the root error and evil of Marxism - to presume mankind can by guile and wit return to that original state - while truth is only by freely choosing God’s way can man have hope. Mankind is unable to do so independently and every attempt, Marxism notably, fails.
Last year I met a pleasant couple from a Scandinavian country. I was taken by their world view that, simply put boiled down to “if we can be nice, pleasant, not confrontational and understanding of others all will be fine”. Two months later I learned their nation, largely unreported, had experienced 300 bombings in the first half of the year. It seems their voluntary softly cooperative Marxism isn’t working. Sad to say, they were so very pleasant.