Posted by rogerashton on August 10, 19102 at 07:45:24:
In Reply to: Re: The Opiate of the Masses posted by Bill Scaife on August 09, 19102 at 23:23:57:
Scaife misrepresents Marx. The main reason I have not joined AUC, by the way, is this pervasive right-wing bias. But no-one who has actually read Marx could buy much of what Scaife said, whether they agree with Marx or not.
Exception: it is true that living conditions in early industrialism were, on the whole, better than those back on the farm. The clearest evidence is that it was possible for workers to be put to work for 14 hour days. Rural laborers did not get enough calories even for 8-hour days in most of Europe before 1750.
Marx, however, was more aware of this than most of his contemporaries. (J. S. Mill, my particular favorite among Marx' contemporaries, came close). Marx was ultra-progressive -- to suppose that his ideas were "cyclical" is just ignorant. Marx' awareness that Capitalism had liberated millions from what he called "the idiocy of rural life" is right there in The Communist Manifesto for those who bother to read. Of course, Marx though in terms of stages, so capitalism is "higher" than the preceeding stage, feudalism, and of as such is liberatory at some stage in its history. Later on (2002? Enron?) the progress of society "bursts the integument" of capitalism, which is to say, progress makes human society too advanced for the constraints of capitalism.
There is a somewhat more knowledgeable stereotype of Marx (that I would also reject) that sees him as an old-testament prophet, renewing the Apocalyptic strain in the Hebrew tradition. (I have that thought from a Prof. Greenberg). That's not right either, but it is closer. Yes, Marx is closer to the Abrahamic traditions than any others.
I really liked the sermon, but maybe it is best not to bring Marx into the conversation in a room full of right-wing bubbleheads.
rogerashton