Marx criticizes Hegelian idealism because it argues that big ideas are the drivers of history, whereas Marx argues that it is human beings that drive history, specifically humans that are driven to action by material forces. If we say that Freedom or Liberty, or even that governments or specific leaders or companies, are the prime movers of events, we give power to abstract constructs that confuse the student of history and mystify the actual driving force behind every important event: humans working together to satisfy their material needs.
Marx connects this materialist critique to his ideas about alienation. We alienate humans from the fruits of their labor by attributing their good works to nonexistent constructs, giving the credit due to human beings (for revolutions and large building projects and the development of science/democracy) to Idea. If something was created by humans, we must give humans the credit, and celebrate what we can accomplish when we all work together. This is a celebration of humankind, and denigration of the practice of robbing man of his species essence and accomplishments by claiming that only states and governments and elites and ideas create great things. Humans, driven by their material needs, make history; this cooperation is part of what makes humans human! Consequently we go on to form big ideas and abstract concepts to help us understand this history, but ideas are the products of man, not man’s master. Of course the powerful elites and those who serve them use culture and ideology to convince us that we (the people) are not the drivers of history, thereby robbing humankind of one of its primal attributes. They want us to forget that all we need to accomplish great things is lots of human beings working side by side on a common goal.
Marx wishes to return our species essence to us by reminding us that we make history, we accomplish great things together. All these constructs that seem to have lives of their own, that appear to have autonomy and power over us, are actually just dead things that we have temporarily animated by lending them our species essence. If we remember that we can shape the future simply by working together on a common goal, we rob these constructs of their very life, and empower ourselves to create the change we want to see.
At the same time, Marx breathes life into capital many times, speaking of capital as if it is a living, breathing thing, or a monster, or blood sucking vampire, or a creature with an insatiable desire to grow itself. In his theory of alienation, capital (man’s invention) becomes man’s master while man becomes the slave. Capital turns man into a robot, a production machine, a surplus value generator. Capital has a personality and a reason for existing; it has goals and a mind of its own, and we are helpless under its power. Marx sees this as an empowering message because he argues that if we remember our power and work together, then we can overthrow capital and finally realize our potential.
But these two theories contradict one another. How can we claim that it is wrong to give credit to other constructs for moving events forward, while arguing that capital has a mind of its own, that we are slaves to our creation, and that capital’s desire to expand itself drives events? We must recall that capital itself is a construct that mystifies the processes of history: humans are the real movers. Therefore it isn’t capital that demands to expand itself, but human beings choosing to exploit others for profit. It isn’t capital that forces children into factories and lowers wages in order to extract more surplus value; it is humans who do these things, men who make these decisions. Capitalism is not wrecking the environment: humans are. Capitalism doesn’t alienate us from the fruits of our labor; human bosses, CEOs, managers, stockholders, consultants, consumers, marketers, etc. do. Therefore it isn’t capital we need to overthrow if we wish to create communism, but human action, human behavior, perhaps our own nature, we must overcome.
If we give credit to capital for doing so many things, we give credit to a non-existent figment of our collective imaginations. Might as well say that it is the idea of liberty that drives revolutions, rather than humans who wish for better material conditions. Marx seems guilty of the crime he lays at the feet of ideologues who want us to believe that constructs are actually running the show so that we don’t realize that when humans work together we achieve great things. This is the opposite though: Marx would rather not acknowledge that when humans work together (as exploiters must do to run large capitalist organizations) we can accomplish horrible things in the name of profit; easier to claim that these crimes are actually committed by capital, and we are powerless slaves who cannot escape the grasp of our own invention. Or that if we only could escape it’s grasp, we would finally be free to live in equality. But what are we really overthrowing but the behavior of humans with human brains? Marx’s argument depnds on the notion that there is an entity in control that can be overthrown. If we acknowledge there is no other entity, that we are the drivers of history, we find ourselves in a position where we must acknowledge that if we transition to communism we will still be the same humans, capable of the same greatness and horror. No matter where we go, there we are.
You might say that Marx is robbing mankind of part of its species-essence here, by alienating from man something which is fundamental to his nature: the desire to compete, to exploit, to hoard, to seek profit. Marx extracts those qualities from man and attributes them to an abstract, leaving man as a shell of his former self (in this case, it leaves in man only that which is good, and alienates all that is exploitative). This argument does not attempt to negate all the lovely attributes of man: his innate desire to love, to grow things, to cooperate, to help others, to build. We simply acknowledge that those rosy parts of our nature are not the only parts. To pretend otherwise is to ignore man as he really is, to take something from him that belongs to him by nature.
Marx would rather not admit that human nature has a dark side, or that profit motive and the desire to compete (maybe even exploit) might be hard-wired into us, because that casts doubt on the liklihood of us ever achieving communism (since we can’t help but exploit each other, to compete, to form factions, to seek advantage, to alienate those more vulnerable than ourselves). But if we blame capital and capitalism for this exploitation and alienation, then it becomes easier to believe that if we just overthrow capitalism, we will be free of this slavery, and humans can finally live in unity and harmony and equality and peace. It isn’t our own greed that makes this impossible; it is our invention, capital, holding us down, putting its heel on our throats. But if this turns out to be just another flavor of idealism, and greed is actually part of our nature, and we will exploit each other whether capital is abolished or not, it makes the revolution (and the violent action required to kickstart it) seem much less worthwhile. In this light communism appears a pale, utopian dream. As long as the utopia has humans in it, there will be a mixture of misery and joy, great deeds and lowly ones, kindness and greed, but never communism.
Marx is a materialist. But mustn’t a materialist reject Marx’s perspective on capital? If we can blame a construct like capital for the woes of mankind, then why not breathe life as well into the other big ideas of history like freedom and liberty, and hand them the credit for driving forward all the progress mankind has made in the past 300 years? Of course a materialist cannot accept this premise! Men did those things, and that makes men great. And so then we must admit that men did all the evil things we accuse capital of doing, and that makes men shitty. Materialism does not allow us to have one but not the other.
J.S. Mill teaches us that all humans desire happiness. It is therefore right and good that a person should maximize her own happiness, develop a full life rich with various pleasures and containing only minimal pains, invest in herself, experiment with life, flourish. Mill encourages us to pursue these goals through all the stages of our lives. At the same time, he suggests that we are also morally obligated to maximize happiness not just for ourselves but for others too. One’s personal happiness matters little when placed up against the general happiness of a community. So a person can only live ethically by maximizing that which is most good for humans: happiness. Taking this moral duty seriously means dedicating as much time as possible toward the promotion of otherpersons‘ happiness. But what if one’s personal road to happiness does not run parallel to a life spent serving others? In other words, when self-interest and the duty to be selfless conflict, which should win out? This may in fact be the most fundamental question in utilitarian ethics, but sadly Mill is very unclear on this issue.
When I think of “utilitarian ethics,” I imagine a system whose main focus is selfless, individual action which seeks to benefit others in some way. Such an ethical system should require certain kinds of selfless actions, provide a philosophical foundation to justify these actions, define their scope, and perhaps even incentivize persons to act.
By selfless, individual actions, I mean actions which:
A) individuals perform (as opposed to governments),
B) are carried out for the good of others (as opposed to for the good of the individual performing the action), and
C) may require varying degrees of personal sacrifice.
I call this an outward-facing, personal ethics. It strongly encourages, perhaps requires, that the agent promote the happiness of others. This is opposed to an inward-facing, hedonistic utilitarianism which encourages the agent to seek out and maximize her own happiness. Mill has much to say about the latter ethics and less (but not nothing) to say about the former. Does he take outward-facing, personal ethics seriously? If not, can we really call his ethics “ethics” at all?
Mill, who generally takes great pains to be clearly understood, muddles up this whole question to a surprising degree. No doubt, the question of where our duties to ourselves cease and where the duties to others begin is a sticky one. It’s a swamp, a quagmire, a tangled mess. It has flummoxed many a philosopher, and Mill is no exception. Whenever he ventures into the swamp, he immediately realizes the danger and backs right back out again as fast as he can. Before he does, he says just enough to leave the reader puzzled.
Chapter II of Utilitarianism is a fine example of this muddle. It contains some forceful and, at time, grandiose language about the importance of an outward-facing ethics. Self sacrifice for the good of others is “the highest virtue which can be found in man”.1 Actions are right in relation to how much happiness they produce2 (a clear injunction to maximize communal happiness). His emphasis on the importance of human dignity3 and his definition of a happy life4 are of course applicable to the individual focusing on her own happiness, but they could also be ethical calls to arms, demanding that we fight for the restoration of dignity to those who have lost it (through poverty, poor health, or unhappy circumstance), and to lessen the pains felt by those less fortunate than ourselves. He decrees: “I must again repeat, what the assailants of utilitarianism seldom have the justice to acknowledge, that the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.”5
Yet in the same chapter, Mill takes pains to water down this outward-facing, ethical duty. It is, after all, unreasonable to require the average person to put her own happiness on hold, to require that she set as her life-long goal the enhancement of communal happiness. “The great majority of good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up; and the thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons concerned, except so far as is necessary to assure himself that in benefiting them he is not violating the rights, that is, the legitimate and authorised expectations, of any one else.”6 So we need not, it seems, concern ourselves with the happiness of individuals outside our tiny circle of self and loved ones. So long as we don’t violate the rights of others, we meet our moral obligation to them. Shortly after the “benevolent spectator” line, he demonstrates his skill at back-pedaling: “It is the business of ethics to tell us what are our duties, or by what test we may know them; but no system of ethics requires that the sole motive of all we do shall be a feeling of duty; on the contrary, ninety-nine hundredths of all our actions are done from other motives, and rightly so done, if the rule of duty does not condemn them.”7 So though he issues the moral injunction that we must be impartial when deciding whose happiness to promote (which could mean it is indeterminate as to whose happiness we must promote, or could imply that the combined happiness of many persons should always outweigh one’s personal happiness), he lets us off the hook immediately after by telling us that 99% of our actions are exempt from the injunction because these actions not part of the moral sphere. What seemed a few minutes ago to be a dynamic and insistent moral creed has now been diluted. The reader is left to question: what exactly is my moral duty? Is there a principle which tells me when it is appropriate to focus on myself and when I am obligated to do the opposite? Where does the moral sphere begin and end? Whose duty am I obligated to promote? Do I meet the utilitarian standard if I live a full and bountiful life that does not include selfless action toward the wider community, or is such a life actually unethical?
An orthodox utilitarian might argue that since it is ethical to maximize that which is most good, and we can only fully maximize happiness if we help as many individuals as possible achieve it, we are ethically bound to adopt an outward-facing, personal utilitarianism, to maximize the greatest happiness for the greatest number. As for our own personal happiness: if we include in our utilitarian calculus the needs of others, our own happiness shrinks down in importance. It is no more than a single datum in the desirability equation, while the happiness of others weighs heavily on the scale. Such an ethic would require us to make daily sacrifices (both short-term and long-term) for the benefit of others. But Mill, who does not wish to upend our personal lives by injecting an unrealistic utilitarian standard into our every waking action, exempts from the utilitarian equation 99% of human action, leaving us free to structure our lives as we wish. As Mill put it, “there is a standard of altruism to which all should be required to come up, and a degree beyond it which is not obligatory, but meritorious.”8 So long as we don’t harm others through our daily actions, it seems we need call forth the standard of (outward-facing) utilitarianism only when we are faced with purely “moral” questions, which is not often.
In this way Mill’s utilitarianism provides us with guidance when we are faced with obvious moral dilemmas (should I cheat on an exam, should I refrain from telling a friend about harmful gossip, should I commit suicide, etc.). His utilitarianism instructs us, in these situations, to ask which option produces the greater net utility for all parties involved, and to pursue that option. In this narrow context, his system offers the individual a practical, outward-facing, moral philosophy. But what about questions about the broader structuring of a moral life: which career should I choose, how should I dedicate my time and resources, how generous should I be, etc.? In the non-stop chaos of daily life, it becomes easy to believe that these are not moral questions at all, but practical or economic questions (“I will choose the career which pays the most; I will dedicate my time to work, family, and hobbies; I will be as generous as possible within the confines of my own self-interest”). If utilitarianism does in fact require us to promote the happiness of others, these questions take on a deep moral significance. After all, every day I spend working on a job which pays me well but does not contribute to the general happiness is a day I cannot spend working toward a nobler goal; every minute I dedicate to water color painting is a minute not spent volunteering at a food bank; every dime I save for myself is a dime I cannot give to a hungry person. Mill does not necessarily want us to see these as moral questions at all; such questions are outside Mill’s sphere of morality altogether. But couldn’t we just as easily argue that an outward-facing utilitarian ethics will require an entire lifetime of selfless action, and that this ethics should rule over the 99% of actions Mill wishes to exempt from the moral sphere?
This indeterminacy as to where my obligation to serve myself ceases and my duty to serve others begins is one of the chief weaknesses in Mill’s ethical philosophy. We can easily find, in Mill, utilitarian justifications for pursuing our own gratification and the happiness of the broader community, without a penetrating analysis of how we should behave when these two goals conflict. Some critics of this utilitarian vagueness have suggested that we could simply justify any action with the claim that it promotes someone’s, anyone’s happiness in some way. D.G. Brown refers to this problem as the “deeper source of indeterminacy in what the Principle of Utility is.”9
Mill makes it clear that it is not only NOT wrong to pursue individual happiness, it is how we should live our lives. Our own happiness will naturally outweigh the happiness of the community 99% of the time, and Mill does not endeavor to develop a moral system which would require us to fight against this innate quality. So perhaps Mill isn’t much of a moralist, but more of a self-help author. He helps us refine our actions so that they aim toward, rather than against, our own happiness. This places his utilitarianism in the realm of personal development more than ethics. Mill wants us to believe that the principle of utility will not only guide us toward our own flourishing lives, but will also somehow motivate us to live virtuously. But for many persons, these are two completely separate (if not contradictory) goals. Since, for the individual, the utilitarian pursuit of happiness is really a theory of individual interest, it cannot act as the referee between our duty to serve others and our naked self-interest. For every statement Mill makes which demands that we focus on the general happiness of the community, he offers a contradictory statement which soothingly urges us not to worry about such lofty ideals, but to focus instead on building happy lives within our own household. Our duty to serve others (which in my opinion is one of the most crucial pieces of a utilitarian ethic) remains wishy-washy and ill-defined. Under Mill’s system, a person could dedicate her entire life to self-gratification, and at the end could claim, so long as she didn’t violate the rights of others, that she met the utilitarian standard. For me, this renders the system practically useless as an ethical system (though it may be worthwhile as a self-help doctrine). So while Mill’s principle of utility does offer us a guide for building a flourishing personal life, for seeking self-actualization, and for achieving a sense of peace and fulfillment after a life well-lived, I struggle to call any of this “ethics”.
Maybe I’m being a bit too harsh on Mill. I understand that he doesn’t advocate selfish behavior. It’s more that his system is incoherent. This incoherence leaves the individual free to do whatever feels right, and that’s why I don’t love calling this “ethics”. Maybe instead I should say it’s a very weak, watered-down ethics, one that permits a wide range of selfish behavior across an entire lifetime. It’s a system that sanctions the general ethics of the average American: focus strongly on family, but don’t feel obligated to develop a duty of care toward the community, unless doing so brings you pleasure. That ethical standard may be easy to meet, but it’s wreaking havoc on our planet, and (dare I say) might actually be unethical.
I want more from utilitarian ethics. I want a standard that is difficult to reach. I know the drawback: fewer people will reach it. But if ethics were as easy as “do whatever good you feel like doing in whatever direction feels right”, then it wouldn’t really be a field of study, it wouldn’t be something philosophers puzzle over. The art of loving oneself, loving one’s family and spouse, and cultivating hobbies is all important and worthwhile, don’t get me wrong. I just want more from an ethical system.
Whenever I quote from Mill’s Utilitarianism (1863), I will cite the chapter/paragraph in the following format: Mill, Utilitarianism, II/19. ↩︎
Mill, Utilitarianism, II/2: “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” ↩︎
Mill, Utilitarianism, II/6: “Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs. They would not resign what they possess more than he for the most complete satisfaction of all the desires which they have in common with him. If they ever fancy they would, it is only in cases of unhappiness so extreme, that to escape from it they would exchange their lot for almost any other, however undesirable in their own eyes. A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence. We may give what explanation we please of this unwillingness; we may attribute it to pride, a name which is given indiscriminately to some of the most and to some of the least estimable feelings of which mankind are capable: we may refer it to the love of liberty and personal independence, an appeal to which was with the Stoics one of the most effective means for the inculcation of it; to the love of power, or to the love of excitement, both of which do really enter into and contribute to it: but its most appropriate appellation is a sense of dignity, which all human beings possess in one form or other, and in some, though by no means in exact, proportion to their higher faculties, and which is so essential a part of the happiness of those in whom it is strong, that nothing which conflicts with it could be, otherwise than momentarily, an object of desire to them.” ↩︎
Mill, Utilitarianism, II/14: “An existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a decided predominance of the active over the passive, and having as the foundation of the whole, not to expect more from life than it is capable of bestowing.” ↩︎
Mill, Auguste Comte and Positivism (1865), Part II: “It is not good that persons should be bound, by other people’s opinion, to do everything that they would deserve praise for doing. There is a standard of altruism to which all should be required to come up, and a degree beyond it which is not obligatory, but meritorious. It is incumbent on every one to restrain the pursuit of his personal objects within the limits consistent with the essential interests of others. What those limits are, it is the province of ethical science to determine; and to keep all individuals and aggregations of individuals within them, is the proper office of punishment and of moral blame. If in addition to fulfilling this obligation, persons make the good of others a direct object of disinterested exertions, postponing or sacrificing to it even innocent personal indulgences, they deserve gratitude and honour, and are fit objects of moral praise. So long as they are in no way compelled to this conduct by any external pressure, there cannot be too much of it; but a necessary condition is its spontaneity; since the notion of a happiness for all, procured by the self-sacrifice of each, if the abnegation is really felt to be a sacrifice, is a contradiction. Such spontaneity by no means excludes sympathetic encouragement; but the encouragement should take the form of making self-devotion pleasant, not that of making everything else painful. The object should be to stimulate services to humanity by their natural rewards; not to render the pursuit of our own good in any other manner impossible, by visiting it with the reproaches of other and of our own conscience. The proper office of those sanctions is to enforce upon every one, the conduct necessary to give all other persons their fair chance: conduct which chiefly consists in not doing them harm, and not impeding them in anything which without harming others does good to themselves.” In this light, our chief moral duty is simply not to do harm to others. ↩︎
D.G. Brown, “What is Mill’s Principle of Utility,” in Mill’s Utilitarianism: Critical Essays, ed. David Lyons (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997), 19-21. ↩︎
This is an easy to understand and down-to-earth introduction to the major ethical theories in western philosophy. The author does not use a professorial tone, but a conversational one, which is fitting of the subject matter. So much of ethics only make sense through discussion of concrete examples and counter-examples, and so it is helpful that the author talks things out in a more casual way, offering up understandable real-world examples along the way.
One distinct feature of this textbook is the author’s affinity for logic: he lays out tons of ethical arguments in the form of syllogisms (premise-conclusion form), and then critiques each argument to test its validity. It’s an interesting way to view ethical arguments, which in the real world are infrequently tested for logical validity. His objections to the various arguments and his defenses of them are often creative and thought-provoking. Sometimes the logical format works well with moral premises, but other times it feels oddly out of place, too strict a system for something as loosely-goosey, as slippery as human morality.
Sometimes the author, in a quest to poke holes in certain ethical theories that he seems not to agree with (such as ethical skepticism), resorts to straw-man arguments, intentionally using flawed premises (or premises that, while being easy to disprove, do not capture the full spirit of the philosophical argument at-hand) when stating the arguments he wishes to dismantle. He doesn’t do this too often, but it does stand out when he does. However, the author doesn’t talk down to the reader in any fashion. The reader is invited (required) to think critically about each of the moral arguments presented, and the author makes it clear that much more philosophical work needs to be done in all of the most controversial areas of ethics. Nowhere in the book does the author claim that there is an easy answer to difficult ethical questions or an open-and-shut case when it comes to challenging moral theories. This book is an excellent starting-off place for those who wish to do that philosophical work themselves, for those who want to walk the long and many-forked road of ethical contemplation.
Overall, the author is an even-handed referee, sorting strong arguments from flawed ones. Though I detect, despite his even-handed approach, that he embraces the theory that there are in fact objective moral truths. He spends the last couple chapters picking apart arguments that express skepticism of our ability to possess objective moral truth, and his efforts to damage skepticism are convincing though not unassailable. I walk away with a deeper uncertainty that moral truth is possible than I had before I read this. It seems that every moral rule (do not kill, do not torture, do not lie) comes with exceptions (it might be ok to kill if someone is threatening to harm your family, it might be ok to torture a terrorist if by doing so we can learn the whereabouts of a bomb that is about to detonate in a major urban area, it might be ok to lie to a Nazi officer who is seeking a family of Jewish refugees that are hiding in your basement). If there are no categorical reasons to follow any particular moral law, there may not in fact be objective moral truths. Perhaps every moral truth is subjective, based on the context of the situation, malleable. Or perhaps moral “laws” are actually just expressions of our emotions rather than objective laws (when we say “it is wrong to torture,” we actually mean “torture makes me mad, grrrrr!”). Or perhaps objective moral truth does exist, but it’s far more complicated than we realize.
This doesn’t mean there is no such thing as moral behavior in the real world (most of the time I decline to torture people), but only that perhaps morality itself is more of a human construct than many moralists would like to admit. As the author acknowledges repeatedly, there is much more work to be done on this question.
Various works by Plato: Charmides, Euthyphro, Laches, Lysis, Menexenus, and Ion.
I read these all one after the other, so my head is all full of Socrates’ ancient voice. All of these dialogues show Socrates deep in conversation, challenging his friends and acquaintances in his usual insistent style. Though I too seek wisdom at the feet of the great teacher, I continue to walk away feeling uneasy whenever I drink deeply from the Socratic well.
Whenever Socrates offers up conflicting meanings of particular concepts: Charmides (temperance), Euthyphro (piety), Laches (courage), and Lysis (friendship), it seems that his main goal is to demonstrate that nobody really knows anything, or even worse, to demonstrate that those who believe they have gained knowledge are mistaken. But often all this amounts to is word-play rather than timeless wisdom. Sometimes Socrates seems to want to thoroughly confuse the conversation to such a degree that nobody is sure what is true any longer. His tactic reveals more confusion than it does truth, which may actually be Socrates’ aim.
I’ve written before about Socrates’ habit of using word-play to prove that the so-called experts are actually phonies, and that the average life of the average person is nowhere near as important or authentic or deep as the life of the philosopher. Though the quest for truth was clearly Socrates’ calling, it’s easy to see how his behavior might have annoyed his fellow citizens. He constantly questioned everyone he came into contact with. His questions often led the conversations down zany or even nonsensical paths, where words stop making sense and truth is flipped on its head. Once the victim is thoroughly confused and turned around by Socrates’ inquisition, Socrates can easily accomplish his over-arching goal: proving that people don’t know as much as they suppose.
(This is not to say that Socrates only critiques the ideas of others, and never proposes positive philosophies of his own. He certainly offers up a unique philosophy in the later dialogue Republic, and even in Euthyphro his question about pious acts – whether God loves pious acts because they are inherently right, or whether pious acts are right only because God loves them – has been a relevant question in the field of ethics for over two thousand years.)
It also doesn’t help that many of the characters in these so-called dialogues seem absolutely trusting and worshipful of everything Socrates says. So the format of the dialogue is subverted; Socrates’ logic, no matter how tortured, is rarely challenged in any substantial way. The characters that are supposed to critique, question, and counter-balance Socrates’ philosophy fail in these crucial tasks, and instead show themselves to be either pompous, one-dimensional buffoons (Euthyphro) or yes-men (Socrates’ companions in Lysis). This is fairly harmless in the low-stakes discussion about the nature of friendship, but takes a more troubling form when Socrates lectures on his political philosophy in Republic.
Menexenus has a unique format compared to the others: it’s a satire of political funeral speeches, such as the one delivered (just a generation before Socrates) by Pericles during the Peloponnesian War. Though it seems like Socrates wishes to ironically parody the Athenian tradition of giving funeral speeches (Menexenus mainly features Socrates giving a mock funeral oration), Socrates’ speech really doesn’t sound much different than a real funeral speech. In fact, Plato clearly had a knack for speech writing.
Ion is not so much a dialogue but a lecture that attempts to prove that poetry is delivered to man directly from the gods. It is pious Socrates, Socrates the teacher. His opponent Ion, the renowned performer of the poetry of Homer, has the air of a villain. He is vain and over-confident of his abilities (much like Euthyphro), the perfect target for our hero. So Socrates employs his usual tactic of trying to prove that his opponent knows nothing of that which he considers himself an expert. Ion is shown to be a phony: Socrates uses wordplay to prove that actors and performers do not actually possess an art, knowledge, or even a real skill. And though Socrates’ logic is (as usual) a bit wacky, Ion offers no competing ideas. Thus the format of the dialogue suggests this is an open and shut case by the end; Ion is rightly humiliated, and Socrates once again proves that only he understands real truth. The frustrating part for the reader is that Socrates’ argument leads to a bogus conclusion, and nobody is there to challenge it. Actors and performers do indeed practice an art form and possess a skill set. Socrates doesn’t believe this to be true because he’s got a chip in his shoulder about non-philosophers: anything of value besides Socrates’ own profession (philosopher) holds no value to Socrates, and so he relentlessly attacks any who have not chosen that path. No wonder he was widely detested.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat by Karl Kautsky
It was fascinating to read this critique of Lenin right after reading some of Lenin’s writings from the same exact time frame.
Kautsky buys into the Leninist idea that socialist transformation is inevitable. But unlike Lenin he emphasizes (in a somewhat convoluted fashion) that socialism cannot exist without democracy. Lenin was eager to abandon democracy the very moment his party seized power, and this is really the basis of Kautsky’s scathing critique of Lenin’s tactics.
In his own way, Kautsky supports bourgeoisie democracy because it lays the groundwork for (what he perceives to be) the inevitable proletarian revolution, and allows the workers to voice their grievances and form workers parties (capitalism generally comes with liberty and freedom of speech). He believes that if capitalism continues to grow, the disenfranchised proletariat must grow with it, and so capitalism will inevitably create communism, as Marx argued. The working poor will grossly outnumber the wealthy, and so they will eventually vote their way into power. Kautsky assumes that the workers in a democracy, once given the power, will unanimously demand socialism. And so he’s not so different from Lenin, in that he believes that class interest motivates all decisions (also known as vulgar materialism). Like Lenin he has an idealistic image of a united working class all sharing the same demands and motivations, without disagreements or deviations within the ranks. This is not how real politics works, which makes the idealism of Kautsky and Lenin appear particularly quaint (and in Lenin’s case, dangerously naive). Though Lenin and Kautsky subscribe to the same brand of idealism, they disagree on the timeframe: Kautsky prefers the slow and even development of socialism over time; Lenin demands a violent and immediate revolution (any who refuse to come along with his plan must be purged).
So Kautsky and Lenin both share the same end goal, only that Lenin was too hasty to get there. What is really at the heart of this disagreement over the timeframe of the revolution is a more critical disagreement about democracy. Democracy is a crucial feature in Kautsky’s imagined revolution, and in his imagined communist society that follows that revolution. To take it even further, Kautsky believes that socialism cannot exist without democracy. Without democracy the whole plan will decay into dictatorship. In this regard he was proven right by Lenin. The Bolsheviks’ first move was the dismantling of democracy, including democracy among the workers (many of whom dissented or belonged to different parties from the Bolsheviks). By the time the Bolshevik transition to power was complete, real socialism (read: equality between all classes) was dead in Russia: Lenin’s party (read: the new ruling class) controlled all facets of government, culture, and society, while the teeming masses were disenfranchised to such an extent that they were completely unable to openly voice grievances. The Bolsheviks’ so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat” was just a dictatorship, not socialism.
So Kautsky is right in the sense that socialism without democracy decays rapidly into dictatorship or single party rule. However Katusky isn’t particularly clear about how democracy will inevitably lead to socialism. While Lenin squashed democracy in order to preserve his party’s power, Kautsky sees democracy as the pathway to real socialism. But this will only happen if the vast majority demand socialism, and agree on what “socialism” should mean. Lenin rightly understood that this isn’t really feasible. The democratic electorate simply cannot come together on such a large and ambiguous goal, if all citizens are allowed to vote and speak freely. And so Lenin and his small cohort of true believers staged a sudden coup rather than allowing the masses to vote him into power (which he knew they would never do), and then once in charge he destroyed all vestiges of democracy in his rise to absolute power. Was this a cynical attempt to hold onto power, or did he truly believe that by eliminating democracy he would one day create real socialism? Answer: who cares. His method led to totalitarianism, so it was wrong (call me a consequentialist if you like). It was the wrong method both for creating socialism and for governing in general.
Lenin understood, unlike Kautsky, that democracy is more likely to kill socialism than birth it, because factions within workers parties and disagreements between large swaths of the population create deadlock and stalemate and thin margins for change. Generally the most revolutionary outcomes a democracy can hope for are the sort of liberal, incremental, compromise-focused changes that we typically see in parliamentary governments. Kautsky ignores the reality of pluralism, to the detriment of his political philosophy. People hold different opinions and see the world through unique lenses, and this is true even within workers parties and unions. This is a natural facet of humanity, and cannot be ignored. It is a fantasy to imagine that something as intricate as a socialist economy could ever be democratically planned and administered, or that the entire population could even be made to agree that socialism is the correct path, or even be made to agree on one single definition of socialism. Democracy is far too messy and inefficient and factional for that. There will always be disagreements and innovations and challenges to the status quo, and economic factors alone will never be the sole drivers of human behavior. This is why democracy does work well with capitalism, which is also sloppy and unplanned and competitive. Pluralism is one of the driving forces of capitalism, which (like the gene pool) is strengthened by diversity. Lenin understood all of this well, and so (as a hater of diversity) sought to prevent any who opposed him from exercising any democratic power whatsoever. Lenin couldn’t allow factions or even small disagreements to flourish within the party, so he dictated to the party members (and therefore to the people of Russia) exactly what they needed to believe. The result certainly was not capitalism, but it also certainly was not socialism.
So allowing real democracy is unlikely to lead to socialism, but snuffing out democracy only leads to dictatorship and totalitarianism. Socialism fails when it’s undemocratic, and it fails when it’s democratic. I fear that the message here is that socialism is impossible.
Main Currents of Marxism, Volume 2: The Golden Age by Leszek Kołakowski
This book is a masterpiece of philosophical summary and deep-diving analysis. Kolakowski has an uncanny ability to break down and explain even the most complex philosophical arguments in a clear and concise manner. At times he plays the part of omniscient referee, diligently sorting the good ideas from the flawed ones. But never does he simply tell us that a writer’s theory is wrong; instead he identifies the holes in it and pries them open, exposes them to the light, lets the reader decide what to think.
In this book his main target is Leninism, a philosophical tradition absolutely bursting with contradiction and double-talk. Kolakowski’s even-handed tone and mind-bogglingly high level of erudition suggest that he did not intend to write a polemic against Leninism. But in the end Kolakowski’s even-handed philosophical critique of Leninism amounts to a withering indictment of Lenin’s method, his philosophical rigor, his honesty, and his contradictory actions once in power. Lenin is revealed to be a boor, a liar, a tyrant, a power-hungry despot. Kolakowski does not draw these conclusions explicitly, but instead allows the reader to do so. Perhaps Kolakowski is a masterful propagandist who possesses the ability to incept these opinions into the reader’s brain, but I don’t really believe that. Instead he just exposes various thinkers’ theories to the light, that’s all. This doesn’t mean Kolakowski is a constant critic; his analysis is so much more subtle and productive than that. If a theory has enough qualities to withstand the author’s scrutiny, it comes out stronger for it in the end. Kolakowski analyzes many Marxist ideas and traditions throughout his magnum opus, and a good portion of them – those based on sound reasoning, honest argumentation, and deep philosophical reflection – show their quality under Kolakowski’s scrutiny. It just turns out that when we shine this same light on Lenin’s theories, they wither, crack, and fall apart. They are revealed to be hollow and decrepit. (Oh dang I’m being too polemical again).
Kolakowski sees Lenin’s dismantling of Soviet democracy as the original sin of Bolshevism. Lenin’s critique of bourgeois democracy hinged on the notion that modern democracy is a sham: the propertied classes (who overwhelmingly benefit from capitalism and bourgeois law) trick the exploited masses into believing they are sovereign in order to pacify them and prevent revolution, though in reality the workers are largely disenfranchised. In other words, the masses are led by our culture, media, and propaganda (all of which is shaped by the ruling class) to believe in freedom, democracy, individualism, and the sanctity of private property, but all of that is a veil over their eyes that prevents them from noticing that they are slaves. This sentiment, borrowed wholesale from Marx, is compelling in itself. Here’s the sad irony: once in power Lenin banned all democratic expression (including dissent from the proletarians he claimed to speak for), imprisoned his political adversaries, and disallowed any political party but his own. A man who rose to power by arguing that only communism could bring authentic democracy to the masses turned out to be a despot who was so desperate to hold on to power that he fully and permanently disenfranchised the masses. To make it worse, while doing so he claimed that the new Soviet system was a more authentic form of democracy than a parliamentary system could ever be. Kolakowski punishes Lenin for this betrayal of his own principles, simply by laying out the actual actions Lenin took once in power. Turns out that listing Lenin’s achievements is enough to reveal his naked opportunism and staggering hypocrisy.
Kolakowski’s main argument, if one must be identified, is that Bolshevism did not deteriorate into totalitarianism because of Stalin (as is often argued, especially by Lenin sympathizers), but instead because totalitarianism was baked into Lenin’s philosophy from the start, despite all the noises he made about wanting to create a better democracy. Before he was even in power, Lenin fantasized about liquidating all his political opponents, using violent coercion to keep all dissenters in line, and dictating to the masses what was and was not in their best interest. He desired to create a new permanent elite (the communist party officials), but dressed it up as if he was actually abolishing all elites forever, as if his new elite would better represent the masses than could parliamentary democracy. Lenin described in detail his dream of conducting mass confiscations of all private land and surplus (see Lenin’s State and Revolution), and imagined that the bulk of the people would not only celebrate these actions but assist in the mass thievery. In reality, Lenin’s first economic policy of requisitioning “surplus” grain from peasants (or what the requisitioners considered to be surplus) led to widespread mistrust of Lenin’s new state, as well as bribery and coercion. The people did not want to give up their product to the state, and the officials in charge of snatching the goods were highly susceptible to bribes. Their only carrot for making the people obey was threat of force, and use of Lenin’s massive police state infrastructure. Meanwhile all political activity that did not “further the socialist revolution” was anathematized.
This was not Stalinism, but Lenin’s original ideas and policies, the tactics that he used when he (Lenin) was in charge. Modern lovers of Lenin argue that he truly fought for the good of the people, and that after his death it was Stalin who corrupted his ideas and policies, warping them into a totalitarian, violently repressive, hyper-bureaucratic police state. But Lenin was the true founder of Soviet totalitarianism. Kolakowski lays this bare without becoming overly angry in the process (something I would struggle with). In the end, his critique of Lenin is devastating, yet really he lets most of Lenin’s ill-conceived ideas and shameful policies speak for themselves.
What is to be Done? and State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin
Having read a few of Lenin’s writings now, I can say with confidence that I don’t enjoy his written work. He is absolutely humorless in his tone, harsh and reproachful toward anyone who even very subtly disagrees with him, and uncompromising in his particular vision of how a revolutionary party must behave and the goals they must fight for. He believes he is the lone defender of the Truth; anyone who has even the slightest variance of opinion is a liar, fraud, chauvinist, opportunist, or traitor. There is no room for compromise, no point in discussing alternative views, no patience for philosophical objections to his worldview, no time to hear warnings of the dangers that lurk in his political program. In other words, he is insufferable.
He points his intense beam of hatred not just toward the obvious targets (capitalists, politicians, the czar), but also toward his fellow socialists who object to his heavy-handed and dictatorial approach to party management, and even toward workers who don’t conform to his narrow outlook. Reading Lenin, one gets the impression that he would gladly banish from the party (or perhaps from life itself) all those who don’t agree with him on every single point, including proletarians who refuse to convert (though he claims to fight for and speak for the working class). Pluralism is his enemy, which of course makes him the enemy of humanity as it really is: contradictory, sloppy, confused, slow to act, apathetic, open to various arguments from different parties, agnostic. Lenin is a utopian: he believes that one man is capable of unlocking the one single universal Truth that renders all other opinions invalid for all time, and wishes all humans to either conform to his plan or vanish. Only those who show dogmatic adherence to Lenin’s program get to be included in the citizenry, in his revolution, in his definition of “the people.” I have little patience for this kind of approach to politics. Even if he claims to fight for the lowest classes, he is actually an enemy of mankind. Real humans, with all their flaws, can never thrive under a system that requires a hive-mind mentality, requires us to shun anyone and everyone who disagrees with the Founder. Despite Lenin’s best intentions, the party and governmental machinery he hopes to construct will only become the perfect vehicle for totalitarian dictatorship. Lenin himself may not have intended that, but he was so vain and so convinced of the perfection of his own ideas, that he was deaf to this criticism.
For these reasons, I find myself feeling absolutely repulsed and disgusted whenever I read his writing. I want to dismantle his philosophy, shine a harsh light on all its flaws, flay it in the public square and leave it bleeding on the pavement. Why do I care? Because there are those today who still believe Lenin’s philosophy holds the key to solving the major problems of our time: wealth inequality, climate change, etc. Though I still believe that Marxism has much to teach us about our world, and perhaps (when combined with liberal democracy) can even provide us with a workable approach toward addressing problems like climate change, I firmly believe Leninism is a dead end.
Of course, Lenin would say that my opinion here is driven entirely by my class status (I suppose he’d say I’m petty bourgeoisie). But that cop-out argument is the exact reason I detest his arguments: he can’t stomach philosophical critique of his outlook, so he side-steps it by automatically invalidating all criticism by claiming it is driven by class interest. When someone raises a valid question, he slaps him down and calls him an opportunist, as if all objectors are agents for the ruling class. Personally, I fear totalitarianism and understand the value of civil rights, which is why I raised objections to Plato’s Republic. Were those objections class-driven, or perhaps driven by a genuine distaste for dictatorship?
Lenin’s early writings are dictatorial in their approach to party politics, demanding either obedience or expulsion from the party. The society he later founded exhibited these same features on a much grander scale: demanding society-wide obedience to the party, or banishment/death. The inevitable slide into totalitarianism is all right there in his writings, nakedly apparent to anyone who stops to think about what he is actually saying. Lenin claims to speak for the worker, but he only speaks for himself and his cohort of zealots (and opportunists who will ride his coattails to power). That all being said, I think it is imperative we study his work, lest we forget how easily dictatorial thinking can slip into ideology that claims to be selfless, that pretends to serve the long-suffering masses, that promises to build a better world. Just another utopian with a thinly-concealed thirst for power, a desire to be God and remake the world according to his whim. I’ll have more to say about this guy later.
The Iliad by Homer
After reading a bunch of Plato, I felt like it was finally time to tackle this classic of the ancient world. Afterall Homer’s work plays an out-sized role in Plato’s Republic; it is the main target of Socrates’ program of censorship. I can understand why: Socrates wishes for the warriors in his polis to be fearless in the face of death, absolutely selfless in their submission to the will of the state, and incapable of pity or mercy or really any unmanly emotion. Therefore literature in the polis must not portray either soldiers, kings, or gods showing any of those negative (banned) attributes. But in the Iliad, a poem that was legendary even by Plato’s time (Socrates state in Republic that Homer was the poet who educated Greece), soldiers openly discuss their fears about death, the king’s authority is challenged by his subordinates, the childish gods bicker with each other and act in a petty and insolent fashion, and Achilles (the deadliest soldier in the army) whines and weeps and complains constantly about his sorry lot in life. He even sits out of the battle like a coward, all because he is so angry at the king for confiscating his favorite slave woman. While these situations push the drama forward and make the story so much more interesting, Plato can’t allow any of this in his polis. They insinuate that the heroes, the kings we are supposed to obey, and the god we are supposed to worship are all just a bunch of whiny, fearful, petty, contradictory jerks. In other words, they act like real people, and Plato can’t allow that because he is attempting to build something that resembles the Ideal. He can’t have his humans acting like humans! So Homer’s gotta go.
As for my thoughts on the Iliad: I’m glad I read it. The language is beautifully crafted and bursting with delicious similes. Many of these similes reference wild animals, nature, and farm life. These provide a closer look into what actual Greek life was like during Homer’s time (approx. 400 years before Plato). Here are a couple examples:
Like flies swarming around shepherds’ pens in spring, when pails fill up with milk, so the Achaeans, a huge long-haired host, marched out onto that plain against the Trojans, eager to destroy them. Just as goatherds sort out with ease the wandering beasts, all mixed up in the pasture, so through all the army, the leaders organized the troops for battle
He was like a lion slightly hurt by a shepherd guarding his sheep flock out in the wilds, when it jumps the wall into the pen. But he’s not killed it. The wound rouses the beast’s strength. The shepherd can’t keep the charging lion from his sheep, who, left unguarded, panic. Huddled in a mass, they crowd in on one another. So the lion, in his hot rage, leaps over the wide sheep-fold wall. That’s how strong Diomedes went to fight the Trojans in his angry fury.
Aren’t those fun! Honestly though, the plot of this poem is a bit thin. Reading about how the battle went back and forth and back and forth, over and over, and this guy slayed that guy and on and on, it started to feel like I was reading a written account of an Ancient Greek football game, every play written out in epic poem style. In other words it got a bit dull (try describing a football game, play by play, and see if you can keep it interesting). The poem is also surprisingly violent, full of graphic descriptions of slaughter and atrocities. The main characters are all mass murderers, many of them openly reveling in the bloodbath. They have absolutely no problem with slavery, pillage, desecration of their enemies’ corpses, and wholesale butchery. As a fan of history, I appreciate how this draws the reader back to a bygone era, revealing the warped psychology of the Ancient Greek warrior-nobility.
But in the end, I much preferred the Histories of Herodotus to the Iliad. Both are beautifully written, but Herodotus delivers so much more plot and insight into the cultures of the world, so much more varied and deep perspective on he goings-on of man. Homer’s work only gives us a single perspective: those of the warrior-nobility. Homer is blind to the plight of slaves and common soldiers, completely uninterested in the perspective of those who might view the rape and pillage of a city as gross injustices. He’s a man of his time. Herodotus offers up something that feels, at least to me, more timeless.
The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. 1: The Spell of Plato by Karl Popper
I’m not sure if I was just naturally disinclined to disagree with Plato’s political philosophy, or whether instead Karl Popper incepted the dislike of Plato into my brain. I feel like I probably would have disagreed with Plato no matter what (Plato is a totalitarian idealist after all), but Karl Popper gave me all the tools to turn my vague discomfort into sharpened arguments. I’m sure that a fan of Plato would tell me that it’s an awful blunder to read Popper’s scorching critique of Plato side by side with Republic. Shouldn’t I let Republic stand on its own merit without allowing a critic to tear it apart before I’ve even had a chance to enjoy it? Look, I want to give Plato a chance and all, but I’m so very glad I read Popper’s work, so glad. I am fully under his sway, I’m captivated. I lapped up his critiques like a hungry puppy! Frankly he nails it. He pinpoints exactly what is wrong with idealistic totalitarian thinking. I am so excited to read part two, where he tackles Marxism. I imagine he has much to say about philosophy’s other most famous idealist (yes I know Marx was a materialist, but I also believe he was deeply idealistic in his prophesies about the future, his opinions on human nature, and his belief that class is the ultimate defining feature on one’s life). Popper is a philosopher of science, which means he cares very deeply about scientific method, and about only using the word ‘science’ to describe actual science (not pseudo-science). For example, after reading Popper one realizes how laughable is the notion that a revolution – where so many factors all change at once – can ever be ‘scientific.’ Yet in Marxism there is a belief that if we apply the scientific tools of Marxism, we can not only orchestrate a socialist revolution, but then scientifically engineer a society that can maintain communism and radical democracy. Popper might not flatly argue that the goal itself is impossible, but only that it is absurd to imagine that any part of that chaotic process would be handled ‘scientifically.’ Popper also rejects the notion that history has patterns that, once understood, allow us to predict future historical patterns. Therefore Plato’s theory of history (that history started with the ideal Forms and degenerated over time, but if we make certain changes to society we can return to the ideal that was lost) is hogwash, as is Marx’s prophesy that eliminating capitalism will usher in an era of communism. Anyhoo, I loved this book. I haven’t read an author I agree with more than Popper in a while; I can feel his influence shaping my long-term thinking about philosophy, science, and politics.
Write No Matter What: Advice for Academics by Joli Jensen
This book is a treasure trove! Though I am not a true academic, I not-so-secretly wish I was one, and this book spoke directly to me. Here are some of the nuggets of wisdom I picked up:
Write for 15 minutes per day no matter what. If all you feel is frustration and lack of creativity, write about that. The act of writing will expunge those negative feelings and bring you closer to resolving them.
Close the door to distractions. You have to be willing to shut the rest of the world out for a brief time every day so that you can give your writing the full focus it deserves.
Aim for craftsmanship, not performance for others. You do not need to impress anyone, and your work need not be a timeless masterpiece. Think like a carpenter learning to construct a great rocking chair. It may take many iterations, and each time he learns from his mistakes and makes subtle (or drastic) adjustments to his design, process, and execution. The goal is not to create the world’s greatest rocking chair, a chair that belongs in a museum or on an alter. The goal is to improve steadily, to work on your chops, to gain experience. With this attitude always at front of mind, the pressure of performance dissipates and writing becomes fun and relaxing, a release valve for built-up tension and intellectual backlog, an activity we look forward to.
Save productive minutes for this work, don’t wait til you’re depleted. If you are most productive in the morning, spend 15 minutes writing during that time. You can spare 15 minutes. Don’t wait until midnight, when your brain is shutting down. Write when you are fresh and most productive.
In May 2021 I picked up An Introduction to Political Philosophy by Jonathan Wolff in a book box. Reading that book was like sampling heroin: I was addicted immediately, my brain permanently altered. Twenty years ago I majored in history, but I only ever took one philosophy class, and no political philosophy classes. I didn’t realize until I read this book what a lost opportunity that was. Since reading that book, I’ve read philosophy almost exclusively, and have developed a strong desire to pursue it academically, to study it to the hilt, to become a philosopher myself. For now I consider myself an undergrad. I have so very much to learn, and I’m restraining my urge to write tons of half baked blog posts based on the scanty information I’ve gleaned over the past two years. My job for now is to read and read and read some more, pausing only to process what I’m reading, take notes, think, and build a research library. My particular area of interest is Marxism, specifically to address the question of whether Marxism is at all a useful tool for solving the major problems of our time, such as income inequality and environmental degradation. But before I can form any opinions on that question (or any other), I need to acquire some background knowledge.
Background knowledge I need to acquire:
The long chain of Western philosophical texts and major ideas that span from the Ancients to today: Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Russell, etc., and the political philosophers as well. Also formal logic, philosophy of law, and studies of democracy, liberalism, anarchism, conservatism, and progressivism.
The major socialist and Marxists thinkers that span from the early 19th century to today: Precursors to Marx, Karl Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, Trotsky, Lukacs, Marcuse, Althusser, Habermas, etc. I must study all the threads of Marxism before I undertake to analyze, critique, or judge the tradition.
Modern interpretations of Marxism: humanist, feminist, ecological, democratic, etc. How are they different from older traditions, and what do they have to say about the older traditions? What problems do these new interpretations attempt to solve? Any successes?
Style guides for academic work, argumentative best practices for works of philosophy.
The history of Marxist and non Marxist revolutions that have occurred during the last 300 years. What forces motivated them, what worked and what failed, what parties and ideologies came to the fore, what were the results?
Goals:
Study the history of western philosophy to the fullest extent possible. My goal is not to become an absolute master of the full spectrum of western philosophy, but to develop a foundational knowledge upon which I can build a more specific area of expertise.
Develop a masterful understanding of the history of Marxist ideas from the beginning to the present, including all the tentacles of this labyrinthine tradition, and where the tradition stands today. This is the critical background information. Along the way, write practice essays on whichever topics catch my fancy.
Develop specialties within the Marxist tradition, and compose a larger work (a thesis?) that pertains to that specialty. Specialty 1: Leninism and Trotskyism (the intricacies of the philosophy, how it has been applied around the world, why it has failed to achieve its goals, whether it is useful today). Specialty 2: (unknown at this time).
Develop a foundational knowledge of the international history of revolutions, from the French Revolution to today.
Construct a thorough and well organized research database that I can tap for various writing projects.
Build toward a synthesis that combines the lessons learned from a long study of Marxism (including an understanding of the weaknesses of the philosophy and the ways it has failed) and wields them against the intransigent problems of today. In other words, find a way to adapt and modernize Marxism, find and fix the weaknesses, and assess whether the tradition has anything to offer against our current problems, or whether it is a philosophical dead end.
Progress so far:
I’ve read a some of the foundational works of Marxism and well as some critical commentary on Marxism (including works by Thomas Sowell, David Harvey, and a compilation edited by Terrell Carver. Mostly I’ve focused on Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky for now, but intend to keep traveling chronologically through the history of Marxism. I consider this a modest start. See my Currently Reading page for titles. I’ve only read these works once, so my understanding of them is that of a student newly exposed to a plethora of difficult and stimulating ideas. Based on this limited first reading, I have started to formulate some embryonic responses which in intend to develop further as I read and re-read these challenging works.
My readings of classic texts from Western philosophy is even more limited. So far I’ve read Plato’s Republic, Crito, Apology, and Phaedo, and well as Karl Popper’s damning commentary on Republic. I’ve listened to a couple survey courses on Audible as well, but that’s about it. My knowledge of philosophy, especially outside the realm of political philosophy, is very limited. I’m signed up to take an Intro to Philosophy course in the autumn.
Following the advice of Umberto Eco in How to Write a Thesis, I’ve started a revamp of the research database I’ve been building over the past two years. I am starting to create “index cards” on the app Trello to document my readings and ideas, so that I can organize them use them repeatedly for various writing projects. This will also help me understand better what I actually want to say down the road.
I have developed some very preliminary hypotheses, namely this:
Marx's critique of capitalism, though slightly dated, still has much to teach us about modern capitalism, and has applicability especially in the face of growing income inequality and climate catastrophe. At the very least it is useful as a set of analytical tools that helps us understand the world in which we live. That being said, his prophesies about the future revolutionary collapse of capitalism and abolition of alienation appear both idealistic and far-fetched, very different from the materialist, scientific criticism of capitalism that he developed over the course of multiple decades and presented so forcefully in Capital. So to summarize: Marx’s critique useful, Marx’s prophesies not so much.
Later, Vladimir Lenin mistook Marx's prophesies as scientific proofs, and so dismissed all critics of Bolshevism as opportunists, liars, frauds, charlatans, and traitors. Armed with the certainty of a religious martyr (and a certain blindness in regards to the weaknesses and contradictions of his own philosophy), he sought to engineer a utopia via authoritarian tactics, paving the way for all the debauchery and mass murder that defined the Stalin era. One of the key mistakes in Lenin’s approach was his cavalier dismissal of liberal democracy as "bourgeoisie democracy,” and his preference instead for a “dictatorship of the proletariat” that would somehow eliminate all classes, purge out all the capitalist elements (and capitalist people), and then finally dissolve their own dictatorship; the state itself would disintegrate into nothing. And so, through violence and the complete annulment of civil liberties, he would establish mankind's communist utopia.
From his safe haven in London, Lenin argued that the very concept of civil liberties was a sham; all the hard-fought progress mankind had made toward the sanctification of democracy was recast as a grand conspiracy perpetrated against the workers by the propertied classes. Therefore it was in the working class’s best interest to abolish civil liberties in order to accomplish their singular goal: the destruction of all classes and the state (Lenin assumes this is the singular goal of all good and honest proletarians). This was a vulgarization of Marxism. Marx understood that the world is a complex place, and his analysis is filled with endless caveats, disclaimers, and footnotes that demonstrate that he did not believe there were any easy or simple solutions to the world's problems, and neither was it useful to categorically blame the world's problems on one single class. Lenin, on the other hand, has no problem pointing out who the enemies are. He paints a grotesque portrait of human history wherein the bad guys (elites, liberals, intellectuals, capitalists, and even the middle class) cheat and swindle the good guys (the workers) out of their rightful inheritance: a world where no man possesses any power over any other man. Counterintuitively, in order to usher in this perfectly egalitarian world, we must first conduct a violent purge of any who disagree with this interpretation, a holocaust of all "bad guys." In other words, if we just murder enough people, we can finally have our utopia.
Lenin pulled the lever so hard toward the “idealism” direction that his Marxism, once rooted in a scientific analysis of “the now,” lost touch with reality and forgot what real people are like. In his writings, Lenin seemed to expect the workers to all think with one mind and fight ceaselessly for one singular goal, as if the real life proletariat was capable of embodying the ideal Form of “proletariat” that existed in Lenin’s mind. Lenin's ideal proletariat is incapable of pluralism; they have no differing opinions on matters of economics, government, or human morality. Instead they exhibit a hive mind mentality, and dream only of accomplishing Lenin's own goal: the establishment of perfect communism. These ideal workers will joyfully limit democracy in order to expand it, they will violently seize full dictatorial power in order to one day voluntarily dissolve their own power, and they will nullify civil liberties in order to create a more egalitarian society. At best, these contradictions render Lenin's theories incoherent; at worst, they provide a ready-made philosophical justification for totalitarian government.
Lenin's vision of "the people" is highly idealistic. Those who agree with Lenin are “the people” and “the masses.” Those who do not agree - perhaps those who disdain violence in general, or wish to shield their families from war, or voice alternative political/philosophical opinions, or oppose revolution on religious/nationalist/constitutional grounds, or believe that Lenin's narrow road to utopia might contain some potentially catastrophic flaws, or simply hold a different interpretation of Marxism - are not "the people." Since only those who agree with Lenin count as people, many millions of proletarians (the group Lenin claims to speak for) who dissent to Lenin's program will need to be dealt with if the revolution is going to proceed. This will mean mass disenfranchisement, exile, imprisonment, and murder of proletarians. In this way Lenin reveals that, regardless of his claims to the contrary, he cares less about one's class status than about one's agreement with his program. In other words, his version of the "proletarian" dictatorship isn't actually FOR proletarians; it's actually only for people who agree with Lenin. It's a classic one party state - the only thing that matters to the party is that you agree with the party. Agreement with Lenin is the sole real criterion for citizenship; all who dissent must be purged. Thus, "the people" is transformed into "those who agree with the party," which is how Lenin can technically argue that his state is the first state in human history that actually serves "the people" - all persons who aren't part of "the people" are made to vanish entirely.
And so Lenin's new idealistic Marxism predictably dissolved into a totalitarian nightmare; permanent single party rule instead of worker democracy, a new ruling elite instead of a classless society, a totalitarian bureaucracy instead of a dissolved state. It was all right there in his writings, clear as day, before he and his clique ever grabbed the reins of power. Today most people blame the disaster of Soviet totalitarianism on Stalin, but Lenin provided it with philosophical grounding, and certainly got the ball rolling during the brief few years he wielded power.
There must be a way to preserve what is great about Marxism while discarding what is disastrous in Leninism. Most importantly, a synthesis between democracy and socialism must occur if Marxist philosophy is to outlive the revolutionary disasters of the 20th century. We have to drop the notion that a dictatorial “vanguard party” can ever violently establish a classless society, without themselves devolving into a new ruling elite. Without democracy and civil liberties, Marxism presents a recipe for dystopia. But really this assertion demands that we either abandon Marxism altogether (which I do not wish to do), or find a way to combine Marxism with liberalism, without destroying the essence of either.
I believe Marxism may still have a role to play in helping us solve our most intransigent problems, but only if real democracy (not the sham “revolutionary democracy” Lenin promises) plays a key role in the process. Perhaps this amounts to no more than progressivism, or perhaps it will mean more than that. I’m not even close to convinced that it’s possible for humans to transcend capitalism entirely; perhaps progressive capitalism is the closest thing humans will ever achieve to communism, while still preserving democracy. But is modern day progressive capitalism a powerful enough tool in the fight against (capitalism-induced) climate catastrophe? And to question this from another angle, does progressivism actually even lead to increased democratic control over the economy, if the end-result of progressivism is government takeover of industry? If the government is currently run by elites, than transferring ownership of key industries into elite hands doesn't sound particularly democratic either? Is there actually a way to create a more democratic economy, without simply giving in to laissez faire capitalism (which seems to be leading mankind toward climate disaster)?
I’d like to explore ways that we can use Marxism (in one form or another) to address the big problems of our time, but I intend to stay focused at all times on the way humans really are in the real world, and keep idealism out of my analysis. I believe that anyone who promises a utopia and a permanent end to human suffering (especially if this goal can only be attained through violence and repression) is either misguided or a cynical, power-hungry opportunist. But I also don't believe that liberal democracy holds all the keys either. No system is perfect, and costs must be weighed at every turn.
Ok so that’s my rough hypothesis, as it stands today.
“Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e., exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people–this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism. Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then ‘the state… ceases to exist’, and ‘it becomes possible to speak of freedom’. Only then will a truly complete democracy become possible and be realized, a democracy without any exceptions whatever.”
The quote above does not sit right with me. I’ve been developing a hunch, or perhaps it’s better to call it a question: can democracy ever realistically thrive under a communist regime? Lenin, quoted above, promises that communism and democracy will support and reenforce one another, that both will thrive together. He argues that by limiting democracy (disenfranchising the “oppressors”) we can eventually create a fuller democracy than any the world has yet seen. But I remain skeptical that a fuller democracy can ever realistically blossom within a communist society, despite Lenin’s promises. Lately I’ve been reading Lenin (State and Revolution and What is to be Done), Trotsky (History of the Russian Revolution), Richard Pipes (The Russian Revolution), Kolakowski (Main Currents of Marxism), Karl Popper (The Open Society and its Enemies), and some Plato too. These writers have greatly influenced my thoughts on this subject. Here’s the way I see it at this moment:
Lenin (and Marx to a certain extent) promise that the coming era of communism will usher in a much more complete democracy than what is possible under capitalism. Yet in order to reach that goal, Lenin openly argues that democracy (for the exploiters and oppressors, and their allies) will need to be curtailed. This appears to be a strange and contradictory argument: we can only expand democracy by limiting it. Personally I get stuck on this point, even if I agree with much of Marx’s critique of capitalism. Lenin’s reasoning sounds so much like some Orwellian parody of totalitarian logic (we can only have freedom if we all become slaves, we can only eliminate the state if we usher in a dictatorship), that my mind struggles to accept its validity. Something here isn’t right.
How can we expect democracy to expand if the first step toward expanding it is the disenfranchisement of “the exploiters”? Afterall, who are these “exploiters?” Such a vague and malleable term, easily abused and manipulated in the hands of a revolutionary tribunal. We must go even further than asking how we will define exploiter, and ask who will decide the definition? This is not a semantic question; the answer to my question will determine who loses their right to participate in this so-called expanded democracy. It’s easy to picture the exploiters as some small cohort of Wall St. fat cats and billionaires, the top echelon of the 1%. To Lenin, these are obviously the “bad guys,” those most responsible for income inequality and exploitation, the first on Lenin’s list of citizens to be purged from the voter rolls (perhaps purged from life itself). But I think any revolutionary party would find that many, many more people than just the top 1% will need to be disenfranchised before the revolution can proceed.
So who is to be robbed of political power? I think the answer would turn out to be: whoever stands in the way of the revolutionary party’s agenda. Realistically, it wouldn’t only be the top tier capitalists who stand in the way of revolution, but also the millions of citizens who align philosophically and ideologically with conservatism, i.e. anyone who believes we should not overthrow capitalism, any one who values the concept of private property. Lenin’s program is so extreme, many left-leaning liberals (who might, in different circumstances, support a progressive government) would flock to conservatism’s banners if private property itself (the concept) was threatened. If democracy were allowed, Lenin’s agenda would face serious, united opposition. To complicate things further, a significant portion of these dissenters would likely be workers.
How can a revolutionary party tolerate these dissenters, if the primary goal is to instigate revolution? I believe the revolutionaries would feel the need to persecute these conservatives regardless of their class status, meaning that working class conservatives (many of whom would certainly resist a communist revolution) would need to be disenfranchised, despite their proletarian status. Whether or not these people are correct for opposing revolution is beyond the scope of this essay. All I mean to say here is that not only the “fat cats” will be disenfranchised, but also many lower-class proletarians as well. This truth uncovers a flaw in Lenin’s materialist logic: economic forces cannot be the sole driver of human action if so many proletarians oppose communist policies. In the real world, it forced Lenin to admit (through his actions) that this corollary is true: Lenin and his Bolshevik Party did not actually fight for benefit of the working class; instead they fought only for the benefit of those who ideologically agreed with Lenin’s philosophy and Bolshevik policies. Essentially Lenin was offered a choice that amounts to the ultimate test of his philosophical integrity: a) allow all proletarians to vote on government policy, thereby sacrificing his communist dream at the altar of proletarian democracy, or b) hold onto power all costs, which entails labelling all dissenting proletarians as class traitors and terrorizing/purging them via a network of informants, secret police, and concentration camps. Of course he chose B, and set the stage for Stalin’s later perfection of the method.
What else could Lenin mean by “exploiters and oppressors” besides those who oppose the revolution? If a large bloc of proletarian conservatives stood in the way of revolution, Lenin would either be forced to purge them from the revolutionary party, or accept that when these citizens vote they will vote against communism, which will likely doom the whole revolutionary effort. Lenin imagined in his pre-revolution writings that it would be easy to identify who deserves to be purged (basically all non-proletarians). In other words, he had a failure of imagination when picturing in his mind his beloved proletariat (or perhaps he idealized them). Either way, he failed to notice that many, many proletarians opposed the Bolsheviks. Thus upon his assumption of power in Russia, he was faced with an unexpected backlash from his own constituency.
And so, predictably, he purged dissident workers right alongside dissenters from other classes. This embarrassingly reveals that class is actually not the most important defining category for Lenin; what he actually cares about even more than class is orthodox agreement with his own political views. Any who can’t meet that standard must be disenfranchised – regardless of class – otherwise the revolution will fail. So the revolution cannot proceed without massive disenfranchisement across all the classes, a disenfranchisement based solely on political beliefs, not on class status.
Thus the quote at the top of this article is proven false. Under Lenin’s revolutionary program, classes do not disappear. The new ruling elite are not proletarians as Lenin promised, but Party Men. One’s class status is determined by one’s obedience to the government and affiliation with the party that rules it. The quote above is also false in its assertion that a truly complete democracy can be realized under (Lenin’s) communism. Lenin’s program can only be implemented if all who disagree with it are labelled as “oppressors” and disenfranchised. How could the disenfranchisement of all citizens who hold ideas contrary to those of the ruling revolutionary party really be the first logical step toward expanding democracy? And how can Lenin claim to rank proletarian status as the ultimate defining feature of his ideal citizen if he does not have a plan for how to deal with proletarians who disagree with him?
If we assume, as Lenin did, that all proletarians will unanimously agree with Leninism, then the question of whether or not to purge proletarians who disagree with Leninism becomes a non-issue. But by doing so, we imagine a world that does not exist today and, given the realities of life in a pluralistic world, is unlikely ever to occur. Though that doesn’t stop utopian thinkers like Lenin from imagining that the proletariat is capable, as if they were one singular body, of absolute unity of thought and purpose, of hive-mind behavior. Perhaps if economic and social circumstances in the USA degraded to such a horrendous extent (as they had in Russia during WWI and after the February Revolution) that a majority of Americans were going on strike, marching in the streets, and demanding urgent and dramatic changes, then Leninist parties might be able to claim large-scale buy-in by the workers. But even then, there would still be workers who believe that parliamentary democracy is the most feasible solution to the country’s problems, and many others who rally to right-wing banners, and many others that would consider themselves progressive while refusing to reject the concept of private property (these types also reject the Bolshevik’s violent methods in favor of constitutional, legislative reforms). This was all true of the Russian proletariat in 1917. In other words, the only way to assume that Lenin wouldn’t need to fight against, disenfranchise, silence, and persecute members of the working class is to assume that all members of this enormous and diverse class are capable of rejecting all but one economic-political theory, of fighting for one singular economic goal (at the expense of all other goals). Humanity doesn’t work like that, not ever.
Pluralism in political thought must be acknowledged by any political theory who wishes to do more than construct utopias in his mind. There are countless reasons why many proletarians, despite sharing with the Bolsheviks a sincere desire to improve the lives of the poor, would reject Leninism entirely. Many proletarians are religious people who might fear losing their freedom to worship, while many others are parents who may oppose revolution simply for the sake of maintaining a peaceful world for their children, while others are patriots who would remain loyal to their countries and therefore oppose an international communist revolution, and others still are modern constitution-loving liberals who consider incremental change to be the ideal way to reform capitalism. Turns out there are many reasons why a proletarian might oppose revolution, and many reasons why their class status might not be the most important motivator behind their ethical and political decisions.
Lenin assumes in a cavalier fashion that the dissenters will be a tiny minority, and all of them complicit in the evil doings of capitalism (i.e. they’re bad guys, and there aren’t a lot of them, so we don’t need to feel bad purging them. In fact, once we purge them, we can finally have the communist society that we, the good guys, all secretly long for). And so when Lenin claims that class status is the most important defining factor in a human’s life, the factor that determines one’s inner-most desires, the factor that determines whether one gets a voice in the new society, he is constructing an “ideal” version of the proletariat, a perfect version. When Lenin discovered that this ideal proletariat did not really exist, he determined that must never allow democracy to fall into the hands of the workers.
So either:
Proletarian status matters more than anything else, in which case the revolutionaries would need to allow proletarian dissenters (conservatives and liberals) to vote, and Lenin’s vision of revolution will likely fail, since class status does not directly determine one’s political beliefs, and the whole body of workers hold so many conflicting opinion about economics, revolution, democracy, politics, religion, etc.;
Or orthodox adherence to the revolutionary party’s goals matter most, which will mean Lenin will be forced to disenfranchise many proletarians, which will reveal the lie behind Lenin’s claim that under communism democracy will be in the hands of proletarians – in fact it will actually be in the hands only of those who agree with Lenin.
Neither scenario gives us a situation where a communist revolution ushers in fuller democracy, or for that matter a democracy in the hands of the proletariat.
I don’t think Lenin would be ready to admit that he ranks “orthodox acceptance of his ideals” higher in importance than class status. He avoids facing this question by instead simply believing that all proletarians are capable of relentlessly pursuing the same political and economic goals; any who oppose these goals must necessarily be in a different class (the oppressive classes), or are perhaps just brainwashed puppets of the oppressive classes (and so must be purged for the common good). True proletarians are incapable of supporting capitalism, representative democracy, or incremental reform on their merits alone. So any proletarians who do support these things must not be true proletarians. In this way Lenin can claim to rank class status first in importance: he defines one’s class not according to one’s material conditions but according to whether that person agrees with Lenin’s views. One simply cannot be a proletarian unless one agrees with Lenin.
I don’t believe all of this was conscious for Lenin; he really does seem to believe that “true proletarians” will all support his personal political goals. Like a Platonic idealist, Lenin appears to believe in a sort of divine category called “proletarian.” All who fall into this category share the same goals, beliefs, desires, and dreams. If given the opportunity, they will prioritize the needs of their class above all other priorities, including religious, familial, national, and of course political. All we need to do is cleanse society of the poisonous residue of capitalism, and the true proletarians can finally come together and achieve their full communist potential. Therefore, according to this idealist-Marxist logic, the proletarians will never fight amongst themselves or disenfranchise one another because they will all agree on the efficacy of disenfranchising the oppressors (and it will be obvious who those people are). The elimination of inequality, exploitation, and profit-motive is the dream of every hard-working proletarian. In fact, Lenin extends this “theory of forms” to all the classes: not just proletarians but also capitalists and middle class people all think a certain way. They are predictable in their ideologies and desires, likely to act a certain way according to their class status. Therefore a figure like Lenin, who can see into everyone’s minds and hearts with the clarity of a god (much like Plato’s philosopher kings who alone understand the nature of the divine Forms), can steer large populations of people according to his almost divine will, and shape society along those hard and unbreakable class divisions.
Or so Lenin might have imagined it.
And then beyond that, I struggle with the question of how, assuming a communist society is able to survive this dictatorial phase of the revolution, democracy can be maintained under communism. Remember, Lenin openly admits that democracy will be curtailed to a certain extent during the revolution, but the second part of his prophesy is that after the revolution, once communism is established, democracy will expand to an even greater level than was possible before the revolution (this promise is made throughout State and Revolution). So Lenin’s promise for post-revolutionary democracy is even grander than his promise about the revolutionary proletariat persecuting the exploiters: he promises that communism will allow us to build “a democracy without any exceptions whatever.” But my intuition tells me that Lenin’s party-driven communism can only thrive if democracy is limited for good, and that the promise of an expanded democracy under communism is a misguided promise that can never be fulfilled.
Democracy cannot expand under communism because that would allow those opposed to communism to dismantle it, simply by exercising their right to vote (or voting representatives into office who will oppose communism). And even after the revolution, when capitalism has been dismantled and relegated to the dustbin of history (assuming it is even possible to do so), there will still always be citizens who wish to try new things, innovate, and challenge the ruling cultural and governmental paradigm. This will be true even if (especially if) communism is in place. Voters who wish to experiment with capitalism, question whether communism is the best method for running an economy, or desire the freedom to practice profit-seeking activities, might vote for policies that undermine communism. And since communism can only be maintained if capitalism is absolutely disallowed from seeping into the system, this sort of “chipping away” would destroy the entire communist effort. Only by purging from the voter rolls those who dissent can communism be maintained (or by disallowing voting altogether, as so many actual communist regimes have done). This of course can be done, but it certainly will not lead to an expansion of democracy. In fact, if this democracy can only allow those who agree with the communist party to vote, this really isn’t a democracy at all; it’s single party rule.
Entropy is the enemy of communism. Communism can only be maintained if the society is united in favor of it, or if those who oppose it are disenfranchised and prevented from practicing capitalism. Every time a free market is allowed to blossom under the communist regime, it weakens communism. But experimentation and profit seeking seem to be natural human behaviors. In any society there will be those who wish to challenge authority, experiment with activities that are banned, or simply try new things. Sometimes these behaviors are driven by profit-motive, but other times those who undertake these risks do so despite the fact that even if they succeed there will be little personal gain (picture Galileo experimenting with physics under the watchful gaze of the authoritarian Catholic church). No matter what social, cultural, or economic system is installed, there will always be humans ready to challenge it. Therefore communists will constantly need to fight entropy to maintain the communist vacuum (i.e. they will constantly need to prevent anyone with ideas that oppose or undermine communism from practicing or voicing those ideas, or voting at all in the “expanded” democracy). Only by eliminating dissenters can communism be maintained, as dissent only introduces cracks and flaws into the system. But if it can only be maintained by purging dissenters and maintaining single party rule, that means democracy is opposed to communism.
The communist tribunal in charge of determining who will be disenfranchised will have some tough questions to wrestle with: shall we allow free-thinkers to speak and act as they please, even if their ideas might undermine communism? Should we allow their ideas into the public forum, where others might debate the ideas or even build upon them? Or do we need to follow Plato (in The Republic) and ban dangerous ideas in order to maintain the purity of the people (to keep people in their ideal categories)? Do we need to disenfranchise or purge any who seem naturally inclined toward profit seeking? Or do we allow any and all to vote, even if the citizenry votes for economic liberalism? How can communism be preserved if regular citizens are allowed to question it, to convince others that it is worthwhile, to allow more income-inequality into society for the sake of upward mobility and innovation, and to accrue wealth and speak publicly about the merits of the profit motive? Either democracy or communism will need to give way.
Perhaps, one could argue, experimentation of this sort is not part of human nature and that it can be expunged if we change the cultural and material forces, if we engineer an ideal society. Perhaps under communism the people will be so content and well-fed, so fulfilled and self-actualized, so full of species-essence, that there will be no need to experiment with the profit motive ever again. All members of society can live their lives in peace, blissfully content with the eternal and unchanging status quo (and so communism would make conservatives of us all). Again, this is just Platonic thought lurking behind the facade of Marxism: the citizens of the ideal polis will all be perfectly content in their categories for all time; the polis will provide all citizens with everything they need to thrive and to fulfill their respective roles in the collective. Who in his right mind would fight or even dissent against the ideal polis (except perhaps one of those nasty exploiters we discussed earlier, but they’re all gone now). Ah Plato, that great enemy of democracy, shows up in the strangest places. Lenin promises democracy, but secretly, quietly, he whispers: why do we even need democracy, since under communism everyone will agree? And so communism will be Lenin’s ideal polis, where justice will be defined as a man fulfilling his role in society without complaint, and where innovation will become unnecessary because perfection has already been achieved. We can even do away with voting because unanimous consent among the entire citizenry will reign. Once communism is established we can arrest all change. There will be no dissent, so there will be no need of democracy or the state. We will all live like brothers and sisters, just as Plato’s guardians would live, if they truly all believed they were gold-souled.
So during the revolution we will need to limit democracy in order to dethrone the bad guys. Then after the revolution, democracy will only be granted to those who agree with the ruling party. Lenin believes this will be just about everyone who is left. Because he believes this, he prophesies that democracy and the state itself will wither away since there will be no need of them (who needs a state, or voting, or politics for that matter, if we all live in eternal peace, agreement, and brotherhood). It’s obvious by now that I consider this prophesy to be an overly optimistic statement of faith. All dissenters will lose their rights to vote (or their lives), and only through severe limitation of the electorate can Lenin be proven true: all voting citizens will agree that communism is the best and most glorious goal for society to pursue because in the end only party members are allowed to vote (and even party members can be easily purged if they disagree with the head man). Or to put it another way: kill everyone who disagrees with us, and we can finally live in a world where everyone agrees on everything (or pretends to agree, out of fear of the purge).
I don’t claim to know the hearts and minds of other men and women. All I can really know is my own mind, and even that can be slippery. So I’m not trying to build some grand theory about human nature. This essay is about the insolubility of democracy in a communist society. I do not consider this question solved for me, nor is my mind made up. In fact I am eager to be convinced otherwise! I ask: can we establish a society with more social and economic equality AND expanded democracy? More work to be done on this front. I’ll note that I do not wish to assassinate Marxism at this time, but only Lenin’s claims about democracy. I hold Marx’s critique of capitalism in the highest regard; he cuts right to the core of what is wrong with capitalism (just as Plato did to democracy). But though Plato, Marx, and Lenin were all expert critics, their proposed solutions were extreme and far-fetched, so I challenge them. Despite their genius and the raw power of their analyses, I challenge them. I reject the parts of their philosophies that endanger democracy, even if I fear where capitalism is taking us. If anything I want to distill the best and most useful parts of Marxism (not so much Platonism), and discover ways to apply those Marxist ideas today, to contribute toward solutions to the pressing problems of our time. But I fear the uncertainty, danger, and authoritarianism of open revolution, and I do not wish to throw democracy in the trash can in the name of overly optimistic experimentation. I worry that Marxism creates too slippery a slope toward authoritarianism.
I should note that I am writing this in the USA, where we currently have a representative democracy. Flawed as it is, it is still a democratic state, which sets a high bar for any revolutionary party hoping to overthrow the current system. Whatever new system they establish would need to include more and better democracy than what we have now, otherwise it will be tough to recruit enough Americans (liberty-minded and democracy-loving as they are) to join the revolution. If I was instead writing from a country with little or no legitimate democracy, or a country still mired in feudalism or facing widespread famine and deprivation or crushed under an imperialist regime, then perhaps the Leninist proposal would carry more wide-spread appeal. Afterall, any democracy would be better than none, and at least the Leninists promise some democracy. But if Marxists can’t find a revolutionary model that appeals to Americans (which will likely mean maintaining high levels of liberty and democracy), then they guarantee that the American people will fight valiantly against the revolution. So either democracy, economics, politics, and culture have to degrade considerably in the USA, or Leninists need to come up with a plan that actually appeals to citizens in a modern democracy, otherwise Leninism is a dead-end in America (and the entire western world I’d wager). Or perhaps Lenin would argue that all citizens of modern-day America are “oppressors” who deserve to be purged by the world-wide proletariat. He might get some support for that one.
Addendum: Review of Karl Kautsky’s Dictatorship of the Proletariat:
Kautsky buys into the Leninist idea that socialist transformation is inevitable. But unlike Lenin he emphasizes (in a somewhat convoluted fashion) that socialism cannot exist without democracy. Lenin was eager to abandon democracy the very moment his party seized power, and this is really the basis of Kautsky’s scathing critique of Lenin’s tactics.
In his own way, Kautsky supports bourgeoisie democracy because it lays the groundwork for (what he perceives to be) the inevitable proletarian revolution, and allows the workers to voice their grievances and form workers parties (capitalism generally comes with liberty and freedom of speech). He believes that if capitalism continues to grow, the disenfranchised proletariat must grow with it, and so capitalism will inevitably create communism, as Marx argued. The working poor will grossly outnumber the wealthy, and so they will eventually vote their way into power. Kautsky assumes that the workers in a democracy, once given the power, will unanimously demand socialism. And so he’s not so different from Lenin, in that he believes that class interest motivates all decisions (also known as vulgar materialism). Like Lenin he has an idealistic image of a united working class all sharing the same demands and motivations, without disagreements or deviations within the ranks. This is not how real politics works, which makes the idealism of Kautsky and Lenin appear particularly quaint (and in Lenin’s case, dangerously naive). Though Lenin and Kautsky subscribe to the same brand of idealism, they disagree on the timeframe: Kautsky prefers the slow and even development of socialism over time; Lenin demands a violent and immediate revolution (any who refuse to come along with his plan must be purged).
So Kautsky and Lenin both share the same end goal, only that Lenin was too hasty to get there. What is really at the heart of this disagreement over the timeframe of the revolution is a more critical disagreement about democracy. Democracy is a crucial feature in Kautsky’s imagined revolution, and in his imagined communist society that follows that revolution. To take it even further, Kautsky believes that socialism cannot exist without democracy. Without democracy the whole plan will decay into dictatorship. In this regard he was proven right by Lenin. The Bolsheviks’ first move was the dismantling of democracy, including democracy among the workers (many of whom dissented or belonged to different parties from the Bolsheviks). By the time the Bolshevik transition to power was complete, real socialism (read: equality between all classes) was dead in Russia: Lenin’s party (read: the new ruling class) controlled all facets of government, culture, and society, while the teeming masses were disenfranchised, impoverished, and completely unable to openly voice grievances. The Bolsheviks’ so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat” was just a dictatorship, not socialism.
So Kautsky is right in the sense that socialism without democracy decays rapidly into dictatorship or single party rule. However Katusky isn’t particularly clear about how democracy will inevitably lead to socialism. While Lenin squashed democracy in order to preserve his party’s power, Kautsky sees democracy as the pathway to real socialism. But this will only happen if the vast majority demand socialism, and agree on what “socialism” should mean. Lenin rightly understood that this isn’t really feasible. The democratic electorate simply cannot come together on such a large and ambiguous goal, if all citizens are allowed to vote and speak freely. And so Lenin and his small cohort of true believers staged a sudden coup rather than allowing the masses to vote him into (which he knew they would never do), and then once in charge he destroyed all vestiges of democracy in his rise to absolute power. Was this a cynical attempt to hold onto power, or did he truly believe that by eliminating democracy he would one day create real socialism? Answer: who cares. His method led to totalitarianism, so it was wrong. It was the wrong method both for creating socialism and for governing in general (call me a consequentialist if you like).
Lenin understood, unlike Kautsky, that democracy is more likely to kill socialism than birth it, because factions within workers parties and disagreements between large swaths of the population create deadlock and stalemate and thin margins for change. Generally the most revolutionary outcomes a democracy can hope for are the sort of liberal, incremental, compromise-focused changes that we typically see in parliamentary governments. Kautsky ignores the reality of pluralism: people hold different opinions and see the world through unique lenses, and this is true even within workers parties and unions. This is a natural facet of humanity, and cannot be ignored. It is a fantasy to imagine that something as intricate as a socialist economy could ever be democratically planned and administered, or that the entire population could even be made to agree that socialism is the correct path, or even be made to agree on one single definition of socialism. Democracy is far too messy and inefficient and factional for that. There will always be disagreement and innovation and challenges to the status quo, and economic factors alone will never be the sole driver of human behavior. This is why democracy does work well with capitalism, which is also sloppy and unplanned and competitive. Pluralism is one of the driving forces of capitalism, which (like the gene pool) is strengthened by diversity. Lenin understood all of this well, and so (as a hater of diversity) sought to prevent any who opposed him from exercising any democratic power whatsoever. Lenin couldn’t allow factions or even small disagreements to flourish within the party, so he dictated to the party members (and therefore to the people of Russia) exactly what they needed to believe. The result certainly was not capitalism, but it also certainly was not socialism.
So allowing real democracy is unlikely to lead to socialism, but snuffing out democracy only leads to dictatorship and totalitarianism. Socialism fails when it’s undemocratic, and it fails when it’s democratic. I fear that the message here is that socialism is impossible.
Main Currents of Marxism, Volume One: The Founders by Leszek Kołakowski
Tony Judt refers to this author, Leszek Kołakowski, as “the last illustrious citizen of the Twentieth-Century Republic of Letters.” That is an apt slogan. The depth of this author’s knowledge of both Marxism and philosophy in general is astonishing. He analyzes and penetrates all the main Marxist principles, picks them apart so we can see their component parts and what makes them tick. This is not an easy book. It’s dense, very dense, but immeasurably rewarding if one wishes to understand the philosophical underpinnings of Marxist thought, the ways in which Marxism was and is innovative and useful, and where Marxist theories fall short (or even disastrously short). Among other things, this book contains the most elegant dismantling of Marx’s theory of historical materialism that I have ever read. After reading it, I struggle to find a counterpoint that can stand against Kolakowski’s analysis. I feel as if I am looking upon the very pinnacle – the mountaintop – of erudition and scholarship, and I have to bow my head and acknowledge the greatness of it. I feel like an amateur composer listening to a Beethoven concerto (but then again, I’m actually pretty used to that feeling). Kolakowski does not set out to embarrass Marx, but instead respects him for the pioneer that he was, and for his far-seeing vision. But Marx’s theories are subject to a forensic analysis that lays bare all the gaps and missteps, and opens up many questions with which Marxists must wrestle: Does Marxist analysis have any scientific value? Do Marx’s ideas on value and history have anything useful to tell us about the real world? Does Marxism invariably slip into totalitarianism? These are questions Marxists have been exploring for a century, and I intend to do the same.
This is a masterpiece! The author, Herodotus, is often nicknamed the “father of history” (or alternatively, the “father of lies”), and when you read this book it’s easy to see why. On the surface what makes this book remarkable is that it’s the first systematic historical chronicle in the western world. Herodotus, who composed this history around the year 430 BC, tells with vivid detail the stories of all the major battles of the Greco-Persian wars, including the battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, and Plataea. But at heart this book is so much more than a history. Herodotus traveled extensively through the Greek world, and everywhere he went he collected stories, interviewed priests and historians and seers, visited battlegrounds and famous monuments, and most importantly absorbed the cultures, customs, and myths of the diverse peoples he encountered. He then poured all of this knowledge (both factual and mythical) into his Histories. Thus his tale opens up the entire ancient world to the reader, rendering it personal, intimate, and real. One can luxuriate in all the local myths, oracular visions, religious customs, and superstitions that permeate the story. The author clearly believes in the visions of oracles and the awesome power of the Greek gods, so when he tells of prophesies that were proven true, or desecrations of temples that angered the gods and invited their wrath, or battles that were won due to the favorable omens obtained through human sacrifice, it becomes impossible for the reader to disentangle fact from fiction in his narrative. But the writing is so delicious that the reader need not care about this! Instead it is best to let oneself become completely submerged in the story, and take the entire narrative as it comes. The author’s knowledge of the ancient world (and even of the back-room dealings of the various monarchs) borders on omniscient, which makes him the perfect guide on this whirlwind tour of a long-lost place. Though perhaps it’s not so lost as one might think. The characters within are at once so fascinatingly foreign, and yet simultaneously so relatable, so human. When the leaders of Persia debate whether democracy is superior or inferior to monarchy, the arguments they make (on both sides) are still potent today; they still ring true (including the critique of democracy). When the best laid Persian war plans are spoiled by poor weather, the soldiers who attribute the outcome to divine intervention sound much like modern believers who see divine planning in every historical event. When ancient politicians take bribes, or parents flee with their children from war zones, or enslaved tribes revolt to regain their freedom, or powerful oligarchs lobby for government hand-outs, or leaders in times of crisis choose pride instead of compromise and so perish, I see the modern world in ancient dress. Though much has changed, much remains as it was. Humans are still just as human today as they were then, and in many ways their problems are our problems: How can we best govern ourselves? How can we best share scarce resources? When is it best to compromise and make common cause with our enemies, and when is it best to fight? In times of war and crises, when we are beset by danger on all sides, what is the best and most ethical path for one to take? How can one live a good life, find happiness, and survive the seemingly random perils that each person faces in life? These questions all still matter today, and we as a species still do not agree on the correct answers. What a fun book to get a person thinking! I never thought a book this old would hold such sway over me, but that’s the power of timelessly excellent writing.
July – August 2022
The Cambridge Companion to Marx edited by Terrell Carver
I feel quite sad to reach the end of this lovely book, though also immensely satisfied with the experience of reading it. A collection of gifted philosophers/writers gather to examine Marxism from a variety of angles. These scholars are not necessarily “Marxist” scholars, so we hear critiques of Marx’s vision as well as agreement with it. But all agree that Marx contributed in profound ways to the history of thought. Furthermore, if we examine that contribution through various lenses and expand it in new directions, we can reveal many hidden truths about humanity and the world we inhabit. How does moral philosophy challenge Marxist thought, and how does Marxist thought challenge moral philosophy? How did Marx’s theory of history become so mainstream that modern historians who are very far from being Marxist still unwittingly deploy Marx-style materialism when explaining how societies change and adapt over time? Can Marxism go hand-in-hand with feminism, and what are some areas that Marxist feminism can be expanded by future thinkers? Is Marxism a science, and if so then what part of it is scientific: the critique, or the prophesies, or both? Has Marxism been debunked by the events of modern history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union), or does it still have much to offer us? Or perhaps it was only Lenin who was debunked, but Marxism lives on? So much to ponder, if one cares to explore a controversial field of study. This book is for readers possessing a mind already open, who wish to expand it further. Caution: one must enter with the understanding that this book will not draw the conclusion that Marxism is irrelevant, or that capitalism has ultimately been proven victorious for all time and forever amen. While these authors don’t slavishly praise Marx (and they certainly don’t treat him as a saint beyond reproach, nor do they respect the sanctity of Marxist orthodoxy as an unchanging and timeless series of truths), they all recognize that the school of thought he founded still has much to offer our sick, sad world. In fact, while reading this book the thing that struck me most about Marxism was its sheer applicability. Despite the failures of many “Marxist” experiments during the 20th century, the Marxian worldview still holds many keys to understanding what really makes society tick, and why we humans keep finding ourselves in such serious jams (I’m looking at you climate change). But even though Marx helps us understand our jams and how we wound up in them, it does not necessarily follow that Marxism holds to key to solving them. I hope to study many more sources to find out any way this worldview can contribute to a workable solution to climate change. I consider Marxism a premier lens to apply when seeking to understand our world, but remain skeptical that Marxism can rise above being a system of critique and finally assume the mantle of “problem-solving tool”. But anyways, this book put me on the right track. Highly recommend!
Marxism: Philosophy and Economics by Thomas Sowell
Most of this short book is plain summary of Marx’s and Engels’ work, but not the clearest summary I’ve ever read. In the end Sowell comes around to his critique. Though at times his critique is on point, he distracts the reader with underdeveloped arguments that detract from his more substantive points. For example, Sowell tries to draw a connection between Marx’s “dictatorial” personality and later dictatorships that claimed to be in the Marxist tradition. I find that connection to be tenuous since Sowell himself argues that one must look to the main body of an author’s work (not the author’s side comments) if one wishes to unlock the real meaning of that author’s philosophy, and Marx’s writings on the whole do not advocate dictatorship. Sowell also argues weakly that it can’t be true that workers in America are alienated at work, because so many people flee to America from totalitarian countries. So because people flee worse situations, that proves Marx was wrong about capitalist alienation? Sowell, following this kind of logic, might say: “how bad could skin cancer really be if you would choose it instead of AIDS?” Just because AIDS is worse does not mean skin cancer is just fine. Sowell doesn’t really wish to tackle alienation head on, so he offers a brief argument that it doesn’t exist at all; in other words, he skirts the issue and moves on quickly. I was especially disappointed in Sowell’s mini biography of Marx, where he went out of his way to denigrate Marx’s personal character, highlighting with great relish all his character flaws and personal weaknesses. I’m not here to defend Marx the man, but this book claims to be about philosophy and economics, about Marx the “ism” not Marx the dude. It’s as if Sowell didn’t have enough ammo to take down the “ism” so he resorted to painting Marx the man in a negative light, as if that alone could weaken Marx’s philosophy. In the end, Sowell’s real mission in this book is to equate Leninism with Marxism, to blame Marx for all the 20th century bloodshed and horror perpetrated by his intellectual descendants, by those who (long after Marx was dead) committed mass murder in Marx’s name. This is another weak argument that ignores all the strains of Marxism that sharply criticize Leninism, not to mention the fact that most of Marx’s Marxism consists of critique of capitalism (still valid and true in our modern time), not prophesy of what future communist societies must look like. Lenin took Marx’s critique and developed his own vision for what a communist society should look like, but that is just one man’s interpretation. Many many other Marxist scholars have gone down entirely different roads than Lenin, repudiating him altogether, and developing visions of communism that differ greatly from Lenin’s. It requires an impressive feat of feigned ignorance for Sowell, a scholar of Marxism, to claim that Leninism equals Marxism. But then to extend that argument further – to conclude that therefore all of Marxism is not only dangerous but also invalid, debunked, and not worth serious study – is an approach that abandons scholarship and sinks to the level of propaganda. Ultimately Sowell reads like a man who loves and admires capitalism, and therefore seeks to hamstring the philosopher who developed the most potent and relevant critiques about capitalism, critiques that many scholars (and regular people) today still find quite compelling. But rather than attack those critiques head-on and attempt to reveal their flaws in a careful and serious way, Sowell instead uses ad hominem attacks, and attempts to blame the philosopher for the actions of those who lived long after his death. He boils down a varied and diverse school of thought (Marxism) until all that remains is the vulgar totalitarianism perpetrated by Stalin. Where other students of Marxism see a large tree with many interlocking branches, Sowell sees only one branch – the sickly one. He’d like to use this branch to condemn the whole tree. One has to ignore a lot about Marxism to arrive at the conclusion that because Leninism was a philosophical monstrosity in the end, therefore Marx’s analysis of capitalism, his critique of ideology and culture, and his discovery of dialectical materialism are worthless. Sowell wishes to use Lenin as a tool to rob Marx’s critiques of their splendor, their relevance, their power. I would expect this from a Fox News commentator, for whom ignorance of Marxism is a prerequisite for the job, but not from a serious scholar of Marxism, one who has read and read on this subject, one who understands just how diverse the Marxist tradition has become, one who is informed enough to recognize the validity lurking beneath Marx’s 150 year old critique. I wonder if Sowell would blame Martin Luther for the Salem Witch Trials (which took place 150 years after Luther’s death), and therefore condemn the entire Protestant worldview? Or perhaps we must blame Jesus himself for those crimes, since it was ultimately his message that Luther was interpreting. Yes Jesus is directly responsible for the witch trials! This is fun game to play, but it’s not serious scholarship. It would be difficult to take seriously a thesis that argued the teachings of Jesus are proven false (or irrelevant or dangerous) by the simple fact that many have misinterpreted or warped them. This is essentially Sowell’s thesis about Marx. Frankly I expected better from a writer/thinker of Sowell’s caliber.
The German Ideology by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
I enjoyed this one much more than I expected. It seems that when Marx and Engels set out to write this book, they intended it to be a polemic against a certain group of German philosophers who have long since been forgotten by all but a few experts in 19th century German philosophy. So I figured this work would probably be largely irrelevant, or at least lacking in modern applicability. But as I read the Cambridge Companion to Marx, this book kept coming up! Clearly it made an impact on a variety of scholars, so I thought I’d give it a whirl. Turns out the real core of this book is something much deeper and more interesting than a pure polemic: it’s a clear and eloquent exposition of Marx’s and Engels’ philosophy of history, otherwise known as dialectical materialism. Here is my brief attempt to sum it up: on the one hand, our culture, philosophy, ethics, state, and system of laws are all results of the intermingling of the economic and material conditions we find ourselves in during our particular historical epoch, the ever-changing state of technology, and the on-going and never-ending struggle between the different classes (workers vs. bosses, peasants vs. nobles, slave vs. slave owner, etc.). But at the same time those same contingent forces (culture, philosophy, ethics, state, laws) turn around and impact the very economic systems and material forces that created them in the first place. So material forces are ultimately the true drivers of history, but the structures those material forces create come back to alter the material forces themselves. There is a perpetual conflict between causes and effects, and each of these conflicts shapes the world around us. Example: the proliferation of the internet alters the economic landscape, generating entirely new sectors, such as same day delivery of groceries. These new sectors come into conflict with older ones (brick-and-mortar book stores). The daily lives of workers are shaped and altered by these changes (employees at bookstores lose their positions, and become drivers for Amazon Prime). These changes to workers lives cause conflicts with the pre-existing culture (the previous generation, who lived a different way, struggles to comprehend the changes happening around them), and eventually the culture itself changes, taking on the role of perpetuating and justifying the system as it exists today. In time these cultural and economic changes spawn further technological advancement and cultural change, which impacts the economic system, and on and on in a never ending dance. This is the dialectic at work: endless processes of conflict and contradiction spawning new outcomes that then generate new contradictions. But Marx’s dialectic is materialist, because it imagines economic forces and class struggle to be the primary drivers of events. These material causes are then shaped by the forces they unleash, but ultimately the material forces are the the root causes and main shapers of all the other forces. So ideas do not create revolutions; material forces do – in fact material forces create those very ideas that often get the credit for the revolution. This vision of history offers a different way to understand why human events occur the way they do. These ideas can be quite challenging for those of us who live in cultures that place so much emphasis on groundbreaking ideas (freedom, liberty, equality, democracy), and imagine that those ideas are true drivers of history. In reality, as Marx argues, the liberty-obsessed ideology that we witness in America is just an off-shoot of the economic forces already at work; in fact our liberty-obsessed culture is a defense mechanism that keeps the economic status quo in place. Much more to explore on this front, but it’s fun to feel my mind expanding.
April – June 2022
Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume One by Karl Marx
I’ve officially started my long-awaited deep dive into Marxism, and what better way to begin than with Marx’s magnum opus, the work he spent 20 years researching: Capital. This is a truly remarkable work, unlike anything I have ever read. All at once it is a deep analysis and critique of capitalism, a scathing polemic directed against “bourgeois” economists who fail to see the underlying exploitation that drives capitalism, a journalistic expose of the disgusting treatment of the working class by capitalists, and a philosophical treatise that melds the dialectical tools of Hegel to economic/historical analysis. Marx puts on a very impressive performance here. He creates an entirely unique and complete worldview – a timeless lens which can be applied to capitalism/economics/the state/history – and manages to encapsulate it in one book. There isn’t much talk of solutions to the problems Marx reveals, but this book isn’t about solutions; it’s about critique. And I have never read a more well-thought out, deeply researched, and expertly reasoned critique of capitalism in my life. Engels once said that nobody saw as far or understood as much as Marx did, and I am inclined to agree. Though this is a difficult work to get through, I understand why it is considered Marx’s masterpiece, and why Marx is hailed as one of those few timeless geniuses who understood and revealed what nobody else had seen up to that point. Now so many of us take Marx’s reasoning for granted, which is a testament to the power of his analysis.
A Companion to Marx’s Capital by David Harvey
This was the perfect book to pair with Capital. Harvey brings a unique perspective as a Marxist geographer who has spent decades teaching a course on Capital. Even though on the surface Capital is an economic text, Harvey reveals the deep philosophical current that provides the foundation for the entire book: the plethora of contradictions contained within our capitalist system. Labor nowadays is social (for example: all the laborers in a factory work together to create products), yet the fruits of the labor are privately owned (owned by the laborers). Production is in a state of anarchy, governed only by the laws of supply/demand/competition, yet within a factory production is under the strict control of the capitalist. The vast majority of people own nothing but their own labor power, yet they are forced to give much of it away for free in the form of surplus value, which is extracted and owned by the capitalist. Capitalists make all their profits from this extracted labor, which they then use to generate more capital (factories, labor, machines, etc) so that they can produce even more wealth for themselves, at the expense of the majority. In the end the capitalists generate more wealth than a human could ever actually spend, so the wealth becomes simply a means for generating more capital, and therefore more wealth, until the gap between rich and poor becomes an unbridgeable chasm. A country’s economy (i.e. capitalists, stock market, property market, etc.) might be thriving, while the vast majority remain impoverished, without equity, possessing only their labor power which they are forced to sell so that capitalists can generate more profit. These examples of contradictions demonstrate why there is a constant struggle between laborers and the owners of capital. Harvey lays this all out perfectly, and shows how Marx was a master of the dialectic style (a philosophy that focuses on the unending contradictions in life, and the unexpected results that these contradictions generate).
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
In every way that Capital is careful and detail-oriented, in every way that Capital uses a fine tooth comb to examine issues from every possible angle and probe each question to reveal its hidden secrets, in every way that Capital thinks things through to the very core so that no stone is left unturned and no logical fallacy is left in tact, the Communist Manifesto takes the very opposite approach in all of these regards. This is a political work through and through, not a deep work of philosophy. This work is intended for mass consumption and not for someone who wants every angle examined. Marx here uses a mallet instead of a scalpel, and makes grand, sweeping prophesies that are not to be found in his masterwork, Capital. For that reason, the Manifesto has had a much broader appeal than Capital, and remains a powerful call to action for all oppressed people, while Capital is a slow and monotonous climb to the heights of philosophical discovery. The Manifesto predicts unprecedented social and economic change, massive movements of whole populations, the abolition of the ruling class and capitalistic freedom of exchange, and the overthrow of exploitation if only the workers can unite. It’s a stirring read, though it lacks almost entirely the scientific basis that Capital carefully constructs, and contains none of the scrupulous detail Marx is so careful to include in his critique of capitalism (details, for example, about what exactly these unprecedented changes will look like in real life, or how they can be accomplished). It seems to reveal (to me anyhow) how Marx’s critique of capitalism rose to the level of true science, whereas his predictions about how capitalism will be abolished remained undeveloped, overly general, full of unexamined assumptions – in other words the very opposite of what I admire about his work in Capital.
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels
Engels wrote this book with the intention of distilling the main arguments contained in Marx’s Capital down to a short and clear book for mass audiences. In that regard, it does an decent enough job. Engels does add some bits of his own, which I find pretty interesting, though I do not necessarily agree with his conclusions. He starts by analyzing the beliefs of some of the socialist thinkers and activists who pre-dated Marx, and concludes that their brand of proto-socialism was “utopian” because it lacked a scientific basis for analyzing capitalism (Marx would create this scientific basis by publishing Capital). Engels goes on to argue that his and Marx’s brand of socialism is not utopian because they have successfully unlocked and revealed the real mechanisms that drive capitalistic oppression. This is all fine and true, but then Engels goes on to lay out a very unscientific and overly general prophesy about how the demise of capitalism and the advent of communist society is inevitable. He predicts that ruling classes, capital, and the state itself will become superfluous and will fall away over the course of the communist revolution. He believes that the proletariat can unite to such a degree that they can finally free mankind from exploitation, and make man a master of his own history and destiny by eliminating competition and instituting a planned economy. I find this prediction to be thoroughly utopian because it assumes that the revolutionaries who establish this communist society – the planners who run the new command economy, the spearheads of the revolution who are now placed in a position to organize and design a new system – will not themselves simply become the new ruling class. Won’t, under communism, the vast majority of people still need to take orders from these planners, if a command economy is to exist? Engels assumes that humans are capable of functioning (and running large-scale economies) without automatically developing into ruling class and exploited class, but how can a planned economy exist without planners? And if these planners are ever tempted to organize production in self-serving ways, or allocate resources in such a way as to benefit courtiers, or if they use their positions as planners to consolidate power, a ruling class will organically develop. The notion that we can eliminate exploitation by instituting a world-wide planned economy is something that is utterly untestable, has never been observed, and seems not to match what we know about humans (power corrupts us). Therefore this prediction appears to be unscientific, though Engels claims that his prophesy is the result of scientific socialism. Once again, Marx’s critique of capitalism appears to be scientific – testable, backed by tons of data, applicable across the globe and throughout time – but the predictions about what will follow capitalism are nothing more than hunches dressed up as science. I find that sort of pseudoscience to be very weak, despite my hatred for exploitative capitalism. I am very eager to find a socialist writer who spends the majority of his time focusing on solutions instead of critique. If someone can take the same level of rigor, research, deep thought, philosophical excellence that Marx used in Capital, and apply it toward creating a real-life workable solution to capitalism (instead of easily digestible platitudes and grand utopian promises), we may actually get somewhere with all this. Without that piece, we are left with only a critique; we can describe in incredible detail the prison in which we are trapped (down to the very atoms that comprise the bars of our cell), without getting any closer to understanding how to escape the prison.
March 2022
Great Courses: The Modern Political Tradition: Hobbes to Habermas by Lawrence Cahoone
This course is a guided tour through a universe of ideas. The guide is omniscient: he understands and knows intimately every bud on every twig on every branch on the tree of philosophical knowledge. He takes in his hands the countless competing worldviews and myriad conceptions of justice of so many illustrious scholars across so many years and spins them into a web. The web doubles and redoubles back on itself, and spreads out in new directions, and those new branches double back and connect with the old, and soon it resembles a galaxy. Is there some ultimate truth that guides all the twisting strands of that galaxy, that unites them? The way the ideas all connect and intersect and branch off into new ideas is a very visually pleasing image in my mind. It lights up my pattern recognition software, and soon where I once only saw scattered ideas I now see a superstructure, a framework. But is that superstructure real, or is the galaxy itself simply an optical illusion? Perhaps there is no superstructure, and what appears to my human eyes to be a solid thing is instead nothing more than a collection of bright stars, many light years away from one another, all alone in the darkness of space. Or I should say a collection of bright minds, each striving in its own way to understand how exactly we are all supposed to cope with the fact that we are all alone, clinging to this rock while we fly around our little sun, surrounded on all sides by endless darkness and cold. Then again, the very fact that we all share this sense of mortality does indeed provide at least one thread, one hint of a superstructure, one bond that unites me with every other human, and even every other living creature. So I guess I won’t be so quick to dismiss the notion that the superstructure could be real, that there may be some over-arching shape and unity to the vast history of political thought, or even some ideas that may one day unite us all. If there is one truth or guiding idea that could accomplish such a task, it would have to be based on something we all have in common, so mortality is at least a good place to start, if one is trying to puzzle out worldviews and conceptions of justice that can bring humankind together. But I digress. This was an excellent course, highly recommend!
February 2022
India After Gandhi by Ramachandra Guha
Here is what this book taught me: in a truly diverse and pluralistic land, it is damn near impossible to get everyone (or even a strong majority) on the same page. People can derive their values and sense of community from their class status, religion, business, geographic region, ethnicity, tribe, party, hobbies, philosophy, etc., and these various avenues can create contradictory and overlapping sets of values, often within the same person. A poor Pathan farmer living on the border of Pakistan might identify as a member of the lower class and push for Marxist policies and a strong centralized government that can institute sweeping land reform, while simultaneously identifying as a tribal Pathan who wishes to push back against the centralized Indian government that is encroaching on tribal sovereignty (even if this same government might provide the sought-after land reform); meanwhile the farmer also identifies as a Muslim, which will come with a whole host of other crucial values and community ties. The possible combinations are endless! In a country with a billion people, the electorate becomes thoroughly unmanageable, and the enormous diversity of belief adds an unfathomable layer of complexity to every political/economic/social/philosophical issue. Any time I hear someone claim to have an all-encompassing theory of The Good, or a theory of humanity that all humans across the world and across cultures can rally behind, or one single avenue of values that is objectively the most important above all the others (for example that all people should identify above all else with their class status), I find myself thinking that the person making these claims has not looked hard enough at the real diversity that exists on this planet, and the myriad ways people can construct their belief systems and build their communities and their senses of self. In other words, theories like that (with that level of totality) just don’t seem feasible to me. That’s what I learned from this wonderful book.
January 2022
Great Courses: A Historian Goes to the Movies: Ancient Rome by Gregory S. Aldrete
A very light topic and a fun escape! It gave me a good excuse to finally watch Cleopatra. I’ve listened to a few of this professor’s courses, and he always does a great job. I wouldn’t say this particular course teaches a whole lot about Roman history, but it is a lot of fun! I’ve been curious about whether Gladiator was historically accurate, ever since I first saw it in the theaters when I was 15. Personally, I have been shying away from straight-up history lately (recently I’ve turned more toward philosophy instead), so this course was a way for me to dip my toe back in the “historical” waters, without going very deep at all.
Why? Well that’s a good question. Let me come back to that.
My ultimate goal is this: I want to do something about climate change. How can becoming an expert on Marxism help fight the climate battle? I’m not exactly sure, but that’s what I hope to find out.
First let me talk for a moment about climate change. It isn’t like the other political issues of our time. Sure when most media figures talk about gun control, abortion, voting rights, minimum wage laws, free trade, etc., they act as if the world itself hangs in the balance. But climate change stands above all those other issues. It is a real-life bona fide existential threat to humankind. When I picture in my mind the tribulation my children and grandchildren will face because of climate change, and the ambivalent responses our so-called leaders tend to offer toward addressing the crisis, I’m left feeling empty inside. The sense of frustration, impotence, and hopelessness are intense, I can hardly bear to engage with the issue whatsoever. Climate change is the reason I gave up watching cable news a few years ago; I simply can’t stomach to watch politicians and media outlets obsess about small-ball issues while ignoring or down-playing the actual looming threat that is staring us directly in our faces.
There are many reasons why politicians and corporate media outlets choose to ignore or downplay climate change, or pretend it isn’t caused by human activity, or cast doubts upon climate science itself as a field of study, but I will not go into that here. The point is that I want to do something about climate change. I want to contribute any way I can.
But how?
It just isn’t possible for me to change jobs and start working at a climate-focused non-profit, at least not right now. We have two young children who need our love, time, attention – and our financial stability. Our son Charlie has leukemia, so we need a good healthcare plan and a steady enough income to pay hospital bills. The point is that I can’t simply leave my job and go work for some organization that studies carbon capture technology. I have people who depend on me, so my life must maintain a certain level of stability for their sake. I won’t be switching careers just yet.
I’m also not a scientist. I do not have the necessary knowledge or credentials to work as a climate researcher. I would love to help advance the crucial research efforts that are taking place on the frontier of climate science, but that kind of research is not my strong suit. So I won’t be joining the army of citizen scientists who are seeking some kind of scientific solution to this problem.
And If I am being completely honest, I’m probably also not cut out to play an active role in a climate-focused political party either. Maybe it’s because I just don’t do particularly well with committee politics. Put me in a situation where I’m a member of a committee and we need to discuss and decide on an important issue, and I completely lose my mojo. Maybe I’m a bit too outspoken and tactless when debates gets started, which is not a helpful trait if one is trying to build up a fledgling political party (or trying to talk politics with friends). Or it could be that I have problems with authority; this has been suggested at various times in my life. So I’m not sure entering into party politics is the right path for me. I would still like to join a climate-focused party, but I’d prefer a behind-the-scenes role.
So what the heck can I do to help? How can a guy with no science background or political acumen, possessing very little free time or spending money, contribute to the most critical scientific and political problem facing mankind? I had to turn this problem over in my mind for a long while. What I came up with is this: I can write.
Maybe by writing I can be of some use. But what will I write about? Well I’m not sure about that yet either. I’ve never been especially serious about writing, though I’ve always known I have a certain knack for it. Thus far I’ve mostly only written about music composition. But I feel an intense urge to write something, anything, that might help with this cause. The motivation is there, so maybe that’s how I can play my small part, how I can help move the ball down the field.
Ultimately what I want to write about is not science but philosophy, political philosophy to be exact. Political philosophers study how people solve big problems, and sometimes they develop potential (or even groundbreaking) solutions to those problems. Climate change is the biggest problem we (our species) may ever face, so studying how our species can best respond to the crisis seems a fitting use of my time. Perhaps through philosophy I can help develop some workable solutions, collaborate with others on larger projects, find a suitable role for myself in a climate-focused party, and make some kind of impact. It’s a long shot I know, but it’s better than where I’ve been up to now: frustrated to such an extent at my inability to help in any way, that extreme apathy is my only weapon against despair.
I’ve chosen Marxism as my starting point. Marxism is a philosophical tradition that focuses on critiquing systems that are unjust, exploitative, and oppressive. It rips the mask off and reveals all the layers of rot lying beneath the surface, all the contradictions and lies. It also proposes (sometimes revolutionary) solutions to these problems; it is not a tradition that supports empty theorizing, but instead it seeks to pair theory with actual practice. In other words, Marxism takes a stab at understanding and solving big problems. So I will start there, and see what it has to offer. I’m not sure whether the solutions Marxism proposes will be worth a damn in the climate fight, but as I said it’s a starting place.
I am no expert in Marxism, so I will have to start from scratch. This is going to mean an intense course of study, and hopefully a lot of writing as I process these new ideas (new to me anyways). I genuinely wish to discover what concepts/philosophies/worldviews/lenses exist in the Marxist tradition, and whether any of them can actually be put to good use solving the climate crisis in the real world. And while there is a relatively new thread of Marxist thought that specifically examines the intersection of Marxism and environmentalism (see as an example: Organic Marxism – An Alternative to Capitalism and Ecological Catastrophe by Philip Clayton and Justin Heinzekehr), I will not start my course of study with environmental Marxism. I will start instead with Karl Marx’s own writings, and from there I will branch out into the writings of his predecessors and peers, and then onto the many diverse writers who took Marx’s worldview and extended it in so many directions. Along the way I will also read critiques of Marx and Marxism, as well as writers from other philosophical traditions who shared their views on Marxism, and whatever other angles I haven’t thought of yet. I’m looking to dive deep into this tradition, and see if I come out a changed man on the other side.
I am not starting this endeavor as a Marxist. Though my political leanings have always been on the left, I do not at this time call myself a Marxist, nor do I exactly understand what that even means. Can one be a Marxist if he simply concurs with Marx’s critique of capitalism? Or does one also have to believe in Marx’s vision of a future communist utopia to call oneself Marxist? For that matter, what did Marx really say about the future? Did he really advocate for a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” or was that just something Lenin added in? Did Marx actually believe that we could usher in communism via a worldwide revolution, or was that more of a metaphor for long-term change? How much of Marxism is just pure critique of the status quo, and how much consists of potential solutions to our problems? I want to know what this tradition has to offer a sick, sad world on the brink of ecological collapse. If there is anything useful in there, I want to learn it.
I also plan to separate out the parts of the tradition that are beyond saving: hopelessly outdated analyses, advocacy of programs for which the destructive or dangerous results far out-weigh potential benefits, one-sided or fallacious or propagandistic philosophical reasoning, and critique of a long-past world whose relevance to our own has faded beyond usefulness. One could say I am hunting for a “workable” Marxism, a “realistic” Marxism, one with real applicability in the modern world, shed of its darker or utopian elements. I seek in Marxism a tool that can be harnessed to bring beneficial change. I’m not sure at this time how much of this mission is possible. Critics tell me that it isn’t at all possible. It seems that most conservative (and many liberal) pundits want me to believe that 1) Marxism is evil and dangerous, 2) it will necessarily lead to the destruction of freedom, democracy, our children, religion, America, everything we hold dear, etc., and 3) it is also hopelessly irrelevant, a product of the 19th century that belongs in the dustbin of history. But listening to those guys – those corporate pundits whose large paychecks depend on their ability to endlessly and relentlessly flog Marxism – I get the impression they are really saying “whatever you do, don’t look over there! Don’t question capitalism. The status quo is perfect. Don’t look behind the curtain!” Well I intend to take a peek.
I recognize that Marxism has a checkered past. This philosophical/economic system has been blamed for many epic historical catastrophes, including genocides and totalitarianisms. I intend to discover exactly how the writings of Karl Marx are linked across the generations to Stalinism. I am going to learn in what ways those views were distorted or adapted by myriad thinkers and politicians and polemicists along the way. I want to examine the good and the bad of this tradition, with the intention of cutting out the bad parts and salvaging only what is useful. Are there parts of the Marxist philosophical framework that differ wildly from the dystopian Stalinist nightmare many Americans picture when they think about Marxism, or is totalitarianism the inevitable result of Marxism? Can we have Marxism without secret police, without gulags, without severe limitations on personal freedoms? For that matter, can we have Marxism without revolution, without violence? Based on what I’ve read so far, Marxist scholars have many disagreements on these questions.
Though many Americans likely picture Stalin as the timeless symbol of Marxism, in reality Stalinism is but one thin branch of the enormous Marxist tree. At this early stage in my studies I can already conclude that there is no longer just “one Marxism,” but many. During the past 150 years, a wide range of Marxist scholars and authors have weighed in on this tradition, each adding his or her own unique spin, each adapting or modernizing the tradition to meet the realities of the author’s time, each taking it in a new and exciting direction. In fact Marxism has become like a huge cave with countless labyrinthine tunnels; I plan to explore these tunnels and see where they lead (or where they dead-end). Of course not only Marxists have weighed in on Marxism; moral philosophers, feminists, economists, political scientists, and legal scholars have all explored how Marxism can weave and intertwine with these various disciplines. On top of that, a handful of countries have attempted to implement Marxist programs, and each time the result has been that Marxism combines with the culture of that country and comes away changed (and also Marxism changes the culture of the country as well). To make the tradition even more complex, modern Marxist organizations and parties are each contributing their own novel ingredients to the stew.
Despite all this vibrancy and diversity of thought, Marxism has been declared a dead tradition countless times (especially after the fall of the Soviet Union). Yet the tradition continues to attract talented writers and intellectuals to this day. I suspect there is something of monumental value here, and I intend to seek it out – and to disregard all that is toxic. So I’m aiming for that workable form of Marxism. And if that turns out not to exist (or if it only exists in such a corrupted form that it decays quickly or does more harm than good), then at least I’ll know that. But I’m hoping it exists! Above all, I hope that the collected wisdom of the Marxist tradition can actually help us fix our big problems.
This is only my first step toward becoming a political philosopher; Marxism is just my starting place. I’m uncertain where this study will lead me, but I intend to go as deep into it as I can. I intend to take it seriously. And of course I will always keep in mind my over-arching long-term goal: to work on climate change. But I still need to start somewhere. This starting point will allow me to work on my research/writing chops, build up a kind of foundational knowledge that will make it easier to jump into other areas of study later, and perhaps even uncover unforeseen truths that will help me build a philosophical system of my very own someday.
This graphic lays out the steps of my very rough “how I will help fight climate change” plan:
Obviously there are a lot of gaps in there. I’ll work on filling those in as I go. You may also notice that “enroll in a university” is not currently listed on there. Let me just say that I would love to pursue a higher degree in political philosophy. If I get the opportunity to do so, I will jump at it. However at this moment in my life that just isn’t feasible. I have neither the time nor the money to become an academic – though becoming an academic is my secret dream. Maybe when my kids are older I will make the jump, a step which is probably crucial if I actually wish to accomplish my goals. Not only would I learn so much from having peers and teachers (rather than studying alone), but the academic life would also give me the opportunity to build networks of friends and colleagues, professors and mentors, publishers and journals contributors. If I ever wish to see my work published outside of this website, those connections will be critical. Not to mention that the academic life gives one the opportunity to shine, if one sees fit to take up the challenge. There are endless research opportunities, access to the best libraries in the world, and colleagues with whom to collaborate on writing projects and new ideas; in other words universities offer a support network for those who wish to take their studies seriously, and a platform for those who want to break new ground. I believe I could rise to that occasion if given the opportunity, but that is for another day.
You may also wish to know why I don’t simply skip all the rigamarole and get straight to helping. Why not simply start writing about climate change right now, instead of going through all those extra steps? Why wait!
My answer is: I don’t want to just write about climate change. I don’t want to be a pundit, simply commenting on the here and now (as if I could even do that properly without research). I want to develop solutions! But I don’t feel ready to do that yet; I don’t feel like I know enough. I don’t know what’s possible or what’s been tried. I don’t have foundational knowledge on my topic – not the science of climate change, nor the political philosophies that might address it. If I hastily crank out a bunch of essays right now without doing any research, they will be full of factual or logical errors. They would certainly demonstrate my ignorance and lack of erudition on my topic, but probably would not accomplish much more than that. No, I need to do some studying first. I need to learn how to think and write and argue like a philosopher.
So onto Marx then!
Selected Writings by Marx and Engels
“On the Jewish Question” by Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 by Karl Marx
The German Ideology by Karl Max and Friedrich Engels
Capital (3 vols.) by Karl Marx
Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte by Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Program by Karl Marx
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels
Anti-Dühring by Friedrich Engels
Revolution and Counter Revolution by Friedrich Engels
Some areas I plan to explore:
Marx’s general contributions to philosophical/political thought
Marxism and Rights/Liberty
Marxism and Materialism
Marxism and Humanism
Marxism’s views on parliamentarism (using the state apparatus to create change)
Marxism’s different views on revolution
Marxism and Moral Philosophy
Marxism and Religion
Marxism and Political Violence
Marxism vs. Anarchism
Marxism and Science (Marxism is sometimes called a science)
Marxism and Grand Prophesies about the Future
Marxism and Human Nature
Marxism and Democracy
Marxism and the Dialectic
Criticism of Marxism
Distortions of Marx’s Ideas (i.e. how the ideas changed over time)
Marxism and its application in various countries
Marxism today (current Marxist movements/groups/parties and the arguments/tactics they employ)
Marxism and Environmentalism
I’m not particularly interested in writing an exhaustive study of how Karl Marx discussed certain themes or issues. I’m not after finding the ultimate orthodox Marxism. Instead I want to study the tradition, which outlived Marx and changed in countless ways as later scholars and thinkers expanded the tradition. The tradition lives on to this day, and changes every time a new writer picks it up. This allows the tradition to change with the times, and adapt to humankind’s changing needs. It’s a living tradition.
Here are some of the different thinkers and schools of thought I plan to study:
Classical Marxists: Marx, Engels, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxembourg
Social democrats and reformists: Bebel, Liebknecht, Eduard Bernstein, Lasalle
Leninists and Trotskyists: Lenin, Trotsky (perhaps also Alex Callinicos, Perry Anderson, Hal Draper – not sure if these guys would actually call themselves Leninists).
Western Marxists: Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Karl Korsch, Ernst Bloch. Sometimes included: Bertolt Brecht, Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, Alfred Sohn-Rethel
Frankfurt School: Horkheimer, Marcuse, Habermas, Adorno, Leo Lowenthal, Walter Benjamin, Alfred Schmidt
French Hegelians: Henri Lefebvre, Lucien Goldmann
Existentialist Marxists: Sartre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Simone de Beauvoir
Anti humanist, anti-Hegelian Marxists: Althusser, Galvano Della Volpe
Autonomist Marxists: Tony Negri, Harry Cleaver, Michael Hardt, John Holloway
Analytical Marxists (anti-dialectic): GA Cohen, Jon Elster, Adam Przeworski, John Roemer, Robert Brenner
English Marxists: Maurice Dobb, Christopher Caudwell, Maurice Cornforth, Raymond Williams
Neo-Marxists (Post-Marxists): Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis
Marxist historians: Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawm
Marxist writers working today: Philip Clayton, Justin Heinzekehr, Zizek, and many many more.
Critics of Marx: Leszek Kolakowski, Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, and many many more.
This endeavor may not actually lead anywhere useful, but it feels good to try something. It feels right to learn and better myself and expand my mind, even if climate change still kills us all in the end. But who knows, maybe I’ll learn something that makes a difference to someone somewhere. All I can do is try.
The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad by Fareed Zakaria
Zakaria’s full-throated defense of Madisonian democracy is still, 20 years later, surprisingly prescient and powerfully persuasive. He argues with great strength and cleverness that, though democracy is a good thing (and though we may worship it in the West), too much democracy makes governments dysfunctional, economies inefficient, and politics frustrating. He claims that in America we have democratized to such an extreme degree, that we’ve created a situation where our congressional leaders pander to public opinion rather than making difficult choices, where our outdated and voluminous tax code and byzantine subsidy system can never be reformed because of the power of lobbyists and special interest groups to sway legislation, where we have become convinced that the average citizen (though he doesn’t trust himself to fill out his own tax forms or write his own will) is qualified to go to Washington as a senator and write our laws. Along the way Zakaria predicts, in so many words, the rise of Trumpian billionaire-worshipping celebrity populism, the degradation of our corporate media, and the ever-worsening political gridlock in the congress. His solution is a return to elitist democracy (rather than the populist democracy gaining popularity on the right and left today), a democracy where the citizens delegate law-making and regulatory authority to undemocratic but highly qualified bodies that can steer our country in the right direction without having to contend with the whims of a fickle public. He wants the experts to rule, and for limits to be placed on the power of the majority (just as James Madison argued for), but simultaneously the civil liberties of the citizenry must be set in stone. In other words, the limits should be on democracy, not on individual liberty. He points to the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve as examples of elitist bodies that get it right more times than not, and calls for us to turn away from the sloppy sort of direct democracy that not only caused the downfall of Ancient Athens but is also responsible for the complete dysfunction of California’s own legislature. So in a sense, he wishes for the return of the smoke-filled room where important decisions get made. Zakaria is very wise, for though he lays this argument out in great detail, he does take time to acknowledge that the reason so many people have turned away from elitist democracy in recent years is because the elitists and experts, back during a time when people had more faith in leaders and institutions, caused so much irreparable harm through their poor decisions (see: Vietnam War). I was very pleased with this lovely book, so full of mind-expanding perspectives and deep research, and the ability to question his own arguments (something I consider crucial in any philosophical text). I am not entirely convinced yet that elitism is better or worse than democratization, nor do I agree with his main thesis that what ails America is TOO MUCH democracy (it often seems as if we are actually an oligarchy, or a democracy in name only). What Zakaria calls democratization, I call corporate takeover of our politics and culture… But this book still gave me much to think about.
November 2021
Debating Democracy by Bruce Miroff, Raymond Seidelman, and Todd Swanstrom
I loved reading this book. Every chapter addresses a particular question about democracy: is elite democracy better than popular democracy, should the federal government or the states control public policy, is the modern media beneficial or harmful to democracy, etc. Then for each issue, the editors place two competing essays side by side, each addressing the issue at hand and offering up an answer, both equally compelling and well-argued. I found my self impressed over and over with the arguments contained in the book. I really gained some new perspectives, and have been forced to reexamine some of my preconceived notions about democracy. This book makes me want to write about democracy.
Great Courses: The Big Questions of Philosophy by David Kyle Johnson
This is a fun and challenging course. While the main content is the “big questions” from philosophy (Is God real? How do we know we exist? Is true knowledge possible? Is there such a thing as objective moral laws? What is the most ethical type of government? etc), I think this course is actually about something else: how to make compelling logical arguments that can withstand scrutiny, and how to find flaws in philosophical/political arguments that rob the arguments of their power. For every lecture, the professor lays out major arguments that have been made throughout the history of philosophy by many of the greatest minds, then he systematically pokes holes in them all. Of course this is the nature of philosophy: there are no right answers to these unanswerable questions. So instead of seeking an absolute truth, the real purpose of studying these issues is two-fold: 1) get as close to the truth as we possibly can while making sure we aren’t being misled by faulty logic, and 2) learn how to craft one’s own arguments in such a way that they can withstand scrutiny. In other words, this course taught me how to look more carefully at philosophy and debate, to sniff out the logical fallacies, and thereby refine my own belief systems so I never fall into the same traps as past thinkers. And if I do hit those traps, I need to recognize it and adapt my thinking to make it as logical and correct as possible. This course is about how to reason carefully, which is a skill with endless applicability in the real world, whether or not one cares whether God’s existence can be proved or which type of government is the most ethical.
October 2021
After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre
This author argues that in our modern world the state of morality is in disarray. This is because one can never use reason to determine the right answer to moral questions, yet people often speak as if there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. Example: if a person opposes abortion because she believes all lives are sacred (and the fetus, being alive, is therefore sacred), while another person supports abortion rights because she believes strongly in the principle of liberty (so therefore the pregnant woman must possess the right to do as she pleases with her own body), there is no logical argument anyone can make that proves one of these women is correct and the other is wrong. One cannot use reason to prove that liberty supersedes the sanctity of an unborn life or vice versa; in the end it just comes down to personal preference. Yet in an abortion debate, all the different sides will speak as if their particular and unique sense of morality is the only absolute correct way of thinking. And in an age where there are so many different philosophies, religions, political perspectives, cultures, ideologies, and world views to choose from, and many of them offer compelling answers to the moral quandaries of our time, we find ourselves living in a world there everyone thinks he/she has found the correct answer, but in truth there isn’t one. If, when trying to solve a moral problem, multiple contradictory points of view are all equally valid, it makes the problem at hand even more intractable. Even historians, sociologists, philosophers, and economists ultimately fall back on their own personal preferences and biases when forming their conclusions and predictions, masking their personal opinions under a veneer of expert credibility. It seems this all leads to a bad case of moral relativism. The author has a solution in mind to this sticky problem: a deep reexamination of Aristotelian virtue ethics, and a prescription that we all join small communities or clubs where we can work with other humans to accomplish agreed-upon goals. While Aristotle’s ethics can definitively teach individuals how to live full and happy lives, I remain unconvinced that this solution even begins to solve the macro problem of moral relativism that pervades modern societies. Our world faces existential problems, so telling people simply to go find happiness in their individual lives smacks of nihilism… though I fall into this same moral relativism/nihilism trap as well (it’s not like I have a solution to climate change), and when I do I can at least find comfort in strategies that allow me to flourish in my own life. Maybe that’s the best most of us can do in the face of existential crises: join our little communities, focus on individual virtues, and work hard to construct happy lives, even in the face of the enormous intractable problems facing mankind. Or maybe I’ve just been super cucked by our individualist culture into thinking that humans are incapable of solving big problems, and all I’m left with is the selfish desire to live my own best life while I can. More to explore there. Anyways this book was my first deep dive into moral philosophy, and I’m glad I went in, though at times the writing meandered like a lazy river. This author’s knowledge of ethical philosophy is unimpeachable, and he makes me want to plunge even deeper into this rich intellectual tradition.
The Bhagavad Gita (translated by Eknath Easwaran)
The philosophy contained in this ancient little book is profound, elegant, and so very useful. It speaks right to the real challenges we all face in real life, and arms the reader with tools not only to weather whatever storms life may bring, but also to walk away with one’s soul and spirit intact. In other words, it’s basically a handbook on how to live a happy and fulfilled life, even when faced with tragedies or ethical quandaries or challenging situations where no matter which choice you make you (or someone you care about) will suffer a loss. One can use this book as a tool to find his or her own unique purpose in life, to find meaning in each day and through the decades. It was also Gandhi’s favorite book! I’ve written more about what I learned from the Bhagavad Gita here: https://www.senigaglia.com/timeless-lessons/
September 2021
Philosophy 101 by Paul Kleinman
I really enjoyed this charming little survey of philosophy! The book is not in chronological order, so the authors are free to jump from Bertrand Russell to Aristotle to moral relativism to ethics to Jean-Jacques Rousseau to the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The way the author leads the reader from topic to topic is really creative way to present this material. The author especially excelled whenever he discussed language. Great book to pick up and put down over the course of many months.
The Great Courses: Moral Decision Making: How to Approach Everyday Ethics by Clancy Martin
Each episode of this series deals with a moral question we all face in daily life, such as “am I morally obligated to give to charity?” and “Is it ever ok to lie?”. The professor, Clancy Martin, is a real hoot! I really appreciate the insight, honesty, and personal touch he brings to each lecture. He not only dives into what history’s great thinkers wrote about ethics, but he also shares about his own personal tragedies, his alcoholism, his divorces, hard lessons he’s learned in life, and choices he’s made that he’s not proud of. Just a quick example of this honesty: here’s an article he wrote about all the times he’s been arrested for being drunk in public. The professor’s style and honesty really made this course for me. The only limitation was that sometimes the author’s own personal philosophies steered the conversation, and that limited the breadth of the teaching. For example, in the episode that discussed whether private property as a concept is ethical, he did not really explore the thinkers who have argued that it is not (such as Karl Marx). The professor seemed to operate from an assumption that it is ethical, and it’s only a matter of figuring out whether it is only somewhat or very ethical. But really, I still recommend this one. I felt a genuine connection with this guy.
State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin
The State and Revolution is perhaps Vladimir Lenin’s most influential piece of writing. The book is many things: a scathing polemic directed against Lenin’s political adversaries, a stirring collection of prophesies and predictions about the socialist revolution to come, a call to arms for workers to unite and rise up, and a philosophical treatise that argues for the violent overthrow of the capitalist state. There is much I disagree with in this text, and I hope to write a proper critique sometime soon.
August 2021
On Violence by Hannah Arendt
This short book was supposed to be a philosophical deep dive into the concept of violence: how and why humans use it, its justifications, how to define it, what proper role – if any – it should play in human affairs, its morality, the psychological effect it has on those involved in violent acts, etc. However the book was simply too brief to accomplish all that, and the author got too caught up in seemingly minor tangents that carried outsize importance during the time the book was written (e.g. the student uprisings of the late 1960s), but today seem laughably unimportant in comparison to other more momentous historical events that could have been analyzed instead. I wish she had taken the task at hand more seriously, because I genuinely want to read such a study on violence, and I’d love to read normative analysis of the role violence should or should not play in future revolutions. Instead, I think this essay devolves into simple commentary on the events of her day, which of course prevents this from being any kind of timeless philosophical tract.
The Great Courses: Quest for Meaning: Values, Ethics, and the Modern Experience by Robert H. Kane
This course is really about how our modern, technologically advanced, capitalist, liberal, individualist, democratic society has created a pandemic of moral relativism. In other words, people no longer know what to believe, in terms of belief systems, morals, and even basic facts. It may have been easier for people to make up their minds in ancient and medieval times, when societies weren’t so pluralistic, and entities like the church or monarchy were able to effectively control public opinion and morals. But today there are oh so many opinions available in our free society – religious, political, ethical, economic, scientific, cultural – that it can be difficult for thinking people to take a firm stance, or to know which outlook is the most valid. Should I be a Marxist, a Christian, a liberal, a fascist, a Hindu, a rugged individualist, a communitarian, a nihilist, an incrementalist, or one of the other infinite options? How to choose?? This professor does a fine job laying out the arguments for and against moral relativism, as well as what philosophers have thought about freedom, ethics, democracy, and public morality, and he does so with a charming Boston accent and a lot of cute jokes thrown in. At times sadly I think this course is a bit dated, caught up in a that “late nineties, pre-9/11, pre-climate disaster, post-fall of the Soviet Union” fad of believing there was a growing worldwide “overlapping consensus” that liberal capitalism was the best possible solution to the world’s ills. I think, if that consensus did at one time exist, it is badly fracturing. The professor also confidently states that Marxism is dead, but he doesn’t explain whether he is speaking about Marx’s prescient critique of capitalism, or Marx’s more utopian predictions about the future. I got the impression the professor dismissed Marx when it was trendy to do so, without really wrestling with Marx’s class-focused lens, nor with the impending disasters wrought by capitalism. Really, the professor’s own opinions (classical liberal, opposed to moral relativism, believer in capitalism) shined through just a hair too frequently, and made this piece a class for its time (the 90s), rather than a timeless classic.
July 2021
The Great Courses: Meaning of Life: Perspectives from the World’s Great Intellectual Traditions by Jay L. Garfield
I entered this course with a mild interest in philosophy, and left it with a profound hunger to consume philosophical texts, and to think consciously about how to live a fulfilled life. I’ve never been so inspired to read and think about this subject, though I suppose I have been pondering it casually since I was a kid. I took a philosophy course in college, but only now am I beginning to understand how philosophy can be used as a tool to understand the world, the universe, the self, the point (or lack of a point) of it all. My hat is off to this gifted and eloquent teacher. I will listen to this again I am certain. I also have much reading to do. Ok I’ll just say it: this course may have changed my life.
May-June 2021
An Introduction to Political Philosophy by Jonathan Wolff
This author is a masterful explainer, and he possesses a powerful philosophical mind. He doesn’t just summarize the major ideas of great political philosophers, but he challenges them, and puts them through a gauntlet of philosophical analysis. In the end, we see the perks and flaws of the theories of Locke, Rousseau, Mill, and we also understand that all “normative” philosophies are up for debate. His description of the leftist critique of liberalism was the clearest I’ve ever encountered. However I do wish there was a bit more of a Marxist lense at certain points, and at times the book speaks lovingly about modern liberal capitalism in a way that feels a bit dated, especially since the only allusion to climate change (a direct result of modern capitalism) is a brief mention of “externalities”. When the book is on philosophical ground the writing is superb, but when he dips into pure economics he seems somewhat out of his depth (or behind the times anyhow). Regardless, I recommend! I learned a lot, and it got me thinking. I would retitle this book Intro to Western Liberal Political Philosophy.
April 2021
Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson
Einstein’s story is lovingly told in a quite informal manner, which fits the subject quite well. Einstein remade physics in the 20th century, but was never fully comfortable with the ramifications of his own theories (quantum spookiness), nor did he ever really seem to fit in anywhere he went. This story dives into how an unknown patent clerk revolutionized our understanding of the universe and became a world-wide mega celebrity for it, yet somehow maintained his disarming, sloppy, absent-minded manner to the end. Einstein is funny and kind and lovable, a sweet and (in some ways) innocent genius wandering amusedly through a wacky life. Even when he had to flee Nazi Germany, when the Germans confiscated his home and labelled him an enemy, he kept his sense of humor. Above all, I learned that Einstein was very human. Unlike Gandhi, Einstein was no saint on earth. He was a skilled physicist, but struggled at times with being a loving husband or an attentive father (he preferred to focus on work). He never quite learned to hold his tongue, and often got into public arguments with those who disagreed with him (or his theories). And even in physics, he wasn’t always correct (he never accepted quantum uncertainty, even when it was experimentally verified). Despite his genius, I found him entirely relatable.
March 2021
Two Years Before the Mast by Richard Henry Dana
This book is still, after almost 200 years, powerfully moving and often hilarious. The author was a Harvard grad (and talented writer) who decided to try his hand as a sailor on board a merchant ship, and this book is the harrowing story of his two year trip from Boston, around Cape Horn, to California and back. The narrative is filled with wry first-hand observations of the sailors life, and many funny stories of the ridiculous characters the author encounters along the way. His telling of the perilous voyage around the horn, as their ship battled arctic storms and advancing scurvy, is terrifying and incredible. And there’s some flogging action in there for good measure.
February 2021
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess by Bobby Fischer
This is a great book to start with if you’ve never played chess, or if you know the basics of the game but have never put much thought into how to play well. This book dives into the most basic checkmates, and also starts to train the reader on the kinds of pattern recognition that underpins Bobby Fischer’s chess genius.
The Great Courses:Redefining Reality: The Intellectual Implications of Modern Science by Steven Gimbel
These lectures are unique, varied, and deeply interesting! Every lecture is a different topic: physics, sociology, genetics, culture, economics, and more. The professor is a brilliant summarizer of big new ideas, as well as the current unanswered questions that taunt philosophers and scientists today. Pick any lecture, and there will be something in there that opens your eyes and maybe even challenges the way you see the world.
January 2021
Great Ideas in Classical Physics by Steven Pollock
Dr. Pollock is a truly gifted teacher. His explanations of the major discoveries in classical physics are so clear and understandable, that he allows you to focus on just how mind-blowing the laws of physics really are. This course really opened my eyes, and taught me many new ways to see the universe. I want to know more!
Meetings with Remarkable Manuscripts by Christopher De Hamel
This author lovingly leads the reader on an in-depth tour of some of the world’s oldest and most treasured books, as well as the libraries where they are kept. The stories behind the books are fascinating, as are the author’s breathless descriptions of the books themselves, and the meaning behind the magnificent artwork inside them (not to mention the scribbles in the margins made by some anonymous monk 1,200 years ago). Full of glossy pictures of the old books. Great book to pick up and put down whenever you want.
Fascinating and funny too! Goes into epic detail about how the different parts of the brain affect human behavior, and how brain chemistry can help us understand why humans can be so aggressive/racist/warlike and also so nurturing/sensitive/empathetic.
Isaac Asimov’s Magical World of Fantasy, Volume 1: Wizards by various authors
Such a fun collection! My favorite is the story “Mazirian the Magician” by Jack Vance.
September – November 2020
The Expanse Series (Books 1-8) by James S.A. Corey
What can I even say about one of the greatest sci-fi series ever written by man? These stories are so innovative and far-reaching, truly mind-bending; meanwhile the characters are so lovable and relatable… I just love these books so much. And they got me interested all over again in learning much more about physics!
August 2020
The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South by Vijay Prashad
Though the writing style is a bit monotonous, this book is eye opening and heartbreaking. It rips the veil away and reveals the lies underpinning the “story of America’s economic greatness” that is taught in every classroom in this country. I left this book feeling fully disenchanted with economics, capitalism, billionaires, and the way America conducts itself in the world.
July 2020
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari
This writer is a master at making connections, tying together different branches of science and sociology and archeology into a picture that explains who we are, how we got here, and what drives us. His writing style is forceful, even aggressive at times, but brilliant throughout; he paints such a convincing and captivating picture of the way he sees things, it’s tough to argue with his logic. His views can be controversial at times, and he presents his ideas with a lot of attitude, which make this book a real fun read. I’m not certain that Harari is spot-on with all his theories, but don’t let that stop you from allowing this book to change the way you see humanity.
Understanding Marxism by Richard Wolff
This is a very brief book, basically aimed at identifying the major problems with capitalism. While I sympathize with the arguments, the author did not go into any level of depth regarding solutions to these problems. He simply takes for granted that socialism is the solution, without bothering to prove it, or to dive into any of the sticky situations socialism can create. I need solutions, not just identification of problems. Here are some thoughts on the matter.
April – June 2020
Gandhi and India Trilogy by Ramachandra Guha
When the Covid-19 virus hit the US and we all had to lockdown, I decided to finally research a man I had long wanted to understand: Mohandas Gandhi. These books did much more than tell me about his life; they expanded my mind and invited me into a completely different way of seeing (and existing in) the world. Gandhi still has so so much to teach us all: about how to somehow feel so much love and passion and connection with all of humanity that you’d be willing to sacrifice your body to spread peace, while also embodying detachment and desirelessness, a man without anger or pride, a man at peace with himself and universe. Gandhi took these dual, perhaps opposing, outlooks to their extremes throughout his life. Was he successful at creating a more peaceful world? Well that’s a question worth discussing.
January 2020
How the Earth Works by Michael Wysession
This is probably my favorite Great Course I’ve ever listened to. This professor is so talented: with a calm a laid-back demeanor he dives into so many fascinating scientific topics, and his mastery is apparent in every lecture. Learn the inner workings of Earth, the formation of the solar system, the role that life plays in the geology of the planet, why earth is a giant magnet, and how each and every one of us are all part of a giant connected cycle that never ends. This lecture course made me feel so connected to my planet and the living things on it. It also made me question whether anything humans create can ever be called permanent or important. Eye opening and mind blowing all the way through.
