Overcoming the Misconceptions of Marxism
The Basic Attitude Towards an Idea#
Russell once mentioned in an interview and also stated in his book about Marx. "Marx, like everyone else, believed that his doctrine was true; he did not think it was merely an expression of the emotional state of a German middle-class Jew in the mid-nineteenth century. What can we say about this contradiction between subjective and objective views of a philosophy?"
Everyone's thoughts are precious to themselves, even if their theories are despised by others, they still cherish them. However, if anyone believes that their theory is the absolute truth, they have reached the limit of their thinking. However, no matter how closely thoughts align with the objective world, the gap between subjectivity and objectivity cannot be crossed. And the more a theory involves, the wider its scope, the more difficult it is to grasp. And when it comes to social sciences that involve the subject as the main focus, even philosophy, if they want to establish standards that apply to the objective world, they have not considered the gap between subjectivity and objectivity.
In addition, a person's thinking is a process of constant revision. I don't even know where my understanding will go tomorrow. The only thing I can be sure of is that what I write is just a fleeting fragment of my constantly revised thinking, it is something of the past.
Of course, a person's thinking is also influenced by language techniques, etc. Therefore, it is normal to have a critical attitude towards any kind of thinking.
Summary of Marxist Critics' Views#
I have seen many people criticize Marxism, and they can be classified into the following categories.
-
They believe that Marxism is not part of Chinese traditional culture and is a foreign colonial ideology. This viewpoint is widely circulated on the internet, and a student used this argument to criticize a political class. In history, the thoughts of the pre-Qin philosophers were indigenous to China, but the later Buddhist and natural rights thoughts originated from outside. Historical origins cannot be the starting point for criticizing a theory.
-
They believe that Marxism is very vague, simple, and easy to understand, suitable for unifying people's thinking. "Material determines consciousness, and consciousness has a dynamic counteraction on matter," and then everything needs "specific analysis" and focuses on the "main contradiction"... These indeed reflect the emptiness of Marxism's applicability, but the theory itself is empty. Even so, it can only be said that Marxism is useless.
-
They believe that Marxism is too dogmatic in its own views and cannot be questioned. An ideology is a theory, and human cognition is limited. To believe that one's views cannot be refuted is to block the path of theory revision. Reserving the path for theory revision itself is a kind of respect for the objective world.
Reflections on Critics' Views#
The above examples are not a comprehensive survey, but they are the majority of cases I have personally seen. These critics' views are highly political and often like to cite the rise and fall of communist countries, various disasters and death tolls, using a bundled sales method to highlight the harmfulness of Marxism as a thought. Therefore, these critics are not trying to directly refute Marxism, but rather criticizing it on the periphery of the theory.
Just like the Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, common sense believes that Achilles can certainly catch up with the tortoise, but common sense reasoning is not enough to overturn a theory. As the saying goes, "to solve a problem, you must understand the problem." Only by using magic can you defeat magic. So, when it comes to Marxism, if you want to criticize it, the most thorough way is to confront it directly.
Attempting a Direct Critique#
I am not concerned about the various ontological, epistemological, and methodological aspects of Marxist thought because at the level of thought, an idea is always safe. But when a theory attempts to touch the external world, we must examine it and find the bridge it tries to establish between subjectivity and objectivity.
The Bridge of Marxist Intervention in the World#
This bridge is the analysis of economic laws by Marxism, which discovers surplus value and criticizes the system that upholds the private ownership of the bourgeoisie, as well as the political system and other superstructures created by the bourgeoisie to maintain private ownership.
Marxism believes that to solve the exploitation of bourgeois private ownership, it is necessary to change the material foundation of bourgeois private ownership and replace it with public ownership, thereby reclaiming surplus value from the hands of capitalists and promoting the development of human labor. In the absence of exploitation, the transition to communism is only a matter of time.
The Reasonableness of Marxist Criticism of Capitalism#
The most significant difference between capitalism and feudalism is the level of economic development. In the feudal era, even if peasants suffered from hunger, they did not work at night. However, in the capitalist era, with the exploration of nature by humans, more and more things that can satisfy people's material needs have emerged. The original simple production relations have been replaced by complex social relations brought about by technological progress.
Initially, peasants relied on land for survival, and the king owned the land through politics, which was a relatively stable and mature political system. However, as more products that can satisfy people's needs emerged, the existing social system became outdated and did not effectively control the new means of production, while the emerging bourgeoisie actually gained certain economic power. The economic relations of the king's ownership of the land were impacted. The bourgeoisie wanted to confirm these economic relations through laws.
In England, the bourgeoisie succeeded after the Glorious Revolution. Although the French Revolution went through twists and turns, the revolution has already solidified the bourgeoisie's position. Liberal capitalism developed rapidly during this period. However, capitalism encountered its first problem, the limit of exploiting labor.
In 1848, the Communist Manifesto was published, and the French Revolution broke out in 1789, and the American Revolution broke out in 1775. During the rapid development of capitalism for more than half a century, Marx saw the shortcomings of capitalist private ownership. The greatest beneficiaries of the revolution were a small number of bourgeoisie, and with the continued accumulation of capital, a few bourgeoisie controlled immense wealth. At this stage, the rights of laborers were not protected, so it was natural to want to shatter bourgeois private ownership and its political system.
But in the 20th century, labor rights were protected. The right to vote gradually expanded. The system of labor unions protected, and the right to strike guaranteed... A balance was reached between capitalists and laborers.
But does this mean the victory of capitalism? The essence of capitalist exploitation of surplus value remains unchanged, and the trend of a few people controlling a large amount of wealth still exists. Capitalism will always have this contradiction. This is the reasonableness of Marxism. So, modern people like to talk about the chaebols in South Korea, and the swamps in the United States.
The Unreasonableness of Marxist Criticism of Capitalism#
There is no perfect thing in the world. Capitalism has achieved the development of human society by stimulating desires and utilizing the development of science and technology, and has pacified the eruption and expansion of contradictions between labor and capital during the development process. Capitalism is not a product that appears out of thin air but is a natural development in human society, reflecting the laws of human development and having conservative characteristics.
Capitalism is indeed imperfect, but if we want to rectify human society, it does not necessarily mean socialism, which changes through public ownership.
In the article Exploration of the Material Basis for a "Communist Society", the author refutes the claim that "private ownership is the root of all problems" and proposes that "the decentralization and non-concentration of the material basis are the foundation of establishing a non-exploitative society."
Public ownership leads to the separation of individuals from material resources and weakens individuals' ability to survive.
The Logical Starting Point for Marxist Intervention in the World#
Aristotle once proposed the concepts of "distributive justice" and "corrective justice." The former achieves fair distribution of wealth through legislation and is primary. The latter is only a supplement to distributive justice and often restores justice through the judiciary. 
Marx believed that capitalist private ownership allows surplus value from exploitation to flow to the capitalists, which is essentially an understanding of the unfair distribution of benefits. His viewpoint is that through public ownership, through a deliberate change in the economic foundation, the redistribution of benefits can be achieved.
Private ownership, as a long-standing system, has already completed the distribution of wealth through a one-time allocation without intermediaries, naturally and without obstacles. Public ownership requires the mediation of the state, which is unnatural and costly. It is precisely because public ownership requires an intermediary that rulers are enthusiastic about Marxism. They are not concerned about other materialistic worldviews. Many high-ranking officials are enthusiastic about seeking gods and buddhas, which is also a big example. As the saying goes, the earth is just a grain of sand.
Reflecting on the Division of Interests from an "Objective" Perspective#
Since the 20th century, the law has indeed protected the rights of laborers, but this is not the credit of the law, but the manifestation of the power of laborers. The law only provides rules for resolving justice and avoids unnecessary sacrifices. Changing the current situation of exploitation by replacing private ownership with public ownership is a superficial system.
Following the guidance of Marxist consciousness on the counteraction of matter, it is certainly necessary to transform the material basis of public ownership. However, these people ignore the objective laws and do not know where the material basis of private ownership lies. How can private ownership be changed? Using the consciousness counteraction of matter is a very dangerous way, but these people are full of confidence.
Just like the existence of information leaks in reality, why? Because information is collected and centralized, it is easy to leak. Just like the various ethical issues in scientific experiments, these boundaries will eventually be broken. For example, the control of various drugs, this control will also become increasingly powerless. For example, a secret is only a secret if only one person knows it, but it is not a secret if two people know it. Because of information leaks, conducting experiments, the manifestation of certain characteristics through drug use, is like the increase of entropy. But it is not an increase in entropy. Our estimation model for these things is that the more things become easier to do, the more the motivation to do them increases or does not decrease, as time goes on, these things will definitely be done.
So if we want to achieve our goals, the only way is to never tell others, not to voluntarily submit our information, and allow and regulate this kind of experiment, creating a healthy new type of drug. The above are attempts to solve problems using an objective method. Maybe I can't find the right words and can only use the word "objective".
Similarly, if we want to solve the problem of human exploitation, the problem of surplus value in private ownership, we need to look at whether private ownership is becoming easier or whether public ownership is becoming easier in the long run. The root of this private ownership is the relationship between individuals and groups. The more individuals are unable to independently complete increasingly complex tasks, the more cooperation is needed to promote progress, and this exploitation is the cost of cooperation.
Or, it is the role differentiation brought about by social division of labor, the new evolution of humans brought about by division of labor, at least in the field of wealth. Or it is this trend...
Conclusion#
Pointing out others' mistakes is easy, it is just a reckless attempt to replace private ownership with public ownership. But how to solve the problem of human exploitation, whether we need to solve the problem of human exploitation, whether humans will be exploited, when humans will no longer exploit animals, when humans will be exploited by animals... These are the most confusing and even frightening questions.
If one understands this, perhaps there would be no need to criticize Marxism at all because criticism or praise itself may be a joke.
20230719 afternoon