Marxism and Relativism ...

[Archaea]

Why is Marx not considered existentialistic at all?

It seems some of his stuff though not post-modernistic could be aligned with such.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why is Marx not considered existentialistic at all?

It seems some of his stuff though not post-modernistic could be aligned with such.

Sartre tried to put existentialism and Marxism together. There are some fundamental contradictions, though: Existentialism would have us responsible for our choices while Marxism chalks up quite a bit to inherited economic circumstances.

More than a few versions of post-modernism have been put forward by disenchanted Marxists. Typically (and I'm being way too fast and loose here), postmodernists of this sort have rejected all grand narratives, including Marx's grand narrative (historical materialism culminating in communism). One might argue that their grand narrative is that there are no grand narratives. They've forgone discussions of "dominant ideology" for "discourse" and "micropower." Enter the Focaultians (and others).

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The truth of the state is inseperable from historic material conditions.

I can think of one branch of Marxism that might have you voting for Romney, though. The social scientists think that all of the attempts to reform and make capitalism friendlier are just prolonging its reign. They think we should let the Romney's of the world run things without encumberance because they'll bring on revolution, or the collapse of the private property system, or something.

Needless to say, most Marxists find them suspect.

But what if those historic material conditions are a fabrication or an elaborate ruse?

It is quite schizophrenic but my Marxist sensitivities do not prohibit me from wanting to vote for Romney … maybe that’s just a condition of my up bringing?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

Marx was not a relativist. If you ever met his mother in law you would know why.

I don't care who you are, now that's funny right there! lol

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Let me try to justify this thread's presence in the religious studies forum.

Sorry, I really didn't know where else to put this thread? I enjoyed your post.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But what if those historic material conditions are a fabrication or an elaborate ruse?

It is quite schizophrenic but my Marxist sensitivities do not prohibit me from wanting to vote for Romney … maybe that’s just a condition of my up bringing?

Is not my middle class wealth remarkable relative to the middle class wealth of a South American citizen? Certainly I am worth more, own more, have access to more via my buying power; yet he/she relative to his/her ecomomy is worth as much, owns as much and has access to as much via his/her buying power ... in otherwords we both have access to what we need, yet one of us may be more easily convinced that more of our wants are in fact additional needs?

[woot]

I always thought that Marx's "opiate of the people" remark was a positive thing. Wasn't he referring to religion as a good way for people to be able to deal with life, rather than as a pejorative "religion is for stupid sheep" type of thing? I could be totally wrong on that.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by tooblue

yet one of us may be more easily convinced that more of our wants are in fact additional needs?

And is this not the aim of marketing -the greatest lie ever told?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

I always thought that Marx's "opiate of the people" remark was a positive thing. Wasn't he referring to religion as a good way for people to be able to deal with life, rather than as a pejorative "religion is for stupid sheep" type of thing? I could be totally wrong on that.

I believe it is an equally possitive remark as it a negative one. For me there is an inherant optimism in Marxism that is intoxicating.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

4 ... To be brief, Marx was mistaken in thinking that human labor would be more profitable than machine labor and that the connection between labor and value was more important than the subjective judgment of purchasers ...

And here's where the artist in me get's all riled up ... in fact I believe this is what so often fuels the hate for an artist like Robert Batement and the comercial success of the sale of his 'prints'. (if I am reading this part of your point correctly)

It is beyond absurd that the subjective judgement of purchasers values a machine reproduction of a (paint by numbers) painting by one man over the original art of many artists. Such gross ignorance is infuriating and incredibly depressing.

And who or what is responsible for this ruse ... and is it relative?