Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
“It is not people's consciousness that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness.”
Marx wrote this even before Das Kapital, in the preface to the Critique of Political Economy.
The delusional nature of this postulate is obvious.
It is human nature to consciously improve our existence, otherwise we would still be producing horse harnesses, phonograph needles, and carburetors.
Despite the fact that social existence has not undergone significant changes, the 10 commandments and the 7 deadly sins are still relevant.
As for economics, Marx's theory is based on the fact that labor has the right to a fair share in the division of the product, since man is the main productive force. �
The fallacy of this construction is also obvious, especially from the height of the years.
Man was the main productive force in the pre-industrial period.
In the industrial and post-industrial periods, other factors are the main ones – scientific and technological progress, capital flows, and management technologies.
With these factors, the employee cannot claim a share in the profit sharing.
The popularity of Marx is associated with a high degree of scientific knowledge and depth of study. �
But given the fallacy of the origins-not the foresight of scientific and technological progress, the effect of an incorrectly buttoned first button turned out — all further actions do not lead to the expected result. In the end, Marx's followers spent millions of lives implementing a theory based on error.
In the animal world-yes! If you consider that they have the rudiments of the mind. But man is an intellectual creature and can change his being if possible. If not, be aware of it and endure it with an effort of will. Deliberately.
the life of Marx himself is a refutation of his own principles – take for example the fact that he created his doctrine directed against capital with the money of the capitalist Engels, lived at the expense of capital – he was as poor as a church mouse-he did not even have money for a coffin for the funeral of his children.
Or another symbolic case: Marx devoted his entire life to making life easier for the oppressed and destitute. In his life, there was one person who corresponded to all the class characteristics of the “oppressed” — the very class that Marx was trying to liberate. Her name was Elena Demut, and she was a loyal servant of the Marx family. How had Carl treated her?
Once he either raped or seduced Elena, and she got pregnant. Karl kept this unfortunate fact from his beloved wife, Jenny, as long as he could. But when a boy was born in the Marx house, it became obvious that something very obscene had happened. Jenny became hysterical and spent several months in a state of nervous exhaustion.
Marx pretended that Elena's boy didn't exist. One of his biographers, Robert Payne, explained: “Marx's life was devoted to creating a revolutionary legend of heroic proportions; the rape of the maidservant did not fit in with this legend. So he rejected the child, didn't want to have any relationship with him, and didn't even help support him.” How symbolic, isn't it? Is it not since then that communism is so infected with fanaticism, myth-making, and unwillingness to see the facts, and most importantly – its own logs in the eye?�
Now, as for the thesis you mentioned – here, too, Marx himself is a refutation of the thesis. Why? Yes, because his being, which surrounded him, did not contribute at all to the determination of his consciousness – on the contrary, having been born into a family of rabbis, his consciousness was not determined by this being, was not even determined by the prevailing “being” at that time, but went its own way, repeating it for many millions of wandering souls. So here on the face again the same demagogy.
“Social being determines SOCIAL consciousness.”
There is no delirium here.
We have a certain set of available resources, ways to use them, and ways to distribute the benefits derived from their use.
In accordance with these conditions, in the process of using and distributing resources, we develop ways of interacting with other people, define social roles, and establish a system that regulates the activities of society. This is a social being.
And we grow in this system, assimilating appropriate models of social behavior, perception of ourselves and other members of society (in the context of social connections, not personal qualities). The aggregate behavior of all members of society determines its appearance and ways of development. This is the public consciousness.
If in your own words, then something like this.