KARL MARX : The Arguments of the Philosophers
The reconstruction of Marx’s views on the sale of timber is plausible . Wood , however , concludes by examining two arguments and ignore Marx concluded that most people in capitalism must be disposed of, but should be under socialism . Not discarded The first of these arguments is that the detailed division of labor must exist in capitalism , not less. socialism . Wood suspects that this argument is ” obsolete ” . Indeed mechanical sorting (59 ) ” Sure, it would be difficult to argue that capitalism still has a tendency to put all the work in the unskilled are ” . , The skills of employees are not updated . Since the work Harry Braverman and Monopoly Capital argue that such developments as scientific management and the study of the movement of time , extended beyond factories to offices and service activities have routine work even more intensively on industries that Marx foresaw . Moreover , as Marx claimed , this massive deskilling dictated not by technology but by training lor benefits of capitalism . Thus systems with modern machines can be used without workers being relegated to the routine work of maintaining the management experts . But labor costs tend to be replaced by great not as skilled workers – skilled , trained and easy to replace.That the second argument of Marx that I find wrong wood is that true freedom is possible under socialism , but not in capitalism.1 Here , Wood seems ready to ” the Marx confidence in human resources to accept modern science and technology” ( 57). In Marx ‘ The association of producers , ” all people are considered collectively and rationally to the distribution of their business to determine the total productive efforts and the nature of its institutions and thus shape the needs conscious. Marxian hypothesis that technological progress to make this possible seems to assume that all members ol understand what a technologically advanced society is done , why , in all areas of social life , and the interconnection between all spheres . In this . Max Weber argued that the scientific and technological progress has been and should be closely correlated with expertise . As explained above , let’s admit that a detailed division of labor is not required . By technology Modern science and technology can necessarily correlated , but with a professional differentiation : the institutionalization of economics, engineering , medicine, etc. as separate lines of research and professions and growth of sub – specialties within professions . Con – commitantly , it may be physically impossible for more than a few members of a technologically advanced society , which , medicine , education and the capitalist or socialist energy policy , to understand the current practice example . Much less can we achieve a holistic understanding of social life ” free producers ” of Marx have. Instead of considering this challenge Weber , Wood simply says that “the burden ol proof seems to be on those who want to defend these paradoxes ” ( 57 ) as a science and technology not tend to the freedom Marx envisioned possible . Wood fails to consider another challenge I think, if ¬ wing ol Marx faces. How socialist revolution can not be in the interests of the working class , despite massive opposition from the workers in this century ? Closest approach of Wood is saying I have to say I see no difficulty [ by assigning class interests ] . Interests ” classes are favored by and only by those objectives ol ‘ political movements ( in Marxist theory ) make real class .. Promotes FHE goals of a class movement … should not be identified with that individual members of the class , or the class as a whole , shows that its objectives at a given moment in history . Rather, they are identified with historical mission “of the class” ( 96) . For Marxists today, however , is not the crucial question : who should decide what the real political struggle is the ” historical mission ” of the working class revolutionaries can legitimately impose massive suffering , as Georg Lukacs for an alleged what behalf they have, but no employees , see this mission? Is the only recourse for any person to be the best judge of his fat interests and ignore Marx’s thesis that people under capitalism are always wrong about what are their interests ? Is a useful compromise that workers are worn by revolutionaries see their true interests through a process of clarification on the model of Freudian therapy? Through the suggestion of Jürgen Habermas Bois never mentions this debate . Finally , the explanation reflection wood how Marx capitalism can condemn and veterinary requirements that transactions between capitalists and workers are correct , it seems the difference between moral philosophers Marx underestimated. Wood interprets Marx that the distinction ” between recovery or do anything because the conscience or” moral law ” tells us that we ” need ” and to use or do something, because it meets our needs , desires or our beliefs about what good for us ” ( 126 ) . Given this distinction between moral and non- moral goods, Marx criticize capitalism for not providing this non- moral goods as ” self-actualization , safety , physical health, comfort , community , freedom ” ( 127 ) and still claim that it cares about justice and other legal standards . Wood admits that ” the distinction between moral and non ¬ moral goods is never explicitly drawn by Marx , ” but justifies its use in the interpretation of the argument that the distinction “is a well-known (both in philosophy and in the life of every day ) and it is not implausible to think that Marx could be tacitly aware and even significant use of them without attending the “(127 ) .
Instead , Marx could point is not that people under capitalism distinction between moral and oily types of evaluation and that these different forms of criticism as such are illegal? Especially in the capital / s’ discussions of simple reproduction and production on a progressive scale , Marx states that relations between capitalists and workers seem fair if and only if they are considered ignoring transaction per transaction rather leads to a certain area and future transactions in a particular market promotion. These relationships also appear just if and only if they are considered only between individuals , regardless of class relations leads individuals to exchange them do and how the exchange of individuals to turn their replicate class relations . This atomism and individualism is essential Marx holds judgments of justice made in terms of commodity production . However, it should be absent adequate judgment of capitalist relations . Is not this means recognizing that people under capitalism the distinction between moral or social Unlike political values , critics , and philosophy and the argument that it is illegal ? Actions should not be assessed independently of their institutional context or institutions outside of what they individuals acting in them prone to do . Is no question , moreover , that the relevant normative philosophy is inseparable from other companies Marx economics, history , political science, sociology , and working for social change ?