Spiritualism - Lesson #15

Spiritualism - Lesson #15
The views expressed in this lesson concerning Marx were reasonably stated and sensitively presented. Whatever one might think of Marx he certainly left a huge mark on history. One writer described him as a social scientist, political philosopher and revolutionary. In my view he was none of these things but a man who took Hegel's philosophy and turned it on its head - even Marx himself admitted doing this. Marx began his career as a romantic poet and political journalist before turning his attention to converting Hegel's dialectic ideas into a theory concerning the power of economics. He certainly grew up in the atmosphere of Hegel's philosophy but other influences acted upon him too e.g. his empirical study of working-class life and movement. Consequently, Marx rejected Hegel's political concepts and outlined his own sociological theory of the state which was not socialist but democratic. What "Spirit" was to Hegel were the forces of production to Marx. And where for Hegel ideas were confrontation for Marx it was competing socioeconomic classes that mattered. For Marx it was all about the material world rather than Hegel's "Geist" which Marx denied. It was class struggle that Marx understood as the recurring pattern of history i.e. the haves against the have nots. History showed that those in power pass laws to subdue the working classes so re-enforcing their economic dominance over them. And as Marx admitted to his daughter it was "servility" he detested above everything else. The class system had been present in ancient times in master/slave relationships, also in feudal times, in the Lord/serf relationship, and present now in the industrial age through the owners of capital (the bourgeoisie i.e. property owners) and the proletariat (working classes). It was, Marx believed, confrontation between these two groups which would bring about change. Marx argued that the industrial way of life sets the wealthy (a minority group) against the great mass of alienated, subsistence workers; a way of life that would eventually collapse under its own internal contradictions to produce a classless society in which work and its rewards would be equitably shared each according to his ability and needs. In such a society no one person would be higher than any other whether doctor or sweeper both would receive equal pay. But the only way to achieve this was for the instruments of economic-production to be held in common. For Marx it was here, in the real process of change, that Hegel's "dialectic" would be worked out in a perfect society where everyone worked together. And one can understand where Marx was coming from when we consider that he lived through the trauma of what today is described as the Industrial Revolution when western society changed from being a predominantly agricultural way of life to an industrial economy. Marx witnessed first-hand the dreadful fall-out of this on the poor when he moved to London, England during the time that Britain was first to industrialise becoming the Workshop of the World. But why was this change necessary? The population of England had begun to increase at the close of the seventeenth-century but by the eighteenth-century it had begun to rise rapidly. New ways had to be found to feed this rising population if Malthus' warning about starvation was to be averted. Prior to this people were cottagers, producing at home what they needed for themselves at a subsistence level. But as the need to grow more food increased, fields were enclosed, new crops introduced and selective breeding experimented with etc. which saw many labourers as well as yeoman farmers driven from the land to seek work in the newly emerging towns – they were becoming "alienated." But the new towns were crowded, crude, unhygienic and disease- ridden. Sanitary conditions in towns were revolting so that cholera was a regular visitor killing many. At this time there were no public health acts, no health service and no support for the needy. Many turned to drinking gin as a means of escape. This state of affairs persisted throughout most of the nineteenth-century while Marx was writing – and we need to set him against this context. With little control of industry, the absence of factory acts, and no escape for the poor the lot of the working classes was dire indeed. True, there were some enlightened employers (often Quakers) and other philanthropists who built homes for their employees and looked after their interests; but these were in the minority. Factories were dangerous places to work while young children were sent to work down coal mines often from dawn to dusk. For those who fell by the wayside their only chance of survival was the workhouse. Here, the old, the sick and the dispossessed were often treated as criminals i.e. husbands separated from wives; then made to wear "uniforms" and required to eat their meals in silencer. Even by the turn of the twentieth-century when Booth did his survey into the conditions of the poor in London the results were alarming. The poverty, hygiene, housing and deprivation were still very widespread. However, while Marx criticised religion as a fantasy it was the Church that intervened to educate the poor through Sunday schools and later day schools. Concerned people observed that on Sundays, the only day of the week children didn't have to work, they ran amuck without control. Sunday schools were introduced and proved to be a stabilising influence on them as were day schools, when they came into being later, even though the education offered was basic and primitive. But at this time in England Government was not interested in educating the masses although it did eventually take over this responsibility. But for Marx religion was not the answer; the only answer was total, social and political change. And I'm sure his intentions were honourable when we consider what has been described above. For Marx in this new classless society government would be by the leaders of the revolution (the communist party) – while the new state would be called the "dictatorship of the proletariat." At this point the "dialectic" would come to an end in a perfect society without dissent or criminality. Alienation would be over and freedom attained – the people would be in control their own economic forces which, after all, would be their own forces. It sounds like Utopia but the reality was very different. What Marx failed to understand is that while it might be possible to change society one cannot change human-nature which is power- hungry, self-centred and unreliable. And the final result? Totalitarianism leading to the extermination of millions – not Marx's intention as he only sowed the seed. It's a tragic tale of the suppression of the human-spirit which (being creative) cannot be silenced and will not be crushed. For God is in all and cannot be excluded from any part of his creation.

Rog

5th April 2016