Why Karl Marx is the most relevant philosopher in the modern world

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world. The point, however, is to change it.” ~ Karl Marx, Eleven Theses on Feuerbach.

Many people, if they have the misfortune to read my black and pixellated thoughts, may groan when they see the above title. After all, many philosophy students conform to a rather stagnant stereotype by utilising a Marxist dialectic. Whilst this isn’t a negative thing in itself, I would rather be a contrarian, than to be a man whom conforms to bland consensus. However, I would plead that any reader does not presume that I am a Marxist, or that I am not Marxist; all I am offering is an analysis of Marxism with regard to its focus on the material, rather than a sense of idealism.

Having been a passionate man, I have spoken to many people about my love of philosophy (I can be regarded as a philo-philosopher in that respect), and as a consequence, I have been told in a most robust manner by many people that philosophy is pointless. “What will philosophy get you?” I have been asked. The question was implied towards my material needs: how could studying philosophy lead to gained employment, and how would I be paid through gaining philosophical skills?

I already had an immediate answer to the question, but I must confess that it did not satisfy me. I told the questioner that, “Life is too broad to be narrowly confined to the pursuit of value tokens (money).” The reason my answer didn’t satisfy me was due to the fact that although the veracity of my answer held true for me, it didn’t hold true to most of society.

Society is focused on the average, the mundane, and the post-modern, hyper reality TV culture which dominates the current British media zeitgeist. Joey Essex, uneducated and fake tanned as he is, represents something which more people in post-modern society British society buy into when compared to philosophy. Nietzsche, Hume, and Wittgenstein do not. One could argue from a Nietzschean perspective that this proves only a philosophical superman is worthy of thinking about such high-brow topics; after all, “All rare for things are for the rare,” as Nietzsche would say.

All of this panem et circenses (bread and circuses - Ed) is a distraction from what is most relevant to society: the fact that with regard to material possessions, an incredible amount is owned by an elite. If the average working man – be he middle or working class – realised he could, in fact, have much, much more, then he would almost certainly demand it.

Marxism is very broad, as well as complex. Das Kapital is a well renowned, in philosophical circles at least, to be a behemoth of a work to read. Nevertheless, one of the major successes of Marxism is the fact that it can be simplified so that the average man on the street can understand it. Religion’s greatest boon is that anyone of sound mind – however average – can understand its message.

Where religion and Marxism differ, however, is around the issue of the very now. Christianity is, by its very nature, conservative. Marxism, however, overtly determines that revolution – one, I must confess, should be televised – is of the essence.

The fact that Marxism is concerned with humanity’s everyday existence is exactly why it appeals to such a wide demographic. Whether the mind works through the senses or through ideals actually doesn’t matter if you don’t know where your next meal is coming from.

Whilst liar paradoxes test the very limits of logic, how important are they when you are forced to work for thirty pence a day whilst making clothes for Primark, so that the British underclass can mimic the whimsical fashions of the rich and famous? I love the aphoristic nuances of Nietzsche, but how salient is his wit when your house has been repossessed by an insidious bank?

I could continue with many more examples, ad nauseum, but I think my point has been well and truly made.

Philosophy is a subject which only wealthy people can study. Wealth can be analysed in many different ways, and money isn’t a sole indicator of wealth; time, for me, is a very important factor. Very often, the bondage of work is the very barrier to the study of philosophy. I must concede, after a day of work, I feel very tired – using my intellectual energy to write this article is almost a Herculean effort. Thus, those in the rat race – whether well remunerated or not – are actually quite poor, if they are commuting into the heart of London every day, their noses in their neighbour’s armpits, packed in like sardines to maximise profitability of the privatised rail cartels.

We are often iterated the narrow maxim: time is money. The sad truth is that a lot of people live their lives by this maxim. It is these people who lack the passion and inclination to philosophise: for, if they did, they would realise how hollow a life of chasing value tokens is. If they had read Marx’s philosophy, they would surely realise they are being exploited (again, I am no Marxist, but I do believe that companies exploit their work force).

To conclude, if we do wish to engage the time poor, money rich, or the time poor money poor, then we, as philosophers, require to show them how relevant philosophy can be.  Furthermore, we must be honest with ourselves, not all philosophy is particularly relevant. I know I made that point earlier, but the whole point of a conclusion is to say what you’ve already said, isn’t it?

Samuel Mack-Poole

The beauty of Friedrich Nietzsche

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” – Hamlet, written by William Shakespeare, Act 2 Scene 2.

Having defended Friedrich Nietzsche from scars which never left a wound – in other words, spurious accusations – I now feel comfortable in writing an analysis which isn’t directed at making a modern audience more comfortable with his controversial philosophy. Of course, if our minds were truly free from prejudice and indoctrination, I wouldn’t have had to contextualise his thinking. However, as we are tethered to an intellectual bondage, my previous essay was all too necessary.

This essay shall hereafter be a pithy analysis of Beyond Good and Evil, an excellent read which I enjoyed in the sand dunes of Saudi Arabia. This essay will be composed of an analysis of selected quotes.

Quote one:

“The time for petty politics is past: the very next century will bring with it the struggle for mastery over the whole Earth.”

Nietzsche dismisses petty politics where there is an obligation to read a newspaper with breakfast. Consequently, he asserts that what is needed is a compulsion towards grand politics and a struggle for mastery.

It seems, quite sadly, that with globalisation, Nietzsche was somewhat prophetic: the will to power – in the form of economic greed – has manifested itself within a culture which has an insatiable lust for money in the form of the American economic empire.

The will of this empire, controlled by a Bildeberger from his billionaire’s yacht, has gripped Mankind by its genitals and dominates it accordingly. Most humorously – although this is the darkest of all comedies here – the American public have been enslaved by this will, insofar as their petty morality has been perverted into a glib interest in highly convoluted talent shows, and in the form of redundant opinions which repeat, mindlessly, the might of the dictator; their wills being passively subverted so that their perception is their pseudo-reality.

Alas, Nietzsche was right!

Quote two:

“To prepare for great enterprises and collective experiments in discipline and breeding so as to make an end of that gruesome dominion of chance that has hitherto been called ‘history’.”

It is quite easy – all too easy – to see how Hitler cherry picked and highlighted elements of Nietzsche’s philosophy for his own ends. To develop an Übermensch, Nietzsche claimed that such a visionary enterprise, such as a collective experiment, could certify power for such a race of superior beings.

The influence of Nietzsche on social Darwinism is obvious – but – but(!) – he ignores the classic counter; the utmost importance of nurture. The afore-mentioned debate is now very tired and trite. Nevertheless, scientific experiments, whose origination and intent we must remain sceptical of, can sometimes add a drop of vitality to an ocean of stagnation.

Also, I sense a contradiction in Nietzsche’s philosophy here: that is, unless I misunderstand Nietzsche’s ideas, he seems to despise what he calls an “obedience to uniformity”; yet, how could a collectivist experiment occur without an agreed degree of uniformity?

Perhaps (although perhapses are dangerous – not to mention all too human), it is best not to take an idea to an extreme and realise that Nietzsche will inevitably prioritise some of his ideas – or even ideals – over others. Or, as the great man put it himself, “only an idiot doesn’t contradict himself three times a day.”

Quote three:

“Everything that raises the individual above the herd and makes his neighbour quail is henceforth called evil.”

The veracity of Nietzsche’s statement, for me, is practically a self-evident truth. I almost want to let it stand alone. However, I have so much to say about it. A pertinent example would be the English education system, and in particular, modern GCSE league tables: successful schools are deemed one which amasses the most numerous amount of passes. Students who are on the C/D borderline are therefore selected and prioritised by schools as results are deemed everything.

Mediocrity is evidently the current ethos of British society. To ensure that the lump in the middle is the most important is a slap in the face towards success and progress. If we truly wanted to progress as a society, shouldn’t we place every student with an equality of opportunity, but accept that there will be a standard deviation of outcomes on any given standardised assessment?

Are we so scared of intelligence that it is prioritised so lowly by society after society after society?

Best selling newspapers which an eight year old could read; popular TV shows which showcase a dancing canine; package holidays; mundane conversation about the weather; Towie; pop music; ubiquitous comedy; decadent hedonism; celebrity big brother...the list of mediocrity is almost endless. How can it be that what is unique is detested, but that the bilge of everyday banality is celebrated?

Quote four:

“What a philosopher is, is hard to learn, because it cannot be taught: one has to ‘know’ it from experience.”

If the above point is absolutely true, then the study of philosophy is, of course, utterly redundant. However, I genuinely think that philosophers are born, rather than created; despite that, I also think any discipline can be taught, but whether it can be truly learned is another matter. We also have to trust that when Nietzsche speaks of learning that he is very much measuring learning from his precocious and lofty position of a truly misunderstood genius.

Most people with an interest in philosophy weren’t taught the subject in mandatory schooling (except if you happen to be French). No. Instead, they gravitated towards the discipline themselves – philosophers are the thinkers, the misfits, the contrarians, the true individuals who feel forced, yes forced, to converse, write and debate about knowledge, truth, beauty, the self, life, death and all of the other facets of humanity which require discussion, debate, examination and re-examination.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, our truths are not for everyone but that only and justly serves makes them all the more valuable in our own esteem.

Conclusion:

In all honesty, I could wax lyrical about Nietzsche, and perhaps I shall. As can be determined, Nietzsche’s philosophy is very current: his predictions were often correct. His disdain for mediocrity was passionate and extremely well thought through. However arrogant and judgemental Nietzsche was, his literary style (coupled with his ability to realise an uncomfortable truth) makes him one of the most alluring philosophers there has ever been.

Samuel Mack-Poole