Das Kapital was published in 1867. Modern psychology is considered to have begun in 1879. The first DSM was not published til 1952. Marx understood economics but he has an archaic understanding of human psychology which cripples his work.
Modern economic theory incorporates behavioral economics. In reality people don’t always act rationally or optimally. Time restraints, cognitive limitations, emotional attachment, and trauma all affect decision making.
We are living in an example of how the working class will vote against their own material interests and how deprivation of resources doesn’t inevitably lead to a proletariat uprising.
None of that goes against Marx, though. Marxist economics does not depend on people acting rationally 100% of the time. The working classes do not control bourgeois elections, the fact that you think this is a point against Marx points to unfamiliarity with Marxism more than anything.
You keep ignoring large parts of my argument. Think about how wrong the understanding of biology that doctors had in the 1860-70s compared to what we do now. Marx had the equivalent lack of knowledge about human psychology. His theories do not accurately describe human behavior on a fundamental level.
Marx did not understand the psychological and sociological needs that religion fulfills (I.e. fear of death). He confuses properties of Judeo-Christian religions as being universal to religion itself. Did most pre Columbian Native American faiths struggle with the exploitation of the proletariat? No. If anything several were closer to the Marxist ideal of a classless society than any attempts at communism.
The working classes do not control bourgeois elections,
I have asked you several times to explain how Marx’s theories do not accurately describe human behavior on a fundamental level, not to simply restate your thesis over and over. There’s nothing to work with here. As for how religion works, Marx was analyzing the context of contemporary (to him) religion, not historical religion, with respect to the proletariat. Plus, Marx analyzed what he called “primitive communism,” the very early communalist societies you’re referencing here. These are not the same as communism, the future fully collectivized global system, but they do “rhyme” with it. Further, pointing out that the working classes do not actually control anything in capitalism isn’t an excuse, it’s a core denial of your central idea.
I am not ignoring your argument, it’s abundantly clear that you don’t actually have the familiarity with Marx to be able to make blanket claims about the viability of his theories.
Nowhere within Capital does Marx actually say proletarian uprising is inevitable; he arguably alludes to this in the Afterword to the Second German Ed. but it’s actually a difficult question whether proletarian revolution is inevitable in Marxism in the first place.
It was obviously known in Marx’s time that people don’t always act rationally or optimally. This isn’t the basis for Marx’s theory.
How to make a cluekess dude read Marx? It’s baffling that we have to answer the same questions again and again.
New questions for you to answer: https://archive.org/details/19thcenturyphil
Sheesh. 🤷♂️
Das Kapital was published in 1867. Modern psychology is considered to have begun in 1879. The first DSM was not published til 1952. Marx understood economics but he has an archaic understanding of human psychology which cripples his work.
Can you elaborate? How does Marx’s understanding of human psychology hold back his work?
Yes, let’s hear it from the liberal.
Modern economic theory incorporates behavioral economics. In reality people don’t always act rationally or optimally. Time restraints, cognitive limitations, emotional attachment, and trauma all affect decision making.
We are living in an example of how the working class will vote against their own material interests and how deprivation of resources doesn’t inevitably lead to a proletariat uprising.
None of that goes against Marx, though. Marxist economics does not depend on people acting rationally 100% of the time. The working classes do not control bourgeois elections, the fact that you think this is a point against Marx points to unfamiliarity with Marxism more than anything.
You keep ignoring large parts of my argument. Think about how wrong the understanding of biology that doctors had in the 1860-70s compared to what we do now. Marx had the equivalent lack of knowledge about human psychology. His theories do not accurately describe human behavior on a fundamental level.
Marx did not understand the psychological and sociological needs that religion fulfills (I.e. fear of death). He confuses properties of Judeo-Christian religions as being universal to religion itself. Did most pre Columbian Native American faiths struggle with the exploitation of the proletariat? No. If anything several were closer to the Marxist ideal of a classless society than any attempts at communism.
Excuses excuses.
I have asked you several times to explain how Marx’s theories do not accurately describe human behavior on a fundamental level, not to simply restate your thesis over and over. There’s nothing to work with here. As for how religion works, Marx was analyzing the context of contemporary (to him) religion, not historical religion, with respect to the proletariat. Plus, Marx analyzed what he called “primitive communism,” the very early communalist societies you’re referencing here. These are not the same as communism, the future fully collectivized global system, but they do “rhyme” with it. Further, pointing out that the working classes do not actually control anything in capitalism isn’t an excuse, it’s a core denial of your central idea.
I am not ignoring your argument, it’s abundantly clear that you don’t actually have the familiarity with Marx to be able to make blanket claims about the viability of his theories.
Nowhere within Capital does Marx actually say proletarian uprising is inevitable; he arguably alludes to this in the Afterword to the Second German Ed. but it’s actually a difficult question whether proletarian revolution is inevitable in Marxism in the first place.
It was obviously known in Marx’s time that people don’t always act rationally or optimally. This isn’t the basis for Marx’s theory.