Karl Marx

Karl Marx, 1818 - 1883 was a German philosopher and political theorist who is considered the father of Communism.


Marx originally studied law and then philosophy before becoming interested in revolution. He was a journalist and editor for many radical newspapers across Europe, however his revolutionary ideas led to him being forced out of many countries before he settled in London, where he stayed until his death.

Marx believed that his approach to politics was economical and scientific. He thought that you could explain everything by analysing the way economic forces society in social, religious, legal and political processes. Marx's friend and the co-author of The Communist Manifesto Fredrich Engles believed that Marx achieved a fusion of Hegelian philosophy, British Empirical economics and French revolutionary politics, particularly the socialism aspect. Marx himself linked much of his work to that of Charles Darwin, however Darwin himself is said to disputed this.

Many of Marx's theories appear to have been influenced by Hegel, though he dismissed and changed many of Hegel's ideas. The Hegelian theory of the dialectic is clearly the one with which Marx is most concerned with. As I have previously explained http://josh-tyler.blogspot.com/2011/03/georg-wilhelm-friedrich-hegel.html, Hegel felt that change occurred when one idea (the thesis) was contradicted by another (the antithesis) to create a new idea - the synthesis. Marx liked this idea as a way for history to progress, however, whereas Hegel believed that history was guided by a 'geist' spirit towards an absolute end, Marx believed it was more practical and political, dismissing Hegel's idea as idealist nonsense.
Marx saw the real dialectic not as a geist, but  in economic life, particularly in class struggle. His theory of history is therefore known as 'Dialectic Materialism'. Indeed in changing Hegel's key philosophy (as well as disagreeing with his love of the state and belief in God) Marx demonstrates his belief in using other ideas as only an outline to create your own: 'the philosophers have only interpreted the world - the point however, is to change it'.

The idea of class struggle is the main driving force of the Communist Manifesto. Marx outlined that society was now separated into two classes; the working Proletariat and the Bourgeois. He believed that though the Bourgeois were in themselves a revolutionary force, they did so solely for capital and greed, turning all professionals into mere paid wage labourers. He criticised globalisation and industrialisation for placing property and ownership into just a few wealthy hands and as a result creating political centralisation of power.

This society, with all its new machinery and processes reduced the lower middle class to working class and as a result united the low paid worker, creating a more unified Proletariat. Marx actually has 'workers of the world, unite' on his tombstone. Marx felt that this was a clear example that capitalist society and the Bourgeois who created it were doomed to fail and were simply 'digging their own graves'.  As the Proletariat had nothing to lose and everything to gain, it was they who could act as the antitheses of the dialectic and drive change in, Marx saw this change as socialism and eventually Communism. Marx envisioned this as a society of equality, justice and the fulfilment of a truly free individual.

Marx outlines in The Communist Manifesto ten main policies that the Communist party would enforce;
1. Abolition of Private Property
2. A heavy graduated income tax
3. Abolition of inheritance right
4. Confiscation of rebel and emigrant property
5. Centralisation of banks
6. Centralisation of transport
7. Extension of factories
8. Combine agriculture with manufacture (to establish a more balanced difference between cities and countryside)
9. Equal obligation of all to work
10. Free education for all children and abolition of child labour.

Once this measures were in place Marx believed that class distinctions would disappear and the public would lose its political character. This would mean that the dictatorship of the proletariat (a socialist process that Marx felt was necessary for the laws to be implemented) would become redundant.
After this a free and equal society would prevail, a society where man was not alienated from one another, were we value each other over gain and possessions and behaved From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The manifesto ends with a Rousseau inspired slogan to encourage the working class to rise up and end the oppression of the Bourgeois:

Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians having nothing to lose but their chains.

  

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Hegel was a German philosopher who lived from 1770 to 1831 and is often credited as the culmination of the German idealist movement that began with Kant. 

Hegel had a belief in the unreality of separate parts. He felt that nothing was completely real except the 'whole' and saw everything as a complex system that could only be considered when seen as a whole. He felt that 'whatever is, is right'. Hegel refers to the whole as the 'absolute' and considers it spiritual. As a result of this it appears that God is the absolute, a pure being.

Hegel's view on spirituality is an interesting one, that comes from his idea of the 'dialectic'. Hegel believed that everything had a thesis (a proposition) and an antithesis (contradictions to this). The result of these two ideas led to the Synthesis - a combination of opposing points of view that in turn created a new idea. When linking this to his idea of spirituality, Hegel believed that we as humans moved towards the 'absolute, pure being' (God) through a series of dialectic transitions. He referred to these periods of transition as 'geists' and suggested that these were guided by an external force rather than through our own actions. Hegel believed that we will become an absolute being once we have self knowledge of our spirit.

Hegel's political views were also based upon his dialectic theory. He thought that world history repeated the transitions of the dialectic and that it too was guided by a geist in moving towards an eventual end. Using War, for example helps to explain Hegel's theory. If we consider one nation as the thesis and one as the antithesis, the result of the conflict would be the synthesis - and this is how change occurs throughout history.

 Hegel was a great lover of change however there does appear to be some contradictions in his own political beliefs. In his later life he was very pro-German, however he was also a great supporter of Napoleon and was said to have welcomed his defeat of the Prussian army.

Hegel's glorification of the state in his later life could also be seen as a contradiction. He felt he was a great lover of change and freedom, however he also felt that there was more freedom to be found in a monarchist rule than in a democracy. This would suggest that he was both a lover of freedom and obeying the law, Bertrand Russell describes this contradiction perfectly by arguing that what Hegel really believed in was 'the freedom to obey'.

Hegel's theory leads nicely on to my next History and Context of Journalism study - that of Karl Marx. Marx's relationship with Hegel's theories appears to be an interesting on, with Marx dismissing Hegel's views on the hidden geists as idealist nonsense,  but appearing to agree with Hegel's theory of the dialectic as a process to drive change and he perhaps applied this theory in a much more realistic and empirical way than the ideals of Hegel .

Comb Overs and Cricket - Hampshire County Council Meeting

The old saying 'a camel is a horse designed by committee' is one which I wholeheartedly agree with. As a result of this I was somewhat sceptical about sitting in on the latest Hampshire County Council meeting, lavishly held in the grounds of Winchester's Great Hall. Indeed this feeling was somewhat increased upon seeing the selection of councillors entrusted with the decision making of the county, without wishing to be unkind they could all be found queueing in the post office on a Thursday morning. I wouldn't like to guess at the total age of the predominantly male council but 1,204 wouldn't be far off. The original conversations that I overheard concerned stereotypical comments on cricket and the weather. Given that 'broadband' was also on the agenda I questioned how much knowledge the room would possess on this, especially as there were technical issues from the start and the speaker questioned why his voice was 'so echoey' after inadvertantly turning his microphone on.

The first issue discussed (and at over an hour in great detail),  was 'The Contribution Policy for Adult Social Care'. The proposal was to adapt the current system in order to consider each case individually, potentially leading to 1/3 of disabled adults having to pay more for social care (although 40% would still pay nothing). It was agreed that the maximum weekly charged of £440 per week be removed whilst plans to raise the expense to 100% of net income and charge carers for their service were rightly rejected.

After this came the discussion on improving broadband in the Hampshire area. Far from being the technological neanderthals I was expecting - most of the council proved to have a detailed knowledge on 'computers' with one gentleman even flashing an i-phone and all agreeing that faster broadband should be provided in rural areas.

The next item on the agenda was a brief discussion on the budget, with special emphasis on the expense of gritting the roads during the snowy weather and the financial costs of restoring the Gosport village green. The meeting was then over for us as the next item was not available for public viewing - stirring up all sorts of images of what was being discussed.

In all seriousness however, the people at the Council were very welcoming, giving us a tour around the building, refreshments and ensuring that everything that was discussed was explained so that we could understand and I would like to thank them for their generosity.

Churnalism

We're all pretty familiar with all the rubbish newspapers often churn out. As something of a warning to my fellow students I found this website www.churnalism.com that basically exposes lazy journalists who simply copy stories from press releases without adding much to it at all and then pass it off as their own work (something we would never do of course - I'm often amazed at how often wikipedia copied my homework).

On the site you type in the story you've read and it shows you how much of it was from a certain press release and therefore how much of their own input the journalism has included.

http://churnalism.com/

Mary Wollstonecraft

Mary Wollstonecraft was a British writer and philosopher who lived between 1759 and 1797. Her many writings on the role of women in society have led her to be considered in some circles as 'The Mother of Feminism'.

Wollstonecraft's most famous piece of work was 'A Vindication of the Rights of Woman' which was published in 1792. As part of my history and context of journalism module we considered chapter 4 of this book, 'Observations on the state of degradation to which woman is reduced by various causes' (yes, her style is this unnecessarily long-winded throughout!).

Wollstonecraft's main problem with the female perception of society appears to be the courteous way in which the men of this period treated them. This may seem a strange argument at first, however Wollstonecraft explains that this politeness is merely 'hollow respect' and is limiting female instinct and potential. She uses a the wonderful imagery of a bird in cage to describe this, adding that all women have to do is remain in the cage and plume their feathers. This suggests that Wollstonecraft felt that although chivalrous treatment may make a woman feel special, it is merely another example of men exerting dominance and is condescending. This is extended further in the example of a man holding a door open for a woman, the woman could easily do it for herself and therefore this is yet another example of men showing physical dominance. Wollstonecraft suggests that women could be as strong as men, its just society and a lack of willingness preventing them. This appears to be her most prominent criticism of women - they are simply not doing enough for themselves. Indeed the way she launches this attack almost makes it hard to believe that the author herself is female. 

Wollstonecraft's solution to these problems is education. This lack of education places women in a pigeon hole and as a result little can be expected of them. Wollstonecraft seems to criticise the male use of education, stating that they see it merely as a 'practical guide to life' rather than the first step to advancement. Indeed that Wollstonecraft was effectively self-educated, having been a great reader, shows that she saw the potential of education in the expansion of our minds, rather than simply learning how to do what you're taught.  She adds that men are prepared for profession, whilst women are prepared for marriage, suggesting that whilst pleasure is the main business of a woman's life they cannot advance in society. She quotes Rousseau in this passage (someone who's theories she appears to have a hot and cold attitude towards) in stating 'educate women like men and they will have less power over us'. I think Wollstonecraft disagrees with this - she does not want women to have power over men (indeed any power they did have was shallow), but for them to have power over themselves. Her ideas are similar in some way to a great 'equaliser' from the enlightenment John Locke (though how much equality his ideas really had is open for debate). Wollstonecraft's ideas remind me of Locke's blank slate - her belief that education was key suggests that she too felt we were all born equal and can only improve ourselves by experiencing and learning new things.  

Wollstonecraft compares female attitudes at the time as similar to someone who is born rich. They have no real need to use their brains or have any talent as their role in society is a superficial one. She seems to favour the hardships of the 'middle rank of man', suggesting that these men are of the most virtue. Wollstonecraft also praises the direction that they have, always something to work towards, something to achieve. This is clearly an attitude she feels is lost on the rich, and something women need to adopt. She adds that 'a King is always a King and a woman is always a woman' which suggests that the ordinary man can be whatever he wants. She feels that if more women had a more direct attitude then there would be less of a distinction between man and woman. She does not want women to be seen as 'heroines or brutes' but simply reasonable creatures. 

Wollstonecraft was fascinated by the French Revolution which began in 1789. Louis 14th (see image) is a prime example of her attitude towards the rich. He is described as a model Prince who no doubt lived for the extravagant manners and flair that typified the aristocracy at this time. She believed that as a result of this the nation suffered. She would have been excited by the revolution and its 'we the people' motto which suggested equality amongst all.

Strangely Wollstonecraft also seemed to have been something of a Romantic, often advocating the benefits of love. The only time where she felt there should be a gender distinction was in a loving relationship. In Chapter 4 she describes her dislike of Polygamy stating that there is no practical positives to it and nature intended man to have one wife. She adds that a faithful woman demands respect. I think that this aspect of Wollstoncrafts theory is somewhat hypocritical considering her private life. She seemed to fall in love hard and was romantically linked with several men including artist  Henry Fuseli, American adventurer  Gilbert Imlay (and was registered as his wife in France) and British philosopher William Godwin (who fathered daughter Mary Shelley future author of Frankenstein). Wollstonecrafts chaotic love-life included two failed suicide attempts and it is this image that has perhaps hampered her reputation amongst some feminist groups. Indeed it is hard to take her views on Polygamy seriously for example, as she apparently once proposed a platonic, polygamous relationship to Fuseli and his wife.

Despite this controversy however I think that Wollstonecraft does raise some interesting ideas. Her strong belief in education as key to advancement is something that I wholeheartedly agree with and her preference towards the middle man and belief that they have more direction and ambition is something I can also relate to. There can be no doubt that she played a vital role in the advancement of women in society and I think that she perhaps deserves more prominent recognition in the feminist movement as she was clearly a strong woman who led by example to show women how to achieve equality. 

Day 20 in the snow.....panic everywhere.
Thank God i've got tins in

Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal

Jonathan Swift was an Irish satirist, essayist and political writer who was born in 1667.

Although he is perhaps best known for his novel 'Gulliver's Travels' the piece of Swift's work that I looked at was his satirical essay written 1729 entitled 'A Modest Proposal'.

Swift begins this essay by outlining his 'great intentions' to help the poor people of Ireland. The exaggerated grandeur of such language was undoubtedly a subversive mocking of Empiricist writing, as it is very similar to the pompous tone used by followers of this school such as Locke.

Swift highlights the plight of the poor and emphasizes the need to find a cheap and fair way to help them, help themselves. Swifts ingenious idea to achieve this is for Irish people to start eating babies.

Under this plan, Swift says that as children are not of much value to their parents anyway and are expensive to raise, selling a child between the ages of 1 and 2 when, according to his 'American friend' (a narrative trick Addision also used) they are at their most delicious as a luxurious food, would bring in income for poorer families and save them the money on raising the child anyway.

Swift outlines a number of surprisingly convincing advantages of this proposal. The first point he lists is that it would lower the number of Papists, who he implies breed too much as it is. This humorous attack on Catholicism was very in keeping with the general attitude of many at this time as it was widely believed that they could not be trusted and harboured allegiances abroad.
Swift proposes that selling their babies to the rich would also mean that the poor had something valuable to trade with that would both make and save them money.
He adds that taverns would also benefit, famine would decrease, the economy would improve and debt and poverty would be reduced as a result of this scheme.
My favourite of Swifts advantages for his proposal however, is that it would prevent men from abusing their pregnant wives by methods such as kicking them in the stomach, as they would not want to risk harming their unborn money-making child. Swift seems very anti-abortion and this plan would mean that such a practise would also be made redundant.

Although from a modern day perspective this cannibalism seems inhumane, I couldn't help but think that economically speaking Swifts proposal made a lot of sense. Indeed considering the hunger and suffering that the poor endured during this period in Ireland, his argument that the children would be saved from a life of misfortune and pain anyway makes his idea sound somewhat kind. The essay is so well written that Swift makes an idea that when first heard seem so far-fetched appear very reasonable. This is due to the brilliance of his satire of Empiricist style writers and his economically accurate and logical hypotheses.
So good in fact, that I'm contemplating how much my new-born niece would fetch on the black market......and whether she'd taste good with gravy.


Click here for a great 'rap' video summarizing Swift's Proposal - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf0LH8FtHAc