As part of his critique on capitalism, Marx made a number of interesting and persuasive points about human connectiveness and relationship with objects. To me, these seem as convincing as say Attachment Theory, which was perhaps influenced by Marx.
I think they should. I think a fascinating field of research exists for those with the social-scientific and statistical training to conduct double-blind experiments either verifying or falsifying Marx's psychological ideas. This is especially true since these psychological ideas are often the foundation on which his economic system stands or falls.
I think a strand of this splits into alienation and later what has come to be known as commodification; though I have not found Marx being given any credit of being identified as having theories with affinity with commodification. His psychological theories are highly interesting and rich; they deserve to be further and properly explored.
Kirk, they do seem to have some relationship to Christian ideas-or maybe that's simply my interpretation. His belief in identification with objects causing psychological problems, and his idea that labour creates stability are worthy of thought-therefore financiers or those who function furthest from production would be more subject to instability. Adewale-yes-I totally agree with you.
The spectral capital of Marx has more of a philosophical base surely than psychological, and, contrary to myth, Freud was not the inventor of the unconscious but merely at best reconstructed a known perception. I do believe though that Marx and Freud shared intellectual influences traceable perhaps to Kant and Hegel but equally to German Idealism-that things take form-or a form.
Mohinder, yes, its surprising for and to who do not read Marx but hear his views through politicians.
Mohinder, agreed. But I have an essential matter I disagree with Marx about-and that's his concept of value-labour, although I can accept the connection between human psychology and economics.
ok, not Marx, but: Frank Turner: the fundamental core of human nature is labour or work....human consciousness comes into existence collectively through human beings shaping nature with their work
although this is not the point of your contention above, i need to be home to find it.
The German Ideology: Marx and Engels
Psychology aside this is in fact poor history by Marx.
The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce. This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production. This production only makes its appearance with the increase of population. In its turn this presupposes the intercourse [Verkehr]1 of individuals with one another. The form of this intercourse is again determined by production. The relations of different nations among themselves depend upon the extent to which each has
This I got from an online site, and purports to be a translation. But not mine....Are you saying its a poor one?
Don't be rude to begin with. I do not have to answer your question. Temper your remarks and act like a scholar not some unpleasant juvernile
I took this from Marx Archive. If you actually had any sense you would be able to read it and understand it, not make silly unbecoming and offensive remarks. I am not a student. Watch what you say and how you say it. I suggest you get involved with other questions not this one.
Dr Kumar,
I suggest that you read a little of Dr Wilkins contributions to RG over the *years*.
You demean yourself by acting in this way.
Is your taking against me, Mohinder, not simply the result of racial prejudice 'idiotic Western Reason' alongside some quite extraordinary language 'shut up face-less duffer ' . Is it not also the result of spending years, according to you, attempting to understand something but failing and finding someone trying and understanding with ease. You have trounced my language, but produce the kind of language a ten year old would reject. In fact, your attacks on me reek of bitterness (Western Reason), jealousy and a clear sense of your own limitations. Why on earth should I produce this question for political reasons? I long ago discovered Marx's psychology, when studying Psychotherapy, and even then attempted to introduce it into the curriculum.
Mohinder, I promise to find that phrase on value-labour (not my phrase but used in a paper I recently read), which I thought was one of Marx's but may not be. I will put it on your profile.
Anyone who's still interested, I can't recall or find where I got labour-value or value-labour from-it may be a book by the British philosopher Roger Scruton, who deals extensively with Marx, Thinkers of the New Left-but you can find the term on Wikipedia (where I certainly did not find it). Why does our erstwhile expert in Marx not know the term, I wonder?
Enough said. Will not revisit.
I agree with Prof. Adewale. The Marx ideas on psychology must be explored
I agree with Mr. Mohinder Kumar's point. He was making sensible contributions until Mr. Wilkin made derogatory remarks on him. Please keep this thread decent and intellectual.
Stanley and Mohinder,
may be your "labour-value problem" is the problem of many retranslations (as in Bible). I, personally, know labour-money.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity