Surreptitiously accepting Malthus's doctrine of population
Seriously wtf does he mean by this.
Also Marx never mentions Dialectical Materialism, the closest anyone gets is Engels describes their method as a "materialist dialectic."
There are so many errors in just this one paragraph I can't even fathom.
I know the answer but of course I can't help asking it: how can such renowned and educated thinkers be so incredibly wrong so consistently? I have little formal education past high school and have a better grasp of these topics than Bertrand Fucking Russell. I know people who work at grocery stores who make 99% of economists and philosophy professors look like total fools.
I'll do my best to be charitable to Russell, only for the interest of other readers.
Malthus and his notion of competition was broadly accepted by Adam Smith (labor theory of value, etc.) AND Darwin, prolewiki has an excerpt from Charles Darwin's autobiography where he mentions the impact of Malthus' Essays on Population on his thinking during his time on the HMS Beagle.
Marx was well enamoured and impressed by Darwin's theory of evolution & Origin of Species. Marx sent Darwin a copy of Capital, if I remember because he saw it as an evolution or building upon Darwin's work (which I would agree with, just not sure if that's exactly what Marx said or intended).
If Russell disagreed with competition, and preferred cooperation, maybe the criticism has a bit of weight, if you exclude like a bunch of context (which honestly it sorta seems the later Russell would do frequently?? idk I haven't read him too much).
Seems like a stretch but I'm familiar with the points you make and I appreciate the connections. I find it hard to believe that Russell was familiar with this particular bit of trivia, that Marx sent Darwin a copy of Das Kapital (which Darwin never read) and to do so would somewhat rehabilitate Malthus who Russell seems to want to associate with Marx -- transferring Malthus's disproven theories onto Marx: one of the leading scholars responsible for thoroughly disproving them.
Yes most certainly a stretch. I would have to read more of what Russell had to say on the matter. I am often confused by his work since he contradicts or changes his views from his earlier to later work.
I still feel that within the first few chapters of Capital and definitely in his other works, Marx pretty clearly diverges from his influences of Malthus, Ricardo, and Smith. Stating that they all were touching on the truth, but missed it in some way because they didn't understand the primary contradictions of capitalism. Which he is understandable about as many of them were writing during the reign of kings and hadn't yet seen the monster that was capitalist imperialism.
Oh yeah completely fair, I agree. I was spitballing, because I have a special place for Russell (his problems of philosophy was my first book on philosophy years and years ago)
I like much of Bertrand Russell's writing. And jeez he had some huge L's. Don't look into what he thought would be a good use of nuclear arms post-WW2.
"The theoretical doctrines of Communism are for the most part derived from Marx. My objections to Marx are of two sorts: one, that he was muddle-headed; and the other, that his thinking was almost entirely inspired by hatred. The doctrine of surplus value, which is supposed to demonstrate the exploitation of wage-earners under capitalism, is arrived at: (a) by surreptitiously accepting Malthus's doctrine of population, which Marx and all his disciples explicitly repudiate; (b) by applying Ricardo's theory of value to wages, but not to the prices of manufactured articles. He is entirely satisfied with the result, not because it is in accordance with the facts or because it is logically coherent, but because it is calculated to rouse fury in wage-earners. Marx's doctrine that all historical events have been motivated by class conflicts is a rash and untrue extension to world history of certain features prominent in England and France a hundred years ago. His belief that there is a cosmic force called Dialectical Materialism which governs human history independently of human volitions, is mere mythology. His theoretical errors, however, would not have mattered so much but for the fact that, like Tertullian and Carlyle, his chief desire was to see his enemies punished, and he cared little what happened to his friends in the process."
analytic "philosophers" please stay in your lanes, it is very embarrassing otherwise.
Seriously wtf does he mean by this.
Also Marx never mentions Dialectical Materialism, the closest anyone gets is Engels describes their method as a "materialist dialectic."
There are so many errors in just this one paragraph I can't even fathom.
I know the answer but of course I can't help asking it: how can such renowned and educated thinkers be so incredibly wrong so consistently? I have little formal education past high school and have a better grasp of these topics than Bertrand Fucking Russell. I know people who work at grocery stores who make 99% of economists and philosophy professors look like total fools.
Marx was muddle headed? Are you fucking serious??
I'll do my best to be charitable to Russell, only for the interest of other readers.
Malthus and his notion of competition was broadly accepted by Adam Smith (labor theory of value, etc.) AND Darwin, prolewiki has an excerpt from Charles Darwin's autobiography where he mentions the impact of Malthus' Essays on Population on his thinking during his time on the HMS Beagle.
Marx was well enamoured and impressed by Darwin's theory of evolution & Origin of Species. Marx sent Darwin a copy of Capital, if I remember because he saw it as an evolution or building upon Darwin's work (which I would agree with, just not sure if that's exactly what Marx said or intended).
If Russell disagreed with competition, and preferred cooperation, maybe the criticism has a bit of weight, if you exclude like a bunch of context (which honestly it sorta seems the later Russell would do frequently?? idk I haven't read him too much).
Seems like a stretch but I'm familiar with the points you make and I appreciate the connections. I find it hard to believe that Russell was familiar with this particular bit of trivia, that Marx sent Darwin a copy of Das Kapital (which Darwin never read) and to do so would somewhat rehabilitate Malthus who Russell seems to want to associate with Marx -- transferring Malthus's disproven theories onto Marx: one of the leading scholars responsible for thoroughly disproving them.
Yes most certainly a stretch. I would have to read more of what Russell had to say on the matter. I am often confused by his work since he contradicts or changes his views from his earlier to later work.
I still feel that within the first few chapters of Capital and definitely in his other works, Marx pretty clearly diverges from his influences of Malthus, Ricardo, and Smith. Stating that they all were touching on the truth, but missed it in some way because they didn't understand the primary contradictions of capitalism. Which he is understandable about as many of them were writing during the reign of kings and hadn't yet seen the monster that was capitalist imperialism.
Oh yeah completely fair, I agree. I was spitballing, because I have a special place for Russell (his problems of philosophy was my first book on philosophy years and years ago)
wtf, this is ableist against muddle-heads.
I like much of Bertrand Russell's writing. And jeez he had some huge L's. Don't look into what he thought would be a good use of nuclear arms post-WW2.