Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's dialectic philosophy has always fascinated me as a teen. His theory proposes that a certain event in history (thesis) will always give rise to a reaction (antithesis), thus resulting into conflicts. This rivalry will soon be resolved by means of a synthesis.
However, this synthesis will soon give rise to its own antithesis. And so the sickening "circle of life" continues (until, perhaps, it reaches a certain point wherein an antithesis could no longer be possible). However, Karl Marx sought to revise Hegelian dialectics years later by turning it "right side up". According to Marx, Hegel's version of dialectics was upside down. He criticized Hegel for living in a world of ideas. Marx would rather apply dialectics into the material world, specifically in labor production and other economic activities, thus giving rise to dialectical materialism, a philosophy that was later on used by the Soviet Socialists.
The point of all this to clearly identify class struggles and how to put an end to it. In other words, a much better society where there will be no more economic misery. Unfortunately for the Soviets, their experimentation failed. But Marxists today continue to soldier on, still putting pointing a finger toward Capitalism as the real evil.
But both Marxism and Capitalism are destructive, most especially the latter. At the very least, Marxism is a philosophy. It has principles and ideals. Capitalism has none of it. It is simply rapacious, solidly built on profiteering. Capitalism, however, cannot be accused of an overt bloody history compared to its rival. I am then reminded of Hegel's three-valued logical model (thesis, antithesis, synthesis). Has he triumphed over Marx? Could it be that Marxism, the thesis, is still trying to resolve a conflict with Capitalism, the antithesis, until the world reaches a final synthesis?
Choosing between Marxism and Capitalism is like picking one's poison. None of the two is perfect. Nevertheless, with all this misery that mankind has endured, I have already succumbed to the notion of putting all my cards on parliamentary federalism as the only better alternative to alleviate our country's sickening economic condition (like risk investment). If it has worked in many other countries, why shouldn't it work here? We haven't even tried it.
Marx sought to better, if not perfect, the conditions of both labor and production. Parliamentary federalism just might have the solutions. We live in a utilitarian world, but in the world of "ideas", it will soon face its own Ragnarök. While waiting for that to happen (it will), I don't think it's a sin to alleviate poor living conditions rather than endure it until the end.
Follow me on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
WordPress.com
No comments:
Post a Comment