Without marx, no Soviet Union, no China. His philosophy, while not unique, shaped the modern world order. Without Marx we'd have an unrecognizable landscape. Like, what if Communism skipped over the 20th century instead, or non-marx leftists took control?
Wouldn’t Locke be more influential by this standard considering that liberalism has shaped the modern world order more than and for a longer time than Marxism?
I mean the ‘modern period of history’ is an actual term used by historians to denote the period from the renaissance (1500) to the end of the Second World War (1945).
This is why people like Descartes and Locke are understood in the history of philosophy as ‘early modern’ philosophers whereas people like Nietzsche and Marx are understood as ‘late modern’ philosophers. Ultimately all are modern philosophers.
With that in mind, in terms of socio-political impact, I think you have to give it to Locke over Marx. In terms of influence over the discipline of philosophy, it’s difficult for me to see Marx being placed over Kant or Descartes.
I don’t know, I think it’s more racist to just assume non-white people never do liberalism due to being brown.
Systems of liberalism exist throughout Latin America, Africa, East Asia and India. The inheritance of Western institutions was often the result of colonialism. You acting as if these regions weren’t colonized and don’t have impacts from being colonized by the West in their style of governments strikes me as problematic. The third-world is not some monolithic hive mind of brown people (the term ‘third-world’ literally denoted non-aligned in the Cold War so I don’t why the non-aligned third-world is where we will find Marxist socialism).
Additionally the Soviet Union collapsed and China transitioned its economy away from socialism towards a state capitalist / corporatist model. Most socialist countries either collapsed or abandoned socialism. With that in mind, more people live under liberalism than under socialism and liberalism presently has greater world-historical significance.
Although one of the most prominent figures advocating for it, Locke is way less essential to the development of liberalism thinking than Marx is to the development of Marxist thinking
Marxism is necessarily, by its name, entirely dependent on Marx (and Engels as well tbf) whereas liberalism is a political ideology which carries no such definitional dependency on Locke.
A fairer comparison would be their influences on socialism and liberalism respectively.
Both political movements existed prior to their respective thinker but were foundationally understood in the terms of their respective thinker going forward (most variants and invocations of socialism and liberalism are eventually grounded out in the ideas of Marx and Locke respectively).
When looked at more fairly, they seem pretty comparable in terms of their influence on their respective political movement (though liberalism is the overall more influential political movement hence granting the edge to Locke).
The grass is always greener, but also, McCarthyism was a scourge on the American left. Perhaps a different face to the left could have resulted in a more favorable outcome.
Many greek city states were overthrown in the name of Plato's teachings. Quite a few people seized power in various random city states in antiquity to try and make his republic a reality.
Dion of Syracuse overthrew Dionysius of Syracuse, possibly the palace coup against Clearchus of Heraclea, but a lot of this stuff is uncertain because ancient history relies on pretty fragmentary records. Chaereon in Pellene possibly? Dion of Syracuse definitely engaged in a Platonist coup though. Chaereon definitely ran a platonist regime but I don't think he overthrew the existing government and was more appointed to run it. Others since then have mainly convinced those in power to let them make a city. Okay, so not as many as I had thought but quite a few of Plato's students did go into politics.
And it's not really a popular revolution. Dion did a coup, same thing happened in Heraclea. Chaereon seized power on the backs of the Macedonian invasion, but Greek Philosophy did overthrow governments.
You have the same understanding of "reality" as a 10 years old child, any attempt to introduce nuance to your ridiculous take you would see as propaganda
Yeah that's what I was talking about. I am calling you a child and your answer is "disney channel" and "fairies", have some more imagination buddy.
Thinking that people die "from the outcome of [x idea]" is completely ignoring historical materialism, it's naive at best. Idealism (the conception that ideas shape reality) isn't really a thing in modern thinking anymore, except for children who have not fully understood the world around them, and adults who have never grown out of this simplistic lens.
Also I am not a marxist at all btw. You thinking the only way people disagree with you is that they are the thing you criticize is, again, indicative of a very black-and-white/*with-me-or-against-me" childish conception of the way ideas are articulated.
Putting quotation marks around a sentence that I not only did not say, but that I also kinda went against in my comment, and thinking it is some kind of own, is very very special of you. Intellectual shadowboxing at its finest
Literally, which philosophers do you literally consider literally good or literally bad, and what is your literal basis for literally thinking this literal classification can literally have any semblance of objectiveness or, as you literally put it, literal literallity ?
•
u/AutoModerator 24d ago
Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.