What was Karl Marx big ideas?

Question

what worked and did not worked?

Also what was Sartre big ideas? and what worked and did not worked?

Please only serious response.

Answer 1

(thesis antithesis synthesis) extension was a bold assertion and that is all.  

not familiar with satre

Answer 2

Marx, along with a large number of other philosophers of his time, considered a society based upon social need, rather than individual greed.  Capitalism certainly wasn't welcomed with open arms, a large number of people understood exactly what was going to happen.  Untold luxury for a minority and starvation, hardship and global genocides for the rest of us.  Of course the TV says everything's OK and that's exactly what the masses think.

Answer 3

As somebody else has already mentioned it Karl Marx did have the idea of the thesis and antithesis.

To put it in simpler terms-

1. Society starts one way  

2. Opposition to this way develops.

3. This changes society.

4. Go to 1.

Also Communism. He saw that there was a huge class divide and blamed this on capitalism. In order to destroy the class division he advocated collective ownership of the means of production and the withering away of the state. That is- he wanted everyone to own everything and for there to be no government.

To be honest- I don't understand Sartre that well and have only read "Nausea". As far as I understand it he was dealing with the question of consciousness and free will. He saw the world and life as essentially meaningless and (I think) he saw people as basically programmed robots. He basically claimed that people do not have free will unless they decide to have free will. He also thought that in reality we are all totally free, whether we choose to recognise it or not and we have total responsibility for our lives.

The wikipedia article is very good. It might help you to understand this more than I can.

Try reading the works of both Marx and Sartre "The Communist Manifesto" is really short and "Nausea" is quite good fun if you can get into it.

Good luck!

Answer 4

Shortcomings of Marxism

In the following dialogue, Srila Prabhupäda with one of his disciple, he focuses on Marx's frustrated attempt to eradicate greed from human nature and society at large. "A classless society is possible only when Krishna is in the center," says Srila Prabhupäda. "The real change occurs when we say, 'Nothing belongs to me, everything belongs to God, Krishna'... So Krishna consciousness is the final revolution."

Syämasundara: Karl Marx contended that philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point is to change it. His philosophy is often called "dialectical materialism" because it comes from the dialectic of George Hegel—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. When applied to society, his philosophy is known as communism. His idea is that for many generations, the bourgeoisie [the property owners] have competed with the proletariat [the working class], and that this conflict will terminate in the communist society. In other words, the workers will overthrow the capitalistic class and establish a so-called dictatorship of the proletariat, which will finally become a classless society.

Srila Prabhupäda: But how is a classless society possible? Men naturally fall into different classes. Your nature is different from mine, so how can we artificially be brought to the same level?

Syämasundara: His idea is that human nature, or ideas, are molded by the means of production. Therefore everyone can be trained to participate in the classless society.

Srila Prabhupäda: Then training is required?

Syämasundara: Yes.

Srila Prabhupäda: And what will be the center of training for this classless society? What will be the motto?

Syämasundara: The motto is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The idea is that everyone would contribute something, and everyone would get what he needed.

Srila Prabhupäda: But everyone's contribution is different. A scientific man contributes something, and a philosopher contributes something else. The cow contributes milk, and the dog contributes service as a watchdog. Even the trees, the birds, the beasts—everyone is contributing something. So, by nature a reciprocal arrangement is already there among social classes. How can there be a classless society?

Syämasundara: Well, Marx's idea is that the means of production will be owned in common. No one would have an advantage over anyone else, and thus one person could not exploit another. Marx is thinking in terms of profit.

Srila Prabhupäda: First we must know what profit actually is. For example, the American hippies already had "profit." They were from the best homes, their fathers were rich—they had everything. Yet they were not satisfied; they rejected it. No, this idea of a classless society based on profit—sharing is imperfect. Besides, the communists have not created a classless society. We have seen in Moscow how a poor woman will wash the streets while her boss sits comfortably in his car. So where is the classless society? As long as society is maintained, there must be some higher and lower classification. But if the central point of society is one, then whether one works in a lower or a higher position, he doesn't care. For example, our body has different parts—the head, the legs, the hands—but everything works for the stomach.

Syämasundara: Actually, the Russians supposedly have the same idea: they claim the common worker is just as glorious as the top scientist or manager.

Srila Prabhupäda: But in Moscow we have seen that not everyone is satisfied. One boy who came to us was very unhappy because in Russia young boys are not allowed to go out at night.

Syämasundara: The Russian authorities would say that he has an improper understanding of Marxist philosophy.

Srila Prabhupäda: That "improper understanding" is inevitable. They will never be able to create a classless society because, as I have already explained, everyone's mentality is different............

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), was perhaps the most prominent exponent of existentialism in the twentieth century.



Disciple: Descartes and Leibnitz believed that before the creation the concept of man existed in essence in the mind of God, just as a machine exists in the mind of its manufacturer before it is constructed. Sartre takes exception to this. In The Humanism of Existentialism, he writes: "Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality."

Srila Prabhupäda: But where does human reality come from? There are also other realities. Why is he stressing human reality?

Disciple: As for man's origin, Sartre would say that man is "thrown into the world."

Srila Prabhupäda: Thrown by whom? The word "throw" implies a thrower.

Disciple: Sartre isn't really interested in a thrower. "Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing God doesn't exist," he writes. "Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but that we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue."

Srila Prabhupäda:  But if you and others exist, why doesn't God exist? Why deny God and His existence? Let them all exist.

Disciple: Since Sartre sees man as having been thrown into the world and abandoned, for him, God is dead.

Srila Prabhupäda: Abandoned by God does not mean that God is dead. You have to admit that you are condemned to the material world, but just because you are condemned, you should not think that God, Krishna, is also condemned. God is always in Vaikuntha(the spiritual world). He is not dead.

Disciple: Sartre believes that because we have been abandoned, we must rely on ourselves alone.

Srila Prabhupäda: But God, krishna, has not abandoned us. God is not partial. He does not accept one person and abandon another. If you feel abandoned, it is because you have done something that has brought this condition about. If you rectify your position, you will be accepted again.

Disciple: But Sartre would deny God's existence, particularly that of a personal God.

Srila Prabhupäda: But his denial should be based on some logic or reason. Why mention the word "God" if God does not exist? God is there, but Sartre denies God's existence. This is inconsistent. If God does not exist, why even mention the word? His proposal is that he does not want God to exist.

Disciple: He wants to set the whole question aside in order to place emphasis on man, on human reality.

Srila Prabhupäda: If you believe in your existence, why not believe in the existence of another? There are 8,400,000 different species existing in multifarious forms. Why shouldn't God exist? According to the Vedic understanding, God is also a living being, but He is different in that He is the chief, supreme living being. According to the Bhagavad-gitä, mattaù parataraà nänyat [Bg. 7.7]. There is no living being superior to God. We all experience the fact that there are beings more intelligent than we. God is the ultimate intelligence. Why can't a person who exceeds all others in intelligence exist? There is no question of "if God exists." God must exist. In the çästras He is described as the superlative personality, as the super-powerful, super-intelligent being. We can see in this world that everyone is not on an equal level, that there are varying degrees of perfection. This indicates that there is a superlative, and if we go on searching—either for wealth, intelligence, power, beauty, or whatever—we will find that God possesses all qualities to the superlative degree, and that every other living entity possesses His qualities partially. How, then, can we rationally deny His existence?

Disciple: According to Sartre, the first principle of existentialism is that "man is nothing else but what he makes of himself." This can be true only if there is no God to conceive of human nature.

Srila Prabhupäda: If man is what he makes of himself, why doesn't man exist as a superman? If his capacities are completely independent of anyone else, why is he in his present situation?

Disciple: That is also Sartre's question. He therefore emphasizes man's responsibility. "But if existence really does precede essence," he writes, "man is responsible for what he is. Thus existentialism's first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him."

Srila Prabhupäda: If man is responsible, who gave him this responsibility? What does he mean by responsibility? You feel responsible to someone when someone gives you duties to discharge. If there is no duty, or overseer, where is your responsibility?

Disciple: Sartre sees man as being overwhelmed by his very responsibility. He is in anguish and anxiety because he has the freedom to change himself and the world.

Srila Prabhupäda: This means that man is in an awkward position. He wants peace, but he does not know how to attain it. But this does not mean that peace is not possible. Peace is not possible for a man in ignorance.

Disciple: Anxiety arises from responsibility. Man thinks that he has to choose properly in order to enjoy something. If he chooses wrongly, he must suffer.

Srila Prabhupäda: Yes, responsibility is there, but why not take it to transfer yourself to a safe place where there is no anxiety? It may be that you do not know of a safe place, but if there is such a place, why not ask someone who knows? Why constantly