Why did Marx side with Plato?

PIXABAY

This is a quite general post which doesn't have the depth to explore every nuance of this theme.

With that caveat, then, generally speaking, we see Plato as an Idealist and his Republicas a reflection of that idea and position. Aristotle, however, was a materialist and his Politics was framed within this view. This is the primary context within this post; or, put another way, it might be framed by asking why Marx, who so aligned with Aristotle's materialism, performed a '180' when it came to politics and economics and sided with Plato the idealist? Oh, some unpacking is necessary, eh?

We see, then, that Marx is with Aristotle on the issues of materialism and any thoughts he may have had on the soul would most definitely fall on the Aristotle side of the fence--so far, so good! Moreover, following a logical consistency, we should expect Marx to concede that humans are self-interested and short-sighted prone to caring mostly about what is in one's best interest--this view, as far as I can tell, is rationally consistent with Aristotle's thinking (at least for the point I'm trying to make). From where I sit, Marx should have ended up thinking like AynRand! That is to say that the materialist view consistent with Aristotle's oeuvre would have led a consistent thinker to a place more like Rand and the Anarcho-Capitalists whom also want to abolish the state (but not class distinctions).

Yet, rather than going with the flow of logical consistency we see Marx move to the Idealist camp on this issue and siding (albeit seemingly) with Plato's idealism. Where has it ever been demonstrated that humans will put other humans concerns before their own especially over longer periods of time premised on ideological abstractions? This doesn't seem to happen other than in a few tales within religious myth such as presented in The Book of Acts and the societal code presented by the nascent Pentecostal church. This, it seems to me, is where Marx went astray and screwed up royally in his thinking! I know, the audacity of it all:D

That is my point, as short and succinct as it is:) A few more thoughts on this: Marx was an intellectual élite backed by a financial élite--Engels, so I'm personally skeptical that either one of them gave a shit about the have-nots in society! On conspiracy lane, I've suggested that communism was a divide and conquer strategy of the El-ites and the way things have played out over the past 150-years would argue for the correctness of that assertion. Were Plato and Aristotle a part of a longer conspiracy of divide and conquer? That aside, under neoliberal rule, we've seen the synthesis of capitalism and communism which has led to a worldwide fascist corporate oligarchy--under this quasi-religious money system humans have been reduced to a one-world monoculture of consumption and you're free to do that one thing! I see this as a pathological synthesis and I explore a healthy attempt at synthesis below.

NOTE: in my opinion, Rand was correct in a few of her underlying philosophical premises, but; I'd have to evoke Hitchens here and ask if humanity really needs selfishness institutionalized? Definitely not from every perspective I look from.

NOTE:  my, New Earth Commons ideas are an attempt to synthesize the best of the divided brain with its concomitant antipathies. Therein one will find that I'm not hostile to wealth: only unmerited wealth from gaming a casino economy along with the unsustainability of there being 10-billion billionaires on a rather small earth. I concede welfare or throwing money at the poor isn't a solution but that abasic guaranteed minimum incomeis a necessary part of the solution which needs to be combined with a new education model one of which is freeing up land again to educated and informed homesteaders, but the scales involved today make that idea only a small part of necessary solutions. Primarily, humanity has to unite against a worldwide monoculture of consumption fuelled by every manner of usury, exploitation, and coercion. 

NOTE: the nation-state evolved and developed over time and evolution would suggest this happened out of necessity. Like each human, who can be either healthy or non-healthy, we can deduce that the same is the case with the nation-state. I argue that a healthy nation-state is not only possible but desirable (yes, I'm a commie/so funny when the uncaps call me bad names) and that that is what humanity should strive for. A prerequisite for a healthy nation-state, however, is not having the state governed via Casper (ghost stories)...A healthy secular humanism which concedes the possibility of God is the best way forward.

 Here is an educated analysis which explores this idea with more nuance.

 Here is a Yahoo link exploring Aristotle's perspectives on capital. He's rolling in his grave when it comes to the worldwide system of usury.