Any student of the 20th Century will have to marvel at the success of communism. Its ultimate failure should not overshadow its inherent vitality, leaving its permanent mark on mankind. The whole century saw ideological certitude replacing theological convictions. The neo-dogmas were many and varied. Fascism, pan-nationalism, politico-religious fanaticism and enforced democratisation all stepped forward to play their part. Yet while the soft left liberalist to hard right agendas could be considered as the manifestation of individual sentiments coalescing around a particular strand, communist thought had something entirely different to offer. It was not only totalitarian but also the only ideology to be exclusively and exhaustively schematised. We can trace it to the thought of one man, and one man only. Karl Marx.
Is it fair to so radically draw a line through later interpreters of Marx? And do we not run the risk of conflating communism and Marxism (not to mention what Marx himself believed)? After all the method of actualising the revolution and mass systems planning were two key components added on by later thinkers when they had to surmount the challenges ahead. Nevertheless we would be in denial if we were to avoid acknowledging the self evident fact that the ideology could never have existed without the Prussian. The man’s genius for political interpretation was startling. It bequeathed us not only the departure point for the communist phenomena but also the tools for historical interpretation. Monetary transaction is no static exchange. Following the monetary trail gave Marx his sense of historical direction. Writing history didn’t start with Marx. But it wouldn’t be so wrong to say that it did.
Until Marx, the larger part of history had been chronicling the comings and goings of kings. There was a lack of focus on the true dynamics that pushed on society. This was only natural. After all, under absolute monarchy systems, power was vested in the hands of the few. In the East a full three centuries before Marx, the Mamluke historians Ibn Khaldun and al-Maqrizi had made a tentative start at considering economics as a function of history. Adam Smith opened the door in the West. Yet it was Marx who, in an urbanising Europe, left us with the clearest ideas. His class divisions highlighted a transitional class roughly equivalent to the middle class. He correctly highlighted that the technological changes in modes of production affected the political relationship between peoples. The handmill gave us the feudal lord. The steam mill gave us industrial capitalist. This concept of the modes of production needs to be reopened for today and investigated as part of the debate on globalisation. An Africa migrating from the village to the city, a Middle East confounded by technological advances, have both found themselves ill-equipped to face the shift in politics. Then Marx also taught us to value the worker. True his economic theory of labour power cannot stand the innate rationalism of marginal utility, but we must not deny that the price of all produce is related to human effort. All goods have a human labour cost attached. Was he not correct when he taught that there are “two sources from which all wealth springs: the earth and the worker?”
Three criticisms of Marx damn his work. All revolve around the narrowness of the Master’s vision. Firstly, as Popper has highlighted, the selective data processing that Marx engages in is hardly objective. Anyone who questions the system stands to be ostracised through a set of cyclical rebukes which only serve to reinforce the system for the believer. Marxism provided the devotee with unshakable faith and an unquestionable religion. Secondly, as Schumpeter highlights, only two real classes could exist within Marxism: the haves and the have-nots. For all the talk of the petit-bourgeois Marxist sociology remains too focused on ownership and possession ignoring other reasons for social tensions. Yet can we honestly accept that the tribe, the culture or the family no role to play in society’s divisions? Lastly, we must recall that the fall of communism was essentially economic. Marx had forgotten to deal adequately with human incentive. The political collapse of the Marxist enterprise a century after his death proved that true binding equality was a fool’s dream. Human aspiration to possess created a large enough black market to undercut the idealised system.
The financial crisis has certainly changed things around. After two decades of being heavily discredited, Marx’s writings are now being revisited. The rush to nationalise failing banks has left the neo-liberal lobby wracked in self contradiction. Those on the left may well radicalise. Yet, one should be warned, Marx is a thinker who remains as dangerous as he is refreshing. Here was a man who spoke “only in the imperative, brooking no contradiction.” Marx needs to be reconsidered – not reaccepted.
Tariq Sami – As published on affectjournal.co.uk/blog
