Karl Marx: did he get it all right? As financial markets crash, the
reputation of Karl Marx soars. So has his time come at last? Our writer
examines the evidence, while other commentators from the Left discuss his
validity  Philip Collins

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4981065.ece

The world financial system is melting down. The credit markets have ceased
trading. The State has taken a controlling stake in some of the banks.
Governments are guaranteeing bank deposits. People are contemplating putting
their money in tins or buying gold if they can afford it. The capitalists
are losing their jobs and the workers are losing their property. Could it be
that Marx's hour has come at last?

The 40,000 pilgrims who have made their way this year to Trier, the Prussian
town where Marx was born in 1818, clearly think so. So do the unrepentant
Marxist professors who have taken to the airwaves to declare that they knew
this would happen all along. Finally, you can hear them think, the world is
having the good grace to live down to their opinion of it.

And perhaps so do the readers who have recently bought Marx's great text of
economic analysis, Das Kapital. Booksellers in Berlin have been quoted as
saying that it has been flying off the shelves. Even if it has, Das Kapital
will probably fly back on to them quick enough. This is a book that will be
read long after Milton and Shakespeare have been forgotten - only not until
then.
  Times Archive

   - 1872: The Commune in London
   
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1872-03-19-08-003&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1872-03-19-08>


   - 1883: Obituary: Karl Marx
   
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1883-03-17-13-012&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1883-03-17-13>


   - 1897: Karl Marx's "Capital"
   
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1897-02-22-06-012&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1897-02-22-06>


   - 1933: Karl Marx remembered
   
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1933-03-14-15-002&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1933-03-14-15>

 It isn't exactly an easy read. Generally, for most people, books with
equations are best avoided. The introduction is comprehensible to the layman
and, in its last few pages, it ends on a high. In the middle, it gets a bit
sticky. Das Kapital is a reminder of Philip Larkin's definition of the
English novel: a beginning, a muddle and an end.

But Marx does seem to have been on to something. His basic point is that
there is some good news and some bad news. He gave you the bad news first:
capitalism is dreadful. The workers are exploited and the capitalists get
rich at their expense. So far, so Lehman Brothers. The good news was that
the bad news was bound to come to an end. Capitalism wasn't just nasty, it
was doomed. It would collapse under the weight of its own internal
contradictions. A bit like Lehman Brothers.

Marx's anger wasn't directed principally at individual capitalists. After
all, his great German collaborator and friend, Friedrich Engels, was a
Manchester mill owner. If it hadn't been for Engels, Marx would never have
finished the book. In fact, if it hadn't been for Engels, Marx would never
have finished his evening meal. Marx took his distaste for capital to the
extent that he never had any. Whether or not the irony was deliberate, he
wrote his text condemning capitalism while living off its charity.

The exploitation was bigger than any one person. It was endemic in a society
in which class oppressed class. The bourgeoisie, those who owned the means
of production, lorded it over the workers. The proletariat, whose only
commodity was their labour, were forced to sell themselves like chattels.
Thus were they alienated from their true nature. Everything else - art,
culture, religion - were just so many diversions laid on by the producers to
keep the minds of the workers off their revolutionary destiny. To put it in
our terms: it was the economy, stupid.

And the economy powered history with a capital H. Every era gives way to
something better, in an inevitable march to communism. The primitive
communism of tribal societies yields to slavery which is, in turn, replaced
by feudalism. The feudal merchants become capitalists, exploit the workers
and inspire the proletariat to revolution. The interim management of the
workers then produces the eternal administration of the socialist Utopia.
Once the process gets going, it's unstoppable.

But this is where the comparison ends. It doesn't really sound a lot like
the credit crunch. It is hard to think of investment bankers as the
benighted proletariat labouring under the burden of false consciousness. If
they are exploited at all, then the bonuses probably soften the blow. Many
layers of management, most of it very highly paid, has inserted itself in
the gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. And there's not much
sign of revolution from the working class. Maybe if the Government tweaks
the flexible-working arrangements it might start.

It's when he gets into predicting the future that Marx really starts to go
wrong. As a prophet, he is strictly in the tealeaf reading category. Very
conveniently, he makes it easy for us. Marx sets out, in The Communist
Manifesto, the ten steps to communism. This book, remember, wasn't just a
how-to guide. It wasn't the ten habits of highly revolutionary people. It
was a supposedly scientific account of what would happen. So it's perfectly
reasonable to score Marx out of ten. He doesn't, in truth, do all that well.


Marx said that there would be a heavily progressive system of income tax and
you could say we have that. He said that the state should take control of
the supply of credit. The £37 billion bail-out of banks is not quite what
Marx envisaged but we can stretch a point. Marx demanded free public
education for all children and an end to child labour in factories, a
practice that capitalists decided they could, after all, do without. The
demand for state control of factories has not come to pass but Marx coupled
that, rather illogically, with cultivating wastelands according to a common
plan. John Prescott often talked a lot about using brownfield rather than
greenfield sites for development and that has to be worth half a point.

But some of the big predictions still look on the far horizon. A British
people obsessed with the housing market have never paid the slightest
attention to the slogan that Marx borrowed from Proudhon - all property is
theft. All estate agency is theft, perhaps. The rights of inheritance, far
from being abolished, have been strengthened, mostly because the British
hang on so tenaciously to their property that they don't let go even when
they are dead. We have yet to confiscate all the property of emigrants and
rebels (although the freezing of assets of Icelandic banks and terrorists is
at least making a start). And, notwithstanding the BBC, Network Rail and the
re-regulation of the buses, we haven't really seen the centralisation of the
means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state. Neither
is there much sign of an army of agricultural workers in a nation in which
agriculture now account for less than 1 per cent of GDP. Finally, the state
has not taken charge of the distribution of people between the town and the
country. Should anyone be odd enough to want to live in the English
countryside, they are allowed to.

Marx's score is a generous three and a half out of ten. The internet is
awash with lunatics who believe that most countries are already practising
communism without realising it. But, in fact, if the end is coming, we are
only just over a third of the way there.

Marx should have the last word. "From the moment I picked up your book until
I laid it down I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it."
Not Karl but Groucho.

*Was the Left vindicated? *

*Martin Jacques: Visiting professor at Renmin University, Beijing; edited
Marxism Today from 1977 until 1991*

This crisis shows that capitalism is not only a dynamic system, but one that
is inherently prone to crisis. In that sense, Marx was, and is, right.
During each period of economic growth and prosperity, from Lawson to Brown,
for example, this is forgotten, amid boasts that boom and bust have been
banished for ever. This crisis has once more confounded such boasts. But it
is not only Marx who has been validated by this crisis, but Keynes, too. For
30 years we've been told that the market always knows best and that the
Government is at best a necessary evil. In this crisis we see that the
market can result in huge distortions with calamitious results; and that
only the Government is big enough and legitimate enough - as the
representative of all the people - to intervene and sort the mess out. It
marks the end of the neo-liberal era and the return of social democracy.

*Professor Eric Hobsbawm: Marxist historian *

The interest in Marx seems a vindication, as his analysis of capitalism put
its finger on globalisation and periodic crises and instabilities. Over the
past few decades people thought the market would sort everything out, which
seemed to me a statement of theology rather than reality. It's good that
people are taking this kind of analysis more seriously than they have for a
long time because it breaks with the conventional analysis that has
dominated most governments and a lot of ideologies over the years. It's fun
to discover that what one has been saying for a long time, and others have
been pooh-poohing, is being taken seriously. But that isn't the important
thing; that is to recognise that a phase of this particular world system has
passed and we must think of another one. It will take a long time for it to
settle down, but there is no way we're going back to where we were in the
1980s and 1990s, and that's a good thing.

*Frank Furedi: Professor of sociology, Kent University, founder of the
British Revolutionary Communist Party in the 1970s (disbanded in 1998)*

Marx's fundamental insight into the transient character of society's
arrangements has been pretty well demonstrated by recent events and the
shifting contours of European history. In many respects what he saw was the
co-existence of powerful destructive forces with powerful constructive
forces within the capitalist system. But one must remember that he's a
19th-century thinker who, along with other important thinkers - Adam Smith
among them - provided important signposts on understanding our society.
They're of limited use in the capacity to find your own way in the world,
and younger generations must rethink problems for themselves. The danger is
that people such as Marx provide answers to the questions that we're all
asking, but we shouldn't begin with the answers: we must begin with the
right questions.

*Mick Hume: The Times's libertarian Marxist columnist, launched and edited
Living Marxism magazine 20 years ago *

Marx was right to identify and analyse the tendency towards crises within
capitalism, but he did not predict the system's "inevitable" collapse. Today
too many people who have never read or understood Marx are trying to turn
him into an anti-capitalist Nostradamus who supposedly predicted it all, a
soothsayer rather than revolutionary social scientist. Marx always
emphasised that the resolution of a crisis would ultimately depend on
political factors: that man makes his own history, although not in
circumstances of his own choosing. It is still the case that there is no
alternative, no political contestation about the future of society. Instead,
whether from rightwing Republicans in the US or Labour here, we just have
state-run managerial politics aiming to preserve as much of the status quo
as possible. The rest of us are reduced to passive spectators rather than
active political agents. Marx would not be laughing in his grave or dancing
on anybody else's as some suggest. If anything I think he'd a be a bit
depressed about missed opportunities. And anybody who takes pleasure in
human misery is an idiot.

*John McDonnell: MP for Hayes and Harlington *

Das Kapital and Wages, Prices and Profit should be issued to all government
ministers as the definitive guides to the causes of capitalism in crisis;
they will give them an understanding of the inherent exploitative nature and
instability of an economic system that is putting thousands of people on the
dole queue each month and making many homeless. I'd suggest that they then
read Robert Owen's work on co-operatives, Antonio Gramsci's prison writings
on winning the battle of ideas, Ernest Mandel's Late Capitalism and Ralph
Miliband's Socialism for a Sceptical Age.

*Claire Fox: Director of the Institute of Ideas *

I'm worried about this gleeful pseudo- Marxist critique of the system;
there's a vulgarisation of Marxism going on. It isn't some kind of religion
in which you have divine retribution, with bankers now on the receiving end.
People seem to be refusing to acknowledge that this means a period of
enforced austerity for ordinary people. Owning your house is not a sign of
psychological flaw; it could be deemed aspirational. Marx's most profound
statement was about the role of human agency in change. Society can't change
unless you have a clear idea of politics and ideas, and that requires people
to see themselves as history-makers, to be actively participating, not to be
in a period of political disengagement. So the new interest confirms a
passivity in a way, and the idea of dinner-party Schadenfreude is really
sick.

*Claire Fox will speak at the Battle of Ideas festival on November 1 and 2.
The event is co-sponsored by The Times; visit www.battleofideas.org.uk/ for
details *

*Mortgage holders of the world, unite *

*What would Marx have made of the credit crunch if he were still living?
Alexei Sayle has the answer *

Karl Marx was an inveterate fiddler with his words and a compulsive misser
of deadlines, so there are many inconsistencies and a few downright
contradictions in the holy texts of Marxism. However, it's not too
speculative to say that until recently Karl would have been feeling a bit
down: just as if Jesus had ever met the Rev Ian Paisley or any number of
popes he would have given up on the whole "son of God" message and become a
Pilates teacher, so Marx would have been appalled by the murderers,
sociopaths and kleptomaniacs who oppressed half the world in the name of his
philosophy. That these idiots then let even their half-assed version of
Marxism collapse, seemingly leaving capitalism unopposed and stronger than
ever, would have made him really cheesed off.

Plus, given what we know about his personal circumstances - how all his life
he and his family were pursued by moneylenders and landlords - it's certain
that Marx would still have been bad with money. My guess is that despite
spending nearly 150 years waiting for capitalism to inevitably collapse, in
March this year he would have allowed Steve, his "financial adviser" at the
Westphalia and East Prussia Building Society, to persuade him to purchase a
newly done-up flat in Central Manchester. "Buy-to-let, Karl, mate," Steve
would have said. "You can't go wrong."

However, these past few weeks of financial turmoil across the world would
have perked old Marx right up: after all, being broke was nothing new to him
- and finally, after so many years in the wilderness, his thoughts, his
hopes, his prediction that capitalism was unsustainable in the long term,
would be considered anew.

>From out of the dusty corners and fetid holes where they have been hiding
for so many long decades of pain, his true disciples are emerging blinking
into the light. At last they are being asked to write small pieces in
newspapers and appear on late-night political TV shows hosted by men with
strange hair, and with one voice these true disciples of Karl Marx are
saying: "I told you so! I bloody told you so! I've been going on about this
stuff for years but you didn't listen, did you? Instead you just stopped
inviting me to your dinner parties and didn't answer my increasingly
desperate text messages. Now you're sorry, aren't you? But it's too late. Ha
ha ha ha ha."


-- 
James Michael

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Green Youth Movement" group.
 To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to