MARX is irrelevant. His critique of 19th century capitalism remains the most sophisticated, ambitious and wide-ranging ever attempted, but it is nonsense. His most important ideas – the inevitability of capitalist breakdown and overthrow; the liberation promised by the revolutionary abolition of private property; and the superiority of socialist production – have proven not merely wrong, farcically wrong, but disastrous. So why is it so hard to admit as much, and move on?
This seems an odd question to ask, at first. Marx scarcely features in contemporary political debate; almost never explicitly so. As much is true of the mainstream. But in radical political circles – in certain universities and left-wing groups – Marx reigns supreme. Don’t be confused by the proliferation of labels (and the far left are notoriously particular about labels, as anyone familiar with the LGBTTQQIAAP movement can testify): the legacy of Marx is inescapable. So much post-Marx and even post-Cold War theory is devoted merely to embellishing Marxism, defending Marxism or building on Marxism. Even theory which appears substantially different in spirit and method implicitly accepts much of Marx’s assumptions and worldview. Serious academics still call themselves Marxists, as though Marxism remained a credible methodology or worldview, as though his ideas had not been refuted – refuted as much by the folly of his own predictions and the failure of his loudest evangelists as by the unsung work of countless social scientists over the following century; men and women less charismatic than Marx, but far more careful in their work. Marxist categories and tools of analysis are still offered to explain ISIS, the Great Recession, the Scottish independence movement and Brexit. Still the Left cannot escape Marx’s spell.
Yet the wisdom of Marx is illusory. For as elegant as his grand theory is, the prestige – the sheer dominance – Marx still commands amongst “radical” thinkers today stems not from the quality of his thought but from the power of his proponents. Do not be fooled: above all, it is because disciples of Marx came to power in so many major countries that his legacy still endures today. The initial success of the Russian and Chinese revolutions (peasant societies, which in no way resembled the collapse of capitalism in its most mature stage predicted by Marx) appeared to prove Marx right, even after those revolutions had curdled into poison. That these regimes came into being in large and important countries, vigorously implemented his programme, spread his message, won major wars and continued to hold power for decades gave Marx a prominence he would never have merited on his ideas alone. The lustrous coating on his altar is blood; spilled from the countless victims of fanatics who killed in his name.
Marx was not a monster. Nor are his ideas inherently evil. For all his scientific pretensions, the essence of his message – like Christianity – is one of liberation through moral and spiritual redemption. Suffice to say, the crimes committed by zealous Christians are of a similar magnitude and gravity to those of Marxists, though they occurred over a much greater period of time. The point is that the consequences of his ideas were appalling, chiefly because those ideas were wrong. Lenin, Stalin and Mao were ruthless, but they were neither charlatans nor fools. They were learned, faithful and extremely competent. They genuinely believed in Marx’s ideas, and made colossal efforts to implement them. And if those ideas had been correct, the revolution would have worked. If displacing capitalism could awaken the people to the conspiracy of religion, there would have been no need to continually persecute and repress the clergy. If socialist production really were a more advanced, democratic and humane means of administering work, there would have been no need to impose collectivisation by force, nor would mass starvation have reliably followed in its wake. Had the overthrow of mature capitalist societies by an ever-more downtrodden working class been inevitable, Britain, Germany and the United States would have followed (preceded, in fact) the Russian example, forestalling both the Second World War and the Cold War. If the workers of the world really did have nothing to lose and no country of their own, Western democracies would have been unable to buy their acquiescence in the Cold War. Nor would there have been any political advantage in embracing jingoistic nationalism, as all Marxist regimes eventually did. The illusion of initial success enjoyed by the Russian and Chinese revolutions, in particular, is a testimony to the power of the will – the sheer determination – put into making those revolutions succeed; an effort marshalled from the whole society by regimes that claimed for themselves unlimited powers of compulsion.
Marx is irrelevant, but Marxism shambles on, an unkillable horror, indifferent to attack, even as decayed flesh still falls from its mighty limbs. What is more apt than Marx’s description of capital as dead labour: Marxism itself is dead thought, unkillable because it is no longer alive, and still it deadens brains, turning seeking minds into unthinking sloganeers, imprisoned by the categories and analytical tools of a long-dead and long-refuted analyst. How many brilliant and creative minds have been hobbled by their insistence on viewing the world through the Marxist lens, even as that lens has been superseded and replaced a hundred times over? The point bears repeating. Scientific socialism is a lie: the spell of Marxism is essentially religious. It is a faith, a master theory of life, and like all faiths it leans on obscurantism to paper over the cracks in its doctrine. That is why it is impervious to evidence and reason. And like a doomsday cult that finds the world still turning after the foreseen day of judgement, Marxists cling to their faith, making only cosmetic changes, whilst refusing to reckon with a reality that proves their utter irrelevance. For those of us on the political left, the supremacy of Marx has destroyed our ability to think for ourselves; to start from a blank sheet; to look at the world with fresh eyes. Every new insight must be crushed and moulded until it fits into the Marxist box. Those who still try to use Marxist analysis to explain the world are like Christian Scientists who scour nature’s works for evidence of intelligent design. None of this was supposed to happen. Marx would be horrified by what his works have become.
Almost as blatant as the failure of Marxism is the failure of 21st century liberal capitalism. We have built a world that is fabulously wealthy, but morally impoverished. We have deliberately poisoned our culture and our values: embraced greed and insatiability, made of them the prime virtues, and built societies where almost everyone works harder and longer but does not live better. Ours is a world where taxes, rules, obligations and laws are for the little people, and the very rich do as they please. We accept an arrangement where the majority sink themselves in debts they cannot repay to buy things they do not need, and must work longer and harder to keep themselves afloat in jobs of declining quality and purpose. All the Right can offer is more of the same: less social protection, lower taxes, more work. There is much here to criticize, and only the Left can do it. For as long as we are obsessed with Marxist fantasies, we cannot do so.
Marxism is not completely worthless. His critique of nationalism, though essentially utopian, remains profoundly moving. The material conception of history, properly understood, is a useful perspective to add to the historian’s arsenal – although this benefit must be weighed against the loss history has suffered from the insistence of so many brilliant historians on the near-exclusive use of such an inadequate tool. But it should be obvious that these splinters of lucidity do not equal Marx’s sacred status in our thought. How many intellectual careers have been wasted trying to prove Marx was right? What might they achieve when the weight of Marx is lifted from their shoulders? At long last, let him sleep.
Nathan
Monday May 13th, 2019
Salisbury
Behemoth 