Karl Marx_ A Biography ( PDFDrive )

face were obviously moved by passion, and he poured out a stream of vigorous denunciation, which displayed alike the heat of his temperament and the marvellous command he possessed over our language. T h e contrast between his manner and utterance when thus deeply stirred by anger and his attitude when giving his views on the economic events of the period was very marked. He turned from the role of prophet and vehement denunciator to that of the calm philosopher without any apparent effort, and I felt from the first that on this latter ground many a long year might pass before I ceased to be a student in the presence of a master.

H. M. Hyndman, Record of an Adventurous Life

N O T E S

1.Victorian popular writer.

2.'I consider that nothing human is alien to me.' j. 'You must have doubts about everything.'

T E N

Postscript: Marx Today

Marx did just rate a small obituary in The Times but the starding inaccuracies it contained showed how little he was known at the time of his death. In a speech delivered at his funeral to a handful of faithful friends, Engels declared that 'his name will live on through the centuries and so will his work'. This prediction has indeed proved correct. In the century after his death Karl Marx has attained a world fame and influence such as few men have achieved.

Marx claimed not only that he had discovered and explained the laws of motion of society, he also asserted that these laws showed that society could and would be changed by the very people without power - the working class. T h e y were to create a new society, through a revolution. Marx argued that this revolutionary change was not only desirable: it was inevitable. To him, this was a science, like biology.

On his massive tombstone in Highgate Cemetery is carved Marx's saying that 'Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it'. While Karl Marx lived, the world did indeed change - and some of the changes were ones that he had not predicted. But capitalism was not overthrown. T h e revolution did not succeed anywhere in his lifetime. Yet in one generation, just thirty-four years after his death, the whole world was profoundly changed as a direct consequence of his life and work. From his grave, Marx inspired the Russian Revolution of November 1 9 1 7 , one of the truly cataclysmic events in world history, and the world has not been the same since.

For one third of the world, the ideas of Marx served to justify the established order, and to give it authority. Here, Marxism served as the cement of society. Here, Marxism stood for the opposite of revolution.

Here, Marxism meant order, although one of which Marx himself would never have approved. Indeed, some of the things done in the name of Marxism would make Marx himself turn in his grave - if only he were not kept immobile by the immense weight of marble and bronze pressing down upon him.

Marx himself was no prophet and gave very little indication of what a Marxist society ought to look like. All Marx's own comments on the

nature of a future communist society are extremely sketchy. He had much more to say about capitalism that he did about communism. It was Marx's most celebrated disciple, Lenin, who was responsible for attempting to construct a Marxist society after leading Marx's Russian followers to victory in the Revolution of 1 9 1 7 . Lenin never knew Marx. He was only a very young boy when Marx died and was brought up in a completely different setting. Lenin reshaped the legacy of Marx, and became part of an extended legacy. That 'extended legacy' is now usually called Marxism-Leninism. T h e success of Lenin and his fellow-revolutionaries put Marxism on the world map and meant that ever since for most people Marxism has been closely associated with Soviet Russia - whose demise would have caused Marx neither surprise nor dismay. But it is not only in Marxist states that Marx's ideas have had influence. Throughout the rest of the world, he has changed the way people think. Whether we agree with him or not, Marx has shaped our ideas about society. He built up a system which draws on philosophy, on history, on economics and on politics. And although the professional philosophers, the economists and the political scientists often do not accept his theories, they cannot ignore them. T h e y have become part of the mental scaffolding of the century with the result that a lot of our thinking about history and society is a dialogue with Marx's ghost.

To understand what Marx himself meant, a lot of history has to be stripped away. For Marx's ideas have been overlaid by many different interpretations and have been used to justify many different sorts of politics. H ow are we to assess the importance of this ghost in the contemporary world? What message, if any, do Marx's ideas have for us a century and more after his death? Of course, the world has changed much since Marx wrote. Marx's age was the age of steam power and the electric telegraph. For him the great upheaval was caused when the traditional craftsmen of the sort he actually knew in the old Communist League were being replaced by unskilled or semi-skilled factory workers, the real modern industrial proletariat. A century after Marx died that industrial proletariat is being split up. In the West it is losing its identity. T h e microchip gives the blue-collar workers white collars instead - and introduces chronic structural unemployment. Thea microchip takes them away from the factory, mill or mine. T h e means of production that Marx knew about, that Lenin knew about, are changing fast. By the end of this century the proportion of industrial workers will have declined considerably and the numbers of technical and professional workers will have increased. And this same technical progress has given the impersonal state m industrial societies vast and frightening powers of intervention and control.

Marx shared the common nineteenth-century view that progress was somehow inexorably written into the story of human development. There would no doubt be setbacks and sufferings, but humanity, in its struggle to dominate nature, would in the long run produce a society in which human capacities were more extensively exercised and human needs more fully met. But more recent developments in the productive forces, and particularly atomic energy, have led many to wonder whether humanity's efforts to dominate nature have not taken a fundamentally wrong turning. We have lost our nerve and our own inventions have made us more dubious about 'progress' than at any time for the last two hundred years.

Many, too, of Marx's expectations have remained unfulfilled. Two cases are particularly striking. Firstly, there is the lack of revolutionary drive among the working class in the West. Marx underestimated the later role

new classes such as technicians and managers. With the lack of support for revolutionary politics among the mass of the working class, Marxist leaders were faced with a dilemma: either they reflected the mood of the workers and produced reformist policies which diluted Marxism, or they preserved the revolutionary spirit of Marxism by setting themselves apart from, and superior to, the views of those they claimed to represent. Secondly, Marx underestimated the persistence and growth of nationalism. Although sensitive to national sentiment in his own time, Marx considered that class divisions would prove stronger than national ones. August 1 9 1 4 is a crucial date here: the fact that the world's largest Marxist party - in Germany - could be swept away on a nationalist tide led Marxists to revise their strategy. In all Marxist revolutions, there has been a strong nationalist element. Lenin himself was adept at co-opting the nationalism of the non-Russian peoples in the Tsarist empire. T h e revolutions in Yugoslavia, China, Cuba and Vietnam all had strong nationalist overtones.

With its emphasis on economic determinism and its confidence about the inevitability of socialism, Marxism has often indulged in a shallow optimism about the possibilities open to human nature. For Marxists have usually just assumed that there existed, as an alternative to capitalism, a morally superior and altogether more efficient method of organising production. Marx himself was a real child of the Enlightenment in this respect. After the pessimism of Nietzsche and Freud, the world is a great deal darker and the light of reason often reduced to a faint glimmer. For Marxism has been severely tarnished in practice - as, of course, has Christianity by the Crusades and the Inquisition, and liberal values by

the activities of Western governments. Marxism remains, so far, much more impressive in its interpretations of the world than in its efforts to change it.

With its powerful synthesis of history, philosophy, sociology and economics, Marx's social theory was one of the most impressive intellectual achievements of the nineteenth century. When Sartre called Marxism 'the philosophy of our time', he had in mind the way in which many of the ideas of Marx have entered - albeit unconsciously - into the way in which, in the twentieth century, we look at the world. In a sense, we are all Marxists now. We tend to view human beings as social, not as isolated individuals; through the development of sociology, which owes so much to Marx, we study ways of changing and improving society; we appreciate historically the central role of economic factors in the development of humanity; we see the ways in which ideas are related to the interests of particular social and economic groups at particular times; and Marx's criticisms have taught many to see the inequalities and injustices in the capitalist system and at least to try to mitigate them.

For more than a century Marxism has been the language in which millions have expressed their hopes for a more just society. As a vehicle of protest, Marx's description of religion applies with equal force to the way in which many have seen his own message: 'the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world and the soul of soulless circumstances'. It is the reduction to scientific formulae and the institutionalisation of these aspirations that has caused the trouble. As Ignazio Silone, an old ex-Communist put it: 'The more socialist theories claim to be "scientific", the more transitory they are; but socialist values are permanent. T h e distinction between theories and values is not sufficiently recognised, but is fundamental. On a group of theories, one can found a school; hut on a group of values one can found a culture, a civilisation, a new way of living together.' It is well known that Marx himself was so angered l>y the uses to which his ideas were put by some of his would-be disciples that he exclaimed towards the end of his life: 'As for me, I am no Marxist!' Hut these same ideas - however distorted, revised or reinterpreted - continue to exercise their influence over hearts and minds. T h e y have added a new dimension to the understanding of our world. Marx is the intellectual giant of both socialist theories and values. However doubtful si >ine of the theories and however obscured some of the values, the history of Marxism over the last century is an integral and abiding part of humanity's search for this new way of living together.