What’s gone wrong with my Marxism?

Marshall Somerset

Marx recognised, and praised, the revolutionary aspects of capitalism including the creation of a global, revolutionary working class. He and Engels also recognised its destructive side, Engels on the English slums, Marx on factory conditions, and yes even its damage to the environment (read all the Grundrisse, Brendan, not just the pro-capitalist bits). Finally, Marx and Engels dedicated the majority of their lives to the struggle to overthrow capitalism not just criticising the wrong ideas of leftists such as Proudhon or Bakunin. And Marx made clear that to overthrow capitalism means abolishing private property and taking the bosses’ wealth, not just “replacing it with a better system”. Still if you want to become the "house Marxist" of the bourgeoisie then it's probably best to praise the capitalists and shoot the rebels.

David Lindsay

Of course capitalism leads to Marxism, or else to Jacobinism, anarchism or Fascism. Such is the reaction of the despairing millions to the effects of capitalism on their lives. That's why we need social democracy, in order to conserve everything that conservatives exist to conserve, both against capitalism itself and against the reactions against it. That's why, in fact within social democracy, we need the employers like Taki's father (and, on trusts, Taki himself) recently cited most favourably in a High Life column as keeping wage disparity to a minimum in order to prevent the rise of Communism. And that's why, behind both of these and more, we need Catholic Social Teaching, the most (indeed, to the best of my knowledge, the only) comprehensive conservative critique of capitalism.

Brian Wilkins

This article confuses different views that are opposed to capitalism but which don't really have anything else to do with each other. Marx opposed capitalism because he thought that, although it promoted economic development to begin with, after a certain stage it trammelled further economic development. Some people who call themselves "ant-capitalist" these days are anti-consumerism. I concede that anti-consumerism is silly when taken to extremes, and I think it is hypocritical when upheld by people who really enjoy having nice things but take them for granted and don't appreciate them. But that does not mean that it is wrong to keep a little sceptical when advertisers push the message that happiness is to be found by consuming more and more things that you don't really need. The article criticizes people who are concerned about the environment. But when Marx was alive things were different to how they are today, and the danger to the environment was not so pressing. So of course Marx's concerns then were different to what ours are now. It's daft to imply that "anti-capitalists" who are worried about the environment are inconsistent because Marx was not worried about it back in the nineteenth century. If Marx were still alive now it is not credible to suppose that his views would not have changed as the situation changed.

Hassan Joudi

@ David Lindsay: Actually several conservative critiques of capitalism exist, one of these is the book "Our Philosophy" by Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr. See http://www.al-islam.org/philosophy/ , mainly in the Introduction section ("The Social Issue"). The author provides a comprehensive philosophical critique of both capitalistic democracy and communism and how they are both based on materialism. He goes on to propose an Islamic social system not based on any previous socialist school of thought.

Chris Oliver

Why does Brian Wilkins, in an otherwise terrific blog comment, say the environment is more under threat than in Marx's day? Can he really believe our cities are more stinky and rotten and unsanitary than they were in Victorian times of horse piss, open sewers and coal fires? Maybe he, like almost everyone else, has global warming in mind? I would be fascinated to learn if any readers of this site know of any credible figures for the best global mean temperature for human existence, the best mean temperature for maximising biomass and the best mean temperature for maximising biodiversity. If we don't know the answers - and I bet we don't - we're being asked to take expensive and probably futile pre-emptive action against global warming which may not be a problem, which may not be significantly contributed to by human co2 emissions.

FSK

The problem is that the USA is actually a Communist country! http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2007/06/communist-manifestos-successful.html

Dodgy Geezer

Umm.... Rather than a Marxist who supports Capitalism, I see someone born into an ideological rejection of the Capitalist ethos, but who wants to have all the fruits. Unfortunately, there is no way of 'superseding Capitalism with something better..'; that will just kill the goose that lays the golden eggs you hunger for so much...

James Buckingham

Marx realised the benefitsof capitalism alright. Whilst he was spending his time pontificating about the problems of capitalism he wasn't actually earning any money and wasalways in debt. He was constantly writing to his uncle for loans. fortunately for him his uncle could indulge him as he was the capitalist who founded shell. Then, as now, capitalism delivered whilst Marxism dreamt. Can anyone think of a successful Marxist or communsit state? If you look at the two diametrically opposed systems haring the same geographical space of Korea and therefore both having similar opportunities which is the one with people starving whilst next door the other country is prosperous?

Tom Smith

The article contained a few interesting facts but ignores TODAY's problems of continued slavery of half the population who struggle to feed themselves, while others have a thousand times more money than they could ever appreciate. Even in the relatively rich UK, the peasants (ie anyone without a house) get (in relative terms) £30,000 poorer each year (ie the increased cost of getting on the housing ladder) while the rich landlords take an ever-growing transfer of funds from them (rent) making it harder for them to live/save. As for the author's comment that thanks to globalised capitalism, new ideas belong to the international community: in fact generally they (eg medicines, software, music) become copywrited by rich multinationals that overcharge consumers for (often temporary) use of them. That's hardly the same thing. And most of the world's population can not afford them. So while we just smugly celebrated 200 years since the abolition of slavery, in fact little has changed. Try telling a starving plantation worker that he is "free" to leave any time --- and walk 100 miles to the next plantation and work for the same slave-wages there. And you've probably forgotten that long-life lightbulbs and fuel-saving cars were patented ages ago and stopped from being manufactured by these same multinational companies that have no interest in sharing ideas with others and improving the world - only improving their balance sheets and pensions for the directors (usually by raiding or closing down pension-schemes for the workers, leaving them to retire in poverty). As someone who's lived in several countries, I appreciate some aspects of globalisation, but not the concentration of wealth and therefore power in the hands of a few. In the UK the problems is compounded by the fact that any money the peasants (renters) make will only be transfered to landlords and they will never be able to participate in the housing-boom. The only people who profit are property-investors and ex-pats buying up affordable housing in poorer countries - thereby impoverishing more people in those countries by not allowing them to get on the housing ladder there. Yet another downside to globalisation.