Notes on Reading Marx and Engels
“The implications of the Communist Manifesto reek with the stench of elitism and condescension.”
“No universal history leads from savagery to humanitarianism, but there is one leading from the slingshot to the atomic bomb.” — T.W. Adorno
Many critiques of Marx and Marxism have been made and continue to be made, especially like the one implied in the above quote of Adorno’s. I firmly believe that the critique of progress still needs to be made, especially like the one implied in the above quote of Adorno’s. I firmly believe that the critique of progress still needs to be made, especially when it takes such optimistic and utopian forms ala historical materialism. The notion that history marches on towards its zenith via class conflict, whereby in the end we can all fish, dig ditches, and then read Hegel in the evening, needs to be rejected. And thankfully, given the demise of the Soviet Union and the decline of the left world-wide, it seems to have been.
My reductionist rendering of Marx aside, I want to also insist, however, that a class-sensitive analysis of capitalism needs to be jettisoned completely. In fact in these days of rampant multiculturalism and its over-emphasis on race and gender-specific analyses of society, past and present, a critique that embraces class is needed and should be adopted and utilized more often. That’s not to say that such an analysis should be adopted and utilized at the expense of race and gender; it should be brought to bear in tandem with these critiques and others as well. I happen to believe that in a society as vast and complex as ours, the more perspectives we have, the better. This is especially true if one of your aims is social change.
Capitalism has evolved immensely since Marx’s death, and in ways that he never could have imagined or predicted. While the antagonistic relationship between labor and capital still adheres — as the recent debate over NAFTA clearly illustrates — it seldom exhibits the sort of saliency that it did during Marx’s time. Labor, for instance, has lost its way and much of its potency. Union membership has declined precipitously over the last forty years, to such a degree that less than twelve percent of U.S. workers are unionized. Strikes, as one can imagine, are seldom won and warrant scant attentimen?on of the corporate media. A victory for NAFTA may very well be labor’s last gasp. a fact that has also been ignored by much of the press.
There is no easy way to explain the rise and fall of the labor movement; nor is there a simple explanation for why Marx’s predictions for socialist revolution proved wrong-headed. We can look at history and propose theories. People continue to do it. With respect to Marx, perhaps there is something innately problematic about a theory of society that posits class contradiction as the most important determinant of social consciousness. Are we little more than “economic men?” Is it JUST the economy, stupid? What place do social and cultural issues have in our lives? Are such concerns mere superstructure, products of ideology that need to be swept aside for the sake of really understanding who we are?
Marx states that man makes history but not always when or how he intended. What does his statement make of the notion of “free will?” One would be hard-placed to locate many references to such a concept. If workers are so bound to their class status and its attendant form of consciousness, how does one explain so-called “organic intellectuals,” those workers who have seemingly transcended what Marx terms “false consciousness?” What is “true consciousness?” Can only party cadre possess such a gift? The implications of the Communist Manifesto reek with the stench of elitism and condescension.
Finally, what value might a “green” critique have if applied to Marx’s work? The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe certainly were not models to be emulated. Much has been written in this area, especially by the likes of Murray Bookchin and what are known as “social ecologists.” They deserve our attention.
Post-marxist literature has become an industry in and of itself. In my mind, while there are things to be read in that vein, much of it is out-dated (which isn’t to say it’s not worth a perusal) and some is little more than intellectual masturbation, written by academics with too much time on their hands. I prefer the strain that takes the early Marx to heart, accepts some of the critiques made by the anarchists (Bakunin, Prouhon, etc.), steers clear of the Leninists and the Internationals, embraces the brilliant contributions of Lukacs, Korsch and Gramsci, along with the so-called Frankfurt School’s critique of “mass culture.” To name a few. Still, even this line-up has its limitations; so many, in fact, that I, like Marx, would never consider myself a “Marxist.”
