The main aim of this article is to present an appreciative and critical account of the\ncontribution of Marx and Engels to the socialist movement. It will not deal with the\n`Marxism’ that has been developed by various writers, leaders, parties and movements that\nhave used, extended, and in some cases distorted, the writings of Marx and Engels for\ntheir own purposes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The outline is divided into four parts: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
(1) History <\/a>(a review of important events, influences and activities in the lives of Marx and Engels) <\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) Theory<\/a> (dealing with the salient points of their literary output, separately and in combination), <\/p>\n\n\n\n (3) Evaluation<\/a> (chiefly of points of similarity and difference between the views of Marx\/Engels and those of socialists today)<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4) Literature<\/a> (details of sources quoted and a guide to\nrelevant reading). <\/p>\n\n\n\n History <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Karl Marx has been variously described as an economist, philosopher, historian,\nsociologist and revolutionary. He was born in 1818 in Prussia. His parents were Jewish,\nhis father a successful lawyer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the age of eighteen, Marx went to the University of Berlin to study law and\nphilosophy. He was introduced to Hegel’s philosophy and became involved in the activities\nof the Young Hegelians, who were generally atheistic and talked vaguely of political\naction. But he did not accept Hegel’s views uncritically. Hegel was an idealist who\nbelieved that matter or existence was inferior to and dependent on mind or spirit. Marx\nwas much influenced by Feuerbach, a critic of Hegel, who put forward a materialist view\nthat spirit was a projection of `the real man standing on the foundation of nature’. From\nthen on Marx sought to combine Hegel’s dialectic – the idea that all things are in a\ncontinual process of change – with Feuerbach’s materialism, which placed material\nconditions above ideas. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1842 Marx became editor of the Rheinische Zeitung<\/em> newspaper, and succeeded in\ntrebling its circulation. The Prussian authorities suspended it for being too outspoken.\nIn 1843 he married Jenny, daughter of a Prussian family ‘of military and administrative\ndistinction’, and the couple moved to Paris. Marx co-edited a new review (yearbook) and\nbegan to associate with communist societies of French and German workers He also met\nFriedrich Engels, who was to become his lifelong collaborator. In the yearbook he first\nraised the call for an ‘uprising of the proletariat’ to realise the conceptions of his\nphilosophy. Consequently he was expelled from France and in 1845 he left for Brussels,\nfollowed by Engels. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Marx and Engels combined to write The Holy Family<\/em>, a criticism of Hegelian\nidealism, published in 1845. But their next joint work, The German Ideology<\/em>,\nexpounding their materialist conception of history, did not find a publisher until 1932.\nAn unusual sequence of events led them to write their pamphlet The Communist Manifesto in\n1848. A society of mainly German handicraftsmen met in London and decided to formulate a\npolitical program. They asked Marx and Engels to join them, changed the name of the\nsociety to the Communist League, and entrusted Marx with the task of writing the\nmanifesto. It was a pithy summary of the materialist conception of history (see below),\nasserting that the forthcoming victory of the proletariat would put an end to class\nsociety. The idea of small experiments in community living, ‘social utopias,’ was\nrejected. It also set forth ten immediate measures as first steps towards communism,\nranging from a progressive income tax to free education for all children (Higgins, 1998:\n4). <\/p>\n\n\n\n A ‘revolutionary movement’ – perhaps better described as a period of industrial and\npolitical unrest – erupted in 1848 across all of Western Europe (details in McLellan,\n1973: 189ff). The King of France was exiled and a provisional republican government\nformed. Marx was invited to Paris just in time to avoid expulsion by the Belgian\ngovernment. He was indicted on several charges, including advocating non-payment of taxes.\nHe was acquitted but banished as an alien in 1849. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Marx went to London, which was to be his home for the rest of his life. He rejoined the\nCommunist League there. In 1850 he wrote, with Engels, an address to the central committee\nof the League, in which they advocated that in future revolutionary situations the\nrevolution should be made ‘permanent’ by setting up revolutionary workers’ governments\nalongside any new bourgeois one. When the hope of revolution faded, Marx came into\nconflict with those who advocated ‘direct revolutionary ventures’ rather than urging\nworkers ‘to change yourselves and become qualified for political power’. <\/p>\n\n\n\n From 1850 to 1864 Marx lived in poverty with his wife and four children. Engels\ncontributed to Marx’s financial support but with only small sums until in 1864 he became a\npartner in his father’s firm. In 1859 Marx published A Contribution to the Critique of\nPolitical Economy<\/em>. Then he started work on his magnum opus, Capital<\/em>. His\npolitical isolation ended in 1864 with the founding of the International Working Men’s\nAssociation. Although he was neither its founder nor its head, he soon became its leading\nspirit. During the next five years Marx was active as a member of the International’s\nGeneral Council. The membership of the International in 1869 was estimated at 800,000. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But it was the Paris Commune of 1871 that made Marx into an international figure. When\nan insurrection broke out in Paris and the Commune was proclaimed, Marx gave it his\nunswerving support. After the Commune was crushed in 1871, Marx’s name became synonymous\nthroughout Europe with the revolutionary spirit symbolised by the Paris Commune. But the\nadvent of the insurrection exacerbated the antagonisms within the International. The\nReform Bill of 1867 enfranchised the British working class and opened opportunities for\npolitical action by the trade unions. Union leaders found they could make practical\nadvances by co-operating with the Liberal Party, and they generally regarded Marx’s\ntheoretical justifications as an encumbrance in pursuit of their reformist aims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Marx was fighting on another front, that of the anarchists and Bakunin in\nparticular. Bakunin felt that Marx was a German authoritarian and an arrogant Jew who\nwanted to transform the International into a personal dictatorship over the workers. Marx\nthought that the proletariat should form its own political party and fight against the\nprevailing parties on the political field. To Bakunin and his supporters the Paris Commune\nwas a model of revolutionary direct action and a refutation of what they considered to be\nMarx’s ‘authoritarian communism’. After heated debate at the International congress in\n1872 the Bakuninists were expelled, but the International languished and was finally\ndisbanded in 1876. <\/p>\n\n\n\n During the rest of his life Marx was in poor health and his creative energies declined.\nIn 1875 he wrote a caustic criticism of the program of the German Social Democratic Party\n(the Gotha programme), claiming that it made too many compromises with the status quo.\nDespite his withdrawal from active politics, he still retained influence on working class\nand socialist movements. Following the death of his wife in 1881 and of his eldest\ndaughter early in 1883, Marx died in London, evidently of a lung abcess, in March 1883. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Friedrich Engels was born in 1820, the son of a wealthy cotton firm owner. In 1842 he\ntook over the management of the Manchester factory belonging to his father’s firm. He\nobserved carefully and critically the lives of the workers in Manchester, which led to the\npublication in 1845 of his The Condition of the Working Class in England. Engels\ncontributed to Marx’s Capital<\/em> by giving him much technical and economic data and by\ncriticising the successive drafts. The collaboration lasted until Marx’s death and carried\non posthumously with the publication of volumes II and III of Capital and manuscripts left\nby Marx, which Engels edited. He died in 1895. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although Marx and Engels collaborated on a number of different literary projects, there\nwere notable differences between them. They were dissimilar in background, temperament and\noutlook. There was an unofficial and loose division of labour between them: Marx devoted\nhimself to political economy, while Engels concentrated on history and the natural\nsciences. These and other differences between the two men are spelled out by McLellan\n(1977: 65f) and an account of Marx’s chaotic and unhealthy life style is in Buchan (1997:\n192-204). <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Theory<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The term ‘theory’ shall be used here broadly to include ideas, thoughts, values,\nhypotheses, propositions – even predictions if they are part of a system of thought. It\nwill be convenient to divide the discussion into four separate but related parts:\nphilosophy (the general or world views of Marx and Engels), capitalism (their critical\nanalysis of the profit system, mainly from an economic standpoint), politics (how they saw\nthe revolutionary change from capitalism to socialism\/communism taking place), and\nsocialism (their conception of the major features of the new society). <\/p>\n\n\n\n To seek an understanding of Marxist theory is at first sight a formidable task. The\nsheer size of the project – the total writings of Marx and Engels have been estimated at\nbetween 6 and 7 million words – is daunting. When compounded by the fact that much of\ntheir expression is far from simple, and translations from the original German not always\nthe best, the project is not an easy one. Yet it may reasonably be claimed that ‘Marxism\nis not inherently difficult to understand, in either its philosophic or economic aspects’\n(Sowell, 1985: 13). We need to sort out the wood from the trees, and to recognise that\nsome of the trees are dead stumps left over from past polemics whose relevance to the\nworld today has long gone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ( 1 ) The central concepts of Marxist philosophy may be seen as scientific socialism, dialectics,\nmaterialism (divided into dialectical and historical materialism), and the blending of\nstructure and action. There are other ways of analysing the components of Marxist\nphilosophy, but that is the approach proposed here. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Marx acknowledges the contribution to his own scientific socialism of the\nphilosophy of Hegel, the economics of Ricardo and the utopian socialism of Fourier, St\nSimon, Owen and others. He saw utopian socialism as idealistic, not in the popular sense\nof unselfish thought and action in the service of a better society, but in the sense of an\nideal society projected into the future and unconnected with existing social trends. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Marx’s scientific method was to proceed by simplifying concrete and complex\nmanifestations into an abstraction, which becomes less and less complex until we get at\nthe simplest conception. Then, by systematically adding complicating factors, we start on\nour return journey towards empirical reality ‘as a rich aggregate of many conceptions and\nrealities’ (Marx, 1970: 292-3). In short, Marx was a believer in abstraction, systematic\nanalysis, and successive approximations to a reality too complex to grasp directly\n(Sowell, 1985: 18). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Concerning dialectical materialism, Venable (1945:4) has a useful summary of\nMarx and Engels on the question of relating it to other forms of materialism: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘…dialectical materialism, their naturalistic philosophy of change and interaction;\nhistorical materialism, their theory of social and cultural transformation and of the\ninteractive, emergent, and progressive character of history’s movement; economic\nmaterialism, an elaborate subdivision of, or rather basis for, their social theory.’ The\ndialectical component of dialectical materialism concerns recognising the inadequacy of\nall polar opposites and employing the dialectical method to overcome that inadequacy. A\nwell-known formulation is the confrontation of an initial thesis by an antithesis,\nresulting in a new synthesis which preserves what is of value in both. Thus capitalism\nconsists of the thesis of social production confronted by the antithesis of individual\nappropriation and private property, to be overcome by the socialist synthesis of wealth\nproduced socially, distributed according to need, and held in common. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Marx’s theory of historical materialism (the materialist conception of history)\nis based on the simple proposition that production is ‘the first premise of all human\nexistence… men must be in a position to live in order to be able to “make\nhistory”‘ (quoted in Thomas, 1998). The theory attempts to explain the\ntransformations of whole societies from one era to another. It sees the source of these\nchanges in changing technologies (‘productive relations’) which bring changes in the way\npeople are organised (‘social relations’)(Sowell, 1985: 70). Engels expands on this: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘The materialist conception of history starts from the principle that production, and\nwith production the exchange of its products, is the basis of every social order; that in\nevery society which has appeared in history the distribution of the products, and with it\nthe division of society into classes or estates, is determined by what is produced and how\nit is produced, and how the product is exchanged’ (1936: 294). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Marxian theory implies a blending of structure and action. According to Applebaum (\n1988: 15) we need ‘to understand how Marx sought to bridge the concerns of both philosophy\nand science in developing a theory that operates simultaneously at the levels of structure\nand action… the philosophic critique of consciousness, the “scientific”\nanalysis of capitalist economic institutions, and the historical study of politics and\nsociety.’ Furthermore, the Marxian priority is with action rather than philosophy or the\nstudy of structures. One of their most famous aphorisms is that the point is not to study\nsociety but to change it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) The second area of Marxist theory is their analysis of capitalism. To\nexamine this thoroughly would be a very complex undertaking indeed. Here I shall attempt\nonly to outline three of what are arguably the main concepts of Marxian economics: the\nlabour theory of value, the commodity nature of production, and classes and class\nstruggle. Further Marxian concepts of perhaps less central importance are the thesis of\nincreasing misery, the significance of alienation, and the fetishism of commodities. All\nof the above except the last two are discussed in more detail in the Socialist Party\npamphlet ( 1978). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Marx’s labour theory of value, together with his ideas about the commodity nature of\ncapitalist production, seek to explain how the profit system works and how the working\nclass is exploited under that system. First some (simplified) definitions. Wealth is\nanything useful produced by human labour from materials found in nature. In capitalism\nwealth takes the form of an immense accumulation of commodities. A commodity is an article\nof wealth produced for the purpose of being exchanged for other articles of wealth. The\nmeans of production (land, factories, railways, etc) become capital when used to exploit\nlabour (human energy) to produce surplus value (profit). Money is capital in its pure\nform. The capitalist invests capital and buys labour power (workers selling their\nenergies) to produce commodities to be sold at a profit. Finally price is the monetary\nexpression of value. Some things that are bought and sold are either not products of\nlabour or sell at prices disproportionate to the amount of labour embodied in them, for\nexample land and objects of art. But these exceptions do not invalidate the labour theory\nof value as of general applicability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Marxian theory of class and class struggle is a vital part of the\nexplanation of capitalist production. A class is made up of people who are in the same\nposition in relation to the ownership and control of the means of wealth production. For\nMarx and Engels the class struggle between the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and the\nproletariat (working class) is the great lever of modern social change. Originally Marx\nidentified three classes on the basis of source of income: wage for labour, profit for the\ncapitalist and rent for the landowner (Knox, 1988: 160). But capitalism has now succeeded\nin absorbing the landlord class, leaving society polarised between two classes:\ncapitalists and workers. The Marxian theory of class is opposed by those academics who\nexplain class not in terms of ownership or nonownership of the means of wealth production,\nbut in terms of prestige and style of life. Society is said to consist of a hierarchy of\nnon-conflicting classes, with names such as upper, middle, working and under. Such a\ntheory tends to gloss over the fact that only about 2 percent of the population own enough\ncapital to live comfortably on the income it provides; the other 98 percent have to find\nan employer or live off state benefit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Brief mention should be made of a few other Marxian ideas relating to the analysis of\ncapitalism. Marx is sometimes associated with the belief that as capitalism continues it\nwill lead to the increasing misery of the working class. His use of the term ‘misery’\nshould be taken as relative to that of the capitalist class, not absolute: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘…although the enjoyments of the worker have risen, the social satisfaction that they\ngive has fallen in comparison with the increased enjoyments of the capitalist… Our\ndesires and pleasures spring from society, we measure them, therefore, by society and not\nby the objects which serve for their satisfaction. Because they are of a social nature,\nthey are of a relative nature’ (Marx and Engels, 1968: 94). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Alienation is a concept much discussed by Marx but relatively neglected in commentaries\non Marxism, including those by the World Socialist Movement. Alienation means the\nsubjugation of man by his own works (excuse the sexist language), which have assumed the\nguise of independent things (Kolakwski, 1978: 178).<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Estranged labor” – that is, labor performed not freely but as a means of\nsubsistence, the products of which are taken from the laborer – turns “Man’s species\nbeing… into a being alien to him.” Under capitalism, man is alienated from other\nmen and from himself…Man can only overcome alienation by doing away with private\nproperty and creating communist society’ (Stratman, n.d.: 164, with quotations from Marx).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n A concept allied to that of alienation is that of what Marx called the fetishism of\ncommodities. People are dominated by the products of their own activities but do not\nrealise this and attribute an independent existence and power to those products: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘…the existence of things as commodities, and the value-relation between the products\nof labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their\nphysical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There is a definite\nsocial relation between men that assumes in their eyes the fantastic form of a relation\nbetween things…This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour\nas soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the\nproduction of commodities’ (Marx, 1954: 71-83). <\/p>\n\n\n\n For a discussion of Marx’s distinctive views on other economic concepts and processes –\nsuch as capital accumulation, the (falling) rate of profit, and inflation – see the\nSocialist Party pamphlet (1978). <\/p>\n\n\n\n (3) The third area of Marxist theory is that of politics, or how the change from\ncapitalism to socialism can be implemented. Marxian views on the nature of the socialist\nrevolution – how we get from ‘here’ to ‘there’ – may be divided into three sub-topics: the\nuse of coercive measures, leadership or self education, and the attitude to non-socialist\nrevolution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Much has been made of Marx’s use of the term ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. A close\nstudy of his references to this idea shows that he meant something very different from our\nmodern understanding of dictatorship as totalitarianism exemplified by Hitler and Stalin.\nTo understand Marx’s use of the term we must ‘return to the original Roman institution of\ndictatura… the classic dictator held extensive but not unlimited powers, powers to cope\nwith an emergency but not to be left entirely unchecked’ (Hunt, 1974: 286). With this\ninterpretation in mind we may note Marx’s remarks in a speech on the 7th anniversary of\nthe International in 1871: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat… In\ndestroying the existing conditions of oppression by transferring all the means of labour\nto the productive labourer, and thereby compelling every able-bodied individual to work\nfor a living, the only basis for class rule and oppression would be removed. But before\nsuch a change could be effected a proletarian dictature [Fr. Dictatorship] would be\nnecessary, and the first condition of that was a proletarian army’ (Marx, Engels and\nLenin, 1975). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The hard line expressed in those words can scarcely be denied. Engels, too, foresaw a\nviolent revolution, though he wrote of English workers being driven to the use of violence\nrather than choosing it: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘A revolution by a peaceful path is an impossibility, and only a forcible overthrow of\nthe existing unnatural conditions, a radical ouster of the titled as well as the\nindustrial aristocracy, can improve the material situation of the proletarians. They are\nstill held back from this violent revolution by their peculiarly English respect for the\nlaw; but the conditions in England described above cannot fail shortly to produce general\nhunger among the workers, and then their fears of starvation will be stronger than their\nfear of the law. This revolution was an inevitable one for England (Werke, German version\nof Collected Works, quoted in Hunt, 1974: 111 ). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The revolution wasn’t inevitable, of course. A socialist speaker was nearer the mark in\nclaiming that a starving man doesn’t want socialism – he wants a hot meal. The last word\non this subject may be left to Marx himself <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘As long as other classes, and the capitalist class in particular, still exist; and as\nlong as the proletariat fights against them … it must employ coercive measures, that is,\ngovernmental measures; so long it is still a class itself, and the economic conditions\nwhich give rise to the class struggle and the existence of classes have not yet\ndisappeared and must be forcibly removed… With its complete victory, therefore, its rule\nalso comes to an end’ (Collected Works<\/em> I: 321-3). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Strong measures, then, but temporary and no doubt contemplated with the best of\nintentions. We must remember that Marx and Engels were men of their time, and that time\nwas one when the use of force by workers against authority for political purposes was much\nmore thinkable than today. Having said that, I believe that no kind of ‘dictatorship of\nthe proletariat’, no matter how watered down and temporary, should form any part of the\nsocialist program at the end of the 20th century or beyond. The socialist goal will be\nachieved by force of argument, by democratic methods, not by force of arms or\nauthoritarian methods. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A second major Marxian political theme is that of leadership versus self-education\nof the working class. Here we have a much clearer consensus that power invested in leaders\nis the wrong way to go, and that workers educating themselves for the revolutionary task\nis the right way: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘Communism rises above the enmity of classes, for it is a movement that embraces all\nhumanity and not merely the working classes. Of course no communist proposes to avenge\nhimself against any particular individuals who are members of the bourgeoisie… Should\nthe proletariat become more Socialist in character its opposition to the middle classes\nwill be less unbridled and less savage… It may be expected that by the time the rising\ncomes the English working classes will understand basic social problems sufficiently\nclearly for the more brutal elements of the revolution to be eventually overcome – with\nthe help of the appearance of the Communist Party’ (Engels, 1958: 335). <\/p>\n\n\n\n This is a very interesting and revealing passage. It shows a progression of Marxist\nthought from a capitalist present that is in many ways divisive and brutal, to a\ncommunist\/socialist movement that is in a transitional stage from divisiveness\/brutality,\nto a future society that will embrace all of humanity. Clearly Engels quite reasonably\nexpected workers to become less brutal as they adopted socialist ideas. Reference to the\nhelp of the Communist Party should not be taken as meaning the vanguardist CP or other\nmovements of the 20th century, rather the general movement of those in favour of communism\n(another name for socialism). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Hunt’s interpretation of Marxian views on workers’ self education is also closer to the\nSocialist Party’s approach to this question rather than that of the Communist or any other\nParty: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘Their [Marx and Engels’] own vision of communist revolution did not rest on the\nfundamental postulate of mass immaturity, bur rather pre-supposed the masses’ prior self\neducation… Perhaps the key distinguishing feature of Marx and Engels’ thinking… was\nprecisely their conviction, their ultimate democratic faith, that the masses could and\nwould educate themselves, organize themselves, liberate themselves, and rule themselves’\n(1974: 290,341). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Sowell agrees with Hunt’s interpretation of the Marxian concept of socialist\nrevolution, especially its democratic character and opposition to leadership: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘The nature of a revolutionary movement was seen by Marx and Engels as crucial for the\nkind of postrevolutionary society that could be expected to emerge. A mass movement of\nworkers meant that a democratic regime was feasible after the overthrow of bourgeois rule.\nA small conspiracy of professional revolutionaries implied a dictatorial\npost-revolutionary regime (1985: 163). <\/p>\n\n\n\n We shall return to this question in the Evaluation section below. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A third Marxian political theme is their questionable support for bourgeois revolution\nas a supposed step towards socialist revolution. There is no doubt that Marx and Engels\ngained a great deal of popularity in their own time – and since – by being openly on the\nside of the workers in their struggle for better wages and conditions. In the Communist\nManifesto, their most persuasive and appealing call to revolutionary action, Marx and\nEngels leave no doubt about the breadth of their support for working class action: ‘…the\ncommunists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing society\nand political order of things’ (1952: 94). This is not a reference to trade union action\nor to bread riots, etc. but to bourgeois, anti-feudal movements <\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet, away from the battlefield of class struggle, Marx and Engels were far less\nsanguine about the growth of socialist ideas within the working class movement.\nEnthusiastic though they were about the Paris Commune, Marx had later to admit that it was\n‘merely the rising of a city under exceptional conditions’ and that ‘the majority of the\nCommune was in no wise socialist, nor could it be’ (quoted in Bottomore, 1983: 130). The\nlack of socialist ideas among revolutionary movements such as the Paris Commune must have\nbeen a bitter pill for Marx and Engels to swallow, but it is right that they – and we –\nshould do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (4) The final area of Marxist theory is that of socialism\/communism, the future\nform of society that will replace capitalism. Marx and Engels had relatively little to say\nabout the future, partly because they ‘held the drawing up of blueprints for an ideal\nsociety to be the very essence of utopianism’ (Hunt, 1974: 212). Nevertheless, what they\ndid say was usually positive and in line with their generally optimistic view of human\nnature and the capacity of workers to build a better, more equal and more truly human\nsociety than that of capitalism. In particular, Marx wrote of the variety of useful and\npleasurable work that would be available to people, in this well-known passage: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can\nbecome accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and\nthus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the\nmorning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner,\njust as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic’\n(Collected Works, vol.5: 47). <\/p>\n\n\n\n On another page he summed up the same thought as follows: ‘In a communist society there\nare no painters but only people who engage in painting among other activities’ (p.394). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Commentators sympathetic to Marxism discuss his other ideas about the socialist future,\nsometimes pointing out that Marx was an idealist in his own way: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘The picture of a harmonious community, a society without conflict in which all human\nneeds are satisfied, and so forth – all this can be found in Marx in similar formulations\nto those of the utopians. But socialism means more to Marx than a welfare society, the\nabolition of competition and want, the removal of conditions that make man an enemy to\nman: it is also, and above all, the abolition of the estrangement between man and the\nworld, the assimilation of the world by the human subject’ (Kolakowski, 1978: 224).\n‘Communism, as envisioned by Marx, was to be “a society in which the full and free\ndevelopment of every individual forms the ruling principle”, a society “in which\nthe free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” …\nThis was even more important than the material standard of living’ (Sowell 1985:25): <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘What [Marx and Engels] envisaged for the future society, from its very beginning, was\na kind of participatory democracy organized without any political leaders or\nadministrators at all, which has nowhere been established in a national government, and\nwhich requires some effort of imagination and historical understanding for the present-day\nreader to grasp’ (Hunt, 1974: xiii).<\/p>\n\n\n\n But some statements by Marx and Engels about the socialist\/communist future seem to\nshow that they were not entirely immune from a conception of that future still rooted in\nthe capitalist past. Engels, arguably out of character with the bulk of his writings, let\nthe following slip in one of his letters: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘… we still lack the technicians, agronomists, engineers, chemists, architects, etc.\nBut if worse comes to worst we can buy these just as well as the capitalists do; and if a\nstern example is made of a few traitors which are sure to crop up among this lot – then\nthey will find it in their own interest to stop robbing us. But outside of such\nspecialists, we can get along very well without the rest of the “educated\npeople”…’ (Werke, quoted in Draper, vol. 2: 543). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Engels does seem to have suffered from a kind of inverted intellectual snobbery, a\ncharacteristic that is of doubtful value to a project designed to unite the whole of\nhumanity: ‘… the “academically educated people” have far more to learn from\nthe workers, all in all, than the latter have to learn from them’ (p.515). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Some Marxist writing on the future socialist\/communist society is concerned with what\nwill happen, and what will be possible, in its early and later stages. A particular worry\nabout scarcity of goods in the early stages led Marx to consider labour time vouchers or\ncertificates: ‘What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has\ndeveloped on its own foundations but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist\nsociety; and which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually,\nstill stamped with the birth-marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.\nAccordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions\nhave been made, exactly what he contributes to it. What he has contributed to it is his\nindividual quantum of labour’ (1970: 15). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Two points here. One is that modern production is social, not individual. It is\ndoubtful whether the value of the ‘individual quantum of labour’ could have been measured\nin Marx’s time except in the crudest terms of time. It is even more doubtful whether such\na measure could be made today. The second point is adequately dealt with in the Socialist\nParty ( 1978) publication of the article ‘Labour time vouchers’. Marx made it quite clear\nthat, if labour time vouchers were used in socialism, this would be a temporary measure\nresulting from the comparatively low level of technology. Today potential abundance\nresulting from improved technology has made the idea of labour time vouchers quite\noutdated. It will no doubt become even more outdated in future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Evaluation <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Some evaluation, as well as straight reporting, of Marxist writing has been presented\nabove. Here I shall extend this by discussing how far socialists today can usefully draw\non the work of Marx and Engels, and in what ways we should frankly admit that their ideas\nare either now outdated or were misguided in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First philosophy or world view. There is no doubt in my mind that socialists\nshould continue today, as our comrades have done in the past, to regard the immense sweep\nand authority of Marxist thought as extremely valuable to the task of replacing capitalism\nwith socialism. Neither Marx nor Engels were specialists in the sense of concentrating on\nany one aspect of the socialist movement. They wrote, sometimes in a very detailed way, on\neconomics but they were not primarily economists. They were interested in the history of\nhumankind through all its stages of development from primitive communism to capitalism,\nbut their history was not merely academic – it was for a revolutionary purpose. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Sometimes a writer sympathetic to the ideas of Marx and Engels can interpret them in a\nnovel way, one that brings out the best in what they had to say and perhaps sees in their\nwords a meaning that the original authors may not have intended but would very probably\nhave agreed with. Thus Kolakowski: <\/p>\n\n\n\n `Communism puts an end to the division of life into public and private spheres, and to\nthe difference between civil society and the state; it does away with the need for\npolitical institutions, political authority, and governments, private property and its\nsource in the division of labour. It destroys the class system and exploitation; it heals\nthe split in man’s nature and the crippled, one-sided development of the individual…\nsocial harmony is to be sought not by a legislative reform that will reconcile the egoism\nof each individual with the collective interest, but by removing the causes of antagonism.\nThe individual will absorb society into himself thanks to de-alienation, he will recognize\nhumanity as his own internalized nature. Voluntary solidarity, not compulsion or the legal\nregulation of interests, will ensure the smooth harmony of human relations… the powers\nof the individual cam only flourish when he regards them as social forces, valuable and\neffective within a human community and not in isolation. Communism alone makes possible\nthe proper use of human abilities’ (1978: 179). <\/p>\n\n\n\n This is communism\/socialism in its most profound and all-embracing conception. Though\nit can be shown to relate to everyday life, now and in a future society that we can help\nto shape, it is a highly intellectual approach. We should not be afraid to combine it with\na more emotive, more artistic approach, such as that of William Morris. But this is not\nthe place to pursue that thought. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To some extent the debate between materialism and idealism, in which Marx and Engels\nengaged so prominently, is an artificial one. Yes, we should never lose sight of the basic\nmaterial nature of life. But the Hegelian dialectic, which Marx sensibly reversed, serves\nto remind us that ideas and ideals are also an essential part of human life. The debate\nbetween structure and action, which some philosophers and sociologists carry on today, is\nalso not a matter of either-or but of both-and. We need society to have developed\nstructures of (potential) production to meet all reasonable human needs, but we also need\ninformed and educated action on the part of a majority of the world’s population to change\nthose structures. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A second Marxist concern was with the analysis of capitalism. In the more than\nhundred years since Marx and Engels were writing, capitalism has changed drastically,\nthough not fundamentally. It is still a system of exploitation, still one in which\ncommodity production alienates us from what we produce – and even, in a sense, from\nourselves. With some justification it is argued that Marx and Engels were less concerned\nabout poverty than about alienation. Without downplaying the suffering and deprivation\ncaused by poverty, we should also recognise the abjectly poor quality of life that\ncapitalism offers its supporters. Think of rush-hour sardine-tinlike mass transport, the\neminently throw-away Sun newspaper, the excruciatingly dumbed-down Noel Edmunds TV show –\nand much more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Most critics of Marxist economics believe in capitalism. Some of them – like Cassidy (\n1997), discussed in Donnelly (1998) – are happy to applaud Marx’s analysis of where power\nlies in capitalist society but are opposed to overthrowing that society. However, it is\npossible to criticise some of Marx’s views on capitalism while supporting his call\nto abolish it. Thus Stratman criticises Marx for relying on the self interest of the\nworking class: <\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘Though it is destined to act as the agent of revolution, in Marx’s paradigm the\nworking class puts and end to human exploitation not as a conscious goal on behalf of all\nhumanity, but as the inevitable by-product of ending its own exploitation. It accomplishes\nthe general interest of humanity by acting in its own self interest’ (n. d. : 166). <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is true that working-class pursuit of its own self interest has so far led only to\ntrade unionism, not socialism. As we have seen, Marx and Engels did offer to ‘support any\nrevolutionary movement against the existing society and political order of things.’ They\ndid not qualify this support by insisting that it be based on socialist\/communist\nunderstanding rather than on mere physical reaction against a class of exploiters. They\npaid the price for this in disillusion when uprisings such as the Paris Commune failed to\nspark the introduction of classless society. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Which brings us to the third theoretical issue of politics. Marx and Engels were\nspectacularly wrong in their prediction of when the communist revolution would take place.\nIn 1845 Engels prophesied the end of capitalism by 1852-3, and he greeted the depression\nof 1847 in a way that leaves little doubt he believed it to be the death knell of\ncapitalism (Hunt, 1974:141 ). It is not a great crime to be guilty of over-optimism about\nwhen socialism will come (though it is unwise, to say the least, to set a target date for\nits achievement). What is much more worrying is the misplaced confidence Marx and Engels\nhad in the workers’ self education leading fairly rapidly to their adopting socialist\nideas. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course it may be that Marx and Engels actually equated self education with the\nprocess of becoming a socialist. But I think a more plausible explanation is that they\nwere tinged with the idea, common among Trotskyists, some anarchists and others today,\nthat the immediate steps to be taken by those who want revolutionary change are to\nencourage the workers to be ‘active’ in some way. Never mind that the ‘activity’ (‘stop\nthe closures’, ‘oppose the cuts’, ‘reclaim the streets’, or whatever) is only defensive\nactivity within the profit system – it is at least doing something and not just talking.\nOne can imagine Marx and Engels poring over drafts of Capital and saying something like\n‘The workers will never understand all this stuff. What they need is something rousing but\nsimple. Let’s give them a Manifesto that has a few good slogans and includes a list of\nimmediate demands.’ <\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps the biggest difference between capitalism then and now is the enormous growth\nin the scope and pervasiveness of the mass media of communication and persuasion. And in\nthe growth of hegemony, a concept not used by Marx and Engels, but one which is a logical\nextension of alienation, which they did recognise. Hegemony has different meanings, but\nthe one most relevant to this discussion is class domination through the active\nparticipation of the subordinate class. In our daily activities we as producers and\nconsumers participate in creating the conditions and social relations that shape our\nlives. A practice is hegemonic to the degree that its structure is defined by elites, by\ncentralised social structures, rather than being controlled by its users. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The capitalism of the Marxist era was more openly class-divided and coercive than the\ncapitalism of today. Then it was more obviously their system – now it is too often our\nsystem, if it is seen as a system at all. Marx and Engels were right to insist that ‘the\nemancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself (1952: 19).\nThey were no doubt sincere in urging members of the working class to educate themselves\nfor the revolutionary task. But they failed to foresee the extent to which workers would\neducate themselves to run capitalism rather than overthrow it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This leads us finally to what is probably the weakest element in the Marxist\nexposition: the nature of the socialist\/communist society that is to replace\ncapitalism. By refusing to write recipes for future cookshops, by failing to talk about\nthe future society except in very general terms for fear of being dubbed ‘idealist’, they\nin fact signaled that the building of socialism – as distinct from the opposition to\ncapitalism – was not high on their agenda. Yet for socialists the building of the new\nsociety, by spelling out what common ownership, democratic control, production solely for\nuse, and free access mean as a practical alternative that people can support now, must be\nat the top of our agenda. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I’ll end with a hypothetical but hopefully not valueless question. Do we need a Marx\nand Engels today? The answer is mainly yes but partly no. We need people of the\nintellectual stature of Marx and Engels to help put across our ideas. It would be splendid\nif we could publish a paperback edition of something like Capital, with an updated,\ncritical and unputdownable account of the contemporary profit system. Less desirable would\nbe a Communist Manifesto for the New Millennium, though one without immediate demands for\nthe reform of capitalism could find a place in our list of publications. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Author: S.Parker <\/p>\n\n\n\n Please email your comments about this article to feedback@worldsocialism.org<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a> Literature <\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n Applebaum<\/strong>, R.P<\/strong>. 1988. Karl Marx<\/strong>. Newbury Park: Sage. A review in\nthree parts: the origins of Marx’s thought, his scientific thought, and the dialectics of\nstructure and action. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Bottomore<\/strong>, T<\/strong>. 1983. A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford: Blackwell.\nShort essays on topics and authors by 80 contributors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Bottomore<\/strong>, T<\/strong>. And Rubel, M<\/strong>. 1956. Karl Marx: Selected writings in\nsociology and social philosophy. Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin. Selections preceded by an\nintroduction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Buchan, J.<\/strong> 1997. Frozen Desire. London: Picador. A discourse on the history of\nmoney, with several pages on Marx and his shortage of it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Cassidy, J<\/strong>. 1997. The return of Karl Marx. New Yorker, 27 October. Quotes Marx\napprovingly on the materialist conception of history and how capitalist accumulation\noperates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Cole, G.D.H.<\/strong> 1961. Socialist Thought, Marxism and Anarchism 1850-90. London:\nMacmillan. Chapter XI contains a critical but sympathetic account of the ideas of Marx and\nEngels. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Donnelly, R<\/strong>. 1998. The New Yorker discovers Marx. Socialist Standard, January.\nShows that Marx’s interpretation of free enterprise chimes with the views of many\ncontemporary businessmen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Draper, H.<\/strong> 1977-86. Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution. New York: Monthly Review\nPress. In three volumes: state and bureaucracy, the politics of social classes and the\n‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Engels, F<\/strong>. 1936. Anti-Duhring. London: Martin Lawrence. A polemic against Duhring’s\n‘revolution in science’ in three parts: philosophy, political economy and socialism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n —– 1958. The Condition of the Working Class in England. Oxford: Blackwell. Details\nthe factory method of production and its consequences for the lives of workers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Feuer, L. S<\/strong>., Chambre, H<\/strong>. and McLellan, D<\/strong>. 1993. Marx and Marxism.\nNew Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia. Chicago. Life and works of Marx, Marxist theory,\nthe contribution of Engels. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Higgins, L<\/strong>. 1998. The Communist Manifesto. Socialist Standard, February. A summary\nof the Manifesto put in its historical context. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Howard, M.C<\/strong>. and King, J.E. eds<\/strong>. 1976. The Economics of Marx. Harmondsworth,\nMiddx.: Penguin. Various authors, including extracts from Marx’s writings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Hunt, R.N<\/strong>. 1974. The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels. Pittsburg: University of\nPittsburg Press. Subtitled ‘classical Marxism 1850-95’, emphasis on democracy in theory\nand practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Knox, E<\/strong>. 1988. Marx, class and socialism. Socialist Standard, August. The\nimportance of production as the determinant of class and class conflict. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Kolakowski, L<\/strong>. 1978. Main Currents of Marxism, vol. I, The Founders. Oxford:\nClarendon. Extracts from, and commentary on, Marx’s writings, including history,\nphilosophy and politics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n McLellan, D<\/strong>. 1973. Karl Marx: his Life and Thought. London: Macmillan. A biography\ncovering three aspects of Marx’s life: personal, political and intellectual. <\/p>\n\n\n\n —– 1977. Engels. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press. On Engels’ life and thought, his\ncollaboration with, and differences from, Marx.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Marx, K<\/strong>. 1854. Capital, vol. I, Moscow: Progress Publishers. ‘A critical analysis\nof capitalist production’. <\/p>\n\n\n\n —- 1856. Capital, vol. II, Moscow: Progress Publishers. ‘The process of evaluation of\ncapital’. <\/p>\n\n\n\n —- 1859. Capital, voI.III, Moscow: Progress Publishers. ‘The process of capitalist\nproduction as a whole’. <\/p>\n\n\n\n —- 1863-71. Capital, vol.IV, part I. Moscow: Progress Publishers. ‘Theories of\nsurplus-value’. <\/p>\n\n\n\n —- 1870. Capital, vol. I, London: Lawrence and Wishart. <\/p>\n\n\n\n —- 1870. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. New York: International\nLibrary. <\/p>\n\n\n\n —- 1872. Critique of the Gotha Program. Peking: Foreign Languages Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n —- 1873. Grundrisse. Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin. A series of seven notebooks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n —- 1875- Collected Works, 20 volumes. London: Lawrence and Wishart. <\/p>\n\n\n\n —- and Engels, F. 1847. The German Ideology. New York: International Publishers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n —- 1868. Selected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers. The single volume edition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For a comprehensive on-line collection of the works of Marx and Engels, visit www.marx.org<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Back to the Socialist Writers Index<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n