Insightful critic of capitalism, terrible social architect.
Now that Marx has been liberated from the ironclad
ideology of the
East Bloc, a serious and frank discussion can take place about him and his
philosophy. I've heard it said that the worst thing that could possibly happen to a thinker is for him/her to be placed on a
pedestal. In spite of his
biblical beard, Marx is neither a
secular saint nor a
prophet, as any reading of his works will reveal. Yet he made a profound influence on
sociology and, to a lesser extent,
economics. It is sad that most people have only read
The Communist Manifesto, if anything. (And don't be confused by the title; the
Manifesto is hardly an endorsement of
Marxism-Leninism. I recall a
Thomas Nast political cartoon
from the 1870s that lambasted
communism; but this was a much different sort of "communism.")
The rigid
collectivism of
Stalin's
Russia contrasts sharply with the (rather myopic) vision of a future society. For while Marx rejected the
individualism of
Locke and
Mill, he did not wish to sacrifice the individual to
state interests. Still, the vision is hazy and open to interpretation. For instance, what of historical inevitability? From a strictly
materalist 19th century view, I can see whereby Marx arrived at that conclusion, an abrogation of
free will. But he did he know of
quantum theory? One can say the human mind is an expression of this randomness introduced into the universe --
God playing dice. This is why Stalinism rejects quantum theory; for Marxism was adapted by the new Russian autocrats
in order to lend legitimacy to their regime. It also seems that his conclusions were extrapolated from too little data. Still, the
dialectic is much less important, in my estimation, than the concept of
alienated labor.
Marx contradicted himself several times; compare
The Civil War in France, written in the aftermath of the
Paris Commune, and the comparatively
authoritarian Manifesto, written in the aftermath of the events of
1848. From
The Civil War in France Libertarian Marxism has been derived, combining Marxian analysis with
Anarchist praxis.
For it is his analysis of
capitalism that is most enduring. Say what you will about
Capital; it is the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 that I find most enchanting. You see little of the concept of
alienated labor in the
Gründrisse, and hardly at all in
Capital; this was a concept that, for some indeterminate reason, was abandoned by Marx as years passed. It is the young Marx who shares much in common with the
existentialists, and his earlier work was and still is accepted by many great
psychologists. (
Marcuse,
Fanon, et al.)
Capital is largely considered to be his
magnum opus. One's view of it depends on one's view of the
Labor Theory of Value. Myself, I am inclined to think that all wealth is created by labor -- that is, activity which imparts further use-value to an object. What do factory owners do? Do they produce, as their workers do? Nay, they control the
means of production, thereby forcing workers to sell their labor to them. Back before the rise of capitalism -- in the
Jeffersonian days of yore, when the
Bourgeois were in the process of supplanting the
nobility in
Europe -- most workers were independent artisans and craftsmen and did not have to sell their labor. See why Jefferson's vision of an
agrarian society is outmoded? As technology has progressed, the worker finds he can no longer survive independently. But certainly not that technology is a
Bad Thing. But I digress...
Regardless of what one thinks of his work, one must acknowledge Marx was a
genius on the level of
Freud or
Darwin, and had an impact as great as the other two thinkers. Marxian philosophy is interesting but perhaps no longer as relevant. I endeavour to study it -- as I do the philosophy of other thinkers -- but
keep an open mind and not fall victim to
dogmatism.
YMMV.