An interview with Mary Gabriel
Mary Gabriel is the author of "Love
and Capital, Karl and Jenny Marx and the Birth of a Revolution" (Little, Brown and Company), a finalist for the
2011 National Book Award.
(CNN) -- There are few
philosophers whose very name provokes more violent responses than Karl Marx.
His
stern face, framed by a mass of grey hair, symbolizes for many Americans the
costly battles of the 20th century: battles against communism, socialism, and
authoritarianism fought in defence of democracy and free-market capitalism. As
successive generations of Americans waged those fights, the philosophical
disputes at the core of the conflicts embedded themselves into the American
soul. So much so that when the "evil empire," whose seeds sprouted
from Marx's doctrine, died as a result of the revolutions of 1989, the
ideological battle did not.
Though
the Soviet Union is but a memory, and that other communist behemoth -- China --
has mutated into a capitalist autocracy, the spectre of Marx himself remains as
potent as ever in 21st century U.S. political discourse. Since 2008 especially,
with the fall of financial markets and the rise of Barack Obama, the charge
"Marxist" has been hurled like toxic sludge against politicians seen
as ready to redistribute wealth (to the advantage of most Americans), expand
social safety nets, or ensure that all children receive a good education.
Critics say these steps are merely the first along a slippery slope that
inevitably ends in outright state control. Amid these warnings, the communist
horrors of the 20th century float like dark apparitions, reminding us of the
bad old days.
But
I wonder how many of those who invoke the name of Marx in order to stifle
political debate, actually believe their own propaganda. Or are they conjuring
up a convenient bogeyman at a time of great uncertainty. Do they raise Marx's
image in order to deflect attention from slightly warmer bodies (Marx has been
dead for 128 years) in positions of political or economic power who are
actually more pernicious? I also wonder whether those who use Marx's name, and
those who tremble at the thought of him, actually know much about the man. Are
they reacting to Karl Marx or those things done in his name? I believe it is
the latter. I also believe it is time to understand Marx so that we are no
longer made to fear him.
When
I began working on a biography of Marx's family in 2003, I was well acquainted
with his theories. I knew, as most do, the history of the governments formed to
reflect the state he had supposedly envisioned. I knew of the atrocities
committed by those said to be his followers. I had not, however, been properly
introduced to the man himself. What I discovered was not what I expected.
Karl
Marx was a middle-class philosopher, economist, and journalist (whose main
employer was a New York newspaper). He was also flawed in the extreme. He drank
excessively, behaved shamefully in his home life, and worked obsessionally,
though he produced little that earned him money or recognition during his
lifetime. These flaws, however, made him more interesting because, despite
being in a state of near constant personal crisis, he was able to accomplish
what he set out to do -- he changed the world.
Marx
began his opposition activities as a youth in Prussia against an absolute
monarch who could not see, or perhaps chose not to see, that society was
changing. The industrial revolution was spreading eastward and Prussian
businessmen were eager to expand with it. But the old system of government
would not allow for such progress. The king would not allow the democratic
reforms that were the handmaidens of the new industrial order.
This
was Marx's first battle, to expose the contradictions between the centuries-old
monarchical system and the world as it existed in the first half of the 19th
century. According to Marx, it was only natural that as the means of
production changed -- in this case a move from an agricultural base to an
industrial one -- society would be altered. And if, as he believed, a
government's sole function was to serve the people, then government must also
change. Marx saw this social evolution as inevitable. It only became revolution
when the kings and their minions refused to reform.
By
the 1850s, the industrialists had gained political power after revolts across
Europe in 1848 caused kings to view proto-capitalists as allies against
radicalised lower classes. The wheels of industry were humming, as were the
halls of finance, where a new breed of speculator was born, addicted to risk in
his quest for ever greater profit.
Marx
quickly recognized that capitalism would institutionalise social and economic
instability. The system's inherent hunger for new markets, new consumers, new
and cheaper methods of production in order to increase the flow of capital
would result in a destructive system of boom and bust. After each cataclysm, he
predicted, the number of capitalists at the top of the pyramid would be
smaller, while the base of disaffected workers grew. Gradually even the middle
class would be included.
Marx
believed that industrial capitalism had also created a new system of repression
and exploitation. Politically and socially men were no more equal under this
new order than they had been under a monarchy. Rights belonged to those with
money and property; those with only a strong back or skilled hands could not
even vote. Financially, those filling the ranks of the industrial workforce
were arguably worse off.
There
was evidence aplenty to support Marx's assessment. He lived in London, the
richest city in the world. And yet as great as was its wealth, much greater was
its poverty. In Marx's neighbourhood, some people rented a space in a bed and
called it comfort. Others paid for a few inches on a stairwell and called it
home. Marx summed up the situation saying, "There must be something
rotten in the very core of a social system which increases its wealth without
diminishing its misery."
This
is the field where Marx's ideas grew. He famously spent year after year in the
British Museum Reading Room, trying to understand this new system, predict its
course, and, finally, offer an alternative. Throughout the 16 years before he
produced his greatest literary work Das Kapital, Marx's family lived in near
continual destitution. Their sole consolation was that they believed Marx's
work was noble and important, and that their suffering was small compared with
the majority of people who sacrificed their lives so someone else could live in
luxury.
Das
Kapital and Marx's other political-economic writings were only one aspect of
his work. He was also an organizer and educator. Through various small groups,
he tried to teach workers, who had neither formal education nor viewed
themselves as a political force. The courses included language, literature and
history, but mostly politics and economics. Marx was convinced that the only
way to successfully change society was to educate the population so that it
could eventually lead itself.
In
1864, the most important of his many organizational endeavours was born, the
International Working Men's Association. Its goal was to connect workers and
trade unions throughout Europe and America to protect their rights in the face
of an increasingly powerful capitalist system, whose tentacles had spread
beyond individual nations and were encircling the globe. Marx recognized the
workingman's greatest power was his number.
Marx
died in 1883, before his books gained a wide readership and before the workers
he had been fighting for took their places in government as representatives of
labour and socialist political parties. It had taken decades of struggle --
largely non-violent -- for this to occur. But Marx knew the path to progress
would be slow, and that ultimately the best way to re-balance society was
through the ballot box. He also believed, however, that the working man had
the right to revolt if those in power tried to deny him such political
expression -- free speech, free assembly, freedom of the press -- and the vote.
Marx's
actual vision for a government of the future was vague, which no doubt is why
it has produced so many variants. But he believed ultimately mankind would
naturally evolve out of capitalism and socialism, and embrace a communist
society in which government was no longer necessary at all. It is a utopian
dream that has occurred nowhere -- least of all in the countries most
associated with his name.
Today,
many people know Marx only through the crimes of the former communist
countries. But Marx's ideas also helped give birth to mainstream political
parties in Western Europe -- Britain's Labour Party, Spain's Socialist Party,
France's Socialist Party, and Germany's Social Democratic Party. And yet, for
some reason in America, these parties are generally not considered part of
Marx's legacy.
In
the United States, we have been taught to fear Marx for so long that we have
forgotten those parts of his philosophy that have become integral to our own
lives -- from free education to the right to bear arms. In fact, the era in
modern American history that was most "Marxist" was the 1950s, when
union membership was high, personal wealth spread more equitably, and the gap
between the rich and poor relatively slim.
I came away from my Marx
project believing that rather than demonising Marx, it is better to understand
him. If his name is used in political discourse, it should be done in the
manner of other great thinkers: as a source of ideas. Whether or not we agree
with him, there are lessons to be learned from Marx. To believe otherwise is to
ignore a man and a period of history that are crucial to understanding our own.
0 نظرات:
Post a Comment