Archive Project - College Essays #3

PS 333 - Term Paper
December 14, 1995

Pot Shots at a Dead man: The Marx Brothers Get More Respect

Karl Marx has been dead for over a hundred years yet he is still being blamed for things he did not say. Marxism as it has developed and as it is called around the world has as many varied forms as practitioners. Much like the teachings of other controversial writers throughout history Marx is at best misunderstood and at worst categorically denounced. The maligning of Marx continues to this day. Critics of the Soviet Union point to the demise as proof of failure, yet the Communist Party continues to survive in post-Soviet Russia. Modern “philosophers” and commentators openly flail at Marx’s writings, mish-mashing them together as though they were not developed over time or with anything other than assumptions. It is easy to look at the failure of those who have claimed to be Marxists as a sort of proof of his philosophical ineptness. However, simply dismissing Marx completely based upon the failure of people decades after his death who took his thoughts in directions Marx may not have approved of is intellectually lazy and as dangerous as those who have blind faith in his ideas. Yet, the criticism continues. Vladimir Voinovich’s 1986 novel “Moscow 2042” is a tale that not only critiques the Soviet regime, but also seems to be a rejection of Marx with little direct evidence, only a cliché. Many modern “conservative thinkers” like former Reagan administration budget director David Stockman have looked to Marx as a direct opposite to their ideology, despite the fact that the two ideologies are mutually exclusive. Marx believed that his work was scientific. In order to validate any scientific theory it must be able to withstand scrutiny from both within and without and the test of time. Unfortunately the criticism of Marx has rarely been scientific itself. As the century of the “Red Scare” and various revolutions in Marx’s name comes to a close it is at least evident that Marxism has stood the time, so far.

A quick peek through the local phone book virtually anywhere in the country will lead to a startling discovery in regards to religion. There are a vast number of churches that all claim to be following the words of the same man yet they all disagree on the meaning of the words he used. Often the disagreements are over seemingly minor details of doctrine that to a neutral observer seem to be ridiculously unimportant yet to the people involved are of the utmost importance.

Marx reportedly once quipped the line, “I am not a Marxist.” The various interpretations and tangents from Marx’s words are easy to parallel to Christianity. The disputes over the words both men used to convey their thoughts have led to ongoing controversies amongst those that fundamentally claim to be in agreement while remaining at odds over the details. Marx himself would not find religious criticism to be valid, but here the problems in the interpretations and implementations of Christianity is being used to parallel Marxism.

Those that categorically deny any of Marx’s thoughts as valid seem to forget a common philosophical theme in Western Civilization. It is often heard that we are all “the sum of our experiences”. This notion that we are the sum is remarkably similar to a fundamental principle of Marxist thought, that “conditions of existence determines consciousness”. In fact, a fundamental aspect of how we in the West refer to ourselves as individuals is in line directly with Marxist thought. One can’t help but imagine Pat Robertson having an aneurysm thinking about that.

The fall of the Soviet Union has been well documented and yet is still not widely understood. To many it was a simple validation of the Cold War. To others it was an example of the inherent future of the world economy turning towards free market capitalism. The widespread belief is that it is the end of the “Red Menace” and Castro should just give up or die so that we can all just get along. The existence of The Peoples’ Republic of China and the continued political existence of the Communist Party in Russia are, of course, conveniently ignored in most news reports. The state of the Russian economy and political chaos in former Soviet Republics is also generally considered to be of minor concern to those in the West who continue their bravado.

Much like other great thinkers of history who put pen to paper or had their words recorded Marx is an easy target. The material is out their for anyone to read. However, where Marx developed his thought over decades, studying the works of other thinkers and constantly reworking his own thoughts, those who criticize can pick and choose the material they want to use to illustrate their points. Would that all debates be so easy. Marx himself is often a target of simple ridicule, like on T-shirts that have pictures of Groucho, Harpo, and Karl with the caption “I’m a Marxist” on them. A great thinker who had many ideas that were solid and many that upon scrutiny are questionable perhaps deserves better than to be lumped with a slapstick comedy team for a quick buck. Maybe Marx would appreciate the irony of his likeness becoming commercially viable, maybe not.

It is intellectually lazy to criticize in an incomplete manner, yet criticism of Marx is often done that way. This is not entirely unique to criticism of Marx, but it is so prevalent in the material available that it could almost go as a matter of course and stating it seems to be like telling the world that the sky is blue.
It is also un-scientific to be incomplete in criticism. Marx was nothing if not thorough in his studies. “Capital” is a colossal work by critical standards as are other works by Marx. If one is to critique Marx it should probably be by using similar standards of scholarly critique as he used himself. Marx continually attempted to get to the roots of things, to find their essence as it were. The essence of Marx is in his view that “conditions of existence determines consciousness”. Earlier, this view was looked at in the context of basic Western philosophy, however here it is looked at differently. Without an understanding of this seemingly simple statement one will get no where fast in critiquing Marx. For Marx if humanity could just get to the point where there was a stateless society with no individual ownership over the means of production a fair amount of good would be achieved. Mankind would be free to pursue labor and studies unencumbered by many of the forces that exploit it. This is a highly simplified example, but if the conditions of existence here are such that a person is not being exploited they would not know of exploitation even and therefore not seek to exploit others. In many ways Marx had a sincere belief that the ideal conditions of existence would only bring out the best in the species. Essentially, we are taught to exploit others and we do what we know and if we didn’t know to exploit others and did not need to to survive we would not. The logic itself is simple, but it definitely begs a lot of questions about the nature of man.

Marxism has taken many turns and tangents. The Marxism of Lenin and the Marxism of Mao are far different from each other, yet essentially claim to stem from the same roots. Within the Soviet Union there were many interpretations and alterations made to Leninism. Stalin initiated the massive planning apparatus that seems to contrast with the very notion of a stateless society. Gorbachev saw his socialist state simply cease to exist as the people chose to recognize another state in its place. None of this can be said to be an invalidation of Marxism. Yet, the immanent critique throughout the West is that it is. All the failure of the Soviet Union showed is the failure of those who ran the Soviet Union to keep a country together. Science requires experiments and Marxism as a scientific philosophy requires experiments to validate it. The failure of Marxist experiments in many ways could be argued to be proofs. Marx looked to advanced capitalist nations as the future communist states. Russia was not at the top of his list in regards to being a prime area for communist development. The fact that communism failed in Russia is a point for Marx here. Since an advanced capitalist state like the United States has not embraced the philosophy of Marx the jury should still be out and the verdict cannot be read.

Vladimir Voinovich is a writer who has fallen victim to blaming Marx for the failure of the Soviet Union with a confusing portrayal of “Marx’s vision” in the novel “Moscow 2042”. In the novel all aspects of the Soviet system are directly attributed to Marx, creating a parody of the ideas without an evident understanding of the philosophy of Marx himself. The massive planning apparatus of Stalin has attempted to plan all aspects of life down to the ridiculous possibility that there would be a “Bureau of Natural Functions” (p.238) which would monitor and regulate the bodily excrement of each member of society. To Voinovich, Marx seems to have had a vision of control over each person by the communist state, when in fact Marx had a vision of a stateless society without the direct control over people and their lives. It is evident that Voinovich is confusing and lumping together anything and everything that could be derived from Marx into Marx’s “vision”. What can be seen in this critique of Marx is Voinovich has taken the “fruits of the poisonous tree” approach. Essentially, if the root is bad then anything that grows from that must also be bad as well. However, Voinovich has confused the issue here by taking the poisonous tree theory in reverse. He doesn’t like the fruits from the tree so the roots must be bad, a fair bit of faulty logic here. Of course, “Moscow 2042” and the critique are not totally without merit. The novel is a strong parody of a Soviet system taken too far to a literal extreme. The novel is a compelling critique of the massive planning apparatus of Stalin. Too bad it is not what it claims to be, an in depth critique of “Marx’s vision”.

As the supposed “Republican Revolution” sweeps across America, conservative scholars are having a field day. The common belief is that free market capitalism is the be all and end all. Perhaps so. Perhaps not. The second common belief is that Marxism has been an utter and complete failure and American social experiments that seem to have Marxist overtones (read Welfare) should be abolished, after all the Soviets are gone. What they lack in research they at least make up for in zeal. Looking back to the end of the Cold War the rhetoric was stronger but the message was essentially the same. The United States has moved too far toward the Marxist ideals of a classless society in its attempts to alleviate poverty and redistribute wealth, to paraphrase the conservatives collectively.

Conservatives like David Stockman even experimented with Marxism in the 1960s. In his book “The Triumph of Politics” Stockman overviews his college experiments as nothing more than that a of a misguided youth, as though experimenting with philosophies can be written off in the same way as general rebellion in youth. Instead of becoming a juvenile delinquent many became something much worse, politically radical and bent on destroying our capitalist system. To Stockman and others, this was all just a bunch of foolishness that we eventually ridded ourselves of when the students of that era had to go get real jobs. There is a joke that conservatism begins when a liberal takes the first trip to the orthodontist to get the kids braces. Stockman takes this adage literally. His and others’ blind faith that capitalism is the be all and end all is as dangerous as the notion the Marxism is without worth. Capitalism has merits and drawbacks which will not be debated here, but to have blind faith in it is a scary thought. Where Stockman’s critique fails is that he blows off Marxist thought as “half baked” (p.21) while he commits the same “half baked” error of unquestioning faith in Reaganomics (p.395).

Stockman’s failure to separate Marx and Marxism from its eventual proponents is not entirely unexpected given the nature of things in the West. We live in a system which still lives by the politics of the Cold War. Since the Soviets were the bad guys, any and all attributes of what they believed in must be bad as well. Never mind the fact that some of what Marx thought had reasonable merits. The Soviets were a menace and hence there was a “Red Menace” out there. People have led entire political careers not clinging to any belief of their own but only an anti-belief in what they perceived as Marxism. Stockman grew up in this world as well.

The continuing critique of Marx in the manner thus far described in so pervasive as to have made it impossible to have an honest discussion of Marx with virtually anyone. When people in positions of power want to destroy an opposing viewpoint they will often embark upon dis-information campaigns to muddle a subject or to create such confusion that the subject becomes impossible. One of the greatest dis-information campaigns in history have been perpetuated upon the writings and philosophy of Karl Marx. Whether or not the work of Marx is with or without merit is not relevant to this part of this critique of the critique of Marx. If an idea does not have merit it seems logical to assume that it will sink under its own collective dead weight. Marxism and its various tangent offspring have never really been given an honest shake in the West. The powers that be in our capitalist system are obviously threatened by the revolutionary rhetoric in the material. Needless to say, a reaction to squelch and marginalize proponents of Marxism to a radical fringe is hardly unexpected. The extent to which opponents of Marxist thought have gone to discredit the most basic notions of Marxism is very extreme however. The appeal of a classless society where there is relative equality will be appealing to masses of people who are the “have nots”, the “haves” definitely recognized that a long time ago. Otherwise, there would be no logical reason to do anything but let Marx fade away.

Despite the massive campaign against Marxist thought, it still won’t go away. Marx’s impact on the world has been vast. The largest nation in the world in regards to population is still a “Marxist” state. Even when the Soviet Union fell the Communist
Party continued onward. There is apparently something in Marx and Marxism that has an appeal to people on many fundamental levels. Marx viewed the world through scientific eyes. He studied history, philosophy, economics, and other scholarly areas in order to better understand the world we live in. He may or may not be right. But to dismiss him and his work out of hand is a ridiculous notion. The only way to study Marx is to critique him on his own thorough, scientific terms. As a society we have not done that. If Marx and Marxism does not withstand a solid scientific scrutiny then so be it. What is objected to and critiqued here is the critique method that has been used for decades and permeates Western thought. In many ways the rejection of Marx has fueled the fire for capitalism, even in its worst moments. Yet, the critique of Marx remains weak and “half baked”. Marx would critique those who created revolutions in his name and so should we, but it should be done in a Marxist manner.

There has been no respect for Marx given even when credit is due. That is wrong.

References

McLellan, David. “Introduction: The Legacy of Marx”, Marxism After Marx, Houghton Mifflin (Boston, 1979).

Stockman, David A. The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, Harper & Row (New York, 1986).

Voinovich, Vladimir. Moscow 2042, Harcourt Brace Janovich (New York, 1987).