[Marxism] Marx: does he still matter?

["Sudhir Devadas" <sudhirdin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Politics and principles: Marx: does he still matter? In a letter to former
Labour leader Michael Foot, written in 1982 and published yesterday, Tony
Blair reveals that reading Karl Marx 'irreversibly altered' his outlook. He
even agreed with Tony Benn that Labour's right-wing was politically
bankrupt. We asked nine commentators - including Mr Benn - whether Marxism
still has anything to offer today the
independent                              16 June 2006

*Eric Hobsbawm* Historian

I think there has been a substantial revival of interest in Marx in recent
years, and this has been largely because what he said about the volatility
and shape of capitalism was correct - even some business people now seem to
recognise this. Marx is once again somebody that you can quote, and this in
part is due to the end of the Cold War.

In terms of Marx's legacy, as the Chinese are reported to have said
following the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell." What we do know,
though, is that Marx and his disciples were massively responsible for the
shaping of the 20th century, for good or for bad, and Marx was an
extraordinarily important thinker.

In this era of neo-liberal globalisation, Marxist thinking is still
important in showing that while capitalism is enormously dynamic, that
dynamism creates crises. We need to address these crises, not by free
markets, but by controlling the system or changing it altogether. Whether or
not that is possible in the short term is a different story.

*Matthew d'Ancona* Editor, 'THE Spectator'

Marx is certainly relevant. As Francis Wheen's very good biography shows, he
was on to the idea of globalisation long before right-wing economists
started writing about it. Beyond that, his way of thinking is still
pervasive.

One of the fascinating things about the Labour Party is that there has been
what you might call a Marx-size hole in it, a quest for a sense of destiny.
Blair has tried to fill that: his critics would say with religion, his
apologists would say with Europe. Blair is someone with a pretty strong
sense of destiny, and he has tried to extend that to the Labour Party. He is
no Marxist but in a funny way he has that sense of destiny Marx had.

Marx was wrong about lots of things, but he is still somebody you have to
know about. He is one of a very small number of people - Marx, Freud and
Darwin are, I suppose, the three big ones - who completely changed the way
we see mankind.

*Jack Straw* Leader of The House of Commons

Karl Marx's legacy - not just for the Labour Party but for intellectual
development - is his development of Hegel's more scientific approach to
historical analysis and his elevation of the dialectical process. Both are,
I think, enduring. Much of his analysis is accurate and his analytical tools
are still respected by many historians.

His prescriptions were often widely off-beam, as we now know, and played
down non-economic forces to a point where I think he made some grievous
historical and political errors - for example, ignoring the role of
nationalism and religion as political forces.

What we saw in 1989, with the collapse of theSoviet system, was that the
Marxist-Leninist approach to running not only economies but also societies
was unenduring. The point of Francis Fukuyama's book The End of History was
not that history had ended but that we had reached a point of ideological
hegemony which I think we probably had. So Marxist Leninism is not relevant
in that respect but the analysis is still worth having.

*Hilary Wainwright* Editor, 'Red Pepper'

For all the abuses of his work, Marx's view of society was far from being
mechanical and determinist. His notion of people "making history but not in
conditions of their own choosing" and his idea of "the social individual"
points to that crucial balance between recognising the capacity of
individuals to choose to transform rather than reproduce the social
relations that depend on them and on the other hand the enduring nature of
these social relations.

There is in Marx a powerfully grounded belief in human creativity combined
with a strong belief in individual fufilment. It's there in his theory of
alienation: the way in which the capitalist labour market depends on
workers' alienation from their creative capacity. It's there in his vision
of socialism: not as a command economy but as the association of free
producers. It is a cruel irony his name should have been used to justify
authoritarianism and new, state, forms of alienation.

*Tony Benn* Labour Politician

It's the teachers, including the prophets of ancient times, the founders of
the great religions, along with Galileo, Darwin, and Karl Marx, who explain
the world and our place in it.

I always think of Marx as the last of the Old Testament prophets who wrote a
brilliant book about capitalism but also condemned it because of the
oppression by one class of rich and powerful people.

Marx was no more responsible for a Stalinist tyranny than Jesus was for the
Inquisition or the recent war of aggression waged by a Christian president
and a Christian prime minister. Without the Marxist analysis, it is
impossible to understand capitalism and globalisation, to reach a moral
judgement, and it is even harder to explain the crude use of that power and
the need for it to be held to account. There is nothing in the Marxist
analysis to prevent us from thinking things out for ourselves and working to
build a genuine democracy, where the polling station replaces the
marketplace, and the ballot replaces the wallet as a source of political and
economic power.

*Alexei Sayle* Comedian and Writer

I think that the Marxist historical analysis is an accurate account of how
society has developed. Although perhaps a little wide of the mark, it is
definitely still relevant. When Marx spoke about the differences in society
being based on economic structure he definitely had a point.

Marxism should be seen as a tool and therefore a method of analysing society
and that can be relevant today. You can certainly be right-wing and still be
a Marxist.

It is a historical analysis of the class struggles and a prediction of the
way our society would be, and it isn't wrong. Yes, it is a complex set of
ideas, but it makes sense.

*Norman Tebbit* Former Conservative Party Chairman

I read bits of Marx, though in a way when I grew up what seemed more
relevant was Mein Kampf. I read that because I wanted to know about the
bugger who was dropping bombs on me. I don't think Marx is relevant, except
to show up the folly of people who believe in what is now shown to be an
absolute failure of a political system. Blair is right that it purports to
be a total system. You can be a Conservative without being a capitalist, you
can be Labour without being a socialist, but if you buy Marx, you have to
buy the lot. It's like a religion in that respect, and very harmful. So, for
once, Tony's right.

*Anthony Seldon* Headmaster, Wellington College

I think that Marx's way of analysing society is of course relevant today
because you simply cannot understand how societies have formed today without
seeing the remnants of Marxism. It has been hugely influential across the
world.

Marx definitely got some things wrong because his theory was, sadly, overly
idealistic about working-class unity. Nevertheless, you can certainly still
see elements of truth in what he said - workers are stronger when they stand
together.

Marxism hasn't itself been a negative influence. It is often the way that
followers have chosen to interpret Marxism that has led to things like
police states and concentration camps. Marx would have been horrified in the
same way that Jesus would have been by the way people have interpreted him.

I find Marxism a lot less odious as an idea than capitalist policies. The
idea of people living in a just society with no warfare is an inspiring
vision, although hopelessly naïve.

*Bob Crow* General Secretary, RMT

It was entertaining to hear that Tony Blair's youthful outlook was
"irreversibly altered" by reading Marx. Of course, he doesn't say in which
direction his outlook was altered, but his actions during the past decade
give us a clue. Today it is far easier to win the ear of Downing Street if
you represent the class of capitalists, as Marx would have put it, rather
than working people.

Of course, it may be that Blair has had a memory lapse and just needs a
refresher. No need to wade through all of Das Kapital - just a quick read of
the little pamphlet Wages, Price and Profit, which lays bare the mechanism
by which bosses extract surplus value from the labour of working people. It
should be in the pocket of every trade unionist.

In it, Marx demolishes the idea that wage rises cause inflation and that it
is futile for workers to fight for higher pay.

Marx's great achievement was understanding capitalism, and in understanding
it he came to the conclusion that it could and must be replaced with
something better.

As long as there are capitalists Marx will remain relevant.
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism