How wrong was Marx?

What an issue to debate- it’s probably in the same league of ‘Is There A God,’ and funnily enough when you think about it, the two may not be that far apart in discussion terms, given the saint-like status Marx and Engels are given by the Marxist faithful.

In fact the power of Marxism is that it has from the outset been promoted as a pseudo-religious philosophy [albeit in a ‘scientific’ guise], with its own ‘sacred’ texts, and this is no accident considering Marx’s personal background. But there is more to it than just a clever exercise in promotion; Marx provided an invaluable analysis of western capitalist society after the industrial revolution and a very persuasive model of how it works, and how it should be rigorously adapted to benefit the exploited people of the [majority] working classes.

His analysis was spot on in many respects, but personally I think that purity of his intellectual analysis has in the past been impracticably elevated to the level of ill-conceived myths of achievable political action. This can be seen in the failure of post 1917 communist Russia, the eventual Soviet Union, the communist stumblings in eastern Europe and the metamorphose of communism into autocratic capitalism in China [seemingly a contradiction in terms but not that bizarre a process, when thought through carefully]. So as the post that started this debate stated, it can be quite accurately said that the failure of the great twentieth century communist governmental experiments, had little to do with the failure of Marxist theory.

Although Marx’s theory is very sound in many respects, it is however, I believe, flawed in some significant areas. Now then personally, as a Socialist, I can quite unashamedly say that I have the luxury of being able to pick and choose the bits of Marxist theory I like, and criticise the rest, and as such this is not a criticism of the intellect of unreconstructed Marxists who have complete Faith in his world view, in the same way I have as a Christian, in another sphere of Faith!

However I think Marx and Engels did get too hung up on the concept of class as the simplistic definer of society’s make up. They ignored the existence of elites and sub-elites- which amongst many other things can spread across classes- and which I believe are greater, more historically consistent definers of human groupings and their inherent power structure. More so I think, than simple industrial classes, which are arguably a transitory phenomenon of the Industrial Age. This ‘traditional’ class structure has also been substantially eroded throughout the twentieth century until it has become a difficult concept to apply in 2010, onto most of the western world.

The other area I think Marx mistakenly rejected, was religion. I can see his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church, a huge power base in its own right, but Marxist rejection of religious practise and morals has done the Left as a whole a huge disservice over the years. Particularly at grass-roots, community level, there has been a huge ally in the form of religious groups left largely alienated by the Marxist decree of atheism being the only way to achieve a utopian, sense of ‘heaven here, on earth, now.’

This is ironic considering the pseudo-religious structure of Marxism itself and can be shown by this example. The argument that Marxism is an ‘apocalyptic’ system of belief, like say Christianity, is to me a persuasive one. The term ‘apocalypse’ itself is mis-understood, having largely been appropriated by Hollywood to mean a collective, societal sense these days of the end of the world as we know it, through man-made, alien or natural disaster. What it really means though, is a linear process of taking individual circumstance and placing it into a wider, eventually universal history. Judaeo-Christians can see this process in the Book of Daniel and Marxism apes this, breaking history into epochs that lead to a utopia. In the Marx tradition this starts with feudalism, leading to industrialisation and the age of the bourgeoisie, and onto the age of proletarian freedom and eventually, communist utopia.

Now I admit this may be a bit of a diversion from the original question, but I’ve outlined the above in an attempt to show that Marxism is not a radically different form of thinking, but is still rooted in a strong, human historical continuum and, as such, is [many would say reassuringly] naturally flawed.

One final thing; I believe it is wrong to say Marxism is dead and buried as a political force. Patrick was right in his article to say there is an element to classical Marxism that believes capitalism will destroy itself and that will usher in the new worker utopia, and I do believe we are indeed heading for a ‘fall.’ But this almost nihilistic 'just you wait and see' approach belies the true, very effective activities of reconstructed Marxists, inspired by the Frankfurt School, who have very cleverly taken Marxist theory ‘underground’ and it’s there, alive and kicking just behind its most unlikely of allies, neo-liberalism. But again, that’s a whole separate debate, and maybe I should start up another discussion about that...:)