Marxism (Revised): For and Against

There have been few major intellectual figures in the past two centuries concerning whom more ink has bee split than Karl Marx. A staggering amount of that writing has been either obtuse or outrageously inaccurate. Today perhaps no word is used as profligately or as inappropriately as "Marxist." Just this past week, for instance, Tom DeLay (admittedly not a model of political enlightenment) proclaimed that Barack Obama was ("unless he proves me wrong" -- and trust me, he is wrong in the most paradigmatic sense of the word) "a Marxist." "Marxism" has for most part ceased to be a historically grounded economic theory to be understood and become merely a dirty word to be slung mindlessly about. In fact, I doubt if there are many people who would disagree with the vast majority of Marxist economic analyses. It was, after all, Marx who coined the word "capitalism," not, as many suppose, Adam Smith. People blame Marx for everything that happened in 20th century communist countries, ignoring the fact that he was a passionate proponent of democracy as his preferred system of government. Strictly speaking, Marxism says nothing about forms of government, but instead is a theory of economics. Robert Heilbroner's book on Marxism is the clearest elementary statement of what Marx was all about that I have read. I've read other superb books on Marx (such as G. A. Cohen's book on his theory of history and Louis Althusser's book on CAPITAL, not to mention several things written by Ernest Mandel [in particular his wonderful introduction to Volume 1 of CAPITAL in the Penguin Classics edition]), but this is the best introductory book. Heilbroner is, as the title suggests, both for and against Marxism. In general, he believes that Marx nailed the inner nature of capitalism inside and out, but he has serious reservations about some of the results brought about by many of Marx's disciples. My own personal belief is that Marx would have been horrified by what was done in the Soviet Union and China in his name. Those were both totalitarian regimes that were in profound contrast with his own cherished democratic principles. And one will seek in vain calls for violent revolution in Marx's work (he felt that changes in society would come about because of inevitable workings of history, not because people would bring down existing political systems by violence). Still, Heilbroner feels that whatever Marx's own feelings might have been about the way his thought has been appropriated, Marxism itself has much to answer for. And no doubt this is correct. I believe that one can rightfully blame Marxism while exonerating Marx. Clearly, Heilbroner thinks that there is validity to Marx's analyses of the nature of capitalism, but he is less certain about Marx's prognostications of where history was heading. If you want to understand Marx and have read little or nothing of his thought, this is one of the two places I would recommend going first. The other is Ern

There have been few major intellectual figures in the past two centuries concerning whom more ink has bee split than Karl Marx. A staggering amount of that writing has been either obtuse or outrageously inaccurate. Today perhaps no word is used as profligately or as inappropriately as "Marxist." Just this past week, for instance, Tom DeLay (admittedly not a model of political enlightenment) proclaimed that Barack Obama was ("unless he proves me wrong" -- and trust me, he is wrong in the most paradigmatic sense of the word) "a Marxist." "Marxism" has for most part ceased to be a historically grounded economic theory to be understood and become merely a dirty word to be slung mindlessly about. In fact, I doubt if there are many people who would disagree with the vast majority of Marxist economic analyses. It was, after all, Marx who coined the word "capitalism," not, as many suppose, Adam Smith. People blame Marx for everything that happened in 20th century communist countries, ignoring the fact that he was a passionate proponent of democracy as his preferred system of government. Strictly speaking, Marxism says nothing about forms of government, but instead is a theory of economics. Robert Heilbroner's book on Marxism is the clearest elementary statement of what Marx was all about that I have read. I've read other superb books on Marx (such as G. A. Cohen's book on his theory of history and Louis Althusser's book on CAPITAL, not to mention several things written by Ernest Mandel [in particular his wonderful introduction to Volume 1 of CAPITAL in the Penguin Classics edition]), but this is the best introductory book. Heilbroner is, as the title suggests, both for and against Marxism. In general, he believes that Marx nailed the inner nature of capitalism inside and out, but he has serious reservations about some of the results brought about by many of Marx's disciples. My own personal belief is that Marx would have been horrified by what was done in the Soviet Union and China in his name. Those were both totalitarian regimes that were in profound contrast with his own cherished democratic principles. And one will seek in vain calls for violent revolution in Marx's work (he felt that changes in society would come about because of inevitable workings of history, not because people would bring down existing political systems by violence). Still, Heilbroner feels that whatever Marx's own feelings might have been about the way his thought has been appropriated, Marxism itself has much to answer for. And no doubt this is correct. I believe that one can rightfully blame Marxism while exonerating Marx. Clearly, Heilbroner thinks that there is validity to Marx's analyses of the nature of capitalism, but he is less certain about Marx's prognostications of where history was heading. If you want to understand Marx and have read little or nothing of his thought, this is one of the two places I would recommend going first. The other is Ern

Heilbroner doesn't mean "for and against" idly. He really stays open-minded as he explores the value of Marxism. He's able to explain well some of the essence of the issues that Marx wrestled with. He doesn't comment abstractly but instead highlights concrete human factors: what Marx means to us. One chapter, "The Socioanalysis of Capitalism" really connected with me. Heilbroner traces Marx's analysis of commodities as containing hidden social relationships, as reminders of what we had to do to make them. How we find ourselves needing to work in the way that our employer wants (if we find a job), which may poorly utilize much of our own abilities. How we workers make machines, not to make our work more enjoyable, but to maximize output (and profit). Whether Marx's solutions make sense, his analysis of our condition working within a capitalist economy may still benefit us. Heilbroner brings Marxism to life so that the same issues that challenged Marx may challenge us. P.S. In an online article on "Socialism" ("defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls the means of production") in "The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics", Heilbroner wrote "Born as a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty." Care must be taken in moving from Marx's critiques and theory to any thought of action.

Heilbroner's Marxism: For and Against is an excellent, unbiased introduction to the scholarship of Karl Marx. Disecting it into four themes ((1) dialectical philosophy, (2)historical materialism, (3) socioanalysis of capitalism, and (4) a commitment to socialism), Heilbroner clearly illustrates the nature and logic of Marxism. In contrast to contemporary, mainstream misconceptions of Marxism, Heilbroner lays out the true underlying philosophy and theories of Marx in six concise, entertaining chapters. The book is a definite reader for anyone who wants to understand Marxism presented in a logically structured manner.