Of Marx and Marxists, Why despite recent interest the old man has nothing to offer us

Every May first portraits of a German philosopher and political economist are paraded down the Kings way in London, followed close behind by those of Joseph Stalin. Levels adoration that the old man never received during his own life time are lavished upon him. There is general confidence and self-esteem amongst the crowd that of course ‘in the end he was right wasn’t he’. His works are of course despite their age still ultra-relevant, possibly more so now than ever and sales are spiking. Once written off his analysis is again making mincemeat of the superficiality and lies produced by the mainstream. He’s continually being vindicated, again and again. Even more moderate centre left figures will pay homage to his name, being correct in spirit if not necessarily on the details.

Though despite this received wisdom and public opinion, which is the art of thinking and repeating what everyone else is thinking and repeating, the white elephant which is haunting the discourse is the spectre of anyone interrupting the festival of smugness and nostalgia by asking the simple question; why? And beyond the buzz words, slogans and well-worn jingles, beyond the famous ‘exploitation of labour’, ‘the internal contradictions of capitalism’ and ‘class conflict’ no answer is readily available. The emperor doesn’t just have new clothes but a new ideology. Copies of Capital line book cases and of course everyone’s read the Manifesto haven’t they . . . haven’t they? But who actually understood what it all meant, why does one get the impression that not many self-proclaimed ‘Marxists’, ‘socialist revolutionaries’ or ‘crypto-Marxist-Trotskyists’ don’t know of the existence of volumes 2 and 3 of Capital, and would most likely be quite upset upon discovering them. Naturally anyone would be having another 1500 pages of cardboard to chew through slung on their plate, instead of spending their time focusing on being revolutionary.

So if one is brave enough to be quite the radical and to go and do some real field research and to climb in amongst the pages of the works of Marx, then what is it, if anything, that you might find that could equip you and benefit your powers of analysis so that you genuinely make the informed comment ‘Marx was right’?

To focus on Capital, which is the work that has been receiving the most revived interest, a set of books which are remarkably chaotic in their composition and organisation, the opening three chapters, dry and technical, though rather easy going compared to the Sahara of Volume 2, is where the flawed foundation is set for the rest of the work. Laying out the labour theory of value as the basis on which his analysis will be built Marx unknowingly places himself over the trap door of future obsolescence that would be flung open by the later advent of the economic revolution of marginal utility theory pioneered by Austrian economist Carl Menger. Indeed it is speculated by some that the halt and resultant non-publication of volumes 2 and 3 in Marx’s life time might have been due to his possible reading of Menger’s Principles of Economics. A remarkably clearer and easier read than Captial, published in 1871, which in a mere 300 pages demolishes and replaces the objective labour theory of value, used by Marx as well as the whole of the classical school of economics, with his new subjective theory of marginal utility.

This revolution in economic theory, which still sits at the centre of modern economic theory today, undermines Marx’s theory of the tendency of profits to fall, put forth in volume 3, causing capitalist economies inevitably be set  on a course to their own destruction. This is of particular relevance to the upsurge in Marxist hype which has been generated by the recent economic crisis. To feel intelligent pointing out the elementary fact that economic crisis do occur is not in any way to vindicate Marx’s analysis as other much more successful analysis of economic crisis exist and have existed before and after Marx conceived of his. It is indescribable how much fury can be felt when hearing these radicals, Tony Benn, David Harvey, Terry Eagleton, Eric Hobsbawm and co making the point that the crisis of 2008 has disrupted the end of history and put Marx back on map as if his theory of crisis is the only game in town. 

Menger’s revelation also despatches Marx’s scientific definition and demonstration of ‘exploitation’ and sends the word back into the wilderness of subjective and emotive meaning, which truthfully is how most socialists quite ignorantly seem happy to use the term anyhow. And ignorance, or even denial, is the appropriate term with regards to how the problems underlying Marxist economics are treated, or more accurately not treated, by writers such as Eagleton in his book Why Marx Was Right or the late Eric Hobsbawm in How to Change the World. It seems that even amongst many of the so called academics and intellectuals the aesthetic of Marx and his revolutionary persona seems more important than any technical substance of his work, as it certainly doesn’t make its way into their own.

Large parts of the rest of Capital, the more readable parts at least, are filled with descriptions of the conditions of the worker and the infamous industrial reserve army. Although horrifying, as has been pointed elsewhere, they are reliant on the very same factory reports which would be used by parliament to bring about the reforms which along with the increased productivity of the capitalist system would raise the living conditions of the working class to heights hither to unimaginable. And again this is another sizeable elephant in the room whose significance is largely ignored by the Marxist faithful. Time has shown us, as it never could Marx, that under capitalism the worker has got richer and richer in real terms and not poorer and poorer, producing not revolution but consumer abundance.   Like nearly all of the mistakes of Marx this one is made again because Marx was no less than an intellectuals product of his time, and even though wrote his analysis by his own will he could not do so under the historical conditions of his own choosing. And has thus perished as a relevant intellectual.

 

          

 

Hurray for the Hawks

Why Obama has so far got it right over Syria

If the Syrian and Russian offer is genuine and Assad is prepared to hand over his chemical weapons stockpiles then there is only one side in the recent argument over intervention that should be celebrating, not that there is much to celebrate about in Syria itself. The hawks and certainly not the doves deserve credit at this particular impasse and only more of the same can bring this prospective diplomatic solution to fruition.

If, and currently this is still a big if, Mr Assad is genuine then who would be obtuse enough to suppose it was anything other than the threat of western cruise missiles that has brought him to the negotiating table. Scared of a shallow grave delivered upon fellow dictators courtesy of the US armed forces, the results of what can only be imagined to have been a probe to test the ground for viability of the use of chemical weapons has come back negative. Unlike its sickening negligence and callous indifference during the Iran-Iraq war or the chemical annihilation of ethnic groups within Iraq itself the international community led by the only actor with the potential for credible and competent action is finally responding in the affirmative.  

The weasel objection that force itself has not yet been used thus far, therefore vindicating the  position of the non-interventionists, is just that. The sustained and continued indifference and disinterest that would have been the response of choice of many critics of the US offers nothing but an invitation for more proliferation. The style of EU foreign policy show cased in the 1990s over Bosnia which wins so many noble peace prizes is not a foreign policy but instead a decision to resign from the responsibility of having one and does nothing to bend the will of undesirable characters such as Mr Assad to our own.

Quite subtly and perhaps a paradox for some, the use of force in cases such as Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq to punish the crossing of such vaunted ‘Red Lines’ is done with the hope that no such force shall be necessary again and here in lies the real meaning of deterrence. Credible and predictable response to limited yet clear lines being broken is what is necessary to inspire the fear that we might now be witnessing in the Assad camp. Amazingly nothing is new in the realm of realpolitik, if man desires peace then he must prepare for war and those who wish to speak softly must insure that they also carry a big stick.

However, those who don’t quite feel that it is within them to bow down to the logic of the hawk could perhaps appreciate events as the triumph of the owl which we famously saw over Cuba in October 1962 (sincerest apologies if this is becoming too ornithological). The combination of the ready deployment of military assets and tough posturing to impart a belief and confidence in the overwhelming superiority of US arms, especially over Russian onlookers, with a sufficient enough pause to gage reactions is a relative master stroke on the part of president Obama who is not always a deserving recipient of praise in this arena, much like Kennedy before him. Again the word that must be stressed is ‘if’ as it is still early days to know if the Syrians are bluffing or not but if all is as it seems on the surface then congratulations might well be in order.

Triumph however is not yet secured and success in the next stage of securing a credible disarmament deal will require more of the same hard posturing and most importantly perseverance with the threat of force which might well have to be actualised at some point in the future. The ‘lessons from Iraq’ have not been far from the lips of most commentators however for most this means affirming and reaffirming the principle that all intervention is bad intervention especially if it is conducted under the banner of the stars and stripes. The cack handed logic at work in this unconditionally anti-American sentiment, rather resembles the idiotic black and white George Bush-esque hubris which it so strongly despises. Shamefully however we have found that such crude analysis is the opinion of the majority of the British parliament. Surely one of the real and pertinent lessons from Iraq is that if conducted through the UN without any accompanying enforcement of military might, then disarmament processes can wind on without results for over a decade, as was the case with Saddam’s Iraq. If the Russians block or hinder the processes at the UN as they continually did over Iraq then the US must pursue a deal outside of the UN with Assad using the threat of military action to present and cement such an ultimatum.

It of course should be remembered that it was such a bilateral agreement that was used to disarm Colonel Gadhafi of his chemical weapons stock pile. Interestingly this took place after the US, once backed by the UK, showed that it was willing and capable to use military force to remove its enemies if they continually violated key tenants of international law. Gadhafi strangely enough did not go to Kofi Annan or Banki Moon to hand over his WMD but instead went to George Bush and Tony Blair, those so much maligned figures. Boringly for some Mr Blair’s question as to who gains if Western resolve to use military force crumbles is once again  the prescient question that should be at the forefront of the discussion of this subject.

The central argument of this article might well be stalked by the spectre of the word ‘if’ but it is the first time in two years of war that a clear and tangible policy response can be pursued with regards to the conflict and perhaps a small positive can be redeemed from the immense suffering which shows little sign of stopping anytime soon.