Marx out of 10: why every socialist should read Marx

When I first got involved in politics I did not have a worked out political philosophy. My guess is that would be true for regular readers of this blog (and her Mum). I knew what I disliked – mainly the Tories – but I had no idea how society worked, or what forces were ranged against my ambition to change things. I did not understand that I was on the left, or even that I was working class. I’m not sure I even knew that we lived in a capitalist society.

It was only when I joined the Labour Party that I found an outlet for my anger and frustration. Whilst the party was really poor at answering the more important questions I wanted answered, it was in the party that I met people  who would introduce me to ideas that would not only help me to explain what was wrong with society, but also understand what was necessary for things to change. It was immediately obvious to me that simply wanting change was not enough, nor that electing a Labour government would of itself bring about the type of society that I quickly came to dream about.

That type of society I came to identify as socialist which, to be honest, was a bit of a relief because I did not want anything to do with “communism” which I identified with (cue dramatic, eerie music) – Russia. It was a friend in the Labour Party who first identified us (that is, me and him) as part of the left. I was slightly horrified to discover that this was what he thought of me as I had been a loyal Daily Mirror reader and in the 80’s that meant an understanding that Denis Healey was sensible and electable and Tony Benn was mad and dangerous.

But, it was another friend, Derek Newlands, now sadly departed who told me very clearly that there were two sides: workers and bosses and you could only be on one side. His analysis was that when workers stuck together they were unbeatable. And, one day, he lent me a series of books, amongst them a small pamphlet called The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It was written in 1848, but from its opening paragraph “A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism.” To its closing rallying call “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” I was captivated. Here, contained in this small booklet was the answer to those questions that I had been asking for years. It is no exaggeration to say that this small pamphlet changed the way I looked at the World.

In the 1980’s Marxism was undoubtedly the theory to engage with. Either people were promoting Marxism or trying to disprove it. Some of the most passionate anti-Marxists were university educated, white collar workers and their dismissal of Marxism was often on the grounds that there was no longer a working class which could lose its chains. In their view social mobility had all but rendered the need for revolution obsolete. Besides if the system was going to change, it was not going to be done by a bunch of dirty, uneducated factory workers. It would surely be achieved by well meaning, well educated, politically literate individuals who would employ reason to gain power and then rule in a benign manner which would raise up the lower classes. But most of their ire was directed at the left, particularly the Marxist left, who they assumed had unrealistic aspirations for violent revolution. Naturally, I sided with the revolutionaries who wanted to change society not just bring in a few reforms.

The real point here though is that Marxism provided an anchor for the left. No politician or political theorist could ignore it. Of course, by the 1980’s there were a huge number of ‘Marxism’s’ to choose from. But, all of them were variants of Marx’s work. The big divide, of course, was where you stood in relation to Russia. In some ways it still is, though in those days there were still people who harboured the illusion that Russia was a socialist paradise (most of them were not Russian you might note).

Today, very few people describe themselves as Marxists. Certainly, in the Labour Party nobody in the party hierarchy would dare call them self a Marxist, and not only because they actually don’t believe a better World is possible, though that does appear to be the case. Although Jeremy Corbyn was labelled a Marxist by both the Tories and media it was Robert Halfron MP who pointed out, in Conservativehome no less, that it was not a useful description. Whilst Corbyn is the closest thing to a Marxist leader of the Labour Party we have seen, even he would not describe himself in such terms. Fidel Castro he is not. It is as if the left are terrified of being associated with Marx, and I have to say that this seems to me a massive error for it is probably only Marx who offers a framework for understanding capitalism, and therefore a means to replace it.

Marx was undoubtedly the pre-eminent socialist theoretician of his time. It is often overlooked in his demonisation by a bourgeoisie that still tremble at the thought that he could prove to be right, that he was a fine scholar who just happened to believe that workers held it in their own hands to change their conditions, whether they realised it or not. That emancipatory thread running through Marx is why left activists, often adrift in a sea of rhetoric, could learn by spending some time acquainting themselves with his writings.

I’m not going to use valuable space in this blog with quotes from Marx, he is definitely worth the time to read if you never have; and worth reacquainting yourself with if you have but not recently. There are some good books about Marx, and some awful one’s, on both sides of the divide. My advice would be to ignore them, read his own words, and make up your own mind.

People, wrongly, assume that Marx’s writing is dense and impenetrable, but whilst there are some difficult concepts in Marx, the basis is actually quite simple. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Whilst Marx was not the first to see the role of classes in history he was the first to regard history as a struggle over resources, including political power, rather than the deeds of great men (these days, largely thanks to a Marxist-Feminist Sheila Rowbotham, great women get a look in too). History is not, as it turns out, about which monarch was on the throne and which great battles they won, in Marx’s view of history there was not just a place for ordinary men and women they actually had a starring role. 

Now, I read this for the first time through the prism of a basic disdain for bosses. So, I was shocked that far from expressing hatred for the ruling class Marx and Engels showered them with praise. They did not have a moralistic hatred of bosses, though they were pretty appalled at some of their practices. But, they regarded capitalism as a progression in human history. Capitalism swept away that which had preceded it – feudalism – and ushered in a new social system that freed the peasants from the yoke of serfdom.

Capitalism was a stage of human development

The point was that capitalism was a necessary step in human development but just as other social systems before it had been replaced, so capitalism would give way to a better form of society where human beings would be free to express themselves as equals. That system they referred to interchangeably as communism or socialism. You can imagine how thrilling it was for the young me to discover that the social system that I could plainly see was responsible for so much human misery was neither natural nor perpetual. Discovering I was a communist came as a bit of a shock too!

What they called the ‘materialist conception of history’, what some call ‘dialectical materialism’, was an analysis of class struggle which gave to competing classes important roles. In short, each radical change was accomplished by the existing ruling class being replaced by a new ruling class. In most of what they called epochs the soon-to-be ruling class could only achieve their aims by building alliances with other classes. But, as soon as they were in power, the ruling class created the illusion that their rule was both inevitable and beyond challenge. Our current ruling class have made a fine art out of convincing other classes that they are the universal class that we should all aspire to. They have literally turned greed into a fine art.

The class system in modern capitalism is unique in history in that movement between classes is not only possible, but allegedly the entire function of the social system. Upward mobility is not just a sociological concept but an aspiration for all of us regardless of our class of origin, with the possible exception of the monarchy who linger like a stain on a rug that everybody knows is there but nobody mentions. There is undoubtedly some movement between classes which allows this great con trick to be widely believed, but the truth is that the class into which you are born is still the best indicator of the class in which you will end up.

Possibly one of the things I found most enlightening in Marxism was its insistence that there were these two great classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat. At this stage in my life I had not attended a single sociology class (I confess that since then not only have I studied sociology, but I’ve also taught it. I am suitably ashamed of this aberration in my character). It seemed that you had to be in one of these camps, but on reading more about what Marx called the proletariat I found that they were not just everybody who worked. Indeed, it is a “mistake” made by some Marxists to say that the proletariat is the working class. The proletariat, as described by Marx, are certainly working class, but simply working for a living does not make you part of the proletariat.

It took me a long time to understand why it was the proletariat rather than the working class per se that stood in opposition to the bourgeoisie and why this opposition was so important for Marx. In Capital, which has a misplaced reputation as turgid, Marx describes the essential component of capitalism as the commodity. Modern day sociologists describe the consumer society as if they have made an important revelation. But, Marx had done all the legwork for them by 1863.

You know, even if you are not a Marxist, that in a capitalist economy everything revolves around commodities, around buying cheap and selling dear. And, if you stop to reflect for even a second you know that commodities don’t enter the World already formed. Something gives them value. That something is first that they have a use, and second that somebody has taken some raw materials and changed them into something useful. It is the act of mixing raw materials with labour power that creates the commodity and therefore the value.

I’ve worked in factories. I’ve mixed my labour power with raw materials. I’ve received my wage, and I’ve seen the owners of those factories get richer and fatter. One thing I have not felt is any sense that those commodities that I have helped produce are mine. Mainly because they are not. They belong to my employer. When I view the product of my labour I may feel pride in a job well done but I don’t feel ownership of my labour. The value I have put into that commodity stares back at me as an alien being. And, if it were not that commodity, it could be another in another factory. Marx describes this process as alienation, which as it turns out, has nothing whatsoever to do with disenchanted youth on street corners on run-down estates.

Spot the proletarian

As I got more involved with the labour movement, both through trade unions and the Labour Party, I came to realise that I was actually meeting very few proletarians. Very few people who had worked in dirty factories producing commodities for somebody else to profit from. Most of the people I met, particularly in the Labour Party, were white collar workers, and whilst they might be empathetic to the working class, they were not proletarians. For some, supporting the proletariat meant supporting their picket lines and providing the intellectual foundation for a movement for change. For others, it means signing the occasional petition, and arguing for reforms which make their lives more comfortable. It certainly does not include the notion that it is only the proletariat that stand in direct opposition to the bourgeoisie.

Such language – proletariat, bourgeoisie, even revolution – seems strangely antiquated where the best we can hope for is a parliamentary majority for a party many of whom will gladly follow Ian Austin and John Mann on to the Tory benches in the House of Lords, if things don’t work out for them. The support for a party that repeatedly sells us down the river is a sure sign that we have not only lost our bearings but that we no longer have an anchor at all. We drift from campaign to campaign, from election to election with no over-arching vision. With no detailed theories of why things are as they are or any theory of radical change. The only vision is a few temporary reforms that make the lives of the worse off slightly more bearable. And, currently the “workers party” does not even seem convinced that they should argue for reform. A look at the PLP will tell you why. You are more likely to find a barrister than a barista on Labour’s benches.

To be clear here I am not arguing that we should all leave the Labour Party. Nor, that we should either set up or join a so-called revolutionary party. Revolutions don’t happen because of revolutionary parties but more often despite them. But, we are a long way from a revolution. Or maybe we’re not. Revolutions can clearly be seen in hindsight but are usually not visible to most people until they occur. And, that includes those who think of themselves as revolutionaries.

If there is any vision at all on the left currently it is a far cry from a vision in which the proletariat would take control and institute a society which would inscribe on its banner “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. Anybody who calls themselves a socialist should engage with Marxism. They are entitled to disagree with it. From what I know of Marx he certainly would have. They are also entitled to disagree with my interpretation of it. But without some guiding theory what are we doing? It is plainly obvious that it is not enough to simply create a moral argument against capitalism. As Marx rightly said “The philosophers only interpret the World, the point is to change it.” We need a strong understanding of the underlying mechanisms of capitalism in order to confront it.

Marx did not give a starring role in the revolutionary struggle to the proletariat because of any romantic notions of working class solidarity. Nor because the proletariat would form reading groups, read the Manifesto and Capital and put those ideas into action. The proletariat’s role in overthrowing capitalism is not the result of their superior revolutionary consciousness but simply their material place in regard to the bourgeoisie. So-called “middle class” people who are socialists might not like it, but if they want socialism they have to play the supporting role to the proletariat in their struggles which if Marx was right will be the struggle that ends class rule for good.

What to read if you want to know more about Marx:

The Manifesto Of The Communist Party

Wages, Labour and Capital

The German Ideology

Capital Volume One (but only if you have a spare weekend)

* All available here *

While you’re here: if you like what you’ve just read why not use the subscribe button on the top right to get notified of future posts.

Support Chris Williamson and other Labour members against EHRC smears. Donate here

Nominate Jeremy Corbyn as MP of the year here