Professional Documents
Culture Documents
It is often said by people of both the left and the right that Karl Marx analysis of the capitalism he found in his day is mostly right and, in its thoroughness and insight, unprecedented and ground-breaking. When, however, it comes to his prognosis and predictions reading the future from what happened in the past, Karl Marx writings are being dismissed. Look people lecture the workers have certainly not taken over, and human beings are clearly not fit for communism it will never come about. I would not be quite so certain I leave that to Marxists and religious fundamentalists and the like. It was Marx who spoke of the commodification of everything. Well, everything takes us beyond the purely material ideas, relationships , institutions. When looking around I see that Intellectual Property Rights are a booming market, making its administration more money than the group of people who came up with any idea; single bourses, strip clubs everywhere; the churches, the universities, public spaces, libraries all priorities the open market over any ideas of humanities or cultural heritage. Was Marx really wrong then? It was Marx who pointed out that capitalists will exploit not just simply human labour, but, crucially, will put the netting of profit before any preservation of natural resources. I see that any oil company, any gas company on this earth has
more cloud and more power to make decisions than any Cree native American , any institution set up to preserve the natural environment. Was Marx really wrong then? It was Marx who thought it would be the most industrialised countries of his time, the countries who have the vociferous and organised labour Germany, Britain, France who will lead the socialist revolution. He warned that Russia, being backward and mostly an agricultural and still largely feudal state, is not ready as she did not find herself at the right stage of the development of capitalism. Lenin ignored those words, because he wanted to push his revolution and create a state that fitted the model, by jumping a whole historical stage. Was Marx really wrong then? What Marx did not foresee were the two great capitalist wars which brought a detour to his linear development model. Neither could he foresee Lenins state, nor, crucially, Stalins Russia: determined to develop socialism in one state. The latter is quite a jump, and certainly an invalid one, when following Marxs predictions. Yet more was to come: Stalins direction did the opposite to what everybody claimed he would do: he save capitalism from developing in the way that Marx had predicted. Why? Because Stalins Soviet Russia was set on a mission to prove its model to be right. And the capitalists West did everything to not let this happen. Atomic weapons and proxy wars might have prevented direct blood shed. Yet it was a war that
had
to
be
fought
a
propaganda
war,
a
war
where
achievements
were
moved
like
chess
pieces
on
a
board.
Soviet
Russia,
with
no
split
agendas
of
individual
interests
and
no
qualms
about
issues
of
religion
focussed
on
the
one
route
left
open:
scientific
research
and
achievement1.
So
there
came
Sputnik,
there
came
the
first
man
to
circle
planet
earth
and
a
shock
to
the
West.
And,
as
this
was
part
of
the
competition
of
the
systems,
the
West
scrambled
to
play
catch
up
university
participation
was
widened,
opened
and
grants
(as
did
the
GI
bill)
made
it
suddenly
feasible
for
wider
sections
of
the
West
to
be
better
trained
and
educated
feeding
the
need
for
knowledge
and
innovation
to
turbo-charge
capitalism.
This
was
a
different
kind
of
war
and
though
the
appalling
treatment
of
individuals
appears
to
belie
this
the
battlefield
was
the
well-being
of
the
masses.
Soviet
socialism
was
never
a
route
into
communism
(it
was,
after
all,
nothing
more
than
inefficient
state-monopole
capitalism).
It
was,
however,
attempting
to
create
a
model
welfare
state
with
lavish
funding
of
human
achievements:
sciences,
art,
major
projects
that
trumpet
progress
(hydro-electric
dams,
electrification,
railways
across
the
largest
continent,
etc.)
and,
he
who
does
work
does
not
go
hungry
and
work
everyone
did
(of
sorts)
and
to
be
free
to
do
so,
child-care
was
sponsored
by
the
big
factories,
so
that
labour
was
free
to
produce.
And,
guess
what
the
West
build
ever
better
social
security
into
their
systems
and
the
result
was
again
turbo-charged
capitalism
with
unprecedented
long-term
levels
of
growth
and
advancement
in
the
West.
Interestingly, in the 19th and 20th century this happened often to be the one route many Jews had to follow in Europe: while offices of state, church etc remained closed, science and medicine were a way of making a mark.
1
The
Soviet
model
collapsed
in
the
1990s.
And,
with
every
year,
with
every
latest
nut-cracked
tin-hatted
philosophy
of
the
victorious
capitalist
right,
advance
in
the
science
and
humanities
is
stifled,
labour
is
being
made
more
and
more
unproductive
as
social
benefits
and
assistance
are
being
sliced
away
for
ever
more
spurious
reasons
that
have
suddenly
cropped
up.
The
idea
seems
to
be,
that
the
99%
affected
has
short-term
memories
that
do
not
go
beyond
the
lifespan
of
a
Twitter
headline.
Yet
I
do
not
believe
that
Marx
was
as
comprehensively
wrong
as
interested
parties
make
out.
I
can
see
that
his
prognosis
could
play
out
only
over
a
far
longer
timespan.
With
nothing
else
to
play
for
workers
really
have
to
lose
nothing
but
their
chains
and,
while
African
dictatorships
can
fall
because
now
whole
peoples
do
not
fear
that
they
might
be
individually
killed,
the
underprivileged
masses
who
keep
the
wheels
of
contempory
capitalism
turning
might
also
rise
and
resist.
It
might
not
be
the
workers
party
that
leads
the
proletariat
to
victory,
but
it
may
be
that
a
party
of
workers
leads
the
push
for
overdue
equality.
And
Karl
Marx
might
have
been
not
wrong
on
another
issue:
once
natural
resources
are
depleted,
the
weather
patterns
push
into
disarray,
water
sources
scarce
and
dislocated
at
that
point
the
remainder
of
humanity
will
surely
only
survive
as
a
whole
when
everyone
co-operates,
gives
what
they
are
able
to
give
and
takes
not
more
than
is
necessary
to
keep
the
fine
balance
of
survival
in
check:
communism,
in
other
words.
Michael TL Pace-Sigge 12/2011