Why Marx is man of the moment
He had globalisation sussed 150 years ago
Sunday July 17, 2005
A penniless asylum seeker in London was vilified across two pages
of the Daily Mail last week. No surprises there, perhaps - except that
the villain in question has been dead since 1883. 'Marx the Monster'
was the Mail's furious reaction to the news that thousands of Radio 4
listeners had chosen Karl Marx as their favourite thinker. 'His
genocidal disciples include Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - and even Mugabe. So
why has Karl Marx just been voted the greatest philosopher ever?'
The puzzlement is understandable. Fifteen years ago, after the
collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, there appeared to be a
general assumption that Marx was now an ex-parrot. He had kicked the
bucket, shuffled off his mortal coil and been buried forever under the
rubble of the Berlin Wall. No one need think about him - still less
read him - ever again.
'What we are witnessing,' Francis Fukuyama proclaimed at the end of
the Cold War, 'is not just the ... passing of a particular period of
postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end
point of mankind's ideological evolution.'
But history soon returned with a vengeance. By August 1998, economic
meltdown in Russia, currency collapses in Asia and market panic around
the world prompted the Financial Times to wonder if we had moved 'from
the triumph of global capitalism to its crisis in barely a decade'.
The article was headlined 'Das Kapital Revisited'.
Even those who gained most from the system began to question its
viability. The billionaire speculator George Soros now warns that the
herd instinct of capital-owners such as himself must be controlled
before they trample everyone else underfoot. 'Marx and Engels gave a
very good analysis of the capitalist system 150 years ago, better in
some ways, I must say, than the equilibrium theory of classical
economics,' he writes. 'The main reason why their dire predictions did
not come true was because of countervailing political interventions in
democratic countries. Unfortunately we are once again in danger of
drawing the wrong conclusions from the lessons of history. This time
the danger comes not from communism but from market
In October 1997 the business correspondent of the New Yorker, John
Cassidy, reported a conversation with an investment banker. 'The
longer I spend on Wall Street, the more convinced I am that Marx was
right,' the financier said. 'I am absolutely convinced that Marx's
approach is the best way to look at capitalism.' His curiosity
aroused, Cassidy read Marx for the first time. He found 'riveting
passages about globalisation, inequality, political corruption,
monopolisation, technical progress, the decline of high culture, and
the enervating nature of modern existence - issues that economists are
now confronting anew, sometimes without realising that they are
walking in Marx's footsteps'.
Quoting the famous slogan coined by James Carville for Bill Clinton's
presidential campaign in 1992 ('It's the economy, stupid'), Cassidy
pointed out that 'Marx's own term for this theory was "the
materialist conception of history", and it is now so widely
accepted that analysts of all political views use it, like Carville,
without any attribution.'
Like Molière's bourgeois gentleman who discovered to his
amazement that for more than 40 years he had been speaking prose
without knowing it, much of the Western bourgeoisie absorbed Marx's
ideas without ever noticing. It was a belated reading of Marx in the
1990s that inspired the financial journalist James Buchan to write his
brilliant study Frozen Desire: An Inquiry into the Meaning of
'Everybody I know now believes that their attitudes are to an extent a
creation of their material circumstances,' he wrote, 'and that changes
in the ways things are produced profoundly affect the affairs of
humanity even outside the workshop or factory. It is largely through
Marx, rather than political economy, that those notions have come down
Even the Economist journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian
Wooldridge, eager cheerleaders for turbo-capitalism, acknowledge the
debt. 'As a prophet of socialism Marx may be kaput,' they wrote in
A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of
Globalisation (2000), 'but as a prophet of the "universal
interdependence of nations" as he called globalisation, he can
still seem startlingly relevant.' Their greatest fear was that 'the
more successful globalisation becomes the more it seems to whip up its
own backlash' - or, as Marx himself said, that modern industry
produces its own gravediggers.
The bourgeoisie has not died. But nor has Marx: his errors or
unfulfilled prophecies about capitalism are eclipsed and transcended
by the piercing accuracy with which he revealed the nature of the
beast. 'Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted
disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and
agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones,' he
wrote in The Communist Manifesto.
Until quite recently most people in this country seemed to stay in the
same job or institution throughout their working lives - but who does
so now? As Marx put it: 'All that is solid melts into air.'
In his other great masterpiece, Das Kapital, he showed how
all that is truly human becomes congealed into inanimate objects -
commodities - which then acquire tremendous power and vigour,
tyrannising the people who produce them.
The result of this week's BBC poll suggests that Marx's portrayal of
the forces that govern our lives - and of the instability, alienation
and exploitation they produce - still resonates, and can still bring
the world into focus. Far from being buried under the rubble of the
Berlin Wall, he may only now be emerging in his true significance. For
all the anguished, uncomprehending howls from the right-wing press,
Karl Marx could yet become the most influential thinker of the 21st
· Francis Wheen's acclaimed biography Karl Marx is published by