Topics Philosophers

Question It was once claimed by a lecturer of mine that, if he were alive today, "Marx would not be a Marxist". Being relatively badly-read when it comes to Marx, could anyone explain to me why this might be the case?

Accepted:
February 8, 2006

Comments

I don't know what your lecturer had in mind, but I too have heard several varations on this theme from students and colleagues.

Tomy mind, the strongest reason to assert something like this goes asfollows: "Marx underestimated the extent to which capitalism could'grow around' the internal contradictions he describes and alsounderestimated the extent to which capitalism could co-opt the forcesthat he thought would drive its overthrow."

This style ofresponse leaves open the possibility of substantive academic dialogueabout the strengths of Marxism while acknowledging some importantweaknesses. On this line, a living Marx would revise his theories insignficant ways and so would eschew "classical" Marxism for an"improved" version.

A weaker argument goes something like:"History has proven Marx wrong, so if Marx were alive today and hadhalf a brain he would never be a Marxist." This sort of answer gesturestoward some possible problems with Marxism, but not in a manner thatallows for much interesting debate or discussion.

The weakestversion of the claim you describe--and, alas, one that is pretty commonin mass media--goes something like: "The fall of the Soviet Union showsthat Marx and Marxism belongs on the dustbin of history."

Question It was once claimed by a lecturer of mine that, if he were alive today, "Marx would not be a Marxist". Being relatively badly-read when it comes to Marx, could anyone explain to me why this might be the case? Accepted:February 8, 2006

Question It was once claimed by a lecturer of mine that, if he were alive today, "Marx would not be a Marxist". Being relatively badly-read when it comes to Marx, could anyone explain to me why this might be the case?

Accepted:
February 8, 2006