AN ENDEAVOR TO UNDERSTAND MARXISM

What is Marxism? Is it just another idea, brought forth by a group of people as a reaction to some prevailing “ill” in the society? Is it just another one of those theories with no theoretical background as backup? One look at this dog eats dog or rather a survival of the fittest world, the countless discussions with people around me, and I was sold to the idea that Marx was just another person with just another theory. He was frustrated with this growing craziness that people called Capitalism and wanted to create a world where everybody lived as an equal (kind of poetic, like John Lennon). But wasn't he just another man, in a long list of men who professed equality for all mankind? Aren't men like animals, where there is always a strongest one to dominate over others? And besides who are we to refute Mother Nature, which believes in the sanctity of survival of the fittest. Surely, Marx must be mistaken. His ideas didn't fit into my world view. They seemed alien to me. This was when I enrolled for a course and started studying about Marx’s work in general. And gradually, I realized that it was not Marx, but I, who was mistaken. I had taken this world for granted and not for one moment gave thought to the other side of the coin. Thus, began my endeavor to understand Marxism with all its tiny details. And the more I read, the more confusing it all became.

Wikipedia, in a nutshell, describes Marxism as “an economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of  socioeconomic inquiry based upon a materialist interpretation of historical development, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis of class- relations within society and their application in the analysis and critique of the development of capitalism.” Quite a digression from how laymen understand this term and I was no different. The first thought was always how “communist” Russia met its downfall, how the “socialist” Nehru led India to almost bankruptcy (and on the other hand there was the capitalist America, towering over the world, ahead of everybody). So this idea of Marxism (or communism) was always associated with a general sense of leading to a downfall of the society that adopted it. But isn't that just one side of the true story? Had I not conveniently ignored the entire picture and had professed my liking for capitalism over Marxism? So it came as quite a shock to me when I first read Marx’s work. Initially, his ideas engrossed me. His claim that philosophy should be used as a tool for changing the world was very novel. His Materialist Theory of History intrigued me. People satisfying their need of food, shelter and clothing first before anything else; yes, conforms to Maslow’s need theory. His critique of Hegel’s philosophy, where he criticized his insistence on the fact that people act because of an idea implanted in their minds (slaves are slaves because it is in their minds) rather than satisfaction of their basic needs, sounded pretty convincing. His re- periodization of history (into Tribal, Ancient, Feudal, Capitalist, and Socialist based on economics and human relations) was a revelation for me since it seemed like an accurate depiction of the world and its history. His claim, that any society would finally reach the Socialist regime felt natural. Each according to his ability to each according to his need made much more sense now. I was slowly beginning to realize that Marx wasn't just another commoner with a common theory. He was an intellectual with a deep understanding of economics and human relations who had propounded a theory based on an extensive study of the world. He was the pioneer of an intellectual movement and this thought made me gravitate towards Marxism. But I wish it was that simple. Earlier I had only known socialism as opposed to capitalism. Now I was reading about a totally different concept where capitalism was just a state of existence which would finally pave way for socialism. Although it felt natural at first, wherein the oppressed multitude (laborers) would rise against their oppressors (capitalists), a social revolution would ensue and usher us into a world where there would be no master slave relationship and everybody would be equal. But on further reflection all this idea did was confuse me.

It felt like an anarchist ideology that seemed to have been professed by Marx. Although it may sound grand and catch the public imagination very quickly, according to me it never leads to a truly utopian society as claimed by Marx. Even in Soviet Russia they had a group of people within whom the power resided. Now, one can argue based on Plato’s thesis of a reluctant philosopher ruler; that this Russian structure might work, but history tells us otherwise. What confused me though was the fact that this system worked pretty well in its first few years. The people were happy and Russia was the one true superpower along with America. And then there was this book, “How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes” by Peter Schiff and Andrew Schiff. In it the authors concocted a story to talk about a world with equal opportunities and how one can exploit those opportunities for the benefit of oneself and simultaneously, the society. The story began with three fishermen (Able, Baker and Charlie) living in an island with only fishes as their sole item for food. This island disconnected from the world, had abundant fishes to sustain the three. Initially, they were very primitive and could catch fishes only with their bare hands at rate of one fish per day. Then Able got an idea and using palm bark he started making a net to catch fish with the hope that he would be able to catch fishes at a much higher rate. In order to do this he went hungry for two days, but his contraption worked and he was then able to catch 2 fishes per day. Now since his consumption per day was still one fish, he began to save fishes. That was the first hint of economy that crept in that primitive, isolated island. Able was now able to lend his surplus fish (so that they can make their own nets and not go hungry) to the other two at some interest, or start making nets and rent them out at a price (of half a fish). In any case his availing of opportunities presented to him benefited him and those around him. Then the authors proceeded to construct a fully fledged capitalist system, wherein opportunity beckoned everybody and the ones who availed them not only benefited themselves, but also the people around them. There was no hint of any government and the economy was self- driven, or rather driven by the people. For me this illustration of classical economic theory which leads to a true capitalist regime stood at loggerheads to Marx’s conception of capitalism. There would be no exploitation of the masses to begin with and everybody would be free to choose their own path in life. The Government, if ever one existed, would be just like a satellite overlooking this economic structure but never really participating.  

Not only these examples, but there were several others which at first convinced me and then upon further reflection confused me. Marx’s work, Critique of Political Economy began with such great promise. Then came his explanation of how capitalists exploit the common masses and I was again at a crossroad. Not because I completely refuted it; but only because it didn't seem logical to me. So I hereby conclude the following: I am under no circumstance, qualified enough to critique Marx. I need to muster patience as much as I can before being convinced by either his thesis or anti- thesis. At the beginning of this year I was a capitalist at heart, refuting all that professed socialism; but today I am in a battle with myself.