Happy belated 200th

I'm late, again.

On Saturday (5th) it was Karl Marx's 200th birthday.

Like most people, I haven't read a lot of Marx's actual writings.  (Though I've probably read a little more than most people.)

But also, like most people, that doesn't stop me from having opinions on Marx.  (Those who read this blog will know I occasionally post Marx-related stuff.)

But that is probably where my likeness with other people stops (at least with respect to Marx).  I suspect my opinions on Marx are a little different from that of most people.

For one thing, I don't think that universities are a hotbed of Marxist thought.  At least in my experience they were certainly not.  In my ten years at the University of Auckland, I barely heard Marx mentioned at all.  I think my biggest university encounter with Marx was when, as a graduate student, I tutored a first year undergraduate course on Theories of Human Nature.  We briefly taught a cartoon Marx, bundled in with Hegel, and I quickly read up enough to satisfy the simple needs of the youngsters.  And in my five years at two universities in China, I don't think I ever heard Marx mentioned once.  For the most part, Marx, apparently, is not seen as relevant.

For another thing, I tend not to equate Marx with the horrific evils in Soviet Russia, Communist China, and so on.  It is quite clear in Marx's writings that that is not at all what he was talking about.  Soviet Russia, et al, were oppressive regimes that used the language of Marx for propaganda purposes to solidify the power of the few in charge.  And the Western countries, equally for propaganda reasons, used anti-Marxist language to fight those powers.  Sadly, Marx's ideas themselves got caught in the crossfire.  When people rightly criticise Soviet Russia, el al, they wrongly criticise Marx.

My current understanding of Marx has come about in the past five years or so, mostly based on reading (and watching) Robert Paul Wolff and Brian Leiter.  Wolff, especially, has helped me to break out of the cartoon Marx mentality, and appreciate something of the depth of Marx's insights.

I'm still struggling with the ideas, and I hope I am right to say what follows.  (Corrections welcome!)

Marx was an economist in the tradition of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, engaging with their work in a similar style, with similar assumptions, and on similar topics.  But he went further than they did, to some extent completing their work and, significantly, solving a huge problem that they saw but couldn't resolve.  But he also saw a deeper problem that they didn't even recognise.  Most of Marx's mature work was an attempt to explain and solve this bigger problem, which has to do with understanding the fundamental nature and structures of capitalism.  What he wrote is as relevant today as it was back then in the 1860s.  While Marx got a few things wrong, his analysis has stood up remarkably well.

But perhaps unfortunately, in his main work, Capital, Marx chose to frequently write in an ironic tone of voice, that too often has gone over the heads of his readers.  He was trying to get across multiple layers of complexity, and thought a more literary style would do the trick better than the dry economist-style prose he used elsewhere in his writings.  When these multiple ideas are unpacked, his writing is illuminating and pleasurable, but without careful unpacking they can be, and often are, misused and misunderstood.

Wolff's books, Moneybags Must Be So Lucky and Understanding Marx, are a very readable explanation of Marx's key ideas.  Or, for more visual people, his recent seven-part YouTube series (first part here) covers the essentials.

I hope a few more people take the time to read/watch.  A bit of quiet, mature thought surely beats the bluster and rage that seems to pop up at the mere mention of Marx.