Marx \'N Me: The Influence

Marx 'n Me: The Influence of Karl Marx in My Life

The very first line of one of Karl Marx's most well-known and influential work, the Communist Manifesto, speaks as loudly and as clearly today as it did the people of his time -- perhaps more so, given the spread of literacy to the lower classes: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" (Marx, Sec. I). This fact is still observable today in various forms in many different countries. The race riots in France a few years ago had a lot to do with class -- it was not rich Arabs forming mobs in the street, but the poor unemployed youths living on the fringes of society. It shows up during every Presidential race, especially in the primaries: working-class democrats were more likely to lean towards Hillary Clinton, more educated and wealthier (middle- to upper-class) individuals were more likely to vote for Barak Obama. Class still provides great divisions in our society, even when we Americans try to pretend that it doesn't really exist. Even Marx could not escape the reality of is own observations; as Francis Wheen notes, "Marx's determined efforts to cut loose from the influence of his family, religion, class [emphasis min] and nationality were never wholly successful" (Wheen, 9). The personal realities of Marx's struggle, coupled with the profound simplicity of Marx's observations, and their obvious relevance to today's world and my own life, that makes his philosophy resonate with me in the way that it does.

Though the Communist Manifesto's simplicity makes it appealing, even more important is Marx's multi-volume economic treatise, Capital.

It is so much more than an analysis of the political and economic systems of Marx's day; it outlines a philosophical view about the worth of man as opposed to the worth of material possessions, but argued from a very logical and well-reasoned, if often dense and hard to follow, point-of-view. To get to these points, he must dip deep into philosophical theory to make highly practical and pragmatic political points. For example, in Chapter Seven of Capital, he contends that "Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature" (Marx, Chapter 7). He follows the enlightenment tradition of placing man alongside Nature, rather than master over it or subservient to some divine order. Instead, Marx sees man as capable of making transactions with Nature on equitable terms. This statement also applies, of course, to the perceived natural rights of laborers. This is a philosophy I practiced long before I knew it was first developed by Marx. Work is only worth it for as long as the worker feels it is. I have always felt that I could never join the military, if only because you aren't allowed to quit.

The flip side of this, as Allen Wood observes, is that people's attitudes and their "transactions with Nature" regarding labor were shaped not by great metaphysical truths about the rights of man, but by real-world issues: "Marx's thesis is that people's thoughts and actions, their political behavior as well as their moral, religious and philosophical convictions, are all causally determined by economic facts" (Wood, 63). Marx's pragmatism is also very appealing to me. Emotive appeals not only do not make much sense to me, they also do not tend to affect great policy change or sway societies. Marx argues for the same things that many of the humanist philosophers of the Enlightenment argues for, but he determines that this is the correct course not due to emotive arguments, but the cool, rational logic of money, which always speaks to people in power.

This is not to suggest that Marx was always -- or even often -- successful in implementing his ideas. Indeed, the Russian Revolution whose early leaders claimed so much attachment to Marx's ideas fairly well butchered the humanist philosophy at the core of Marx's economic and political ideals. He even got into disputes with others that were ostensibly of his view: "Marx had refused to join forces with the Londoners [...] until they reconstituted themselves as a Communist League [...] They were not willing to meet his demands" (Wheen, 112). Marx was a true maverick, committed to his principles and his thoughts and unwilling to compromise his vision of revolutionary change. Though he never fully succeeded, neither did he completely fail. His perseverance is another reason I respect him. Too many philosophers sit back and let government happen as they analyze and comment on it; others are corrupted when they are pulled into the system. Marx remained true to his beliefs no matter how unpopular they were with the wealthy, ruling classes -- and they were never very popular.