Late last month, George Magnus, chief economist of investment bank UBS, gave a surprising endorsement to the founder of modern socialism, Karl Marx. The current economic recession, Magnus wrote, ""bears some uncanny resemblances"" to the crises Marx described 150 years ago.
Magnus is not alone. Earlier in August, Nouriel Roubini, one of the few economists credited with predicting the financial crisis, told the Wall Street Journal ""Karl Marx had it right ... At some point capitalism can self-destroy itself ... We thought that markets work. They are not working. What's individually rational ... is a self-destructive process."" These decidedly mainstream economists giving credit to Marx is a sign of how serious the crisis is.
While it is encouraging to see people seriously discussing Marx again, there is a problem with the renewed conversation on his ideas. Mainstream pundits may be willing to grant credence to Marx the economist but they dismiss Marx the revolutionary. The usual bromide goes something like, ""Marx had a brilliant critique of the system, but his solution, socialist revolution, was all wrong."" The argument that history has refuted Marx's political ideas is typically based on a couple of erroneous critiques.
The first is that Marx's ideas led to the establishment of authoritarian states like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. However, nothing could be further from the genuine vision of socialism. Before he was a socialist, Marx was a radical democrat who agitated against the Prussian monarchy. His idea of socialism was not an absolutist state, but rather the extension of democracy into the economy.
A less crude objection is that Marx's belief in working-class revolution may have been relevant in the 19th century, but is outdated today. The events of this year suggest otherwise. In the final days of the Egyptian revolution, for example, there was a moment when it seemed that the government might have been able to crush the protests and stifle the revolution. It was strikes, in the rail, chemical, textile and other industries, that pushed the revolution to victory. After Mubarak resigned, Egyptian blogger Hossam el-Hamalawy wrote ""[W]e have to take Tahrir to the factories now. As the revolution proceeds an inevitable class polarization will happen. We have to be vigilant."" In other words, whether the gains of the revolution will last depends on the Egyptian working class.
The Wisconsin Uprising against Scott Walker's budget repair bill also demonstrated the contemporary relevance of working class power, tragically as a negative example. In February, after a series of mass marches and sick-outs by Wisconsin teachers, many unionists realized it would take more than protest to stop the passage of the bill. On February 21, the South Central Federation of Labor passed a resolution urging unions to prepare for a general strike, and on March 9, after Senate Republicans passed the anti-union legislation, people surged into the Capitol chanting ""general strike."" The strike never arrived and unions now face an uphill battle towards reorganizing.
There is one more problem with the reappearance of Marx in the press: it will not be enough to change anything. Despite the wisdom of a few enlightened economists, most capitalists and state officials will continue to steam full-speed ahead on their present course, towards economic failure, environmental catastrophe and, with the decline of American imperialism, a new round of inter-state competition. Marx's revolutionary theory is as important as his economic critique, because it is still the best guide to fighting for a society based on human need, and averting capitalism's impending catastrophes.
For more information, attend ""Socialism 101: What it is and why we need it,"" Tuesday, Oct. 4 at 6:30 P.M. See the Today in the Union board for room location.
Paul Pryse is a graduate student in sociology and a member of the International Socialist Organization.
Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.
