“Marx”by Terrell Carver, 2018 (Classic Thinkers) – Part 2
Carver’s interpretation of Marx is primarily as a political
agitator, and so he denigrates any scent of economic, historical or philosophic
‘theory’ from Marx. However in this
section he discusses 1867’s Das Kapital,
Vol 1, and puts no diminishment quotes around Marx’s economic concepts of surplus
value, commodity, use value and exchange value, falling rate of profit, labor
power, exploitation and so on. Evidently
he appreciates this theory. He points
out that Marx partly wrote Capital as
a political ‘performative’ polemic against classical economists like Ricardo,
Smith, Mill, Say and Malthus to undermine their support of early capitalism,
exposing its ugly and hidden heart instead.
Carver mentions that this ‘political economy’ approach was
soon overtaken by bourgeois (neo-classical) economics, which he calls ‘marginalism.’
It treats economics as an automatic and ‘natural’ process, not a human-created
and class-based political construct. Carver points out that because of long
years of propagation, it is very hard for people to understand anything other
than the myth of ‘free markets,’ prices as the only source of value, the
supposed equality of selling and buying and the goal of working for a ‘fair’
wage for a ‘good’ boss. Trade and exchange creates wealth in this scenario, not
labor and nature.
However Marx-influenced concepts like class, progress, historical
contingency, direct democracy, periodic economic crises and socialism are all
now common in realms beyond Marxism. Carver’s repetition of the quote “It’s the economy, stupid!” also hints at
the political impact of this materialism.
Yet in marginalist economics the current focus is on micro-economic
issues and sub-capitalist thinking so as to obscure the larger context. Right now it is inflation and billionaires, and
how they impact individuals. These take our continual attention.
Carver avoids the complications of explaining ‘out of date’ Capital, Vols. 1, 2 or 3 by looking at Marx’s
journalism around the 1857-’58 economic crash.
Marx writes about that crisis, saying it was not caused by speculation,
as his rivals thought, but speculation as a symptom of a deeper problem… a
falling rate of profit due to the introduction of machinery. He emphasizes Marx’s constant use of satire and sarcasm to undermine his
capitalist opponents, unlike a dry theorist.
Carver thinks Marx didn’t focus much on current issues like
colonialism, which is untrue. He points out that Marx did not want to make
things worse so as to hasten the revolution, which is why he supported reforms,
including transitional ones. He writes
about the constant use of ‘the Red Scare’ as a capitalist political
tactic. Marx himself was indicted in absentia in 1852 in Cologne, Germany
over an alleged plot by the Communist League in the 1848 rising. This led to his move to Paris. The ‘red scare’ is still with us, used by
both U.S. Republicans and Democrats continually.
 |
| A simple description of surplus value & profit |
The key concept of exploitation is handled by most people
as a moral or justice issue, a method that Marx avoided in spite of its
popularity, which is true even today. For
Marx exploitation was a specific economic practice applied to workers and
rural proletarians and later in a more general way, poorer nations and nature.
For ‘justice warriors’ exploitation is a general harm inflicted on the
vulnerable, almost like a religious invocation.
His approach was rationalist, not emotional, which made it less
appealing to many. Terms like ‘just
prices,’ ‘fair exchange’ or 'fair' treatment, power dynamics and a ‘living’ wage are
far more current and cuddly. In this
version, instead of production, the moralistic focus is on exchange. Yet the clear inequality of outcomes in
‘exchanges’ – where supposedly equal parties trade money or labor for goods or
a job – is becoming even more obvious and hints at a deeper flaw in the
production system itself.
Moral or justice approaches can lead to reformism, as they
do not indicate the heart of exploitation – the profit motive by private
parties who own the means of production and attendant banking institutions. Amelioration becomes the goal, not
system change. That is the story of
business unionism, Democratic Party politics, community activism and
environmental ‘justice’ so far. Carver
reveals his own tendency in this discussion by framing battles against
exploitation as “linked to concepts of social
democracy, not unlike … coalitional politics.” He
seems to be a social democrat then, especially in view of his few, totally negative
comments about the Soviet Union and the PRC.
Carver turns to the recent interest in Marx’s comments
about alienation and commodity fetishism arising from the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.” Alienation was mentioned in these notes
by Marx, then taken up by the Frankfurt School in various ways, providing some
relief from the supposed dourness of Capital. It infused Marxism with ‘humanism’ and youth
and inspired self-management in Yugoslavia according to Carver. He also ties it to liberation theology,
though I have doubts. As if Tito or some
Catholics couldn’t have come up with these policies via some other avenue. In fact Mariategui, the Peruvian Marxist, is credited with inspiring liberation theology. Marx was not pushing in a backwards and
romantic direction even during these early days, so pleas to return to the soil or the cloister
would fall on his deaf ears.
Carver addresses the issue of whether Marx had a concept of
human nature, and reluctantly admits he did.
This has been made clear in the book “Marx and Human Nature – Refutation of a Legend.” (Reviewed
below.) It is basic bodily needs for
food, water, shelter, warmth, health, community and children that lead to
systems of production and reproduction.
Human nature is truly ‘embodied,’ as we are not ethereal beings without
material survival and animalistic needs, as religious ideology or idealism would have it. Marx and Engels did not ‘historicize’
everything about humans, unlike what Carver wants to believe, but certainly
bodily death is included.
This book is about Marx’s attitude to the ‘social question’
as Carver puts it, relying mostly on the propagandist and journalistic side of
a younger Marx. Carver thinks that
Engels played the initial role of ‘canonizing’ Marx, turning his writings and
comments into theoretical systems. He considers
the result to be an ‘avatar’ –
embodied in the massive head of Marx, with hair, beard and all, made into an
imposing statue in Highgate Cemetery and a meme on social media. Perhaps Carver objects to himself not also
becoming a meme? I don’t know but I
suspect every erudite academic who is well-acquainted with Marx like Carver
wants to ‘carve’ out his own niche. And
he’s got something of a point in seeing Marx as a highly political
character, not an abstract theorist.
(Second of two reviews.)
Prior blogspot posts on this subject, use blog search box,
upper left, to investigate our 19 year archive, using these terms: “Marx,”
“Engels” “Communist Manifesto,” “Das Kapital.”
May Day carries many books on Marxism. This I got at a library.
Red Frog / May 8, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment