Just Finished Reading: Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton (FP: 2011)

I still chuckle over the fact that one of my lecturers in University commonly referred to me as ‘comrade’ in his seminars. After he’d said it a few times I challenged him on why he was calling me that. “Well”, he said, “You’re a Communist aren’t you?” at which point I laughed – a lot. I am most definitely Left of centre (or for my American readers *Far* Left – LOL) and readily refer to myself as a Socialist. Part of my reading over the past few years, including this volume, was to test that assertion by reading Left leaning texts and gauging my level of agreement (or otherwise). So far my reading has hardly caused a ripple of disturbance in my political viewpoint. I am still happy with the Socialist label. I am not, however, a Marxist (or indeed a Communist).

I freely admit that I have not read any of Marx’s works and am only aware of his ideas through books like this one and, naturally, the incessant anti-Marxist rhetoric from most Western leaders throughout the Cold War and beyond. I first really studied his thought in school during my 2 year Sociology A level. After that I could confidently analyse just about any subject from a Marxist perspective and indeed, during my University years, publically challenged visiting lecturers on their Marxist perspectives on issues of the day. Yes, I was *that* student. I’m starting to see why some people had a certain political view of me……

Naturally being of the Left I have an interest in, a sympathy for and an admiration of Marx and his work. Despite not being a follower of Marx I am somewhat of a fan. Marx was one of the most diamond sharp critics of Capitalism and, despite rumours to the contrary, still is. As this book rightly points out – as long as Capitalism exists there will be Marxism to critique it. The death of Marxism (post-Soviet Union) has been greatly and, mostly successfully, exaggerated. Addressing the most common myths of Marxism – the first being that it is safely dead – the author steadily goes through the list and does a very good job of debunking each in turn. Interestingly I did find some of my views of Marxism challenged by this book and, it seems, my ideas on the subject seem to be at least tinged with Western propaganda. I’ll see how this stands up to scrutiny in upcoming books on Marxism.
Generally I found myself nodding along as the author laid out the case for a living breathing Marxism in the 21st century. But a few things did leave me sceptical if not outright incredulous. Now we all know that Marx thought the Revolution would happen in one of the two most advanced Capitalist countries of his time – England or Germany. He never imagined that it could happen in a backward place like Russia and would have heaped scorn on the idea that the final stages of Communism could emerge in either a single country or in a predominantly agricultural one. The Russian ‘experiment’, the author maintains, failed (in Marxist terms) because the preconditions for Revolution either did not exist or where so poor that dictatorship was pretty much inevitable. That I can just appreciate. What I have a much more difficult time with was the assertion that the Bolshevik Revolution was almost bloodless. You could probably get away with this statement if, and only if, you restricted the ‘revolution’ to a few days in St Petersburg. The initial ‘coup’, the seizure of political power, was indeed almost bloodless but the Revolution that grew out of it (even putting aside the years of subsequent Civil War) was anything but. The actions taken to protect the revolution and to prevent the anticipated counter-revolution drenched the country in blood. The excuse that the Bolshevik’s where only protecting themselves against enemies both foreign and domestic who were dedicated to destroying them is a poor excuse for the levels of barbarity we are now unfortunately all too familiar with.

It is very arguable that the Russian Revolution was in essence a perversion of Marxist thought and, from that point of view, should never have happened or should not have been able to sustain itself for so long. The fact that it did has, I think, done a great deal of damage to Marxist thought. This I think is a great pity. Marxism is still, even after so long after its inception, a serious and quite possibly devastating critique of the Capitalist worldview. I may still not call myself a Marxist but I am more than happy to think of myself as an admirer. Recommended for anyone who wanted to know more about Marx but was afraid to ask – plus for anyone wanting to frighten anyone who sees you reading this in public.