Read Online Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton - Free Book Online
Authors: Terry Eagleton
Ads: Link
by violence, disruption, conflict and
discontinuity. There is indeed progress; but as Marx commented in his writings
on India, it is like a hideous god who drinks nectar from the skulls of the
slain.
How far Marx believes in
historical necessity is not only a political and economic matter; it is also a
moral one. He does not seem to suppose that feudalism or capitalism had to arise. Given a particular mode of production, there are various possible
routes out of it. There are, of course, limits to this latitude. You would not
move from consumer capitalism to hunter-gathering, unless perhaps a nuclear war
had intervened in the meanwhile. Developed productive forces would make such a
reversion both wholly unnecessary and deeply undesirable. But there is one move
in particular which Marx seems to see as inevitable. This is the need for
capitalism in order to have socialism. Driven by self-interest, ruthless
competition and the need for ceaseless expansion, only capitalism is capable of
developing the productive forces to the point where, under a different
political dispensation, the surplus they generate can be used to furnish a
sufficiency for all. To have socialism, you must first have capitalism. Or
rather, you may not need to have capitalism, but somebody must. Marx
thought that Russia might be able to achieve a form of socialism based on the
peasant commune rather than on a history of industrial capitalism; but he did
not imagine that this could be accomplished without the help of capitalist
resources from elsewhere. A particular nation does not need to have passed
through capitalism, but capitalism must exist somewhere or other if it is to go
socialist.
This raises some thorny
moral problems. Just as some Christians accept evil as somehow necessary to
God's plan for humanity, so you can read Marx as claiming that capitalism,
however rapacious and unjust, has to be endured for the sake of the socialist
future it will inevitably bring in its wake. Not only endured, in fact, but
actively encouraged. There are points in Marx's work where he cheers on the
growth of capitalism, since only thus will the path to socialism be thrown
open. In a lecture of 1847, for example, he defends free trade as hastening the
advent of socialism. He also wanted to see German unification on the grounds
that it would promote German capitalism. There are several places in his work
where this revolutionary socialist betrays rather too much relish at the
prospect of a progressive capitalist class putting paid to ''barbarism.''
The morality of this
appears distinctly dubious. How is it different from Stalin's or Mao's
murderous pogroms, executed in the name of the socialist future? How far does
the end justify the means? And given that few today believe that socialism is
inevitable, is this not even more reason for renouncing such a brutal sacrifice
of the present on the altar of a future that might never arrive? If capitalism
is essential for socialism, and if capitalism is unjust, does this not suggest
that injustice is morally acceptable? If there is to be justice in the future,
must there have been injustice in the past? Marx writes in Theories of
Surplus Value that ''the development of the capacities of the human
species takes place at the cost of the majority of individuals and even
classes.'' 12 He means that the good of the species will finally
triumph in the shape of communism, but that this involves a great deal of
ineluctable suffering and injustice en route. The material prosperity that in
the end will fund freedom is the fruit of un-freedom.
There is a difference
between doing evil in the hope that good may come of it, and seeking to turn
someone else's evil to good use. Socialists did not perpetrate capitalism, and
are innocent of its crimes; but granted that it exists, it seems rational to
make the best of it. This is possible because capitalism is not of course
simply evil. To think so is to be drastically one-sided, a fault by which
discontinuity. There is indeed progress; but as Marx commented in his writings
on India, it is like a hideous god who drinks nectar from the skulls of the
slain.
How far Marx believes in
historical necessity is not only a political and economic matter; it is also a
moral one. He does not seem to suppose that feudalism or capitalism had to arise. Given a particular mode of production, there are various possible
routes out of it. There are, of course, limits to this latitude. You would not
move from consumer capitalism to hunter-gathering, unless perhaps a nuclear war
had intervened in the meanwhile. Developed productive forces would make such a
reversion both wholly unnecessary and deeply undesirable. But there is one move
in particular which Marx seems to see as inevitable. This is the need for
capitalism in order to have socialism. Driven by self-interest, ruthless
competition and the need for ceaseless expansion, only capitalism is capable of
developing the productive forces to the point where, under a different
political dispensation, the surplus they generate can be used to furnish a
sufficiency for all. To have socialism, you must first have capitalism. Or
rather, you may not need to have capitalism, but somebody must. Marx
thought that Russia might be able to achieve a form of socialism based on the
peasant commune rather than on a history of industrial capitalism; but he did
not imagine that this could be accomplished without the help of capitalist
resources from elsewhere. A particular nation does not need to have passed
through capitalism, but capitalism must exist somewhere or other if it is to go
socialist.
This raises some thorny
moral problems. Just as some Christians accept evil as somehow necessary to
God's plan for humanity, so you can read Marx as claiming that capitalism,
however rapacious and unjust, has to be endured for the sake of the socialist
future it will inevitably bring in its wake. Not only endured, in fact, but
actively encouraged. There are points in Marx's work where he cheers on the
growth of capitalism, since only thus will the path to socialism be thrown
open. In a lecture of 1847, for example, he defends free trade as hastening the
advent of socialism. He also wanted to see German unification on the grounds
that it would promote German capitalism. There are several places in his work
where this revolutionary socialist betrays rather too much relish at the
prospect of a progressive capitalist class putting paid to ''barbarism.''
The morality of this
appears distinctly dubious. How is it different from Stalin's or Mao's
murderous pogroms, executed in the name of the socialist future? How far does
the end justify the means? And given that few today believe that socialism is
inevitable, is this not even more reason for renouncing such a brutal sacrifice
of the present on the altar of a future that might never arrive? If capitalism
is essential for socialism, and if capitalism is unjust, does this not suggest
that injustice is morally acceptable? If there is to be justice in the future,
must there have been injustice in the past? Marx writes in Theories of
Surplus Value that ''the development of the capacities of the human
species takes place at the cost of the majority of individuals and even
classes.'' 12 He means that the good of the species will finally
triumph in the shape of communism, but that this involves a great deal of
ineluctable suffering and injustice en route. The material prosperity that in
the end will fund freedom is the fruit of un-freedom.
There is a difference
between doing evil in the hope that good may come of it, and seeking to turn
someone else's evil to good use. Socialists did not perpetrate capitalism, and
are innocent of its crimes; but granted that it exists, it seems rational to
make the best of it. This is possible because capitalism is not of course
simply evil. To think so is to be drastically one-sided, a fault by which
Similar Books
