Read Online Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Terry Eagleton
Ads: Link
the
peasantry, but the point has a more general application to his work. There is,
he writes, ''a sense of colossal disruption and irretrievable loss, a moral
dilemma wherein neither the old nor the new can be wholly affirmed, the
recognition that the sufferer was at once decent and flawed, the recognition
also that the history of victories and losses is really a history of material
productions, and the glimmer of a hope, in the end, that something good might
yet come of this merciless history.'' 14 Tragedy is not necessarily
without hope. It is rather that when it affirms, it does so in fear and
trembling, with a horror-stricken countenance.
There is, finally, another
point to note. We have seen that Marx himself assumes that capitalism is
indispensable for socialism. But is this true? What if one were to seek to
develop the productive forces from a very low level, but as far as possible in
ways compatible with democratic socialist values? It would be a fiercesomely
difficult task. But this, roughly speaking, was the view of some members of the
Left Opposition in Bolshevik Russia; and although it was a project that
foundered, there is a strong case that it was the right strategy to adopt in
the circumstances. What, in any case, if capitalism had never happened? Could
not humanity have found some less atrocious way of evolving what Marx sees as
its most precious goods—material prosperity, a wealth of creative human powers,
self-determination, global communications, individual freedom, a magnificent
culture and so on? Might an alternative history not have thrown up geniuses
equal to Raphael and Shakespeare? One thinks of the flourishing of the arts and
sciences in ancient Greece, Persia, Egypt, China, India, Mesopotamia and elsewhere.
Was capitalist modernity really necessary? How does one weigh the value of
modern science and human liberty against the spiritual goods of tribal
societies? What happens when we place democracy in the scales along with the
Holocaust?
The question may prove
more than academic. Suppose a handful of us were to crawl out of the other side
of a nuclear or environmental cataclysm, and begin the daunting task of
building civilisation again from scratch. Given what we knew of the causes of the
catastrophe, would we not be well-advised to try it this time the socialist
way?
FOUR
Marxism is a dream of
utopia. It believes in the possibility of a perfect society, without hardship,
suffering, violence or conflict. Under communism there will be no rivalry,
selfishness, possessiveness, competition or inequality. Nobody will be superior
or inferior to anyone else. Nobody will work, human beings will live in
complete harmony with one another, and the flow of material goods will be
endless. This astonishingly naive vision springs from a credulous faith in
human nature. Human viciousness is simply set aside. The fact that we are
naturally selfish, acquisitive, aggressive and competitive creatures, and that
no amount of social engineering can alter this fact, is simply overlooked.
Marx's dewy-eyed vision of the future reflects the absurd unreality of his
politics as a whole.
S o will there still be road
accidents in this Marxist utopia of yours?" This is the kind of sardonic
inquiry that Marxists have grown used to dealing with. In fact, the comment
reveals more about the ignorance of the speaker than about the illusions of the
Marxist. Because if utopia means a perfect society, then ''Marxist utopia'' is
a contradiction in terms.
There are, as it happens,
far more interesting uses of the word ''utopia'' in the Marxist tradition. 1 One of the greatest of English Marxist revolutionaries, William Morris,
produced an unforgettable work of utopia in News from Nowhere, which
unlike almost every other utopian work actually showed in detail how the
process of political change had come about. When it comes to the everyday use
of the word, however, it should be said that Marx shows not the slightest
interest in a
peasantry, but the point has a more general application to his work. There is,
he writes, ''a sense of colossal disruption and irretrievable loss, a moral
dilemma wherein neither the old nor the new can be wholly affirmed, the
recognition that the sufferer was at once decent and flawed, the recognition
also that the history of victories and losses is really a history of material
productions, and the glimmer of a hope, in the end, that something good might
yet come of this merciless history.'' 14 Tragedy is not necessarily
without hope. It is rather that when it affirms, it does so in fear and
trembling, with a horror-stricken countenance.
There is, finally, another
point to note. We have seen that Marx himself assumes that capitalism is
indispensable for socialism. But is this true? What if one were to seek to
develop the productive forces from a very low level, but as far as possible in
ways compatible with democratic socialist values? It would be a fiercesomely
difficult task. But this, roughly speaking, was the view of some members of the
Left Opposition in Bolshevik Russia; and although it was a project that
foundered, there is a strong case that it was the right strategy to adopt in
the circumstances. What, in any case, if capitalism had never happened? Could
not humanity have found some less atrocious way of evolving what Marx sees as
its most precious goods—material prosperity, a wealth of creative human powers,
self-determination, global communications, individual freedom, a magnificent
culture and so on? Might an alternative history not have thrown up geniuses
equal to Raphael and Shakespeare? One thinks of the flourishing of the arts and
sciences in ancient Greece, Persia, Egypt, China, India, Mesopotamia and elsewhere.
Was capitalist modernity really necessary? How does one weigh the value of
modern science and human liberty against the spiritual goods of tribal
societies? What happens when we place democracy in the scales along with the
Holocaust?
The question may prove
more than academic. Suppose a handful of us were to crawl out of the other side
of a nuclear or environmental cataclysm, and begin the daunting task of
building civilisation again from scratch. Given what we knew of the causes of the
catastrophe, would we not be well-advised to try it this time the socialist
way?
FOUR
Marxism is a dream of
utopia. It believes in the possibility of a perfect society, without hardship,
suffering, violence or conflict. Under communism there will be no rivalry,
selfishness, possessiveness, competition or inequality. Nobody will be superior
or inferior to anyone else. Nobody will work, human beings will live in
complete harmony with one another, and the flow of material goods will be
endless. This astonishingly naive vision springs from a credulous faith in
human nature. Human viciousness is simply set aside. The fact that we are
naturally selfish, acquisitive, aggressive and competitive creatures, and that
no amount of social engineering can alter this fact, is simply overlooked.
Marx's dewy-eyed vision of the future reflects the absurd unreality of his
politics as a whole.
S o will there still be road
accidents in this Marxist utopia of yours?" This is the kind of sardonic
inquiry that Marxists have grown used to dealing with. In fact, the comment
reveals more about the ignorance of the speaker than about the illusions of the
Marxist. Because if utopia means a perfect society, then ''Marxist utopia'' is
a contradiction in terms.
There are, as it happens,
far more interesting uses of the word ''utopia'' in the Marxist tradition. 1 One of the greatest of English Marxist revolutionaries, William Morris,
produced an unforgettable work of utopia in News from Nowhere, which
unlike almost every other utopian work actually showed in detail how the
process of political change had come about. When it comes to the everyday use
of the word, however, it should be said that Marx shows not the slightest
interest in a
Similar Books
