Marx: The Powder Keg

This semester I'm taking a social theory class and an introductory political philosophy class, and in the social theory class we've started by examining the works of Karl Marx. Needless to say theres been a ton of crossover and tons of food for thought. I'd imagine that there'll be a few more political/societal posts in the near future.

For those who haven't studied him, Marx's mere name brings about feelings of horror and aversion because of the historical geopolitical things done in his name. Understand that the man himself is very much different from what his followers have done, and note further that his "followers' aren't actually enacting what Marx had advocated. Names like Che Guevara, Castro, Cienfuegos, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, etc. deserve negative connotations, Marx's name does not.

That being said, I've really enjoyed studying his works. I think of him as a brilliant analyst of capitalism and the society that it creates. I had one particular insight about the effects of his works that I thought i'd share here.

Marx saw that capitalism sharply divides society into two general classes: the have's and the have-not's aka those with capital and those without. He saw that over time capitalism deepens those class divisions to the point where the lower classes would be oppressed to the breaking point. They (the proletariat) would then revolt, over throw the capital-owners (the bourgeoise) thus ending capitalism. He was wrong however, and to further explore why i'll reference the work of Eric Hoffer.

Eric Hoffer is another brilliant mind, and I highly, highly recommend his book "the True Believer". Hoffer noticed that mass movements (like the kind that Marx envisioned) do not come about by the horribly oppressed finally rejecting their position in life. In fact, those born into abject poverty and who have never known anything else will not revolt. Those that are ripe for a mass movement are those that are both in abject conditions and have also seen that there is a possibility for a better life. The middle-class merchant who experiences a series of business failures and thus falls into poverty is more ripe to join a mass movement then the man held in life-long servitude.

Back to Marx. I agree with him that unfettered capitalism does lead to sharply divided classes, and that eventually the gap between the two would be huge. (Note that we in the US now do not have unfettered capitalism, but capitalism with government regulation and the gaps between classes are lessened [though i still think theyre huge]). Keeping in mind Hoffer's work however, those who had always been in abject poverty would not revolt. Their life-long servitude would essentially make them into a wet powder keg.

This begs the question, then why have so many revolutions occurred in history bearing Marx's name? The truth is that there are many people living in abject poverty throughout the world. Marx gave them the vision of a better future. His (though vague) picture of communism incited the abjectly poor into action by giving them hope. Although Marx's theories predict that the revolutions were inevitable, the truth is that they never would have happened if Marx himself hadn't written them down.

Anyways, I feel like i've been writing for long enough. Expect more Marx/political philosophy/sociology posts in the near future.