Marx: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) 2nd Edition

Probably no name turns off more Americans than "Marx". That's unfortunate, because the 20th century communism associated with Karl Marx is not really a fair representation of Marx's ideas. Not that Marx wasn't wrong on a number of key issues, such as thinking that eliminating private property would produce true individual freedom. But Marx didn't have much use for government, so it's ironic that he's associated with a Leninist-Stalinist model that attempted to put all aspects of life under government control.Besides Marx the political revolutionary who felt compelled to correct the dreadful condition of the 19th century working class, there's the Marx who's regarded as one of the founders of sociology. "Consciousness does not determine life, but life determines consciousness." (C.f. the then-current Enlightenment view that every decision we make can be as rational as we want it to be, and thus every individual is responsible for his own state in life.)But on to the review. There's a ton of books about Marx available, as well as pounds of Marx's own writings, so why read this book? Because Prof Singer has written a very readable, very understandable description of Marx's thinking: contradictions, mistakes, and all. And done it concisely.Prof Singer is sympathetic to Marx the philosopher -- no philosopher ever gets it all right -- and less sympathetic to Marx the economist and "scientific historian". But Singer presents it all in a very well organized fashion, with lots of references to Marx's writings, so that the reader can easily follow along with the main ideas as well as continue on his own.Personally, I think Singer is too harsh towards Marx the economist, e.g. Marx's prediction that a capitalist system must eventually collapse. Whereas Marx recognized that government would side with the ruling class, i.e., the capitalists, he couldn't have predicted that government would grow powerful enough to bail out the economic system whenever it was near collapse. I doubt if any 19th century economist could have guessed that. Marx also failed to note, as Karl Polanyi did much later, that the general public would require government to restrict the worst activities of the capitalists, e.g. child labor, monopolies, pollution, near-zero wage rates. And this would make society more livable for workers -- thus postponing, perhaps permanently, capitalism's end. Singer, interestingly, shows that Marx may have overstated his case intentionally at times, in order to have more effect. We can certainly see that among modern writers, who know that the more extreme the statements they make, the more attention they get and the more books they sell.Despite the things that Marx got wrong, he got many things right: the boom-bust cycle of capitalism, the alienation of factory workers from their work, the need for capitalists to find ever- wider markets, the growing disparity (though irregular) of income between capitalists and workers, the concentration of economic power into fewer and fewer hands, the influence of someone's economic situation upon the decisions he makes.... A basic knowledge of Marx is really a prerequisite for understanding many of the issues and conflicts that we still deal with today. Prof Singer's book provides that introduction in the most easily-digestible form that I've seen.

Though what some called "Marxism" seems mostly wiped from the earth (with some notable exceptions), the eponymous system never completely disappeared from the popular conscious. Its specter has reappeared following the financial disasters of 2008-2009. In this catastrophe's wake, some have asked whether capitalism has finally burst its dam. Though capitalism as an economic system won't likely go away anytime soon, the abuses and corruption uncovered in the past few years have likely made some curious about its staunchest and most infamous critic: Karl Marx. At first glance, the current crisis seems to validate some of Marx's criticisms, including the idea that capitalism will eventually self-destruct. However, upon further inspection some of his ideas break down and don't seem to exactly fit today's precarious situation. So what were Marx's criticisms, theories and claims? And what about that whole thing called communism that spread throughout the world in the 20th century? Did Marx create that? And where did his ideas come from? Anyone teeming with such questions should pick up Peter Singer's incredibly readable book "Marx." This book has past lives. Originally published in 1980, it now sits alongside voluminous other topics in Oxford University Press' "A Very Short Introduction" series. And yes, this is the same Peter Singer that wrote "Animal Liberation" and the recent "The Life You Can Save." He also has a killer recipe for dal (available online).The book moves fast. Beginning with a short preface that equates Marx's impact to Jesus and Muhammad, a short biography of Marx's life follows, complete with sketches of his personal and professional lives. This brief narrative doesn't dwell on the abject poverty often attributed to Marx (apparently from his pleading letters). It suggests that Marx lived decently, excepting a few rough years, and that financial mismanagement rather than lack of income may have plagued him. His lifelong partner and patron, Friedrich Engels, appears to have contributed generously even during good financial times. Marx of course faced exile more than once and following 1849 he never returned to his homeland. He died in England in 1883 where his grave still stands. The book then launches into his influences and development starting with Hegel, whose turgid and ominous "Phenomenology of Spirit" provided the "birthplace" of Marx's philosophy. As a "Young Hegelian," Marx absorbed and then ultimately revamped Hegel's master/slave philosophy into one involving human struggle, economics and money. The inevitability of the slave "conquering" the master - a bane to later Marxists as it never seemed to happen despite its theoretical inevitability - derived from Hegel's philosophy of "Mind." From Hegel's "alienated Mind" (which he, now almost comically, claimed his own philosophy resolved) and Ludwig Feuerbach's notion of religion as humanity's alienation, Marx posited money as "the alienated essence of man's labor." Most of his economic theories, culminating in the magnum opus "Capital," begin here. After assigning the proletariat the Hegelian "slave" role Marx claimed the theoretically analogous overthrow of the capitalists by their "slaves." This was all pure theory. The chapter entitled "The First Marxism" delineates the main points of this philosophical-economic-historical system. Marx, like Hegel, considered his system "scientific." Within these sometimes confounding works arise the foundational ideas of Marxist theory. Things have "use-value" as utilitarian things, but when economics intervenes it assigns "exchange-values" to these things. Soon everything is seen in terms of exchange instead of use-value, including workers themselves. As such, they inevitably begin to focus on exchange-values, even for themselves, and become "alienated" from their own productive activity, which Marx considered humanity's essence, and from others through competition. Capitalists exploit workers by making them work longer and extracting "surplus-value" and get rich. Communism, as Marx envisioned it, would abolish alienation "between men and their products." It would also abolish surplus-value and apparently lead to a society where people simply meet their needs. The would thus attain true freedom, according to Marx, whereas under capitalism they only appear free, but are in fact enslaved by exchange-value and its ramifications. The obvious question follows: so what does Marx think the post-capitalist (or communist) world would look like? Singer defends Marx's near silence on this point by claiming that Marx was simply building the groundwork for the inevitable future and that Marx intended his successors to provide the practical framework. But Marx did drop some hints, though they don't collectively add up to much. For example, a "real human morality" would replace the current "class morality" and an earthly paradise would unfold. Led by the initial "dictatorship of the proletariat" war and conflict would eventually dissolve as people simply meet their needs. As many have pointed out, Marx would likely never have stopped throwing up at the sight of the Leninist and Stalinist regimes that claimed his influence. Paradises on earth they were not. Singer even suggests that Marx may have "disappeared" in the purges. Perhaps.The final chapter outlines Singer's evaluation of Marx. He first finds nothing scientific in Marx's theories. Second, he claims that most of Marx's dire predictions of capitalism's ominous future did not come true. So how should history regard Marx? Singer suggests thinking of Marx primarily as a philosopher and that he nonetheless secured a solid legacy, especially in two cases. First, Marx's view that people should control capitalism rather than capitalism controlling people still stands. As economies spiral out of control many indeed do seem to sit by helplessly. The collapse of a currency or an industry sometimes seems utterly outside the control of governments or activism. Whether this is by design or coincidence remains another question. In any case, Marx's call for us to take control of our own societies still has resonance today. Second, Marx suggested that human nature can fluctuate with societal and economic conditions. Many still agree with him. But Singer criticizes Marx's Utopian post-capitalist society. It seems unlikely that communism would totally eliminate greed or corruption. He cites Mikhail Bakunin's poignant criticisms on these points. Pure egalitarianism must deal with some nefarious truths about human nature. Some of the 20th century's "communist" regimes bear this out, though some don't consider China or the former USSR "communisms" in the sense Marx implied. So should we welcome Marx back as a contender? Yes and no. Though his critique of capitalism stands as one of the most detailed and complete critiques yet offered, it was also wrong in many respects. But it was also correct in some, especially in terms of its potential wastefulness and controlling aspects. On the other hand, a moratorium on new communist regimes seems in effect. Few new ones have cropped up. But anyone can find Marx's works, once considered anathema, in nearly any bookstore. Even fancy coffee table editions of "The Communist Manifesto" have appeared. Has capitalism then defeated communism by absorbing and emasculating it as yet another "product?" Maybe. Nonetheless, Marx seems to live on in a seemingly incompatible world of increasing production and consumption. This may be his true lasting enigma. In any case, Marx, like capitalism, likely won't disappear anytime soon. Peter Singer's small book provides a great introduction to this weighty and controversial philosopher. Those who haven't started down this road could definitely start here. Prepare for a long hike.