one night in London achieves nothing but give the papers some nice pictures and put insurance premiums up.
The abolition of private property can only really happen if the Government is overthrown, but I wonder if this is really achievable in this day and age, or even desired? And how to achieve this on a worldwide stage – essential in Marx‟s view? Could it really be possible for every government in every nation to be overthrown? And presumably this would have to be more-or-less simultaneously.
The main problem I have with Marx is his apparent denial of the individual, which he says cannot exist under capitalism. I would question this. For a start, if another person, however likeminded, had set out to write Marx‟s work, it of course would have differed! This is just one very basic example. What about individual feelings, etc. Perhaps a person might like being a “mere proletariat”! There is so much more to a person surely than the class to which he or she is supposed to belong. Just take music taste for one. And even there, a person‟s class will not dictate his taste.
Marx talks of the need to organise a class of people against the Government. The Labour Party and the Trade Unions can get a good number of people out to support them, but if there‟s ever a communist party member on a ballot paper, they usually pool around 97 votes. OK, this might not be truly representative – there are probably many communists who actually vote Labour – but it‟s the hardliners that Marx wants or needs. He speaks dismissively of wishy-washy socialists or “Utopian Communists” (who apparently have sympathy for the working class, but are not prepared to go the whole hog and give them power, which is the goal). When I read this section, it did bring to mind the People‟s Front of Judea pouring scorn on the Judean People‟s Front in Life of Brian, but you can recognise Marx‟s need for a hardline forming a united front. But who these days would really stand up for these principles? I expect many of the people on the frontline in London were not even working but unemployed – a class barely recognised in Marx‟s day. I wonder if people on a low income, but at least in work, would really be willing to sacrifice this existence for Marx‟s fanciful dream?
And then there are the really questionable beliefs! Marx would abolish the family, allowing for a “community of women” which sounds pretty questionable. I got the impression Marx is not talking about feminism and the empowerment of women here. Instead, I envisaged a young Marx watching jealously as aristocratic Victorian gentlemen ran around with prostitutes, wishing instead they were all free! Maybe I‟m a bit wide of the mark here, but he seems to be implying something along those lines. And abolishing the family? OK, there is the idea of property within the family, and some form of “exploitation” of children – obviously, far worse in Victorian times – but if parents did not bring up their offspring, who would, the state? Could the local community really be relied upon? And I think there would be a fair number of bloody struggles when trying to split up many families. In attempting to see everything from one perspective, I think Marx misses several factors about human beings – we have the ability to love; regardless of living conditions, we have freedom of thought and a sense of morality; and also, like many animals, we are perhaps suited to staying in couples.
13
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44