◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys1.dyndns.org)(xys.3322.org)◇◇ 一篇错得太离谱的特稿——关于《马克思的知识遗产》 作者：戴开元 2002年12月19日，英国《经济学人》（Economist）网站发表一篇长文 《马克思的知识遗产：共产主义之后的马克思》。22日，美国“多/维新 闻网”刊登该社记者苏小蕙，根据《经济学人》的长文编译而成的特稿 《不要抛弃马克思》。将英文原文与“多/维”的特稿对比以后，笔者发 现，后者完全歪曲了原文的主旨。 《经济学人》原文的主题是：马克思主义的理论与实践皆已失败；西方 人文学界的左派为维护马克思主义的正确性而提出的种种理由（如前苏 联东欧共产国家背离了真正的马克思主义，马克思在资本主义的弊病、 全球化、经济周期等问题的观点是正确的而且具有预见性），是站不住 脚的；马克思主义已经成为西方左派所信奉的一种现代宗教。显然，原 文作者对马克思主义基本上持完全否定的态度。 令人遗憾的是，不知是因为误读还是由于其他原因，“多/维”的特稿却 把原文主题歪曲为：马克思主义的政治体制虽已失败，但马克思主义的 思想体系仍然正确；应该抛弃苏联东欧的共产主义，但不要抛弃马克思 。而且，特稿多次把原文所批驳的观点当作原文的观点，这种错误实在 太离谱。 编译是翻译的一种，其遵循的原则之一是忠实原文。编译者无论是赞成 还是反对原文作者的看法，都应该用中文忠实再现原文的主旨。《经济 学人》网站在英语学术界具有相当高的地位，编译该网站的文章更不应 草率从事。究竟是什么原因导致“多/维”的编译者发生此项错误，大概 只有编译者本人才能回答。 2002年12月26日 ------------------------------------------------------------- 附录一：笔者的译稿 《马克思的知识遗产：共产主义之后的马克思》 《经济学人》2002年12月19日 （戴开元译） 作为一种政治制度，共产主义已经死亡或正在死亡；作为一种思想体 系，共产主义在未来的地位似乎依然稳固。 苏联共产主义在20世纪末的分崩离析，绝不是因为技术上的原因。它 是一种在道德、物质和知识上的最全面或最丢脸的崩溃。共产主义残 暴地统治和掠夺其子民，杀害了数千万民众。过去数十年内，在苏联 及其卫星国，如果有人谈到平等、没有剥削和真正的正义等共产主义 教义所公开宣示的目标，只会引起人们辛辣的嘲笑。共产主义制度最 终崩溃以后，马克思的塑像就像列宁、斯大林塑像的那样，被人们轻 蔑地摧毁。共产主义的理论和实践皆被否定。无论是共产主义的理论 奠基者，还是共产主义国家的统治者，皆被人们抛弃。 大多数西方人没有在马克思主张的政治制度下生活过，他们没有受到 这种生活的影响，得出一种更为不偏不倚的看法。他们倾向于认为， 马克思被人误解了，苏联和东欧的共产主义歪曲了马克思的思想。在 这些黑暗国土上发生的事情不仅使他们感到震惊，而且会使马克思本 人感到震惊。但这些共产主义国家的所作所为与马克思思想的正确性 毫无关系。 他们认为，在很多问题上，马克思的看法确实正确。例如，马克思关 于资本主义的许多弊端，全球化和国际市场，商业周期，经济决定意 识的原理等问题的看法是正确的。他们不断地念叨：马克思是一位先 知。应该完全抛弃苏联东欧（还有中国、北朝鲜和古巴，以及实行它 的任何地方）实行的共产主义，但请不要抛弃马克思。 给马克思应得的荣誉 这似乎没有任何风险。1999年，英国政府资助的英国广播公司(BBC) 曾经搞了一系列民意测验，让人们推选二十世纪最伟大的人。当年10 月，在柏林墙倒塌十周年的前后数周，BBC宣布，民众选出的二十世 纪最伟大思想家正是马克思，而物理学家爱因斯坦居第二，牛顿和达 尔文分别排名第三和第四。BBC说：“虽然整个20世纪的独裁统治歪 曲了（马克思）原来的思想，但作为哲学家，社会学家，历史学家和 革命家的马克思，其著作今天仍受到学术界的尊敬。”至少BBC这段 话的第二点没有说错：马克思现在仍然得到人们的尊敬。 应该承认，作为一个学术领域本身，马克思主义的政治和经济理论已 经越过了它的巅峰时期。可以假定，迄今为止，马克思所提出的，或 者他实际上提出的，或者他可能会提出的，或者人们以为他可能会提 出的大多数观点，已经经受了充分的、虽然远非结论性的争论。但是 ，对于篇幅惊人的马克思原著的学术研究日渐稀少，并不能成为衡量 马克思持久不衰的思想影响的最佳标准。 在西欧和美国，面向本科生和非专业人士的介绍马克思的书籍仍有销 路，关于马克思的最新著作仍在出版。例如，Verso最近出版的英国 伦敦经济学院经济学教授德赛伊的《马克思的报复》一书，受到了热 情的评论。德赛伊认为，马克思被人误解了，这位伟人的正确性远远 超过他得到的荣誉。牛津大学出版社今年8月出版的英国伦敦大学学 院教授沃尔夫的“为何今日要阅读马克思？”一书，也是一本有吸引 力的读物。沃尔夫是一个技巧特别高超的政治哲学解释者。他在该书 中也说，马克思被人误解了，这位伟人的正确性远远超过他得到的荣 誉。 英国著名历史学家、终身的马克思主义者和毫不悔悟的共产党员霍布 斯鲍姆，最近出版的回忆录也值得注意。实际上，对此书的评论好坏 参半，但很少有人不表示尊敬，许多人称赞他研究学问的坚定性。霍 布斯鲍姆也说，马克思被人误解了，这位伟人的正确性远远超过他得 到的荣誉。 可以说，亚当·斯密与自由资本主义（一种相对比较成功的经济秩序 ）的关系，大致相当于马克思与社会主义的关系。搜索亚马逊等售书 网站之后发现，关于马克思的书籍的数量是关于亚当斯密的书籍的五 至十倍。在经济学院系本科生的阅读书单中，亚当·斯密的著作却远 远超过马克思。这很有趣，因为马克思认为自己首先是最重要的经济 学家。在社会科学和人文学科的其他领域，情况恰恰相反，不出人们 所料，虽然亚当·斯密在这些领域的著作比他的经济学著作多得多， 却很少有亚当·斯密的著作，尽管在马克思及其解释者和信徒看来， 这似乎是必然现象。正是马克思持久影响的这种广度，特别是与马克 思在现代经济学中受到的反常冷遇相对照，如此引人注目。 如何解释此一现象？马克思著作存在（如果存在）哪些仍有价值的东 西？这个问题并非一目了然，因为他的著作显然很难为人理解。 马克思确实是一个马克思主义者 在他愿意的时候，他是一位有吸引力的作家，飞快地写下一流的隽语 。《共产党宣言》的结束语欢呼说：“工人阶级失去的只是锁链，他 们获得的将是整个世界。全世界无产者，联合起来。”他还具有一种 令人羡慕的天赋：发出歇斯底里的咒骂。在《资本论》里，他为他的 研究对象所下的著名定义是“无生命的劳动力，是个吸血鬼，只是靠 吸取有生命的劳动力的鲜血生存，生存得越久，吸取的劳动力越多” 。这不仅令人难以忘怀，而且实际上非常恰当，只要你相信马克思的 价值理论。当他愿意时，他能够非常出色地表达自己的思想。 但是，马克思的著作也常常非常乏味和复杂得让人难以理解。读一读 《资本论》的开头几页就可以知道这一点。在他所谓的科学著作中， 他飞快地创造术语，在词汇下面划线以强调其难懂，然后随意改变其 意义。马克思在1844年相信的东西，到1874年他就不再相信：唯一不 变的是他认为他任何时候说的话都是绝对真理，而且与他以前的说法 完全一致，这些使马克思著作更加难懂。马克思的大多数著作，包括 《共产党宣言》和《资本论》第二、三卷，是由恩格斯编辑、共同撰 写或代笔的。因此，多年来，把世人了解的马克思与恩格斯分开，本 身已成为一个学术产业。 然而，马克思有四个观点似乎最为关键，其他大多数观点由此发展而 来。第一，马克思相信社会遵循简单而普遍的运动定律，足以据此作 出长时段的预言。第二，他相信这些定律仅仅具有经济性：决定社会 形态的唯一东西是“物质生产力”。第三，他相信，在历史终结之前 ，这些定律必然以一种剧烈的阶级斗争方式表达自己。第四，他相信 ，在历史终结时，阶级和国家（其唯一的目的是代表统治阶级利益） 必然消亡，为人间天堂所取代。 那么，现代西方学者喜欢宣称的苏联式共产主义对马克思信念的偏离 ，表现在哪些方面？据说，这主要是俄国的“偷跑”。根据马克思的 运动定律，当封建社会发展到阻碍了而不是促进生产力时，社会就会 进入资本主义。后来，一旦生产力得到充分发展，以致于资本主义的 继续存在成为实现物质丰富的障碍而不是通途时，资本主义也会以非 常相似的方式，发展成为社会主义和无产阶级专政。但俄国从封建主 义直接进入社会主义，这太快了。马克思如果在世，他会告诉列宁， 这样行不通。 马克思真的会这样说吗？毫无疑问，列宁认为自己是马克思思想的真 正继承人，他也有充足的理由。到十九世纪末，社会主义思潮思想处 在分裂之中。马克思的运动定律正在失灵。资本主义依然繁荣，没有 出现预示资本主义灭亡的利润率下降的迹象。无产阶级开始获得选举 权。福利国家正在形成。工厂的生产环境正在改善。工人的工资开始 大幅提高，远远超过其维持生存的最低水平。所有这些都与马克思的 运动定律相反。 在这种情况下，左派开始分裂。一方是改革派和社会民主党人，他们 认为资本主义可以拥有人道的一面。另一方则相信可以发展和重新阐 述马克思主义，同时忠实于它的基本逻辑，而且最重要的是，保持它 的革命性，反对改良。 马克思如果在世，他会站在哪一边？革命还是改良？他会继续坚持要 消灭吸血鬼，还是会变成温和地要求吸血鬼少吸点血的改良派？后者 似乎不可能发生。虽然马克思是一个学者，但他同时也是一个幻想家 和革命家。他有一种病态的不妥协性。他对同志都不能妥协，更不要 说对敌人。1882年，马克思在《共产党宣言》俄文版的前言中表示， 他希望俄国革命能成为“西方无产阶级革命的信号和相互补充”。如 果真的如此，俄国虽然处于资本主义之前的阶段，却“可以成为共产 主义革命的起点”。列宁确实说得对，只有他而不是那些心肠软弱的 资产阶级妥协分子，才是大师思想的真正继承人。 不仅因为古拉格 即使苏联的共产主义确实是或企图忠实于马克思的思想，那也不能指 责马克思的所有思想都错了。在一些问题上，甚至在一些主要问题上 ，马克思仍然可能是正确的。 马克思的一些思想确实引人注目。然而，他关于全球市场发展的各种 说法（这是对“马克思是先知”说法的有利证据）事实上并非是最佳 的范例。十九世纪已经是一个全球化时代，马克思只是为数众多的注 意到此一趋势的人之一。过去30年来的全球加速化整合，只是一种在 马克思年代已经蓬勃产生、在1914年受到干扰的趋势的重现。 马克思关于资本主义强大生产能力的预见更具原创性。他预见到资本 主义将激励出人类迄今无法想象的发明。他关于资本主义大公司将主 宰全球产业的看法也是对的，尽管并非完全按照他说的方式。他强调 商业周期的重要性也是对的，虽然他关于商业周期的产生原因及其后 果的看法是错误的。 马克思强调的资本主义的内在矛盾性－－资本主义的强大生产力会导 致自身的灭亡，资本主义存在导致社会主义及以后的共产主义的物质 可能性和逻辑必然性－－被证明是错误的，但是，马克思可以正确地 宣称自己比其他人更清楚地预见到，资本主义在改变人类的物质世界 方面将达到何种地步，而反过来这需要对他的另一方面至少给予一点 勉强的尊敬：其思想的影响之广以及其勃勃的雄心壮志。 但事实上，在所有马克思认为最重要的问题上，马克思都错了。马克 思宣称，其思想体系的真正力量在于预见性，但他的主要预见都毫无 希望地失败。有人常说，马克思对于资本主义前景的预见，仅仅在时 间上犯了一项错误。等到资本主义最终走到尽头，就会证明马克思的 正确。然而，这种论证方式，正如其他许多为马克思辩护的理由，虽 然拥有无法被证伪的优越性，却并未使之有理。问题在于，它忽略了 阶级。这是一种明智的忽略。因为阶级这个概念，已经变得模糊不清 以致于毫无意义。但是，阶级矛盾却是马克思世界观不可或缺的东西 。没有阶级，即使资本主义停滞不前或走向衰落，仍然缺乏推翻它的 机制。 阶级斗争是马克思主义必不可少之物。但阶级斗争，即使它曾经存在 ，也已经过去。在今日的西方民主社会，是受雇的工人即无产阶级来 选择由谁来统治和统治多长时间，来告诉政府如何管制公司，来最终 地拥有公司。而这恰恰是因为存在马克思最强烈批判的东西：私有财 产、自由的政治权利和市场。在最重要的一些问题上，马克思错得最 离谱。 原则上正确 然而，马克思主义的影响力远非局限于人数日益减少的自称是马克思 主义者的人士。马克思的劳动价值论及其它经济理论很可能是知识废 品，但他的许多假设、分析技巧和思维方式，在西方学界及其他领域 得到广泛传播。 马克思关于经济结构决定一切的核心观念特别差劲。例如，根据这一 观念，私有财产权存在的唯一原因是它为资产阶级生产关系服务。这 种说法适用于社会中的任何其他权利或公民自由。认为这类权利拥有 更深刻的道德基础，这是一种幻觉。道德本身就是幻觉，它只是统治 阶级的另一工具。（正如卢卡奇所说：“共产主义的道德观使邪恶的 行动成为最高的职责......它是要求我们作出最大牺牲的革命。”） 人的作用等于零：我们只是被“这种制度”愚弄的工具，直到我们把 它彻底推翻为止。 马克思关于道德的观点也适用于历史、文学等人文学科及社会科学。 众所周知，“已故马克思”认为，这些学科皆不是客观探索知识的领 域，而是社会控制的方式。永远不要询问画家、剧作家、建筑师或哲 学家对自己专业的见解。甚至不用看他们的作品，就知道他们实际在 作什么：支持统治阶级。这种思维方式已经深入到整个西欧尤其是美 国的大学科系，其中最臭名昭著的就是文学研究。结果，智慧对话的 机会消失了，青年人可以接受一种严肃的自由教育的信心也消失了。 马克思主义另一有影响力的特征还在于它的浓厚的乌托邦性质。《共 产党宣言》并不是一种政府的管理纲领，而只是一种夺取政权的纲领 ，或者毋宁说是一种明智地观察某人夺权的纲领，也就是说，它是一 种关于资本主义的缺陷与活力的评论。在《共产党宣言》和马克思的 任何其它著作中，马克思都没有论述他所预言和鼓动的共产主义会如 何实际运作。 马克思的牧牛理论 马克思曾如此说：“在共产主义社会，无人能独占某些活动领域，社 会管理着总的生产，因而我可以今天做这件事，明天做那件事，上午 打猎，下午钓鱼，傍晚牧牛，晚餐后从事批判活动，这只是我心中的 设想，我并未变成猎人、牧人或批判家。”许多人希望予以更详尽地 讨论的问题之一是，牛是否会满足于仅仅在傍晚放牧，或者这只不过 是人们内心的一种设想。但这个卡通片几乎就是马克思所谈论的共产 主义实况的一切，其余的必须被约简掉，正如他对资本主义的猛烈批 判，必须消除不平等、剥削、异化、私有财产等等。 令人惊讶的是今日的全球化的激烈批评者，无论他们是否自称是马克 思主义者，以非常相似的方式行事。对于现存的经济秩序，他们没有 提出任何可行的替代物，相反，却乞灵于一个没有环境压力、社会不 公正和名牌运动服的乌托邦，号召返回到一个工业化以前根本不存在 的黄金时代，却从未清晰地描述这种另类的未来或提出充分的证据。 除此以外，反全球化人士还继承了马克思的其他许多东西，特别是自 以为是的愤怒、暴烈的语言、愿意诉诸实际暴力（以回应对方的“暴 力”）、对大公司的妖魔化、把世界划分为剥削者和受害者、蔑视渐 进改革、狂热的行动主义、对民主的不耐烦、玷污自由的“权利”和 “自由权”、怀疑妥协、关于为市场秩序的辩护属于伪善（或孩子气 的幼稚）的假设。 反全球化主义已经被妥切地描述成一种世俗宗教。马克思主义也是如 此：这是一种完整的信条，拥有先知、神圣文本和关于神话中的天堂 的承诺。马克思并不是一个他自称的科学家。他建立了一种信仰。他 激励的那种经济制度和政治制度已经死亡或正在死亡。但他的宗教是 一种信徒众多的宗教，而且将继续存在下去。 －－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－ 附录二：“多/维”的特稿 《不要抛弃马克思》 【多/维/新闻社22日电】多/维/社记者苏小蕙报导／作为一种政治体制， 共产主义显然已经失败，但是，作为一种思想体系，共产主义在未来 的地位仍然稳固。 12月21日的经济学人文章说，西方人士--因为没有在前苏联东欧式的 马克思主义政治体制之下生活过，他们的判断因此而没有受到损害-- 开始感觉到，马克思被前苏联东欧的共产党人误解了，苏联东欧的共 产主义歪曲了马克思的思想，在前苏联东欧共产主义国家发生过的不 仅仅让西方人感到震惊，而且会让马克思本人感到震惊，这些共产党 国家所作所为同真正的马克思的思想没有关系。 事实上，很多西方人士认为，在很多问题上，马克思的看法是对的， 例如马克思的很多关于资本主义的弊端，关于全球化，关于国际市场 ，关于商业周期，关于经济决定人的观念等等问题的看法是对的，在 一定程度上，马克思是一个先知。 经济学人文章说，人们应该完全抛弃苏联东欧的共产主义，但是，不 要将马克思也抛弃掉。 1999年柏林墙倒塌十周年之际，英国广播公司(BBC)曾经在英国民众中 作了民意测验，让民众选出二十世纪最伟大的男性和女性，结果英国 民众选出的二十世纪最伟大的思想家不是别人，正是马克思，而物理 学家爱因斯坦，牛顿和进化论创始人达尔文则分别排名第二，第三， 和第四。 BBC的播音员说，“虽然二十世纪苏联东欧的独裁者们歪曲了马克思的 本来的思想，但是马克思作为哲学家，社会学家，历史学家和革命家 而写作的著作今天仍然受到学术界的尊敬。” 应该说，在学术界，马克思主义的政治和经济理论已经过了它的巅峰， 到现在大部份马克思所指--或者说他真正所指，或者说可能所指，或者 说曾经可能所指--的事物已经经过了充分的，虽然远非结论性地--辩论 ，但是，对马克思主义思想体系辩论活动的减少绝对不足以完全估量马 克思的皇皇原始巨著对人类智力的长远影响。 在欧洲和美国，面向本科生和非专业人士的介绍马克思的书籍仍然畅销 ，新的关于马克思的书籍仍然时有出版。例如，英国伦敦经济学院经济 学教授德赛伊(Meghnad Desai)在他最近出版的“马克思的报复” ( Marx's Revenge)一书中认为，马克思被误解了，马克思的正确性远 远没有被人们充分意识到。而英国另一位教授沃尔夫(Jonathan Wolff) 在今年八月出版了“为什么今天还要读马克思的著作”( Why Read Marx Today?)中，也持相同观点。 经济学人说，苏联式的共产主义到底是如何背离了马克思的真实思想？ 现代评论者通常认为，苏联的共产主义失败主要原因是偷跑--从封建主 义直接跑到社会主义。这些评论者认为，马克思如果在世，会告诉列宁 ，这样太快了。 列宁将自己当作马克思思想的真正继承者，列宁有理由这么看待自己。 到十九世纪末，社会主义思想处在分裂之中，马克思的运动发展法则似 乎开始失灵--资本主义仍然繁荣，没有出现将预示资本主义灭亡的迹象 ，即利润下降；无产阶级开始获得选举权；福利社会在资本主义中开始 出现；工厂的生产环境开始改善；工人工资开始上涨大幅超过基本生活 必须水平--所有这些都同马克思的运动规则相反。 于是，社会主义思想中开始出现分裂，一方是主张以改良来改变现存社 会的社会民主党，他们认为资本主义可以有人道的一面，另一方则相信 可以对马克思主义进行发展，同时保持它的基本逻辑，这一派主张革命。 马克思会选择哪一方面，革命还是改良？ 经济学人说，很可能是革命，因为虽然马克思是一个学者，但是，他同 时是一个革命者。 经济学人认为，即使前苏联式的共产主义是马克思的真实思想，或者试 图忠于马克思的真实思想，也不能因为苏联共产主义的破产来指责所有 马克思的思想。在很多问题，甚至可能在很多主要问题上，马克思仍然 是对的。 人们常常说马克思是预见到全球化的人士，并因此而称他为先知，但是 马克思关于全球市场的论述并非是马克思是正确的最好的例证。十九世 纪是一个全球化的时代，马克思只是洞察到这一趋势的人士之一。 经济学人说，马克思关于资本主义的强大生产能力的预见更具创造性。 马克思预见到，资本主义将创造出很多人类迄今无法想象到的发明创造 ，马克思关于资本主义的巨大无比的公司将主宰全球工业的看法也是对 的--虽然这些公司主宰全球商业的方式同他预见的不一样，马克思强调 商业周期也是对的--虽然他提出的导致商业周期形成的原因和这种周期 导致的后果的见解是错的。 马克思的中心思想--资本主义内在的矛盾将导致资本主义的灭亡被证明 是错误的，但是，马克思在预见到资本主义在将人类的物质世界改变到 何种程度方面仍然是对的，而这又反证出他的思想体系触及的范围是如 何广泛。 经济学人说，马克思思想的影响力远非局限于人数不断减少的自称自己 是马克思主义者的人士之中。马克思的劳动价值论和其它很多经济理论 已经被证明是错误的，但是，他的很多假设，很多分析技巧和思维方式 在西方学术界及其以外仍然具有广泛的影响力。 经济学人说，但是，在所有对他自己来说最重要的问题上，马克思都错 了。 马克思认为，他的思想体系的真正力量在于它的预见力，但是，他的主 要预见都失败了。对于资本主义的前途，人们可以说资本主义终究有走 到尽头的一天，那时，马克思将被证明是对的。但是，问题是，阶级斗 争是马克思主义世界观的不可缺少的，如果没有阶级斗争，即使将来资 本主义停滞下来或者衰落，推翻资本主义的机制是什么？如果不是阶级 斗争，马克思还是错的。 马克思主义的问题还因为它是乌托邦式的。马克思的“共产党宣言”不 是如何管理的政府纲领，而只是如何夺取政权的纲领，或者说是如果聪 明地等著权力落入自己的手中的纲领，换言之，它是一个关于资本主义 的缺陷和活力的评论性文件。在“共产党宣言”和任何其它马克思的著 作中，马克思都没有论述共产主义应该如何运作。 马克思的著作中到底什么仍然具有价值？ 经济学人认为，对这一问题没有一个完全清晰的回答，因为马克思自己 将他的思想体系弄得让人难以完全理解。 如果他愿意的话，马克思是一个很有说服力的作家，例如，《共产党宣言 》结束句中，马克思说“无产阶级失去的只是锁链，他们获得的将是整个 世界。全世界无产者，联合起来！”以及《资本论》中马克思对自己研究 对象的定义都不仅仅让人难以忘怀，而且是非常灵巧--如果读者相信他 的价值论的话。但是，同时，马克思的著作也常常非常乏味和复杂得让 人难以理解--读者读读资本论的开卷就可以知道。 ------------------------------------------------------------- 附录三：《经济学人》原文 Marx's intellectual legacy Marx after communism Dec 19th 2002 From The Economist As a system of government, communism is dead or dying. As a system of ideas, its future looks secure WHEN Soviet communism fell apart towards the end of the 20th century, nobody could say that it had failed on a technicality. A more comprehensive or ignominious collapse—moral, material and intellectual—would be difficult to imagine. Communism had tyrannised and impoverished its subjects, and slaughtered them in the tens of millions. For decades past, in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries, any allusion to the avowed aims of communist doctrine—equality, freedom from exploitation, true justice—had provoked only bitter laughter. Finally, when the monuments were torn down, statues of Karl Marx were defaced as contemptuously as those of Lenin and Stalin. Communism was repudiated as theory and as practice; its champions were cast aside, intellectual founders and sociopathic rulers alike. People in the West, their judgment not impaired by having lived in the system Marx inspired, mostly came to a more dispassionate view. Marx had been misunderstood, they tended to feel. The communism of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was a perversion of his thought. What happened in those benighted lands would have appalled Marx as much as it appals us. It has no bearing on the validity of his ideas. Indeed, it is suggested, Marx was right about a good many things—about a lot of what is wrong with capitalism, for instance, about globalisation and international markets, about the business cycle, about the way economics shapes ideas. Marx was prescient; that word keeps coming up. By all means discard communism as practised in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (and China, North Korea, Cuba and in fact wherever it has been practised). But please don't discard Marx. *Give the man his due* There seems little risk of it. In 1999 the BBC conducted a series of polls, asking people to name the greatest men and women of the millennium. In October of that year, within a few weeks of the tenth anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the BBC declared the people's choice for “greatest thinker”. It was Karl Marx. Einstein was runner-up , Newton and Darwin third and fourth, respectively. “Although dictatorships throughout the 20th century have distorted (Marx's) original ideas,” the state-financed broadcaster noted, “his work as a philosopher, social scientist, historian and a revolutionary is respected by academics today.” Concerning the second point, at least, the BBC was correct: Marx is still accorded respect. As a field of scholarship in its own right, admittedly, Marxist political and economic theory is past its peak. By now, presumably, most of the things that Marx meant, or really meant, or probably meant, or might conceivably have meant, have been posited and adequately (though far from conclusively) debated. But a slackening of activity amid the staggeringly voluminous primary sources is not the best measure of Marx's enduring intellectual influence. Books on Marx aimed at undergraduates and non-specialists continue to sell steadily in Western Europe and the United States. And new ones keep coming. For instance, Verso has just published, to warm reviews, “Marx's Revenge” by Meghnad Desai, a professor of economics at the London School of Economics.Mr Desai argues that Marx was misunderstood and that the great man was right about far more than he is given credit for. In August, Oxford University Press published “Why Read Marx Today?” by Jonathan Wolff. It too is an engaging read. The author, a professor at University College London, is a particularly skilful elucidator of political philosophy. In his book, he argues that Marx was misunderstood and that the great man was right about far more than he is given credit for. The newly released memoirs of Eric Hobsbawm, the celebrated historian, lifelong Marxist and unrepentant member of the Communist Party for as long as it survived, also deserve mention. The reviews were mixed, in fact, but rarely less than respectful, finding much to admire in the author's unwavering intellectual commitment. Mr Hobsbawm argues...well, he argues that Marx was misunderstood and that the great man was right about far more than he is given credit for. Adam Smith, one might say, stands in relation to liberal capitalism, a comparatively successful economic order, roughly where Marx stands in relation to socialism. Searches on Amazon.com and other booksellers indicate that titles in print about Marx outnumber books about Adam Smith by a factor of between five and ten. A hard day's browsing of undergraduate reading-lists suggests that, in economics faculties, Smith is way out in front—interesting , given that Marx saw himself as an economist first and foremost. Elsewhere in the social sciences and humanities, the reverse is true. Smith is rarely seen, as you might expect, though in fact there is far more in Smith than just economics; whereas from Marx and his expositors and disciples it seems there is no escape. It is the breadth of Marx's continuing influence, especially as contrasted with his strange irrelevance to modern economics, that is so arresting. How is one to explain this? What, if anything, remains valuable in Marx's writings? This is not a straightforward question, given that he evidently had such difficulty making himself understood. *Yes, Marx was a Marxist* When he wanted to be, Marx was a compelling writer, punching out first-rate epigrams at a reckless pace. The closing sentences of “The Communist Manifesto” (1848) are rightly celebrated: “The workers have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to gain. Workers of the world, unite.” He also had an enviable flair for hysterical invective. At one point in “Capital” (1867-94), he famously defines the subject of his enquiry as “dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” That is not only unforgettable but actually very apt, if you believe Marx's theory of value. He could express himself brilliantly when he chose to. Yet he was also capable of stupefying dullness and impenetrable complexity. Try the opening pages of “Capital” (it picks up later). In his scientific work, as he called it, he minted jargon at a befuddling rate, underlining terms to emphasise their opacity, then changing their meaning at will. Adding to the fog, what Marx believed in 1844 was probably not what he believed in 1874: the only constant was his conviction that what he said at any time was both the absolute truth and fully consistent with what he had said before. And most of the published Marx, including the “Manifesto” and volumes two and three of “Capital”, was edited, co-written or ghost written by Friedrich Engels. For many years, therefore, separating Marx from Engels in what the world understands as “Marx” was an academic industry in itself. Still, four things seem crucial, and most of the rest follows from these. First, Marx believed that societies follow laws of motion simple and all-encompassing enough to make long-range prediction fruitful. Second, he believed that these laws are exclusively economic in character: what shapes society, the only thing that shapes society, is the “material forces of production” . Third, he believed that these laws must invariably express themselves, until the end of history, as a bitter struggle of class against class. Fourth, he believed that at the end of history, classes and the state (whose sole purpose is to represent the interests of the ruling class) must dissolve to yield a heaven on earth. In what ways, then, was Soviet-style communism a deviation from these beliefs, as modern western commentators like to argue? Chiefly, it is said that Russia jumped the gun (forgive the expression). According to Marx's laws of motion, society is supposed to progress from feudalism to capitalism at just that point when feudalism fetters the forces of production, rather than serving them, as it has up to that moment. Later, capitalism gives way in turn to socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in much the same way—once its productive potential has been fully achieved, so that henceforth its continued existence is an obstacle to material sufficiency rather than a means to it. But Russia went straight from feudalism to socialism. This was too quick. Marx could have told Lenin that it would never work. Is this really what he would have said? There is no doubt that Lenin saw himself as a true follower of Marx—and he had every reason to. By the end of the 19th century, socialist thought was dividing. Marx's laws of motion were failing. Capitalism still flourished: no sign of the falling rate of profit that would signal its end. The working class was getting the vote. The welfare state was taking shape. Factory conditions were improving and wages were rising well above the floor of subsistence. All this was contrary to Marx's laws. In response, the left was splitting. On one side were reformers and social democrats who saw that capitalism could be given a human face. On the other were those who believed that Marx's system could be developed and restated, always true to its underlying logic—and, crucially, with its revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary character brought to the fore. Whose side in this would Marx have been on? Revolution or reform? Would he have continued to insist that the vampire be destroyed? Or would he have turned reformer, asking it nicely to suck a bit less blood? The latter seems unlikely. Marx was a scholar, but he was also a fanatic and a revolutionary. His incapacity for compromise (with comrades, let alone opponents) was pathological. And in the preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the “ Manifesto”, his last published writing, Marx hoped that a revolution in Russia might become “the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other”; if so, Russia, despite its pre- capitalist characteristics, “may serve as the starting-point for a communist development.” Lenin was surely right to believe that he, not those soft-headed bourgeois accommodationists, was true to the master's thought. Apart from the gulag Even if Soviet communism was true to Marx's ideas, or tried to be, that would not condemn all of Marx's thinking. He might still have been right about some things, possibly even the main things. Aspects of his thought do impress. However, his assorted sayings about the reach of the global market—a favourite proof that “Marx was prescient”— are not in fact the best examples. The 19th century was an era of globalisation, and Marx was only one of very many who noticed. The accelerating global integration of the past 30 years merely resumes a trend that was vigorously in place during Marx's lifetime, and which was subsequently interrupted in 1914. Marx was much more original in envisaging the awesome productive power of capitalism. He saw that capitalism would spur innovation to a hitherto- unimagined degree. He was right that giant corporations would come to dominate the world's industries (though not quite in the way he meant). He rightly underlined the importance of economic cycles (though his accounts of their causes and consequences were wrong). The central paradox that Marx emphasised—namely, that its own colossal productivity would bring capitalism to its knees, by making socialism followed by communism both materially possible and logically necessary— turned out to be false. Still, Marx could fairly lay claim to having sensed more clearly than others how far capitalism would change the material conditions of the world. And this in turn reflects something else that demands at least a grudging respect: the amazing reach and ambition of his thinking. [On everything that mattered most to Marx himself, he was wrong] But the fact remains that on everything that mattered most to Marx himself, he was wrong. The real power he claimed for his system was predictive, and his main predictions are hopeless failures. Concerning the outlook for capitalism, one can always argue that he was wrong only in his timing: in the end, when capitalism has run its course, he will be proved right. Put in such a form, this argument, like many other apologies for Marx, has the advantage of being impossible to falsify. But that does not make it plausible. The trouble is, it leaves out class. This is a wise omission, because class is an idea which has become blurred to the point of meaninglessness. Class antagonism, though, is indispensable to the Marxist world-view. Without it, eve--n if capitalism succumbs to stagnation or decline, the mechanism for its overthrow is missing. Class war is the sine qua non of Marx. But the class war, if it ever existed, is over. In western democracies today, who chooses who rules, and for how long? Who tells governments how companies will be regulated? Who in the end owns the companies? Workers for hire—the proletariat. And this is because of, not despite, the things Marx most deplored: private property, liberal political rights and the market. Where it mattered most, Marx could not have been more wrong. --Right in principle-- Yet Marxist thinking retains great influence far beyond the dwindling number who proclaim themselves to be Marxists. The labour theory of value and the rest of Marx's economic apparatus may be so much intellectual scrap, but many of his assumptions, analytical traits and habits of thought are widespread in western academia and beyond. The core idea that economic structure determines everything has been especially pernicious. According to this view, the right to private property, for instance, exists only because it serves bourgeois relations of production . The same can be said for every other right or civil liberty one finds in society. The idea that such rights have a deeper moral underpinning is an illusion. Morality itself is an illusion, just another weapon of the ruling class. (As Gyorgy Lukacs put it, “Communist ethics makes it the highest duty to act wickedly...This is the greatest sacrifice revolution asks from us.”) Human agency is null: we are mere dupes of “the system”, until we repudiate it outright. What goes for ethics also goes for history, literature, the rest of the humanities and the social sciences. The “late Marxist” sees them all, as traditionally understood, not as subjects for disinterested intellectual inquiry but as forms of social control. Never ask what a painter, playwright, architect or philosopher thought he was doing. You know before you even glance at his work what he was really doing: shoring up the ruling class. This mindset has made deep inroads—most notoriously in literary studies, but not just there—in university departments and on campuses across Western Europe and especially in the United States. The result is a withering away not of the state but of opportunities for intelligent conversation and of confidence that young people might receive a decent liberal education. Marxist thinking is also deeply Utopian—another influential trait. The “ Communist Manifesto”, despite the title, was not a programme for government: it was a programme for gaining power, or rather for watching knowledgeably as power fell into one's hands. That is, it was a commentary on the defects and dynamics of capitalism. Nowhere in the “Manifesto”, or anywhere else in his writings, did Marx take the trouble to describe how the communism he predicted and advocated would actually work. --Marx's theory of cattle-- He did once say this much: “In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity...society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, herdsman or critic.” Whether cattle would be content to be reared only in the evening, or just as people had in mind, is one of many questions one would wish to see treated at greater length. But this cartoon is almost all Marx ever said about communism in practice. The rest has to be deduced, as an absence of things he deplored about capitalism: inequality, exploitation, alienation, private property and so forth. It is striking that today's militant critics of globalisation, whether declared Marxists or otherwise, proceed in much the same way. They present no worked-out alternative to the present economic order. Instead, they invoke a Utopia free of environmental stress, social injustice and branded sportswear, harking back to a pre-industrial golden age that did not actually exist. Never is this alternative future given clear shape or offered up for examination. And anti-globalists have inherited more from Marx besides this. Note the self-righteous anger, the violent rhetoric, the willing resort to actual violence (in response to the “violence” of the other side), the demonisation of big business, the division of the world into exploiters and victims, the contempt for piecemeal reform, the zeal for activism, the impatience with democracy, the disdain for liberal “rights” and “freedoms” , the suspicion of compromise, the presumption of hypocrisy (or childish naivety) in arguments that defend the market order. Anti-globalism has been aptly described as a secular religion. So is Marxism: a creed complete with prophet, sacred texts and the promise of a heaven shrouded in mystery. Marx was not a scientist, as he claimed. He founded a faith. The economic and political systems he inspired are dead or dying. But his religion is a broad church, and lives on. ◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys1.dyndns.org)(xys.3322.org)◇◇