Marxism and Beyond

There is a double paradox in the expression “Karl Marx versus the Communist Movement.” It results from the natural but unfortunate identification of Marx with the multitudinous varieties of Marxism offering their ideological wares today in his name. Currently there are almost as many types and kinds of Marxists in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and even Africa claiming the legacy of Marx as Christian cults professing fidelity to the authentic teachings of Christ. Logically, with respect to both historical figures, although their self-characterized disciples cannot all be right in their doctrinal interpretations, they may very well all be wrong or at least partial and inadequate.

The other kernel of the paradox is that although Marx described the ideal society that was coming on the wings of history as “communist,” Communist societies as they exist everywhere today are in marked variance to the ideals that inspired his social vision and heroic personal commitment. The man who concluded the preface to his magnum opus with a defiant line from Dante, “Follow your own course and let people talk,” would have come to a violent and inglorious end in any Communist country of the world whether it be China, Cuba, or the Soviet Union.

One may protest that freedom as the right and power of the individual to determine his own life may have been Marx’s personal ideal, but that the kind of society he envisaged for the future was one in which such freedom did not exist. His favorite slogan may have been “Doubt everything,” but his classless society of the future was one in which the coordinated activities of its members would make effective doubt and its public expression irrelevant if not dangerous. There are many scholars who are convinced that Marx’s projected ideal of a Communist society was one in which there would be no room for genuine individuality at all. Far from there being a variety of projects among which individuals would be able to choose, society would be ordered in such a way that there would be no more variation among its citizens than among the leaves of a multibranching tree or the bees in a hive. Society would function without dissension or conflict because its members would have been shaped by its institutions to coexist in functional harmony. In other words, the end of history would be a benign totalitarianism in which every person would know his place and no person would be out of place.