Karl Marx


It may be inquired why, in the wide, colourful landscape of 1800’s revolutionaries, actually just Marx could be singled out as a formal representative of the social revenge of the poor, as an icon giving inspiration in the hard, intense process of social change characterizing the world in the last two centuries.
It seems impossible to trivialize or to lessen such a personage, as “100 years after his death, half of the world population was still led by governments inspired by Marxism as basic ideology” (5).
Undoubtedly, Marx had non comparison as for logic, dialectic, erudition; moreover, he was considered despotic, impetuous, passionate, assuredly convinced he was always, anyhow, right; what’s more, gifted with exceptionally sophisticated critical analysis, which enabled him to (verbally) slaughter any opponent or supposed one.
Incredibly brave, he always attacked foremost people and among his favourite targets rulers never were missing; this boldness and inability to compromise, as can be easily imagined, costed him a much harder life as for welfare, almost to endanger his physical survival, and even worse than this for several of his children. Therefore, Marx in many ways made his own life a sacrifice for his believings’ sake.
However, his winning point was the wide theoretical system called “scientific socialism”, based on his firm belief, shared by his followers, that his dialectical view of the class struggle were a totally objective analysis of economy laws which, when clearly appointed, could give scientific previsions of the future; not only, they could also affect the course of history itself, by increasing the rate of a revolutionary process that he considered, anyhow, unavoidable. This because future cannot – in his view – be arbitrary, but must respond in an expected way, if its hidden laws have been understood and studied deeply enough.
From this apparently very strict view stemmed Marx’s contempt for all the socialist/communist/anarchist theorists of the time, because he considered them utopist and sentimental since they didn’t analyze, as he did, the historical process in progress from an exclusively materialistic viewpoint.
Actually, Marx couldn’t admit he was himself deeply animated by his idealistic vision of a classless and exploitmentless new world which would finally ransom man from his chains. He allowed himself to follow this aspiration of his heart just because “historically” unavoidable and “scientifically” demonstrated, therefore not delusory. (And here comes all the persuasion of highly focused men, who consider feelings unreliable, dangerous, finally insubstantial).
Strangely enough, Marx, nowadays totally repudiated by left wingers as an embarrassing memory of past failures, lately has been reconsidered by some of his adversaries, the “mean” capitalist, who cannot but find flattering the passionate, famous description he made of the glorious deeds of this class “the bourgeoisie…revealed the power of human activity. It created pieces of work more admirable than Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts and Gothic cathedrals, it led much more difficult expeditions than migrations of people and crusades.” “Though its class supremacy lasted for only one century, the bourgeoisie generated productive forces more numerous and vast than the ones created by all past generations. Subduing of natural forces, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraph, tilling of whole parts of the earth surface, rivers navigation, whole populations such as they were suddenly born from the earth-which past century could ever imagine that in the womb of social work could be hidden such productive forces? ” (6)
And, far-sightedly, Marx could even foresee the globalization process presently taking place: “The bourgeoisie…made cosmopolite both production and consumption in all countries. (…) Instead of the old-time self-sufficiency and local and national isolation, an universal trade takes place, an universal mutual dependency among nations. And as it happens for the material production, so it does for the intellectual one. The intellectual creations of the individual countries become common heritage. Unilaterality and narrow-mindedness of a nation become more and more impossible, whereas a world literature develops from the different national and local literatures. ” (6)
This said in an historical time when the process of formation of the individual nations was not concluded yet.
In October 1997 a “New Yorker” ’s special issue declared Marx “the next great thinker”, a man who can teach us much as for political corruption, monopolistic tendencies, alienation, global markets. At least, a great, bright scholar of capitalism.
Courses and recourses of history are really unpredictable!

This page has the following sub pages.