What is Marxism: Debunking the myths surrounding this ideology.

You might have heard a certain former president call a political opponent a 'Marxist,' or a popular commentator warn about the 'evil' of 'post-modern neo-Marxism.' These kinds of accusations get thrown around a lot these days, especially when anxieties about the economy, job security, and political instability are high. But how many of the people making these claims have actually read Marx beyond, maybe, a quick skim of The Communist Manifesto? Probably not many. The truth is, a lot of what we hear about Marx is based on myths and misunderstandings. And in a time when we're facing serious challenges to democracy and economic fairness, understanding his actual ideas – not caricatures of them – is more important than ever. Let's clear up some of the most common misconceptions

1. Marx was actually quite impressed by Capitalism.

yes it's true, Marx didn't just rule capitalism out, he even argued that it was the most productive system ever created. Marx wrote in the communist manifesto "The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together". Here Marx is highlighting capitalisms unprecedented ability to develop overall productive capacity. However, Marx believed that this very productivity contained the seeds of capitalism's destruction, leading to overproduction, economic crises, and ultimately, its replacement by a different system.

It's crucial to understand that while Marx did provide an extensive critic and analysis of capitalism, he did acknowledge some of its achievements in compassion to feudalism. This is also the case for technology where Marx writes "Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones". Pointing out the dynamic nature of capitalism, and the constant need for innovation and change. Marx here is highlighting the difference in dynamism compared to previous societies, something which Marx does not see as an inherently negative aspect of capitalism.

Marx's aim was to understand the inherent internal logic and contradictions within capitalism, contradictions which he believed would lead to the inevitable downfall of the system. But within this analysis, he did recognise the capitalism has played a vital historically progressive role in developing the forces of production. 

2. Marx didn't want to abolish all property.

possibly the most common misrepresentation of Marxist thought, is that Marx wanted to significantly reduce the amount of property people held (even if it required the use of force). Marx was a materialist, who used dialectical material methodology for understanding capitalism, so it doesn't make much sense for a materialist to want to reject this. Marx uses the term property in a very precise way, making distinctions between, property, private property and personal possession. 

For Marx, "property" is not about owning things. Instead, it is the about the fundamental social relations that govern the production and distribution of resources. Property for Marx in general, is defined as those who have access to and control over the means of production, whether it be a factory, land or tools. 

private property is Marx's main focus within capitalism. Here Marx is referring to the private ownership of the means of production. On a wider scale this ownership allows for the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat by extracting surplus value from their labour. For Marx, private property was more than just owning things, it exemplified power relations and formed the basis of dividing people into classes and exploited those who did not own. It is these relations of power and exploitation which Marx argued should be abolished, by the replacement of private property with social ownership, by 'social ownership,' Marx envisioned a system where the means of production were controlled democratically by the workers themselves, not necessarily by a centralised state apparatus.

This is not to be confused with personal possessions. Possessions are things individuals own for their own use and enjoyment and don't necessarily reflect such power relations in a simple sense (although this can be argued). Personal possessions like books, homes, toothbrushes, clothes etc and all necessary and perfectly fine. 

3. Marx believed people were naturally connected to their creations.

Objectification of labour, for Marx is the notion that people have a natural inclination to feel some kind of connection to the things they build, make or create. Whether it's a baker, builder or artist, all these people put a little bit of themselves into what they make. The trouble with capitalism, is that it strips people of this connection because they no longer own what they make, creating a significant disconnection from their product and the labour they put into it. 

Marx writes "First, the fact that labour is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself".

This is a crucial aspect of Marx's work, as he sees this as a sad reflection of  the capitalist system. When people are alienated from the products of their production, they become disenfranchised and apathetic with the system they exist in.  

4. Marx believed in a totalitarian state.

A common misconception peddled by the right is that Marx either believed in or required a totalitarian state. Figures like Peterson claim that Marxism inevitably leads to regimes that suppress individual freedoms and create oppressive states.

Marx was no fan of the state, whilst necessary in some instances, ultimately Marx envisioned a stateless, classless society where the means of production were collectively owned. For Marx it doesn't make much sense to transfer the means of production from the private sector to the government as you still faced with the problems of alienation and exploitation etc. Marx is interested in the passage of history seen through a dialectical lens. The "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is meant to be a temporary phase, a transitional period where the structures of capitalism dismantle and the dynamics of power begin to shift. This is something very different from a permanent dictatorship of the working class.

The state and revolution is a great text to analysis here for understanding what happens after this transitional period. To quote "The proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not at all disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as the aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources, and methods of state power against the exploiters.."

This misconception persists because historical attempts to reinvent society have resulted in authoritarian regimes. The USSR is a prime example, and to be clear 20th communism was a failure, but they also deviated from Marxist thought quite considerably. 

5. Marxism is inherently violent.

It is often spouted that Marx promotes violence, but not just any violence, bloody revolution! This isn't just a justified means for Marx, but the primary means of achieving social change. You can regularly see on panel shows, right wing pundits claiming Marxists want to take your property and wealth by force and as scare mongering technique for their audience. 

In reality, Marx recognised that class struggle was an inherent part of capitalist society due to all the conflicts that arise with class struggle. Marx analysed how this struggle might manifest itself in various forms, one of those being social upheaval. Essentially, Marx basically said, the more you push the proletariat the more angry and disillusioned they will become, this might make the proletariat more likely to turn to violence, but it certainly wasn't advocated or guaranteed. 

The history of some socialist revolutions, often accompanied by violence, has led to this association. However, it's crucial to distinguish between Marx's analysis of social conflict and the actions of specific revolutionary movements, which are influenced by various factors beyond Marxist theory. 

Marx did not advocate violence as the primary or single means of achieving social change. While he acknowledged the potential role of force and studied historical revolutions that were often violent, he didn't explicitly and consistently advocate for bloody revolution as the only path to social change. His primary focus was on analysing the dynamics of capitalism and how they would inevitably lead to its overthrow, with the possibility of violence being one potential outcome of that process.

6. Marx denies individuality in favour of the collective.

This is another common misconception claiming that Marx doesn't care about the individual and is only concerned with collectives, in particular reducing people to members of a class.

While Marx emphasised the importance of economic structures and class relations, he also recognised the role of human consciousness and agency. He believed that individuals are not simply passive recipients of historical forces but active participants in shaping their own lives and society. The concept of "class consciousness" highlights how individuals can become aware of their position within the class system and act collectively to change it. Class consciousness emphasises the individual as it provides a framework to understand their situation and act collectively to change it.

Some interpretations of Marxism have been criticized for overemphasising structural factors and neglecting individual choices. However, Marx's work, when read carefully, reveals a much more nuanced understanding of the interplay between structure and agency in historical development

I hope this text has clarified somethings about Marxist thought. It's healthy to be critical, but its important that we get the facts right to begin with. I would encourage everyone to read Marx, not just the simplicities of the communist manifesto but his wider body of work.