GettyImages-157529284__1_.jpg
Alex Potemkin/gettyimages.com

First things first: Marxism is a theory of capitalism. You can think of it this way: There is a theory of the force called gravity. There is also a theory of the force known as a strong force, which holds particles in the nucleus of an atom. The point is that these theories (or hypotheses) are descriptive. They describe the mechanics or characteristics of a phenomenon. Marx attempted to do the same thing with capitalism, which is a cultural phenomenon, and not, like a proton, or the force that holds together two protons, a natural phenomenon. If one is going to criticize Marxism, it should on whether or not its description of capitalism is accurate. He says the nucleus of capitalism is a commodity. Is this correct or not? He says a commodity has a use value and exchange value. Is this indeed the case? Do these and other descriptions fit observations or our day-to-day experiences? Orthodox economists say that value is determined by the desirability of a commodity; Marx says it is determined by the labor that went into it, and how that labor was compensated. Which of these theories is close to reality? That is as much as you can do with Marxism.

The political commentator, and former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, David Frum, recently tweeted that Trump is a Marxist because his "model of the world economy [is] predatory." I have no idea what this means. Indeed, Marx described capitalism's drive for a world market with great admiration in the pamphlet he co-authored with a textile manufacturer named Friedrich Engels. It's called the Communist Manifesto. It can be read within a matter of hours. It was written by young men with long hair. As such, it should be enjoyed in exactly the same way as one enjoys a revolutionary rock album by Jimi Hendrix or The Doors—the Haitian filmmaker Raoul Peck made this point in his film The Young Karl Marx. But what the hell was Frum on about? And why do so many Americans have such confused ideas of Marxism?


The scientific Marx begins in the early 1860s. He had reached his middle years at this point. His goal was now to describe the mechanics of capitalism: how it develops, what it repels, what it attracts, what its motive force is, and what it can become. In the way a neutron can change into proton by the action of the weak force, Marx was certain that capitalism by the action of its contradictions (such as its increasing reliance on constant capital—machines—to cut labor costs) would naturally force it to transform to socialism. Anyone who says Marxism is about anything more than this has not read his books, and particularly his mature theory, which is described in the three-volume work Capital, and also his notebook called Grundrisse.

And so, when speaking of Marxism, we can only ask: Is the theory correct? Does capitalism become socialism by the action of its inherent contradictory forces? Many say no. Capitalism is still around. Nothing has changed from Marx's day to ours. Labor still resists capital; capital still represses labor. Machines (robots) are replacing workers, and so on. But some, such as myself, argue that he was right. Capitalism did become socialism but has somehow managed to continue calling itself capitalism despite deep structural changes that were, certainly, pronounced in the second half of the 20th century.

The capitalism of Marx's times was without a doubt raw and not politically sustainable. In the second half of the 19th century, a series of government interventions were needed to keep it going (parliamentary acts, and so on). But two world wars and a massive market crash in 1929 brought capitalism, as it was known between its 17th-century Dutch moment and its 19th-century British one, to an end. American capitalism has been directed by socialist policies and a big government for its entire period of dominance (1947 to 2016).

Even during the neoliberal period (beginning in 1971 and ending on 2008), it still maintained what is known as Keynesian militarism (or military socialism) at an unprecedented scale, and the government did not leave markets alone but became central to their functioning. Without massive injections of public funds, the stock markets in the US would have died in the 1980s with the savings and loan crisis. What Marx did not see was the many forms that socialism could take.

In part, it did improve the lives of many white working-class people in the US, but socialism also became the way banks could remain capitalistic despite being obviously nationalized (what else does "too big to fail" mean?). The prediction of the transition of capitalism to socialism was correct, but what was needed was a better or deeper theory of the potential dynamics or transformations or becomings of socialism.