Why MAGA Folks Should Read Marx
Category: Op/Ed
Via: dig • one month ago • 84 commentsBy: Jacob Berger - The Wall Street Journal via MSN
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised to reform higher education, which he claims has “become dominated by Marxist Maniacs and lunatics.” As president, he is working to staff his administration with advisers to the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 , which takes aim at a “woke-dominated system of public schools and universities” led by “Marxist academics.”
But I teach the works of Karl Marx at a college in rural Pennsylvania, and I have a modest suggestion. Rather than targeting Marxists, maybe the folks who voted for Trump should read some Marx instead. The MAGA coalition might be surprised to discover how much their values overlap with his. And with the recent publication of a new landmark translation of the first volume of his masterpiece, “Capital,” there has never been a better time to see the great architect of communist thinking in a new light.
On the surface, the 19th-century philosopher and 21st-century conservatives seem to hold opposing worldviews. While Marx marvels at the free market as the greatest engine of development the world has known, he argues that capitalism inevitably fails to guarantee a good life to hardworking people. The American right, on the other hand, has long championed free enterprise, viewing any intrusion by government into business as a menace.
In the Trump era, however, the ideological divide isn’t so straightforward. Both Marx and today’s populists aim to harness similar instincts to empower ordinary people. Of course, no mainstream politician seriously entertains Marx’s proposal for the abolition of private property in favor of public or collective ownership of the means of production. But a growing movement in the GOP, led by Vice President JD Vance among others, is deeply critical of certain features of capitalism. These economic populists propose policies such as an increased minimum wage, tougher enforcement of antitrust measures and limits on foreign investment.
Still, given the history of murderous communist regimes like Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, it is tempting to infer that Marx encouraged tyranny. But Marx did not advocate violence or political repression, and he would be appalled by the atrocities committed in his name. He pressed for revolution, but he envisioned that the ideal transition from capitalism to communism would be peaceful and democratic, like the Velvet Revolution that freed Czechoslovakia from Soviet rule in 1989.
Many conservative pundits and politicians use the expressions “Marxist” or “communist” as catchall insults for whatever they regard as contemptible. Some recent attacks target so-called cultural Marxism, presuming that the philosopher paved the way for liberal or woke policies. But Marx wrote little about identity issues, even if certain writers who claim inspiration from him put them front and center. His focus was primarily on economic class, and his critique of capitalism was based on values close to the hearts of Trump supporters.
When I ask my students to name the most significant conservative concern, they invariably say “freedom.” It’s ranked first, for example, on Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s list of conservative principles. Marx too valued freedom, and he argued that the only way to ensure genuine personal liberty is to release human beings from the crushing demands of capitalism.
How can we enjoy life to the fullest, devote ourselves to family or pursue our dreams if we’re financially insecure and compelled to spend most of our time at work? Some of the pioneers of the new right-wing economic populism are similarly alert to the demanding and limiting nature of capitalism, though they are at pains to avoid mentioning Marx in a positive way.
Crucially, Marx argues that capitalism is not only restrictive but fundamentally exploitative. He shows that the profit motive encourages owners and managers, consciously or not, to squeeze labor and drive down wages. This dynamic has been the prime factor in the export of American manufacturing jobs to countries where workers can be paid much less.
But exploitation takes place in professional contexts as well. If you’ve ever been asked to stay on at work for an extra hour without pay, or take on the responsibilities of someone who’s just left the company with no raise in salary, you know what Marx was talking about. In this way, capitalism undermines the conservative value of fair pay for honest work.
The consequence, Marx observes, is a system that slowly but inexorably consolidates wealth and control in the hands of a small minority. Today that group includes almost 3,000 billionaires worldwide. Conservatives, too, worry about concentration of power in the hands of elites. Marx would argue that the right has simply been focusing on the wrong elites.
Despite Trump’s populist message, his cabinet is already shaping up to be the wealthiest of all time. And it seeks to weaken the government’s ability to rein in industry through efforts such as the Department of Government Efficiency, co-led by the richest man in the world, Elon Musk. Such appointments show that, under capitalism, it is not the government that regulates capital, but the other way around.
Marx’s alternative, communism, is often assumed to require a massive enlargement of government. But public ownership needn’t mean centralized control. Communism is, after all, about communities—the kind whose disintegration Vance laments in his memoir “Hillbilly Elegy.” Marx thought that the people must collectively oversee their own destinies on a local level, not through an agenda forced upon them by federal bureaucrats or the leaders of major corporations (or, for that matter, a Politburo). Sounds like a conservative’s dream, no?
Marx never provided a detailed proposal for an alternative to capitalism, to some readers’ chagrin. But that’s in part because he thought the structure of society is up to the people to decide democratically. Whatever direction we might take, reading Marx helps us better understand our situation and opens new ways of thinking about the future we truly want.
The reason conservatives hate so-called cultural Marxism is that it seems to enforce a kind of groupthink that stifles free thought and debate. But that is just what’s happening with Marx. If they would only give him a chance, populists might find an ally they didn’t know they needed.
***
Jacob Berger is a professor of philosophy at Lycoming College in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Tags
Who is online
45 visitors
I've been thinking about posting a notice about that, the first new English translation in 50 years. Reviews say it's great, with some phrasing that apparently better captures the original German.
Anyhoo...
I wonder what percentage of people who use "Marxist" as a pejorative have ever attempted a serious reading of Marx, especially Capital?
Hard to say about 'attempt', but it is easy to conclude that those who use it as a pejorative almost certainly do not understand what Marx wrote. That they invariably have a superficial understanding based largely on slogans and propaganda and stubbornly stick to their beliefs no matter what information has been offered to them.
The very idea of MAGA folks seriously, objectively studying Marx makes me laugh.
Me too, I suppose.
It's a shame though, considering how many things about our current situation fit so well with Marx's critique, especially the class dynamics, and how the economy was one of the main reasons people gave for voting for Trump.
The recorded first use of term Cultural Marxism came from a post on the now defunct white nationalist website, Stormfront. From there it spread through alt+right conservatives until it found itself in their dictionary on conservapedia.
gee, go figure ...
I wasn't aware of that. Not surprising at all.
Lol. The irony. Look up Frederic Jameson for one. He was described as a cultural marxist (he was) before Al Gore even invented the internet.
Here's one. Theses on Cultural Marxism published by Duke University in 1983
https://www. jstor .org /stable/466452
Plenty more where that came from...
Including this... Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
I've never paid much attention to the term. Always sounded loony.
another maga label created to seemingly give validity to absolute bullshit ...
Why? It was adopted by the very people who specialized in marxist critical theory. The term was used within left wing academic circles to describe members of the Frankfurt School. Only once it started being criticized outside the left wing bubble did proponents shy away from it and start inventing conspiracy theories about it's provenance, like claiming it was invented on Stormfront.
I have no idea why this denial is so popular on the left. One of the last times Marx came up on this site I was called a liar and such for pointing out that Marxist interpretive theory dominated the academic study of history for decades in universities by one of the people mocking the right for not reading Marx. They claimed, with the usual 10 upvotes from ignorant followers that marxist histography didn't exist.
It'd be great if the left actually read and understood marx and marxist interpretative theory before recommending anyone else read it. Identifying Lenin, Stalin and company as marxists, is the first baby step and many on the left are so ignorant about Marxism they can't even do that.
You continue to make this demonstrably false claim that Lenin, Stalin, et.al. were Marxists (i.e. they followed the principles and framework of Marx) while ignoring that they largely used Marxist language and promises while implementing a system Marx would not have recognized. Lenin, Stalin, et. al. considered themselves Marxists but they immediately rolled their own systems which violated Marx (Lenin tried to be orthodox but quickly abandoned it; Stalin never tried).
One can self-label 'Marxist', but if one implements a system based on an authoritarian state wherein the workers do NOT have economic freedom, where they do NOT democratically control the means of production and distribution, where they are forced to work in oppressive conditions at poverty levels while party members exist as a political/economic bourgeoisie then you have implemented the opposite of Marxism. And one might even be so deluded as to think this is Marxism and use Marxist labels, but delusion and propaganda does not change the harsh reality that the system was the opposite of what Marx described.
To wit, Stalin (in particular) created a political/economic bourgeoisie which dominated the proletariat. Claiming this is Marxism is beyond absurd.
This is the problem with NT. You have people making asinine claims like "Lenin wasn't a marxist" and clinging to them in the face of all evidence and reason. I've wasted enough time explaining it. If you want to persist in ignorance, there's nothing more I can do.
You have just illustrated the problem. You ignore what is written and then pretend it is the fault of the other person.
Read this:
You either intentionally misrepresent or do a poor job of reading what people write. Which is it?
You ignore what is written
Who wrote this then?
"You continue to make this demonstrably false claim that Lenin, Stalin, et.al. were Marxists"
You can't even characterize your own words correctly. It's impossible to discuss anything when you won't even admit to what you wrote.
This is just slimy. Read the entire post instead of cherry-picking part of a sentence and ignoring the balance (which establishes the actual meaning). If you actually held true to what I wrote it would be clear that I am making the distinction between being a genuine Marxist (following what Marx wrote) versus merely identifying as a Marxist and doing the exact opposite of what Marx proposed.
I am stating, quite clearly, that Lenin and Stalin might have believed they were Marxists but they were not Marxist in deed because they did not provide the proletariat with democratic control over the means of production / distribution but instead created a political/economic bourgeoisie which dominated the proletariat.
Cherry picking part of a sentence and ignoring the balance of the sentence and the post itself is blatant misrepresentation. So it would seem that the answer to my question of "which is it" is that you intentionally misrepresent what I wrote.
What's slimy is claiming I "ignore what it is written" when I rely on your writing "You continue to make this demonstrably false claim that Lenin, Stalin, et.al. were Marxists" to mean you believe Lenin wasn't a Marxist.
Even worse now ... you double down on your slimy act of cherry-picking not just part of a post, but part of a sentence.
You obviously cannot put forth an actual rebuttal so instead we see this blatant dishonesty (yet again).
SO you admit Lenin and Stalin were marxists?
Totally separate discussion but after nearly 50 years in the business world. From ditch digger to union plumber/pipe fitter to practicing mechanical engineer to the last 30+ year co-owning a mechanical contracting company and I scoff at the concept that a random “proletariat” will successfully and fairly control the means of production and distribution.
This is based on experience and not something I read in a book or a site like NTers.
There are people willing to work hard but more that are not willing to work hard. Satisfied to let others carry their water for them if they will.
Yeah, the proletariat …..
Pathetic.
You are correct to note that this is not what we are talking about. As I noted:
I too have serious doubt that Marx' vision is workable exactly as he described. Right off the bat, the transition from a highly mature Capitalist system crumbling under its own weight and having the proletariat rise up (in a revolutionary fashion) and seize control over industry is quite far-fetched. The idea of something like direct democracy is clearly unworkable. But a hierarchic system based on indirect democracy in the political world AND in the workplace is certainly NOT far-fetched.
But this is not about a random proletariat but rather a democratic collective. The idea that some future society could have a more democratic system of managing the economy is certainly within reason. It is not with our current culture and mindset, but it is flawed reasoning to presume that Capitalism will never be replaced (or substantially evolve) with a different system — even one that addresses the fundamental problem of class disparity driven by leveraged private minority ownership of the MoP/MoD.
We can see elements of this today with workplace democracy / unionization / employee-ownership / profit-sharing / ... There are entire corporations built on principles like this. It is certainly not beyond reason to see an economy based on organizations owned and operated by the employees as the dominant model. By the same token it is not unreasonable to see a federated system of resource sharing where the MoP/MoD are collectively owned and leased to enterprises competing in a free market. Plenty of scenarios and if we do not restrict ourselves to present conditions with some arbitrary time limit, they are quite feasible.
Pathetic.
Do you really not understand your own words? This is your premise: "You continue to make this demonstrably false claim that Lenin, Stalin, et.al. were Marxists". Everything that follows is argument trying to support that premise. So a good faith reader will assume you mean what your premise stated and can summarize your premise as "Lenin wasn't a marxist" accordingly.
If you believe Lenin was a marxist, you really need to work on your phrasing. I would suggest "Lenin and Stalin were Marxists, but deviated from what I believe to be marxist orthodoxy in the following ways:" Because the way the english language works, calling a statement "demonstrably false" implies that you do, in fact, believe the claim is false.
You continue to engage in blatant dishonesty by cherry-picking part of a sentence and ignoring not only the balance of my sentence but my entire post and even my collective posts where I have repeatedly illustrated your refusal to acknowledge what I wrote.
You engage in this blatant dishonesty and then come onto this article and whine that you were falsely accused of being dishonest for exactly what you are doing now.
Pathetic.
Yeah I know I’m right that it was not what was being discussed. That why I i pointed it out at the beginning of my comment.
More pie in the sky dreaming. Again, coming up with a “democratic collective” that could get anything done that would be successful and fair, without exerting undue pressure on the proletariat it is supposedly managing, is crazy talk in todays world.
If I had a nickel for every employee who was trying to scam the rest of his/her proletariat by doing less work and expecting the same or better pay, I would have retired years earlier.
Yeah sure, anything is possible in the future. “Beam me up Scotty” is a long way away though ….. if ever.
You are complaining that I acknowledged your upfront qualification??
And now you too engage in the bullshit practice of ignoring what was written:
It is right there yet you argue as if I had not written these words.
Arguing a point that was never made. In short, another strawman from you.
Specifically, the way the right uses the term is what I meant by loony.
Looking at culture through Marxist lenses like class and relations to the means of production has long been a thing, but it's obvious from your post that that's not what you're talking about.
Here. Read this...
Who’s Afraid of the Frankfurt School? “Cultural Marxism” as an Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory
Don't bother replying without at least reading the introduction.
Also, if you skipped it... Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
That's what you seem to be talking about, the way you seem to be using the term. It's right wing nut job shit.
OMFG. Dunning Kruger much?
Listen, what the Soviet Union ended up with – a command economy planned by a very tiny percentage of the population in Gosplan, with everyone under the rule of a brutal totalitarian state – is not, by any stretch of the imagination, what Marx had in mind.
In no way did Marx suggest that a solution to the problems of capitalism would be to replace it with an even more oppressive system, with even smaller number of economic overlords directing and exploiting the labor of the masses. That makes zero sense.
For emphasis.
It's not crazy at all. It's been developing in the modern world for decades, especially in places like the Basque region of Spain and several regions of Italy.
Here's the Wikipedia page for the largest group of cooperatives in the Basque country – Mondragon Corporation, and here's their website – MONDRAGON
Here's a paper from just last year about cooperatives in Italy – The Development Of The Cooperative Movement In Italy (expand the text window there to read it), and here's an article focusing on Emilia Romagna – The Italian Region Where Co-ops Produce a Third of Its GDP.
***
Just for some general "democratic collective" info, the following is from Mondragon's website:
MONDRAGON’s Principles
1. Open Membership - MONDRAGON is open to anyone who accepts our Principles.
2. Democratic organisation - A one person, one vote system for election of the cooperative’s governing bodies and for deciding on the most important issues.
3. Sovereignty of Labour - Profit is allocated on the basis of the work contributed by each member in order to achieve this profit.
4. Instrumental and subordinated nature of capital - The capital factor is a necessary resource, but it does not confer the right to vote and its stake in the profit is limited and subordinated to labour.
5. Participation in the management - People’s responsible involvement in managing the business.
6. Wage solidarity - In accordance with the cooperative’s real possibilities, and equitable at an internal and external level and for MONDRAGON.
7. Inter-cooperation - As a mechanism for solidarity between cooperatives and business efficiency.
8. Social transformation - Commitment to the supportive, sustainable development of our local area.
9. Universality - In solidarity with the promoters of economic democracy within the context of the Social Economy, fully embracing the goals of the international cooperative movement.
10. Education - Promoting people and the cooperative culture, allocating human and financial resources to the cooperative and professional education of the members and of young people in general.
I wasn’t complaining. Simply pointing out the obvious. You made it a point to point out what I already pointed out, which I thought was …. Interesting.
Not bullshit but you are entitled to your opinion
My comment stands as written. “Democratic Collective” is nothing more than an oxymoron in todays polarized world.
Not a strawman but again, you are entitled to your opinion
Aren’t you late for class?
I will remember to not bother to acknowledge your qualifications in the future.
We know, Sparty. That platitude occurs whenever you have no rebuttal.
Still not interested in your opinions but again, you are more than welcome to them.
I've got some deja vu going on here. This reminds me of Newsvine.
Same brick wall result, too.
Opinions are pesky that way when you’re not in a complete echo chamber.
Oh and mentioning that other place here is verboten. Or at least that is what I’ve been told.
What are you even talking about? I don't think I've offered you an opinion in this thread. Worker-owned cooperatives (democratic workplaces) exist and account for large amounts of economic activity around the world.
That’s interesting.
How could you make that comment without having an opinion?
... okay, see you in church.
So that’s what started the fires in Cali?
You went to church?
I'll go with you. I'll wear my best hat
[deleted][✘]
... an $80 maga hat, that was made in china?
Oh hell no...my purple camouflage fishing hat
my fishing visor is under about 400 feet of water with a mepps spinner stuck in it. I turned my head while going 30+ mph on the water in my boat 10 years ago and it flew off and sunk ...
maga socialism = let the poor and middle class pay all the taxes while the wealthy skate as the alleged "job creators" ...
Yeah, it seems that way.
A more rounded understanding of capitalism among the base (one that includes analytical criticisms of it) might help with that. But that's a tough row to hoe, considering the knee-jerk reaction to anything 'Marx' that's so prevalent among them, not to mention the seeming rejection of academic-style critical thinking.
We can't have any of that!
What if some really genius person reworked Marxism, called it something else, then presented it to the populists?
... trumpists, trumpunism, trumponomics?
there ya go
Thing is, concepts such as cooperatives are an aspect of Marxism. The central idea of Marx was to empower the proletariat (the working class) to ensure that they are ultimately in control of their economy. The key principles were democracy, politically and in the workplace, and sharing of the means of production and distribution (versus a tiny minority owning and controlling same and leveraging this to extract profit and expand to control even more of the the MoP/MoD).
While much of Marx is IMO unworkable, there are key aspects that have proven true. One of these is commonly expressed in the phrase "the rich get richer ...". Just look at the ridiculous imbalance in the world when one guy (Musk) controls $422 billion while billions of people on the planet live "paycheck to paycheck" (and many worse). And while I credit Musk with brains, initiative, energy, etc. and believe that he most definitely should be very prosperous, the disparity we see is insane. And that disparity is what Marx described as the most critical negative of Capitalism:
So employee ownership, profit-sharing, unions, etc. are all consistent with the principles of Marx. But none of these address Marx' main critique of Capitalism and one can only wonder if there is a point where the disparity is so great that Capitalism itself fails (Marx' key prediction). Likely not in our lifetimes, but it is easy enough to see that this criticism by Marx (of gross disparity that continues to grow) is true today.
the problem with capitalism is that the wealthy can afford to make the playing field advantageous only to themselves by purchasing legislators that will create laws to protect them.
A key problem. And it is not limited to Capitalism since this has been going on since the inception of society. But it certainly is in full gear in our nation today.
idealism always seems to disregard the critical weaknesses of humans ...
More left wing bullshit. Here’s the reality.
Now since reality has called. Don’t hang up. Learn it, absorb it [deleted][✘]
Pretty sure he was being facetious about the idea of "MAGA Socialism."
lol ….. sure he was ….
It's right there... "maga socialism ="
Get the humor? Trump's administration is shaping up to be the wealthiest in history, with more billionaires in line for confirmation than ever before. The attendees at his special indoor inauguration in the Capitol Rotunda topped $1 trillion in combined wealth. For perspective, only 19 of the 195 countries in the world have entire GDPs of $1 trillion or more.
And with Musk, the richest guy in the world, claiming he'll cut $2 trillion (or even just $1 trillion) from the budget, on top of Trump's promise of more tax cuts on the way, which class interest do you suppose this administration will primarily be looking out for? The little guy's?
[deleted][✘]
Humor my ass. My response stands. Because it’s reality.
No amount of attempted gaslighting will change that.
Gaslighting? It's right up there where you can see it with your own eyes.
Or are you arguing that "MAGA Socialism" is actually a real thing, and he described it wrongly?
hilarious.
An immediate litmus test to see if someone has even the slightest idea of Marx' views is to ask if Marx was a proponent of authoritative, anti-democratic state rule where the people have no economic/political power.
Yup. It's rather sad how many fail, isn't it?
default invective of the non-critical thinkers ...
An even better one is to ask if someone believes Marx wasn't already completely obsolete before his acolytes Lenin, Stalin and co. made him famous and created the cult that surrounds him.
Marx was never an important economist. Ask Keynes. It's no surprise this was written by a Philosophy professor.
True, considering he was always in the heterodox camp. And yet, his work somehow managed to shake much of the 20th Century to its core. Granted, a maligned and wrong interpretation of his work, but still.
Yeah, who needs all that thinkin' and book learnin' stuff. Bleh!
An odd litmus test for whether someone understands Marx’ views.
they're only interested in the lessons from one book, and they get those wrong repeatedly ...
No, he was not. Stalinism/communism did not in any real way represent the views of Marx
Indeed, it was the opposite. Instead of the workers having democratic control over the economy, they were worked to death in poverty by a cruel dictator.
But Stalin used Marxist words and offered Marxist promises: democracy, collective ownership, etc.
And the non-thinking amongst us think that because Stalin called it "communism" that that''s what communism and Marxism truly is.
That's why I throw my hands up in the air with these people
Stalin ruined the name forever
Dig, they can read Marx but understanding it is quite different.
Marx is boring and economics is dull. I'm not sure anyone of them actually read it.
Nor do they want to IMO. It is simply a game. They have their pejorative and that is all that matters.
I wouldn't say that. Marx wasn't a bad writer, and Capital has some fairly entertaining parts with lots of historical and literary references.
I suppose interest matters as well. If a person is genuinely curious about something, they're more likely to expend effort on it.
One key complaint I have had with Marx is his verbosity. Much of the material is dry and I was constantly waving my hand for him to just move along.
I suppose those who were trying to implement Marx' theories would better appreciate the minutia and laborious presentation, but I was more interested in the concepts and justification of same.
Yeah, a lot things are drawn out and tedious, but that seems to be par for the course with old political economy books. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, for instance, could be sold as a sleep aid, lol.
we used to call that excess info talking the buyer out of the sale ...
That's my biggest complaint.
you can apply that to almost anything they discuss here ...
Wait one doggone minute. We've been told for the last four years that MAGA has been reading Mien Kampf. Now we're told MAGA should be following the other German extreme of social engineering espoused in Das Kapital. Those Germans really knew how to fuck up a society, didn't they? And, naturally, liberals want to gaslight and scapegoat others for their failed attempts to fuck up US society.
You know, if we stop trying to force the US into following the extremes of German social engineering then we might have a chance at building a viable future.
The suggestion is just that they read it. Maybe that would reduce the level of stupidity on the matter.
And Capital isn't about social engineering, it's an economics book, "a critique of political economy." Marx didn't write much at all about what to do instead, not in specific detail anyway.