Words by: Will Fisher and Sam Garvey
Dear editors of The Mancunion,
A recent article published by the paper, “Marxism is out of place in the modern day”, makes the case that a fractured, atomised society has destroyed the “urban proletariat”, that Marxism has failed to predict the future, and that working class people are simply unable to understand, or even read, Marxist theory. For these reasons, the article declares Marxism dead, and encourages leftists to get with the times.
We have some minor disagreements.
Quick note: the Marxist method analyses contradictions in economic society. It argues that the disparate interests between the owning class and working class in capitalism – lay the groundwork for the next stage of economic development. You don’t need to memorise the collected works of Mao to adopt the Marxist lens; if you can feel a tension between you, earning £10 an hour behind the bar, and your boss, making £200,000 a year from the pints you spend all night pulling, you’re already getting there.
Despite the article trying to make a case for the obsoleteness of Marxist analysis in the modern day, it nonetheless draws on Marxist thought throughout. “The era of the atomised individual” is a concept drawing directly from Marx’s analysis of social alienation, while the proposed war between “all and the one-percent” is just a simplification of the tensions and contradictions in capitalist society that Marx proposed; contradictions that thinkers before him had failed to recognise.
Furthermore, whilst proposing the death of class society, the article nonetheless affirms the existence of a “literal bourgeoisie”, and an opposing “working class”. It was Marx who gave these terms their contemporary meaning and positioned them in dialectical opposition; even among non-Marxist thinkers and perspectives, Marxist analysis is more inescapable and relevant than expected.
While we’re at it, let’s examine a few smaller points.
The assertion that the average person has no time to “fully read the Communist Manifesto” – a pamphlet around 30-40 pages long – is easy to disregard. The implied idea that the theory is too complicated for the proles to understand is demeaning and classist, and disproven by the historic influence these ideas have had on working class movements. Accessible guides and videos are also abundant online for newcomers of every class and strata to be introduced to Marxism.
The lack of “empirical success” of Marxism ignores the sheer number of liberation movements that have rested on its tenets, the socioeconomic success stories of post-revolution Cuba, Burkina Faso and many others, or the continuing Marxist influence in regions like Kerala and China. Even the “[capitalist reforms] towards socialisation” were won because of working-class action, and with the threat of a communist alternative breathing down our states’ necks.
But more to the point, the article’s central thesis – that there is no longer an urban proletariat – is absurd. Look around you. Don’t be silly. Cities run on the proletariat, from insecure gig economy work, to service positions, to even salaried professionals. The “proletariat” class is as alive and dominant as ever – arguably more so, with the diminishing of rural positions and the shrinking of the middle-class.
What is true is that, post neoliberalism, class distinctions diminished in political significance – for a while. The destruction of trade union movements delivered the first blow, removing avenues for workers’ power to be expressed. In the wreckage, the welfare reforms of New Labour, buoyed by expanding economic growth post-privatisation, seemed to be improving the material realities of society at large, apparently without regard for class distinction. The ‘working class’ seemed to dissipate into cultural signifiers and income levels.
But 2008 ripped these illusions apart, and class difference suddenly became a lot more apparent. The working class’ powerlessness, their fundamental difference from the owning class, were laid bare. After crashing the global economy with deregulation, speculation and greed, owners suffered few to no consequences, while governments shelled out billions to protect these “too big to fail” firms. Our taxes went to fund their bailout. Our jobs were lost; their positions were protected. The workers were unquestionably the greatest victims of the crash, and popular anger sprung up across the world in response. Class is back on the menu.
Trust in the establishment disappeared overnight, and we’ve spent the last 15 years seeing what happens when the majority of society despise the system they live in, but don’t have a coherent political program to follow. While industrial action is increasing and socialism is breaking back into the mainstream, a more successful reactionary movement has ridden this same wave, appealing to the same frustrations but directing them against immigrants and other social minorities. No wonder Farage has fought to appear as a working-class hero, despite his deep-rooted allegiance with the bourgeoisie. Far-right demagogues have leeched off of class frustrations, and without a coherent voice on the left to meet them, we have ceded social and political influence to the right.
This is why Marxism is relevant. No other leftist ideology is able to diagnose the contradictions in capitalism, to offer a path towards collective action, or explain why even well-meaning reformists have failed to make meaningful change without accompanying capitalist expansion to supply their welfare states. It explains why our living standards have rapidly declined while banks and corporations declare record profits. Seeing capital concentrate in fewer and fewer hands, watching Musk become a trillionaire while we suffer under austerity, confirms to the masses there exists an Us, and a Them. But Marxism, unlike racist appeals to national identity, or vague statements of “all vs the one-percent”, is able to explain what this difference is, and how to fight it.
Of course, Marxism must be updated as necessary, must take account of current conditions and must be tuned to address the needs of the day. But that is no statement against the Marxist method. If the left keeps ceding ground to the reactionary right, pretending that there’s no class war, no fundamental conflict in society, then we stand no chance against those who rhetorically transform that war into a false, racialised charade.
One last point. Chances are that you derive your income through either your own or your family’s wage labour. You are a number on a spreadsheet to the people who profit from that labour. You’re in this fight too.
Which side are you on?
