The Result of Emily's Poor Memory

Why Marx Was Right

Terry Eagleton

  I have a weird habit of reading a book from the start again sometimes after reading for some time. It helps remind me why I am reading this book and strengthens my understanding of the concepts that the books wanting to bring out. In other words, I have very poor memory. I may have understood the concepts but sometimes I forget what has been mentioned in that book. 

  This week, a lesson of mine was cancelled so I took my time in the library to reread the book from the first line. This time, instead of focusing on how I thought Marxism is unrealistic, I focused on reading how supporters of Marxism, including the writer himself, criticized capitalism and the reasons. 

  Before going into the points related to capitalism, I would like to share a viewpoint that I find interesting from Marxism. It says that, although not intentionally mentioned by Marx, "Marxism reduces everything to economics. ... Art, religion, politics, law, war, morality, historical change: all these are seen in the crudest terms as nothing more than reflections of the economy or class struggle. The true complexity of human affairs is passed over a monochrome vision of history." In the beginning of coming across this claim, I was like "but aren't they correlated? Especially politics religion and economy." But that's the point of reading: it makes you think and question. As I think deeper into this question, I agree more and more to what I have just paraphrased. Everything is indeed a reflection of the economy. Before learning anything about the economic systems, when I came across the names of capitalism and Marxism, they all seemed like political systems to me. Yet, as I learn more, they are all just economic systems to begin with. The economic systems hold the power to affect our daily lives, some political groups even name themselves with names of economic systems, such as the Communist Party in China. In the past I thought of economy nothing more of a subject that I majored in. Apparently I was wrong and that it meant much more than just that. 

  Back to capitalism-related criticism, it claimed capitalism to be forged in blood and tears just as how Marxism was too, but the difference is that capitalism has survived long enough to forget about much of this horror while the case of Stalinism and Maoism happened to be the opposite. Although I talked about the problems of Marxism in the past, both Marxism and capitalism could not promise a certain outcome when implemented. People could only try and imagine the possible outcomes. Yet, people gave capitalism privilege. People said, "Let's wait and see" to capitalism but declined the possibility of Marxism immediately. Marxism did bring a lot of damages to the society in the past, but no one can guarantee it won't get better in the future. Capitalism did not do any less harm in many aspects, such as war, famine, inequality and much more. But people still welcome capitalism into their homes as if they were family. I came up with two possibilities for this situation, either it is that people see capitalism of a higher status than that of Marxism for whatever reason, or it is that people saw the flaws of Marxism with just one look since it was too obvious and just nonsense. For the first possibility, I don't see why we cannot discuss these two systems as equals to begin with; and for the second one, I see the flaws of capitalism too at first sight and yet I do not reject it. Perhaps I am not bright enough to fully understand the cause and effects of historical events on the values and perspectives of people, maybe finishing this book would help a bit.