Misreading Capital Th E Makings of Weber, Arendt, and Friedman
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Misreading Capital Th e makings of Weber, Arendt, and Friedman Dipankar Gupta Abstract: Marx has been misread primarily because the politicians who, in his name, powered communist regimes popularized a tendentious interpretation of his works. In particular, they justifi ed authoritarianism and violence by empha- sizing the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and the “animal theory of revolution” where the poor get poorer and eventually erupt in a cataclysmic fashion. Instead, if attention had been paid to Marx’s seminal concept—“socially necessary labor”— and his exhortation to win the minds of the working classes by participating in popular movements of the subalterns everywhere, then a new appreciation would emerge of the corpus of Marx’s contributions. As that has not quite happened, scholars like Weber, Arendt, and Friedman have misinterpreted Marx, rather will- fully, and shot into prominence with their fi rst book-length publications. Keywords: animal theory of revolution, socially necessary labor, sociology of knowledge, welfare policies Everybody is misread, even when the reader has broadcast seeding had already started, even in the best of intentions. Th is is an axiomatic truth, his lifetime. Diverse and contending Marxian and it is simply because we interact not only in schools of thought were sprouting everywhere, terms of denotations but also with connota- and this was to be expected. In fact, the greater tions. Consequently, in the social sciences, as the philosopher, scientist, or saint, the larger the in other fi elds, a large part of what we commu- tribe of exegetes they attract. nicate is open to multiple misreading, resulting Interestingly, many have actually made their in a series of misinterpretations. Th ese multiple careers, and distinguished themselves, by chip- interpretations seriously dog most authors, and ping away at pedestals to topple a master. No- the more distinguished you are, the greater the where is this truer than of those who misread chances of being misread and, sometimes, ma- Marx’s ([1867] 1974) Capital, along with his liciously misinterpreted. Not surprisingly, Marx other works, and became famous. Such mis- once famously said, “All I am certain about is interpretations may have been the outcomes that I am not a Marxist.” He may have been defi - of innocent misreading, no more. In this case, nite about the fi eld he was furrowing, but the then, one should consider these serious lapses Focaal—Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 84 (2019): 91–108 © Stichting Focaal and Berghahn Books doi:10.3167/fcl.2019.840106 92 | Dipankar Gupta in professional conduct, no less. More impor- I shall here take three well-known scholars— tantly, it is not as if those Marxist texts they were Max Weber, Hannah Arendt, and Milton Fried- referring to were susceptible of being misread man—to demonstrate my point. Th eir criticism because of lack of clarity and explicitness. As I of Marx did not raise the level of the debate shall try to demonstrate, this is far from true, because all three of them, in diff erent ways, ac- which is why one begins to suspect a tenden- cused Marx of taking positions he never held. tious intent out here. If that were the case, then Yet, they won acclaim from mainstream aca- it is no longer academics but politics in sheep’s demia because they attacked a man who many clothing, or tweeds. Of all the scholars known communist regimes claimed to be their ideo- to humankind, Marx probably suff ered most logical fountainhead. Maligning Marx was thus from such wanton and calculated campaigns. justifi ed because actually existing communisms Typically, this happens most oft en with religious were seen as sponsors of irrational philippics leaders, but among secular heroes, Marx stands and state sponsored violence. Consequently, out. misreading Capital won favor with the right- Hegel misinterpreted Johann Fichte’s dialec- wing and conservative establishments of the tical triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis to day. At that level, the legitimacy and accuracy of proclaim the German state of his time had fi - their observations against Marx did not matter, nally arrived. From this point on, Hegel could so long as he could be damned. Th is is because if calmly suspend the dialectic from going further, Marx were to be undermined, then Bolshevism which was never Fichte’s intention.1 Marx com- and actually existing communisms would have mitted an identical error when he too believed a knee on their necks. Communist regimes were the dialectic, aft er socialism, could be halted. the ultimate hate object, and if they considered Th ere was no attempt, by either of them, to win Marx their god, then that god must fail. praise for discrediting Fichte: they had just read Th ere are probably many who misinterpreted him wrong. It is this mistake, more than any- Marx to their lasting advantage, but here I shall thing, that Marx ([1867 1974) wrote in Capital confi ne myself to Weber, Arendt, and Friedman. that rationalized the domination of dictatorial It is not as if their other works were not note- communists. If communism had pushed his- worthy on their own; they were. However, it is tory to its fi nal glory, then its purveyors had their criticism of Marx, right off the bat, early in to be infallible from the start. As a result, any their careers, that brought them notice and pro- criticism of the “dictators” of the “dictatorship vided recognition to their future productions. of the proletariat” was unthinkable; it was dis- Th ere is a reason behind my choice of Weber, gracing history, even progress. As Hegel, then Arendt, and Friedman. Th ey represent diff erent Marx, turned off the dialectic, their respective specialities—one a sociologist, the other a polit- vanguards saw themselves as history’s ultimate ical thinker, and the third a Chicago economist. representatives and not just its servers. What unites them is that their foundational po- Th is misreading did not discredit Fichte; it sition is anti-Marxism, of a rather facile kind. only made those who knew better tut-tut Hegel Nevertheless, it gave their fi rst works a huge in- and Marx for this rather costly lapse. For those tellectual boost, and it is this early recognition who were not in the know, it mattered little, as that held them in good stead thereaft er. Fichte did not come into the picture at all. Ni- etzsche had admitted philosophers are nearly always misinterpreted, but it all depends on the Why not Keynes? quality of misinterpretation. Should that misin- terpretation enhance the value of thought, Ni- John Maynard Keynes could have been a can- etzsche would welcome it. Th is is, however, not didate for this ignominious parade, but he has the case with some of Marx’s misinterpreters. been kept aside. Th is is because he had made his Misreading Capital | 93 academic mark well before he stooped to take father). A topsy-turvy world then! Th e best Brit- rather low swipes at Marx. Not only did Keynes ish scholars are oft en non-bourgeoisie, and the belittle Marx: he went ahead and insulted other best bourgeoisie are oft en committed commu- religions and peoples, too—those he could ca- nists. Most importantly, one should be wary of sually identify with communists. For example, handing out attributes and acrimony based on in a letter to George Bernard Shaw, Keynes class, religion, and nationality; Keynes faltered (1982: 38) compared Das Kapital to the Koran on all three counts. Tempting though it is, we as examples of wild and woolly thinking. Inter- shall not dwell on Keyes for long because he did estingly, he did not think the Old Testament or not need to calumny Marx to win attention and the Gospel were “dreary and out of date” as he recognition. He must have been looking side- judged the Koran and Capital to be. Not just Is- ways, though, not to notice Marx was really the lam drew Keynes’s (1977: 373) displeasure; he starting point of his own analysis. While Keynes had it in for some other identities, too. In his wrote about how to get out of economic de- view, Bolshevism arose because of the “pecu- pressions, Marx actually pointed out why such liar temperaments of Slavs and Jews.” Keynes phenomena occur. On that fundamental issue, also had his payload of class hubris, which he Keynes did not contest Marx2 but just passed simultaneously released with his religious and him by. Contrast this with the open acceptance cultural bigotry while attacking Marxism: “How of Marx’s falling rate of profi t by Joseph Schum- can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud peter and his many followers.3 to the fi sh, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeois and intelligentsia who, with what- ever faults, are the quality of life and surely carry From anti-revolutionary to anti-Marx the seeds of all human advancement” (quoted in Hardcastle 1967). While Keynes did not need to swing at Marx to Let us stop here just to take stock. Some of make his mark, Weber, Arendt, and Friedman the most refi ned British scholars and poets were kicked off their careers doing just that. Weber’s not of bourgeois background yet were makers starting point was methodological, but as his of what Keynes called the “quality of life.” Very career progressed, the disagreements took on a quickly, across time, one can name Raymond clear political slant. Arendt and Friedman wrote Williams, Alfred Marshall, and John Keats, who provocatively about the dangers of communism were not bourgeois born but raised on bour- and how it curtailed freedom and then traced geois aesthetics and intellectual standards.