The Racist Karl Marx
The Barnes Review published, in their October 1996 edition, a criticism of Marx and Engels as “anti-black racists.” What followed were a series of quotations which prove this point beyond much doubt. Not only did Marx and Engels believe that Black people were inferior to whites, they upheld slavery as progressive at certain points in history, even in North America. We will not and do not contest the author on these unassailable points; we merely seek to show the deeper relations embedded within this “statement of facts.”
Modern society is built upon social relations which are wholly at odds with its technological capacity. This basic fact results in the myriad social problems we encounter in every facet of society. Our task is therefore, first, to understand these social relations, and second, to grasp the manner in which they may be transformed. This is the world-historical gift which Marx gave to the world: a guide to action. This is the essence of Marxism as a revolutionary doctrine. With this perspective on the world, who could think to waste the precious time they have on discussions of personalities? How dedicated someone is to “the cause,” how far someone was able to purge their thinking of bourgeois ideology, whether someone is patriarchal or racially prejudiced in their thoughts and actions – these are topics of gossip, and as such are not questions worthy of discussion in the tasks of a revolutionary organization. What will we focus on: the method of transforming reality in the interests of anti-imperialism, or the racial prejudices of individuals? Discussions of Marx which rise above useless biographical gossip have long become a literary rarity.
Marx and Engels upheld the racial inferiority of certain races. That is a demonstrable fact. What of it? On this our authors tell us nothing. We would like to inform the authors of this reputable and eminently revolutionary newspaper, to return the favor, that the Volga flows into the Caspian, and that horses eat oats. What wondrous facts!
There is one attempt at a discussion of a meaningful topic, however:
“Virtually every serious study concerned with the economics of employing black slaves in the American South shows, with little room for contradiction, that the importation of free white workers from Europe (skilled and semi-skilled) would have proven far more profitable economically.”
This is all we are told as a refutation of Marx’s view that slavery was an integral component in the development of the United States’ economy. It is clear to all that this is merely a platitude, a hint at a position, in order to give some measure of legitimacy to the real object of this article: to imply that Marx’s theories are merely a set of subjective views which may be regarded as reactionary and therefore worthy of being simply set aside. The reactionary nature of a theory, however, is no argument against it, however much it may seem to us that this is the case. Every proposition must be regarded objectively, concretely, and scientifically. Any deviation from this, such as the deviation exemplified by The Barnes Review, is a deviation towards post-modern thought. The question then passes to the clash between Marxism as a modernism with the movement which succeeded it, an important question, but one exceeding the bounds of this reply.
It is worth noting that white nationalist magazines coming out of Washington DC like The Barnes Review and The National Interest spend time “exposing” Marx like this. The latter is the home of Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis, that saw U.$. imperialism’s global hegemony after the collapse of the Soviet Union as the pinnacle of humyn society, proving the alternatives unworkable. Today the imperialists clearly disagree, as they work to upend the status quo of the United $tates dating back to Fukuyama’s 1989 work. And communists have always disagreed, pointing to the continued heightening of the contradictions within capitalism that Marx elucidated, and the bourgeoisie largely ignores. The early attempts at socialism in the USSR and China were massively successful for decades, with China building on the lessons learned in the USSR. While these early attempts were ultimately overthrown, the proletariat does not give up so quickly.
As for The Barnes Review, their latest issue condemns funding to I$rael and exposes the propaganda around Hamas. So far so good. Then it links all of this to “international Jewry”. While many fascists today support the fascist project of I$rael, The Barnes Review keeps it old school by exposing Marx and the Jews as the source of evil. Here we see how a publication can mix correct conclusions with metaphysical methods of understanding the world. In contrast Marx and Engels, despite having some incorrect conclusions around race, had (and developed) a scientific method of understanding the world that is dialectical materialism, which continues to be a tool for understanding and transforming our world.
Readers of ULK will read many other, less mainstream, publications in their search for answers, for the source of the evil they see in the world. While the I$rael lobby is certainly the enemy of the people, and generally speaking, so is “the white man”, it is the system of imperialism that we must focus our ire at. There is no metaphysical, absolute source of evil; oppression is the product of economic forces that Marx did so much to expose for us. And it is in the resolution of the contradictions of the imperialist system (the contradiction between exploiter and exploited nations, the contradiction between the means of production and the relations of production, etc) that we can build a society without so much unnecessary humyn suffering as ours.
