Does Marxism Fail Because It’s Misunderstood and Misapplied?

Note: originally published in Appendix B of Modern Marxism: A Guide for Christians in a Woke New World.

Objection 3: “Critics of Marxist and neo-Marxist writings just misunderstand these writings.”

Claim:

People who critically cite Marxists or neo-Marxists tend to take quotes out of context, misunderstand the sources, or simply can’t understand. This inability to understand may result from having “false consciousness” (thinking society is fine as it is), or from being an oppressor who cannot know the lived experience of the oppressed. For such reasons, critics of Marxism and neo-Marxism are generally wrong, despite their efforts to provide primary source documentation.

Quick answer:

As ambassadors for Jesus, who is the Truth (John 14:6), Christians are called to love the truth, to represent Christ well, and to practice “sound speech that cannot be condemned” (Titus 2:8). So, while unfortunately not everyone applies these standards consistently, Christian commentators on Marxism must strive to explain Marxist and neo-Marxist writings as accurately as possible.1 This is not always easy, as these writings can be ambiguous, opaque, and tricky to pin down. Nearly two centuries after Marx lived, scholars of Marxism continue debating the details of what Marx himself believed—let alone, different neo-Marxists. Despite these difficulties, maximum accuracy remains the goal.

Striving for accuracy requires taking time to seek sufficient familiarity with the other persons’ views. Doing so involves both examining the original sources’ writings and, as necessary, reading other scholars’ interpretations of these writings. Mistakes are always still possible, but that’s where careful footnotes provide accountability. Quotations of longer works can only include so much of the original text in a limited space, but footnotes enable readers to verify the full quotes in their original contexts. If the quotes can be validly interpreted in multiple ways, or if other writings shed important light on the quotes, then thorough footnotes will include this information if it’s available. Critiques that demonstrate a rigorous pursuit of accuracy, transparency, and verifiability by applying such standards are more difficult to summarily dismiss.

Instead of functioning as persuasive arguments, each of these claims (and the glasses required to agree with them) must simply be accepted as a matter of faith.2

What about the claims that people who disagree with Marxist writings (despite careful reading) still inevitably (1) misinterpret them, (2) have “false consciousness,” or (3) simply cannot understand? The first claim implies the Marxist writers really mean something different from what they seem to mean, and only their followers can understand. The second and third claims likewise suggest that only people who already wear Marxist worldview “glasses” are enlightened enough not to critique Marxist perspectives. Instead of functioning as persuasive arguments, each of these claims (and the glasses required to agree with them) must simply be accepted as a matter of faith.2

Objection 4: “Marx was right in many ways, but his ideas have just been misapplied.”

Claim:

Marx’s core ideas were correct. The problem is that nobody has managed to implement these ideas in the right way to fully liberate society. For instance, nations that attempted communist revolutions in the past were not mature capitalistic societies ready for the kind of revolution Marx envisioned. Many other factors can help explain the problems of historical attempts at communism: the leaders too flawed, the regime’s power too concentrated, the people too undermotivated, the technology too undeveloped…. With a few tweaks, and given today’s technological powers, we could make a communist utopia work.

Quick answer:

It’s true that Marx made some perceptive observations. For instance, he drew attention to the destructiveness of greed, the significance of material realities, and the problems of exploitative working conditions during the Industrial Revolution.3 It’s also true that communist revolutions never played out the way Marx predicted. These revolutions didn’t happen in developed capitalist societies; they didn’t move beyond dictatorships, and they didn’t liberate humanity—in fact, they precipitated the deaths of untold millions.4

Does all this mean Marx’s ideas were simply misapplied? Or are these ideas—and their spinoffs—inherently flawed? In answer, Marx’s beliefs contained deep internal flaws on two levels: faulty economic assumptions and faulty worldview beliefs. As chapter 2 noted,

Regarding the first set of mistakes, Marx seemed to incorrectly assume history must progress along a certain path set by socioeconomic conditions. He ignored that many problems with Industrial Revolution capitalism are not necessarily built into all free market systems. And he overestimated how motivated real people would be to contribute to a collectivist society without directly getting much back for themselves in return.5

Law professor Ilya Somin has outlined a number of further problems with communist systems.6 For instance, a lack of free markets leaves workers with “little incentive” to diligently produce goods suited to consumer needs, which market prices normally help producers to determine.7 Somin also argued that even communist states which try to be democratic don’t sustain democracy for long, due to the inevitable suppression of other political parties. Worse, as chapter 2 of this book explained,

But even more significant was Marx’s shaky worldview foundation. Rejecting God’s Word left Marx with a wrong view of humanity’s nature, core problem, and redemptive hope. He mistakenly looked at real Industrial Revolution-era problems through the lens of this faulty worldview and proposed the wrong solutions.

There is no right way to build a society on a flawed foundation.

There is no right way to build a society on a flawed foundation. A repeatedly attempted construction project that always starts with a faulty foundation will fail every time—easily harming people in the process. We must learn from history and build on a foundation of truth, the authority for which is our Creator’s Word.8