See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281148288

Book Review: Why Marx was Right

ARTICLE in SOCIAL SCIENTIST JANUARY 2013

READS

15

1 AUTHOR:

Paramjit Singh
Panjab University
15 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Paramjit Singh

Retrieved on: 16 February 2016
 Social Scientist

Review
Author(s): Paramjit Singh
Review by: Paramjit Singh
Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 41, No. 7/8, Special issue: The Four Year Undergraduate Programme
in Delhi University (July-August 2013), pp. 105-108
Published by: Social Scientist
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23610491
Accessed: 22-08-2015 12:43 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.246.28 on Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:43:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Book Reviews

strengthened the demand for Pakistan more concretely than ever before. g3
Another theme the author highlights in this chapter is the Maulana's stand- o_
ing within the Congress. There is no doubt that his stature in the party ^
had consistently increased and that he was the leader everyone sought for ^
counsel in matters related to the Muslim community. However, the ques-
<|
tion raised here is how much of his advice regarding the handling of the v>
communal situation was actually followed by the Congress.
The fifth chapter brings to light the growing isolation of Maulana
Azad within the Congress - a party he had faithfully served for most of his

politically active years against the backdrop of the march to freedom and
partition. This, according to Qaiser, was evident in the ways in which the
Congress sidelined his pragmatic advice that the partition could have been
averted if the Congress was ready to arrive at a middle ground that conced
ed some of the demands of the Muslims. The dawn of freedom left Azad a
broken, disillusioned
man, one who 'politically ... did not have a following
in his own community as well as among his countrymen' (p. 265).
The final chapter of the book examines Maulana Azad's contribution
to the newly independent nation as its first Education Minister. Though it
is highly informative and detailed, there seems to be a break in the narra
tive here, if seen in comparison with the way the rest of the book has been
written. The chapter lacks historical analysis, unlike the preceding chapters.
However such an approach is understandable since while tracing the man
ner in which Azad 'strove hard to refashion the educational map of India'

(p. 280), Qaiser has attempted to question assertions that the charge of the
Education portfolio had come as a disappointment to the Maulana.
Based on exhaustive archival research and hitherto unexplored (and
underexplored) Urdu sources, Resisting Colonialism and Communal Politics
is an earnest attempt to analyse and understand the political life and ideas
of one of the most visionary leaders that this country has produced. What
makes it even more significant is the fact that it attempts to do much more
than that. It is a study of the politics of India's independence and of resist
ing communalism, and the various players involved in it.

Isha Dubey is a Doctoral candidate, University of Aarhus, Denmark.

Terry Eagleton, Why Marx Was Right, Yale University Press, New Haven
and London, 2011, hardback, 258 pages, Rs 742.

Is it important to talk about Marx and Marxism nowadays when people are
talking about postmodernism and classless society? Since the last century
or so, orthodox economists and so-called intellectuals have criticised Marx
without making any serious effort to analyse his writings. After the break- 105

This content downloaded from 14.139.246.28 on Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:43:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Social Scientist

down of the Soviet Union, they argued that Marxian analysis and projec
tions were outdated. But the recent financial crisis, followed by a recession,

(/)
has raised questions of the survival of capitalism and, interestingly, a large

5) number of intellectuals and politicians are trying to find solutions in Marx

ian writings. It is in this context that Terry Eagleton (Chair in English Lit
^
^ erature, Department of English and Creative Writing, Lancaster University)
has addressed ten of the most famous criticisms against Marx and Marxism,
in order to clarify some of the misconceptions related to Marxian doctrine.
I Eagleton states that the people who talk about the failure of Marxism
do not have a proper knowledge of the basics of the Marxian doctrine. Marx
himself clearly examined the changing nature of systems - from primitive
^
^ society to capitalism. Eagleton argues that in post-industrial society the
culture of consumerism and growth of services are major economic activi
ties which are a result of the decline of manufacturing profits of capitalists.
;> But the real position at the global level reveals that the working class (both

unorganized and organized) is increasing in number and there is centralisa

tion of capital. In such a situation, claims like, 'the end of history', is rather
irrelevant and unacceptable. The spectacular rise in inequality of income,
wealth and power, and the intensified exploitation under growing capital
ism has strengthened the need for radical change. In such circumstances,
the fundamental ideas of Marx and Marxism are even more relevant.
Marx wrote hardly anything about post-capitalist society. Critics often
refer to socialism's historical experience, viz. terror, tyranny, mass murder,

famine, hardship, etc. They argue about the lack of freedom and material
goods in socialism. Eagleton raises questions about the historical progress
of capitalism in order to critique these formulations. Thus, the historical
as well as present experience of capitalism is not very rosy. Capitalism too
is built on the basis of blood and tears. It is just that it has survived long
enough to make one forget much of its terror, which is not the case with
'Stalinism' and 'Maoism'. It is also important to examine the historical con
ditions that prevailed in the Soviet Union and China during the revolution.
Socialism is not a magic wand and had to coexist with aspects of feudalism
and the lack of capital to build an ideal society. Historical experiences also
make it clear that ideas of revolution, socialism/communism, etc., are not a
product of Marx's work alone. These were born out of various movements,
socio-economic transitions and thinkers, some of whom pre-date Marx.
The other criticism is that Marxism is rooted in a form of determin
ism, that it considers men and women simply as tools of history, and that
Marx believed in iron laws of historical progress as stated in the Communist
Manifesto: 'the history of all the previous existing societies is the history
of class struggles'. But, according to Marx, although class struggle is fun
damental to human history, everything in history is not a matter of class
struggle. Besides, he never saw history in a linear fashion, with each mode
106 of production having to be followed by the next. In fact he always referred

This content downloaded from 14.139.246.28 on Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:43:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Book Reviews

to counter-revolutionary tendencies within a system. Engels remarked that

g*
history moves often in leaps and bounds and along zigzag lines. The Marx- O.
ian theory of history does not claim that changes in modes of production
and development take place in a sequential manner. Though Marx saw <
capitalism as relevant to build socialism, he never meant that historical
^
">
progress was labouring towards this goal.
Critics of Marxism also complain that Marxism is a dream, a utopia.
They claim that Marx overlooked human nature. Marx said that it is our
history, not our nature, that makes us what we are; and since history is all
about change, we can transform, ourselves by altering the historical condi
tions. Contrary to many other thinkers, Marx was hopeful about the future.
Another criticism is that Marxism reduces everything to economics: art, re
ligion, politics, law, war, morality and historical changes are nothing more
than reflections of the world of economics and class struggle. Eagleton ar

gues that the foremost objective of all human beings is to satisfy basic needs,
and there is no civilization without material production. It is historically
proven that material interest has been the prime motive of history from the
primitive communal system to capitalism. It was not only Marx who spoke
of 'economics* as a fundamental force in history, but also other thinkers
such as Rousseau and Adam Smith. What shaped history, in Marx's view,
was class struggle; and classes were never reduced only to economic factors
but also involved the social relations of production, intimately associated
with legal, social, cultural, political and ideological processes.
The charge that Marx was a materialist is perhaps a well-known criti
cism. Marx seems to have favoured materialism over and above spiritual as
pects and religion. Eagleton defends Marx by saying that he did not believe
in abstractions; rather, he believed in concrete analysis of real phenomena.
At the same time, Marx opposed the eighteenth-century materialist phi
losophers who saw human beings as mere mechanical functionaries of the
material world. He stated that men and women are not pawns of history
or matter or spirit, but active, self-determining beings capable of making
their own history. Epoch-making changes in history are largely the result of
material forces, not of ideas or beliefs. In fact, besides being a materialist
thinker, Marx was a rather modern thinker. He wrote on Balzac after fin
ishing Capital. He also proposed to write a book on Ethics. Eagleton argues
that Marx was a true moralist in the tradition of Aristotle. In that tradition

morality meant not only obligation to law and a code of prohibitions, but
how to live in the freest, fullest, most self-fulfilling manner. Morality for
Marx meant enjoying oneself without harming/exploiting others.
Critics argue that the Marxian phenomenon of classes and class strug
gle is a no-longer-relevant, old story. Here Eagleton argues that while class
might change its composition all the time, this does not mean it has van
ished. The proletariat is composed of not only blue-collared and manufac
-
turing workers but a large number of other workers all of whom sell their 107

This content downloaded from 14.139.246.28 on Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:43:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Social Scientist

CO labour power to capital and are capable of forming a united front against
o
(N capitalists. Eagleton quotes Perry Anderson to say that the working class is
*-* estimated to be 3 billion strong, and Mike Davis (in the Plant of Slums) has
oo
D
00 predicted that the slum population of the world will form a majority of the
=3
global urban population soon. If all of them unite to make revolution and
X protest against the capitalist system, it would surely be shaken at its roots.
D Another criticism examined by Eagleton is about Marxism advocating
violent political action and rejecting the course of moderate and peaceful
CO
I reforms. Here he argues that a large number of capitalist crimes (the two
World Wars, colonial exploitation, the Iraq war, etc.) have been far more
o
bloody and brutal than what was witnessed in the Stalin and Mao era. Revo
Z
lution does not necessarily mean violence; it can be non-violent as well.
Choice between reform and revolution depends on the social relations of
production. Marx himself seems to have believed that in countries like Eng
land and the US, socialism could perhaps be achieved by peaceful means.
After all he never dismissed the parliamentary system and social reforms.
Eagleton also examines the criticism about Marxism believing in the
existence of a powerful state, which would end individual freedom. How
ever, he stresses, in reality Marx was an implacable opponent of the state.
He famously looked forward to a time when it would wither away. Thus,
although there would still be a state under socialism, beyond socialism, in
communism, the state would disappear and give way to decentralized and
representative administrative bodies at various levels. He criticized the state

which protected the interests of the minority (viz. capitalists) at the cost of
majority (i.e. the working class). Critics have also opposed Marx's idea of
'the dictatorship of the proletariat'. But for Marx the state under commu
nism was based on the 'self-governed' Paris Commune of 1871.
The reader is also told about claims that new movements such as femi
nism, environmentalism, gay and ethnic politics, animal rights, anti-global
isation and peace movements represent a new form of political activism, as
opposed to the antiquated Marxian commitment to class struggle. Eagleton
questions the newness of these social movements, arguing that they are not
new at all. These have been taken over from a class-obsessed, anti-pluralist
Marxism that has worked in alliance with these movements for a consider
able time in history. Alongside, Eagleton is appreciative about the alliances
formed in these movements that would be fruitful for future struggles.

Terry Eagleton has done a wonderful job in so far as clearing some mis
conceptions regarding Marx and Marxism is concerned. His style of writing
is highly readable. The chapter on materialism is perhaps the best chapter in
the book. His analysis is however purely theoretical and there is an absence
of empirical data, especially missed in the chapter on economic aspects.

Paramjit Singh is Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Univer

108 sity College, Patiala.

This content downloaded from 14.139.246.28 on Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:43:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions