There are books that everybody knows, that
everybody talks about, and that hardly nobody has read. Such a book is Capital by Karl Marx, or, as the full
title is, Capital: Critique of Political
Economy. This month it is 150 years ago that the book was published. To be
exactly, it was on 24 September 1867 in Berlin. Since then it has been
reprinted many times, till the day of today, Also two volumes have been added,
which came out after Marx’s death and have been prepared by Friedrich Engels
from notes left by Marx. Here, in my study, I have these three volumes in the
original German version. I have bought the books on 22 November 1969, and,
indeed, I haven’t read them. Or hardly, for I started to read volume 1, but
about at page 250 I stopped. Why? I don’t remember, but maybe I found it too
boring or the book was simply too thick. It didn’t have priority and as a
student in sociology I had many other books to read, too. But I found Marx’s
work as such interesting. That was not the problem and I have read many other
works by him (and Engels) as well, which I read till the end, as I usually do
when I buy a book.
Since I didn’t read most of the three
volumes of Capital, I can’t write
about it from first-hand knowledge, so I’ll keep silent about it. Anyway, for
long it has been considered a revolutionary and also dangerous work that
undermined the existing capitalist society. Much of Marx’s Capital relies on the work by the British capitalist economist
David Ricardo (1772-1823), but Marx used Ricardo’s tools for a revolutionary
interpretation of society. However, wasn’t it Marx himself who said
“Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the
point is to change it”? (Marx’s 11th Thesis
on Feuerbach) But Marx was more an interpreter than an organizer, although
just his interpretations show how relevant theory can be for social change.
What was it that Marx wanted to have
changed? Let’s look at the also famous Communist
Manifesto, published by Marx and Engels in 1848 in London. I have read this
little book several times. Somewhere halfway we find a list of ten measures for
the advancement of the position of the “proletariat”. Maybe these measures were
revolutionary in Marx’s time, but now most of them have been realized, although
some are still not acceptable.
Here are some measures proposed in the Manifesto. Measure 2 wants to introduce
a “heavy progressive or graduated income tax”. When Marx and Engels wrote this,
no country had an income tax, but during the First World War (1914-1918) many
European countries introduced such a tax and since then it is seen as just and
correct. About 1980 in the Netherlands the highest tax bracket was as high as
72%! (now it is 52%, still a figure Marx wouldn’t have dreamed of) Measure 3
says “Abolition of all rights of inheritance”. In my country inheritance rights
are undisputed, but inheritances in the second degree and further are heavily
taxed. Measure 6 says “Centralisation of the means of communication and
transport in the hands of the State” and nowadays we see a big influence of the
state on both. A last example: Measure 10 wants “Free education for all
children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its
present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c,
&c.”. Also this demand has already been realized to a great extent if not
fully in Europe and most countries elsewhere in the world (the abolition of
child labour already in 1874 in the Netherlands).
More such measures have been proposed in
other works by Marx and on meetings inspired by Marx’s ideas and ideas
prevailing in the socialist movement of his days. Then they were revolutionary,
now most people think that it is a shame if they haven’t been realized.
Al this happened under the influence of one of the
most important books ever written: Capital
by Karl Marx. But times change and ideas become practice or simply fade away
because better or other ideas pop up. And that’s also why we can now put Capital in the library of history.
However, this doesn’t mean that the book isn’t worth being read any longer.
Books that are no longer relevant in the current situation, still can be
stimulating. Therefore I should yet have to read it, if it had enough priority
for me (but, alas, it hasn’t). However, a book that has become history and has
made history can have so much prestige that other authors decide to use its
title. It’s what the French economist Thomas Piketty did. Almost 150 years
after Marx’s critique on the capitalist society Piketty wrote another
revolutionary though not dangerous book on the same theme and borrowed the
title: Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
Will it be as influential?
No comments:
Post a Comment