Marx — A False Prophet
Naked Emperors of Philosophy #4
This essay concludes a series on The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper.
Popper dedicated more ink to his discussion of Karl Marx than to Plato or Hegel because so much of what Marx said actually made sense. He appreciated Marx’s sincere concern for human welfare and brilliant insights into the devastating impact of capitalism. His work deserved credit for these contributions despite the fatal error of his flawed methodology.
As explained in the essay that introduced this series, I am sharing my notes only, in order to present as accurately as possible what Popper said.
Marx was earnest in attempt to right social wrongs but ultimately proved to be a false prophet. His “purely historical” theory offered nothing useful for economic policy.
He taught pragmatism but — like many others in his time — erred in embracing determinism. As noted above, his scientific socialism did not include design of socialist institutions. Rather, it merely assigned roles.
Historicists are mistaken in belief that main task of social science is prophecy. It’s discovery and explanation of dependencies within the social sphere — especially unintended social repercussions of intentional human actions.
Marx’s historicism differs from Hegel in focusing on materialism, not idealism. He saw duality of mind and body and saw limitations to freedom in toiling for biological needs. His goal was to set all men free of this constraint.
The fatal flaw in Marxist thought was neglecting the impact of ideas on freedom, i.e., assuming development of production technology must precede social development. Ironically, the Russian revolution demonstrated that the idea of freedom can bring about social, political, and economic development.
For Marx, class interest replaces Hegel’s national (and ruling class) interest as the cause of historical development. Rulers and workers alike are caught and crushed in a social system beyond their control. Objective roles determine consciousness. Workers, especially, come to believe they will eventually achieve a better world.
Marx envisions the state as an organ of class domination; it enforces rules that perpetuate oppression. What those are and what ends they serve, he doesn’t say. As a consequence of this essentialist view, he concludes that politics are impotent to change economic reality. Even democracy is a dictatorship of the ruling class. Dictatorship of the proletariat marks elimination of classes and disappearance of the state.
We cannot blame Marx for his disdain of legal systems that ignore the deplorable economic reality of his time. He didn’t challenge the system; he held that even a perfect market for labor would be exploitative. Freedom is only possible, he says, via reducing hours of labor for everyone.
History has proven Marx wrong about politics; all states have adopted interventions to prevent unrestrained exploitation. And we have not seen any of them disappear. He was sorely mistaken in thinking economic power makes politics inert. In fact, political power is the key. Marx failed to grasp the paradox of freedom — that the state must limit the strong to protect the weak. Moreover, democracy is the only known device for the people to prevent misuse of state power.
Marx also overlooked the state’s role in protecting wealth — which makes economic power dependent on political power. Money is only dangerous if it can buy the power to enslave others. This makes exploitation a political (not economic) problem. We hold the key, which is constructing institutions that control physical power.
Marxists have been active politically, despite theoretical conflicts, and in doing so ran afoul of another paradox — that of state power. What may accelerate achievement of noble goals today may help one’s enemies turn the state against you tomorrow. Per Popper’s earlier comments on piecemeal vs. utopian social engineering, state interventions should be limited to what is necessary to protect freedom.
Prophecies of revolution and outcome in favor of workers are reasonable. Classless society is not, even by Dialectic logic (antithesis). Most likely is emergence of a new ruling class. No one has shown that socialism is the only alternative to capitalism. In Russia, the state didn’t “wither away,” and everywhere else, laissez-faire has yielded to political interventionism — in many cases, including most of Marx’s own program for the communist revolution. Utopian basis of his theory blinds followers to real progress.
The term “social revolution” is meaningless because Marx failed to specify how it would occur. It is so vague that all we can say is that we will only know it if socialism follows. However, he clearly predicted a violent uprising. Violence is justified in an overthrow of tyranny, but Marx sees it as a revolt against capitalism, which is incompatible with freedom. He doesn’t recognize democratic capitalism as legitimate. Followers discovered compromise that negated his prophecy of a complete overthrow of capitalism and elimination of class struggle. Ambiguity regarding violence implies acceptance of tyranny; the only argument is who rules.
Tactics of ambiguity amount to a threat that induces initiative by the bourgeoisie and may lead to fascism. There are only two forms of government: democracies and tyrannies. The difference is that in the former, the ruled may dismiss the rulers without bloodshed. Marxist tactics put democracy at risk by suggesting it should be overthrown if it doesn’t put the working class in charge. This dismisses the main benefit of democracy, which is to check and balance power. The #1 political question is not who wields power but how and how much.
In short, Marx’s theory is that capitalism destroys itself and leads to socialism. Competition forces accumulation of capital, increases productivity, leading to a surplus of workers, downward pressure on wages, and increasing misery for workers, who eventually revolt.
Exploitation is based on capitalist’s ownership of labor power. Increasing productivity amounts to rent for the capitalist since he only pays for subsistence hours. Injustice is in bargaining power; worker must sell while capitalist can buy labor in large quantities.
Theory of the trade cycle is sound, but Marx did not foresee interventions like unemployment insurance that clearly reduce suffering under capitalism.
Marx was wrong about misery necessarily increasing with capital accumulation. Child labor, working hours, agony and precarity have declined, in large part due to democratic interventions.
Failure of Marx’s prophecy is entirely due to historicism — projection of empirical observations into an unknown and unknowable future. His institutional analysis (trade cycle, surplus population, and class struggle) was good enough to credit his theory despite its shortcomings. What got him in trouble was thinking his ideal society was inevitable.
Ironically, Marx was not a collectivist; his hope was that the state would “wither away.” Fundamentally, he believed in freedom and an open society. He also values actions more than words. Yet he followed Plato and Hegel in becoming a prophet.
What he did not realize is that historicism is immoral because it uses its end to justify its means. His method of sociological determinism relieves man of responsibility for moral choices by making him a product of his society. Although his science was empty, his passionate critique of an unjust social system was all too valid and continues to inspire love of freedom.
