Twitteretter

Still on Marxism, Groucho did, like his homonym, cast a critical eye on the weaknesses of our system. His at first sight strange statements were, on further consideration, profound, iconoclastic and eminently sensible. Take, for example, the following two: ‘I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member’ and the brilliant: ‘I do have my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others’. Groucho’s genius was in satire, and with these axioms he was taking the proverbial sledgehammer to some of the big social issues already apparent in his time, which plague us today. The emergence of tribes (political, racial, social) and their danger to collective society, hence the refusal of clubs which, by their nature, by including the likeminded, exclude others. And the lack of principles shown by many in private and, even worse, public life. The latter is particularly apt to ridicule current political leaders, who govern by opinion poll, rather than political and ideological agenda...

Few terms have suffered as much misuse as Marxism. This thought came to my mind during a conversation with a friend a few days ago, in which, after Marxism was mentioned, the question followed: which one? Groucho’s or Karl’s? The question is more apt than you may think at first. Most people believe Marxism is a doctrine which incites the working classes to revolt and recommends the elimination of private property and equal (not equitable) distribution of resources amongst all. This is not the case. Marxism does not in fact make any recommendations. It analyses capitalism from the perspective of Hegelian dialectics and concludes that the opposing forces and interests driving the system will destroy it. This prediction does not request or require action from any social class. Karl’s extremely competent analysis of the inherent contradictions in capitalism have been interpreted and exploited by many, Lenin the first one that turned analysis into recipe, but Marx only observed and analysed...