Eagleton's Marxism

 Terry Eagleton writes the following passage:

 

“In Marx’s view, socialism would thus constitute a far more pluralistic order than the one we have now. In class society, the free self-development of the few is bought at the cost of the shackling of the many, who then come to share much the same monotonous narrative. Communism, precisely because everyone would be encouraged to develop their individual talents, would be a great deal more diffuse, diverse and unpredictable. It would be more like a modernist novel than a realist one. Critics of Marx may scorn this as a fantasy. But they cannot complain at the same time that Marx’s preferred social order looks much like the one in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four”

"A virulent form of utopianism has indeed afflicted the modern age, but its name is not Marxism. It is the crazed notion that a single global system known as the free market can impose itself on the most diverse cultures and economies and cure all their ills.”

 

I will work through this passage and analyze each part of it in linear fashion.  I will save my opinions for last.

 

1)       “constitute a far more pluralistic order”

2)       “In class society, the free self-development of the few is bought at the cost of the          shackling of the many”

3)        “much the same monotonous narrative”

4)        “(In) Communism, . . . everyone would be encouraged to develop their individual talents”

5)         Communism would engender talents that “would be a great deal more diffuse, diverse and unpredictable”

6)        Eagleton expresses that it is not true that, “Marx’s preferred social order looks much like the one in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four”      

 

As evidenced by any communist country in the world, not one can be named that has more pluralism than the democracy of the US.  The freedom of democracy provides the opportunities for pluralism, through the shared interest in individualism and self-determination. What makes the individualism possible is the free market, which offers many choices as to what can be purchased, thought of, and be created (use of available materials). These creations may take money, which is acquired buy work.  People are not automatons in a democratic, but they are free individuals. Freedom comes at a price, namely work. In a free country individuals have to work on the talent they have and develop the talent into something beyond what it was in its initial stages.  It is just not true that a communism offers the opportunities for talents that “would be a great deal more diffuse, diverse and unpredictable”  In a society where there are classes “the free self-development of the few is bought at the cost of the shackling of the many,” is an outrageous overgeneralization and an incendiary simplification.  In the free democratic countries there are incentives as well as paths that encourage people to excel at their talents, competition is healthy and one is also free to develop one’s talent in private as well. In the US and in other liberal democracies there is no one dominating “monotonous narrative,” but multiple narratives in accordance as there are fields of study or work. Eagleton is clearly skewing ideas and spinning a narrative of his own about the free liberal market and world.    “(In) Communism, . . . everyone would be encouraged to develop their individual talents” is not antithetical to what happens in the US.  Many great contributors to US culture have started in different classes.  For that matter, many are put-off by being labeled in a “class.”  Finally, dystopian depictions of societies in which Marxism flourished have led to “Orwellian” type worlds.  Within these societies there have come the communist, then the dictatorship, and authoritarian government. Of course, Eagleton, the Marxist, would find and twist as many parts of the free world.  Eagleton states that “What really alters our view of the world is not so much ideas, as ideas which are embedded in routine social practice. If we change that practice, which may be formidably difficult to do, we are likely in the end to alter our way of seeing” This is fairly accurate statement and societies need to pay close attention to the narratives they hear and the narratives they live out. The narrative that Eagleton, and Marxists perpetuate includes the outlandish idea that a Marxist society would “end material scarcity.” That is ridiculous because it assumes the consumers of material things is a static number and does not take into account the variances in population.  Not everyone is going to have the same number of an item, this is frankly quite silly. Eagleton also states that in a capitalist society people are “yoked to the working of a political system” This is more likely the situation in a society after a revolution.  Eagleton states that "It is the crazed notion that a single global system known as the free market can impose itself on the most diverse cultures and economies and cure all their ills.”  I would remark that it is a crazed notion that Marxism would cure all ills"