Charlatans and Snake-oilers

A Dishonest Man, But Useful Idiot

Karl Marx had a theory that capital exploits workers. His theory was derived from the ramblings of the idealist or rationalistic philosopher, Hegel.  That particular luminary propounded the idea that history moved forward by a mechanism of a "dialectic" (love those big technical terms).  A concept or idea (a thesis) would be opposed by its opposite (an anti-thesis), resulting in conflict and struggle, leading to a temporary resolution (the synthesis), whereupon the whole process started over again.  The synthesis became the new thesis, which would be confronted by its antithesis, and so forth. 

Karl Marx studied in the German universities and became enamoured with Hegel.  He sought to apply Hegel's dialectic to the economic history of mankind.  Actually, he cherry picked a whole cluster of economic facts, figures and data, made up heaps more, then fitted them into Hegel's rationalistic scheme.  In short, Karl Marx was a fraud.
  But a useful fraud nonetheless serving to titillate the reckless ambitions of the revolutionary minded ever since.  Marx was a great believer that one should never, ever let the facts get in the way of a good story.  And Hegel's schema was a useful backdrop upon which to spin a grand, ripping yarn--full of drama, conspiracies, intrigue, violence, good guys, bad guys, and utopia at the end.  What's not to like.  Marx made Hegel live.

Marx decided that capital and capitalists were the thesis (in his particular stage of economic history), the workers were the antithesis.  In order for the theory, or plot,  to have internal coherence, hatred, enmity and conflict must exist between capital (monied industrialists, employers, investors) and their workers.  Marx's economic speculations required the existence of this conflict.  Without it, Hegel's theory would collapse, and Marx would be left high and dry , holding no more than a blotchy pen festooned with a broken nib. 

Thus, in his "magisterial" four volume work Capital, which ostensibly sets to lay it all out, Marx endeavoured to document the dialectical conflict between capital and labour.  We use the term "document" loosely, for Marx it meant he would "make it up as one goes along".  Here is philosopher, Karl Jasper's assessment:

The style of Marx's writings is not that of the investigator . . . he does not quote examples for adduce facts which run counter to his own theory but only those which clearly support or confirm that which he considers the ultimate truth.  The whole approach is one of vindication, not investigation, but it is a vindication of something proclaimed as the perfect truth with the conviction not of the scientist but of the believer. [Cited by Paul Johnson in Intellectuals (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1988), p. 62]

Taking up Hegel's speculations, Marx became a prophet.  He predicted:

1. The number of capitalist "magnates" would reduce.  Wealth would become accumulated and aggregated into fewer and fewer hands.

2. This would result into a rise in poverty, oppression, enslavement, degeneration and exploitation of the poorer classes.

3. A steady intensification of the wrath of the working classes.

One can see the Hegelian dialectic at work.  In the end, the working classes would revolt and history would witness another Occupy Movement.   We say this only half in jest.  There is no doubt that Marx's speculations continue to attract many such folk in our day.  Still, since envy and covetousness, along with a deep sense of grievance, have been with us since the Fall, this is hardly surprising.  Marx was telling a story which resonated with  Gehenna's wisdom and world-view which remains living and active to this day, as the Bible instructs us. 

Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. [James 3: 13-18]

To "prove" the story, Marx drew upon a source--the writings of his colleague Friedrich Engels in his Condition of the Working Class in England.  Paul Johnson summarises the evidence that much of this book was a work of fiction.

In 1958 two exact scholars, W.O. Henderson and W. H. Challoner, retranslated and edited Engels's book and examined his sources and the original text of all his quotations.  The effect of their analysis was to destroy the objective historical value of the book almost entirely, and reduce it to what it undoubtedly was: a work of political polemic, a tract, a tirade.  [Johnson, op cit., p. 65]

Johnson provides many examples and illustrations of Engels fitting the facts to his theory.  Marx collaborated with him in this effort, although Johnson reckons that Marx was the "more audacious forger".  In one particularly egregious example, Marx misquoted W.E. Gladstone's Budget speech of 1863.  Here is the text of Gladstone's original speech:

"I should look almost with apprehension and with pain upon this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power if it were my belief that it was confined to the class who are in easy circumstances. But, he added,  "the average condition of the British labourer, we have the happiness to know, has improved during the last twenty years in a degree which we know to be extraordinary, and which we may almost pronounce to be unexampled in the history of any country and of any age."

Gladstone was arguing that the growth in wealth amongst the capitalist "classes" was leading to a rapid and widespread rise in living standards amongst working "classes".  This reality was entirely contrary to Marx's theories and prophecies and, therefore, fatal to his central thesis.  So, he misquotes (deliberately) Gladstone, having him say, "This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power is entirely confined to classes of property."  When Marx's misquotation or deliberate falsification was pointed out, he ignored it, and continued to fabrication the canard in Capital.  He did not retract and correct, but counter-punched with ink-splattered tirades against his critics:

. . . he, Engels and later his daughter Eleanor were involved in the row, attempting to defend the indefensible, for twenty years.  None of them would ever admit the original, clear falsification and the result of the debate is that some readers are left with the impression, as Marx intended, that there are two sides to the controversy.  There are not.  Marx knew Gladstone never said any such thing and the cheat was deliberate.  It was not unique.  Marx similarly falsified quotations from Adam Smith.  [Ibid., p.67]

In the early 1870's two Cambridge scholars began checking Marx's quotations and citations of sources.  They concluded that Marx's citations of economic statistics showed systematic "signs of distorting influences". 

Marx had little to no knowledge of how industry or commerce actually worked.  Not only did he have no personal experience of industry, he failed to be an honest researcher of it.  He cherry picked data to bolster the sheen of his apocalyptic prophecies.  That's it.

Karl Marx--the charlatan, the snake-oiler.

But, some may wonder, how then has he been so influential?  To him can be attributed, indirectly, the communist revolutions of Russia and China and Cuba and the spluttering, splenetic Occupy movement.  That's quite a legacy.  To a Christian, however, this is not a sustainable objection.  All human history and endeavour is a lie to one extent or another, until it is brought to the One who is "the Way, the Truth, and the Light."  Only then do the lies of the Pit become exposed, emasculated and nullified. Those who walk in the darkness always find the Great Lie more congenial and useful--to one extent or another.  To this cause, Marx was a useful idiot.