You are here:   Features > A spectre haunting Europe: Karl Marx
 

Monument to a monster: A statue of Karl Marx, donated by China, is unveiled in his birthplace, Trier, to commemorate his bicentenary (©Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images)



One of the uncanniest commemorations of modern times took place last month. It centred on the Basilica of Constantine, one of several imposing remains of the ancient Roman colony of Augusta Treverorum, later the German city of Trier. This vast brick Aula Palatina — once the throne room of Constantine, the first Christian Emperor of Rome, now the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer — was the setting for a celebration of the bicentenary of the birth of Karl Marx on May 5, 1818.

The ceremony culminated in a remarkable tribute to Marx by Jean Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission. “Karl Marx was a philosopher who thought into the future,” Juncker rhapsodised. He had recognised “the task of our time — Europe’s social dimension that remains to this day the poor relation of European integration”. Having designated Marx as godfather of the European Union, Juncker insisted that Marx’s ideas had been posthumously “reformulated into virtually the opposite” and denied that the author of The Communist Manifesto had anything to do with the crimes of communist regimes: “Marx isn’t responsible for all the atrocities his alleged heirs have to answer for.”

Such an official endorsement of an English-speaking thinker — Adam Smith, say — would be unthinkable, but the European Commission pulled out all the stops for the German ideologue. (It is worth noting that Juncker’s speeches are usually written for him by Professor Martin Selmayr, his German chef de cabinet, whom he recently — and controversially — promoted to be Secretary-General of the Commission, the EU’s most senior civil servant.)

On the same day President Xi Jingping of China described Marx as “the greatest thinker of modern times”. Xi had donated a huge bronze statue to stand guard over Marx’s birthplace; it was unveiled by Juncker amid much pomp. Meanwhile in London, John McDonnell was also defending Marx, who died here in 1883. “Marxism is about developing democracy,” Labour’s Shadow Chancellor declared, “but to have an honest debate we need to be able to cut through the lies about Marxism.”

Juncker, Xi and McDonnell are correct in one respect: Marx was no ordinary thinker. Indeed, he dismissed philosophers who had merely interpreted the world: “The point is to change it.” And change the world he certainly did.

Two centuries have passed since Marx was born, but we are still living in his shadow. No man in modern times has had more influence. Yet nobody, perhaps, has done more harm to humanity.

More than a hundred million people have been murdered in his name by Stalin, Mao and other dictators who were his disciples. Billions more have suffered under Communism, the ideology Marx created and which once ruled nearly half of mankind. But for Marx, there would have been no Gulag Archipelago in the Soviet Union, no Holodomor in Ukraine, no Cultural Revolution in China, no Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, nor any other famines, purges and genocides carried out in the name of Communism.
View Full Article
Tags:
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Rich
June 8th, 2018
7:06 PM
@Murray Because Marx and Jesus both taught men are the same and should love each other. Oh wait, no that was only Jesus. Get a clue.

Weisshaupt
June 8th, 2018
7:06 PM
@Murray... Lets see, Jesus said that those with the ability to, should help those in need voluntarily, or else face the judgement of God in the hereafter. His name was then used as an excuse to control and conquer in direct opposition to what Jesus suggested was right and proper. . Marx suggested people with abilities should be forced to help those with needs involuntarily, or else face the judgement and punishment of the State... and then that philosophy was put into action, brutally. If don't see a difference between the two situations - the key words are voluntary and involuntary. What made the Christians wrong was trying to implement the words of Jesus via involuntary means - and what made the communists wrong was implementing the words of Marx via involuntary means. "“there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”" Karl Marx. "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution." And you suggest Marx didn't advocate such violence? His legacy is very much one of the terror he felt was required...

Niall Kilmartin
June 8th, 2018
7:06 PM
Murray (June 7th, 2018) thinks we should be no ruder about marxist regimes than about e.g. christian ones. As the article's list of outcomes, from Russia to Venezuela, should remind us, all regimes that attempt Marxism suffer decline. Some (Stalin, Mao, etc) descend so far as to reintroduce slavery; others (Zimbabwe, Venezuela) content themselves with introducing abject poverty. By contrast, history contains regimes that adopted Christianity and improved on their predecessors. The spectacle of emperor Theodosius doing penance for what happened to the people of Thessalonika may not impress us much, but it was a marked step up from any previous emperor. Slavery was once universal in the world; evangelicals like Wilberforce made it rare. And as regards reducing poverty from what it was in the first millennium, it is people in and from the area once called Christendom who have led the way. Marx would need to have at least some such success stories for Murray's tu quoque to get anywhere.

Captain Midnight
June 8th, 2018
7:06 PM
Thanks for this excellent essay showing how the murderous excesses committed by every single Marxist state do not by any means conflict with the teaching of Marx himself, but are the direct and necessary consequence of his ideas.

John Drake
June 8th, 2018
7:06 PM
That's some pretty overt whataboutism there, Murray.

Anonymous
June 8th, 2018
6:06 PM
The difference between Marxism and Christianity is that Marxism MUST devolve into totalitarian authoritarianism. There is no other way to make it work. There is no such requirement for Christianity.

Murray
June 7th, 2018
7:06 AM
If you're going to be outraged by acknowledgement of Marx because of the atrocities committed by people who hijacked his name and philosophy to achieve their own ends, are you disparaging Jesus for the same failing?

observer
June 5th, 2018
6:06 AM
Communism is given far too easy a time by our mass media. To the end they treated Tony Benn as a great statesman and "national treasure". Yet, in spite of knowing of Mao's atrocities, Benn declared him the greatest man of the 20th century. To the left, actions that would be crimes against humanity if perpetrated by a right wing regime, are just a regretable part of the process of revolution.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.