Economic Theory

Have Karl Marx’s ideas been ‘distorted’ by socialist regimes?

This week will mark the 200th birthday of Karl Marx. It will be an occasion for a deluge of articles repeating the well-worn cliché that even though Marx’s predictions ultimately did not materialise, his analysis of capitalism was nonetheless spot on, and remains hugely relevant today. (In fact, it’s already started.)

Those articles will contain plenty of awkward attempts to squeeze contemporary developments into a Marxist framework, in order to make the case that the great man saw it all coming. There will be plenty of obscure Marx quotes on display, which, like Nostradamus quotes, will have the virtue of lending themselves to projection. Those articles will end with platitudes like “Marx still has a lot to teach us”, or “you cannot understand modern capitalism without understanding Marx”.

They will, of course, respect the unstated etiquette of any contemporary discussion of Marxism: that the outcomes of real-world attempts to implement them must never, ever, be held against Marx’s ideas. To even mention the Soviet Union or a similar system in a discussion about Marxism is considered gauche and boorish today. The underlying assumption is that a sophisticated person is able to grasp the difference between a theory and its distorted application, while conflating the two is a hallmark of a simple mind.

Marxism is, in this sense, an outlier. We would not do this with any other political or economic theory. The thing about political and economic theories is that they are never implemented in pure form. All real-world applications of political and economic ideas are, to some extent, distortions.

While some governments just seem to make up their policies as they go along (our current one being a good example), others have a recognisable common thread, shaped by a specific set of ideas. Most famously, New Labour was clearly influenced by Anthony Giddens’ concept of the ‘Third Way’, a form of social democracy that makes its peace with the market economy. Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies were influenced by free-market thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek. West Germany’s first post-war government was influenced by ‘ordoliberalism’, an economic school of thought which tried to combine free-market economics with an active competition policy.

Yet in each of these cases, if we look at what the original thinkers said, and then compare that to what the politicians influenced by them actually did, we will always find a massive gap between the two. Of course there is a massive gap. There are always competing ideological influences; there are always competing interests; there are always (deliberate or genuine) misunderstandings of a theory; there is always a risk of governments running out of steam or losing interest; and there are always country-specific idiosyncrasies and oddities which get in the way.

It is therefore unsurprising that insofar as original thinkers live to see some of their ideas being adopted, they are rarely happy with it. Anthony Giddens was not particularly happy with the New Labour government. One of Hayek’s relatives, who used to come to IEA events, once mentioned that Hayek was not especially impressed by Margaret Thatcher’s governments either. Similarly, when West German ordoliberals give an account of Konrad Adenauer’s government, they tend to talk about the early days with some enthusiasm, and about the later years with palpable exasperation.

But nonetheless: we judge those ideas, at least partly, by the successes and failures of the policies they helped to inspire. Yes, of course we should cut adherents of those ideas some slack when they point out how politicians have misunderstood and distorted their ideas. We might well give them the benefit of the doubt when they claim that the results could have been much better, if politicians had been more truthful to the original ideas.

That is all fair enough. But it is not, and should not be, a Get Out of Jail Free card. If your ideas require impossible standards of purity in implementation in order to work, then maybe your ideas are not as great as you think they are. A good idea will still work out OK even in a distorted and poorly implemented version. That, arguably, is a big part of what makes a good idea good.

The question is not whether Karl Marx, had he come back to life a century later, would have been a huge fan of the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic or the Hungarian People’s Republic. He almost certainly would not have been. He may well have stayed in London, writing grumpy articles for the Guardian and the New Statesman about how politicians in those countries were disfiguring his ideas.

So what? Political and economic theories are never implemented in pure form, and their adherents are rarely impressed by politicians who claim to be inspired by them. That’s just par for the course. Marxists, however, are pretty much the only thinkers who accept no responsibility whatsoever for real-world approximations of their ideas. Third-Way advocates may have despaired over Blair, Hayekians can – and do – rant all day about Thatcher’s shortcomings, and ordoliberals have written scathing condemnations of Konrad Adenauer. But ask them whether they think those respective governments did more good than harm on balance; ask them whether they think those governments were preferable to the next likely alternatives – and you will get an unambiguous and unqualified “Yes!” as an answer.

In contrast, hardly any contemporary Marxist would accept that whatever ‘real’ socialism is – surely, East Germany was at least closer to it than West Germany, North Korea is at least closer to it than South Korea, Venezuela is at least closer to it than Peru, Maoist China was at least closer to it than Taiwan, etc.

And why would they? It works for them. Every other idea is judged by its necessarily crude, incomplete and imperfect real-world approximations, warts and all. Only Marxism has the luxury of being judged purely as a set of ideas, which something as mundane as real-world experience could never blemish.


This article was first published on CapX.

Head of Political Economy

Dr Kristian Niemietz is the IEA's Head of Political Economy. Kristian studied Economics at the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin and the Universidad de Salamanca, graduating in 2007 as Diplom-Volkswirt (≈MSc in Economics). During his studies, he interned at the Central Bank of Bolivia (2004), the National Statistics Office of Paraguay (2005), and at the IEA (2006). He also studied Political Economy at King's College London, graduating in 2013 with a PhD. Kristian previously worked as a Research Fellow at the Berlin-based Institute for Free Enterprise (IUF), and taught Economics at King's College London. He is the author of the books "Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies" (2019), "Universal Healthcare Without The NHS" (2016), "Redefining The Poverty Debate" (2012) and "A New Understanding of Poverty" (2011).

7 thoughts on “Have Karl Marx’s ideas been ‘distorted’ by socialist regimes?”

  1. Posted 04/05/2018 at 08:30 | Permalink

    Spot on Kristian, so let’s hope we don’t see any articles here in future bemoaning that Brexit was a wonderful idea, if only the government hadn’t bungled it.

  2. Posted 05/05/2018 at 21:08 | Permalink

    JON (04/05/2018 at 08:30), the government is sure to ‘bungle’ Brexit in the sense of the article – that is, it will not be achieved flawlessly. The only question is: will they make a reasonably honest attempt (in which case, the outcome is the real-world Brexit we voted for), or will they dishonestly ‘bungle’ it in the sense of not really doing it, since democracy is all very well but surely it can’t mean the elite having to do what the common people say.

  3. Posted 08/05/2018 at 06:27 | Permalink

    Marx claimed that the dictatorship of the proletariat would lead to the withering away of the state and a classless society as part of some mysterious dialectical process.If what happened in the Soviet Union isn’t a repudiation of his theories then I don’t know what is

  4. Posted 03/01/2019 at 06:18 | Permalink

    It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d without a doubt donate to this fantastic blog! I suppose for now i’ll settle for bookmarking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to fresh updates and will share this site with my Facebook group. Talk soon!

  5. Posted 03/01/2019 at 10:36 | Permalink

    Hello there! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and tell you I really enjoy reading your blog posts. Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same topics? Thank you so much!

  6. Posted 04/01/2019 at 05:04 | Permalink

    Hey! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group? There’s a lot of folks that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Cheers

  7. Posted 04/01/2019 at 05:58 | Permalink

    Greetings! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and say I truly enjoy reading through your articles. Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that go over the same topics? Thanks a ton!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *