Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels have had a virtual monopoly on the interpretation of the meaning of the Industrial Revolution. Their theory was that the Industrial Revolution was the antithesis of feudalism and that it emerged as a result of the inexorable historical process. They held that every period of history was the product of class struggle and that capitalism had within it the seeds of a new system--socialism. They then proceeded to describe the class inequalities that characterized capitalism, showing that the working classes would usher in the new system, that capitalism was dying and socialism was the wave of the future.

It goes without saying that Marx and Engels were grossly wrong. Their theory of an historical process was pure mysticism and their criticisms of capitalism were gross distortions based upon wishful thinking and disregard for facts.

But Marx and Engels had one thing going for them (if not truth): They were within the mainstream of philosophical debate. Their theories merely picked up on the work done by Feuerbach and Hegel, to mention a few. Their romantic promise of a sunlit future for mankind under the beneficence of socialism established them as revolutionaries for a “good” cause. It became chic to be a socialist. Historical inaccuracy and philosophical incompetence did not deter those who saw in socialisms' advocacy a chance to ride the tide of the future.

It was within this atmosphere of intellectual irresponsibility that socialism has grown into what it always was: an effort to destroy human intelligence in favor of corruption, looting and murder, legally permitted to those that know only the power of destruction. Around the world socialism once bared its teeth, threatening destruction of anything that resembled capitalism, proclaiming hatred for anything that is the product of human intelligence.

Even today, after the fall of the Soviet Union, we hear little about socialism's failure. The intellectuals are still at it. But today there is less excuse for their advocacy. The historical process has somehow been nudged in a different direction (if there ever was such a thing as a process to history).

I would like to recommend two books that offer a more responsible intellectual approach than Marx and Engels:    The Industrial Revolution 1760 - 1830 by T. S. Ashton and What Marx Really Said by H. B. Acton. These books score a one - two punch to the theories of Marx and Engels.

The Industrial Revolution 1760 – 1830 is a short, concise study of just what was going on during that period of history when the Industrial Revolution was born. If Marx and Engels had had this book available for their researches, the history of the world since might not have been so bloody, that is of course, if they were interested in the truth.

In a clear, detached, and matter of fact manner, Ashton shows that throughout the early Industrial Revolution, the government seemed to be the reason why commerce did not always function smoothly. Government restrictions and wars contributed greatly to poor currency systems and unemployment. Ashton shows that many of the instances where Capitalism's "faults" were criticized, the Marxists totally ignored the role that the British government played in creating the hardships.  Today, that role is buried, hidden beneath a propaganda machine that has succeeded in creating a different “truth” about the Industrial Revolution.

Ashton also shows that many of the evils attributed to the Industrial Revolution were, in fact, remnants of primitive stages of production, that were disappearing as a result of increased mechanization. Even the existence of inhumane working and living conditions for children cannot be attributed to Capitalism, but to gross negligence on the part of the owners. Also, children were used in many of these industries, not as a way of buying cheap labor, but because most people over puberty could not adjust to the requirements of the new industries (again the blame should be on the remnants of the primitive stages).

Professor Actons' book, What Marx Really Said, offers no opinion or criticism of Marx. Indeed, while reading it, I was hard put to determine whether he agreed or disagreed with Marx. This is an attribute of Acton's ability to present an argument on the originators own terms.        

Marx's basic premise is his belief that man's essential attribute is that he is a tool making animal. This premise leads to the position that history is, therefore, economic in nature.

(The arguments against Marx's positions are my own and should not be considered as elements of Professor Acton's presentation.)

The premise, of course, is wrong. Man's essential characteristic is not that he makes tools but that he thinks. Marx lived in a period during which anthropology was a young and developing science. From all over the world, the evidence of new digs into man's past produced tools, tools and more tools. Marx looked at the result of man's mind, disregarded the mind, and declared that man had an instinct for making tools. To declare that man makes tools, i.e. progress, automatically will lead one to an entirely different set of conclusions, than if one declared that man's nature is to think in order to survive, and that this thinking involves alternatives and choices.

In his development of his theories, Marx held that class struggles were the essential conflicts of history, that every historical period could be understood properly only by focusing on class struggles. From Feuerbach, states Acton, Marx got the idea of interpreting what people say and do, in economic terms, and fitting them into what sides of the struggle they belonged. Freud also took the same lead from Feuerbach and used this method to analyze peoples’ actions and words in the psychological sense. Thus Marx had a powerful tool of intimidation against those who disagreed with him. He merely called them Bourgeoisie. That was enough to silence and convert many who did not want to be on the 'losing' side.

But this method is valid only if Marx's idea that socialism is the movement that must inevitably proceed from capitalism is correct.  Marx set up the opposing forces of the capitalist era as wage earner versus profit maker. He felt that the wage earner would usher in a synthesis that would be socialism because the laborer and entrepreneur were essentially antagonistic and uncooperative, thereby creating the antagonism by encouraging wage earners not to cooperate – the birth of the labor movement is the result.

Marx's major fallacy on this issue is that he sets up a false and unrealistic dichotomy. The truth he ignored is that under capitalism, every man is a businessman. Every man, including the wage earner, competes for profit and is essentially an entrepreneur.    There are no classes in a capitalistic system. Every man is rich depending on the amount of work and efficiency he is capable of realizing. The labor movement, essentially created out of small disagreements, would never have mushroomed into any sort of revolution, had it not been for Marxist agitators and the interpretation of Marxist intellectuals that led to government protection of labor. It is a tribute to capitalism that the labor movement today has little interest in taking over factories. Marx's theory of class struggle falls apart, and along with it, the idea that communism is the next historical step after capitalism.

Of interest also, is Marx's view of religion as an "opiate". He felt that the frustrations of want and need were so strong on earth that people projected another world where all wants were satisfied. This argument, based on his invented class struggle, has little to reveal of human nature since most religions were formed centuries ago and are not  newly formed daily; and since, today, even in advanced countries, religion exists side-by-side with Capitalism and Socialism. Indeed, even in an irreligious society like Soviet Russia was, religion still functioned. The real issue, in my view, is not that man creates religion (which he does, but not as Marx implies); the issue is not what is man's class-based frustration that brings religion about, but what frustrations might religion create. Those who fall for Marx's arguments on religion are as guilty as he is of altering history in order to vent their own frustrations on those who believe. Marx was merely trying to discredit religion in favor of his own views. The fact is, we know very little of how religion was originated. We do know that it is self-perpetuating since it is culturally inherited and tends to create psychologies that accept ideas on faith.  Beyond this, we have barely skimmed the surface of understanding how myth, superstition and belief in miracles ever came to create such a gargantuan presence such as religion.

Finally, I would like to state that this book review was originally written during the late 1970’s and has been updated to recognize the defeat of the Soviet Union by Capitalist USA.  During this period, I had told several friends that I believed that Soviet communism would collapse within ten years.  I was right because I saw, in studying communism through books like these, that the communist system did not recognize the value of the individual, that though it touted the working classes, it treated them as classes rather than individuals – as a collective of soulless automatons.  Soviet leaders created a bureaucratic and corrupt government wherein self-sacrifice to the collective was the ideal.  This system left little incentive for the individual to benefit his own life through his work and I knew that eventually, the over-burdened worker would stop cooperating with the state and would do as little as possible.  It was not a massive military build up in the U.S.A that caused the Soviet Union to collapse.  It was the inability of the Soviet government to compete globally, both militarily and economically, because its citizens refused to support this corrupt system that made it impossible for them to live decent lives.  So much for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Finally, I’d also like to state that, as a free society, we are being duped by liberal politicians and college professors into accepting a socialist system.  Even though the idea of communism is an outgrowth of socialism, the liberals have successfully duped American citizens into believing that, ideologically, they are in no way connected with communism and all that it entails, claiming that socialism is a different system that is completely compatible with capitalism.  The truth is that socialism and capitalism are not compatible.  They are opposites and communism is merely a form of socialism.  Both communism and socialism hold that the citizen is the property of the government and that it is the right of the government to use the productive output of the citizen for the sake of the collective (government).  This is the very principle that caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and one that will eventually cause the collapse of the U.S.A. if not corrected.  Liberals seek to blur the distinction between government coercion for “socially” accepted goals and government coercion for socially imposed goals.  There is no distinction.  Such goals are the same and their purpose is not to benefit society but to exploit the individual and steal his product.

Further, the ideology of communism was steeped in the ideology of self-sacrifice.  The individual was exhorted to sacrifice his work and production for the sake of the collective.  As has been proven time and again, this principle violates the very essence of human cooperation and the idea of trading value for value.  To exhort a man to sacrifice is to ask him to give up his life for the sake of others.  Eventually, such exhortation comes down to the barrel of a gun.  Socialism leads to a society where that gun rules and determines all decisions including decisions of trade.  We must understand the principle because the principle holds true:  To base a political system on socialism is to base all men’s dealings upon force and coercion.  Liberals and other politicians will tell you that these goals are chosen by the citizens.  I submit they are chosen by the liberals and politicians and that it is governmental force that makes those social goals into slavery for the individual.

There is only one solution to the decline created by communism, socialism and welfare-statism and that is capitalism.  Capitalism is freedom, the recognition of the right of the individual to the pursuit of happiness through freedom of speech and thought, freedom of property and everything entailed in the concept of individual rights.  When a government assumes that it has the right to take and dispose of the hard earned work of the individual, that country is no longer free and the system is no longer capitalism.  In the present system we live under, it is capital that is being destroyed by government through excessive taxation and through waste and corruption.  When the individual says, “Enough is enough, it is time I was free,” then we will have a hope of a happy future.  Until then, we will all struggle under the yoke of slavery.

These two books, The Industrial Revolution 1760 - 1830 and What Marx Really Said, are recommended highly to any serious student of history.

The Industrial Revolution 1760 1830, by T. S. Ashton, is published by Oxford University Press, London, Oxford, New York.

What Marx Really Said, by H. B. Acton, is published by Sohocken Books, New York.