"You must see to it that this girl gets a better life," she said.
The man glanced up from his paperwork and said: "That kind of thing costs money, and I said not so much as a penny must go to waste."
"But it"s not fair that you"re so rich when this girl is so poor," insisted Sophie. "It"s unjust!"
"Bah! Humbug! Justice only exists between equals."
"What do you mean by that?"
"I had to work my way up, and it has paid off. Progress, they call it."
"If you don"t help me, I"ll die," said the poor girl.
The businessman looked up again from his ledgers. Then he threw his quill pen onto the table impatiently.
"You don"t figure in my accounts! So-be off with you-to the poorhouse!"
"If you don"t help me, I"ll set fire to the woods," the girl persisted.
That brought the man to his feet, but the girl had already struck one of her matches. She held it to a tuft of dry gra.s.s which flared up instantly.
The man threw up his arms. "G.o.d help me!" he shouted. "The red c.o.c.k has crowed!"
The girl looked up at him with a playful smile.
"You didn"t know I was a communist, did you?"
The next minute, the girl, the businessman, and the desk had disappeared. Sophie was once again standing alone while the flames consumed the dry gra.s.s ever more hungrily. It took her a while to put out the fire by stamping on it.
Thank goodness! Sophie glanced down at the blackened gra.s.s. She was holding a box of matches in her hand.
She couldn"t have started the fire herself, could she?
When she met Alberto outside the cabin she told him what had happened.
"Scrooge was the miserly capitalist in A Christmas Carol, by Charles d.i.c.kens. You probably remember the little match girl from the tale by Hans Christian Andersen."
"I didn"t expect to meet them here in the woods."
"Why not? These are no ordinary woods, and now we are going to talk about Karl Marx. It is most appropriate that you have witnessed an example of the tremendous cla.s.s struggles of the mid-nineteenth century. But let"s go inside. We are a little more protected from the major"s interference there."
Once again they sat at the little table by the window facing the lake. Sophie could still feel all over her body how she had experienced the little lake after having drunk from the blue bottle.
Today, both bottles were standing on the mantelpiece. There was a miniature model of a Greek temple on the table.
"What"s that?" asked Sophie.
"All in good time, my dear."
Alberto began to talk: "When Kierkegaard went to Berlin in 1841, he might have sat next to Karl Marx at Schel-ling"s lectures. Kierkegaard had written a master of arts thesis on Socrates. About the same time, Marx had written a doctoral thesis on Democritus and Epicurus-in other words, on the materialism of antiquity. Thus they had both staked out the course of their own philosophies."
"Because Kierkegaard became an existentialist and Marx became a materialist?"
"Marx became what is known as a historical materialist. But we"ll come back to that."
"Go on."
"Each in his own way, both Kierkegaard and Marx took Hegel"s philosophy as their point of departure. Both were influenced by Hegel"s mode of thought, but both rejected his "world spirit," or his idealism."
"It was probably too high-flown for them."
"Definitely. In general, we usually say that the era of the great philosophical systems ended with Hegel. After him, philosophy took a new direction. Instead of great speculative systems, we had what we call an existential philosophy or a philosophy of action. This was what Marx meant when he observed that until now, "philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." These words mark a significant turning point in the history of philosophy."
"After meeting Scrooge and the little match girl, I have no problem understanding what Marx meant."
"Marx"s thinking had a practical-or political-objective. He was not only a philosopher; he was a historian, a sociologist, and an economist."
"And he was a forerunner in all these areas?"
"Certainly no other philosopher had greater significance for practical politics. On the other hand, we must be wary of identifying everything that calls itself Marxism with Marx"s own thinking. It is said of Marx that he only became a Marxist in the mid-1840s, but even after that he could at times feel it necessary to a.s.sert that he was not a Marxist."
"Was Jesus a Christian?"
"That, too, of course, is debatable."
"Carry on."
"Right from the start, his friend and colleague Friedrich Engels contributed to what was subsequently known as Marxism. In our own century, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and many others also made their contribution to Marxism, or Marxism-Leninism."
"I suggest we try to stick to Marx himself. You said he was a historical materialist?"
"He was not a philosophical materialist like the atomists of antiquity nor did he advocate the mechanical materialism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. But he thought that, to a great extent, it was the material factors in society which determined the way we think. Material factors of that nature have certainly been decisive for historical development."
"That was quite different from Hegel"s world spirit."
"Hegel had pointed out that historical development is driven by the tension between opposites-which is then resolved by a sudden change. Marx developed this idea further. But according to Marx, Hegel was standing on his head."
"Not all the time, I hope."
"Hegel called the force that drives history forward world spirit or world reason. This, Marx claimed, is upside down. He wished to show that material changes are the ones that affect history. "Spiritual relations" do not create material change, it is the other way about. Material change creates new spiritual relations. Marx particularly emphasized that it was the economic forces in society that created change and thus drove history forward."
"Do you have an example?"
"Antiquity"s philosophy and science were purely theoretical in purpose. n.o.body was particularly interested in putting new discoveries into practice."
"They weren"t?"
"That was because of the way the economic life of the community was organized. Production was mainly based on slave labor, so the citizens had no need to increase production with practical innovations. This is an example of how material relations help to affect philosophical reflection in society."
"Yes, I see."
"Marx called these material, economic, and social relations the basis of society. The way a society thinks, what kind of political inst.i.tutions there are, which laws it has and, not least, what there is of religion, morals, art, philosophy, and science, Marx called society"s superstructure."
"Basis and superstructure, right."
"And now you will perhaps be good enough to pa.s.s me the Greek temple."
Sophie did so.
"This is a model of the Parthenon temple on the Acropolis. You have also seen it in real life."
"On the video, you mean."
"You can see that the construction has a very elegant and elaborate roof. Probably the roof with its front gable is what strikes one first. This is what we call the superstructure."
"But the roof cannot float in thin air."
"It is supported by the columns."
"The building has very powerful foundations-its bases-supporting the entire construction. In the same way, Marx believed that material relations support, so to speak, everything in the way of thoughts and ideas in society. Society"s superstructure is in fact a reflection of the bases of that society."
"Are you saying that Plato"s theory of ideas is a reflection of vase production and wine growing?"
"No, it"s not that simple, as Marx expressly points out. It is the interactive effect of society"s basis on its superstructure. If Marx had rejected this interaction, he would have been a mechanical materialist. But because Marx realized that there was an interactive or dialectic relation between bases and superstructure, we say that he is a dialectical materialist. By the way, you may care to note that Plato was neither a potter nor a wine grower."
"All right. Do you have any more to say about the temple?"
"Yes, a little. Could you describe the bases of the temple?"
"The columns are standing on a base that consists of three levels-or steps."
"In the same manner we will identify three levels in the bases of society. The most basic level is what we may call society"s conditions of production. In other words, the natural conditions or resources that are available to society. These are the foundation of any society, and this foundation clearly determines the type of production in the society, and by the same token, the nature of that society and its culture in general."
"You can"t have a herring trade in the Sahara, or grow dates in northern Norway."
"You"ve got it. And the way people think in a nomadic culture is very different from the way they think in a fishing village in northern Norway The next level is the society"s means of production. By this Marx meant the various kinds of equipment, tools, and machinery, as well as the raw materials to be found there."
"In the old days people rowed out to the fishing grounds. Nowadays they use huge trawlers to catch the fish."
"Yes, and here you are talking about the next level in the base of society, namely, those who own the means of production. The division of labor, or the distribution of work and ownership, was what Marx called society"s "production relations." "
"I see."
"So far we can conclude that it is the mode of production in a society which determines which political and ideological conditions are to be found there. It is not by chance that today we think somewhat differently-and have a somewhat different moral codex-from the old feudal society."
"So Marx didn"t believe in a natural right that was eternally valid."
"No, the question of what was morally right, according to Marx, is a product of the base of society. For example, it is not accidental that in the old peasant society, parents would decide whom their children married. It was a question of who was to inherit the farm. In a modern city, social relations are different. Nowadays you can meet your future spouse at a party or a disco, and if you are sufficiently in love, you"ll find somewhere to live."
"I could never have put up with my parents deciding who I was to marry."
"No, that"s because you are a child of your time. Marx emphasized moreover that it is mainly society"s ruling cla.s.s that sets the norms for what is right or wrong. Because "the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of cla.s.s struggles." In other words, history is princ.i.p.ally a matter of who is to own the means of production."
"Don"t people"s thoughts and ideas help to change history?"
"Yes and no. Marx understood that conditions in society"s superstructure could have an interactive effect on the base of society, but he denied that society"s superstructure had any independent history of its own. What has driven historical development from the slave society of antiquity to the industrial society of today has primarily been determined by changes in the base of society."
"So you said."
"Marx believed that in all phases of history there has been a conflict between two dominant cla.s.ses of society. In antiquity"s slave society, the conflict was between free citizen and slave. In the feudal society of the Middle Ages, it was between feudal lord and serf; later on, between aristocrat and citizen. But in Marx"s own time, in what he called a bourgeois or capitalist society, the conflict was first and foremost between the capitalists and the workers, or the proletariat. So the conflict stood between those who own the means of production and those who do not. And since the "upper cla.s.ses" do not voluntarily relinquish their power, change can only come about through revolution."
"What about a communist society?"
"Marx was especially interested in the transition from a capitalist to a communist society. He also carried out a detailed a.n.a.lysis of the capitalist mode of production. But before we look at that, we must say something about Marx"s view of man"s labor."
"Go ahead."
"Before he became a communist, the young Marx was preoccupied with what happens to man when he works. This was something Hegel had also a.n.a.lyzed. Hegel believed there was an interactive, or dialectic, relationship between man and nature. When man alters nature, he himself is altered. Or, to put it slightly differently, when man works, he interacts with nature and transforms it. But in the process nature also interacts with man and transforms his consciousness."
"Tell me what you do and I"ll tell you who you are."
"That, briefly, was Marx"s point. How we work affects our consciousness, but our consciousness also affects the way we work. You could say it is an interactive relationship between hand and consciousness. Thus the way you think is closely connected to the job you do."
"So it must be depressing to be unemployed."
"Yes. A person who is unemployed is, in a sense, empty. Hegel was aware of this early on. To both Hegel and Marx, work was a positive thing, and was closely connected with the essence of mankind."
"So it must also be positive to a worker?"
"Yes, originally. But this is precisely where Marx aimed his criticism of the capitalist method of production."
"What was that?"
"Under the capitalist system, the worker labors for someone else. His labor is thus something external to him-or something that does not belong to him. The worker becomes alien to his work-but at the same time also alien to himself. He loses touch with his own reality. Marx says, with a Hegelian expression, that the worker becomes alienated."
"I have an aunt who has worked in a factory, packaging candy for over twenty years, so I can easily understand what you mean. She says she hates going to work, every single morning."
"But if she hates her work, Sophie, she must hate herself, in a sense."
"She hates candy, that"s for sure."
"In a capitalist society, labor is organized in such a way that the worker in fact slaves for another social cla.s.s. Thus the worker transfers his own labor-and with it, the whole of his life-to the bourgeoisie."
"Is it really that bad?"
"We"re talking about Marx, and we must therefore take our point of departure in the social conditions during the middle of the last century. So the answer must be a resounding yes. The worker could have a 12-hour working day in a freezing cold production hall. The pay was often so poor that children and expectant mothers also had to work. This led to unspeakable social conditions. In many places, part of the wages was paid out in the form of cheap liquor, and women were obliged to supplement their earnings by prost.i.tution. Their customers were the respected citizenry of the town. In short, in the precise situation that should have been the honorable hallmark of mankind, namely work, the worker was turned into a beast of burden."
"That infuriates me!"