Response history

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism - 1

Modern Ideologies – Communism In this lecture we continue our discussion of modern ideologies by examining Communism. Communism fully emerged as an ideology in the 19th century. This ideology could also be called “revolutionary socialism,” as we’ll see in the next lecture. In this lecture, we’ll mostly use the word “communism” and we will focus on the famous work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848). Marx and Engels presented their communist ideology as “science.” They called it “scientific socialism.” In reality, though, their ideology was not science. It was a utopian way of thinking. It did include interesting insights and had a lasting impact, as we’ll discuss below. But Marx and Engels’ communism – a.k.a. “scientific socialism” or “revolutionary socialism” – was based on a utopian vision. It promised – after a period of violence and bloodshed – an incredible future of less work and more abundance, a future of humans living in harmony, a future so good that humans wouldn’t even need government. Let’s explore Marx and Engels’ thinking.

Intellectuals & Categories The basis of Marx and Engels’ philosophy is how they categorize people. They think about members of society not as individuals – with individual qualities and characteristics – but as members of groups. Let’s pause and consider this point. Marx and Engels were intellectuals (and activists). Intellectuals analyze society. Yet society is highly complex – almost infinitely complex. It includes millions of people with different attitudes and habits. It includes various systems and institutions with multiple purposes – economic, political, legal, educational, religious, etc. It involves vast networks of evolving relationships, billions of interactions every day. Society includes all kinds of people doing all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. Intellectuals try to make sense of all this. They analyze society in the hopes of explaining how it works. Key here is how intellectuals organize the complexity of society in their own minds. They mentally arrange the complexity in ways that make sense to them. They develop categories to classify and label people, relationships, and institutions. Their explanations for how society works – how good those explanations are – depend on how well their categories and classifications explain the infinite complexity of society. The categories Marx and Engels use to analyze society are economic classes. They argue that industrial society – what they call “capitalism” – was increasingly dividing into just two classes. They call these classes the “Bourgeoisie” and the “Proletariat.” • The Bourgeoisie were the owners of factories and mines. This means the bourgeoisie own

and make money from technology. Consider such ownership on two levels.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism - 2

o On one level is the original creator of technology. Remember James Watt. He patented the steam engine in 1769. He owned this technology and made money from it.

o On a second level are factory owners. They didn’t create the steam engine, but in the early 1800s they bought steam engines to power their textile factories. They thus make money from this technology because their workers use steam engines to produce textiles, which factory owners sell for profit.

• The Proletariat were factory and mine workers. They use technology, but do not own the technology and thus do not make money from it. Factory workers use the technology of the steam engine making textiles, but since they do not own the steam engine, they do not make money from it. They simply get paid wages for their time.

So Marx and Engels use the category of class to analyze society. They seek to make sense of the complexity of industrial society by classifying people and their relationships into two categories – bourgeoisie and proletariat. Yet even as they use the “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat” categories, Marx and Engels realize that industrial society was more complex than just two classes. They admit that some people do not easily fit into these two categories. They acknowledge what they call “middle classes.” These include merchants, artisans, shopkeepers, machinists, and farmers, as well as professionals like doctors and lawyers. All these “middle classes” are not clearly bourgeoisie or proletariat. They do not easily fit into Marx and Engels’ categories. Marx and Engels even realize that those they classify as proletariat were not really a proletariat class in 1848. Workers in different industries – textile factories, coal and iron mines, railroads, handicraft shops – did not think of themselves as all belonging to the same group, as members of one proletariat class. That’s why Marx and Engels describe their “immediate aim” as the “formation of the proletariat into a class.” The class was not really formed in the minds of people. Not enough people thought of themselves in terms of Marx and Engels’ proletariat category. • Notice the goal here – to convince people to think of themselves in terms of particular

categories. Marx and Engels seek to convince various people working in different jobs to think of themselves as one class – to create a proletariat identity. These facts – the existence of “middle classes” and the variety of workers in different industries – highlight the complex nature of industrial society. Marx and Engels seek to simplify this complexity. They seek to present a picture of industrial society that has only two classifications – bourgeoisie and proletariat. So Marx and Engels argue that although middle classes appear to exist, these middle classes are actually proletariat, or in the process of becoming proletariat. That is what they mean when they say “the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.” Marx and Engels also promote the proletariat identity to convince workers in different industries to think of themselves as belonging to the

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism - 3

same group. In this way, Marx and Engels simplify the complexity of industrial society by insisting that everyone fit into their categories – bourgeoisie or proletariat. Let’s explore these points further. Marx and Engels do not simply argue that there were factory owners and factory workers in 1848. Anyone looking at industrial society, such as Great Britain, could see that. Rather, Marx and Engels insist that their classifications of people were all that really existed in industrial society. They insist, in other words, on these two points: • Everyone fit into the classifications of bourgeoisie or proletariat.

• These classifications are the essential part of each person.

o Think about this. Every individual has many parts to themselves. They have a nationality, a sex, maybe a religion, etc.

o Marx and Engels argue that things like nationality, sex, or religion do not define an individual. Only class defines an individual. If a person is proletariat, then being proletariat is the essential part of who they are. Their class defines their social existence, and the other things like nationality, religion, etc. don’t really matter.

Let’s continue exploring these points, but from a different perspective. Let’s use an example from today to compare to Marx and Engels. Let’s use the example of my nephews. I have several nephews who are a quarter Polish, a quarter Italian, and half Japanese. When they fill out forms which ask for their national, ethnic, or racial identity, there is no box for the complexity of their heritage – there is no “quarter Polish, quarter Italian, and half Japanese” box to check. So what do my nephews do? What box do they check? Perhaps they check the “Japanese” box. This would simplify a complex reality – it would ignore the quarter Polish and quarter Italian parts (ignore one parent and two grandparents). But even this level of simplification may not work because there may not be a “Japanese” box. Often there is just an “Asian” box. And Asia has almost 50 different nations, each with its own culture and history – Kazakhstan, Burma, India, China, Bangladesh, South Korea, Pakistan, Japan, Vietnam, Laos, Malaysia, etc. So even if my nephews decide to simplify their heritage by focusing only on the Japanese half, they then have to simplify even further by checking the “Asian” box – making them appear the same as someone who is Chinese, or someone who is half Indian and half Bangladeshi. The example of my nephews highlights how we as humans are always trying to organize the complexity of society in our minds. We use categories and classifications to try to explain how society works. In the process, we simplify society. We force everyone into the classifications we develop. • We could use other examples to highlight the same point.

• The “Asian” box is like the “Hispanic” box. There are about 20 counties in which Spanish is the official language, each with its own culture and history, each distinct from the other.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism - 4

• Yet because of our classifications someone who is half Columbian, a quarter Italian, and a quarter Greek, appears the same on paper – “Hispanic” – as someone who is Cuban, or someone who is half Peruvian and half Uruguayan.

Notice how today we often use classifications of nationality, ethnicity, or race in ways similar to how Marx and Engels used classifications of class. Many argue today that a person’s ethnicity or race is central to who they are. Marx and Engels did not care about nationality or race, but argued that a person’s class is central to who they are, the defining feature of their existence. And just like we know today that our categories simplify a complex reality, so too Marx and Engels realize their classifications simplify reality. They acknowledge that “middle classes” exist between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Yet they still defend their simplification by arguing that individuals in the middle classes are really just proletariat – similar to how we today put all those with complex national, ethnic, or racial ancestries into a specific box. In these ways, intellectuals (and activists) simplify reality by fitting individuals into the classifications they develop.

Zero-Sum Conflict After Marx and Engels fit everyone into their categories, they then emphasize intense conflict between the categories. They describe the bourgeoisie and proletariat as two opposing classes with no common interests – the oppressors vs. the oppressed engaged in unavoidable conflict. Notice how in the following quote, Marx and Engels describe the two classes in military language, as two hostile camps or combat units facing each other: • “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two

great classes directly facing each other – Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.” Let’s pause and consider this point. Marx and Engels do not just say that there are big differences in wealth between the bourgeoisie and proletariat in 1848. There certainly were. Marx and Engels do not simply say that working conditions in factories and mines were hard and dangerous. They certainly were. In fact, there were already British “commissions” studying working conditions, resulting in British laws such as the Factory Act (1833) and the Mines Act (1842). So if Marx and Engels were simply criticizing great differences in wealth or dangerous working conditions, they would have been making the same point as many others. Instead, Marx and Engels make more specific arguments. They argue that the bourgeoisie and proletariat • share no common interests and

• are adversaries in a zero-sum conflict – if one gains the other loses These two points are related. If you and I are in a zero-sum conflict – you getting a raise of $1,000 means I make a thousand less – then we will share no common interests. You (or your group) can only gain in wealth or status if I (or my group) lose in wealth or status. Conditions cannot improve for both of us at the same time – it’s zero-sum.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism - 5

Let’s think more about “no common interest.” To do so, let’s consider two people in our society today, one in the upper class and one in the lower class. Obviously, there is a big difference in wealth, which means big differences in lifestyle, status, etc. But does this mean they share no common interests? To be clear, the question is not whether they have many different interests (they likely do) but whether any of their interests overlap. • For example, do they share a common interest in supporting the 4th Amendment, the idea

that the police need a warrant to search a person’s home? Even with their differences in wealth, do they both support this idea?

• Do they share a common interest in the 5th Amendment which protects a person from being put on trial twice for the same crime? Or a common interest in the presumption of innocence implied in the 6th Amendment?

Again, to be clear, the question is not whether any criminal justice system always lives up to these principles. The question is whether members of all classes – despite differences in wealth – share a common interest in supporting the principles. We might also ask whether there’s a common interest in supporting things like free speech, freedom of religion, the right of peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, etc. Marx and Engels deny the bourgeoisie and proletariat share any such common interests. They argue that principles like these are really just ways the bourgeoisie oppress the proletariat. Here’s where we see the activist side of Marx and Engels. Though they describe their ideology as “science,” they intend their “science” to promote social conflict. That is why they help create an international organization in 1847 called the Communist League. This League promoted “war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism.” Marx and Engels hope their description of industrial society as oppressors vs. oppressed will provoke animosity and violence. Think about it: • Insisting that different groups in society share no common interests and are adversaries in a

zero-sum conflict will increase animosity between the groups, and raise the chance of violence.

• This is the picture of society Marx and Engels present. They add the idea that one side in the conflict is “bad” (bourgeoisie) and the other side is “good” (proletariat) – oppressor vs. oppressed.

• It’s not hard to see that the more members of a society perceive each other in these terms – perceive each other as engaged in a zero-sum conflict between an oppressor side and an oppressed side – the more likely there will be animosity and violence.

In fact, this is exactly what Marx and Engels predict. In 1848, they predict a fast-approaching future of misery and violence which, they say, will somehow lead to a utopian society of peace and plenty. They think intense conflict, including violence and bloodshed, brings progress. They thus seek to promote that conflict.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism - 6

Predicting the Future: Subsistence Poverty & Violent Revolution

Marx and Engels try to predict the future. They argue that in the next few decades after 1848, two things will happen to the bourgeoisie class:

1) it will get much smaller in number

2) it will control almost all wealth in society They argue the opposite will happen to the proletariat class:

1) it will get much bigger in number

2) it will fall into subsistence poverty – a crucial point Subsistence poverty means barely enough to survive. So Marx and Engels predict that almost everyone in industrial society will become members of the proletariat and will fall into terrible poverty with barely enough to survive. No doubt, Marx and Engels understood what we’ve said about industrialization – that industrialization creates great wealth. Remember our discussion of technology increasing productivity which increases wealth. Marx and Engels understood this. They knew that industrial societies had more total wealth than non-industrial societies. • But because they insist that the bourgeoisie and proletariat are engaged in a zero-sum

conflict – oppressor vs. oppressed – they deny that social conditions can improve for both classes.

• They deny that the standard of living can go up for both. They predict that the zero-sum conflict only benefits the bourgeoisie who will control almost all the wealth, driving the vast majority – the proletariat – into subsistence poverty. It’s a grim vision! Let’s stop to make sure we understand this point. Marx and Engels do not simply argue that there is poverty in industrial societies. Rather, they argue that industrialization will vastly increase poverty. That means they think industrial societies will fail.

• Think about it. Imagine a society in which the overwhelming majority have only the most minimal enough to survive. Any such society has clearly failed.

• This is what Marx and Engels argue will happen in industrial societies: In the next few decades after 1848, the vast majority will have barely enough to survive – subsistence poverty.

Marx and Engels then think that subsistence poverty will motivate the proletariat to rise up in a violent communist revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie. They do not say exactly when this revolution will happen, but they suggest within several decades or perhaps a couple generations after 1848 when they wrote The Communist Manifesto. So they think the revolution will happen sometime in the late 1800s.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism - 7

Now that we see that Marx and Engels think a violent communist revolution is coming, let’s consider what they think this revolution will achieve.

Goals of the Communist Revolution For Marx and Engels, a primarily goal of their predicted revolution was this: to destroy the laws that define property as private property. Let’s think this through.

• If I own land, what defines the land as my private property? The law does. I have a deed – a legal document – stating that I own the land and this document has been recorded by the government.

o Imagine if we destroy the law that says the land is my private property. Without that law, the land is no longer mine.

o What happens if we destroy all laws that define land as private property? The land would no longer be privately owned. The land would be “publicly” owned (which today usually means owned by government).

• But let’s not just think about land. Let’s also think about technology. Remember, the bourgeoisie own technology and make money from it.

o What defined the steam engine as belonging to James Watt? The law did. He got a patent from the British government for the steam engine. The patent identified Watt as the owner of the technology of the steam engine.

o But what happens if we destroy the law that defines the technology as private property? Who would then own the technology? No one would. The technology would be “publicly” owned – owned by everyone which is the same as owned by no one.

• Put this in today’s terms. We all know that we cannot take an iPhone apart, figure out how it works, and then try to make iPhones and sell them. If we did this, the Apple Corporation would sue us for infringing on its patent. The technology of the iPhone is private property. It is owned by Apple. We can buy an individual phone and use it. But the technology is private property and only owners of the technology make money from it.

o If, however, we destroy the law that defines the technology as private property, then the technology does not belong to anyone.

To be clear, Marx and Engels do not want their predicted revolution to destroy the actual technology, like the steam engine. They want to keep the technology, but destroy the laws that define the technology as private property. If those laws are destroyed, the technology will be owned by no one. To destroy private property laws, Marx and Engels promote violence. They envision revolutionary bloodshed to eliminate the defenders of private property – the bourgeoisie.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism - 8

• As Engels explains: the “revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets, and canon.”

• Marx and Engels describe this revolutionary violence as the “dictatorship of the proletariat” – meaning the oppressed becomes the oppressors. As they say, the proletariat “must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire.”

• They predict that a small portion of the bourgeoisie – in fear for their lives – will join the revolution. “When the class struggle nears the decisive hour,” they say, “a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat.”

In their visions of revolution, Marx and Engels’ writings are almost like literature. They argue that it is through the violence and bloodshed of class warfare that somehow a utopian (communist) society of peace and plenty will emerge. And they call this kind of thinking “science.” At this point, you might be thinking that it’s hard to imagine how communism would work. How would a communist society work after the laws protecting private property were destroyed and technology was owned by no one?

How Would Communism Work? Unfortunately, Marx and Engels did not explain how a communist society would actually work. They wrote a lot about industrial society – their classifications and predictions, their description of a zero-sum conflict between oppressor and oppressed. But they actually wrote very little about how communist society would work – how the terror of violence and bloodshed would somehow create a classless society of peace and plenty. That’s because they did not know how a communist society would work. Marx and Engels did not know how the bloodshed of class warfare would create peace. They did not know how the abolition of private property would create plenty. They expressed many ideas which they hoped would promote revolution. These included, in their words,

• the “abolition of property in land”

• the “centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State”

• the “establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.” But these ideas largely repeated what earlier radicals had said. Marx and Engels read the Italian revolutionary Filippo Buonarroti who tried to destroy private property as part of the “Conspiracy of Equals” (1796) in the French Revolution. Buonarroti thought that “Rousseau was master.” Another group of earlier revolutionaries called the Perfectionists similarly promoted the “abolition of private property.” The Perfectionists also promoted the abolition of government and the family. Marx and Engels sound similar. They argue that after the bloodshed of class

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism - 9

warfare – after the bourgeoisie are destroyed – government would disappear and the family would be transformed. Yet readers of The Communist Manifesto are left to wonder exactly how all of this would work – how a society would work without government, without the family structure, and without someone owning technology. One might ask: If technology cannot be privately owned, then what would be the motivation to create it in the first place? It’s not clear.

Reflections

Marx and Engels did not predict the future correctly. If they were correct, there would have been communist revolutions in the most advanced industrial societies by the late 1800s – or the early 1900s at the latest. That means communist revolutions would have occurred in England, Germany, and the United States. Yet no communist revolutions occurred in these countries. Communist revolutions did not occur in advanced industrial societies because the working classes in these societies were not all united in one “proletariat” group. They did not all think of themselves as belonging to the same proletarian identity – as Marx and Engels’ classification system said they should. And – importantly – the working classes saw their standard of living going up by the beginning of the 20th century.

• We shouldn’t exaggerate their standard of living. By our standards today, factory and mine workers around 1900 worked long hours for mediocre or low wages, often in difficult and dangerous conditions.

• However, their standard of living was slowly increasing, not falling. Industrial workers around 1900 had a higher standard of living than industrial workers in 1848 when Marx and Engels wrote.

• As a result, the overwhelming majority of people in advanced industrial societies were not falling into subsistence poverty as Marx and Engels predicted. Most were not motivated to rise up in a violent revolution.

There were communist revolutions after 1900. But the communist revolutions of the 20th century did not occur where Marx and Engels thought they would – in advanced industrial societies.

• Rather, communist revolutions occurred in largely agricultural societies – Russia (1917), North Korea (1948), China (1949), Cuba (1959).

• And in those societies, government did not disappear after the communist revolution as Marx and Engels predicted.

• Instead, communist governments sought to become one-party totalitarian States. In the 20th century, communist States became oppressive systems which stripped average people of their individual rights, built vast networks of concentration camps, and killed over 100

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism - 10

million of their own people. The most murderous government in history is currently controlled by a communist party – the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Why Study Marx?

If you’ve followed the discussion above, you might ask: Why study Marx and Engels? If their prediction about the future of industrial societies was wrong, and if their prediction about communist revolutions leading to a just society without government was wrong, then why spend time examining their philosophy? The answer is that Marx and Engels had a big impact on later generations of intellectuals and activists. These later generations developed variations of Marxism – revised versions of Marx and Engels’ philosophy – which greatly impacted the 20th century and still live on today.

• We will see one form of revised Marxism in our next lecture on Socialism.

• Another form of revised Marxism was Leninism, developed by Vladimir Lenin who led the Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917. We’ll look at Lenin later in the course.

• Another form of revised Marxism was developed in the early 20th century by the Italian Antonio Gramsci.

• And another form was developed in the 1950s and ’60s by the German émigré to the United States Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse taught at Columbia University, Harvard University, Brandeis University, and the University of California.

Let’s spend a few moments on Gramsci and Marcuse. Gramsci laid the basis in the early 20th century for what became known as Critical Theory – a revised form of Marxism often called “cultural Marxism.” Marcuse then picked up and developed Critical Theory later in the 20th century. Gramsci understood that Marx and Engels’ prediction about the working classes rising up to overthrow the bourgeoisie was wrong. By the early 20th century, most members of the working classes in advanced industrial societies were not revolutionary. Many wanted higher pay, better working conditions, and shorter hours, but they were not revolutionary. Gramsci thinks this was because of their cultural values. He thinks the working classes were deeply misguided – and not radical enough – because most of them valued the following: • the institution of the nuclear family

• the idea of a nation with a shared national identity

• individual rights

• the industrial system which was increasing standards of living

• God Gramsci focuses on these cultural values. He knows that Marx and Engels’ economic predictions were wrong – the vast majority in industrial societies did not end up in subsistence poverty. So Gramsci changes the focus from economics to culture. He is a “cultural Marxist” because he

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism - 11

argues it was the working classes’ own cultural values which oppressed them – cultural values such as believing in 1) the nuclear family, 2) a shared national identity, 3) individual rights, 4) rising living standards, and 5) traditional religion. Gramsci seeks to destroy these cultural values. The first step in doing so is to label them “bourgeois” values. Gramsci labels these values “bourgeois” because he thinks it is the bourgeoisie who develop and spread these values in society. He views these values as serving their interests and power. Consider Gramsci’s logic: • He needs to explain why most members of the working classes are not revolutionary.

• His explanation is that the bourgeoisie brainwashed the working classes into believing “bourgeois” values.

• He suggests that as the working classes internalize these values, they essentially oppress themselves.

Notice that as Gramsci changes the focus from economics to culture, he keeps Marx and Engels’ description of society as oppressor vs. oppressed. He simply sees culture – not subsistence poverty – as the main way the oppression happens. He thinks the bourgeoisie control culture and impose their values on the working classes – thought he does not think the working classes realize this. So he thinks the working classes need to be “awakened” to their own oppression. The second step to destroy “bourgeois” values, for Gramsci, was for radicals to infiltrate society – to get jobs in the institutions that produce culture. These include educational institutions, religious institutions, media, law, entertainment, etc. As more radicals work in these institutions, Gramsci hopes they will slowly take over the institutions and spread their revolutionary message throughout society. The goal was to “awaken” the working classes to their own oppression and thereby start a cultural revolution against 1) the family, 2) national identity, 3) individualism, 4) rising living standards, and 5) God. A follower of Gramsci called this infiltration process “the long march through the institutions” – the process of taking over society’s institutions and dismantling society’s cultural values from within. Gramsci argues that subverting these values would lead to “liberation” – meaning a freer, more meaningful, and more just society. Like Marx and Engels, Gramsci does not explain exactly how unraveling the central values of society – “liberation” – will lead to superior forms of freedom, meaning, and justice. Gramsci’s idea of liberation from “bourgeois” values influenced what became known as Critical Theory – cultural Marxism. Herbert Marcuse picked up on these ideas later in the 20th century. Like Gramsci, Marcuse realizes that the working classes did not rise up in violent revolution. That’s because industrial capitalism had raised their standard of living. • Marcuse complains in 1964 that the working classes’ standard of living was “much better

than before, and as a good way of life, it militates against qualitative change” – meaning better standards of living make people less radical.

This content is protected, and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed. Communism - 12

• In 1969, Marcuse similarly complains about industrial capitalism’s “capacity to produce long-range contentment and satisfaction” in the working classes.

Like Gramsci, Marcuse thinks the working classes are brainwashed – brainwashed by their own contentment and satisfaction into believing “bourgeois” values. Marcuse thus criticizes the working classes as a “conservative popular base” – meaning they were not revolutionary. Marcuse looks to other groups to lead the cultural revolution against the nuclear family, national identity, individualism, rising living standards, and God. He considers that college students might lead the way – that it is possible to “awaken” college students from the oppression of “bourgeois” values and have them promote what he calls “cultural subversion.” Marcuse also thinks that others had the potential to be “awakened” and radicalized. He thinks he sees this radical potential in what he calls people of “other races and other colors” – meaning he hopes that ethnic and racial minorities would lead the cultural revolution in the United States whether they were college students or not. He still uses Marx and Engels’ description of society as oppressor vs. oppressed, but begins to envision the cultural revolution as an identity-based revolution. By the end of the 20th century, others were picking up on and developing Marcuse’s way of thinking. They began suggesting that there were different degrees of oppression associated with different identity groups. This thought process became known as intersectionality. Intellectuals like Gramsci and Marcuse certainly revise Marx and Engels’ philosophy. They focus more on culture than on economics, which is why they’re called “cultural Marxists.” Yet they do so by developing certain assumptions they learn from Marx and Engels – ways of thinking about society and human relationships. For example, Gramsci and Marcuse not only simplify the infinite complexity of society by categorizing individuals as members of groups, but they describe the relationships between these groups as oppressor vs. oppressed. They then present these groups as engaged in an unavoidable zero-sum conflict. That means the groups share no common interests and there’s no way for the conditions of all groups to improve at the same time. One group’s gain is another group’s loss. This way of thinking – a zero-sum conflict between oppressor and oppressed social groups – is the most lasting legacy of Marx and Engels. Even though their economic predictions were wrong, Marx and Engels showed later thinkers how to provoke revolution. Key was to “awaken” members of society to be deeply suspicious of each other, to view each other as belonging to opposing groups with no common interests – a zero-sum conflict. The more members of society view each other this way – as adversaries with nothing in common – the easier it is to pigeonhole, scapegoat, and blame one another when problems, crises, or tragedies occur. The process of suspicion and scapegoating is the kindling that lights revolution.