Are “Communism,” “Marxism,” and “Capitalism” merely intellectual and political phantoms afterall? For the world does seem to me as trans-historically divided into opposing camps…

For all the confusion, I think these terms do refer to very different visions or models of how society should be organized, which commitments ought to govern social institutions, which values and goals governments should prioritize, and so on. Naturally, the concepts themselves are abstractions, representing more or less what Max Weber called “ideal types.” Even so, they can be useful in understanding, evaluating and comparing different societies.

I already sketched the Marxist conception of communism in answering a previous question. As for “capitalism,” I take this term to mean a socio-economic arrangement based on private ownership of the major means of production — in which production decisions are shaped more or less exclusively by the pursuit of profit — coupled with a market economy. It’s probably the case that most people who criticize capitalism focus on the contrast between production-for-profit and production-to-satisfy-needs, but it’s important to remember that this follows from the distinction between public and private ownership.

In your studies of Marx, have you delved very far into the political philosophy of Sartre? If so, could you comment on Sartre’s interpretation of Marx and how he thought Marx’s writings should be translated into political action?

Although I am familiar with Sartre’s early phenomenological and existentialist writings, I have not read much of his political philosophy, which attempts, among other things, something of a synthesis of Marxism and existentialism.

Sartre was in fact a major influence on many philosophers who subsequently tried to develop a kind of “existential Marxism,” and in general on writers who were of the opinion that classical Marxist theory tended to resemble a mechanistic determinism, ignoring important questions connected with subjectivity and individual human experience.

As a scholar and writer on Marx, what predictions can you make about the oncoming economic reality of the 21st century, and the shape literature will take? Do you think the world economy will exhibit more Marxist attributes, or less — will literature, as it’s been traditionally viewed in the West, play a more vital role in culture? Or will it be extinguished in its own antiquity, and turn into a mere trace of its former glory by the onslaught of more technology in a rising corporate global “community”?

There seem to be two questions here. As for the global economic realities of the 21st century, my sense is that the current world order — that is, the political, economic and ecological status quo — is simply unsustainable. I certainly don’t know exactly where we’re heading, but I do believe that the economy and society will exhibit many of the features that Marx foresaw. These include, on the one hand, the social ills caused by capitalism that Marx and Marxists have diagnosed and analyzed, e.g. alienation and the devastation to our sense of community.

… my sense is that the current world order — that is, the political, economic and ecological status quo — is simply unsustainable. I certainly don’t know exactly where we’re heading, but I do believe that the economy and society will exhibit many of the features that Marx foresaw.

On the other hand, there will probably be heightened, or at any rate continuing, concentrations of wealth and power, much production of waste, and the kind of economic competition that leads to imperialism and war. For these reasons, among others, I’m quite certain that people will continue to find much that is useful and inspiring in the work of Marx, Engels and the other classical Marxists (Antonio Gramsci, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, José Carlos Mariátegui, etc.).

As for literature, I tend to be slightly pessimistic. While I’m sure that different forms of art and literature will continue to play a vital role in our experience, I worry that literature “as it’s been traditionally viewed in the West,” as you put it, will be somewhat more marginal.

I tend to think that technological changes have benefited literature to the extent that they have led us to have new relationships to the world and to one another. This, in turn, has obviously given writers new sources of inspiration, new experiences to reflect upon, and new realities to explore. At the same time, there’s no question that certain new technologies “compete” with literature (as conventionally understood), and with other forms of artistic expression.