Making Interpretations Plausible: “Marx in Soho”

In Howard Zinn’s one-man play “Marx in Soho,” actor Bob Weick portrayed a Karl Marx brought back from the dead who analyzes the continuation of capitalism in today’s world and how that relates to his work from the nineteenth century. One of his main points was that religion is the “opiate” of the people, meaning a coping mechanism they use to take away the pain of the real world. Although Marx was an atheist, he had no problem with religion being used as a way to deal with people’s problems. Looking at countries throughout history that claimed to be “communist,” it is interesting to note that they forbade organized religion even though Marx had this view on it.
Another overarching argument the Marx in the play had was that he was not a “Marxist.” He repeatedly complained about a man named “Peeper” who asked his permission to translate Das Kapital into English. Marx’s issue with this man was that he was a dogmatic and did not understand Communism as it should be understood. For Marx to say he was not a Marxist carries significant weight because it shows how far from his true ideas self-proclaimed “communists” strayed. He was extremely worried about his writings being interpreted in the wrong way by vocal thinkers like Peeper. Marx, in the play, was horrified by what Stalin did to his own people under a “communist” regime. He claimed that Communism is not suppressive but rather wants to raise up each member of society. Marx described walking home in Soho, London, and passing beggars lying in garbage on the street, the disgust clear in his voice. Even from hearing his personal anecdotes, it is clear how wrong he believed the economic inequality of the industrial era was.
Perhaps the points Marx brought up that resonate most with a modern audience are that big money is still an issue today and that people are the root of society’s problems. Large corporations like Walmart treat their workers very poorly, maybe not straying from conditions during the industrial age. By continuing to purchase goods from stores like Walmart, the consumer “votes with his dollar,” which is more effective than voting in elections. The people, as consumers, keep capitalism going, therefore perpetuating the problematic cycle Marx wrote about.