The performance of Howard Zinn’s play, Marx in Soho, portrayed the issues of the nineteenth-century in the context of modern day to highlight the underlying problems that still prevent society from advancing. The actor of Karl Marx, Bob Weick, targeted the audience of primarily college students and college professors by focusing on problems that are ordinarily either overlooked or simply ignored by ignorance. In doing so, this motivated the audience to think about social and economic issues while watching the performance, which created an even greater desire to evaluate and promote further change. Marx offered the solution of analyzing the root of the problem instead of blindly acting on fallacies, which was performed through passionate acting by changing the pitch and speed of his voice to adjust the mood of the theater. Bob Weick specifically captivated the audience through comical and relatable acting techniques in order to inspire the radical ideas of Karl Marx, which in turn prompted younger generations to take measures to instigate change in society.

Many of the same problems that Marx addressed still exist and are progressively worsening in America today, which is why the material is still relevant to the current system. Marx critiqued the capitalist society of the nineteenth-century, but Weick also incorporated the current election, confused political leaders, and large companies holding control over the “free markets” to show that the issues have evolved into newer forms. Weick specifically targeted Donald Trump and Walmart in order to single out giants that have influenced America, which would most likely be critiqued by Marx if he were alive today. Although one is not meant to leave the play enraged by these social figures, they are presented in order to get the audience to question these figures legitimate role in the economy. Thus, change is simply sparked by asking questions about modern figures, regardless of whether a revolution arises.

Marx in Soho is a play by Bob Weick that inter-twines Marx into the 21^st century, the main trend of the piece is to show that the revolution never occurred. Marx argues with Bakunin that “La Commune de Paris” was the only society close to his teachings. But capitalism works on oppressing others in order to keep its current system intact as such the commune was crushed.

Karl Marx shows the audience how he used to argue with Mikhail Bakunin a Russian anarchist that had very set ideas about the revolution. Bakunin disputed that the revolution must be fought by the people. Furthermore Bakunin believed that all state and form of government should be abolished. Marx strongly refuted this point by saying that capitalism cannot simply vanish it must transition into a workers state[i], he proceeds to speak about “La Commune de Paris” which to him was the only time that his views ever came to light. In 1871 Paris united under a free commune that democratically appointed its representatives, who were not chosen by the bourgeoisie but by the people they included individuals of the working class but also some intellectuals.[ii] This group of individuals was the epitome of Marx’s dream. However “La Commune de Paris” was crushed by capitalism, as the armies rolled back into Paris they executed 10,000 to 25,000 people. Thus capitalism and the bourgeoisie were reinstalled and much to Marx’s disgust it would remain so.

In conclusion Marx in Soho outlines trends that are still occurring to this day. His revolution never occurred and the only time that it did, it was crushed under foot by capitalism. The 21^st century may or may not see Marx’s much wanted revolution, but Marx in Soho is piece that instigates the audience into action and into understanding that our society is unhealthy and needs to be cured from the disease of capitalism.

[i] Robertson, Ann, December 2003, the Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict,

  https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm ( accessed September 30, 2015)

[ii] Les acteurs de la commune, “Histoire Du Monde”

http://www.histoiredumonde.net/Les-acteurs-de-la-Commune.html (accessed September 30, 2015 )

The issue of income inequality in the twenty first century highlights an ongoing struggle in the United States and abroad. The United States’ poverty gap has increased, as the rich are becoming wealthier and the poor are falling behind. The reasons for such causes can be credited to the American capitalist system promoting industry, innovation, and business. However said, the issue has led to other scary realities, such as the increasing popularity of drugs, alcohol, and to the increase of violence. Similarly to the modern American capitalist system, the “Marx in Soho” skit conveys the same realities a century ago that were tied to the existing class system and division of labor between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat classes. Furthermore, Marx considered the idea of a world wide communist revolution that would end capitalism and provide a basis for a structured society in which the state would be in control of social behavior instead of the previous class system.

The presentation was performed in front of an audience of college students not only for educational purposes but to also appeal to the youth, who according to Marx, are the ones destined to unite and trigger a revolution. This was interesting because it challenged previous opinions about equality and morals in society. In twenty first century America, the youth is finding trouble making a living and competing in the capitalist society because of issues: such as not being able to pay college debt, having high mortgages, and facing unemployment. Thinking about these issues as a young individual myself, it became evident that the ideas conveyed in Marx’s manifesto and in the skit might not be as farfetched as they were before the skit. The twenty first century is already dealing with bigger issues of concern such as terrorism, and even the threat of nuclear weapon development. Thus, from a personal perspective the idea of a worldwide revolution is not feasible or convenient for the future.

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.

Karl Marx saw private property as the root of power inequality, and, in his play Marx in Soho, author Howard Zinn brings this message to contemporary society. However, the play also deepens the idea of a power struggle by challenging the concept of a utopia and analyzing Marx’s own power relationships.

In the play Marx in Soho, Marx claims he staged a protest in Heaven so the powers that be would allow him to return to earth for the performance. Much of the play focuses on Marx’s personal relationships, and Marx as a character expounds upon the need for all workers to unite and change society in order to alleviate the issues that characterize a capitalist system. When viewed in the context of Marx’s belief in a historical power struggle between two economic classes, Marx in Soho raises several questions about the nature of power in human life. The play begins with the idea that even Heaven, a utopia, needs agitators to keep power in check and create space for the people’s needs. A perfect human society does not exist, so citizens must be constantly active and aware. This implies that even in a society which separates power from material wealth and creates true equality for all people, citizens must fight against potential tyrants.

Additionally, the play illustrates the power dynamics in many of Marx’s personal relationships. Marx espoused ideas of gender equality but left all childcare and home responsibilities to his wife. The play gave no practical reason for this arrangement other than Marx’s tacit acceptance of societal gender roles. Thus Marx simultaneously exercised an oppressive power over someone he loved and fought for the furtherance and eventual elimination of a larger and more visible power division. Power divisions exist in the most basic human relationships, meaning that even with the elimination of material wealth, inequality can continue, perhaps perpetuated by the very revolutionaries that eliminate other forms of oppression.

Marx’s communism seeks to eliminate inequality in society by eliminating the structures that create it, yet Marx himself exercised power over people in his life based on his status as a man, and Marx in Soho implies that no society can be beyond the possibility of tyranny. Eliminating power structures does not inherently eliminate power struggles. Ultimately, this play asks us if humans can escape their desire to accumulate power, or must maintain constant vigilance against it.