MARXIST THEORY; A brief Introduction.
Ted Trainer
3.2010
On approaching Marxism: a preliminary note.
Marx can be thought of as
having offered two sets of ideas, the first of which we can accept if we wish
to, without accepting the second.
1.
Marx gave us a theory of society, i.e , an explanation of how society works, of
how and why history has unfolded, and especially an account of the nature of
capitalism. These are of great value for the task of describing what is going
on in the world and for understanding the problems and directions of our
society today.
2.
But Marx also regarded capitalism as extremely unsatisfactory and he was very
concerned with getting rid of it, via violent revolution and the establishment
of a communist society. Marxism is therefore also about political goals and
action.
Obviously very few people in
western society today accept this second set of ideas; most seem to think
capitalism is desirable, most do not want to see it destroyed and most do not
like the idea of revolution or communism.
The following notes are
intended to show the value of the first of these sets of ideas. One can accept
Marx's concepts as being very useful for the purpose of understanding our
society without accepting his condemnation of capitalism, his political values
or his recommendations for political action. In other words, if you do not
agree with Marxist social ideals and implications for action, don't let this
interfere with your evaluation of Marxist theory about how our society works.
Marx argued that the
economic situation, the form of the productive system, is the most important
determinant of all other aspects of the society, such as its social
institutions and ideas, such as the system of law, of morality and education.
These are elements within the "superstructure" of society.
Hence Marx is said to be a
"materialist". Marx rebelled against Hegel's philosophy in which
ideas were taken to be the important determinants of history. Marx argued that
dominant ideas are the result of material or economic conditions and he was
therefore strongly opposed to reformers who thought that mere change in ideas
can change society.
The main types of society
Marx distinguished were primitive, slave, feudal and capitalist. In a
capitalist society capitalists own and control the productive resources (i.e.,
capital), workers own only their labour and work for capitalists, who then own
the product and sell it at a profit.
The key to understanding a
society at any point in history is to focus first on the mode of production. In
feudal society land was the crucial productive factor and the feudal lords
owned and controlled it. In capitalist society capital, machinery, mines,
factories etc. are the key productive factors and these are owned and
controlled by capitalists (...as distinct from being owned by all members of
society, which is the focal idea in varieties of socialism).
The
"forces" of production and the "relations" of production.
Marx saw the relation
between these two factors as the main determinant of the type of society
existing and of social change.
The “forces of production”
may be loosely regarded as the type of productive technology the society has;
e.g., slave labour, machine technology...
The “relations of production”
refers to the social organisation of production; i.e., basically who owns the
productive forces, or how they are controlled. For instance in a slave society
masters force slaves to do the work, and in a feudal society serfs are obliged
to work for the lord a certain number of days each week. In capitalist society
capitalists own society's productive resources and employ workers to operate
these for a wage when capitalists think profits can be made.
At first the relation
between new forces of production and new relations of production is progressive
or beneficial to society in general. Marx stressed the great increase in human
welfare that economic growth under capitalism had brought. However as time goes
on the situation becomes less and less beneficial. The new social relations of
production begin to hinder the full development and application of the new
forces of production. For example in the late feudal era it was not in the
interests of the lords to allow land to be sold or labourers to sell their
labour freely to any employer. These practices were inhibited although they
eventually became essential in the capitalist mode of production and therefore
in the increase in production and benefits that capitalism brought. Similarly
at present we are unable to apply powerful technology to doing useful things
like designing longer-lasting goods, and feeding hungry people simply because
of the existing social relations of production. That is, the relations of
production take a form in which control over the application of productive
forces is in the hands of capitalists and it is not in their interests to do
these socially beneficial things.
This is a major
contradiction in contemporary capitalist society. Such contradictions have been
intrinsic in all class societies and as each has developed its contradictions
have become more and more glaring, to the point where they lead to
revolutionary change.
So the relation between the
forces and the social relations of production and the consequences this generates
is the major dynamic factor in history, the primary cause of social change.
Classes,
and class conflict.
The social relations of
production involve different classes. The basic determinant of one's class is
one's relationship to the means of production. For example in late capitalist
society the two basic classes remaining are the owners of the means of
production, i.e., capitalists, and those who own only their labour, i.e., the
workers or proletariat.
So in any historical period
dominant and subservient classes can be identified. Inequality in wealth and
power was of fundamental moral concern to Marx. Some groups come to dominate
others and to win for themselves a disproportionate share of the society’s
wealth, power and privileges. The ultimate goal Marxists aim at is a classless
society, i.e., a society in which all enjoy more or less equal wealth and
power.
Marx said history is
basically about the struggle between classes for dominance. "The history
of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles".
Marxists stress that social
analysis should focus on class structure and relations. In other words the most
important questions to ask about a society are to do with what groups in
society dominate or gain most benefit from the status quo, or whose interests
does the situation or policy or proposal serve most?
In capitalist society the
capitalist class benefits most; i.e., those who own and control the means of
production receive a disproportionate share of wealth, power, privileges and
status. There are other classes but as time goes on these are squeezed into
either the small capitalist class or the large working class.
Note that there is an
important distinction between big business, which includes the transnational
corporations and banks, and small business. Many small firms and family farms
and shops are usually struggling, only providing their owners will low incomes.
These people are not investing capital in order to make profits from
enterprises in which they have no other stake, so they are not really part of
the capitalist class. They are more like peasants who own and work on their own
farms.
It is also important to note
that most people own some wealth, such as their house, but this is not capital.
Most capital, i.e., factories, money, is owned by very few people, perhaps as
few as 2% of the world’s people.
It can be seen from the
foregoing that Marx put forward a theory of history, or a principle which he
thought explained the dynamic of history. The basic element in this is the
Hegelian idea of a "dialectical progression" whereby a) an original
situation or idea or "thesis" exists, b) an "antithesis"
develops in opposition to this, c) the two are resolved into a
"synthesis', which becomes the new thesis. In any historical era, e.g.,
feudalism, the inherent contradictions or class conflicts (e.g., between the
dominant landowning lords and the rising commercial classes) come to a head in
some sort of revolution and are resolved when a new social order stabilises (e.g.,
the early capitalist era).
History is therefore
primarily a function of material or economic conditions. (Hence the terms
"historical materialism" and "dialectical materialism").
The relation between the types of productive technology in use and the social
relations or organisation and control of those forms of production is what has
determined the nature of primitive, slave, feudal and capitalist society, and
what has moved society from one to the other.
Marx thought his theory of
history was a major achievement and one of the two insights (along with his
theory of value) which established Marxism as a science. (However many think
this is quite mistaken and that there are no inevitable laws of history.)
However, this repeating
cycle will come to an end. The thesis of capitalism and the antithesis of the
proletariat will issue into a synthesis which will eventually see the
achievement of a classless society. Because it has been the existence of class
conflict which has generated change, in a classless society the dialectical
process will have come to an end. This does not mean there can be no further
change or progress, e.g., in art or science, but it does seem to mean that
there will be no further political change.
The forces of production in
capitalist society include the factory method (as distinct from production by
family units within the home or by individual craftsmen, as was the case in
earlier times) and intensive machine technology. This mode requires large investments
of capital to be made in plant, mines, etc., and it involves the extensive use
of science and technology in developing more sophisticated processes.
The most important of the
social relations of production in a capitalist society are, a) ownership and
control of society's productive resources are in the hands of a few who invest
their capital or put their factories to production only if they think profit
can be made, and b) most members of society have to sell their labour to
capitalists, have to accept orders in the workplace, and have no say or stake
in production other than their pay packets.
Marxists also insist that
only labour should be able to earn money and that money should not be able to
earn money. In other words they do not think people who are rich should be able
to receive an income as interest on their savings or investments, especially as
this means that the richer one is the more income one gets without having to
work…while rich people consume goods made by people who must work for their
income.
Profit
vs need.
Conventional economic theory
and practice are based on the assumption that it is desirable for production
and development to be driven by profit. The theory is that only if capitalists
produce what people demand will profits be maximised, and therefore the most
efficient allocations be made. However Marxists and others emphasise that there
can be and typically is a huge gulf between production for profit and
production to meet needs. Profits are maximised by producing what relatively
richer people want and can pay for. As a result usually the urgent needs of
poorer people, and the needs of the environment are seriously neglected.
The
labour theory of value.
Marxists argue that the
value of goods should be calculated in terms of the amount of labour that went
into their production. Conventional economics does not do this; it takes as
value whatever will be paid in the market place.
A fundamental Marxist theme
is that capitalist profit making constitutes exploitation of workers. When a
capitalist sells something his worker made and receives more for the item than
he paid for the inputs including the workers’ wages he is taking a portion of
the value that the worker created. The worker's labour created the total value
realised in the sale price but he only received a portion of this value, and he
is therefore being exploited by the capitalist who controls the productive
situation but does no work in the creation of the product.
The argument is clearest in
the case of shareholders who have nothing to do with the factory except invest
their money in it and who then receive an income without having to do any work
for it. In other words the capitalist's profits are not to be confused with any
wages he might draw for his managerial effort. Often all managers are paid a
wage for their labour, while all those who provide the capital do not work yet
receive an income which is some proportion of the wealth created by the labour
in the factory.
The conventional counterargument
is that it takes capital as well as labour to produce things and wages are the
return to labour while profit is the return to capital. Profit is the incentive
that persuades those who hold capital to put it into production, which benefits
the rest of us. However, the Marxist insists that it would be better to
organise society in such a way that all people own and control the capital and
no one gets an income without working for it.
Similarly, to argue that
profit is the capitalist's reward for risking his capital is only to say that
he takes the risk of losing it and then having to work for an income like the
rest of us!
The strongest argument for a
profit-motivated economy in which firms are privately owned might be that
unearned income is the best alternative to the heavy handed, bureaucratic,
inefficient and dictatorial planning socialism inevitably involves. However
this is to overlook the possibility of a democratic, participatory socialism in
which capital is not all owned or controlled by the state. Local cooperative
groups could own and control basic factories, and many might be privately owned
but carefully regulated by society. Nevertheless one of the biggest problems
for socialism is how to set and adjust the huge number of prices of goods on
sale, if not via a market.
The
contradictions in capitalism.
Marx argued that at first
capitalism released great progressive developments, especially large increases
in production and therefore in the material wealth of people in general. However
as time passed the forces of production and the social relations of production
came increasingly into conflict, contradictions surfaced and the social
relations of production began to thwart the full application of technology and
productive potential to social needs. These internal contradictions will
continue to increase in severity over time and ultimately they will result in
the destruction of the capitalist system.
The central conflicts built
into the structure of capitalism concern the process whereby capitalists
accumulate profits. Capitalists are involved in savage competition with each
other and therefore there is great pressure to develop more efficient
production and better technology. There is a tendency over time for capitalists
to increase the percentage of their capital investment that goes into machinery
("fixed capital") and to decrease the percentage put into buying
labour. In other words there is a tendency for what Marx called the
"organic composition" of capital to change. Consequently workers in
general take home less pay and increasing "immiseration" of the
proletariat accompanies the capitalist's increasing accumulation of wealth.
Consequently workers have less purchasing power and because they therefore
cannot buy all the goods that the capitalists' factories can produce there is a
tendency for capitalists profits to fall in the long run. These two
consequences of the essential contradiction built into the nature of capitalism
will result in its eventual destruction. Both the workers' situation and the
capitalist’s profits will deteriorate to the point where revolution will occur.
Critics have said that in
the one hundred years since Marx's death there has been precisely the reverse
of the predicted immiseration of the proletariat. Material living standards
have risen enormously. The main counterargument is that this is only true
within the few rich countries and has been at the expense of conditions in the
Third World. Some would argue that only since the mid-1970s has capitalism US
have actually fallen slightly for twenty years or more, while the rich have
become much richer.
The important idea here is
that capitalism has built into its foundations forces and tendencies that will
destroy it some day. Will its contradictions inevitably lead to collapse? In
the 1990s it was far from self-destruction. In fact many thought its triumph
over communism with the fall of the USSR meant that it had been indisputably
established as the only and final path for humanity to follow. More recently it could be arued that
financial crises and especially environmental problems represent the system’s
inability to solve the accelerating problems it generates..
Accumulation.
Marxists stress that the
factor which determines what happens in our society is the drive to
accumulate capital; i.e., the ceaseless quest to make profits, which are
then reinvested, to make more profit, in an endless spiral of capital
accumulation. This leads to innovation and change. Why is there now a McDonalds
in your street? Why has so much manufacturing left Australia? These changes
have come about because competing firms are always looking for ways of
maximising their profits.
Note that capitalists have
no choice here. They must constantly seek more profitable fields for investment,
because they are competing against each other and if they fall behind they will
be killed off. It is important not to focus criticism on capitalists; it is the
capitalist system that is the problem. Capitalists are locked into deadly
competition. (Korten 1995, explains how executives who do things like preserver
forests will therefore not maximise profits and will thus be targeted for
hostile takeover by firms who can see that greater profits can be made there.)
The
problem of surplus.
Capitalism is increasingly
faced with the enormous problem of finding profitable outlets for all the
capital that is constantly accumulating. This problem has led to many important
phenomena, such as takeover mania, speculation on exchange rates and on
commodities, the 1987 stock market crash, and more recently the Information
Technology boom, the Asian meltdown and the lGlobal Financial Crisis. The
problem of surplus is the major factor that has led to globalisation, because
globalisation involves removing barriers blocking access to greater
opportunities for profitable investment of the ver-accumulating surplus.
The
social effects of capitalism; a) alienation in work.
Two somewhat distinct
strands can be distinguished in Marx's writings. One is focused on economics,
and involves the claim to have discovered the scientific laws of history, i.e.,
the way change and development follows a dialectic pattern to do with
productive relations, which will end with socialist revolution and the eventual
emergence of communism. However it was only in the Twentieth century that
Marx's writings on more philosophical and social themes, such as alienation,
were discovered.
One of Marx's main
criticisms of capitalism was that it involved "alienated" labour.
Workers in a capitalist society are typically obliged to perform only a few
limited and routine operations, they rarely build the whole item nor see the
final product, work is often boring, workers have no say in what happens to the
product because it is not their property, they do not own their tools, they
have no say in the planning or organisation of work, they just do what they are
told, they must work within strict rules, especially regarding time, under
conditions of intense division of labour. They have little or no opportunity
for exercise of initiative. Their only interest in the entire work process is
the money they get for working. (These conditions were more characteristic of
the factory in Marx’s time, but less evident in the modern office.)
By contrast the subsistence
farmer or "primitive" tribesman can decide what he will work on at
any moment, at what pace he'll work, how to do the job, when to take a break.
He can control and plan and vary the whole process, and he knows that the
product of his work will be his to enjoy or use or exchange.
Marx regarded satisfying
work as being very important for a human's emotional or spiritual welfare.
Humans are somehow incomplete or deprived of something important if they cannot
engage in worthwhile and satisfying effort to produce things for themselves and
their communities, and capitalism destroys any possibility of the sort of
self-sufficient, self-controlled and intrinsically rewarding work Marx valued.
The social effects of
capitalism; b) The destruction of community.
Marx argued that capitalism
tends to destroy almost all non-economic or non-profit-related values and
replaces these with a mere "cash nexus". It makes the market and
therefore considerations of monetary profit and loss the sole criteria of
value, action and exchange. For instance in feudal times, whether or not one
would work for another or buy or sell something depended on many important
moral and religious and traditional rules and values, not on the prospects for
personal economic gain. The development of capitalism tore most of these
considerations away and made the sole criterion the question of economic
advantage. Hence it became acceptable to buy and sell labour and land.
Contemporary critics argue that the market and the capitalist’s need for mo
bile workers has broken the strong emotional bonds individuals used to have to
places, groups, people and traditions, and have contributed to a decline of
community. The individual now typically exists as an unattached social atom in
"mass society", without strong emotional commitments and social
bonds. Hence the incidence of anxiety, loneliness, individual and family
breakdown, suicide, crime, alcoholism etc.
Another way of putting this
criticism is that capitalism turns almost all things into commodities
for sale, especially labour. Labour, land and money were not commodities for
sale in feudal times. One can now talk of personalities, behaviour and
education as commodities. Salesmen sell their personalities and behaviours to
employers who use these to get people to buy their products. The quality of a
society depends primarily on its non-material and non-cash relations, so we
should be concerned about the increasing commercialisation. For a discussion of
the need to "embed" market relations in social relations, that is to
prevent considerations of monetary gain from dominating a society, see
especially Karl Polanyi. (Dalton, 1968.)
The
state.
Marxists argue that the
state serves the dominant classes in society. The state is "the executive
committee of the bourgeoisie". In capitalist society the state rules
primarily in the interest of the capitalist class. For example the state takes
as its top priority increasing economic (i.e., business) activity, when it is
clear that this is now accompanied by a falling quality of life and by
environmental destruction. The
state's most important characteristic is that is has the power to coerce
members of society; e.g., to jail, fine or execute, and to make war.
Marx claimed that the state
will cease to exist when society becomes classless. He seems to have meant that
the coercive apparatus, e.g., police and army, will not be necessary because
these function primarily to enforce rules which benefit the dominant classes,
but there will still be a need for bureaucracy to look after organisation and
planning.
Ideology;
false consciousness.
Dominated and exploited
classes typically do not understand their situation or their interests. They do
not realise that the situation is unjust. This is usually due to the acceptance
of ideas which cast the status quo as being legitimate; e.g., peasants might
believe that kings have a divine right to rule and that God ordains that the
poor should accept their lot with good grace, or that a miserable life in this
world is not very important or worth trying to change because the important
thing is to prepare one's soul for the next world. In our era Marxists stress
the role of the media in reinforcing the dominant ideology, especially by not
giving space to fundamental criticisms of capitalist society.
In any class society there
will be a dominant ideology, which will be made up of the ideas which it suits
the dominant class for people to hold. The acceptance of these perspectives and
values by the working class is also referred to as "bourgeois
hegemony".
Marx thought that late in
the history of capitalism workers will develop clearer awareness of their
situation and their interests, i.e., class consciousness will emerge. Workers
will come to see that the prevailing social relations of production are not in
their interests.
However, even in Marx's time
there was considerable debate as to whether workers will develop sufficient
class consciousness on their own, or whether this will only rise to a
"trade union" mentality, which look no further than winning gains
within the capitalist system, unless they are led towards revolution by a
vanguard communist party. Lenin argued for the need for a secret and dedicated
community party, to lead the workers.
Revolution.
Marx thought that capitalism
contains forces and processes which cannot help but increase its internal
difficulties to the point where it inevitably collapses. Through the
deteriorating alignment between the forces and the relations of production
contradictions become more glaring, there is polarisation into capitalists and
proletarian classes, the immiseration of the proletariat increases, the class
consciousness of the proletariat increases and revolution breaks out.
Major social change is not
possible without revolution. Bourgeois revolutions overthrew feudal society,
e.g., the French Revolution. Marxists insist that dominant classes will not
voluntarily give up power, wealth and privilege. Their control has to be taken
away from them, and this might have to involve violence.
The "inevitability"
of revolution has been a matter of debate among Marxists since the failure of
the 1848 attempted revolutions. Some have argued that history needs a push.
Lenin especially thought that workers will not rise to revolutionary
consciousness on their own and he argued for and developed a communist party to
lead the workers. Marx was in general opposed to a vanguard which might operate
as far beyond the workers as Lenin's party operated, although he did make vague
remarks about the party being an advanced and resolute section of the
proletariat. Remember that he
thought he had discovered the laws
by which history worked, where by capitalism would automatically move
towards its own self-destruction.
Marxists have therefore been
concerned with the problem of whether to work for a "minimum"
program, i.e., to assist capitalism to move towards maturity and subsequent
self-destruction, or a "maximum" program, i.e., to strive directly to
engineer revolution. This issue was extremely important in their late l9th
Century discussion of whether Russia could move to revolution without having to
go through a capitalist phase. In the Third World some Marxist groups have
actually held back from revolutionary activity because they did not think
capitalism had matured sufficiently.
However, at the end of his
life Marx seemed to think that a non-violent and non-industrial path to
socialism might be possible, through development of the traditional collective
Russian village. That is, it might not be necessary to go through the long and
arduous period of industrialisation and development of a working class,
increasing immiseration and eventual revolution. Many Anarchists think it is
possible to begin building a new, post-capitalist society now, without having
to wait for or work for the destruction of capitalism. (This is called
"prefiguring"; see Notes on Anarchism).
After
the revolution.
Marx did not say much about
the form society would take after capitalism. Eventually a classless society
would come into existence, free of political conflicts, coercion, domination
and exploitation.
Immediately after the
revolution when the proletariat gained control there would have to be a period
of "dictatorship of the proletariat" which would be necessary to
remove all elements of capitalism, especially the ideas and values making up
bourgeois ideology. In this period of state socialism people would still be
motivated to work by differential wages and there would have to be a strong
state, in the hands of the worker's party, which ran a planned economy.
However, Marx thought that
in time a collectivist society (communism) would emerge in which control and
decision making would be in the hands of the people as a whole. The coercive
state would wither away, intense division of labour and specialisation would
cease, the outlook and motivation of individuals would be collective and
cooperative, and people would have much greater opportunity to develop and
fulfil their potential than they had under capitalism. Marx was optimistic
about the capacity of humans to do these things, seeing greed, competition and
conflict as dispositions produced by class domination.
Perhaps the best clue to the
nature of communist society is given by the statement "From each according
to his ability, to each according to his needs". This means that all would
contribute as best they could, with those more able doing more, but all would
be rewarded not according to their output, skill or status but in proportion to
their needs. So we would all do a reasonable day’s work although some would be
able to produce more than others, but if one person who can't do as much as the
rest has greater needs that person will receive more. This is the way a good
family works. It is obviously a noble principle but could we organise large
systems, like a nation state this way? Anarchists think the chances of a
society following this principle are best when societies are very small, making
familiarity and cooperation on local tasks more likely. (For differences
between Marx and the Anarchists see Notes on Anarchism.)
CRITICISMS OF MARX’S THEORY.
Following are criticisms
that are commonly made.
- Too much emphasis is given
to the economic factor in explaining social order and change. Culture seemed to
be explained solely as derived from the economic "substructure".
However it has a degree of "autonomy"; for example it is difficult to
explain the advent of gay liberation in terms of productive or economic
relations.
- Even if you get rid of
capitalism you might still have enormous problems of conflict and domination in
society. State bureaucracies as well as capitalists can dominate -- ask the
Russians.
- Marx’s theory of history
is contradicted by the fact that industrialised countries have not moved closer
to revolution. The recent revolutions have been in peasant societies, such as
China. Capitalist societies seem to have become more secure from threat of
revolution throughout the 20th century.
- Many would say there
are no laws of history and that Marx was mistaken in thinking he had discovered
the laws of history, and in thinking that his theory was scientific.
- Anarchists say Marxists
fail to grasp the unacceptable dangers in their readiness to take an
authoritarian-centralist approach. Marxists are willing to use the
authoritarian state to run society after the revolution and to be ruthless in
this. This is extremely dangerous; those in control can’t be trusted and are
very likely to become an entrenched dictatorship. (E.g., Stalinism.)
- Many if not all Anarchists
would also reject Marx's theory of how capitalism can or will be replaced,
which involves confronting capitalism, class conflict, seizing the state and
taking power from the capitalist class, and destroying capitalism, a process
which will probably involve violence. However some anarchists believe the
change could come via increasing awareness and disenchantment, the building of
alternative communities based on anti-capitalist principles, and thus an
increase in the numbers who want to abandon capitalism…especially given that
its coming difficulties will probably increasingly reveal its inability to
provide for all.
- Marx (and most
Marxists today) failed to take ecological sustainability into account. They are
strong believers in industrial development and "progress", rising
material "living standards" and economic growth. They think that
capitalism is responsible for all problems and that when it has been eliminated
we can release the previously restricted power of industry and eliminate waste
to enrich everyone. In other words, Marxism has no concept of “limits to
growth”. Affluence and economic
growth are regarded as desirable and possible. “Dark green” critics insist that
a good, post-capitalist society cannot be a growth society, and it cannot have
high per capita levels of resource consumption. Getting rid of capitalism is
not enough; there is even bigger problem, set by the commitment to
industrialism, growth and affluence. Marx could not have lknown that a time
would come when we would run into a pro lem of over-consumption.
From the perspective of “The
Simpler Way" a high quality of life for all is achievable without high
material "living standards" or much modern technology, let alone
industrialisation and IT etc. We
have no doubt that Marx was mistaken about scarcity, the stinginess of nature
and the impossibility of human emancipation before technical advance delivered
material abundance. His concept of development was really the same as
capitalist modernisation. That is capital is crucial for development. He
dismissed peasant ways and Marxists are not sympathetic to the notion of
"appropriate development" conceived mainly in terms of
"subsistence' and low/intermediate technology and cooperative ways focused
on local economic self-sufficiency...a Gandhian way. (See Third World
Development..)
-In other words advocates of
The Simpler Way claim Marx was quite mistaken in thinking that socialism would
not be possible without modern technology, industrialisation and material
affluence. Achieving a good society does not require elaborate technology nor
abundance. It depends on whether or not the right values are held. There have
been societies, and there are societies today in which people live well with
very humble material lifestyles and without modern technology. (See Ladakh;
Notes on an Inspiring Society.)
- Marxist ideas on how to
change society are also strongly criticised by the Anarchists. Marxists thought capitalism must be
fought and overthrown through violent revolution, because the capitalist class
will never voluntary give up any of its privileges. There must be leadership by a vanguard party prepared to be
ruthless and to use violence, and which will rule in an authoritarian way after
the revolution. Eventually when people have developed the right ideas and
values the state can dissolve and there will be a communist society.
THE VALUE OF THE THEORY FOR UNDERTSTANDING THE WORLD TODAY.
Much of what is wrong with
the world today is explicable in Marxist terms, i.e., as consequences of
allowing profit motivation to determine production and distribution, which is
what happens when a few capitalists own all the capital The inevitable result
is production of the most profitable things, not the most needed things. In a
world where there is enormous inequality this means investment goes into
producing consumer goods and luxuries for people in rich countries, while the
needs of billions of people are more or less ignored. It means the rich few
take most of the available resources because they can pay more for them ( i.e.,
it is more profitable for capitalists to sell to the relatively rich), it means
that much Third World productive capacity, especially land, goes into producing
crops for export to rich countries when it should be producing food for hungry
people.
In other words, in a
capitalist system there is development of the wrong things (development in the
interests of the rich) because what is done is that which is most profitable.
Conventional development theory says that in time this approach will result in
"trickle down" of wealth to all. After 50 years of this approach it
is clear that there is very little tendency for this to happen. (Considerable wealth has flowed to
poorer people in the Third World in recent decades, but the poorest 1 billion
seem to have got poorer.
Similarly, much that is
wrong in the richest countries is explicable in these same terms. We have great
need for the production of many goods, such as cheap housing, but these things
are not produced while there is excessive production of many luxuries and
trivial items -- because this is what maximises return on private capital.
We have an economy in which
there is enormous waste, especially via production of items that are not
necessary, or that will not last, trinkets and luxuries. The global environment
and resource problems and the bad distribution of resources between rich and
poor nations indicates that we should greatly reduce this production -- but
this is not possible because ours is a capitalist economy. There would be a
huge jump in unemployment and bankruptcy. Indeed it is an economy in which
there is continual pressure to increase production and consumption all the time
because capitalists always want to increase their factories, their sales and
their income. The last thing they want is to see reduced business turnover.
Unemployment and automation
are problems in this economy simply because capital is privately owned. If a
better machine is invented the capitalist who owns the factory receives all the
benefit, while the workers lose their jobs. So of course there is a problem. In
a socialist economy the machine could be adopted without these effects. All
would share in more free time or cheaper goods. Similarly the only way a
capitalist society can solve the unemployment problem is to find more things
for displaced workers to produce, when we already produce much more than we
need.
These phenomena are well
described by the Marxist term "contradictions". Capitalist society
inevitably involves huge contradictions because the forces of production clash
with the relations of production. A good example is the fact that the world
could easily feed all people yet hundreds of millions are hungry while 1/3 of
the world's grain production is fed to animals in rich countries. We have the
productive capacity (forces of production) to solve this problem but this is
not done because it is not in the interests of those who control capital. They
make more money selling the grain for feedlot beef production (i.e., there are
capitalist relations of production, a capitalist organisation of production).
In other words, if you allow society's capital to be privately owned then you
will inevitably run into this sort of contradiction because often what s most
profitable for capitalists to invest in is not what most needs doing. (An
alternative economy might not necessarily eliminate all free enterprise or
private capital, but it would involve control and monitoring of private
enterprise to ensure that most investment goes where it is most needed.
The development of the world
economy in the last 20 years would seem to further illustrate the value of the
Marxist approach to analysing society. Around 1970 capitalists have experienced
great difficulty finding profitable investment outlets for all the capital they
are constantly accumulating. This has fuelled the now huge push for
globalisation; i.e., the move towards a unified global economy in which there
is great freedom for market forces, because this gives capitalists more
opportunities for profitable investment. (See the Globalisation section, in Our
Economic System.) The big corporations and banks have much more freedom than
before to go where they wish and trade, invest and develop as they wish. Previously
there were many laws and regulations restricting the entry of foreign
investors, the capacity of corporations to trade and the right of financial
institutions to lend and move money around. These were the rules governments
set and protect their citizens,
industries and ecosystems. These many rules used to set standards corporations
had to meet regarding labour conditions, health, environmental impacts, and
human rights standards, and they enabled governments to get corporations to
locate in disadvantaged areas etc.
Globalisation represents
enormous success on the part of the corporations and banks in having many of
these regulations and restrictions to their freedom eliminated, in the name of
increasing the freedom of enterprise and trade. All governments have eagerly
facilitated these processes, which does not surprise Marxists because they see
the state as always ruling in the interests of capital.
Above all globalisation
involves deregulation; i.e., governments removing controls on what corporations
can do and increasing the scope for market forces to operate, freeing foreign
investment, trade, labour markets etc. from controls by the state.
Globalisation also involves privatisation ; i.e., governments transferring
public enterprises to corporations, thereby increasing the amount of business
for corporations to do.
In the Third World the
Structural Adjustment Programs the World Bank has imposed on indebted countries
have been major forces for globalisation, because these programs impose
conditions such as deregulating the economy, increasing access for foreign
investors, cutting state spending and increasing dependence on exportation of
commodities.
In Marxist terms
globalisation can be seen as the situation to which capitalism inevitably
leads, i.e., where the ceaseless drive to accumulate more and more capital
obliges capitalists to try to break down all remaining impediments to
investment, markets, resources, cheap labour and profitable business
opportunities. Globalisation is about them being able to get into and take over
markets which they were previously kept out of by government regulation,
especially protection of local industries against cheap imports. Hundreds of
millions of poor people in the Third World have been further impoverished because
transnational corporations are now able to come in and take over the markets
and resources that used to be preserved for the benefit of locals.
Globalisation makes clear
the great conflict of interest between between capitalists and the rest. Thus
analysis in terms of class is crucial. Globalisation must be analysed in terms
of winners and losers. There are very few winners, mostly the corporate
shareholders and people who shop in rich world supermarkets. Thus the recent
history of the world is primarily explicable in terms of this class conflict.
The capitalist class has enjoyed triumphant success, it is rapidly becoming
richer and is dramatically restructuring the world in its interests. Workers,
unions and the Left are very weak and large numbers of people are being
completely excluded and dumped, including the long term unemployed, and one
billion people in the Fourth World.
There is increasing polarisation and immiseration. Extremes of wealth
and poverty are now accelerating in even the richest countries. Globalisation
and the neo-liberal agenda are gutting society, destroying the conditions on
which are crucial for cohesion, such as valuing the public good, concern for
the under dog and for society, and concern for the environment.
Dalton, G., (1968), Archaic,
Primitive and Modern Economies; Essays of Karl Polanyi,
Korten, D. C., (1995), When
Corporations Rule the World, West Hartford, Kumarian Press.