For Marx, 'world history' is a tale of domination and oppression. From the slaves of Ancient Greece to the feudal serfs of the Middle Ages and now the proletariat of capitalist enterprise, society has been defined by class antagonisms between ruler and ruled, always grounded in the material and economic relations of society. In what follows, I examine Marx’s description of capitalism unfolding within 'world history', its role in human alienation, and the possibility that we are being driven towards an epoch of change and emancipation. By taking into account historical and contemporary events since Marx, I conclude that although his thought is hard to refute, the pathway to freedom should be through gradualism - not revolution - because humans are not yet mature enough to partake in communist society as he intended it.
Unlike Hegel, who believed the external world was defined and improved through the objectification of human thought and reason, Marx considered the inversion to be true. In his view, the external (material) world defines the thought of humans rather than the other way round (Marx, 1973, p.102). The sources of human alienation - immaterial spiritual afflictions - can, and should, be traced back to material conditions in the world. As they come about, so do new forms of oppression and with them political conditions to match the situation. What distinguishes the capitalist mode of production in history is that is has simplified class antagonisms, and created a world market which it can exploit (Marx, 1998, p.56).
There are only two classes in capitalism: the bourgeoisie, capitalist owners of the means of production; and the proletariat, wage-labour workers. Ramping up with the Industrial Revolution, capitalism has worked to push all other historical and borderline classes down to the level of proletariat – both to minimise competition for power, and to maximise the profit and force of labour (Marx, 1998, p.56).
Capitalism gathers its profit through what Marx refers to as ‘surplus labour’. Whereas a product’s use-value should be equivalent to its labour-value (i.e. the labour invested in making a product), in the capitalist mode of production surplus-value (i.e. profit) is extracted through levers such as low wages, long hours, and high-intensity work (Fine/Saad-Filho, 2004, pp.39-44). These practices create maximum product for the minimum cost, with the result of increased profit for the capitalist. The Industrial Revolution has facilitated the capitalist exploitation of these levers by turning the worker into a commodity; labour has lost any specialisation and appeal it once had (Marx, 1998, p.58), and there is subsequently more competition for each position in the market. As the labour supply goes up, the labour demand and wages come down. As profit increases for the capitalist, quality of life decreases for the worker. However this does not mean exploitation is limited only to advanced industrial nations. On the contrary, capitalism is also, distinctively, a global economic phenomenon. In its insatiable appetite for profit, capitalism spreads its interests across the globe, searching for new markets, cheaper materials or labour, and by consequence creating a global economy (Marx, 1998, p.58). All countries must become part of the capitalist system, or face being excluded and left behind, says Marx (Marx, 1998, p.59). Capitalist exploitation becomes a global condition, with the consequence of the vast wretched majority being subjugated to the wealthy greedy minority. The only people left in society with autonomy and freedom are the capitalists, while everyone else is coerced against their true will and enslaved to the self-aggrandising capitalist enterprise. The workers are slaves to their status as workers, while the capitalists are free to perpetuate their mastery of human society.
It might be conceded that Marx’s era was, from a western domestic perspective, very different to ours. But that does not preclude his argument from having modern relevance. Working conditions in the industrial age were far worse than anything currently experienced in western societies today, but leaving aside the potentially damaging effects of stress in a modern working environment (a form of alienation in itself), at the global level of analysis we can still see the conditions Marx was describing perpetuated in the sweat-shops and child labour of developing nations. Here the oppressors are not capitalists within individual societies, but the capitalist nations and rich multinational corporations of the western world as a whole. Just as Marx described, they seek the cheapest raw materials and labour from across the globe to maximise profit. ‘Dependency theory’ (Kegley, 2009, p.142) even suggests that capitalism sustains these practices intentionally to maintain its standing in the global economic system – it needs the developing world to do unsavoury labour-intensive work so the West can maintain a comfortable life of cheap products and intellectual work opportunities (Marx, 1998, p.59). Think here of ex-colonial states that have accumulated world debt through emergency aid contributions and are then forced to pay this debt back by allowing a western monopoly on natural resource industries (e.g. oil, diamonds), or by selling their rich resources at vastly deflated prices. The result is ever-increasing capitalist influence upon profitable industries around the world.
Then, from an ideological perspective, another modern reality in accord with Marx’s description is the strongly encouraged (some may say enforced) spread of liberal democracy across the globe. Supporting his view that the advance of a ruling economic class is matched by its political advance (modern representative government for capitalism) (Marx, 1998, p.57), we see in most cases that where liberal democracy is embedded, so too are capitalist modes of exchange. Not only this, but as Marx proclaims; you either join the capitalist system or face being made extinct (Marx, 1998, p.59). The modern message is clear: implement liberal democratic reforms (in the name of ‘human rights’) or risk pressure via economic sanctions, invasion, or dissident support. It has come to the point where we are not even looking beyond liberal democracy for a form of political organisation to meet human needs, and liberal democracy has even been considered ‘The End of History’ (Fukuyama, 2006). Is this not a dogmatic and defeatist view to take? As Nietzsche would later point out, when we hold these ideals in such lofty regard, we are liable to become a subservient and weak race of people living nothing but a herd mentality (Nietzsche, 1997, #38).
There is however, in Marx’s view, an end to this domination in sight. Capitalism - internally unstable, and entailing the logic of its own demise - has unwittingly created the conditions to facilitate complete human emancipation (Ball, 1991, p.134).
Marx’s goal wasn't just alleviation from unpleasant work conditions (e.g. dirty factories, long working days), he wanted to free humankind from the predicament of alienation arising in societies where labour is coerced by capitalism (Marx, 1993, p.144). Marx believed the human race is defined by, and gains freedom through, productive activity that goes beyond the bare requirements for survival (Marx, 1993, p.140). This activity should be expressive activity, a process of shaping one's world as one's world, but in capitalist society it is an unpleasant necessity undertaken to avoid destitution (Marx, 1993, p.139). As a commodity, workers provide repeatable service at minimum cost, and obtain wages rather than the products of their activity. Alienated from the output of their labour, the workers with which they compete for work, the society in which they live, and ultimately themselves through the loss of labour as a life-affirming endeavour, what capitalism restricts is not merely a worker’s ability to choose a vocation or labour activity, but their ability to be human (Adams, 1991, pp.250-251). It forces the worker into a condition of total alienation.
The issue here is that in constantly revolutionising the means of production and the markets of supply and demand, capitalism is over-exploiting its labour. As the gap between bourgeoisie and proletariat widens, the worker’s life is degraded to levels approaching rock bottom. Eventually capitalism will go too far, and the worker, reduced to a level of existence where even survival is no longer guaranteed, will challenge the system that ails it (Marx, 1998, p.66). But in this moment, not only has the capitalist created the spiritual character of a people who will revolt to escape alienated existence; it has concentrated this character in the majority of the global population (Marx, 1998, p.65). Freedom has now become a task of the majority, for the majority, and as unions rise, and strikes affect industry, the seeds of revolution are sown (Marx, 1998, p.63). Financial crises are realised as over-production, under-consumption, and ultimately greed, bring about economic depression in greater and severer frequency (Marx, 1998, pp.60-61). But there is no-one left to help the capitalists now, as they have pushed everyone they could down to the level of proletariat. When they can extract no more from the system, and the worker can take no more, capitalism has set the stage for its own inevitable downfall. Now it must make way for communism (Marx, 1998, p.66). Only by abolishing capital and class antagonisms can we achieve true human freedom, and a material problem requires a material solution. Marx wants us to take the philosophical thought of his time (derived from thinkers such as Hegel) and turn it into concrete action (Marx, 1993, p.119) - praxis as revolution.
There are many aspects of Marx's prophetic thought which seem undeniably true; globalisation, ideology, global exploitation, and the decrease in socio-economic stability. But is capitalism really on the brink of collapse? I think not. Whilst it is true that the seeds of radicalism are demonstrating themselves again today via the libertarian ‘Tea Party’ and anti-capitalist 'Occupy' protests, the fact is that recent cases of extreme risk taking and greed in the financial sector have not brought capitalism crashing to the ground. I believe where Marx went wrong was in loyally focussing on, and expecting, revolutionary change. Take, for example, the 20th century’s fateful communist experiments (Holmes, 2009, pp.17-46). By forcing revolutionary philosophical ideas onto a premature social consciousness, these ‘communists’ were doomed to be burdened by internal contradictions of the social will that would rumble the foundations of their ideological ground. The point is, what I think Marx intended for his communist society, and what contributed to his lack of defining it in any great detail, was that it should come about as the realisation of a universal consciousness of willing persons. He wanted the global consciousness of humanity to desire communist society in its majority – to collaborate altruistically and universally toward the goal of classless society using any structure appropriate for, and desired by, the people of that time (Leys & Panitch, 1998, pp.26-27). This faith in humankind is astonishing. More so, because Marx didn't seem to realise that humans are nowhere near ready for such sudden, forceful change, and probably never will be. This, I believe, is not possible without coercion of a people's spirit. Full metamorphosis might not be impossible or unlikely over time, but this overturning of values needs to be through gradualism, not revolution. Just look at how many socialist policies - from ‘Obamacare’ to the social democracies of Europe - have been, or are being successfully introduced into modern capitalist societies (Newman, 2005, pp.49-50). I'm not saying they are perfect, or even universally popular, but if we follow the thought of Kant (1991, pp. 41-53) and Hegel (1991, pp. 41-53), and assume for a moment that history is a narrative of progress, then it appears as though we are becoming more humanistic and egalitarian. To me this is more akin to the unfolding history of practical reason (Kant, 1991, pp. 41-53) than it is of Marx's revolutionary emancipation. Gradual change is accepted over time by even its staunchest critics when delivered piecemeal. Implemented gradually, the levelling out of economic conditions is not to the disinterest of any one individual, but it is to the benefit of humanity as a whole. It also safeguards us from replacing one unjust regime with another, so if Capitalism does fall like earlier epochs of exploitation we will be more prudent in determining its replacement. I confess this conservative approach may seem diametrically at odds with Marx’s radicalism, but I believe it could in fact be the best guarantee we have of communism becoming a reality.
In this essay I reviewed Marx’s theory of capitalism as a dehumanising, self-defeating historical process, and its relevance within the modern world. Through this analysis I determined that when viewed against the global layer of critique, the practices and conditions Marx describes are still fully in view today, and the capitalist machine does indeed appear to be a force of exploitation and alienation. While Marx’s communist solution may yet be proved legitimate, the method he proposes to get there is not. If the communist revolutions of the 20th century did anything for the capitalists, it was to provide them with a resounding victory, and my conclusion is that revolution is not the way forward. I believe our only beacon of hope in the cause for universal human emancipation is the gradual implementation of socialist reforms over time, and that history is a story of progress and unfolding reason. One day we will look back at this age with regret, but hopefully with the knowledge that human problems can and will be solved with human solutions.
REFERENCES
· Adams, W. “Aesthetics: Liberating the senses”, The Cambridge Companion to Marx, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, pp.246-274.
· Ball, T. “History: Critique and irony”, The Cambridge Companion to Marx, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, pp.134.
· Fine, B. & Saad-Filho, A. “Capital and exploitation” Marx's Capital, 2004, pp.39-44.
· Fukuyama, F. The End of History and the Last Man, Free Press, New York, 2006.
· Hegel ,G.W.F., “The realisation of Spirit in history” in his Lectures on the Philosophy of World History. Introduction, Cambridge University Press, 1975, pp.54-55.
· Holmes, L. Communism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York, 2009, pp.17-46.
· Kant, I. “Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose”, Kant: Political Writings, trans. H.B. Nisbet, Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 41-53.
· Kegley, C.W. World Politics: Trend and Transformation, Cengage Learning, Belmont CA, 2009, pp.127, 142.
· Leys, C. & Panitch, L. “The Political Legacy of the Manifesto”, The Socialist Register, Merlin Press UK/Humanities Press New Jersey, 1998, pp.26-27.
· Marx, K. Capital, Volume One, trans. Ben Fowkes, Penguin Books, 1973, p.102.
· Marx, K. & Engels, F. The Communist Manifesto, University of Colorado, 1998, pp.54-75.
· Marx, K. “Contribution to the critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction”, The Portable Karl Marx, Penguin Books, 1993, pp.115-124.
· Marx, K. Economico-philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, The Portable Karl Marx, Penguin Books, 1993, pp.131-152.
· Newman, M. Socialism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp.49-50.
· Nietzsche, F. Twilight of the Idols, trans. R. Polt, Hacket Publishing Company, 1997, #38.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
· Adams, W. “Aesthetics: Liberating the senses”, The Cambridge Companion to Marx, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, pp.246-274.
· Ball, T. “History: Critique and irony”, The Cambridge Companion to Marx, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, pp.124-142.
· Fine, B. & Saad-Filho, A. “Capital and exploitation” Marx's Capital, 2004, pp.31-50.
· Fukuyama, F. The End of History and the Last Man, Free Press, New York, 2006.
· Fukuyama, F. America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy, pp. 47-65.
· Hegel, G.W.F. “The Good and conscience” in his Philosophy of Right, trans. A. White, Focus Philosophical Library, 2002, §§ 129-140.
· Hegel, G.W.F., The Philosophy of Right, Introductions to Ethicality and State sections, 2002, §§ 142-157 and 257-271.
· Hegel ,G.W.F., “The realisation of Spirit in history” in his Lectures on the Philosophy of World History. Introduction, Cambridge University Press, 1975, pp.47-67, 93-97.
· Holmes, L. Communism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York, 2009.
· Kant, I. “Transition From a Metaphysics of Morals to a Critique of Pure Practical Reason,” Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1993, pp. 49-63.
· Kant, I. “Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose”, Kant: Political Writings, trans. H.B. Nisbet, Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 41-53.
· Kegley, C.W. World Politics: Trend and Transformation, Cengage Learning, Belmont CA, 2009, pp.127, 142.
· Leys, C. & Panitch, L. “The Political Legacy of the Manifesto”, The Socialist Register, Merlin Press UK/Humanities Press New Jersey, 1998, pp.18-41.
· Marx, K. Capital, Volume One, trans. Ben Fowkes, Penguin Books, 1973, p.102.
· Marx, K. & Engels, F. The Communist Manifesto, University of Colorado, 1998, pp.54-75
· Marx, K. “Contribution to the critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction”, The Portable Karl Marx, Penguin Books, 1993, pp.115-124.
· Marx, K. Economico-philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, The Portable Karl Marx, Penguin Books, 1993, pp.131-152.
· Newman, M. Socialism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2005.
· Nietzsche, F. Twilight of the Idols, trans. R. Polt, Hacket Publishing Company, 1997, #38.
· Singer, P. Hegel: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York, 1983.
· Singer, P. Marx: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York, 1980.
No comments:
Post a Comment