Not Democracy, Oligarchy Karl Marxs View on American Democracy - Essay Example

Not Democracy, Oligarchy – Karl Marx’s View on American Democracy Introduction Karl Marx and Alexis De Tocqueville are two masterminds who redefinedthe social science of their era to what it is today. Karl Marx drafted the communist manifesto together with his pal Engels. Tocqueville wrote the famous “Democracy in America”. Both men were strong intellectuals and moral revolutionaries, with complete human independence as their ultimate aspiration. Tocqueville saw American Revolution and the establishment of democracy as a great leap in human history. He believed the creation of America, a land of equality and liberty, where all workers are valued with high esteem is a prominent step in world history. Hence he defined it as the “most continuous, the oldest, and the most permanent fact known in history”. Why Marx Won’t Agree? Karl Marx saw American Democracy as a mere power shift from monarchies to capitalistic companies he referred as “bourgeoisie”. Karl Marx differed with Tocqueville because of several reasons. The communists were very clear no social equality would prevail in a country whose economy is driven by capitalism. So, who was actually right? In a sense both of them were right. Both these scholars interpreted the happenings of their time with the wisdom they gained from the circumstances they were born, bought up and lived. Tocqueville was a born in a family regarded with high esteem in France. His family was equivalent to that of nobles. He studied politics and pursued a career in the same. Born on 1805, the most prominent occurrences of his time revolved around the American Independence and the French Revolution. Tocqueville was bought up as an aristocrat, but his compassion and humanity made him think revolutionarily. He wanted to do something to improve the pathetic life of the peasants. His mindset did not allow him to see them as the equals of the nobles. He viewed the American democracy which provided great labour freedom, high wages and the ability for everyone to become rich as the best way to improve the lives of the struggling men. His view of helping the workers was quite capitalistic. It was seen from the prospective of a noble or a company head. It was similar to a parental love expressed to children. The parents do what they think is best for the children. It is up to the child to make use of the facilities and prosper in life. A Practical and Foresighted View Karl Marx was born on 1818 in Germany. He belonged to a modest middle-cast family. He got more chance to mix with the less deprived people in the society directly. He was one amongst them, who rose to great fame, not because of high class education or family background, but just through his self-acquired intellectuality. His view about American capitalism and democracy is similar to that of a friends approach to a fellow’s problem. Friends understand better than parents as they are in a similar situation to the child. A child can grow without parents, but not without friends. Hence, Marx theories gain more importance than Tocqueville principles. Marx’s view of democracy means keeping everything common for everybody, converting every labour into an owner and every owner into a worker. Abraham Lincoln expressed the same view in a different way in his Gettysburg Address. He said “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” He strongly believed anything different from this would only damage democracy. Two Different Poles Tocqueville thought wealth distribution was unnecessary. He simply felt the steps taken by the American government to bridge the gap between the poor and the rich are enough. He strongly felt, division of property will only increase poor’s hatred towards the rich (De Tocqueville, 192). He had no second thoughts about presenting enough opportunities for everyone though. This is where Marx and Tocqueville differ like opposite poles of a magnet. Marx argues there should be no such opportunity present to anyone, as it will pave for another dominant class. The communists wanted equal rights for every man, both the labourer doing the most mean job and the manager of the company. They wanted to abolish the bourgeoisie class completely from the world, while Tocqueville hoped everyone could become a member of the bourgeoisie community. Democracy as Hidden Oligarchy Karl Marx and Engels viewed American democracy as hidden oligarchy because nearly nine-tenths of the property is accumulated by one particular class who descended from the monarchies. His views were completely true. Manufacturing industries were the backbone of American industry when the nation was established. So, naturally America’s economy was kept dependable on the small group of people who were capable of making investments to build such huge factories. As the system grew, more power got accumulated to fewer people (Aptheker, 1965, pp.28-29). Marx predicted this would happen very soon and considered it the greatest fault of the system. He is true to a certain extent. 39% of modern Americas wealth is owned by the nation’s 1% wealthy people. Nearly 25% of the countries annual income fills the Swiss bank accounts of these 1% people. The remaining 99% are forced to compromise on their basic needs, for the gain of this 1% (Dorrien, 2011). Marx believed the "sovereignty of the people" promised by the founders of the nation will not materialize unless and until this social inequality created due to capitalism prevails. Democracy linked with capitalism will lead to “politics with purpose” serving the interests of one particular groups who does not play by the rule applicable to all others. Marx being a great economist himself was able to see the problems such oligarchy could create in the near future. He had immense foresight and expertise in such matters which Tocqueville lacked. Hence, some historians referred to him as the “Unprophetic Tocqueville” mockingly. Karl Marx predicted three main problems the “proletariat” or the working class will face in a capitalist economy. 1. Unemployment: The proletariat, who does not have any money to invest, sells their labor to survive. The capitalists investing their money in huge manufacturing industries would always want more profits for the money invested. They will try to increase profits by bringing in more and more machineries replacing workers in all main industries like manufacturing and construction. This will leave scores of middle class people unemployed from time to time. There is no way in the American economic system to clear this ever prevailing unemployment (Robb, 2011). 2. Exploitation: The proletariat class will always remain poor, unable to give proper education to their children. In course of time, the bourgeoisie will force the proletariats to work for mean wages. If they protest or refuse to work hard, a person more desperate than them will be ready to take their place for a much lower cost. This will only lead to exploitation. This exploitation has two benefits. It disciplines people in the work with the threat they might lose it at any moment. The unemployed people are kept as “industrial reserve army” to be used as temporary employees in times of need. They do not get any actual benefits assured by the law (Darity, 1999). 3. Over Production: ‘Exploitation’ is like a boomerang. The money saved by cutting labour wages will result in over production, stagnancy of produced goods, lack of new markets to sell them, lower rates for manufactured goods and eventually loss to the company. In short the capitalists will invite their own grave diggers. This will lead to massive recessions affecting the whole nation’s economy severely. Society will go back to what is defined as “monetary barbarism” (Minsky, 1980). Judicial Legitimization Tocqueville argues the labor community in America enjoys far more benefits than any other country in the world, like reserved working time, numerous associated benefits and high wages. The U.S. constitution strives hard to provide maximum safety, high wages and work place rights unlike any other nation in the world to the proletariat. But, it secretly legitimizes bourgeoisie control to a major extent (Hellinger, 1994). The law always acts in favor of the investor when such delicate issues are raised by the labor community. Marx was smart enough to note what Washington and Lincoln failed to notice. Aristotle referred to oligarchy as state where the minorities control decision power and impose it upon majorities. This situation can be seen prevalent in modern day America, widely. Considering the present situation of American economy, its widening rich-poor gap and the recessions frequenting the country in equal intervals, we very well know Marx was correct. The American political system should be called the “representative oligarchy” rather than a democracy (pg.517, Green, Philip and Cornell, Drucilla, 2005). But we cannot completely agree communism is the best option for all social ailments. While America proved Tocqueville wrong, Russia proved Marx wrong too. Conclusion The dream of a perfect democracy where every person is given equal right still remains a dream even after thousands of years. Marx predicted revolutions will occur when suppression grows beyond a certain extent from time to time, while Tocqueville predicted there will be less and less revolutions in the future. We live in a time of transition where every person has the opportunity to gain uncontrollable knowledge but, have very little will power and opportunity to act, proving Tocqueville right. But, we also see protests like “Occupy Wall Street” and the “Lotus Revolution” occurring. Karl Marx was better in predicting the flow of American Democracy and the world in general than Tocqueville. We can readily hope his views will lead us into a better world, if they are amended a bit according to the modern requirements. References 1. Aptheker, H 1965, Marxism and Democracy, Humanities Press, INC., New York, pp. 27-58. 2. Dorrien, G 2011, The Case Against Wall Street, Christian Century 3. Marx, K & Engels, F 1848, The Communist Manifesto, New American Library, New York 4. Tocqueville, A. Democracy in America. Signet Classic, United States. 5. Robb, R 2011, What Wall St Protestors get wrong and right 6. Green, P & Cornell, D 2005, Rethinking Democratic Theory: The American  Case, Journal of Social Philosophy, pp. 517-535. 7. Aristotle, Politics. Courier Dover Publications (2000 print), New York 8. Hellinger, D & Judd, D 1994, The Democratic Façade, New York: Wadsworth Pub. Co, New York 9. Minsky, H 1980, Capitalist Financial Processes and the Instability of Capitalism, Journal of Economic Issues 10. Darity, W 1999, Who Loses From Unemployment, Journal Of Economic Issues (Association For Evolutionary Economics) pp. 491-496. Read More