How Convincing Is Marxs Critique of Capitalism - Essay Example

INTRODUCTION The man, Karl Marx, has come and gone. He bequeathed a legacy which has divided the intellectual world into two broad groups. On the onehand, there are those who have been labouring to mystify the assiduousness of capitalism. Fate has been kind to them. As far as this group is concerned, the turn of events has made Marx’s thought otiose. The spectre that Marx believed will haunt capitalism is now history. More futuristically, Berger (1992: 16) hazarded a guess: “[t]he womb that gave birth to Marxist utopianism is not yet barren”. On the other hand, there are those who are profusely defending the correctness, profundity and relevance of the position of Marx on capitalism. The debate between these two intellectual groups is as interesting as it is engaging. In this paper, I tried to highlight the insights of Marx’s criticism of capitalism and also tried to reflect some counter criticisms of Marx’s arguments. My interest is however the political grounds of Marx attack on capitalism. Thus I started by exploring the foundational concepts that Marx (state and class) based all his arguments, the dynamics of class relations in this state (alienation, exploitation and imperialism) before finally connecting these concepts with the democracy argument. THE POLITICAL GROUNDS OF MARX CRITICISM OF CAPITALISM The concepts of class and state are at the heart of Marx’s criticism of capitalism. Marx used the two concepts to explain the fabrics of the capitalist society. Marx threw light on classification of the society he studied. He wrote: “Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature; it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: bourgeoisie and proletariat”. Marx identified two distinct classes, the bourgeoisie and proletariat, sharply differentiated by their position in the mode of production. The bourgeoisie is the capital owner (owner of property and means of production) while the proletariat is a class of those who work for capital owners and their labour is controlled by same. On the state, Milliband deduced, from Marx’s works, two views of the state. The first, he called primary view of the state, is rooted “in the famous aphorism of the Communist Manifesto: The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affair of the whole bourgeoisie” and political power is “merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.” The secondary view, according to Milliband, is “that of the state independent from and superior to all social classes, as the dominant force in the society rather than the instrument of the dominant class.” He however concluded that the state remains “the protector of an economically and socially dominant class” (Alavi, 1972: 40). Thus, Marx views the state as a necessary coercive instrument for the maintenance of social inequality and for the extraction of surplus while class is essential for the maintenance of state and for the explanation of its behaviour. Marx used the concepts of alienation and exploitation to explain the link between the state and class. He objectivized man as either an exploiter or the exploited in contrast with Thomas Hobbes objectivization of man as egocentric, John Locke’s “the bearer of inalienable rights”, Thomas Acquinus’ “Homo politicus—made for the political community” and Adam Smith’s “Homo oeconomicus—driven by economic concern” (Fleinder, T. et. al., 2003: 198). Although Marx did not restrict alienation to capitalist societies (for it happened in pre-capitalist societies), the worst form of alienation is found in the capitalist social order. To Marx, exploitation is the reification o alienation of the proletariat (Marx, 1983: 170-73). The bourgeoisies in the capitalist society use the state power to exploit by virtue of their ownership of the means of production. The proletariat is exploited over the means of production. Another form of exploitation Marx identified but was unable to develop conceptually is imperialism, which marks the advanced stage of capitalism and in which an international bourgeois class benefits from the exploits. The nature and effect of imperialism are issues of great concern to Marx even though he did not fully develop the concept. Lenin (1977: 700), one of he strong adherents of practical Marxism, identified some of the features of imperialism: i) the concentration of production and capital developing into the stage of monopoly, ii) the mergin of bank capital, iii) the export of capital, iv) the formation of international monopolist associations, and v0 the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers. Marx lived in the 19th century but he threw light on developments in the 21st century. He anticipated the development of capitalism to its most modern form. He saw the state (encompassed by the public realm of the society) becoming dominated by science and technology, the rule of law and the pre-eminence of politics and ideology. Under this modern state structure, “relations of personal dependency” will be transformed to relations which are “impersonal” and mediated “by ‘things’: money and bureaucracy” (Sayer, 1989: 2). Furthermore, Marx identified the features of modern state as: “one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class, one frontier and one custom tariff…yet given a cosmopolitan character of production and consumption in every state” (pp. 10-11). These features explain globalization as an advanced stage of capitalism. Marx acknowledged the dynamism and flexibility of capitalism. He was of the conviction that “what made modernity modern is capitalism” (Sayer, 1989: 12). Yet his views were largely static. For instance, in his postulations on class and class struggle he completely ignored the possibility of class transformation and particularly the role of the middle class in the political processes that will lead to the establishment of a more just and equal society. He was of the belief that the conditions of the worker will continue to deteriorate as capitalism advances. But realities in our contemporary world tend to prove Marx wrong. There are changes in the condition of workers. Also a sizeable middle class exist. This class narrows the wide gap that would have existed between the top capitalist class and the workers. Importantly, capitalist advancement has “replaced inherited privileges with new [social] stratification based on knowledge and skills” (Fukuyama, 1992: 290). This is evident in both developing countries transiting from traditional to capitalist stage of political development and developed capitalist countries. Berger (1992: 12) captures in more dramatic way: “the well-fed and well-educated children of poor peasants tend to become politically uppity, and the same economic system that has made them well-fed and well-educated provides the space for their new political aspirations”. Also, Marx failed to assign to the state any moral role or sanction for ensuring general good. As far as he was concerned, the destruction of the capitalist state is the only guarantee for equality and freedom of the downtrodden in the society. But this is not truly so. The adjustments the capitalist state had undergone over the years has made the state to be outwardly “a moral institution whose aim is to develop human personality” (Mahajan, 1973: 755). The state has outwardly worn a face of neutrality. Its existence in principle is essentially to reconcile the conflicting interests of all classes by promoting universally accepted fundamental rights. This then takes us to Marx’s arguments of democracy. Marx thoughts on democracy arose from the need to end alienation and exploitation that results form diametrically opposed class-based divisions in a society— the capitalist owners of means of production, who in the minority and non-owners, who constitute the majority. The state exists to promote and protect the interest of the capital owners. And democracy will truly be established when the majority take control of their affairs, and the state and politics wither away. Democracy will then stand on its feet rather than its head. The majority will rule and all apparatus of state would be dismantled. Democracy, in this way, will remove some of the inhumane features of capitalism. Freedom and equality will then be enjoyed by all. Inequality, to Marx and Engel (1983: 195), is not natural. It is historical. It is rooted in the productive system that disproportionately rewards the two dominant classes in the society. Hence, inequality can be abolished a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, which will be established through the “formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power” (Marx and Engel, 1983: 498). Under the dictatorship, capitalism will be destroyed, classes will cease to exist, alienation will come to end and mankind will regain his freedom. From the above conceptualization, Marx has succeeded in highlighting the historical and economic roots of inequality in human societies, its social manifestation and its political consequences. This ‘classic’ finding is naively accepted by even the worst of Marx critics, Francis Fukuyuma. He, Fukuyama (1992), agrees that “economic inequality brought about by capitalism ipso facto implies unequal recognition” (289), and that “major social inequalities will remain even in the most perfect of liberal societies” (292). And as Berger (1992: 12) asserts, “it is not at all important whether the original capitalist class is or is not inspired by democratic idea, for it is the consequences of capitalism not the motives of capitalists, that creates space for democracy”. The point of departure is how to eliminate (in Marxists’ view) or minimize (in liberal view) inequalities inherent in a democratic society. Democracy, an all-too-important ideological construct, is a common means for achieving these divergent ends. To Marx, the ultimate goal of the (class) struggle against capitalism is “to win the battle of democracy” (Draper, 1977: 504). Marx believed democracy will bring about a stateless society that will avoid having classes, exploitation, and alienation. He assigned to the “revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” the task of promoting democracy (Marx, 1978: 538). This task entails dismantling all existing structures and institutions of democratic state and overthrowing the bourgeois class. Marx has been taken on this. First, the process of political change though revolutionary is prone to violence. Class wars in weakening state may lead to chaos (Mahajan, 1973: 759). Besides, such mode of change is a negation of plurality and diversity inherent in democratic systems and gives an impression of the non-existence of peaceful mechanisms for conciliation and compromise (Krancahrge, 1994: 75). As to what constitute a democratic state, Marx was more or less vague. He did not outline the definite form of institutions that will replace capitalist institutions under communism. The idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat pains a picture of totalitarianism. Marx assertion that political freedom would be achieved when the state disappears and class differences cease to exist does not seem to be possible. Besides not only political freedom but most of the freedoms and liberties that characterizes democracy would be lost because Marx strongly abhorred religious practice, human right as contemporary conceived, individualism and private property. This have over the years become the essentials of human existence and the source of progress in human societies. REFRENCES Alavi, H. “The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh”, in New Left Review vol. 74 1972. Berger, Peter L. “The Uncertain Triumph of Democratic Capitalism” in Journal of Democracy 3 (3) July 1992. Draper, Hal Karl Marxs Theory of Revolution, Vol I. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977. Engels, Friedrich The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State in Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich (1983) Selected Works vol. 3. (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1983 5th printing) Fleinder, T. et. al. “Federalism, Decentralization and Conflict Management in Multicultural Societies” in Blanderbache, R. and Koller, A., (eds.) Federalism in a Changing World: Learning from Each other Montreal: McGill University Press, 2003. Fukuyama, Francis The End of History and the Last Man London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1992. Lenin, V. I. Imperialism, the Highest State of Capitalism in V. I. Lenin Selected Works Vol 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977. Mahajan, Vidya D. Political Theory: Principles of Political Science New Delhi: Chand & Co Ltd., 1973. Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich Manifesto of the Communist Party in Marx, K. and Engels, Selected Works Vol. 1 Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1983, 5th printing. Marx, Karl Capital Vol. 1 London: Lawrence & Wishart Ltd, 1983. Sayer, Darek Capitalism and Modernity: An Excursus of Marx and Weber ….: Routhledge, 1989. Read More