Marx and Nietzsche - Research Paper Example

Justice, ethics and morality according to Marx and Nietzsche Introduction Marx and Nietzsche were the most prominent and radicallydiverse social theorists of their time. This paper evaluates Marx’s and Nietzsche’s thoughts regarding aspects of morality, capitalism and socialism. The paper first analyses Marx’s views regarding morality and capitalism and then proceeds to evaluate Nietzsche’s views while contrasting his views with those of Marx. Marx’s morality and justice Marx’s perspective on morality is immanent and historical. It is grounded on a critical perspective based on the prevailing social conditions. According to Marx’s theory of history, social conflicts lead to the historical development. The current order is bound to change and will ultimately be superseded by new different form of society. Marx proceeds to argue that historical change is not an arbitrary succession; rather it develops through stages and involves progression (Sayers, 2013). Development is divided into several distinct stages or means of production. Feudalism gives way to capitalism which is eventually replaced by socialism. Each stage evolves from the previous form as a higher historical form. Each stage of the process is initially constituent to progressive development and is appropriate for its time relative to the conditions which it supersedes. However, each stage of the process constitutes only a transitory stage that inevitably perishes and is replaced by a higher more developed stage (Sayers, 2013). During the course of development, the favorable conditions for the emergence of the next stage begin to establish themselves within the present. As the process progresses, the present conditions cease to be progressive and become a hindrance to the process of development. This is the basis of Marx’s criticism of capitalism and advocacy for socialism. Marx regards both in historical terms and does not criticize the present on the basis of universal principles, rather it is immanent and relative (Elster, 1985). For instant, relative to feudal conditions from which capitalism evolves, capitalism is viewed as a progressive development. From the perspective of capitalist society, the hierarchical, feudal system with its privileges and restrictions on commerce, and trade is oppressive and unfair. However, as the conditions for a socialist structure takes shape within capitalism, it becomes a hindrance to further development. From the stand point of a higher society, the capitalist system appears to be an impediment to human development and unjustified. This standpoint emerges as the capitalist society develops and is relative to it; this forms the basis for Marx’s critique (Elster, 1985). Similarly, Marx’s conception of socialism is historical and relative. Marx’s does not envisage a utopian future society on the basis of transcendent principles. He does not regard socialism as the realization of a moral ideal, but rather as a concrete historical stage which supersedes capitalism, and which is the outcome of forces at work within the present capitalist society. In this respect, communism is the real movement that abolishes the prevailing state of capitalism (Elster, 1985). Marx criticizes capitalism for systematically impoverishing the workers while at the same time leading to a massive increase in social productive power. He sees socialism as a form of society which will enable people of all classes to prosper. He does not perceive economic development as a means to the needs of human beings. Rather the development of productive forces is accompanied by the development of human needs and capabilities which are the main sources of human value (Allman, 2001). According to Marx’s, productive activity need not be unpleasant work; a means to the end of satisfying workers’ needs. Human beings ought to get satisfaction from shaping the world and seeing their efforts represented in the product. Humans get satisfaction from actively exercising their powers and being productive. This forms the basis for his moral criticism of capitalism. Productive society instead of providing fulfillment is converted into detestable toil (Allman, 2001). Modern technology and industries constitute major developments of social productive and creative capabilities. These developments should be recognized and affirmed as a source of power through which humans find realization. However, most of the time humans do not experience this; instead these developments appear to be out of control and working against humans. This according to Marx’s should not be the case, and in future society this will not be the way humans relate to their own products and powers. This forms the basis of the concept of alienation which is the fundamental basis of Marx’s critique of capitalist society (Allman, 2001). Marx’s dismisses capitalism for its injustice, portraying it as exploitative, offensive and unjust. According to Marx’s concept of justice in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, in the first phase of socialism, individual ownership of the means of production is abolished. Private property in the means of consumption remains with individuals and provides the basis for its distribution to individuals. Abolition of private property does not occur until full communism is achieved in the second stage. Marx asserts that a stage between capitalism and communism is necessary. This stage embodies a higher conception of rights than prevails within capitalism and provides an inherent standard by which capitalism is criticized. To judge individual property as unjust is equivalent to adopting a utopian position which is unrelated to real historical possibilities. As such, rights must be consistent with the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned by the prevailing structure (Buchanan, 1982). The universal principle of justice is that those who labour are entitled to the output of their labor and that it is a violation of the principle of moral equity for the efforts of some people to go unrewarded while others enjoy the benefits without having to exert themselves. This principle of entitlement applies in the first stage of socialism where reward is proportional to work done, and no one can gain income only by owning capital. Marx’s uses this principle to criticism capitalism while adopting the standpoint of a higher form of society and which is immanent in the present but is destined to pass with the transition to full communism (Buchanan, 1982). Marx rejects the idea of universal or trans-historical principles of justice by implying that there is no single universally right social order. He argues that different social conditions require different systems of justice. These principles arise in specific conditions and are necessary and essential for that particular time, but as conditions for a new social order develop, they lose relevance and necessity. Principles of rights are social and historical phenomena, and this is the perspective which Marx uses to critique the injustices of capitalism (Buchanan, 1982). Marx’s critique of capitalism Marx contests capitalisms social totality upon the standards provided by capitalism itself. He argues that capitalism produces ideological masks such as commodity fetishism and wage-form. He challenges capitalism for producing unreal reality in which commodities falsely appear to hold intrinsic value. He condemns capitalism for producing illusions and concealing reality through market mechanisms (Ali, 2013). Marx observes that capitalism radically negates what it claims in theory; it shapes society on the basis of these principles only to contradict them. Capitalism claims that it promotes the ideals of justice, freedom and equality, but in practice it negates those claims. Capitalism claims to be the most efficient and effective means of realizing human needs and desires, but in reality it creates artificial desires and leaves most of them unsatisfied (Ali, 2013). Marx draws the idea of a capitalist society from the existing contradictions of capitalism. He clarifies that communism is not a state of affairs to be established or an ideal to which reality adjusts itself, rather communism is a real movement which abolishes capitalism. He insists that human beings will move to a more progressive and free society (Ali, 2013). Marx claims that capitalism would inevitably generate the crisis of over-production and monopolization. The surpluses of production arise when workers have a real need for commodities but cannot afford them when offered on the market. Overproduction does not occur due to external factors; rather it is conditioned by the general law of capital. According to this law, the market produces commodities disregarding the potential ability of people to buy them. The market produces goods for the expansion of capital. This expansion takes place through the constant expansion of production and accumulation leading to constant reconversion of revenue into capital (Ali, 2013). The constant reconversion of revenue into capital results in overproduction of commodities. Overproduction is conditioned by the capitalist necessity to reinvest so as to accumulate the maximum amount of capital. This involves the production of commodities that the workers cannot afford to purchase. Overproduction leads to a fall in the rate of profit because capitalism in the course of time and due to its inherent nature will heavily mechanize and automatize itself. Consequently, capitalists will begin to depend heavily upon machines and less on human labor to produce commodities. Capitalism’s dependence on profits would take away the source of profit as the source of profit is the labor that imparts value to the products (Ali, 2013; (Wolterstorff, 2008)). When machines produce commodities and introduce them to the market, they cannot gain or maximize profits since labor has not imparted value to them. Form Marx’s perspective, mechanics have no worth at all. Monopolization signifies the process of taking over small capital by big capital. This happens because capitalist production is governed by the principle of accumulation eventually centralizing capital in a few hands (Ali, 2013). In the monopolization stage, the capitalist who exploits a large number of workers is expropriated. This exploitation is accomplished through the action of inherent laws of capitalist production by means of centralization of capital. Centralization together with other developments, which take place in an ever increasing scale, leads to the growth of the global character of the capitalist system (Torrance, 1995). Marx predicts a point where the growth of capital through accumulation would become incompatible with the system itself. The centralization of the means of production will cause a decrease in the rate of profit rendering capital immobile. At this point, capitalism fails to resolve the problems it generates giving way to new relations of production (Torrance, 1995). However, capitalism will inevitably try to block the birth of new relations, which bear the solutions to problems inherent to capitalism. Capitalism will attempt to justify itself through ideas and concepts that are manipulated. This way, it will block further human development. Marx introduces ideology which is a sum total of false ideas given to promote and conceal the inherent contradictions of capitalism (Kain, 1988). In this respect, ideology is in the form of mystification, illusion and reification. According to Marx the ideas in the capitalist society become the means to consolidate and protect the interests of one group and suppressing the others. For example, in societies where domination is to be shared, the doctrine of separation of powers, honor and loyalty are the dominant ideas. The ruling class, which produces, regulates and distributes ideas in each historical epoch, protects the interests of one class in the name of general or common interest. It universalizes class interests through ideology. In this way, it creates a barrier to the inevitable rise of a free society (Kain, 1988). Marx gives examples of important capitalist ideological forms such as commodity fetishism where the market creates a horizon in which commodities have intrinsic value whereas commodities apart from labor do not possess value in themselves. Fetishism conceals labor which imparts value to things. According to Marx, wages are the prices paid to the owner of labor power. The capitalist pays for labor, in addition to utilization of labor-power. Labor-power is the workers capability to transform the object into use-value. The capitalist mode of production pays for labor instead of labor-power. Wage-form is the wage paid for labor, not for labor-power since wages in capitalist relations are compensation for the hours consumed in the production of commodities (Kain, 1988; Roemer, 1986). When wages are received after production, they compensate labor instead of labor-power. Labor-power stands for the potential while labor is based on the actual. Therefore, wage-form covers up exploitation. Wage-form conceals the distinction between necessary and surplus labor. Necessary labor is the form of labor that workers perform in order to maintain the average livelihood, but workers labor is more than necessary since he produces more commodities than he needs to exchange for his own survival. The surplus goes to the class that owns the means of production. Therefore, the worker is exploited with wage-form concealing this exploitation (Kain, 1988; (Roemer, 1986)). Nietzsche’s critique of Socialism Nietzsche adopts an aristocratic attitude towards money-making, work and the marketplace considering them to be beneath the values and aims of a free spirit. Nietzsche criticizes socialism as a moral, nihilist and populist movement that is reprehensible. Nietzsche differs with socialists on the view of exploitation as unjust and historical. He argues that such a position depends on a conventional moral perspective which he considers to be nihilistic by virtue of being life denying or unnatural. Nietzsche also objects to the populist dimension of socialism. In his view, it makes socialism a movement of the herd and describes the moral standpoint of socialism as a kind of slave morality arising from ressentiment and analogous to Christianity (Kilivris, 2011). The socialist critic of capitalism centers on class exploitation, which Marx views as the extraction of surplus value produced by workers by the owning class. The socialist, therefore, views exploitation as unjust, alienating and as a historical phenomenon that is bound to vanish. For instance, Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto refer to the proletarian revolution as inevitable (Kilivris, 2011). Nietzsche, on the other hand, views the moral and historical perspectives on exploitation as dependent on convectional presuppositions that exist within good and evil rather than being beyond good and evil. Nietzsche argues that this notion adopts a normative sense of justice which is projected onto an amoral phenomenon. In On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche disputes the socialist assertions of rights and wrongs since injury, violation, exploitation and destruction are not necessarily wrong as long as life progresses. In essence, they cannot be conceived as wrong in terms of life’s basic functions (Kilivris, 2011). Similarly, the view of exploitation as historical rests on a traditional notion of moral perfectibility. Exploitation does not belong to a corrupt, imperfect or primitive society, rather it is a part of what lives and is a basic organic function. It is a consequence of the will to power which is the will of life (Kilivris, 2011). Socialism’s moral and historical critique of exploitation ignores the essence of life manifested in the will to power, therefore, making it nihilistic. Nihilism in this context refers to life-denying, world –slandering or anti-nature standpoints. Essentially, Nietzsche finds Christianity to be nihilistic as it denies life or nature’s will to power affirming its antithesis in the idea of God. Nietzsche observes a secular version of this tendency in socialism in so far as it refuses life or nature’s will to power by denouncing exploitation and believing that it can be overcome at one point in history(Kilivris, 2011). Socialism’s aim to establish a mutual restraint from exploitation is a denial of life; a principle of disintegration and destruction. Against this denial, Nietzsche urges socialists to embrace exploitation as the essence of life. He argues that life is appropriation, injuring and overthrowing the alien and the weaker. By opposing exploitation, socialism assumes solidarity with the exploited giving socialism a populist perspective that Nietzsche views as an alliance with the herd. In this case, the working class is perceived beneficiaries of a socialist society. Nietzsche argues that socialists promise the universal happiness for those seeking security, comfort and ease. They advocate for equality of rights and sympathy for all sufferers requiring the abolition of suffering (Kilivris, 2011). Therefore, socialism’s normative morality, denial of life or nature and solidarity with the herd makes its critique of capitalism seem to be rising from below. Nietzsche’s disdain for socialism’s approach is illustrated by his description of socialism in the same terms he uses when discussing Christian morality, which he dismisses as a slave morality originating from ressentiment (May, 2005). Nietzsche asserts that socialism is a hopeless affair much like a slave revolt in morality he attributes to first Christians. In essence, socialism is marred by a perspective which is below capitalism and capitalists. As such, socialism lacks the pathos of distance of which it cannot rise above (May, 2005). Nietzsche’s critique of capitalism While Nietzsche endorses a class system or division of labor, he is highly critical of the other aspects of capitalist society. Nietzsche criticizes capitalism from an aristocratic perspective or pathos of distance. Thus, Nietzsche free spirits like himself as above money making, work and marketplace (May, 2005). In reference to money-making; a fundamental feature of capitalism, Nietzsche is hostile in his writings arguing that the goal of society is not to create wealth, but the creation of great men in the realm of culture. He regards money-making as a force or an obstacle to be overcome. In reference to the constraint of money-making on the pursuit of cultural excellence, in his time, Nietzsche observes that society is hating of education that makes people solitary or proposes goals that transcend money or money making (Green, 2002). Nietzsche rejects money-making because it stands in the way of achievement in the realm of culture and also because he sees money as an attempt by humans to establish security. He reflects that those who value money are seen as realists and that everything besides ensuring economic survival is just contorted idealism. In his view, money is equivalent in concept to the idea of God which offers ultimate comfort of metaphysical solace (Kilivris, 2011). Money is believed to provide psychological comfort through material and economic security. Money, therefore, becomes a fortress that keeps at bay need, want, pain and unhappiness. Yet Nietzsche views such a fortress as undesirable and unattainable since life is a process that does not aim at a final state. Therefore, free spirits despise the lures of dependence that come from honors, money, offices or enthusiasms of the senses. Free spirits live dangerously preferring to live with becoming rather than being nihilistic (Kilivris, 2011). In pursuit of illusionary security, money-makers spend the vast majority of their lives working. Nietzsche observes that a society in which members are continually working hard will have more security with this security now adored as the supreme goddess. For instance, in places like the US where the protestant work ethic reigns supreme with increased intermingling with hedonism, work itself has become a goddess. As such, it is considered an expression of strength and will-power. It is also related to egoistical notions such as self-development. This according to Nietzsche is ascetic self-denial (Green, 2002). In On the Genealogy of Morals, he equates work to herd organisation in terms of providing relief from self-loathing. Hence the blessing emanating from work is that the attention of the suffering man is fully distracted from him implying that nothing enters his consciousness, but continuous activity leaving little room for suffering. He calls this forgetting of self, self-neglect, and argues that it obstructs self-development. In his view, work obstructs the development of reason, covetousness and the desire for independence as it uses a tremendous amount of energy. This denies individuals reflection, brooding, dreaming, worry, love and hatred by setting a small goal that permits regular satisfactions (Kilivris, 2011). In one of his essays, he argues that in order to cultivate artistic development, many people must be subjected to work in order to serve a minority beyond individual needs. Yet he later deviates from this ideology when his disdain for work promotes him to offer a solution to the problems facing factory workers in the form of play. In this respect, Nietzsche proposes a concept of liberation above the paradigm of labor in which socialism is still bound. In addition to escaping capitalism, workers would also rise above the socialist belief that reforming the system would fundamentally change their servitude (Nealon, 2012). Nietzsche discourages work as he views play to be more valuable. This is because, unlike the self-denial of work, play allows for self-cultivation beyond the confines of utility and productivity. Play, he claims, is associated with creativity rather than being hedonistic. Nietzsche does not endorse hedonism and by extension consumerism for he relates hedonism to Christianity as both seek to minimize pain and suffering. Nietzsche looked down on entrepreneurs who he describes as buffoons and heroes of the hour and who only receive praise because people have a crowded view of greatness (Nealon, 2012). Nietzsche argues that the true great men rule imperceptibly and that they influence the world around them as they are inventors of new values. While capitalists core tools are values, Nietzsche argues that creation of new values goes beyond the marketplace. He, therefore, remarks that great things occur away from glory, and the marketplace and the inventors of great things live away from the marketplace (Nealon, 2012). The arguments raised so far are in opposition to capitalism. This is because Nietzsche saw himself and other free spirits as above money-making, work and the marketplace. Nietzsche defines the pathos of distance as the ever present, dominant and fundamental feeling of a higher ruling kind relative to a lower kind. This feeling of a higher kind distinguishes his critique from that of socialists. Basically, socialists oppose capitalism on moral and populist grounds while Nietzsche criticizes various aspects of capitalism as beneath him and other free spirits. In essence, socialists view capitalism as immoral while Nietzsche condemns its tendency to promote mediocrity (Nealon, 2012). In most societies, it is hard to envisage anyone being above a capitalist. This is because such societies rank people along economic lines. Consequently, the term elite invariably refer to a certain segment of the business community relegating everyone else to ordinary status. However, the designation of excellence and greatness when describing financiers is troubling from a Nietzschean perspective. Capitalists’ power over ordinary people is both economic and also psychological. For in addition to being owners, the economic elite wield a powerful pull on the values of the wider society (May, 2005). Nietzsche, unlike socialists, refrains from granting elite status to capitalists. To the contrary, Nietzsche devalued such individuals to the rank of the herd or the last man. The capitalist has more in common with Nietzsche’s last man than he has in free spirit. If capitalists can be regarded as last men, then they can be considered to be part of the herd and, therefore, ordinary and mediocre. The concept of a herd is independent of economic endowment but rather refers to a shared psychological trait typified by dependence on others in shaping values. Nietzsche describes the herd as weak and unable to live by their own values. In essence, the only difference between elites and the ordinary is the possession of these values with the elite having more and the capitalist lacking in this respect. The truly different and great individual lives beyond goods and services, and since the capitalist follows the herd mentality, he is dismissed as mediocre (May, 2005). Nietzsche on justice Any extreme attempt at attaining justice inevitably results in injustice. Nietzsche uses Christianity to illustrate this with Christianity representing a cluster of values that attempt to insulate man from tragedy. Nietzsche argues that Christianity introduced the illusion that the source of all suffering, the world itself, and the subjects that suffer in it can be put under control. This ascetic ideal raises an unworldly standard that holds that justice can only be achieved when everyone’s claims have been met, and absolute and unconditional evil has been eradicated. Such expectations being naive and unfounded were bound to disappoint and eventually culminate in nihilism (Green, 2002). He opposes philosophies ranging from Plato’s ideal painless world to Marx’s socialist revolution where all suffering will be redeemed as these philosophies pose suffering as a problem needing a solution. He argues that philosophers like Christians exacerbate suffering by associating it with ressentment, guilt, asceticism and bad conscience (Green, 2002). Nietzsche differs from other philosopher in his view of suffering as being genuinely transformative. He argues that, in failure, frustration and loss, humans are not only faced with vulnerability, but also their strength and resilience are reorganized a new. Therefore, the morality of Christians and by extension Marx is slavish morality fashioned by the weak in an effort to gain conceptual solace (Green, 2002). Conclusion Both Marx and Nietzsche have differing views on justice, morality and capitalism. Marx views capitalism as exploitative and contradictory and is doomed to collapse as a result of self-inflicted damages. Nietzsche views capitalists as lacking in free spirit and vulnerable to the whims of the masses and popular culture. By subscribing to popular culture capitalists relegate themselves to mediocrity. Marx views justice as relative and bound by prevailing structures of the time while Nietzsche dismisses socialist justice as slave morality, which is inspired by inferiority and exposed to nihilism.   References: Elster, J. (1985). Making sense of Marx. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press. Allman, P. (2001). Critical education against global capitalism: Karl Marx and revolutionary critical education. Westport, Conn. [u.a.]: Bergin & Garvey. Buchanan, A. (1982). Marx and justice: the radical critique of liberalism. London: Methuen. Kain, P. (1988). Marx and ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press. Sayers, S. (2013). Marxism and Morality. Retrieved on 19th march 2013 from: http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/articles/sayers/marxismandmorality.pdf Roemer, J. (1986). Analytical Marxism. Cambridge, CB; New York: Cambridge University Press. Torrance, J. (1995). Karl Marxs theory of ideas. Cambridge u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press. Kilivris, M. (2011). Beyond Goods and Services: Toward a Nietzschean Critique of Capitalism. Retrieved on 19th march 2013 from: http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_10/kilivris_december2011.pdf. Wolterstorff, N. (2008). Justice: rights and wrongs. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Green, M. (2002). Nietzsche and the transcendental tradition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, cop. Ali, Z. (2013). Attempt to Situate Marx’s Critique of Capitalism: Immanent, Transcendental, Minimalist or Diagnostic? Retrieved on 19th march 2013 from: http://www.asce- ku.com.pk/journals/2012_2/9_Zulfiqar_Ali.pdf May, T. (2005). Gilles Deleuze: an introduction. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. Nealon, J. (2012). Post-postmodernism: or, The cultural logic of just-in-time capitalism. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.       Read More