Modern Society Debate: Marx, Smith and Tocqueville - Essay Example

2 December Modern Society Debate: Marx, Smith and Tocqueville Marx: “Modern society is alienating and exploitative; it cannot be reformed; a working-class revolution is the only answer.” Smith: That is not true as “intervention (on a system) can often disrupt order and thereby promote chaos.” He adds, “Workmen stand in need of a master to advance them the materials of their work, and their wages and maintenance till it be completed. He shares in the produce of their labor or in the value which it adds to the materials on which it is bestowed; and in the same consists of his profit.” (Wealth of Nations) Tocqueville: “It was no slight task to reunite people who had been strangers to each other or foes for many centuries (and) very difficult to teach them to come to an understanding for the transaction of their common business. Division was a comparatively easy achievement. We have furnished the world with a memorable illustration of the difficulty of the reverse process. When 60 years ago, the various classes into which French society was divided were suddenly brought together a after a separation of several centuries, their only point of contact were their old sores; they only met to tear each other to pieces. Their rival jealousies and hatreds survive to this day. (Old regime and the Revolution. Chapter X). "Among a democratic people, where there is no hereditary wealth, every man works to earn a living...Labor is held in honor; the prejudice is not against but in its favor.” (Book II. Chapter 18) Marx retorted: “But revolution is the best way to create society without class distinctions.” Karl Marx believes that capitalism exists as a system of virtual slavery and only serves the interests of capitalists who derive power and fortune from the exploitation of the working class. Marx posits that total change can only be achieved through revolution. David Noebel (2006) supports this analysis and states that “class struggle is not peaceful, just as the struggle for survival in nature is not peaceful”. Marx further states that workers “openly declare their ends can be attained only by the forcible throw of all existing social conditions” and that they “have an ethical duty to work towards the forcible overthrow of capitalism” (Noebel, 2006). As there is an ongoing struggle between the social classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat), Marx believes that there is a need to end this struggle and an new form of government, which he termed socialism, should be established (Brill, 2009). In his Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted… that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes… The modern bourgeois society…has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” Marx points out that whatever form of capitalism is being practiced by society, oppression and abuse of the working class would always be prevalent among the rich capitalists. In his theory of history, Marx believes that if forces of production have reached a certain level, social revolution is inevitable. Marx wrote that when “productive forces are concentrated in…a few bourgeois whilst the mass of…proletarians (live in) conditions more wretched and unendurable (while) the riches of the bourgeois increase…and that productive forces have outgrown private property…they provoke the most violent disturbances in the social order.” He believes that while the ruling class, bourgeois, continue to generate riches at the expense of exploiting the working classes and subjecting them to miserable life conditions, there will naturally be a consensus among the masses to topple the existing system and establish a new system which they would consider more fair, through a violent and encompassing social action or revolution. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith focuses on the concept of the growth of economy on the division of labor – the specialization of different jobs where big jobs are broken down into smaller ones, with each specialized worker specializing in a specific area of the total production process, thereby increasing efficiency of producing a single material. He also forwards the concept of ‘surplus’ as division of labor means faster production time and more materials to be produced. Surplus means more products to be sold and more profits for the company. In Smith’s view, no improving country or society is truly exploitative of the working class. He wrote that “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” He does not believe in revolution and contends that for a society to develop and flourish, “Little else is requisite to carry a state the highest degree of opulence… but peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice: (with) all the rest…brought about by the natural course of things”. In Smith’s view, society is in a constant process of achieving and gaining material wealth and enjoys higher consumption. It is in this context that division of labor was conceptualized: to provide society with more goods and services to enjoy. Andrea Mario Lavezzi (2001) interprets Smith’s theory of growth where “production is characterized by increasing returns originating from division of labor, individuals demand a potentially infinite variety of goods, and that individuals have a natural inclination for social interaction” or production and exchange of goods with others. These processes therefore bring about growth and “creates pre-conditions for further growth” (Lavezzi). Smith contends therefore that any “intervention (on a system) can disrupt order and promote chaos”, and intervene in developments within society. Alexis de Toqueville’s retorts to Marx illustrates an example to the disruption of the societal system in France during his time wherein he posited that change brought by revolution only serves to divide society and that there can be no compromise between the classes who were previously at odds with each other. He further shows a contending view on Marx’s socialist theory in Etudes "economiques, politiques et litteraires by stating “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude”. Tocqueville in The Old Regime and the Revolution adds that after the revolution and “when men are no longer bound together by caste, class corporate or family ties, they are prone to give their whole thoughts to their private interest”. In his view, revolutions only serve to breakdown social systems and promote social chaos and disorder. He adds, “Radical as it was, the Revolution introduced fewer innovations than has been generally supposed…what it really achieved was the destruction of everything…the old institutions and of everything which clung to them or bore in any way their distinguishing mark…the sudden and violent termination of a task which has successively engaged ten generations of men. Had it never taken place, the old social edifice would nonetheless fallen…” Marx contends that industry and the free economy resulted to the abuse of the working class and that profits derived from production did not result to the improvement of the quality of life of the workers. In the Communist Manifesto he writes, “Owing to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character…he becomes an appendage of the machine…hence the cost of production of a workman is restricted to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance and the propagation of his race,” and “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”. He contends that capitalism is an evil force that generates profit at the expense of the working class. Marx states in Capital, Vol. 1, “capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks… Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology and the combining together of various processes into a social whole only by sapping the original sources of all wealth-the soil and the laborer”. Marx takes the opposite position of Smith and believes that capitalism does not spread the wealth or profit derived from production activities to the working class. According to Marx’, workers are only forced to work in order to survive – as Smith also pointed out that all goods needed by man are produced by others and acquired through trade. Under Tocqueville’s view of order and democracy, Marx lays down that there should be a distinction between true democracy and that which is an elected democracy or representative democracy, where it is the representatives elected by the people who hold the true power. He writes, “The separation of the political state from civil society takes the form of a separation of the deputies from their electors. Society simply deputes elements of itself to become its political existence. There is a twofold contradiction: A formal contradiction. The deputies of civil society are a society which is not connected to its electors by any ‘instruction’ or commission. They have a formal authorization but as soon as this becomes real they cease to be authorized. They should be deputies but they are not. (and) A material contradiction. In respect to actual interests . . . Here we find the converse. They have authority as representatives of public affairs, whereas in reality they represent particular interests” (Early Writings). In Marx views, the continued oppression of the working class would only lead to the downfall of the bourgeois as the workers feels how they are being exploited. As the workers constitute the majority of society, sentiments through the formation of Unions would gradually spread among the populace. As capitalists generally do not distribute profits to their workers, there will be a continuing movement by the workers for their rights. In the long, if workers’ demands are not met, a revolution would be necessary to bring down the natural order of society and establish a new form of social order. Works Cited Brill, FN. Marx’s Conception of Socialism. 25 December 2009. Web. 1 December 2012. De Tocqueville, Alexis. The Old Regime and the Revolution. Trans. John Bonner. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers. 1856. Web. 2 December 2012. De Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America, Book II. 1840. Web. 1 December 2012. De Tocqueville, Alexis. Etudes "economiques, politiques et litteraires. 1878. Web. 1 December 2012. Lavezzi, Andrea Mario. 2001. Division of Labor and Economic Growth: From Adam Smith to Paul Romer and Beyond. Paper presented for the Conference, Old and New Growth Theories: An Assessment. Pisa, Italy. 5-7 October 2001. Web. 1 December 2012. Macpherson, CB. 1977. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Print. Marx, Karl.1990. Capital, Volume 1. Trans. Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin Books. Print. Marx, Karl. 1975. Early Writings, trans. Rodney Livingstone and Gregor Benton. New York: Vintage. Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto. 1848.Web. 1 December 2012. Read More