Why I'm (still) a Marxist

25 years ago, I considered myself a Marxist. And you know what? I still do. Here's why.
1. Marx's analysis of "primitive accumulation" raises important points - that capitalism arose from state-sanctioned theft and brutality rather than from voluntary transactions, as is happening in China now. And its legacy is still with us, as it means people enter free market transactions on an unequal basis, with many bringing only their own hide to market and expecting nothing but a skinning.
The soft left, by contrast, often thinks markets are the origin of inequality, rather than a reflection of it.
2. Marx's grouse against capitalism was not so much that it created inequality - that long pre-dated capitalism - as that it degraded human nature and enslaved workers:

All means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour-process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independant power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour-process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness (Capital vol I ch 25 par 52)

In short, capitalism makes workers as "stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become." (Oops, that's Adam Smith - sorry).
Marx's complaint was that the vast technological potential unleashed by capitalism was being used to diminish freedom, not to enhance it - surely a great insight.
3. Marx had a better analysis of the underclass than the soft left who either stigmatize "chavs" or whinge about "the culture of the underclass." In the above passage, Marx continues to say that capitalism creates "ignorance brutalization and moral degradation." Chavdom, to Marx, is what you get when you deprive people of meaningful control of their own lives or for the possibility of self-actualization through work.
4. Marx was right - the division of labour (as capitalists practice it) is not so much a technically necessity as a "divide and rule" tactic.
5. There's something in Marx's technologically-determined theory of history - that "the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist." Technology changes incentives, and thus changes ways of organizing economic activity - as orthodox economists now know.
In particular, the growing importance (in some businesses) of human capital relative to physical capital mandates (pdf) a shift in power from capitalists to workers.
6. We now know - more that Marx did - that the boss class is technically redundant, and hence ripe for overthrowing. In Marx's day, management could claim that it's power  was technically necessary, as only bosses know how production processes worked. But management has now become an ideologized rather than technical function, and is therefore technically superfluous.
7. There's much truth in the claim that profits arise from exploitation (pdf). The problem is not that the claim is false, but that it might (pdf) be trivial and inconsequential.
8. Attempts at gradual reform of capitalism can be worse than useless. They require goverment to possess knowledge, rationality and honesty that they just don't have. And modest tax rises or small empowerments of workers can retard economic growth by increasing capitalists' fears of future taxes or expropriation.
9. The Labour party will always let you down.
10. Bourgeois ideas such as liberty, justice and the rule of law are partly empty fictions which the ruling class use only when it suits them. How else to explain this, or the release of Scooter Libby whilst poor and black people get vicious sentences for lesser crimes?

Update: Norm chastises me on this last point. And rightly so. I don't (of course) mean liberty, justice and the rule of law should be empty fictions, merely that they are in the hands of Bush. Any decent society would give them a greater reality than they currently have.

Comments

[Luis Enrique]

As far as capitalism creating ignorance and brutalization goes ... well there's certainly plenty of both around, but also lots of good stuff. What's the relative prevalence of ignorance and brutalization under capitalism?

I couldn't say whether the majority, or perhaps the relevant group is the working class/under class, are more ignorant and brutalized than in pre-capitalist days.

Isn't the more interesting question whether capitalism creates more (or less) ignorance and brutalization than any other feasible alternative system? It's not obvious to me that it does, and there has certainly been plenty of ignorance and brutalization in historical attempts at socialism etc. that I know of (I am ready to be corrected).

If it were to turn out that capitalism is the least brutalizing system we have at our disposal, it would not make a lot of sense to complain about how brutalizing it is. So I think you have to establish a credible less brutalizing alternative.

I'm sure you can list the ways in which you think society can be made less brutalizing - breaking down hierarchies etc. etc. - but these are compatible with (possible future developments of) capitalism aren't they?

And also, I am somewhat skeptical about how much difference the sort of changes you'd like to see would end up making to the incidence of ignorant brutes, but that's just speculation on my part.

[mark Brinkley]

So where do Frank Lampard's current wage negotiations with Chelsea FC fit into this scenario?

[chris]

Mark - they're clearly inconsistent with the Marxian prediction that workers would be progressively impoverished - a prediction he merely lifted from his classical predecessors.
But they're consistent with the notion that technology influences class relations, and can undermine conventional modes of production. The technology of football means that players have power - so much so that it's almost impossible to run a football club profitably. As result, the capitalist mode of production cannot apply in football, and clubs are run as vanity projects or as means of laundering money.

[Matt Munro]

"Chavdom, to Marx, is what you get when you deprive people of meaningful control of their own lives or for the possibility of self-actualization through work."

This is the nub of the problem. A member of the petit bourgoise like me sees chavs and says they are a drain on state coffers, a cause of high taxes, crime and social decay, and the government is rewarding thir idle fecklesness with taxpayers money which just encourages them to breed.
From the chavs perspective, opportunities to self actualise through work are limited, partly by their own lack of intelligence, but more seriously as opportunities may be more of the "do you want fries with that ?" kind than the peak experience kind. A life on generous benefits is ergo preferable.
The right say take away their benefits and they will have to support themselves, taxes can be reduced and all of society will benefit (Clinton did this in the US, and it worked).
The left say it stigmatises poverty, will cause the unemployable to turn to crime and would herald a return to Dickensian child poverty
Who is right ?

[Peter Risdon]

"... capitalism arose from state-sanctioned theft and brutality rather than from voluntary transactions"

What's the historical basis for this statement?

[triangular.bread]

We now live freer, longer lives in a cascade of wealth , thanks to capitalism. I will welcome the day when everyone on this planet lives in a modern economy. Far from blaming capitalism we should salute its unprecedented ability to generate wealth and bounty wherever it goes. Three cheers for capitalism. No cheers for Marx, a writer I find turgid where he isn't incomprehensible.

[sean]

Here is the problem, Here is how we got to the problem, here is what we need to do about the problem, and this is the promised land when you follow my beliefs on the problem.

Yep ideology and religion are very similar things are they not?

There is no doubt that economics is very important and has a lot of merit, but it is not a science, and Karl Marx was not a philosopher.

[dearieme]

What were his views on phlogiston?

[alabastercodify]

"... capitalism arose from state-sanctioned theft and brutality rather than from voluntary transactions"

In this country at least the Black Death was just as important an influence, whereby the massive increase in the power of labour destroyed the feudal system and enabled a huge step towards free economic relations.

At the very least the movement hasn't all been in one direction.

[Karthic]

Chris,
Thanks for that; it was educative.
May I request a post, or, more likely, a series, that distills Karl Marx's economic ideas for us readers?

[Chris Brooke]

Q: What were his views on phlogiston?

Here's Engels, in the Preface to the second volume of Capital:

*** Now Marx appeared upon the scene. And he took a view directly opposite to that of all his predecessors. What they had regarded as a solution, he considered but a problem. He saw that he had to deal neither with dephlogisticated air nor with fire-air, but with oxygen — that here it was not simply a matter of stating an economic fact or of pointing out the conflict between this fact and eternal justice and true morality, but of explaining a fact which was destined to revolutionise all economics, and which offered to him who knew how to use it the key to an understanding of all capitalist production. ***

The full Preface is here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch00.htm

Scroll down to the words "The history of chemistry offers an illustration which explains this" for the full analogy.

[Shuggy]

"I don't (of course) mean liberty, justice and the rule of law should be empty fictions, merely that they are in the hands of Bush"

I'm not sure that qualifier works either, Chris. Are you really saying there is absolutely *no* liberty, justice and the rule of law in America under Bush? Leaving aside the point that this suggests an unfamiliarity with how the American polity actually works, what on earth are you comparing it to, exactly?

[Mark]

"Any decent society would give them a greater reality than they currently have."

I suppose one could note that the values of liberty, justice, and equality have been more properly (though not perfectly) practiced in Western liberal democracies than in any marxist societies hitherto. Setting aside the obvious historical examples, the evidence for this also exists in the location of actual marxists, who, for the most part, comfortably reside in Western public universities, where they'd rather consume cheap goods paid for by corporate, working & middle class taxes. Odd how these marxist academics don't stampede to the utopias of North Korea, Cuba or China. hm..

[sean]

Any chance of leaving KM where he belongs in the 19th Century?

The 20th century can best be described as the crisis in socialism, before even the start of the 20th century Marxism (the root of Socialism) was falsified, all the different versions that sprung from it where and are adhoc variations to try and correct (or second guess Marx) the failure of Marx's "scientific" predictions, and that includes National Socialism as well as State Socialism.

The world we live in is one of trial and error, we get an idea we give it a go, if it works we keep it and build on it, if it does not we dump it, for example.

There is little doubt that decline of the family unit is breeding an underclass, at the moment we are still in a "modern liberalism" phase, but eventfully the evidence will be so overwhelming our elites will have to change course, as happened in the economics arena in 1979, and we will get a Thatcher type leader who is prepared to give a "shock to the system". At the moment our elites have a vested interests in the current status quo (just read the Guardian jobs pages), but when the Underclass becomes a threat to the middle classes, which it will do on its current evolution, then things will change.

When a leader turns up and says "I will actively and pro-actively discriminate in favour of the family unit and its interests"
Then you will know that the day has come, and the evolution is underway.

Capitalism and Democracy work well together because they are in competition with each other, Socialism/Marxism on the other hand is a complete replacement for them both.

Without the Democratic Capitalism dualist Paradigm, Human knowledge and progress will halt and human civilisation will go backwards. Its the creative conflict between the two that is the engine of our civilisation.

At the moment "modern liberalism" is winning in the democratic arena, with all its social theory but as the costs rise for its unintended consequences then the Conservatism of the market place will seek to correct the ills of "modern liberalism" and hopefully a equilibrium will be reached.

No other system has the flexibility of this system.

[dearieme]

Thank you, Mr Brooke. I knew, in general terms, that Engels was a crap writer, but I'm still surprised by "And although he [Lavoisier] did not produce oxygen simultaneously and independently of the other two, as he claimed later on, ...
Marx stands in the same relation to his predecessors in the theory of surplus-value as Lavoisier stood to Priestley and Scheele." Unless he intended to say that Marx was a scoundrel, like Lavoisier.

[Maynard Handley]

Is your point (2) valid, by either the lights of Marx or experience?

As Luis Enrique points out, what is the alternative?
More specifically:
(1) Would industrialization have happened? And, for all its flaws, industrialization and urbanization are better than the alternative, which is not enlightened contemplation of nature but rather "rural idiocy" to use Marx' own phrase. Generations of humans, from 1750 on, and continuning today, have voted that the city beats the farm as a lifetstyle choice.

(2) Industrialization, and in particular the mass media, have not brought opera to the masses. You can, if you wish, blame the mass media for that; I am rather inclined to blame the masses. But that is not my point. My point is that TV and radio, again for all their flaws, even in the US or Europe, let alone the controlled media of the poorer countries, certainly appear to be something the locals enjoy and cherish, as measured by how they are willing to spend their meager dollars.
Likewise modern medicine, for all the limits in what gets to Africa, or even to the poor in the US, provides most of humanity with a way to deal with most of the complaints of pre-1900.
Likewise with creature comforts we consider trivial, but would throughly miss if they were taken away, like cell phones and the ability for people, even brutalized workers, to maintain easy contact with friends and family.

It would be nice to believe that an enlightened society could bring us science and technology apart from capitalism, but this doesn't seem to be the case. It's a shame, but I'm interested in ways of making the world we have, with the humans we have, better; not in designing utopias populated with "humans" that don't much match the population we have to deal with.

[Will]

Well said Mr Stumble and Mumble.

The stupid and ignorant pieces of shit and vile ultra reactionaries have had it up them today and they don't like it!

Specimens of the sort like what you get commenting here are the sort of filth we shall have to dispose of in an ecologically sound fashion. Soylent Green anyone? Pushed into a windmill's flailing wings? Fuck that! Take them out and shoot the fukkers!

[Chris Williams]

"state-sanctioned theft and brutality" see: Master and Servant legislation.

[Jim Donovan]

'6...the boss class is technically redundant..' Where'd you get that one from? Every society or enterprise has leaders, whether by appointment or acclamation. Even so-called cooperatives have them. Name any successful one that doesn't. Although I may not agree with some of your ideas, I've always found them rationally argued, but that one is just wingnut nonsense. I thought you were better than that.

[G. Tingey]

Marx made specific predictions - which were all wrong.

Why should you be a Marxist, unless it is your religion?
Because, like all the other religions, Marxism is a load of codswallop .....

[Jon Gregory]

Given the history of Marxist governments in the 20th Century, and the millions they killed, I find it astonishing that you believe in a 19th century theory that has proven to be a false god.

[Courtney Hamilton]

I consider myself to be a moderate Marxist - however, I reject the existence of the so-called 'underclass'. As far as I know, Marx never made any mention of an 'underclass'. That term came about long after the great man died.

[Matt Munro]

Marx called them the "lumpen proletariat" they mainly ate betroot and drank home made potato vodka in his day.
BTW I don't believe it's possible to be a marxist blogger, blogging is by definition a bourgoise past-time.

[Peter Horne]

There is no moral or intellectual excuse for being a marxist. Look at this.
http://www.liberty.li/forum/archive/index.php/t-294.html

[Robert]

Luis Enrique said:

If it were to turn out that capitalism is the least brutalizing system we have at our disposal, it would not make a lot of sense to complain about how brutalizing it is. So I think you have to establish a credible less brutalizing alternative.

Its funny, because that was Marx was doing, what he hoped to inspire. Unfortunately, the particular political system(s) he inspired did not work. But it does not follow from this fact that his complaints were unfounded. Chris seems to be saying that the analysis of the problem is still correct and pertinent, and thus he is a Marxist. Anyone with any wit would indeed attempt to describe a less bad alternative, but that is certainly not a pre-requisite to labelling yourself Marxist.

[Darren P.]

'...they are a drain on state coffers, a cause of high taxes, crime and social decay, and the government is rewarding thir idle fecklesness with taxpayers money which just encourages them to breed.
From the chavs perspective, opportunities to self actualise through work are limited, partly by their own lack of intelligence, but more seriously as opportunities may be more of the "do you want fries with that ?" kind than the peak experience kind. A life on generous benefits is ergo preferable...'

Bang on the mark- the left should consider that with the growing number of 'chavs'- and the accompanying stigmatization, and increase in state dependency- is symptomatic of the Thatcherite, post-industrial decline which has removed many of the blue-collar professions and thereby has left very few sources of employment. And so the contemporary chav is merely an example of the shrinking working-class- and a growing underclass.

This and the resulting credit boom has furnished a false, mythical sense of materialism where you really can acquire capital and goods without endeavour, cost, or work. So if you seek cash then pop down the dole office once a week and earn in excess of the minimum wage. Fancy some luxuries? Never mind, stick it on the credit card no matter your personal debt, even your earnings render you unable to make any form of meaningful repayment. Want more credit? A lean perhaps? Absolutely. How about a sub-prime mortgage too? Of course you can!

This has cultivated a call-centre economy and a whole industry employing those who may otherwise may be working in a factory or coalmine-but in far smaller numbers. And when you are in debt you are suddenly at the mercy of the bank and big business who could declare you bankrupt, homeless, and penniless at a stroke with still a monumental sum to repay.

This has spawned a culture that disrupts class conciousness because malcontent with the current system will only occur once the drip of welfare and credit is halted, and when the banks demand repayment. The fallacy of this country will then be exposed and the reaction will be one of universal revulsion in both the working classes and the underclass.

Having said that, this will force a sharp rise in homelessness and those living in temporary hostels, cultivating a far more transient form of underclass in the cities. Have you ever seen the sheer numbers of people living out of bags in San Francisco? Often disabled or mentally-ill too? This could soon be the reality here too. The poorest regions and suburbs- Thamesmead, Brixton, Hackney, parts of Glasgow e.t.c... will exploit into rioting too.

More serious, is that this may also predispose many Muslim youths into radicalism too, feeling disenchanted and seeing their aspirations destroyed.

Unless the left can offer an alternative to the affected groups then the outlook for Britain is extremely ugly.

[Darren P.]

'Far from blaming capitalism we should salute its unprecedented ability to generate wealth and bounty wherever it goes'

I sometimes take the view that the alternatives to capitalism- or rather, capitalist hegemony- can be quite frightening. And some of the first proponents of capitalism never intended for the exploitation, sheer inequity, and slavery to emerge from the process.

However, Britain's perversion of capitalism- and the cultivation of increasinly enormous income and social disparities-surely merits the need to consider alternatives? We have built a false economy on property (when some of the houses- especially in London- have become so old and dilapidated they are not worth the bricks they were built with regardless of their 'location,location,location'), a false economy on credit (the current fanatasy- as superbly questioned by Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson- that you can borrow and borrow without repayment), and have destroyed the blue-collar industries to employ the working classes.

Those who endorse capitalism eulogise 'growth', 'profit', 'wealth', and long-term dominance and power. Well, in this country we merely have a mountain of debt, an incredible trade deficit, short- termism (with our boom-and-bust credit-based economy), and a post-industrial mess with millions of unoccupied workers, forced to depend on state welfare and the generosity of their banks (until they send the bailiffs round, of course). It will all end in tears...