One way in which the socio-economic hierarchy (and the large-scale impoverishment of much of the human population that it entails) has managed to perpetuate itself throughout the development of capitalism must be credited to the way in which various actors interested in maintaining (or exaggerating) the status quo have strategically redirected and absorbed the resistance movements that have cropped up in the past couple centuries, making sure that none presented any series challenge to the system. Potential resistance elements are used to clean up and contain the damage caused by capitalism (the band-aid approach), such that they are essentially working to support the system, further its viability, rather than change it.
I could perhaps expand this discussion beyond capitalism, looking at resistance and the political-economic order prior to the development of capitalism. However, partly due to the limitations of my own knowledge, I stick to the capitalist era.
The Welfare State
The first rumblings of resistance (in the 18th and early 19th centuries) came primarily from within the ranks of the newly formed working class. The workers were being paid next to nothing, their working conditions were abysmal. The revolts that accompanied the emergence of capitalism had the potential of disrupting the whole project, of putting an end to it before it even began. If it were not for the engineering of the welfare state, this would likely have been the case.
The welfare state looks, on the surface, like a simple compromise between the workers and the capitalists. Particularly so if you, like the workers, view the state within the framework of social contract ideology, rather than seeing it as a tool of the capitalist class. In fact, the birth of the welfare state is more the solidification of a relationship between the capitalist class and the state which has more or less held, albeit with increasing complexity, since that time, wherein the state is used as a means to diffuse risk (for example, in the welfare state, by subsidizing the cost of labor, pacifying the workers, etc.).
The Technocrats
As these workers' struggles continued in waves, before essentially petering out after the Depression of the 1930s, another group of potential defectors was emerging (throughout the 19th century before reaching an apex in the early 20th, coinciding with the second phase of capitalism). These were educated, science-minded, socialist-leaning professionals. Socialist, but not Marxist. They believed strongly in the welfare state, and sought to expand its functions to include technical administration of population and territory for the purpose of increasing productivity, efficiency, health, and happiness. Their "socialist utopia" was one in which bureaucratic experts managed and ordered all aspects of human life, mitigating the harmful effects of capitalist industrialization (pollution, disease, poverty, crime). Their primary goal was to root out sources of pathology: to decrease pollution, to eradicate disease, to remove and/or rehabilitate the "criminal elements" in society. However, they never addressed the real causes of any of these "pathological" elements.
The technocrats were easy to take care of. Since they, too, held faith in the state's ability to solve social problems, they were effortlessly absorbed into the state. Government agencies were created so that they could apply their expertise in public health, urban planning, criminology, environmental science, social work, pyschology, sociology, etc. As part of, or in alliance with, the state, they tinkered away, implementing haphazard projects at worst, taking some of the sting out of the harshest aspects of capitalism at best, but all the while they were supporting the forms of domination (the state, industrialization, science, bureaucracy) responsible for the ills of the current world order. Like the welfare state, governmental bureaucracy and its technocrats are still part of the political-economic infrastructure.
Foundations and Nonprofits
Following WW2, with the third major phase of capitalist development, another group has risen to the fore. These are people who would be technocrats - they are practically interchangable - yet they choose to work "outside" of the state. In part, they view independence from larger governing structures as a way to maintain the authenticity and progressive ethos of their movement. The rise of nonprofits (a very large profileration in the post-WW2 era) has also been a means by which the burden of bureaucratic governance and responsibility for mopping up the messes of capitalism has been transferred away from the state and consequently been "privatized."
The function of foundations - essentially large corporate tax shelters that also, to a much smaller degree, serve as a source of funding for nonprofits - ensures that the nonprofit organizations with the most resources will pursue projects in compliance with corporate interests. Hence, nonprofits may nominally be "independent," but the reality is that they are dependent upon states and corporations for funding, both of whom then control the agendas of these organizations.
The common thread among all these resistance movements is that they have all sought solutions within the state, all tried to work within power structures rather than trying to fundamentally challenge them. They have expended a large amount of resources and energy making minor adjustments to, but leaving basically intact, the structures of domination by which they are oppressed. A lot of human effort that could have been used for systemic change, wasted on small "tweaks."
Showing posts with label class warfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label class warfare. Show all posts
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Myths About Marx
In my first post, I listed some common misconceptions about Marx, Marxism, and communism... sort of as a teaser. Now that I have sketched a rough outline of my Marxist perspective, I thought it might be a good time to revisit that list of myths and explain (briefly) why these beliefs are unfounded. Hopefully I will have time in future posts to expand on some of these a bit more. (The last two on the list I have already touched on to some extent, so I will postpone, for now, discussing them further.)
1. Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests. Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.
2. Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality. He never criticized individual expression. The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential. In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life. However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.
Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy. Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.
3. Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind. Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.
4. Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism. Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale. One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor: machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit.
5. Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare. He never advocated violence. He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation. (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.) Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.
6. Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism. I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.
1. Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests. Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.
2. Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality. He never criticized individual expression. The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential. In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life. However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.
Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy. Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.
3. Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind. Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.
4. Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism. Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale. One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor: machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit.
5. Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare. He never advocated violence. He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation. (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.) Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.
6. Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism. I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.
- Marx argued that the communist revolution could only occur after attaining a certain level of technological development and globalization, which had certainly not been reached by 1917, nor even now.
- Marx was very clear that true a communist revolution had to be a global movement. It could not occur in one country or one region of the world alone.
- Marx's utopia was stateless... it was not a ruthless, genocidal dictatorship/empire.
- The revolution in Russia turned into a movement toward industrialization, which, I have already argued, made it more capitalist. For Marx, the communist revolution was a movement from industrial society to something different.
I should definitely do a post about this one, because I could keep going on and on and on....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)