A Re-Thinking on Our Way of Thinking by Karl Marx Term Paper

Introduction

One must bear in mind that the writings of Karl Marx were produced at the time of grave exploitation of workers in Europe when the working hours ranged between 12 and 16 hours a day and even children and women were not spared the hardships at work spot. Some of the enlightened provisions of working conditions would come only later on. Also, Germany was not united then, the English and the French were the leading capitalist states establishing overseas colonies and reaching out for raw-materials and market for finished products in distant and different continents. Industrial Revolution began to take deep roots, urbanization had come to stay and all the early hiccups of free-trade and colonialism and competition among the big powers were at full swing which would culminate later on in the First World War.

Marx was neither the first nor the last of the socialists, though his name is often linked to revolutionary communism due to his own struggle in the years between 1840 and 1870 and subsequently the rise of Soviet power in the second decade of the twentieth century, which founded the first workers’ state and where Lenin had drawn much from Marxian writings, modified them and brought about a successful overthrow of the Tsars. Trained to be a Philosopher, Marx turned out to be a Social Scientist, perfected his tool of ‘dialectical materialism’, delving deep into historical growth of institutions and developed his class-struggle which he emphasized would eventually lead to classless society as only in that condition there would be no exploitation of vast multitudes of people by one or two small sections of mankind.

Mode of Production

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” (Marx, Preface to Critique of Political Economy). Like Hegel, Marx too believed in the moving panorama of historical forces determining the course of events. But unlike Hegel who considered ‘nations’ to be ‘thoughts of God”, Marx consciously went about condemning the role of God or religion and characterized religions as ‘opium’. He ridiculed the idea of people obliged to put up with the unbearable living conditions for a hypothetical Heaven. He believed that appropriate awakening of social consciousness among the workers would lead to unity among them and ultimately change the structure of the society itself. His was a pure materialist interpretation of history, everything in history impinging on material factors.

So the growth of human history from pre-historic times to feudalism and dismantling of feudalism started with the French Revolution were no doubt great movements but in all these changes the worst affected had been the labor class, where under prosperous or poor social conditions, the workers were always at the raw end and had to solely survive on subsistence wages. The other factors of production could diversify their path or just remain idle and would not lose their worth but labor cannot afford to save its energy or sell the same at a higher price because of poor bargaining capacity. It is the only commodity it has for exchange and that too had to be expended under all circumstances in unfavorable ways. The French Revolution was undoubtedly a turning point because it began the process of liquidating the authority of nobility and the church but remained committed to the interests of the middle class.

Industrialization had brought about vast changes in the output of commodities and technological growth subsequently in the output of services as well, but these did not bring about much cheer to the lives of the working class. Marx passionately believed that the ‘surplus value’ of labor was appropriated by the capitalist class and in fact was the source of the creation of all wealth. But those who created this wealth were kept under the shackles. This is because the division of labor and inexhaustible supply of labor made the working class vulnerable to the dictates of the capitalists. The exploitation would continue and because of internal contradictions in the capitalist order, the severer the competitions among the capitalists, the worse would be the fate of the proletariat. The only solution would be the establishment of a society transcending the barriers of nations, a society in which there would be no drive for profit to be had by the propertied or investing class and a society in which each will work according to his capacity and each will receive according to his needs. The ‘States’ will wither away and society would be self-functioning.

For those of us who have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union and the apparent triumphal march of capitalist structure and the buoyancy and stability it had given to world economies and who have read Alan Greenspan’s Age of Turbulence, these ideas would seem to be coming out of almost a phobia against free enterprise, allowing market forces only to regulate demand and supply and possibly total lack of appreciation for humanitarian considerations in economic policies and their implementation.

But at the same time when we go through events like Great Depression of late twenties in the 20^th century, the constant recurrence of business cycles, the periodic stock market collapses, the Asian financial crisis, and more recently the impact of crisis in sub-prime mortgage market impact of the US on the world economy as a whole, there is a feeling that there could be inherent contradictions between national economies and globalization. Also it is interesting to note that among the factors of production while capital and enterprise only now-a-days enjoy great and almost unprecedented mobility, labor has its own constraint and even rich nations are wary of permitting intrusion of laborers in very large number from other countries into their countries. This could be seen in the US, European Union and elsewhere. Globalization does not seem to envisage unrestricted movement of labor force but welcomes outsourcing manufacturing activities to low-wages labor areas, again procuring labor at cheap levels which affects the laborers back at the advanced nations and the new labor force as well.

Capital and labor

Marx believes that “capital is thus the governing power over labor and its products. The capitalist possesses this power, not on account of his personal or human qualities, but inasmuch as he is an owner of capital. His power is the purchasing power of his capital, which nothing can withstand.” (Profit of Capital). For Marx, “Capital is stored up labor”. So long as capital would function, per force the exploitation would continue. The forces of production should, therefore, be controlled not by a section of the people but decided by the proletariat itself and should serve the needs of the majority of the people and not for the profit motive of a small self-serving group. Accordingly till that higher stage of evolution came about there would be struggle between the classes and the interests of the classes. Marx believed that Augustine Thierry was “the father of the class struggle in French Historical writing” (quoted by G.H.Sabine).

Accordingly it was the conviction of Marx, that “Whilst the division of labor raises the productive power of labor and increases the wealth and refinement of society, it impoverishes the worker and reduces him to a machine. Whilst labor brings about the accumulation of capital and with this the increasing prosperity of society, it renders the worker ever more dependent on the capitalist, leads him into competition of a new intensity, and drives him into the headlong rush of overproduction, with its subsequent corresponding slump.” Capital and labor, therefore, would be forever antagonistic classes, the former interested in keeping the latter under its chains and the latter unable to wriggle out of the situation. Property relations in a society would decide the control over labor for labor would not be in a position to ‘accumulate’ property.

Marxian conception would , therefore, seek to define all the existing forms of society to strive for protecting the properties and propertied class. The state, its laws and the instruments of government would be used only to protect the same. The proletariat has to have greater consciousness to realize its role in transcending class and state and need to assume dictatorship for a while to abolish the vestiges of private property. The control of means of production is the control of the social order. So long as property would be recognized, perpetuity of exploitation of one class was bound to be there. To free the society from the individual propertied elements is to free the society from the exploitation of one class over the other. When the means of production are controlled collectively under the care of the proletariat, there would be no exploiters or exploited ones. It is for this reason that the workers had to be in the vanguard of the revolution because they would not seek to exploit anyone.

How does Marxian critical analysis force us to rethink so much of what we have previously taken for granted in everyday life?

Perhaps we are accustomed to view life of mankind as a growth from pre-historic times to modern times in fits and starts, a transition from nomadic to settled habitat and by virtue of continuity in thinking and innovating making steady progress. Perhaps we take for granted loyalty to clan, small groups, villages, small kingdoms to empires as natural transitions and by products of this growth. Of course it sometimes puzzles as to why common aspirations could not be had by one and all so that needless wars and loss of lives could have been avoided. But when we find that even in religious views so many differences persist despite so much nobility guiding the same, we feel that it is all part of human nature. But looking around at what is happening in the present race for control of resources and intense competition for the same by powers that be, we feel that oneness of humanity would continue to be only a distant ideal but none the less would be pursued by enlightened groups though for the present inevitable divisions would continue. With this cushioned outlook when we settle to read the works of Marx , we are no doubt jolted out of our complacent attitude. Also when we read conditions of appalling poverty and starvation in some African countries and only see that token measures are taken, despite tremendous technological advancement to alleviate the same, our complacency is rudely shaken again.

While there is a disquiet regarding the shabby treatment meted out to the working class, we do feel whether class conflict struggle and violent overthrow of the existing order is the only answer to the problem. Are there no ways out of this curious situation where capital would have to appropriate maximum from the working class? The present outsourcing methods do make us sensitive about the plight of the working class, division of the labor and perhaps inevitable involuntary unemployment due to jobs going overseas.

We may not be able to concur with all analyses of Marx. Do all actions of human being solely flow only from economic necessities.? Do we not have music, dancing, literary pursuits and a host of other activities which are independent of earning livelihood and one’s own station in life? Should and can everything under the sun be solely attributed to economic motives or drives?

Conclusion

Of course, we do realize that very few in the world would voluntarily renounce their possessions or the right to possess. Also, there is no guarantee that collective or communal ownership of the means of production would per se resolve all economic problems of the world. It is true that the working of the Soviet Union and the bloc under its control were not true to Marxist conceptions developed by Lenin and Trotsky but changes arising from “One-State Socialism” of Stalin. Marxism basically entrenched itself upon only internationalism, wanted to destroy narrow national or religions or ethnic or linguistic boundaries. Russian experiment under Stalinism did not abolish inequalities in wages or living conditions or in a hundred other practical things of the day. But perhaps it cannot be denied that while it lasted the suppression of the working class was not that much. That is no consolation while we consider the loss of much human values and freedoms. So the conflict between conventional democratic liberalism and a possible collectivism would continue.

References

Arendt, Hannah, From: Social Research , Highbeam Encyclopedia, Karl Marx and the tradition of Western political thought.2002.

Abstract from Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy — Transcription/ Markup & Abstracted by: Zodiac/Brian Basgen Marx/Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1993, 1999, 2002.

Karl Marx Works 1844, Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Karl Marx.

First published Tue Aug 26, 2003; substantive revision Mon Jan 28, 2008.

G. H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Oxford & IBH, Calcutta, 1971.