Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.(181)
To unpack this sentence, let me put it this way: The economic structures of society determines the rights given in that society. The ethical valuations of a community, as is implied by the statement, are thus more equitable when our economic structuring, along with the corollary structuring of our culture, evolves.
And since I find Marx's writing (at least in this situation) to be more descriptive than prescriptive, I think he is trying to say that this evolution (supposedly toward socialism) is unavoidable. Our economic structures are bound to develop into something more. We (meaning the developed world) are getting richer and richer, and we're getting more and more connected. I think you can see where I'm going with this...
With this increasing connectivity and our growing ability to "share the wealth" with those whose labor is exploited much more than ours, we will start to do more than just simply bear witness to the very atrocious human exploitation that makes us so rich. Marx's argument to me, describes the motif of growing human sympathy through history, if you are willing to go out on a limb with me and conceive of the materialist dialectic to be not wholly material and maybe more emotional. Our society, in Marx's view, is moving away from turning a blind eye to the wrongs of the current neo-liberal system of business (exploitation) as usual. With the oodles of cash and the internet we now have access to, we can now do something, and the ability to do something will only further the process of actually doing something.
So I guess, in summation, I take the idea of socialism in theory to really mean socialism as theory of history. And to accept the history lessons Marx is feeding us, means that we must also see a future where the distribution of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (182).
I have to say that I like your description of Marxist teachings as "historical" and "descriptive" as opposed to "prescriptive." I find that the difficulty of my accepting socialism and Marx's teachings is that I tend to think of it as a prescription--ultimately bringing images of communism and socialism with it.
ReplyDeleteI too think that Marx's description is one that we can all take to heart and apply to our own lives. I found our critiques of capitalism to be quite enlightening and allows me to see things in different ways, through different eyes.
At the same time-- I consider myself a pro-capitalism American and while I agree that people with extensive wealth should and could spread it to those not as fortunate, I DO NOT agree that the government should be the mediator in these situations.
I didn't ever think of Marx's views on socialism like this. Very interesting. And I agree that the ability to distribute what we, who have more in society than others, get is growing. In today's society the option for a global spread of wealth is much more accessible.
ReplyDeleteDev, if there is anyway a Marxist country or system is to come about in this world, it would certainly be a gradual process. The increasing wealth and awareness (which is such an empty word at times) in the globalized world is amazing. Since information is so readily available through the likes of the internet, I think more and more sympathetic people are being reached. At times these people are the ones with the power. I also believe in a basic human instinct that makes us view other's suffering adversely. If this is true, then there is a possibility to improve the world situation by lessening exploitation.
ReplyDeleteInteresting take on this. However, I disagree that Marx is more descriptive than prescriptive. I think that the majority of his works are prescriptive, telling us of how things should be and what the world would be like if we did such and such, and how much better the world would be if we followed these ways that he outlines for us. Thus, his socialist utopia.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I do like your post. I suppose I could say that Marx is descriptive on the basis that he does look at history and describe what happened, though I believe that it always has at its heart, a prescriptive motive of the way the world ought to be.
I really enjoyed your approach to Marx, since it's a view that we didn't really discuss in class. I liked that you bring up the idea of Marx providing a history lesson to justify the eventual, and very much gradual, development of socialist/communist societies. I'm not sure just how much I agree with your post, but I found it very interesting and thought-provoking.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have to disagree with Kara's comment. Marx doesn't describe "how things should be and what the world would be like." Rather, Marx identifies the problems and faults of capitalism, while providing the goals of a socialist society, not actually the design/how-to-guide for implementing one. He's stating the theory and concepts, but doesn't describe what the world will be like after the revolution.