Since class on Friday, I’ve been thinking: Is a Marxist state a utopian society? Throughout this blog, I will be discussing Marxism in theory (not in its “practice” i.e. Stalinist Russia or Mao Zedong’s China).
Friedrich Engels defined Communism as “the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.” But is the liberation of the proletariat really the answer to reaching a utopian society?
Inequality (or indirectly Capitalism), for Marx, is the source of all major societal problems. The destruction of property rights would provide complete equality and, in turn, end the “class struggle” and the societal problems associated with a capitalist society. Public ownership of the means of production is the key, defining concept to a Marxist state. The state would gradually confiscate all private property and industry so its citizens would share all goods and services. It is difficult to imagine how such a communist society would operate. The destruction of capitalism and complete nationalization of all industries and property is a radical thought.
With a remedy for the illness (capitalism), society can rid itself of the symptoms of the disease (greed, poverty, etc.) If, somehow, this system could be implemented then perhaps there would be no need for property, the monetary system, or religion (all of which are products of a capitalist society). Communism, in theory, would eliminate poverty, starvation, and worker exploitation (which was obviously a much bigger deal during the Industrial Revolution)
That being said, there are several glaring problems with Marx’s political philosophy. First, Marxism stifles the innovation and personal drive that capitalism promotes. Without profit incentives, a citizen has no motivation to work. There is no motivation to innovate and create new, more efficient methods of production. Society stagnates.
Secondly, it is unclear as to how a Marxist state would operate and maintain itself. The Communist Manifesto addresses the need for revolution and some general parameters for a Marxist state, but no clear guidelines for the maintenance of that state. This criticism has been voiced by a number of critics (most notably Bertrand Russell)
Thirdly, Marx’s philosophy seems to neglect natural human tendencies. To establish a Communist society, one individual must lead the revolution against capitalism. Once the battle is won, he must step down and join the proletariat. History has shown, however, that an individual who is given this enormous power is unwilling to step aside and join the masses. Stalin and Mao are classic examples of the natural human tendency for power. In other words, the process of reaching a communist society is difficult, to say the least.
Ultimately, to determine whether or not Marxism creates a utopian society, the question should be: what issue is the root cause of societal problems? If it is poverty and inequality, then perhaps Communism (in theory) is the most favorable
That being said, successfully starting and maintaining a Marxist state is another matter entirely…
Hey Thomas,
ReplyDeleteI was wondering you could further explain the idea that Marxism stifles personal drive. I understand your point, and think Marx would agree that there would be no motivation to innovate and create new, more efficient methods of production. I think he would reply that being concerned about innovation in production is a capitalist construct that reduces workers to mere objects in competition, with the feeling that they must always be advancing or face the prospects of being beaten by a competitor. I think he would disagree, though, that without the stimulation of competition provided by capitalism that individuals would lose their personal creative drive, or that society would stagnate. The Marxist society might not progress in the same direction that a capitalist society would, but people have other motivations to create and innovate that are not necessarily due to the profit incentives provided by a capitalism. For example, in a commune, the people would be interested in producing goods for the whole not out of interest of being increasingly efficient, but simply to supply the basics of what people need. I agree with you that in this system there would not be an incentive for this work to innovate since they would not be competing with one another but rather just supplying what the rest of the commune depend on them to supply. With less focus on the ever increasing efficiency of labor, though, maybe Marx would contend people would have more time to focus on other creative activities they are interested in pursuing, or would be able to take more pleasure out of the labor they are involved in, for labors sake.
On a kind of unrelated side, this reminded me of a joke I heard in another class.
A German is out fishing in a boat with an American. The American looks at him at asks him if he enjoys fishing. The German says he loves to fish, he enjoys it more than anything else because it helps him to relax. The American goes, well if you really want to relax and enjoy fishing, you should save the fish you catch to sell in the local market and save what you make from your sales so you can buy another boat, and then when you have another boat you can hire some more laborers, and then when your laborers start catching more fish you can expand your market to the next city, and with the proceeds from that market you can start a fish packing plant in this city and provide even more jobs, buy even more boats, and save up even more money, so that twenty years from now when you decide to retire you can have enough money to relax when you go fishing. The German looks at him and says, why do I need all of that? I'm relaxing already.
I think the different perceptions of the hype capitalist American compared to the unconcerned German provide a viewpoint a Marx might agree with, even if it is a joke. I think he would object that to the claim that personal drive and society would stagnate without capitalism, but rather would claim that without capitalism workers would have more time to be creative and enjoy what they are doing, as they would not be forced into a system and objectified by the increasing pressures of competition and efficiency.
There is nothing wrong with enjoyment on a personal level (the German fisherman). But that enjoyment does nothing for the greater society. If the German were to buy boats and hire laborers. He would make money, give jobs to people who need them, provide goods to consumers, and make a meaningful impact on the local economy. By relaxing the fisherman may enjoy himself, but he does nothing for society.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism encourages innovation and technological development. That technology makes life more efficient, comfortable, and pleasurable. Cars allow us to travel long distances quickly, medical devices save lives and make it more comfortable for the sick, mp3 players allow us to carry thousands of songs with us at all times. The necessity for technological innovation is clear.
With profit incentives, capitalism encourages people to develop these devices. That self-interest and “greed” (for profit) actually helps the rest of society.
A Marxist would probably respond by saying that people innovate for the "love of humankind." They develop technologies because they want to improve society. To me, this is ridiculous. It is an overly idealistic perspective on human nature. People are, by nature, self-centered beings. They place their interest above the interests others.
In short, innovation is crucial to the development of a healthy society. Marxism doesn’t appropriately take that into account
In light of Dr. J's contribution to our last class, I think I now disagree with your idea that Marxism does not take into account innovation. I completely agree that innovation is vital to the development of a nation. Before Dr. J put it into a different word set for me, I also believed that a Marxist society would stifle innovation.
ReplyDeleteBut I now find myself becoming more attracted to Marx' ideas. Individuals are driven to create new technology and other innovative contructions for many reasons. But I believe in a Capitalist society, a great many of these, if not the majority are created merely for the reward-fame, fortune, etc. Certainly members of the upper class can afford proper schooling and the materials necessary for developing new products and innovations, but those who are caught in the proletartiat are forced to stifle their creative powers on a daily basis and process and manufacture a product that they themselves have not really created. They have not the time, resources, or education to be able to pursue many sorts of creative endeavors that would be considered innovative, and which for all we know could change the world as we know it. Human beings do not need capitalism to create. We have been creating long before capitalism was in the picture.
And don't be too quick to praise Capitalism when compared with the relaxing German. I'm writing my blog post on this idea so I'll go more in depth there.
I wonder why we focus so much on technological innovation in the first place. I feel that our constant insistence on making sure that progress occurs (that our society never reaches that pernicious little s word) is, in fact, a very capitalist idea.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I will go out on a limb to say that stagnation should actually be the goal of society. Why do we have to make such enormous technological breakthroughs in the methods of production? We do this so that our basic needs can be met easier. But what happens when we already have the means to supply the world with its basic needs. Who wouldn't want to live in a world where there is no worry of scarcity? I know that that sounds like paradise...