On Marx
I've just recently returned to an issue that I would like to examine further: the idea that maybe Karl Marx was right in some way. At least when it comes to his prognostication of the progression of capitalism through history.
Karl Marx expected that the proletariat would eventually rise up and usher in the new communist society, replacing the former capitalist and statist hierarchy. He said that capitalism (as he saw it) would collapse in on itself from its pursuit of capital accumulation at the expense of the laborer. This replacement of labor with machinery would form a "growing army of the unemployed" and this hardship would lead to revolution and the instillation of a co-operative based society devoid of any such hierarchical institutions.
It seems to me that capitalism has been experiencing a slow-motion collapse at least since the progressive era. Maybe it was even doomed from the start by the likes of the railroads that sought government subsidies in order to make a profit where there wasn't one before. If one defines capitalism by the concept "do whatever it takes to make as much money as you can" then maybe the morality of capitalism was never truly grasped. This is what Ayn Rand meant in referring to capitalism as haven been created "in mid-stream". An understanding of the full extent of Adam Smith's revolutionary idea was never completely grasped for this very reason. Smith, perhaps, could have saved his capitalism by marrying his Theory of Moral Sentiments with The Wealth of Nations and constructed something like an objectivist ethics by stressing that capitalism can only be sucessful under the pursuit of one's rational self interest, and not a simple hedonistic version as is so often used to malign the idea-- and is some unfortunate cases, in defense of--ego-centric morality.
If this is the case, then it would definitely appear to vindicate Marx in a way. The demise of capitalism is just as much to be blamed on some of the businessmen in whom it was entrusted, as with the labor unions and unsympathetic politicians. However, overtime what is happening is a corruption of the idea of freedom and liberty to mean lack of such things. "Rights" are now conceptualized as involving the abolition the rights of some for privileges which are to be bestowed to others by Society's mediary on earth: the State.
So what we have today is the gradual secession of capitalism and the morality that it entails, to the aggrandizement of the State and a mandatory subservience to Society. Some may call this Communism or Socialism, depending on how one ultimately conceptualizes those terms. But to someone that sees Socialism as the mere subordination of the individual's motives to that of Society's (maybe without the need to do much nationalizing of industry at all), where does this reasoning logically end? Can it merely be stopped at the nationalization of the healthcare industry, the energy industry, and banking industry? Self-proclaimed socialists may argue that these sorts of things are a "right" held by all, but once the state secures these, where do these socially bestowed rights end? Can we logically assume that all farming must be owned or controlled by the state since food is necessary for survival and is therefore a "right"? What about housing? What does it mean for the related trades involved in producing these things? If it is assumed that, perhaps there are negative aspects to State control over certain markets (as the Soviet model demonstrated), then maybe a Socialist would like to stop somewhere. But how does one retrain such impulses if the word "privilege" has long shared the meaning with "right"? Is it to stretch the mind beyond reason that the meaning of words can be changed overtime to the detriment of a people? George Orwell, my guess is, would likely say, "No."
While the clout of labor unions have been a dominant pull in government legislation, undoubtedly so has the clout of big business. The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg I'll accept as a matter of debate. I'd like to believe it was the labor unions who first ran into the arms of big daddy federal government, but that could very well not be the case. Either way, the current zeitgeist involves a pandering to the federal government to secure whatever "rights" (be they legitimate, or privileges) before some other law gets passed that infringes on them.
This being the case, perhaps then, it can be argued that capitalism-- or at least the capitalists-- have been responsible for the collapse of capitalism and setting the stage for labor unions (who purport to be the stand-in for all who labor) to take over control over the State. This may not be the exact idea that herr Marx had in mind when he wrote his Manifesto, but it does take on a certain resemblance to his revolution, this one being more akin to the menshevik version than the violent bolshevik one.
It's up We the people; libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and moderates to decide whether Marx will ultimately be shown to have been correct in some vague way (the only way a prophet's predictions can be). Those of us who want to stop this must find a way to be effective in creating change. The most tried, true and, most importantly, moral way is do as these mensheviks and ask for moderate reforms toward liberty while all the while keeping within our hearts the drive for a long and draw-out replay of the American Revelution to be waged in the 21st century. And if this doesn't happen, then perhaps Karl Marx deserves more credit than I have typically regarded him with.
Karl Marx expected that the proletariat would eventually rise up and usher in the new communist society, replacing the former capitalist and statist hierarchy. He said that capitalism (as he saw it) would collapse in on itself from its pursuit of capital accumulation at the expense of the laborer. This replacement of labor with machinery would form a "growing army of the unemployed" and this hardship would lead to revolution and the instillation of a co-operative based society devoid of any such hierarchical institutions.
It seems to me that capitalism has been experiencing a slow-motion collapse at least since the progressive era. Maybe it was even doomed from the start by the likes of the railroads that sought government subsidies in order to make a profit where there wasn't one before. If one defines capitalism by the concept "do whatever it takes to make as much money as you can" then maybe the morality of capitalism was never truly grasped. This is what Ayn Rand meant in referring to capitalism as haven been created "in mid-stream". An understanding of the full extent of Adam Smith's revolutionary idea was never completely grasped for this very reason. Smith, perhaps, could have saved his capitalism by marrying his Theory of Moral Sentiments with The Wealth of Nations and constructed something like an objectivist ethics by stressing that capitalism can only be sucessful under the pursuit of one's rational self interest, and not a simple hedonistic version as is so often used to malign the idea-- and is some unfortunate cases, in defense of--ego-centric morality.
If this is the case, then it would definitely appear to vindicate Marx in a way. The demise of capitalism is just as much to be blamed on some of the businessmen in whom it was entrusted, as with the labor unions and unsympathetic politicians. However, overtime what is happening is a corruption of the idea of freedom and liberty to mean lack of such things. "Rights" are now conceptualized as involving the abolition the rights of some for privileges which are to be bestowed to others by Society's mediary on earth: the State.
So what we have today is the gradual secession of capitalism and the morality that it entails, to the aggrandizement of the State and a mandatory subservience to Society. Some may call this Communism or Socialism, depending on how one ultimately conceptualizes those terms. But to someone that sees Socialism as the mere subordination of the individual's motives to that of Society's (maybe without the need to do much nationalizing of industry at all), where does this reasoning logically end? Can it merely be stopped at the nationalization of the healthcare industry, the energy industry, and banking industry? Self-proclaimed socialists may argue that these sorts of things are a "right" held by all, but once the state secures these, where do these socially bestowed rights end? Can we logically assume that all farming must be owned or controlled by the state since food is necessary for survival and is therefore a "right"? What about housing? What does it mean for the related trades involved in producing these things? If it is assumed that, perhaps there are negative aspects to State control over certain markets (as the Soviet model demonstrated), then maybe a Socialist would like to stop somewhere. But how does one retrain such impulses if the word "privilege" has long shared the meaning with "right"? Is it to stretch the mind beyond reason that the meaning of words can be changed overtime to the detriment of a people? George Orwell, my guess is, would likely say, "No."
While the clout of labor unions have been a dominant pull in government legislation, undoubtedly so has the clout of big business. The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg I'll accept as a matter of debate. I'd like to believe it was the labor unions who first ran into the arms of big daddy federal government, but that could very well not be the case. Either way, the current zeitgeist involves a pandering to the federal government to secure whatever "rights" (be they legitimate, or privileges) before some other law gets passed that infringes on them.
This being the case, perhaps then, it can be argued that capitalism-- or at least the capitalists-- have been responsible for the collapse of capitalism and setting the stage for labor unions (who purport to be the stand-in for all who labor) to take over control over the State. This may not be the exact idea that herr Marx had in mind when he wrote his Manifesto, but it does take on a certain resemblance to his revolution, this one being more akin to the menshevik version than the violent bolshevik one.
It's up We the people; libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and moderates to decide whether Marx will ultimately be shown to have been correct in some vague way (the only way a prophet's predictions can be). Those of us who want to stop this must find a way to be effective in creating change. The most tried, true and, most importantly, moral way is do as these mensheviks and ask for moderate reforms toward liberty while all the while keeping within our hearts the drive for a long and draw-out replay of the American Revelution to be waged in the 21st century. And if this doesn't happen, then perhaps Karl Marx deserves more credit than I have typically regarded him with.
posted by Tserrof at 7:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home