MARXIST THEORY: An Outline.

Ted Trainer

15.2.2017

        On approaching Marxism: a preliminary note.

Marx can be thought of as having offered two sets of ideas, the first of which
we can accept if we wish to, without having to accept the second.

1. Marx gave us a theory of society, i.e., an explanation of how society works,
including how and why history has unfolded, and especially of the nature of
capitalism. Many see this as being of great value for the task of describing
what is going on in the world and for understanding the problems and
directions of our society today.

2. But Marx also regarded capitalism as extremely undesirable and he was

very concerned with getting rid of it. He thought it’s contradictions would lead
it to self-destruct, enabling the establishment of (a variety of) communist
society. If you wish you can reject his values here…you can love capitalism
and hate communism… while accepting the value of his ideas about how
capitalism functions.

The following notes are intended to show the value of the first of these sets of
ideas. One can accept Marx's concepts as being very useful for the purpose
of understanding our society without accepting his condemnation of
capitalism, his political values, his recommendations for political action or his
vision of communism. In other words, if you do not agree with Marxist social
ideals and implications for action, don't let this interfere with your evaluation of
Marxist theory about how our society works.

It is important to note that at times followers of Marx have said and done
things he didn’t agree with. (Thus he once said, “…I am not a Marxist.”) 
“Marxism” now is best thought of as including ideas Engels and Lenin added
to those of Marx.

The economic sub-structure

Marx argued that the economic situation, the “substructure”, that is, the form
of the productive system, is the most important determinant of all other
aspects of a society, such as its social institutions and ideas, the system of
law, of morality and education. These are elements within the "superstructure"
of society.

Hence Marx is said to be a "materialist". Marx reacted against Hegel's

philosophy in which ideas were taken to be the important determinants of
history. Marx argued that dominant ideas are the result of material or
economic conditions and class relations and he was therefore strongly
opposed to reformers who thought that mere change in ideas can change
society.

The main types of society Marx distinguished were primitive, slave, feudal and
capitalist. In a capitalist society capitalists own and control the productive
capacity (i.e., capital, factories…), workers own only their labour and must
work for capitalists, who then own the product and sell it at a profit.
The key to understanding a society at any point in history is to focus first on
the “mode of production”, the way production is organised. In feudal society
land was the crucial productive factor and the feudal lords owned and
controlled it. In capitalist society capital, machinery, mines, factories etc. are
the key productive factors and these are owned and controlled by capitalists
(...as distinct from being owned by all members of society, which is the focal
idea in varieties of socialism/communism.)

The "forces" of production and the "relations" of production.

Marx saw the relation between these two factors as the main determinant of
the type of society existing and of social change.

The “forces of production” may be loosely regarded as the type of productive

technology the society has; e.g., slave labour, machine technology...

The “relations of production” refers to the social organisation of production;

i.e., basically who owns the productive forces, or how they are controlled. For
instance in a slave society masters force slaves to do the work, and in a
feudal society serfs are obliged to work for the lord a certain number of days
each year. In capitalist society capitalists own society's productive resources
and employ workers to operate these for a wage when capitalists think profits
can be made.

At first the relation between new forces of production and new relations of
production is progressive or beneficial to society in general. Marx stressed the
great increase in human welfare that economic growth under capitalism had
brought. However as time goes by the situation becomes less and less
beneficial. The new social relations of production begin to hinder the full
development and application of the new forces of production. For example in
the late feudal era it was not in the interests of the lords to allow land to be
sold or labourers to sell their labour freely to any employer. These practices
were inhibited although they eventually became essential in the capitalist
mode of production and therefore in the increase in production and benefits
that capitalism brought. Similarly at present we are unable to apply powerful
technology to doing useful things like designing longer-lasting goods and
feeding hungry people, simply because of the existing social relations of
production. That is, the relations of production take a form in which control
over the application of productive forces is in the hands of capitalists and it is
not in their interests to do these socially beneficial things.

This is a major contradiction in contemporary capitalist society. Such

contradictions have been intrinsic in all class societies and its contradictions
have become more and more glaring as each has developed, to the point
where they lead to revolutionary change.

So the relation between the forces and the social relations of production and
the consequences this generates is the major dynamic factor in history, the
primary cause of social change. Marx thus gave us a theory of how history
proceeds, how the contradictory class relations in one era gradually generate
the conditions that eventually result in the replacement of that social system.

Classes, and class conflict.

The social relations of production involve different classes. The basic

determinant of one's class is one's relationship to the means of production.
For example in late capitalist society the two basic classes remaining are the
owners of the means of production, i.e., capitalists, and those who own only
their labour, i.e., the workers or proletariat.
So in any historical period dominant and subservient classes can be identified.
Inequality in wealth and power was of fundamental concern to Marx. Some
groups come to dominate others and to win for themselves a disproportionate
share of the society’s wealth, power and privileges. The ultimate goal Marxists
aim at is a classless society, i.e., a society in which all enjoy more or less
equal wealth and power.

Marx said history is basically determined by the struggle between classes for
dominance. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles".

Marxists stress that social analysis should focus on class structure and
relations. In other words the most important questions to ask about a society
are to do with what groups in society dominate or gain most benefit from the
status quo, or whose interests does a situation or policy or proposal serve
most?

In capitalist society the capitalist class benefits most; i.e., those who own and
control the means of production receive a disproportionate share of wealth,
power, privileges and status. There are other classes but as time goes on
these are moved into either the small capitalist class or the large working
class.

Note that there is an important distinction between big business, which

includes the transnational corporations and banks, and small business (the
“petite bourgeoisie”). Many small firms and family farms and shops are usually
struggling, only providing their owners with low incomes. These people are not
investing capital in order to make profits from enterprises in which they do not
work, so they are more like peasants who own and work on their own farms.
It is also important to note that most people own some wealth, such as their
house, but this is not capital that is invested to make profits.  They also have
some savings in the bank, but the vast bulk of capital is owned by very few
people. It is now claimed that half of the world’s wealth is owned by less than
1% of the world’s people.

History

It can be seen from the foregoing that Marx put forward a theory of history, or
a principle which he thought explained the dynamic, the driving force in
history. A basic element in this is the Hegelian idea of a "dialectical
progression" whereby a) an original situation or idea or "thesis" exists, b) an
"antithesis" develops in opposition to it, c) the two are resolved into a
"synthesis”, which becomes the new thesis. In any historical era, e.g.,
feudalism, the inherent contradictions or class conflicts (e.g., between the
dominant landowning lords and the commercial classes developing in the
increasingly independent towns) come to a head in some sort of revolution
and are resolved when a new social order stabilises (e.g., the early capitalist
era). This “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” idea is sometimes referred to as the
“dialectic”.

History is therefore primarily a function of material or economic conditions,

i.e., of the productive situation. Hence Marxism is referred to by the terms
"historical materialism" and "dialectical materialism". The relation between the
types of productive technology in use and the social relations or organisation
and control of those forms of production is what has determined the nature of
primitive, slave, feudal and capitalist society, and what has moved society
from one to the other.
As a system such as feudalism or capitalism “matures” it produces social
processes and institutions that both undermine it and will be fundamental in
the society that follows it.  For instance efforts by workers trying to get better
conditions produce acceptance of voting for all (men), and unions. Thus
capitalist society performs the historically essential function of creating the
institutions that must come into existence before post-capitalist society
becomes possible.

Marx is saying the advent of post-capitalist socialism is a more or less

inevitable product of the way history works, of the “laws of history”.  Thus
Marx opposed many rebellions, and the use of violence, because such
initiatives failed to see that the possibility of establishing communism
depended on whether the right social conditions had developed yet, i.e., been
brought into existence by the maturing of capitalism.  He argued that
capitalism would not be superseded until it had exhausted its potential, i.e., as
difficulties and resistance arose it would turn to novel strategies to continue its
domination, until all possibilities had all been exhausted. In the process it
creates the new institutions that will undermine it – and that will be crucial
elements in the system that will replace it.  Force and violence can’t establish
communism (though they may occur at the time of revolution); the maturation
of capitalist system must create the conditions, practices, institutions etc.
(through the resistance in workers it causes) that must be in place before
capitalism can be transcended.  For instance capitalism prompted the
emergence of unions, universal suffrage, regulation of business. Marx said, “
… new, higher relations of production, never appear before the material
conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society
itself.”
So Marx thought you could not at any old time just organise a violent
revolution to eliminate the capitalist class by force; the system could only be
transcended when it had matured (though, again force might be involved
then.) This is why he was not surprised tat the French Revolution, and the
Paris Commune, failed to initiate a socialist society. Some Marxists have tried
to damp down revolutionary movements (Warren) on the grounds that
conditions were not yet ripe. This is another area where we must be careful
not to confuse what Marx thought with what some “Marists” have thought and
done.

What is also crucial for revolutionary change is the emergence of class

consciousness. In Marx’s terms, workers, a “class in itself” must become a
“class for itself,” that is, aware of its situation and the need for action.

Eventually the thesis of capitalism and the antithesis of the revolutionary

proletariat will issue into a synthesis which is communism and the dialectical
process will have come to an end. This does not mean there would be no
further change or progress in history, but it does seem Marx meant that
there will be no further political conflict. Many would now say that just getting
rid of capitalism would not put an end to problems involving class and power;
just consider Russia under Stalin, or China.

The capitalist “mode of production”.

The forces of production in capitalist society include the use of factories (as
distinct from production by family units within the home or by individual
craftsmen, as was the case in earlier times), elaborate machine technology,
and a working class. This mode requires large investments of capital to be
made in plant, mines, etc., and it involves the extensive use of science and
technology in developing more sophisticated processes.

The most important of the social relations of production in a capitalist society

are, a) ownership and control of society's productive resources are in the
hands of a few who invest their capital or put their factories into production
only if they think profit can be made, and b) most members of society have to
sell their labour to capitalists, have to accept orders in the workplace, and
have no say or stake in production other than their pay packets.

Another crucial element is the fact that capitalists are locked in deadly
competition with each other, and this produces a constant need to innovate,
look for better technology, cut costs and drive wages down. Capitalists are
trapped in the system too. It is a mistake to criticise them as individuals; what
matters is the faulty nature of the system that forces everyone to play by its
nasty rules.

Marxists also insist that only labour should be able to earn money and that
money should not be able to earn money. In other words they do not think
people who are rich should be able to receive an income as interest on their
savings, loans or investments, especially as this means that the richer one is
the more income one gets without having to work…while rich people consume
goods made by people who must work for their income.

The labour theory of value.

Marxists argue that the value of things should be calculated in terms of the
amount of labour that went into their production. Conventional economics
does not do this; it regards the value as whatever will be paid in the market
place. Lichtheim, (1961), says Marx was mistaken in putting so much
emphasis on this attempt to develop an economic theory based on labour as
the unit of value; it is difficult to explain various things this way, such as prices
people pay for things, and it is not necessary for his basic critique of
capitalism. A great deal of time has been wasted debating the notion.
(Nevertheless in a good society we could still decide on incomes and prices
by focusing on how much labour went into producing things.)

Profit vs need.

Conventional economic theory and practice today are based on the

assumption that it is best if production and development is driven by profit.
The theory is that only if capitalists produce what people demand will profits
be maximised, and therefore the most efficient allocations be made. However
Marxists and others emphasise that there can be and typically is a huge gulf
between production for profit and production to meet needs. Profits are
maximised by producing what relatively richer people want and can pay for.
The result typically is that the urgent needs of poorer people, and the needs of
the environment are seriously neglected. (See TSW: The Case Against the
Market.)

Profit and exploitation

A fundamental Marxist theme is that capitalist profit making constitutes

exploitation of workers. When a capitalist sells something his workers made
and he receives more for the item than he paid for the inputs including the
workers’ wages he is taking a portion of the value that the worker created. The
workers’ labour created the total value realised in the sale price but they only
received a portion of this value, and they are therefore being exploited by the
capitalist who controls the productive situation but does no work in the
creation of the product.

The argument is clearest in the case of shareholders who have nothing to do

with the factory except invest their money in it and who then receive an
income without having to do any work for it. The capitalist's profits are not to
be confused with any wages he might draw for his managerial effort. Often all
managers are hired workers and are paid a wage for their labour, while all
those who provide the capital do not work yet receive an income which is
some proportion of the wealth created by the labour in the factory.

The conventional counterargument is that it takes capital as well as labour to

produce things and wages are the return to labour while profit is the return to
capital. Profit is the incentive that persuades those who hold capital to put it
into production, which benefits the rest of us. However, the Marxist insists that
it would be better to organise society in such a way that all people own and/or
control society’s capital and no one gets an income without working for it.
(Capital could still be privately owned but kept in public banks and invested in
projects that society chooses, e.g., through elected public boards.)

Similarly, to argue that profit is the capitalist's reward for risking his capital is
only to say that he takes the risk of losing it … and then having to work for an
income like the rest of us!

The strongest argument for a profit-motivated economy in which firms are

privately owned might be that unearned income is a consequence of the
system that is the best alternative to the heavy handed, bureaucratic,
inefficient and dictatorial planning socialism “inevitably” involves. However this
is to overlook the possibility of a democratic, participatory socialism in which
capital is not all owned or controlled by the state. Local cooperatives could
own and control basic factories, and many of these might be privately owned
but carefully regulated by the local community. Nevertheless among the
biggest problems for socialism are how to set and adjust the huge number of
prices of goods on sale, how to enable initiative and innovation, and how to
phase out inefficient firms, when the market seems to do all this automatically,
with no arguments.

The contradictions in capitalism.

Marx argued that at first capitalism released great progressive developments,

especially large increases in production and therefore in the material wealth of
people in general. However as time passed the forces of production and the
social relations of production came increasingly into conflict, contradictions
surfaced and the social relations of production began to thwart the full
application of technology and productive potential to social needs. These
internal contradictions will continue to increase in severity over time and
ultimately they will result in the destruction of the capitalist system.

Unemployment provides a good example of a built-in contradiction.  As

capitalists use more automated factories to cut labour costs, workers have
fewer jobs and less income and so there is less demand for the products the
factories make … leading the system towards bankrupt capitalists and
starving workers, and system break down.

The central conflicts built into the structure of capitalism concern the process
whereby capitalists accumulate profits. Capitalists are involved in savage
competition with each other and therefore there is great pressure to develop
more efficient production and better technology. There is a tendency over time
for capitalists to increase the percentage of their capital investment that goes
into machinery ("fixed capital") and to decrease the percentage put into buying
labour. In other words there is a tendency for what Marx called the "organic
composition" of capital to change. Consequently workers in general take
home less pay and the capitalist's increasing accumulation of wealth is
accompanied by the increasing "immiseration" of the proletariat. Consequently
workers have less purchasing power and because they therefore cannot buy
all the goods that the capitalists' factories can produce there is a tendency for
capitalists profits to fall in the long run (…another contradiction built into the
system.)

Critics have said that in the one hundred years since Marx's death there has
been precisely the reverse of the predicted immiseration of the proletariat,
because material living standards have risen enormously. This is a somewhat
confused issue. Some people argue that Marx meant that workers will
become poorer relative tothe capitalist class, and it appears that this is now
happening. The real incomes of American workers have more or less not
increased, and might have actually fallen, over the last almost fifty years …
while the 1% has grown much richer. Some people attribute the lingering
Global Financial Crisis to declining capacity of ordinary people to purchase.
Another argument is that increases in real incomes in rich countries have
been at the expense of deteriorating conditions for the Third World’s poor.
However it is commonly claimed that capitalism is now rapidly increasing
Third World “living standards”.  But this is debatable too as the gains seem to
have been mostly within China and perhaps India and one to three billion
people have remained in squalor for many decades while the condition for the
poorest billion probably have deteriorated. (Discussed in TSW: Third World
Development.)
More importantly Marx had in mind more than just wages and material wealth;
he was primarily concerned with the “spiritual” conditions of the worker and
saw these becoming more and more impoverished under capitalism. Many
would now say he got this right.

The important idea that capitalism has built into its nature forces and
tendencies, contradictions, that will destroy it some day now also would seem
to be evident in the way it impacts on the resource and ecological situation.
The “limits to growth” argument is that ever-increasing levels of production
and consumption are leading to collapse of the global ecosystem.  And the
notion of an inevitably worsening contradiction can be seen in the apparently
insoluble problems being generated by the global financial system, especially
the fact that debt is now much higher than before the 2008 GFC.

Accumulation.

Marxists stress that the factor which determines what happens in our society

is the drive to accumulate capital; i.e., the ceaseless quest to make profits,
which are then reinvested, to make more profit, in an endless spiral of capital
accumulation. This leads to innovation and change. Why is there now a
McDonalds in your street? Why has so much manufacturing industry left
Australia? These changes have come about because competing firms are
always looking for ways of maximising their profits and accumulating more
wealth.

Note that capitalists have no choice here. They must constantly seek more
profitable fields for investment, because they are competing against each
other and if they fall behind they will be killed off. It is important not to focus
criticism on capitalists; it is the capitalist system that is the problem.
Capitalists are locked into deadly competition. (Korten 1995, explains how
executives who do socially noble things, such as preserve forest lands they
own, will therefore not maximise profits and will thus be targeted for hostile
takeover by firms who can see that the firm could make greater profits.)

The psychological and social effects of capitalism.

Two somewhat distinct strands can be distinguished in Marx's writings. One is

focused on economics, and the way history works, i.e., the way change and
development follows a dialectic pattern to do with productive relations, which
will end with socialist revolution and the eventual emergence of communism.
However it was only in the Twentieth century that Marx's early writings on
more philosophical and social themes were discovered. Marx discussed the
damaging effects capitalism has on the psychological situation of the
individual and on community.

a) “Alienation”. (Later he used the term “fetishism of commodities” for this

theme; his discussion of it is obscure.)

Marx said that workers in a capitalist society are typically obliged to perform
only a few limited and routine operations, they rarely make the whole item nor
see the final product, work is often boring, workers have no say in what
happens to the product because it is not their property, they do not own their
tools, they have no say in the planning or organisation of work, they just do
what they are told, they must work within strict rules, especially regarding
time, under conditions of intense division of labour. They have little or no
opportunity for the exercise of initiative. Their only interest in the entire work
process is the money they get for working. In general work is not enjoyable
and it is not “fulfilling”; it makes no contribution to the individual’s growth or
enjoyment of life.

By contrast the primitive" tribesman, medieval craftsman or subsistence

farmer could decide what he would work on at any moment, at what pace he'd
work, how to do the job, and when to take a break. He could control and plan
and vary the whole process, and he could enjoy making a beautiful object.  He
knew that the product of his work would be his to use or exchange or give
away.

Marx regarded these kinds of factors as being very important for a person's
emotional or spiritual welfare. Humans are somehow incomplete or deprived
of something important if they cannot engage in worthwhile and satisfying
effort to produce things for themselves and their communities, and capitalism
destroys any possibility of the sort of self-sufficient, self-controlled and
intrinsically rewarding work Marx valued.

Marx’s argued that in this work situation the objects the worker produces
become things that are not only separated from him  (“alien”), but become
sources of his oppression. The worker’s labour has created the world he lives
in, including the economic system, but those things then dominate and exploit
him, because they are elements in the capitalist system which does not treat
him well.

b) “Money and commodification”.  Marx argued that capitalism tends to

eliminate almost all non-monetary considerations and values and to replace
these with a mere "cash nexus". It makes the market and therefore
considerations of monetary profit and loss the only criteria of value, action and
exchange. Capitalism turns almost all things into commodities for sale,
especially labour. In feudal times labour, land and money were not
commodities for sale. One can now talk of personalities, behaviour and
education as commodities that are bought and sold for a price. All that matters
is the price of things.  However in feudal times, whether or not one would work
for another or buy or sell something depended on many important moral,
religious and traditional rules and values, not just on the prospects for
personal economic gain. The development of capitalism tore most of these
considerations away and made the overriding criterion the question of
economic advantage. Hence it became acceptable to buy and sell labour and
land, to eave some unemployed, to close a business people depend on, and
to drive a rival into bankruptcy.

Marx saw the use of money as something which enabled this undesirable,

alienating process, and some Marxists today insist that a good post-capitalist
society must be designed to operate without use of money.

c) The destruction of community and social cohesion. The market and the

capitalist’s need for mobile workers broke up the ties people previously had to
place, community, traditions, and support networks. Large numbers were torn
from their land and villages and forced into the slums of industrial cities. Many
sociologists argue that this basic process continues today, causing decreasing
connectedness, cohesion, and community. The “neo-liberal triumph” since
1970 is seen as accelerating the trend to a society that forces us to focus on
individual, competitive “winner-take-all” self interest. This feeds into the
breakdown of social connectedness and mutual support, and tends to
increase family breakdown, suicide, crime, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc., and
the rising incidence of anxiety and loneliness.
(For a discussion of the historical transition to capitalist social relations, and
the need to "embed" market relations in social relations, see TSW: Religion
and the emergence of market dominated society, and TSW: Polanyi. Polanyi’s
important discussion of these themes is in Dalton, 1968.)

The state.

Marxists argue that the state rules primarily in the interest of the capitalist
class. The state is "the executive committee of the bourgeoisie". For example
the state takes as its top priority increasing economic (i.e., business) activity,
when it is clear that increasing the GDP is now accompanied by a falling
quality of life, resource depletion and environmental destruction.  The state's
most important characteristic is its power. It has the power to rule, to force
members of society to obey, to jail, fine or execute, and to make war. (

Marx claimed that the state as an authoritarian, coercive ruling

agency will cease to exist when society becomes classless. Some centralised
functions will remain necessary but the coercive power of the police and army
will not be necessary to deal with problems caused by class inequality and
domination, because these will have been overcome. (However “Marxist”
regimes have been willing to exercise state power, typically in an authoritarian
way, although Marx thought that eventually in communist society this would
not be the situation.) 

Ideology; false consciousness.

Dominated and exploited classes typically do not understand their situation or

their interests. They do not realise that the way they are treated is unjust. This
is usually due to the acceptance of ideas which cast the status quo as being
legitimate; e.g., peasants might believe that kings have a divine right to rule
and that God ordains that the poor should accept their lot with good grace, or
that a miserable life in this world does not matter and is not worth trying to
change because the important thing is to prepare one's soul for the next
world. In our era Marxists stress the role of the media in reinforcing the
dominant ideology, especially by not giving space to fundamental criticisms of
capitalist society.

In any class society there will be a dominant ideology, which will mostly be
made up of the ideas which it suits the dominant class for people to hold. The
acceptance of these perspectives and values by the working class is also
referred to as "bourgeois hegemony".

Marx thought that late in the history of capitalism workers will develop clearer
awareness of their situation and their interests, i.e., class consciousness will
emerge. Workers will come to see that the prevailing social relations of
production are not in their interests.

However, even in Marx's time there was considerable debate as to whether

workers will develop sufficient class consciousness on their own to bring
about revolution, or whether this will only rise to a "trade union" mentality,
which looks no further than winning gains within the capitalist system. Lenin
argued for the need for a secret and dedicated communist party, a vanguard
to lead the workers to revolt. Marx was at lrast not comfortable with this. 
Remember his theory of history and of the need for capitalism to mature. If
force had to be used to take state power to make people follow the proposed
new ways this meant that conditions were not yet ripe for transition to
socialism.  That’s why the French revolution ended in terror.

Revolution.
Again Marx thought that capitalism contains contradictions, forces
and processes which cannot help but increase its internal difficulties to the
point where it is inevitably overthrown. Through the deteriorating alignment
between the forces and the relations of production contradictions become
more glaring, there is polarisation into capitalists and proletarian classes,
the class consciousness of the proletariat increases and in time a
revolutionary change of system occurs. Bourgeois revolutions overthrew
feudal society in which landed aristocrats ruled, e.g., the French Revolution.
Marxists insist that dominant classes will not voluntarily give up power, wealth
and privilege. Their control has to be taken away from them, and this might
have to involve violence.

This is one of the areas where some notable later Marxists differed from
Marx.  Remember that his theory of history held that as capitalism matured it
would inevitably generate not just difficulties for itself but also generate the
ways, institutions, practices etc. that would become basic elements in the
system that replaced it.  This is why he did not advocate use of violence to
take power.  As noted above, he criticised many revolutionaries, including the
Jacobins in the French Revolution, for not understanding that conditions must
be right before a new system can come into existence and that if resort has to
be made to force, violence and terror this just means that the revolution is only
“political”, only about transfer of power,  and will only install a new class in
power, and cannot result in communism.

Lenin went well beyond Marx here, arguing that workers will not rise to
revolutionary consciousness on their own and a disciplined and ruthless
communist party must lead the workers. Marx was in general opposed to
a vanguard which might operate as far beyond the workers as Lenin's party
did and was willing to use violence. Marx had a long history of opposition to
the idea of a vanguard prepared to take power and be ruthless, and Lenin had
accepted Marx’s view on this until just before the Russian revolution. (Avineri,
1968, p. 257.)

This issue has been referred to as the choice between a "minimum" program,

i.e., to assist capitalism to move towards maturity and subsequent self-
destruction, or a "maximum" program, i.e., to strive directly to engineer
revolution. Some Marxists (e.g., Warren) have actually recommended against
revolts In the Third World because they did not think capitalism had matured
sufficiently.

However, there were times, especially towards the end of his life, when Marx
seemed to think that a non-violent path to socialism might be possible in pre-
industrial communities, notably via development of the traditional collective
Russian village, the Mir. That is, he wondered whether it might be possible to
avoid going through the long and arduous period of industrialisation and
development of a working class. This is remarkable because it seems to
contradict his entire theory of history. (Many Anarchists think it is possible to
begin building a new, post-capitalist society now, based on existing
communities, without having to wait for or work for the destruction of
capitalism. This is called "prefiguring"; see TSW: Anarchism).

After the revolution.

Marx said very little about the form society would take after capitalism.
Eventually a communist society would come into existence, free of classes,
political conflicts, coercion, domination and exploitation, and the state.
Marxists generally say that immediately after the revolution when the
proletariat had gained control there would have to be a period of "dictatorship
of the proletariat". (Avineri says Marx almost never used this term.) This would
be necessary to remove all elements of capitalism, especially the ideas and
values making up bourgeois ideology. In this early period of what he called
“crude communism”, (commonly referred to as socialism now), privately
owned productive property, capital, would become public property, but various
undesirable aspects of capitalism would remain for some time.  People would
still be motivated to work by differential wages and there would have to be a
strong state, in the hands of the worker's party, which ran a planned economy.
People would work for wages, there would be division of labour, and they
would work for a boss, the state.  They would still have strong materialist
values, in Avineri’s terms, possessions and ”greed” would still drive them.
(1968.) This first stage is called “distributive communism.”

However, Marx thought that in time a pure communist society would emerge
from which the mistaken ideas and values of bourgeois society had
disappeared. The coercive state would have “withered” away, intense division
of labour and specialisation would have ceased, the outlook and motivation of
individuals would have changed from competitive to collective and
cooperative, and people would have much greater opportunity to develop and
fulfil their potential than they had under capitalism. Marx was optimistic about
the capacity of humans to do these things, seeing greed, competition and
conflict as distortions produced by class domination.

Perhaps the best clue to the nature of communist society as Marx envisaged it
is given by the well-known statement, "From each according to his ability, to
each according to his needs". This means that all would contribute as best
they could, with those more able doing more, but all would be rewarded not
according to their output, skill or status but in proportion to their needs. So we
would all do a reasonable day’s work although some would be able to produce
more than others, but if one person who couldn't do as much as the rest had
greater needs that person would receive more. This is the way a good family
works. It is obviously a noble principle but could we organise large systems,
like a national economy this way? Anarchists think the chances of a society
following this principle are best when societies are mostly quite small, making
familiarity and cooperation on local tasks more likely. Anarchists and Marxists
more or less agree on the nature of the ultimate good society to be worked for
(See TSW: Anarchism), but they differ on transition strategy.(See
TSW: Transition.)

Marx believed that the revolution would liberate people from the alienation
capitalism imposed, including intense division of labour and specialisation in
work. We would be able to do many varied things in our normal day.  He didn’t
explain how this might be realised in a complex, high-tech industrial society.
(Advocates of The Simpler Way do think a very diverse, and relaxed and
enjoyable, “work” situation is possible and desirable.)

THE VALUE OF THE THEORY FOR UNDERTSTANDING THE WORLD TODAY.

Much of what is wrong with the world today is explicable in terms of Marx’s
account of capitalism. When a few are allowed to own most of a society’s
capital, and to determine economic activity according to what will maximise
their wealth, the inevitable result is production of the most profitable things,
not the most needed things. In a world where there is enormous inequality this
means investment goes into producing consumer goods and luxuries for
people in rich countries, while the needs of billions of people are more or less
ignored. It means the rich few take most of the available resources because
they can pay more for them (i.e., it is more profitable for capitalists to sell to
the relatively rich), it means that much Third World productive capacity,
especially land, goes into producing for export to rich countries when it should
be producing food for hungry people, and it means that the environment will
be damaged, because there is no profit incentive for the owners of capital to
protect it.

In other words, in a capitalist system there is development of the wrong things

(development in the interests of the rich) because what is done is that which is
most profitable. We have great need for the production of many specific
things, such as cheap housing, but these are not produced yet there is
excessive production of many luxuries and trivial items -- because this is what
maximises return on private capital. Conventional development theory says
that in time this approach will result in "trickle down" of wealth to all. There is a
tendency for this to happen, but there are also many other undesirable
tendencies, most obviously to the emergence of extreme inequality. (On
“trickle down” development, see within TSW: Third World Development.)

We have an economy in which there is enormous waste, especially via

production of items that are not necessary, or that will not last, trinkets and
luxuries. The global environment and resource depletion problems and the
bad distribution of resources between rich and poor nations indicates that we
should greatly reduce this volume of production -- but this is not possible in a
capitalist economy. There would be a huge jump in unemployment and
bankruptcy. Indeed it is an economy in which there is continual pressure to
increase production and consumption all the time because capitalists always
want to increase their factories, their sales and their income. The last thing
they want is to see reduced business turnover. So there is a serious
contradiction between the dynamic within capitalism and ecological
sustainability.

Unemployment and automation occur in this economy simply because capital

is privately owned. If a better machine is invented the capitalist who owns the
factory receives all the benefit, while the workers lose their jobs. So of course
there is a problem. In a socialist economy the machine could be adopted
without these effects. All would share in more free time or cheaper goods. In a
capitalist economy labour is just another commodity that a capitalist will hire
only if he thinks he can make profits, otherwise people have to suffer
unemployment. Similarly the only way a capitalist society can solve the
unemployment problem is to find more things for displaced workers to
produce, when there is already much more productive activity than we need.

These phenomena are well described by the Marxist term "contradictions".

Capitalist society inevitably involves huge contradictions and conflicts of
interest,  because the forces of production clash with the relations of
production. Another  good example is that the world could easily feed all
people yet hundreds of millions are hungry while one third of the world's grain
production is fed to animals in rich countries. We have the productive capacity
(forces of production, technology) to solve this problem but this is not done
because it is not in the interests of those who control capital. They make more
money selling the grain for feedlot beef production (i.e., there are capitalist
relations of production, a capitalist organisation of production). In other words,
if you allow society's capital to be privately owned then you will inevitably run
into this sort of contradiction because often what is most profitable for
capitalists to invest in is not what most needs doing. (An alternative economy
might not necessarily eliminate all free enterprise or private capital, but it
would involve control and monitoring of private enterprise to ensure that most
investment goes where it is most needed.)

Understanding Globalisation

The development of the world economy in the years since 1970 would seem
to further illustrate the value of the Marxist approach to analysing society.
Around that time capitalists began to experience great difficulty finding
profitable investment outlets for all the capital they were constantly
accumulating. This has fuelled the now huge push for globalisation; i.e., the
move towards a unified global economy in which there is great freedom for
market forces, because this gives capitalists more opportunities for profitable
investment. (See the Globalisation section, in TSW: Our Economic System.)
The big corporations and banks have much more freedom than before to go
where they wish and trade, invest and develop as they wish. Previously there
were many laws and regulations restricting the entry of foreign investors, the
capacity of corporations to come in and take the business opportunities
(sending local small firms bankrupt) and restricting the right of financial
institutions to lend recklessly. These were the rules governments once set and
used to protect their citizens, industries and ecosystems. These rules set
standards corporations had to meet regarding labour conditions, health,
environmental impacts, and human rights, and they enabled governments to
control corporations and get them to locate in disadvantaged areas etc.

Globalisation represents enormous success on the part of the corporations

and banks in having many of these regulations and restrictions to their
freedom eliminated, in the name of increasing the freedom of enterprise and
trade. All governments have eagerly facilitated these processes, which
does not surprise Marxists because they see the state as always ruling in the
interests of capital.

Above all globalisation involves deregulation; i.e., governments removing

controls on what corporations can do and increasing the scope for market
forces to operate, freeing foreign investment, trade, labour markets etc. from
controls by the state. Globalisation also involves privatisation; i.e.,
governments selling public enterprises to corporations, thereby increasing the
amount of business for corporations to do.

In the Third World the Structural Adjustment Packages the World Bank has
imposed on indebted countries have been major forces for globalisation. Poor
countries are given desperately needed loans on condition that they open
their economies to foreign investors, sell national assets to them, reduce state
spending especially on assistance to the poor, and increase dependence on
exportation of commodities.

In Marxist terms globalisation can be seen as the situation to which capitalism

inevitably leads, i.e., where the ceaseless drive to accumulate more and more
capital leads the capitalist class to try to break down all remaining
impediments to its access to investment, markets, resources, cheap labour
and profitable business opportunities. Globalisation is about capitalists being
able to get into and take over business opportunities which they were
previously kept out of by government regulation, especially protection of local
industries against cheap imports. Hundreds of millions of poor people in the
Third World have been further impoverished because transnational
corporations are now able to come in and take over the markets and
resources that used to be preserved for the benefit of locals.
Globalisation makes clear the great conflict of interest between capitalists and
the rest. Thus analysis in terms of class is crucial. Globalisation should be
analysed in terms of winners and losers. There are relatively few winners,
mostly the corporate shareholders, those who do the managerial and
professional work for corporations, and people who shop in rich world
supermarkets. Thus the recent history of the world is primarily explicable in
terms of this class conflict. The capitalist class has enjoyed
triumphant success, it is rapidly becoming richer (1% of people are now
estimated to own more than half the world’s wealth) and is dramatically
restructuring the world in its interests. Workers, unions and the Left are very
weak and large numbers of people are being completely excluded and
dumped, including the long term unemployed, and about one billion hungry
people in the Fourth World.  There is increasing polarisation. Extremes of
wealth and poverty are now accelerating in even the richest countries.
Globalisation and the neo-liberal agenda are gutting society, destroying the
conditions which are crucial for cohesion, such as valuing the public good,
concern for the under dog and for society, and concern for the environment.

CRITICISMS OF MARX’S THEORY.

Following are criticisms that are commonly made.

- Too much emphasis is given to the economic factor in explaining social

order and change. Culture seemed to be explained as part of the
“superstructure”, derived from the economic "substructure". It would seem to
be difficult to explain the advent of gay liberation in terms of productive or
economic or class relations. (However Marx’s early writings were about
philosophical and social themes, notably alienation.)
- Even if you get rid of capitalism you might still have enormous problems of
conflict and domination in society. State bureaucracies as well as capitalists
can dominate -- ask the Russians and Chinese.

- Marx’s theory of history is contradicted by the fact that industrialised

countries have not moved closer to revolution as they “matured”. The recent
revolutions have been in peasant societies, such as China. The richest
capitalist societies seem to have become more secure from threat of
revolution throughout the 20th century.

-  Many would say there are no “laws of history” and that Marx was mistaken
in thinking he had discovered them, and thus in thinking that his theory was
scientific. (This is more a criticism of Engels and Kautsly than of Marx.)

- Anarchists say Marxists fail to grasp the unacceptable dangers in their

readiness to take an authoritarian-centralist approach. Marxists are willing to
use the authoritarian state to run society after the revolution and to be ruthless
in this. This is extremely dangerous; those in control can’t be trusted and are
very likely to become an entrenched dictatorship, as with Stalinism.  (As has
been pointed out this is not really true of Marx, but it is evident in many who
call themselves Marxists.)

- Many if not all Anarchists would also reject conventional Marxist theory of
how capitalism can or will be replaced, which involves confronting capitalism,
class conflict, seizing the state and taking power from the capitalist class, and
destroying capitalism, a process which will probably involve violence. (Note
again that these Marxists are going beyond Marx on some of these themes.)
Alternatively some anarchists believe the change could come more or less
peacefully via increasing awareness and disenchantment, the building of
alternative communities based on anti-capitalist principles, and thus an
increase in the numbers who have come to realise capitalism is unacceptable.
However socialists are inclined to say the capitalist class will not give way but
will have to be pushed aside.

-   Marx (and most Marxists today) failed to take ecological sustainability into
account. They are strong believers in industrial development and "progress",
rising material "living standards" and economic growth. They think that
capitalism is responsible for all problems and that when it has been eliminated
we can release the previously restricted power of industry to enrich everyone.
In other words, Marxism has no concept of “limits to growth” and affluence
and economic growth are regarded as desirable and possible. We can’t blame
Marx for not realising there would be a limits to growth problem, but it is fair to
criticise many Marxists today for being ”productivists“.  It is increasingly being
realised that a good, post-capitalist society cannot be a growth society and it
cannot have high per capita levels of resource consumption or “living
standards”. This means that getting rid of capitalism is not enough; there is an
even bigger problem, set by the commitment to industrialism, growth and
affluence. (However Marx was sensitive to the ecological damage capitalism
caused, referring to a “metabolic rift”.)

From the perspective of “The Simpler Way" a high quality of life for all is
achievable without high material "living standards" or much modern
technology, let alone industrialisation and IT etc.  We do not agree that human
emancipation and a good sustainable and just society cannot be achieved
before technical advance delivers material abundance. We see the Marxist
concept of development as actually the same as capitalist “modernisation”,
mainly because it assumes capital is crucial for development. Marx was
contemptuous of peasant ways and Marxists today are not sympathetic to the
notion of "appropriate development" defined mainly in terms of "subsistence”
and low/intermediate technology and cooperative ways focused on local
economic self-sufficiency...which is a Gandhian way. (See TSW: Third World
Development..)

- In other words advocates of The Simpler Way claim Marx was quite
mistaken in thinking that socialism would not be possible without modern
technology, industrialisation and material affluence. Achieving a good society
does not require elaborate technology nor material abundance. It depends on
whether or not the right values are held. There have been societies, and there
are societies today in which people live well with very humble material
lifestyles and without modern technology. (See TSW: Ladakh; Notes on an
Inspiring Society.)

- Marxist ideas on how to change society, i.e., on the strategy for transition
from capitalism, are also strongly criticised by the Anarchists.  Marxists think
capitalism must be fought and overthrown through violent revolution, because
the capitalist class will never voluntary give up any of its power or privileges. 
There must be leadership by a vanguard party prepared to be ruthless and to
use violence, and to rule in an authoritarian way after the revolution. (Again
this is Lenin rather  thanMarx.) Eventually when people have developed the
right ideas and values the state can dissolve and there will be a communist
society. The Simpler Way version of Anarchism on the other hand focuses its
transition theory on “prefiguring”, i.e., on building elements of the post-
capitalist society here and now, in a slow process of developing the
awareness that will in time lead to the big structural changes at the level of the
state (such as getting rid of growth and market forces), possibly in a peaceful
way.

-       Lichtheim argues that Marx was seriously mistaken to focus on the labour theory of

value, i.e., that the value of a product is determine by the labour it took to make it.
Because Marx wanted to base his account on the productive situation he tried to show
that the basic fault in capitalism is that the worker is paid less than the value his work
produces, and the difference is the capitalist’s profit.  This left him, and generations of
scholars, with the problem of explaining how prices paid in exchange of a product are
related to the labour that went into making it.  Often little labour goes into producing
something for which a very high price is paid. As Lichtheim says, Marx could have put
forward a powerful analysis of capitalism in other terms. (For instance, one could focus
on the fact that because the capitalist owns the means of production he can decide
what to produce, and he only produces what is most profitable, which inevitably means
he does not produce what is most needed in society…and thus the rich get richer, and
social problems increase…)

- It could be argued that Marx’s theory greatly hindered the Russian revolution, and
indeed prevented it from achieving a non-authoritarian, localised, democratic society
based on the traditional village. In the 1870 – 90 period Russian intellectuals embraced
Marxist theory in their struggles against the Tsar’s regime.  Because the theory asserted
that socialism can only come from mature capitalism they were confused about what to
do, given that Russia had barely moved from feudalism. (They asked Marx, who wrote
three different draft replies, an ended up saying ... you decide.) Kautsky was specially
influential in promoting a very mechanical account of Marx, whereby the “laws of
history” Marx was supposed to have discovered determined that nothing could be done
until capitalism matured in Russia.  Some factions insisted that the revolution should
install capitalism so it could mature and eventually enable the emergence of socialism.
Howrever, remarkably Marx was actually attracted to the possibility that the traditional
Russian village, the Mir, might be a base for the direct transition to a socialist society. 
But because of strong adherence to the “laws of history” view among many Russians
this possibility was not taken seriously.  Even in 1917 there was confusion about
strategy. Lenin shifted his position fairly suddenly and the Bolsheviks managed to take
centralised control of the revolution that had been generated by massive discontent with
the Tsar’s regime. Many blame this adoption of centralised control (which Marx had long
argued against) as the origins of Stalinism etc., and regard Lenin as having hijacked the
revolution.  Anarchists and TSW advocates deeply regret that the focus had not been
put on strengthening the enormous number of “soviets", i.e., worker’s democratic
councils” that had emerged to run factories etc., and making the self-governing Mir the
basic element in the new society.These could have been the foundation for a thoroughly
participatory democracy involving workers, peasants and citizens in running their own
communities in classically anarchist ways.

-  Marx seems to have been inconsistent in arguing that the maturing of

capitalism produces social institutions and processes that will both undermine
it and be basic in the post revolutionary synthesis, while believing that in the
immediate aftermath of the revolution, the period of “crude communism”,
several core elements of consumer society would remain, such as working at
a specialism for wages, working for a boss (the state), and being focused on
property and acquisition.  From The Simpler Way perspective these are the
most important faults in the consumer-capitalist mentality and revolutionary
change in social structure, class and power cannot take place until after there
has been radical change in these cultural and ideological factors. (This is a
classical Anarchist view.) This change is to be worked for through the long
Stage 1 process whereby local economies are developed.  Marx did not seem
to entertain this notion of deliberately working to “prefigure.” He thought the
necessary post-capitalist institutions would fairly automatically and inevitably
develop as capitalism matured, and didn’t stress any need to focus on
“educational” effort to encourage their emergence. He thought that the right
ideas and values could be developed in stage 2 of the revolution. The
anarchists put the sequence the other way around, and you could say that
they regard the development of the right ideas and values as being the
revolution.

-  Marx thought that “industrial” capital would prevail over “finance” capital; i.e.,
investment would be predominantly about channelling savings into creating
productive firms, and industrialists would be in control of this kind of activity. 
But now the overwhelmingly dominant sector of the economy is that which
lends money (mostly just created by banks; see TSW: Money…) in order to
get interest back, and to benefit from rises in asset prices, repossessions,
bankruptcies, fees etc. This sector makes about 40% of all corporate profit
now, and is to a large extent predatory … and gave us the GFC.

- Much of Marx’s writing is somewhere between very difficult and impossible

to understand!  It is strongly advised that he should not be read until you know
what he is saying; i.e., read introductory and summary material first and when
you feel you know what the essentials are, have a go at him.  You have been
warned.

Appendix: Where a “Simpler Way critique differs from that of Marx.

The basic Simpler Way analysis of the global situation owes much to Marx but
on some crucial issues differs significantly.   Marx’s analysis focused on the
productive process and argued that the fundamental fault in capitalism was to
be found there.  In addition his theory of how history changed was in terms of
the “forces” and the “social relations” of production.  These are important
themes, but TSW critique of capitalism focuses on the market system not the
productive system, and on consumption (overconsumption) rather than
production.  The market creates ever-increasing and terminal problems,
primarily of unequal distribution and inappropriate development.
Marx’s theory of value claimed that the value of a product corresponded to the
amount of labour in it. Workers create that value but don’t get it all in their
wages, then the capitalist sells the product for more than he pays them and
thus takes part of the value they created.  Thus to Marx the essential fault in
capitalism is this injustice, theft, or exploitation built into the mode of
production.

However from The Simpler Way perspective the core fault is different, and
obvious and easily understood. The capitalist owns the goods produced and
he sells them for the highest price he can get, meaning that the system
inevitably distributes products mostly to the rich and that development will
mainly be of those industries, factories etc. that produce what richer people
want to buy. Thus inevitably production is not geared to meeting the needs of
most people, and the development that takes place is not of industries that will
produce what they need, let alone industries using local resources and run by
local people.  This is a critique in terms of exchange relations, not productrive
relations. Only local economies which prevent market forces from determining
what happens, and motivated by happy acceptance of simpler lifestyles, can
defuse the limits to growth problem and enable ecological sustainability.
Fixing the exploitative productive relationship Marx focused on is of course
important, but to achieve TSW vision much more than that must be done

Avineri, S., (1968) The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx,

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Dalton, G., (1968), Archaic, Primitive and Modern Economies; Essays of Karl
Polanyi,

Korten, D. C., (1995), When Corporations Rule the World, West

Hartford, Kumarian Press.

Lichtheim, G., (1961), Marxism, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

TSW: The Case Against the Market. thesimplerwaylinfo/MARKET.htm

TSW: Third World Development, thesimplerway.info/DEV.LONG.htm

TSW: Transition. thesimplerway.info/TRANSITION.htm

TSW: Anarchism. thesimplerway.info/ANARCHISM.Intro.htm

TSW: Religion and the emergence of market dominated

society. thesimplerwaylinfo/Religion&markert.html

TSW: Polanyi. thesimplerway.linfo/Polanyi.html