Posts
In some recent events, I have
given my views on world developments and heard what others have had to say. One
theme of these was Marxist theory, and here I sum up my views on how to develop
it.
Marx was a genius in many
respects, not least in the way that he had a clear perspective on the dynamics
of the capitalist economic system from the earliest stages of its industrial
development. So why is it that some key elements of his theory are still being
debated or disputed, or sometimes expounded as if read from a holy book?
Surely, this is a little odd, more than 120-150 years after the theory was
first set out. Was Marx such an astonishing genius that his ideas cannot be
fully understood even today? Considering why this has been the case also leads
to my perspective on what should be done next.
Marx’s theory shows how social
labour, ie the work that people do as part of their social cooperation to
survive, takes a peculiar form under capitalism. This peculiar form – where
workers are employed by capitalists to produce commodities for the market –
obscures the underlying relationships. For example, it will appear that there
can be a ‘fair wage’ for work done at the same time that the worker also
provides the employing capitalist with a profit. Where does the profit come
from? Mainstream economics does not recognise that it comes from the surplus
labour workers perform. While surplus labour is evident under social systems
such as slavery or feudalism, under capitalism the riches of those running the
system are supposed to come from the magical powers of ownership and the
‘entrepreneurial spirit’. Such beliefs persist, despite the fact that many
capitalists also gain their extravagant revenues these days from government
spending.
The previous points would
probably find agreement among almost all those who have studied the basic
elements of Marx’s theory. But most soon fall into a ditch when other issues
are raised. In particular, there is chronic misunderstanding of the structure
of Marx’s arguments in the three volumes of Capital. I confess to
finding this depressing, rather than amusing. Despite the clear, readable
exposition of Marx’s approach in Roman Rosdolsky’s The Making of Marx’s
Capital, published more than three decades ago, the result of the
subsequent decades of much ‘Marxist’ writing can be more accurately described
as cacophony rather than it having achieved much clarity or having made much
progress.
However, there is a more
fundamental problem, not simply a failure to get to grips with the theory. The
problem is that an understanding the world does not easily develop in the
absence of an active political debate, where questions are raised and demand to
be answered, with consequences that follow from what has been said. Marx, Engels
and Lenin developed their theories in such political turmoil, which provided
them with fertile ground on which to build their outlook on the world. Today,
the opponents of capitalism still have its destruction and disasters to provide
raw material for their views. But, in the rich countries at least, they must
also find a way through the quicksand left by widespread illusions in the
potentially progressive character of the capitalist state. This dates back to
the late 19th century, and was attacked by Marx in his 1875, unfortunately
semi-private, Critique of the Gotha Programme. Such illusions have been
given more substance from the welfare systems established in the post-1945
period.
Even though a deep crisis is now
dismantling these forms of political cohesion in richer countries, most
radicals today respond by arguing for a return to the status quo ante,
not by explaining that the game is up. Consider the following examples of
Marxist cognitive dissonance.
A longstanding one in Britain
has been where many self-described ‘revolutionaries’ would argue to vote for
the Labour Party as the least bad alternative in an election (better than the
Conservatives), despite Labour’s consistent role as a supporter of British
imperialism. (For those less familiar with this history, Labour’s pro-imperial
strategy is part of a more general national-welfarist outlook, one that is to
be paid for, as far as possible, by other countries) Not surprisingly, this
trend has been strengthened with the elevation of Jeremy Corbyn as the Labour
leader-saviour for gullible dissidents.
Another is how many of those who
would claim to adhere to a Marxist perspective, for example on the trend fall
in the rate of profit resulting from capital accumulation, see no problem in
also advocating the nationalisation of banks. A demand to nationalise banks is
not a challenge to the power of the capitalist state; it endorses illusions in
that state as the potential saviour of the national economy and the mass of
people. Nevertheless, they see no problem with this because they too believe
that the capitalist state can be used in this way – given the right amount of
popular pressure, of course. Surely, there are some problems here for anyone
who wants to build a revolutionary movement, based on the power of the working
class and opposed to the national state?
Probably worst of all, however,
is the fact that most radicals ignore the division of the world between rich
and poor, oppressed and oppressor, as outlined by Lenin. This is the major
difference in political perspective between Lenin and Marx. But Lenin’s view
reflects the development of capitalism into imperialism and this rightly
contradicts Marx and Engels’s optimism expressed in the earlier, 1848 Communist
Manifesto slogan: ‘Workers of the world unite!’. Lenin did not work out the
point fully, but the logical conclusion is something that has been borne out by
decades of disappointment: the mass of the populace in most of the richer
countries is politically tied to their own state and not in the least
interested in a revolution. This goes well beyond the narrow, unconvincing
notion that such a political outlook is the fault of a ‘labour aristocracy’.
My view on the development of
Marxist theory is quite simple: develop it! Analyse the way that the world
works today and expose the exploitation and oppression that hides behind what
is otherwise seen as the abstract, natural workings of the market. Analyse the
forms taken by capitalist rule in the imperialist world economy today. This is
the way to develop Marx’s ‘law of value’. Observation and experience have
convinced me that while disputes on the so-called ‘transformation problem’ and
the falling rate of profit, etc, cannot be completely ignored, there is nothing
to be gained from prolonged debates on these issues with those who have every
incentive not to learn. Not to push the cynical boat out too far, there is a
lot of truth in the old saying that it is not possible to convince people of
something when their salaries depend upon them not understanding it.
At this weak stage of
development, I also think that there is little point in spending a lot of time
honing the finer points of Marxist theory with those who are roughly along the
correct lines, although that does not preclude my willingness to share views
and engage with interesting ideas. If this somehow comes across as the position
of a philistine who does not want to learn, then I would point readers both to
the many articles on this blog and to my being awarded a PhD last year.
In recent years, I have paid
particular attention to analysing the global financial system. This is at the
forefront of popular misunderstanding, and a particular feature of the
pro-imperialist reform initiatives from those who want to save the capitalist/imperialist
system. Many, of course, will not admit that this is their underlying
objective, or that it is an outcome with which they would be quite comfortable.
