The Hegelian dialectic applied to economic theory
At
the same time that German (and other) social philosophers were seeing
in the fast-changing dynamic of their days the fulfillment of history
through the rise through struggle of the tribal nation (France,
Germany, Italy, etc.), German expatriate philosopher (in exile in
London) Karl Marx headed down an entirely different road in his
explanation as to where history was headed. He saw history fulfilled
not in the struggle among nations but instead in the struggle among
economic classes, principally between the owners of wealth and the
subject classes (proletariat) that produced that wealth for the owners
through their labors. Marx was so insistent on this matter that he
actually despised nationalism and all the discussion going on about
nationalist struggles, seeing that as a distraction leading people away
from the real struggle that lay before them, the industrial class
struggle that was about to unfold – and lead the world into its final
stage in history.
The Communist Manifesto (1848)
In 1848 Marx published his famous 30-page Communist Manifesto in the hope of capitalizing on the spirit of political rebellion that was rocking continental Europe at that time.
His Manifesto outlined history as a series of quite Hegelian dialectical
struggles over time between those who legally ‘owned’ the land, tools,
machinery (what Marx summed up as ‘the means of production’) that
created the wealth that the people of society lived off of ... and
those (the proletariat) who though they owned none of those means of
production labored physically in using those means of production to
bring forward the wealth that society lived off of. Typically in
history, most all of the wealth went to the class of owners ... with
very little making its way to the hands of the proletarian workers ...
bring tremendous tension to society, which eventually would fall into
conflict because of this social injustice. Again, in Hegelian
(and eventually Darwinian) fashion, such conflict would then move
history forward to a new, and better social system, shaped by the way
the opposing classes ‘synthesized’ their social positions into a new
social structure.
The dialectical process in the capitalist context
In
his analysis, he carefully described the situation around him in Europe
where the feudal system once dominated by landed aristocrats had been
challenged by a new social class of industrial and financial
capitalists ... thus creating the age of capitalism. But he also
saw how capitalism in turned had created its own opposing social force
in the form of the workers (the modern industrial proletariat) whose
labors supported the capitalist system. And he predicted that
conditions were quickly rising that would cause the industrial
proletariat in its turn to rise up against the capitalist class ... and
through the necessary historical conflict or ‘revolution’ open the way
to a new social system.
Capitalist self-destruction
Time
was on the side of the worker ... because capitalism by its very nature
is very competitive even among the capitalists themselves – each
capitalist trying to eliminate their competitors in order to gain
greater control over the market. This way they could increase
their profits ... even establish total or monopoly control over the
whole process. But of course as they drove each other out of
business, they were inadvertently thinning out their social ranks,
making their numbers smaller at the same time that the ranks of the
proletarian were growing. Eventually simply the calculus of the
few against the many meant that the days of capitalism were
numbered. At that point (which was arriving quickly) all the
proletariat had to do was rise up and seize control of the means of
production, thus destroying the power of the capitalist class ... and
the public government that had been protecting the capitalists.
Thus in rising up against their capitalist oppressors, they had
“nothing to lose but their chains”.
A property-less, state-less, utopia
But
the resultant social system would be different ... it would be utopia
itself. In the new communal or ‘communist’ society all land,
tools and machines would be ‘owned’ jointly by all ... and by nobody in
particular. Consequently there would be no need for the political
enforcing agency of the state or government. It would simply
wither away ... because the sole purpose of the state was to protect
the interests of the property owners, whether feudal, capitalist or
whatever. In the communist society there would be no personal
property ... thus no state. Something like a Rousseauian bliss
would then hold this happy world together
Communism as the last stage of history
Also
... the new society would end the long historical ‘dialectic’ of a
ruling class and a proletariat class finding themselves once again in
conflict. With no division under communism between a propertied class
and a proletarian class there would be no cause for social conflict, no
tension, no stress ... only blissful peace. Thus this last
historical revolution would bring history to a completion ... the kind
of completion that everyone was expecting because of the unprecedented
progress they had been observing coming forth at mind-boggling
speed. All history was about to fulfill itself. And Marx
was showing how that was to be accomplished.
All very "scientific"
It
was pretty powerful stuff. And it appealed to the interests not
only of European industrial workers ... but also to intellectual
Progressivists – not only in Europe but also in America. Marx’s
theories seemed to be irrefutable because they were built on hard
‘fact.’ Unlike the philosophical speculations of social
philosophers before him, and like Darwin, Marx had thrown in a lot of
data in his analysis, supposedly hard economic data, thus qualifying
his theory as ‘scientific socialism’ ... making him – and those who
followed his lead – ‘scientific socialists.’
Marx’s militant atheism
As
all materialists or mechanists, Marx had no need of the concept of God,
or some Divine Hand driving forward the economic process he had
outlined. It all worked – similar to Darwin’s theories – entirely
mechanically. Marx personally was an atheist. In fact he
was quite opposed to the Christian religion, or any religion that saw
history shaped and judged by a Supreme Being. As for
Christianity, he saw the religion simply as a cruel psychological tool
used by the capitalist class that savagely exploited its own
workers ... by excusing their horrible treatment of the workers under
the promise that if they all cooperated with the system and behaved
themselves (not rebel against their oppressors) they would be rewarded
in the ‘next life’ with heaven. To Marx such religious theory was
only a form of spiritual ‘opium’ given to the masses to keep them
docile.
|
(1818 to 1883)
Marx: An Overview
His Life and Works
His Major Ideas
Marx's Writings
