“Let us briefly sum up our sketch of historical evolution.This vision, taken from Chapters 30 to 33 of volume 1 of Capital (on which, see here, here, here and here), stands in contrast to the historical reality over the past 150 years, which can be better summed up as follows:
I. Mediaeval Society.— Individual production on a small scale. Means of production adapted for individual use; hence primitive, ungainly, petty, dwarfed in action. Production for immediate consumption, either of the producer himself or of his feudal lord. Only where an excess of production over this consumption occurs is such excess offered for sale, enters into exchange. Production of commodities, therefore, only in its infancy. But already it contains within itself, in embryo, anarchy in the production of society at large.
II. Capitalist Revolution.— Transformation of industry, at first by means of simple co-operation and manufacture. Concentration of the means of production, hitherto scattered, into great workshops. As a consequence, their transformation from individual to social means of production — a transformation which does not, on the whole, affect the form of exchange. The old forms of appropriation remain in force. The capitalist appears. In his capacity as owner of the means of production, he also appropriates the products and turns them into commodities. Production has become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all the contradictions in which our present day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light.
A. Severance of the producer from the means of production. Condemnation of the worker to wage-labor for life. Antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
B. Growing predominance and increasing effectiveness of the laws governing the production of commodities. Unbridled competition. Contradiction between socialized organization in the individual factory and social anarchy in production as a whole.
C. On the one hand, perfecting of machinery, made by competition compulsory for each individual manufacturer, and complemented by a constantly growing displacement of laborers. Industrial reserve-army. On the other hand, unlimited extension of production, also compulsory under competition, for every manufacturer. On both sides, unheard of development of productive forces, excess of supply over demand, overproduction, glutting of the markets, crises every ten years, the vicious circle: excess here, of means of production and products — excess there, of laborers, without employment and without means of existence. But these two levers of production and of social well-being are unable to work together, because the capitalist form of production prevents the productive forces from working and the products from circulating, unless they are first turned into capital — which their very superabundance prevents. The contradiction has grown into an absurdity.
The mode of production rises in rebellion against the form of exchange. The bourgeoisie are convicted of incapacity further to manage their own social productive forces.
D. Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later on by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.
III. Proletarian Revolution.— Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out, Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.
To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.” (Engels 1910: 135–139).
(1) the long-run tendency of capitalism, even in the 19th century, was to massively increase the real wage, which has soared above subsistence level, even for workers (see here and here), contrary to Marx’s theory that the tendency of capitalism is to keep the real wage at a subsistence level (which is the value of the maintenance and reproduction of labour-power).So, all in all, modern Marxism has made itself largely irrelevant to the struggle of modern proletarians, and Marxism itself has become just one branch of the bizarre regressive left cult, which is itself largely a movement of middle class, university-educated leftists, who have pathological hatred for the working class, and especially for white working class men, who are subject, more and more, almost to homicidal demonisation as racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic fascists.
The growing real wage and rising disposable income even of workers in capitalism also allowed a massive capacity for production of new commodities and new opportunities for employment (e.g., especially in services and middle class employment), which in turn has helped to overcome technological unemployment for most of the history of capitalism, contrary to Marx’s prediction of subsistence wages and increasing technological unemployment. Even if we do experience mass technological unemployment this century, it need not lead to disaster, with demand-management, a guaranteed income and government employment programs.
The size of the working class eventually stabilised and society was swelled by a growing and prosperous middle class and social mobility, contrary to Marx’s prediction of all people – except a small class of capitalists – being reduced to proletarians.
(2) Marx’s claim that machines, generally speaking, are an unmitigated evil in capitalism whose primary effect is to increase the intensity and speed of work by labourers is an outrageous falsehood – a perversion of history and reality. In reality, machines have, generally speaking, tended to decrease the intensity, difficulty and monotony of human labour and often reduced to human labour to lighter work of visual inspection and overseeing of machine work, not physical labour. On this, see here and here. Advanced capitalist nations have also virtually eliminated child labour as well, and in our time have tended to pay women the same hourly wage for the same type of work as men.
(3) highly developed and advanced Western capitalist states like Britain and the US proved the most resistant to communism and Marxism (contrary to Marx’s theory), and when communist revolutions broke out it was in backward Russia and China.
(4) the business cycle of capitalist economies is better explained by Keynesian economic theory, in which the level of aggregate investment fluctuates with shifting subjective business expectations, with other instabilities also caused by an unregulated or poorly regulated financial sector.
(5) in contrast to Marx’s failed predictions, the Keynesian and Social Democratic solution to the problems of laissez faire market economies produced a Golden Age of Capitalism (1946–c. 1973) and of unprecedented prosperity.
Marx thought that the large industrial reserve army is a necessary consequence and necessary condition of capitalism, but this is incorrect. In the Keynesian era of full employment, where there was very low unemployment and indeed labour scarcity in the advanced capitalist world, capitalism continued and thrived.
(6) the end of the Keynesian period and the return to revived neoclassical theories from the 1970s brought with it a return to lower growth, higher unemployment, stagnating real wages, and higher income inequality, but, above all, a transnational globalised neoliberal capitalism which has shipped a great deal of Western manufacturing and jobs to the Third World, and allowed legal and illegal Third World mass immigration into the West to lower wage costs.
(7) the renewed deteriorating plight of Western workers and even segments of the middle class by (6) has not produced any renewed Marxist or Communist movements of any importance in the First World.
Rather, people have reacted with increased support for nationalist and protectionist conservatives, and Marxists and Communists – where they still exist – militantly support the disastrous mass immigration policies that more and more people hate and reject. In particular, modern Marxists are mired in irrational regressive leftist and cultural leftist delusions, such as Third Wave feminism, the idea that all cultures are equal and the nonsense that mass immigration is always a positive force.
It is also very important to recognise that Marxism – at heart – is just another form of libertarian / anarchist delusion. This can be very clearly seen in the long-run Marxist vision for human society:
“III. Proletarian Revolution.— Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out, Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.So “Socialism” as imagined by Marx and Engels here is just a form of stateless anarchism.
To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.” (Engels 1910: 135–139).
But this is a delusion. Modern human civilisation will never do without a powerful government and state apparatus. The forces for disorder in human societies are too strong for Marxist anarchism to be remotely realistic.
Moreover, the profound national, cultural, religious and ethnic differences between human beings will be with us for a long time, and this is what makes Marxist internationalism with its cult of open borders nothing but a fantasy for the foreseeable future.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Engels, Friedrich. 1910. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (trans. Edward Aveling). Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago.
Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left
Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2
LK, anarcho-capitalists and the Libertarian Party platform favor open borders. Can you please provide references to open borders as Marx/Engels' position? (I distinguish Marx from his self-identifying followers today, some of whom may maintain such positions, although I don't see that they flow from Marx or Engels writings.)
ReplyDeleteThanks to Keynes perhaps Marxist predictions didn't turn out that way?
ReplyDeleteCapitalism untouched with technology taking over both the physical and mental roles of human labour is leading to unemployment, a huge proletariat, and a vanishingly small class of the super rich.
As for open borders I do not believe that Marx or Engels would support open borders in the context of a capitalist world. I regard America's individualism and lack of social fabric as the source of the one-world capitalist religion where the idea of culture, distinction and roots are all barriers to trade.