After struggling through the readings for Kant and Hegel, I was relieved to come across this quote: “… the ‘liberation’ of ‘man’ is not advanced a single step by reducing philosophy, theology, substance and all the trash to ‘self-consciousness’ and by liberating man from the domination of these phrases, which have never held him in thrall” (p 61). Marx views the philosophical contribution of his predecessors as “dogmatic dreamings and distortions … explained perfectly easily from their practical position in life, their job, and the division of labour” (p 68). That is, the works of Hegel and of Kant stem from their particular role in the division of labor in society. The role of a philosopher, “the thinkers of a class,” presupposes the division of mental and material labor. Implicit in this division is the hegemony of the ruling class’ ideas, and in the case of Hegel, “the hegemony of the spirit in history” (p 67). By grounding the abstractions of consciousness as originating from society’s mode of production, Marx provides an interdisciplinary critique of human history and modern societies.
In Marx’s time period, the production and consumption of a product was readily apparent in a single country. Today, as Marx anticipated, production and consumption activities extend beyond what were once national, geographical, and cultural barriers. This globalization of capitalism is due to the increasing intensification of the division of labor whereby the specialization of labor leads to increased efficiencies in the form of technological advancements to allow for the further accumulation of capital via the expansion of the production, distribution, exchange, and consumer relations (p 43). The shift from an industrial to a service economy in the U.S. is part of a continual process of capital accumulation. The cheap labor of previously colonized countries is now further exploited to produce the assorted manufactured goods we consume in the U.S. The dominance of capitalism is owed to the capital accumulated from colonized countries via the extraction of natural resources as well as the unpaid labor of slaves. Today’s dominance of capitalism is owed to capital accumulation via the credit market, through loans used to pay for housing and education. Therefore the capitalist mode of production has not changed; however, the means of production, the “stages of development in the division of labor,” continuously change to allow for further capital accumulation and expansion.
Any social grievances (social issues of poverty, racism, sexism, healthcare, etc.), ultimately derive from the capitalist mode of production, namely a class based mode of production. And the solution must involve the transformation of the mode of production. The transformation process is described in materialist terms, “to overthrow the existing state of society by a … revolution” (p 55). A transformation of the capitalist mode of production, according to Marx, must disrupt the flow of capital accumulation. The disruption is not achieved by the rallies and protests against austerity measures held at Hunter, for example, which are safely confined to the sidewalk and do not even disrupt the flow of traffic. Collective bargaining rights, by comparison, restricts the exploitation of labor thereby disrupting capital accumulation.
The transformation of the mode of production and the form in which such a transformation should take is difficult for me to grasp. I was born in the Reagan era of neoliberalization, the globalization of capitalism, so it seems impossible to even conceive the communism Marx hints at throughout this section. Still, the critique he offers is invaluable, especially when the capitalist mode of production is assumed to be the best alternative. Therefore I do not mean to contradict Marx’s assertion that “not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history, also of … philosophy and all other types of theory” (p 59). This criticism seems to refer more to idealism, not the dialectical materialism Marx describes.
Correction: I’m not comfortable describing Marx’s contribution as merely a critique without emphasizing how his critique, unlike that of Kant and Hegel, serves as a genuine agent of change throughout history. Marx’s critique, then, allow laborers, collectively, to understand their contribution to (immanent ownership of) the capital accumulation throughout history and in modern society thereby enabling the working class to disrupt the mode of production and ultimately take over the means of production.
ReplyDeleteYour blog post somewhat inspires me to think about Marx’s perspective of time! To be honest, I dislike Marx’s frequent historical references, but I guess that’s the point of this book. Somewhat this reminds me of an interesting video on time perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3oIiH7BLmg
ReplyDeleteI would say that Marx is probably a past negativist, present fatalist, and obviously, a not-so-successful-futurist. If we compare Marx to his past philosophers, we would definitely say that Marx has made some brilliant progress instead of dwelling himself in mere abstractness of “trash” (ouch). However, it seems to me we have adopted Marx’s remarkable way of looking into the past and present in order to think about or calculate how the future should be (even though his account is a fiasco in practice), but he is at least promoting us to become more future-oriented and to take actions for the sake of our future.
I would argue that compared to Marx's time, the productive forces have changed and what he described as capitalism in his time is not what we describe as capitalism now. For that matter, I would argue we could not call our society capitalistic. The social welfare programs (minimum wages, maximum hours, retirement funds, health benefits, etc.) is a closer move to a communist society, as Marx describes it, than anything else. Perhaps these improvements are just a more organized communist society or one that has the best of both worlds (communist and capitalist), especially since Marx believed in the need for industry's full development before the possibility of a communist revolution. It was not a violent revolution as Marx predicted, but maybe it was just a peaceful shortcut. (Though I would not say that we are a communist society.)
ReplyDeleteI think globalized consumption would be a problem for Marx because it's the alienation of consumption from the person who produces that is a negative. It creates a more definitive division of labor and that is the whole root of the problem of capitalism. But communism is meant to be global and not really exists within a localized sphere, so as long as globalization is intensifying the problem, it is good because it is hastening the coming of communism.
A few things:
ReplyDelete1) You say that, "A transformation of the capitalist mode of production, according to Marx, must disrupt the flow of capital accumulation" and you talk about collective bargaining as superior to local protests in light of that. I wonder, however, if in the modern era of globalization, especially within labor, how effective even that can be? We've certainly seen outsourcing of a lot of jobs in the past decade, and not just within manufacturing but even to technical (read: information technology services) areas. If local labor attempts to disrupt the capital process, as you say, then the global labor market provides many cheap and readily available substitutes.
2) I love Maria's comment that communism is meant to be global. This makes me think about attempted examples of communism we have seen historically and why they have failed so spectacularly. Marx believed it was only when class conflict was eliminated could true communism and freedom come about, but perhaps the creation of the USSR (for example) was just another class in competition with the rest, and this is why those experiments in communism failed. The USSR could never get away from being in competition with the USA, and thus was ultimately not a true example of communism but instead just another class to compete with the rest.
3)I really like your first point about how Marx approaches his criticism of Kant and Hegel and co. through their roles in the division of labor. It makes his comments against the prior philosophers, I think, all that more effective
@ Ying, it surprises me to learn that you dislike Marx's reference to history, because in comparative politics his references to history and how one society managed to displace another are often times refereed to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Silvia and Maria, it is sometimes hard to grasp an understanding of how Capitalism is "doomed"? Growing up in a society in which a variety of welfare programs are available for the economically disadvantaged. I wonder if Marx ever thought about this phase of Capitalism? However, I continue to lean towards what Marx proposes because I believe that his whole idea of a Communist society goes beyond economically equating individuals, but more of individuals developing a new "consciousness", shaping new circumstances and letting this new circumstances shape us. How? By performing actions voluntarily, and in this form realizing that every occupation matters, one is not more than another. Any activity is for the community and it holds importance. These are aspects that sometimes lack importance in Capitalism, where certain jobs are seen as more prestigious than others.
I definitely see the prestige of certain profession as something that is becoming a roadblock in our thinking. When we really think about doctors being a "prestigious" profession, what do we really mean? I think the bottom line is that we associate prestige with the amount of money that profession offers and that is where the disconnect happens. In a communist society, money and other necessities of life would be available to individuals on a need basis. For example, a bachelor doctor would earn much less than a garbage man who has five children to support. In this scenario, the prestige of a job is not intrinsic, while we often tend to think that it is.
ReplyDeleteIsn't there something to be said for society rewarding certain professions and individuals over others? I'm not advocating pure Libertarianism where, to listen to some of the philosophy, money is the answer to everything and everything the economy demands is good, but I'd certainly like there to be financial incentives for people with particular skills and talents to pursue these professions and do well in them. If someone provides a valuable service that not everyone can do, they should be given more money for it. Shouldn't teachers be rewarded more than someone who works at Taco Bell, by being paid more and being better respected? A very good teacher, of course, would probably do it even for minimum wage out of love of the job but making it more lucrative as a profession would probably attract more people with talent and skills, who might do a better job because they are better paid.
ReplyDeleteThis is totally delayed. And I don’t even think you’ll notice this post but I wanted to respond to all of your comments anyway.
ReplyDeleteAgatha: As we discussed in class, capitalism has a tendency to move all activity from having a use-value to having an exchange-value; and, by doing so, capital becomes ever more mobile allowing for a faster rate of capital accumulation. Many of the professions you noted deal with social reproductive activities. Marx seems to say these activities should not be relegated to the realm of a job because a job is merely wage-labor commodity relegated by economic market forces. Thus healthcare, housing, and education (and after tonight's class discussion on Kierkegaard, I'd now include faith) should not be commodified.
Oscar: Agreed, labor strikes are now an ineffective way of obstructing capital accumulation. An effective form of obstruction today would target the movement of finance capital which primarily takes place online. I guess a good example of this form of obstruction are the activities of the open source software programmers and the legal structure they’ve created, Copyleft, as well as the Anonymous group of hackers responsible for the online attacks which obstructed business transactions of large financial services corporations.
Cristina: It seems you propose to incorporate a version of communism within capitalism? Marx's version of communism, however, cannot coexist with the capitalist mode of production. Organizations that propose an alternative economic model, such as communes and worker cooperatives sprouting throughout the fringes of high income countries, are usually co-opted to further capital accumulation. Previous attempts at communism, such as the Soviet Union or even China’s communist doctrines, have turned capitalist.
Maria: It seems like most of the welfare programs or any public good still in existence today is a result of socialist reforms from the 1930s. These reforms appeased the public while also preserving capitalism. Yet, many of such reforms are now being eradicated as quickly as possible in the hopes of overcoming the recession and preserve capitalism yet again. These austerity measures only apply to social services while the government continues to subsidize the banking industry. Therefore I do not agree with the oft-mentioned phrase that we are at some unique phase of capitalism that warrants serious inquiry. We still have a capitalist mode of production; and, according to Marx, until that changes I don’t think anything substantial has changed.
Ying: The concept of time as it relates to Marx’s critique of capitalism interests me as well. And the video you posted seems to show how culture and our varied conceptions of time are derived from the mode of production. There is a geography professor at the CUNY Grad Center that has examined the recent economic crisis by using Marx’s critique of capital with an emphasis on the spatial-temporal fix. Here’s a good animated version of his analysis: http://davidharvey.org/2010/06/rsa-crises-of-capitalism-talk-animated/