Marxism and the Twenty-first Century
The popularity and prominence of Marxism rises and falls with intellectual fashions and with the rhythm of world events. These two influences are far from independent of one another; and, further, what is understood to be the content and emphasis of Marxism is equally variable across time, place and context. Marxism may be seen on the one hand as a critique of capitalism (a position that is currently to the fore in the presumed era of globalisation); or on the other hand it may be interpreted as providing alternatives to capitalism, as in the cases of the (previously) ‘socialist countries’ or in the present struggles of some post-colonial countries. Marxism has also been heavily embroiled in all the major academic debates across the social sciences, although, once again, the weight and content of its presence have been both diverse and uneven over time, topic and discipline.
The purpose of this final chapter is to argue for the continuing salience of Marx’s political economy for the study of contemporary issues. Necessarily, it can only be suggestive and limited in coverage, as well as skewed towards topics that have played a significant role in the development of Marxism. An appropriate starting point is the major academic assault made against Marxism in the West since its last peak of popularity during the 1960s and 1970s. Apart from promoting the mythical idea that Keynesianism had more or less resolved the problem of capitalist crises (which was later discarded, at least in theory, under neoliberalism), anti-Marxism has flourished through suggesting that Marxism is crude and doctrinaire. Two intimately connected issues come to the fore – one concerns the nature of class and the other the nature of the (capitalist) state. Concerns with the environment and the aftermath of capitalism are also examined below.
The major criticism made against Marxism with respect to class is its supposed inability to deal with the complexity and diversity of class relations within advanced capitalist society, variously dubbed as post-industrial, democratic, welfarist, essentially ‘middle-class’, meritocratic and so on. The critique has two separate components, one concerning class structure, the other concerning the implications of that structure. In short, and partly because Marx allegedly predicted increasing polarisation in class structure (including, wrongly, the presumption of the ‘absolute’ pauperisation of the workers), it is argued that the division between bourgeoisie and proletariat is too crude, and, not least because of Marx’s revolutionary aspirations for the working class, class action and ideology have presumably failed to match his expectations drawing upon this posited class structure. For example, why do wage workers vote for right-wing governments, and why do conservative governments introduce reforms that benefit working people? These questions are taken up below. At a methodological level, concerns are voiced over both the structure of Marx’s theory and its causal content. For example, it is deemed to be too deterministic and reductionist – supposedly it implies that everything flows from the economic, with the economic itself identified primarily with production and class relations and with the evolution of capitalism leading inevitably to the numerical supremacy and political hegemony of the proletariat, itself dominated by the cohort of (overwhelmingly male) industrial workers.
No doubt many Marxists have been guilty of these analytical sins of oversimplification and the omission of other factors, if in part in the attempt to expose the fallacies of ‘freedom’, ‘efficiency’ and ‘equality’ that are too readily paraded as virtues of capitalism. Hopefully, though, enough of Marx’s political economy and method has already been presented in this book to show that Marx himself could not be accused of these shortcomings. Indeed, Marx once declared himself as not a Marxist, in view of the way his method had been abused in his own lifetime!
More specifically, in the case of class, Marx’s political economy reveals the crucial and core component of the class structure of capitalism: that capital and labour necessarily confront one another over the buying and selling of labour power. Further, as presented in this book, Marx’s political economy is concerned with the consequences of this class structure for accumulation, reproduction, uneven development, crises, and so on. Thus, far from reducing all other economic and social phenomena to such analysis, Marx’s political economy opens the way for broader, systematic and more complex investigation of the structure, relations, processes and consequences of capitalism – and what this achieves is a great deal and of crucial importance.
Thus, Marx’s political economy does not reduce the class structure to that of capital and labour. On the contrary, it locates other classes in relation to capital and labour, whether as essential or contingent parts of the capitalist mode of production. Within capitalism itself, for example, Marxism shows how scope is created for the self-employed to emerge and for ‘professionals’ to prosper because, for different reasons, they can retain the full fruits of their labour despite being paid a wage or, more exactly, a salary – although this can take different forms, including fees, commissions, and so on. Formally, this can be represented by the idea that such strata receive the full reward for their living labour, l = v + s, rather than remuneration at the value of labour power, v. More important, though, is to explain why such strata, and their associated activities and conditions of work, are not appropriated by capital and driven down in skill or social status to the level of wage labour.
A number of general arguments can be given, some structural and some contingent. For example, a precondition for advanced capitalism is the emergence of sophisticated credit and commercial systems in which handsome rewards can accrue to those who mobilise and allocate funds and commodities on behalf of others. The same applies to the professions needed to ease or safeguard the circulation of capital and its social reproduction more generally, although these activities vary in weight and significance across time and place and, where professional associations prove ineffective, are subject to proletarianisation. There are, after all, huge differences between the ‘self-employed’ casual building worker or contracted-out cleaner and the specialist doctor or management consultant.
Finally, and drawing upon the above, what is perceived to be the greatest challenge to the political economy of class is the rise of the middle class, itself a highly diverse stratum in terms of its composition and characteristics. Advanced capitalism has witnessed the decline of the industrial workers and the rise of services, significantly those employed by the state and, thereby, potentially removed from direct commercial motivation and calculation. In short, does the growing army of health, education and other workers employed by the state undermine analysis predicated upon a class structure grounded upon capital and labour?
Posing the problem in these terms points to the continuing relevance of economic class under contemporary capitalism, with labour defined in terms of its dependence upon a wage. This is not to deny that the class of labour is heavily differentiated within itself – by sector, skill (manual and mental), labour process; between industry and commerce; between the public and the private sectors, and so on. Such differentiations do not invalidate the concept of class, but they highlight that class interests and actions cannot always, or even predominantly, exist as immediate consequences of class structure. Rather, class interests are formed economically, politically and ideologically through concrete economic relations and historical circumstances. Thus, it is not a matter of slotting one or other individual into this or that class on the basis of their individual characteristics – manual workers, trade unionists, members of workers’ parties, and so on – but of tracing the relations by which the working class is reproduced concretely and represented in material and ideological relations. On this basis, there can be no presumption of a neat or fixed correspondence between economic and other social characteristics, but nor are these independent of one another. That the working class (i.e. wage earners in general, rather than the much narrower subset of blue-collar industrial workers) depends upon wages for its reproduction conditions every aspect of contemporary social life, even where it appears to be otherwise; but nor are wages and social conditions subject to iron determination in incidence and content.
These general observations on class have relevance for the theory of the capitalist state. Once again, Marxism has been subject to criticism in the form of parody, with its theory of the state perceived as reducing to the simple proposition that the state serves only the ruling class and, hence, capitalist interests. This is immediately open to the objection that the state often implements policies that benefit working people, especially through the provision of welfare. Marxism is then crudely portrayed as defending itself through understanding reform as a devious strategy on the part of the ruling class to pre-empt revolution – where it is not otherwise securing a working class better able to produce (and fight wars) on its behalf.
As before, the historical record fails to bear out such simple motives for the timing and content of reform, and nor is it sufficient to explain provision of health, education, pensions and so on as simply the means by which to enhance short- or long-term labour productivity. Another popular misrepresentation of Marxist theory is to view the (‘relatively autonomous’) state as essential in mediating between conflicting interests within the capitalist class, rather than between capital and labour. In this case, the main function of the state is to prevent capitalists from cheating one another, and the intensity of competition from being unduly dysfunctional. Like the theory of the state as the instrument of one class against another, this approach sheds only limited light on the complexity and diversity of the state’s role and actions.
The problem in each of these cases is that the state is seen as an internally homogeneous institution, clearly separated from ‘the market’, and an instrument serving readily identifiable interests – of capital against labour, or for capital as a whole against the destructive inclinations of its individual elements, or even for ‘the nation’ against rival nations and capitals. But such interests do not and cannot always exist in such highly abstract and yet readily recognisable forms. Rather, classes and class interests are formed through economic, political and ideological actions, conditioned but not rigidly determined by the accumulation and restructuring of capital and the patterns of social reproduction upon which class formation depends to a greater or lesser extent and in diverse ways. (These patterns include employment structures, conditions of work, trade union and other forms of activity, and daily reproduction at home, in the workplace and elsewhere.)
In each of these areas, the capitalist state occupies an increasingly central role. The circulation of capital carves out an economic sphere of activity that is structurally separate from the non-economic, but simultaneously dependent upon and supporting it. Workers’ compliant observance of property relations and the legitimation of economic and other inequalities need to be reproduced at least as much as immediate value relations. Thus, the structural necessity of the capitalist state is created largely by its non-economic role, in social as opposed to, but in conjunction with, economic reproduction. Even so, the state is always heavily and directly embroiled in the economic life of capitalism – appropriating and disbursing (surplus) value through taxation and expenditure, regulating accumulation, restructuring capital as it goes through its cyclical patterns, manipulating exchange rates through monetary and other macroeconomic policies, and influencing distributional relations through taxation, spending and incomes policy.
Unfortunately, these critically important insights of Marxism have often been overlooked, even when Marx has been commended for his foresight in anticipating globalisation or for recognising similar processes at an earlier historical stage. Certainly Marx does emphasise the international character of capitalism and its restless search for profits wherever they can be found. This forges affinities with those who understand globalisation in terms of the withering away of the nation state as it supposedly becomes increasingly powerless against an internationally mobile capital that roams the world effortlessly through electronic trading (and globally imposes US cultural values through the media).
Whatever the level of internationalisation of capital in its three forms (money, commodities and production), the non-economic reproduction of capitalism inevitably requires and even strengthens the role of the nation state, although pressure to conform to the one-dimensional imperatives of commerce does not lead to uniformity. In a sense, this has been recognised by those who oppose ‘globalisation’, pointing to and posing alternatives to its deleterious manifestations. Yet such views remain limited, with capitalism often being understood as merely globalisation – from which all its evil consequences can easily be read off and, in principle, corrected through the implementation of ‘adequate’ policies. However, globalisation, in whatever aspect and however understood, should be seen as the effect of capitalism’s international reproduction and, consequently, as the form taken by the laws of political economy in the current period. In short, whatever meaning is to be attached to globalisation in its application across economic, political and ideological aspects, its fundamental attachment to the production and appropriation of surplus value needs to be sustained analytically.
Consider now the problem of environmental degradation. Here Marxism has been accused of privileging the social at the expense of the natural, underestimating the potential for reform, and even of precluding consideration of the natural because of excessive preoccupation with the economic. Whilst Marx had much to say about what we would now term the ‘environment’, he rarely addressed it directly. But his theories of commodity fetishism and of the labour process offer excellent insights into his emphasis upon both social and material factors, as the production of value is always, simultaneously, the production of use values with a physical and environmental content.
This offers the basis for an appropriate approach to the environment, which should be understood in terms of environmental relations (and corresponding structures and conflicts) characteristic of capitalism. This contrasts with the idea of a trans-historical conflict between humans and ecological systems, or between the environment and the economy. The environmental relations of capitalism are driven by the dominant relations of production. Thus, as is readily recognised, the drive for profitability leads, through the rising organic composition of capital, to the working up of ever more raw materials into commodities and the corresponding extraction and use of energy and minerals, without immediate regard to the resulting environmental impact.
Yet, capitalism is also capable, not least through the development of new materials and through state regulation, of tempering or even reversing, at least in part, such environmental degradation. In this respect, it is important to recognise the multidimensional nature of the environment and the diverse range of issues and outcomes involved: pollution, biotechnology, drugs, vaccines, and so on. Again, the lessons to be drawn from commodity fetishism are significant. Marx argues that commodity relations are social relations expressed as relations between things, appearing at a superficial level purely as monetary magnitudes, thereby concealing as much as is revealed. What is not apparent is the underlying class relations of exploitation, the dynamics to which they give rise, and the reasons for them. By the same token, how commodities have been created as use values, with their corresponding attachment to the environment, is no more revealed to us than the geographical origins of the commodity or its dependence (or not) on sweated or child labour – unless they are overtly deployed, legitimately or not, as a selling point.
Not surprisingly, these ‘hidden’ aspects of the commodity, and its systems of production, distribution and exchange, are inevitably brought to our attention from time to time, inducing reactions against them. Struggles against child labour, in order to reveal its incidence and to campaign against it from the point of production through to the point of sale, are after all directed at the nature of humanity and its reproduction in material and cultural respects. By the same token, the reproduction of environmental relations, optimistically dubbed ‘sustainability’, is inevitably a shifting confrontation with a range of aspects of capitalist commodity relations. As long as these relations persist, so will the system of production to which they are attached, with the corresponding tendencies to appropriate, transform and degrade the environment – however much this may be tempered by regulation, which tends to be obstructed or evaded by competitive pressures.
What is socialism, and does it offer better prospects in social, environmental and other respects? Socialist experiments in the twentieth century closely associated themselves with Marx(ism), and were seen as Marxist in popular understanding. However, long before the collapse of the Eastern European bloc, controversy had raged among Marxists over the nature of the Soviet Union, with stances ranging from uncritical support to condemnation as (state) capitalism.
In the event, the Soviet Union, over what is in relative terms a brief historical period, went through a remarkable transformation, well captured in Marx’s notion of primitive accumulation. For what was largely a semi-feudal society, with a large proportion of its workforce in agriculture, succeeded in creating at breakneck speed a wage-labour market and a relatively advanced and well-integrated industrial base. The period since the collapse of the USSR has witnessed the completion of this transition through the re-emergence of a class of capitalists and private ownership of most of the means of production. Some have argued that such an end result was inevitable, given the low initial productive base and the relentless international hostility faced by the Soviet Union throughout its history. Even so, the pace, direction and consequences of such a transition to capitalism were far from predetermined, as is evident from the less cataclysmic, if equally dramatic, adoption of a misnomered ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ in the world’s second largest economy.
Whilst Marx is well known for his criticisms of capitalism as an exploitative system, he is probably just as often thought of as having inspired failed attempts at constructing socialism. Even though there is little work by Marx dealing directly and exclusively with the economics of socialism, Marx does, contrary to much opinion, have a great deal to say on the topic, not least in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Generally, he is less interested in designing utopian blueprints than drawing upon, and extrapolating from, developments within capitalism itself, proceeding in two separate but closely related ways.
First, he sees capitalism as increasingly socialising life – through the organisation of production, the economy more generally, and through state power – but in ways that are fundamentally constrained by the private nature of the market, private property and the imperative of profitability. Competition tends to socialise capitalist production through the increasingly intricate division of labour on the shop floor and in society as a whole. In addition, the increasing role of the state in welfare provision, redistribution and production itself, through planning or nationalised industries, for example, all anticipate some of the economic and social forms of a future socialism. The same applies to the formation of such things as worker co-operatives, with or without state support.
Yet these embryonic forms are inevitably constrained in content, form and even survival by their confinement within capitalist society, the direct or indirect drive for profitability, and the economic and social system that imposes commercial imperatives upon everyone. Some forms of socialisation – the planning of production within large-scale firms to the exclusion of the market, or the broader and deeper role of money through the financial system – have a very different affinity with socialism than have the provision of health, education and welfare by the state. In this respect, the popular slogan ‘people before profit’ expresses socialist values within an acceptance of capitalism, since profit is allowed as long as it is not privileged. Here there is a neat correspondence with Marx’s critique of Proudhon’s notion that ‘property is theft’, for Proudhon both condemns and accepts property (without which there cannot be theft).
Second, then, Marx’s anticipation of socialism derives from the contradictions within capitalism, irrespective of whether these have evolved into embryonic socialist forms. Most notable is the revolutionary role to be played by the working class, with capitalism creating, expanding, strengthening and organising labour for the purposes of production, but necessarily exploiting the working majority and failing to meet their aspirations and potential. In the telling phrase of the Communist Manifesto, ‘what the bourgeoisie … produces, above all, is its own gravediggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.’
Such is the means for socialist revolution. Motivation arises out of the various aspects of exploitation, alienation and human debasement characteristic of capitalism, and how they may be superseded. Under capitalism, the working class is deprived of control of the production process, of its results in products themselves, and of comprehensive knowledge of, and influence upon, the workings of society and its development. The workers are also subjected to severe limitations in their prospects and potential achievements, and continuous upheaval in their living conditions, whose fortunes shift with the ebb and flow of the profit imperative and the fortunes of the economy. This is highly wasteful in economic and, more importantly, in human terms. This has led to workplace resistance and political confrontation and, historically, has provided a powerful stimulus for social reforms and anti-capitalist rebellion.
For Marx, the abolition of capitalism marks the end of the prehistory of human society. However, the transition to communism is neither inexorable nor unavoidable. The social relations at the core of capitalism will change only if overwhelming pressure is applied by the majority. Failing that, capitalism may persist indefinitely, in spite of its rising human and environmental costs. In all cases, the passage to socialism can only be achieved in stages, rather than being magically completed on demand. Its first phase will inevitably be marked by the continuing influence of the heavy historical baggage of capitalism. Marx argues that, at a later stage, when the division of labour and the opposition between mental and manual labour have been overcome, and the development of the productive forces has reached a level that is sufficiently high to permit the all-round development of individuals, the advanced phase of socialism (communism) can be reached. As he put it in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!’
Outstanding Marxian studies of class include Geoffrey de Ste. Croix (1984) and Ellen Meiksins Wood (1998); see also the essays in Socialist Register (2001, 2014, 2015) and Sam Gindin (2015). Marxian theories of the state are reviewed by Ben Fine and Laurence Harris (1979, chs 6, 9); see also Simon Clarke (1991), Bob Jessop (1982, 2012) and Ellen Meiksins Wood (1981, 1991, 2003).
Capitalist ‘globalisation’ is discussed in a vast literature. This section draws on Ben Fine (2002, ch.2), Alfredo Saad-Filho (2003a) and Alfredo Saad-Filho and Deborah Johnston (2005); see also Peter Gowan (1999), Hugo Radice (1999, 2000) and John Weeks (2001). Another set of Marxian studies refers specifically to imperialism; see, for example, Anthony Brewer (1989), Norman Etherington (1984), Eric Hobsbawm (1987), Socialist Register (2004, 2005) and recent issues of Historical Materialism, Monthly Review and New Left Review. The relationship between neoliberalism and globalisation is also discussed in Gerard Duménil and Dominique Lévy (2004, 2011), David Harvey (2005), Ray Kiely (2005a, 2005b, 2012) and Alfredo Saad-Filho (2003c, 2007).
There is a growing literature on the environment and environmental crisis. See, for example, Ted Benton (1996), Finn Bowring (2003), Paul Burkett (1999, 2003), John Bellamy Foster (1999, 2000, 2002, 2009), Les Levidow (2003), Tony Weis (2007, 2013) and Socialist Register (2007). The journals Capitalism, Nature, Socialism and Monthly Review include a wealth of material.
Marx’s comments on socialism and communism can be found mainly in Karl Marx (1974) and Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1998); see also Friedrich Engels (1998, pt.3). This chapter draws upon Ben Fine (1983b). Current debates about socialism are reviewed by Al Campbell (2012), Makoto Itoh (2012), Michael Lebowitz (2003b, 2013), David McNally (2006); see also Michael Perelman (2000), Socialist Register (2000, 2013), and recent issues of New Left Review and Science & Society. The journal Critique has published extensively on the Soviet experience; see also John Marot (2012) and Marcel van der Linden (2007).