 |
| |
|
|
Dracon II
|
 |
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 1970
time: 15:18
|
|
Hey,
I've been re-reading The German Ideology and it has resurfaced several questions I've had about Marxism that have been troubling me for a while.
In western societies the class system hasn't become what Marx predicted. The traditional proletarian classes are doing quite well for themselves, and even own their own property (even if it is from loans). Is this what Marx saw as a "labour aristocracy"?. There is also a non-ownership managerial class that, while satisfying Marx's criteria for proletarian status (they sell their labour to an owning class), appear as reactionary as the bourgeoisie (presumably because their power is dependent on the owning class). The most radical and revolutionary classes seem to be students, who (apart from having part time jobs) don't seem to fit into Marx's schema, and will likely use their qualifications to advance to reactionary class positions. In Australia, tradespeople seem to form a distinctive layer in the cake too...
Can this be explained away by calling them petit bourgeoisie? No, because they are simply middle income owners of their own means, whereas these new classes still have to sell their labour power, and yet this gives them the ability to own their own (though not necessarily productive) private property. Is this due to post-war Keynesianism? Is it an aberration that will pass once global capitalism becomes more firmly rooted? Are these contradictory class positions or is Weber's class system (the unequal distribution of life chances) more applicable.
Or could it be that the class system has simply become international (i.e. Wallerstein)? But then how do dependency theorists explain the rise of newly industrializing economies (i.e. the Asian tigers)?
I have my own suspicions... but I'd like to hear from some of the Marxian Political Economists on this site. I see sense in Marx's historical materialism but I think his predictions failed to grasp the complexity of the future and the prospect of changing material conditions and the rise of new forces of production. Once these questions have been answered I'll move on to my next theoretical question regarding Marx, which concerns culture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dracon II
In western societies the class system hasn't become what Marx predicted. The traditional proletarian classes are doing quite well for themselves, and even own their own property (even if it is from loans).
|
This is because Social Democratic political parties and trade unions used peaceful means to help workers get a piece of the pie. Social welfare is the best example. Marx predicted classes would polarise but what has happened is class differences have been ameliorated. This is why most people in Australia or the US think they are in the middle class, when in fact they are working class.
quote:
Is this what Marx saw as a "labour aristocracy"?.
|
The aristocracy of labour are those workers who have skills which allow them to bargain for better pay and conditions. This would include trades people and technicians - the old artisan class. Many of these people are self employed so they have more in common with the petit bourgeoisie than the working class - or believe they have. Some have become quite wealthy.
quote:
There is also a non-ownership managerial class that, while satisfying Marx's criteria for proletarian status (they sell their labour to an owning class), appear as reactionary as the bourgeoisie (presumably because their power is dependent on the owning class).
|
This group belongs to petit bourgeoisie or lower middle class. They are distinguished by the worst politics according to Marx because they aspire to be part of the middle class but fear falling back into the working class so they despise labour and toady to their bosses and the owners of capital. The religious right in the US and the One Nation movement in Australia are examples. This group also provides your rank and file fascists and storm troopers. Its no accident Pauline Hanson was a shopkeeper.
quote:
The most radical and revolutionary classes seem to be students, who (apart from having part time jobs) don't seem to fit into Marx's schema, and will likely use their qualifications to advance to reactionary class positions.
|
No surprises here either - your revolutionaries are middle class, not working class - the working class is too busy surviving to produce revolutionaries. Lenin, Stalin, Mao were all sons of the middle class. But most, including you probably, eventually recognise their class interest - home ownership, a good career and drop their youthful radicalism. Its when these bourgeois ambitions are thwarted that you get revolutions.
quote:
In Australia, tradespeople seem to form a distinctive layer in the cake too...
|
See above.
quote:
Can this be explained away by calling them petit bourgeoisie? No, because they are simply middle income owners of their own means, whereas these new classes still have to sell their labour power, and yet this gives them the ability to own their own (though not necessarily productive) private property. Is this due to post-war Keynesianism? Is it an aberration that will pass once global capitalism becomes more firmly rooted? Are these contradictory class positions or is Weber's class system (the unequal distribution of life chances) more applicable.
|
See above - Marx nailed it pretty well on the classes - his analysis is still relevant today.
quote:
Or could it be that the class system has simply become international (i.e. Wallerstein)? But then how do dependency theorists explain the rise of newly industrializing economies (i.e. the Asian tigers)?
|
It could be argued that the class system has been internationalised or globalised - you will only find a true Marxist proletariat living under the conditions Marx described in the third world these days. But the class system is replicated on a national basis too and many developing countries are following a similar path of peaceful change, such as the asian tigers.
quote:
I have my own suspicions... but I'd like to hear from some of the Marxian Political Economists on this site. I see sense in Marx's historical materialism but I think his predictions failed to grasp the complexity of the future and the prospect of changing material conditions and the rise of new forces of production. Once these questions have been answered I'll move on to my next theoretical question regarding Marx, which concerns culture. |
Marx still has a lot to offer - I understood Hansonism in classic Marxist terms. But Marx was wrong about the inevitability of the polarisation of class difference and made no allowance for social mobility. The meritocracy and the power of the ballot box, of which Australia is an example par excellence, was something he did not foresee, similarly the rise of the white collar clerical and managerial groups which tend to mediate class difference. But fundamentally he underestimated the ability of the modern economy to deliver higher standards of living to all its citizens, or the technical ability of governments to regulate and bridle capitalism, thuse restraining its potential savagery without having to destroy capitalism to achieve these goals.
Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 09-04-2005 at 06:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsorense
|
|
Alta California, USA
Dec 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Alexander's Horse has many informed comments here. In the 1840's Marx and Ingles could not have immagined the world order of today. The power of liberal democracies to co-opt revolution is amazing. The power of one party socialism (Lenin-Stalinism) to corrupt social justice has been a series of human tragdies, IMHO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
|
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:18
|
|
I was never a "Marxist" but you'd be surprised, or maybe you wouldn't, at how many CEO's, Wall Street types, captains of industry, leaders in government, and the like, are former "students of Marx".
Only a fool or a sad conformist would defend capitalism in their youth. So when you see these kids today come through out of uni with their utilitarian degrees who are always praising the system to ingratiate themselves with their bosses, working till midnight and generally trying to brown nose, I don't think they really have any idea how it sometimes diminishes them in the eyes of their employer 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsorense
|
|
Alta California, USA
Dec 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I was never a "Marxist" but you'd be surprised, or maybe you wouldn't, at how many CEO's, Wall Street types, captains of industry, leaders in government, and the like, are former "students of Marx".
|
Well, no' I wouldn't, but you do not know my background.  But Marxist analyisis is still a very powerfull tool in social, historical, political and anthroplogical analyses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsorense
|
|
Alta California, USA
Dec 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
No, it is not a joke. I cannot tell you how many people I know (social scientists with a conscience) who now work for USAID, World BAnk, IMF, et al. Things have changed, just not radically. Cheers progressive dude. :beer:
Last edited by jsorense on 09-04-2005 at 15:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
In addition to what has already been said:
Marx thought that the bourgeoisie would have to constantly appeal to the proletariat in order to fight its battles with other bourgeoisie or the old aristocracy. By dragging the proletariat into politics, the bourgeoisie paves the way for its own downfall, because workers parties and things like that will start to appear.
But things have turned out somewhat differently. Marx didn't forsee the development of social welfare and so on which allowed the bourgeoisie to appeal to the proletariat without encouraging revolution at all- even when fighting communism. Also, the bourgeosie have managed to keep their own conflicts under control through a variety of methods - the ending of colonialism, international organisations, etc.
The system works both ways, as well. Sometimes, the proletariat is forced to appeal to the bourgeois to fight its battles, often against economic hardship or mismanagement. You see this when you look at all the left-wing parties that have taken the bourgeois on board in order to keep the money flowing - New Labour, Lula, China. The proletariat never really conquered nationalism either, so inter-proletarian conflicts also arise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsorense
|
|
Alta California, USA
Dec 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
:giggle:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
mass orgies?
*looks up local communist party phone number*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
AH pretty well elaborated on a lot of stuff. Also consider that both The German Ideology and The Communist Manifesto are his earlier, less mature works.
Marx failed to foresee several developments in the ecnoomy which allowed the bourgeoisie to buy off the working class.
#1, imperialism (in all its capitalist forms). Imperialism allows capitalists to pay their workers more in the first world by hyper-exploiting workers in the 3rd world. Maoists would say this means that 1st world workers are sharing in the exploitation of 3rd world workers, but it's more accurate to say that 3rd world exploitation means its not as necessary to crush the working class of the 1st world.
#2 Monopoly capitalism. MC isn't as viciously competitive as free market capitalism. Capitalists don't compete by prices, but instead by innovation and advertizing. This stabilizes the market and means that workers have a bit more security.
#3 Social Democracy, Keynes, & the USSR. We are victims of our own success. The existence of the USSR was a nasty shock to the capitalists. Despite its horrors, it showed that the working class could seize power and run a country. This meant that the capitalists had to come to terms with their workers. Labor peace began (and ended) with the existence of the USSR. Social democracy offered itself as an alternative to the USSR and the capitalists grudgingly accepted, and their reforms, and the use of Keynesian ecnomic management reduced the necessity of revolution in the West. Now that the USSR is gone, there is no need of a social democratic alternative, which is why all those parties have more or less become econimic liberals.
Despite all this, the truth is, the proletariet in the U.S., at least, still leads a rather precarious existence. I highly suggest reading Nickle and Dimed to see how a large segment of our society lives. Even those who manage to get good paying jobs live with insecurity. If you lose your job, you lose everything. Look at the devestation in the American rust belt.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-04-2005 04:36
|