Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FORTHCOMING
Philosophical Ethics, Stephen L. Darwall
Philosophy of Science, Clark Glymour
Philosophy of Language, Stephen Neale
Philosophy of Cognitive Science, edited by Barbara Von Eckardt
Normative Ethics, Shelly Kagan
Second Edition
Introduction to
Marx and Engels
A Critical
Reconstruction
Richard Schmitt
BROWN UNIVERSITY
westview
press
All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may
be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, indud-
ing photocopy; recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permis-
sion in writing from the publisher.
Published in 1997 in the United States of America by Westview Press, 5500 Central Avenue,
Bowlder, Colorado 80301-2877, and in the United Kingdom by Westview Press, 12 HJd's
Copse Road, Cumnor Hill, Oxford OX2 9JJ
The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American. National Stan-
dard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials 239.48-1984.
PERSEUS
POD
ON DEMAND 10 9 8 7 6 5
Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
1 HUMAN NATURE 12
Marx and Engels on Human Nature, 13
Species Being, '17
for Further Reading, 21
Notes, 21
2 AGAINST INDIVIDUALISM 23
Tlie Varieties of Individualism, 24
Marx and Engels' Opposition to Individualism, 25
Marx and Engels' Opposition to Collectivism, 28
What Is the Position of Marx and Engels? 30
For Further Reading, 31
Notes, 31
3 HISTORY 32
History as the Transformation of Human Nature, 32
Writing History, 36
For Further Reading, 37
Notes, 37
4 THE DIALECTIC 38
Hegel's Dialectic, 38
Tlie Marxian Dialectic, 41
Historical Explanation, 42
Dialectical Explanations, 45
For Further Reading, SO
Notes, 50
v
vi Contents-
5 HISTORICAL MATERIALISM 52
Forces and Relations of Production, 55
Why Take Historical Materialism Seriously? 61
For Further Reading, 62
Notes, 62
6 MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM 63
Base and Superstructure, 64
The Sources of Self-Evidence, 67
For Further Reading, 69
Notes, 69
7 IDEOLOGY 71
Wart Is Ideology? 73
Ideology and Science, 76
Fetishism, 78
Marx and Ethics, 80
False Consciousness, 84
For Further Reading, 84
Notes, 84
8 CAPITALISM 87
What Is Modern Capitalism ? 91
Other Characteristics of Capitalism, 93
For Further Reading, 99
Notes, 99
9 CAPITALISM AND EXPLOITATION 100
Exploitation, 102
The Classical Marxian Theory of Exploitation, '104
Contemporary Versions of Marx's Theory of Exploitation, 107
For Further Reading, 112
Note,112
to ALIENATION 114
Alienation in Marx's Early Works, 11,4
Worker Alienation, 115
Alienation in the Later Works, 117
Alienation and Freedom, 118
For Further Reading, 124
Notes, 124
Contents vii
Revolution, 211
For Further Reading, 216
Notes, 216
Bibliography 218
About the Book and Author 223
Index 224
Preface to the
Second Edition
This new edition differs in several ways from the first edition
of the Introduction to Marx and Engets. Rereading this book over the years,
I marked passages that seemed to me to demand clarification or to re-
quire a better argument. I have now made those changes. I have also
taken account of the steady stream, of new books and articles on Marx and
Engels and have tried to incorporate some of these new and interesting
interpretations.
Other revisions were needed because my own interpretation of Marx
and Engels has changed as I have continued to read and rethink Marx
and as historical conditions have developed. In 1987, when the first edi-
tion appeared, the looming presence of the Soviet Union provided the
background for any reading of Marx and Engels. In the official version of
Marxism current in the communist countries at that time, Marxism was a
science delineating social processes that shaped all our lives. The under-
standing and activities of people played a small role in that science.
Events in the world were the outcome of impersonal social processes. The
social order inspired by that view of Marxist science was bureaucratic
and oppressive: A world regulated by processes unaffected and impervi-
ous to the thought of all but the experts seemed to justify government by
specialists that neglected the wishes of ordinary citizens. In opposition to
that version of Marxism, the previous edition of this book stressed—one-
sidedly, I believe now—the role played by human understanding and
self-understanding in the unfolding of history. In this present edition, al-
though I still hold that human self-understanding is of signal importance
in Marx's theories, I emphasize that this self-understanding often bears
the imprint of complex social processes that are not always transparent to
the observer. As a consequence, this book is very different from the first
edition, even though some passages remain unchanged.
Since 1987 the Soviet Union and other communist countries have mas-
sively repudiated their previous economic and political systems and have
eagerly embraced some form of capitalism. In the process they have also
ix
x Preface to the Second Edition
Richard Schmitt
Quito, Ecuador
Abbreviated References
xi
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
2
2 Introduction
rhetoric. That ideal remains as attractive as ever. But the road toward its
realization is not so obvious as it seemed to Marx and Engels and. to gen-
erations of their followers.
Marxism as a theory that draws the outline of historical change and
Marxism, as a political program for popular liberation have both been se-
riously compromised by historical events in the past fifty years. If Marx-
ism is to be of any use to us at all, it can no longer be a complete, if very
general, theory of history. Its political program must be rethought and re-
worked in fundamental ways. This requires that we reconsider the theo-
ries of class and of their progressive transformation and that we rethink
the Marxian conception of political change contained in the theory of rev-
olution. We will find that both are much more fragmentary and incom-
plete than many generations of Marxists thought.
But many people believe that it is too late for such reexamination, that
Marxism has been refuted outright. Others think that the events in East-
ern Europe, while not an outright refutation of Marxism, have shown it to
be irrelevant to our world and its problems. Socialism is not on the
agenda in the immediate future, if ever. Capitalism is not facing imminent
collapse. Instead, these theorists add, there are a multitude of problems
that do threaten our world, problems of environmental degradation,
racial and gender inequalities, violence, the resurgence of bitter and
bloody nationalist divisions. But Marx and Engels do not seem to have
addressed these issues at all, or only peripherally. The problems they fo-
cused on are not ours. Their theories, it seems to many belong in a mu-
seum with all those other ideas that were once very influential but have
little bearing on our world and its problems.
But it is too soon to consign Marxism to oblivion. We need Marxism in
order to be able to understand our present institutions, their history, their
strengths and weaknesses. The institutions under which we live face seri-
ous difficulties. The triumph, of capitalism trumpeted by its defenders is
hollow. The capitalist world is stalked by poverty and violence, by injus-
tice and alienation. There is no hope of alleviating these difficulties unless
we subject the basic principles on which our institutions rest to close
scrutiny. Marxism is the most important source available to us for such a
critical self-examination. That is the reason for the continued interest in
Marxism and its influence.
Western democracies are guided by liberal theory. It originated in sev-
enteenth-century England, where it served to protect the interests of a ris-
ing capitalist class against the absolute monarchs of the day. Hence this
theory has two central tenets:
1. Every human being has certain rights that no other person and no
government may infringe on. These rights are of several kinds: civil
6 Introduction
In this century? liberalism split into two branches. The traditional liber-
als, now called "conservatives," put their main emphasis on the auton-
omy of the marketplace from government regulation. Those who have be-
come known as "liberals" are willing to compromise the freedom of the
marketplace to some extent in favor of extending economic, educational,
and health-care rights to all citizens. Modern liberals come down on the
side of extending the list of rights to include such items as the right to rea-
sonable economic security, rights to education and medical care, and the
rights of children to get a good start in life. Conservatives restrict rights to
the more traditional ones—"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happi-
ness"—for the sake of keeping government small and the economy as lit-
tle regulated as possible.
Marx and Engels always had a complex relationship to liberalism. On
the one hand, they were agitating for a free society where differences in
wealth or talent would not oppress those who had less but where all
would be equally free to develop their capacities to the fullest. The first
task of the working class striving to liberate itself, they say in the Commu-
nist Manifesto, is "to win the battle of democracy" (T 490), They not only
supported demands for the familiar human rights but in addition de-
manded rights that the traditional liberal would not accept, such as the
right to economic decisionmaking and economic security. On the other
hand, Marx and Engels were passionately opposed to the second tenet of
traditional liberalism: the belief that a capitalist marketplace is the prefer-
able economic system for all industrial, nations. Although they were fully
aware and appreciative of the enormous power of capitalism to innovate
and to produce wealth, they were also keenly aware of its shortcomings
and vocal in their criticisms of the free-market system. Foremost among
the problems of capitalism is its inability to distribute its blessings fairly.
The wealthiest countries in the world harbor abject poverty. In the period
since World War II, one of the most astonishingly productive periods in
the United States, Japan, and Western Europe, inequalities in the United
States steadily increased.1 Liberal theory, with its central commitment to
free-market mechanisms, can understand these inequalities only as minor
malfunctions of an inherently optimal system. But from Marx we learn
Introduction 7
Karl Marx was bom in Trier, Germany, on May 5, 1818, the descendant
of a long line of rabbis. His uncle was then the chief rabbi of Trier. Marx's
father, Heinrich, had converted to Christianity when new legislation that
excluded Jews from government service threatened his livelihood as a
lawyer. Neither his immediate family nor Marx himself identified them-
selves as Jews. Marx's wife, Jenny, came from a Protestant family in the
Prussian civil service.
Sent to the university, first at Bonn, then in Berlin, to study law, Marx
immersed himself in philosophy and earned a Ph.D. in 1841 in the hope
of obtaining a teaching position at the University in Bonn. But he and his
friends spent a good deal of their energy attacking religion and criticizing
the autocratic political institutions of Prussia—criticisms that were fully
justified. At that time Prussia was ruled by an absolute monarch whose
power was not limited by a constitution, let alone by popularly elected
representatives. The freedoms of speech and religion were not guaran-
teed. The government exercised strict censorship on publications and on
what was taught in the state-run schools. Under those circumstances,
Marx and his friend Bruno Bauer, who attacked religion and argued for
Introduction 9
democratic rights for all citizens, had no chance of getting teaching jobs in
any Prussian university.
Throughout his life, Marx supported himself by his writing. For two
brief periods, in 1844 and again in 1848, he was the editor of a paper; later
he earned some money as correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune
and a number of other publications. For most of his life, he also depended
on financial help from his friends, primarily Friedrich Engels. Even with
this help, he lived in extreme poverty for many years. The biographer of
Marx's daughter Eleanor writes: "Mrs. Marx, who was also often unwell,
spent a good deal of her time running to the pawnbroker to pledge the
linen and plate, her own and her family's personal belongings and attire,
and all such household objects as were not immovable,"3
Marx's poverty was, to be sure, aggravated by his inability to use
wisely the money he did have, as well as by the need to keep up a mini-
mal appearance of being middle class. In the main, however, Marx was
the victim of the illiberal government of his native Prussia, which made it
impossible for him to take up any of the careers for which he was
suited—as teacher, lawyer, or journalist—and instead forced him to leave
Germany. France and Belgium gave him temporary refuge but then ex-
pelled him., at the urging of the Prussian government. Only England,
where he lived after 1850, allowed him and his fellow German political
refugees a place in which to work and scrape together a living as best
they could.
Married in 1841, Marx and his wife, Jenny, had six children. Only three
reached adulthood. The letters that Marx and Jenny wrote to friends re-
porting the death of the other three children remain heartbreaking. Marx
and Jenny were genuinely devoted to each other, even though he had an
illegitimate son. It was also a very unequal relationship. Jenny tran-
scribed her husband's virtually illegible hand into neat copy, went to
meetings and collected articles for him, and supported his political and
scholarly work in other ways—all in addition to bearing six children and
caring for them, often under hard conditions. She died in 1882. Marx fol-
lowed her within the year.
Marx and Engels first met in 1842, when Marx was twenty-four and En-
gels twenty-two. Marx was the editor of a newspaper, Engels a journalist
with an already growing reputation. Born into a fairly well-to-do busi-
ness family of staunch Protestant persuasion, Engels had not gone to uni-
versity but was self-educated. In many respects, Marx and Engels were
very different men; Whereas Marx was mercurial, Engels was even-tem-
pered; whereas Marx was careless with money and his appearance, En-
gels was an astute businessman who was impeccably groomed; whereas
Marx was a family man, Engels, although capable of deep and lasting at-
tachments (for twenty years he had lived with Mary Burns and was
10 Introduction
deeply shaken when she died) never married or had children. Whereas
Engels had the greater facility as a writer, Marx was clearly the deeper
thinker. Both were gifted polemicists, but Marx's prose style at its best is
unmatched by anything that Engels wrote,
Although Marx was very frosty at their first meeting in 1842, by 1844 he
had read a piece by Engels entitled "Outline of a Critique of Political Econ-
omy" that made a deep impression on him. When they met again, they
spent ten days together in conversation, and from that time on they were
allies and close friends until Marx's death in 1883. They wrote two books
together in the next two years. The second of those, the German Ideology, is
of major importance in their thinking. The Communist Manifesto of 1847
was written, by Marx, but its ideas were demonstrably those of both men,
Marx's heavy dependence on Engels' financial support sometimes put
Engels himself in serious straits, but he always came through for his
friend, Marx also owed a good deal to Engels intellectually. As a young
man, Marx was still fighting mainly philosophical battles when Engels,
whose family textile business took him. traveling to England, had begun
to study economics and had gained a firm grasp of the condition of work-
ing people. It was most likely Engels' "Outline of a Critique of Political
Economy" (1843) that gave Marx the impetus to take up the study of eco-
nomics in earnest. Similarly, Engel's Condition of the Working Class in En-
gland (1844) had a significant influence on Marx's thinking. On occasion
Engels provided intellectual and financial support at the same time, Marx
was commissioned to write for the New York Herald Tribune when he was
still somewhat unsure of his English. Engels wrote the first set of articles
published under Marx's name. Their friendship was a source of contin-
ued strength for both men.
By the time Marx died, only the first volume of Capital had been pub-
lished; many versions of the second and. third volumes, none of them
complete, were contained in Marx's notebooks. Engels chose the material
for the second and third volumes of Capital from those notebooks and
edited them, into the form in which we now know them. Engels wrote
about eighty pages of volume 3.
Both Marx and Engels were seriously involved in radical politics. Dur-
ing the 1847-1848 revolutions, both returned to the Continent from, En-
gland, and Engels actually took part in some of the fighting in Germany,
They were active in the Communist League founded in 1847, for which
they wrote the Communist Manifesto, They were members of the First In-
ternational, an international socialist organization founded in 1864, in
which Marx soon came to occupy a position of leadership and to which
he devoted the bulk of his time for the next six or seven, years. In his later
years, Engels, besides working full time in his family business in Man-
chester in order to keep the Marx family and himself going, spent much
Introduction 11
Notes
1. Lawrence R. Mishe! and David Frankel, The State of Working America (Wash-
ington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 1,991).
2. Lawrence R. Mishel and jared Bernstein, The State of Working America (Wash-
ington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 1994).
3. Yvonne Kapp, Eleanor Marx, vol. \ (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1972), p. 27.
4. One example of that reading is Norman Levine, The Tragic Deception: Marx
Contra Engels (Oxford: Clio Books, 1975). Readers interested in a more detailed
discussion of the relations between Marx and Engels will find a balanced account
in Terrell Carver, Marx and Engels: The Intellectual Relationship (Bloomington: Indi-
ana University Press, 1983).
1
Human Nature
12
Human Nature 13
exists at all but also to argue that capitalism is good or better suited to
human nature than other economic systems.
In more restricted forms, appeals to human nature are used to defend
social stratification: We say that the traditional position of women is Justi-
fied because women have certain unchangeable characteristics: They are
weak; they are emotional; they are better caretakers than men, who are
aggressive and competitive. Similarly sweeping claims are often made
about persons of color to justify their greater rates of poverty, low-wage
jobs, and high rates of incarceration. Here the appeal is not to alleged
facts about the nature of all human beings but only of some important
groups of human beings. But the central structure of all these arguments
is the same. Certain institutions are explained and justified by reference to
a set of traits that some or all human beings are said to possess regardless
of the particular society in which they live: Men cannot help lording it
over women, and women's nature just fits them for their position. White
people, it is claimed, are indeed superior to persons of color because
white human nature is different from the nature of persons of color.
In similar ways the appeal to human nature justifies political institu-
tions: Thomas Jefferson, one of the great theorists in the liberal tradition,
rested important features of the American political system, on the claim
that all human beings have innate rights, (Animals are presumably differ-
ent—they do not have rights,) Other liberal theorists have made similar
claims, saying that human beings possess rights by their very nature.
Those rights in turn determine what a good form of government is:
Democracy respects human rights; dictatorship does not. Hence democ-
racy is good and dictatorship is not. The basis of that claim, is, once again,
a conception of human nature,
In the eighteenth century, in the writings of John Locke, Thomas Jeffer-
son, and Thomas Paine, the appeal to human nature, with its innate
rights, provided an argument for more democratic institutions and for
freeing commerce from government supervision. In the nineteenth cen-
tury many socialists argued, against capitalism by asserting that human
beings are by nature cooperative. In our time portrayals of human nature
tend to justify social and economic conditions as they are. Arguments re-
garding human nature have been used to defend the status quo as well as
to attack it.
1. In, producing the particular goods that a group needs, its members
produce the particular ways in which they go about meeting their
Human Nature 15
material needs; they produce "their actual material life," Thus, for
example, people who farm not only create farm products but also
determine their worklife to be that of farmers.
2. But this worklife determines their entire way of life. Farmers are dif-
ferent from urban dwellers not only in that they farm, rather than
working in offices or factories; they are different in all sorts of other
ways. Country life as a whole is different from city life and breeds
different people than does city life. The pace of life in the country is
slower, and the people who live there tend to be relatively conserva-
tive and resist change. The pace in the city is more frenetic; urban
dwellers are likelier to welcome change and are less rooted.
3, People who live differently are different people: "As individuals ex-
press their life, so they are." So it makes no sense to claim that all
human beings are greedy or competitive, for people who live in sit-
uations where people regularly compete with each other will turn
out to be competitive. People living in societies organized around
different customs will turn out to be different
physical courage of the feudal lord, "Honor" is a word not much in use
today because it no longer counts for much. Instead we talk about "credi-
bility," Being honorable does not matter in the commercial world as long as
people think they can trust you. The appearance of trustworthiness is more
important than actually being honorable and trustworthy. Thus various
levels of technology are at the root of various kinds of societies and call for
various types of personalities and systems of values.
Without doubt Marx's aphorism oversimplifies the connections be-
tween technology and social orders and their dominant personality types,
but the basic claim is worth taking seriously: In different societies with
different levels of technology and therefore contrasting forms of social or-
ganization, people have diverse values and think very differently about
what sorts of individuals they want to or ought to be.4
Early in his work, in his "Theses on Feuerbach," Marx wrote that
the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In, its
reality it is the ensemble of the social relations. (T145}
This passage is usually understood as denying that there is any such
thing as a universal human nature. Marx is said to have rejected the con-
cept of an overarching human nature. But that, of course, does not make
any sense. In the discussions I have quoted in this chapter, Marx repeat-
edly distinguishes between animals and human beings and makes any
number of claims about human nature. Marx and Engels do not deny that
there are continuities in human development or that if we describe
human traits broadly enough we may find some that belong to all human
beings. They are even willing to say that what distinguishes human be-
ings from animals is their ability to determine what it means to be a
human being. The method of historical comparison that Marx and Engels
advocated for studying the history of human nature does make use of
some generalizations about human beings. Human beings, for instance,
have needs, and their actions are in part driven by these needs. But of
course these needs vary from society to society. Human beings plan and
think, but how they go about doing that depends upon the culture in
which they live. Insisting on the variability of human nature as well as on
human self-creation does not foreclose the possibility that there may be
some universal features of human beings.5 But by comparing human be-
ings in different historical periods, we see that what are usually thought
to be universal traits are specific characteristics that belong only to per-
sons in a limited span of human history.6
Private interest is itself already interest shaped by a society. It can only be at-
tained under conditions laid down by the society and with means the society
provides. (G, 74)
Human Nature 17
The upshot of these observations is that human beings not only produce
things but they produce themselves as well, and as people produce their
livelihoods in different ways, so they make themselves into different peo-
ple. People are endlessly different from one another, although they are all
humans. Their differences are not fortuitous; they result from processes
under human control and are produced by these human beings them-
selves. As a consequence, claims about universal human nature, about
traits possessed by all human beings in all cultures, are not likely to be
true. If there is a universal human essence, it is not at all clear what it con-
sists of. Hence we must be skeptical of political arguments meant to show
that some particular economic, social, or political system, is the best be-
cause it is best suited to universal human nature.
It is far from clear what the process of human self-production looks
like. Several chapters of this book will, be required to explicate this con-
ception. We will need to see that human beings do not make themselves
into who they are individually but only in large groups. We will also need
to see that the process of human self-creation is only rarely a conscious
one. Instead, it results from individual and group actions undertaken for
purposes other than creating a particular form of human society and the
sorts of people that make such a society flourish. Finally, we shall see that
the effect of human beings on their social environment is reciprocal; the
environment also affects human beings in important ways.
Species Being
From these reflections emerges a concept of human nature that Marx
summarizes by saying that humans are "species beings";
Human beings are species beings, not only because in practice and in theory
they adopt the species as their object.., but also because they treat them-
selves as the actual, living species.... The animal is immediately identical
with its life-activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. It is its life-activity.
Human beings make their life-activity itself the object of their will and of
their consciousness. (EPM, T 7-5-76)
ately needs for itself or its young.... It produces only under the dominion of
immediate physical need, whilst human beings produce even when they are
free from physical need. (EPM, T 76)
Animals build their dwellings and do whatever else they do compelled
by need; human beings act even when they are not compelled by need
but because they first thought about the action and then chose to perform
it. Later, in the first volume of Capital, Marx makes that point much more
explicitly:
A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts
to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells, But what distin-
guishes the worst architect .from the best of bees is this, that the architect
raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. (CI, T 344)
One can read these passages to say that Marx distinguishes animals from
human beings by the fact that human beings plan their actions before
they perform them, whereas animals act from instinct.7 That is no doubt
what the passage says. But is that all that it says? This interpretation does
not tell us what Marx means by "species being." It is incomplete.
Other commentators add, that, according to Marx, human beings create
their own needs: "The satisfaction of the first need . . . leads to new needs;
and this production of new needs is the first historical act" (GI, T 156).
Human beings are species beings because they are able to change them-
selves—for instance, by creating new needs.8
The passage does not explain further what is meant by "the production
of new needs," but elsewhere Marx speaks of it in very modern terms:
Under private property their significance [viz. of human needs] is reversed:
every person speculates on creating a new need in another, so as to... place
him in a new dependence and to seduce him into a new mode of gratification
and therefore economic ruin, (EPM, T 93)
Acting with foresight, human beings not only plan their lives and ac-
tions but also change human nature, for example, by creating new needs,
But we also change human nature in other ways, for instance, by accus-
toming people to work by the clock rather than by the sun and the sea-
sons. Marx quotes Dr. Ure, an economist contemporary with Marx, dis-
cussing the invention and introduction of mechanical spinning machines:
The main difficulty did not, to my apprehension, lie so much in the invention
of a proper self-acting mechanism [viz. an industrial machine]... as in train-
ing human beings to renounce their desultory habits of work, and to identify
themselves with the unvarying regularity of the complex automaton,'
Notes
1. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
(New York: Modem, Library, 1985), p. 17.
2. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy (New York International Publishers, 1963), p. 147,
3. All quotations from. Marx and Engels, unless otherwise stated, have been
taken from Robert C. Tucker, ed,, The Marx-Engels Rtader, 2nd ed. (New York: W.
W, Norton, 1978). References to this book, abbreviated "T," appear in parentheses
along with the appropriate page numbers; preceding each such reference is an ab-
breviation indicating the name of the work by Marx and/or Engels in which the
quotation was originally found. For a list of these abbreviations, see the front of
this volume,
4. There is a further premise implicit in this claim that Marx does not argue for:
Human beings—their very nature—are shaped, by their beliefs about what it means
to be a human being. That belief is discussed in more detail in the subsequent sec-
tion in connection with Marx's assertion that humans are "species beings."
5. Peter W. Archibald, Marx and the Missing Link: "Human Nature" (Atlantic
Highlands, N.JL: Humanities Press, 1989).
6. Thus the pursuit of private interest is said to animate economic activities in a
capitalist society, Marx does not deny that. In a capitalist society, interests are usu-
ally the interests of separate persons. But Marx also points out that this feature of
capitalist society is itself a social fact—a fact about how our society is organized,
What is more, the pursuit of private interest is possible only in a social system
where there is a market, with exchanges and prices set by supply and demand.
7. John McMurtry, Tfx Structure of'Marx's World-View (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1978), chapter 1.
22 Human Nature
8. Allen E. Buchanan, Marx and Justice (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allenheld,
1982), pp. 27-28.
9. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, p. 141.
10. Missionaries in the Amazon rainforest report that the indigenous people get
up at 3 A.M. and then sit and talk until about 9 before they go to work in their gar-
dens. Often they interrupt their work to sit down for long conversations. Jose Ar-
naJot ("Chuint"), Lo Que los Achuar me han Ensefiado (What the Achuar have taught
me) (Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala, 1992).
2
Against Individualism
23
24 Against Individualism
those different senses before summarizing Marx's and Engels' reasons for
rejecting individualism.
1. Every human being is valuable, has certain rights, and deserves re-
spect from other human beings merely by virtue of being human. As
such, each individual has the right to develop his or her abilities to
the fullest That society is best which furthers individual self-devel-
opment the most.
2. Individual persons are important in their own right and need not
yield to the demands of the group—whatever the group may be in
any given case. The idea that, on the contrary, the needs and inter-
ests of groups must take precedence over those of individuals is
often referred to as "collectivism.."
3. Human beings, however dependent on family and social groups
they were in their youth, are able to and therefore ought to emanci-
pate themselves from the tutelage of their society. Each person
should think for him- or herself, form his or her own life-plan and
moral values and live by those. Individualism here asserts that
human beings should be autonomous.
from those of the individuals that make up any group. The greatness of a
nation depends not only on its leaders but also on the excellence of its in-
stitutions. The history of a nation is not only the history of its citizens and
their leaders but the history of the exploits of an entire people, the accom-
plishments of its governments, the splendors of its culture. History
records the deeds not only of individuals but also of collectives, such as
states, cultures, and peoples.
A third kind of individualism is methodological. That means that we do
not worry about the building blocks of social life but only ask what a
complete explanation of any historical event would look like. The method-
ological individualist believes that "all social phenomena . . . are in prin-
ciple explicable in ways that involve only individuals."1 The opposite
view, methodological collectivism, maintains that when we explain social
events our explanations need to refer not only to the characteristics, ac-
tions, and beliefs of individuals but also to the social structures in which
alone the actions of individuals are possible or make sense,
The desires and interests of human beings cannot be taken at face value
but are themselves shaped by the prevailing social structures. Here the
debate is not over whether only individuals exist but over the correct ex-
planation of economic behavior and, economic systems. The debate
moves from normative or social to methodological individualism. Taking
a historical view, Marx finds methodological individualism indefensible.
Much social theory, then and now, explains what happens in a given soci-
ety exclusively by the actions, beliefs, interests, and desires of individual
persons. But Marx and Engels believe that in one's explanations of eco-
Against Individualism 27
nomic systems one cannot stop with the interests of individuals because
those interests themselves have a history. This history is not just a history
of individual persons but a history of institutions or large groups and
their practices. One can understand why individuals have certain inter-
ests only if one studies the history of the social institutions in which those
individuals live.
The modern tendency to explain social processes in terms of individual
interests and desires has its own history. Methodological individualism is
a fairly recent development. It became popular only with the rise of capi-
talist society because that society attenuated the connections between the
individual and, the social whole. Society is now organized differently
from how it was organized in feudal times; individuals are more or less
independent of the social context. The individual who is what he or she
is, largely independent of his or her social setting, is a modern phenome-
non. Human beings have not always thought of themselves as "individu-
als" and have therefore not always been individuals in the sense in which
we who live in a capitalist society are individuals.
The more deeply we go back into history, the more does the individual, and
hence also the producing individual, appear as dependent, as belonging to a
greater whole: in a still quite natural way in the family, and in the family ex-
panded into the clan; then later in various forms of communal society arising
out of the antitheses and fusions of the clans. Only in the 18th century, in
"civil society/' do the various forms of social connectedness confront the in-
dividual as mere means towards his private purposes, as external necessity.
(G, T 222-223)
The term "civil society" refers to the capitalist economy, the sphere of
private economic activity, competition, and pursuit of profit and wealth.
In this particular social setting, individuals are indeed distinct from one
another because each is in competition with the other. Family ties, social
connections, and traditions are for the individual so many "means to-
wards his private purposes" to be used and manipulated. They are no
longer of the essence of what that person is.
In this society of free competition, the individual appears detached from the
natural bonds, etc. which in earlier historical periods make him the accessory
of a definite and limited human conglomerate. (G, T 222)
In earlier times the very identity of a person was constituted by social
connections. Property ownership consisted of membership in a commu-
nity. In those times methodological individualism—the belief that indi-
viduals, their characteristics, actions, and beliefs can yield complete ex-
planations of social phenomena—would have made no sense whatsoever.
We encounter here one example of the thesis that all of human history
28 Against Individualism
lectivism often provides the political rhetoric for oppressive regimes that
violate individual integrity.
But Marx emphatically rejected collectivism in its normative sense; He
believed normative individualism to be all-important. His persistent criti-
cism of capitalism, was that it cripples people: The division of labor pro-
duces persons who can do only one thing (CI, T 409) rather than being
fully developed in as many respects as possible. In an ideal society, the in-
dividual would be fully developed (G, T 287, 290; GI, T 160). Proletarians
in a capitalist society lack freedom because their work is under the control
of the owners of the workplace and because political power is in the
hands of the owners of the means of production. (For a further discussion
of that point, see Chapters 11 and 14.) In the good society, work will be
under the control of everyone together. The workers will be free because
they control the means of production and therefore their worklife (GI, T
191). They will have political freedom because they will run their lives
democratically. The goal of the revolution that Marx and Engels work for
and advocate is full individual human freedom (CIII, T 441). The well-
being of individual persons, their full and all-sided development, their
freedom are the highest values for Marx and Engels,
Accordingly, they were also hostile to social collectivism because it fre-
quently gives support to normative collectivism.
Just as society itself produces human beings as human beings, so is society pro-
duced by them,.,. What is to be avoided above all is the reestablishing of
"Society" as an abstraction vis a vis the individual. (EPM, T 86)
Unfortunately, Marx was not always sufficiently cautious in his expres-
sion. We already cited the following sentence in the preceding chapter;
But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual.
In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations. (T 145}
Thus states the "Sixth Thesis on Feuerbach," one of a set of notes in which
Marx first articulated his disagreements with Ludwig Feuerbach.2 The
passage seems to tell us that a person is nothing but the product of social
relations, and it has often been interpreted in that way. The individual
vanishes as insignificant; social relations appear to be what matters. This
is certainly an example of social collectivism. But most likely Marx over-
stated his position in these aphorisms, which received a more moderate
formulation in the German Ideology;
We do not mean it to be understood... that, for example, the rentier, the cap-
italist, etc. cease to be persons; but their personality is conditioned and deter-
mined by quite definite class relations. (GI, T 199}
Marx's more carefully considered position seems to be the following:
Every person is unique, and so, of course, is the capitalist. But in order to
30 Against Individualism
When Marx and Engels say, therefore, that we human beings create our-
selves, the "we" does not refer to you and. me as distinct and separate indi-
viduals. Marx and Engels insisted that "individuals . . . do not make
themselves" (GI, T 164). But neither are Marx and Engels treating social
systems as superpersons. They are saying something much more modest:
People's beliefs and actions are molded in significant ways by the prac-
tices characteristic of their societies. For instance, persons living in com-
petitive societies that value individual initiative are likely to think of
themselves in much more individualistic terms than persons living in a
society where collective action and responsibility shape daily practices.
But individuals are not Just the passive recipients of social influence. To a
significant extent we can be aware of and consider critically the influences
of society on each of us. The practices and institutions of any given soci-
ety that shape its members are themselves maintained and altered in the
day-to-day activities of these members. Often they do this without being
aware of these consequences of their actions. At other times they set
about deliberately to change institutions or practices. These actions are, of
course, the actions of individuals, but they affect practices or institutions
only if they are done by many individuals over long periods of time.
In Chapters 4 and 5 we will discuss in much greater detail how social
settings influence the actions and thoughts of individual persons. We will
see that nothing said so far implies that human choices are necessitated
by social contexts or that human beings are not free agents. Then, in
Chapter 16, we will explore the conception of socialism in Marx and En-
gels, which gives an important place to the development of the individu-
ality of all persons. Marx and Engels never reject normative individual-
ism—the ethical appreciation of individual worth. They affirm without
reservation that all individual persons are valuable in their own right.
But first we need to say more about history, in the course of which
human beings determine what a human life is.
Notes
1. Jon Elster, Making Sense of Marx (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press,
1985), p. 5.
2. Feuerbach was a contemporary of Marx whose critiques of Hegel made a
major impression on Marx in the early 1840s.
3
History
32
History 33
In a capitalist society, where anything you might want you can buy, the
identity of a person is determined by money. You can go to the plastic sur-
geon, the hairdresser, the public relations expert to turn you into a differ-
ent person. New clothes, new interests, new fads, new ideas can easily be
adopted and make you over into a person quite different from what you
were only a short while ago. This process of identity formation is totally
different from what persons in feudal societies experienced.
The nature of moral codes has also changed:
During the time that the aristocracy was dominant, the concepts honour, loy-
alty, etc., were dominant, during the dominance of the bourgeoisie, the con-
cepts freedom, equality, etc. [played the central role]. (GI, T173)
In a feudal society, war, fought with swords and shields, was the business
of the upper classes. Political relations between king and nobles, between
landowners and peasants were based on personal relations, rooted in re-
lations between families. For the warlike, honor was a supreme value. In
the relations between persons that rested in the relations between fami-
lies, loyalty and steadfastness counted for a great deal In a highly mobile
society like ours, where many of the relations are exchange relations be-
tween people who do not know each other at all, neither honor nor loy-
alty has an important place. But the transactions in the marketplace pre-
suppose certain kinds of freedom and equality. Those conditions are
therefore much more important than honor and loyalty.
Needs are similarly subject to historical change: Hunger is hunger,
but the hunger gratified by cooked meat eaten with a knife and fork is a dif-
ferent hunger from that which bolts down raw meat with the aid of hand,
nail and tooth. (G, T 230)
Discussions about basic human needs tend to be very abstract. In actual-
ity, the need for food is always embedded in the concrete practices con-
cerned with providing, preparing, and eating food. In any given setting,
people are not simply hungry; they are hungry for particular foods pre-
pared and served in specific ways. Travelers in foreign countries will go
for a considerable time with little food rather than eat strange food under
conditions that seem unappetizing to them. They are "not hungry." In
similar ways needs for shelter or for love and companionship change sig-
History 35
Writing History
Implicit in the disagreement between Marx and the proponents of individ-
ualism is a disagreement about the study and writing of history. The
methodological individualist insists that we must always try to explain
events by providing accounts of individual persons and their behavior
and thought. The Allied victory over Adolf Hitler in World War II is essen-
tially the history of Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph
Stalin; the history of capitalism is the history of, say, Andrew Carnegie,
John D. Rockefeller, and Henry Ford. Events that cannot be accounted for
by the actions of singular individuals are explained by natural conditions
or disasters: geography and climate, droughts or typhoons, Marx counters
that we cannot understand the contributions of individuals unless we also
understand the effects of the socioeconomic system on them. History must
study the acts of individuals as well as the effects of the social settings on
these acts. It must also study the transformation of entire social systems.
Marx and Engels do not think that the methodological individualist's
history is false but that it is incomplete. Of course individual action ac-
counts for a great deal in history. Individuals go about solving their
everyday problems. They also make plans for the future and try to learn
from their past. These lessons affect their plans, and all of that accounts
for what human beings do. Often the problems to be solved result from
geography and climate and natural disasters. All of this individual effort
accounts for a great deal of what happens in history. We cannot write his-
tory without writing the history of the actions of individual persons. So
far Marx and Engels' approach to historical explanation is no different
from those offered by individualism. But the individualist stops here,
whereas Marx and Engels want to raise additional questions.
Speaking very generally, human beings have similar problems in differ-
ent historical periods: They need to provide food and shelter for them-
selves and. their families. But in different periods they go about solving
those problems in very different ways. In order to provide food for my
children, I need money. If I need money today, I may try to find a job or to
borrow money or to go and hold up a bank. For a feudal serf the options
were quite different: There were no banks and hence borrowing from a
bank or stealing from it were not options. Neither was hiring yourself out
for work because the society did not have the institution of working for
pay. Money did not play as important a role in economic life as it does
today, so that the serf who needed more food probably did not primarily
think, "I need more money." He might have tried to steal food or to work
History 37
harder on his plot of land and spend less time working for the feudal lord
that owned the land—if he could get away with that. In different histori-
cal settings the problem of getting more food looks different. Because
people live under different social systems, their problems take different
forms and so, therefore, do their attempted solutions. Hence if we want to
understand history, we need not only understand what individual per-
sons do but how the social system in which they live defines their prob-
lems and provides a limited range of options to solve those problems.
Historical explanations are incomplete if they refer only to the forces of
nature and to the actions of individuals.
But that disagreement with an individualist approach to history brings
with it further questions. Explanations of historical events require that we
take account of different historical systems. But how do we identify social
systems? Marx differentiates historical systems by the methods and. orga-
nization of production; Capitalism differs from feudalism because it uses
other technology and the process of production is organized in other
ways. But historians identify historical periods according to various crite-
ria: They talk about the pagan and Christian eras if they think that peo-
ple's actions at those times are best understood as an outgrowth of their
religious beliefs and. practices. Others identify historical periods by the
peoples who dominated them: Antiquity was dominated by the Greeks
and then the Romans, feudalism by the Holy Roman Empire, the nine-
teenth century by Britain, and our present century by the United States.
In each of these periods, historical explanation refers us to the dominant
peoples and to the peculiar characteristics of their civilization. We will see
in Chapter 5 how Marx divides history into periods,
Other questions have to do with how we explain the rise and fall of
these different civilizations or historical periods. There are two questions
here: The first is a general question about the way in which we should
frame explanations of historical events. Marx touches on that in his scat-
tered remarks about the "dialectic." The second is about the specific
causes that account for the rise and decay of civilizations. Marx's answer
to that is contained in his doctrine that is usually referred to as historical
materialism. I discuss the dialectic in the next chapter and historical mate-
rialism in the chapter after that.
For Further Reading
Vernon Venable, Human Nature: Tin* Marxian View (New York: Meridian Books,
1966), chapter 7,
Notes
1. Marx, TIte Poverty of Pkilosojjln/ (New York International Publishers, 1963), p. 147.
2. Frederick Engels, Lmiwig Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philos-
ophy (New York; International Publishers, 1941), p. 48.
4
The Dialectic
Hegel's Dialectic
Hegel's dialectic served a specific philosophical purpose—namely, to rec-
oncile religion, specifically Christianity, with science as it was rapidly de-
veloping. In the past basic questions about nature had been given reli-
gious answers: What is the origin of the universe? Answer: God created
the heavens and the earth in six days. What keeps the planets in their pre-
cise orbits? Answer: God maintains the universe from moment to mo-
ment. What accounts for the different kinds of plants and animals? An-
swer: God created each kind. And so on. But the work of Johannes Kepler,
Galileo, and Isaac Newton provided an alternative answer to the question
about the planets. This answer was based on observation and did not pre-
suppose the existence of a deity. The origins of the earth and the multi-
tude of species of plants and animals were soon to be accounted for in
similarly secular terms. It was clear to Hegel that the harmony between
the knowledge of nature and religion, which had lasted for a long time,
was about to collapse. Science and Christianity were coming into conflict.
38
The Dialectic 39
1. The world is not completely identical with God, but it is divine inso-
far as it is a manifestation of the divine. Thus any particular phase in
the history of nature or of human beings is not simply God but a
particular aspect of the divine nature,
2. The world changes, and, in its changes God develops,
3. The development proceeds through a complex set of stages.
4. Each stage represents one aspect of the divine nature, but insofar as
it represents only one aspect, it is incomplete and hence defective.
5. Each stage is therefore replaced by a new stage that develops what
was lacking in the preceding stage,
6. The stages, as they follow one another, are in opposition to each,
other, for each provides what was lacking in the preceding one.
7. Successive stages are therefore at the same time opposed to one an-
other and are not just similar but identical. This claim, more than
any other, gives readers of Hegel trouble, as we shall see shortly.
8. Oppositions between two stages are resolved in a new stage that
preserves what is worth preserving in the two preceding ones and
surrenders what should be surrendered.
with, God is infinite; the world in which we live is finite, God is perfect;
much in our world is defective. God is good, but there is a great deal of
pain and evil and ugliness in our world. What is more, the explanations
science offers are just as incompatible with a religion that tells us of a God
indwelling in the world whose history is world history as they are with
the more familiar religion, with its transcendent God. Any explanation of,
say, the origin of the solar system or the evolution of Homo sapiens that
explains those as acts of God are incompatible with science. Hegel's move
from a transcendent, forever complete God to an indwelling God that is
developing does not suffice to smoothe over the contradictions between
science and religion.
Here a second characteristic of the dialectic comes in. For Hegel, the di-
alectic is a kind of logic that is superior to the more familiar, formal logic.
In formal logic statements such as "God created man in his own image"
and "'Human beings evolved from monkeys" are contradictory because
one asserts that God is the creator and the other asserts implicitly that
God is not the creator. According to the rules of ordinary, formal logic
only one of these statements can be true. But if Hegel is going to reconcile
science and religion, he has to make room for acceptance of both of these
statements.
Hegel attempts to do that by regarding the scientific view of the world as
one more perspective, one more stage in the history of God. It is important
to understand the term "perspective" properly, Hegel does not merely as-
sert that science has its point of view as does religion. (That is the sort of
thing some so-called Creationists say today—that people have their differ-
ent points of view and it is inappropriate to ask which one is true.) No,
Hegel claims that these perspectives are both true though logically incom-
patible. Implicit in such a claim is a purely logical claim, namely, that con-
tradictory statements-—"God created humans" and "God did not create hu-
mans"—can both be true under some conditions because they represent
different perspectives on the same matter. The first statement comes out the
religious perspective; the second out of the perspective of science. Hegel
refers to this logical doctrine as "the identity of opposites."
Such an explanation of the compatibility of religion and science is ac-
ceptable from the dialectical point of view (in Hegel's sense of dialectic)
but not from the point of view of natural science. Looked at from the sci-
entific point of view, the story of the creation is not an earlier scientific hy-
pothesis, later replaced by the theory of evolution in biology and the big
bang theory in cosmology. The story of creation is not science at all; it is a
religious myth. Even less acceptable to the scientist would be the view
that natural science is itself a limited view of the world that from, a differ-
ent perspective, could be seen as one very partial manifestation of the di-
vine history—for on that account science would be an imperfect version
of Hegel's religious view of the universe.
The Dialectic 41
It still appears that natural science cannot be fitted into the dialectic be-
cause the explanations it gives are not dialectical. Science sticks strictly to
formal logic where statements are either true or false. It does not accept the
claim that contradictory statements may be reconciled once they are under-
stood to be different perspectives on one and the same subject. Hegel recog-
nized that difficulty and distinguished between the formal logical thinking
of science and the dialectical thinking of speculative philosophy.
In the interest of his reconciliation of the divine and science, Hegel
claims that formal logic is, to be sure, the logic of science; but from the
point of view of the whole—that is, from the divine point of view—we see
that what science regards as distinct and irreconcilably contradictory per-
spectives are in fact only dialectical contradictions, imperfect views that in
the future will be reconciled. The concept of contradiction is being rede-
fined here. In formal logic a contradiction consists of two sentences that
cannot both be true or both be false (at the same time, in the same respect)
because one is the denial of the other. In the Hegelian dialectic, two contra-
dictories may both be true because each, being only a one-sided view of
divine reality, is only partially true anyway. Thus dialectic is, indeed, a
logic different from formal logic and one that is, according to Hegel, supe-
rior to formal logic. In this way science is assigned its place in the grand
philosophical view of the universe as a partial view of that universe.
Historical Explanation
In the voluminous notebooks for Capital that were published in the 1930s
under the name of Grundrtsse ("basic plan"), Marx entered some sketchy
The Dialectic 43
We can see how objects become capital under certain social conditions
only if we undertake some historical comparisons. We need to observe,
for instance, that in different periods people solve apparently similar
problems in different ways. Capitalists trying to increase their income
have a number of options, such as introducing a new product, introduc-
ing new technologies, or lowering their production costs by cutting
wages or moving their production to an area of the world that has lower
wage costs. But all of these will require investing some new capital. In
order to make more money in a capitalist society, you need more capital.
Not so in a feudal society. In feudal societies the powerful, extracted
wealth from the peasants who farmed their land. To get more income, the
The Dialectic 45
feudal lord needed more land. But he could not buy that land because
land was not for sale. He could only conquer it by going to war. Hence
feudal kings, princes, and knights tried to increase their resources by em-
ploying military power. More capital would not have been of much use
because there was no land that new capital could have paid for, nor were
there additional wage laborers waiting to be hired with this new capital.7
If we are to understand the reasons for the capitalists' strategies, we need,
Marx believes, to understand the reasons for the very different strategies
used by kings, popes, and princes in feudal systems. A complete under-
standing of capitalism requires not only a model of fully developed capi-
talist economies but an understanding of the history of the transforma-
tion of feudal into capitalist economic and social institutions.
Dialectical Explanations
In order to gain such a historical understanding of the antecedents of cap-
italism, we need some general ideas about the ways in which institutions
change over the course of many years as well as how they maintain them-
selves in the midst of change or why they do not change faster. Here Marx
leans heavily on some of Hegel's insights about the gradual transforma-
tions of institutions that are not brought about deliberately but are the
consequences of the actions of individual persons or small groups in the
process of trying to solve everyday problems'—hence Marx's open
avowal of his use of the dialectic.
The preceding chapters have provided the basic ideas of this dialectical
understanding of the maintenance and /or change of institutions. On the
one hand, we saw that Marx and Engels insist that human beings make
their own history. The history of human beings is not made by institu-
tions or God or some superindividual entities like economic systems,
providence, destiny, or national character. It is made by human beings. I
discussed at some length what Marx and Engels meant by that claim. On
the other hand, we also saw that what human beings can do, at any par-
ticular moment, is limited by the institutions that emerged as a conse-
quence of the choices and actions of previous generations and that struc-
ture the lives of the persons living. We have seen many examples of that:
The choices of individual actors are limited by the tools and techniques of
production available to them. We have seen in the preceding chapter how
changes in the modes of production tend to bring about changes in the re-
lation to one's work, changes in values, and changes not only in the iden-
tities of people but even of what personal identity consists.
How do institutions come to be and change? The explanation must al-
ways consist of telling stories of what particular people did. How did
early cities arise? Some people found a convenient harbor and built their
46 The Dialectic
houses there because they traded up and down the coast. Other cities grew
up at convenient fords over a major river or in places where runaway serfs
found relative security and work. In all of these different ways, because
particular persons did particular things, cities came to be, and the people
who lived in cities developed, their city ways and urban institutions.
These new institutions were not set up deliberately. Serfs did not run
away from their lord's manor in order to found cities or make them grow.
That was an unintended consequence of their choice.
For what each individual wills is obstructed by everyone else, and
what emerges is something that no one intended.8
But why did their actions have these particular consequences rather
than very different ones? After all, the movement front the countryside to
the city continues into our time. In many developing countries, the mech-
anization of agriculture and the introduction of new seeds, fertilizers, and
techniques reduces the need for agricultural laborers and therefore brings
with it massive movements of the population from the countryside to the
big cities. But these developments today do not give rise to flourishing
cities but to large shantytowns that breed misery and disease. Contempo-
rary urban migration does not make cities more splendid but less man-
ageable, more dangerous, and unhealthful. Thus urbanization takes di-
verse forms and has diverse consequences according to social and
economic context.
A complete explanation of historical events thus must not stop with ex-
planations of the actions of individuals and their consequences but must
also include references to the institutional framework necessary for un-
derstanding why these individual actions have these particular conse-
quences. Urbanization in late-twentieth-century Central or South Amer-
ica looks nothing like apparently similar movements in twelfth- or
thirteenth-century Europe. In order to understand the differences be-
tween them we must understand the actions of individuals in their insti-
tutional contexts.
Why do institutions have these particular effects on individuals and
their actions? Institutions are not causes. They do not determine the ac-
tions of individuals in the ways in which the laws of nature determine the
movements of planets, the behavior of chemical compounds, or the func-
tioning of the human body. Our explanations of the ways in which insti-
tutions shape human actions and their outcomes cannot be causal expla-
nations. That is an important implication of the claim, that "human beings
make their own history." If institutions caused human actions, then
human beings would not make their own history; institutions would
make that history instead. Thus the claim that human beings make their
own history commits Marx and Engels to explaining the impress of insti-
tutions on human action noncausally.9 They do this by applying a dialecti-
cal analysis to those relationships.
The Dialectic 47
human beings, since Greek slaves or feudal serfs were not in any intelligi-
ble sense "created equal," Instead, Marx sees this freedom, and equality as
one aspect of the institutions peculiar to capitalism—a system of produc-
ing and exchanging commodities. The exchange of commodities in the
capitalist marketplace takes place under the presupposition of equality
and freedom. What is more,
Equality and freedom are not only respected in exchange of exchange values,
but the exchange of exchange values is the productive, the real basis of all
equality and freedom.1"
make any money to stay alive. The worker needs work in order to buy
food and pay rent. He is thus under considerable economic pressure to
accept the bargain the employer offers. Once employed, he needs to hold
onto the job and thus has little recourse if the employer wants him to
work faster and longer hours or even wants to cut his pay. In this perspec-
tive it certainly looks as if employer and worker are not equal. The
worker's freedom is severely limited by his economic condition. The con-
flict—Marx would say (somewhat incautiously, it turns out) "contradic-
tion"—between the freedom and equality, on the one hand, and the un-
freedom and inequality, on the other, are different developments of the
same set of institutions: Capitalism begins with participants in the market
being free and equal—but in a very restricted sense of "freedom" and
"equality." "Freedom" refers to absence of government restraint, "equal-
ity" to the fact that social privilege does not serve to secure better prices
in the market As capitalist institutions develop, there come into existence
different classes of people, those who have a great deal of economic
power and. those who have very little. In that situation, it is implausible to
claim that workers and employers are equal or that workers are as free as
their employers. Capitalism now takes on a new form, but it is still capi-
talism,. What is more, the changes are, in an intelligible sense, conse-
quences of the structure of capitalism.
Institutions, we see, develop by taking on different forms (analogous to
the way in which frogs begin their life as eggs, then tarn into tadpoles
and then into frogs), and these different forms may well be at odds with
each other. In earlier forms of capitalism, where exchanges are mostly be-
tween persons who are economically independent of each other, there are
genuine freedom and equality. Under a more developed capitalism, dif-
ferent classes of people come into existence. Transactions are still free and
equal in the limited sense indicated, but since workers are economically
dependent on the members of the employing class, freedom and equality
in a more generous sense no longer exist. Capitalist economies now expe-
rience conflicts unknown before, not only conflicts between employers
and workers but also conflicts between the independent producers of the
earlier capitalist era and the much larger productive units of more devel-
oped capitalism. These earlier producers form a new class
fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie and ever renewing itself as a
supplementary part of the bourgeoisie. . . . [They] are being constantly
hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition. (CM, T 493)
Those conflicts, Marx thinks, are productive. They are intellectually
productive because they show us, for instance, that the original under-
standing of freedom and equality in our example is excessively narrow
and that what we want is freedom and equality in a much broader sense.
50 The Dialectic
But they are also historically productive because they give rise to the
struggle for a larger freedom and equality in the form, for instance, of a
demand for universal suffrage (a struggle that is not yet completed in the
United States because the rules laid down by the Voting Rights Acts of
1964 are still being evaded by local jurisdictions). As a consequence of
such struggles, capitalism continues to develop.
Only individuals act, but their actions are constrained by the institu-
tions under which they live. These institutions are not the causes of indi-
vidual actions, but they do set certain limits on what most people will do
most of the time. But these institutions also change. We have seen many
instances of that. What makes those institutions change? Marx is commit-
ted to answering that question again by referring us to the actions of indi-
viduals. At the same time, though, he denies that institutional change is
the intended effect of human actions. On the contrary, many institutional
changes result without anyone's intending those changes or even liking
them when they come about. People may pursue fairly concrete goals and
only afterward, often quite a bit later, do they realize that those particular
actions had further consequences that they did not originally intend and
that they do not welcome. What those further, unintended consequences
are can only be understood when we look to the structure of the ruling in-
stitution of any given historical period.
This interplay between individual actions and the institutions that
form the framework for individual acti.cn is what Marx means by dialec-
tic. In this dialectic the unintended consequences of individual actions
produce changes in the institutional framework as circumscribed by that
framework itself. Thus historical institutions change. The scattered com-
ments Marx makes about the method of the social sciences are too frag-
mentary to constitute a complete theory of social science. But given the
fairly chaotic state of theory in social science, Marx's observations de-
serve to be taken more seriously than they usually are.11 We will be able to
develop in the next chapter what we have learned in this one when we
consider Marx's main theory of history, historical materialism..
Notes
1. But rarely does anyone cite the entire passage, which is much more sympa-
thetic to religion and to religious persons than is its final sentence quoted in isola-
tion. The entire passage reads as follows:
The Dialectic 51
52
Historical Mafa-ialistn 53
therefore so are their life spans. Social structures may last for long peri-
ods, but sooner or later they are replaced by other structures. The dialecti-
cal explanations examined in the preceding chapter are examples of the
process of development and replacement of historical systems. In re-
sponse to changing conditions, human beings change their ways of solv-
ing everyday problems. Those small changes eventually produce changes
in the social system. But each system has limited capacity for change. At a
certain point, changes transform a given social system into a new and
quite different one. Human history is thus a sequence of different social
systems.
But that view of history as displaying a series of different structures
only raises new questions; What are the decisive characteristics of differ-
ent structures? How do they maintain themselves? And how do they
change? In addition we want to know to what extent forces for change are
generated by the structures themselves and to what extent their change or
their maintenance is due to forces and events outside the structure. As po-
litical actors, Marx and Engels also want to know, of course, to what ex-
tent changes in structures are the result of deliberate human effort or
whether they are all the effect of forces not under human control. If we
think that human action has a significant effect, we want to know to what
extent historical changes are the effect of deliberate action that aims at
change or whether historical changes in structures are mainly the unex-
pected consequences of actions that had different and/or more specific
goals.
Marx and Engels had definite answers to most of these questions. It is
not clear from their writings to what extent they believed that change re-
sults from intentional actions and to what extent they thought that it was
an unintended consequence of actions. Marx summarized their views in
the following passage:
In. the social production of their life, human beings enter into definite rela-
tions that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of pro-
duction which correspond to a definite stage of development of their mater-
ial productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production
constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which
rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite
forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life condi-
tions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the
consciousness of human beings that determines their being, but, on the con-
trary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain
stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in
conflict with the existing relations of production..,. Then begins an epoch of
social revolution. (T 4—5)
Elsewhere Marx summarizes this paragraph less forbiddingly:
54 Historical Materialism.
History, Marx tells us, consists of different modes of production, the dif-
ferent structures that dominate different periods of human history. Modes
of production differ from each other by having different "forces of pro-
duction" as well as different "relations of production." By forces of pro-
duction he means, at least, land, raw materials, tools, buildings. In agri-
culture forces of production are land and cattle, tools like plows, farm
buildings, and so on. In factory production they would be factories, ma-
chines, trucks, and railroads for transportation. But clearly nothing gets
produced unless someone is doing the producing. Someone plows and
reaps, milks and slaughters cattle. Someone tends machines and. builds
them in the first place. Thus work performed by human beings is an im-
portant force of production. Whether or not Marx includes the organiza-
tion of work, for example, the particular kind, of division of labor in use
among the forces of production, is a matter of controversy,3
"Relations of production" refer to the ownership of land and machines,
the control, of work, and who profits. Sometimes Marx, puts the emphasis
most clearly on the question of who profits, as when he writes that what re-
ally matters about relations of production is "how surplus is pumped out
of the producers."4 At other times relations of ownership of tools, land, ma-
chines, and so on seem to be central. The connection between relations of
ownership and "pumping out of surplus" is discussed in Chapters 7 and 8.
Marx and Engels believe that the study of history allows us to frame
some general hypotheses about what makes for the stability of these
structures over long periods of time and what, at other times, makes for
their collapse and replacement by other structures. Both when accounting
for stability and when looking to explain the replacement of one structure
by another, the passage cited tells us that we must pay attention to the re-
lations among forces and relations of prod.ucti.on. Social structures remain
stable and can maintain themselves in the face of serious opposition as
long as the relations of production are in some sort of harmony with the
forces of production-—"correspond" is the term, used in the passage
quoted—so that the forces of production can continue to develop. Here
Marx and Engels lean on an obvious observation that in the past few
thousand years of human history productivity has tended to increase:
Agriculture has gradually improved techniques for growing food; we
have learned to make human efforts more productive so that far less
work produces far more goods. As long as the relations of production—-
who owns what and who has power over what goods and or persons,
and who gets a large share of the social product and who gets very little—
Historical Mafa-ialistn 55
Medieval armies fought hand to hand with sword and halberd, requir-
ing a close formation in which soldier stood, close to soldier and all
moved in one body. Such a military formation is the worst possible once
people start shooting at each other from a distance. Firearms lead to
trench warfare, a form that would have been impossible when wars were
fought with swords. This seems to be a clear example of the way in which
changing tools (weapons in this case) changed the organization of an ac-
tivity. In analogous fashion, Marx and Engels claim, the transformation of
the tools in the production process bring about different organizations of
that process.
There is a significant difference, though, between the way in which
work or military organizations are organized and the relations of produc-
tion, namely the rights of ownership and control. The above example
shows how the forces of production affect what Marx often calls "the
technical relations of production," that is, the way the work process is or-
ganized. But those technical relations of production must be distin-
guished from, the relations of ownership and thus from the rules deter-
mining who gets to keep what of the total product of this work process.
Capitalist relations of production have remained the same, whereas the
56 Historical Materialism.
order to be able to read the relevant source material. He seemed quite cer-
tain that the "laws" of development of historical materialism applied
only to countries in Western Europe that were similar in their history to
England, which provided the empirical material on which Marx based
these generalizations.8
But there are a number serious difficulties in that understanding of his-
torical materialism, even in this very restricted form. The most notorious
of them is that this causal account of historical change seems determinist:
It makes it seem that the changes in history, such as the change from feu-
dalism to capitalism, are produced by impersonal forces, namely the de-
velopment of human productive capacity without any significant contri-
bution by the efforts of individual persons or groups. Historical
materialism seems to slight the contribution of human beings to social
change. But if that is what Marx and Engels believed, why does the Com-
munist Manifesto begin with the line, "The history of all hitherto known
societies is the history of class struggle" (T, 473)? Whatever happened
there to the development of the forces of production? Marx and Engels
seem to have two different views of the course of historical change: One
stresses the actions of human beings in struggling against their exploiters;
the other talks about impersonal processes such as the effect that develop-
ing productivity has on social relations.
The apparently determinist character of historical materialism is a real
embarrassment also insofar as Mara and Engels, as revolutionaries, ex-
hort their readers to political action. There is no point in telling the
"workers of the world" to unite if their uniting has no effect on historical
change. If human action, organized human action, does not contribute to
historical change, why did Marx and Engels tell their readers again and
again that they must organize, and why did they themselves spend a sig-
nificant amount of time building actual organizations?
A third difficulty arises once we look closely at the more specific histor-
ical sketches that occur throughout Marx's writings. We find any number
of different explanations, for instance, of the transition from feudalism to
capitalism that either mention causes not included in historical material-
ism or reverse the order of forces and relations of production asserted by
historical materialism,
The theory of historical materialism ascribes social change primarily to
the development of productive resources. But in his actual accounts of
historical change from feudalism to capitalism, Marx sometimes insists
that much of social change is brought about by brute force. The diver-
gence of forces and relations of production does not figure in this story:
They all employ the power of the state, the concentrated and organized force
of society, to hasten, hothouse fashion, the process of transformation of the
feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode,... Force is the midwife
of every old society pregnant with, a new one. (Q, T 436)
58 Historical Materialism.
The medieval artisan in his workshop was controlled by the guild, but
he was independent and owned his tools and raw materials. The worker
in the early factory was neither independent nor the owner of the means
of production—he had become a very early version of the capitalist
worker. His productivity was greater than it was when he was still in his
workshop, but that was because of the new division of labor, not because
of different tools, and that new division of labor was brought about by
changed relations of production (new relations of ownership). The pri-
macy of forces of production asserted by historical materialism is here
clearly contradicted in Marx's own analysis of actual historical processes.
There are a range of similar examples.9 We must conclude that (1) the
historical evidence for the primacy of the forces of production and hence
for historical materialism is scanty; (2) even Marx and Engels limited its
range of applicability in their later years; and (3) Marx himself realized
that a good deal of historical change was due not to the improvement in
the forces of production but to changes in the relations of production. The
conclusion is inescapable: The primacy of forces over relations of produc-
tion of historical materialism is plausible only under restricted historical
conditions. Even under those conditions there are many exceptions and
counterexamples. But such a limited generalization to which there are
many exceptions is a very poor candidate for a causal hypothesis. What-
ever explanatory power historical materialism may have, it cannot give
causal explanations. Historical materialism, is not determinist
That is fully consistent with the preceding chapters. We saw in Chapter 2
that Marx insists that only human beings act.
What is society, whatever its form may be? The product of men's reciprocal ac-
tion. Are men free to choose this or that form of society? By no means. (T, 136}
The social systems we spoke of earlier, we must always remember, are the
creations of human beings who forge relations to one another. Those rela-
tions are not freely chosen but are determined largely by the social struc-
tures that any of us are born into. We are not free to choose our forces of
production because "every productive force is an acquired force, the
product of former activity" (T, 137). We cannot help but to produce with
the tools and technology that our forebears left us and that we find when
we first start producing ourselves. Similarly, the relations of production
under which we work are inherited—they are the "product of the preced-
ing generation" (T, 137). But that does not take away that the "social his-
tory of men is never anything but the history of their individual develop-
ment" (T, 137). It is human beings who make their history, as we recall
Marx said elsewhere.
As we saw in the preceding chapter, however, the actions of individuals
are constrained by the institutions that dominate their lives, and those insti-
60 Historical Materialism.
economic conditions. Historical materialism does not assert the causal pri-
macy of economics, but it insists that the causal role of religion or other be-
liefs can best be explained by reference to peoples' economic lives, that is,
by reference to the ways in which they meet their daily needs and the
changes to which those economic conditions are subject.
But the term "economic" needs some clarification. We commonly use it
to refer to the sorts of issues discussed in economics: markets, supply and
demand, firms and their internal organization, money, finance, banks, and
the like. But historical materialism uses the term "economic" in a much
more generous form: to refer to whatever is involved when people at a
particular time and place meet their ordinary needs for food, shelter, com-
panionship, and whatever else they consider to be essential for a good life,
"In changing their way of earning their living,... [human beings] change
all their social relations," Marx wrote, as we saw at the beginning of this
chapter. In different cultures these "economic" concerns will be quite dif-
ferent; only in ours do they involve, for instance, banks and international
finance. The management of slaves or propitiating the deities of fertility
and rain or the internal workings of a village community were essential to
economics at different times. It is economics in this very flexible sense,
with different meanings in different historical periods, that Marx and En-
gels regard as basic to an understanding of human actions.
Notes
1. Marx, Grundrisse (Frankfurt: Europaeische Verlagsanstalt, n.d.}, p. 189,
2. Marx, Ttie Poverty of Philosophy (New York: International Publishers, 1963), p. 109.
3. See Richard W. Miller, Analyzing Marx (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1984).
4. Marx, Capital, vol. 3 (New York: International Publishers, 1967), p. 791.
5. G. A. Cohen, Karl Marx's Theory of History (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univer-
sity Press, 1976), p. 91.
6. R, W. Fogel and S, L. Engerman, Time on the Cross; The Economics of American
Negro Slavery (Boston: Little Brown, 1974).
7. Marx-Engels: Selected Correspondence (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 320.
8. See also ibid., pp. 292 and 293; Teodor Shanin, Late Marx and the Russian Road:
Marx and the "Peripheries of Capitalism" (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1983).
9. See Jon Elster, Making Sense of Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1985),
6
Materialism and Idealism
WE HAVE SEEN WHAT MARX thought about the most general
patterns of historical change. We now need to take up the second part of
this passage, cited at the beginning of the previous chapter, where Marx
talks about the role of ideas in historical change. Marx was a revolution-
ary, but he was also a social scientist, a philosopher, a polemicist, and
pamphleteer. He spent most of his life reading and writing. For him, the
question of what role ideas play in historical change was of considerable
importance. His answer in this passage is that
the economic structure of society, [is] the real foundation, on which rises a
legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of
social consciousness.... It is not the consciousness of human beings that de-
termines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines
their consciousness. (T, 5)
The interpretation of this and parallel passages has occasioned much con-
troversy. The doctrine that Marx and Engels enunciate here is called "ma-
terialism," but what, precisely, that materialism asserts has often been
misunderstood.
In the writings of Marx and Engels, the doctrine of materialism rejects
idealism. But the term "idealism" refers to several claims. The first tells us
that the universe is spiritual. It believes that the universe, including the
physical universe, is merely the manifestation of God, whose essence is
spiritual. In a second sense, idealism asserts that only minds are real and
that therefore material objects—the plains, mountains, and rivers on the
surface of the earth, for instance—are only appearances of a different, ex-
clusively mental reality. In its third sense, idealism asserts that ideas alone
can move people to action and determine what they will do. A corollary
of that sense of idealism, is that we can frequently explain what people do
exclusively by reference to their beliefs. An example of idealism in this
last sense is a book whose title proclaims that "underdevelopment is a
63
64 Materialism and Idealism
state of mind," that the pervasive poverty, poor health, and education
that characterize developing countries can be changed merely by chang-
ing the attitudes of people in those countries.1
Marx and Engels reject idealism in these three senses. They deny that
reality is spiritual because they are essentially atheists. They deny that re-
ality is exclusively mental. But they also deny that reality is exclusively
material. Engels rejects that view explicitly as a "shallow and vulgarized
form" of materialism.2 They deny, finally, that we only need to change
people's ideas in order to make this a better world. They argue this at
great length in the German Ideology (GI, T 149ff.). We saw the reasons for
this in the preceding chapter: Human beings find themselves at any mo-
ment subject to prevailing institutional structures. These institutions pre-
sent specific problems and allow a limited range of options for their solu-
tion. Institutional, structures limit the problems we encounter as well as
the available solutions. Changing people's ideas—education—will have
an effect if the ideas have to do with the sorts of actions possible in the
current situation. But since the dominant institutions in any given situa-
tion allow only certain options, the effect of education on social change is
also limited. For any social or political change beyond those options, the
prevailing institutions themselves need to be changed. Education alone
will be ineffective.
Examples are contemporary campaigns to save the environment. Edu-
cational campaigns to save the rain forest assume that the rain forest is
being cut down, bit by bit, by people who do not understand the damage
they are doing. Once they have been educated, it is thought, they will de-
sist. But this strategy ignores the fact that economic pressures due to com-
plex economic institutions move people to cut down the trees either for
profit or to make new land available for agriculture. These pressures are
not going to abate once people know that cutting down the rain forest
causes considerable damage. The woodcutters may not have any choice.
Education is not sufficient to make sure that they stop; they need a differ-
ent way of making a living. Similarly, educational campaigns to urge peo-
ple to recycle cans or paper are useless unless there are factories that
transform recycled paper or cans into new products. Without such facto-
ries there will be no use for the recycled material. It will eventually end
up in the garbage dump. But of course once the machinery is available for
recycling, educational campaigns are not only useful but essential to en-
courage people to make use of the facilities for recycling.
ments like the Communist Manifesto to induce the working class to orga-
nize and make a socialist revolution. If material conditions produce the
same ideas in workers' minds, the Manifesto is superfluous. If material
conditions produce different ideas, the Manifesto will be ineffective.
These criticisms are valid. They suggest that the materialism of Marx
and Engels is different from economic determinism. This suggestion
gains plausibility from the fact that economic determinism—the view that
the base is independent of the superstructure and is its cause—is clearly
inconsistent with the views described in the preceding chapters. For if the
changes in economic processes are independent of human thought, and if
the transformation of human nature is a consequence of changes in the
processes of production, then human nature changes independently of
human thought. But then it is false to assert, as Marx does, that human
history is the history of human self-definition, because human history
turns out instead to be the process in which production, unaffected by
human thinking, defines what "human being" is.
Simply put, economic determinism, just doesn't make any sense. There
are no impersonal economic processes: Production, exchange, and distri-
bution are undertaken by human beings who think about what they are
doing and act in the light of that thought. The picture of an economic
process that unfolds unaffected by human thinking is unintelligible.4
We saw in Chapter 5 that a causal interpretation of historical material-
ism, however common, is implausible. We now see that a causal under-
standing of materialism, of the relation between base and superstructure,
is equally unacceptable. What, then, are Marx and Engels trying to tell us
about the relations between economic conditions and the thinking of the
people who live under those conditions? What question is their material-
ism trying to answer?
times they are regarded as odd and utterly implausible? Even in the an-
cient world, there were some individuals who argued for monotheism or
for a heliocentric theory of the solar system, but very few people took
them seriously. Similarly, the idea that governments originate in a social
contract is first introduced in Plato's Republic but did. not really become an
important idea until the seventeenth century—2,000 years later. The belief
in human equality, that each person deserves respect by virtue of being
human and that all human beings deserve to be free, had been familiar to
philosophers and religious thinkers for many centuries. But only in the
eighteenth century did they grip the imagination of the majority of peo-
ple. The really interesting question is why those remained the odd and
implausible ideas of particular individuals, whereas almost everyone,
whether learned or not, accepted polytheism, geocentric theory, the idea
of the divine origin of government, and human, social, political, and eco-
nomic inequality.
Why do ideas that have been around for centuries suddenly come to be
"self-evident truths" after having so long been the quaint thoughts of pe-
culiar people like philosophers or priests? The idea of the social contract
is not significantly different in the eighteenth century from what it was in
Plato's Republic. But the world in which those ideas now play an impor-
tant role is certainly different from ancient Athens, Wltat changes in the
world provoke those radical shifts in human thinking? That is the question that
Marx and Engels try to answer with their generalization about base and
superstructure. What explains this shift in human thinking in the eigh-
teenth century, in the Western world, is the rise of capitalism.
Thus Marx writes, in a passage cited in Chapter 4,
Equality and freedom are not only respected in exchange of exchange values, values,
but the exchange of exchange values is the productive, the real basis of all
equality and freedom.5
Notes
1. Lawrence E, Harrison, £1 Subdesarollo Estti en la Matte (Underdevelopment is
in the mind) (Mexico, D.F.: Editorial Limusa, 1989).
70 Materialism and Idealism
2. Frederick Engels, Luditrig Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philos-
ophy (New York: International Publishers, 1941), p. 25.
3. John Ptamenatz, German Marxism and Russian Communism (London; Long-
mans, 1954), p. 25,
4. These problems had been raised in Marx's and Engels' lifetime. After Marx
died, Engels felt the need to protest that neither he nor Marx had intended to de-
fend economic determinism. They had always understood that much as the base
determines the superstructure, the superstructure in turn determines the base. All
they had ever wanted to say was that the base was the "ultimately decisive" fac-
tor (T 760), Hence the doctrine is attributed to' Engels that the base determines the
superstructure "in the last instance," But that qualification does not resolve the
central problem of economic determinism—that it presupposes a distinction be-
tween "base" and "superstructure" that does not, in fact, make any sense. If there
is a problem with claiming that the material base causes the superstructure, be-
cause base and superstructure cannot be distinguished in the ways required by a
causal analysis, men that problem exists just as much if we banish this causal
process to "the last instance,"
5. Marx, Gmndrisse (Frankfurt; Europaeische Verlagsanstalt, n.d.)» p. 156.
6. Contemporary English-speaking philosophers often rest their philosophies
on their "intuitions," what seems self-evident to them. If they take the material-
ism of Marx and Bngels to heart, they fulfill more successfully the traditional task
of philosophy of examining critically the common wisdom of their day.
7
Ideology
The Greeks and Romans, as well as the people in the Middle Ages, were
not preoccupied with politics or religion to the exclusion of all other con-
cerns. They needed food and shelter like everyone else, and they had
their specific ways of solving their material economic problems. With
these different ways of providing for their material needs go different val-
ues, religious beliefs, political institutions, and customs. All of these are
examples of ideology. Ideologies are connected with economic institu-
tions. When those change, so do the ideological beliefs and practices. For
example, the knight errantry that flourished in the early Middle Ages be-
came pointless or even ridiculous after feudalism had been replaced by
early capitalism. But it is clear that the economic structure is not the cause
of the way of life—the phenomenon of Don Quixote demonstrates that. If
economic structures were the causes of certain outlooks, then it would
not have been possible for Don Quixote to believe himself to be a knight
errant after the end of the Middle Ages. That is shown also by the earlier
examples I cited in Chapter 6, regarding ideas of freedom and equality
and the social contract that were entertained by the Greeks and Romans
Ideology 73
What Is Ideology?
At issue here are beliefs, values, ways of life. But not all beliefs are ideo-
logical. Some beliefs are true. Others are not only false but are known to
be false. Marx recognizes the difference between ideology and plain false-
hoods.
People hold on to beliefs that are false and known to be false. Sexist and
racist beliefs are prime examples of that. People hold beliefs even though
all existing reliable evidence contradicts them,. Even though biologists
and anthropologists have found the concept of "race" indefensible,
claims about superiority and inferiority of certain "races" continue un-
abated.4 Racism is not an ideology because it is irrational, to believe in the
reality of race in spite of all the available evidence. In the same manner, it
is irrational for men to depend on their wives to run their families and
keep their children safe and healthy and at the same time to believe that
men are rational and in charge and women are not.5
But then there are beliefs that are neither true and known to be so nor
false and known to be false. We hold, many beliefs, and so have men and
women, at other times, for which we do not have sufficient evidence to
show either that they are true or false. Such more or less unsupported be-
liefs, however, are the best that can be achieved given a certain level of
technological development and scientific knowledge. These beliefs are
ideologies. Certain ideological beliefs, such as the geocentric theory of the
universe, can at some future time be refuted by science. Others, like reli-
gious, social, political, or ethical beliefs, lie outside the domain of science
and therefore will always remain ideological.
One difference between beliefs known to be false and what Marx and
Engels call "ideology" is that it makes sense that persons should have these
ideological beliefs under their specific material conditions.
The religious world is but a reflex of the real world. And for a society based
upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter
into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodi-
ties and values whereby they reduce the individual labor to the standard of
74 Ideology
Religious beliefs are not known to be true, nor are they known to be false,
even though both supporters and enemies of religion claim proof for their
positions. What is more, we can understand why a certain kind of society
in which the uniqueness of individuals is ignored in favor of the com-
modity value of each one's contribution should adopt a religion such as
Protestantism that concerns itself primarily with the rights and obliga-
tions of "man" in the abstract. In a capitalist society, human beings are
treated as abstractions in that they become more or less exchangeable. In
any given workplace, jobs are filled by a series of persons. When, business
is bad, people are fired or laid off. When business improves, someone else
is hired to do the job. What makes each of these persons unique is, in the
economic sphere, not important. Similarly, Marx suggests, Protestantism
focuses on the abstract humanity and human rights of all and puts less
emphasis on the uniqueness of each individual. What matters in this ex-
ample is not whether Marx does justice to Protestantism but rather the
connection he draws between the capitalist system and certain ideologies.
Some ideologies may turn out to be mistaken, given the evidence avail-
able to us at a later date, but it is not irrational to hold ideological beliefs.
Given the prevailing conceptions of human beings as "abstract," that is,
as interchangeable in the job market, Protestant thought about human
rights makes sense,
The Greeks believed that the earth was at the center of the universe.
Given their astronomical observations, that was a defensible scientific the-
ory. Aristarchos, a Greek astronomer in the third century B.C., however, did
propose a heliocentric theory. So the available evidence did seem to sup-
port rival, theories. Why did the Greeks and, the Romans and the medievals
support the geocentric rather than the heliocentric theory? The explanation
uncovers the function of these beliefs that are not supported or refuted by
adequate evidence. In this passage Marx calls them, "mythology":
All mythology overcomes and dominates and shapes the forces of nature in
the imagination and by the imagination; it therefore vanishes with the ad-
vent of real mastery O¥er them. (G, T 246)6
The passage reiterates the point made before about Don Quixote: The
Greek pantheon is out of place in the modern world, A god, Jupiter,
whose power is exhibited by the use of thunder and lightning is a shabby
god indeed once those natural phenomena have been understood and
once lightning has become less of a menace because of the invention of
lightning rods. Human beings who can set off the atomic blasts of Hi-
roshima and Nagasaki will not be impressed by a little thunder and light-
ning. The same applies to the other personages in the Greek pantheon.
The goddess of reputation, Fama, cuts a poor figure against the newspa-
pers coming out of London's Printing House Square, and Hermes, the
god of commerce, is overshadowed by the enormous power of the world-
wide banking network of the Credit Mobilier in Paris. A people adopts
mythological explanations that make sense in their world. The Greek
pantheon was inhabited by beings whose lives were just the lives writ
large of the dominant groups in Greek society—the landowners who
themselves did not work, who spent their lives in war, amorous intrigue,
or political activity. Mythologies reflect the social structures of the soci-
eties in which they are current.
Ideologies are beliefs not provable as true or false that fit in comfort-
ably with the economic and social practices of a given society. But at the
same time, Marx insists in the passage cited at the beginning of this chap-
ter, ideologies are open to criticism..
Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of him-
self, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own con-
sciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather
from the contradictions of material, life, from the existing conflict between
material productive forces and the relations of production. (T, 5)
76 Ideology
time. But later, when science develops, the earlier ideological beliefs can
be criticized for being false. Thus we can criticize Ptolemaic astronomy
from the point of view of contemporary astronomy. Similarly, in Capitalf
Marx criticizes the views of Adam Smith and David Ricardo with respect
to price and value and profits.
But many ideologies, for instance, beliefs about religion, ethics, politics,
and the law are not open to such criticism in hindsight. Here criticism of
ideologies bases itself on the second characteristic of ideologies—namely,
that they reflect the dominant institutions of the society. The possibility of
a critique of ideology is narrowly connected with the fact that in class so-
cieties rival, ideologies reflect the dominant and oppositional institutions
from the perspectives of different classes.
Ideologies are those beliefs in a given culture that do not find adequate
support or refutation by available knowledge. In a fairly homogeneous
society, such ideologies are likely to be fairly homogeneous. In a class so-
ciety, different classes will see the world differently and develop different
ideologies. Class societies thus give rise to conflicting ideologies. In all
Western societies, beginning at the latest with the Greeks, there are people
whose profession is thinking and writing who are either members of or
are maintained by the ruling classes. Plato was a member of the ruling
elite of Athens, Aristotle the tutor of Alexander the Great. Both lived and
moved among the people of wealth and power. It is no surprise, there-
fore, that their philosophies shared the outlooks of those in power. This
has continued to this day, where the professional intellectuals either par-
ticipate in governing (often as professional experts) or are supported by
the wealthy because they are employed by communications media or uni-
versities or are dependent on wealthy patrons of the arts and their philan-
thropies. As a consequence of this dose association, the ideological beliefs
of the rich and powerful are broadcast by the stratum of professional in-
tellectuals (GI, T 158-159, 173). Hence Marx tells us more than once that
"the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class"
(CM, T 489). In a class society, there is thus a dominant ideology—the
ideas of the ruling class. But the dominated classes have different experi-
ences from the dominant. The reigning institutions do not solve their
problems but rather create them. Hence their perspective on the prevail-
ing social structures is different from the outlook of the rich and power-
ful. They develop an alternative ideology. But they have in their service
fewer theorists, writers, ministers, experts; their ideology tends to be less
elaborate. They also have less control over media; their alternative ideolo-
gies do not spread as easily because they have only word of mouth or al-
ternative media available to them, to disseminate their ideas.13
In class societies ideologies are contested. The oppositional views of the
less powerful classes are attacked by the authors sharing the perspective
78 Ideology
of the dominant class. In earlier ages the attack often took a religious
form. The ideas of the poor and downtrodden were condemned as here-
sies. Since the days of Marx and Engels, "communism" is a favorite label
for ridiculing and depreciating oppositional ideologies. In the 1990s the
oppositional ideologies developed in the 1960s have been diminished and
distorted by calling, them "'politically correct."
The ideology of the ruling class presents itself as the true beliefs for all
members of a society:
Each new class that puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is com-
pelled merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the
common interest of all members of society.... It has to give its ideas the form
of universality. (GI, T 174)
Hence the eighteenth century talks about the universal rights of man, and
only if we read the small print in, for instance, John Locke's Second Treatise
of Government do we see that only property owners have political rights or
that the universal rights of all human beings do not compromise the fa-
ther's patriarchal rights in the family. As oppositional groups develop in
a given society, they can criticize the ruling ideology from their point of
view. They can, for instance, point out the inconsistency between the uni-
versal principles proclaimed by the ruling group and its actual practice.
The universal rights of all human beings are exercised by the powerful
but withheld from the others.
Fetishism
One can criticize ideologies because their proponents do not practice
what they preach. The defenders of universal human rights, for instance,
have rarely been interested in combatting racism, sexism, or the exploita-
tion of workers.14 Another strategy of ideological criticism is illustrated
by Marx's discussion of "fetishism" in Capital. In a passage from the Ger-
man Ideology, Marx and Engels describe ideology as an inverted image.
Ideologies are open to criticism because they make the world appear
turned upside down.
If in all ideology human beings and their circumstances appear upside down
as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their life-
process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-
process. (GI, T 154} 1
their fetish were bestowed by them in the first place. In modern societies
the principal example of "fetishism," the subject of one of the early sec-
tions of Capital, is the treatment of commodities in economics. Fetishism
has, in the modem world, moved from religion to economics.
This section of Capital begins with saying that a commodity is "at first
sight, a trivial thing. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer
thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties" (CI,
T 319). But what makes commodities so peculiar? Commodities have in-
trinsic characteristics such as size, weight, and color. Prices appear to be
such intrinsic characteristics of things. They are not set by particular peo-
ple but come with the commodity, as one of its characteristics. When a
consumer goes to the store to buy something, the commodity has a price.
The careful consumer soon finds out that not all stores charge the same
price. But these price variations are not the results of arbitrary decisions
by store owners; rather, the prices are set in accordance with economic ne-
cessities, such as the store owners' costs and the need to make a profit.
Prices are determined by market forces. The store owners merely try to
read those market forces as accurately as possible.
Human beings work and produce in a specific social order. They work
always in coordination with one another. In all societies, even the most
primitive ones, there is some sort of division of labor. The goods pro-
duced and their distribution—who gets what and in what quantities—de-
pends on the structure of the particular society in question. But in a com-
modity society (i.e., under capitalism), it seems that what is produced and
by whom and how it is distributed is not the result of the social order as a
whole but depends exclusively on the prices of commodities. In a capital-
ist economy, capital is privately owned and the competent capitalist will
make it grow by making a profit. Capital must therefore be invested
where it will be profitable, and such decisions determine what will be
produced. The profitability of certain goods, compared to that of others,
decides what a society will produce. Profitability, in turn, is connected
with the price at which something can be sold, compared to the cost of
producing it. The decision made in a society as to what will be produced
is closely tied to prices.
So it appears that the general complexion of capitalist society, who is
rich and who is poor, who decides where to invest capital and in what
way the society will grow or decay, is not due to the decisions of individ-
uals or groups but the result of the impersonal movements of commodi-
ties and their prices.
The relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labor is presented
to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves but between the
products of their labor. (Cl, T 320)
80 Ideology
Marx and Engels hold definite ethical views. They believe, for instance,
that transferring wealth from one group to another is, under some condi-
tions, unjust; that it is wrong to deprive people of the wide range of free-
doms that capitalism does not allow most workers; that in a well-ordered
society, we will not look for reciprocity but for each receiving the condi-
tions needed for full self-development But how can Marx and Engels
hold such ethical views and at the same time claim that ethics is "obsolete
verbal rubbish"? A number of solutions to this dilemma have been of-
fered: Some authors argue that Marx and Engels did not criticize capital-
ism for being unjust16 or more generally did not hold ethical views about
capitalism.17 Others claim that Marx and Engels were mistaken in believ-
ing that ethics is ideological.18
This entire scholarly controversy presupposes that all ideological be-
liefs are in some way defective. These interpreters assume that for any-
thing to be ideological, it must be intellectually inadequate, unreliable, or
not to be trusted. We already saw that that is not what Marx and Engels
meant by ideology. Ideologies are beliefs that, at a given time, are neither
supported nor refuted by adequate evidence. In that sense of the term,
ethical views are also ideological, and as there are different outlooks in
economics and politics that belong to different classes, so there are differ-
ent ethical ideologies. In our culture there is the dominant ethic of the
golden rule, which tells us that we should think about ethics as rules of
reciprocity: Whatever behavior I expect from you I owe you in return. It is
easy to see that in a culture that regards the market, exchange, and con-
tracts as its central institutions, an ethic that puts reciprocity in the center
reflects the prevailing economic institutions. But this is not the only set of
available ethical ideas. Marx certainly had a very different conception of
the good life from that of the golden rule. Instead of demanding that we
treat others as we want to be treated, he looks forward to a society in
which each person is able to develop fully and freely and where each is
necessary for the others so that they, too, can develop fully and freely.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and its class antago-
nisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is
the condition for the free development of all, (CM, T 491)
82 Ideology
not make value judgments; it simply takes reality as it finds it and tries to
explain its development. A "scientific" politics rests its activities on its sci-
entific understanding. It derives from its scientific understanding of capi-
talism and its assessment of the state of capitalism at one particular
time—what sorts of political actions are called for at that moment to has-
ten the inevitable end of capitalist rule. Hence ethical condemnations of
socialism are now "obsolete rubbish." Ethics belongs in the prehistory of
socialist efforts. Scientific socialism replaces an ethical socialism.
Marx and Engels' conception of science is quite undeveloped (see
Chapter 15). Whether they believed that science is "value-free" is not
known. But even if they did hold that view, a different interpretation is
much more plausible: Scientific socialism rests on a careful and detailed
theory about the workings and presumed trajectory of capitalism. Of
course the earlier ethical condemnation of capitalism still holds. It re-
mains true, and important, that capitalism is unjust. But such condemna-
tions are too general to have any place in a party program—which is what
Marx is addressing in the Critique of the Cotha Program quoted above. Such
a party program needs to speak in detail about the specific forms of capi-
talist injustice and the mechanism of its replacement by socialism. To go
back and. talk in very general terms about injustice and equal rights in a
party program is, in that context, "obsolete rubbish," Ethical judgments
are of course important. A scientific socialist, who holds no ethical views
that injustice must be fought and overcome, may well consider the inter-
nal mechanisms of capitalism with great interest but would not join the
struggle. Marxism without ethical views makes no sense.
But do not ethical views require justification? Not all ethical views are
as valuable and reliable as others. The concept of ideology proves to be of
importance in throwing light on that problem. Ethical views are clearly
ideological, according to Marx and. EngeJs, and hence are not capable of
proof or disproof. Ideological beliefs, including ethics, articulate the be-
liefs of a given group of people. The task of moral philosophers is not to
prove that certain actions are right and certain states are good but to put
into words as clearly as possible what their group believes is the good life
and what their obligations are to one another. In the process of putting a
given ethical view into words, we certainly compare different proposals
and reject some as less acceptable, less coherent, less able to guide us in a
variety of real situations. But such discussions do not aim at proving that
an ethical view is true. They try to reflect as adequately as possible the
best thinking about ethics in any given group.
In any society there are different groups, and they have different ide-
ologies. The ruling class has its ideology. Oppositiona) groups have
theirs. The different ideologies, of course, overlap. Everyone condemns
injustice; everyone asserts that all human beings have certain rights. But
84 Ideology
False Consciousness
Ideology, especially bourgeois ideology when it is adopted by the work-
ing class, is often called "false consciousness," Marx did not, in fact, use
this expression, but many commentators identify ideology with false con-
sciousness nevertheless.19 That conception has often been associated with
views that the working class is systematically deceived by the ruling class
or that its desires are manipulated by the capitalists or that its family
structure is the effect of traditional authoritarianisna or that its under-
standing of the world results from sexual repression.20 All of these sug-
gestions are extremely interesting but go far beyond the theory of ideol-
ogy as we find it in Marx and Engels. All of them are attempts to explain
why workers-—contrary to Marx and Engels' optimistic expectations—-
have frequently been in support of their exploiters and have stood aloof
from their labor unions and from class struggle. Their support for the en-
emies of the working class has been explained as the effect of ruling-class
ideologies that confused workers and thus produced "false conscious-
ness." In fact, though, the reluctance of workers to struggle to improve
their lot does not have to do primarily with ideology but with alienation.
The lack of revolutionary fervor among workers is not just a manifesta-
tion of their erroneous ideas but has much deeper and more complex
causes. What appears to be lacking in most people living in capitalist soci-
eties is the burning desire for freedom that revolutionary activity de-
mands. This lack is better explained by alienation than by the theory of
ideology. We shall see in Chapter 10 that one of the questions left open by
Marx's conception of alienation is the extent to which living in a capitalist
society makes all of us into persons unwilling to change and to change
our social system. We will take up that question once more in Chapter 16.
Notes
I. See Nicholas Abercrombie, Problems in the Sociology of Knowledge (New York:
New York University Press, 1980); Jon Elster, Making Sense of Marx (Cambridge;
Cambridge University Press, 1985), chapter 8.
Ideology 85
17, Richard Miller, Analyzing Marx (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1984),
18, R. G, Peffer, Marxism, Morality and Social Justice (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1990), p. 238,
19, Denise Meyerson, False Consciousness (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991);
George Lichtheim, The Concept of Ideology and Other Essays (New York: Vintage
Books, 1967), pp. 17-22.
20, On the capitalists' deception of the working class, see Theodor Adorno and
Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment (New York: Seabury Press, 1972), Also
Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967). On family
structure, see Max Horklieimer, "Authority and the Family," in Critical Theory
(New York: Continuum, 1972), pp. 47-128, See also Reich, The Mass Psychology of
Fascism,
8
Capitalism
87
88 Capitalism
The circumstance that a man without fortune but possessing energy, solidity,
ability and business acumen may become a capitalist in this manner ... is
greatly admired by apologists of the capitalist system. In a similar way ...
the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages formed its hierarchy out of the best
brains in the land, regardless of their estate, birth or fortune.l
It is often also said that everybody can become a capitalist. But that is, of
course, false. What is true of each individual separately is not true of all of
them together. In a footrace where the contestants are equally matched, it
might be true that anybody can win. But it is clearly not true that every-
body can win. The very fact that one person wins makes it impossible for
all others to win. Similarly, the fact that some people are capitalists makes
it impossible for others to be capitalists.
Marx is not inclined to reject such characterizations of capitalism, but
he does believe that they are seriously incomplete and to that extent mis-
leading. They are clear instances of ideology insofar as they portray the
capitalist system from the perspective of the capitalists. As always, he
turns to history to demonstrate this: Other societies produced commodi-
ties and traded them in a market, but those societies were not capitalist
Some persons in other societies accumulated great wealth, but that alone
did not make them capitalists. In order to understand capitalism, more
completely, we need to see what differentiates commodity production
today from the commodity production of the feudal artisans or what dif-
ferentiates capital accumulation today from the effort to accumulate
wealth in ancient Rome. We need to understand the systematic contexts
in which commodities are produced or wealth is accumulated.
Medieval artisans produced "commodities." They did not merely pro-
duce, say, shoes for their own use but made their living by making shoes
for anyone who could buy them. But although a capitalist society is com-
modity producing, not all commodity-producing societi.es are capitalist:
With the urban crafts, although they rest essentially on exchange and on the
creation of exchange values, the direct and chief aim of this production is
subsistence as craftsmen, as master-journeyrnenf hence use-value, not wealth, not
exchange value as exchange value. (G, T 275)
Of all the changes mentioned, the rise of "free" labor appeared to Marx
to be the central change in the transition to capitalism. The crucial charac-
teristic of that new economic system, according to Marx, was the presence
of two different classes of people in a capitalist society: first, the owners of
the factories, raw materials, tools and machines, and all the other means
of production and, second, the workers who did not own any means of
production and. thus were dependent on wage labor for their livelihood.
Why did Marx refuse the title of capitalist to the Roman merchant who
accumulated a sizable fortune in money or to the medieval craftsman
who owned tools and raw materials that he and his apprentices and la-
borers transformed into commodities? One can, of course, call anything
"capitalism" if one so chooses, but the decisive difference between Rome
or the medieval economy on the one hand and capitalism on the other
seemed to Marx to be the ready availability of wage laborers in the latter
and their absence in the former setting. His reasons for that are simple. In
90 Capitalism
a society where there is little or no labor for hire, you cannot invest wealth
in new machinery and raw materials because there is no one who will
tend the machines to produce goods. Wealth, in a society without free
labor, can be used for consumption only, either for luxury or for warfare.
Moneylenders in medieval, rimes thus did not lend money to investors or
to prospective industrialists but to kings and princes to support their lux-
urious way of life or to pay for military adventures. Only in the modern
era, where there is labor for hire in a labor market, can wealth be invested,
As a consequence, commodity production among medieval artisans dif-
fered from commodity production today because the setting in which it
took place was quite different. Modern, commodity production aims at
the accumulation of more capital. Before, the goal was more modest to
support the artisan and Ms family and apprentices.
Capital is money that is readily convertible into means of production:
factories, tools, raw materials. But all those means are of use only to the
extent that labor is available to transform the raw materials into finished
products. More important, the acquisition of additional tools or raw ma-
terials is of no interest to an owner unless more labor is available. Thus,
under medieval guild restrictions, an owner could hire only a limited
number of apprentices anyway, and buying more tools or raw materials
would have been a waste because workers would not have been on hand
to do the work of transforming those additional raw materials into fin-
ished products:
The rules of guilds,... by limiting most strictly the number of apprentices
and journeymen that a single master could employ, prevented him from be-
coming a capitalist.... A merchant could buy every kind of commodity, but
labor as a commodity he could not buy. (CI, T 396)
The capitalist wants to produce goods that sell; otherwise his effort is use-
less and he squanders his capital. But equally important, he wants to
make a profit. If at the end of a period of work he just breaks even—that is,
he has just enough left to live on after paying for his means of production
and his labor—then his effort is wasted. In that situation,
Property in raw materials and instruments of labor would be merely nominal;
economically they would belong to the worker as much as to the capitalist since
they would create value only insofar as he himself were a worker. (G, T 248)
They can compete by having price wars but also through advertising
campaigns, by redesigning products, and so on. The capitalist economy is
a competitive one.
Capitalists do not merely compete with one another; they also stick to-
gether and cooperate in certain respects. A prime example of that is their
joint effort to maintain a relatively high level of unemployment. Capital-
ist economies tend to foster a certain level of unemployment, forcing
workers to accept jobs that are intrinsically undesirable and, often, incom-
mensurate with their abilities.
The industrial reserve army, during periods of stagnation or average pros-
perity, weighs down the active labor army; during periods of over-produc-
tion and paroxysm, it holds its pretensions in check. (CI, T 427)
They were not so in some other societies; in still others they played only a
subsidiary role.
This is not a point about the motivations of the individual capitalist but
about the role of the capitalist. We return here to a distinction that we saw
Marx draw earlier between the social role of being a capitalist and the pri-
vate motives that may animate any particular person who fills the role of
the capitalist (see Chapter 2), As a capitalist, you need to do certain
things, obey certain norms. A capitalist who refuses to increase his or her
capital will not remain a capitalist for long. Imagine that you are em-
ployed as the manager of a company. Because you pay unusually high
wages or support colleges or orphanages, you do not turn a profit from
one year to the next and therefore have no profits from which to pay divi-
dends to the stockholders. You may well be applauded for your enlight-
ened labor management relations and. your generous contributions, but
you will be fired anyway because you did not do the job you were hired
for, namely, to make your company grow.
None of this implies that all capitalists are greedy or ungenerous per-
sons. Some no doubt are; others no doubt are not. Certain capitalists, as is
often pointed out, are probably motivated not by the desire for more
money but by the desire for power. But in any case the analysis of capital-
ism as a social system does not explain the characteristics of capitalism by
reference to the personal desires of the people who fill the role of the cap-
italists. To explain the nature of capitalism by reference to the psychology
of capitalists would confuse the entire analysis of capitalism because it
would imply that if we could either improve the moral character of exist-
ing capitalists or replace the ones we have with people who are less
greedy or less power-hungry, then capitalism would be very different and
probably be more benign. (This would be another example of idealism,
discussed in Chapter 6.) But this is, of course, not true: Capitalists act as
they do because that is what the social system demands of them.
Yet this social system is easily misunderstood. Capitalism may be de-
scribed as a market society, and the regularities of the market appear, like
regularities in nature, independent of human activity. Prices, for instance,
are not really set by buyers and sellers but are determined by the imper-
sonal forces of supply and demand. Hence capitalism is often thought of
as a quasi-natural system that grows up unplanned and separate from the
intentions of human beings, perhaps just the result, as Adam Smith
thought, of certain basic human inclinations. But to think of the market in
that way is to fall victim to what we earlier saw Marx call "fetishism" (see
Chapter 7), which regards the market as a natural force independent of
human beings, something that is, in fact, a human creation. For the mar-
ket mechanism as a whole is not a natural phenomenon such as gravity
that exists independent of human activity and choice. On the contrary.
96 Capitalism
markets, as we have just seen, exist only under specific historical condi-
tions. What is more, the existence of a market system is, on the one hand,
maintained by human activities and, on the other hand, constantly con-
tested. The existence of a market in labor is challenged in the workplace
in the form of demands for guaranteed employment and in labor's at-
tempts to limit the ravages of a free labor market through legislation (for
instance, through laws limiting the length of the workday). Producers try
to exempt themselves from market forces or to modify the effects of the
market by asking for subsidies (farm subsidies are a notorious example)
or special tax legislation in their favor (such as oil depreciation al-
lowances) or through oligopolistic practices that reduce the corrosive ef-
fects of unrestrained competition. Various groups resist the application of
market forces in other areas of human life. Opponents of prostitution
want to keep sexual love from, being a commodity; proponents of the tra-
ditional family object to turning childcare into something to be bought
and sold in a market. Experiments with rent control try to take housing
out of the marketplace; government subsidies for different groups put a
limitation on other market forces. The market is a highly artificial, care-
fully regulated institution. It is no more natural than governments, the in-
stitution of marriage, or our educational system. Human activities and re-
lations seent to be governed by these market forces. But the commodity
society, which appears to function unregulated, following autonomous
laws, is created and. constantly re-created by the actions of human beings.
Capitalism is frequently identified with industry and industrial develop-
ment. Here again Marx draws on history to clarify the relation between cap-
italtsm. and industrial modes of production. It is clear that machines play an
essential role in modern capitalism. Not only are they in evidence every-
where, but they are also important tools in the competition among capital-
ists. In their attempt to undersell competitors, for instance, capitalists will
frequently install new machines that permit cheaper production and thus
allow the producer to lower prices of products. It Is equally clear from the
history of capitalism., however, that its early phases preceded the develop-
ment of modern technology. I discussed previously (in Chapter 5) the phase
of capitalism—what Marx calls "manufacture"—that came before industri-
alization. In this phase workers, who were formerly artisans, worked under
the direct supervision of the capitalist who, as time went on, also owned the
tools and raw-materials. Industrial machinery was introduced only later
(Cl, T 388-403). It was not an essential and indispensable feature of capital-
ism. The development of technology is the result rather than the cause of
the development of capitalist social relations of production.
Of course in most versions of capitalism machinery does play an im-
portant role in the relations between capitalists and workers. Mechaniza-
tion gives the capitalists new avenues of control over the workers. Ma-
Capitalism 97
One's good name, one's reputation as an honest person, one's integrity are
not commodities because one has not produced them with a view to sell-
ing them. But once commodification spreads, even those qualities go to the
highest bidder. Lawyers defend clients they know to be guilty; physicians
defend clearly harmful products or dangerous industries; academics de-
fend racist and sexist theories. Some people will always sell their profes-
sional expertise and personal probity if the price is right. There is no limit
to what may be bought and sold in a capitalist market economy.
Capitalism 99
Notes
1. Marx, Capital, vol. 3 (New York; International Publishers, 1967), pp. 600-601.
2. Marx, Grundrisse (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973), p. 487.
3. Marx, Critique of Political Economy (New York: International Publishers, 1970),
p. 60,
4. Marx, Capital, vol. 1, p. 385, n. 2,
5. Ibid., p. 595.
6. Ibid., p. 453.
7. Marx, Grundrisse, p. 487.
8. Marx, Capital, vol. 1, p. 340.
9. Ibid., p. 102.
9
Capitalism and Exploitation
100
Capitalism and Exploitation 101
their employer was also their owner. Feudal serfs possessed their own
land and tools, but they were tied to the land, they farmed and thus had to
work for the owner of that land—whoever that happened to be, (In fact,
many serfs fled the land, even though that was illegal.) Capitalist workers
are not so constrained. They cannot be coerced to work for a particular
person. Hence they choose their work freely. But often the range of em-
ployment they have to choose from is such that they must pick the least
undesirable job from among several very undesirable ones. Choices
among a range of unattractive alternatives are "voluntary" in only a weak
sense of that term. In many developing countries, mechanization of agri-
culture brings with it high rates of rural unemployment But unemploy-
ment in the cities is not much lower, especially for men (as women can do
domestic service). Thus many rural dwellers must choose between abject
poverty in the countryside or life in shantytowns, where they can hope to
make a miserable living by begging, sending their kids to sell chewing
gum in the streets, or picking food out of garbage bags in middle-class
neighborhoods. The option between staying in the country or moving to a
shantytown at the edge of a metropolitan area is voluntary but does not
make them responsible for their poverty. Their poverty is not the result of
their choices but of an economic system that does not provide opportuni-
ties for them to make an adequate living.
This is surely the central point here: In a capitalist society, people can
choose where to work and for whom. But many have choices only among
low-paying jobs, for instance, as they do not have the requisite education,
either because it was not available where they grew up or because a good
education costs more money than their family could afford. In addition
good jobs are scarce, and it helps to have connections to get one; people
are not free to choose to be well connected. Capitalist society provides
more choices than previous ones, but it does not give everyone the same
choices. Some can choose the best schools and the opportunities to meet
important people. Others start out, through no fault of their own, with a poor
education, few skills, and without knowing anyone who could help them
to get ahead. Only where people all start out with more or less the same
opportunity can we blame those who come in last for their lack of success.
When we choose voluntarily the most desirable of a set of attractive al-
ternatives, we may well have to take responsibility for the outcome. Per-
sons who abhor strenuous effort must not complain if they end up with a
modest income. Those who choose relative leisure as their most desirable
state of life must bear the consequences of that choice.1 But Marx and En-
gels believe that workers under capitalism, when they make their volun-
tary choices, have a restricted set of options and that the options available
to the members of the capitalist class are much more extensive. Marx and
Engels have several reasons for that opinion:
102 Capitalism and Exploitation
Exploitation
Exploitation, in a very general sense, refers to taking unfair advantage of
people. Marx and Engels thought of exploitation in more specific terms;
they called "exploitation" any situation where some people work for oth-
ers without suitable compensation. They did not believe that exploitation
was peculiar to capitalism. Capital has not invented what they called
"surplus labor"—unpaid labor. On the contrary, the history of all hitherto
known societies is a history of exploitation.
Capital has not invented surplus-labor. Wherever a part of the society pos-
sesses the monopoly of the meaas of production, the laborer, free or not free,
must add to the working time necessary for his own maintenance an extra
working time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of
the means of production, whether this proprietor be an Athenian nobleman,
Etruscan theocrat, civis Romanus, Norman baron, American slaveowner,
Wallachian Boyard [a feudal landowner in what is today Romania], modern
landlord or capitalist... The comparison of the greed for surplus-labor in
the Danubian principalities [Romania) with the same greed in the English
factories has a special interest, because surplus-labor in the corvee [the feu-
dal form of surplus labor] has an independent and palpable form,.,. The
necessary labor which the Wallachian peasant does for his own maintenance
is distinctly marked off from his labor on behalf of the Boyard, The one he
does in his own field, the other on the seignorial estate. Both parts of the
Capitalism and Exploitation 103
labor time exist, therefore, independently, side by side. In the corvee the sur-
plus-labor is accurately marked off from the necessary labor. But [under cap-
italism] this [viz, surplus labor] is not obvious on the surface, (CI, T 364-365)
The sphere . . . within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labor
power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone
rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham [Jeremy Bentham, an. English
philosopher and jurist, 1748-1832]. Freedom because both buyer and seller
of a commodity, say labor power, are constrained only by their own free will.
They contract as free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but the form
in which they give legal expression to their common will. Equality because
each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodi-
ties, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent. Property because each dis-
poses only of what is his own. And Bentham, because each looks only to
himself. (Cl, T 343; italics added)
The contract between worker and employer is freely entered into, and
they "exchange equivalents," that is, the worker receives full value for
what he or she provides for the employer. Yet at the same time, Marx
maintains that labor is coerced into doing work for which it is not com-
pensated. The employer exploits the workers by extracting unpaid work
from them.
There appears to be a contradiction here. Marx is fully aware of that. I
discuss his proposed solution in the next section.
For profit is a return over and above the replacement value of capital
goods consumed in the process of production. But profit is, of course (as
we saw in the preceding chapter), all-important to the capitalist. If the
capitalist is not making profits in producing and selling commodities, the
whole effort is useless. It is not sufficient for the capitalist to get remuner-
ated for his or her own work. The capital invested must not only be re-
placed; it must in addition bear a return. At the end of a cycle of transac-
tions, the capital invested initially must have grown. But what makes it
grow appears inexplicable if we adopt the labor theory of value,
Marx took great pride in having discovered a solution to this quandary.
His answer was that labor is exploited in the capitalist production
process. It is true, he stresses, that workers get paid the value of their abil-
ity to work. If a worker and his or her family requires a certain amount of
rent, a certain basket of foods, a certain amount for clothing, and so on to
enable the worker to work another day—to reproduce the worker's labor
power, as Marx puts it—then the worker is paid full value if he or she re-
ceives the equivalent of all that. But now suppose that the worker has to
work six hours to produce value equivalent to his or her wage. If the
worker works longer than six hours, he or she does not need more food
and drink and rent to reproduce labor power. Thus even if workers work
twelve hours, as they did in Marx's day, they still get paid full value—the
full cost of reproducing their labor power. But at the same time, the sec-
ond six hours of the working day the worker produces value that does
not belong to the worker but goes to the capitalist. That value Marx calls
"surplus value" and the work that goes into producing it "surplus labor."
That surplus value and surplus labor are unpaid in the sense that the
worker does not get paid any more whether he works six, twelve, or even
sixteen hours. Whatever is produced after the first six hours belongs to
the capitalist, and if employers manage to lengthen the working day, they
can "pump out"—another phrase of Marx's—more surplus value.
This is an extremely ingenious theory with a good deal to recommend it.
For one thing, it resolves a serious problem in the labor theory of value.
More important, it allows us to explain a considerably important aspect of
capitalism: Capitalism quite consistently does a poor job of distributing re-
sources. In capitalist countries inequalities are very great, and in most exist-
ing capitalist countries they would be even greater if it were not for govern-
ment programs that redistribute income to some extent—such as health
care and special bonuses for veterans, support for small businesses, food
distributions and educational assistance for the poorer layers of the popula-
tion, and medical assistance for the elderly. The theory of exploitation gives
one explanation for the enormous income inequalities: The rich who own
means of production and employ wage labor are able to extract some of the
products of their workers and appropriate them for themselves.
Capitalism and Exploitation 107
But Marx's theory also has serious problems. We need not spend much
effort on this, however, because economists no longer accept the labor
theory of value, and thus it is only of antiquarian interest today,5 Marx's
concept of exploitation and the support for the claim that capitalism sys-
tematically exploits workers presupposed the truth of the labor theory of
value. If that theory is no longer an acceptable economic theory, what
happens to the concept of exploitation and the claim that workers under
capitalism are exploited? As we shall see, exploitation is open to redefini-
tion, and it is possible to devise different arguments to support the claim
that capitalism, like feudalism and slavery, exploits working people.
on capital, but the argument that capitalists are not entitled to profits be-
cause they did not work for those is weak because it rests on doubtful as-
sumptions.
If we accept the idea that we are entitled to own only what we work for,
it follows that a better society would give to workers as much capital, as
they might be shown to be entitled to by Yirtue of their work. In Marx's
day there were many socialists who held a view like that. Under social-
ism, they claimed, workers would receive the full value of what they pro-
duced. But Marx saw clearly that that was an indefensible view:
Surplus labor in general... must always remain.... A definite quantity of
surplus labor is required as insurance against accidents and by the necessary
and progressive expansion of the process of reproduction [of social wealth].
(CHI, T 440)
All societies require surplus labor to store up food and so on for a bad
year, expanding populations, or a rising standard of living. Elsewhere
Marx also points out that the producers cannot get all they produce for
their own use because someone has to pay for common goods and ser-
vices, such as roads, hospitals, and schools (CGP, T 528-529). There is sur-
plus labor that is not exploitative. Only where surplus labor is expropri-
ated whether workers want it or not, where surplus labor is compelled, can
we properly speak of exploitation. The central objection of Marx and En-
gels to capitalist exploitation is that it is undemocratic.6 Workers do not
choose the distribution of capital exclusively to the capitalists. In fact,
they have no say in the matter in a capitalist country, even in a democratic
capitalist country, as we will see in Chapter 14. Exploitation would not be
remedied, however, by giving a set amount of capital to each worker, but
by opening to all members of the society economic decisionmaking with
respect to the use of available capital.
Against that, it is often asserted that capitalism, unlike slavery and feu-
dalism, is not exploitative. Products are made by means of various "fac-
tors of production" such as labor, raw materials, and capital. Economists
offer mathematical proofs, given certain plausible assumptions, that
under certain economic conditions (such as the absence of monopolies),
each of these factors of prod.ucti.on is remunerated in strict correspon-
dence to its contribution to any given product. Hence workers are paid
for their work, employers receive a reward for organizing the process of
production, and capital gets a return on its contribution. Everyone gets
what they deserve; no one is exploited.
It is not difficult to see what is the matter with that argument: Owning
capital is not a contribution to the process of production. If workers did
not work or worked less, there would be many fewer products or none at
all. If capitalists did not organize the work process, there would most
Capitalism and Exploitation 109
likely be less output. (Although Marx and Engels did not believe that.) The
work of both the workers and the capitalists is essential to production and
thus to producing a certain output. So, of course, is capital. Without ma-
chinery, buildings, raw materials, and so on, there would be no output ei-
ther. So when we reward every contributor to the production process for
his or her contribution, a certain reward needs to go to capital. Under cap-
italism, however, the reward does not go to the capital but to the owner of
capital. But why should the owner get all the profits rather than having all
the contributors to the production process share the profits in equal pro-
portions? Marx argues that there is no justification for giving all the re-
turns on capital to the capitalists for owning capital (holding legal title to
the capital) and giving permission for its use is not by any stretch of the
imagination a contribution to the production process. We can easily imag-
ine social systems where capital is owned by no one—as the earth in the
world of the Native Americans was not owned by anyone—or is owned
by the state or owned by the workers who work in any given enterprise. In
all of these cases, capital would play the same role in the production
process that it plays now, when it is owned by the capitalists. Capital is
useful and productive because it is put to work, not because it is owned by
this or that person or institution. The sheer fact of their ownership and giv-
ing permission to use the capital in a particular enterprise does not entitle
them to the return that capital has earned in production.
But is it really true that the owner of capital contributes nothing to the
production process, except to give the permission to use his or her capi-
tal? Contemporary theorists deny that capitalists do no more than give
permission to use the capital they own. Capitalists, they argue, are enti-
tled to interest on capital because they refrain from spending the money
on consumption goods.7 This is an old claim that was well known already
to Marx. He responds to it with this observation:
The more therefore capital increases by means of successive accumulations,
the more does the stun of value increase that is divided into consumption
fund and accumulation, fund, The capitalist can therefore live a more jolly
life mid at the same time show more "abstinence." (CI, T 608)
Notes
1. Even if you are fortunate enough to be able to make your choices from
among desirable alternatives, you cannot always take pride in your good fortune
and ascribe, say, your wealth to your hard work or intelligence; The person who
can choose between working in a thriving family business or live off the proceeds
Capitalism and Exploitation 113
of his trust fund is very fortunate. But he has no reason for attributing his good
fortune to his own intelligence or hard work. Nor is he justified in ascribing the
poverty of others to their laziness or stupidity.
2. For an interesting critique of this standard interpretation of Marx's concep-
tion of feudalism, see John E, Martin, Feudalism to Capitalism (Atlantic Highlands,
N.J.: Humanities Press, 1983).
3. Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (New York: Interna-
tional Publishers, 1970), p, 56.
4. This formulation leaves out an important qualification: The value of a com-
modity corresponds to the "socially necessary labor time." Commodities are sold
in the market where prices are determined by supply and demand. If a certain
commodity is generally produced with a particular technology, the people who
employ a less efficient technique of production cannot therefore charge more than
the producers operating at the prevailing level of technological or organizational
efficiency. This means, for instance, that small producers who cannot avail them-
selves of "economies of scale" must nevertheless sell at the prices asked by large
producers. The effect is often that small producers are put out of business.
5. Helpful criticisms of Marx's labor theory of value, including Ms theory of ex-
ploitation, may be found in N. Scott Arnold, Marx's Radical Critique of Capitalist So-
ciety (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), chapter 3, and Jon Elster, Making
Sense of Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 127-141.
6. David Schweickart, "A Democratic Theory of Exploitation Dialectically De-
veloped," in Roger Gottlieb, ed., Radical Philosophy (Philadelphia: Temple Univer-
sity Press, 1993).'
7. Arnold, Marx's Radical Critique, pp. lOlff.
8. This argument is developed in detail in chapter 1 of David Schweickart,
Against Capitalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
9. A different sort of defense of capitalism and the return of interest to the own-
ers of capital is often given at this point of the argument: Capitalists may not have
contributed anything to merit interest but the capitalist system is, as a whole, the
most productive, most innovative, and hence most desirable economic system
known to humankind. If giving the interest to the owner of capital is part of that
system, so be it. For an elaborate rebuttal of that claim, see Schweickart, Against
Capitalism.
10. See John Roemer, "New Directions in the Marxian Theory of Class and Ex-
ploitation," in John Roemer, ed., Analytic Marxism (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1986), pp. 81-113.
11. John Roemer, "Second Thoughts on Property Relations and Exploitation,"
in Robert Ware and Kai Nielsen, eds., Analyzing Marxism, supplementary vol. 15,
Canadian Journal of Philosophy (Calgary: Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1989), pp.
257-266.
10
Alienation
114
Alienation 115
Worker Alienation
What is this condition of alienation? Marx distinguishes four aspects of it:
1. Human beings are alienated from the objects of their work. What
workers produce does not belong to them; it belongs to their employers.
But why is that a problem? Suppose workers in an automobile plant were
not paid in money but were instead paid in kind, that is, they received an
automobile every so often; would they then not be alienated?
The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labor be-
comes an object ... but that it exists outside him ... and that it becomes a
power of its own confronting him. (EPM, T 72)
The product of the worker at issue here is surplus value. The worker pro-
duces the money needed to pay wages and to reproduce buildings, raw
materials, and so on. But the worker also produces surplus value that be-
116 Alienation
longs to the capitalists. The capitalists reinvest surplus value and thus
strengthen their economic position and with it their position of power in re-
lation to other capitalists and to the workers. The more workers work, the
more surplus value they produce and the more they therefore increase the
power of the capitalist. The alienation of the workers consists in the fact
that in doing their work, they strengthen the power of the opposing class.
2. Why do they do that? We already know the answer to that. Because
they have nothing to offer in the labor market except their ability to work,
they must work in order to live. They must work whether they want to or
not; they must therefore also work to strengthen their enemies whether
they want to or not. Marx presents this point in discussing the second as-
pect of alienation, the worker's alienation front the activity of working;
"His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor" (EPM,
T 74). Work is not something people choose freely, for that implies the
possibility of refusing to work. It is to that extent not something that is
"theirs"; "it is not ftheir] own but someone else's" (EPM, T 74), and hence
it is not something in which the worker affirms him- or herself.
3. But human beings, as we noted repeatedly, define what it means to
be human not directly but by shaping their world to be a certain way. It is
in work that human beings create what it means to be human. To the ex-
tent that that is a deliberate process, human beings are actually free (EPM,
T 75). But what shall we say of people who work whether they want to or
not, who have no control over what they do and how they go about it,
and who therefore have no control over the sort of world that their work
creates? Industry is a major source of pollution, to give just one example
of what is at issue here. Insofar as people must work industrial jobs be-
cause this is all that is available to them, they are forced to produce an en-
vironment they would not choose if they had a better alternative.
The implication is that the activity of working, which is potentially the
source of human self-definition and human freedom, is here degraded to
a necessity for staying alive. Work could be the source of a genuinely
human life, but here it comes to be no more than the prerequisite for
maintaining biological existence. Alienation "makes individual life in its
abstract form" (viz. mere biological survival) "the purpose of the life of
the species" (EPM, T 75). It precludes the question. What should life be
like? The life of human beings comes to be little different from that of ani-
mals. In that sense, alienation is dehumanization.
4. Human beings are, finally, not only forced to work in ways and under
conditions not of their choosing but they are also forced to compete with
one another for work and are thus separated from their fellow humans.
Here we encounter one sense of "alienation" that is often referred to as
"worker alienation"—the situation of most wageworkers. They do dull
and repetitive work that is of no intrinsic interest to them. They have no
Alienation 117
control over what they do and how they do it. Instead, they have to take
orders and often are treated with little respect. But this suggests the be-
ginning of another sense of "alienation" that refers to lives that appear
empty and aimless. This is the sense of alienation portrayed in the works
of Franz Kafka and Albert Camus. It is the state of those who work only
to survive. In an affluent, First World culture, this alienation is experi-
enced by those for whom acquiring commodities and working to pay for
them is the sole content of life. Boredom and anxiety are held at bay by an
ever more frantic pace of purchasing new commodities. The shopping
mall is the high temple of that sort of existence. Alienation is its hallmark,
sense explained in the first few chapters of this book. Human beings "cre-
ate themselves" in the sense that their actions to solve ordinary problems
affect what sorts of institutions govern their lives. Such institutions shape
what sorts of persons human beings are most likely to be. Different insti-
tutions demand different typical character structures, attitudes, values,
and patterns of conduct from, human beings. The sort of person who
flourished in one culture might be a misfit in another. In the medieval
world, one could be a monk and lead a contemplative life of prayer,
scholarship, and service. Monks did not need to be competitive; being ag-
gressive and looking out for one's own interests was in fact discouraged.
The traits that would make a good monk were hardly those that make a
good entrepreneur. For persons with the inclination and abilities to lead
the life of a monk, there are far fewer opportunities today than there were
then. But there is a much greater range of opportunities for those with
personalities that suit them to be entrepreneurs.
In this discussion of alienation and elsewhere, Marx and Engels use a
concept of freedom, that is unfamiliar to us. Freedom in their sense be-
longs not to individuals separately but only to people insofar as they live
under a particular social system. People are free, in this sense, if they can
and do choose deliberately how to organize their social and. economic in-
stitutions with, a view to making themselves and future generations into
the most desirable sorts of persons. A human being is free if he
contemplates himself in a world he has created. (EPM, T 76)
In the past, Marx and Engels believe, the creation of certain personali-
ties and behaviors was mostly incidental to various measures taken, to
solve concrete social and economic problems:
We have seen that the capitalist process of production is a historically deter-
mined form of the social process of production in general. The latter is as
much a production process of material conditions of human life as a process
taking place under specific historical and economic production relations,
producing and reproducing these production relations themselves, and
thereby also the bearers of this process, their material conditions of existence,
and their mutual relations. (Gil, T 439; italics added)
In their time Marx and Engels believed that genuine freedom—the delib-
erate and thoughtful shaping of the social order and consequently of
what it is to be a human being—was within reach. Once only a possibility
because humans lacked the material preconditions for making use of
their capacity to determine what human life could be like, freedom is now
ready to be actualized.
Of course freedom could not be realized in a capitalist society because of
its "anarchy," because careful planning of institutions was impossible. For
120 Alienation
in a capitalist society the decisions about how social wealth will be em-
ployed are made exclusively by capitalists. Without exception, they make
those decisions with a view to increasing profits, not with a view to im-
proving life for all: If greater profits can be made with weapons than with
hula hoops, then that is where they will invest their capital. Capitalists can-
not consult the members of society whose lives will be affected by the cap-
italists' investment decisions. This freedom becomes unavailable under
capitalism because of the very characteristic of capitalism that its defenders
regard as its special virtue—namely, that every individual need only act as
a rational, self-interested agent and the market will automatically take care
of the work of coordination. Under capitalism., persons have to be rational
utility maximizers; they have to use their resources as well as possible,
given their own desires and needs. They must be certain kinds of persons.
The question whether we might want to arrange our institutions differ-
ently, whether, for instance, we would like to live in a world that is less
competitive or a world in which possessions—making money—are less
important than they are in ours—such a question cannot even be asked. If
the question were ever asked, the apostles of capitalism would certainly an-
swer it in the negative. But in giving this answer, one gives up the freedom
to shape oneself in association with one's fellow human beings into the
sorts of persons one would most like to be. That sort of freedom of collec-
tive self-creation is not available under capitalism.4
The concept of freedom, Marx and Engels use here is quite specific: It
means for a group to be free to make its life activity itself the object of the
group's will and consciousness. But today freedom usually has a different
meaning. We are accustomed to calling a person free who, individually,
can do as he or she pleases, If people want to spend their time drinking,
or writing thick historical novels, they are free if no one hinders them
from, doing what they want. Marx and. Engels appreciated the importance
of this freedom of individuals to do as they please but insisted on its limi-
tations:
This right to undisturbed enjoyment, within certain conditions, of fortuity
and chance has up till now been called personal freedom. (GI, T198)
another. The shape of the social system as a whole is therefore the result
of "chance." Where there is only individual freedom and competition but
no collective decisionmaking, individuals have personal freedom but, at
the same time, are at the mercy of forces over which they have no control.
It is possible to have "personal freedom" but to lack the other freedom
that comes only with collective control over society. In this second sense,
human beings are free to the extent that the group to which they belong,
together, shapes its way of life as the group chooses. As people have differ-
ent ideas about how best to fashion their lives, such collective decision-
making inevitably involves discussion and the weighing of different de-
sires and outlooks. People are free, therefore, when they collectively think
about what their lives should be like and try to arrange their society ac-
cordingly.
This collective decisionmaking produces what Marx and Engels called
"human freedom" because the capacity for that sort of shaping of human
lives is what Marx and Engels regard as distinctive in human beings.
Only groups that think and act together can acquire the power to shape
their social settings. Only in that way do they acquire a new kind of free-
dom and enhance their personal freedom. For in a society such as ours,
personal freedom, is everywhere bounded, by institutional restrictions.
Our personal freedom ends where the power of the separate individual
ends. By joining with others for collective control, we enhance the power
and thus the freedom of each of us.5
In a capitalist society, this freedom is not available. Therefore capitalism
alienates both workers and capitalists:
The propertied class and the class of the proletariat present the same human
self-estrangement But the former class feels at ease and strengthened in this
self-estrangement, it recognizes estrangement as its awn power and has in it
the semblance of a human existence. The class of the proletariat feels annihi-
lated in estrangement."
The collective reflection and choices of how to live and where to put ener-
gies and resources—the precondition for human freedom—are impossi-
ble under capitalism. Since there is no collective, democratic process that
allows the citizens together to decide how to invest and utilize social re-
sources, no one has control over the institutions of the society and what
sort of persons they, together, choose to become. Hence both workers and
capitalists are alienated. But at least the capitalists have the power over
capital and thus can make life good for themselves within the limits of the
prevailing economic system. The workers, because they are exploited and
thus without power over capital and how it will be used, are "annihilated
in estrangement." For the workers, exploitation places narrow limits on
their personal freedom. Their personal freedom is mainly confined to
122 Alienation
2. But "alienation" also has a more general meaning. The central insight
is that social conditions structure the sorts of choices we have in life—-
how free we are to work or not to work and. to what extent we are able to
think of work as something we like and that is "fulfilling" or a dire neces-
sity that must be done for as much money as possible. Social conditions
also shape human personalities: Capitalism, tends to produce people who
are competitive; other cultures have produced persons given to contem-
plation and asceticism. In the background of this sense of alienation is the
hope that in some future society we may be able to shape our personali-
ties and those of future generations by creating institutions that favor the
development we have chosen.
Alienation 123
human freedom. Their political struggles may well be confined within the
limits of the kinds of goals that we have as members of a capitalist society.
But then whence comes the revolutionary enthusiasm and willingness to
sacrifice that Marx and Engels count on in the working class? The theory
of alienation may well possess the theoretical resources to explain why
revolutionary activity has been much, more intermittent and hesitant than
Marx and Engels expected. This fact is not to be explained by "false con-
sciousness" but by alienation (see Chapter 7). The theory of alienation as
Marx and Engels left it, however, is too undeveloped to allow us to ex-
plain our reluctance to fight for a better world.
I take up that question in Chapter 16.
Notes
1. For an interesting and more complex account of the shifts in Marx's method-
ology see Jean L. Cohen, Class and Civil Society (Amherst: University of Massachu-
setts Press, 1982), chapter 1.
2. Erich Fromnx The Sam Society (New Yorlc Fawcett, 1955), p. Ill,
3. And with good reason. I have argued this in some detail in chapter 5 of
Richard Sehmitt, Alienation and Class (Cambridge: Schenkman, 1983).
4. Such freedom was not available in previous cultures either. But in a capitalist
society, Marx and Engels believe, the material, conditions are, for the first time,
available for human beings to choose from among different ways of life, different
sets of institutions. Capitalism makes this freedom of self-creation impossible by
choice, whereas under previous modes of production, the tow standard of living
made such free choices of institutions and the attendant personalities and behav-
ior impossible,
5. For a more detailed discussion of Marx's concept of freedom, see George
Brenkert, Marx's Ethics of Freedom (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983).
6. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Holy Family (Moscow: Progress Publish-
ers, 1975), p. 43.
7. Of particular interest is the extended argument of Max Horkheimer that cap-
italism accustoms working people to submit to authority because their limited in-
dividual freedom is balanced by the inescapable power of economic necessity. See
Max Horkheimer, "Authority and the Family;" in Critical Theory (New York: Con-
tinuum, 1972), pp. 47-,1.28. The claim is that living in a capitalist society tends to
encourage personalty types that are not interested in or prepared for living the
lives of truly free persons. Similar issues are raised in a book that Horkheimer
wrote together with Theodor Adorno, The Dialectic of Enlightenment (New York:
Alienation 125
Seabury Press, 1972), which (among other things) raises questions about the sorts
of persons who grow up in modem society "where culture and entertainment have
become commodities, where ideas are produced for sale by mass media and most
people "consume" ideas instead of thinking for themselves. The question is once
more how capitalist culture shapes us into certain sorts of persons and makes us
unfit for democracy and self-government. Similar ideas are pursued in Herbert
Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967) and Erich Fromm,
Tlte Satie Society.
11
The Future of Capitalism
and Its Failures
126
The Future of Capitalism and Its Failures 127
While all of these strategies work to raise profits/ they also have other,
less desirable consequences. The pressure to keep wages low results in
the progressive impoverishment of workers. That in turn limits the pur-
chasing powers of those workers and thus tends to give rise to crises of
underconsumption when there is not enough demand for consumer
goods. The lack of demand causes the regular occurrence of business fail-
ures, recessions, and depressions. At the same time, the transformation of
the capitalist production process into larger and more mechanized forms
transforms the working class. Workers learn to work together because it
is only together that they have any product—it takes many men and
women to produce one automobile, for instance—and only together will
they be able to exert any power against capital.
The constant drive for increased productivity through mechanization
tends to raise the ratio of capital invested in machinery to capital invested
in wages (organic composition of capital). There is an ever greater sum in-
vested in machines per worker. As a consequence, the amount of profit
produced per unit of capital goes down because, according to the labor
theory of value, only labor creates profits. The decrease in the rate of
profit makes the capitalists reluctant to invest and thus leads to stagna-
tion in the economy.
The lowering of the rate of profit has disastrous effects on businesses
that are marginal already. The number of bankruptcies increases and,
with it, the danger of general economic crisis. With the push for larger
firms, monopolistic price-fixing by large corporations tends to replace the
competition of the marketplace. As a result, less efficient enterprises are
preserved. Capitalism thus loses the advantage of the competitive econ-
omy, which weeds out inefficient producers. More and more of them re-
main in business, contributing further to stagnation and low productivity.
Capitalism becomes unable to fulfill its historical role of increasing
human productivity.
The capitalist marketplace is, in the words of the Marxian tradition,
"anarchical": Every individual seeks to increase his or her profit, but
there is no plan governing the market as a whole. But often the policies
that are advantageous to individual capitalists are, if everyone pursues
them, detrimental to all. It is, for instance, in the interest of the individual
capitalist to cut wages. But if all capitalists cut wages, the aggregate pur-
chasing power of the workers drops and with it demand for the goods the
capitalists are trying to sell.
Thus the individual capitalist's drive for profits has, in the aggregate,
the opposite effect of what was intended: There are more and more severe
economic crises at shorter and shorter intervals. It becomes increasingly
apparent that the capitalist economic system is no longer functioning
properly. The working class gets poorer and poorer, but it also gets better
128 The future of Capitalism and Its Failures
Similar passages occur in Wage Labor and Capital (T 215ff.). Marx and En-
gels put forward the immiseration thesis more than once.
It would be a mistake to regard this merely as a rhetorical exaggeration
calculated to stir up the working class, whom they regarded as the agent
of social transformation. Both Marx and Engels had ample empirical in-
formation to show that the workers in England in the first sixty years of
the nineteenth century lived under generally worsening conditions. Marx
documented this fact in grisly detail from government documents in the
middle portions of ¥olume 1 of Capital. Engels had described the same sit-
uation earlier, in his work Ttie Condition of the Working Class in England in
1844.1 The claim about the progressive immiseration of the working class
fully accorded with the facts as they existed then. Significant numbers of
workers earned less than they needed to support themselves and their
families; their lives were destroyed by abject poverty.
But Marx and Engels took pains not only to describe the impoverish-
ment of workers in their own time (that was obvious to anybody who
wanted to look) but also to assert that the same condition would continue
with only minor changes in the future. In order to establish that con-
tention, they argued another thesis—namely, that wages tended toward
subsistence. Employers compete with one another. One way of improving
one's competitive situation is to produce goods more cheaply than the
competition, and one way of doing that is to lower wages. Employers thus
are compelled by competition to drive down wages as far as possible, to a
level at which they barely suffice to keep workers alive and able to work.
It is not clear that Marx and Engels managed to establish that con-
tention. Without entering into the esoteric details of the labor theory of
value, one can see that capitalism brings with it a phenomenal rise in pro-
ductivity: The amount of time needed to produce a given commodity
constantly shrinks, so that fewer and fewer workers produce more and
more goods. Marx was well aware of that:
the development of the productiveness ... of capital sets in motion an ever
increasing quantity of means of production through a constantly decreasing
quantity of labor.... Every single commodity... also contains less material-
ized labor.... This causes the price of the individual commodity to fall.2
But as goods get cheaper, the total volume of goods expands. If produc-
tivity increases faster than wages fall, then growing exploitation may well
go hand in hand with a rising standard of living.
Marx recognizes repeatedly that even if one managed to establish that
wages tend to fall because of exploitation, it does not follow that workers
will, have a progressively lower standard of living or even that their stan-
130 The Future of Capitalism and Its Failures
While wages go up, the total mass of capital the capitalist class controls
increases even more rapidly. As a consequence, workers may not get
poorer in absolute terms of their consumption of goods because their
standard of living is, in fact, going up. But their "social position"—that is,
their power in relation to their employer—shrinks. Where formerly they
dealt with the owner of their factory, whom they perhaps knew person-
ally, they now work in a much larger company where they deal with
"management," a faceless bureaucracy.
This thesis is often referred as the "relative immiseration thesis."3 That
is a misnomer, Immiseration refers to the suffering of the working class. It
is not clear that the working class, given the improvement in its standard
of living, suffers when the total investment in raw materials, machines,
buildings, and so on increases even more dramatically. Marx's point is not
primarily a prediction that the standard of living of workers would fall
but that they would face a capitalist class whose economic power grew
day by day.
Marx and Engels failed to prove that the entire working class would be
progressively impoverished by wage rates kept as close to bare survival
as possible. But it is true that the efforts of the various working classes
around the world have continued to bolster the power of their employers,
Marx and Engels knew that capitalism was an international phenomenon
("Modern industry has established the world-market" [CM, T 475]), yet
the power of the multinational corporations exceeds anything that they
were familiar with. For workers organized in national unions, the global-
ization of capital means that workers are completely outmatched by
multinational corporations, which are able to move plants and resources
from country to country to escape unions in the workplace and govern-
ment regulations on working conditions.
Tlte Falling Rate of Profit
Marx's "law of the falling tendency of the rate of profit"4 reflected his re-
alization that there were conflicting tendencies with respect to the rate of
The Future of Capitalism and Its Failures 131
profit. On the one hand, he says, there is a long-term tendency for the rate
of profit to fall. On the other hand, there are counteracting tendencies.
This falling rate of profit is undoubtedly central to Marx's thinking
about the development of capitalist society. We noted earlier that he ex-
pected capitalism to come to an end when the relations of production—-
the private ownership of means of production—became "fetters" on the
productive process.
The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself. The means—uncondi-
tional development of the productive forces of society—comes continually
into conflict with the limited purpose, the self-expansion of limited capital.5
The first four of the seven predictions (listed in the previous section)
are thus open to doubt. These claims about the inevitable collapse of cap-
italism are not supported by a fully developed economic model. Marx's
theory of crises remains incomplete, albeit full of fruitful suggestions. The
remaining three predictions are not of a purely economic nature. The in-
creasing unity and organization of the proletariat cannot be predicted on
purely economic grounds but are clearly presupposed by the prediction
that capitalism will collapse and that a proletarian revolution will take
place. I discuss these predictions in the next section.
Marx and Engels set forth another argument for expecting the inevitable
collapse of capitalism that does not depend as narrowly on economic the-
ory. We encountered it earlier in the discussion of historical materialism.
There Marx and Engels tried to show that history can be subdivided into
different epochs, each with its own mode of production. Modes of pro-
duction are characterized by their own level of technology ("forces of pro-
duction") and their social arrangements of ownership and control of tech-
nology ("relations of production")- Modes of production develop as long
as the relations of production serve to encourage the development of the
forces of production. Once the relations of production become a hin-
drance to the development of forces of production, the mode of produc-
tion collapses and is replaced by a new mode of production. Some writers
have taken this abstract scheme as a causal theory: One could predict the
inevitable collapse of capitalism because sooner or later—according to
historical materialism—the relations of production, the private owner-
ship of means of production, would make the further development of the
industrial production apparatus impossible. At that moment, capitalism
would have to make way for socialism.
But as I argued in Chapter 5, historical materialism is not a causal the-
ory. It does not allow us to predict the inevitable collapse of capitalism.
Rather, it summarizes, much too briefly, a historical process that in the
past was enormously complex and that we have every reason to believe
will be equally complex and not predictable in detail in the future.7
Luxemburg makes a strong claim: The Marxian political program for or-
ganizing the working class with a view to replacing the capitalists in
power and installing socialism ("Social Democracy") is valid only if
Marxian economic theory is firmly established. If one gives up the claim
that socialism is inevitable, one gives up the entire socialist project. That
view was not hers alone but, on the contrary, was widely shared. Eco-
nomics was considered the "cornerstone of scientific socialism"; it was in
relation to social policy what mechanics is in relation to engineering: Me-
chanics allows us to build bridges and buildings and machines that stand
up for a long time. In analogous ways, economics was thought to offer a
firm foundation for making social policy, and Marx's economics was
proven sufficiently valid to play that role. The phrase "scientific social-
ism" implies both claims: that social science is capable of the same degree
of certainty as physics and that the Marxian theory of socialism had
reached, or was close to reaching, that degree of certainty.
With the wisdom of hindsight, we can reexamine the Marxian claims and
find that the capitalist collapse is not inevitable and socialism even less so.9
Does that admission also compel us to put away Marx's writings as of
mainly antiquarian value and, even more important, surrender the socialist
political program? Even if the predictions of Marx and Engels are no longer
credible, we must still take their criticisms of capitalism extremely seri-
ously. Marx and Engels pointed to many significant weaknesses of capital-
ism. For that reason, socialism is still a desirable social order.
that its produce may be of greatest value, every individual necessarily labors
to render the great revenue of the society as great as he can.... He intends
his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible
hand to promote an end that is not part of Ms intention,... By pursuing his
own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectively than
when he really intends to promote it10
People—more precisely, capitalists—invest their capital so as to bring a
maximum return. They do this not from any concern for society as a
whole, but because of the "unseen hand" of the market, their pursuit of
their "own gain" promotes the interest of society better than if that had
been their intention. This belief of Smith's has become a veritable dogma
in our time. But in a series of criticisms of capitalism, Marx shows that
this unseen hand works very badly. He argues powerfully that the pur-
suit of private economic interest does not produce the greatest advantage
for all economic actions but on the contrary produces poverty and in-
equality is a threat to political and human freedoms, produces commodi-
fication and imperialism.
With the opening of an export market for wool, feudal landowners took
their land from the peasants and transformed former farms into grazing
The Future of Capitalism and Its Failures 135
lands for sheep. The result was, on the one hand, increased profits for the
landowners, who then proceeded to invest some of that new wealth in
more land or in the newly developing capitalist industries, and, on the
other hand, landless destitution for the farmers and their families.
Comparable processes take place today in the countryside, particularly
in developing countries. The large landowners employ landless agricul-
tural workers who in most countries lead a hard and impoverished life.
Rising food production does these rural workers little good because they
can't pay for more food than they currently consume. One of the bitter
ironies of capitalist agriculture is that in the midst of stepped-up food
production, malnutrition increases in the countryside. Frequently, how-
ever, landowners discover that if they raise an export crop, such as ba-
nanas, coffee, or cocoa in South or Central America, they can make more
money. But then the land formerly devoted to raising food for the indige-
nous population serves to raise export crops. Food tends to become
scarce, and some food must be imported. Food prices tend to rise, and the
poor get poorer. In addition, the landowner, now earning more from the
export crop, can afford to invest in agricultural machinery that will make
production more efficient, make more money for the big farmer, and put
many agricultural laborers out of work. They are definitely impoverished
even, if the gross national product (GNP) of the country rises. Conversion
of agriculture to export crops has deprived these farm laborers and their
families of their ability to make a living in the country; they hope instead
to make some sort of miserable living in the city. Hence the flood of peo-
ple from the countryside who crowd into the shantytowns surrounding
large urban areas in Central and. South America.11
In industry the tendency is to replace expensive labor by cheaper labor.
Marx gives one example of that: The introduction of machinery
dispenses with muscular power [and thus) becomes a means of employing
laborers of slight muscular strength.... The labor of women and children was
therefore, the first thing sought for by capitalists who used machinery. (CI, T
404)
The women and children replaced men who earned a higher wage. Simi-
larly, new machines made formerly skillful work more automatic. The
skilled worker can be laid off and replaced by one less skilled—who earns
less. Work moves from high-wage areas to lower-wage areas, for exam-
ple, from, the United States to Mexico or the Pacific Rim. As a conse-
quence, wages for U.S. workers tend to drop because they are competing
with workers whose standard of living and wages are significantly lower.
Although it is not correct to predict an irresistible trend toward lower
wages, it is also not true, as defenders of capitalism often claim, that the
workers will inevitably be better off.
136 The future of Capitalism and Its Failures
The standard of living of workers today is higher than that of their grand-
parents. But a significant proportion of those grandparents were unem-
ployed during the Great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s and suffered
terribly. The improvement in the general standard of living should not
conceal the fact that on the way to that improvement significant groups
suffered the pO¥erty and deprivation that are endemic to the capitalist
system. Nor is poverty a tiling of the past. The same mechanisms that im-
poverished workers in the past are still at work today.
Environmental Degradation
But defenders of capitalism are hopeful that a further extension of indus-
trial production to those parts of the world that are still developing will
eradicate the poverty that has been the rule in those places, and that it
will do the same in the First World, where, after all, poverty also remains
a permanent condition for many. In that confidence they share the belief
of Marx and Engels that the progress of industrialization can continue in-
definitely (whether with or without capitalism is a question that does not
matter at the moment). In the past fifty years, however, we have learned
that the natural resources required for industrialization are not available
to provide a First World living standard for all inhabitants of the globe.
There is not enough energy, not enough clean air and clean water. There
are not enough trees. Hence there is no basis for the faith that the exten-
sion of First World capitalism to all corners of the globe will finally over-
come the poverty that has always characterized capitalism. Marx and En-
gels are right: Capitalism produces castles for the rich and hovels for
portions of the working class.
of conducting one's life, as long as one is willing to allow the same lati-
tude for others. But Marx and Engels point out that the liberal ideals do
not apply to people who work for a living, Economic necessity shapes
their life-plans. They cannot live according to plans they devise freely for
themselves. In a variety of ways, capitalism curtails the freedom, of the
majority of people. We discussed this at some length in Chapters 8 and 9.
Workers are forced to take jobs they do not like, jobs that do not do jus-
tice to their skills and abilities. Many work more than one job in order to
maintain their customary standard of living. What is more, the employer
subjects them to close supervision on the job. They lack autonomy at
work, and they lack autonomy, the ability to run their own lives, outside
of the workplace because workers are exploited. That means, as we saw,
that the capital resources of the society are administered exclusively by a
small class of capitalists, while the workers have no say whatsoever in
investments. But different investment strategies provide very different
kinds of lives for workers (Shall we invest social surplus in education or
in arms production?). As long as capital is privately owned and adminis-
tered, workers are deprived of substantive freedoms to determine their
own lives. Still to come in Chapter 14 is the argument of Marx and En-
gels that capitalism and. democracy are not compatible. Not only does
capitalism curtail the freedom of individuals with respect to their work-
lives and their lives away from work, but it also curtails their freedom as
citizens.
We examined Marx's various explications of the concept of alienation
in Chapter 10, Alienation, too, consists of a deprivation of freedom—the
freedom for a people to choose what sorts of institutions they will live
under so as to encourage certain types of personalities and discourage
others. Under capitalism there exists no freedom for human beings to
shape deliberately what sorts of people they will be, what they will value
and work for. It is not open to us to be critical of and to replace a system
that encourages self-interest as a central human motive, that demands
that we compete with one another, that we care more for what happens to
us than what happens to those with whom we compete.
Corn modified tion
As we saw in Chapter 7, the market and production for a market are im-
portant characteristics of capitalism. In a capitalist society, as Marx also
often says, production is not for use but for exchange. One produces with
an eye to selling whatever the product may be. This brings with it several
difficulties. A society oriented toward making profits by making and sell-
ing commodities becomes a society in which everyone is pushed to buy
more and more. In order to do that, everyone must make more money in
order to acquire more things.
The Future of Capitalism and Its Failures 139
Everyman speculates upon creating a new need in another..,. With the in-
creasing mass of objects, therefore, the realm of alien entities to which man is
subjected also increases,... Man becomes increasingly poor as a man; he has
increasing need for money in order to take possession of the hostile being....
The need for money is therefore the real need created by the modern eco-
nomic system. The quantity of money becomes increasingly its only quality,14
In a commodity society, acquiring commodities becomes one of, if not the,
most important value. Money counts for more than human excellence or
powers. Human values are strongly distorted.
But Marx points out that capitalism is expansive; more and more goods
are turned into commodities. As long as that applies only to clothes or
food, we are not troubled. If parental care for children is turned into a
business and parents are replaced by paid nannies or daycare centers,
some people begin to worry. When public officials are prepared to perjure
themselves for money, when scientific and scholarly expertise goes to the
highest bidder, we have entered a time when everything that people had
considered as inalienable becomes an object of exchange.
This is the time when things which till then had been communicated but
never exchanged, given but never sold; acquired but never bought—virtue,
love, conviction, knowledge, conscience etc.—when everything, in short,
passed into commerce. It is the time of great corruption, of universal venal-
ity, or, to speak in terms of political economy, when everything moral or
physical, having become a marketable value, is brought to the market to be
assessed at its truest value.15
You must make everything that is yours saleable, i.e. useful. If I ask the po-
litical economist: Do I obey economic laws by offering my body for sale, by
surrendering it to another's lust? . . , Or am I not acting in keeping with po-
litical economy if I sell my friend to the Moroccans?—Then the political
economist replies to me; You do not transgress my laws; but see what Cousin
Ethics and Cousin Religion have to say about it. My political economic ethics
and religion have nothing to reproach you with.... But whom am I now to
believe, political economy or ethics? (EPM, T 96-97)
sal venality." The moral value of certain actions and personal traits is re-
placed by its "true value," that is, what you can get for it in the market-
place. Thus personal integrity loses its value and is replaced by immoral-
ity because integrity does not pay but immorality does. Commodification
corrupts the entire society, and there is no point in calling for a return to
old-fashioned values, as many politicians do, while leaving capitalism
unscathed.
It is important to notice, particularly at a time when the virtues of the
"free market" are proclaimed daily, that most societies are in fact strongly
aware that not all goods should be turned into commodities. Hence we
have any number of legal restrictions on what sorts of things may be sold,
and the volume of these restrictions grows daily. Consider some obvious
items on this list. We are not allowed to buy or sell human beings or
plants and chemicals that the government regards as harmful; many
states prohibit the sale of fireworks and tools for opening locks. Political
influence; access to privileged commercial information; examination
questions; confidential information about someone's medical, or academic
history; official papers such as birth certificates and drivers' licenses; and
other similar items may not be bought or sold.
This suggests two interesting conclusions about commodification.. First,
it suggests that we are not convinced that a free market is a good institu-
tion unless it is carefully restricted to commodities we want to see bought
and sold. In addition, that legislation needs to be passed continually to
stop commercial practices we regard as harmful, unfair, or immoral
shows that the capitalist marketplace has the potential to spawn many ac-
tivities that offend our moral senses or are clearly harmful.
The ultimate outcome of the process of commodification is that per-
sonal identities also become commodities:
What I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality.
I am ugly, but I can buy myself the most beautiful of women.... The effect of
my ugliness—its deterrent power—is nullified by money.... I am stupid . . .
[but the stupid person] can buy talented people for himself and is he who
has power over the talented not more talented than the talented? ... (EPM,
T 103-104)
their own merchandise, and to invest the capital generated by their in-
dustries. Marx describes the effect of the British on India: They continued
the "plunder of the interior," they exported British cottons to India, and
they exported British capital to build railroads and telegraphs. While
India was used to being plundered, the major damage was done by the
import of British goods. Life in Indian villages had for centuries revolved
around agriculture and textile production in the home. But those hand-
woven textiles could not compete with the cheaper machine-produced
goods brought in from England, As a result
The British intruder broke up the Indian hand-loom and destroyed the spin-
ning wheel,... British steam and science uprooted, over the whole surface of
Hindostan, the union between agriculture and the manufacturing industry.
(T656)
British colonial rule changed the face of Indian society. Marx is willing
to acknowledge that these changes were not all intrinsically evil: Indian
society had not changed much for many centuries, and change may well
have been necessary. But the import of British goods as well as the invest-
ment of British capital would not, Marx believed, "mend the condition of
the mass of the people" because improvement for the majority required
not only "the development of productive powers, but also ... the appro-
priation by the people" (T 662). As long as benign influences of colonial-
ism (and the same is true of current versions of neocolonialism.) are acci-
dental side effects of the pursuit of profit, the well-being of the majority of
people will not be under the control of the colonized.
Those remarks applied to colonial rule in India. But in the postcolonial
era the relations between developed and underdeveloping countries
show some of the same traits: Capitalist investments bring about changes
in underdeveloping countries, as do goods imported from the First
World. The resulting changes do not generally help the mass of people,
nor do the people in the developing countries have any say in or control
over the kinds of social changes that come about. The widely held belief
that the condition in developing countries will improve if only capital
and goods can be imported from the developed world is false: Relations
of dependency rarely benefit the bulk of the people in developing coun-
tries16 and always leave their sovereignty impaired. In the postcolonial
era, we still have to take Marx's criticisms of colonialism seriously.
Colonial and postcolonial arrangements serve(d) the interests of the
colonial and postcolonial powers. Their wealth is derived in part from the
returns on their investment in the underdeveloped countries (if it does
not derive from the outright theft of colonial resources, as practiced by
the Spaniards in Latin America, the British in India, and the North Amer-
icans with respect to the land of Native Americans). This wealth is one of
142 The Future of Capitalism and Its Failures
As citizens, we are expected to think not only about what is good for
ourselves but also about what is good for our country, for all of us. Cer-
tainly we expect public officials not just to make policy and administer it
in order to enrich themselves but to govern on behalf and in the best in-
terest of the people who elected them. A good deal of political rhetoric
identifies some political actors as the tools of "special interests" while
others have the common good at heart. In the background of that accusa-
tion is the assumption that representatives should serve the common
good of all. (Without that assumption, the "special interest" accusation
would make no sense.) But Marx points out that it is difficult for people to
be public-spirited as citizens if as economic actors they care only for their
own good. A capitalist democracy is bound to represent the private inter-
ests of the few as opposed to the interests of the large majority. Anyone
who considers the political processes in developed countries today must
The Future of Capitalism and Its Failures 143
admit that Marx's worries about capitalist democracy are well founded.18
Tn the discussion of the state, in Chapter 14, I discuss other reasons for
being distrustful of capitalist democracy.
The grand predictions of Marx and Engels have not come true because
they were not as well supported as had long been thought. Nevertheless,
Marx and Engels' critique of capitalism still deserves to be taken very se-
riously. Capitalism brings a higher standard of living for some and
poverty and misery for others. In the hope of alleviating the poverty of
some, it is likely to aggravate environmental crises. Capitalism is a threat
to individual liberty—except the liberty to buy and sell. But that liberty
gives rise to widespread corruption. It is not power that corrupts so much
as the power of money. In addition, capitalism is a threat to countries that
are less developed. The assumption that the pursuit of individual interest
will, benefit the whole of society is unfounded.
But perhaps capitalism is the best available system, even, if we accept
all these strictures, Marx and Engels did not think so. We examine their
alternative in Chapter 17.
Notes
1, Frederick Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844
(Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1962).
2, Marx, Capital, vol. 3 (New York: International Publishers, 1967), p. 226.
3, Ernest Mandel, Marxist Ectmomic Theory, vol. 1 (New York Monthly Review
Press, 1971), pp. 15011
4, Marx, Capital, vol. 3, part 3,
5, Ibid., p. 250.
6, Ibid., pp. 232 and 236.
7, Even if we do consider historical materialism a causal theory, its claims are
open to serious question. The inevitability of capitalist collapse has not been es-
tablished. See Erik Olin Wright, Andrew Levine, and Elliott Sober, Reconstructing
Marxism (London; Verso, 1992).
8, Rosa Luxemburg, "Social Reform or Revolution," in Dick Howard, ed,, Se-
lected Political Writings (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971), p. 123.
9, In some very general sense, we can be confident that capitalism will not last
forever because no other social systems have survived centuries of change. But
what will replace capitalism? We cannot be at all certain that a new and better so-
ciety will take its place.
10, Adam Smith, An Inquiry into tin Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
(New York Modern Library, 1985), p. 176.
144 The Future of Capitalism and Its Failures
11. See, for instance, Alain Kouquie, America Latins, Introduccion al extremo Occi-
dente (Latin America: Introduction to the Far West) (Mexico, D.F.: Siglo Veintruno,
1989), chapter 3.
12. David Schweickart, Against Capitalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993), p, 107, "Natural" unemployment is the rate at which, there is enough
unemployment that workers cannot successfully demand higher wages. Once the
unemployment drops below that rate, workers win higher wages and that, in
turn, tends to drive up prices and increase inflationary pressures.
13. For empirical documentation of this tendency toward inequality in the
United States, see the reports by Mishel cited in the Introduction.
14. Karl Marx, Early Writings, ed. T. B. Bottomore (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1963), p, 168.
15. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy (New York: International Publishers, 1963),
p. 34.
16. To cite just one example: When capitalist firms from the developed world
build factories in developing countries, they often introduce state-of-the-art tech-
nology that is capital-intensive and thus creates relatively few jobs. But what most
developing countries lack are precisely jobs. As a consequence of high unemploy-
ment and low wages, the internal market is small; there is limited demand for
anything but the most essential consumption goods. Therefore new industries
tend to produce for the luxury market, where there is money to be made. The
mass of people thus is left outside the new industries and the new capitalist mar-
ket. Their lives are not bettered by the relations to the developed countries. See,
for example, Catherine M. Conaghan, Restructuring Domination: Industrialists and
the State in Ecuador (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988).
17. Marx-Engels: Selected Correspondence (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975),
p. 86.
18. This problem was not original to' Marx. It was first stated very clearly by
Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Ms Social Contract, For an interesting discussion of this
whole train of thought in Marx, see Richard N. Hunt, The Political Ideas of Marx
and Engels, vol. 1 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1974).
12
What Are Classes?
MS
146 What Are Classes ?
The concept of economic class helps throw some light on the nature of
capitalism and its difference from previous (and subsequent) modes of
production. Capitalism—with its private ownership and control of the
means of production—is possible only where there are several economic
classes that differ with respect to the ownership of capital. The concept of
an economic class helps us understand the general structure of capitalist
societies. Capitalist society here appears to be split into two major classes:
the owners of labor power and the owners of capital.
Passages like the one cited above have yielded the conception of the na-
ture of classes that has dominated traditional Marxism: Classes are
groups of people characterized by their relation to the means of produc-
tion. The capitalists own means of production; the workers do not V. I.
Lenin provided the classical formulation of this conception of class, and it
has since been repeated over and over again:
Classes are large groups of people, differing from each other by the place they
occupy in an historically determined system of social production, by their role
in the social organization of labor and, consequently, by the dimensions of the
share of social wealth of which they can dispose and the mode of acquiring it1
This conception of classes has three distinct aspects. Classes are (1)
groups of individuals (2) who are united by having the same relation to
something, and (3) the relations that serve to define a group of people as a
class are economic relations.
This concept of economic class, if defined by reference to the ownership
of means of production, encounters a number of difficulties: To begin
with there appear to be significant differences among people who own
means of production. Marx and Engels were aware of the important dif-
ference between the capitalists proper and the owners of corner grocery
stores, shoemakers, and other craftspeople who also own their means of
production but do not hire labor at all or in very small numbers. Here
seems to be a third economic class: those who own means of production
but live mainly by their own work and. do not, or only minimally, depend
on exploitation. While the capitalists exploit workers and thus accumu-
late more capital, the third class—the small owners—are not primarily ex-
ploiters. Marx and. Engels recognize this third class (they call it the "petty
bourgeoisie") but predict that it will disappear:
The lower strata of the middle class—the small tradespeople, and retired
tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and. peasants—all. these sink grad-
ually into the proletariat. (CM, T 479-480)
This prediction clearly did. not come true. While small enterprises tend, to
be absorbed by larger ones, new small businesses keep cropping up.
More important is that the economic class of all those who do not own
means of production is much more heterogeneous than the traditional
14:8 What Are Classes ?
Marxian classification suggests. On the one side are the middle-class pro-
fessionals, who, although they do not own means of production, have a
markedly different economic role from the workers. They often manage
the means of production for the capitalists or are, as we saw earlier, the
capitalists' soldiers in the ideological, war over the maintenance or re-
placement of capitalism. Nor is it unambiguously clear that they are ex-
ploited rather than being themselves exploiters,2 On the other side of the
scale are the people who are not workers but do not own means of pro-
duction: These are thieves, street merchants, shoe shine boys, the people
who wipe your windshield when you are stopped for a traffic light, beg-
gars, small-time drug dealers. In developing countries often 40 percent
of the population is in this so-called informal sector. The vast majority of
these individuals are desperately poor; but they are not exploited by
their employers, nor do they create surplus value or profits for the capi-
talists.
Both of these groupings exemplify ways in which capitalism has
changed since the days of Marx and, Engels. The middle-class profession-
als have become much more important. To the extent that capitalism is
progressively less able to provide jobs for all, the numbers of the unem-
ployed or underemployed grow steadily. What is more, this classification
of economic classes completely ignores the differences among industrial
workers and agricultural laborers and small farmers, even though in the
time of Marx and Engels the majority of all people lived in the country
and worked on farms. The traditional conceptions of economic class are
unclear and full of uncertainty.
Many authors summarily equate economic, social, and political class.
Ignoring the complexities of the concept of economic class, they assume
that all the members of an economic class automatically constitute one
political actor: the proletariat. Marxists have often looked to all the people
who do not own means of production to be, for that very reason, social-
ists. But this equation of economic, social, and political class often creates
confusion and error.3 The members of the same economic class have a
wide range of experiences depending, for instance, on their gender and
race. Small proprietors have very different experiences, values, and ways
of life depending on whether they have a small business in the city or
whether they are small farmers. Religion plays a formative role in the out-
looks of various groups, as does history. Workers of Irish extraction in the
United States have a very different history, say, from Mohawk ironwork-
ers. These backgrounds will most certainly affect their values and out-
looks on the world. When the time comes for these workers with diverse
histories and outlooks to unite—even if they have nothing to lose but
their chains—they find many differences between them that make it
harder to engage in concerted political action.
What Are Classes? 149
the relation to the means of production, that forms people into a political
class.
The separate individuals form a class only insofar as they have to carry on a
common battle against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms
with each other as competitors. On the other hand, the class in its turn
achieves independent existence over against the individuals, (GI, T179)
Here Marx cites class struggle as a necessary condition for people to form
a class. Classes thus are not merely groups of people who have the same
relation to the means of production; rather, they are groups of people in a
"common battle" that ebbs and flows.
In addition, the class develops and changes in the course of class strug-
gle. As time goes on, it acquires permanent organizations (e.g., in the
form of business associations in the case of capitalists or labor unions in
the case of workers). Sometimes these organizations are very powerful,
while at others they can barely survive,
The small peasants form a vast mass, the members of which live in similar
conditions, but without entering into manifold relations with one another.
Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing
them into mutual intercourse.... In this way, the great mass of the French
nation is formed by simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as
potatoes in a sack of potatoes. Insofar as millions of families live under eco-
nomic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests
and their culture from those of other classes, and put them in hostile opposi-
tion to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local intercon-
nection between these small holding peasants, and the identity of their inter-
ests begets no community, no national bond and no political organization
among them, they do not form a class. (18th, T 60S)
Class Consciousness
But this account of the transformation of economic into political classes
leaves out important elements in the history of political classes. It leaves
out the development of class consciousness, and that is not intelligible
without the concept of social classes. The political activity that is neces-
sary in order to transform economic into political class requires class con-
sciousness and, in its turn, promotes the growth of class consciousness.
But there are several interpretations of Marx and Engels' ideas about the
emergence of class consciousness in the working class.
All readers of Marx understand the importance of class consciousness
to the development of political classes. But not all of them see that class
consciousness develops only in the course of class struggle. Instead, there
are two major alternative viewpoints: One Marxian tradition regards the
emergence of class consciousness as pretty automatic. That view finds a
152 What Are Classes?
But most of the time Marx and Engels believe that the intellectuals' role
is to articulate in theoretical terms the understanding held by the working
class of its own situation. Intellectuals serve as mirrors to the working
class rather than as expert leaders. (This does not take away from the crit-
ical importance of intellectuals.)6 Marx explains that class and class con-
sciousness develop in one and the same process. In Class Struggles in
France, he suggests repeatedly that the program advocated by the work-
ing class was not revolutionary because the class was not ready to act as a
separate class against the bourgeoisie: "The Paris proletariat was still, in-
capable of going beyond the bourgeois republic."7 The Paris proletariat
did have its own class consciousness, one that was sharply opposed to the
outlook of the capitalists. The Paris proletariat also had its own political
program, but it was not a revolutionary one because, according to Marx,
the working class was not sufficiently developed politically and neither,
therefore, was its class consciousness. The class consciousness of the
working class develops apace as the class becomes a political class. It does
not evolve independent of "objective" conditions.
Just as the economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois class,
so the Socialists and the Communists are the theoreticians of the proletarian
class. So long as the proletariat is not yet sufficiently developed to constitute
itself as a class . . . these theoreticians are merely Utopians who, to meet the
wants of the oppressed classes, improvise systems and go in search of a re-
generating science.8
154 What Are Classes ?
the age that "have ever been the ideas of its ruling class" (CM, T 489), The
two classes share the worlds of industrial capitalism, of technology and
science, of ever increasing productivity. In this world individualism, indi-
vidual freedom, democracy, and equality of opportunity are treasured
concepts. The outlook and ways of life of the working class—its class con-
sciousness—thus share important elements with bourgeois ideology, both
in its practices and its ideas,
At the same time, because they are not members of the ruling class,
workers go about their lives in ways other than those of the capitalists,
They do not invest capital and hire workers. They hire themselves out
and are exploited. The ideology as well, as many of the practices of the
ruling class sit uneasily with the workers' implicit understanding of their
own world. For instance, the idea of equal opportunity (that everybody
can be a capitalist if only he or she works hard enough) means one thing
to young workers and something else to the sons and daughters of capi-
talists. If they are lucky, workers may become supervisors or even suc-
ceed in starting their own businesses; their chances of becoming top-level
executives, corporate lawyers, or highly paid neurosurgeons are very
slight. Given that political campaigns cost large sums of money and
money talks loudly in politics, the idea of democracy has a different
meaning for working people and for capitalists (witness the low voter
turnouts in elections).
And so it is with the other ideas associated with the bourgeoisie. These
ideas are a starting point for the class consciousness of the working class
that slowly develops in opposition to the bourgeois outlook, as the class
itself develops into a class in the full sense. The class consciousness of the
working class never becomes completely separate from bourgeois ideol-
ogy. Instead, it gives new meanings to the concepts that play an impor-
tant role in bourgeois ideology but are only imperfectly realized in bour-
geois practice. The development of a proletarian class consciousness is
connected in complex ways with the ruling bourgeois ideology. It is,
therefore, not complete until the working class has become the dominant
class and has abolished class distinctions.10
But theories that help people interpret and understand existing institu-
tions are only one of several aspects of class consciousness. The working
class must not only grasp that its condition is the result of the inordinate
power of the capitalists. A class-conscious proletariat also understands
that the prevailing institutions are not immutable. It understands that in-
stitutions can be changed, and—this is essential—it has the confidence
that it can effect change. Without such confidence, no one will undertake
political action. Class consciousness consists not only of a more or less
theoretical understanding but also of hope that change for the better is
possible now and that the efforts of political action are worth the sacri-
156 What Are Classes?
fices they require. Change will occur when people organize themselves to
bring about that change. But that takes hard work and sacrifice. No one
takes on that difficult work of social change without a steady hope that
their efforts will bring results,
This element of class consciousness presents a problem for Marxist the-
ory. We saw in Chapter 11 that Marx and Engels believed that they had
founded a science sufficiently well established to allow them to predict
without fear of being in error that capitalism would collapse and be re-
placed by socialism. The hope that sustained them through forty years of
political effort, they believed, could be justified by their science. But I
show below (in Chapter 15) that their belief is mistaken. The science they
laid claim to did not and does not exist. Even if it did exist, it would not
provide support for political effort and sacrifice. Hence the question how
class consciousness develops remains without answer. Marx and Engels
have nothing to say about how the people who need to change the domi-
nant institutions in order to better their lives can sustain themselves
through bitter conflicts and. many disappointments. Often people who are
struggling are sustained by their religion. They take heart, for instance,
from their understanding that Jesus, too, was a social revolutionary.11 But
with their aversion to religion, Marx and Engels cannot explore that solu-
tion. Their understanding of class consciousness remains incomplete.
The development of class consciousness is promoted and complicated
by class struggle. As the working class consolidates its own identity in
struggle with employers or with opposed political groups, it also learns to
articulate its own view of the world, its needs, and its expectations for a
better future. But at the same time, one of the strategies of the capitalists in
the class struggle consists of trying to impede the development of work-
ing-class class consciousness. The ruling class is always attempting to re-
tard the development of a working-class ideology. Thus ideology is a
weapon in the dass struggle. The small disagreements between workers
and employers are always in danger of growing larger. In a class society,
there always exists the danger that full-fledged class struggle will erupt in
ways that would seriously interfere with production and the perpetuation
of existing social arrangements. One strategy for forestalling such serious
conflict is to mask, as far as possible, the proper ideology or outlook of the
workers and to cover it over with ideas more favorable to the employers.
Marx and Engels were aware of this strategy and hence devoted part 3 of
the Communist Manifesto to unmasking these deceptive forms of socialism.
For example, one target of their criticism were the "bourgeois socialists":
The Socialist bourgeoisie ... requires that the proletariat should remain
within the bounds of the existing society, but should cast away all its hateful
ideas concerning the bourgeoisie. (CM, T 496)
What Are Classes? 157
Notes
1. V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970-1971), p.
231. This conception of class has received a powerful defense in recent years by G.
A. Cohen, Karl Marx's Theory of History (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1976), chapter 3, section 5.
2. For years, a number of Marxists have tried valiantly to incorporate this layer
of the population into a generally Marxist classification. These efforts have not
been successful. See, for example, Erik Olin Wright, Classes (London: Verso, 1985).
3. For an interesting overview of contemporary interpretations of Marx on
class, see Frank Parkin, Marxism ami Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1979), chapter 2, See also Jon Elster, Making Sense of
Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), chapter 6, section 6J.
4. Marx-Engels: Selected Correspondence (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975),
p. 334.
5. Lenin, Selected Works, vol. 1, p. 150.
What Are Classes? 159
6. Antonio Gramsci developed this view of the role of the "organic intellectual"
in his Prison Notebooks (New York: International Publishers, 1971).
7. Marx, Class Struggles in France 1848-1850 (New York: International Publish-
ers, 1964), pp. 42-59.
8. Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (New York; International
Publishers, 1968), p, 125.
9. Ibid-, p. 47,
10. The central role of bourgeois ideology in capitalism was emphasized by
Gramsci in Prison Notebooks, pp. 1-14,
11. Elivia Alvarado, Don't Be Afraid Gringo: A Honduran Woman Speaks from Her
Heart (New York; HarperCollins, 1987), chapter 4.
12. For documentary evidence on that point, see Studs Terkel, Hard Times (New
York Pantheon Books, 1970).
13
Class Struggles
160
Class Struggles 161
Class struggles are of different sorts. Class struggle includes a wide va-
riety of struggles, and not all of them have a fully formed working class as
their protagonist. Groups develop into classes only in class struggle;
when that struggle begins, at least on one side of the struggle is a group
that has not yet organized itself into a political class. It may merely be an
economic class that is transforming itself into a political class by taking on
political struggles—struggles that extend beyond the confines of a partic-
ular workplace. (That does not mean, of course, that political classes can-
not engage in economic struggles.) But if class struggle cannot be defined
by reference to the participants, we may be tempted to define it by refer-
ence to the issue struggled over: Class struggle, we may want to say, is
struggle over exploitation.
It is clear that a central issue between workers and employers is ex-
ploitation. It is the cause of alienation, of the many injustices of capital-
ism. But while it is plausible to suggest that class struggles are struggles
over exploitation, that interpretation needs several modifications: In any
given conflict, whether between individuals or between groups, there is a
162 Cfess Struggles
and universities because they sit on the boards of trustees or give large
donations to such institutions. They have a similar relation to various
philanthropic foundations. They own and therefore have a good deal of
control over the media. Finally, as large donors to political campaigns,
they have disproportionate influence in the political arena. In those elec-
toral democracies where elections are honest, every man and woman has
only one vote. But the large contributors to political campaigns have in-
fluence that goes far beyond their votes. Not only are their ideas the rul-
ing ideas of any epoch, but those in power are able to decide many things
besides wages and working conditions. The struggle against a ruling
class affects more than just working conditions and thus is carried on not
just by workers. The extensive powers of any given ruling class concern
the lives of everyone in the population in different ways, and thus many
different groups at times participate to challenge the power of the ruling
class.
To give just one example of this: The capitalist class has the power to
frame problems, to determine the terms in which a problem is discussed.
North American society faces a problem of drug addiction. There are a
number of ways of thinking about that. One can think about it as a symp-
tom of the despair engendered by the failure of capitalism to provide a
rich and secure life for all. One can think of it as one more instance of cap-
italist greed for profit. Tobacco and liquor companies are legitimate enter-
prises; by some historical quirk, the Medellm drug cartel is not. But they
surely are similar in all respects except the illegality of cocaine and the le-
gality of scotch and cigarettes. Both are for-profit enterprises; both may be
considered examples of the failures of capitalism. A third perspective
would be to stress that the drug traffic is one of the problems accompany-
ing underdevelopment. The coca farmers in Bolivia do not have an alter-
native crop to grow for the support of their families. The only way for
them to participate in the world market is to grow coca leaves. That crop
is, in addition, a valuable source of scarce foreign exchange for a number
of governments. If we considered the drug problem from one or more of
those perspectives, we would have to find ways of alleviating the despair
in poor neighborhoods of our cities; we would have to reconsider the
value of the private profit motive, or we would have to construct genuine
alternatives for the rural poor in certain parts of Latin America and
Southeast Asia. But that would cost money and would tend to reflect
badly on capitalism,. So the more usual way to frame the problem, of drug
traffic is to blame the drug users. They have a problem; they need individ-
ual help. It is not their life condition but their personal weakness that
makes them into addicts. It is their moral, failure, hence we send them to
prison in significant numbers. The other culprits are foreign governments
who are inefficient in suppressing the drug trade.
164 Cfess Struggles
The central fact in this discussion is that there are many ways to con-
sider the drug problem. The citizens at large are not consulted on how
best to think about these problems. The gO¥ernment, foundation-sup-
ported think tanks, university professors, clergy, professional social
workers, and others develop a perspective on this problem. The power of
the ruling class extends to formulating how problems will be considered.5
To reformulate such issues for public discussion, for instance, would in-
volve struggles not only by workers but by many different groups in the
population.
Even more important, the power of any particular capitalist is not his
or hers by virtue of the means of production he or she owns. The power
of the individual capitalist rests on the support of other capitalists and
even more on the capitalist institutions, such as the state (see Chapter 14).
Hence challenging the power to exploit takes different forms. Workers
may challenge and, for a time, weaken, their particular employer's power
to exploit. But if the power of the capitalist class is unchanged and ai the
competing capitalists can pay wages as low as they always paid, then the
employer who was forced to make concessions will find herself in an un-
favorable competitive situation. She faces two choices: She can try to take
back concessions made earlier, or she can go out of business. In either case
the inroads on one capitalist's power to exploit prove temporary. In the
struggle to maintain control over the means of production or over the so-
ciety as a whole or to maintain a certain rate of profit, each capitalist has
the support of all the others.
The power of the ruling class in any country is not just the aggregated
power of individuals over their workers but, in addition, the collective
power of the entire class. While capitalists are in fierce competition with
one another in the economic arena, they form a class precisely because
their power is not private property but is the power of the class. Individ-
ual capitalists are not powerful by virtue of their personal characteristics
but because they own capital. If they lose their capital, if it passes into dif-
ferent hands, they lose the power to exploit as individuals. But the class
does not lose its power. The capitalists form a class, the ruling class, be-
cause they have been able to create institutions favorable to them and be-
cause they have been able, thus far, to maintain those institutions. Those
institutions, such as the division of the society into economic classes, the
private ownership and control of means of production, the "free" (how-
ever carefully regulated) market. Other relevant institutions are, above
all, the legal system, the governmental institutions that maintain the ex-
isting systems, and the supporting institutions in the realms of religion,
education, and the media,
Class struggle is characterized not by the fact that participants are
classes but by the underlying issue: the power to exploit. At issue, how-
Class Struggles 165
ever, is not just the power to exploit of individual employers, for their
power is limited. At issue is the power of the entire capitalist class to ex-
ploit and that, in turn, requires the power to reproduce capitalist institu-
tions. In class struggle the power of the ruling class in its entirety to ex-
tract surplus labor is being contested, along with the power to create and
maintain the institutions needed for this class to extract surplus value in
just the way it does (e.g., through corvee" labor or the wage contract).
Often the opponents of the ruling class are not themselves classes or are,
at best, only classes in formation. We can consider these opponents to be
classes only to the extent that they have been able to create their own in-
stitutions to maintain their power and their continued existence.
with the class struggle. Hence it is clear that not all political action is an
instance of class struggle. Not everything the workers do is part of their
struggle against the capitalists. Not every action of the capitalists is in
support of maintaining the interests of their own class,
Political action is concerned with both restricted, local and larger, na-
tional problems. National associations, parties, unions, protest organiza-
tions, and organizations to further the cause of women and African
Americans at times have widespread support. Then such forces become a
threat to existing distributions of power and to the institutions that main-
tain these existing distributions of power:
In. real life... the revolution begins the other way round, by the great major-
ity of the people and also the majority of the official parties rallying against
the government which is thereby isolated, and overthrowing it,7
At other times these organizations are little more than an office with a
small staff. In the former situation, the organizations participate in class
struggle. In the latter they are a source of employment for their staffs.
Marx and Engels repeatedly organized national or even, international po-
litical organizations, and they believed that some of these organizations,
for instance, the International Workingmen's Association, for a time had
influence in several European countries.8 But after a while the popular
movements from which the International Workingmen's Association drew
its strength subsided, and all that remained of the organization were a cen-
tral office and small cliques of political activists in various countries. Class
struggle, whether by a few large organizations or many small ones, always
requires the political activity and opposition of extensive numbers of peo-
ple. In periods of political quiet, there is no class struggle, even though
some of the formerly powerful organizations may still hang on.
With the temporary suspension of class struggle when working-class
organizations lose their power comes a lull in the struggle over ideology,
Previously developed working-class ideologies lose their persuasive
power; the ruling ideologies become more powerful, and have, for a time,
no rivals. The certainty of earlier generations of political opponents of
capitalism that change is possible and is bound to come gives way to the
complacent belief that capitalism is the best system there is or the despair-
ing view that a more just society cannot be achieved until the last trumpet
sounds. Once again the fetishism discussed in Chapter 7 prevails: The
capitalist marketplace is taken to be as inescapable as gravity. But when
class struggle resumes, so does the conflict over ideas and the effort to de-
velop an outlook to rival the ruling ideologies.
In the Marxism, that we have inherited from, the German Social Demo-
crats and, later, the Bolsheviks, political action either contributed to the
class struggle on the side of the proletariat—that was called "revolution-
Class Struggles 167
This is a complex statement: The Irish workers, working for less than the
English, tend to depress the wages of the latter and compete with, the
English workers for jobs. Hence the English workers hate the Irish. But, in
addition, they hold all kinds of "prejudices" against the Irish having to do
with religion, nationality, and way of life. It is because of those prejudices
that Irish workers can or must work for less than the English workers.12
Capitalism, and the class struggle endemic to capitalism, is by no means
the cause, or "root," of those prejudices. Nevertheless, capitalism, encour-
ages ethnic (and other) prejudices because it pits worker against worker
in competition for jobs and because employers find that racial divisions in
the working class are to their advantage. A work force divided, along
racial lines is more manageable. Racial or gender or ethnic groups ostra-
cized as the result of prejudice have greater difficulty in securing jobs and
are therefore forced to work for lower wages. The Irish worked for less
because it was the only way to get work at all. Class struggle fosters racial
and other conflicts but does not cause them,
Marx's theoretical formulation of class struggle does not imply that
class struggle in capitalism is the cause of racism. In his analyses of con-
crete situations, he clearly recognizes that the causes of racism lie else-
Class Struggles 169
Here Marx and Engels insist that the class struggle between English pro-
letariat and bourgeoisie cannot progress unless the issue of "racism" is
addressed and, settled first. The same is true for the U.S. working class:
In the United States of North America every independent movement of the
workers was paralyzed as long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic.
Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is
branded.15
Resolving a racist division cannot be postponed until after the socialist
revolution. The development of the working class is impossible unless
the racist division is closed.
3. Class struggle is fundamental as the most important of all the struggles
being fought out Is class struggle the most important struggle? As we have
just seen, the answer to that question has varied at different times. In the
late 1860s, when Marx and Engels wrote the letters just quoted, they obvi-
ously thought that the struggle against the oppression of the Irish was the
most important struggle because without it the English proletariat could
"never accomplish anything." In a letter to Marx written in the same pe-
riod, Engels expresses regret that the Irish had failed to understand that
their "sole allies in Europe" were "the socialist workers,"16 but he does
not insist that the Irish join the class struggle of the socialist workers, let
alone postpone their own struggle for the sake of that of the socialist
workers of Europe. It is clear that he did not believe that the class struggle
I/O Cfess Struggles
was, at any time, fundamental in the sense of being the most important
struggle.
4. Class struggle is the most inclusive. Class struggle is fundamental to all
societies because there is always class struggle of some sort, whereas the
other conflicts that color and shape class struggle differ widely from, one
society to the next:
The history of all past society has consisted of the development of class an-
tagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs,
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages,
viz, the exploitation of one part of society by the other, (CM, T 489)
The many different kinds of conflicts in any given society can be better
understood if they are seen against the background of and in connection
with the struggle between classes. The converse is, of course, also true:
Class struggle is affected by the existence of, for instance, racial or gender
struggles. But these other struggles are not as frequent or as sustained or
as ubiquitous as class struggles. Class struggle is therefore fundamental
inasmuch as all divisions in societies are played out against the back-
ground of class struggle, which itself is colored by those other divisions.
Class struggle is the most inclusive struggle.
Women have responded to this claim by pointing out that more soci-
eties are known to us in which women were oppressed than societies that
exploited labor.17 Marx's and Engels' answer to this objection is contained
in Engels' later work The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
(T 734f£), which essentially argues that the oppression of women in the
family is a consequence of the development of the institution of private
property—that is, of some form of exploitation. Engels maintains that
class struggle is indeed the most inclusive struggle.
It is not clear whether he was right about that. The anthropological evi-
dence is scanty and open to interpretation. Fortunately, we can leave this
question unresolved because this is not the only sense in which Marx and
Engels regard the class struggle as fundamental.
5. Class struggle is the only source of revolutionary change in society. The
flourishing and decay of different cultures is due to class struggle. Marx
and Engels classify historical, periods by their mode of production and,
specifically, by the way in which, in the societies known to us, the product
of the many has been taken and used by the few. The "glory that was
Rome" flowed from the hard work of slaves who did not share in that
glory. In feudal society the work of the serfs supported a class of largely
idle landowners and soldiers. The surplus produced by the serfs allowed
the medieval Church to erect monumental cathedrals. The productive
wealth of capitalist countries is produced by workers who do not own or
control the wealth they have produced.
Class Struggles 171
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and
journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposi-
tion to each other, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight,
a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionaryre-constitutionof soci-
ety at large, or in the common ruin of contending classes, (CM, T 474)
The great transitions in human history occur when one mode of pro-
duction replaces another—transitions that are a long time in coming and
leave their effect for long times afterward. But these transitions, as well as
the processes leading up to them, are the effects of class struggles. The
very essence of these transitions is the replacement of one ruling class,
with its characteristic mode of production, by another ruling class with its
different mode of production. To date that has also meant the replace-
ment of one form of oppression and exploitation by another.
All societies known so far have been exploitatiYe. By virtue of their su-
perior political, military, or economic powers, members of one class have
forced the members of another to hand over part of what they produced.
This exploitation has been a constant source of friction. There have obvi-
ously been other sources of conflict, such as religious or cultural differ-
ences. But only class struggle finally puts an end to the ability of a given
ruling class to exploit and thereby ends the rule of that class.. Class, strug-
gle, of all the struggles in history, is the one that overturns modes of pro-
duction and classes and puts different classes with different modes of
production in their place. It is for that reason more fundamental than
other struggles.
Class struggle is the only source of revolutionary change. This is one of
the most central claims in the thought of Marx and Engels. It follows di-
rectly from the conception of class and class consciousness developed in
Chapter 12. Political classes hold power in society by virtue of an ex-
tended range of institutions and organizations supporting the prevailing
mode of production. This mode of production cannot be replaced by a
different one without unseating the current class in power. Hence major
political, social, and economic change is impossible without class strug-
gle. In that sense class struggle is fundamental.
The revolution, when it comes, will bring an extended democracy,
which in turn requires full equality for all members of the society. Can
class struggle, struggle over the power to exploit, give rise to a more
equal society unless, at the same time, it is a struggle against all oppres-
sions—such as oppression by gender and race—within the respective
classes? This question has stirred up an enormous amount of controversy
most of it due to misunderstandings of the concept of class. If we define
classes as centers of power resting in a set of institutions, then every chal-
lenge to the institutional power of a ruling class is class struggle.
172 Cfess Struggles
That interpretation has two implications: (1) Struggle over wages and
working conditions that does not challenge the power of the employers is
not class struggle because it does not pose a threat to that power (unless it
strengthens the organizations that will challenge the employers' power in
the future). (2) Struggles for equality on the part of women, the disabled,
or people of color is a part of the class struggle it" they challenge the ruling
institutions. For the prevailing capitalist institutions—corporations, phil-
anthropies, universities, mass media—all support existing institutions
even if they are sexist, racist, and so on. Although they may pay lip service
to greater equality, these institutions are above all capitalist institutions in-
terested, in maintaining the power of capitalism. The condition of a major-
ity of African Americans is the joint result of racism and of the inability of
capitalism to produce full employment. The effort to maintain capitalism
commits the corporations, philanthropies, and universities to a set of in-
stitutions that cannot maintain full employment. It commits them, as a
consequence, to support racial and gender divisions that are useful for re-
tarding the development of a working-class challenge to the ruling insti-
tutions. Racial, gender, and other kinds of equality take second place to
the maintenance of ruling institutions. Advances made by some individu-
als obscure that the posture of the ruling institutions is unchanged.
Greater equality for all remains as empty a hope as always. Existing capi-
talist institutions cannot and will not bring equality for all. A strong push
for greater equality needs to transform, capitalist institutions that main-
tain the subordination of white women and people of color,
This chapter has, I hope, clarified what Marx and Engels mean by class,
class consciousness, and class struggle, but the discussion has been rather
abstract insofar as I have made no mention of the state. We cannot fully
understand the relations of classes, their development, and their conflicts
without considering the role played by the state. I discuss the state in the
chapter that follows.
Notes
1. Marx, Capital, vol. 1 (New York: International Publishers, 1967), p. 659,
2. Marx-Engels: Selected Correspondence (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975),
pp. 221ft
3. Ibid., pp. 254,255.
Class Struggles 173
174
The State 175
legal. If they are legal, the law determines whether they are legal in all
workplaces. In many places public employees, for instance, may not
unionize. The law determines next what forms conflict between employ-
ers and employees may take, whether they may strike, and, if so, under
what conditions. The state, according to Marx's and EngeJs' materialism
(see Chapter 6), belongs to the superstructure that corresponds to the
prevailing mode of production. The state corresponds to that mode of
production in that the institutions of the capitalist state, for instance, the
legal system and the police, support capitalism by ensuring, as far as pos-
sible, its continued existence. One example of that is the set of institu-
tions—legal and. regulatory-—that deal, with the relations between work-
ers and employers. These institutions that support capitalism are what in
this view are called the structure of the state,
Other state structures, too, uphold capitalism: The worker and the em-
ployer meet in the marketplace and strike a bargain. For that contract
even to be possible, a law of contract is needed; also necessary is a social
order in which people who are socially and economically very unequal
are nevertheless equals before the law. Employers are not entitled to
break contracts or to cheat employees simply because they have greater
status and wealth. Underlying capitalist exploitation is a legal system that
treats all people equally, whatever their other differences may be,3 This
legal system is backed by the coercive power of the state.
Marx gives other examples of the complex legal and political order re-
quired as the background condition for exploitation:
For example, the fact that surplus labor is posited as surplus value of capital
means that the worker does not appropriate the product of his own labor;
. . . This... law of bourgeois property,.,. through the law of inheritance etc.,
attains art existence independent of the accidental transitoriiiess of individ-
ual capitalists. (CI, T 260)
In order for the reproduction of capital to occur, the law needs to guaran-
tee that what the worker produces, including surplus value, belongs to
the employer. But since employers are mortal, the continuity of capital
must also be guaranteed by laws of inheritance. Exploitation, under capi-
talism, presupposes a complex legal order that enforces contracts and the
rights of private property, including the rights of inheritance.
In these and other ways, it appears that the state, by virtue of its per-
sonnel, its legal structures, and such institutions as private property, is on
the side of the employers and thus is the "executive committee of the
bourgeoisie."
can distinguish five different senses in which the capitalist state is inde-
pendent.
1. In ancient society, particularly in the East (in Egypt) but also in Latin
America (Mexico and Peru), production in what Marx called the "Asiatic
mode of production" was dominated by one person who claimed divin-
ity, ownership of all property, and state power. That supreme ruler com-
bined in his person the leadership of the ruling class and the leadership of
the state.4 In capitalist society; by contrast, the ruling class and the state
are distinct. Capitalists do not have political office simply by virtue of
being capitalists.
2. The state is independent from the capitalist class also insofar as the
interests of one are not identical with the interests of the other. The capi-
talist class represents its private interests. The state is supposed to repre-
sent the public interest. There is, for instance, a clear difference between
public and private parks, schools, and art collections. The owners of the
private institutions are, within legal limits, free to use these institutions
according to their own interests. By contrast, public resources are sup-
posed to be run by the government to benefit all; the government is the
guardian of the public good. With the progressive elaboration of the gov-
ernment bureaucracy in France,
every common interest was straight-away severed from society, counterposed
to it as a higher, general interest, snatched from the activities of society's
members themselves and made an object of government activity, from a
bridge, a schoolhouse and the communal property of a village community to
the railways, the national wealth, and the national university of France,
(18th, T 607)
The state represents the common, general interest of the nation, in opposi-
tion to the private interests of individual entrepreneurs. The publicly
owned institutions are there for the benefit of all. The independence of
the state consists in its being devoted to the "general interest."
3. The government does not always act in the interest of the ruling
class. On the contrary, it often enforces laws that benefit working people
against the interest and objections of the capitalists. Marx was perfectly
well aware of that. He relates, in some detail, the struggles of employers
against factory legislation and their various attempts to sabotage the en-
forcement of those acts once they were passed:
As soon as the working class, stunned at first by the noise and turmoil of the
new system of production, fviz. the factory system], recovered, in some mea-
sure, its senses, its resistance began.... For 30 years, however, the conces-
sions conquered by the workers were purely nominal. Parliament passed
five Labor Laws between 1802 and 1833, but it was shrewd enough not to
vote a penny for their carrying out, for the requisite officials, etc. They re-
The State 179
mained a dead letter..,. The normal working day for modern industry dates
only from the Factory Act of 1833.5
Concessions were difficult for the working class to get, but they did get
them. Employers cannot always have it their way; the government works
for both parties in the class struggle. It does appear to do more than just
the bidding of the capitalists.
4 In general, the extent to which the state will be dominated by the rul-
ing class depends on the relative strength of the contending classes in the
class struggle. Marx notes in The Eighteenth Bmmaire of LOTUS Bonaparte
that during the regime of Napoleon 111 in France, between 1852 and 1871,
the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were equally unable to take power, so
that the state of Napoleon III was fairly independent of all class pressures
and, could use the peasantry as its base,
France, therefore, seems to have escaped the despotism of a class only to fall,
beneath the despotism of an individual..., The struggle seems to be settled
in such a way that all classes, equally impotent and equally mute, fall on
their knees before the rifle butt*
In this passage we encounter a fourth sense in which the state may be in-
dependent—namely, if it is relatively free to operate without bowing to
class pressures because the classes are equally matched and the influence
of each neutralizes that of the other. This often happens in underdevel-
oped countries, especially in the early years after the end of colonialism,
when national industry is weak and so are the classes connected with it.
In that situation the state often takes over the role of developing the econ-
omy, of attracting external capital or transferring capital from the export
sector to the newly developing local industries.7
5. France under Napoleon III illustrates another sense in which, the
state is independent. The state acquires a state bureaucracy; it consists of
different ministries, offices, departments. Often the state also acquires
certain industries: railroads, communications, production of weapons, or
the exploitation of natural resources such as oil, copper, or bauxite. In ad-
dition, the state builds up an army and a police force. All of these institu-
tions have their own institutional interests: primarily to maintain them-
selves in existence, then to maintain or to extend their power, receive
more public resources in order to fulfill their mission, and have their mis-
sion defined (by the executive or the legislature) in the way they see it.
Thus the state, in the form of the state bureaucracy, has its own interests
and goals, which may well differ from those of the different classes in the
society. In that sense, too, the state is independent8
The state is therefore said to be independent if state institutions are dis-
tinct from class institutions and/or if the interests of the state are not au-
WO The State
it or give it away. The political power and the economic power of the
community were embodied jointly in the state. As in the feudal society
political power and ownership of land in the tribal society were one and
the same thing. Under capitalism, however, there develops a sharp dis-
tinction between private and public concerns. Under capitalism property
is privately owned and each owner is supposed to consider only private
interests. Private property becomes "private" not only in the sense that it
belongs to particular individuals but also in the sense that public inter-
vention in the conduct of private economic affairs is minimized. The pub-
lic is denied an interest and a voice in the sphere of private property. The
state becomes quite separate from, the economy because the economy has
become the realm of the purely private. The public aspects of that social
order become distinct in the form of the state:
out of this very contradiction between the interests of the individual and that
of the community the latter takes an independent form as the State. ... Just
because individuals seek only their particular interest, which for them does
not coincide with their communal interest... the latter will be imposed on
them as an interest "alien" to them, and "independent" of them. (GI, T
160-161)
in the senses explained earlier. The economy is still under private control;
private profit is still a powerful and legitimate moving force of economic
activity. Exploitation is still the source of the capitalists' profits. The na-
ture of the capitalist state has not changed, nor has the support that this
structure provides for the continuation of the capitalist system. In the cap-
italist state, the economy and with it exploitation are outside the realm of
politics and thus not affected by the extension of suffrage and the devel-
opment of democratic political institutions. Hence the capitalist state, by
its very structure, maintains capitalism. A working class that wants to put
an end to exploitation must therefore put an end to the capitalist state.
Not only must the existing bureaucracy be discharged and the existing
structures dismantled, but the capitalist state, in the broad sense, must be
abolished as well. The entire system of laws and the underlying princi-
ples must be challenged, reexamined, and, where necessary, replaced.
Above all, the distinction between democracy in the political realm and
exclusive control by owners in the economic realm must end.
But is the economy today not in effect under democratic control? After
all, the nineteenth-century notion that economic matters are not to be sub-
jected to state control has long been abandoned. As everyone knows, you
cannot be in business, you cannot enter any commercial transaction, even
one as simple as buying or selling a car, without having to consult rules
made by the government, without paying taxes and getting the required
pieces of paper from the government to complete the transaction. It does
not appear true any more that economic matters are private and un-
touched by government regulations.
This is undoubtedly so. But the principle of privacy and private owner-
ship remains central in this very important way: Property, whether con-
sumption goods or productive resources, is owned by private individuals.
Private ownership implies private control. The people who work in offices
or factories, in schools or on farms have nothing to say about the running
of their workplaces. The only way they can participate in making public
policy in the economic sphere is through the extremely roundabout mech-
anism of electoral democracy. The individual worker has no say about
how the workplace is run except by instructing the elected representative
in Washington (or London or Paris or Quito or New Delhi). But that mech-
anism still leaves the workers without any real say where they work. It
leaves them without any real say in investment of a company's profits and
the direction in which a given business might develop or what the priori-
ties of a society should be in. the use of its social capital. The worker is still
exploited. In spite of all government regulation of economic affairs, the
principle of private property and private control has not been breached
substantially. The abolition of the capitalist state amounts to the extension
of democracy to the economy. Marx customarily refers to this as "a com-
The State 185
munity of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of pro-
duction in common" (CI, T 326). This is the central idea in Marx's concep-
tion of communism, which we discuss in Chapter 16.
Notes
1. G, William Domhoff, Who Rules America? (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, 1%7).
2. Martin Carnoy, Tfe State and Political Theory (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1984), chapter 4.
3. To be sure, the law does not in fact treat all persons equally. There are too
many examples where the law is manipulated in their own favor by persons with
greater resources,
4. Marx, Grundrisse (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973), pp. 473ff.
5. Marx, Capital, vol. 1 (New York: International Publishers, 1967), pp. 278-279.
6. Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (New York: International
Publishers, 1963), p, 121.
7. See F. H. Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, Depetuienda y Desarollo en America Latitta
(Dependence and development in Latin America) (Mexico, D.F.: Siglo Veintiuno,
1988),
8. It is often said that the government and its bureaucracy are on the side of the
capitalists because they are the big taxpayers. Bureaucracies need money and
therefore tend to treat the wealthy, the large contributors to the state treasury,
with more care. That supposes, of course, that the wealthy pay most of the taxes.
But in many countries half the taxpayers never pay any taxes at all, and among
those who do not pay the wealthy are represented disproportionately.
9. Even though there are, obviously, passages in Marx and Engels that support
ascribing that view to them.
10. This does not mean that persons in civil society are particularly "selfish" or
unkind. All it means is that each person may choose or not to support public wel-
fare depending on his or her private goals. Support of the common good always is
a means to some private end,
11. See Richard N. Hunt, The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels, vol. 1 (Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press, 1974), p. 83. But whatever happened to the unseen
hand of Adam Smith? Was it not his belief that if all people pursued their self-in-
terest rationally, the common good would be served better than if they set out to
do what is best for all? I discussed this in Chapter 11 and summarized there some
of the considerations that moved Marx and Engels to be very skeptical, of the ef-
fectiveness of that unseen hand. Experience gives us many reasons for rejecting
the claim that if only everyone is able freely to pursue his or her own self-interest,
the public good, will be best served. Perhaps the most striking piece of evidence is
186 The State
the explosive growth of the coercive state itself in the capitalist twentieth century.
The development of capitalism, of the private sphere of free individual pursuit of
one's own interest, has been made possible and has required an astonishing ex-
tension of state power into all aspects of our lives. These suggestions of Marx and
Engels are extremely controversial in our day. But only blind dogmatism will
refuse to see that these suggestions are challenges to prevailing beliefs that re-
quire careful examination.
12. This difficulty is developed in interesting ways in Goran Therborn, What
Does the Ruling Class Do When It Rules? (London: New Left Books, 1978), part 2,
chapter 2.
15
Utopian and
Scientific Socialism
MARX AND ENGELS DID NOT coin the term "socialism." It was
in vogue before they began writing, used by people with political out-
looks quite different from theirs. In the third section of the Communist
Manifesto, they differentiate their view of socialism from a variety of other
contemporary or earlier versions. They admired some of these a great
deal, particularly those of Claude-Henri Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier,
and Robert Owen, but were nevertheless critical of these thinkers for
being "Utopian":
the economic situation as they [viz. Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen] find it,
does not, as yet, offer them the material conditions for the emancipation of
the proletariat. They therefore search after a new social science, after new so-
cial laws, that are to create these conditions. Historical action is to yield to
their personal inventive action, historically created conditions of emancipa-
tion to fantastic ones, and the gradual, spontaneous class-organization of the
proletariat to the organization of society specially contrived by these inven-
tors. (CM, T 497-498)
Marx and Engels called these three thinkers and, reformers "Critical-
Utopian Socialists"—"critical" because they attacked "every principle of
existing society" (CM, T 498), "Utopian" for more complex reasons,
Utopian Socialism
In current English usage, proposals are called "Utopian" if they appear
unattainable. Any serious suggestion that people travel to the moon was
Utopian before the invention of rockets because there was no known
187
188 Utopian and Scientific Socialism
The socialism of earlier days certainly criticized the existing capitalistic mode of
production and its consequences. But it could not explain them, and, therefore,
could not get mastery of them. It simply could reject them as bad. (SUS, T 700)
The Utopians thus also did not understand that the solution to the socio-
economic problems before them required the abolition of the capitalist
system; they did not see the problems as elements in a highly complex
system that needed to be abolished as a whole.
Here is an important insight for political action; If some conditions re-
quire changing, you need to find out first the causes of those conditions
and then the existing forces that maintain those conditions. If poverty
concerns you, you need to disco¥er why there are poor people, why just
these people are poor, and, most important what aspects of your society
keep them in poverty. If there are poor people because there are not
enough jobs that pay well, you need to find out what prevents the econ-
omy from providing enough jobs. You will discover that there are no
doubt very different causes of poverty for different persons and, that
therefore you must do different things to help the very old or the disabled
from what you must do to help those who cannot find jobs because they
are illiterate. But in the course of all this inquiry you will also find, as we
noted earlier, that capitalism tends to depress wages and that capitalism
consistently has trouble providing jobs for all. At that point you under-
stand that in order to abolish all poverty you need to abolish capitalism.
The Utopians did not understand that
2. Since the Utopians did not understand capitalism, they did not un-
derstand that the evils they were trying to remedy-—exploitation, inequal-
ity, poverty—were the inevitable accompaniments of the rule of the bour-
geoisie. Social systems, like capitalism, include particular distributions of
power. Capitalism, maintains itself because capitalists have most of the
power; that enables them to sustain capitalist institutions, such, as private
property in the means of production or the capitalist state (see Chapter
12). Thus the Utopians further could not know that a revolution was nec-
essary in which one class, the proletariat, would take power from another,
the capitalists. But this change could be brought about only by the prole-
tariat as a class. The Utopians did, not understand that major transforma-
tions of capitalist society can be effected only by large numbers of people.
Hence they [viz. the Utopians] reject Jill political, and especially all revolu-
tionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and en-
deavor, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the
force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel. (CM, T 498)
The Utopians favored small, experimental communities run by their
charismatic leaders. But these communities were not adequate to the task
of transforming an entire society (as we will see in item 5 below).
190 Utopian and Scientific Socialism
tions. Some examples are the Amana community In Iowa and many of the
kibbutzim, in Israel,
Capitalism, like all other social systems, has a natural life span. You
cannot abolish it just whenever you decide to do so. It needs to mature
before it is abolished. Capitalism cannot be replaced as soon as people un-
derstand that it is the source of their suffering; rather, it has to run its
course and develop fully before a socialist revolution is possible. The
Utopians had an inadequate understanding of the process of social
change because they did not see that social conditions had their roots in
social systems that can only be removed at specific times, namely, when
they are ready to be removed.
The Utopians ignored history. They failed to see that as history changes,
so do the concrete problems of human beings. They did not study their
immediate environment to see what precisely the problems were, what
social systems and social forces served to maintain these problems. They
also did not understand what measures were needed to solve these prob-
lems or who would be in a position to do so. Hence they misdiagnosed
problems; they did not understand what was possible to do in their time
and what needed to be deferred; and, most important, they did not un-
derstand who was going to bring about all these transformations.
Scientific Socialism
According to Marx and Engels, the proper form of socialism is not
Utopian but scientific, It is unfortunate that they thought the concept of
science did. not present any problems and therefore never made any sus-
tained effort to clarify what they meant by science. In all the plentiful
writings of Marx and Engels, science is rarely mentioned and if so only in
passing. As a consequence, there are very different conceptions of what
they meant by science. Each can be supported by certain comments of
Marx and Engels,
In a few places Marx compares his work in economics to natural sci-
ence and talks about his discovery of the "laws of motion" of economies
and, more generally, of entire societies. In the afterword to the second
German edition of Capital, volume 1, Marx cites with approval the review
written by a Russian author.
The one thing that is of moment to Marx is to find the law of the phenomena
with whose investigation he is concerned,... Consequently Marx troubles
himself about only one thing . . . to establish as impartially as possible the
facts. (CI, T 330)
those facts sets down laws. In the preface to the first German edition,
Marx himself formulated this view of his project by drawing an explicit
parallel between his work and physics; he claims to ha¥e discovered laws
or "tendencies that work with iron necessity towards inevitable results"
(Cl, T 296). In these passages Marx presents himself as the Isaac Newton
of social science, as the man who developed laws of social change compa-
rable to the laws of mechanics Newton formulated. Many commentators
take utterances like these as representative of the conception of science
that Marx and Engels held.1
But Marx and Engels also hold another view of science. In the same ex-
cerpt from the afterword to the second. German edition, the reviewer in-
sists that "the old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws
when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry" (CI, T
Ml)—societies are more like biological organisms than inanimate bodies.
Here the analogy between economics and natural science that Marx
seems to draw in the passage quoted earlier is explicitly rejected. The
laws of mechanics apply everywhere and at all times, while laws applica-
ble to social organisms change from one historical period to another. So-
cial science
regards every historically developed form as in fluid movement and there-
fore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary exis-
tence. (CI, T 302)
Social science employs conceptual schemes that apply only under limited
historical conditions. Thus the theories that help us to understand capital-
ist institutions are not applicable to different modes of production. For in-
stance, the economic models that throw light on the commercial transac-
tions under capitalism and on the development (and underdevelopment)
of capitalist countries do not help us understand a feudal society or a so-
ciety that rests on slavery. This social science dedicated to tracing the
changes in social organisms, Marx insists, is none other than the dialectic
(see Chapter 4). However difficult it may be to interpret the details of that
conception of science, it is clear that it is much more complex than the
earlier view that likened Marx's economics to Newtonian physics. Dialec-
tic is needed, Marx suggests, because the same laws and the same con-
cepts do not apply in all historical periods. Before we can even begin to
investigate the facts about any given society, we require a theory that de-
fines and links together the key concepts we need in order to describe
those facts.
Marx and Engels then seem to hold quite different theories of science.
The first derives "laws of iron necessity" from carefully observed, facts.
The second has two distinct parts, one proceeding toward the formula-
tion of theoretical frameworks and the other investigating facts and their
Utopian and Scientific Socialism 193
connections, all the while making use of the theoretical framework devel-
oped at some distance from the particular facts. What is more, there are
different interpretations of this second Marxian conception of science.
Some writers ignore Marx's comments about "dialectic" and his descrip-
tion of his science as "dialectical" and insist that Marx proceeds as do
most scientists today, namely, by formulating models and then testing
those models in relation to observation.2 Others take Marx's comments
about dialectic more seriously and see in the dialectical formulation of
theoretical frameworks a procedure that develops and justifies concepts
independently of factual observations, by the use of philosophical argu-
mentation alone.3 Others stress that the dialectic is not a purely theoreti-
cal method for the development of concepts but rather studies the ways
in which existing structures shape and set limits to existing institutions.4
This is the view of dialectic that I developed in Chapter 4.
These two different conceptions of science have at least one thing in
common: Both claim, to establish "necessary" laws. Marx and Engels
more than once refer to the "iron necessity" of the laws of social science.
Their social science does not just deal in probabilities; it does not merely
discover possible trends, the ways in which a society might develop. Nor
does it merely uncover sets of alternative trajectories that a society or a set
of institutions might follow in their development, without being able to
predict which of those trajectories a society will actually follow.5 The so-
cial science of Marx and Engels formulates laws of necessary develop-
ment. In the passage cited earlier from the afterword to the second Ger-
man edition of Capital, we read that
Marx... [tries) to show the necessity of successive determinate orders of so-
cial conditions.... For this it is quite enough if he proves at the same time,
both the necessity of the present order of things and the necessity of another
order into which the first must inevitably pass over. (CI, T 300)
their followers are not the only ones to have done battle on behalf of such a
society. It is an ancient dream, to build a society where justice prevails over
power, community over enmity. But no one besides the Marxists have be-
lieved that science justified their pursuit and that they could be sure of
success. All those other visionaries, however, were no less dedicated to
their goal and no less willing to make great sacrifices for their cause. With
the realization that there is no scientific socialism, we lose the comforting
certainty that our cause will be victorious. But that has never been a reason
for giving up hope that a more just society is possible, nor has it been a
reason for not making every effort to attain such a just society,
When the time for revolution has come, everyone will know what needs
to be done. What is more, raising questions about the nature of socialism
smacked of utopianism; such questions were for that reason also suspect.
When the Bolsheviks, for instance, came to power in Russia, in 1917, they
had only the vaguest idea of the socialism they set out to construct They
were certain that a socialist society would be one where the state owned
all means of production. But for the rest they improvised. They were not
equipped to build an alternative economic and social order; they believed
that they did not need to prepare themselves for that because the changes
were necessary and hence would be obvious to all when the time came. It
is quite clear that they were mistaken about that. When, the time came to
rebuild the economy ravaged by World War I and by the civil war follow-
ing the Bolshevik revolution, the Bolshevik leaders did not have a very
clear idea of what needed to be done.
In addition, the false belief in a Marxian social science obscured the
deeper meaning of the distinction between Utopian and, scientific social-
ism. I discussed this earlier in connection with the ethical views of Marx
and Engels at the end of Chapter 7. Once we distance ourselves from the
196 Utopian and Scientific Socialism
prevailing view that scientific socialism replaces ethical views about the
in.justi.ces of capitalism, we are ready to understand that political action,
at its best, has two sides. On the one hand, political action that works for
an amelioration ol social conditions must be guided by a set of ideals of a
good society-—an oppositional ideology. All great political leaders are
moved and inspired by definite ideals of a good society. Socialism is in
that sense an ideal also. It sets out some of the aspects of a good society.
On the other hand, there are practical questions about how that ideal is
going to be realized.
Marx insisted in his discussion of Utopian socialism that actual, concrete
political actions cannot realize the ethical ideal of socialism immediately
and directly. The ideal of socialism is not a blueprint; it sketches a vague
outline of the world we seek to build. It does not tell us how to go about
building it Actual societies are enormously complex, their different parts
connected in complicated ways to form social systems. Political action
must always be understood in its context of social, economic, and political
institutions. These particular institutions present us with problems and
limited ranges of options for their resolution. Particular actions sometimes
serve to maintain these institutions; at other times they change them. But
at the same time the insti.tuti.onal contexts shape the consequences of these
actions in ways we cannot always predict (see Chapter 4).
These facts about political action have several consequences: Human
political action always proceeds on the basis of incomplete information be-
cause human beings are not omniscient. We do not fully understand the
institutional context in which we operate and how it will affect the out-
comes of our actions. Hence the political actions we undertake are bound
to have consequences that are not foreseen or foreseeable. Sometimes
these unforeseen consequences go in the right direction; often our actions,
no matter how carefully considered, have consequences that are quite un-
desirable. The process of building socialism must be frankly experimental.
In addition, societies and their institutional structures change. Actions
that might be effective and useful at one time will not make sense or have
the desired results at another time. Building a socialist society is a long
process. What we do at any given time depends very much on current
conditions and the problems those conditions present us with, as well as
the options available for resolving those problems. For instance, once we
give up the certainty that socialism will come, we need to ask whether so-
cialism, is even, possible. We can no longer ignore that question. But what
is possible does, of course, vary in different historical periods. Hence the
question, Is socialism possible? will not be answered once and for all but
will transform itself into a very different and more complicated question:
We have formulated a general ideal of a just society. Now we need to de-
cide what steps in that direction are needed and, more important, which
of those are possible today and which will be in order after that Whether
Utopian and Scientific Socialism 197
that the government of a city state of over one-and-a-half million souls could
not be conducted without funds.... They generously offered to provide
such necessary funds. Since, however, they were to take such large personal
198 Utopian and Scientific Socialism
risks in the interests of Hamburg, it seemed only fair that they should have a
certain voice in deciding how the funds were to be spent9
The upshot of that negotiation was that the previous ruling elites came
back into the city government and soon were running the city again, gradu-
ally squeezing out the workers. The uprising had succeeded in giving the
workers control of the government offices but not the power to run it.
The various proletarian uprisings that Marx chronicled support the
same conclusion; Taking over city hall physically does not guarantee the
ability to govern the city. Here is what happened in Paris in 1848;
When it came to the actual conflict, however, when the people mounted the
barricades ... the republic appeared to be a matter of course,... Having
been won by the proletariat by force of arms, the proletariat impressed its
stamp on it.... While the Paris proletariat still reveled in the vision of the
wide prospects that had opened before i t . . . the old powers of society had
grouped themselves, assembled, reflected, and found an unexpected support
in the mass of the nation. (18th, T 600)
The revolution began with workers fighting in the streets. Their victory
made them believe that they were in power. While they were deliberating
on how to reshape French society, the previous ruling groups gathered to-
gether again. The outcome was a dear defeat of the proletariat. It did not
win state power.
Marx and Engels repeatedly insisted that the revolutionary class could
not simply take over the existing state but had to transform it. A revolu-
tion requires not only a transfer of state power from one class to another
but a transformation of state power, A new class will have a state of a new
form. Marx was aware of that: "But the working class cannot simply lay
hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purpose"
(CW, T 629). That means that the existing power cannot simply be taken
over. The masses of people cannot simply take power but have to construct
new kinds of power,10 But new power requires new institutions. New in-
stitutions require new ideologies, new organizations, and, to some extent,
different sorts of people.
This is the central insight embodied in the distinction between Utopian
and scientific socialism. Politics—if it is not only self-interested, get-me-
elected politics—is guided by some general ideals. But the realization of
these ideals requires much, more concrete actions that often do not turn
out as expected because we are not omniscient; they are distorted by the
complex social systems in which we act. Those social systems may be re-
placed, but only when they are ready, that is, when classes that are capa-
ble of replacing them have developed and are sufficiently numerous and
powerful to usher in a new historical era.11 There is an important differ-
ence between the conception of a socialist society and the means that
Utopian and Scientific Socialism 199
Notes
1. Thus G. A. Cohen ascribes to Marx a "Victorian" conception of science, by
which he presumably means a conception like that of John Stuart Mill that under-
stands science as consisting of laws derived from carefully gathered and verified
facts. See G. A. Cohen, Karl Marx's Theory of History (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1978), p. 329, n, 1.
2. Paul Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development (New York; Monthly Re-
view Press, 1942),
3. See, for example, Tony Smith, The Logic of Marx's Capital: Replies to Hegelian
Criticisms (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990),
4. Daniel. Little, The Scientific Marx (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1986).
5. For a detailed discussion of such alternative conceptions of the task of social
science, see Erik Olin Wright, Andrew Levine, and Elliott Sober, Reconstructing
Marxism (London: Verso, 1992), chapters 4 and 5.
6. This has been argued in considerable detail in ibid,
7. See, for example, Marx-Engels; Selected Correspondence (Moscow; Progress
Publishers, 1975), p, 223.
8. Notice that a selective nationalization of some industries is very different
from abolishing the institution of private property altogether.
9. Richard A. Comfort, Revolutionary Hamburg; Labor Politics in the Early Weimar
Republic (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1966), p. 47.
10. Coordinacidn Socialista Latinoamericana, Docutnentos Basicos (Basic docu-
ments) (Quito; Coordination Socialista Latinoamericana, 1992), p. 14.
11. For very similar views, see Stephen Bronner, Socialism Unbound (New York:
Rou Hedge, 1990).
16
Socialism
200
Socialism 201
Both within and outside the Marxist tradition, the meanings of these
two words have changed frequently since then. Marx and Engels them-
selves vacillated in their usage, calling themselves communists at some
times and (as we saw in Chapter 15) "scientific" socialists at other times,
in order to differentiate themselves from the Utopian socialists (SUS, T
683ff,). Given the current disrepute of the word "communism," I use the
term "socialism" to refer to the better society that Marx and Engels were
working for.
While Marx and Engels never laid out a systematic account of a social-
ist society, they made many observations in passing that one can put to-
gether to get a picture of their good society. But in so doing one must be
clearly aware of the distinction drawn in the preceding chapter between
the ethical and political goals and the concrete means for their implemen-
tation. Most writers—including Marx himself when he was a young
man—lose sight of this important distinction; their discussions of social-
ism resemble just the sort of blueprint of the perfect society that Marx and
Engels condemned in their criticisms of Utopian socialism.
"selling" ideas and policies or making bargains to benefit the few at the
expense of the many. Democracy becomes what it was intended to be: the
process in which groups reflect on and decide the important issues in
their collective lives. One precondition for such a democracy is, of course,
civil and political liberties for all.
Thus three central socialist goals are ending the domination of capital-
ists over workers in the workplace, in the labor market, and in the politi-
cal realm. All three forms of domination flow directly from the private
ownership of the means of production that gives employers much more
power than the workers within the workplace, in the labor market, and in
the political arena. We can clarify the concepts of socialist democracy and
socialist freedom by considering another socialist goal: the abolition of
alienation.
Alienation has different meanings for Marx and. Engels, as we saw in
Chapter 10. Of central importance is the idea that under capitalism we
may have personal freedom—a range of choices to consume or to arrange
our lives as we, individually, please.8 But we do not have collective free-
dom to arrange our society together in order to provide the conditions for
the development of ourselves and future generations in directions of our
own choosing. Marx and Engels insist again and again that the prevailing
character structures of human beings are shaped by the dominant institu-
tions (see Chapters 1-4). As a consequence, human beings can create their
own nature, to some extent by changing their institutions in ways that
will make it easier to be the sorts of persons they choose to be. Groups
have collective freedom when they are able to shape their institutions
with an eye to making themselves and their children the kind of people
they want to be.
Such questions are not unknown in our society. Witness, for instance,
the extended debate about changes in the structure of the family and the
evils that supposedly follow from these changes, (Marx himself refers to
the "disgusting dissolution, under capitalism, of the old family ties"; CI, T
415.) This debate centers on what we want ourselves and our children to
be and what sorts of institutions will be needed to make us into what we
desire. The defenders of the traditional family believe that it fosters virtues
of honesty, moderate consumption, hard work. Children who come from
broken families, by contrast, are thought to lack self-discipline, integrity,
and the desire to work. The debate over the family shares with Marx and
Engels the belief that there are only limited features that belong to all
human beings across different historical periods and that we change in im-
portant ways depending on the dominant institutions of our society.9
But while many people ask these sorts of questions, they cannot answer
them adequately unless they are willing to be critical of capitalism. (Most
defenders of the traditional family are unwilling to do that.) Capitalism
204 Socialism.
directly affects the structure of the family and destroys the traditional
family through a number of mechanisms, such as greater social and geo-
graphical mobility and a rising standard of living that allows nuclear
families to live separately from their extended families. Capitalism pro-
motes urbanization and for a variety of complex reasons induces both
parents in nuclear families to go off to work, often leaving children with-
out proper care. But even if these questions were raised more often than
they are, collective control over our institutions is impossible in this soci-
ety. We cannot change our institutions in order to change human nature
for the better. Capitalists, who are committed to preserving our society in
its present shape, have all the economic and most of the political power.
Hence we cannot consider the central problems of how we will shape our
institutions with an eye to the development of the human personality be-
cause we have no way of affecting the relevant decisions. We suffer from
what Marx and Engels call "alienation."
Freedom—the opposite of alienation—means that we can see ourselves
in a world of our own making (EPM, T 76), This is not a world each of us
makes individually for ourselves, apart front others, but a world that we
make together by thinking about the best use of our collective resources
to make the world a better one and us into better people. We are alienated
under capitalism because this freedom is not available to us. We could
have this freedom only if we could decide collectively how the society's
resources are to be used to the best effect.
Connected with that goal of full collective freedom is another goal that
I mentioned earlier (Chapters 1 and 10), the goal of having far-reaching
control, over our social institutions. Marx and. Engels speak more than
once of the life of a society as "production of freely associated human be-
ings ... consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan"
(CI, T 327). Once capitalism has been replaced by socialism, groups will
be able to shape their social relations and their institutions according to "a
settled plan." They will no longer be at the mercy of impersonal, un-
planned economic processes as we are under capitalism, because of the
fumbling of the "unseen hand." But what precisely Marx and Engels
mean here is not altogether clear. Some commentators think that in a so-
cialist society "technology has developed to a plane where practically
everything is possible."10 But in the light of what we saw earlier (for in-
stance, in Chapter 4), such a view is excessively optimistic. Human beings
will never be omniscient; the world will always be more complex than
our understanding of it, and our actions will always have unexpected
consequences. What will be different, however, is that the shape of social
institutions and their effects on the character of members of the society
will be matters of deep concern and explicit reflection and planning. It
will not be left to the vagaries of the capitalist marketplace.
Socialism 205
Especially in his early work, Marx seems to have thought that all peo-
ple should, as far as possible, be creative and should do a minimum of
productive work in order to be free to paint or write or play music. "For
Marx, then, Man the Producer is Man the Artist."11 But that is too narrow
an understanding of the ideal of full self-development for all. Human be-
ings have many different capacities. Some can paint or write music. Oth-
ers tell good stories or invent good games for children. Some can make
any plant grow, and others are attuned to animals. But there are also very
ordinary capacities that, in most of us, remain undeveloped. Most people
are not very observant. Their eyes miss much of what there is to see
around them. Blind people often hear much better than sighted ones be-
cause their ears are better trained. We live in a society devoted to the pro-
duction and consumption of commodities. What matters about the com-
modities is primarily their monetary value. We see, hear, smell, or touch
only what has some bearing on economic value. Out senses have become
impoverished.
For the starving man, it is not the human form of food, that exists.... It could
just as well be there in its crudest form.... The dealer in minerals sees only
the mercantile value not the beauty. (EPM, T 89}
Socialism restores our capacity for a much wider range of perceptual rela-
tionships to other persons as well as to things. It "produces man in the entire
richness of his being... profoundly endowed with all the senses" (EPM, T 89)
The goal, moreover, is not Just for each of us separately to develop our
capacities to hear, to see, to enjoy. Instead, the goal is a society "in which
the free development of each is the condition for the free development of
206 Socialism.
not It is not at all clear, in detail, what a socialist democracy will be like.
Will elections play the central role they play now? What mechanisms for
sharing power among all the people will be developed? The notion of
community is hazy. Socialist goals are not specific. But that problem is not
peculiar to socialism but is common among all general goals, such as the
Christian goal of a society permeated by brotherly and sisterly love, a
world of peace where the lion will lie down by the lamb, or the goal of a
just society'—the goal of philosophers since the days of Plato. We do not
know whether those goals can be reached—they are much too general for
us to decide that—but they are good guides for our attempts to amelio-
rate conditions as they are.13
Such general goals, because they are extremely vague, cannot be insti-
tuted immediately. That Insight was one of the important contributions of
Marx and Engels in their polemic against Utopian socialism. Actual
changes in economic or political institutions are very specific. Socialist
goals are anything but specific. The actual institutional changes thus must
be distinct from, the goals that those changes aim at You cannot institute
community directly because you do not know what precisely you mean
by that. What is more, for us to live in that very different society, human
beings must change. But such changes are not for us to make at any mo-
ment by merely choosing to be different or by a sudden, conversion to a
new political belief or religious faith. The changes in our characters are
slow, depending on changing institutions and our adaptation to those
new institutions. The practical question about how we should change our
institutions and ourselves is quite distinct from the question about what
socialist goals are.
Socialist Institutions
What sorts of institutions will allow us to reach these goals? In the tradi-
tion that begins with Marx and Engels, one thinks of socialism as "the so-
cialization of the means of production" or "the taking over of all produc-
tive forces by the society itself" (SUS, T 711 n.)- Here private ownership of
the means of production is abolished and with it the relatively unplanned
nature of the capitalist marketplace, characterized "by absence of plan, by
accident, by anarchy" (SUS, T 706). Central to communism, as Marx and
Engels understood it, is therefore the replacement of the individual pur-
suit of profit and the anarchy of the marketplace with collective control of
the economy. Democracy is extended to the economy. What disappears is the
distinction, so sharp under capitalism, between the political realm, where
decisions are made democratically (at least in theory), and the economy,
where decisions are made autocratically by private individuals or are not
made by anybody because they are left to the market.
208 Socialism.
This belief in a planned economy was Marxist orthodoxy until about the
early 1970s. It is still being defended by a number of able theorists.14 But
the experience with centrally planned economies, particularly in the So-
viet Union, as well as theoretical arguments against the technical possibil-
ity of running an efficient planned economy,15 have persuaded many theo-
rists that the market must play some sort of role in a socialist society. Thus
arose a project called "market socialism.": to design an economy that is
not capitalist but still avails itself of the informational advantages of the
market.
There are different conceptions of what a market socialist economy
might be like. All have a market in commodities, both consumption
goods and goods needed for the production of other goods. Not all have a
market in labor because some theorists fear that with a labor market will
also come exploitation and hence traditional capitalist class divisions.
Nor do all market socialist schemes have a market in capital because that,
too, would encourage traditional capitalist modes of operation. But some
market socialist schemes do make provisions for both labor and capital
markets.
There exist plausible theoretical arguments that market socialism, is fea-
sible in the sense that it will not be less efficient and productive than cur-
rent versions of capitalism.16 It is, in addition, very likely these versions of
market socialism will give more power over the economy and thus over
the development of the society to all people and will thereby diminish the
difference in power and resources between different classes of the popu-
Socialism 209
ter 10). Capitalism may "well sap the love of freedom that the struggle for
socialism, requires. How, then, will change take place? Tf we, as the per-
sons we are today, institute market socialism, will it change us or subse-
quent generations? Will we, as we are today, be able to build and main-
tain these very different economic and. political institutions? Or must we
fear that unless we change first, we will not be able to be good citizens of
a market socialist society? These are questions to which there are, at pres-
ent, no answers. Marx and Engeis are aware of the problem, but their an-
swer is patently inadequate.
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness,
and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men. on a mass scale is
necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a
revolution', this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling
class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class over-
throwing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of
the ages and become fitted to found a new society. (GI, 193}
Their answer to our questions seems to be that people will change while
they change their institutions. But that is too vague to reassure us that
when the opportunity for socialism comes around, we will be ready to take
advantage of that opportunity and to build new and better institutions.
What is more, the account of dialectic in Chapter 4 made it very clear
that the process of historical change is enormously complex. People find
themselves in a situation where their problems and the options they have
for solving them are shaped by the ruling institutions. In these concrete
situations, people will try out the solution that appears best. These re-
sponses to prevailing problems bear the stamp of the dominant institu-
tions but also serve to change those institutions. But these changes are
often unintended and frequently not foreseeable. No doubt the attempts
to move in the direction of market socialist institutions will have all kinds
of unforeseen consequences both with respect to the actual economic and
political institutions and with respect to the ways in which these institu-
tional changes will be reflected in changes in human beings and their
character. The obvious conclusion is that we need to approach the trans-
formation of economic and political, institutions, and the transformation
of human character that goes with those changed institutions, in an ex-
perimental spirit. Marx and Engeis were rightly critical of the Utopian so-
cialists because they lacked that experimental spirit They laid down their
plan once and for all and expected to follow it. They were not prepared
for the complexity of actual change and the degree of caution and flexibil-
ity demanded by attempts to improve our societies. It is clear that the
process of human and institutional transformation will be full of sur-
prises and disappointments, as well as unexpected triumphs. It is equally
sure that it will take a long time.
Socialism 211
How does this transfer of power take place? Marx and Engels give vari-
ous answers to that question, but often they describe this transfer of power
as a "revolution," meaning by that word an "uprising" or a "victorious in-
surrection" (T 559), Note the two different senses in which the word "revo-
lution" is used here. In the first instance, a revolution is the transfer of
power from one class to another; in the second the word refers to a partic-
ular political tactic, namely, "uprisings" or "insurrections," It is interesting
to notice that Marx and Engels switch from one meaning to the other
within the same page. Thus in The Eighteenth Bntmaire, Marx writes: "The
social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the
past" (18th, T 597), Here Marx refers to the corning proletarian revolution
in which the proletariat will take power from the capitalists. The next
paragraph begins with the words "the February Revolution," Here the ref-
erence is to an uprising in Paris that brought an end to the reign of Louis
Philippe in 1848 but did not, in the end, transfer power to a new class.
Marx and Engels use the word "revolution" in these two senses be-
cause they believed that the proletariat would, take power by means of an
uprising in which it would take state power. The proletarian revolution in
the first sense, the transfer of power from capitalists to proletarians,
would have to employ the tactic of revolution in the second sense—an
uprising—that would take political power away from the capitalists.
They believed this because they thought the proletariat could not use the
same means to come to power as those did the early capitalists,
All the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to fortify their al-
ready acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of ap-
propriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive
forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropri-
ation, and thereby also every previous mode of appropriation. They have
nothing of their own to secure and to fortify, (CM, T 482)
The rising bourgeoisie built its own alternative institutions in the inter-
stices of feudalism. First it built its new economic institutions and thereby
transformed significant sectors of the economy from feudal to capitalist
ones; only then, after it had acquired substantial economic power, did it
also take political power and. become the ruling class of modern society. It
is true that Marx and Engels interpreted the English Civil War in the mid-
dle of the seventeenth century as a bourgeois revolution. But that was, at
best, just one episode in a long process that reached its conclusion only
when the bourgeoisie took full political power over English society in the
middle of the nineteenth century.
But the proletariat does not own anything, and thus it cannot develop a
new mode of production and a new way of running the economy while
the old way—the way of the capitalists—is still in force. Some attempts at
Socialism 213
doing just that (that is, developing cooperative enterprises) were instruc-
tive, Marx thought, but
the experience of the period from 1848 to 1864 has proved beyond doubt that,
however excellent in principle, and however useful in practice, cooperative
labor, if kept within the narrow circle of the casual efforts of private work-
men, will never be able to arrest the growth in geometrical progression of mo-
nopoly, to free the masses, nor even to perceptibly lighten the burden of their
miseries,... To save the industrious masses, cooperative labor ought to be
developed to national dimensions. Yet the lords of land and the lords of capi-
tal will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation
of economical monopolies. So far from promoting, they will continue to lay
every possible impediment in the way of the emancipation of labor, (T 518)
must continue to build large coalitions of groups that are firmly opposed
to capitalism, with a clear sense of the alternatives they seek and using
those methods of social change that, at any particular moment, seem most
promising. We know today that that effort is more difficult, more com-
plex, and much more extended than Marx and EngeJs expected. But their
critique of capitalism is as powerful as ever; the goal of socialism was
never more inviting. The struggle continues.
Notes
1. Quoted and explained in Hal Draper, Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution, vol. 1
(New York Monthly Review Press, 1976), p. 97.
2. G. A. Cohen, "Back to Socialist Basics," New Left Review 2Q7(1994):3-16.
3. Moishe Postone, Time, Labor and Social Domination (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993).
4. David Miller, "In What Sense Must Socialism Be Communitarian?" Social
Philosophy and Policy 6(1989):51-73.
5. Jon Elster, Making Sense of Marx (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press,
1985), p. 521.
6. David McNally, Against the Market: Political Economy, Market Socialism and tfie
Marxist Critique (London: Verso, 1993), p. 185.
7. George Brenkert, Marx's Ethics of Freedom (Boston: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, 1983).
8. A freedom reserved, however, only to a minority of the world's population.
For the majority, who live in poverty, even personal freedom is very limited.
9. It differs from Marx and Engels in opposing the equality and liberation of
women, which Marx regarded as a criterion for judging the extent to which soci-
eties have become genuinely human (EPM, T 83).
10. Bertell Oilman, Social and Sexual Revolution (Boston: South End Press, 1979),
p. 66.
11. John McMurtry, The Structure of Marx's WorU-Vieu> (Princeton, N.J.: Prince-
ton University Press^ 1978), p. 26.
12. The question of competition is complex. Marx and Engels were right to be
very critical, of it. But there certainly appear to be certain kinds of competition that
seem useful insofar as they spur everyone to higher accomplishments. See Valerie
Miner and Helen Longino, eds., Competition: A Feminist Taboo (New York: Feminist
Press of the City University of New York, 1987),
13. A. different approach is possible: We can set a much more modest goat that
seems reasonable—equal opportunities—and then ask what that requires. This is
Socialism 217
the procedure John Roemer employs in A Future for Socialism (Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press, 1994).
14. See, for instance, McNally, Against the. Market,
15. David Ramsay Steele, From Marx to Mises (La Salle, 111.; Open Court, 1992).
16. David Schweiekart, Against Capitalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993).
17. While it is true that economic power has become much more concentrated,
it is not true as Marx and Engels expected that the ruling class would significantly
shrink in numbers. I mentioned this problem in Chapter 12: The ruling class con-
sists not only of the owners of the means of production—who may well decline in
numbers—but also of its ever growing hordes of professional managers, accoun-
tants, lawyers, investment specialists, and so on.
18. See also Engels, preface to the English edition of Marx's Capital, vol. 1 (New
Yorlc ln.ternatio.nal Publishers, 1967).
19. One other complication must be mentioned briefly, I discussed imperialism
in Chapter 11, In our world the great capitalist powers have enormous political in-
fluence outside their own boundaries. If a socialist revolution were to take place
in one country outside the developed world, the United States and others would
be sure to try to squash it. Witness the cases of Nicaragua and Cuba in our hemi-
sphere. Must the socialist revolution, then, occur in all countries at the same time?
Is that feasible? These questions have been discussed a great deal, but a satisfac-
tory answer lias not been found.
20. In the United States, for instance, the leadership of the AFL-CIO has done
its part in the past fifty years to strengthen the ruling capitalist institutions to
which it belonged. Sometimes the more powerful, critique of capitalism, comes
from groups that are politically conservative. Some opponents of abortion oppose
what they perceive as the commodiftcation of childbirth and thus of human be-
ings. See Faye Ginsburg, Contested Lives— The Abortion Debate in an American Com-
munity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).
Bibliography
Abercrombie, Nicholas. Problems in the Sociology of Knowledge (New York; New York
University Press, 1980).
Adorno, Theodor, and Horkheimer, Max. Dialectic of Enlightenment (New York:
Seabury Press, 1972).
Althusser, Louis. for Marx (New York: Vintage Books, 1970),
. Lenin and Philosophy (New York Monthly Review Press, 1971).
Alvarado, Elivia. Don't Be Afraid Gringo: A Honduran Woman Speaks from Her Heart
(New York HarperCollins, 1987).
Appiah, Kwame A. In My Father's House (New York Oxford University Press, 1992),
Archibald, Peter W, Marx and the Missing Link: "Human Nature" (Atlantic High-
lands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1.989).
Arnalot, Jose. ("Chuint") Lo Que las Achuctr me Inn Ensenado (What the Achuar have
taught me) (Quito: Ediriones Abya-Yala, 1992).
Arnold, N. Scott Marx's "Radical Critique of Capitalist Society (New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1990).
Avineri, Shlomo. The Social and Political Thought of Karl Mary. (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1970).
Bachrach, Peter, and Barantz, Morton S, "Decisions and Non-Decisions—An Analyt-
ical Framework," In Roderick Bell, David V. Edwards, and R. Harrison Wagner,
eds., Political Power: A Reader in TJteoryand Research (New York Free Press, 1969).
Bottomore, T. B. Classes in Modem Society (New York Vintage Books, 1966).
Brenkert, George. Man's Ethics of Freedom (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1983).
Brenner, Robert. 'The Social Basis of Economic Development." In John Roemer, ed,,
Analytical Marxism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
Brenner, Stephen, Socialism Unbound (New York: Routledge, 1990).
Buchanan, Allen E, Marx and Justice (Totowa, N.J.: Rowntan and AOenheld, 1982).
Cardoso, E H., and Faletto, Enzo. Dependencia y Desarollo en America Latitia (Depen-
dence and Development in Latin America) (Mexico, D.F.: SigHo Veintiuno, 1988),
Camoy, Martin. Ttte State ami Political Theory (Princeton, N.J.; Princeton University
Press, 1984).
Carver, Terrell. Marx and Engels: The Intellectual Relationsltip (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1983).
Cohen, G, A. "Back to Socialist Basks." New Left Review 207(1994):3-16,
. Karl Marx's Theory of History (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1,978).
218
Bibliography 219
Cohen, Jean L, Class and Civil Society (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press,
1982).
Comfort, Richard A. Revolutionary Hamburg: Labor Politics in tiv, Early Weimar Repub-
lic (Stanford, Calif.; Stanford University Press, 1966).
Conaghart, Catherine M. Restructuring Domination: Industrialists and the State in
Ecuador (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988).
Coordin.aci.6ft Sotialista Latinoamericana, Documentos Basicos (Basic documents)
(Quito: Coordination Sodalista Latinoamericana, 1992),
Dahl, Robert. Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961).
Domhoff, G. William. Wlio Rules America? (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1967).
Draper, Hal. Karl Marx's "Theory of Revolution, vol. 2 (New York Monthly Review
Press, 1978).
Eisenstein, Zillah, ed. Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist feminism (New
York: Monthly Review Press, 1979).
Elster, Jon. Making Sense of Marx. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).
Engels, Frederick. Tlie Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 (Moscow:
Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1962),
. Ltuhtng Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philosophy (New York:
International Publishers, 1941).
_. Ttte Origin of the family, Private Property and the State (New York: Interna-
tional Publishers, 1972).
Fisk, Milton. T!K State and Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Frornm, Erich. The Sine Society (New York: Faweett, 1955).
Gamble, Andrew, and Walton, Paul, Capitalism in Crisis; Inflation and the State (Lon-
don: Macmillan, 1976).
Ginsburg, Faye. Contested Lives—The Abortion Debate in an American Community
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).
Gramsti, Antonio, Prison Notebooks (New York: International Publishers, 1971),
Harrison, Lawrence E. El Subdesatvllo Estden la Mente (Underdevelopment is in the
Mind) (Mexico, D.F. :EditorM Limusa, 1989).
Holmstrom, Nancy. "Exploitation." Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7,2(1977): 353-369,
Hook, Sidney. From Hegel to Marx (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1971).
Horkheimer, Max, "Authority and the Family." In Critical Theory (New York Con-
tinuum, 1972),
Howard, M. C, and King, J, E, The Political Economy of Marx (Burnt Mill, England:
Longmans, 1975).
Hunt, Richard N. The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels, vol. 1 (Pittsburgh: University
of Pittsburgh Press, 1974),
Kapp, Yvonne, Eleanor Marx, vol. 1 (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1972).
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1970).
Larrain, Jorge. The Concept of Ideology (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1979).
Lenin, V. I. Wlwt Is to Be Done? In Selected Works, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publish-
ers, 1970-1971).
Levine, Norman. The Tragic Deception: Marx Contra Engels (Oxford: Clio Books,
1975).
220 Bibliography
Lichtheim, George. The Concept of Ideology and Other Essays (New York; Vintage
Books, 1967).
Lichtman, Richard. Essays in Critical Social Theory (New York: Peter Lang, 1993),
Little, Daniel, The Scientific Marx (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1986).
Luxemburg, Rosa. "Social Reform or Revolution." In Dick Howard, ed., Selected Po-
litical Writings (New York Monthly Review Press, 1971).
Mandel, Ernest, Marxist Economic Theory (New York; Monthly Review Press, 1971).
Marcu.se, Herbert, One-Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967),
Martin, John E. Feudalism to Capitalism. (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press,
1983),
Marx, Karl. Capital (New York International Publishers, 1967),
, Class Struggles in France 1848-1850 (New York: International Publishers,
1964).
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (New York; International
Publishers, 1970),
. Early Writings, ed. T. B. Bottomore (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963).
_. The Eighteenth Bntmaire of Louis Bonaparte (New York: International Publish-
ers, 1963).
, Grundrisse (Frankfurt: Europaeische Verlagsanstalt, n.d.),
____. The Poverty of Philosophy (New York Internationa] Publishers, 1963),
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Frederick, The Holy Family (Moscow: Progress Publishers,
1975).
. Mttrx-Engels Selected Correspondence (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975).
McBride, William Leon. The Philosophy of Marx (New York; St. Martin's Press, 1970).
McMurtry, John. The Structure of Marx's World-View (Princeton, N.J.; Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1978).
MeNally, David. Against the Market: Political 'Economy, 'Market Socialism and the Marx-
ist Critique (London; Verso, 1993).
Meyerson, Denise. False Consciousness (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).
Miliband, Ralph. The State in Capitalist Society (New York Bask Books, 1969).
Miller, David. "In What Sense Must Socialism Be Communitarian?" Social Philoso-
phy and Polity 6(1989):5i-73.
Miller, Richard W. Analyzing Marx (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1984).
Miner, Valerie, and Longino, Helen, eds. Competition: A Feminist Taboo (New York
Feminist Press of the City University of New York, 1987).
Nicolaus, Martin. "The Unknown Marx." In Carl Gglesby, ed., The New Left Reader
(New York Grove Press, 1969).
Nove, Alec. The Economics of Feasible Socialism (London: George .Allen and Unwin,
1983).
Oilman, Bertell. Dialectical Investigations (New York Routledge, 1993).
____. Social and Sexual Revolution (Boston: South End Press, 1979).
Parkin, Frank. Marxism and Class Theory; A Bourgeois Critique (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1979).
Bibliography 221
Peffer, R. G. Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice (Princeton, N J.: Princeton Univer-
sity Press, 1990).
Ptatnenate, John. German Marxism and Russian Communism (London: Longmans,
1954).
Postone, Moishe, Time, Labor and Social Domination (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1993).
Przeworski, Adam. Capitalism and Social Democrat*/ (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1985).
Rader, Melvin. Marx's Interpretation of History (New Yorfc Oxford University Press,
1979).
Reich, WilJhelnt. The Mass Psychology of Fascism (New Yorfc Noonday, 1970).
Robinson, Cedric J, Black Marxism (London: Zed Press, 1983).
Roemer, John. A Future for Socialism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994).
____. "New Directions in the Marxian Theory of Class and Exploitation," In, John
Roemer, ed., Analytic Marxism (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1986).
. "Second Thoughts on Property Relations and Exploitation." In Robert Ware
and Kai Nielsen, eds., Analyzing Marxism, Supplementary vol. 15, Canadian Jour-
nal of Philosophy (Calgary: Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1989),
Rosaldo, Michelle Zimbalist, and Lamphere, Louise. Women, Culture and Society
(Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1974).
Rouquie, Alain. America iMitut, Introduction al extremo Occidente (Latin America: In-
troduction to the Far West) (Mexico, D.F.: Siglo Veintiuno, 1989).
Schmitt, Richard. Alienation and Class (Cambridge: Schenkman, 1983).
Schweickart, David. Against Capitalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1993).
. "A Democratic Theory of Exploitation Dialectically Developed." In Roger
Gottlieb, ed,, Radical Philosophy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993).
Shanin, Teodor. Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and the "Peripheries of Capital-
ism" (New Yorfc Monthly Review Press, 1983).
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into Hie Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (New
Yorfc Modern Library, 1985).
Smith, Tony. Dialectical Social Theory and Its Critics (Albany: State University of New
York Pi-ess, 1993).
. The Logic of Marx's Capital: Replies to Hegelian Criticisms (Albany: State Uni-
versity of New York Press, 1990).
Steele, David Ramsay. From Marx to Mises (La Salle, 111,: Open Court, 1992),
Sweezy, Paul. The Theory of Capitalist Development (New York: Monthly Review
Press, 1942).
Terkel, Studs. Hard Times (New York: Pantheon Books, 1970),
Therbotn, Goran. WIvt Does the Ruling Class Do When It Rules? (London: New Left
Books, 1978).
Tucker, Robert C. Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1972),
ed. The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. (New Yorfc W. W. Norton, 1978).
Venable, Vernon. Human Nature: The Marxian View (New Yorfc Meridian Books, 1966).
222 Bibliography
Wood, Allen W, Karl Marx (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981).
Woolf, Robert Paul. Understanding Marx (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1984).
Wright, ErikOlin. Classes (London: Verso, 1985).
Wright, Erik Olin; Levine, Andrew; and Sober, Elliott, Reconstructing Marxism (Lon-
don: Verso, 1992).
About the Book
and Author
This book steers a middle path between those who argue that the the-
ories of Marx and Engels have been rendered obsolete by historical events and
those who reply that these theories emerge untouched from the political changes
of the last ten years.
Marxism has been a theory of historical change that claimed to be able to pre-
dict with considerable accuracy how existing institutions were going to change.
Marxism has also been a political program designed to show how these inevitable
changes could be hastened. Richard Schmitt argues that Marxian predictions are
ambiguous and unreliable, adding that the political program is vitiated by serious
ambiguities in the conceptions of class and of political and social transformations.
Marxism remains of importance, however, because it is the major source of criti-
cisms of capitalism and its associated social and political institutions. We must
understand such criticisms if we are to understand our own world and live in it
effectively. While very critical of the failures of Marx and Engels, this book offers a
sympathetic account of their criticism of capitalism and, their visions of a better
world, mentions some interpretive controversies, and connects the questions
raised by Marx and Engels to contemporary disputes to show continuity between
social thought in the middle of the last century and today.
Addressed to undergraduate students, the book is easily accessible. It will be
important in introductory or middle level courses in sociology, political theory,
critical theory of literature or law. It will also be useful in graduate courses in po-
litical theory, sociology, and economics.
223
Index
224
Index 225