'Marxism', in so far as that term refers to what the man actually wrote was an unstoppable success; he completely upended the accepted hierarchy of the day, laying the seeds for almost all of the advances in working rights, pay and entitlements we take for granted today.
I'd say the aristocracy were flabbergasted when they read 'Das Kapital', not merely the ideas, but the tone in which they were presented, it oozed a jaw-dropping self-assurance. All of this 'dictatorship of the proletariat' stuff is seldom found and when it is there it functions more like a bugle call to rally the troops. But what you will find is truckloads of excerpts from established political economists, people who's opinions were only ever assailable by reference to the 'standard works' and who only ever disagreed with one another on the most tangential and irrelevant of points; these learned paragons of erudition are now dragged over Marx's steaming hot coals in the most barbaric orgy of iconoclastic frenzy perhaps ever witnessed in the history of ideas.
I can't think of anything even remotely comparable; on the finest points of theory these learned expositors are pulverised by relentlessly logical argumentation backed up by thousands of detailed examples gathered from the four corners of the globe and all valorising the toiling worker; the man in the mineshaft, the negro in the field, the chimneypot urchin, all at the expense of the 'gentleman' investor; who is now witheringly dismissed as a 'bourgoise capitalist' - absolutely sensational stuff, overnight, the world has been turned upside down.
This had to blow the socks off anyone who read it, the purest high voltage; the grey 'dismal science', the exclusive reserve of Oxford dons and the like, men of 'impeccable integrity' and of the 'highest moral calibre' are here treated like common criminals, their elaborate economic philosophies unveiled as an immense scam to swindle the 'common man'. None of this 'lower orders' stuff for Marx; here is a 'learned gentleman' talking about them in the language of an aristocrat and telling them that the game's up, they've been screwed; as though they're not aware already, sure - but to see it in print, to be able to thumb through it, commit it to memory, to rehearse its arguments - this is the beginning of organised labour proper and the rationalization of the workplace and whoever clocks off at a reasonable hour, has a living wage, proper benefits and entitlements and enough hours left in the week to have a life for themself, well they can first of all drop to their knees and thank the Christ, or whatever God they subscribe to, that the powers that be saw fit to bring Marx into the world.
In Das Kapital, Marx rolled up his sleeves and left behind the pimply, sweaty labours of adolescence, which is what the Communist Manifesto amounts to, and committed himself somewhat to the actual realities of labour relations and capital surplus production. The Manifesto, a very immature effort in many respects (despite it's popularity) which bears little relation to the thinker to be found in Capital, had only the space to provide the most general lineaments of a theory which was still undergoing gestation. In Capital, in short, he is no longer writing a soap opera for aspiring postgrad revolutionaries as such grand sweeps of history, such towering predictions as are found within it’s pages would have been repugnant to his maturer thought.
In fact, I think he's privately repudiated the strict teleology of dialectical materialism in his later work though he might reference it occasionally to spice up what can be at times a very tedious and repetitive narrative. How many people have cross-referenced the entire work exhaustively to unearth it's inner consistency, half a dozen I'd say, including Lenin who would naturally aver that there is an unfolding schema to be found which is importantly, internally consistent, since he himself is embroiled in it's consequences. I wonder if Derrida had put himself to the task would it have survived his scrutiny - not likely - it would evaporate like every other text of it's genre; to me Capital remains an act of obsession; an obsession with ridding the world of poverty and exploitation - a world in which he himself was a victim.
This reflects my own notions of what the fundamental motivating forces are that drive people to produce works of this nature - I don't see rhetorical devices deployed, I see earnestly expressed emotion; if this were a strategem and not derived from his temperament we may expect different types of them; inconsistencies within the text; I mean, what on earth do we suppose motivated the man otherwise - 'intellectual vanity'?, the desire to simply solve problems? - of course he was stimulated into action by the exploitative insanity he saw all around him; the mind simply doesn't wake up every morning to complete this colossal engagement without what we may call George Bernard Shaw's 'life force' coursing through your veins.
Marx‘s argument in Capital is then, for me, primarily a moral one. It does not strike me as the work of a man who believes fundamentally in the teleological nature of his philosophy - rather it strikes me as someone who is doing his hardest to make the argument of his magnum opus appear as watertight as possible; such is the importance he attaches to it's ends. He was far too clever to believe that the myriad multiple and ever differentiating relations that emerge out of the social means of production would not in turn alter the nature of surplus accumulation. Today, capital flight, the race to the bottom, labour migration; all of these things are continually being altered by concrete policy decisions in the non-dialectical real world.
Capital flight during the South Asian financial crisis of 97 was mitigated in South Korea by that government ignoring World Bank advice and instituting deposit fees which we were non-refundable when the surrounding currencies were collapsing - always and everywhere there are instances of 'Capital' having it's tail tweaked here and there - for the supposedly (short-term) benefit of the general good. I think he'd be pretty much appalled - though probably not too surprised - at what's happening at the nether reaches of Capital today. The goalposts have shifted somewhat since his time; today the exploitation has been outsourced to the former colonies whilst Western capitalist societies have through their strengthened institutions reformed themselves from within making the dispersal of capitalism's delights more amenable to us all - of course we have comfy seats and a pleasant view.
Naturally, he approaches each successive problem scientifically; he's attempting to uncover laws of motion in the field of economics that govern the behaviour of capital - it is absolutely required for him to demonstrate the indisputable presence of these processes - surplus labour value, diminishing returns, the need for capital to continuously expand and exploit new markets etc. and to rigorously test his hypotheses. He is, above all else, a social scientist. But, let's face it, where are the technical complications in his 'core' argument, the theory of labour surplus value? A Kalahari hunter-gatherer flogging bushmeat from a bamboo stand knows all about how wealth is appropriated from his labour when you try to barter him out of his dinner; he has made the same calculations - I run for x amount of time, my energy expenditure, my likelihood of encountering the same game again = I must have a particular price for my labours and depending on the amount I am offered which is less than what I have determined to be justifiable for my exertions; well that amount equals my rate of exploitation. Marx spent nearly 200 pages in Capital getting this one pinned down.
Again, it's the driest form of social science but the purpose behind it all is to concretise the experience and effects of exploitation and that emerges from a very discernible moral standpoint. He has made a particular judgement on the society that surrounds him and has dedicated his powers to constructing a science of industry and of social phenomena that will provide oxygen to those (such as himself) who are attempting to introduce progressive change. In the Communist Manifesto, he had written;
"The philosophers have hitherto attempted to interpret the world, the point is to change it"
Everywhere, in fact, he expresses his distaste - his moral repugnance - for exploitative work practices that effect the lowest strata of society. Here's a lengthier passage which illustrates quite well the true motivations of Marx’s writing, his preface to the first edition of Kapital from 1867;
"The social statistics of Germany and the rest of Continental Europe are, in comparison with those of England, quite wretched. But they raise the veil just enough to let us catch a glimpse of the Medusa's head behind it. We should be appalled at our circumstances if, as in England, our governments and parliaments periodically appointed commisions of inquiry into economic conditions; if these commisions were armed with same plenary powers to get at the truth; if it were possible to find for this purpose men as competent, as free from partisanship and respect of persons as are England's factory inspectors, her medical reporters on public health, her commisioners of inquiry into the exploitation of women and children, into conditions of housing and nourishment, and so on. Perseus wore a magic cap so that the monsters he hunted down might not see him. We draw the magic cap down over our eyes and ears so as to deny that there are any monsters.”
Marx’s reputation has faltered on the failure of the much heralded revolutionary conditions of dialectical materialism to announce themselves. It is a stunning vision no mistake, were he but a magician or a soothsayer I would rest content and allow myself fall into the lap of providence without worrying about the thousand and one intermediary catastrophes that may upset our progress to communist utopia. One thing's for sure if he retains this larger vision whilst embarking on Das Kapital; there are many moments in it's writing where he has momentarily forgotten the preordained finale and allows himself to be angered and provoked into hostile personal attacks against his peers and clearly shows that the contemporary events of which he is describing; such as the conditions in the English factories and the consolidation/pasteurization of land after the Irish blight of 1847 - all show him to be a man not given to dwelling too long on the near impossible schematics of a futuristic post-capitalist landscape.
Instead, he his moved to action by the rapacious nature of 19th century imperialism and its exploitative work practices at home and it is this message, more than any other - and certainly not a supposedly “collapsed” teleology, which compelled readers, particularly in the post-colonial/neo-colonial ‘Third World’, to pay him so much attention in the context of their own struggles for independence.. He was after all, speaking directly on their behalf, a somewhat unique position for a Victorian economist and a progressiveness which matches even contemporary standards of human rights and entitlements. In the end, he is a man much misunderstood and maligned by the many abberant paths which his 'creed' has been taken.
No comments:
Post a Comment