Marxism, Socialism and the Future of Capitalism

‘What is the Future of Capitalism?   

I more or less agree with the views of eminent economist and author Paul Collier, who proposes an ethical capitalism supported by values defined by practical logical reasoning. The situational facts and meanings surrounding his ideas provide a good starting point.   

However, his conclusion is hardly a new idea, but follows on from the ancient Greek philosophers who proposed that by leading a virtuous life ( the good life ) that in turn, ensured one lived an ethical purposeful life. They saw no end in sight, just a continual improvement throughout one’s life, which gave meaning to their existence. You might recall I talked about the golden mean arising from different discourses to end as a resolution to embodied in their laws and system of governance. Humanity was a seen by them as a political animal, so that issues had to be debated then resolved.       

What Collier is suggesting, in a nutshell, is an ethnically based system flexible enough to embrace the ever changing nature of existence and one in which will avoid ceding control to vested or corrupting interests.

One might argue, to some extent, the framework to support such a system already exists in the United Nations charter to facilitate measurable sustainable development goals. In practice, accepting there are notable exceptions, capitalism is largely represented by a piecemeal approach, made up of weak values constrained by vested interests. The prevalence of greed and corruption is always a factor, but equally there are those willing to rally around a more just outcome to weed out corruption or greed in excessive price gouging. I don't accept the premise corruption is endemic to certain cultures, but rather it can be linked to forms of exploitation than can be eliminated more effectively in the dealings between enterprises and governments sharing an ongoing dialogue on ethical standards. Poorer countries. may be constrained by a shortage of human capital to be more vulnerable to exploitation than more affluent countries.    

Consequently, the lack of a clear cultural vision for capitalism, continues to underwrite its malaise, notwithstanding some notable exceptions. This state of affairs contributes to the current unrest and the accompanying surge in popularization of simplistic solutions attempting to fill in the void.

To facilitate a new ethical face to capitalism will require a concentrated effort to not only make a more convincing case, but to examine the big ideas of the past to see what aspects might assist us identify current inherent weaknesses. 

The goal might seem an impossible task, given significant cultural differences, but I would regard such an approach as a continual work in progress, to reflect an ever changing world. 

An important dynamic ingredient is the inclusion of cultural differences within the framework of agreed ethical standards. This has the capacity to create a more meaningful existence as we increasingly become part of a global village, necessitating cultural exchanges. This requires an empathetic and imaginative approach which will remain an ongoing work in progress.          

Of course human nature points to the fact that any system will carry with it the seeds of failure, but to the extent to which capitalism is clearly deficient, one can envisage clear cut moves to focus on maintaining an egalitarian society, without having to dismantle the whole system.  

Collier asserts the moral basis for a utilitarian focus to posit a fairer system of governance pertinent to Keynes and Adam Smith’s ideas (against mercantilism) have lost their way to breed disillusionment to those who feel overlooked in modernity.

Many of these ideas by Keynes for instance have been overlooked or abandoned to vested interests that have taken hold innocuously as in cultural hegemony. The task to re-examine these options which is not an arduous one, nor are the supportive arguments difficult to understand, communicate and implement as policy.      

Collier for instance, wants us to more frequently ask of our institutions  what are your values i.e. ‘what are the ethical foundations to this so called ethical state’, ethical firm’, ethical family etc. to represent the functional aspects to ensure fairness and equity for all of the stakeholders. In essence it has a socialist ring to it without inviting a wholesale dismantling of the current system of capitalism.

Hence I don’t want to confine the discussion just to business and institutional representation but rather more broadly to drill down into such aspects as the family and local small community groups.

In order to do justice to the topic, I believe it important to get an understanding of the works of Karl Marx who successfully predicted the inequalities and concentration of wealth that we now see are evident in capitalism. The atrocities associated with socialism and more importantly to Marxism have virtually nothing to do with his philosophy as they involve the inherent vested interest he rallied against in his critique of capitalism plus hideous crimes against humanity.    

Marx was influenced by Hegel who would be described as a dialectical materialist. What we mean in philosophy by a dialectic is to signify the position in which everything is always in a perpetual state of flux. That is the reality of our existence. as expressed in the the laws of nature.   

Let me give an example, such as putting your foot firstly into a stream then again a second time when there is a different flow of water. What you could say in regard to the flowing stream is you can no longer put your foot in that same stream, but always in a different part of the stream made up of that new body of water. So you no longer exist as a baby, but are now fully grown. Hence materialism refers to the idea of nature which is determined by itself and by nothing else, just simply by the laws of nature. So that if you put the 2 together you have the idea of state of constant flux where everything is always changing from one state to another, due to the indication of opposing forces.

Marx then related this idea of dialectic materialism to a historical context as in our our existence. The ebb and flow of opposing forces must eventually erupt if there is a prolonged imbalance, i.e., at a particular level of say a worker strike, this could lead to an untimely revolution once you build sufficient pressure within the capitalist system. The more desirable position then was embodied in his idea of socialism, which he saw as the naturally forming system that ceded authority to all those who worked under it.

In his social construct Marx thought that human liberation could only be achieved once the means of production were communally owned, and material equality for members of society were achieved. 

2nd edition Sociality: Themes and Perspectives               

His ideas represented a fundamental shift in the prevailing world view that supports our westernized system of capitalism. Personally, I don’t see any pressing need  for any radical departure, but rather,  to the extent  progress can be made, we move towards a more ethically based capitalist system. Certainly the ethically based funds management industry is taking steps to achieve this, as is a plethora of firms, in what remains a somewhat piecemeal approach. In any large organisation today there is what is known as governance executive, whose task is to ensure the organisation conducts itself in a sustainable and ethical manner. The more recent failures in this regard have often exposed the fact those individuals advice was ignored, in what was a cultural collapse in values. 

Returning to the Marxist philosophy, the idea of dialects also encourages one to recognize that everything is always in a state of flux so that the matter of ethics is dependent on an ongoing dynamic narrative that invites cultural exchanges and imagination.

Hence Marxism tends to invite two principal views; those who seek to demonstrate the triumph of global capitalism versus a growing number of people who are becoming increasingly concerned over inequality and lack of an environmental focus that such a system is prone to deliver. The former group will argue his ideas were false, whilst in the latter, there are those who are interested in his ideas. The reality is, of course, that the system of capitalism that existed in the extreme of Victorian capitalism was far different to that which has emerged in modernity, a construct of differing laws and practices within trading nations. But notwithstanding, his philosophy and economics provides a sharp focus on the alternatives to the present system and to the efficient operation of the invisible hand of the market proposed by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was inclined to operate at the sharp end of the philosophical pencil, as he wanted to change the world. He claimed his ideas were based in scientific principles as in the laws of motion of a modern society.

To reiterate his principal philosophical base as I have previously explained was one as a dialectical materialist. Hence, his conclusion was that all humanity had become enslaved within its own man made system of capitalism, analogous to the way Christian believers are subject to their religious commands.

He saw religious discourse as a manifestation of power to argue it had become subservient to the elites of capitalism, presiding soulless conditions to the workers. Like Nietzsche, he posited the idea that the Christian ethic, through meekness, became enslaved under the ruling elite. This meekness involved a slave like mentality, to prevent a revolution, from which the workers could break free of their enslavement. But he believed that pressure cooker existence will only last until it reaches its boiling over point wherein he prophesised a revolution must finally take place.       

Hence his style was that of the social philosopher, to talk in the sense of socio economic context of a class conflict which led him to practical politics. The underlying difference of Marxism to Kant was that Marxism held people were enslaved by societal conditions whereas Kant thought individuals were inherently free and the fault lay with individuals failing to exhibit courage. That is to have the courage to use one’s own understanding rather than having to rely on the guidance of other people. What view you hold to be true is a debatable and I rather think it is a mixture of both, dependent upon your location and the cultural aspects that influence existence at that point in time.    

But Marx’s radical ideas were not well received by the authorities, causing him to flee Germany, to be exiled from France then Belgium, before finally settling In London. 

There he linked up with Frederick Engels (1820-1895) who was appalled by the then about Victorian working conditions. The two collaborated to critique various philosophers of that era. 

For Marx the dominant social group or ruling class, the group which owns and controls the means of production, will largely monopolise political power and its position will be supported by laws which have been framed by it to protect and further its interests. 

In the same way, beliefs and values will reflect and legitimate the relations of production. Members of the ruling class ‘rule’ also as thinkers, as in production of ideas. (Marx & Engels 1970 page 64)

These ideas justify the power and privilege and conceal the basis of exploitation and oppression on which their dominance rests, 

Of course Marx gave priority to the economic factors, they only form part of the history, As Engels puts it, and both he and Marx argued that the ultimately determining factor in history is the production and reproduction of real life. 

In pages 488 Marx & Engels 

If somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the of the superstructure ...........also exert their influence jupon the course of the historical struggles and in any cases preponderate on determining their form. From 2nd edition Sociality

On Page 54 his work on German ideology sets out his ideas: In communist society ......nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity, but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes; society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning m fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner.

To reiterate Marx saw the inevitable concentration of power under capitalism to result in a revolution, but what transpired was not of the kind he envisaged.

The weakness in Marxism is that human nature is likely to react in the same way under either a system of capitalism or communism to ensure the accumulation of inequalities. 

However, historically Marx remains a significant philosopher whose ideas remain relevant as a talking point, to initiate philosophical enquiry into failures of the current capitalist system. That is to prompt enquiry on how it might be modified to ensure better outcomes. What we can say, at the outset, that some of his ideas have some rather obvious shortcomings.  However, it could be argued politically and in  economic terms they were never implemented in the manner envisaged by Marx, particularly in relation to the Stalin’s purge, Mau and Pol Pot, who all laid claim to Marxism.

Furthermore many of his criticisms of Victorian capitalism have disappeared in a strict legal sense, whilst continuing to flourish outside of the law and in some countries.

In summary then we might ask the question are we not seeing the end result today of what Marx prophesised?

Under his adopted idea of dialectical materialism one assumes the world is always in a constant state of flux, something is and is not, as explained in the examples provided of the foot in the stream, in tune with the laws of nature. So one might argue a form of socialism makes more sense than capitalism. Alternatively, for capitalism to proper for the majority one must bold into the model realistic forms of control consistent with the idea of dialectical materialism if we are to avoid its excesses?

So do we not see seeds of the inevitable sprouting of the revolutionary combustible tide emanating from soulless capitalism? Not that the world has got worse off, for the reverse is true. But perception is the key as in the growing awareness of inequality? To fuel popularization as in a current modern day phenomena in westernized countries? This is far more prevalent in the developed world to feel isolated on both fronts inclusive also from views emanating from privileged form of intellectualism as well?

Just to reiterate I don’t embrace any form of wholesale socialism, for you just swap one brand of control to another as in the failings of human nature manifest in a different form. But can we learn something about a soulless enslavement on many fronts evidenced by many at the moment? For the changes in thinking belong first in the street, in communities, in institutions to finally finish up I think with better governance, framed in a more ethnically based thoughtful system yet to emerge.

So that what I suggest as a principal topic for discussions, is how we restore guiding ethical values as a moral compass, into capitalism or in the mainstream politics in Australia.

How would this work in our institutions and what revisions are required in the law, how does that look in terms of a more ethically focused environment? How do we add to the existing good work has carried out in this respect, to ensure it increasingly becomes part of our culture?