{"id":457,"date":"2019-05-18T01:40:55","date_gmt":"2019-05-18T01:40:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/web.colby.edu\/pl314-spring19\/?page_id=457"},"modified":"2019-05-18T03:24:00","modified_gmt":"2019-05-18T03:24:00","slug":"the-evolution-of-marxism-a-revolution-revisited","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/pl314-spring19\/students\/the-evolution-of-marxism-a-revolution-revisited\/","title":{"rendered":"The Evolution of Marxism: A Revolution Revisited"},"content":{"rendered":"

Karl Marx, a prominent philosopher, economist, and political theorist of the 19th century, produced a variety of influential texts that spoke volumes then as they still do today. Included in those publications are \u201cThe German Ideology,\u201d \u201cExcerpt-Notes of 1844,\u201d Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Capital, as well as the infamous, The Communist Manifesto, along with many others. Marx argues for a causal theory whereby history moves dialectically through class conflict, and furthermore, material conditions are what cause or form the prevailing ideas of a particular epoch. Capitalist societies consist of two classes: the capitalists, also dubbed the bourgeoisie, and the working class, dubbed the proletariat. The capitalists exploit the proletariat through their wage-labor, and ideology acts so as to maintain these distinct separations. In order to stop this unjust exploitation of the working class by the ruling class, Marx argues in favor of a communist revolution ignited by the proletariat that will, in the end, put an end to class conflict. In the time between the publication of Marx\u2019s primary texts and now, many theorists have added to, revised, and resisted Marx\u2019s theory. There is a lot of controversy over what the appropriate intervention or solution to the injustice that is prominent in advanced capitalist societies is, but vast technological advances, as well as civil rights issues that are lacking in Marx\u2019s text, illuminate the fact that his theory alone is not enough to accommodate society today in terms of moving toward a more just society.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Marx:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c<\/span>For the production of this communist consciousness on a mass scale and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is required. This can only take place in a practical movement, in a revolution. A revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way but also because the class overthrowing it can succeed only by revolution in getting rid of all the traditional muck and become capable of establishing society anew<\/span><\/i>,\u201d (<\/span>The German Ideology <\/span><\/i>123).<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/h3>\n

Evidence for Marx\u2019s Historical Materialism<\/b><\/p>\n

In the 15th century, feudal Europe consisted of the nobility who sent people to explore new lands and bring back resources, e.g., gold, agriculture, luxury-spices, food sources, and even human beings. This economic activity of the nobility created the merchant class, and moreover, peasants were replaced by merchants who then sold the resources that they sought. This feudal system of industry, however, as a result of economic expansion, exploration to other lands such as the discovery of America, as well as an overall \u201cincrease in the means of exchange and in commodities generally,\u201d created an impulse for the development of the manufacturing system and \u201cthe feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets,\u201d (<\/span>The Communist Manifesto <\/span><\/i>159). These merchants, or the \u201cproto-bourgeoisie,\u201d were created by the feudal nobility and would eventually rise to defeat them due to their seizing of the new mode of production, manufacturing. <\/span><\/p>\n

In the 18th century, the Industrial Revolution began and \u201csteam and machinery revolutionised industrial production [and] the place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois,\u201d (159). Furthermore, \u201cthe bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway,\u201d (160). The bourgeoisie, however, is faced with a crisis: there is a tension between the modern productive forces and the modern conditions of production, or, \u201cthe property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule,\u201d (163). This results in vast overproduction which to the bourgeoisie, looks more like devastation in that \u201cindustry and commerce seem to be destroyed\u2026 because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce,\u201d and as a result, the productive forces no longer increase bourgeoisie property and wealth, but rather, threaten it and, \u201cthe weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself,\u201d (163). In addition, \u201c[the bourgeoisie] has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons,\u201d i.e., the working class, the laborers, dubbed, the proletariat (164). <\/span><\/p>\n

In accordance with his causal theory of dialectical materialism, Marx theorizes that the creation of the bourgeoisie and the subsequent class struggle between them and the proletariat is a product of history, \u201cof a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange,\u201d (160). Moreover, the mode of production of a particular historical epoch is the determining factor of the thereafter social organization. The bourgeoisie creates the proletariat because they need them; as capital develops, so does the development of the proletariat who work in order to earn a wage, and whose labor enables the bourgeoisie to accrue capital. Competition among workers is created in order to drive wage-labor down, further putting capital in the pockets of the bourgeoisie. This private property, the capitalists\u2019 ownership of the modes of production, is what makes alienated labor possible and ignites the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Marx argues: <\/span><\/p>\n

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable (168).<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Marx theorizes that as time goes on and as exploitation and oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie increases, the proletariat, large and alienated, will realize that their interests can be better represented in large associations, i.e., unions. The proletariat will eventually develop class consciousness and unite to defeat the capitalists, and with them, capitalism as a whole, thereby abolishing class conflict. Marx thus argues that communism is a democratic movement: a revolution of the majority, for the majority, and moreover, \u201cthe proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win,\u201d (186).<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Influence of Race on the Prospect for a Revolution<\/b><\/p>\n

Although Marx\u2019s contributions to the realm of political revolution have been profound, many theorists in the 20th century have expressed an inadequacy of his theory to account for race, and furthermore, the \u201cNegro Problem.\u201d One such theorist is W.E.B. DuBois who in 1933 published \u201cMarxism and the Negro Problem\u201d wherein he addresses this complex issue. DuBois refers to <\/span>The Communist Manifesto <\/span><\/i>and contends that, though much of what Marx discusses no longer holds the same meaning, \u201c<\/span>class struggle<\/span><\/i> of the exploiter and exploited is a reality. The capitalist still today owns machines, materials, and wages with which to buy labor. The laborer even in America owns little more than his ability to work. A wage contract takes place between these two and the resultant manufactured commodity or service is the property of the capitalist,\u201d (282). DuBois discusses the exchange value of products, the labor as well as the cost of the materials and machines required to produce them, and the thereafter surplus value which \u201crepresents, therefore, exploitation of the laborer, and this exploitation, inherent in the capitalistic system of production, is the cause of poverty, of industrial crises, and eventually of social revolution,\u201d (282). <\/span><\/p>\n

DuBois then, however, raises the Negro Problem which is where he departs from Marx. He claims that the majority of Negroes in the United States are part of the working class and very few are part of the bourgeoisie, however, DuBois argues that the black proletariat is not a part of the white proletariat. While they \u201cwork together in many cases, and influence each other\u2019s rates of wages\u2026 have similar complaints against the capitalists\u2026 the grievances of the Negro worker are more fundamental and indefensible, ranging as they do, since the day of Karl Marx, from chattel slavery, to the worst paid, sweated, mobbed and cheated labor in any civilized land,\u201d (283). Furthermore, DuBois argues that though Negro labor suffers as a result of the capitalist system as a whole, \u201cthe lowest and most fatal degree of its suffering comes not from the capitalists but from fellow white laborers. It is white labor that deprives the Negro of his right to vote, denies him education, denies him affiliation with trade unions, expels him from decent houses and neighborhoods, and heaps upon him the public insults of open color discrimination,\u201d (283). DuBois proceeds to talk about the rise of the petty bourgeoisie who technically reside in the working class but whose interests are tied to the capitalists, and this phenomenon he claims is a post-Marxian one, and \u201cthus in America we have seen a wild and ruthless scramble of labor groups over each other in order to climb to wealth on the backs of black labor and foreign immigrants,\u201d (284). To attribute the inequality that is prevalent in advanced capitalist society solely and wholly to the economic mode of production is thus not sufficient in accounting for the oppression experienced by the black proletariat. <\/span><\/p>\n

In terms of a political revolution, the interests of the black proletariat are not consistent with those of the white proletariat, \u201cif its object was to make black workers their economic, political and social equals,\u201d and \u201cit is for this reason that American socialism for fifty years has been dumb on the Negro problem, and the communists cannot even get a respectful hearing in America unless they begin by expelling Negroes,\u201d (284). Furthermore, there is no clear answer or solution as to whom the black proletariat should revolt against, given that they are exploited by white capitalists and white proletariat alike. Revolting against the petty bourgeoisie would not be productive and they cannot unite and revolt with the white proletariat for they hold different interests. <\/span>Marxism is thus adept at theorizing industry and revolution in the mid-19th century, however, as DuBois notes, it must be modified as concerns the Negro problem in modern America. DuBois concludes by noting that \u201cthere is not at present the slightest indication that a Marxian revolution based on a united class-consciousness proletariat is anywhere on the American far horizon,\u201d however, \u201cin the hearts of black laborers alone lie those ideals of democracy in politics and industry which may in time make the workers of the world effective dictators of civilization,\u201d (285).<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Advanced Industrial (Technological) Society<\/b><\/p>\n

Additional revisions have been made to Marx\u2019s theory of political revolution, one being Marcuse\u2019s <\/span>One Dimensional Man<\/span><\/i>,<\/span> published in 1964. Marcuse positions himself in response to the Marxist theory of political revolution and responds to the question as to why there has been no revolution and theorizes whether or not there will be one. He begins, \u201ca comfortable, smooth, reasonable, democratic unfreedom prevails in advanced industrial civilization, a token of technical progress,\u201d (3). The goal of an advanced industrial society is individual autonomy, however, as Marcuse argues, the contrary trend actually operates. Capitalism implants \u201cfalse needs\u201d into its individuals, thereby integrating them into a system of production and consumption which operates through mass media, advertising, industrial management, and contemporary modes of thought. This results in what Marcuse dubs \u201cone-dimensionality,\u201d which is the disappearance of critique and opposition, and \u201csocial controls [are] introjected to the point where even individual protest is affected at its roots. The intellectual and emotional refusal \u2018to go along\u2019 appears neurotic and impotent,\u201d (12). Marcuse then discusses the transposition of the outer dimension into the inner dimension, the latter being \u201can individual consciousness and an individual unconscious <\/span>apart from <\/span><\/i>public opinion and behavior,\u201d and further argues that \u201cthis private space has been invaded and whittled down by technological reality,\u201d (12). This loss of the inner dimension where oppositional thinking can occur is the \u201cideological counterpart to the very material process in which advanced industrial society silences and reconciles opposition,\u201d (13). <\/span><\/p>\n

What results is a totalitarian society imposed upon individuals, without the use of terror, and rather as a result of technological rationality. The prevailing forms of social control in advanced capitalism are thus technological and their power is so vast that oppositional thinking, and thus the prospect for a political revolution, is diminished. Marcuse argues that \u201cthe productive apparatus and the goods and services which it produces \u2018sell\u2019 or impose the social system as a whole,\u201d and furthermore, \u201cthe products indoctrinate and manipulate; they promote a false consciousness which is immune against its falsehood,\u201d (14). In terms of a political revolution, a \u201chistorical alternative,\u201d Marcuse argues for the \u201cpacification of existence,\u201d the \u201cdevelopment of man\u2019s struggle with man and with nature, under conditions where the competing needs, desires, and aspirations are no longer organized by vested interests in domination and scarcity– an organization which perpetuates the destructive forms of this struggle,\u201d however, \u201cvalidated by the accomplishments of science and technology, justified by its growing productivity, the status quo defies all transcendence,\u201d (18-19). A qualitative change would thus require a change in the technological structure itself (25).<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

The Incorporation Of Feminist Thought into Marxism<\/b><\/p>\n

Another factor that further convolutes the prospect for a political revolution theorized as inevitable by Marx is the issue of the female in relation to this revolution. In 1998 Angela Davis published \u201cThe Approaching Obsolescence of Housework: A Working-Class Perspective,\u201d wherein she discusses the \u201cbirth of the housewife,\u201d \u201cdomestic slavery,\u201d and furthermore, the particular feminist interests as they pertain to capitalism. Housework is typically considered a female responsibility and though females have increasingly begun demanding that men partake in the associated duties, the notion of housework is still tainted with sexist and ideological remnants, and as such, is oppressive to the whole of females. Furthermore, \u201cthe de-sexualization of domestic labor would not really alter the oppressive nature of the work itself [and] neither women nor men should waste precious hours of their lives on work that is neither stimulating, creative, nor productive,\u201d (194). As a result of advanced industrialization, women began working in factories and this shift in the economic production from the home to the factory further complicated the situation of women:<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

While home-manufactured goods were valuable primarily because they fulfilled basic family needs, the importance of factory-produced commodities resided overwhelmingly in their exchange value- in their ability to fulfill employers’ demands for profit. This revaluation of economic production revealed- beyond the physical separation of home and factory- a fundamental structural separation between the domestic home economy and the profit-oriented economy of capitalism. Since housework does not generate profit, domestic labor was naturally defined as an inferior form of work as compared with capitalist wage-labor, (197).<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Davis argues that an ideological by-product of this was \u201cthe birth of the \u2018housewife,\u2019\u201d and \u201csexism emerged as a source of outrageous super-profits for the capitalists,\u201d (197-198). <\/span><\/p>\n

Davis also discusses the psychological consequences that housework instills within the females who are consumed by it and claims that \u201c[housework] so thoroughly invades the female personality that the housewife becomes indistinguishable from her job,\u201d and furthermore, \u201cthe psychological consequence is frequently a tragically stunted personality haunted by feelings of inferiority. Psychological liberation can hardly be achieved simply by paying the housewife a wage,\u201d (206). A compilation of interviews with women reveal that despite efforts to persuade government to pay women for their housework, doing so might actually have the opposite effect than what is intended, and furthermore, <\/span>\u201cthe only realistic escape path from this jail is the search for work outside the home,” (206). Davis additionally argues for the advent of social institutions, such as universal and subsidized childcare, that would alleviate women from their obligation to housework and thereby enable them to seek jobs elsewhere. She notes that \u201cquestions will increasingly be raised about the future viability of women\u2019s housewife duties,\u201d and \u201cit may well be true that \u2018slavery to an assembly line\u2019 is not in itself \u2018liberation from the kitchen sink,\u2019\u201d but argues that \u201cthe assembly line is doubtlessly the most powerful incentive for women to press for the elimination of their age-old domestic slavery,\u201d (207). Davis concludes by arguing that socialist measures must be taken for the sake of women\u2019s liberation and, \u201cmoreover, u<\/span>nder capitalism, campaigns for jobs on an equal basis with men, combined with movements for institutions such as subsidized public childcare, contain an explosive revolutionary potential. This strategy calls into question the validity of monopoly capitalism,\u201d (207).<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Revolution Revisited<\/b><\/p>\n

Capitalism left to its own devices will increase inequality and put wealth in fewer hands and central to Marx\u2019s theory is this internal conflict, or contradiction, that is inherent in capitalism. As capitalism progresses and expands, there will be \u201cincreasingly severe business cycles,\u201d as well as \u201cextensive commodification of social life,\u201d which \u201cwill have certain predictable effects on the proletariat,\u201d (Gottlieb 32). As a result of these inevitable recessions as well as the alienated nature of labor, and as \u201ccapitalist enterprises replace independent producers and political strategies undermine peasant communities,\u201d the proletariat will grow larger and larger (32). They will begin to form unions and demand better working conditions, and in response, the capitalist system will interject to \u201calleviate\u201d this conflict. This manifests itself in the creation of the middle class through means such as labor laws, profit sharing, antitrust laws, retirement plans, and so on. These interventions, however, merely mask the conflict and though the \u201cworkers\u2019 absolute standard of living\u201d may improve, \u201cthe gap between them and the ruling class will increase,\u201d and the proletariat will eventually develop a class consciousness– \u201can awareness of [their] shared interests and common situation,\u201d (33). Marx argues that over time, the capitalist system\u2019s internal contradictions will escalate to the point wherein the proletariat will constitute the majority of the population and collectively realize that the only way to advocate for their best interest is through a revolution: the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and furthermore, capitalism as a whole. <\/span><\/p>\n

One inadequacy of Marxism is its inability to foresee the profound effects that technological advances would have on society, and furthermore, on the prospect for a revolution. This has led theorists, such as Marcuse, to adapt Marxism to the distinct workings of advanced capitalism and envisage a revolution under such conditions. It was Marx\u2019s contention that, with respect to the progression of capitalism, conflicts would increasingly arise to the point that the system would face opposition from within and fall. Marcuse, however, displays the ways in which technology instills control over individuals through means such as mass media and advertising, a force which tends toward the homogenization of society. Rather than developing a class consciousness, as Marx argues the proletariat eventually will, advanced technology has endowed society with a false consciousness that adheres to free enterprise. Individuals are thereby incapable of oppositional thinking and those who suffer and are oppressed the most do not recognize the vast unfreedom they experience. This effect that advanced technology has on capitalism Marcuse argues is the reason a revolution has not occurred, and in terms of whether or not there will be one, he holds that a change in the technological structure is needed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Matters that further complicate the prospect for a revolution have to do with issues of race and gender, which are lacking in Marx\u2019s theory and instead subsumed by class. A revolution, according to Marx, consists of the opposition between the working class and the capitalists; it is entirely dependent upon the former\u2019s collective realization of their shared interests and their common enemy, and \u201cracism, ethnic hatred, male chauvinism, etc., only distract attention from the \u201creal\u201d enemy,\u201d (Gottlieb 33). This view, however, grossly discounts the differing experiences of individuals with regard to race and gender. DuBois, for example, notes that the interests of the black proletariat vary greatly from the interests of the white proletariat, and as such, their respective revolutions would manifest in entirely distinct ways. Furthermore, though prejudices such as racism may in fact only \u201cdistract attention\u201d from the true enemy (i.e., capitalism), that doesn\u2019t change the fact that the black working class are oppressed by the bourgeoisie <\/span>as well as <\/span><\/i>the white working class, for this prevents the two from recognizing their similar interests that are at stake and further diminishes the prospect for a revolution ignited by the proletariat. <\/span><\/p>\n

In addition to the black working class, women also occupy a peculiar position within the capitalist superstructure, which further complicates the possibility of there being a revolution. As Davis notes, housework consumes \u201csome three to four thousand hours of the average housewife\u2019s year,\u201d and many suffer immense psychological consequences as a result, and she further argues that women must seek jobs elsewhere in order to escape this \u201cdomestic slavery\u201d (193). Working class women, on the other hand, do not have the \u201cluxury\u201d of earning their income through marriage and are forced to work outside the home in order to earn a wage, and many are subject to rape. Regardless of class, however, all women experience sexism whether it be lower wages in the workforce or gendered, societal expectations at the home. Not to mention, the interests and political aims of black women vary greatly from those of white women, making it that much harder to unite against one common enemy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Marx\u2019s theory of revolution is contingent upon a majority, collected working class, but the ideological byproducts of capitalism are so profound, and people experience them in such varying ways and degrees, that the possibility for a revolution as characterized by Marx is looking especially hard to reach. The contention that the working class will eventually develop a class consciousness is complicated by the aforementioned ideological byproducts of aspects such as technology, race, and gender, and the simplification of exploitation merely to that of class leaves no room for these to function adequately in a communist revolution. Prominent thinkers, however, such as Marcuse, Davis, and DuBois, as well as many others, have shed light on the need to adapt Marxism to today\u2019s state of advanced capitalism, for class struggle between the exploiter and the exploited is definitely a reality (DuBois 282). The continuation of critical thinking and analysis will be crucial to envisioning the revolution that is still to come.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sources:\u00a0Davis, Angela Y. \u201cThe Approaching Obsolescence of Housework: A Working-Class Perspective.\u201d <\/span>The Angela Y. Davis Reader<\/span><\/i>, edited by Joy James. by Angela Y. Davis, Blackwell, 2008, pp. 193\u2013209.\u00a0<\/span>DuBois, W.E.B. \u201cMarxism and the Negro Problem.\u201d <\/span>African-American Philosophy: Selected Readings<\/span><\/i>, edited by Tommy Lee. Lott, Prentice Hall, 2002, pp. 281\u2013285.\u00a0<\/span>Gottlieb, Roger S. \u201cMarxism: The Original Theory.\u201d <\/span>Marxism, 1844-1990: Origins, Betrayal, Rebirth<\/span><\/i>, Routledge, 1992, pp. 3\u201338.\u00a0<\/span>Marcuse, Herbert. \u201cOne-Dimensional Society.\u201d <\/span>One-Dimensional Man<\/span><\/i>, Routledge, 1964, pp. 3\u201358.\u00a0<\/span>Marx, Karl. \u201cThe Communist Manifesto.\u201d <\/span>Karl Marx Selected Writings<\/span><\/i>, edited by Lawrence H Simon, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1994, pp. 173\u2013202.\u00a0<\/span>Marx, Karl. \u201cThe German Ideology.\u201d <\/span>Karl Marx Selected Writings<\/span><\/i>, edited by Lawrence H Simon, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1994, pp. 102-156.<\/span><\/p>\n\n

\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Karl Marx, a prominent philosopher, economist, and political theorist of the 19th century, produced a variety of influential texts that spoke volumes then as they still do today. Included in those publications are \u201cThe German Ideology,\u201d \u201cExcerpt-Notes of 1844,\u201d Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Capital, as well as the infamous, The Communist Manifesto, along with many […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7459,"featured_media":0,"parent":80,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"builder_content":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/pl314-spring19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/457"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/pl314-spring19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/pl314-spring19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/pl314-spring19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7459"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/pl314-spring19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=457"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/pl314-spring19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/457\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":504,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/pl314-spring19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/457\/revisions\/504"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/pl314-spring19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/80"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/pl314-spring19\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}