Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:30:44 -0500
From: jschulman-AT-juno.com (Jason A Schulman)


Comments?
*****

  Marxism’s Anniversary, Long Live (a piece of)
                            Marxism!

                     By Michael Albert 

   Article from New Politics Symposium: The Relevance of Marxism on the 
        150th Anniversary of The Communist Manifesto, Winter, 1998

     Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the 150th anniversary of
     The Communist Manifesto is that, well, who cares? The answer is:
     nearly no one. More, nearly no one would care about Marx’s
     birthday or Lenin’s, or about the birthday of the Russian, Chinese,
     or even Cuban revolutions (in the industrialized west, anyhow), or
     about any other related event one might propose to celebrate—say
     Das Kapital’s birthday, for example, whenever that might be. 

     The reason is certainly the crumbling of the Soviet Empire, but this
     just raises a new question. Given that the Soviet Empire was a
     dungeon, why did its fall – a good thing as in the phrase "one down,
     one to go" -- shove Marxism down history’s memory hole? Is the
     correlation between dictatorship, ecological decay, social
     homogenization, and many other vile features of Soviet history, on
     the one side, and the body of thought labeled Marxism and
     Marxism Leninism on the other side, an unfair rap? Should the
     court of intellectual evaluation find Marxism and Marxism Leninism
     innocent of responsibility for the Soviet debacle? Or, if there are
     damning connections, is there nonetheless a baby to preserve
     while discarding the bath water in these ideologies? More extreme,
     as post modernists argue, could the problem be the very fact that
     Marxism and Marxism Leninism are ideologies? Should we dispense 
     with all attempts to explain  history beyond singular descriptions?
     Should we entirely forego trying to envision the future—deciding 
     not only that the Soviet model was a horror, but that any visionary
     model is doomed to a  similar fate by the very nature of looking
     forward beyond our range?

     To answer these questions, one has to carefully evaluate Marxism
     as a theory of history and particularly economics, and Leninism as
     a view of how to overcome capitalism putting in its place socialism,
     communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. Over the years
     Robin Hahnel and I have spent considerable time doing this. Here I
     can only summarize the conclusions we have argued in depth and
     detail elsewhere:

        1.Marxist dialectics at its best is an overly obscure
          methodological reminder to think holistically and historically;
          at its worst it’s a philosophically absurd drain on creativity
          and range of perception. 
        2.Historical Materialism’s main claims are denied by history. Its
          lesser claims are not entirely wrong, but when "real existing
          people" utilize the concepts of historical materialism they
          inexorably arrive at an economistic and mechanical view of
          society, systematically under-valuing and mis-understanding
          social relations of gender, political, cultural, and ecological
          origin and import. 
        3.Marxist class theory has disguised the importance of the
          coordinator (professional-managerial or technocratic) class
          and its antagonisms with the working class and with capital,
          and has in this way long obstructed class analysis of the
          Soviet, Eastern European, and Third World non-capitalist
          economies, and of capitalism itself. 
        4.The Labor Theory of Value misunderstands the determination
          of wages, prices, and profits in capitalist economies and
          turns activists’ thought away from a needed social-relations
          view of capitalist exchange. The dynamics of the workplace
          and market are largely functions of bargaining power and
          social control, categories essentially ignored by the labor
          theory of value. 
        5.Marxist crisis theory, in all its variants, distorts
understanding
          of capitalist economies and anti-capitalist prospects by
          seeing intrinsic collapse where no such prospect exists and
          orienting activists away from the importance of their own
          organizing as the basis for change, that is far more
          promising. 
        6.Regarding visions of desirable societies, Marxism is
          particularly obstructive. First there is Marxism’s general
taboo
          against "utopian" speculation. Second, Marxism presumes
          that if economic relations are desirable other social relations
          will fall into place. Third, Marxism is permanently confused
          about what constitutes an equitable distribution of income --
          "from each according to ability to each according to need" is
          not a viable economic guide (it is utopian and curtails needed
          information transfer) and "from each according to work and to
          each according to contribution to the social product" is not a
          morally worthy maxim (it rewards productivity, including
          genetic endowment, beyond effort and sacrifice). And fourth,
          Marxism approves hierarchical relations of production and
          command planning as means of allocation. 
        7.Marxism’s injunctions regarding economic goals taken
          cumulatively amount to advocating what we call a coordinator
          mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual
          workers, planners, etc., to ruling class status. This Marxist
          economic goal uses the label socialist to appeal to workers,
          but does not structurally implement socialist ideals (much as
          the political goal of bourgeois movements uses the label
          democratic to rally support from diverse sectors, but does not
          structurally implement democratic ideals). 
        8.Finally, Leninism is a natural outgrowth of Marxism employed
          by people in capitalist societies, and Marxism Leninism, far
          from being the "theory and strategy for the working class," is,
          instead, by its focus, concepts, values, and goals, the "theory
          and strategy for the coordinator (professional-managerial,
          technocratic…) class." 

     So we can see why with the demise of the Soviet model, allegiance
     to Marxism and Marxism Leninism might also wane, since these
     ideologies were indeed aimed in their principles, concepts,
     thought, and vision (though not the deepest aspirations of many of
     their advocates), at this model. So, what’s the problem? Out with
     the model, out with the theory and strategy seeking it. Makes
     sense, doesn’t it?

     Well, yes, but only to a point. When theories fail in explaining
reality
     or guiding practice, they do need to be corrected or jettisoned.
     And, in the case of Marxism and Marxism Leninism, the faults are
     basic to the underlying concepts so that correcting them is not just
     tinkering with the system. That is, after dispensing with
dialectical
     materialism, historical materialism, the labor theory of value, the
     limited understanding of class, Leninist strategy, and the (Soviet-
or
     market-based) Marxist model, we would say that whatever you do
     next you won’t have enough left of what was there before to retain
     the old name. So, yes, it is time--actually way past time--to get on
     with something new.

     But, when theories fail in explaining reality or guiding practice,
it
     does not follow that every claim they make, every concept they
     offer, and every analysis they undertake must be jettisoned. Quite
     the contrary, more likely much will resurface as still valid (though
     perhaps recast somewhat) in any new and better intellectual
     framework.

     And this is the frustrating problem for those of us who, over the
     years, have in a principled manner combated the economism and
     other inadequacies of Marxism. Now that people are finally eager
     to move on -- oh no, there goes that baby down the bath drain!
     Because for all the inadequacies of Marxism, the
     theory got two things very right: First, private ownership of the
     means of production is inevitably alienating and exploitative. And
     second, allocation via markets must be abolished if we are to
     achieve a desirable economy.

     Yet many who call themselves radical political economists have
     somehow forgotten these two important lessons. And since any
     radical political economy that no longer understands these
     fundamental flaws of capitalism is doomed to oblivion, this is a
very
     serious problem. Unless it is corrected, "radical political economy"
     will cease to be radical and join non-radical institutionalism as
     another minor intellectual opponent of the neoclassical mainstream.

     Capitalist profits (based on private ownership of the means of
     production) are not morally justifiable. At a point in time "the
     economy" is capable of producing a surplus of goods and services
     beyond those necessary to reproduce all inputs used, that is, "the
     economy" is potentially productive. It is potentially productive
     because of the cumulative effects of innovations dating back to
     prehistory, but the important point is that this potential
productivity
     is, for the present generation, a public good. It belongs no more to
     one person or group than another. It is our common economic
     inheritance. Under capitalist rules, to convert this potential
     productivity into an actual social surplus, capitalists must permit
     workers access to the means of production and workers must toil
     under capitalist management. Capitalists then accrue part of the
     social surplus from those who exert and sacrifice to produce it by
     exploiting the leverage capitalist ownership of the means of
     production grants them. Bargaining power conveyed to them by
     their property rights allows capitalists to take the social surplus
as
     profit. In contrast, morality-based claims on the economy's
     productive potential arise only from personal sacrifice toward
     increasing or manifesting society’s productivity potential, or, in
     other words, only from work, something not part of capitalists' job
     description.

     Whether one calls the result the "fundamental Marxist theorem" or
     the "fundamental Sraffian theorem" is secondary. What is primary
     is that profits come from exploiting workers and that capitalists
     accrue them by power, not effort and sacrifice. So those who
     countenance a "positive" role for a private sector in a sought after
     new economy or who praise the virtues of "mixed economies"
     could benefit quite a bit from "rereading" Marx. Of course, they can
     get this insight elsewhere as well, which is fine. What isn’t fine,
     however, is jettisoning the insight that private ownership of the
     means of production is an abominable economic structure on the
     idiotic grounds that the insight is part of Marxism and we must now,
     finally, do better than Marxism does.

     But the tendency to go "soft" on private ownership is relatively
     minor in scope and impact compared to the contemporary
     economists’ stampede to embrace markets, wherein an
     astonishing proportion of radical political economists have opted to
     join the international, conservative, free market jubilee. For
     example, in the debate over what constitutes a desirable economy
     -- illogically unleashed by the crises of Soviet style economies --
     there are basically four schools of thought advocating,
respectively:
     1) public enterprise market models, 2) mixed economy market
     models, 3) centrally planned models and 4) democratic or
     participatory planning models. Marx would no doubt be surprised
     that the majority sentiment among modern day Marxists lies with
     the first two schools. Sentiment is so strongly supportive of market
     visions, in fact, that among Marxists there is a more active debate
     between different versions of market models than between markets
     and planning.

     Needless to say, as proponents of participatory planning, we can
     only wish that some of our colleagues who used to suggest that we
     needed to apply ourselves more vigorously to the study of Marx,
     would take their own advice. In the (earlier) words of Frank
     Roosevelt, a recent convert to market socialism himself, "Marx, the
     greatest socialist thinker we have had so far, was adamantly
     opposed to allowing any role for markets in socialism: `Within the
     cooperative society based on common ownership of the means of
     production, the producers do not exchange their products,’ he said
     in his Critique of the Gotha Program (1875). And Engels
     concurred: `The seizure of the means of production by society puts
     an end to commodity production... which is replaced by conscious
     organization on a planed basis.’ Anti-During (1878)." In our
     opinion, whether he was the "greatest socialist thinker" or not,
Marx
     took what Roosevelt calls "the abolitionist position" regarding
     markets with good reason. And if our colleagues enamored of
     markets can break their free market spell more effectively by
     rereading Marx and Engels than by reading current day critics, we
     do not hesitate to prescribe the antidote of their choice.

     While only some of our opposition to markets derives from Marx,
     he provided more than a good start. Again, we are use Frank
     Roosevelt's formulation of five reasons Marx opposed markets.

        1.Markets inexorably lead to social inequality and class
          divisions -- hence to domination, exploitation, alienation. 
        2.Because decisions regarding output rates are taken by
          individuals or firms without any social coordination a market
          economy will tend to be unstable... thus failing to utilize its
          human and material resources consistently over time, i.e.
          waste. 
        3.Markets gradually turn everything into a commodity and thus
          corrupt and undermine social morality and community. 
        4.When commodity production (i.e. the market) is the dominant
          way of organizing economic activity in a given society, human
          relationships will necessarily be characterized by alienation.
          Production for use is the necessary foundation for fully human
          relationships. 
        5.Reliance upon the market mechanism for coordinating
          economic activities prevents a society -- and the individuals
          in it -- from achieving freedom in the fullest sense of the
word.

     While Frank Roosevelt would like to convince himself otherwise,
     every one of these objections to markets is as sound, if not more
     sound today than when Marx formulated them over a hundred years
     ago. To these liabilities, in addition, we would add a number of
     others, including, briefly, environmental inadequacies, private
effect
     exceptionality, and both the absence of reasonable structures for
     expression of preferences and the inexorable bending of
     preferences in an individualist manner. We would also note that
     regarding point (1), the class division that markets create is not
that
     between capitalists and workers (engendered by private ownership
     of the means of production) but that between what we call
     coordinators and workers, a feature of central planning as well.But,
     in any event, regarding the body of work written by Marx and all
     subsequent Marxists, our conclusion is no different from anyone
     else’s! If we concentrate on the right passages Marx and chosen
     representatives of the Marxist heritage will have a positive (though
     limited) role to play in the future of radical political economy. If
we
     focus on the wrong passages, however, Marxology will be
     counterproductive.But what about the last set of questions we noted
     at the outset of this article? That is, what about the critique of
     Marxism that says its faults derive from the fact that it is
ideology or
     vision per se? This view is, to put it bluntly and briefly, a well
     meaning insight run amuck. Why is the view "well meaning"? Well,
     when most post modernists and others (for example, those who
     suffered the boot of Bolshevism in the Eastern Bloc) argue against
     developing a framework to understand history or to put forth a
     vision that we might aspire to attain, they are rebelling against
the
     hubris and authoritarianism of sectarianism. And opposing
     sectarianism is good, to be sure. What’s "amuck" about the view?
     It goes from rejecting excessive confidence in our analyses and
     projections, and, particularly, arrogance in stomping out
     alternatives, to rejecting the very idea of having analyses or
     projections at all. Again, to overuse the metaphor – there goes the
     baby with the bath water. Surely the solution to bad analysis and
     bad vision is better analysis and better vision – not none of
either.
     And surely the solution to arrogant assertion of analysis or vision
is
     openness to diverse perspectives and a good process for
     comparing and learning from options, not curtailing all options
     apriori. 

     To reject thinking about history with an eye to discerning patterns
     that help us understand our place and our options, and to reject
     envisioning better institutions that give us norms for valuation now
     and aims to aspire to by our practice, is to literally de-brain
     ourselves. An amazing proposal! Yes, if one could show that the
     acts of thinking, of looking for patterns, of envisioning, etc.,
whether
     all together or each separately by their very nature caused those
     engaging in them to inexorably become Stalinist thugs, the post
     modernists would have a case. But this is utter nonsense, which is
     why no post modernist or other proponent of the "no theory, no
     vision" stance has ever even bothered to try to make such a case.
     The Marxism problem is not solved by jettisoning everything that
     Marx and/or Marxists have ever thought or said. Nor is it solved by
     jettisoning the agenda of trying to understand history or to
envision
     a better future and aspire to create it in light of our thoughts
about it
     and our values and experiences as we proceed. No, the Marxism
     problem is solved by doing better, and if there is anything that
     respects the best of the Communist Manifesto, or Marx’s own
     birthday, or the publishing of Das Kapital, or any other event you
     care to name in this pantheon, getting on with doing it better is
that
     thing. 

     The author, Michael Albert, works on Z Magazine, the Z Media
     Institute, and Z’s online operation named ZNET
     (http://www.lbbs.org). He hosts a forum on ZNet, as do Noam
     Chomsky, Katha Pollitt, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Howard Zinn, for
     those interested in discussing this article or other matters. 



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---