“The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx” by Alex Callinicos, 1983
Calinicos tracks the history of Marxism in a compendium that would help anyone who wants to know its broad reach. He discusses Marx and Engel's various fore-runners, ideas, books, history, background, facts, opponents, organizations, problems and theory - trying to cover everything in one small 250 page book. I think he does a clear job. His biggest point is that socialism will be a creation of the working-class itself, which can be interpreted in several ways of course. Lenin said that Marxist socialism came out of German philosophy, English economics and French revolutionary socialism. It was truly a product of the best of Europe.
This book was written before the fall of the workers' states in central and eastern Europe and the USSR. It was also at the beginning of the neo-liberal counter-offensive by capital, embodied in Thatcher and Reagan that is faltering as we speak. Callinicos is a long-time leader of the British SWP, a 'Cliffite” organization which believes the USSR & China became or are 'state capitalist.' I'm not here to parse that erroneous idea, only to look at any useful info he brings up re Marxism.
Callinicos sees 4 main trends in Marxism – orthodox Marxism, Social-Democratic Marxism, Stalinist 'Marxist-Leninism,” and “Western Marxism.” He places himself in the first category. The book is written as a brief, historical description of Marx's life, activity and writings. Some fun facts from the book:
* In 1850 Marx and Engel's Communist League initiated a bloc with Blanqui's organization, writing that they would be “keeping the revolution in continual progress (en permanence) until the achievement of communism.”
* After the general defeat of the 1848 revolutions across Europe and a rise in capitalist growth, Marx understood that only in a crisis could the working-class movement gain. War is one such crisis.
* Marx had a child by their families' 'retainer' even though his family lived in dire poverty for many years. Marx tried to get a job as a railway clerk and was turned down due to his illegible handwriting. Jenny Marx was constantly sick and had the worst of their family life. Marx also developed ailments. When Engels told Marx that his partner Mary Burns had died, Marx sent a response letter complaining about his problems. This created a huge row between them, after which Marx apologized profusely. Marx preferred wine, but settled for beer on a London pub crawl with comrades where they nearly got arrested. I.E. he was a flawed human.
* The International Working Men's Association (the First International) was formed in 1864 with Marx one of 34 general council members. It was made up of followers of Fourier, Proudhon, Blanqui, Bakunin and others - syndicalists, anarchists, utopian Socialists, English trade unionists, representatives from Germany, France and elsewhere. It did good work and lasted for 5 years. This will shock our present sectarians who don't even try to work with any other leftist. After all they assume 'we're beyond all that.' Actually, no.
PROBLEMS & ISSUES
Callinicos covers the issue of the 'transformation problem,' - how socially necessary labor is transformed into a 'competitive' price for a commodity's value. I.E. a simple formula. If labor inputs and capital inputs vary greatly, how can you get an average rate of profit for all capital, as people like Michael Roberts and others consistently get? The labor theory of value would say low capital inputs should lead to higher profits. Marx believed each industry had a similarity in the relation of socially necessary labor to 'dead' labor in machines and raw materials, and this is how you look at the problem. This is still a debate among leftists.
Callinicos somewhat ignores the issue of monopoly and oligopoly, as his focus is on how competition raises the bar for every industry. Yet logically if oligopoly comes to dominate mature industries – which it has in many U.S. sectors - then the rate of profit should remain steadier. It is clear that oligopoly does not freeze the organic composition of capital, which continues to increase even in oligopolies, still leading to falling profits. One reason is competition is now international for many of these industries.
Callinicos and Marx locate the key internal source of the periodic crises of capital in this 'tendency of the rate of profit to fall' over time given no changes in production. This has been proved by a raft of Marxist economists. Marx said of it in the Grundrisse: It is “In every respect the most important law of modern political economy, and the most essential for understanding the most difficult relations.” There are many ways for the capitalist to counter-act this fall – increase hours, increase the intensity of labor, increase productivity, increase layoffs, not pay wages, drop wages and benefits, cheapen the commodity, buy competitors and the like. So it is only an internal tendency towards stagnation and crisis, not an absolute law.
POWER
Callinicos easily refutes attacks on Marx for the supposed inevitability of socialism. It is not inevitable, as the class struggle determines the outcome, though underlying material issues in society push workers in the direction of complete revolt. No capitalist crisis is automatically final. He goes light on the party issue. Marx believed the working class had to become a conscious 'class for itself' by forming a real mass workers party. Callinicos does not discuss the historical experience regarding the party or the possibility of several working-class parties. He opposes 'lumpen socialism' of the pure anarchist kind, which is a product of a disconnection from workers and an assumption a revolutionary elite will lead the way through exemplary acts. He identifies the transitional 'dictatorship of the proletariat' with the council form as a democratic improvement over bourgeois democracy. The Paris Commune, the first proletarian dictatorship, made two mistakes in this regard. It excluded women from voting and was based on neighborhoods, so all classes were included in voting.
The international spread of capital is obvious to us now and Marx understood it even in the 1800s. Yet many workers do not know how international competition and borderless functioning shape their lives. Nations are more obsolete than ever, yet they still function as body guards for their group of capitalists or as ways to split workers. At the same time some nations and nationalities are still oppressed by imperialism, so we have yet to jump over this problem. Callinicos emphasizes that communism can only come about on a world scale as the productive forces increase and even out across the globe, and as the proletariat grows. Actual 'socialism in one country' is not possible, though a workers' government in one or a number of countries is possible and happened. Engels, in 1847s Principles of Communism, wrote: “The communist revolution will therefore be no merely national one...” The next year, 1848, revolutions broke out all across Europe.
Callinicos describes how the state will 'whither away' as class antagonisms slowly drop. This clearly did not happen in the USSR, the European workers' states, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea or in China, which is a proof that real socialism was never achieved. According to him, Marx and Engels opposed the German notion of 'state socialism.' They predicted the rise in automation, the assembly line, robots and the use of technology in reducing labor time – something socialists would use to free workers from wage slavery.
WAS MARX RIGHT?
Callinicos discuss three modern assertions that Marx was wrong.
#1 – The issue of 'really existing socialism.' He answers by quoting Marx as to revolutions not having to go through automatic stages and can happen in places that are not fully capitalist, i.e. China and Russia. Again, the class struggle plays a lead role. The second part of this is the rise of a bureaucracy in the USSR and elsewhere. It was predictable given the isolation of the struggle in Russia after the failure of revolutions in Finland, Hungary, Germany and Italy. Marx (and the Bolsheviks) wanted a Russian revolution to spark more revolutions in Europe. “Socialism in one country” led to squandered opportunities in China, Spain, France and finally, and most tragically, Germany. Callinicos goes on to describe his theory of state capitalism, which is erroneous for many reasons.
#2 – Capitalism has changed. Has it fundamentally? Oligopoly has increased, as predicted by Marx. There have been booms in wealth in some countries, and among some classes, true, due to increases in productivity and exploitation of the periphery. The state has grown in its role, true. None of this changes the essential picture, just the strategies and tactics of class struggle. Large enterprises, increases in productivity and machine automation, international ties, the vast increase in the world proletariat and the growing role of the state all point towards an international worker-run society 'in the egg.' They actually are harbingers of socialism.
#3 – Changes in the working-class. Blue-collar workers producing useful commodities are not a majority in central capitalist countries, given the rise of white-collar intellectual property and labor, along with useless labor like managers, advertising, legal work, etc. Blue-collar workers consume more, so their class standing supposedly changes. Yet class is not defined by consumption, but by an individuals role in production. Marx and Callinicos understand that white-collar workers like clerks and service workers are still exploited based on their labor and role in the overall process of production. For instance, teachers and nurses are essential to the maintenance of the work-force, as they produce education and health, as do parents, though for free. Callinicos does note the growth of the professional middle-class – engineers, doctors, professors, lawyers, tech managers, etc. whose class standing is based on labor, but can also accumulate in the stock market, start businesses, buy profitable real estate, etc. - thus changing the sources of their earnings. As he puts it, in the center countries the working class has not been abolished, just shifted.
Callinicos concludes by pointing to continuing war, economic crises, starvation and poverty as proof capital has not escaped its own contradictions.
Prior blog reviews on this subject, use blog search box, upper left, to investigate our 16 year archive, using these terms: 'Marx,' 'Engels,' 'rate of profit,' 'really existing socialism,' ''oligopoly,' “Paris Commune,” and 'class.'
Red Frog
March 13, 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment