NIVEDITA MAJUMDAR: Why We’re Marxists
"Maybe the reason
young radical thinkers are not impressed by pleas to recognize “ambiguity and
contingency” is because what they have seen in their lifetimes is a lesson in
some pretty unambiguous facts about how capitalism works.
Even rock-ribbed
neoclassical economists are coming around to the view that forty years of
stagnant wages might have something to do with the attack on unions; that the
decline of the labor movement in turn accelerated the shift to the right in politics;
that this shift in turn led to a pretty successful evisceration of what little
social support the state gave to the poor; that when the mad rush for
short-term profits finally drove the economy into the tank, the state returned
the favor by passing off the costs to the public and handed over trillions of
dollars to the banks.
There was no
contingency or ambiguity in any of this. It was a quite predictable result of a
highly successful class war that transferred political power firmly over to
elites. This is what capitalism looks like when the class struggle turns ugly. When self-styled
progressives preach the gospel of contingency and ambiguity in times like
these, is it a surprise that people turn to Marx for a little clarity?"
NB: 'A little clarity'. Marx's contribution to the human conversation was immense; and his analysis of capital a seminal criticism of capitalist modernity. This becomes evident whenever capitalism undergoes one of its periodic crises, and it must be said, the economic and political situation today is extremely dismal. But the ideological components of his system, including historical necessity (as in 'laws' of history), the inevitability of revolution, the use of naturalistic metaphors in political argument (as in 'force is the midwife' of every society 'pregnant' with a new one); and the lack of a phenomenology of violence - these features of his thought do not provide clarity. Warnings about ambiguity and contingency carry weight because the activities and ideological practices of Marxists in power have given rise to grave questions - to put it mildly. In this centenary year of Bolshevism, surely the history of revolutionary regimes should make us think about the distinction between truth and certainty? Find below some contributions to the conversation - DS
Months after its
release, Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century is
still getting praised in reviews and sitting near the top of bestseller charts.
If the invisibility of a system is a marker of its ideological success, this
can’t be a good sign for capitalism. It’s no surprise that
people are curious about the causes of the injustice that surrounds them.
Average workers’ wages in the US have fallen sizably from 2007 to 2012; in the
same period, over 90 percent of all new income went to the top
1 percent; while around 46 million Americans live in poverty, the gap
between corporate profits and workers’ wages has never been greater. Piketty’s
conclusion that capitalism, if left unchecked, generates a concentration of
wealth among a tiny minority sits well with this lived experience.
Merit or hard work,
the standard justification for inequality, has little to do with our new gilded
age.
Though he distances
himself from the old man, Piketty’s analyses have been aligned in a certain
sense with those of Marx. Not surprisingly, the response to the book has
revealed some central misconceptions embedded in critiques of Marxism. Here it becomes clear
that invisibility is not the only weapon in the ideological arsenal of
capitalism. The first line of right-wing defense is denial, with some variation
on the contention that the state of the economy is fine, thank you. There may
be inequality, as Scott
Winship or Kevin
Hasset would argue, but it’s not actually harmful. They are drawing on
the ideological conviction that capitalism left to its own devices rewards the
meritorious and is beneficial not just for capitalists but for everyone.
Unfortunately for
them, Piketty does not simply make a counterclaim; he demonstrates with
irrefutable data that the cherished faith in this dual doctrine of capitalism - of the natural and just creation of a meritocracy whose resultant inequality
benefits all - is simply false. This is why what Paul Krugman calls the “Piketty
panic” sets in, and they move to the second line of defense. Piketty’s naysayers
make a claim that is powerful in its aged simplicity: Money doesn’t matter. It
is not inequality that generates unhappiness, but a lack of communitarian
possibilities. Notice that they don’t question the fact of inequality or even
that it might cause unhappiness, but as Megan McArdle insists,
“[T]he proportion of this unhappiness due to income inequality is actually
relatively small.”
Instead, McArdle
contends in her review of Piketty’s book - which she admits to not have read - that what is needed “is the sense that you can plan for a decent life filled
with love and joy and friendship, then send your children on to a life at least
as secure and well-provisioned as your own.” In a marginally more
sophisticated review,
Ross Douthat similarly argues that the resurrection of Marx won’t bring much
comfort because what is amiss in contemporary capitalist societies is not the
lack of economic security, but the erosion of “cultural identity - family
and faith, sovereignty and community . . . forms of solidarity that
give meaning to life for many people, while offering nothing but money
in their place.”
Easy leftist
dismissals of such idealistic positions are not necessarily helpful. The
reason arguments disavowing the connection between money and happiness have
such a lasting appeal is because there is a kernel of truth to them. The
realization of human potential and happiness is much more intricately connected
with creativity, art, science, myriad cultural practices, and forms of
solidarity and community rather than materiality. But here’s the thing - Marx would wholeheartedly agree! The moral power of Marx’s work doesn’t just
derive from its systematic demystification of capitalism; it also flows from
his insistence that capitalism cannot generate the conditions for human
flourishing. He never equated material well-being with happiness, but he knew
that there can be no happiness without material well-being.
The crime of
capitalism is that it forces the vast majority of the population to remain
preoccupied with basic concerns of nutrition, housing, health, and skill
acquisition. It leaves little time for fostering the community and creativity
that humans crave.
And the injustice of
capitalism is that it does so in an era of plenty.. read more:
see also
The Aporias of Marxism / Archaism and Modernity. By Enzo Traverso
Nikolai Berdyaev: The Religion of Communism (1931) // The Paradox of the Lie (1939)
The Aporias of Marxism / Archaism and Modernity. By Enzo Traverso
Nikolai Berdyaev: The Religion of Communism (1931) // The Paradox of the Lie (1939)
Anders Åslund - Russia’s Neo-Feudal Capitalism; More posts on Russia
Can Capitalism and Democracy Coexist?
Is 'Adults in the Room' by Yanis Varoufakis one of the greatest political memoirs ever?
Is 'Adults in the Room' by Yanis Varoufakis one of the greatest political memoirs ever?
Posts on Greece
