According to Marx, we are currently in the fourth epoch of history—capitalism—which will
eventually be ended in a revolution and the dictatorship of the
proletariat. We spoke, in class, about
communist-ish programs in place in the United States today that Marx would
likely argue are in place to temporarily subdue the proletariat in order to
postpone the (inevitable) revolution. I
found this idea really interesting. Many
people, when arguing for capitalism, like to defend it by using examples from
the American economy, but we have to recognize that we do not have a pure
market economy. We have regulations and
social programs. We have public schools
and firemen. The American belief is that
not everything should be left to the market.
I wonder, then, if this is our true perspective? Do we believe in capitalism with some government intervention, or are we accepting of the flaws of capitalism because we are given some intervention? Do the wealthy believe the purposes of welfare programs and public education are to aid those who need it and to provide (or try to provide) a more equal starting place for each person in the competition of capitalism, or do they believe these programs are necessary evils in place to keep the masses subdued and cooperative? I can’t buy that the wealthy are this maleficent (or at least this intentional). Whatever the intended purpose of these sorts of programs, though, I think they do keep the poor from acting out.
Assuming that Marx is right
about the epochs of history and the
revolutionary transitions between them, I still must wonder whether we will
actually have a revolution. Our
government is so adaptable that I wonder if we could not just gradually alter
our government until it looks more like Marx would like it. It would seem that something dramatic would
have to happen when the structure of our government must change, but could we
not gradually implement more and more Marx-friendly programs until our system does
not resemble capitalism at all? Or would
those in power seek to suppress the proletariat voters (which some could argue they’re already doing)? Also, does
having a global economy affect our potential for a Marxist revolution? Is it possible that we are a nation of bourgeoisie policing other
countries, hiring them to do underpaid labor, and generally making them feel
antagonistic toward us?
Marx provokes a lot of
questions about the way our society functions today. What are your thoughts?
-Katie Sanders
-Katie Sanders
I think you raise some very good questions, especially about whether or not we believe in capitalism with intervention or if the interventions distract us from the flaws of capitalism. I do not know the answer to this, but I lean more towards the fact that we accept the flaws because we are provided with interventions, a lot of the interventions were put in place because things weren’t working so something needed done. I also agree that programs such as welfare and public education certainly keep the poor from rebelling. I also think that the wealthy don’t fully support these programs to keep the poor ignorant of their situations, but I don’t think that they support them solely because they create a more level playing field, I think that since many of these programs have been in place for so long the true reasons they are supported are hidden very deep within society.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether or not we will have a revolution, I think that a more likely possibility is that there will be more and more interventions in the government and the government will change over time into something that would be more Marxian. Though things like the Occupy Wall Street movement are supposedly the beginnings of a rebellion, I don’t think our society today would tolerate a rebellion. I think things will be handled much more quietly and it will be a slow process. As far as having a world economy I think we struggle with wanting to benefit ourselves
I feel like most Americans probably understand the necessity of regulations on a completely free market economy. If I'm recalling correctly, even Romney said something about needing regulations in place during the Denver debates. Generally I feel like the wealthy spend more time controlling political interests to get rid of health care and other public goods that don't fall in line with 'strict' free market policies as opposed to seeing them as tools with which to keep the populace oppressed. The best example that comes to mind for this is the objectivist philosophy created by Ayn Rand.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point about our government in particular being very adaptable. It's designed to favor the status quo a lot with the thorough system of checks and balances and the separation of powers. But Marx doesn't think we'll get to the dictatorship of the proletariat through gradual reforms. Further, he wrote in the Communist Manifesto that the revolution would be a global one. The globalization of economics really only reinforces that prediction. I'm not so sure if we should be considered a nation of bourgeoisie so much as we are a nation controlled by its bourgeoisie, though.
I think you make a good point about it being a global revolution, Matt. I had been struggling with the idea of a revolution being contained within the U.S., especially since the U.S. tends to operate (at least in some ways) as the bourgeoisie in relation to other countries (exploiting labor is a big example here).
ReplyDeleteI guess my big question is, since capitalism is so adaptable, and we seem to have designed our special form of capitalism to make it extra-flexible, what could be the breaking point that sparks the revolution here? If the powerful are always capable of granting social programs to suppress the proletariat, what would it take to make them rebel?