Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
dd asked this question on another thread. I can't possibly answer it because I think it's a catch all term which means different things to different people. However, various labels have been mentioned, such as communism, socialism and Marxism, I presume as illustrating 'far left' thinking and it set me thinking.
Marxism is a term which interests me because Marx's ideas were at the basis of communism. Marx as a sociologist was briefly covered in my degree course and I thought his analysis of society was interesting. I still do. On the other hand, I think he spent too much time sitting in the Reading Room of the British Museum and failed to take the reality of human nature into account. His theory of 'communism' quite failed to recognise that no two people think alike and that 'man' is not inherently noble and disinterested. We know from history just what happens in Communist countries and it in no way resembled the workers' nirvana that he visualised. It produced a society that was as hierarchical, repressive and unfair as the contemporary societies he analysed.
However, I think his work offers food for thought as to how societies might be better organised.
These are extracts from a review of his work which I think are still relevant today.
So what was it that made Karl Marx so important? At the cornerstone of his thinking is the concept of the class struggle. He was not unique in discovering the existence of classes. Others had done this before him. What Marx did that was new was to recognize that the existence of classes was bound up with particular modes of production or economic structure and that the proletariat, the new working class that Capitalism had created, had a historical potential leading to the abolition of all classes and to the creation of a classless society. He maintained that “the history of all existing society is a history of class struggle”. Each society, whether it was tribal, feudal or capitalist was characterized by the way its individuals produced their means of subsistence, their material means of life, how they went about producing the goods and services they needed to live. Each society created a ruling class and a subordinate class as a result of their mode of production or economy. By their very nature the relationship between these two was antagonistic. Marx referred to this as the relations of production. Their interests were not the same. The feudal economy was characterized by the existence of a small group of lords and barons that later developed into a landed aristocracy and a large group of landless peasants. The capitalist economy that superseded it was characterized by a small group of property owners who owned the means of production i.e. the factories, the mines and the mills and all the machinery within them. This group was also referred to as the bourgeoisie or capitalist class. Alongside them was a large and growing working class. He saw the emergence of this new propertyless working class as the agent of its own self emancipation. It was precisely the working class, created and organized into industrial armies, that would destroy its creator and usher in a new society free from exploitation and oppression. “What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers”.
His analysis of 'class' was pretty sound, the bit in bold is what we know he was mistaken about.
^ With the evolution of modern industry, Marx pointed out that workmen became factory fodder, appendages to machines. Men were crowded into factories with army-like discipline, constantly watched by overseers and at the whim of individual manufacturers. Increasing competition and commercial crises led to fluctuating wages whilst technological improvement led to a livelihood that was increasingly precarious. The result was a growth in the number of battles between individual workmen and individual employers whilst collisions took on more and more “the character of collisions between two classes”.^
why is it that Marx felt that the existence of classes meant that the relationship between them was one of exploitation?
In the course of the working day, Marx reasoned, workers produce more than is actually needed by employers to repay the cost of hiring them. This surplus value, as he called it, is the source of profit, which capitalists were able to put to their own use. For instance, a group of workers in a widget factory might produce a hundred widgets a day. Selling half of them provides enough income for the manufacturer to pay the workers’ wages. income from the sale of the other half is then taken for profit. Marx was struck by the enormous inequalities this system of production created. With the development of modern industry, wealth was created on a scale never before imagined but the workers who produced that wealth had little access to it. They remained relatively poor while the wealth accumulated by the propertied class grew out of all proportion. In addition, the nature of the work became increasingly dull, monotonous and physically wearing to the workforce who became increasingly alienated from both the products they were creating, from their own individuality and from each other as human beings.
Sound familiar?
The political system, the legal system, the family, the press, the education system were all rooted, in the final analysis, to the class nature of society, which in turn was a reflection of the economic base.
*This did not mean that education and teaching was a sinister plot by the ruling class to ensure that it kept its privileges and its domination over the rest of the population. There were no conspirators hatching devious schemes. It simply meant that the institutions of society, like education, were reflections of the world created by human activity and that ideas arose from and reflected the material conditions and circumstances in which they were generated*
...the individuals who make up the ruling class of any age determine the agenda. They rule as thinkers, as producers of ideas that get noticed. They control what goes by the name “common sense”. Ideas that are taken as natural, as part of human nature, as universal concepts are given a veneer of neutrality when, in fact, they are part of the superstructure of a class-ridden society. Marx explained that “each new class which puts itself in the place of the one ruling before it, is compelled, simply in order to achieve its aims, to represent its interest as the common interest of all members of society i.e. ..to give its ideas the form of universality and to represent them as the only rational and universally valid ones”. Ideas become presented as if they are universal, neutral, common sense. However, more subtly, we find concepts such as freedom, democracy, liberty or phrases such as “a fair days work for a fair days pay” being banded around by opinion makers as if they were not contentious. They are, in Marxist terms, ideological constructs, in so far as they are ideas serving as weapons for social interests. They are put forward for people to accept in order to prop up the system.
I think this is fair analysis, too. It is also a very simplified version of a large body of work.
The questions in my mind are:
"How far are people willing to accept that the situation Marx analyses is inevitable and has to be lived with?"
And
"Is it reasonable to be influenced by Marx's analysis as a basis for altering the balance in society to ensure a more equable distribution of resources without actually wanting to overthrow the status quo?"
I share your views on this, MaizieD. I remember writing an essay on how wage levels are determined (what's the value of each worker?) It seemed to me that a train driver, who has responsibility for the lives of hundreds of passengers, was worth at least as much as a city banker.
Keep supposing all kinds of things dj I try and avoid virtue signalling.
I don't suppose you'd feel inclined to answer my question would you MOnica? It's just that I feel that your spat with dj might have arisen from a misinterpretation of what she wrote. [trying to be a peacemaker here]
Sorry to continue with my boring paranoia but two articles here posted before and after the referendum
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-19/brexit-campaigners-put-their-faith-in-u-s-data-wranglers
the Bloomberg article says more about what the company does
“We’re trying to understand swing voters, the finer nuances of what it is they care about,” Kaiser said. “If you hit a young person with a message about border security, they might never open your e-mail again. But if you tell them a person from Spain may come and take their job, that might get them.”
Remember, this is specifically targeted at the individual through adverts on their social media, no-one else knows what they've been shown. It's covert.
www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/vote-leave-the-canadian-it-company-and-the-ps725000-donation?utm_term=.jh9R30zJ1#.gpma1bvND
the buzzfeed one details some very odd connections between some donations to various Leave campaigners and large payments to an obscure Canadian IT company
And this: Dominic Cummings, the key Vote Leave strategist, has written since the referendum that the money spent with AggregateIQ on online targeted advertising played a key role in winning the referendum
Which, oddly enough, he denys he said it now..
I'd like to add something to this discussion which will probably result in all sorts of opprobium being heaped on me..
I feel that discrepancy in wage levels is like saying that an hour of one person's life is more important than that of another; for example, is an hour of a lawyer's life worth more to them than an hour of a toilet cleaner's life?
No doubt people will argue that the former job is skilled and has taken a lot of training etc. so the job holder should be compensated for that. This could be removed as an argument by suitable economic measures (including, for example, free education, and payment while studying for a profession).
dj said ^I was looking at Jeremy Hunt's constituency to see if he was doing anything there.
I noticed that he has given food to a foodbank in Haslemere.
Not recently.
I wonder how many people are in need of a foodbank there.^
I replied: there is probably more poverty in Haslemere than many such towns further north. It is just hidden behind the obvious affluence. Rents in places like Haslemere and other places in the south east are astronomic, and house prices also, so that on any given income almost every family in the south east will be poorer than those on the same income in the northern part of the country. Many people who are JAMS in the north are in desperate poverty in the south.
Her reply was: Not ignorant of Haslemere. I used to teach down the road in Liphook. Many of the kids I taught had fathers working in the city. Others came from traveller families.
My reply was If you knew all about Hazlemere and why did you make the patently incorrect comment on the lack of poverty there?
She also asked political questions irrelevant to the subject in this email. As apart from a tongue in cheek reply to the original question followed by a slightly wider answer to someone who took is seriously, I have not been part of the political debate on this thread and do not intend to join it now.
Your addition to the discussion is an interesting one, angelab, and is worth thinking about. I think a common response is that in any given population, including one where education is free and where people are paid to train for a profession (i.e. what happened in this country when we had student maintenance grants), there will be fewer people who, with all the will in the world, are capable of doing, say, a surgeon's job, than there are people who are capable of doing a toilet cleaning job. In an deal world, people should certainly have equal educational opportunities, bit equal opportunities do not necessarily result in equal outcomes.
In short, some people are cleverer than others. Accepting that fact, and accepting its consequences, is not discriminatory. It does not undervalue the toilet cleaners as a result of paying surgeons more. Skill is worth paying extra for.
At least, that's an argument I've heard and which I think seems reasonable.
Yes, I saw the exchange, MOnica. As you won't actually tell me which bit you objected to I'm assuming that it was this:
I wonder how many people are in need of a foodbank there?
Which I read as her speculating on how much 'hidden' poverty there was in Haslemere. So I was surprised at your reaction. That's all.
Thanks for your response, thatbags, and I take your point; however, I feel that people doing a job requiring brains, e.g. as you said, a surgeon, are lucky to have been born with academic ability, and those who are not as fortunate are then penalised for something which is not their fault.
That's a Communist idea Angela though isn't it? sounds good in theory but doesn't work well in practice.
You can daydream idly while cleaning a toilet, but a surgeon brings all his attention ,expertise and skill to his job ( and it's a job with repercussions when things go wrong.)
What can be done is make sure that the toilet cleaner or any lowly worker is paid enough .I think today that they are ( compared to the recent past.)
Nothing is truly fair is it? Some are blessed with wonderful looks, or brains, or skills, intelligence, musical or artistic flair etc and some are not.
MaizieD - an interesting post - from which:
"For instance, a group of workers in a widget factory might produce a hundred widgets a day. Selling half of them provides enough income for the manufacturer to pay the workers’ wages. Income from the sale of the other half is then taken for profit."
In order to build the factory in the first place and buy the plant & machinery & have sufficient working capital to cover the costs of materials, labour & overheads, the manufacturer needs capital funds - these are raised either through loans, bonds and/or share issues - and the providers of these funds need payment either through loan interest or share dividends.
In Marx's day there were a few rich "capitalists" - industrialists or financiers who provided the funds - whereas nowadays we have a much more complex and global financial system whereby major pension funds are the "capitalists" - and the workers in the widget factory depend on the health of these pension funds for their retirement. So I wonder how relevant Marx is today.
I feel that equality of opportunity is what matters - but, as thatbags says - it does not necessarily result in equal outcomes - and that's not just about how well people do at school - people have different skills, work harder, make different choices. I think we will always have wage differentials and they can act as motivation and encouragement and aspiration - what I am unhappy about is the size of the differential nowadays - particularly in the public sector which is paid for by all of us & which is supposed to be about service - CEOs of NHS trusts and of Local Government with salaries 3, 4 and 5 times greater than the PM.
bags and angel
There are of course people in society that are more academically gifted than others, however that does not necessarily mean that they all end up doing the type of highly skilled jobs that have been given as examples because all these gifted individuals may not have had the opportunities or life chances to be able to succeed. Indeed it does not necessarily follow that those in highly skilled jobs are the most gifted, they have simply had a leg up and the sort of privileges others can only dream of.
However, all things being equal, undoubtedly some careers will always be seen as more highly valued than others. It depends on the societal values put on them. For example in the USSR at one time miners were the most highly paid.
What is most important and to ensure a population that are happiest is that there is no huge and perceived unfair disparity between income.
I take your point too, roses, but I ask myself - would I rather be a surgeon or a toilet cleaner? and to be honest, irrespective of pay, I'd rather be a surgeon!
Me too! 
I don't think there's any reason why we should expect the world to be fair as regards intelligence. It's the luck of the draw (i.e. genes). The genes one inherits are nobody's fault and obviously people with (how shall I put it?) some less useful genes than others should not be actively penalised. Not getting to do a job that requires intelligence or wisdom and much studying because you are not well-endowed for such jobs is not anybody's fault either (i.e. not an actively applied penalty) and that's why, in a civilised society, we must cushion those who are poor against the worst effects of their bad luck with various social care measures to prevent them suffering excessively from the weather or ill health or not enough food. There is always room for improvement but we have been trying to do this since Gladstone and Disraeli were prime ministers (possibly before that too but certainly since then; my historical knowledge is rusty to put it mildly).
I have a problem with the "happiest" idea, ww. It's too undefinable a concept. I would prefer something more measurable such as access to what is needed for a dignified life where one gets the chance to make the most of whatever talents one might have while living a life of tolerable comfort.
I don't think rich people are any happier than poorer people if both have what they need.
bags yes of course I'm not talking about fairness and intelligent gene distribution but what I am saying is that those who work at unskilled jobs should not suffer exploitation, nor a wage below the ability to live an adequate existence. That in the U.K. particularly - more so than in other European countries the disparity is undoubtedly causing harm and unfairness.
Poorer people don't have what they need.
bags sorry I didn't see you happiest comment - and I take your point - it is a woolly concept. I think my post has answered you - hopefully.
Yes, it has, thanks, ww. I would add though that I'm not sure disparity (the size of the gap between richest and poorest) necessarily matters. I don't think people expect equality of outcome but they should be able to expect fair laws, as you say.
I read the remark as sarcasm because it involved Jeremy Hunt, for whom I have no respect, but I do think a sense of fair play is necessary and dismissing someone's charitable gift just because you do not like them isn't fair play.
How many of those who dismissed George Michael and his drug problems etc were utterly taken aback when the extent of his private charities became known after his death.
I take your point too, roses, but I ask myself - would I rather be a surgeon or a toilet cleaner? and to be honest, irrespective of pay, I'd rather be a surgeon!
Well I wouldn't want to be an orthopaedic surgeon - just don't have the muscles for it
But both worthwhile jobs
Perhaps a road sweeper driving one of the nifty little machines, but then I would get annoyed with people who parked their cars in the way of my cleaning.
I didn't realise that it was documented every time someone donated to a foodbank - perhaps Jeremy Hunt (or his OH) has been donating to the one in Haslemere weekly without publicity.
We don't know.
Hunt documented it himself as he thought it was a good thing to do.
I looked at his website to see if he had been doing anything this weekend as nobody appeared to know where he was despite all the problems with the NHS cybercrime.
I wasn't the only one who thought he should be seen to be doing something reassuring the public about the NHS.
What I said was that I was surprised that Haslemere needed a foodbank.
I am still surprised that Haslemere needs a foodbank.
I am even more surprised that I am attacked for saying that, instead of the tories being attacked for the increase in foodbanks over the time they have been in power.
There certainly wasn't a foodbank when I worked in that area of the country.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
