I can’t stop thinking about our discussion of Marx last week. I have 2 major problems with Marx’s work. The first is about an assumption he makes. The second relates to his argument justifying his utopian state.
First, I should say up front that I think, in general, Marx’s argument is a solid critique of capitalism. He certainly exposes the inherent problems of capitalism as an economic model. For instance, he is right about dramatic economic disparity. That is definitely a major problem. However, that doesn’t necessitate a revolution and the creation of a Communist state.
First, Marx seems to ignore the basic, fundamental aspects of human nature. Namely, he ignores the notion of economic incentive and intellectual property. If each person works according to their ability and receives according to their need then why would we work harder than we have to?
As for the According to Marx, a Communist society has full employment and no abject poverty. We cannot lose our jobs, we cannot lose our homes, we cannot starve, and (most importantly) we cannot receive extra rewards for our exceptional work. What’s the use then?
To the workers of the world: Why work harder than the bare minimum if there is no system of incentives (or disincentives)
For the entrepreneurs: Why invent medical devices? Why develop efficient means for transmitting information (email) or transportation (automobiles). In a Marxist “utopia”, society stagnates.
Secondly, I take issue with part of Marx’s argument. Marx would certainly respond to the criticism above by suggesting that I have been conditioned to think in terms of a capitalist society (one that requires private property, distribution of goods, etc.). Since I have been conditioned by that economic model, I am having difficulty conceptualizing the Communist state and “how people would act in that state.”
There are two big problems with type of argument.
(1) It is not a response to the argument against Capitalism. This diverts attention away from the real critique and ignores the issues raised. “You’re just conditioned to think in terms of a Capitalist society” is non-responsive to the central argument against Communism. That’s a problem. Not very compelling.
(2) By Marx’s own argument, human civilization has progressed through cycles of economic models, from primitive, to slave, to feudal, to Capitalism (and, eventually Communism). Since that’s the case, it seems that literally everyone has been conditioned to Capitalism. Since we participate in the capitalist society and work for wages, our labor is alienated and we view goods/services from that perspective. Thus, it follows that we are all conditioned. Despite this, Marx expects the Proletariat to rise from this, somehow see the light and recognize the contradiction in Capitalist logic. In other words, he expects the proletariat to inexplicably overcome their Capitalist conditioning. How do they realistically achieve this? I have no idea.
Marx is the only one who can understand his vision for a Communist state….
(I say that hyperbolically)
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteYou make some powerful criticisms of communism here. I especially like argument (1) above; you succinctly demonstrate the problem with such an argument.
As such, I would like to play devil's advocate here and attempt to argue against your argument against communism: namely, that a communist society provides little incentive for individuals to work.
I have made aspects of this argument in comments on Mills' and Victoria's blog posts, but I would like to take it in a different direction here. I would like to point out that the vast majority of jobs in our society encourage people to do the bare minimum. As a cashier at Khols I loathed every minute of my job because I genuinely felt objectified and alienated by it (and it was a pretty cushy job compared to some of the things that people have to do for money in our society). I didn't quit the job because I needed money and, seeing as we are in a recession, there was little else available. Nevertheless, I certainly did the bare minimum that I had to do in order to keep my job and remain in my boss's good graces. Most service jobs like that one offer little in the way of upward mobility, which is often held out as the great incentive in capitalist society. Perhaps there once was a time in our country when lowly cashiers and clerks could work their way up into management, but this rarely happens today. The majority of management today comes straight from college.
Now, one may argue that this presents the incentive to go to college in order to access these higher paying jobs, but for many of the poor and marginalized in our society this is hardly a live option. Kids all around us in Memphis are failed daily by their schools - schools that are supposed to give these children the tools to "lift themselves out of poverty." Furthermore, I know from experience that for many of those children who are brave enough to continue working in school despite the obstacles, the primary appeal of college is not better income but the opportunity to follow their dreams. For example, I tutor a student who talks often of his dream to become a video game designer. Sure, this job would offer him a better income than almost all of the jobs in the area around which he lives, and would certainly allow him to escape his poverty, but this is not why he wants it. Simply, he loves video games, he thinks that he can make them even better, and he wants to do what it takes to make that happen. Perhaps this can offer us a conception of what incentive to work would look like in a society in which survival was not a primary reason for working.
Thomas, I completely agree with your arguments against communism here. Marx does neglect human nature. If we are given no incentives to work hard, then why should we?
ReplyDeleteColin, although I understand your follow-up, I still side with Thomas’ argument. As an example of a job that encouraged minimal efforts you discussed working at Khols. I don’t think is sufficient enough to recoil Thomas’ arguments. You began working at Khols purely for the paycheck with an understanding that it would not be your career for the rest of your life and knowing that you have more promising career prospects after college. Since there is no pressure for you to do a good job and impress your boss to get higher up in this career, this is not a good counterexample. As for the young boy who wants to be a video game programmer simply because he loves it, this doesn’t seem to be anti-capitalist, nor does it seem to be pro-capitalist or pro-communist either. This boy does provide us with a conception of a society that did not view work as simple a means to fortune, but this is coming from someone who has experienced deep poverty. Perhaps this student does not have a full grasp on what hard work can do for a person. Therefore, I don't believe this example can refute Thomas' argument either.
Jade,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the detailed response. I should have been clearer: I meant to use my experience at Khols as an example of a dead-end job, not as an example of a summer job that a privileged white kid takes in order to earn a bit of money before returning to college. You are right, for me Khols is just a way to make some extra money, and I worked there with the understanding that my real career would come from my COLLEGE EDUCATION. But that's exactly my point, working at Khols isn't all that bad when you have a viable option for another career. But many, if not most, of the people who work in our service economy aren't privileged, college educated young adults. Rather, they are people who grew up in poverty, went to terrible and dangerous schools, and are now working at Khols, for instance, in order to make a living. In this light, working at Khols is not done for pocket change, but for subsistence, and no matter how hard these people work as cashiers or shelf-stockers, they WILL NOT become management, because they do not have college degrees (and college degrees also no longer equal jobs) . Service jobs offer little to no upward mobility by themselves. In fact, I think you illustrated that point for me by pointing to my college education as my way to upward mobility. Now, I have that college education because I grew up in a safe neighborhood with parents who greatly value education and had the time and ability to help me with my work, I went to great schools (because my parents could afford to live in the communities that have them), and so on... my point being that although I did quite work hard, I am in no sense of the term a "self-made man." In conclusion, when we look at the service economy from this perspective, i.e. as subsistence level work with few alternatives, it should be clear that there is little motivation to do more than the bare minimum. For, after all, what would it get you? (notice that this is exactly the argument that people offer in response to communism - my point is not to defend communism but to attack the common belief that capitalism offers clear incentives to hard work)
Furthermore, in discussing the student that I tutor I did not intend to "refute" Thomas' argument, but rather to provide a possible conception of an incentive to work that does not involve capitalist calculations for survival. Moreover, I think that the fact that my student lives in poverty lends support to my point, as most capitalists would say that poverty provides the greatest incentive to work for money, and yet this student seems to give little thought to money. He's in eighth grade, by the way, so I'd say he has a decent handle on how money works and what it means to be poor.
I really enjoyed reading your response. Please let me know what you think.