Marx’s thought is greatly appreciated in many areas of human knowledge as one of classical theories on social organizations and roles of individuals in it. Marx criticizes capitalism because the relations of production and all their consequences have dehumanizing character. Primary concern for Marx is private property because it results in estrangement of men. Workers become alienated while producing goods, which go to the owners of means of production, become capital, and constitute private property of capitalists. Since worker puts his human nature, his human essence, into process of production and product, he becomes private property of capitalist.
Capitalist, in order to shade true consciousness of worker, returns “worker’s nature” in an alienated form – wages. Wages are not enough to live as a human being; therefore, worker works hard to get more wages alienating himself in this process even more. Capitalist increases his profit keeping worker in dehumanizing conditions. Thus, the more worker works for capitalist, the more alienated worker becomes.
In these relations between capitalist and worker, worker becomes estranged from the process of production (that, for Marx, is the defining characteristic of human being), from the product (the end of production process), from himself as a consequence of two earlier forms of alienation, and, logically, from the entire society of other human beings. This is called a process of dehumanization through alienation in a capitalist world.
Being caught in these capitalist-worker relations, worker misses all other aspects of his life – he becomes imprisoned in a world of alien interests. Worker’s false consciousness, maintained by ideology, keeps him in the relationship that is destructive to him. The situation can be associated with psychological phenomenon known as learned helplessness. Worker does not see alternatives in his circumstances, even though for an outsider it is not a hopeless situation.
Persistence of these relations between workers and owners of the means of production leads inevitably, according to Marx, to splitting up of society “into two great hostile camps”– bourgeoisie and proletariat (Marx 474). Bourgeoisie in capitalist society has its own progressive role. “The bourgeoisie, historically, Marx says, has played a most revolutionary part” (475). Development in capitalist society is inevitable because capitalists, driven by greed for greater profit, constantly revolutionize instruments of production, while worsening the conditions of worker’s life. Taking into account conflicting interests of the two classes, development of bourgeoisie and proletariat go in opposite directions enhancing the class antagonism. Those representatives of so-called middle classes, because of increasing competition, gain or lose wealth that determine their status in a situation of the class antagonism.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat cannot co-exist since they develop in opposite directions. Therefore, the class antagonism, fully developed and expressed in numerous proletariat strikes and rebellions, must be resolved. According to Marx, the only resolution of the class antagonism is revolution. The revolution should be focused on the future, not the past (like all previous revolutions in human history). Proletariat revolution, for Marx, is unprecedented in human history because it does not refer to the past as an ideal point of destination. The result of proletariat revolution is to be transcendence of private property into public property and formation of communist society.
Marx’s positive view on social organization is very attractive but it seems to be unrealistic given the steps to be taken in order to achieve this state of human happiness. Communist society is taken as a final state in a model of dialectical materialism. Communist society is the last stage, or thesis, in historical development because communism is the only society, in which objective knowledge and true consciousness are possible. There are no classes, no antagonistic relationships, which could lead to conflict; there is no possible antithesis for the true state of human existence. Since there is no division of labor (but generalized labor), there cannot be private property. Private property of capitalists is transcended into communal, or public, property. The key principle in communist relations of production and distribution is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (531). It means that labor is considered as a measure of an equal standard; depending on his ability, an individual produces certain amount of labor. The equality of distribution is based on equal production in accordance with different (or unequal) individual characteristics. In Marx’s words, “equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor” (530).
Marx’s assumption about human nature is that “[t]he individual is the social being” (86). Man’s true consciousness is social in its nature; a person can be a human only if he sees himself as a part of social whole and lives for society. So, man thinking socially (understanding of common needs) and acting socially (mutual cooperation) is the real human in communist society.
Also, in communist society there is no need for state as a centralized power. Since there is no conflict in social relations, there is no need for a mechanism of control for setting down these opposite interests. There is no law, religion culture and everything by means of which state, as a provider of interests of the ruling class, can control oppressed class. In communist society, there are only administrative organs, which guide and secure social interest of individuals.
The argument of this essay is that communism, as a form of social organization, is impossible for unrealistic assumptions about human nature. First, and perhaps the most important point to be made is that humans as species are not entirely cooperative. Marx shows workers who do not cooperate with each other focusing only on their individual interests. This class-ignorance is a product of estrangement. Bourgeoisie, for Marx, develops in the direction of self-destruction because the members of this class are guided by their own personal interests. Bourgeoisie, like proletariat, is false conscious. Being in a state of false consciousness, the members of both classes are motivated by self-interests and enhance competition within each class. Eliminating the conditions, which are, according to Marx, determine consciousness of individuals, would hardly bring an understanding of mutual cooperation as a way of interaction in society. Since consciousness is determined not just by economic relations but also by political, cultural, judicial influence, simple change in economic relations does not guarantee “revelation” the true essence of human being. Proletariat revolution (thesis) can meet opposition (direct or latent) from the oppressed class of bourgeoisie (antithesis) that would lead to formation of new relations of confrontation within society (synthesis). Thus, socialist society emerges with dictatorship of proletariat. This type of social organization implies neither mutual cooperation nor emergence of true consciousness. There is just another form of competition between workers who get power and ex-capitalists who try to survive in “alien” world.
Marx’s theory of cooperation and communal existence is based on assumption that “true realm of freedom… can blossom forth only with the realm of necessity as its basis” (441). The necessity is assumed to be objective and understood through conscious analysis by each individual in communist society. Such homogeneity of perception and reasoning is hardly possible in nature and thus has to be socially constructed and maintained. It seems that the whole idea of “true consciousness” is self-contradictory in Marx’s analysis. If we say that consciousness is determined by conditions (489), why there should be “true consciousness” at all? True consciousness can be just a kind of consciousness that is characteristic for a particular historical period, mode of production, or epoch. Are there true conditions? True conditions are those, which match the level of “economico-political” development of society. Each mode of production has its own true conditions. So, it seems that the notion of true consciousness refer to awareness of true conditions of human existence.
Even if there would be such a phenomenon as “true consciousness”, how to achieve this state of being? For Marx, transcendence of private property into public property inevitably leads to change in consciousness of people. However, education plays the important part in his analysis of transition from capitalism to communism. In “Manifesto of the Communist Part” Marx says that “[t]he Communists … do but seek to alter the character of [the intervention of society], and to rescue education from the influence of ruling class” (487). By providing education that is compulsory, with objective scientific knowledge, Marx in fact talks about ideology (named differently though). An individual has to be able to make a choice in order to consciously exist. There is no choice left for an individual in Marx’s analysis for he unquestionably takes Hegelian model of freedom, which is a recognized necessity. There is no other choice except recognition of necessity.
The premise about inescapable polarization of society into two opposing camps – bourgeoisie and proletariat – is shown erroneous by historical practice. Instead of greedy accumulation and unlimited exploitation of workers, owners of means of production soften their demands and make compromises with workers. Of course, it can be false-consciousness that makes workers think that the conditions of their existence are sufficient to proceed with their work without rebellion. Of course, it can be a case of alienation of the workers, where they cannot think about the purpose of their wage-race. However, it is not of big importance for this discussion. The point is that Marx underestimated the capacity of bourgeoisie to suppress “negative moods” of masses and overestimated the political activity of proletariat. Marx missed his own notion about bourgeoisie’s awareness of class interests.
In order to organize revolution, workers have to be conscious of their real conditions. But it is important to remember the class of thinking individuals who are not willing to lose their “capitals” and power. Bourgeoisie is aware of its own class interests, while proletariat is not (P. Vahabzadeh, personal communication, February 1, 2002). In this point, Marx underestimated the power of ideology (the tool of a ruling class) on proletariat.
When Marx discusses the future-oriented nature of the proletariat revolution, the dialectical model comes to mind. It is not possible not to refer to the past when there is a notion of the future. In other words, the proletarian revolution focused on the future is nothing more than negation of the past. Taking into account Marx’s not so extended analysis of communism, the future after the proletarian revolution seems to be no more than absence of the past economic, political, and cultural relations. So, the reference to the past in the proletariat revolution makes it not unprecedented in the history of humanity (except the notion of its universality, that sounds quite unrealistic too due to differences in economic development in societies across the world).
Another point in Marx’s analysis that brings many concerns is the transitional period from capitalism to communism – socialism. It is not clear how to get from dictatorship of proletariat to communities and administrations of conscious and free (in Hegelian sense) people. Why will proletariat, having the power over other part of population, be agreeable to give up all the privileges given by this status? In order to proceed by Marx’s views of transition from the proletariat revolution to communism, proletarians have to be conscious of their past, present, and future. Otherwise, there will be kind of “reciprocal liberation” which is just “paying back” for suppression and neglect of high ideals of communism. Power and domination is likely to corrupt the minds of workers. It can be argued that in the transitional period, people are taught “the right way”, that is, to share, to perceive everything as common, to keep a face of a community in each step made by an individual. In other words, “true consciousness” can be constructed and forced on people. The means of this enforcement can be called “objective scientific knowledge”. According to Marx, only through scientific method people can reach the understanding of the real world. Science, thus, should be value free to be objective. How possible is it if scientists are humans with their biases, prejudices, and other partial opinions? It seems hardly workable to create a positivist society (Comte`s ideal). Even if it is hypothetically possible to be impartial for scientists, they should be taught first in this way. Objective knowledge has to be provided to those who should provide this knowledge. It is circular reasoning.
Concerning the issue of objectivity, it is unclear from the very beginning, why Marx considers himself as an objective person possessing true knowledge unaffected by his material conditions. Criticizing Hegel, Marx said that “the philosopher, himself an abstract form of alienated man, sets himself up as the measure of the alienated world”(PP). Moreover, when a philosopher living in capitalist society, surrounded by dehumanizing conditions, puts himself in a detached position from his material conditions, it seems self-contradictory. If Marx could be independent of his material conditions, why could not a worker exercise freedom in Hegelian sense – work all day (recognizing this as a necessity) then come home and spend some time with his family reading Plato?
In conclusion, it is very important to acknowledge the influence Marx’s heritage on modern thought, being it philosophy, sociology, politics, or even religion. Marx’s passionate and rational at the same time critique of capitalism is of big significance today. However, it should be admitted that there are instances of overestimating of objective scientific position in his writings. Objectivity itself plays tricks while someone tries to understand and use it as a basis of his or her analysis.
Works cited
Tucker, R. C. (Ed.). (1978). The Marx-Engels reader. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.