How would have Karl Marx have viewed BREXIT?
- This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Firstly with a chuckle and then with an analysis on the folly of those members of the capitalist class who had formed the impression that democracy always works in their interests. Tough titty! Or to paraphrase Oliver and Hardy, ‘What a fine mess you have got us into again Olly’.
However, since the majority of workers support capitalism, like always the capitalist class will struggle through this present political crisis.
Actually, in the quite different historical conditions of the time, in 1848 Marx made a speech in favour of Free Trade as against National Protection. Engels explained why in his 1888 Preface to the publication of Marx's speech:
Quote:To him, Free Trade is the normal condition of modern capitalist production. Only under Free Trade can the immense productive powers of steam, of electricity, of machinery, be full developed; and the quicker the pace of this development, the sooner and the more fully will be realized its inevitable results; society splits up into two classes, capitalists here, wage-laborers there; hereditary wealth on one side, hereditary poverty on the other; supply outstripping demand, the markets being unable to absorb the ever growing mass of the production of industry; an ever recurring cycle of prosperity, glut, crisis, panic, chronic depression, and gradual revival of trade, the harbinger not of permanent improvement but of renewed overproduction and crisis; in short, productive forces expanding to such a degree that they rebel, as against unbearable fetters, against the social institutions under which they are put in motion; the only possible solution: a social revolution, freeing the social productive forces from the fetters of an antiquated social order, and the actual producers, the great mass of the people, from wage slavery. And because Free Trade is the natural, the normal atmosphere for this historical evolution, the economic medium in which the conditions for the inevitable social revolution will be the soonest created — for this reason, and for this alone, did Marx declare in favor of Free Trade.In other words, he supported Free Trade as he held that this would help capitalism develop quicker, so paving the way for socialism. Now, of course, capitalism has long since built up the material basis for a worldwide society of plenty for all.Having said that, I can't see Marx favouring a country opting out of a larger tariff-free market that had already developed. That would be a step bacward in terms of capitalism becoming a more and more global system. But then, of course, for us today, capitalism is already global enough and we don't need to support any further globalisation under capitalist conditions. That can, and should, take place more rationally in a frontierless socialist world where the natural and industrial resources of the planet have become the common heritage of all.
He did support some bourgeois revolutions because it was am important step toward the development of capitalism on his time, but today that stand is totally invalid and reactionary. Based on that situation the Leninists, the left wingers, and the Bolsheviks justified ( and continuing justifying ) their nationalist positions and many so called Communist Parties support bourgeois nationalism too
Lenin, and Stalin had also supported the idea of bourgious revolutions as progressive in Russia eg in his seminal two tactics pamphlet. But it is entirely absurd to think that a bourgeois revolution does not express the interests of the proletariat at all. This absurd idea boils down either to the hoary Narodnik theory that a bourgeois revolution runs counter to the interests of the proletariat, and that therefore we do not need bourgeois political liberty; or to anarchism, which rejects all participation of the proletariat in bourgeois politics, in a bourgeois revolution and in bourgeois parliamentarism. From the standpoint of theory, this idea disregards the elementary propositions of Marxism concerning the inevitability of capitalist development where commodity production exists. Marxism teaches that a society which is based on commodity production, and which has commercial intercourse with civilised capitalist nations, at a certain stage of its development, itself, inevitably takes the road of capitalism. Marxism has irrevocably broken with the ravings of the Narodniks and the anarchists to the effect that Russia, for instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other than the path of the class struggle on the basis and within the framework of this same capitalism. All these principles of Marxism have been proved and explained over and over again in minute detail in general and with regard to Russia in particular. And from these principles it follows that the idea of seeking salvation for the working class in anything save the further development of capitalism is reactionary. In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism. The working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from the insufficient development of capitalism. The working class is therefore decidedly interested in the broadest, freest and most rapid development of capitalism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch06.htm %5BThe Mensheviks were in fact, contrary to what the lying Leninist tell us, took a dim view of over egging that pro capitalist argument too much] A position he supported unreservedly right through to 1916, opposing the position of the left SRS and anarchists of attempting some-kind of ‘socialist’ revolution. Published: Trudovaya Pravda No. 19, June 19, 1914. Published according to the text in Trudovaya Pravda.Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1972, Moscow, Volume 20, pages 372-374.Translated: Bernard Isaacs and The Late Joe FinebergTranscriptionMarkup: R. Cymbala The economic development of Russia, as of the whole world, proceeds from feudalism to capitalism, and through large-scale, machine, capitalist production to socialism. Pipe-dreaming about a “different” way to socialism other than that which leads, through the further development of capitalism, through large-scale, machine, capitalist production, is, in Russia, characteristic either of the liberal gentlemen, or of the backward, petty proprietors (the petty bourgeoisie). These dreams, which still clog the brains of the Left Narodniks, merely reflect the backwardness (reactionary nature) and feebleness of the petty bourgeoisie.Class-conscious workers all over the world, Russia included, are becoming more and more convinced of the correctness of Marxism, for life itself is proving to them that only large-scale, machine production rouses the workers, enlightens and organises them, and creates the objective conditions for a mass movement. When Put Pravdy reaffirmed the well-known Marxist axiom that capitalism is progressive as compared with feudalism,[1]and that the idea of checking the development of capitalism is a utopia, most absurd, reactionary, and harmful to the working people, Mr. N. Rakitnikov, the Left Narodnik (in Smelaya Mysl No. 7), accused Put Pravdy of having undertaken the “not very honourable task of putting a gloss upon the capitalist noose”.Anyone interested in Marxism and in the experience of the international working-class movement would do well to pander over this! One rarely meets with such amazing ignorance of Marxism as that displayed by Mr. N. Rakitnikov and the Left Narodniks, except perhaps among bourgeois economists.Can it be that Mr. Rakitnikov has not read Capital, or The Poverty of Philosophy, or The Communist Manifesto? If he has not, then it is pointless to talk about socialism. That will be a ridiculous waste of time.If he has read them, then he ought to know that the fundamental idea running through all Marx’s works, an idea which since Marx has been confirmed in all countries, is that capitalism is progressive as compared with feudalism. It is in this sense that Marx and all Marxists “put a gloss” (to use Rakitnikov’s clumsy and stupid expression) “upon the capitalist noose”!Only anarchists or petty-bourgeois, who do not under stand the conditions of historical development, can say: a feudal noose or a capitalist one—it makes no difference, for both are nooses! That means confining oneself to condemnation, and failing to understand the objective course of economic development.Condemnation means our subjective dissatisfaction. The objective course of feudalism’s evolution into capitalism enables millions of working people—thanks to the growth of cities, railways, large factories and the migration of workers—to escape from a condition of feudal torpor. Capitalism itself rouses and organises them.Both feudalism and capitalism oppress the workers and strive to keep them in ignorance. But feudalism can keep, and for centuries has kept, millions of peasants in a down trodden state (for example, in Russia from the ninth to the nineteenth century, in China for even more centuries). But capitalism cannot keep the workers in a state of immobility, torpor, downtroddenness and ignorance.The centuries of feudalism were centuries of torpor for the working people.The decades of capitalism have roused millions of wage-workers.Your failure to understand this, gentlemen of the Left Narodnik fraternity, shows that you do not understand a thing about socialism, or that you are converting socialism from a struggle of millions engendered by objective conditions into a benevolent old gentleman’s fairy-tale!To advocate the slightest restriction of the freedom to mobilise allotment land actually amounts to becoming a reactionary, an abettor of the feudalists.Restriction of the freedom to mobilise allotment land retards economic development, hinders the formation, growth, awakening and organisation of the wage-worker class, worsens the conditions of the workers and peasants, and increases the influence of the feudalists.The Peshekhonovs and Rakitnikovs are in fact abettors of precisely these “categories”, when they advocate restriction of the freedom to mobilise peasant land http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/19.htm The Bolsheviks through most of 1917 supported the convocation of the constituent assembly, right up to the eve of the October coup. In fact the initial excuse that was given, in a speech by Trotsky as it happens, was to guarantee the elections. Which he ended with “long live the constituent assembly”. ‘–……… We appeal to the people: Long live an immediate, honourable democratic peace, all power to the Soviets. All land to the people, long live the Constituent Assembly!’ All the Bolsheviks stood up and walked out of the assembly hall to the accompaniment of shouts ‘Go to your German trains!’ http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1989/trotsky1/15-towards.html Lenin in 1917 had gone on the run basically to avoid being interviewed about allegations of German funding of the Bolshevik party. [Recently established as fact after the discovery and publication of German foreign office documents in 1950.] He had said he would only do so under the auspices of a government elected by the constituent assembly. In the never ending irony the Bolsheviks at the end of 1917 essential adopted the SR and mainstream anarchist position. Alexander Berkman for instance had said that the Bolsheviks Russian state capitalism was a historic necessity. I think Karl would have supported a united states of Europe in the same way as he supported the unification of Germany I seem to remember. I think from a Marxist theoretical position having a United States of Europe or even for that matter a united states of the world would simply the tasks of the conquest of political power as it would lessen? the problem of uneven economic development and the rolling piecemeal capturing of political power etc. And as I said in an argument with a Brexit SWP hack; better having all the capitalist governments in one bucket. We are supposed to be internationalist so you would thing we should think the dissolution nation states as something ‘progressive’. I actually didn’t vote. FYI Lenin on the united states of Europe. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm
ALB wrote:In other words, he supported Free Trade as he held that this would help capitalism develop quicker, so paving the way for socialism. Now, of course, capitalism has long since built up the material basis for a worldwide society of plenty for all.That is an interesting observation, Other comments by Marx suggest otherwise, For instance at the end of chapter two of the Communist Manifesto we find him and Fred arguing for a state capitalist agenda precisely in order to increase the productive as rapidly as possible: The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm Seems slightly contradictory to me!
There is no doubt that in 1847-8 Marx did support Free Trade even if only as the lesser evil or as a rope supports a hanging man. It was part of his general policy of supporting the "progressive bourgeoisie" against its enemies, both because he believed (at that time) that a bourgeois revolution in Germany would be rapidly followed by a "proletarian revolution" and because he held that capitalism still had a role to play in developing the productive forces.The passage from the Communist Manifesto you quote is the programme that he, Engels and the others in the Communist League advocated a victorious "proletarian revolution" should adopt (but should a revolution was never really on the cards, as they later realised.Both positions share the same underlying (and justified) assumption that, in 1848, the material basis for a socialist society had not yet been created. Since this has now existed since at least the end of the 19th century this argument is now of academic interest only and what Marx may or may not have advocated in 1848 is of no contemporary relevance.Even so, Marx came up with a good description of what Protectionists in effect argue:
Quote:It is better to be exploited by one’s fellow-countrymen than by foreigners.Brexiteers too and, apparently, a large section of the working class in this country.
Quote:It is better to be exploited by one’s fellow-countrymen than by foreigners. Most of the left wingers nationalists support this conception. They will kill you, or place you in jail if you do not support their nationalists ideas. There are not essentials differences between rightwingers and leftwingers. In regard to some Of Karl Marx old conception they are still living in the past, and they do not understand that we are living in a different world. we are not living in the XIX Century
Fred in 1872, presumably with Karl’s agreement, withdrew important elements of the communist manifesto; Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of…….. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm When it comes to this kind of thing I think there is a really important issue for them in 1872 even that is often overlooked whether you agree with it or not. I can provide supporting quotations for it if required. Then for them the actual capitalist class where a functioning capitalist class. By that they meant they played an important ‘technical’ role in capitalist production and where 'working' on site in their mills and factories etc. There were also more of them. Karl and Fred saw correctly that increasingly in manufacturing their technical roles would be increasingly taken over by salaried workers with the expansion of large enterprises and joint stock companies etc. As they were lazy gits and they became fewer their capitals or factories would become too large for them to run for themselves even if they wanted to. Actually state capitalism and nationalisation offered another potential fast track route to that situation. Now we are in the situation where much of the capitalist class are purely the finance capitalists or even just shareholders. They probably have no clear idea of what they even own, where it is or what it does. There is thus no longer a necessity to physically take it over from the personal owners who are unlikely to fly in on their Lear jets with baseball bats; and it just requires a political/legal act to transfer ownership and prevent their state goons from stopping the workers cutting of the source of their ill gotten surplus value.
"How would have Karl Marx have viewed BREXIT?Firstly with a chuckle…."There is nothing in my mind to chuckle about at proof of how stupidly patriotic the working class are. I think it`s not only dismaying, but terrifying.
Some commentators are coming out with the idea that "Brexit" is a vote by the British working class against corporations. How ludicrous this is, in my opinion.The vote might embarrass some of the rich, but I don`t see any intent there on the part of voters, do you?
I agree, but it must have been a vote against something on the part of the 37% of the electorate who voted Leave. It certainly wasn't a vote for anything (as we are now seeing). What would they have been voting against? Not the corporations or capitalism, maybe against what capitalism had put them through but mistakenly blaming this on the EU and/or foreigners. But it's not all doom and gloom. After all, 35% didn't vote against foreigners (and 28% didn't express an opinion either way)..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.