Marxism and contemporary society.

[Dracon II]

Hey,
I've been re-reading The German Ideology and it has resurfaced several questions I've had about Marxism that have been troubling me for a while.
In western societies the class system hasn't become what Marx predicted. The traditional proletarian classes are doing quite well for themselves, and even own their own property (even if it is from loans). Is this what Marx saw as a "labour aristocracy"?. There is also a non-ownership managerial class that, while satisfying Marx's criteria for proletarian status (they sell their labour to an owning class), appear as reactionary as the bourgeoisie (presumably because their power is dependent on the owning class). The most radical and revolutionary classes seem to be students, who (apart from having part time jobs) don't seem to fit into Marx's schema, and will likely use their qualifications to advance to reactionary class positions. In Australia, tradespeople seem to form a distinctive layer in the cake too...
Can this be explained away by calling them petit bourgeoisie? No, because they are simply middle income owners of their own means, whereas these new classes still have to sell their labour power, and yet this gives them the ability to own their own (though not necessarily productive) private property. Is this due to post-war Keynesianism? Is it an aberration that will pass once global capitalism becomes more firmly rooted? Are these contradictory class positions or is Weber's class system (the unequal distribution of life chances) more applicable.
Or could it be that the class system has simply become international (i.e. Wallerstein)? But then how do dependency theorists explain the rise of newly industrializing economies (i.e. the Asian tigers)?
I have my own suspicions... but I'd like to hear from some of the Marxian Political Economists on this site. I see sense in Marx's historical materialism but I think his predictions failed to grasp the complexity of the future and the prospect of changing material conditions and the rise of new forces of production. Once these questions have been answered I'll move on to my next theoretical question regarding Marx, which concerns culture.

[Winston]

Maybe he's just overrated...

[Alexander's Horse]

Re: Marxism and contemporary society.

Originally posted by Dracon II
In western societies the class system hasn't become what Marx predicted. The traditional proletarian classes are doing quite well for themselves, and even own their own property (even if it is from loans).

This is because Social Democratic political parties and trade unions used peaceful means to help workers get a piece of the pie. Social welfare is the best example. Marx predicted classes would polarise but what has happened is class differences have been ameliorated. This is why most people in Australia or the US think they are in the middle class, when in fact they are working class.

Is this what Marx saw as a "labour aristocracy"?.

The aristocracy of labour are those workers who have skills which allow them to bargain for better pay and conditions. This would include trades people and technicians - the old artisan class. Many of these people are self employed so they have more in common with the petit bourgeoisie than the working class - or believe they have. Some have become quite wealthy.

There is also a non-ownership managerial class that, while satisfying Marx's criteria for proletarian status (they sell their labour to an owning class), appear as reactionary as the bourgeoisie (presumably because their power is dependent on the owning class).

This group belongs to petit bourgeoisie or lower middle class. They are distinguished by the worst politics according to Marx because they aspire to be part of the middle class but fear falling back into the working class so they despise labour and toady to their bosses and the owners of capital. The religious right in the US and the One Nation movement in Australia are examples. This group also provides your rank and file fascists and storm troopers. Its no accident Pauline Hanson was a shopkeeper.

The most radical and revolutionary classes seem to be students, who (apart from having part time jobs) don't seem to fit into Marx's schema, and will likely use their qualifications to advance to reactionary class positions.

No surprises here either - your revolutionaries are middle class, not working class - the working class is too busy surviving to produce revolutionaries. Lenin, Stalin, Mao were all sons of the middle class. But most, including you probably, eventually recognise their class interest - home ownership, a good career and drop their youthful radicalism. Its when these bourgeois ambitions are thwarted that you get revolutions.

In Australia, tradespeople seem to form a distinctive layer in the cake too...

See above.

Can this be explained away by calling them petit bourgeoisie? No, because they are simply middle income owners of their own means, whereas these new classes still have to sell their labour power, and yet this gives them the ability to own their own (though not necessarily productive) private property. Is this due to post-war Keynesianism? Is it an aberration that will pass once global capitalism becomes more firmly rooted? Are these contradictory class positions or is Weber's class system (the unequal distribution of life chances) more applicable.

See above - Marx nailed it pretty well on the classes - his analysis is still relevant today.

Or could it be that the class system has simply become international (i.e. Wallerstein)? But then how do dependency theorists explain the rise of newly industrializing economies (i.e. the Asian tigers)?

It could be argued that the class system has been internationalised or globalised - you will only find a true Marxist proletariat living under the conditions Marx described in the third world these days. But the class system is replicated on a national basis too and many developing countries are following a similar path of peaceful change, such as the asian tigers.

I have my own suspicions... but I'd like to hear from some of the Marxian Political Economists on this site. I see sense in Marx's historical materialism but I think his predictions failed to grasp the complexity of the future and the prospect of changing material conditions and the rise of new forces of production. Once these questions have been answered I'll move on to my next theoretical question regarding Marx, which concerns culture.

Marx still has a lot to offer - I understood Hansonism in classic Marxist terms. But Marx was wrong about the inevitability of the polarisation of class difference and made no allowance for social mobility. The meritocracy and the power of the ballot box, of which Australia is an example par excellence, was something he did not foresee, similarly the rise of the white collar clerical and managerial groups which tend to mediate class difference. But fundamentally he underestimated the ability of the modern economy to deliver higher standards of living to all its citizens, or the technical ability of governments to regulate and bridle capitalism, thuse restraining its potential savagery without having to destroy capitalism to achieve these goals.

[Dracon II]

I see... you seem to have clarified things somewhat. The note on the middle class having fascist tendencies and hansonism are interesting. I haven't read it all, but doesn't The 18th Brumaire of Louis advance a similar idea?

Will the likely effect of the rolling back of social welfare systems etc. reinstate Marx's polarisation thesis? I was thinking that the increased competition for labour between the developed and developing world would put deflationary pressure on wages in the developed world. But this development, by undercutting purchasing power in the developed world which is essential to maintaining global economic growth would place further deflationary pressure on the already low labour costs in the developing world in the hopes of maintaining high levels of consumption in the developed world.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Dracon II
I see... you seem to have clarified things somewhat. The note on the middle class having fascist tendencies and hansonism are interesting. I haven't read it all, but doesn't The 18th Brumaire of Louis advance a similar idea?

It was thematic throughout Marx's work - but its the petit bourgeoisie or lower middle class, not the middle class or bourgeoisie. They are not the same class (although the lower are allowed to think so)

You can see it on the boards here - people like Ned, DanS, Ben Kenobi - the middle class - the property owning class - doesn't have to lift a finger because they have all these lower level people - middle class wannabes - running around defending them and their property.

[Bosh]

IMO, the stuff that Marx obsesses about so much I could care less about. What real difference does it make who exactly has titular ownership of the means of production at the end of the day. What really matters is how power relationships are set up, and that's much much more complicated.

[Alexander's Horse]

yes, ownership isn't the issue anymore - its control

[Dracon II]

Please elaborate.

[jsorense]

Alexander's Horse has many informed comments here. In the 1840's Marx and Ingles could not have immagined the world order of today. The power of liberal democracies to co-opt revolution is amazing. The power of one party socialism (Lenin-Stalinism) to corrupt social justice has been a series of human tragdies, IMHO.

[Alexander's Horse]

I was never a "Marxist" but you'd be surprised, or maybe you wouldn't, at how many CEO's, Wall Street types, captains of industry, leaders in government, and the like, are former "students of Marx".

Only a fool or a sad conformist would defend capitalism in their youth. So when you see these kids today come through out of uni with their utilitarian degrees who are always praising the system to ingratiate themselves with their bosses, working till midnight and generally trying to brown nose, I don't think they really have any idea how it sometimes diminishes them in the eyes of their employer

[jsorense]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I was never a "Marxist" but you'd be surprised, or maybe you wouldn't, at how many CEO's, Wall Street types, captains of industry, leaders in government, and the like, are former "students of Marx".

Well, no' I wouldn't, but you do not know my background. But Marxist analyisis is still a very powerfull tool in social, historical, political and anthroplogical analyses.

[Alexander's Horse]

tee hee comrade - your secret is safe

[jsorense]

[Alexander's Horse]

the jokes on me really because today I'm just about the biggest insider and pillar of the establishment that you can be without disappearing up your own arse

[jsorense]

No, it is not a joke. I cannot tell you how many people I know (social scientists with a conscience) who now work for USAID, World BAnk, IMF, et al. Things have changed, just not radically. Cheers progressive dude. :beer: