[Paleopsych] TLS: John Gray: Hollow triumph
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Thu Jun 9 01:07:21 UTC 2005
John Gray: Hollow triumph
The Times Literary Supplement, 98.5.8
http://the-tls.co.uk/archive/story.aspx?story_id=2093567&window_type=print
THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. A modern edition. By Karl Marx and Frederick
Engels. 87pp. Verso. £8. - 1 85984 898 2.
THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. New interpretations. By Mark Cowling, editor.
209pp. Edinburgh University Press. £40 (paperback, £14.95). - 0 7486
1140 1
THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO NOW. Socialist Register 1998. Leo Panitch and
Colin Leys, editors. 268pp. Rendlesham: Merlin Press. Paperback,
£12.95. - 0 85036 473 6
Why Marx still provides a potent critique of the contradictions of
late modern capitalism
In his introduction to the Verso anniversary edition of The Communist
Manifesto, Eric Hobsbawm comments: "The world described by Marx and
Engels in 1848 . . . is recognisably that in which we live 150 years
later." Of many passages that support Hobsbawm's assessment, one is
particularly arresting. Marx and Engels write: All old-established
national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed.
They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a
life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that
no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from
the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only
at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants,
satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants,
requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and
climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and
self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal
interdependence of nations.
If this seems a striking anticipation of the world in which we live,
it is because unexpected political events have reinforced and
accelerated the long-established economic developments that Marx and
Engels describe. Two large political facts that, for most of this
century, seemed to embody a refutation of Marx's view of capitalism
have over the past decade melted away. The first was Communism. Less
than ten years ago, there were two economic systems in the world. Now
there are only varieties of capitalism. The Soviet collapse was a
final demonstration that in modern economies there is no overall
alternative to market competition. The fall of Communism destroyed
Marxian socialism as a political project. At the same time, it gave
Marx's analysis of capitalism a new lease on life. By removing from
the world any alternative economic system, the Soviet debacle allowed
a truly global capitalism to develop, the destructive consequences of
which for social cohesion are prefigured in Marx's thought. The
workings of this new global capitalism have been partly responsible
for a second large political event - the retreat of social democracy.
In nearly all the countries in which social-democratic regimes still
survive, they are on the defensive, struggling in vain with problems
that, less than a generation ago, they believed that they had solved.
It is not only that post-war strategies for full employment can no
longer be made effective; even people in regular work are perceptibly
less secure than they were. The managed capitalism of the post-war
period has given way to a more volatile and predatory variety. As a
result, what long seemed most anachronistic in The Communist Manifesto
now looks prophetic. As we near the end of the century, we cannot
escape the paradox that, partly as a consequence of the implosion of
Marxian socialism, Marx's view of capitalism has been in some crucial
respects vindicated.
We must not forget why Marxian socialism collapsed. It could not
survive the historical experience of central economic planning.
Centrally planned economies lack institutions for ensuring that
resources are used prudently. The absence of a properly functioning
price mechanism and of clear, enforceable property rights means that
planners have few means of assessing relative scarcities and little
incentive to do so. The incalculable waste and spectacular
indifference to human needs that marked "actually existing socialism"
from start to finish, its inability to match the technical innovations
produced by market economies, and the catastrophic devastation it
wrought on the natural environment in all the countries in which it
was imposed, were not incidental defects. They were unavoidable
by-products of a political project - the replacement of market
processes by central planning - that was in the strictest sense
utopian. In late modern economies, central planning is impossible. Any
regime that attempts it chokes off the stream of new technologies on
which the creation of wealth now heavily depends. Even the virtually
unlimited resources of the Soviet military-industrial complex were
unequal to the task of keeping up with continuous technical innovation
in Western market economies. No command economy can achieve the
steadily rising living standards demanded by people in late modern
societies. For that reason alone, no centrally planned economy can be
democratically legitimate.
It is a mistake to think that Soviet planning failed because it was
not implemented by a democratic government. The truth is nearer the
opposite. The Soviet system lacked working democratic institutions,
because the failings of central planning necessitated tyranny. The
chronic shortages, endemic corruption and grubby nomenclatural
hierarchies of Soviet life could be perpetuated only by a
comprehensive denial of personal and political liberty. By the same
token, the depth of popular illegitimacy of the Soviet system rendered
it unreformable. Western observers who endorsed Gorbachev's proposals
for restructuring the Soviet economy showed that they were unable to
distinguish feasible reforms from impending collapse. As late as 1989,
most had not perceived that the Soviet Union, unable to cope with
economic chaos which Gorbachev's reforms had only worsened and
threatened with mounting secessionist demands from the nationalities,
had entered a pre-revolutionary phase. Dissidents such as Andrei
Amalrik and Vladimir Bukovsky, whose accounts of the fragility of
Soviet power Western opinion had dismissed as apocalyptic, proved in
the event to be realistic and reliable guides. Had Gorbachev not
launched his unworkable reforms, it is conceivable that the Soviet
Union would still be with us. But it would have been surviving on
borrowed time.
Soviet history is scored over with contingencies, but it cannot be
read as other than a tragedy in which the utopian elements in Marx's
thought played a pivotal role. In its capacity as a prescription for a
new kind of society, classical Marxism was a fusion of the Romantic
yearning for social unity with a Jacobin denial of the need for
institutions. Marx's vision of a socialist society did not provide for
procedures whereby conflicting interests and values could be mediated.
Nor did it contain institutions for mitigating the effect of
inequality. As a result, it neglected the most important task of
representative democracy, which is to limit the damage that the
powerful can inflict on the powerless. Marx's disregard for the
damage-limiting functions of democracy was inherited by Lenin, who
compounded it. Except in his own manoeuvres, Lenin was not a political
realist. He looked forward to a society in which political conflict
had withered away. In this, he faithfully reflected Marx's utopian
outlook. As the late Wal Suchting notes in his admirable contribution
to The Communist Manifesto: New interpretations, edited by Mark
Cowling, "What Is Living and What Is Dead in The Communist
Manifesto?", Marx's writings are riddled with ideas that are utopian
"in the sense of the programmatic entertaining of possibilities in no
serious sense justifiable by reference to empirical evidence". I would
go further. The hazy vision of workers' governance inherited by Lenin
from Marx is utopian in the stronger sense that it contradicts much
that we know to be true. It is not only that central planning cannot
be squared with the requirements of a modern economy. More, Marx's
sketchy remarks on how a socialist economy would be governed say
nothing about how the conflicting interests and objectives of workers
are to be negotiated. Marxian socialism is a utopian project, because
it runs flatly against these enduring realities. In the Soviet
context, its human costs were beyond measure. The millions who died in
its famines and terrors died for nothing. The lives of the rest were
experiments in patience.
Western Marxists who resist the lessons of the Soviet experience do
Marx no favours. By defending his thought where it is least
defensible, they obscure its most powerful insights. This is true of
most of the contributors to The Communist Manifesto Now: Socialist
Register 1998, edited by Leo Panitch and Colin Leys, who are so
concerned to defend Marx's thought against criticism that they fail to
bring out how it can be used to understand the present. It is in this
vein that John Bellamy Foster, writing on "The Communist Manifesto and
the Environment", seeks to rebut criticism of Marx as an
anti-ecological thinker. Foster ransacks Marx's writings for
quotations that can be interpreted as showing an awareness of the
environmental context of economic life, claiming to find in them
anticipations of late-twentieth-century concerns about sustainable
development. He is anxious to show that Marx did not share the
insensitivity to the social costs of economic progress of most of his
contemporaries. In this connection, Foster maintains that Marx's
contempt for peasant life has been misinterpreted.
It is true, as Foster and Hobsbawm maintain, that Marx must be read
against the background of his time, using what we know of his life and
beliefs. If we do this, it becomes arguable that when Marx condemned
"the idiocy of rural life", he was using the classical Greek term
idiotes to denote the narrow horizons and isolation from wider society
that he found and deplored in rural life. But this hardly demonstrates
that Marx did not view peasant life as an obstacle to progress. It
suggests that this is how he did see it. In fact, along with many
other nineteenth-century thinkers, Marx despised the social and
technological immobility of peasant societies. He viewed the abolition
of peasant farming as an indispensable prerequisite of economic
progress and regarded the capitalist factory as the model on which
farming should in future be based. In believing that agricultural
collectivization was a necessary step in building socialism, the
Bolsheviks were only following Marx. Peasant farming had to be
abolished, because the development of industry was a precondition of
socialism. Aside from anything else, peasants could not be relied on
to support a socialist regime. In acting on these beliefs - shared by
Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin and Stalin, whose views on collectivization
differed only in matters of tactics and timing - the Soviet leaders
were authentic practitioners of Marxian socialism.
To represent Marx as a proto-Green thinker in the way that Foster
tries to do is absurd. Nowhere in Marx's writings is the natural
environment seen as other than a resource to be exploited for the
satisfaction of human wants. Marx thought of technology as an
instrument whereby humans exercise power over the earth. As his
frequent dismissals of Malthus testify, Marx was scornful of the idea
that the natural environment of the human species could set limits to
its ambitions. He envisaged a future in which nature had been
"humanized" - which is to say, thoroughly subordinated to human
purposes. To be sure, Marx was little different from other
nineteenth-century European thinkers (John Stuart Mill being an
admirable exception) in this combination of anthropocentric ethics
with technological Prometheanism. But his attitudes had vastly greater
practical influence than those of any of his contemporaries. They
informed the Soviet Union's disastrous environmental policies to the
very end, when widespread resistance to a megalomaniac engineering
project that would have flooded vast tracts of Russia and altered the
global climate was one of the forces that triggered the regime's
breakdown.
While the passing of Communism killed off Marxism as a political
project, the retreat of social democracy has revived Marx's analysis
of capitalism. Conventional opinion in all parties viewed the
disintegration of central planning as a triumph for the capitalism
they knew, and believed that it augured business as usual, conducted
henceforth on a global scale. It seems not to have occurred to these
observers that a world-historical event of this magnitude was bound to
transform many aspects of economic and political life throughout the
world. Few perceived that its larger impact would be to accelerate
changes in Western capitalism that had been maturing for decades. Even
fewer anticipated that the free-market economies that emerged would
have many features in common with the anarchic, contradiction-ridden
capitalism that Marx foresaw, and which social democrats imagined they
had long since tamed.
The most delusive views of global capitalism were to be found on the
neo-liberal Right. Like classical Marxism, neo-liberal thought
embodied the Promethean attitude to nature and the contempt for the
casualties of economic progress typical of late-nineteenth-century
European thinkers. Neo-liberal thought was (the past tense is
necessary here, since so little remains of that ephemeral movement) a
type of quasi-Marxian economic determinism from which the sense of
tragic historical conflict that distinguishes Marx's best writings had
somehow been removed. It is impossible to imagine Marx sharing the
callow faith of neo-liberals that post-Communist Russia would rapidly
acquire a Western-style market economy and polity. Neo-liberals forgot
(if they ever knew) the recurring dilemmas about its relations with
Europe and Asia that have shaped Russian politics and culture. Marx
would not have been surprised that what has emerged in Russia is a
sort of criminal syndicalism, presided over by a crypto-Tsarist
elective autocrat. Possessed by a chiliastic certainty that the end of
history had arrived, neo-liberals imagined that the disappearance of
central planning meant the universal spread of a particular, Western
type of market economy, when in Russia and China it has produced
varieties of capitalism that express the traditions and recent
histories of those countries.
Neo-liberal thought misperceived the most fundamental economic trend
of the late twentieth century, which is not the spread of free markets
but the banalization of new technologies throughout the world. At the
same time, it repressed the contradictions which beset free-market
economies. It celebrated the death of socialism, without pausing to
ask what that event implied for the political parties that had helped
to bring it about. In Britain, the Conservative Party derived its
rationale during much of this century from opposition to socialism.
When socialism disappeared as a political force - partly as a result
of Conservative policies - the Conservative Party lost a large part of
its identity and began its drift into disoriented marginality. A
similar fate has befallen the American Right. The disintegration of
Conservatism in Britain and the United States had many contingent
causes; but it was not a historical accident. It expressed a central
contradiction of late modern capitalism.
Conservative parties seek to promote free markets, while at the same
time defending "traditional values". It is hard to think of a more
quixotic enterprise. Free markets are the most potent solvent of
tradition at work in the world today. As they continuously
revolutionize production, they throw all social relationships into
flux. Conservatives glorify the incessant change demanded by free
markets and at the same time believe that nothing - in family life or
the incidence of crime, for example - will be changed by it. The
reality is more like that described by Marx and Engels in The
Communist Manifesto: Constant revolutionizing of production,
uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting
uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all
earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of
ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all
new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is
solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last
compelled to face, with sober senses, his real condition of life, and
his relations with his kind.
In a lecture which he gave in Mexico City in 1948, Joseph Schumpeter
pursued a line of thought parallel with that of Marx and Engels, when
he speculated that the development of capitalism might be incompatible
with the existence of what he called an "intact civilization". In such
a civilization, there is a rough coherence of ideals and interests.
The parts fit together to form some kind of whole. Of course, such
civilizations always contain conflicts. But their ruling classes
manage them by drawing on a fund of commonly accepted values that run
in tandem with prevailing social structures. Using Schumpeter's
notion, one may say that the high bourgeois society that existed in
some parts of Europe before 1914 possessed an intact civilization,
whereas Britain and the United States today do not.
Free markets undermine some of the central institutions of bourgeois
societies. Among these is the institution of the career. For many
people, work was once oriented around a lifelong vocation, the phases
of which matched those of the normal life cycle. One of the less
celebrated achievements of free-market capitalism is to have done away
with this bourgeois relic. Few people today can plan their future in
the expectation that they will remain in a single occupation
throughout an entire working lifetime. Downsizing and delayering, in
which firms strip out whole categories of employment and employees
find established career structures suddenly vanishing before their
eyes, have become commonplace experiences. For an increasing number,
working life no longer means having a job. Free markets are producing
fewer old-fashioned, tenured jobs, and ever more varieties of
temporary work. Though most of those who still have jobs are not much
more likely to lose them than they were in the recent past, these
tendencies illustrate Schumpeter's - and Marx's - chief insight. There
can be little doubt that the kinds of security in employment that are
necessary for bourgeois careers will in future be available to a
dwindling minority. In some real measure, workers are being
re-proletarianized, even as sections of the middle classes are being
thrust into the rackety lifestyles of the ex-bourgeois. Marx's
expectations of socialism have been disappointed everywhere; but his
glimpses of how capitalism hollows out bourgeois societies are proving
prophetic.
Nothing in the development of capitalism ensures that it is compatible
with an intact bourgeois civilization. The combination of
slash-and-burn Anglo-American capitalism with unprecedented rates of
technical innovation is particularly inimical to bourgeois life. When
a stream of new technologies floods through deregulated markets, the
result is not social - or economic - equilibrium. It is to throw the
social division of labour into flux. The upshot is a parodic
capitalist version of the Marxian utopia, in which fixed economic
roles no longer govern the working lives of the majority. Liberal
societies have not come to terms with the tendency of free markets to
exclude the working majority from the bourgeois life that is promised
to all. This contradiction - between liberal values and real life in
market societies - is the enduring truth contained in The Communist
Manifesto.
One need not be a nostalgist for high bourgeois cultures, as
Schumpeter was, to be concerned about these developments. I know of no
country in which liberal institutions have renewed themselves over
several generations where the underlying society has not been
predominantly bourgeois. Yet the overall impact of the least regulated
types of capitalism is to break down the occupational and social
structures on which bourgeois civilizations have in the past rested.
Whether other varieties of capitalism - in Germany, Japan, or
elsewhere - can avoid these effects is, at present, an open question.
We know that, apart from one or two instances such as Norway, Europe's
social democracies have failed to cope with contemporary capitalism's
most palpable defect, which is large-scale unemployment. In some
European countries, most notably France, mass unemployment is
currently reproducing the classically flawed political responses of
the inter-war period, with centre-right parties fragmenting and
sections of them joining forces with racist parties of the
anti-liberal Right. The lesson of the volatile capitalism of the
inter-war years is that avoidance of large economic instabilities is a
precondition of liberal democracy. Today global capitalism is less
stable than it has been since the 1920s.
Marx's achievement was to identify a contradiction in liberal
civilization. His economic theories went hopelessly astray. His
doctrine of classes is thoroughly inadequate as an account of social
stratification. His Promethean attitudes towards nature led to
environmental catastrophes. His political prescriptions were a recipe
for tragedy. But in illuminating, a century and a half ago, a widening
gap between the imperatives of capitalism and the prerequisites of a
stable liberal society, Marx identified a problem to which a solution
has yet to be found.
John Gray is Professor of European Thought at the London School of
Economics. His most recent book, False Dawn:The delusions of global
capitalism, was published in March.
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list