Vincent
29th March 2005, 12:34
Searching throug my school library today I found a copy of the 'Communist Manifesto' published by Penguin which features a lengthy introduction by a man named A J P Taylor. His introduction features an overview of the manifesto with discussions realting to its economics, history and literary values. Wthin it I found some very hard to refute critiques of Marx's work. I will quote them directly so you can make your own minds up.
1. "... Marx had made a universal generalisation from a single example. For him, the cotton industry (referring here to the workings of Lancashire) was synonymous with capitalism, and he supposed that all other industries would follow its rules. He thought also that he and Engels were living in an age of fully-developed capitalism, when in fact capitalism had hardly started. There was really very little modern about the textile industry, which wa sno more that the application of steam-power to an industry that has existed for centuries.... Industrial England of 1847, though very impressive to contemporaries, now appears crude and backward, not much higher than say, the present level of India. The true industrial revolution bagn only with the railways, which in turn launced the age of iron and steel. This, too, has gioven way to the age of the internal-combustion engine and elecronics. Marx thought to narrowly in economic terms of capital and failed to allow for the endlessly stimulating effect of human invention. When one industry was overloaded with capital, new channels were soon opened elsewhere."
2. "The first step was for the proletariat to become the ruling class or, as Marx calls it, 'to win the battle of democracy'. The Manifesto itself does not contain Marx's famous phrase- 'the dictatorship of the proletariate'. But the idea is there, though the phrase is not. The proletariate would wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie and 'would centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state'. This is in rather odd contrast with the principle laid down by Marx earlier in the Manifesto that economic change always preced and caused political change. Here he is saying the opposite, and no wonder. Otherwise he would be trapped, a some alter Marxists were, into waiting upon events."
3. "Nearly everyone now accepts the principle that ideas and beliefs grow out of and reflect exisiting socity rather than lead an independant life. Even here there was a hole in the Marxist system. Men have often dedicated their lives to ideals which have very little to do with surrounding circumstances, to the ideal, say, of Justice or Freedom. Marx can be said to have done this himself. There is something lacking in a philosophy which allows no place for its originator. What economic need was Marx serving when he sat for long hours at a desk in the British Museum or attend hole-and-corner meetings of half a dozen obsure men? He was asserting hsi personality, and this, rather than class conflict, has often been the driving force of history."
4. "Marx was right when he foretold the development of capitalism and of the proletariat. He failed to grasp the complexity of this development. The primitive capitalism of Marx's time worked in a primitive way. Individual capitalists mostly owned the cotton mills, and many of them belieived, though some of the greatest did not, that they could prosper only if the compelled their employees to work long hours for low wages. Capitalism of this kind survives now only in the backward communities. The limited compant has taken the place of the individual owner in all great undertakings. There has been a divorce between ownership and control, which is altogether beyond Marx's system. The profit motive has ceased to be the only driving force of capitalism, or even the principal one. The shareholders no doubt want profits when they are allowed to take them. The managers and directors are concerned far more with efficient working and only make enough profit to keep the shareholders quiet. As in other walks of life, power has becoime more important than profit, a calculation which harldy entered into Marx's system."
5. "On the other hand Marx's system has not had the steamroller effect which Marx expected. It is not true that everyone expect a fwe capitalists is being forced into the ranks of the proletariat. Quite the contrary. The proletariat has tened to remail a static element of society, or even to decline. Marx in his analysis never seems to acknowledge the middlemen and administrators who make capitalism work. The more capitalism flourishes, the more there are of them. Advanced capitalism was brought with it an increasing middle class, so much so that one can imagine it without indivividual capitalists at all. Only then is it called state capitalism. Those who run things are the real rulers of society, and there is far more to run than there was before. The proletariat has not much increased its proportion of numbres in the community and is no nearer running things than it ever was."
6. "It is a grave upset to the Marxist system that the proletariate has not become the ruling class in the community and shows no sign of doing so. There is an even graver upset. Increasing prosperity for the capitalists has everywhere brought with it increasing prospetity for the proletariat, instad of increasing misery whcih Marx foretold. The most advanced capitalist countries are also those where the working calss has the higest standard of life. When this failure became obvious towards the end of the nineteenth century, some Marxists devised the explanation of imperialist super-profit. The capitalists of the highly advanced countries of the world were taking, as it were, an unfair advantage of the rest of the world and were passing on a small share of the loot to their own working class. Many capitalists themselves believed this, or at any ate the advocates of imperialism did so. More recently, the imperial powers have lost their empires. As a result, they have become more prosperous than they were before. Everyone knows, for instance, that the British working class would be better off if the British government did no insist on clingign to the tattered remements of a dead Empire. Imperialist super-profit has not prooved a good bet or explanation."
At the moment I am thinking this is enough reading for the moment. So, I would like people to discuss their opinions of these critiques. Just remember, the fact that I posted these for discussion does not imply I am a 'dogmatic reactionary petty bourgeoisie' or any such nonsense. I am incredibly enthusiastic in my support for a society which Marxism and its variants aim to establish, but I am also a questioner and I choose not to blindly follow ideas, philosopies etc. unless I fully agree with them. I am not a person who would pigeon-hole himself into just being a 'Marxist', or any othe variant of the title, I would always prefer to be just 'me'.
1. "... Marx had made a universal generalisation from a single example. For him, the cotton industry (referring here to the workings of Lancashire) was synonymous with capitalism, and he supposed that all other industries would follow its rules. He thought also that he and Engels were living in an age of fully-developed capitalism, when in fact capitalism had hardly started. There was really very little modern about the textile industry, which wa sno more that the application of steam-power to an industry that has existed for centuries.... Industrial England of 1847, though very impressive to contemporaries, now appears crude and backward, not much higher than say, the present level of India. The true industrial revolution bagn only with the railways, which in turn launced the age of iron and steel. This, too, has gioven way to the age of the internal-combustion engine and elecronics. Marx thought to narrowly in economic terms of capital and failed to allow for the endlessly stimulating effect of human invention. When one industry was overloaded with capital, new channels were soon opened elsewhere."
2. "The first step was for the proletariat to become the ruling class or, as Marx calls it, 'to win the battle of democracy'. The Manifesto itself does not contain Marx's famous phrase- 'the dictatorship of the proletariate'. But the idea is there, though the phrase is not. The proletariate would wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie and 'would centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state'. This is in rather odd contrast with the principle laid down by Marx earlier in the Manifesto that economic change always preced and caused political change. Here he is saying the opposite, and no wonder. Otherwise he would be trapped, a some alter Marxists were, into waiting upon events."
3. "Nearly everyone now accepts the principle that ideas and beliefs grow out of and reflect exisiting socity rather than lead an independant life. Even here there was a hole in the Marxist system. Men have often dedicated their lives to ideals which have very little to do with surrounding circumstances, to the ideal, say, of Justice or Freedom. Marx can be said to have done this himself. There is something lacking in a philosophy which allows no place for its originator. What economic need was Marx serving when he sat for long hours at a desk in the British Museum or attend hole-and-corner meetings of half a dozen obsure men? He was asserting hsi personality, and this, rather than class conflict, has often been the driving force of history."
4. "Marx was right when he foretold the development of capitalism and of the proletariat. He failed to grasp the complexity of this development. The primitive capitalism of Marx's time worked in a primitive way. Individual capitalists mostly owned the cotton mills, and many of them belieived, though some of the greatest did not, that they could prosper only if the compelled their employees to work long hours for low wages. Capitalism of this kind survives now only in the backward communities. The limited compant has taken the place of the individual owner in all great undertakings. There has been a divorce between ownership and control, which is altogether beyond Marx's system. The profit motive has ceased to be the only driving force of capitalism, or even the principal one. The shareholders no doubt want profits when they are allowed to take them. The managers and directors are concerned far more with efficient working and only make enough profit to keep the shareholders quiet. As in other walks of life, power has becoime more important than profit, a calculation which harldy entered into Marx's system."
5. "On the other hand Marx's system has not had the steamroller effect which Marx expected. It is not true that everyone expect a fwe capitalists is being forced into the ranks of the proletariat. Quite the contrary. The proletariat has tened to remail a static element of society, or even to decline. Marx in his analysis never seems to acknowledge the middlemen and administrators who make capitalism work. The more capitalism flourishes, the more there are of them. Advanced capitalism was brought with it an increasing middle class, so much so that one can imagine it without indivividual capitalists at all. Only then is it called state capitalism. Those who run things are the real rulers of society, and there is far more to run than there was before. The proletariat has not much increased its proportion of numbres in the community and is no nearer running things than it ever was."
6. "It is a grave upset to the Marxist system that the proletariate has not become the ruling class in the community and shows no sign of doing so. There is an even graver upset. Increasing prosperity for the capitalists has everywhere brought with it increasing prospetity for the proletariat, instad of increasing misery whcih Marx foretold. The most advanced capitalist countries are also those where the working calss has the higest standard of life. When this failure became obvious towards the end of the nineteenth century, some Marxists devised the explanation of imperialist super-profit. The capitalists of the highly advanced countries of the world were taking, as it were, an unfair advantage of the rest of the world and were passing on a small share of the loot to their own working class. Many capitalists themselves believed this, or at any ate the advocates of imperialism did so. More recently, the imperial powers have lost their empires. As a result, they have become more prosperous than they were before. Everyone knows, for instance, that the British working class would be better off if the British government did no insist on clingign to the tattered remements of a dead Empire. Imperialist super-profit has not prooved a good bet or explanation."
At the moment I am thinking this is enough reading for the moment. So, I would like people to discuss their opinions of these critiques. Just remember, the fact that I posted these for discussion does not imply I am a 'dogmatic reactionary petty bourgeoisie' or any such nonsense. I am incredibly enthusiastic in my support for a society which Marxism and its variants aim to establish, but I am also a questioner and I choose not to blindly follow ideas, philosopies etc. unless I fully agree with them. I am not a person who would pigeon-hole himself into just being a 'Marxist', or any othe variant of the title, I would always prefer to be just 'me'.