Log in

View Full Version : Is the enemy really the "liberal" according to Marx?



RadioRaheem84
19th January 2009, 22:44
Just reading the first chapter I get the sense that Marx was not talking about the reactionary conservative class but a rather cosmopolitan liberal class that sees money/trade as the root of solving man's problems. Examples:

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed..... National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
Not to say that the Right wing in this nation isn't wrong too because they are strong adherents to free trade, even more so than the liberal, but at the same time the right wing in this nation isn't so adamant about internationalizing the economy as much. The liberal is though, albeit with rather quasi-governmental organizations like the WTO, the UN and the World Bank. They apologize for free trade and think that they can undue its crimes by restructuring it in a way that's less harmful. They create delusional think tanks in order to spread economic development ideas and "sustainable solutions". The description of the bourgeoisie fits more in line with them than it does with the reactionary conservatives.

I mean this new cosmopolitan class is well aware of itself, as I have seen pompous guys and gals feel like citizens of the world rather than citizens of their own nation, and feel more connected with the privileged elite in other nations than the poor in their own. Yet, they and their fathers strive to create a united world without 'racism', 'pollution', and 'extreme poverty'. It's almost comical yet drastically frightening too.

ckaihatsu
20th January 2009, 09:02
Without meaning to reference Stalinism I'd like to note that much development happens in stages.

Development rarely happens in a straight line, from point A to point B -- that's just an abstraction that's useful in formal measurements.

*Natural evolution* happens in stages, and so do many people-based projects. More to the point is that the same *types* of people, in static roles, cannot always see a project through from inception to completion.

An example from the business world might not be the best kind of example for this board, but it serves well for my illustration. Many new ventures have started from very humble beginnings, with a dedicated inventor-type of person pressing some novel invention into a business model. These are usually self-funded, and with a little bit of success they may quickly pay for themselves and become self-sustaining, and even profitable. (Or they may not.)

At some point, though, the venture may take on wings of its own and grow to the point where it reaches a new stage, one at which the original inventor is no longer relevant to it. Instead it becomes more of a managerial concern, and more employees are taken on to build and grow the company around the routine manufacture of this new product or service.

From there, of course, a select few grow larger still, becoming franchises and even attracting investment capital.


I bring this up to say that historical development happens the same way. The government, or formal social infrastructure, that develops around one type of mode of production will *not* be adequate when the mode of production undergoes a phase transition and ushers in a new type of economics.

We've seen feudal rule persist for thousands of years on the basis of agricultural production. Once cities grew and artisans had produced an increasing surplus of finished goods the mercantilist system emerged, raising the work and stature of those who plied the trade routes for their living and wealth.

In the modern era we've long since developed nations that oversee the functioning of modern industrial production, and many people have extrapolated from this to consider the world question of globalization.



Just reading the first chapter I get the sense that Marx was not talking about the reactionary conservative class but a rather cosmopolitan liberal class that sees money/trade as the root of solving man's problems.


Since the globalization issue has *not* been resolved, it's understandable that the *side-effects* of this bottle-necking of progress may be talked about, instead of the problem itself. In fact many political-type "service" industries -- or rackets, depending on your take -- have developed tangentially around this ultimate, outstanding societal question.



Examples:
Not to say that the Right wing in this nation isn't wrong too because they are strong adherents to free trade, even more so than the liberal, but at the same time the right wing in this nation isn't so adamant about internationalizing the economy as much. The liberal is though, albeit with rather quasi-governmental organizations like the WTO, the UN and the World Bank. They apologize for free trade and think that they can undue its crimes by restructuring it in a way that's less harmful. They create delusional think tanks in order to spread economic development ideas and "sustainable solutions". The description of the bourgeoisie fits more in line with them than it does with the reactionary conservatives.


So we could say that liberals tend to be more expansive and world-oriented than the stay-at-home, nationalistic conservative types, but regardless of perspective on the world as it is, the globalization question still remains unresolved.



I mean this new cosmopolitan class is well aware of itself, as I have seen pompous guys and gals feel like citizens of the world rather than citizens of their own nation, and feel more connected with the privileged elite in other nations than the poor in their own. Yet, they and their fathers strive to create a united world without 'racism', 'pollution', and 'extreme poverty'. It's almost comical yet drastically frightening too.


The most frightening part is the lack of acceptance of the root problem. We've seen untold human misery in the modern industrial era because of this wanton ignorance perpetuated throughout social life. Please consider:




Panic of 1857

Bank run on the Seamen's Savings' Bank during the panic of 1857.

The Panic of 1857 was a sudden downturn in the economy of the United States that occurred in 1857. A general recession first emerged late in 1856, but the successive failure of banks and businesses that characterized the panic began in mid-1857. While the overall economic downturn was brief, the recovery was unequal, and the lasting impact was more political than economic. The panic began with a loss of confidence in an Ohio bank, but spread as railroads failed, and fears that the US Federal Government would be unable to pay obligations in specie mounted. More than 5,000 American businesses failed within a year, and unemployment was accompanied by protest meetings in urban areas. Eventually the panic and depression spread to Europe, South America and the Far East. No recovery was evident in the northern parts of the United States for a year and a half, and the full impact did not dissipate until the American Civil War.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857






Panic of 1893

The Panic of 1893 was a serious economic depression in the United States that began in 1893. This panic is sometimes considered a part of the Long Depression which began with the Panic of 1873,[1] and like that of earlier crashes, was caused by railroad overbuilding and shaky railroad financing; which set off a series of bank failures. Compounding market overbuilding and a railroad bubble was a run on the gold supply and a policy of using both gold and silver metals as a peg for the US Dollar value.

Causes

The 1880s had been a period of remarkable economic expansion in the United States. In time, the expansion became driven by speculation, much like the tech bubble of the late 1990s, except that the preferred industry was railroads. Railroads were vastly over-built (and fortunes were made[2]), and many companies tried to take over others, seriously endangering their own stability to do so. In addition, many mines were opened (frequently with rail connections), and their products, especially silver, began to flood the market. One of the first signs of trouble was the bankruptcy of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, which had greatly over-extended itself, on February 23, 1893.[3]

As concern of the state of the economy worsened, people rushed to withdraw their money from banks and caused bank runs. The credit crunch rippled through the economy. European investors took payment only in gold, depleting US gold reserves and threatening the value of the US dollar,[citation needed] which was backed by gold. People attempted to redeem silver notes for gold; ultimately the statutory limit for the minimum amount of gold in federal reserves was reached and US notes could no longer be successfully redeemed for gold.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893



To finish, I'd just like to recommend a creation of my own making, below -- if you view the ideologies from right to left you will see the history of historical development, and, possibly, the future of historical development.


Ideologies & Operations

http://tinyurl.com/yqotq9


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --