Pete’s blog

According to Marx, the arrival of communism would not be a consequence of the failings of the bourgeoisie but because of its triumphs. Explain.

Marx saw history as a series of changes in the interrelations of society and production – the most recent being from feudalism to capitalism. He saw capitalism as a powerful system, that drove production to new levels, built massive infrastructure and fuelled scientific advancement. But in this triumph, in the resultant struggle between its classes, he saw capitalism’s downfall and communism’s arrival.

The discovery of America and the increase in trade and commodities created the conditions for capitalism to take root. The greater demand for goods, world commerce and navigation resulted in rapid development, leading eventually to the industrial revolution.

Steam power and other technological advances created machines that were capable of large scale production. But these machines were expensive, and could therefore only be purchased by people with capital. Once the machine had been purchased, it could produce more goods cheaper and better than the existing craftsmen. The craftsmen could not compete and so the means of production moved away from the artisans and craftsmen to the owners of the machines. Income generation and wealth therefore accumulated with these factory owners, the owners of capital, and created a class of people referred to by Marx as the bourgeoisie.

The people that did not have capital to buy machines, who could not compete with the factories on a small scale, had to sell their labour to the factories in order to survive. These workers formed the class referred to by Marx as the proletariat.

The struggle between classes was central to Marx’s thinking, the dynamics between oppressor and oppressed, master and slave, lord and serf, bourgeoisie and proletariat. He saw the proletariat one day rising up against their bourgeoisie oppressors and overthrowing the system of private property that gives them their power. But this revolution would not be as a result of the bourgeoisie’s failings or mistakes, instead the bourgeoisie would themselves equip the proletariat with the means to overthrow the system. Capitalism’s very success would result in its downfall.

In order maintain their position, the bourgeoisie must constantly improve their processes and cut their costs. It is a constant to battle to always increase their profits, to stay ahead of their competitors, to find new markets to sell more goods to and to pay their workers as little as possible. To do otherwise would result in a crisis of over-production, which can put society “back into a state of momentary barbarism[1].”

The quest to always find more efficient and innovative processes, and to find new products to produce and sell resulted in an explosion of technology. The need to transport raw materials to the factories and goods to the market, resulted in the bourgeoisie building and investing in massive infrastructure programmes. They created huge rail and road networks, and communication networks that span the globe. The factories meant that workers became more centralised, people moved from rural areas in order to work in the factories, which in turn created the vast cities. The bourgeoisie’s quest for new markets also resulted in the industrialisation and the capitalisation of other ‘barbaric’ countries. As cheap products flooded their markets, the only way to compete was to develop their own industry and their own bourgeoisie. Industries were created that drew raw materials “from the remotest zones” to produce “products [that] are consumed … in every quarter of the globe” and the bourgeoisie “created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together[2].”

The infrastructure put in place by the bourgeoisie in turn revolutionised society. The creation of the cities gave people the opportunity to gather and share ideas. In particular the proletariat could get together in workers’ unions, in order to resist the bourgeoisie’s consistent pressure to lower wages. As people were more centralised, basic services like health and education became easier to provide – the proletariat could be healthier and better educated.

The global markets and lines of communication opened by the bourgeoisie, created the opportunity for people all over the world to share ideas. The proletariat could now unite not only at a local level, but at a global level. Solidarity at a class level could be developed.

This was all accompanied by a massive growth in population, spurred in part by the new social structures that had been created. The bourgeoisie always need more and more labour at cheaper prices, so the population growth suited their needs. However this meant that the number of proletariat opposed to them was growing too.

The urbanisation and growth of the population centralised government and political structures, strengthening governments and nationalism. In order to support their needs of trade liberalisation and greater freedoms, the bourgeoisie would also support the democratic form of government. By introducing democracies, the bourgeoisie could wrest power away from the traditional leaders (the aristocracy), and therefore bend government policies to their needs. In this endeavour, they enlisted the help of the proletariat, as they are vital in the process of instituting democracy and overthrowing the old systems of government. But as Engel points out in the Principles of Communism[3] – “Democracy would be quite useless to the proletariat if it were not immediately utilised as a means of accomplishing further measures directly attacking private ownership and securing the existence of the proletariat.” Although the proletariat were needed by the bourgeoisie to create these government, they still pursued their own agendas.

And so through the success of capitalism and through their own needs, the bourgeoisie created a proletariat that are large in number, cosmopolitan, educated, globally united and politically active.

What would be the reasons that the proletariat would want to overthrow the system? There are many, but fundamentally it is the alienation of the workers from their work. Workers no longer control what they produce, they have no say in the final product and only produce one small portion of the product. They do not control the tools used to produce, nor do they control the proceeds from the sale of the product. They are completely reliant on the bourgeoisie for their very survival. If they do not work, they will not be able to feed themselves. The resentment of the bourgeoisie’s wealth, power and ownership of property would build in the proletariat. This polarisation between the haves and the have-nots, would be the basis for the overthrow.

So, more than 100 years after Marx was predicting the downfall of capitalism, why has it not yet happened? There are more workers in the world than ever before, who are globally connected through powerful communications networks (eg. phones, internet, email). The proletariat is better educated, so much so that a good education is a prerequisite to most jobs. The proletariat have become so integrated into politics and government policy, that most of the measures that Engels suggested that they would influence governments to adopt[4], have been adopted by the industrialised countries.

Capitalism has developed much since Marx’s time, adapting to its criticisms and problems. Instead of a class of people, the bourgeoisie has metamorphosed into companies. Rather than being concentrated in the hands of individuals, massive, immortal, multinational corporations now control the capital and the power. The bourgeoisie is now represented by faceless, intangible companies. The companies have learnt that a happy workforce is the most productive – rather than paying the minimum wage necessary for survival, companies now pay their workforce the minimum wage necessary to keep them happy. As jobs have become more specialised, requiring better skilled, better educated workers, companies have also had to pay more to retain the scarcer resource of skilled workers. Because the workers are now receiving more money than the absolute minimum necessary, they are able to buy more goods which in turn benefits the companies. However, they are also able to accumulate their own capital, which they are then able to invest, and so become slightly bourgeoisie themselves. This lure of capitalism, which says if you work hard you too could become rich, has significantly prolonged its life. The line between bourgeoisie and proletariat is not as clear cut as Marx suggested it would become. Instead the line is blurred and people shift between classes on a continual basis. Modern production has also not only decreased the costs of the products, but also the costs of the means of production. Machinery and the tools of production are far cheaper, and therefore more affordable to more people, allowing the proletariat to invest and become bourgeoisie.

But I think Marx explained the reason why capitalism still survives best:

“No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation[5].”

Capitalism has not yet developed to its full potential, there is still plenty of room for more productive forces. The question also needs to be asked, do “the material conditions of its solution already exist?” Is communism the correct solution? Maybe the “new, higher relations of production” have not yet “matured in the womb of the old society”.

Is perhaps the information revolution which we are currently in, part of the continued development of capitalism, or is it the seeds of the solution? With the development of information technology and intellectual capital, there has once again been a small shift in the relations of the workers and the means of production. Workers who trade in information capital once again own their means of production. The means of production in the information age is information itself, which is intangible and can be contained within a person. These new class of workers become free agents, no longer slaves to the bourgeoisie. They sell their consultant services to companies for prices they can set, and can maximise their income by selling their services to multiple companies.

It has also become more difficult to own the new means of production and intellectual property is difficult to concentrate in one group. Through the intangibility of information, it is easy to share and to spread. The internet has created a vast network where almost any information can be obtained and distributed. Information is becoming cheaper as it becomes more accessible.

With only access to the communications network, it is possible for anyone in the world to compete in the information economy. Bill Gates, with very little initial capital, started early in the computer programming and software development industry and is now the richest person in the world. One of his competitors, Linux, is competing on the basis of being a virtually free software package.

Whether this revolution is merely the pinnacle of capitalistic production, efficiency and competition, or whether it is the formation of a new society, can only be guessed at present.

Through the triumphs of the bourgeoisie and capitalism, the world has become interconnected and interdependent. In the industrialised countries people are better educated and healthier. A technological revolution like none other has flourished in the modern world. There is therefore no doubt that the bourgeoisie has triumphed as predicted. However, the arrival of communism has failed to materialise in the way it was predicted by Marx and Engels. Instead new and more revolutionary solutions are being formulated that might one day replace capitalism.

[1] Marx, K, ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’, in Selected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, pp 114

 [2] Ibid, pp 112 - 113

 [3] Engels, F, ‘The Principles of Communism’, in Selected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, pp 90

 [4] Ibid, pp 90 – 91

 [5] Marx, K, Preface of ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’, in Selected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, pp 503