Politics and Popular Culture in Historical Materialism
In this essay I discuss the nature of Karl Marx’s historical materialism and evaluate his philosophy in terms of modern day examples. While Marx was right about many things, including the tendency of capitalists to exploit workers in his time and to this day, I argue that he did not adequately take into account the political and cultural influences on human history in his materialist conception of history. Instead, he emphasized economic conditions which motivate change in human history. Throughout the essay I use several examples to support the importance of political and culture influences on the development of society, such as stock options, psychology, political aspirations, etc. In the end I use China as an example to show the complexity of politics, culture, and economics in historical developments to both prove certain aspects of Marx’s philosophy, and disprove other aspects of Marx’s historical materialism.
During the 19th century, laborers worked in squalid conditions for subsistence wages. A great question of that time was how society would react to labor exploitation, and what political processes would be devised to ensure that the poor were taken care of. To this day, in many places such as parts of
Marx’s materialist conception of history is that human history is a linear development between human societies and modes of production. Marx derives his authority in being able to forecast the future rise of communism based on the predictable nature of linear history. A basic premise in historical materialism involves the tension between social classes. To establish this tension, Marx begins with the basic idea that humans create commodities and their means of subsistence through a combination of nature and human labor, which he defines as the mode of production. Marx observes that the division of labor, however, is unequal—which results in the division of social classes. Inherent conflict exists between the economic base and the social superstructure of society when the modes of production develop more rapidly than changes to the relations of production. Finally, the superstructure of society evolves when an emerging class overcomes the dominant class and creates a new social superstructure to fit these changes in production.
Following Marx’s theory, there have been several historical stages of economic development which have led to new superstructures of society: tribal society, ancient society, feudalism, and capitalism. Marx states that each superstructure was adapted to fit the new economic conditions of that time. In Marx’s theory of socio-economics, capitalism divides human labor between the work force and those who own the means of production. Those who own the means of production have acquired the role of masters, and those who provide human labor serve as slaves. The relationship between master and slave is shaped by the capitalist social superstructure that keeps order in society and allows the current economic condition to persist. The capitalist superstructure, Marx asserts, will fall when the next reforms to modes of production are made.
According to Marx, inherent contradictions within the capitalist system will result in capitalism’s downfall. In his A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx states that “The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism.”[1] Therefore, the rise of communism from capitalism, according to Marx, is inevitable because of inherent tensions within the rules of capitalist society itself, not of the people who comprise capitalist society. Furthermore, in The German Ideology, Marx states that millions of “excluded” proletariats and communists will, in time, lead a revolution in which to force their inclusion into society.[2] This is problematic because it is based on a faulty assumption. First, Marx assumes that proletariats are excluded from society and that their interests are mutually excludable from those of the “bourgeoisie” and the capitalist. Such an assumption underemphasizes and neglects the role of political, cultural, and other incidental and/or spontaneous events in human history that do not necessarily arise from economic conditions.
Marx’s idea that the proletariats are excluded from society and that their interests are mutually excludable from those of the capitalist can be explored in part six of Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, where Marx discusses how capitalists exploit workers through unpaid labor and conceal exploitation under the guise of paying wages. In effect, once the laborer is hired by the capitalist for a period of time, the worker no longer owns his labor-power. Marx states that “as soon as his labour actually begins, it has already ceased to belong to him; it can therefore no longer be sold by him. Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but it has no value itself.”[3] In this manner, the capitalist can exploit the worker by deriving more value from his laborer during the working day than the capitalist pays the worker.
As the value of labour is only an irrational expression for the value of labour-power, it follows of course that the value of labour must always be less than its value-product, for the capitalist always makes labour-power work longer than is necessary for the reproduction of its own value. In the above example, the value of the labour-power that functions through 12 hours is 3 shillings, which requires 6 hours for its reproduction. The value which the labour-power produces is however 6 shillings, because it in fact functions during 12 hours, and its value-product depends, not on its own value, but on the length of time it is in action.[4]
In this example, the capitalist pays three shillings for an entire day’s labor that creates six shillings worth of value. To Marx, the idea that labor-value could create six shillings of wealth and yet only be worth three shillings is an absurd contradiction within the modes of production in capitalist society. Marx continues to argue in subsequent chapters that the surplus profits of the capitalist who underpays their laborers is used to maintain worker-laborer versus owner-operator class relations that are perpetuated in a cycle of capital accumulation, re-investment, and under-payment for labor services.
Modern theories on economics and modern examples conflict with the Marxist view of labor exploitation and capital accumulation. First of all, Marx’s theories on the exploitation of laborers would lead us to believe that capitalism will predominantly breed two classes in modern society and that their interests conflict: the low-paid worker class and a smaller upper-echelon of individuals who own the means of production. In the
In fact, the interests of a company’s success and a company’s workforce can be intertwined in many ways. Most directly, the interests of a company and its workforce can be merged through employee stock options. A real-life example of this can be seen in the case of Bonnie Brown, who was Google’s in-house masseuse but who is now a multi-millionaire because of her Google stock options[5]. Therefore, the benefits of increased corporate profit and efficiency do not have to be monopolized by an elite class that excludes the proletariat. Furthermore, most workers in the
Marx would correctly point out, however, that even in light of these circumstances there is still a vast income inequality between the richest members of society compared to that of the poorest members of society—and that this disparity is increasing. Another counter-argument is that the excluded proletariat does exist, if not within the same country such as that of the
Marx argues on another level that the alienation of workers from society also exists fundamentally when humans sell their labor and are consequently removed from their labor-product. In conceding this point to Marx (some jobs are undeniably dull), I would argue that the effects of worker alienation has been lessened through the development of popular culture since Marx’s time. While workers may be alienated from their labor, after work and on weekends laborers have the opportunity to pursue their hobbies and interests, or partake in social mass culture as an outlet for creativity. Furthermore, especially in countries such as the
In his “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”, Marx states that it is the economic condition of man that determines man’s social consciousness. “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”[6] In this philosophy, the economic conditions of
[1] This quote is derived from a Marxist online database of Marx’s writings. The website sources K. Marx’s A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Progress Publishers,
[2] Marx, Karl The German Ideology Norton The Marx Engels Reader, Second Edition Page 168 reads “Thus if millions of proletarians feel by no means contented with their living conditions, if their “existence” does not in the least correspond to their “essence,” then, according to the passage quoted, this is an unavoidable misfortune, which must be borne quietly. The millions of proletarians and communists, however, think differently and will prove this in time, when they bring their “existence” into harmony with their “essence” in a practical way, by means of a revolution.”
[3] Marx, Karl Capital, Volume One Penguin Classics Part 6 Chapter 19 Page 677
[4] Marx, Karl Capital, Volume One Penguin Classics Part 6 Chapter 19 Page 679 to 680
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/technology/12google.html?_r=1&em&ex=1195016400&en=e5d6c0dae476cfbe&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin
[6] This quote is derived from a Marxist online database of Marx’s writings. The website sources K. Marx’s A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Progress Publishers,
No comments:
Post a Comment