Welfare and Three Axioms of Classical Marxist Theory - Essay Example

Welfare and Three Axioms ical Marxist Theory Rethinking Welfare A Critical Perspective written by Iain Ferguson, Michael Lavalette and Gerry Mooney, explores the ideas of the classical Marxist theory and shows the reader how three major components of his theory are not only relevant in today's capitalist societies but are actively engaged in an organic continuous social movement in which welfare is an inherent part. In particular, this essay will magnify, in light of the classical Marxist theory, the influence and necessity of state policy in creating and maintaining a balance between capitalistic success and societal equity among existing class structures. Rethinking Welfare produces an analysis of capitalism and welfare in the twenty-first century by exploring three axioms of traditional Marxist theory: "capitalism as a contradictory totality, Marxism as a philosophy of praxis, and socialism as the self-emancipation of the working class" (Ferguson et al. 2002: 25). The first and third components are relevant to this discussion. Socialism is recognized by those working in the classical Marxist tradition as a "system of prioritizing human need over profit, where production is controlled and planned by the direct producers (that is, workers in their factories and offices) and where both these requirements necessitate a system of open and direct democracy- far more democratic than anything seen under capitalism" (Ferguson et al. 2002: 25). It is interesting to note that the authors conclude, "none of the past or present representatives of "actually existing socialism" come close to meeting these criteria" (25). However, the evil capitalist that Marx predicted would become his own 2 gravedigger, did not, in fact materialize and the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight of oppression, contradicting Marx's prediction of the uprising of the disenfranchised and alienated worker. Capitalism, has for the most part, succeeded in holding its own power, precisely because of Marx's deeper understanding of its evolutionary nature. In his manifesto, Marx (and Engels) predict and support, among other things, the abolition of private property, the replacement of marriage by a "community of women," concentration of political power in the hands of the proletariat and the replacement of the state by "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Lewis 1998: 1) These are radical thoughts and dismissed as such by most academics, but, as Ferguson et al point out, there are three important axioms in Marx's theory that have relevance in today's society. Capitalism and "prioritizing human need over profit" are contradictions in terms and ideology. But Marx would argue that the world is a "differentiated unity" and that by virtue of the capitalistic need to employ workers to become and remain profitable, capitalism, operating in a democracy, must address the needs of the workers. The world, through Marx's eyes, is an entity that is at every point interrelated. In strictly economic terms, that is, to maximize profits and accumulate wealth, it is in the best interest of the capitalist to ensure basic welfare services to its workers. In a democracy, it is the state that allows the worker to fight for his right to a decent life-style, and yet, statistics tell us that within the world's powerful democratic states, 3 class distinction is becoming more pronounced and the richer are getting richer by exploiting the poor. If Marx is correct in predicting the success of the working class in overthrowing the oppressive conditions of capitalism, then we should allow the organic progress of capitalism to fulfill its own destiny. History tells us that the worker will never triumph in his pursuit for a healthy and equitable lifestyle. In countries from the Soviet Union to North Korea, wherever private property was abolished, state ownership rather than collective, public ownership took its place. Far from withering away, the state extended its tentacles, and the Communist Party became the vehicle not for the proletariat's victory but for the transference of power to what Milovan Djilas of Yugoslavia scathingly called "the new class" of apparatchiks. (Cohen 1997: 1). It is the state's responsibility to legislate and maintain the structure of welfare all the while creating a fragile balance between the necessity of profit making and the welfare of the workers. Marx's theory of "contradictory totality" explains why socialism as a means of emancipation of the worker is recognized globally as an aspiration. If capitalism is the theoretical enemy of that aspiration, then socialized government policies must take on the role of advocate. Welfare policies exist in various forms in every capitalized society around the world, which is evidence of its theoretical importance to capitalism. Saville in his Origins of the Welfare State identifies three factors that influence the efficacy of welfare policy: the economic and social requirements of an increasingly complex industrial society;the pressures which have come from the 4 mass of the population as the perceptions of economic and social needs have gradually widened and become more explicit; and the political calculations of the ruling groups (1983: 11). All three factors are components of the Marxist theory as outlined in Rethinking Welfare. The economic and social requirements of a people cannot be separated. Healthy, happy workers are productive workers. Capitalists understand this and government policy, through health, education and freedom of speech, reinforce it. The political calculations are directly influenced by the population's perception of economic needs. We vote for the politician who most closely represents our needs and wants. That is not a Marxist revolutionary force, but it is a civilized and somewhat effective way to bring about change. In a democratic society, the politician ignores the will of people at his own risk. After 18 years of Conservative politics, voters in Britain embraced the Labour Party with a huge majority and an expectation of welfare reform, among other things. Although promises for higher spending on welfare programs have not materialized,(voters have become increasingly sophisticated precisely because of broken political promises) the democratic system has been instrumental in the past in producing enormous change in the welfare system. Keynesian policy both in Britain and in Canada in the post World War Two era was responsible for social assistance, health policies, unemployment insurance and improved education. Laissez-fair attitudes of the voting public changed 5 drastically in the face of extreme poverty and unemployment suffered during the pre-war depression era. Those hardships were turned into votes for welfare reform. An interesting development that demonstrates the power of the vote in British politics is the aftermath of the Labour parties inability or unwillingness to strength the welfare system and address contemporary global issues. The Scottish Socialist party and the Socialist Alliance are entrenched opposition parties that continue to gain strength through their engagement of global contemporary issues: state welfare, unilateral disarmament, cancellation of third World debt, and environmental concerns. Grass roots' protests are becoming increasingly louder, especially in highly capitalized societies. The Seattle protests of 1999 were just the beginning of what Marx would recognize as the change brought about by the internal contradiction of capitalist development. The Seattle protest against the World Trade Organization's Third Ministerial was followed by other large protests in USA. Recognized as an anti-capitalist movement that married trade union workers with environmentalists, it supports Marx's theory of class struggle and the grass roots' mandate for change. Ferguson et al. argue that, contrary to popular academic belief, there still exists a class distinction between the workers and the bourgeoisie. The lines sometimes become fuzzy because large companies need managers to represent the will of the shareholders and to control the workers. These managers or controllers straddle the line between the working class and the stakeholders. Their remuneration and benefits are greater than the working class, yet they are still considered employees. We must 6 be careful to view class structure as evolving and changing and not in terms of a specific statistical membership. In Marx's formulation, the working class is "in struggle', 'becomes united', constitutes itself, and these activities of 'struggling', 'uniting' and 'constituting' ought to be considered processes of class consciousness. Too often, however, the notion of a class "in itself' is reduced to an 'objective' matter of determining the relative size of the labour force, the concentration of workers in various industries, the occupational characteristics of the workforce or the level of union membership (Ferguson et al. 2002: 68). Marx sees the movement of the worker towards emancipation as a generic one, not one specifically defined in terms of numbers or types. Although Marx's benchmark of success, defined by production controlled and planned by the direct producers (that is, workers in their factories and offices), is a somewhat idealistic goal, there is ample evidence throughout the world that strikes and protests are still effective communication tools for workers' discontent. Leys and Panitch's research shows that "by the mid-1990's strikes in France, the USA and Canada once more occupied the front pages alongside reports of strikes in south Korea and the "IMF riots" throughout much of the Third World from Zimbabwe to Mexico" (1998: 20), Capitalism's organic nature towards bigger, better and more, is the systemic catalyst of discontent. 'The competitive drive of capitalism constantly forces each unit of capital to try and increase its rate of exploitation of labour, economic uncertainty forces governments to try and restructure their debt and expenditure patterns, the expansion of capitalism threatens environmental security and the sustainability of the planet, political liberties and freedoms are restricted and controlled, and throughout the world the struggle for daily survival becomes harder for those at the bottom- on various levels the drives of capitalism increase the pressure until 7 somewhere, at some point, the grievances burst into conflict (Ferguson 2002: 73). As the world shrinks under the weight of technological advances, a tenuous atmosphere of cooperation between capitalists, politicians and the people is necessitated by the very nature of capitalism itself, as Marx has identified, as a contradictory totality that provides the catalyst for social reform by the working class. Ferguson et al. provide ample evidence of the classical Marxist theories at work, in the framework of the three axioms. If capitalism is a necessary evil, then democracy is the great equalizer. Works Cited Cohen, Roger (1997) To Deplore Capitalism Isn't Always to Fight It (Internet) New York Times, Available from: http://phoenix.liu.edu/uroy/eco54/histlist/marx/marx3.htm (Accessed 14 April 2006). Ferguson, I., Lavalette, M., Mooney, G. (2002) Rethinking Welfare A Critical Perspective. London, Sage. Lewis, Paul (1998) For Many, Marx's 'Manifesto' Remains Relevant (Internet) New York Times. Available from: http://phoenix.liu.edu/uroy/eco54/histlist/marx/marx2.htm (Accessed 15 April 2006). Leys,C. and Panitch, L. (1998). 'The Political Legacy of the Manifesto', in L. Panitch and C. Leys (eds.), Socialist Register 1998. London: Merlin Saville, J. (1983). 'The Origins of the Welfare State', in M. Loney, D. Boswell and J. Clarke (eds), Social Policy and Social welfare. Buckingham: Open University Press. Read More