Major Themes in Industrialised Societies: Classical Perspectives

 

We shall examine two major classical schools of thought: liberalism and Marxism.

 

Introduction

The collapse of communism and the change of political regimes across Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, Caucasus and Central Asia in 1989-91 were world-shaking events. The term ‘revolution’ seems to describe accurately the sweeping dramatic and unexpected transformations of the state socialists system.

Yet there are contrasting views about how to interpret these changes. On the one hand, liberalism claim this as a triumph of liberalism, and its values of personal liberty and the market. On the other hand, Marxists interpret the revolutions as a victory for capitalism, but a victory which makes Marxism more relevant today, not less.

 

Liberalism

- Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill are the key thinkers.

a) Liberalism places the individual at the moral and political centre: social institutions must be subordinated to the free and self-defining individual, carried out through economic reforms such as de-regulation, privatisation and laissez-faire.

Its fundamental value and goal is personal liberty (defined as the individual’s freedom from social interference), and its concern is to secure the social conditions necessary to allow individuals to define and pursue their own interests:

- the negative sense of freedom:

- freedom from interference

- a right to privacy

- a freedom whose only limit is that individuals are not free to do that which will compromise other individuals’ freedom.

Various social means might promote this freedom, above all democracy and capitalist markets:

- markets are regulated to ensure greater individual liberty

By making personal liberty the central and over-riding social value, liberalism argues that personal interests (desires, choices and beliefs) can be the only sources of social legitimacy. Adam Smith writes:

But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages. (from Wealth of Nations)

 

Liberalism reduces social actions to the wills of individuals. In economic though, liberalism reduces the economy to the market behaviour of a multitude of individuals pursuing their self-interests. The pursuit of self-interest by individuals is deemed a sufficient condition for social order, guided by the ‘invisible hand’ of the market.

In summary, i) liberalism places individual choice at the centre of social theory; ii) social institutions must derive from or respond to the way in which individuals formulate their private, self-defined interests as social demands; and iii) choices are part and parcel of individuals’ pursuit of their own agenda.

b) The notion of ‘consumer sovereignty’ highlights the concern to develop and protect private liberty and choice.

The market is seem as an impersonal mechanism which allows social order to emerge from the anarchy of diverse individual desires. Through the invisible hand, social order as well as welfare for all are the unintended outcomes of intentional individual acts:

private vices à public virtues

As Adam Smith writes:

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it. (from Wealth of Nations)

The attempt by social authority to will a particular outcome is self-defeating: no authority can know or control individual needs and wants, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

c) Liberalism refrains from making judgements about the substantive needs and desires of individuals, this is in keeping with its fundamental concern of personal liberty and self-determination. Liberalism will not say how an individual ought to live, only to act n its self-defined interests.

In the economy, liberalism favours ‘economic amoralism’ as privately formed preferences of individuals cannot and should not be judged. The individual   as consumer is sovereign, every thing has its price, what matters is the ability to buy ar a particular price.

- prices for heroin, nuclear weapons and prostitutes are not different morally from process from bread, hospitals and books.

Liberalism makes individuals the sole authorities over their desires and their ability to pay the sole mechanism determining whether those desires should be satisfied.

To say that market forces should decide everything is to say that desires cannot be judged morally. Economic amoralism gives liberalism an anti-elitist and populist character. However, the theoretical commitment to liberty and non-interference has never stopped liberal regimes from making substantial and moralistic interventions; it just make them self- contradictory:

e.g., sex and violence on television, anti-abortion legislation, restrictions on smoking.

 

Marxism

- Karl Marx and C. Wright Mills are the key thinkers.

a) Human beings must produce food and material objects in order to survive. Production involves a technical component (forces of production) and social relationships of production, and these form the 'economic base', the infrastructure of society. The other aspects of society know as the 'superstructure' (including political, legal and value systems) are determined by economic factors.

b) All historical societies contain basic contradictions involving the exploitation of one social group by another:

e.g., slave societies - masters own their slaves;

feudalism - lords demand tribute from their serfs; and

capitalism - employers exploit their workers.

This conflict of interest must be resolved ultimately when the social system contains no more contradictions.

c) Many contradictions centre on the means of production, those parts of production that can be legally owned:

e.g., in slave societies, labour is one the means of production;

in feudal society, land is a major means; and

in capitalist society, factory and raw materials is owned, land is rented and labour hired.

Wealth (or total value) is produced only through labour power (i.e., workers). The capitalists appropriate much of this wealth in the form of profits. Wages are paid below the real value of production. The surplus value is taken by the capitalists, the owners of the means of production as their 'reward'. This is unfair exploitation of labour since the workers are deprived of wealth that they have produced.

The nature of the exploitation and the appropriation of wealth lie in the social nature of production and the private and individual nature of ownership. Hence, the conflict of interest between capital and labour cannot be resolved within the capitalist framework. Only under communism can this contradiction be resolved when the ownership of the means of production becomes collective and under the control of the workers.

d) Despite the internal contradictions, capitalism continues to survive. How is this possible?

The ruling class monopolises political power and the value system that support, protect and further its interests:

e.g., media control, religious beliefs and education.

Beliefs and values help to legitimate relations of production, justify the ruling class's power and privilege, and conceal the true basis of exploitation and oppression (i.e., dominance of the ruling class):

e.g., under feudalism, honour and loyalty were dominant concepts as well as 'natural' order of things; and

under capitalism, exploitation is disguised by ideas of equality and freedom.

Each epoch has its ruling class ideology. Ideology distorts reality and blinds members to the contradictions and conflicts of interest. They tend to accept their situation as normal and natural, right and proper. Yet, this is a 'false consciousness' that helps to maintain the system. However, this is only partially successful as the structural contradictions would prove too powerful and express themselves openly.

 

 

 

 

1