|← Illegal Migration||Korean American Experiences →|
In some respects the state of Marxism in modern days shares almost a common platform with the situation experienced during the last two centuries. Looking into the two situations, Marxism is met with an environment, which capitalist mentality is dominating. During the economic season, otherwise referred to “Shorter 20th century”, this was the season from 1914 up to 1990. That time the political world was founded on the epochal fight between socialist and capitalist economic schools of thought. This struggle transformed Marxism, giving it a new dimension that was not there during the previous period between the World War I and the World War II. The major goal of Marxism is to address the political and theoretical issues of the moment. The previous challenges, which were addressed during the 19th century, include the issue on constitution for the masses as a social class and the issue concerning the review of bourgeois economy. During that period the bone of contention was the future state of communist community and the political future of the government of the productive class of society.
During the 20th century the view of the issues, such as economic and political, took a new direction, different set of questions was to be answered. The dimension was that because of the revolutions, a thought of a new form of economics was hatched and the gap between the politics and economy was widening with the uprising of the revolutions. The time period of 1970s marked the climax of the socialist waves. A new dawn was at the horizon, for the political and economic giants, the Vietnams were forcing their colonial master out of Saigon, China was experiencing the tides of cultural failure that was opening a door to a new economic light from the dark of socialism, Portugal was at the verge of losing grip from her African protectorate, and surge of striking a balance of social classes was swiping across the globe. Counter-revolutionary mechanism was being set in forms of new ideologies and intellectual fronts. Currently, we are facing a new set of these questions. The universal ideological and intellectual environment is less conducive for socialism compared to the environment during the last century. This originates from a more vigorous and a new assertion of the model theories of political economy. The re-affirmation of bourgeois economy transformed policies in developed world, and also cultivated ideological field for anti-revolutions in the Middle and Far East, not to mention Asia and Africa.
Currently, under the waves of the capitalist crisis, the world has intensified the search for economics. Workers are seeking to understand the economic and political power that is regulating their lives. Marxist economics tries to provide the economic conscious society with a complete though not detailed, accounts of economics. This paper is a guide to the fundamental laws of a capitalist community. The weakness of capitalism is made evident in the light of their lack of understanding of the crisis that paralysis their system. The drive of capitalist economics is to mask the exploitation and to ‘support’ its superiority over the society. The crude theories and baseless solutions from capitalists are incapable of scraping off the uncouth nature of capitalism. It is through an alteration of society by introduction of a socialized and planned economy line, that the issues of chaos, slums, and unemployment can come to an end.
Only armed with Marxist knowledge on a capitalist community can the work force cut through the distortions and lies propagated by capitalist economists and fight their sway using labor movements. Currently, most production is under control of domineering companies. Where small companies exist, they are representative of the past production. The current production is vast and large-scale based. Today, about two hundred top firms and about thirty five leading banks are the power house of British economy, accounting for more than 85% of out-put. This is a pitiful outcome of several hundred years of uncontrolled and ruthless competition, war and other forms of conflicts. When the Orthodox economists forecasted the free market, Marx foresaw the nurturing of monopoly from unfair competition that was to force weaker producers out of the market. From the outset, capitalism is a good concept to adopt, goods and services are produced with people in mind, to meet their needs. This is an obvious goal for every society. However, production is not just produced to meet people’s needs or wants, but basically for sale. This is the entire focus of capitalist economics. Capitalists are driven by desire to accumulate materials, but not the desire to offer services or to produce goods. For capitalist economy to thrive, there are certain conditions that must be prevailing. Firstly, there must be existing large pool of people in needs, who are forced by their circumstances to trade themselves to survive.
The theoretical grounding for the twist to the free economy that took place in the 80s had been propagated earlier by economists affiliated to the right wing. The nurtured the idea that was previously rubbished as extreme, their idea was supported by proselytizing involvement of economic institutes. These organizations produced publications advocating for a free market as an ideal way out of contemporary problems that were facing the economy. This campaign, won the confidence of top larders in developed economies, which started implementing them. Margret Thatcher had the liberty to practice this through a combination long term changes and short term goals. Using the free market policy, developed economies have been able to sap manpower from under developed economies to maintain the pace of the continued rise in demand of labor for their economy. This non-regulated market has caused the widening of the gap between the developing and the developed economies. By the start of the 21st century, the hypothetical dominance of capitalists was so influential and accepted by both right and left wings supporters. These theoretical dominances are still in effect to this very day in the ruling circles. The declaration of Adam Smith, wealth of a nation and the Right of Man, together they have provided a logical perspective of the future of community, as a free regulating entity of free organs operating with the goal of furthering their private interests. After a period of two centuries, when they were experience challenges from social democracy and communism, the farsighted bourgeoisie advocated went back to their core, they restated the capitalist manuscript, and fitted it in the present conditions.
The factors, both demographic and economic, that had previously motivated the turn to the market are weakening with the time. It is projected that, in 20 years the large labor potential of China will have been absorbed and intensively utilized capitalist ideas in production. Universally we are going back to the state, where Europe was a century ago: a developing universal capitalist economy, where labor is highly exploited making it a scarce resource. The same conditions were the driving force that resulted to the development of the social cohesion and social democracy. They also gave led to the development of IWW and consequently CIO in the US, and gave rise to the communist parties in European countries. It is this phenomenon that historically guided the 21st century Marxism to a new project: to critique and oppose the theory of economy liberalism as Marx critiqued the then capitalist theories of economy. The historical scheme of the world’s workers can only be successful in the event it designs its political market, and its theories of the societal future. The new political market has to uphold morals coherent as Smith did, leading to economically logical rule proposals, which would open the channel to a new post-capitalist development, if enacted.
The 21st century Marxism has no room of pushing to one side the facts on how the new form of economy is to be set. During Marx’s time this was allowed, but it is not presently. The lesson economist learnt from the 20th century, cannot be forgotten or assumption can be made that the century did not happen. In the 20th century, the European critical Marxists will only carry us so far. Though, they pointed out some weak points of previously existing socialism. It was based on the comparison to the ideal model of what this critical thought as the ultimate goal to be achieved by any society. These schools of thought were results of the outstanding circumstances of the cold war, a struggling for a place of ideological independence, instead of a programmatic involvement in Marxism. The psychological disinterest sought by these critics, diverting from the minds of the calumnies aimed at the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, blocked them from engaging the facing the problems encountered by existing socialism. Practical answers can only be attained, if such situation is assimilated and appropriate action assumed.
We must struggle to regain and celebrate the progresses in Marxist economy that came from the USSR experience. Earlier in 19th century, Marx’s capital used to be an evaluation of the political economy that formed the British Liberalism. However, the 21st century Marxisism has to perform evaluation of the neo-liberal economy comparing it in moral depth and rigour to Marx’s during the 19th century evaluation. The think tanks of the 21st century are called to embrace and defeat the ideas that constitute the keystone of reactions. If we are in to the reconstituting socialism as the way forwards for the 21st century, then we should be prepared to confront the following ideologies. In confronting them, we must not waver in using the development in sciences-mechanics, mathematics, statistical sciences, computability and information technology theories. We must set definitive break with philosophical technique based on Marxism. Theory of social sciences and political economy must be given as much attention as any other science awarded. There must be formulation of hypothesis that are testable, that are measured against empirical data. The political economy, that the modern Marxism seeks to establish, suggests a center on experience that is based on the fields of economics and politics. The main goal of this phenomenon is to establish an explanation of how politics determines the outcome of economic process and to examine the forces of economy on political ream.
Liberalism theory is the most overriding theory of the general international economic structure and was first described in accurately by Adam Smith and then highlighted by David Ricardo and Stuart Mill. Liberalism supports that international trading should be practiced by private agents, without government influence. The liberal theory emphasis on how the politics and economy are the conditions, in which traders can gain by joining free will exchanges. In case that there are no obstacles to exchange among the traders, theory explain, everyone stands a chance to make a profit, given the prevailing goods and services. In other words, all participants in the trade will have almost equal probability of attaining the highest utility level. Neo-classical economists, majority of whom are liberals, believe that the market is the most superior mechanism of distributing and allocating rather scarce resources. Therefore, liberals feel that the government role in the regulation of economic should be limited. According to their stands, government interventions either intentionally or without intention restrict the economic processes and this may lead to denying the trader their rewards. Present scholars have not appreciated the ideologies of social democracy. Workers on the issues in the last few years have adopted one between the two perspectives. This views social democracy to be unstable idea between the liberalism and Marxism, brewed from the element of different minded traditions. From this perspective, the democrats are viewed to be socialists minus the courage that is associated revolutionary or socialist conviction who out of this lack of courage have fallen for ballots instead of bullets. The other view, usually supported by the capitalists, takes movements as the effort to actualize particular policy and uphold a given value. Here the democrats are usually the champions of equality and solidarity. Every view here leads to some truth; the big picture is not captured. From a clear understanding, social democracy is of bigger scope than just a political program.
While the population may be doing better than before, the capitalists have been increasing their wealth rapidly than those of different opinions. Marx does not support the view that trade between traders contributes to the welfare of the entire community. Accordingly, he sees capitalism as conflict associated system and it should give way for socialism. Marxists hold it strongly that; classes are the fundamental components in the economics and politics. More specific they acknowledge individuals or classes to be the central determinant of economy. Though, Engels and Marx have never stood for a common view of theories of state, the concepts of the state in both cases is a crucial element of their outlook. A quick look at Marxist, and exercise of organization, is going to expose what is seen as a paradox. Marx, on the one hand, and Angels, on the other, and their disciples claim to be challengers of the state; they even insist on the abolition of that state as far as the issues associated with economy is concerned. Marxist institutions continuously advocated for militant. Those who are studying the international economics and politics are to the very basic concerned with some issues. First on their list of concern is the fate of the world labor on the background of the highly internationalized capital. The development of the international trading bodies and the surge of the universal integrated capital markets have played a big role in weakening political powers and economic labor.
In an article on realism, Collier used the debate regarding the validity of the theory of economics as illustrated by Marx on the topic of the behavior of the rate of interest and profit to fall, as the illustration of his approach which is more philosophical approach towards the topic. There are arguments against Marx’s general presentation of the rate of profit, as the grand amount of profit, all under the denominator of the grand total of the fixed. According to Marx, capitalism is likely to accumulate capital and technical advancement, to replace or supplement machines for labor. His view on this is that labor becomes much more mechanical; he argued that this was the tendency mostly for the capital goods per employee-hour to rise. He strongly believed that this tread would be evident empirically.
Critical realistic efforts to develop a discourse with the main economics are supported by critical examination of the mainstream economics. Generally, the critique is from the schools of thought arguing that there is a difference between the social realities and mathematically produced methods upheld by the radical economists in the eyes of realist. From critical, realism is an involving and an open system made of the intentional agents and the social systems. The social systems of the community are developed to restrict and enable individual acts, while being transformed and potentially reproduced by the same agencies. The convectional economics is regarded to be weak in capturing the reality explained above owing to observance to the deductive way of explanation. Furthermore, supporting these arguments, it is assumed that the economics is confined within the examination of facts and issues related to ‘closed structure’. Defined as structures, in which issues and occurrence regularity occurs. The insinuation of the realist critique ends up in to urging the principle economist, adjusting their tools of analysis to fit in the traits of the social reality, as perceived by advocates of realism.
Opposed to the convectional position in the economics, realists find that they share a lot with the heterodox tradition. Initially devotees of the critical realist camp viewed heterodox economics through a lens of studies of the materials from the outstanding supports of their view. It is argued that the likes of Marx, highly appreciated advocates to the heterodox traditions. The realist developments within the convectional economic, have so far attained dismal success, the review leveled against convection economics has proved to be ineffective owing to distorting descriptions of realism. For some reasons, devotees of convection economics are concerned of the question on ontological. In other words, they have to be concerned with the issues touching on the questions, whether the models they have are able to cater for the methodical ontological account of realism in the society. All there is, the critical realist pleas to the methods of the examination pertaining to queries of the ontology that is a far from what is in the cognation of devotees of the mainstream economics.
The challenge, nevertheless, is that the past materialist knowledge of capitalism can be translated to be the strength of the approach or as its essential flaw. Undoubtedly, the capitalist structure is a process that is globalizing, from the argument discussed in this paper, it is an outstanding instrument of confusing the power and authority by relegating them to a non-political specialty does not compose a rupture with conformation of the social relations, which had been through previously. However, the crisis involved in this advance is the resentment that can produce to the postmodern topics of heterogeneity or fragmentation. The two ideologies are thought to be completely opposed, by both the postmodern and the historical materialists. It is advisable to consider whether either the postmodern or historical approach may benefit in any way from entailing the other. Refusal to do this brings major obstacles on the extent of enquiry, disallowing Marxism the ability of theorizing probable sites of confrontation established in the encounter between the capitalism and other factors, which it continuously interacts with. After confronting Marx‘s consistently Orientals attitude, he discuss a historical encounter which hints the influential effects from the European capitalism to a ‘universal economy’ prevailing in the East for so many years before.
However, the setback with this resolve on the past uniqueness and structural unity is that it defends delighting capitalism as a totality through value of totalize characteristic of capitalism. Here the row is tautological, whose results is that the mode is severely curtailing. Wood emphasizes that ‘History and Marxist political economy are designed to confront the capitalism as the key theory of economy head-on’, her view is that only through clear and precise understanding, capitalism as the dominant structure can be effectively challenged. Otherwise, capitalism is here to stay and we should be ready to conform to the principles of capitalism during the 21st century.
Form the outline of this paper, it is clear that capitalism is still crisis prone, just as it was its nature during the Marx’s time. The structure has continued to create economical instability among the working class, and messing up their live with jobs insecurity. It is now evident that the promises that were made by capitalism advocate are yet to be met for millions of workers globally. It is not clear, if any of the promises that were at the core of the formation of capitalism, will come to pass any time soon, to the contrary, the opposite is turning true with the chains of the crisis all over the world. This crisis has swept across the capitalist economies for both developed and developing economies. In capitalist set up all the means of increasing the productiveness of labor, amount to exploitation of individual worker; the means of improving sectors of production, alter themselves into ways of exploitation of domination over the producers; degrade workers as they tries to maximize their earning. Marx and Angels did not imagine that capitalism, eventually, would mutate to socialism of its kind. By working group continuity in acceptance of all crises, they nurture the development of capitalism. ‘History wages no battle,’ man does.’ History is only, but the actions of a man aiming to attain his goals.