Skip to main content

Why I think Marx's Communism will fail

By
I'm making the claim that Marx's Communism will not work in today's world, for its heavy undertone of techno-determinism. If the impetus of social political improvement is based on the rise of productivity brought by technological advancement, then it follows that technological advancement will necessarily increase the productivity in that sense. As Marx put it, the new technology would lead to new productivity and subsequently new needs among the masses.
It might be true before and at his time, when technological inventions were made at the grassroots production level to reduce the intensity of manual work and increase output. Technology means completely different things now. It is controlled by big corporations, and instead of working in the direction to increase productivity, it is almost entirely focusing on the increase of need and desire. Thus, technology advancement will no longer be able to achieve what Marx believed it could achieve to bring along Communism: a production level that can satisfy the need of all people.

Comments

Saqib said…
I think for this viewpoint to hold you would need to assume that such big corporations would exist under the communist system. You can't simply superimpose the communist model on today quasi-capitalist reality. I'm leaning towards the idea that Marx would view the corporate elites as a new form of bourgeois who hold exclusive monopoly on the means of production. In the proposed communist model, their control will be relinquished and the focus will remain on technological progress for ever-increasing productivity. In theory, at least.

Another point to consider is that the current model of corporate driven economic growth with reduced material productivity has a large part to due with the shift in the 1970s from a industrial complex to a financial market economy. Financial markets don't actually produce goods in the real world, workers do.
January 17, 2010 at 9:48 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &
6 comments
Read more

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t
2 comments
Read more