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

Whose means justifies their end?

By
I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...
7 comments
Read more

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...
Post a Comment
Read more