Classical Marxism in an Age of Capitalist Crisis

The Past is Prologue

William Briggs

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429560019
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Ideologías políticas

Will capitalism survive forever?

Capitalism has always lived in and with crisis. Wars, revolutions, economic depression and repeated recessions, the threat of nuclear annihilation and ecological disaster have all failed to break the dominance of this economic and political system.

Challenging the predominance of capitalism in a world fraught with inequalities, this book returns to classical Marxism to reaffirm its relevance. It explores the contradictions within capitalism as well as explains why Marxism has been unable to mount a sustained challenge to capitalism. In order to explore concrete alternatives in a period of increasing capitalist globalisation and crisis, it goes on to present perspectives by which theory and practice might be reunited to building independent political and organisational structures.

A search for "something better", this volume will be an engaging read for scholars and researchers of politics, especially political theory and political economy, economics, and sociology.

1

Capitalist crisis and the relevance of Marxism

Marxism’s oft-stated purpose is to combat capitalism, an economic system that has always existed under conditions of crisis. Crisis, however, has been a motivating factor for capitalism’s growth and an engine for its expansion. Critics of Marxism have pointed to capitalism’s ‘resilience’ and ‘adaptability’ as a testimony to Marxism’s ‘failure’ as an ideology. Capitalism has not collapsed, but remains the dominant economic paradigm. Marxists sought, over time, to redefine their theory and to adapt to new circumstances. What resulted was increasing divergence, dissent, isolation, and what appeared to many to be irrelevance in the face of capitalist rule and ideology.

On-going economic crisis, accompanied by an intensification of globalisation, has prompted a re-examination of capitalism. Critiques from Marxist and non-Marxist scholars have also encouraged a re-assessment of the ability of Marxist theory to interpret capitalism and of its relevance in the 21st century.

Capitalism has entered a qualitative new stage of development and one marked by deepening crisis. The cycle of crisis and stabilisation that has framed the development of capitalism has become ever more sharp. Capitalist globalisation is an expression of a crisis that is increasingly enveloping economic and political structures and is less able to be either contained or resolved. While capitalism lives and must live with crisis, Marxism, too has been riven by crisis. It is necessary to link these two interconnected elements of crisis, and so, an analysis of the irresolvable contradictions that exist within capitalist globalisation, as well as the apparent incapacity of a fragmented and divergent Marxism to effectively challenge capitalism shall be presented. This analysis leads to a theoretical response to this weakness and in doing so, affirms the relevance of Marxism for the 21st century.

Most analyses of capitalist globalisation have one of three starting points: statism, neo-liberalism, or various schools of Marxist thought. Crisis, as a defining feature of globalisation, occupies a limited place in statism and neo-liberalism. It is within Marxist theory that this issue is best addressed, although its resolution and the promotion of an ideological framework that would fundamentally challenge capitalism, is often either downplayed or ignored. In defending the propositions of classical Marxism, it is necessary to isolate those things that contemporary Marxism either ignores or deflects. What appears as an exercise in theory building might be more accurately described as a return to an already vibrant theory. What is important, however, is that a new and innovative approach to Marxist theory and practice be advanced that will provoke debate and reinforce the relevance of Marxism within those debates.

We need first to clarify key terms and concepts; namely the state, globalisation, the interactions between the nation-state and globalisation and of crisis as a motivating factor within capitalism. From such a beginning, a discussion of those ideological perspectives that trace their beginnings to Marxism and of the ideological disputation and divergence that has affected Marxism for much of the last century and into the 21st century can follow. Next, an overview of state development from contending perspectives and of the state’s relationship with capitalism is given. I shall describe the interconnectedness of state and capital and of how the state acts to support and maintain the economic structures of capitalism. This assumes even more significance as crisis and contradiction within capitalism becomes more acute. This discussion explores crisis as an integral feature of capitalism and as a motivating factor for its rapid globalisation. Capitalist globalisation has prompted critical reactions ranging from attempts to reverse the process of globalisation, to promoting global responses. The diverse reactions to globalisation highlight the fragmented and divergent ideological perspectives that exist within Marxism. A crisis has marked Marxism’s trajectory for a century and must be addressed. However, regardless of this often-debilitating crisis, it remains an irrefutable fact that Marxism, both as an analytical tool and importantly as a strategy to effect fundamental change, is not simply relevant or viable, but central to combatting capitalism.

The state and its relationship with capitalism

Perceptions of the state are largely determined by the ideological perspective of the observer. The state has been defined in any number of ways, including being an organisation offering protection in exchange for revenue (Gilpin 1981: 15). The state has been described as a specific “form of macro-political organization with a specific type of political orientation” (Jessop 1990: 34). Poggi (1990: 3–8) speaks of the state as an agency of power, and especially social power and its components of coercion, command and legitimacy, before engaging with concepts of sovereignty and autonomy and the capacity to successfully produce one’s own rules as being a fundamental component of the structure of the state (Poggi 1990: 21–22). As de Jasay (1985: 15) characterises it, the state emerges through conquest and quickly becomes a rational organisation through a form of social contract. Ideological perspectives may differ, but there is a certain degree of consensus about notions of power, coercion, and a sense of legitimising control.

Just as definitions of the state vary, so do conceptions of it. Pluralist, elitist and Marxist conceptions of the state illustrate how ideological interpretations and world views differ. Hirst (1993) outlines the essential characteristics of the pluralist conception of the state. It is a view that sees liberty as the most important political value within society while state sovereignty is an ‘ideal’ through which society is regulated. Dahl’s (1967: 325) desired state is one where no single organised political group or interest group exercises control but negotiation and dialogue between all potentially conflictual parties is the norm.

In contrast, elite theory, as described by Michels (1962) argues that the state inevitably becomes controlled by a small and powerful group of actors. For elite theorists (Evans 2006: 39) there are a set of essential features that characterise societies – rulers are a socially cohesive group and remain territorially based. The rulers remain apart from those they rule and the members of the elite are chosen, by virtue of economic, political, and ideological factors. In this vision, Mills (1963: 167–169) depicts the executive branch of government, major capitalist interests and representatives of the military establishment jointly exercising power.

Marxist interpretations, and this is what is significant for this discussion, maintain that the state is ultimately about power and class interests. However, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ view of the state among the variants of Marxist thought. Hay (1999: 153–155) identifies four separate ‘Marxist’ interpretations of the state – the state as the repressive arm of the bourgeoisie, the state as an instrument of the ruling class, the state as the ideal collective capitalist and the state as a factor of social cohesion.

Carnoy (1984: 50) maintains that the core representation of Marxist theory rests in the concept of the state as the ‘repressive arm of the bourgeoisie’. Such a view is immediately apparent in the writing of classical Marxists and especially in Lenin’s (1977a: 243–244) oft-repeated reference to “special bodies of armed men” and in Engels’ (1986: 566) description of the various arms of the repressive state. The second interpretation, the ‘instrumentalist’ theory (Sweezy 1949: 243) sees the state as an instrument in the hands of the ruling class that guarantees the stability of the class structure of society. In a similar vein, Milliband (1969: 23) describes the use of the state as an instrument for the domination of society.

The third interpretation, the state as the ‘ideal capitalist’, adopting Engels’ (1959) description of the modern state as a ‘capitalist machine’ and a ‘personification of national capital’ has lent weight to the idea of the state as the ‘ideal capitalist’ (Offe 1974: 40). The final interpretation, the state as a ‘factor for social cohesion’ is promoted by Poulantzas (1975: 24–25) and Gramsci (1971: 244), among others, and draws on the description of the state as “seemingly standing above society” (Engels 1986: 576) as a means of maintaining a sense of order and stability.

The state, however, as Marx and Engels (1964: 36) made clear, evolves in a contingent manner depending upon social, political and economic necessities. Some might argue that much of the ‘theoretical’ work concerning the state by various interpretations of Marx are simply differing shades of the same colour. However, it must be remembered that the state advantages class interests and, depending upon historical and economic conditions, can present in any of the above formulations.

The role of the state in capitalist development has long been a focus in Marxist literature and polemic. Harman (1991) offers a useful critique of the relationship between state and capital, or more precisely the role of the state in assisting the development of capitalism. This relationship between state and capital became transparent and acutely important during the period of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and in its immediate aftermath. It is a theme that Choi, Berger, and Kim (2010: 834) take up when they highlight state responses to the potential collapse of significant banks in the US. At the core of such analysis is the understanding that the relationship between state and capital works to secure the present and future for capitalism.

Capitalism retains a position of security regardless of the depth of problems and crisis within the economic structure itself. This capacity for capitalism to maintain itself is due, in large part, to the ideological expertise of the state. Capitalism relies on exploitation, but this becomes less obvious as the relationship between labour and capital becomes deliberately obscured. Engels (2000), in his letter to Mehring, offered the view that ideological processes can and often are used to effectively mask what is the real class nature of society. What Marx and Engels described as ‘false consciousness’ was adapted by Gramsci to become ‘cultural hegemony’. Cox (1993: 51) describes this as a situation arising from the ruling class seeming to offer concessions in a bargain for both acquiescence and ultimately acceptance of state power. Lebowitz (2004) reflects that if the ‘left’ does not actively seek to both explain capitalism and to advocate for change then it is part of the reason that capitalism survives. This is especially the case when considered against the framework of intensifying capitalist crisis.

Capitalism and crisis

Marx and Engels in The Manifesto of the Communist Party (1977: 35–49) made the point that crisis was an essential and inescapable aspect of capitalism. Harvey (2010a: 171) isolates seven ‘activity spheres’ within the evolutionary process of global capitalism as it continues to search for profit. These include technologies, social relations, administrative arrangements, production and labour processes, relations to nature, reproduction of daily life and mental conceptions of the world. Harvey comments that:

Capital cannot circulate or accumulate without touching upon each and all of these activity spheres in some way. When capital encounters barriers or limits within a sphere or between spheres, then ways have to be found to circumvent or transcend the difficulty. If the difficulties are serious, then here too we find a source of crises (2010a: 172).

The period from the 1970s has witnessed a rapid globalisation of capitalist relations. This becomes the province of globalisation theory. According to Held et al. (1999) there are three contending schools of thought in globalisation theory, which they describe as sceptical, transformational and hyper-globalist. Each of these three schools can be observed and are reflected in the works of authors broadly operating within a Marxist framework. While accepting the interconnectedness and unity that links capitalism and globalisation each arrive at different conclusions, but such has been the trajectory of Marxist scholarship for decades.

The first of these are the highly sceptical propositions of Hirst and Thompson (1999). They argue that the move towards economic globalisation is not in any real sense unprecedented. The level of economic integration in the world is, in their view, no higher than it was in 1914, the political structures of governance of the international economy were in place for the greater part of the 20th century, and, while accepting that economic integration continues, capitalist globalisation is almost an artificial construct. It is a perspective that gained considerable support but one that actively seeks to minimise the extent and impact of capitalist integration and its effect on perceptions of nation-state autonomy.

Wood (2004) presented a more transformationalist view when she argued that the nation-state remains a vital element in world capitalist organisational structures and as a key actor within capitalist globalisation. Hers was a perspective that acknowledged the objective reality of the nation-state as administrator for capitalism, but which maintains a national perspective for struggle against globalised capitalism.

Diametrically opposed to these views are hyper-globalists such as Robinson (2004) who argue vigorously that capitalism has entered a new, fourth epoch. He maintains that these epochs include that of primitive accumulation, competitive capitalism and monopoly capitalism. We are, according to this view, witnessing the beginnings of globalisation and with it the birth of a transnational ruling class and consequently the end of the nation-state system. This view, while correctly assessing qualitative changes in capitalism, fails to acknowledge the political reality of the nation-state. This wide and discordant range in the way Marxist thinkers have recently addressed the relationship between globalisation and capitalism offers another illustration of my premise that a deeply fractured Marxism cannot effectively oppose the dominance of capitalist ideology.

Globalisation is an expression of capitalist development. Its drive to seek resolution to more destructive elements of its own contradictions becomes an engine for dispossession and inequality. Marx’s observation in Capital Volume 1 (1986b: 604) that wealth can only be accumulated at one end of the spectrum if misery is similarly accumulated at the other is echoed in the work of Dallmayr (2002: 144). Martins (2011: 12) likens the inequality that runs parallel to the globalisation of capital with that which accompanied the industrial revolution.

Globalisation is integral to the development of capitalism. It inevitably alters both the way nation-states operate and affects interactions between states. Strange (1997a: 4–6) expressed a sense of unease with what she regarded as the breadth in scope of the very term globalisation. She argued that state power is waning and that this is a response to the enveloping power of the growing world economy. Such an interpretation of globalisation is explored by Hardt and Negri (2000). They maintain that the shift that has occurred in capitalist relations stemming from the development of globalisation is constructing a source of supranational political and economic power. These analyses accurately reflect a general movement within capitalist development which is in accord with a classical Marxist view. However, while this tendency exists, it would be incorrect to regard such development as seamless. Capitalism is globalising and will continue to do so. At the same time, a contradiction exists between globalised capitalism and the nation-state as political administrator. National capital is still a significant force, as attested to by a renewal of economic nationalism. Capitalism, whether in global or national form, is fundamentally bound by this contradiction.

Much attention has been paid to crisis as an integral and motivating factor within capitalist development. While crisis and its analysis has assumed greater intensity in the most recent period, Clarke maintains that the “distinctive feature of the capitalist system is not the market economy, but a system of production in which production of things is subordinated to the production, appropriation and accumulation of surplus value”. Crisis “arises when capitalists face a fall in their realised profit” (1994: 284).

Crisis is a term that inevitably carries a degree of concern if not fearfulness. Definitions often refer to it as denoting either a turning point for better or worse in a medical sense, a dangerous situation requiring serious attention, or an unstable situation that carries a very real possibility of an undesirable result. Gamble argues that the feeling at the end of the Depression of the 1930s was that:

crisis gradually paved the way for a new regime, a new growth model and a new world order, which eventually resolved the crisis, and it was not long before the claims, that capitalism no longer had to worry about the spectre of crisis coming back, began again. There continued to be many small crises, but none of them seemed to pose dangers for the system as a whole, and were successfully confined to national or to regional level (2009: 42–43).

There is an expanding and often contradictory literature that seeks to analyse, describe and isolate factors underlying the current and irresolvable dilemmas facing capitalism. Responses vary. Reich (2015) argues that there is no such thing as a free market and that capitalism is the primary driver of inequality. While critical of how capitalism might be managed, he is, at the same time, seeking ways by which it can be ‘saved’, because it is still regarded as the best possible option for the globe. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the work of Robinson (2014). His appraisal of the situation is that we are witnessing a systematic crisis in capitalism. Wealth is being voraciously redistributed away from the poor, social inequality is rising at a dangerous rate, and a crisis of legitimacy could potentially lead to a global police state.

Theorists engage, often eclectically, with various aspects of the crisis of capitalism. There is a sense of fear, or possibly hand-wringing, in these analyses. Sharpe (2010), for instance, catalogues the steps toward economic crisis in the USA with a view to reversing the trend. Posner (2009) addresses the symptoms that affected global capitalism’s malaise, especially that of US capitalism in the early 2000s before arguing that the banks should be re-regulated as a means of resolving the problem. Bresser-Pereiro (2010) focuses on the financialisation of capital and perplexingly suggests that a democratic capitalism will emerge. Another response to the GFC of 2008 is to massively promote socially useful spending and democratise the ownership of production (Foster and Magdoff 2009). The kindliest spin that can be put on such ‘demands’ in a time of intense economic discord and austerity is that they are well-meant but utopian. It is in such an eclectic mix of responses that many of the weaknesses existing in contemporary theory, broadly critical of 21st-century capitalism, are exposed. There is consensus that there are major problems in the structure of capitalist relations but finding the means to resolve these problems and to offer a viable alternative is quite another issue.

In examining the contradictions of capitalism and globalisation some authors consciously vindicate Marxist analysis. Amin (2011), Jellissen and Gottheil (2009), Kliman (2011), Harman (2010), all focus on the tendency for profit to fall as a dominating feature of capitalist crisis and for the drive to globalisation. This feature, the theory of the falling rate of profit, is something of a weather-vane in relation to interpreting both capitalism and Marxism. The decades following...