One of the takeaways from The Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels is the belief that the old feudal order of nobles and peasants would be replaced by a neo-feudal order of capitalists and proletarians. They two would-be revolutionaries leave us in no doubt that the relations of capitalists to proletarians will be a reprise of the relations between nobles and peasants.
But what happened?
What happened is that the bourgeoisie did not take advantage of its power. Having obtained the political power in the middle-class revolutions of the early modern period, it then proceeded to give the vote to the proletarians in their turn, and allowed the proletarians to enact the whole neo-feudal welfare state with benefits and goodies mainly paid for by the bourgeoisie.
But why? Why did the bourgeoisie not bid for total power? And why did the Educated Youth of the 19th century insist that the bourgeoisie would bid for total power?
Let us first deal with the simple issue. All politics is "us" against "them," of course, mobilizing our guys, the good guys, against the evil overloads and exploiters that are planning to take over and conquer us. The genius of Marx and Engels and the left that followed them was to perceive that class politics should be the "us" and "them," the politics of the future. Thus it made perfect sense to argue that the "them" of the new politics were rulers like like the old ones, only these new monsters would step out from the usual veiled apologies for power and substitute "naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation" for the usual identification of the ruler with God.
And really, why not? Why wouldn't the bourgeoisie follow in the footsteps of all previous rulers and rule over the proletarians like the feudal lords did over their peasants.
But they didn't. Remarkably, the bourgeoisie was not that interested in power, and it still isn't. It didn't make a bid for total political power, not in the 19th century, and not in the 20th century. Even the great business titans, men like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, men that had established monumental fortunes from cheap oil and cheap steel, did not use their wealth to obtain political power. Instead they retired from business and used their wealth to create modern philanthropy. Today's titans seem to be more interested in eradicating malaria and going to Mars. But why?
In my view this is not from any particular virtue in the business titans, but from the basic nature of business. Business is not about seizing power and forcing people to do your will. It just doesn't work that way. Business is built on trust and reciprocity, coming up with good ideas, serving the consumer and figuring out how to make your employees more productive.
Even the slave plantations, the first instance of large-scale capitalist enterprise, decided that it was better and more profitable to encourage the slaves to grow their own food and use their own initiative, than to use them as mere human machines.
This is a stunning change in human culture, that other people are trustable suppliers and customers rather than dangerous threats to our way of life. In my view it issues from the change from agriculture as the basis of economic life to the present industrial and post-industrial economy. Back in the old days, possession of land was the basis of wealth, and you had to defend your land to the death else someone would come and seize your land and plunder your wealth and leave you to die. Today possession of a great idea is the basis of wealth. Everything else can be bought and sold on the market. It doesn't make any sense to conquer and plunder, because every factory, every business contributes to the whole, and loot and plunder ruptures the normal economic relationships and just reduces the wealth of all.
I forgive Marx and Engels for not seeing this 170 years ago; who knew back then? I do not feel so forgiving towards their modern epigones; they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
The fact is that the modern bourgeoisie, the middle-class responsible people that go to work, pay their taxes, and follow the rules, are the salt of the earth, and the people that want to marginalize the middle class are monsters.
Next up: The Problem With Political Power.
In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, [the bourgeoisie] has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.And really, why not? Of course the bourgeoisie would act like any other ruling class that had come into power. It would take advantage of its power, erect ideological ramparts to defend its power, just like every other ruling class down the ages.
But what happened?
What happened is that the bourgeoisie did not take advantage of its power. Having obtained the political power in the middle-class revolutions of the early modern period, it then proceeded to give the vote to the proletarians in their turn, and allowed the proletarians to enact the whole neo-feudal welfare state with benefits and goodies mainly paid for by the bourgeoisie.
But why? Why did the bourgeoisie not bid for total power? And why did the Educated Youth of the 19th century insist that the bourgeoisie would bid for total power?
Let us first deal with the simple issue. All politics is "us" against "them," of course, mobilizing our guys, the good guys, against the evil overloads and exploiters that are planning to take over and conquer us. The genius of Marx and Engels and the left that followed them was to perceive that class politics should be the "us" and "them," the politics of the future. Thus it made perfect sense to argue that the "them" of the new politics were rulers like like the old ones, only these new monsters would step out from the usual veiled apologies for power and substitute "naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation" for the usual identification of the ruler with God.
And really, why not? Why wouldn't the bourgeoisie follow in the footsteps of all previous rulers and rule over the proletarians like the feudal lords did over their peasants.
But they didn't. Remarkably, the bourgeoisie was not that interested in power, and it still isn't. It didn't make a bid for total political power, not in the 19th century, and not in the 20th century. Even the great business titans, men like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, men that had established monumental fortunes from cheap oil and cheap steel, did not use their wealth to obtain political power. Instead they retired from business and used their wealth to create modern philanthropy. Today's titans seem to be more interested in eradicating malaria and going to Mars. But why?
In my view this is not from any particular virtue in the business titans, but from the basic nature of business. Business is not about seizing power and forcing people to do your will. It just doesn't work that way. Business is built on trust and reciprocity, coming up with good ideas, serving the consumer and figuring out how to make your employees more productive.
Even the slave plantations, the first instance of large-scale capitalist enterprise, decided that it was better and more profitable to encourage the slaves to grow their own food and use their own initiative, than to use them as mere human machines.
This is a stunning change in human culture, that other people are trustable suppliers and customers rather than dangerous threats to our way of life. In my view it issues from the change from agriculture as the basis of economic life to the present industrial and post-industrial economy. Back in the old days, possession of land was the basis of wealth, and you had to defend your land to the death else someone would come and seize your land and plunder your wealth and leave you to die. Today possession of a great idea is the basis of wealth. Everything else can be bought and sold on the market. It doesn't make any sense to conquer and plunder, because every factory, every business contributes to the whole, and loot and plunder ruptures the normal economic relationships and just reduces the wealth of all.
I forgive Marx and Engels for not seeing this 170 years ago; who knew back then? I do not feel so forgiving towards their modern epigones; they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
The fact is that the modern bourgeoisie, the middle-class responsible people that go to work, pay their taxes, and follow the rules, are the salt of the earth, and the people that want to marginalize the middle class are monsters.
Next up: The Problem With Political Power.
No comments:
Post a Comment