Marx responds to Howlet
Marx Responds to Howlett
Howlett writes that ‘within the capitalist system the presence of democratic institutions, voting and majority rule provide the working class and the majority of the population the opportunity to at least theoretically offset the adverse effects of capitalist class ownership and control over means of production’ (Howlett 1999:9). How would this writer using an approach based on Marx’s view of capitalism, views on production, human needs, the labour theory of value and his view of role and function of the capitalist state respond to such a statement? This essay will, thus, proceed with a response and argue that capitalist states will evolve into different systems that may leave those in power today, losers at the end. The purpose of this essay is to outline how capitalism may change according to Marx’s thoughts.
Democracy offsets the balance between poor and rich by giving the working class a chance to have a saying on how they would like to be governed, theoretically, which does not imply any application. Furthermore, it covers up for the negative effects that the imbalance between the poor and the rich has on the population, as the capitalists gain control through ownership of the primary means of production. Citizens are simply granted a voice in order to substantiate for the human indignity that is our economic-political system/regime (Panich 1997: 47).
According to Marx, the level at which citizens currently participate in the legislation processes is at the most basic one, the “secondary superstructure” that are governments and politics comes before the citizens’ needs (Panich 1997: 47). Marx viewed corporations and those in charge of the primary means of production as the primary superstructure, the lead in the control and conditioning of governments and the public alike.
On production, then Marx would argue that humans are controlled by its different modes of production and would respond to Howlett on this matter in the following way:
What the elite doesn't realize is that there is more to your theory of economics. There is historical evidence to show that your current regime will not stand the test of time, it will change and evolve and will eventually leave the leaders at the bottom’s end. There is history to define where we are financially and more of it to predict where we are going to be tomorrow. Things change folks, they have always done so, and this game of economics is no exception. Capitalism is not new; modes of production have existed ever since and prior to Egyptian Slave times (Panich 1997: 49). What is it to say that the current economic condition will remain the same in the next 1000 years? Be careful whom you oppress today, as the game may switch up on you and lead you to a very disadvantaged position, much like the one you have placed the public in today. The public will eventually be strong enough to rise against you and save their lives, collectively.
What now would Marx say if he were arguing for the observance of human rights and their protective strategies?
When you speak in theory Howlett, are you implying seriousness of thought within your listener? Because all I could infer is your dismissal of human rights over corporate ones. So, you confuse me when you speak in theory, have I misunderstood you? Human rights are under the power of the state, and if the state is under the power of the economic system, then I can only infer that corporate rights are primordial to the sustenance of politics and without it human rights would not be observed, am I correct in saying this? When you speak of human indignity, I can only assume you are placing the priority on corporative measures. After all, I see that the dependence on capitalism is ingrained now within the culture of this world. Not only have you succumbed the public to being victims, you have also manipulated into believing their place in society as simple tools of production. Without corporations, humans would be priority, but this is not the truth and the public should be made aware of this.
Marx, as a classic thinker, predicts that the future is not going to be based on the needs of humans, instead, he predicts a change in the system that may leave corporations at the top of the hierarchy still, with even more power. If monopolies are allowed to grow and continue controlling governments and the public, worldwide, then the system will be one where the rights of businesses are better protected and observed than that of humans, as simple as that. Unless there is a revolutionary step forward on the part of the public, Marx admits that the state will continue to control us, the means and modes of production and the worldwide economy will be based on exchange and not on empathetic sharing.
On the role and function of the capitalist state, Marx would argue the following with Howlett:
If you speak of adverse effects being offset, do you also speak of control over these effects? Or, are we to believe that a higher authority is not controlling these effects? If we are unable to see them, the public, then is your organization, the corporate world, taking care of the mishaps and wrongdoings that they are bringing into society? This is a very simple matter, are you cleaning up the mess you are leaving behind or leaving it up to us to do so, based on ‘the opportunity’ that you have granted us of majority rule voting? I don't think the public will stay unaware for much longer. Once history continues to repeat itself, the public will eventually learn of the adverse effects that capitalism is causing on our system, society and earth (if they do not know so already) and will eventually stand up collectively to stop this from happening. If in the long run, corporations believe that they will have the last word, it would be naïve of them to believe so if they are truly academics, reading historical patterns in today’s economic upheaval. I only pray that the public wakes up sooner than later.
Society is now under a political economy that Marx notes as dangerous. It must not be equivocated with pride or greed, it is all a matter of control over human beings, a type of slavery that is almost voluntary, or manipulated through consumer goods and the commercialization of our state governments. Now, Marx does attempt to make us aware of the need to stop the madness, but he also assures his followers that the system will eventually evolve into a different type of system or regime. Today’s capitalist globalization will eventually become something new, different – as history predicts, all systems change. In fact, he notes that we are now living the changed versions of economic systems used in the past. For instance, during slave periods, the owner of the slaves was the controller. Today, the owners of the slaves are the corporations, the government pays the slaves (and also profits – income tax, sales tax, environment tax, technology tax, etc. - from them), and the government is the intermediary tool used to assure compliance to corporate ideals and goals while stimulation co-dependence on this system onto the public (Panich 1997:49).
The implications, then, of this majority rule voting that Howlett speaks off are covered by Marx and signaled for change. The adverse effects noted are already evident in the manipulative tactics used to govern the public under consumption needs. The majority rule voting is already showing signs of decreased importance to the public as we lose faith in politicians, governments and the system overall. The capitalist class is already suffering from debt and is experiencing the deficits of their own goals. The public is already standing up against the notion of marketization of our souls (Adbusters, Anonymous, Occupy Movement, and so on). Marx’s view of the world is starting to make sense to those who are willing to listen and modify their lifestyles in order to permit for more human dignity and more protection.
Works Cited
Howlett, Michael, M. Ramesh and Alex Netherton. The Political Economy of Canada: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Panitch, Leo. The Canadian State: Political economy and political power. Vol. 199. Univ of Toronto Pr, 1977.
