An acquaintance of mine started a local philosophy reading group, and for the first book, she assigned the hugely popular Sophie’s World, which is an introduction to philosophies throughout history in the form of a mystery novel. Basically a secretive “philosopher” befriends a 14-year-old girl (Sophie) and starts giving her lessons on philosophers throughout history. They eventually realize that
they’re characters in a novel, and it gets weirder from there.
Anyway, I finally came to the chapter on Marx, and found an interesting “description” of capitalism. Whether or not the book’s author is actually espousing Marx’s views is unclear - he often presents a given philosopher’s views as if they are fact, so as to put the reader in the mindset of the philosopher.
So without further ado, here is one of the most popular first introductions to capitalism for teenagers / young adults interested in philosophy:
“Many people still live under inhuman conditions while they continue to produce commodities that make capitalists richer and richer. Marx called this exploitation.”
“Could you explain that word, please?”
“If a worker produces a commodity, this commodity has a certain exchange-value.”
“Yes.”
“If you now deduct the workers’ wages and the other production costs from the exchange-value, there will always be a certain sum left over. This sum was what Marx called profit. In other words, the capitalist pockets a value that was actually created by the worker. That is what is meant by exploitation.”
“I see.”
“So now the capitalist invests some of his profit in new capital—for instance, in modernizing the production plant in the hope of producing his commodity even more cheaply, and thereby increasing his profit in the future.”
“That sounds logical.”
“Yes, it can seem logical. But both in this and in other areas, in the long term it will not go the way the capitalist has imagined.”
“How do you mean?”
“Marx believed there were a number of inherent contradictions in the capitalist method of production. Capitalism is an economic system which is self-destructive because it lacks rational control.”
“That’s good, isn’t it, for the oppressed?”
“Yes; it is inherent in the capitalist system that it is marching toward its own destruction. In that sense, capitalism is ‘progressive’ because it is a stage on the way to communism.”
“Can you give an example of capitalism being self-destructive?”
“We said that the capitalist had a good surplus of money, and he uses part of this surplus to modernize the factory. But he also spends money on violin lessons. Moreover, his wife has become accustomed to a luxurious way of life.”
“No doubt.”
“He buys new machinery and so no longer needs so many employees. He does this to increase his competitive power.”
“I get it.”
“But he is not the only one thinking in this way, which means that production as a whole is continually being made more effective. Factories become bigger and bigger, and are gradually concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. What happens then, Sophie?”
“Er. . .”
“Fewer and fewer workers are required, which means there are more and more unemployed. There are therefore increasing social problems, and crises such as these are a signal that capitalism is marching toward its own destruction. But capitalism has a number of other self-destructive elements. Whenever profit has to be tied up in the means of production without leaving a big enough surplus to keep production going at competitive prices . . .”
“Yes?”
“, . . what does the capitalist do then? Can you tell me?”
“No, I’m afraid I can’t.”
“Imagine if you were a factory owner. You cannot make ends meet. You cannot buy the raw materials you need to keep producing. You are facing bankruptcy. So now my question is, what can you do to economize?”
“Maybe I could cut down on wages?”
“Smart! Yes, that really is the smartest thing you could do. But if all capitalists were as smart as you—and they are—the workers would be so poor that they couldn’t afford to buy goods any more. We would say that purchasing power is falling. And now we really are in a vicious circle. The knell has sounded for capitalist private property, Marx would say. We are rapidly approaching a revolutionary situation.”
“Yes, I see.”
“To make a long story short, in the end the proletariat rises and takes over the means of production.”
“And then what?”
“For a period, we get a new ‘class society’ in which the proletarians suppress the bourgeoisie by force. Marx called this the dictatorship of the proletariat. But after a transition period, the dictatorship of the proletariat is replaced by a ‘classless society,’ in which the means of production are owned ‘by all’—that is, by the people themselves. In this kind of society, the policy is ‘from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’ Moreover, labor now belongs to the workers themselves and capitalism’s alienation ceases.”
“It all sounds wonderful, but what actually happened? Was there a revolution?”
“Yes and no. Today, economists can establish that Marx was mistaken on a number of vital issues, not least his analysis of the crises of capitalism. And he paid insufficient attention to the plundering of the natural environment—the serious consequences of which we are experiencing today. Nevertheless . . .”
“Nevertheless?”
“Marxism led to great upheavals. There is no doubt that socialism has largely succeeded in combating an inhumane society. In Europe, at any rate, we live in a society with more justice—and more solidarity—than Marx did. This is not least due to Marx himself and the entire socialist movement.”
There is also another thread on this book if anyone is interested in discussing the book overall. I’m more interested in reactions to this specific section.