by Jonathan D. Fitzgerald
Objection: Marxism is a dream of utopia. It believes in the possibility of a perfect society, without hardship, suffering, violence or conflict. Under communism there will be no rivalry, selfishness, possessiveness, competition or inequality. Nobody will work, human beings will live in complete harmony with one another, and the flow of material goods will be endless. This astonishingly naïve vision springs from a credulous faith in human nature. Human viciousness is simply set aside. The fact that we are naturally selfish, acquisitive, aggressive and competitive creatures, and that no amount of social engineering can alter this fact, is simply overlooked. Marx’s dewy-eyed vision of the future reflects the absurd unreality of his politics as a whole.
– Terry Eagleton
Good books force you to challenge long-held beliefs and assumptions. Great books do this unexpectedly. For this reason, in many ways, Why Marx Was Right, by Terry Eagleton, is a great book.
In the fourth chapter, Eagleton takes to task the oft-held assertion that “Marxism is a dream of utopia.” In debunking this assumption, it becomes clear that the present, where we are starting from, is more important to Marx than the future. Similarly, for the purpose of addressing Eagleton’s book, I believe, it is important to note the present that the reviewer is writing from. As this book works on the reader’s assumptions, those assumptions must first be elucidated.
Early in chapter four, Eagleton recounts the joke of the hard-headed Irishman who, when asked the way to the train station, replies: “Well, I wouldn’t start from here.” Of course, as Eagleton notes, “There is…nowhere else to start from.” I start from the place of Marxist sympathizer. While I would never describe myself as a Marxist, I admire much about socialism and, in the past, could often be heard reciting what has become a well-rehearsed apology for Marxism. “Marxism,” I would say to my more-than-likely-conservative interlocutor, “is an ideal that doesn’t work in the real world because it calls upon humanity to be at its best, whereas capitalism thrives on us being at our worst.”
Seems reasonable, right? And to be honest when I selected the “utopia” chapter from Why Marx Was Right to consider for this series, I did so on the ill-fated assumption that I would find confirmation of my long held beliefs about Marxism. I could not have been more wrong. Rather than exclusively answering some close-minded anti-Marxist’s assumption that Marx is calling for a perfect society, Eagleton was writing for me; even in my attempt to defend Marxism, I am guilty of grossly misunderstanding it.
So, back to the notion that the future has to begin in the present. Eagleton begins with an assertion that rings true, but challenges the conventional belief that the role of prophets is to predict the future. This, he says, has never been the case from the time of the Biblical prophets. What they do, instead, is decry the societal ills that are threatening to destroy a particular society. In this way, Eagleton says, Marx was a prophet who was not really all that interested in what a particular future might look like, except to the extent that it will be informed by the present. And to this point, Marx says, all progress and civilization has been marked by “barbarism and benightedness.”
For any future to come about, then, there would have to be a break from this history, which Marx famously refers to as “prehistory.” Elements of our present, the working class for Marx, must be both “a present reality and the agent by which it is transformed…provides the link between the present and the future.” Therefore, the future that Marx might have imagined contains elements of the present, because this is inevitably where we are starting from, but will ultimately represent a break from this present. “History has to be broken and remade,” as Eagleton puts it.
What is it then that must be remade? The institutions, of course. This emphasis is particularly important for me because it comes up against one of my personal misconceptions about Marxism: in order for Marxism to succeed, human nature would have to be somehow different, better, really. But for Marx this was not the case. Much of chapter four involves Eagleton exploring the various ways in which people’s behavior is shaped by institutions and not the other way around. He begins by suggesting, “socialism is the point where we begin collectively to determine our destinies.” The institutions, because they actually require more participation from all citizens than democratic institutions do, actually represent “democracy taken with full seriousness.”
Given the freedom Eagleton posits that socialist institutions will allow, individuals actually have more opportunity to realize their individuality in a number of ways including, for Eagleton, spiritually. Eagleton points out, “the freedom and leisure which this would grant men and women can then provide the context for their fuller spiritual flourishing.” When citizens are no longer in constant competition with one another, they can actually help each other flourish. Eagleton writes, “Only through others can we finally come into our own.”
I know what you’re thinking. This is beginning to sound like the notion of utopia that Eagleton set out to contradict. Two things are important to remember here. The first is that for Marx this change starts with the institutions and not the individuals. It is true that individuals under a competitive capitalist society are forced to privilege their own flourishing over others, but if the institutions change in such a way that removes the institutional necessity of competition, people might actually contribute to one another’s well being.
If this is still sounding utopian, turn the page and Eagleton offers his second defense: “Communism would not spell the end of human strife.” For several pages he goes to great length to explain that he acknowledges that bad things could and would still happen in a Marxist society, though he qualifies that the scale of these bad things would be smaller than they have the potential to be under capitalism. Eagleton writes that a shift from capitalism to communism would mean that, “Some of the root causes of our moral deficiencies would have been removed.” Therefore, though there is the potential that under different institutions certain behaviors would be changed, Marxism allows for the fact that human beings are still fallible.
The solution then, for Eagleton and Marx, is to change institutions and practices in order to bring about change in people. This argument is perhaps his most convincing as he sites a number of changed practices from society’s view on the equality of genders to, perhaps most effectively, penal reform. “We now take these changes so much for granted,” he says, “that we would be revolted by the idea of breaking murderers on a wheel.” The important idea here is that human behavior and opinion does change, is shaped by the institutions that rule the day. Citing such ingrained formalities as shaking hands upon meeting or driving on the left side of the road for Britons, Eagleton posits, “Institutions shape our inner experience.” There is a moment here in the reading where the kind of change he is suggesting actually does seem quite possible.
Finally, Eagleton debunks the view held by many, including myself, that the telos of communism is equality. This is not what Marx had in mind at all. He acknowledged, according to Eagleton, that “social leveling” was not only impossible, but not desirable. Further, he notes that Marx regarded the notion of equality as “the abstract equality of middle-class democracy, where our formal equality as voters and citizens serves more to obscure real inequalities of wealth and class.” The answer to this abstract equality, Eagleton says, is genuine equality, which doesn’t treat everyone the same, but acknowledges and attends equally to the different needs of people.
Though it doesn’t seem to be Eagleton’s intention to spark revolution and bring about an immediate shift to socialism, he does at times make a convincing argument for how changing certain key institutions could lead to a change in peoples’ practices. And, in many ways, this change looks ideal. But there’s that notion again, idealism or utopianism is what Eagleton set out to argue against in the first place. A certain degree of idealism, it seems, is necessary no matter what the political philosophy. Eagleton writes, “Those who scoff at socialist ideals should remember that the free market can never be perfectly realized either.”
Certainly, this chapter – and the argument it contains – has flaws. In his attempt to counteract the utopian perception of socialism, Eagleton spends an uncomfortable amount of time recounting the kinds of things that could still go wrong – there will still be “chancers, toadies, bullies, cheats, loafers, scroungers, freeloaders, free riders and occasional psychopaths” in a socialist society. Additionally, Eagleton’s writing style has become somewhat formulaic; he makes a difficult point and then chases it with a sly one-liner attack, typically on the United States or Britain. It gets to the point that the reader can predict the oncoming one-liner many sentences in advance.
These flaws aside, I found myself challenged by Eagleton’s assertions in ways that I definitely did not expect. Where I thought I would find affirmation, I found confrontation. And though I may not be any closer to believing that Marxism can or will take hold in the Western world, I will, at the very least, have to restructure my reasons for thinking this.
Jonathan D. Fitzgerald is an editor at Patrol, columnist at Patheos, freelance writer, and educator. He holds degrees from Gordon College and University of Massachusetts–Boston. Currently living in Jersey City, he will be moving to his native Boston soon.
Let’s allow that institutions can shape individuals, and in real and meaningful ways. Does it then follow that institutions can shape human nature?
Two things are clear: 1) There are certain fundamental and unchangeable characteristics that humans exhibit (at least in aggregate), and 2) Human behavior is quite elastic, as can be seen both in individuals and in groups. If institutions could shape human nature, then it wouldn’t be human nature, at least as I understand the term. Of course, the way one categorizes different behaviors (as inborn or merely(!) ingrained) to a great extent determines one’s political philosophy. It sounds like Eagleton understands this, hence his examples of institutions shaping attitudes and behaviors that seem self-evidently correct today.
Pingback: Why Marx Was Right
Thanks for your post, Jonathan. The focus on practices and institutions is a good one, and relevant to my essay as well. I’m curious about the prospect of changing institutions “in such a way that removes the institutional necessity of competition”; what do you think Eagleton has in mind?
A few thoughts, for what they’re worth…
– Institutions are people. Governments are people. Companies are people. None of these can be remade, reformed, or otherwise changed in the abstract – only by change in individual people.
– It is certainly not true that “individuals under a competitive capitalist society are forced to privilege their own flourishing over others.” Individuals in a capitalist free market are free to choose their economic courses of action. One is free to give away all of his possessions or to live modestly or attempt to amass great wealth. Groups of people are also free to decide to voluntarily share all that they have amongst themselves. Freedom is the bedrock value in free market capitalism.
Side note on the building of wealth: there are some common misconceptions about wealth and greed. There are plenty of poor people and socialists along with rich people and capitalists who are greedy. Greed is not a means. Greed is a (loathsome) motivation. Greed does not create wealth. Wealth is created in one of three ways: independent production or discovery or resources (very rare – e.g. finding gold), trading goods and services voluntarily with fellow men, or forced acquisition (i.e. theft/pillage/plunder) from fellow men. Historically, the last is the most common. In a free market, the overwhelmingly dominant mechanism for building wealth is voluntary trade.
– It is true that no economic philosophy can be “purely” implemented. In light of this fact, an empirical test is warranted. What have been the results of actual implementations of various systems? In all societies, the wealthiest live in relative luxury. In societies that have had relatively free market capitalism, people at all economic levels have benefited vastly more than in those societies that most significantly depart from capitalism. There is simply no question when results are considered rather than intentions.
– I, too, sympathize with the intent of socialists and communists insofar as they desire to have a fair, just, and equitable society where ordinary people live fulfilling lives. For people who choose to create voluntary communities to live out these ideas, I wish them well (and then wonder how long it will take before they abandon the effort or seek support from those outside the community). I have no sympathy for attempts to enact these systems by force through seizure of others people’s property (the standard approach).
– It is for good reason that it is rare to find economists or economic historians who support Marx. (His advocates are somewhat more common among English Lit professors like Eagleton.)
– Benson, you might find it interesting that Thomas Sowell, an author I have frequently recommended, is a former Marxist (before he studied economics). He wrote a book on the subject, Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. It is a fair treatment of Marx and worthwhile for those interested in this discussion.
Thoughtful post, Jonathan. It’s always heartening to read about how people’s ideas can be challenged and even changed, in particular your own about Marxism.
Speaking of change, I have little problem with the idea that people can be changed from the outside in, as it were, so that the institution changes the person. Such change doesn’t entail that human nature must change. I don’t think Marx was a Richard Rorty, for whom human nature seemed to be a very maleable thing.
That said, it still seems that Eagleton has not given an answer so much as he has changed the question. He has not argued that Marx did not have a utopic vision for society. It seems Marxism still has that vision, only it will realize it by different means. Eagleton seems to say that the Marxist vision will be realized by changing the institution, which will bring out the best in our human nature and so forth. The utopia is still there.
Also, I’m curious. We’ve said that “human equality” is not the telos. What is?
It’s a question that Marxism doesn’t really seem to answer other than to say we should magnify the ideals of the Enlightenment to their fullest extent. This idea of “flourishing” seems to mean whatever the person flourishing wants it to mean, as long as it happens within the confines of said Enlightenment ideals.
The idea of a telos in Marxism becomes a very hopeless subject, such that the former Marxist Alasdair MacIntyre eventually gave up on that grand materialist philosopher and has since become a Thomist.
In short, I don’t think Eagleton dismisses Marxist utopia, and I don’t think he should. Every society should be shooting for something. But the truth is that Marxism has no real telos, and without it human nature will only flourish into nothing.
Yes, we must start from here. The deeper you go into the problems of the present, the more clearly you see where things must go – which leads to a program.
In a time of a record-setting gap between the rich and the rest of us, the matter of equality does matter. No Rich, No Poor.
Hiller, I’ll only address a few points. First, institutions are not only people, which is why they are called institutions and not a group of people. Institutions have their own bylaws, constraints, forms and culture which are not reducible to people. Ignoring these factors by reductively asserting “institutions are people” misses most of what goes on in institutions. Will changing individual members change the institutions? Yes, but not if you ignore the influence institutions have on people. That is one of the main points of this post.
Second, the phrase “free market capitalism” is as much an oxymoron as “free-market socialism.” The view is an artifact of a Romantic view of the history of capitalism that ignores what it actually is: the State subsidization of capital through coercion.
Third, while socialism is worse than capitalism, capitalist countries are surviving only 1) by the importation of future resources through the vehicle of debt which future generations will have to pay back or 2) by saving resources by having below replacement levels of children. Is there a capitalist country that manages to keep its standard of living apart from debt and while maintaining population? No significant ones I am aware of; maybe tiny ones about the size of similarly successful nations with higher levels of government intervention.
Albert, thanks for your response. As always, these discussions would be more nuanced and pleasant over good food and drink, but since blog comments is the forum, here goes:
Regarding institutions, I think we would agree that all aspects are created (in the worldly sense, at least) by people. While they are a method of perpetuating ideas, any influence an institution has in the short or long term is simply the influence of people. Bylaws, culture, constraints, etc are utterly impotent apart from individual people communicating, advocating, following, believing, and enforcing them. Thus, the concept of institutions influencing people rather than vice versa is a meaningless abstraction.
Your description of capitalism as “the State subsidization of capital through coercion” sounds like a twist on distributism. Is it a reference to protection of private property and the fact that some people start out with more than others? If so, does it matter that the largest fortunes in capitalist countries are made within one generation (not as a result of some original allocation)? Do you propose an alternate solution – forced redistribution, wealth limits, or something else? It seems that your definition of capitalism departs from normal usage, so I’m interested to learn more about your position.
Was there a typo in your debt comment? I assume you meant “consumption of current resources through the vehicle of debt”. If not, I didn’t understand the point. The vast (govt) debt that I agree is a major problem for many countries that have historically been relatively capitalist is not propping up free market capitalism, which calls for a relatively small government sector, but rather is a result of a trend toward socialism and a departure from free market capitalism. Ironically, China, the country most often cited as the holder of debt, may be trending toward free market capitalism as fast as historically capitalist countries are trending away from it! The political system is not free, but the shift beginning in the 1980s from state-owned industries with a centrally planned economy to privately-owned companies and a market-oriented (i.e. capitalist) economy has resulted in enormous growth.
The comment about population growth is based on a myth. People are the most valuable “resource”. Is there any country that had a higher standard of living when it’s population was lower? Malthus may be right eventually, but he hasn’t been yet.
Hiller, thanks for your response.
I’m sorry, but it’s pretty clear to me that “institutions are people” is a simplistic reduction of what an institution is. Obviously, bylaws, culture and constraints are impotent apart from people living them out. That’s why I never reduced institutions to bylaws, culture, constraints, etc. But you did reduce institutions to people… and this is precisely the problem I–along with social theorists like Marx and Eagleton as well as non-Marxists like James D. Hunter, Charles Taylor, and James K. A. Smith– see. But we may just have to disagree.
My description of capitalism as “the State subsidization of capital through coercion” is not a description of distributism, but a description of actual capitalism, the only kind of capitalism that existed and exists today rather than some idealized dream the pursuit of which allows us to ignore the ways the market is not free in capitalism. The essay I linked to above, “The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand,” is enough to chew on. With respect to an actual political program, the first things to do would not be to have the government do more, but to repeal existing laws and regulations which favor and directly/indirectly subsidize large corporations at the expense of smaller businesses and labor. Actually, the very first thing to do would be to break apart the four largest banks into much smaller institutions, which is eminently justified by their market failures and subsequent bailouts. Then there is the Farm bill, etc. etc.
I need to go, but I will get to the rest of your response later.
My point about debt was unclear. What I mean is that current standards of living in capitalist countries are not possible apart from their reliance on increasing debt; it is the equivalent of me taking out a $100k loan, increasing my standard of living by buying things, and claiming I am richer while ignoring the fact that my standard of living is a result of debts that must be paid back. Of course, the difference is that the individual eventually has to pay the money back since debts are not transferable between generations; but this is not true with respect to national debt which is transferred between generations of taxpayers. That is, today’s children and grandchildren will have to pay back the debts their grandparents incurred to finance the grandparents’ debt-fueled standard of living by reducing their [the kids] own standard of living. Our picture of the success of capitalist countries would look very different if we paid back our debts.
With respect to population, it appears I was unclear as well. I agree with you that people are the most valuable “resource” and that Malthus was wrong. The problem is that capitalist countries in practice disagree with both of us: we have sub-replacement fertility, meaning we are having fewer kids than we need to replace ourselves, but the negative economic consequences of this manifest only in the long-term. Short-term, however, it is actually great for a generation to have fewer kids. Here’s an example. A couple makes $80k a year. Having children in America costs on average $10k a year per child. Now, they’re faced with a decision: have two kids and spend $20k a year on them, or spend and invest that $20k a year on nicer cars, 401ks, a nicer house, whatever else they like. Not having to spend their money on kids means their material standard of living is higher. This is because previous generations have already invested in the current adult generation, so the current adult generation is benefiting from their parents’ investment and their own productivity–but they are not continuing the cycle of investing in the next generation by having kids. They are keeping the resources for themselves. This is what sub-replacement fertility means.
And the problem is that over the long-term, fewer children are being born to support 1) the proportionately greater numbers of the aging, and 2) the next generations. Children are our wealth: but only in the long-term.
Current standards of living are artificially high because the baby-boomer generation did not have as many children (and invest in them) as necessary to replace themselves and drive the economy. This will quickly become apparent as the baby-boomers age and retire.
The overall point is: much of the apparent benefits and higher standard of living in capitalist countries are illusory, e.g. an artifact of sub-replacement fertility and debt… among many other things.
Pingback: Monsters are Everywhere » Blog Archive » links for 2011-03-31
Albert,
I think we agree on a good deal of substance, but while I trust you have reasons for defining “capitalism” as you do, the departure from common usage does make it more difficult to communicate. I share your distaste for cronyism and your concern for the way it affects the economy, but it is common across all systems and hardly a unique criticism of capitalism.
Though it’s probably true that there has never been a pure example of capitalism or any other economic system, it is instructive to consider real examples on a spectrum of ideals. When doing so, we find great clarity on which part of the spectrum promotes greatest growth and material benefit across the wealth/income range and that is free market capitalism (traditionally understood).
My primary point on institutions and people is that it is absurd to suggest that we should have institutions influence people as if institutions are independent actors. You are correct that I neglected definitional nuance in making the point. Regardless, I think we would do well to focus more on people than abstract stand-ins. (e.g. “institutions provide direction…” or “corporations have responsibility to…” or “governments are accountable for…”, etc)
I read “Iron Fist” when you mentioned it previously as well as some other linked articles. I didn’t find it very persuasive at all as economic theory. The focus on land as capital is anachronistic and largely irrelevant today. Land ownership and wealth used to be fairly tightly coupled, but no longer. Furthermore, it is quite common in relatively capitalist countries for people to start their own enterprises with very little and amass wealth. This completely undermines the criticism of original allocation.
On children and debt, I don’t think historical data supports your claims (though I appreciate the clarification). The US is still growing in population. Many other relatively capitalist countries are still growing as well. The debt that our govt representatives have placed on us is far more crippling than it is enabling today (I’m not a Keynesian; btw, individually-incurred debt is a bit of a different story, but much less concerning as a whole). The debt is due to a departure from free market capitalist principle (i.e. massively expanded entitlement programs) and its explosion is fairly new in relatively capitalist countries, not generally or historically characteristic of capitalism. Putting semantics aside, I am in agreement with most of your more concrete policy suggestions.
Let’s free ourselves to move on to the next topic. I hope I’ve clarified my perspective a bit, but I doubt we’re making any ground at this point. I’ve only read part of your chapter review post, but hope to read the rest soon.
Hiller,
I disagree with your primary point regarding the “absurdity” of speaking of institutions influencing people. Institutions do influence people through uniquely institutional activities. When Congress passes a law, it is _Congress_ that passes a law with the authority that belongs to it as an institution, not merely a collection of individuals. You can have the same exact people in the Senate be a part of a book club, and they would not be able to do the same things while meeting as a book club as they would when convened in the Senate. Institutions are more than the sum of the individual human beings in them. It bewilders me why one would try to reduce institutions to people, as if the other aspects of institutions do not matter.
“The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand” is not an articulation of economic theory. It’s a detailed, historical essay demonstrating that capitalism is, inherently, not a free market economic system because of the inherent political subsidies to capital, and not merely “land as capital” but–as one would expect in modern times–money as capital and intellectual property as capital, which renders your next comment null. This is quite clear from the essay, and I am not sure how one could miss it, nor do I think the evidence can be so easily dismissed:
How did you miss that?
Regarding, children and debt, my claim was that capitalist countries have below-replacement fertility. You suggest that the growing population of capitalist countries disproves what is an empirical fact. Of course it does not, since the population rise is from immigration and not from above-replacement fertility and also since, logically, a growing population is consistent with below-replacement fertility until the cohort that has below-replacement fertility begins to die. In other words, it is only as the baby-boomer generation dies that we will see the demographic consequences of their below-replacement fertility. Right now, we’re mostly seeing the “Greatest Generation” dying and so population wise we’re still growing because they birthed the baby-boomers at above-replacement levels. Once the massive generation of baby-boomers runs their course, we’ll see the population decline because there won’t be enough. This is simply logic applied to the length of generations.
You can see this dynamic visually here: http://www.wwq.jp/indexfr.html
Capitalism is not “free market” just because capitalists want it be recognized as such. It’s free in so far as the political subsidies are not inherent to capitalism… and actual history shows that it is. If you disagree, I’d like to see you argue that enclosure laws didn’t exist in Britain or that interest rates are not controlled by the central banks. It’s funny that central planning is derided by “free market capitalists” … except when it’s central banking.
Pingback: Who’s Afraid of Karl Marx? A Blog Discussion on “Why Marx Was Right” | Bensonian
Pingback: Jonathan Fitzgerald on Utopian Marxism | Yale Press Log