Without having read the entirety of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx, I have come to understand through various history and Sociology courses that, in terms of economic systems and according to Marx, the ideal evolution of society follows the pattern of transitioning from feudalism, to capitalism, and finally to the pinnacle of human well being and altruism, socialism. At each of these transitions in history no matter the group or location there has been a revolution to change the status quo of the current situation whether it be to actively change the economic system, overthrow or separate the population from the ruling power, all in an effort to rearrange the social order.
The transition from feudalism to capitalism, most notably, began at the dawn of the industrial revolution. But, I would like to make the case that the first move to democracy, while marking the original political revolution for self-rule, also marked the start to a new, more independent, more self-oriented and self-satisfying economic system. In the 16th century, the people of the Lowlands, now the Netherlands, were under rule of the King of Spain, Charles V. At this point in Dutch history, Dukes and other nobility were disgruntled and irate at the subservience to a distant monarch (sound familiar, America?). Not to mention, major merchants of the highly exploratory and colony owning culture were anything but pleased with paying taxes on the profits from their extremely lucrative trades and travels. Thus, there was a declaration of independence composed by major Dutch officials, the Acte de Verlatinge, to announce their refusal to be under the rule of the Spanish Crown. Their independence served a dual purpose, one to enact rule of Dutch people and territories by Dutch officials without obligation to a foreign power, and two it allowed Dutch profits to remain in the Lowlands to further Dutch economic development. It should be clear that the Dutch were in want of social and economic change and by cutting their ties with Charles they were able to create their own form of democracy by creating their own political order while also restructuring their economic system so as to benefit them and their business associates with the dead weight loss of taxes to a foreign third party. Here we have the cornerstones of democracy and capitalism through a peaceful revolution that would later evolve into greater public representation (i.e. American Constitution) and more privatized business that we see in Marx’s capitalist and worker struggle during the Industrial Revolution.
Specifically to this particular transition from feudalism to capitalism there is an error in Marx’s rational. Although, I am unsure if his model of economic development is a prediction or ideal theory, so for this paper’s sake, let’s assume Marx’s ideal theory is a prediction of the evolution of economic and political systems. With that being mentioned, according to the Dialectical Method, one must account for unpredictability of human behavior and choices. A historical example of such is the Russian Revolution where the second step of Marx’s model was skipped and czarist Russia skipped democratic or republic Russia and became the U.S.S.R. By skipping capitalism, the U.S.S.R. attempted to industrialize without the possibility for individual citizenry economic gain. Thus, there was little to no incentive for individuals to whole-heartedly adopt their new political leaders, as there was no potential in the system for personal progression. A society must first experience the grandeur of capitalism to see the social inequalities and exploitation it simultaneously creates. In two notable cases, the French and American Revolutions, those igniting the call for monarchical overthrow were adamant about their new direction to prevent return to the old social order by working hard through the Industrial Revolution and heightening their monetary and material positioning. Contemporary economic and political conditions in the United States and France are, in varying degrees, a crossbreed of capitalism and socialism and we must keep in mind, there is no inevitable progression towards socialism, if progression even leads to socialism. I’ll mention two other examples of this less than predictable progression, England and the Netherlands have retained a key element of their old world orders and value systems, monarchs, while making healthcare nearly or entirely public and still housing large financial and corporate institutions, and promoting personal upward economic mobility. We find that revolution, in its various capacities, violent or peaceful, does spark evolution, but social evolution is both progressive and regressive, as well as being, due to its dictation by human behavior and choices, entirely dismissive of predictability.
My reasoning behind my choice to discuss this particular facet of Marxist theory is my longstanding personal interest in revolution, changes of power, and human tendency and behavior combined with my newfound interest in the Dialectical Method it is worth mentioning that regardless of man’s incessant want to look beyond the curve and know what is to come, it is impossible to know for certain future happenings as man is an irrational and unpredictable creature. With that being said, the transition from capitalism to socialism is impossible to predict. In history and presently we have seen Communist countries prescribe to select Marxist ideas while not completely engaging in his socialism. The former Soviet Union has reverted to a, seemingly, democratic structure that promotes capitalistic development, and People’s Republic of China has continued to allow Hong Kong to operate as a capitalistic entity within their undemocratic political structure.
No comments:
Post a Comment