The years during which the USSR tottered and collapsed (mid 1980s to 1991) were rather exuberant for those studying the empire. The nation that had dominated our political thinking and apocalyptic nightmares for decades imploded in what President Putin has called the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century. I had the opportunity to visit the USSR several times during these years doing some teaching, lecturing and consulting. During these visits I was suitably humble and Charles Dickens would say I had much to be humble about. In the USA the demand for individuals who had ideas about events in the USSR was heart warming. I found it expedient to install a telephone in my bathroom.
"John Doe from USA Today calling. What do you think of . . . ?"
"Hhhhmmm - good question - let me step out of the shower . . ."
Some professional conferences took on great value. At one sponsored by the Five College Peace Studies program at Hampshire College, representatives from Gorbachev's mostly elected Congress of People's Deputies arrived directly from Moscow with fresh reports from the proceedings - "There were lines of deputies waiting to speak freely for the first time in 65 years." - "GDP in the Soviet Union dropped precipitously during the sessions of the Congress. Everyone was listening to the live radio broadcasts." In the Spring 1992 (the year maybe off some) a conference of European and American academicians was scheduled to convene in London. Reviewing the proposed program I counted approximately 1000 papers and posters to be presented. Not a single contribution focused on "Marxism". The ideological foundation of the Soviet Union as elaborated by the genius Lenin had vanished. For the succeeding quarter century almost no one cared about "Marxist socialism" except the Chinese and the right wing in the USA.
Using broad strokes - I viewed Marxism as a secular morality play with familiar components. In the beginning humanity lived in peaceful cooperation - each individual worked to their ability and received according to need. Then the "fall" occurred - someone declared the produce of this field or that orchard - "it's mine!" and the institution of private property was created. Humanity rapidly devolved striking bottom when one human declared another human to be their personal property - slavery. But Marx saw a path to redemption - a path that could be interrupted but was nevertheless inevitable. Based on Hegel's dialectic - every thesis has an antithesis. They inevitably clash and the resulting synthesis creates a higher truth that is also a new thesis - that clashes with a new antithesis creating another synthesis and so on. Eventually Capitalism confronts Socialism and a higher stage of human development is attained - Communism. At this point humanity is back where it began with the addition of industry, technology, new social relations and valuable historical lessons about what not to do. Humans again work according to their ability and received according to need, government disappears and for some reason the Hegelian engine of redemption stops, at least at the macro level.
I have found it amusing that students more easily accept the spiritual morality play concerning the Garden of Eden, the "fall", redemption and heaven than Marx's secular version. "People could never behave like that - alive!" "Human nature would not permit it!" "Only in heaven."
If we zoom in on the clash between the theses of "capitalism" and "socialism" a basic question is always - what is the proper role of government in society?" Most severe capitalists worship the "free market". They would be pleased with the replacement of e.g. social security with 401k programs and National Parks transformed into concessions of the Disney Corporation. On the "left" many socialists (even in China) have backed off the demand for total government ownership/control of the means of production. But progressives and liberals continue advocacy for strong government involvement in society, especially in matters relating to climate change, finance, transportation, energy and health care. But what is resuscitating Marxism today is what gave birth to Marxism in the 19th century - massive inequality. Three recent observations: In 2013, twenty-five hedge fund managers made more than twice as much as all the kindergarten teachers in America combined. Among American children almost 25% of the five year olds and younger live in poverty. Finally - over nearly three decades (1979-2007) ". . . lower income workers saw no meaningful gain in what they were paid for an hour of labor. *
Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century documents the inequality that results ". . . as assets like real estate and stocks disproportionately held by the wealthy (capital) rise faster than the economy (growth) . . . Inequality in the United States and Europe is rising back to Pre World War I levels." To combat this development of a new Gilded Age he advocates that governments institute a global tax on wealth. ** The response to Piketty's book has been remarkable - the right wing is outraged. But in the free market Capital is a best seller, a book of nearly 700 pages. Two New York Times columnists published articles analyzing Capital one day apart; the progressive Paul Krugman, "The Piketty Panic" and conservative David Brooks, "The Piketty Phenomenon". Brooks ends his piece with the somewhat inscrutable line, "When it comes to cultural analysis I, like Piketty am quasi Marxist."
Whatever - Karl Marx is back.
See
Thomas Piketty Capital in the 21st Century 2014.
*Neil Irwin NYT 6/4/ 2014. Paul Krugman NYT 5/8/2014. Joseph Stiglitz NYT 6/30/2014.
** Neil Irwin NYT May 30, 2014.
*** David Brooks NYT APRIL 25, 2014. Paul Krugman NYT April 24, 2014.
Marx photo by Wikipedia.org
No comments:
Post a Comment