Marxism Is A Result Of Capitalism
Oversights in capitalism may introduce Marxism as something of an inevitably rather than a structure which can be installed.
“We must hang together or surely we shall hang separately”.
That Tweet might very well be from a troll farm, something which Twitter has dealt with before.
On the day the Declaration of Independence was signed, nobody knows exactly what was said; the quote was erroneously attributed to Franklin which was most likely used to express the gravity and urgency of the situation.
After all, the Founding Fathers were knowingly committing treason in the face of tyranny.
And over the last four years, tyranny has been coming from inside of the White House.
In the face of losing in the most secure election in U.S. history to President-elect Joe Biden — Donald Trump still refuses to concede and is running propaganda about the elections being rigged.
So the Tweet must have certainly came from a troll farm, or at least, the person behind it never took a U.S. history class.
If they did — they’d know it was in fact Trump who attempted to usurp basic freedoms by trying to cheat the system.
While the Founding Fathers might’ve not initially imposed a two term limit at the dismay of those who feared a President elected to a lifetime by Congress would be no different from the British monarchy they set out to escape from — a two term limit became the unspoken rule.
George Washington refrained from a third term and this was the tradition all the way up until Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a democrat who ran for a third term. Republicans hated this, and a fourth term was on the horizon for FDR in 1944 despite his declining health.
Republicans had had enough.
They took over Congress in 1947 and pushed to change the 22nd Amendment; it was ratified in February 1951.
FDR, having served four terms died in office, and it would be the first and last time a President would serve more than two terms.
Trump has often joked about serving more than two terms in a, “I’m only kidding to make the liberals mad, but I would totally do it if I could,” fashion.
So aside from the glaring parallels to Trump’s jokes about casual tyranny and his romanticism of dictatorships — the Tweet also mentions Marxism.
The obsession with it is a weird one and it’s seems it’s a buzzword most people throw around as a scare tactic (along with socialism and communism) in order to get people to vote conservative.
But there’s just one problem when people bring up Marxism (and even socialism and communism): it’s a system which is sort of predicted by the cascading effect of capitalism; it’s not something which can be installed just because someone “self-train’s” in it.
The most straightforward explanation of Marxism is actually defined pretty well by its Wikipedia entry.
“Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation.”
There are two distinct and defining characteristics which can frame Marxism as other theories branches out into their own concepts and ideas and many people might disagree with original components of Marxism.
Historical materialism isn’t important to the conversation, so we’ll start with the base and superstructure.
Base And Superstructure
The base and superstructure are constructs of Marxism which ultimately shapes, and maintains each other.
Whether or not they are in itself meaningful or if they need to co-exist or shape and maintain each other besides the point — societies do have some form of this base and superstructure. This is the “mode of production” used primarily to generate profit.
While not important to the discussion, it’s still an important theme in Marxist theory.
Historical materialism is a theory that human society will always put materials over ideals. The material condition — everything made up of matter including metals, elements, and our entire physical being — will always prevail over our ideals or the consciousness and moral constructs we define through philosophical and religious interpretations.
You can sort of see this play out with TV evangelists. They preach of religion and redemption, but they inexplicably need mansions and private jets, because God calls for it or some excuse along those lines.
Materialism is basically the cornerstone of every human civilization and no amount of religion or belief in morals will change that.
What Conservatives Are Actually Referring To When Mentioning Marxism
Conservatives are more than likely talking about a specific idea borne out of The Communist Manifesto (1848) written by Karl Marx and German philosopher, Friedrich Engels.
Their manifesto outlined their theory of historical materialism and predicted the ultimate overthrow of capitalism by the industrial proletariat i.e. what we know today as the the working lower class who’s wages are derived from the sale of their labor power. They also might be talking about social conflict; and the dialectical perspective on social transformation.
A look at Amazon is how we can put everything into perspective.
Jeff Bozos, Amazon executives, and investors are the bourgeoisie i.e. the capitalist class who owns most of society’s wealth and production who’s societal concerns are in property; the preservation of capital; and to ensure they remain dominant in society.
While Amazon doesn’t produce raw materials, they do produce commodities.
Both Amazon and everything Jeff Bezos, executives and their investors owns exists in the relations of production as commodities.
The industrial proletariat are the warehouse workers who were demanding higher wages and better conditions.
The social conflict are the people who direct their anger at Jeff Bezos and other wealthy individuals who control a majority of the wealth in the country.
And the dialectical perspective explains how it’s impossible to maintain equilibrium i.e. satisfaction or a constant status quo between Jeff Bozos and his employees. These unified opposites exists but are in contradiction of each other. One is the richest man on the Earth; the other struggles to make ends meet due to stagnant wages (and inflation and other factors the other elites perpetuate).
Social transformation then comes into play and the aforementioned superstructure tries to help implement changes to the base i.e. pay and [law] policy to help the status quo at the base in regards the relationship between Jeff Bezos and his employees.
The base and superstructure have shaped and maintained each other in this instance.
Karl Marx wasn’t advocating for socialism when he began writing down his socioeconomic ideas. It’s just interpreted that that a capitalistic framework could lead into socialism and then communism (the most latter isn’t necessary, though).
The means of production in this framework is the working class finally owning some of the means of production. And the means of their livelihood succeed through their own contributions of labor and economic planning.
It’s done through one or a combination of:
• cooperative enterprises
• common ownership
• workers self-management
Essentially, the mode of production has changed to not just greatly benefitting the bourgeoisie; but the post-commodity economic system and production is carried out to directly produce use-value rather than toward generating profits.
This is the sort of socialism people are usually referring to in European countries. But it also happened here in the U.S. post-World War II when equity wasn’t just one-sided.
No one would call it socialism, however. But the benefits were nearly even so things such as free college and universal healthcare weren’t points of discussion and contention.
The economic planning is the most important part, because the collapse seen in Venezuela, which those opposed to socialism point towards to, was due to a variety of reasons. But most notably was their poor economic planning considering they relied on 80 percent of the export of oil and didn’t take into account that other countries would start generating their own oil and looking for alternatives.
Marxism ultimately might just tell us one way of how a country could turn to a new mode of production if the clock on capitalism runs out.
So what if FDR never ran for a third and fourth term? What if Congress never decided to impose term limits — relying on tradition — and we got all the way up to Trump’s presidency?
That’s a far scarier thought than Marxism.