Economical Marxism, not Political Marxism

Marxism is a funny term to use, considering that Marx preferred people that subscribed to his beliefs refer to themselves as communists, but for this article, it’s essential we call this philosophy Marxist to identify it with its creator and source material from him. If it weren’t for Marx and his writings, it is doubtful that anyone would’ve been able to implement socialism on the scale that we saw in the 20th century, and even while Marxism’s attempts went wrong, we’ve been left with a great deal of learning material from these premature socialisms. Marx saw capitalism as a stage in civilization, with communism naturally coming after capitalism had run its course in developing the means of production to the point of widespread automation and post-scarcity. Marx saw this transitional stage from capitalism to communism as natural as the transitional phase from feudalism to capitalism, in that as society naturally re-aligned itself socially to accommodate changing material conditions, that it would become communist in time just as it had become capitalist in the past. Socialism, in the sense that Lenin had envisioned, was meant to be a transitionary stage for these feudalist countries, where they could skip over the stage of capitalism on their path to communism. This wasn’t Marx’s intention, and it perverted the natural and gradual development of nations in the process, forcing many people into conditions worse than whatever capitalism had thrust upon its own occupants. In this article, we’ll go over why Marxism can only be achieved via economic development, rather than by political development, and explain how power dynamics in socialist societies doom those countries.

Starting with power dynamics, Political Marxism in the Marxist-Leninist sense flies in the face of class interests, because those in power rule essentially uncontested over the proletarians, with only one another to keep themselves in check. In such a system, there are zero incentives to improve the welfare of the proletarians, as they have no say in the system and those in charge of the system weren’t proletarians to begin with. A system like this, where the wealth concentrates at the top just the same as in capitalism, gives its decision-makers no incentives to ever change their country for the better. Unlike Economical Marxism, which as we will see in the following paragraphs is a trend brought about by the economy that eventually drives the proletarians to implement change, Political Marxism’s followers are almost always decoupled from work in their society to begin with. Even today, a huge percentage of socialists are chronically unemployed, and the problem with that is that for these people, socialism is seen as a great job opportunity that puts them above their proletarian counterparts should they succeed. In tsarist Russia, the Bolsheviks specifically wanted to remain a party of professional organizers, which in layman’s terms is a group where no one actually works at all, and after the revolution, after elections had been suspended, the Bolsheviks just handed fancy jobs out to one another. Needless to say, Political Marxists have the wrong incentives to begin with for going about establishing socialist states, and when given the power that totalitarian systems like Marxist-Leninism grant its single parties, it puts the least qualified people in charge as a result of there being no workers in the inner parties of these movements. Political Marxism, as a system with no incentive to ever change, as a system built by unnatural means in an economic landscape that did not warrant it, that relies on rigid bureaucracies and secret police to function, has shown itself time and time again to fail.

Economic development, unlike forced political developments, is a natural process, in which the surplus generated by labor grows to the point that new things can be accounted for and provided for in society. When we look at the tax bases provided by socialist states, we often see that taxes there are much lower than in their capitalist counterparts, and when we look at taxes historically, tax rates have only climbed over time as technology and industry developed. The reason why these socialist states tax less than their capitalist counterparts in the world today is because their citizens don’t produce enough of a surplus to tax more of. In Western European countries, people can be taxed over half their income, and the people taxed at these rates aren’t starving, while if a country like Eritrea were to do the same thing, people would starve there simply because the industrial base wasn’t advanced enough to afford people lifestyles where half their income could go to taxes. States can afford to do more for their people over time as the economy grows, to the point that even in hardline capitalist countries like America, we see a broad variety of social safety nets and other redistributive programs that you’ll never find in China. This isn’t because China wasn’t socialist enough, but rather because they were too socialist too early, and in the meantime, the United States wound up achieving aspects of socialism because as our economy has evolved, so has our state. Due to the fact that the United States is a representational republic, that in the past was more responsive to its citizens concerns, as the economy evolved and expanded, so did the state’s welfare and regulatory programs grow in return as voters sought to solve everyday problems through their government. In top-down regimes like China, even after it had transformed itself into a market economy, because there was no political participation for everyday citizens, even when the means of production advanced, that wealth did not make it into social programs because there wasn’t any political push to do so.

Economic Marxism, unlike Political Marxism, was planned for and accounted for by Marx. The ideal Marxist state was an apolitical entity, that just allocated resources and coordinated the economy. Unlike Political Marxism, that sought to carve its way to communism through forests of human bodies by any means necessary, Economic Marxism is more or less an inevitable process that comes about in society and when Economic Marxism comes about, the currents that would usher in a Political Marxism dominated by proletarians would come about as well. Already, we’ve seen naturally more and more socialists with each new generation in America, and it is undoubtable that we will eventually be a socialist country, just based on the evolving economic conditions of this country. As the general rate of profit falls to the point that small businesses become pointless to start, as wages decline to the point that normal people find work increasingly pointless, and homeownership costs balloon to the point that houses are unattainable for anyone not grandfathered into one, capitalism is going to lose any value it holds for people. Capitalism in the United States has advanced to the point that extractionary techniques have been perfected, where more and more people are just serfs living in debt inside cramped apartments, where the country has to import labor because it’s too expensive to have children domestically, and where the media and government have to split up and pit different ethnic groups against one another to stave off class consciousness. The means of production in America steadily advance, unheeded by the proletarians crushed inside the cogs of industry, and wealth accumulates more and more in the hands of the bourgeois, to the point that working class Americans today have far less wealth than their proletarian and peasantry counterparts in pre-Revolutionary France.

The United States, being at the forefront in terms of technological advancement and having had most of its labor protections eroded away by corporations, will most likely become the first Marxist state to emerge. This is simply because the material and social conditions of the country are pushing it inexorably towards that, and thanks to the short-sighted greed of capitalists, the measures typically put in place by syndicalists and democratic socialists to make capitalism more bearable are steadily eroding away. This is fortuitous timing for Americans, because when we do finally become a socialist country, it’ll be at the proper point in time that Marx had wanted for this transition to begin. Our society will finally be wealthy enough to become a proper socialist state, that won’t have to butcher or starve millions to rapidly advance industry, that will be diverse enough to the point that no nativist sentiments could develop that would lead us into unnecessary wars. Humanity, for the first time in history, would have a socialism founded on pre-existing foundations, with its hands clean, with history to learn from, and due to the economic necessity of the revolution for proletarians, without a tiny elite in charge. Unlike Political Marxism, that often had rebellious bourgeois elements capitalizing on xenophobia, racism, and anti-imperialism, Economical Marxism is the process by which your average citizens begin to realize that Marxism makes a lot more material sense to them. The Marxist state is not started by the self-sacrificing altruism of the rich kids that hate capitalism but rather by the working people in a country who come to realize that capitalism has ran its course, has nothing left to offer them, and have nothing to lose in attempting to change their situation. If America allows its people to change their economy through voting, America survives. If it doesn’t, socialism wins either way because the material conditions are beginning to mandate that it does.

Fortunately, Political Marxism in the form of Blanquist-“Leninism” is extinguished, with its supporters confined to the smelly basements of disappointed parents. Fortunately, due to the continued survival of capitalism through the use of social programs and syndicalism, the means of production have developed to the point that we are headed towards the post-scarcity era. We’re beginning to arrive at the point that humans can finally start living in prosperity and peace once we abolish capitalism and its accompanying capitalists, where the new technologies of the state can enable cybernetic socialism to flourish. The age of totalitarianism isn’t over yet, and in the years, we may see capitalist countries concentrate more and more power in the political system, in order to shrug off movements to reform them. This may be another thing to overcome in the future, but due to the simple fact that material conditions determine social conditions, it will be overcome, nonetheless. It is ultimately up to the capitalists how they want the change to begin and end.