Marx, Engels, Hirschman, and Putnam: comparative political thought

Marx & Engels: Would They Be Influenced by Hirschman & Putnam?

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed strongly in the impact of thoughts and ideas on the development of society. Their thoughts on materialism emphasized the importance of societal structures rather than economic and political theory for the political and economic development of a society. These ideas are still widely acclaimed today. However, as societies have changed and evolved over the years, many of the ideas set forth in Marx and Engel's book, "The Communist Manifesto," have become outdated and largely criticized.

It makes sense that if Marx and Engels were alive in today's society, they would have much different trains of thought. Given their philosophical natures, they would likely be influenced by many of today's contemporary thought leaders, such as Albert Hirschman, author of "Exit Voice and Loyalty," and Robert Putnam, author of "Democracies in Flux." This paper aims to provide a background on the ideas of "The Communist Manifesto" and offer some insight on what Marx and Engels may have changed based on reading these two contemporary works.

About the Communist Manifesto

"The Communist Manifesto" begins with a comparison of communism to a "spectre," stating that Europeans fear communism because they do not understand it. Marx and Engels attempt to increase awareness of communism through this manifesto. The first section of the manifesto, titled "Bourgeois and Proletarians," describes Marx's historical materialism, stating that:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

The authors argue that the class struggle under capitalism is between the bourgeoisie (the rulers of society) and the proletariat (the workers). They argued that, in the process of its development, capitalism produced "its own gravediggers" -- the working class, with the power to overthrow the system and establish a new society not divided between rulers and ruled. The authors stated:

"The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

In the second part of the manifesto, the authors describe the relationship of Communists to the working class, saying that the Communists are exactly like the working class in all ways but two: " 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

Marx and Engels defend communism from the various criticisms it has received. They stress that Communists are not promoting " free love," and reject the idea that people will not want to work in a Communist society because they have no incentive to work. They criticize capitalists for making these criticisms, saying that capitalists are hypocrites because capitalism demonstrates all the negative elements that capitalists accuse communists of promoting.

Marx and Engels put forth a series of short-term demands in their manifesto, including the abolition of land ownership and the right to inheritance, a progressive income tax, universal education, centralization of the means of communication and transportation, and the expansion of the means of production owned by the state. If these demands were met, the authors believed that they would achieve a stateless and classless society.

The last section of the manifesto, "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties," addresses the communist position on struggles in specific countries. Marx and Engels call for reform in this section, stating:

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!"

Putnam's Notion of Social Capital

According to Putnam, social capital consists of."..social networks and the norms of reciprocity associated with them In "Democracies in Flux," Robert Putnam examine the decline of social capital around the world, stating that citizens are joining fewer clubs, mingling with neighbors less, meeting less frequently with friends, and even socializing less often with family members.

Putnam observes that these forms of social capital are especially important for empowering less educated, less affluent groups. He reported more social grouping among the affluent than among the working classes and also found evidence of a younger generation that is uninterested in politics, distrustful both of politicians and of others, disillusioned about public affairs, and less inclined to participate in social organizations.

For Putnam, "social capital" decribes a society's capacity to generate the kind of voluntary associations that encourage individuals to cooperate with each other, promoting democratic pluralism. He viewed social capital as critical both for the growth and development of communities and for individuals' physical and psychological well-being.

Marx and Engels also believed that social capital was important to society. In society, many, many people interact to produce wealth. However, they did not see this as a system of conscious, planned harmonious cooperation. On the contrary, they viewed it as a system in which some people exploit others, and nobody has control of the whole system. As a result, they felt that people are alienated, not only from one another but from the products of their work.

Many analysts of Marxian theory maintain that there is no possibility of a moral critique of capitalism by Marx, since, for him, all moral principles are imminant in the material situation. To the extent, therefore, that capitalism follows bourgeois moral and legal rules, Marx could not condemn private property as unjust or immoral. These analysts have therefore identified the essence of Marx's opposition to private ownership with various economic or historical factors.

Marx and Engels wanted to abolish private property, not on the moral principle of justice, but on the moral principle of freedom. Human relations in capitalist societies negate the value of freedom, as Marx viewed it. They believed that individuals could only be truly free when they are exempt from private property and able to participate in the control of one's affairs. Private ownership, by dividing society into the haves and have-nots, denies lower classes of the direction of their affairs, stands in opposition to a developing and harmonious society, and places all power into the market's invisible hand.

Marx certainly would have respected Putnam's concept of social capital and perhaps injected these ideas into the manifesto, stating that freedom can only be achieved in and through community -- by engaging and cooperating with others. However, it is doubtful that he would have given up his ideas on private property. He may have argued that private property adds to individuals' likeliness to protect their property by shutting others out.

Perhaps Marx and Engels would have read Putnam's ideas and been inspired by some of the benefits of capitalism. Democracy seems to build some sense of community, as people have the freedom to use their resources as they see fit. Many people donate money to help their neighbors and communities. With this research and knowledge, Marx and Engels may have decided to alter their manifesto to include certain elements of democracy.

Exit, Voice, and Loyalty

In "Exit, Voice, and Loyalty," Albert Hirschman discusses two key options in organizational decline: exit and voice. Basically, he argues that all members of any organization (business, state, etc.) have two possible responses when they perceive that the organization is failing to provide adequate quality or benefits to the member: 1. they can exit; or 2. they can voice their concern in an effort to improve the situation.

Hypothetically speaking, if a country is experiencing increasing political repression, Hirschman states that they can either emigrate or protest. If a company is treating their employees badly, the employees can quit or make an effort to communicate with the company leaders.

Hirschman's simple concept offers a new perspective on social interaction. Exit and voice represent a union between economical and political action. Exit is associated with Adam Smith's invisible hand, in which buyers and sellers can move silently through the market, constantly making new relationships and breaking old ones. Voice, however, is usually political and confrontational.

In communist societies, it is impossible to get all people to conform to an ideal without using some type of force. People view freedom as the ability to do what they want with their time and control their resources. If the state forces you to work only for its benefit and the benefit of the community, individual freedom will always be limited. This problem was seen in the Soviet Union, North Korea, and China, which were repressive nations that used force to support its theories.