Karl Marx and Freeland: Application of Marx Theory in Modern Day

Karl Marx and Freeland

Karl Marx was a radical thinker during his era, speaking of social hierarchies and the class conflict that is associated with social classes. He aimed to understand social classes as it was a reflection of human history. Marx believed that social classes are a product of their times, but an intrinsic part of human history. From the beginning of human history, there existed social hierarchies and within those hierarchies' power dynamics, he defines the pre-modern classes as: freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, and the guild-master and journeyman (Marx, p.15). However, Marx states that the modern era is comprised of two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Today, the distinction between these two classes is more pronounced, an issue which is investigated further by Freeland. Freeland does not utilize the Marx's terminology instead uses the labels "plutocrats" and "non-rich." This paper will argue that Freeland's "super-rich" is Marx's bourgeoisie and the "non-rich" are the modern day proletariat by examining their defining characteristics and how these two social classes interact in the modern era.

One of the major differentiating features of the plutocrats/bourgeoisie and the non-rich/proletariat, is the vast difference in wealth. Since the economic disparity between these classes is great, it is important to examine the differences between the early modern wealthy elite and the modern plutocrats. According to Marx, the bourgeoisie were different than the nobility and aristocrats that preceded them, because their wealth was no hereditary but self-made. The robber barons of the era were captains of industry who made huge fortunes through their hard work. This is a key difference; Marx argues

It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. (Marx, p.15-16)

The bourgeoisie are solely motivated by the accumulation of capital, while the old elite classes were driven by other motivations such as religion or chivalry. However, the bourgeoisie need the labor provided by the proletariat, since the only bourgeoisie provided the raw materials and the jobs (Marx, p.18). But despite the bourgeoisie actually not performing any labor, they were more involved in wealth creation than the aristocrats. Freeland's plutocrats are not entirely different from the Marx definition of bourgeoisie. They are motivated by the accumulation of wealth; Freeland's article mentions that today $3-$4 million dollars a year is not sufficient. They are hard-working, jet-setting meritocrats (Freeland, p.1). Some are born rich but the majority has worked from the bottom up but similarly lack concern for the "non-rich" as the rich are both consuming and creating wealth. In modern society, the rich depend on more than one class of consumer for their riches.

The rich depend on a number of factors to stay rich and to grow their wealth. Marx discusses how the bourgeois depended on the proletariat to build their financial empires. The workers worked the factories and industries built by the bourgeoisie. Additionally, the proletariat not only produced the goods but purchased the goods as well. Therefore, all the money flowed back to the rich. Modern super net worth individuals live in a similar world but there are noticeable differences. Plutocrats today depend on workers, clients and consumers. The world is more interconnected politically and economically than in Marx's era, therefore the factors affecting a plutocrat's wealth is more complex. Today's plutocrats are called the working rich because they have to consistently deliver results to become wealthier and maintain their lifestyle. This persistent need to grow their business and expand their networks have led plutocrats to develop a more cosmopolitan and global lifestyle than their bourgeoisie predecessors.

Freeland writes that the new plutocracy is connected to two occurrences: the revolution in information technology and the liberalization of global trade (Freeland, p.2). Marx writes that the bourgeoisie in pursuit of raw materials and exploiting the world markets become more cosmopolitan, in other words more globalized. He discusses the beginning of globalization and the rise of capitalism, "All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations…" (Marx, p.16) This movement of goods, money, and materials also facilitates the movement of ideas, creating a universal inter-dependence of nations (Marx, p.16). The bourgeoisie are ultimately creating a world in its own image. Fast forward to today and the world Marx described is alive and well. Free-trade and technology has accelerated globalization, the plutocrats are thriving in this global society. They are no longer constrained by the limits of their national boundaries. These jet-setting millionaires are creating a global community, in which they have more in common with themselves than their home countries. Businesses and their leaders can move their operations wherever the profits can be maximized, even if it is to the detriment of their home nation. This is evident in the United States, where most of the wealth produced go to the top 1% of earners, but the middle class in other nations are growing at rapid rates (Freeland, p.2). Globalization is not a universal good. The plutocrats, as a means of changing the world and seeking immortality, initiate philanthropic endeavors.

Marx called philanthropy and other social causes, bourgeois socialism (Marx, p.31). Freeland (p.4) calls it philanthrocapitalism. In both instances, the elite fund endeavors that are supposed to benefit the working class. Marx argues that the philanthropic efforts are to ultimately benefit the bourgeoisie, since they are helping to create a world free of the proletariat. Freeland differs with Marx, discussing how the plutocrats are leaving a legacy to immortalize their name, in the same vein as Andrew Carnegie, not to benefit other plutocrats. However, Freeland does mention that philanthropy has turned into an exclusive elite activity, another forum for the super-rich to meet and discuss ideas in a private setting.