HOW DOES MARXS CRITICISM OF CAPITALISM DEVELOP OUT OF CAPITALISM ITSELF?

Authors Avatar

HOW DOES MARX’S CRITICISM OF CAPITALISM DEVELOP OUT OF CAPITALISM ITSELF?

        Marx’s idea of communism, and his criticism of the capitalist economy develops out of capitalism itself in two different senses that compliment each other: Firstly, he accepts the ‘presuppositions’ and the premises of political economy in order to establish how the system itself is contradictory and enables the exploitation of the working classes to the point that will lead to a class conflict – in other words he uses the arguments of capitalism and argues dialectically how the system does not function within its own laws.  The other part of his argument asserts communism as a necessary development that historically will follow the capitalist system and the class struggles that naturally arise out of it, in a sense, his dialectical argument is based on the progress of history, suggesting communism be the final state that will be reached through class struggle and the consequent leap in civilization.  Marx, in basing his arguments on the complications that arise out of the capitalist economy, and contending that the communist system will arise as a step in history, distinguishes his dialectics from others in the sense that it is based in the system itself – rather than an establishment that ‘descends’ on earth from ideals that are conjured.  

        In order to examine Marx’s criticism of capitalism and the subsequent emergence of communism, capitalism must first be put into historical perspective.  It is asserted that societies go through different processes as civilization progresses.  Communism cannot simply manifest itself out of nothing, class struggle and development must bring societies into a capitalist economy, from which communism will develop.  The first premise of this particular argument is that the division of labor will be the indicator of “how far the productive forces of a nation are developed” (Marx, Selected Writings 177), and thus how advanced the society is.  Marx also argues that the different stages of the division of labor will bring “different forms of ownership” and will determine the “relation of individuals to one another” (177, 178).  He starts off with defining the “first form of ownership”, that is a primitive tribal state without the division of labor, with a basic sense of class beginning to form (chieftains, members of the tribe, slaves, etc.).  Then he defines a second form of ancient “communal and State ownership” which is the state where “class relations between slaves and citizens [is now] completely developed”, and a sense of private property has begun to form, as well as a more developed understanding of the division of labor (178).  After the Roman Empire’s “conquest by the barbarians” another form of “association against a subjected working class” (in this stage the working class being serfs attached to the lands of the nobility) was formed, the nobility in the feudal property, the third form of ownership.  Still, there is little division of labor, and it is out of this stage that capitalism naturally emerges (179).

Join now!

        Marx summarizes the entire aforementioned history as being a “history of class struggles” (Marx: Selected Writings, 246).  He refers to the entire stages of development as “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman – in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…” However, the capitalist system “has not done away with class antagonisms” but has “simplified them” into two factions that “directly face each other”: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.  It is argued that the new found trade routes, development of colonization “gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay