A Hundred Years
It's been a hundred years and the state still hasn't withered away. Instead, it's become a stumbling behemoth crashing into all aspects of our lives. Some of its functions have even been passed to large, private institutions which also effectively control our lives. Yet, the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the ideas of Marx and Engels, through the filters of Lenin and Stalin, still touch us, and helped to shape the tumultuous twentieth century.
The original premise was laudable. Both Marx and Engels believed that the search for unlimited profits by industrialists brought about the economic slavery of the poorest. Their intention was that the working poor should have a share of the profits by eliminating the private ownership of the companies. In our days, this means that companies give employees certain shares in the company they work in. If the company does well, their shares are worth more, and they eventually earn more money. Some small companies have even become totally owned by employees. The employees are happy, work better, and the company does better.
But at the time of the Russian Revolution, Lenin understood this to mean the forceful takeover of all private industry by the state to oversee production for the good of its workers, and eventually, the state. He also extended that to private property, especially the large tracts of land owned by Russian princes, and later, those owned by large farmers that sold their produce. It was a means to try to control production, so that all the needs of the people could be met. In other words, if one year there was more need for cotton to make clothing, a potato farm had to produce cotton instead of potatoes. Unfortunately, agriculture can't obey need in such a way, because not all ground is suitable for all crops. In industry, it meant that if one year more steel was needed to build ships, people would have to go without common household implements made with that steel. It was really a solution in which the state always won, the workers won on paper, and the private owners lost everything.
I've simplified things, but that was the ultimate intention, with the glorious finale to be the withering away of the state as an eventually useless institution. The workers would take over the mechanics of society, and everything would be distributed justly. Unfortunately, rather than withering away, the state became even bigger, and had to keep an eye on the citizens to make sure the final goals were being met. Of course they weren't, because society is much more complex than a company or a farm. The state as the ultimate reflection of the society which makes it up is not so simple. There will always be those who disagree and who will not comply. Or who cannot do so. Therefore, laws are necessary, and a body to uphold and legislate those laws, as well.
Industry didn't do well, either, because the workers, not seeing any positive outcome from their work, simply did their minimum required amount of work. They didn't perceive bonuses from any surplus or profits they created, unlike in employee owned companies now, so most didn't bother to excel at their job. Communism, in the end, was a failure. The state had to resort to terrorize its citizens in order to try to achieve an end, which was a failure in itself, as the original philosophy of Marxism was that the workers would want to achieve a classless society.
In the meantime, capitalism under a Socialist Democrat ideal was doing very well, with most of society enjoying basic services that the state paid for through taxes obtained from private citizens. Not all paid willingly, but enough did to help maintain common services such as education, health, and infrastructure. Citizens in these countries were happier, too. The paradox is that the Soviet empire built on the complete equality of all its citizens came to an end just as Socialist Democracy began to suffer the beginning of its own demise.
As I have mentioned, I have simplified much. I am not a political philosopher, nor have I read much in the matter. These are just observations made from my point of view of history and what I have seen happening in my lifetime. But the truth is that we seem to have gone backward in time, to the early twentieth century, when the working poor had no protections from the gusts of unemployment, ill health, or simply bad luck. The welfare states in Europe are rolling back public financing of basic services, leaving millions to wonder how they are going to make it to next month. I won't even get into the chaos of health insurance in the U.S. The time seems ripe for another revolution, and some are beginning to clamor for one. Unfortunately, the extreme right-wing seems to be hearing the call and coming forward to meet it, with all the wrong solutions. Who's going to challenge them?
The original premise was laudable. Both Marx and Engels believed that the search for unlimited profits by industrialists brought about the economic slavery of the poorest. Their intention was that the working poor should have a share of the profits by eliminating the private ownership of the companies. In our days, this means that companies give employees certain shares in the company they work in. If the company does well, their shares are worth more, and they eventually earn more money. Some small companies have even become totally owned by employees. The employees are happy, work better, and the company does better.
But at the time of the Russian Revolution, Lenin understood this to mean the forceful takeover of all private industry by the state to oversee production for the good of its workers, and eventually, the state. He also extended that to private property, especially the large tracts of land owned by Russian princes, and later, those owned by large farmers that sold their produce. It was a means to try to control production, so that all the needs of the people could be met. In other words, if one year there was more need for cotton to make clothing, a potato farm had to produce cotton instead of potatoes. Unfortunately, agriculture can't obey need in such a way, because not all ground is suitable for all crops. In industry, it meant that if one year more steel was needed to build ships, people would have to go without common household implements made with that steel. It was really a solution in which the state always won, the workers won on paper, and the private owners lost everything.
I've simplified things, but that was the ultimate intention, with the glorious finale to be the withering away of the state as an eventually useless institution. The workers would take over the mechanics of society, and everything would be distributed justly. Unfortunately, rather than withering away, the state became even bigger, and had to keep an eye on the citizens to make sure the final goals were being met. Of course they weren't, because society is much more complex than a company or a farm. The state as the ultimate reflection of the society which makes it up is not so simple. There will always be those who disagree and who will not comply. Or who cannot do so. Therefore, laws are necessary, and a body to uphold and legislate those laws, as well.
Industry didn't do well, either, because the workers, not seeing any positive outcome from their work, simply did their minimum required amount of work. They didn't perceive bonuses from any surplus or profits they created, unlike in employee owned companies now, so most didn't bother to excel at their job. Communism, in the end, was a failure. The state had to resort to terrorize its citizens in order to try to achieve an end, which was a failure in itself, as the original philosophy of Marxism was that the workers would want to achieve a classless society.
In the meantime, capitalism under a Socialist Democrat ideal was doing very well, with most of society enjoying basic services that the state paid for through taxes obtained from private citizens. Not all paid willingly, but enough did to help maintain common services such as education, health, and infrastructure. Citizens in these countries were happier, too. The paradox is that the Soviet empire built on the complete equality of all its citizens came to an end just as Socialist Democracy began to suffer the beginning of its own demise.
As I have mentioned, I have simplified much. I am not a political philosopher, nor have I read much in the matter. These are just observations made from my point of view of history and what I have seen happening in my lifetime. But the truth is that we seem to have gone backward in time, to the early twentieth century, when the working poor had no protections from the gusts of unemployment, ill health, or simply bad luck. The welfare states in Europe are rolling back public financing of basic services, leaving millions to wonder how they are going to make it to next month. I won't even get into the chaos of health insurance in the U.S. The time seems ripe for another revolution, and some are beginning to clamor for one. Unfortunately, the extreme right-wing seems to be hearing the call and coming forward to meet it, with all the wrong solutions. Who's going to challenge them?
Comments
Post a Comment