Question

According to Marx, how is it that capitalism lays the foundation for a more egalitarian society?

Answer 1

Understanding the key work of both the young and mature Marx, prepared initially around historic and philosophical issues, and later, related to a political economy that diverged from the classic liberal economists who were influential at the time. This task began in the 1980s and continues until today, given the current value of the investigative findings of Marx about the structural and historic determinants of social inequality in capitalism; and also considering the substantial resurgence of the treatment of this theme of inequality and of human needs as one of its references, associated to liberty and autonomy, by authors of intellectual weight such as Mészáros (2007), Gough (2003) and others. Finally, it is fair to indicate that my interest in this instigating and barely explored analytical line, coupled to the stimulating and surprising work of Marx, was triggered by the reading of an old and enlightening essay about social policy by Mishra (1975). I am thus indebted to Mishra for the initial (and providential) push into the reflections that follow; while most of the path, particularly the stumbles, are exclusively my own responsibility.

Although Marxian theory does not deal explicitly with social policy, at least one reason justifies the adoption of this theory as a reference for analysis of the theme: the fact that social inequality, related to the appearance and maintenance of an indigent proletariat, under the influx of bourgeois exploitation, constituted the basis of empiric support for the Marxian theoretical and political endeavor. Thus, it cannot be said that there are no contributions in Marx's work that help to elucidate the real movement of capitalist social policy, given that the foundations of Marxian analyses about the accumulation of capital and the domination of the bourgeois state continue to be historically confirmed and are at the essence of the explanation of the rise of this policy.

In addition, in his philosophical studies, the question of equality and liberty is recurringly contemplated, which, like his scientific treatment of this question in Capital - whose first volume was written in 1867 - allows identifying Marx's intellectual and moral commitment to the issue of social well-being. His theories of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as those concerning the extinction of the state, of capital and of social classes, were not only built upon the reality of capitalist social inequality, but were based on the concept of equality that supported all of his work. This allows the following deduction: with inequality as the justifying fact of bourgeois social policy and equality its idealized parameter, no theory could provide greater support for criticizing this policy than Marxian. This is because, to paraphrase Mishra (1982), it is the only theory that addresses the issue of inequality in a broad form, that is, in its economic, political and social dimensions, and in its capitalist and socialist versions. In addition, given its transformative disposition and, therefore, its commitment to the construction of a truly egalitarian society, this theory is also the only one that at the same time that it offers a wealth of arguments to provide an X-ray of the determinants and effects of social inequality in capitalism, it foresees a solution for its eradication.

The concept behind capitalism* is that you own your own time and are master of your own fate. You have the right of ownership including of the tools of your trade and of money, which is its own unique category of tool (the point of capitalism being to gain by putting capital to work and at risk). The excess of income from your labors above cost is profit, which is to say new wealth. This wealth creation is socially acceptable because, no matter how much greed you harbor in your heart, the only reasonable course is to promptly plow the proceeds of the enterprise into more raw materials, more inventory, more supplies, more tools, more workers, more communication, expansion and growth, all of which grows other enterprises more than it grows your own. Wealth is necessarily widely spread, and, taxes apart, those who create it have the ultimate claim on it.

According to Karl Marx, this is the final stage towards development of egalitarian society. Here all the resources are state-owned and it determines its distribution based on the needs in an effort to bring about equality.
Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people have any say in how the economy works. By using state coercion to fulfill unmet demands, it restricts individual freedom. Communism necessarily takes the form of totalitarianism, or the tyranny of all over one since its upto the state to decide who gets what. Historically, communist societies have been characterized by the absolute rule of a revolutionary party leader, beneath whom everyone is equally subservient. It becomes very difficult for such an economy to survive in a large population when it becomes difficult for equal distribution of resources.

One can safely say that its the mixed economy (a bit of all the forms of economies) that in today’s age serve most of the countries well (US minus recession being a prime example). China also with its centrally planned economy is moving towards market-oriented economy thus becoming a mixed economy.