THE FUTURE AS ANTHROPOLOGY
SOCIALISM AS A HUMAN ECOLOGICAL CLIMAX
by
Eugene E. Ruyle
Department of Anthropology
California State University, Long Beach
Long Beach, California 90840
Abstract
This paper
views cultural evolution as a form of ecological succession, in which the
progressive development of the forces of production and class struggle lead to
a succession of human ecological types. It is suggested that this succession
may culminate in a world socialist system. The Marxian analysis of capitalism
and the transition to socialism is briefly presented and articulated into a
more general theory of cultural evolution. The implications of this perspective
for contemporary Anthropology are discussed.
NOTE 2009: This
is my paper as originally written in 1977. It has been scanned, OCR-ed,
spell-checked, and re-formatted. Only these minor changes have been made.
Introduction
When Marx and
Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, the idea of socialism was pretty much
confined to a few small sects in Western Europe. Today, fully one-third of our
species lives in nations that are consciously attempting to build socialism,
and Marxian socialism is the dominant ideology of resistance in the remainder
of the world. It seems reasonable, therefore, to suspect that we are witnessing
a world historical event of the greatest significance for humanity: the end of
class rule and the emergence of a classless, world socialist society. The facts
that this transition is as yet incomplete, and that existing proletarian states
exhibit a variety of shortcomings, are not surprising when it is recalled that
capitalism was itself built through centuries of struggle, war, and revolution.
It is
frequently said that anthropologists should work in the interests of
"their" people (see, for example, Weaver 1973). It is also often
argued that these interests should be defined by the "natives"
themselves. In view of these feelings, it seems clear that anthropologists
should become more concerned with their new socialist order which is struggling
to be born. Just as the earlier misunderstanding and denigration of
"primitive" and "savage" peoples stimulated anthropological
research into alien life styles, so the present systematic misunderstanding and
denigration of Communist and revolutionary movements should stimulate
anthropological research to clarify the issues presently faced by our species.
Such research
should include studies of the efforts of contemporary proletarian states to
build socialism and of the struggles of oppressed peoples in the neocolonial
world to overthrow imperialism. Equally importantly, however, attention should
be devoted to the theoretical clarification of the idea of socialism itself.
Just what is this socialism which is so compelling an idea in the contemporary
world?
This paper
attempts to clarify the Marxian concept of socialism by placing it in a modern,
ecological idiom and viewing social evolution as a form of ecological
succession which will culminate in a world socialist system. Marxian analysis
has become increasingly fashionable in recent years, but the real appeal of
Marxism lies not only in its radical critique of the world the bourgeoisie
built, but more importantly in the manner in which it shows how the dialectic
of the capitalist present leads inexorably to the socialist future. Before
proceeding, let me make two points of clarification.
First,
socialism should be understood as a classless world social order in which the
means of production are socially owned and democratically managed to produce
for use rather than private profit.[1]
Clearly, existing proletarian states such as Russia and China, do not conform
to this conception, nor do the so-called "mixed economies." Socialism
does not exist at the present, except as an idea and a potentially inherent in
capitalism.
Secondly, if
socialism is indeed possible, this fact is of tremendous importance to every
member of our species. But this is a complex topic on which intelligent people
can honestly disagree, and discussion of this important topic must be based on
the greatest possible degree of freedom, with a full consideration of all
reasonable opinions. For if socialism is not possible, if it is simply an
ideological weapon used to deceive by a new group of predacious would-be
rulers, then this would also be of the greatest significance. I will of course
present my own views as forcefully and persuasively as possible.
This may appear
to be a form of special pleading, or it may appear to be doctrinaire and
visionary. If this is so, perhaps it will stimulate more intelligent discussion
of this important topic by voices more capable than my own.
Sociocultural
Systems in Ecological Perspective
It is useful to
adopt a natural history approach and view human societies as embedded in more
inclusive ecosystems, composed of matter, energy, and information (Odum 1971;
Richerson and McEvoy 1976). Ecosystems may be studied from a variety of
perspectives.
From a
synecological, or systemic, perspective, an ecosystem is composed of plant and
animal communities interacting with abiotic elements to maintain a flow of
energy through, and a cycling of matter within, the system. Within the
functioning of the total system, each species plays a distinctive role, its ecological
niche. All species
interact with, and influence, all the others, but this influence is not equal.
Frequently, one or a few species, the ecological dominants, will exert a major controlling influence
on the system as a whole. The ecosystem is kept in continual motion by the flow
of energy through the system. This motion, in turn, produces both stability and
change in the system itself. We may distinguish between change in the
components of the system, and change in the system itself.
Change within
the component species making up an ecosystem includes both developmental change
within the life cycle of the species in question, and evolutionary change. The
latter, genetic evolution, is a matter of change in the statistical frequency
of genetic information in the gene pool of the species, brought about by
mutation, natural selection, and drift.
Above the
species level, there are two sorts of changes. One, which we may call
ecosystemic evolution, results from the tendency, at the species level, to
occupy unoccupied niches. Since the advantages of occupying a previously
unoccupied niche are very great, natural selection favors those variations
which are best able to exploit the resources of the new niche. This alters the
selective pressures operating on the portion of the population which has occupied
the new niche, and this, in turn, leads to niche separation, specialization,
and speciation. The tendency toward complexity in the evolution of ecosystems,
then, is a logical concomitant of natural selection at the species level.
Another sort of
ecosystemic change is ecological succession, in which there are regular changes
in the makeup of the plant and animal communities composing an ecosystem. Such
ecological succession can be seen, for example, if one clears land in the
southeastern United States. The grasses which flourish in the first few years
are replaced by a mixed grass-shrub community which lasts for about twenty
years. Gradually, however, the competitive advantage which longer lived pine
trees have in an open, sunny environment leads to a pine forest community from
which the grasses and shrubs disappear. The pines, however, in achieving a
position of ecological dominance, themselves create the conditions under which
they can no longer reproduce, since the competitive advantage of pines in an
open environment is lost in the shade of the mature pines. Here, hardwoods such
as oak and hickory have a competitive advantage and as the first generation of
pine trees dies off, their place is taken by oak and hickory. Since the oak and
hickory can reproduce in their own shade, the oak history forest represents a
mature, stable system, an ecological climax which persists indefinitely unless altered
by geological or climatic change.
In addition to
the synecological study of ecosystems, it is also useful for anthropological
science to study ecosystems from an autecological framework, that is, from the
standpoint of a single species, in our case, Homo sapiens. Since human populations are almost
universally ecological dominants, such a study obviously has relevance for
understanding the system as a whole, as well. We may turn, then, to look at the
elements of an autecological framework for understanding human society, a
framework that not only sees society as embedded in the larger ecosystem, but
also attempts to see the internal features of human societies in ecological
terms.[2]
As noted above,
ecosystems are composed of three sorts of entities, matter, energy, and
information. The material entities include the human population and the environment. Within this environment, the human
population occupies a definite ecological niche. The ecological niche, viewed in
synecological terms, is the place of the population in the total functioning of
the ecosystem. From an autecological perspective, the ecological niche grows
out of the specific needs of the population, for certain kinds of food,
shelter, and so forth. The ecological niche, then, is made up of those
environmental features which the population requires to satisfy these needs.
Such environmental objects are use values, which, in human populations, is a rather broad category. The
concept of use value includes: (1) natural use values, such as air and water; (2) resources, things which are potentially use values
but which must be transformed into culturally acceptable use values through the
expenditure of human labor energy; (3) consumers' goods, use values which have been produced by
human labor and which are used directly to satisfy human needs; and (4) the means
of production, use values
which are not used directly to satisfy human needs, but are used in the process
of producing other use values. In addition to use values, the environment also
contains hazards,
anything which threatens the well-being of the members of the population.
Thermodynamic
entities include the bioenergy system, or the food energy resources upon which the population
depends, the ethnoenergy system,
or the manner in which human energy is expended in the satisfaction of the
needs of the members of the population, and the auxiliary energy system, or extra somatic energy (draft animals,
fossil fuels) which are used instrumentally by members of the population. These
material and thermodynamic entities, taken together, constitute the material
conditions of life.
The
informational sphere includes both genetic and learned information. Learned information may be acquired by situational
learning of individual
organisms, by social learning,
where information is transmitted between individuals, for example through
imitation, and by symbolic learning,
where information is transmitted through symbols (see Fried 1967:5-7). The
totality of non-genetic information, including modal personality, basic values,
world view, folk taxonomies, cognitive maps, kinship terminologies, behavioral
rules, and technological and social strategies, existing in the minds of all
the members of the population constitutes the cultural pool. The expression of this information in
verbal and other symbolic behavior constitutes the manifest cultural pool.
These various
components of human ecological systems are always inter acting, and in the
functioning of the system, there are a variety of cause and effect
relationships between the various components of the system. Although these
cannot be considered in any detail here, mention should be made of some of
them. First of all, information in the minds of members of the population is
the immediate cause of all human behavior, and thus controls the patterned
expenditure of energy by the members of the population. Second, there are cause
and effect relations within the material sphere of life, as human behavior has
a direct, material effect on the environment and on other members of the
population. Much of classical social science, especially classical political
economy, is concerned with these cause and effect relationships within human
populations, for example the supply and demand equilibrium model of classical
political economy or much of the analysis in Marx's Capital. Third, there are cause and effect
relations between the material conditions of life and information. These take
the form of selective pressures
(analogous to the material conditions of life, especially human behavior, which
favor selective pressures of the synthetic theory of bio-evolution) generated
by certain ideas over others and thereby control the statistical strength of
various ideas in the minds of the members of the population.
Human cultural
evolution exhibits many of the characteristics both of genetic evolution (in
that it involves statistical changes in the frequency of different sorts of
information in the cultural pool of the population), and due to niche filling).
of ecosystemic evolution (in that it involves expansion and increased
complexity The analogy I would like to pursue in the present discussion,
however, is that between human cultural evolution and ecological succession. To
do so, let me step back and look again at the processes of change in natural
(i.e., non-cultural) ecosystems.
As noted
earlier, the entire ecosystem, including its human component, is kept in motion
by the continual flow of energy through the system as green plants harness
solar energy, convert it into plant matter, which in turn is harnessed by
herbivores, who in turn are eaten by carnivores, and so on. The flow of energy
through the ecosystem, then, is effected by various organisms who eat, and are
eaten by, other organisms.
Life itself may
be viewed as a struggle for free energy, as a temporary reversal of the Second
Law of Thermodynamics, characterized by the incorporation of greater and
greater amounts of energy into more and more complex biological systems. In
this perspective, we may follow Lotka (1945) and see evolution as operating
according to a maximization principle, in which natural selection favors genes
which facilitate the harnessing of energy. Natural selection also favors genes
which contribute to greater efficiency in behavior or biological structure.
Combining these, we may see a minimaxing principle as a major explanatory
device in the understanding of biological evolution: within the synthetic
theory of bio-evolution, traits are explained by showing how they contribute to
more complete utilization of environmental energy resources and toward more
efficient use of available energy. The minimaxing tendencies of different
species may operate in opposite directions (wolves becoming more efficient
predators while deer becoming more efficient at escaping from wolves) or in
complementary directions, leading toward cooperation between species.
This
necessarily truncated discussion of the thermodynamic aspects of the
"struggle for existence" is intended less to shed light on biological
evolution than to introduce a thermodynamic conception of cultural evolution.
All animal populations are dependent upon the flow of bioenergy through the eco
system and also on the expenditure of their own ethnoenergy in efforts to
harness bioenergy, escape from predators, reproduce, and so on. Human
populations share this pan-animal dependence on bioenergetic flow and
ethnoenergetic expenditure, but human populations are also dependent upon a
particular form of ethno energetic expenditure, labor. All human populations
are dependent upon the expenditure of human labor energy into systems of
production that transform environmental resources into culturally acceptable
use values. We may speak of the labor energy expended in producing use values
as being embodied in these use values, and when the goods are consumed, we may
speak of the consumption of a definite amount of labor energy. It is important
to distinguish this deep flow of ethnoenergy, in which labor energy flows
through productive systems, into use values, and then back again into the human
population, from the surface flows in day-to-day activity. The latter may be
seen in all animal populations, the former is the defining characteristic of
humanity, for, as I have argued elsewhere, the unique characteristics of our
species, our bipedalism, our abilities to reason and converse, even our
religious capabilities, are all adaptations to a way of life based on social
production (Ruyle 1976). Several points about this deep structure of energy
flows need to be made.
First of all,
all human life, and all
human beings, are dependent upon this deep flow of energy. "Even when the
sensuous world is reduced to a minimum, to a stick," observed Marx and
Engels (1939:16), "it presupposes the action of producing the stick."
Further, few human beings produce more than a small percentage of the actual
use value they consume, and few consume more than a small percentage of the use
values they produce. This means that human production and consumption are
social activities, and that the deep structure of energy flow constitutes an
essential substratum of human social life which is lacking in the social life
of monkeys and apes. It is through this deep thermodynamic structure that human
beings satisfy their needs for food, clothing, shelter, and any other needs of
a material sort.
Now, just as
life itself may be viewed as a struggle for free bioenergy, so human life may
be viewed as a "struggle" for the labor ethnoenergy embodied in use
values. A major aspect of all human life is the withdrawal of social labor, as
embodied in use values, from the social product. Since use values, by
definition, satisfy human needs, and since for most of our species, basic needs
are not fully met, it follows that there is a general tendency to maximize
control over need satisfying use values, or, in thermodynamic terms, to
maximize control over the ethnoenergy that provides need-satisfaction. Further,
to the extent that expenditures of labor energy are not in themselves
satisfying, there will be a tendency to minimize ones own expenditure of labor
energy. Consequently, we may speak of a minimax principle in human behavior, such
that individuals tend to maximize their control over, or consumption of, labor
energy, and minimize their own expenditure of labor energy.
A few points of
clarification about this minimax tendency should be noted. First of all, the
idea of a minimax tendency does not depend upon the idea that human needs are
insatiable, for I believe this idea to be erroneous (cf. Mandel 1970:660-664).
All that is needed for the principle to be operative is a desire for a standard
of living ten percent higher than the existing one. Secondly, it is not assumed
that all human labor is inherently unsatisfying, for I believe that this idea
is also erroneous. Labor provides profound satisfaction to the human animal.
But again, all that is needed is a desire to reduce labor output by ten
percent, a reasonable enough assumption for most of human history. Third, all
members of the population need not exhibit the minimax tendency equally
strongly, for clearly there is individual variation in this as well as all
other personality characteristics. Fourth, in speaking of a
"struggle" for labor energy, I do not mean to imply that everyone is
a social imperialist, ruthlessly satisfying his own needs in opposition to all
others, for need satisfaction can usually be maximized by cooperation rather
than competition. Finally, it is not claimed that minimaxing explains
everything. I will indeed argue that the most significant aspects of cultural
evolution are inexplicable without reference to something like a minimaxing
principle, but this does not mean that I feel that minimaxing is the only principle in operation.
This concept of
a minimaxing principle underlying human behavior is quite similar to, if not
identical with, the concept of enlightened self interest of classical political
economy. Indeed, the concept of a deep structure of energy flow delineates an
area of inquiry roughly coterminous with that of political economy, which
"studies the social (inter-personal) relations of production and
distribution. What these relations are, how they change, and their place in the
totality of social relations" is the subject matter of both political
economy and ethnoenergetics (Sweezy 1968:3).
There are a
number of areas in which this minimax tendency has extremely important
consequences. First of all, it underlies the progressive development of the
forces of social production. There are two aspects to this development. First,
it is a movement toward greater efficiency; more use values can be produced per
unit of labor expended. Second, there is an emergent quality, in that new kinds
of use values can be produced.
Another
consequence of the minimax tendency is closely related to the first, and has to
do with the relations
of production. Clearly, the individual can maximize his own benefits by cooperation in production, which allows greater
efficiency and also allows more different kinds of things to be done, by the division
of labor, which permits
specialization and greater efficiency, and by reciprocity, the mutual sharing of the products of
labor. The result is the emergency of systems of mutual interdependence.
Participation in a system of social production is in accord with the
enlightened self-interest of the individual, because such participation enables
the individual to maximize his benefits and minimize his energy costs. In
speaking here of the "enlightened self-interest of the individual," I
do not mean to imply that each individual enters the system with a well formed
idea of what his "interests" are. This is obviously not the case.
People enter social systems as infants, unformed individuals who are molded by
society. Such molding, however, takes place within fairly narrow limits, limits
which approximate quite closely what an outside observer would call
"enlightened self-interest."
Another consequence
of the minimax tendency is the emergence of exploitation, and of a predatory
niche involving living by exploiting the labor of others. This requires some
explanation.
When people
expend energy in production, and consume energy in the form of use values, they
are doing more than interacting with the environment. They are interacting with
each other. The flow of labor energy from producer into use values and then
into consumers is a flow of energy from producers to consumers. Thermodynamic
analysis, therefore, provides a way of measuring quantitatively the social
relations of production and consumption. This may be done most parsimoniously
by simply measuring the amount of energy a given individual, group, or class
expends in production (E), and the amount of energy the same individual, group,
or class consumes in the form of use values (I). If the latter is more than the
former, we may speak of surplus (S = I - E). This surplus must come from
somewhere and, since no new energy is created by production, it can only come from other
members of the population. The surplus accruing to one part of the population,
therefore, must be extracted from other members of the population, where it
appears as a deficit, or negative surplus. The extraction of surplus is in
accord with the minimaxing tendency of those who receive the surplus, but it
runs counter to the minimaxing tendencies of those from whom the surplus is
extracted. On theoretical grounds, therefore, we would expect that the
differential flow of energy to the surplus extracting portion of the population
would be associated with conflict. And this is indeed the case. I know of no
case where an appreciable amount of surplus is extracted from a population
without the use of force by the surplus extracting population. In such
situations, therefore, we are justified in speaking of exploitation, which we may define as the forcible
extraction of surplus from a class of producers by a class of non-producers.
Earlier,
mention was made of the concept of ecological niche, or the manner in which a
given population is attached to the flow of energy through an ecosystem. It is
fruitful, I think, to extend this concept to classes within human populations,
and speak of a socio-ecological niche as the manner in which a given class is attached to the flow
of labor energy through the human ecological system. There are myriad different
possibilities, but it is important to recognize three fundamentally different
kinds of socio ecological niches. First, there is the basic producer niche, which involves expending energy into a
productive system and withdrawing an equivalent amount of energy in the form of
use values (E = I). Second, there is what we may call an exploiter niche (E < I), which involves extracting
energy from a productive system without a corresponding labor expenditure into
the system. Finally, there is the exploited producer niche (E> I), which involves expending energy
into a system and withdrawing less energy, the surplus going to a predacious
ruling class in the exploiter niche.
The basic
producer niche was, until about five or ten thousand years ago, the only niche
occupied by members of our species. It is now occupied by small populations of
hunters and gatherers and horticulturists on the geographical periphery of
civilization. The predator niche is occupied by ruling classes and their
retainers in historic and contemporary civilizations. The exploited producer
niche is occupied by peasants, serfs, and slaves in historic civilizations and
by workers in contemporary society.
We shall
examine the predator niche and its occupants in greater detail shortly. Certain
points may be made, however, at this time. The flow of energy to the ruling
class results from the efforts of the members of the ruling class who expend
energy not into the productive system but rather into an exploitative system
made up of definite exploitative techniques and definite institutions of
violence and thought control. This exploitative system, then, is for the ruling
class the functional equivalent of the productive system for a population of
basic producers; it is consciously manipulated by the rulers for their own
ends. These ends include a much higher return on energy expended in
exploitation than that expended in production by the direct producers, and a
much higher per capita consumption of labor energy for the exploiters. Movement
into the exploiter niche, then, is in accord with the minimaxing principle.[3]
Since the rulers are consciously manipulating the system for their own ends (although
they do not necessarily conceptualize this as exploitation) we are justified in
terming such a system as a system of class rule. However, the exploited
producing classes resist exploitation in various ways, so that class struggle
between exploiter and exploited is a ubiquitous feature of all systems of class
rule.
Sociocultural
Evolution as Ecological Succession
The operation
of the minimax principle, then, underlies the major trends in human cultural
evolution: the progressive development of society's productive forces and the
emergence of systems of exploitation and class struggle. The former of these
processes occurs in all social systems, although the strength varies in
different types of social structures. The latter is manifested only in particular
kinds of ecological situations, namely in large, dense populations of an
intermediate range of cultural development. Class rule does not appear among
hunters and gatherers, because the nature of the productive system has definite
barriers against the emergence of exploitation. Class rule will disappear in
the future when analogous barriers are erected against the continuation of
exploitation. This process of the emergence, development, and overthrow of
class rule forms the foundation for the succession of human ecological types,
each marked by distinctive productive systems, social structures, and
ideological features or complexes.
In broad
outline, we may distinguish four types of human ecosystems, corresponding to
the four epochs of human history: primitive communism, feudalism, the world
capitalist system, and the world socialist system.
The earliest
social order of our species was the primitive communism of the hunting and
gathering world, marked by an equal obligation of all to participate in social
labor, by a rough equality in consumption, and by unimpeded access to strategic
resources, to violence, and to the sacred and supernatural. Social order was
rooted in a common dependence on a system of social production. Primitive
communism endured, no doubt, for millions of years, and it was during these
millions of years of life within a primitive communist social order that
humanity evolved its present morphological and psychological nature
characteristics.
There is strong
resistance among anthropologists to the use of the term "primitive
communism" to refer to the egalitarian social orders of hunters and
gatherers, and, to the best of my knowledge, Leacock is about the only major
American anthropologist who is willing to use the term (1972). Several points
of clarification, then, need to be made concerning the concept.
First, the
adjective "primitive" in the sense of "original." This was
the original social order of our species, enduring as the only social order
from Australopithecine times to the emergence of the earliest systems of class
rule about 10,000 years ago.
Primitive
communism is primitive also in the sense of rudimentary and undeveloped. This
was by no means a perfect social order. The forces of social production were
weakly developed and life, while not quite "nasty, brutish, and
short" left much to be desired from the standpoint of such things as
infant mortality, life expectancy, and care of the sick and aged. Further,
although society was egalitarian in the sense that everyone had an equal
obligation to participate in social production and an equal claim on the social
product, there were also sex and age hierarchies marked by exploitation and
oppression. Further, although private property in the bourgeois sense did not
exist, and although there was unimpeded access to the strategic resources,
articles of consumption were owned as personal possessions.
Finally, the
primitive commune was not necessarily inhabited by "noble savages,"
although there was probably a higher incidence of human decency in primitive
communism than in later systems of class rule. Consequently, conflicts and
quarrels did occur, most typically between males over females (who were
important sources of labor). Conflict resolving mechanisms were not always
sufficient to keep these from erupting into violence. But this violence was
between equals, and not the one sided violence characteristic of class rule.
Balancing these negative features were positive ones. The gross in equalities
in conditions of life and in opportunities for self-development, the domination
of one person by another, repressive institutions such as prisons, police, the
State, and the Church which characterize later systems of class rule, were
lacking in primitive communism. Many writers have also remarked on the
"liberty, equality, and fraternity" of primitive communism, on the
high values placed on equality, sharing, freedom, and cooperation (Leacock
1972; Lee 1969; Diamond 1974; Morgan 1964; Lenski 1970).
Primitive
communism is a social order occurring typically among hunters and gatherers.
Although it also occurs among some horticulturists (Morgan's Iroquois, usually
seen as the type example of primitive communism, were already at the
horticulturist state), the Neolithic Revolution and the transition to food
production created conditions undermining the primitive communism of the
hunting and gathering world. The transition to horticulture was accompanied by
what Lenski called an "ethical regression," marked by an increased
incidence of warfare, inequality, headhunting, scalp-taking, cannibalism, and
other "barbaric" practices (1970:235-236).[4]
This, then, was
the era of the breaking-up of the primitive commune and the emergence of a new
social order, class rule. As populations became large and sedentary, the bonds
of interdependence that held together the primitive commune weakened, and a new
socioecological niche opened, that of predation.
In contrast to
the rough equality of consumption in primitive communism, stratified population
societies are marked by gross differentials in access to the social product.
The last five thousand years of human evolution have been characterized by the
existence of classes which, although their members do not directly participate
in a productive system through the expenditure of their own labor power, are
nevertheless abundantly provided with the good things of life. In all
class-structured societies, we know that those classes (slaves, serfs,
peasants, workers) that contribute the greatest amount of labor to the productive
system receive the least, while those (slavemasters, nobles, 1and lords,
capitalists) that contribute the least amount of labor receive the most. How do
we account for this peculiar situation?
Classes that
did not directly participate in production emerged simultaneous1y with special
instruments of violence and thought control that are staffed and/or controlled
by those who enjoy the newly emerging special privileges and wealth. From a
historical materialist standpoint it is essential that we regard the wealth and
privileges of certain classes as resulting from the activity of individuals. We
are inescapably led, then, to the conclusion that the differentials in wealth
and privileges of certain classes are a result of the efforts of those classes.
These efforts take the form of expenditures of energy in exploitative .systems
that pump economic surplus out of the direct producers and into the exploiting
classes that protect their resulting wealth and privileges.
Just as one can
see a definite system of production supporting any human population, so,
wherever one sees gross inequalities in standards of living and wealth, one can
also see a definite system of exploitation controlled by those enjoying the
highest standard of living and the greatest wealth. Systems of exploitation are
as variable as systems of production, but all share certain features. There
are, first the exploitative techniques, the precise instrumentalities through which economic surplus
is pumped out of the direct producers: slavery, plunder, tribute, rent,
taxation, usury, and various forms of unequal exchange. Second, there is the State, an organization which monopolizes
violence and is thereby able to physically coerce the exploited population.
Third, there is the Church,
an organization which controls access to the sacred and supernatural and is
thereby able to control the minds of the exploited population. These elements
of the exploitative system may be institutionalized separately, as in
industrial societies such as the United States and the Soviet Union, or they
may be integrated into a single unitary institution, as in the early Bronze
Age. The precise ensemble of exploitative techniques, together with the manner
in which State-Church elements are institutionalized, constitutes a historical mode
of exploitation.
The State and
the Church, then, form twin agencies of oppression and thought control whose
purpose is to support and legitimate the exploitation supporting the ruling
class. But in addition to their repressive role, these agencies also carry out
a variety of socially beneficial governmental functions.[5]
Generally
speaking, the State carries on the following functions in developed class
societies: waging war, suppressing class struggle, protecting private property,
punishment of theft, constructing and maintaining irrigation works, state
monopolies of key economic resources, regulation of markets, standardization of
weights and measures, coinage of money, maintaining roads and controlling
education.
The Church is
often viewed as a religious institution, but it is also an important agency of
social control. The State subdues the bodies of human beings, the Church their
souls.[6]
White (1959:323-328) provides abundant documentation of the role of the Church
in subduing the souls of human beings by (1) supporting the state in war, in
suppressing class struggle and protecting private property, and (2)
"keeping the subordinate class at home obedient and docile."
The Church,
then, plays a very important role in legitimating the system by showing the
social order to be an extension of or in accordance with the natural and sacred
orders. This legitimation has a dual aspect. First, of course, there is the
manipulative, thought control aspect in which the content of religious ideology
is consciously shaped in order to support the system. Second, and also very
important, is the legitimation of the system to the rulers themselves.
The
exploitative system is the instrumentality through which a predator prey
relationship is established within the human species, only here the stakes are
human labor energy rather than energy locked up in animal flesh. The
differentials of wealth and prestige which emerge from this predatory
relationship simultaneously reflect and legitimize the differential consumption
of labor energy by predator and prey. Once the predatory relationship is
established, the system of exploitation supporting it becomes larger and more
complex, with a complex division of labor deve1oping in both the sphere of
production (between agricultural workers and workers in the industrial arts,
metallurgy, textiles, pottery, and so forth) and in the sphere of exploitation
(warriors, priests, scribes, etc.). The result is an elaboration of occupations
and statuses among different kinds of producers, exploiters, parasitic groups,
and so on. This predatory relationship generates a division of the population
into classes, which are defined by their relationship to the underlying flow of
labor energy through the population.
The
exploitative system supporting a predatory ruling class fulfills the same
function vis-a-vis the ruling class that the productive system fulfills for a
band of hunters and gatherers, that is, it is consciously manipulated in order
to provide them with the use values essential for human life. It does so,
however, on a scale far surpassing anything in the hunting and gathering world.
Once
established, this exploitative system follows its own evolutionary trajectory,
governed by a number of forces. First of all, because of the minimax tendency,
it tends to become more efficient at extracting surplus, and tends to become
larger and capable of extracting more surplus from a larger population. This
tendency runs parallel and complementary to the progressive development of the underlying
productive system, a development to which the exploitative system must be
adapted. However, the development of production occurs within the constraints
of the system of class rule, so that the relationship between the mode of
production and the mode of exploitation is a dialectical one.
Another
important force underlying the evolution of systems of class rule is class
struggle. Exploitative operates not on nature, but on human beings. Therefore,
it generates resistance. This resistance on the part of the direct producers is
in accord with the minimax principle discussed above, and takes a variety of
forms, ranging from flight, concealment of production, and petty thievery to
organized armed resistance.
Further, the
predator niche is attractive to groups outside the system, and nomadic hunters,
such as the Aztecs, or nomadic herders, such as the Mongols, pose a continual
threat to the occupants of the predator niche. The predator niche, then, is by
its very nature, a precarious one.
**************************************************************
Figure 1.
Evolutionary Taxonomy of
Sociocultural Systems.
**************************************************************
Under the
influence of these selective forces, the exploitative system supporting a
ruling class undergoes a more or less regular succession, as small, weak
systems are replaced by larger, stronger ones. The details of the evolutionary
history of class rule need not be discussed in any detail here, but some of the
major features are diagrammed in Figure 1. The main line of cultural
development, down to about 1500 A.D., runs through the historic civilizations
of what Kroeber called the Eurasian oikoumene (1945). McNeil has noted several phases in
the development of the oikoumene,
or ecumene, an era of Middle Eastern dominance to 500 B.C., an era of Eurasian
cultural balance between the Mediterranean, the Middle East, India, and China
from 500 B.C. to 1500 A.D., and the era of Western dominance after 1500 A.D.
(1965). In addition, there are peripheral forms: medieval Europe, subSaharan
Africa, Southeast Asia and Indonesia, Oceania, and Japan, and a later,
parallel, evolutionary development in the New World.
These various
precapita1ist forms of class rule may be lumped together
under the category
of feudalism, for they share certain characteristics which distinguish them, as
a social type, from capitalism.[7]
These characteristics include, first of all, the exploitative techniques, which
include plunder, slavery, serfdom, usury, and mercantile activity, but do not
include in any important way, industrial wage labor. Systems of exploitation
based on these techniques lack the inherent instability of industrial
capitalism, as will be discussed below. Secondly, the ideological systems
legitimating feudal rule are also stable, in that the hegemony of the Church is
unchallenged, the dominant value is hierarchy, not equality, and no viable
alternative to the system exists, even in thought. As a result, class struggle
is within the system, directed toward the elimination of excessive abuses, such
as removing unjust rulers or gaining tax relief, and not directed against the
system of class rule itself.
The various
feudal forms of class rule, then, are not inherently unstable, although there
are extra-systemic sources of instability. The ruling classes of feudal
societies, however, themselves created the conditions under which they could no
longer endure. In establishing stable social orders and in fostering the
development of the productive forces of society, the feudal rulers paved the
way for a new ruling class, the bourgeoisie, which, as the Communist Manifesto
notes, "has played a most revolutionary role in history" (Marx and
Engels 1964:5). This new ruling class has created a radically new social order,
and for the first time, brought the entire world together in a single
ecosystem.
We must ask,
however, whether this ecologcial succession goes on forever, or is there an end
in sight, a mature stable human ecological climax? Is bourgeois society itself
such a climax? Are we living at the oak-hickory stage of human evolution, or
simply in a pine forest? Perhaps humanity will degrade its own environment and
retrogress to a more primitive state, or perhaps even become extinct?
These are
weighty questions which cannot be approached in a dogmatic spirit. Neither can
they be intelligently discussed without taking into account the analysis made
by Marx a century ago. According to this analysis, the new bourgeois world
order, unlike the earlier feudal orders it replaced, is a highly unstable
system, rent by powerful contradictions of both a material and an ideological
nature. Let us examine some of the more important of these.
Capitalism:
The Marxian Analysis
Marx's analysis
of capitalism is one of the towering achievements of humanity, for Marx laid
bare the laws of motion of capitalism and showed how capitalism, as a system of
exploitation, generates the social ills which plague bourgeois society:
unemployment, poverty, crime, and racism. It is obviously impossible to examine
Marx's analysis in any concrete detail, but it may be useful to review some
aspects of the analysis in an abstract way (for an introduction to Marx's
analysis, see Sweezy 1968), and show how it articulates with the ecological
view of social evolution.
Marx's analytic
tool, the labor theory of value, fits in well with the ecological framework
developed above, for value, in Marx's analysis, is a thermodynamic concept: the
amount of socially necessary labor embodied in a commodity. Marxian value
analysis, then, represents an ethnoenergetic analysis of capitalism which
examines the flows of energy between classes in the process of production and
exploitation.
These
thermodynamic flows can be seen in Marx's formula for capitalist production, M
- C1 + C2 . . . C' - M', in which the capitalist begins with money (M),
exchanges this for two sorts of commodities, raw materials and the-means of
production (C1)' and labor power (C2)' combines these in the labor process to
produce new commodities (C'), which he then sells for money (M'). This formula
serves to draw attention to certain essential features of capitalism. First of
all, the profit motive. Since the capitalist begins and ends with money, the
sole rationale for this circulation of money is that the second sum of money
(M') must be larger than the first (M). This increment of money (M = M' - M) is
profit, a form of surplus value, the sole motive force of capitalist
production. This makes capitalism quite different from all other productive systems,
for profit is an economic category specific to capitalism. In primitive
communism or feudalism, production is controlled by the producers themselves in
order to produce use values essential for existence; profit simply does not
appear as part of the system. In capitalism, production is controlled by the
capitalist class for the purpose of producing profit for the capitalist. The
production of use values is only a means of attaining this end. Secondly, the
secret of capitalist exploitation. Profit, or surplus value, is a thermodynamic
entity, a definite amount of congealed human labor. Energy, however, flows
through socioeconomic systems but is not created by them. The energy embodied
in profit, therefore, must ultimately come from human labor power. Capitalist
profits may come either
from selling commodities above their value (thus exploiting the buyer) or
buying commodities below their value (thus exploiting the seller). The strength
of Marx's analysis, however, is that he showed that capitalist exploitation
does not depend on
either of these, that it can occur even when all commodities are exchanging at
their proper value. The secret of capitalist exploitation, for Marx, lies in
the peculiar nature of one of the commodities purchased by the capitalist,
labor power.
Like all other
commodities, labor power has both value and use value. Its value is the amount
of socially necessary labor required to produce the goods upon which the worker
and his family subsist, say twenty hours per week. The use value of labor power
is its ability to labor, to not only reproduce the goods it contains, but to
continue producing for a full work week, say forty hours. It is this
differential between the value and the use value of labor power which is the
source of profit in capitalist production.
Looking at this
in terms of Our earlier discussion of energy flows, we see that the worker's
income (I) is twenty hours per week, his output (E) is forty hours per week, so
that twenty hours of surplus (S = I - E = 20 = 40 - 20) is being extracted from
the worker each week. This surplus belongs to the capitalist since it was
produced by his property, the worker's labor power, and this is the source of
profit in capitalist production.
Capitalism,
then, like feudalism, is a system of exploitation designed to extract economic
surplus from the direct producers. The specific exploitative technique in
capita1ism, wage labor, has extremely important systemic ramifications which
make capitalism strikingly different from feudalism.
Capitalist
production presupposes a basic two class division of society between the
capitalist class, Or bourgeoisie, who own the means of production and live from
property income, and the working class, or proletariat. who do not own any
productive property and therefore must live from the sale of their labor power.
The worker is politically and legally free, but economically he is in bondage,
a wage slave. Lacking independent access to the means of production. he is
compelled to sell his labor power on the labor market for whatever price it
will bring and under whatever conditions may prevail. In order for the system
to operate efficiently (efficiently, that is, from the standpoint of producing
profits), it is necessary that there be an over supply of labor power, for this
ensures that the terms of the sale of labor power will be favorable to the
buyer rather than the seller. Unemployment, then, or what Marx called the
Industrial Reserve Army, is a functional necessity for capitalism, for it keeps
wages low, enforces labor discipline, and creates feelings of gratitude and
dependence within the class of employed workers, who see their employers as
benefactors providing them with a livelihood, rather than as exploiters.
Saying that
unemployment is necessary to capitalism does not, of course, explain
unemployment. The explanation of unemployment lies in systemic mechanists
within capitalism which serve to maintain unemployment. As unemployment is
reduced, and as wages therefore rise, decisive feedback mechanisms come into
play which serve to recreate unemployment.
First, there is
the introduction of labor saving machinery. As wages rise, employers have a
greater incentive to introduce new machines to cut their wage bill. This in
turn reduces the demand for labor, and helps recreate the Industrial Reserve
Army. Second, increased wages tends to attract workers from outside the system,
thereby increasing the supply of labor. Finally, and decisively, there is the
capitalist crisis. As wages rise, profits, in the last analysis. must fall. As
profits fall, capitalists stop investing and hold their capital in money form
to await better business conditions. ~t if capitalists don't invest, production
stops, and workers are thrown out of work, thus replenishing the Industrial Reserve
Army, lowering wages, and improving business conditions. Capitalism, thus has
built-in systemic mechanisms which ensure that there will be an oversupply of
labor, and that, therefore, the terms of sale of labor power will be favorable
to capitalist exploitation.
Unemployment,
then, is an essential part of the capitalist system, and with unemployment,
poverty, crime, and racial and ethnic antagonisms, growing out of the
competition for jobs within the system.[8]
Similar sorts of social problems also characterize other systems of class rule,
but in other systems they are likely to be symptoms of malfunctioning of the
system, not products of the normal working of the system.
Another
contradiction within capitalism is that between the tremendous growth in the
forces of production and the constriction of the ability of society to consume.
Already in
1848, before the development of automobiles, airplanes, automation, computers,
and interplanetary exploration, Marx and Engels (1964: 10) noted that,
"The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created
more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding
generations together.Ó This tremendous development of the productive forces of
society has eliminated the scarcity basis of class rule. No longer does one
class have to exploit another in order to enjoy the economic basis for a secure
and abundant life.
Yet at the same
time that capitalism develops society's productive forces, it simultaneously
restricts the power of the masses of workers to consume. The working class does
not receive enough money in wages to buy back the commodities it produces. The
economic problem in mature capitalism is thus transformed from one of scarcity
to one of overabundance: the worker finds that there is too much labor, not too
little, and the result is unemployment and poverty; the farmer finds that he
produces more food than he can sell, and has to be paid not to produce, even
when millions arc malnourished; the manufacturer similarly has no problem in
producing, but only in selling. This contradiction between the constant
expansion of society's forces of production and the constant constriction of
society's ability to consume generates a powerful tendency toward stagnation in
all systems of capitalist production.
But the
bourgeoisie produces something more than commodities, some thing more, even,
than contradictions. "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above
all," according to the Manifesto, "are its own grave-diggers,Ó the proletariat (Marx and
Engels 1964:24). By breaking down the rural isolation of the peasant community
and the individual homesteader, by bringing the direct producers together into
cities and organizing them in larger and larger productive networks, by
compelling the workers to organize themselves in self-defense against the most
brutal exploitation, the bourgeoisie creates the force which is destined to
change the world, the proletariat.
Before the
proletariat can accomplish its historic mission, however, it must become conscious of this mission. But how is this possible?
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e.,
the class, which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time
its ruling intellectual force" (Marx and Engels 1939:39). Given the
hegemony of bourgeois ideology, how can the proletariat become conscious of its
own revolutionary powers? The answer lies in the nature of bourgeois ideology
itself. For this ideology is a product not just of bourgeois rule, but more
importantly of the historical conditions under which the bourgeoisie
established their rule.
We must recall
that the bourgeoisie is a revolutionary class which grew to maturity in
opposition to feudal exploitation and oppression. As the bourgeoisie rose to
the position of ruling class, it created decisive changes in consciousness and
political organization which could not be turned off when they were not longer
needed, but continued in opposition to bourgeois rule itself.[9]
The revolutionary bourgeoisie, in other words, created a revolutionary ideology
which legitimizes not bourgeois rule but proletarian revolution. There are
several considerations here.
First, the
development of a rational, critical social science provided the bourgeoisie
with the ideological weapon to attack feudal privilege and irrationality. But
as the bourgeoisie becomes a ruling class it no longer needs a materialist,
critical ideology, and bourgeois ideology becomes increasingly idealistic and
apologetic. Yet, once created, critical social science becomes a material force
in its own right, and does not stop with the attack on feudalism, but goes on
to attack bourgeois privilege and bourgeois rationality and irrationality as
well.[10]
Secondly, the
establishment of the institutions of parliamentary democracy enable the
bourgeois to rule with the consent and participation of other, non-ruling
classes.[11]
But by legitimating bourgeois rule in terms of popular consent, bourgeois
ideology also legitimates efforts on the part of the people to change the
system.
Third, there
are the basic values placed on freedom and equality. These were used to
legitimate the struggle to overthrow feudalism. They continue as basic values
legitimating bourgeois rule, even though they de-legitimate the unfreedom and
inequality which are necessary concomitants of that rule.
Finally, the
bourgeoisie raise expectations which cannot be fulfilled within the framework
of bourgeois society. Consequently, capitalism generates its own ideological
negation, the idea of socialism as a fulfillment of the promises made by the
revolutionary bourgeoisie.
The above
discussion of capitalism has been at a rather high level of ' abstraction,
dealing with the capitalist system, qua system. It is important to realize,
however, that the actual working out of the system on the ground involves a
number of complexities which cannot be discussed here. One important point
which must be made, though, is that capitalism is not a national but an
international, world system.
Some scholars
see the contemporary world as divided between advanced, "modern"
societies which have been transformed by the Industrial Revolution, and
underdeveloped, "premodern" societies which have not as yet been so
transformed. Such a view, however, ignores the most elementary facts of the
past five hundred years of world history. The Industrial Revolution, although
it occurred in Western Europe, was a world-historical phenomenon, and not just
a European one. As Marx (l967) showed in his chapters on the primitive accumulation
of capital, the capital which financed the Industrial Revolution came from the
plunder of the non-Western world. This process certainly led to the
transformation of social structures in the industrialized, Euro-American world,
but it also led to the transformation of social structures in the non-Western
world, as well. Through the process of what Frank (1966) called "the
development of underdevelopment," the social structures of the non-Western
world were rearranged to facilitate the extraction of economic surplus by the
advanced nations. The result was the emergence of two kinds of modern society
(or more properly, two kinds of subsystems within the larger capitalist world
system), both equidistant from the feudal societies that preceded them: advanced
capitalist nations, and underdeveloped nations.
Advanced
capitalist nations are characterized by the presence of advanced industrial
plants and advanced technology. The economic surplus takes the form, primarily,
of profit, extracted from the working class through wage labor, but rent and
interest are also important exploitative techniques. The class structure
conforms to the classic Marxian two-class model: (l) a small, wealthy, ruling
bourgeoisie which lives on income generated by property' owner ship, which
controls production for its own profit, and controls the nation state and key
opinion forming institutions; (2) a working class, Or proletariat, that lives
on income derived from the sale of their labor power. Again, this description
is highly abstract, and does not include all the complexities of class
structure, but the reality of this structure is not negated by the existence of
gradations either within the classes or between them. The conformity of the
American class structure to the Marxian model will be touched upon below.
Within the
underdeveloped society, social relations are likely to appear feudal, and
indigenous ruling classes are likely to rely on "precapitalist" modes
of exploitation. The diagnostic feature of these social systems, however, is
the penetration of the advanced capitalist exploitative system into the
underdeveloped nation and the extraction therefrom of economic surplus in the
form of profits and unequal trade relations. It is this feature which locks
advanced and underdeveloped nations into a single, worldwide economic system.
Both advanced
capitalist and underdeveloped societies, then, are social types within the
world capitalist system, a highly unstable system marked by profound
contradictions between its advanced and underdeveloped parts, as well as the
material and ideological contradictions of capitalism itself, as discussed
above. Most importantly, with the development of the idea of socialism, the
continued existence of class rule can no longer be taken for granted, and class
struggle, in underdeveloped nations as well as advanced nations, enters a new
phase, toward the overthrow of class rule itself, and the building of a
classless, socialist world order.
Like feudalism,
then, capitalism is a system of class rule, but it is distinguished from
feudalism by the facts that it is a world wide system, incorporating all of
humanity into a single productive network, and that it is a highly unstable
system, rent by powerful contradictions.
The material
contradictions within capitalism do not mean, ipso facto, that capitalism will
collapse and socialism will emerge. Capitalism is a system of class rule,
consciously manipulated by a group of human beings, the bourgeoisie, who have
tremendous intellectual and material resources at their disposal to cope with
the problems generated by the system and to prevent its collapse. For all its
problems, then, the collapse of capitalism is not immanent.
The Marxian
model, however, is a two class model. Although the bourgeoisie can possibly
prevent the collapse of capitalism, they cannot prevent its overthrow. As the
proletariat becomes aware of itself as a class, and of its distinct interests,
vis-ˆ-vis the bourgeoisie, in building a more rational, humane world, it will
shake off bourgeois rule and emerge as a ruling class. The real forces which
are destroying bourgeois rule are not simply the material contradictions of
capitalism, but more importantly the forces which are bringing the proletariat
to an awareness of itself and its interests: critical social science,
democratic institutions, the values of freedom and equality, and the idea of
socialism.
When the
proletariat becomes a ruling class, it will establish its conditions of
existence as the ruling conditions of society, as have all previous ruling
classes. But since the conditions of life of the working class consist in its
obligation to labor and its lack of special privileges, a working class
revolution must abolish all special privileges and confer upon all an equal
obligation to labor. The classless society of the future wi11 build upon and
perfect the positive achievements of the bourgeoisie--the high development of
societies productive forces, bourgeois political freedom, and bourgeois
democracy.[12] But these
will be raised to new heights.
As the
politico-economic basis of class rule is abolished, social evolution will
return to its starting point. Class rule, the negation of the liberty.
equality, and fraternity of primitive communism, will negate itself in
socialism. At this point, the motive force of historical change, class
struggle, will have been eliminated and humanity will be in harmony with itself
and with nature.[13] This will
be a human ecological climax in which the major adjustment to the now
evolutionary force, human intelligence, will have been made, and the human
ecosystem will have attained a position of maturity and stability.
Socialism
as a Human Ecological Climax
In the
ecological interpretation of social evolution presented above, both primitive
communism and class rule were explained in terms of a single causal mechanism:
enlightened self-interest, or the minimax tendency. This basic mechanism,
operating in the material conditions of the hunting and gathering world, led to
a primitive communal social order. In the changed conditions after the
development of large, sedentary, agrarian populations, the minimax tendency led
to the emergence and evolution of progressively larger and more powerful
systems of class rule. What, then, are the changed conditions in the contemporary
industrial world that will lead to the end of class rule and the elimination of
exploitation?
It is not in
the interest of any majority to be exploited, and since the proletariat forms
the majority of industrial society, it is clearly in its interests to prevent
itself from being exploited. But, it Day be objected, is it not in the interest
of the majority to exploit minorities? The answer if equally clear. No, for the
benefits accruing from such exploitation would be too slight to justify the costs.
These include not only the cost of repressing the resistance of the minority
being exploited, but also of repressing dissident members of the majority. What
might happen is that a minority within the majority might attempt to exploit a
minority, but the majority would not benefit from this, and further, this would
pose a threat to the majority itself, since the exploitative system used to
exploit the minority could. in time, be turned against the majority. Similarly,
the workers of one country would not benefit from exploiting the workers of
another country.
The class
interests of the proletariat, then, lie in the elimination of all exploitation.
But the same could be said of a peasantry. Since the peasantry in feudal,
agrarian society was not able to end exploitation, what are the special
characteristics of the proletariat in industrial society which wi11 enable it
to enforce its class interest and build a non-exploitative, socialist society?
According to
Marxian theory, one of the important differences between a peasantry and a
proletariat lies in the nature of their respective productive systems. The
agrarian production of peasants is such that individual families can form
productive units. A peasant revolution, therefore, merely aids at redistribution
of private property rights in land. But such petty property in land merely lays
the groundwork for the reemergence of class differentiation in the countryside,
between rich and poor peasants. and, ultimately, between landlord and tenant.
Thus, although the long range, objective interests of the peasants may lie in
socialization of land and production, their immediate, perceived interests lie
in obtaining private property rights in land. But such petty private property
is impossible in industrial production. The worker cannot demand that ten feet
of the passably line become "his" property. The social character of
production demands social, not private, ownership of the means of production.
Thus, whereas a peasant revolution leads to a resurgence of petty private
property, a proletarian revolution leads to social ownership of the means of
production and to socialism.
Further, there
are important differences in the character of social life between a rural
peasantry in feudalism and the urban proletariat in capitalism. The proletariat
lives in a highly urbanized society and has access through mass communication,
to advanced critiques of the system, to the most advanced ideas of social
reform and revolution, and to the idea of socialism. These characteristics do
not apply to the typical peasantry of feudal society, although they are
increasingly characteristic of peasants in underdeveloped nations, who are
thereby becoming increasingly a revolutionary force.
As discussed
above, the forces which are undermining capitalism are the very forces which
will aid the proletariat in building socialism. The freedom of thought,
critical social science, and free press which provide the proletariat with an
understanding of the shortcomings of capitalism will also enable the
proletariat to discover abuses within the emerging socialist system. The free
elections and democratic institutions which give the proletariat the power to
overthrow capitalism also give it the power to eliminate these abuses as they
are discovered. Finally, the basic values of freedom, equality, and social
responsibility will reinforce the liberty, equality, and fraternity of world
socialism. This is not to say that there will be no conflicts or problems in
the building of socialism, only that these will not be insurmountable.
These
conditions, which are developed by bourgeois society, are either non-existent
or present in only rudimentary form in the precapitalist world.
What, then, are
the social conditions which will prevai1 in the socialist world order? To
begin, the forces of social production will be highly developed, and the
material base will exist for an abundant life for everyone. There will be a
roughly equal obligation for everyone to participate in the system of social
production, and everyone will enjoy roughly equal levels of consumption. This
is not to say, however, that there will be absolute equality or sameness.
Private property in articles of consumption (housing, clothing, books, leisure
articles) will continue under socialism, so that individuals may freely decide
for themselves what sort of life style and level of consumption they desire.
One person may wish to reduce his hours of labor to the minimum, say, ten hours
per week, and live in relative poverty so that he may devote himself to writing
poetry, while another may desire to increase his hours of work to thirty,
forty, or even fifty, so that he may enjoy a higher level of consumption. Such
differentials in labor expenditure and consumption are not exploitative and are
fully compatible with socialism. One should say, they are necessary for
socialism, for they are essential for the free development of each individual's
potential.
The above
description of the world socialist system may appear quite utopian, especially
since the average anthropologist, being a product of American culture, has a
number of built-in defenses against the concept of socialism. It is impossible
here to de-program these defenses in order to encourage a more objective
evaluation of the feasibility of socialism, but it may be useful to discuss two
of the most common objections to the theory of socialism. On the one hand.
where the working class has indeed made a revolution by placing a Marxist party
in power, the results have been, to many, disastrous. For many on the New Left,
"the Soviet Union is the most discouraging fact in the political
world" (Lynd 1967:29). On the other hand, the reforms of the New Deal and
Welfare Statism have, in the eyes of many, overcome the contradictions of
capitalist society, so that 20th century America is frequently seen as
"post-capitalist" or even "post-Marxist."
In order to
understand the contradictory nature of the social order of socialist bloc
nations, it is necessary to draw upon Trotsky's conception of the Soviet Union
as a "degenerated workers' state" (see Trotsky 1972; Duetscher 1967).
When the Bolsheviks were put in power by the Russian working class in the
October Revolution of November, 1917, they faced problems which were not fully
anticipated by Marx. First, the revolution took place in a backward rather than
an advanced nation, so that the material base of socialism had not yet been
built. Second, although the Russian working class was highly advanced and
politically conscious, it was numerically quite small in proportion to the
peasantry. Finally, the Russian revolution was immediately confronted with
foreign intervention, leading to a long and devastating civil war. As a result
of these particular historical circum stances, the working class destroyed
itself in protecting the revolution, and the Bolshevik Party was left as a
working class party without a working class. They had to act in the name of the
working class in building socialism, but without a working class to keep them
honest.
The continuing
functional needs to extract surplus from the peasantry to invest in an
industrial plant, and to protect the revolution from foreign intervention led
to a despotic state organization.
The
international communist movement came under control of the Russian Communist Party,
and the various national Communist Parties were built as instruments of Russian
foreign policy. As revolutions occurred elsewhere in the underdeveloped world,
they had to come under the control of the Soviet Union in order to remain
viable in the face of capitalist hostility. The result was the emergence of a
pseudo-socialist Soviet "imperialism."
Trotsky's
analysis, with suitable modifications, can be applied equally well to other
societies, such as China and Cuba, where socialist revolutions have occurred in
the context of underdevelopment. These societies should properly be seen as protosocialist
states, part of a world
transition to socialism but unable, on their own, to complete the transition
until the advanced capitalist nations join them. Protosocialist states, then,
are "socialist" to about the same extent that the advanced capitalist
nations are "democratic." Both systems are contradictory, living up
to their promises in some respects, sorely deficient in others. Marxism can
point with pride to the very real achievements of the Soviet Union, for
example, in economic growth, but need not take the blame for the very real
shortcomings which resulted from particular historical circumstances. A
worker's revolution in the United States will not face the same insurmountable
problems faced by the Russian workers in 1917. It is reasonable to suspect,
therefore, that when socialism comes to America it will be a more humane and
happier socialism.
A number of
scholars have argued that, although Marx's critique of 19th century capitalism
contained a good deal of truth, capitalism has changed since Marx's time and
these changes have had the effect of overcoming the contradictions of
capitalism which Marx saw as leading to its downfall. In this view, the advanced
industrial nations of the 20th century have become post-capita1ist and
post-Marx1st, even post-modern.[14]
This view has
little merit. Contemporary capitalism is no less capitalistic than before, but
there has been a shift from a primarily competitive capitalism to monopoly
capitalism.
Marx's critique
of the capitalist system was based upon a model of competitive capitalism, but
even in Marx's time, strong elements of monopoly were beginning to appear and,
in the 20th century, these have grown so strong as to dominate the system. As
Baran and Sweezy (1966) demonstrate, the inner dialectic of monopoly capitalism
differs from competitive capitalism but monopoly capitalism, even more so than
competitive capitalism has profound tendencies toward crisis and stagnation.
The means by which these tendencies are overcome, most notably defense
spending, only make the system more contradiction ridden and irrational,
however much this may be obscured by general feelings of euphoria.[15]
Rather than attempt to summarize Baran and Sweezy's analysis here, I shall
examine a related point.
One aspect of
the "post-capitalist" argument is that the American worker has become
bourgeois, concerned only with owning his own home and care and not at all
concerned with making a revolution. In a sense, of course, this is true, but it
fails to take into account the vital distinction between class consciousness
and objective class position. Although the consciousness of the working class
may appear conservative or even reactionary at present (but even this is
debatable), this can change extremely rapidly. What is important is the
objective position of the working class, for this will determine, in the final
analysis, its role in history; and the objective position of the American working
class indicates that it is not merely ripe but overr1pe or revolut1on.[16]
The concept of
the proletariat centers on the relationship of this class to the means of
production. A proletarian is anyone who receives most of his income as wages or
sa1ary--the source of one's income is more important than the amount. Ownership
of articles of consumption--one's own home, automobile, T.V., stereo, etc.--in
no way alters one's basic class affiliation. All proletarians share in common a
lack of independent rights of access to the means of production, a lack of
control over the conditions of their labor, and a need to sell their labor
power in order to exist. It is these characteristics that make the proletariat
a revolutionary class and it is these characteristics which define a major
portion of the American population. The percentage of wage and salary employees
(i.e. proletarians) in the United States labor force rose from 20 percent in
1780 to 62 percent in 1880 to 83.6 percent in 1969, while the percentage of self-employed
entrepreneurs (mostly farmers) fell from 80 percent in 1780 to 36.9 percent in
1880 to 9.2 percent in 1969 (Edwards, Reich, and Weiskopf 1972:175). Monopoly
capitalism, then, furthers the process of proletarianization of the population.
Over 80 percent of the American population is in the working class; when this
class decides to make a revolution, it will not face the same kinds of problems
which confronted the Russian working class in 19l7.
**************************************************************
Figure 2.
Class Structure in
Contemporary Capitalism (1972).
Sources:
Bloom and Northrup 1973:328; Brackett 1973:70; Bureau of the Census 1973:3;
Matles and Higgins 1974:5.
**************************************************************
It is sometimes
argued that the American worker is so affluent that he has no interest in
revolution. This argument, besides ignoring the fact that labor unions are
continually demanding higher wages, ignores the actual distribution of income
in the United States. Figure 2 shows the percentage of American families in
various income levels in 1972, and compares this with the income needed to
maintain various living standards as computed by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. About 30 percent of American families receive less than the $7,386
which the BLS feels is necessary for a family of four to subsist (this was
compiled for use by Public Housing and Public Assistance authorities); about 50
percent receive less than the BLS "modest but adequate" standard of $11,446;
and only about 25 percent receive more than the BLS highest standard of
$16,558. Significantly, however, if available income were simply equally
divided, this would give every family about $12,400, well above the moderate
standard, and if the potential income (if unused productive plants, unemployed
labor and labor employed directly or indirectly in defense were all used in
producing useful wealth) were equally divided, this would give every family
about $15,500, slightly less than what the BLS says is needed for their highest
standard.
Thus, if we
assume that socialism would provide full employment and that income would be
equally divided in a socialist society, we can see that about 70 percent of the
population--and this probably includes nearly all the working class--would
financially benefit from a socialist transformation. When we further consider
the better health insurance and social security measures in existing socialist
systems, the economic benefits of a socialist transformation become great
indeed.
Another
consideration concerns job security. The fear of losing one's job is endemic
throughout the working class, as some of our highly paid aerospace engineers
have recently learned. A socialist society which guaranteed employment to
everyone would clearly be in the economic interests of the entire working
class.
The above
considerations apply primarily to workers--it is they who would primarily
benefit, in economic terms from a socialist transformation. But other classes,
which might be economically worse off under socialism--primarily capitalists
and managers--as well as workers would find compensating benefits, both
material and non-material, in socialism.
Take, for
example, personal security. The problem of law and order affects everyone, rich
and poor, in our society, and it is quite clear that most of the violent crime
in our society is bred by unemployment and poverty.[17]
A socialist transformation, in eliminating the source of most crime, would
benefit everyone.
Or take war.
Modern wars are generated by capitalism and its agent, the nation-state.
Abolish these, establish a world socialist government, and you have the
precondition for world peace.
Or take the
problem of environmental pollution and destruction. These too, are caused by
capitalism. They occur because they are profitable, and being profitable, they
create jobs, so that both capitalist and workers have an "interest"
in the destruction of our "spaceship earth." But this is true only if
the capitalist system is taken for granted. Abolish capitalism, eliminate the
profit motive, guarantee everyone a job, and you create the preconditions for
the solution of our ecological problems (cf. Commoner 1976, Weisbreg 1971).
A final but
extremely important consideration is that the existing social order is simply
unable to command the respect of a large proportion of our population or to
provide any meaning to their lives. This is seen in a variety of phenomena,
from widespread alcoholism and drug abuse to the new religious cults. A
socialist transformation would give the nation a sense of purpose and thereby
provide a sense of meaningfulness which is largely lacking in contemporary
society.
Thus, although
monopoly capitalism does provide its members with more commodities than any
other extant social system, it also fails to provide the sort of meaningful
material and emotional satisfactions that could really command the allegiance
of an informed people.
If this kind of
analysis were to become widely disseminated and accepted, the overwhelming
majority of the world's population would choose to live under socialism rather
than continue to die a living death under capitalism.
Concluding
Remarks
There is little
point in trying to summarize what is already a highly abstract and summary
statement. Let me, then, conclude with a few observations.
In speaking of
the inexorable movement toward socialism, I do not mean to imply that this will
occur independently of human activity. Culture does not evolve because of
mysterious "laws," but rather because of the real life activity of
human beings in pursuit of their own ends. Socialism exists as a potentiality
inherent in capitalism and bourgeois rule, but the transformation of this
potentiality into an actuality requires the conscious activity of human beings.
Socialism cannot come into existence until the majority of the world's
population wants it. It is this fact that makes the scientific study of
socialism important not only for anthropological theory, but also for
anthropological practice.
If indeed we
are concerned about the welfare of our "natives," and if indeed we
feel that our "natives" themselves should play a role in defining
their welfare, then it is incumbent upon us to study socialism very seriously,
for this is what the "natives" are doing. Perhaps, further, we should
not be content with study, but should also explore how we can facilitate the
birth of the new world order. Perhaps, if the ideas expressed in this essay are
correct, we should ask whether applied anthropology is not socialist revolution?
Notes
Acknowledgments. Earlier versions of this paper were read
at the annual meetings of the Southwestern Anthropological Association, San
Diego, April 6, 1977, and the Kroeber Anthropological Society, Berkeley, May 7,
1977. I would like to thank Mikal Aasvad and Peter Richerson for their critical
reading of an earlier draft. .Any errors of fact or opinion, however, are
entirely my own responsibility. I also want to thank Laurie Simms for typing
several drafts of the manuscript.
References
Cited
Baran, Paul A.,
and Paul M. Sweezy. 1966. Monopoly capital: an essay on the American economic
and social order. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Bloom, Gordon
F., and Herbert R. Northrup. 1973. Economics of labor relations. Seventh
edition. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Boyer, Richard
0., and Herbert M. Morais. 1970. Labor's untold story. New York: United
Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America.
Brecher,
Jeremy. 1972. Strike! San Francisco: Straight Arrow Books.
Bureau of the
Census. 1973. Current population reports: consumer income. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Series P-60, No. 87 (June 1973). Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Clark, Ramsy.
1970. Crime in America: observations on its nature, causes, prevention, and
control. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Commoner,
Barry. 1976. The poverty of power: energy and the economic crisis. New York:
Knopf.
Deutscher,
Issac. 1967. The unfinished revolution, Russia, 1917-1967. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Diamond,
Stanley. 1974. In search of the primitive: a critique of civilization. New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books.
Domhoff, G.
William. 1967. Who rules America? Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Edwards,
Richard C., Michael Reich, and Thomas E. Weiskopf. Editors. 1972. The
capitalist system: a radical analysis of American society. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Engels,
Frederick. 1972. The origin of the family, private property, and the state. New
York: International Publishers.
Foner, Phillip.
1947-65. History of the labor movement in the United States. 4 vols. New York:
International Publishers.
Frank, Andrew
Gunder. 1966. The development of underdevelopment. Monthly Review 18 (4).
Fried, Morton
H. 1967. The evolution of political society: an essay in political
anthropology. New York: Random House.
Green, Gi1.
1971. The new radicalism: anarchist or Marxist? New York: International
Publishers.
Harris, Marvin.
1968. The rise of anthropological theory. New York: Crowell.
Hayden, Tom,
Norm Frucher, and Alan Cheuse. 1966. "Up from irrelevance," in The
new radicals; a report with documents. Edited by Paul Jacobs and Saul Landau.
Pp. 267 - 2 73 . New York: Vintage. (Reprinted from Studies on the Left, Vol.
5, No.2, Spring 1965.)
Kroeber, Alfred
L. 1945. The ancient Oikoumene as an historic culture aggregate. Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute 75:9-20.
Leacock,
Eleanor B. 1972. "Introduction," in The origins of the family,
private property, and the state.. Edited by Frederick Engels. Pp. 7-67. New
York: International Publishers.
Lee, Richard B.
1969. Eating Christmas in the Kalahari. Natural History Magazine 78(1);14-20,
60-63.
Lens, Sidney. .
1973. The labor wars: from the Molly Maguires to the sitdowns. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday Anchor.
Lenski,
Gerhard. 1970. Human societies: a macrolevel introduction to sociology. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Lotka, Alfred
J. 1945. The law of evolution as a maximal principle. Human Biology 17:167-194.
Lynd,
Staughton. 1967. What went wrong? Monthly Review 19(6):29-31.
Magdoff, Harry.
1969. The age of imperialism: the economics of U.S. foreign policy. New York:
Monthly Review Press.
Mandel, Ernest.
1970. Marxist economic theory. New York: Monthly Review Press, Vo 1. II.
Marx, Karl.
1953. "Karl Marx to S. Meyer and A. Vogt, April 8, 1970," in On
Britain. Moscow: Foreign Language Press.
_____ 1964. The
communist manifesto. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Matles, James
M., and James Higgins. 1974. Them and us: struggles of a rank and file union.
Englewood Cliffs,' New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
McNeil, William
H. 1975. The rise of the west: a history of the human community. New York:
Mentor.
Morgan, Lewis
Henry. 1964. Ancient society. Cleveland and New York: Meridian Books, World
Publishing Company.
Odlim, Eugene
P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Third edition. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Oglesby, Carl.
1966. "Liberalism and the corporate state (speech at the march on
Washington, November 27, 1965)," in The new radicals: a report with
documents. Edited by Paul Jacobs and Saul Landau. Pp. 257-266. New York:
Vintage.
Richerson,
Peter J., and James McEvoy, III. Editors. 1976. Human ecology: an environmental
approach. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press.
Ruyle, Eugene
E. 1973. Genetic and cultural pools: some suggestions for a unified theory of
biocultural evolution. Human Ecology 1:201-215.
_____ 1976.
Labor, people, culture: a labor theory of human origins. Yearbook of Physical
Anthropology 20.
_____ 1977a.
"Energy and culture," in The concepts and dyanmics of culture. Edited
by Bernard Bernardi. Pp. 209-237. The Hague: Mouton.
_____ 1977b.
"A socialist alternative for the future," in Cultures of the future.
2 vols. Edited by Magoroh Maruyama. The Hague: Mouton. (in press)
_____ 1977c.
Blind men, elephants, and Polish revolutionaries: an essay on the nature of
sociocultural systems. Paper to given at the 76th Annual Meeting of the
American Anthropological Association, Houston, November 29 December 4.
Schumpeter,
Joseph A. 1966. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London: Unwin University
Books.
Smith, Thomas
C. 1966. "Japan's aristocratic revolution," in Class, status, and
power: social stratification in comparative perspective. Second edition. Edited
by Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset. Pp. 135-140. New York: The Free
Press.
Sweezy, Paul M.
1968. The theory of capitalist development. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Trotsky, Leon.
1972. The revolution betrayed: what is the Soviet Union and where is it going?
New York: Pathfinder Press.
Tucker, Robert
C. 1972. The Marx-Engels reader. New York: Norton.
Wallace, A.F.C.
1972 . The death and rebirth of the Seneca. New York: Knopf.
Weisberg,
Barry. 1971. Beyond repair: the ecology of capitalism. Boston: Beacon.
Weaver, Thomas.
1973. To see ourselves: anthropology and modern social issues. Glenview,
Illinois: Scott, Foresman.
White, Leslie
A. 1959. The evolution of culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[1] It may be noted here that I do not accept
as valid the Marxist-Leninist distinction between socialism and communism as
successive stages of social evolution. This distinction was' unimportant in
Marx's own thought, and is better regarded as an ideological veil for continued
inequality and. social problems in existing protosocialist states, rather than
as a valid contribution to scientific socialism.
[2] This
framework is an elaboration of ideas presented earlier (Ruyle 1972, 1975, 1976,
1977a). A fuller discussion of these ideas is now in preparation (Ruyle 1977c).
[3] The desirability of the exploiter niche is
described by Smith (1966: 135): ÒTo know the exalted pleasures of power, and
the grace of refined taste with the means of satisfying it; to believe oneself
superior on the only evidence that gives conviction--the behavior of others;
and to enjoy all this as birthright, with no vitiating struggle, nor any doubt
that one's privileges are for God, King, country and the good of one's fellow
man- what happier condition, for a few, have men devised?Ó
[4] The Iroquois, it may be noted, are probably
not a good "type example" of primitive communism for this reason. It
appears as if the "ethical regression" associated with the emergence
of class rule was already in progress (see Wallace 1972:l73ff).
[5] Marx
(1969:90), in discussing the Asiatic state, calls our attention to the dual
nature of the state, as an agency of oppression and of government: There have
been in Asia, generally, from immemorial times~ but three departments of
Government:. that of Finance, or the plunder of the interior; that of War, or
the plunder of the exterior; and, finally, the department of Public Works.
[6] The role of the Church in social control
appears to be well understood by the Catholic Church, as the following quotes
indicate:
Pope Leo XIII:
God has divided the government of the human race between two authorities,
ecclesiastical and civil, establishing one over things divine, the other over
things human (quoted by White 1959:303).
Pope Benedict XV: Only too well does experience show
that when religion is banished, human authority totters to its fall. . . when
the rulers of the people disdain the authority of God, the people in turn despise
the authority of men. There remains, it is true, the usual expedient of
suppressing rebellion by force, but to what effect? Force subdues the bodies of
men, not their souls (quoted by White 1959:325
[7] This usage
of the term feudalism is broader than that of either orthodox historians, who
use the term to apply to a particular form of organization within the ruling
class, marked by lord-vassal ties, or Marxist historians, who use the term to
refer to a mode of extracting surplus, from serfs, as opposed to Slave Society
or Asiatic Society. My usage includes both the slave systems of Greece and
Rome, and the Asiatic empires, as well as the "true" feudalism of
medieval Europe.
[8] Marx (1953:506) describes this process of
competition leading to racial and ethnic antagonisms as follows: ÒEvery
industrial and commercial center in England now possesses a working class
'population divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish
proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor
who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he feels
himself a member of the ruling nation and so turns himself into a tool of the
aristocrats and capitalists of his country against Ireland, thus strengthening
their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national
prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same
as that of the "poor whites" to the Negroes in the former slave
states of the U.S.A. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money.
He sees in the English worker as both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the
English rule in Ireland.Ó
[9] Marx and Engels (1939:40-41) described this
process as follows: ÒFor each new class which puts itself in the place of one
ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to
represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society,
put in an ideal form; it will give its ideas the form of university, and
represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones. The class making a
revolution appears from the very start, merely because it is opposed to a
class, not as a class but as the representative of the whole of society; it
appears as the whole mass of society confronting the one ruling class. . . .
Every new class, therefore, achieves its hegemony only on a broader basis than
that of the. class ruling previously, in return for which the opposition of the
non-ruling class against the new ruling class later develops all the more
sharply and profoundly. Both these things determine the fact that the struggle
to be waged against this new ruling class, in its turn, aims at a more decided
and radical negation of the previous conditions of society than could all
previous classes which sought to rule.Ó
[10] As Schumpeter (1966:143) observes:
ÒCapitalism creates a critical frame of mind which after having destroyed the
moral authority of so many other institutions, in the end turns against its
own; the bourgeois finds to his amazement that the rationalist attitude does
not stop at the credentials of kinds and popes but goes on to attack private
property and the whole scheme of bourgeois values.Ó
[11] Engels (1972:232) discusses the role of
democratic institutions as follows: ÒThe possessing class rules directly by
means of universal suffrage. As long as the oppressed class--in our case,
therefore, the proletariat--is not yet ripe for its self liberation, so long
will it, in its majority, recognize the existing order of society as the only
possible one and remain politically the tail of the capitalist class, its
extreme left wing. But in the measure in which it matures towards its
self-emancipation, in the same measure it constitutes itself as its own party
and votes for its own representatives, not those of the capitalists: Universal
suffrage is thus the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and
never will be anything more in the modern state, but that is enough. On the day
when the thermometer of universal suffrage shows boiling-point among the
workers, they are well as the capitalists will know where they stand.Ó
[12] I have
discussed some of the social features which might characterize the socialist
order of the future elsewhere (Ruyle 1977b).
[13] Marx's vision here is quite anthropological,
and similar to that of the father of American Anthropology, Lewis Henry Morgan
(1963:561-562): ÒThe time which .has passed away since civilization began is
but a fragment of the past duration of man's existence; and but a fragment of
the ages yet to come. The dissolution of society bids fair to become the
termination of a career of which property is the end and aim; because such a
career contains the elements of self-destruction. Democracy in government,
brotherhood in society, equality in rights and privileges, and universal
education, foreshadow the next higher plane of society to which experience,
intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending. It will be a revival, in a
higher form, of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes.Ó
[14] The following is a typical expression of
this point of view: ÒTo an overwhelming degree American society has controlled
its internal class, radical and psychological strains. With social"
controls ranging from terrorism to welfare, the country has moved far in the
direction of "one-dimensional society" Herbert Marcuse describes.
Almost everyone develops a vested interest of some kind in ,the American system
as a whole, and within the system there are virtually no legitimate places from
which to launch a total opposition movement (Hayden, Frucher, and Cheuse
1966:270-271, cf. Harris 1968:230).Ó
[15] Considerable study is necessary in order to
understand the application of Marxian analysis to contemporary America, see, on
Marx's analysis itself, Sweezy (1968), on the application of the Marxian
framework to contemporary America, Baran and Sweezy (1966); on the American
ruling class, Domhoff (1967), on American imperialism, Magdoff (1969), on the
history of the American working class, Boyer and Morais (1970), Brecher (1972),
Lens (1973) or Foner (1947-65). For a brief, eloquent critique of American
capitalism, see Oglesby (1966).
[16] 0n this point, Marx and Engels observed:
ÒIf socialist writers attribute this world-historical role to the proletariat,
this is by no means, as critical criticism assures us, because they regard the
proletarians as gods.
On the contrary. Since the fully formed proletariat represents, practically
speaking, the complete abstraction from everything human, even from the appearance of being human; since all the living
conditions of contemporary society have reached the acme of inhumanity in the
living conditions of the proletariat; since in the proletariat man has lost
himself, although at the same time he has both acquired a theoretical
consciousness of this loss and has been directly forced into indignation
against this inhumanity by virtue of an inexorable, utterly unembellishable,
absolutely imperious need,
that practical expression of necessity--because of all this the proletariat itself
can and must liberate itself. But it cannot liberate itself without destroying
its own living conditions. It cannot do so without destroying all the inhuman
living conditions of contemporary society which are concentrated in its own
situation. Not in vain does it go through the harsh but hardening school of labour. It is not a matter of what this or that
proletarian or even the proletariat as a whole pictures at present as its goal. It is a matter of what
the proletariat is in actuality
and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to
do. Its goal and its historical action are prefigured in the most clear and
ineluctable way in its own life-situation as well as in the whole organization
of contemporary bourgeois society. There is no need to harp on the fact that a
large part of the English and French proletariat is already conscious of its historic task and is continually
working to bring this consciousness to full clarity (from The Holy Family, in
Tucker 1972:105-106, cf. Green 1971:108-127). [Emphasis in original text].
[17] As a former Attorney General observed:
ÒEvery major city in America demonstrates the relationship between crime and
poor education, unemployment, bad health, and inadequate housing. When we
understand this, we take much of the mystery out of crime. We may prefer the
mystery. If so, we are condemned to live with crime we could prevent. Poverty,
illness, injustice, idleness, ignorance, human misery and crime go together.
That is the truth. We have known it all along. We cultivate crime, breed it,
nourish it. Little wonder we have so much.Ó (Clark 1970:11, 57, 66)