Exotic Journeys: A Tourist's Guide to Philosophy
brought to you by Ron Yezzi
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy
Minnesota State University, Mankato
© Copyright 1986, 2015 by Ron Yezzi
Return to Philosophical Issues Page
Author's Note: This account is adapted from Ron Yezzi, Directing Human Actions: Perspectives on Basic Ethical Issues (Lanham: University Press of America, 1986) pp.229 - 246.
Topics
Karl Marx
Class Struggle
Bourgeoisie
Proletariat
Communists
Program of the Communist Movement
A Classless Society
John Dewey
The New Individualism and Liberty
The State and The Public
A Good State
Democracy
Marx and Dewey: A Comparison
Controversies: Some Objections and Possible Replies
Thought Excursions
Marx, Dewey, and Violent Revolution
Sources
Marx and Dewey
Both Stirner and Mill presume an individualistic interpretation of human nature. This presumption is immediately evident in the case of Stirner. It is not nearly so evident in Mill's case, because the search for the greatest good for the greatest number according to the Principle of Utility sometimes obscures the fact that Mill regards society to be a collection of individuals. Not everyone however accepts individualistic interpretations of human nature. In this section accordingly, we take up the relation of the individual to society from the standpoints of Karl Marx and John Dewey, who both insist upon the social nature of human beings.
Biographical Sketch
Karl Marx (1818 - 1883 C.E.), born in what is now Germany, spent most of his life in exile because of his political views. He studied law for awhile but later turned to philosophy, getting a doctorate at the University of Jena in 1841. He became editor of a newspaper, Rheinische Zeitung, which was suppressed by the government in 1843. He then moved to Paris, where he began a lifelong friendship and collaboration with Friedrich Engels. (Although they jointly authored several works, both regarded Marx as the guiding figure.) Marx moved to Brussels, after being expelled from France in 1845. He and Engels produced The Communist Manifesto, one of the more influential documents in human history, in 1848. Expelled from Brussels, Marx moved back briefly to Paris and then to Cologne, where he was expelled in 1849. He then moved to London, where he spent the rest of his life.
Marx never held regular work for any extended period of time. He did serve for awhile as a journalistic correspondent of the New York Tribune. For the most part however, he was continually dependent upon Engels for financial support. He lived much of his life in poverty, dedicated primarily to extensive research advancing the cause of socialism. Marx himself suffered chronic illnesses, and three of his children died.
With time, the fame and influence of his works grew, until Marx became the leading theorist and prophet of European socialism. He was not much of a political activist however. In 1864, he helped establish and then dominated the International Working Men's Association (which came to be known as the "First International") although he then pretty much destroyed the Association in a bitter controversy with the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin. Political activism was not well-suited to Marx' often vitriolic temperament and his tendency to take "hard-line" positions.
The Communist Manifesto and Kapital are Marx' two most famous works. Of particular philosophical interest however is The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.
From the standpoint of Karl Marx, individualistic views of human nature correspond with a social structure that makes possible private freedom for the few at the cost of oppression and alienation for the many. In opposition to individualistic views, Marx asserts that human nature resides in the "ensemble of the social relations." Moreover, these social relations take their particular forms according to the material modes of production current during a given historical epoch. Consequently, we cannot understand the individual's relation to society unless we possess a description of the historical conditions relevant to social relationships and the material modes of production.
Regarding social relationships, Marx asserts, in The Communist Manifesto:
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes.1
The present time, "the epoch of the bourgeoisie," has simplified the class struggle as society splits more and more into two hostile, contending classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Writing in the nineteenth century, Marx asserts that the bourgeoisie, or capitalists, have gained such power over the proletariat, or workers, that "the executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."2 This triumph of the bourgeoisie occurred over a long period of time due to a "series of revolutions in the modes of production and exchange"―the introduction of steam and machinery revolutionizing industrial production at the same time that technological advances in navigation and transportation led to ever-expanding markets for goods. As a result, according to Marx,
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarcely one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground--what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?3
In the process of ruling, there occurs a continual consolidation of power within industrialized nations and over non-industrialized ones. Within industrialized nations, "the bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff."4 Within non-industrialized nations, the bourgeoisie subjugates people and forces them to adopt capitalistic modes of production as a way of guaranteeing sources of raw materials and a market for cheap goods. The social consequences of the rule of the bourgeoisie, according to Marx, are devastating. Everywhere, social relationships revolve around money and self-interest. Personal worth becomes "exchange value;" freedom becomes "free trade;" physicians, lawyers, priests, poets, and scientists become merely "paid wage-labourers;" and the family relation becomes merely a "money relation." Meanwhile, commercial crises and competition among the bourgeoisie causes ever greater insecurity for the workers and their wages always tend toward the minimum necessary for their hare survival.
The rule of the bourgeoisie will not continue indefinitely, however, for the process of its own development carries with it the seeds of its own destruction. Marx says,
. . . Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world which he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past, the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity―the epidemic of overproduction. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.5
Thus, for Marx, ever more frequent commercial crises of ever-increasing intensity, due to excesses generated by the continual revolution in the modes of production, lead inevitably to the downfall of capitalism.
The eventual, violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie is accomplished by the proletarian class, whose power grows with the development of capitalism itself. As bourgeois modes of production necessitate the raising of huge industrial armies, as property comes into fewer and fewer hands, as some members of the ruling class and of the lower middle class join the proletariat, as workers eke out a meager existence while constantly competing among themselves in the midst of scarcity―the proletariat as a class swells in numbers and becomes ever more aware of both its oppression and its oppressors, the capitalists. It is only a matter of time until the proletariat gains the power and awareness sufficient to bring about the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
Given this description of the historical situation, what ought to be the relation of the individual to the society'?
Obviously, the future resides with the proletarian class; and individuals who face reality will act accordingly. More important from Marx' standpoint however, is his claim that the communists stand in the forefront of the proletariat.6 They are the ones clearly aware of the current class struggle and resolute enough to constantly push forward the working-class movement. Consequently, for Marx, becoming a communist is the best action an individual can take. In passing however, we should note that Marx does not regard his work as the construction of an ideology that will triumph through the effort of will of communists and the proletariat. Rather he views his work as a scientific description of an historical process which necessitates the overthrow of capitalism. For example, he says,
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes . . . .7
Warning that allowances must he made for different conditions in different countries, Marx lays out the following general objectives for the communist movement:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.8
These measures are designed to end the alienation and exploitation of workers―most especially through the abolition of bourgeois private property, that is, the "kind of property which exploits wage labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage labour for fresh exploitation."9 Marx wants to insure that private property does not remain the instrument of oppression of the capitalistic class. He does not however oppose the possession of all personal property: "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation."10
The result of the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat will be the establishment of a classless society, one in which class distinctions and antagonisms no longer exist. In such a society, there also will no longer exist the political power represented by the State, in which one class rules and exploits other classes.11 Marx offers few details regarding the precise nature of this future society. In a classless society, the governance of people, which characterizes a State, is supplanted by the administration of things, whereby there is a co-operative management of non-human objects and processes for the benefit of all. Without providing details, he also mentions the need for a state in which there exists a "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" during the stage of transition from capitalist to communist society. And, ultimately, in a communist society, it will be possible to declare, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" From Marx' standpoint though, speculation concerning the precise nature of future society is far less important than the description of the present historical conditions which establish the inevitable overthrow of capitalism.
Biographical Sketch
John Dewey (1859 - 1952 C.E.), the best known and most influential American philosopher, was born in Vermont. He performed good, but not outstanding undergraduate work at the University of Vermont―followed by much more impressive graduate work at Johns Hopkins University where he received a doctorate in philosophy, in 1884. He then embarked upon his academic career―teaching nine years at the University of Michigan, one year at the University of Minnesota, ten years at the University of Chicago, and a quarter of a century at Columbia University. After his retirement in 1930, he remained philosophically active until near the time of death.
Dewey's philosophy was extremely influential in promoting development of the social sciences and in promoting democracy as a moral ideal. His educational theories have also had great influence. Dewey took an intense interest in current events, writing on many social issues and espousing numerous social causes. In the words of one admirer, ". . . more than any other American of his time, Dewey expressed the deepest hopes and aspirations of his fellow man. Whether dealing with a technical philosophical issue or with some concrete injustice, he displayed a rare combination of acuteness, good sense, imagination and wit" (Richard J. Bernstein).
Although not likely to win awards for his literary style, Dewey indeed was a prolific writer. A bibliography of his writings in itself could take up a small book.
Human Nature and Conduct and Reconstruction in Philosophy are two of his better known works.
Although John Dewey shares a fair amount of common ground with Marx, he surveys differently and envisions far different possibilities for the future of human beings.
Like Marx, Dewey has a social interpretation of human nature. He thinks that the doctrine of "individualism," as traditionally understood, creates a false image of "a residual individual who is not a member of any association at all." Inherent "natural" rights, self-direction, purely personal choices, and private purposes are then attributed to this residual individual. Not surprisingly, this false image leads to correspondingly false opposition between the "individual" and "society"―in which the individual engages in constant struggle against what are perceived to be alien, social constraints. Dewey thinks that this false image and false opposition must give way before a careful consideration of facts. He says, in The Public and Its Problems,
Wants, choices and purposes have their locus in single beings; behavior which manifests desire, intent and resolution proceeds from them in their singularity. But only intellectual laziness leads us to conclude that since the form of thought and decision is individual, their content, their subject-matter, is also something purely personal.12
When we overcome "intellectual laziness," we find that human thoughts, sentiments, and deliberations always develop from situations of social interaction. As the social sciences show, individuals are not islands unto themselves; what they are is inseparable from the influence of their social interactions with others. What the individual "believes, hopes for and aims at is the outcome of association and intercourse."13 Consequently, what persons have usually labeled "a revolt of the individual against society" was really a revolt of one form of group interaction against another form of group interaction. Seen from this perspective then, the fight for "liberty," instead of being a struggle to free single individuals, is really the attempt to replace one form of group interaction with another, that is, to set up new social conditions governing human interaction. And what the fight for liberty entails varies with the prevailing social conditions. In Liberalism and Social Action, Dewey says,
Liberty in the concrete signifies release from the impact of particular oppressive forces; emancipation from something once taken as a normal part of human life but now experienced as bondage. At one time, liberty signified liberation from chattel slavery; at another time, release of a class from serfdom. During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries it meant liberation from despotic dynastic rule. A century later it meant release of industrialists from inherited legal customs that hampered the rise of new forces of production. Today, it signifies liberation from material insecurity and from the coercions and repressions that prevent multitudes from participation in the vast cultural resources that are at hand. The direct impact of liberty always has to do with some class or group that is suffering in a special way from some form of constraint exercised by the distribution of powers that exists in contemporary society. . . .14
For Dewey, true individualism does not involve an escape from society; rather it requires the molding of social conditions so as to provide constructive opportunities for the personal growth and betterment of individuals in their human relationships with others. There is nothing wrong with social controls that have the effect of promoting this "new" individualism. And social controls can include economic control. Dewey rejects laissez. faire economic policy and advocates economic planning (a "socialized economy") as the more "radical" platform of political liberalism in the twentieth century.15 Dewey's call for a "socialized economy," written during the decade of The Great Depression, should not be interpreted as a call for abolition of private property; rather it is a call for action by government and other groups to establish those institutional conditions that meet the current demands of individualism, namely, freedom from material insecurity and from denial of social and cultural opportunities for the majority of people. Thus, for Dewey, true individualism requires that we view the individual and society as existing in organic unity rather than as antagonists; and its real task consists in groups molding social conditions to provide constructive opportunities for the betterment of individuals.
Granting this view of individualism, we still need to know the precise role of the state in society. Dewey attempts to delimits its role in The Public and Its Problems.
He does not think that we can locate the origin of the state in abstract ideas or in the authorship of a social contract; instead he thinks that the state arises as a consequence of transactions among individuals or groups that seriously affect non-participants. Such transactions are matters of public concern and thereby establish existence of the public, consisting of "all those who are affected by the indirect consequences of transactions to such an extent that it is deemed necessary to have those consequences systematically cared for."16 When the public is organized to protect its interests through official representatives, a politically organized community, or state, exists. According to Dewey, the public can exist without the state, but the state cannot exist without the public. Moreover, a state does not really exist if rulers are not official representatives of the public.
If all transactions involved only the participants themselves and had no indirect, serious consequences for non-participants, then the public would not exist and neither would the state. In actuality however, many transactions have enough serious, indirect consequences for there to be a public or common interest to be served. Hence there are legitimate reasons for regulating transactions involving such matters as property transfer, marriage, children's labor, education, minimum wages, communication, transportation, health and safety conditions in industry, and licensing of professional persons. No hard-and-fast rule establishes precisely the domain of the public interest. Generally, this domain lies somewhere between two extremes―on the one hand, extremely intimate relationships (such as friendship) and, on the other hand, extremely remote relationships (such as those with distant peoples). But only attention to particular social conditions and an experimental approach can provide more specific guidelines for an intrusion of the public. For example, friendship is ordinarily n type of intimate association not to he interfered with, although a friendship that leads to a conspiracy harming others calls for interference by the public.
Just as no hard-and-fast rule establishes precisely the domain of the public interest, so also no hard-and-fast rule establishes the ideal nature of the state. Only attention to particular social conditions and an experimental approach―in other words, only intelligently organized inquiry to ascertain specific consequences can point toward the best possible state at a given time. Dewey does however offer a general account of what constitutes a good state. After pointing out that the officers representing the public should genuinely serve the public's interests, he adds that a good state has these effects:
It renders the desirable associations solider and more coherent; indirectly it clarifies their aims and purges their activities. It places a discount upon injurious groupings and renders their tenure of life precarious. In performing these services, it gives the individual members of valued associations greater liberty and security: it relieves them of hampering conditions which if they had to cope with personally would absorb their energies in mere negative struggle against evils. It enables individual members to count with reasonable certainty upon what others will do, and thus facilitates mutually helpful co-operations. It creates a respect for others and for one's self. A measure of the goodness of a state is the degree in which it relieves individuals from the waste of negative struggle and needless conflict and confers upon him positive assurance and reinforcement in what he undertakes. This is a great service, and there is no call to be niggardly in acknowledging the transformations of group and personal action which states have historically effected.17
To this statement though, he appends a warning that the State must not control or absorb within itself all associations and social values.,18
Although Dewey denies that there is a final, ideal form for "the state," he does make a case for the advantages of democracy, given current social conditions. According to Dewey, our current technological age has so enormously "expanded, multiplied, intensified and complicated" the indirect consequences of transactions that the public's interests cannot he easily identified. As a solution, Dewey proposes a social transformation to what he calls, "The Great Community." As distinguished from lesser forms of association, communal life possesses a moral dimension, that is, one in which the association is "emotionally, intellectually, consciously sustained."
The concept of mutual participation in the direction of activities affecting us, which characterizes democracy, when understood in its full implications, becomes identical with this concept of Community. For example, the free expression associated with democracy, particularly with respect to ideas and inquiry, is essential to development of communal life―as a means of (a) communicating valued meanings to be mutually shared so as to create a greater sense of "community" and (b) providing effective and organized inquiry into consequences of actions so as to guide the community most intelligently and successfully. Democratic forms are so important in the development of a community, for Dewey, that they should extend beyond the state itself and affect such modes of human association as the family, education, industry, and religion. Stated most simply, we can present Dewey's case for democracy this way: The current technological age creates an enormous need for development of a community and democratic forms are the most effective means of attaining that goal.
Note that, in keeping with his rejection of traditional individualism, Dewey associates democracy with a type of participation in communal life rather than with an individual acting independently of society. He insists that democracy enhance, rather than destroy, communal life. And he fears that concepts such as liberty and equality, interpreted . according to traditional individualism, are apt to he divisive and thereby contribute to the dissolution of social ties. Dewey wants to recast our understanding of democracy so as to allow us both to deal more effectively with the problems of our technological age and to institute The Great Community.
As common ground, John Dewey and Karl Marx share a social interpretation of human nature as well as a fundamental reliance on science in dealing with society. They assert that the concept of a self-sufficient human being engaging in wholly personal thinking and action is an illusion; and they rely on science in determining the future course of action Dewey relying on an experimental approach and Marx relying on a scientific description of historical conditions. With respect to economic processes, Dewey even has passages in his works strikingly similar to those of Marx. In addition to recognizing the social consequences of changes in "modes of production," Dewey also appreciates the existence of class differences.
Regardless of similarities however, Dewey's position differs sharply from that of Marx. In the final analysis, Marx' position is far too rigid for Dewey to accept. First, the reliance on a description of the past to establish historical inevitability in the course of human events fails to take account of the numerous opportunities for various kinds of change. From Dewey's perspective, we must heed the history of the past; but we should not become slaves of the past in envisioning the future. The future and its possibilities are what really count, rather than any rigid conformity to perceived historical processes and to the desire to settle old scores. Secondly, Dewey would reject the rigidity evident in Marx' account of classes, class struggles, and the state. For Dewey, the account is too sharply and simply drawn―failing, for example, to take into account instances where states have constructively nurtured the interests of the public without merely oppressing the people in the interest of a dominant class. Thirdly, Dewey rejects the rigid adherence to violent overthrow of the capitalist class as the only method of dealing with the current human predicament. Such adherence exemplifies dogmatism rather than intelligent inquiry. Finally, Dewey does not accept Marx' use of science. Science is mainly a method of organized, intelligent inquiry, an experimental approach to seek out the most advantageous consequences in an ever-changing environment. Science is not a system of final truths about the historical process or anything else, as Marx seems to suggest in his "scientific" description of history. From Dewey's perspective, any system of final truth substitutes a distorting, paralyzing rigidity for effective inquiry. Given his more flexible approach, Dewey sees himself as being better able to use what is worthwhile in Marxist analysis without being bound to its dogma.
Other points of fundamental difference between Dewey and Marx also turn up. For example, Dewey thinks that intelligence and the moral dimension of life have far greater import in directing human activity than does Marx. He also has much less feeling of class oppression than Marx. No doubt, Dewey's experience in the United States gives him greater optimism about the opportunities for development of democracy and community than is the case with Marx. It is not really surprising then that Dewey and Marx envision different directions for human beings in the future, regardless of the similarities between them.
From the standpoint of Marx, Dewey's position must seem soft-headed and superficial. Dewey's hope that a state will provide "constructive opportunities" for individuals in their human relationships and will be "experimental" in approaching problems is quite simply an invitation to vagueness; and his hope for establishment of a sense of "community" in the absence of an overthrow of capitalism is just starry-eyed idealism. His call for liberalism to become "radical" in its approach to economic matters is just a cheapening of language without a truly radical call for elimination of the capitalistic system of private property. Dewey's failure to describe the true nature of classes and class struggle, along with his failure to be truly scientific in his analysis of the consequences of changes in the modes of production, leads only to superficial conclusions. As a result, Dewey's position just becomes one more instrument for the protection and preservation of the bourgeoisie.
Despite his insistence upon a "scientific" description of historical conditions, history has not treated Karl Marx kindly. More than a century after his death, the violent overthrow of capitalism still has not occurred. In those nations where communism took control, we find they were not the most industrialized capitalistic countries where, in Marx' view, the proletariat is most oppressed. Instead of workers in the most advanced industrialized, capitalistic countries constantly being reduced to the bare means of subsistence, we find them living more prosperously than workers in communist nations. Marx failed to grasp that the capitalists would find workers in their own countries to be an excellent market for their consumer products―so that higher wages for workers means more consumers of manufactured products, thereby leading to a common interest between capitalist and worker in providing higher wages.
Marx also failed to grasp the extent of accommodation by capitalists to meet the demands of organized labor and of government. He failed as well to grasp the power of government to restrain and rectify, in furtherance of the public interest, many exploitative practices in nineteenth century capitalism. To all this, we can add his failure to see the possibility of government alleviating all sorts of economic and social distress through extensive social welfare programs. All in all, Marx enormously underestimated the potential complexity, resiliency, and capacity for accommodation within the capitalistic system. Now communism has even lost its hold in nations, like the Soviet Union, and appears everywhere in decline.
Consequently, history has proved him a false prophet.
A Possible Reply: Although the pattern of exploitation is now more subtle and complex, nothing has basically changed since the time of Marx. Workers in a nation such as the United States may enjoy a standard of living far above the bare means of subsistence; but, relative to the capitalists, they have little power or control. Wealth is still concentrated in relatively few hands. Economic power ever increasingly resides with large corporations and financial institutions―which, in turn, exert political power to further their own ends. Social welfare programs merely mask the continued oppression of the overwhelming majority of people.
To the extent that workers are more prosperous and less likely to engage in a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalistic system, this phenomenon is largely attributable to the widespread imperialistic exploitation of less industrialized areas of the world. In effect, workers in a nation such as the United States live well because they benefit from their government's exploitation of other countries in pursuit of capitalistic, economic interests. The record of economic subjugation by advanced capitalistic nations is now well known.
In addition, wars and continual "military preparedness" have proved effective tools in preserving capitalism. Wars to destroy economic competition or to end conditions of economic depression have been commonplace. And the incessant call for "military preparedness" succeeds in cowing the workers at the same time that it provides an outlet to make use of the productive capacity of overextended industrial enterprise. Capitalism "feeds itself" on warfare. Imperialism, war, and increased subtlety help to preserve capitalism; but they really only postpone the inevitable. Capitalism can only advance by increasing and deepening oppression. Various measures may save capitalism a while longer, but not without bringing ever greater numbers of people to greater awareness of their oppression.
On the one hand, Marx claims that a scientific description of historical conditions establishes the inevitable overthrow of capitalism and triumph of communism; on the other hand, he advocates that we become communists to bring about these events. There is a conflict here. If the overthrow and triumph are historically inevitable, then we should not have to exert the effort of becoming communists to bring about these events. What Marx' advocacy of communism really shows is the existence of an ideology rather than of a scientific description.
A Possible Reply: Although the end result is inevitable, individuals can further or hinder the process of bringing the result about. Whether they further or hinder, that is, whether they are progressive or reactionary, depends upon their awareness of reality. Through his scientific description of events, Marx merely lays out what reality is so that human beings may sooner be aware of what is happening. He is not calling for effort of will or choice in bringing about communism. Changes in the material modes of production constitute the ultimate motive force in the historical process. But the inevitable process is accelerated through every increment in awareness of what is happening. Marx' works contribute to this incremental awareness.
It is not surprising that Marx provides such few details about the ultimate goal of a "classless society." No such society has ever existed; and it never will. Differences in abilities and interests as well as favorable or unfavorable social conditions will always lead to domination in a society by a minority class. Class differences are basic to the human condition. We have only to examine the situation that existed in the former Soviet Union to observe that communism does not lead to a classless society.
A Possible Reply: Given the present historical situation, detailed understanding of the nature of a classless society is not particularly important. What is most important is awareness of the need to overthrow capitalism. The classless society is a problem that will take care of itself in time. Besides, we should remember that the material modes of production, not speculative visions, will determine the nature of a classless society.
Presently, we should be content with seeing the outline of the end of class struggle. As capitalism advances, it simplifies awareness of the class struggle by reducing it to one single struggle, namely, between capitalists and the proletariat. Moreover, the proletariat includes the overwhelming majority of human beings. When the proletariat rises up and destroys the capitalists, there will no longer be more than one contending class.
As for any class differences that supposedly existed in the Soviet Union, we must examine the situation carefully. Just because some groups, for example, athletes or artists or communist party members, possessed more goods or privileges than others is not necessarily an indication of one class exploiting another, which is the essence of class struggle. In so far as these greater goods or privileges served and advanced the interests of the proletariat as a whole, they should not be associated with an exploiting class. Furthermore, we must realize that the Soviet Union existed in a transitionary stage, the "dictatorship of the proletariat," between capitalism and pure communism―a transitionary stage largely needed because of the continued existence and threat of capitalism. Hence the full implementation of a classless society still awaits the complete overthrow of capitalism.
John Dewey's position constructs an "open door" through which just about any social relationship becomes justifiable. When he asserts that the form of the state and the domain of the public interest are not final and fixed, but rather vary with particular social conditions and require an experimental approach, he seems to introduce into social arrangements a refreshing tolerance and desire for innovation. In practice however, groups will interpret social conditions and the experimental approach to suit their own purposes. Socialists, communists, laissez faire capitalists, political liberals, anarchists, dictators, privileged classes, and oppressed classes all will use Dewey's position to support their own special interests. And beyond the vagueness in "particular social conditions" and the "experimental approach" lies the further vagueness in policies supposedly directed toward providing "constructive opportunities" for individuals.
A Possible Reply: What is fundamental to the experimental approach is a careful examination of consequences. This careful examination provides an effective restraint on any exaggerated claims a particular group may make. What works in the way of best furthering the public interest is not always perfectly clear; but the experimental approach is more effective in making that determination than any alternate method.
This objection makes the mistake of demanding easy answers to complex questions. As a matter of fact, social conditions vary widely and what is best for one set of conditions may be quite inappropriate for another set. We must be ready to adapt accordingly. We cannot ignore facts simply to suit our fancy for final truths.
Dewey's interpretation of democracy contains two fatal flaws: (a) The stress on the concept of community produces conformity in which everyone becomes just like everyone else; and (b) The stress on organized and effective inquiry in determining policies, in practice, leads to rule by a small group of experts rather than by the people as a whole. Instead of democracy in any real sense, we will end up with a small class of experts who decide what brand of conformity will hind us all.
The ultimate source of these flaws is Dewey's failure to appreciate the essential function of the competent, self-sufficient individual in the democratic creed. Democracy, at least any "democracy" worthy of the name, must be based upon confidence in the ability of independent individuals to direct their lives as they see fit, with a minimum of social or governmental interference.
A Possible Reply: Dewey himself specifically rejects the two alleged flaws. In his judgment, conformity is the result of an association falling short of a community, resulting in "the arrest and benumbing of communication." In a genuine community, we need not fear the appearance of conformity because the social interaction occurs so as to foster individual uniqueness: the interactions "include the give and take of participation, of a sharing that increases, that expands and deepens, the capacity and significance of the interacting factors."19
Regarding the danger of rule by experts, Dewey maintains that experts are not the best judges of basic policy in a democratic society because they usually have too specialized interests and aptitudes to perceive clearly the common interests of the public. According to Dewey, experts are like shoemakers who know how to fix a problem, while the citizens are like shoe wearers who know that and where their shoes pinch.20 Consequently, he reserves for experts the technical task of informing others about acts relevant to the training and executing of policies, without relying upon them to make the actual policy decisions.
As for the attempt in this objection to bind democracy to traditional individualism, we can only regard the attempt to be misguided. Not only does it rest on a faulty view of human nature, as the social sciences show, but it also fails to recognize the real possibilities for enhanced development of individuals that the association of democracy with community entails. We gain far more by viewing the individual and society in creative interaction rather than in opposition. This newer and truer individualism does more to promote democracy for all than the traditional individualism that, currently, leads to the favoring of some groups at the expense of a large number of other people.
Marx, Dewey, and Violent Revolution
It is only in an order of things in which there are no more classes and class antagonisms that social evolutions will cease to be political revolutions. Till then, on the eve of every general reshuffling of society, the last word of social science will always be: "Struggle or death; bloody war or nothing. It is thus that the question is inevitably posed." - George Sand
Marx, The Poverty of' Philosophy, Ch. 11, Sect. V
The argument drawn from history, that great social changes have been effected only by violent means, needs considerable qualification, in view of the vast scope of changes that are taking place without the use of violence. But even if it be admitted to hold of the past, the conclusion that violence is the method now to be depended upon does not follow―unless one is committed to a dogmatic philosophy of history.
Dewey, Liberalism and Social action
For Karl Marx, the necessity of violent revolution follows from a scientific study of history, which records the continuing series of class struggles. Violence and war are inevitable so long as there are social classes. Moreover, because capitalism intensifies the class struggle by forcing society into just two great, hostile camps, bourgeoisie and proletariat, the necessity of violent revolution during the present era is all the more evident. Only establishment of a classless society can do away with the need for violence to bring about social change. (In passing, we should note that Marx does not insist upon the need for violence at all times; but, because of the class smuggle, he does insist upon the need for it at various crucial times.)
John Dewey, as the passage above shows, takes a different position. Regarding the past, he does not think that, upon examination, class interests can be so sharply differentiated as Marx asserts and he thinks that there have been instances of fruitful social cooperation, as well as struggle, among classes.
More importantly though, he rejects any inevitability based upon what happened in the past, because history is a process of change that can also alter the method of directing social change. Accepting the inevitability of violence based upon the past only tends t produce more violence in the present and future without a search for more peaceful alternatives. More particularly, such acceptance blinds us to the possible role of experimental intelligence as a method of dealing with conflicting interests. The method of experimental intelligence brings conflicts out into the open so that claims can he democratically discussed and evaluated and so that the dominant social interest of the great majority can be determined; and the method of experimental intelligence can often suggest peaceful means in service to the dominant social interest. Thus Dewey thinks that resort to violence usually signifies a failure to use our intelligence sufficiently to find more peaceful alternatives.
Further Thought: Would you side more with Marx or Dewey on this issue? If you side with Dewey, how would you respond to a charge that you are the victim of capitalist propaganda?
6.40 Consider Marx' general description of history as a series of class struggles. Why does he think that the rule of the bourgeoisie cannot continue indefinitely? Evaluate his position on these matters.
6.411 Would you agree with Marx' statement, "The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie"?
6.412 According to Marx, capitalism continually turns social relationships into matters of money and self-interest. To what extent is this charge true, if you considered it in the light of contemporary U. S. society? (Try to consider specific examples where the charge may or may not hold.)
6.413 According to Marx, capitalism produces continual commercial crises that are overcome in a way that leads to further, worse crises. Evaluate the accuracy of his claim. Could someone argue that The Great Depression was a commercial crisis in which the governments in Europe and North America took action to prevent further and deeper crises and that subsequent government intervention in economic activity shows that a modified capitalistic system can deal with commercial crises inherent in a free enterprise system?
6.42 Given what Marx asserts, and presuming that you are not planning to become a communist, how would you justify your rejection of his position? And how would you respond to a Marxist charge that your rejection only shows the degree to which you embrace a bourgeois ideology?
6.43 Evaluate the ten general objectives Marx lays out for the communist movement. Would you reject any or all of them?
6.431 Evaluate Marx' position on private property. In your explanation, you should also include some consideration of the way each of the ten general objectives would affect private property.
6.432 Evaluate Marx' "classless society." In what sense does the State no longer exist in a classless society? Is the justification for not considering the nature of the classless society in any detail adequate?
6.44 Consider Dewey's critique of traditional individualism and his advocacy of a new individualism. Then evaluate his position on individualism.
6.441 Consider how Dewey thinks that the meaning of liberty has changed with changing social conditions? What does he think that liberty means in the contemporary world. How does his rejection of laissez faire economic policy fit in with this contemporary meaning of liberty? Evaluate his position.
6.45 Consider Dewey's position with respect to the origin and nature of the state and with respect to"a good state". Why does he avoid any final claims about the specific domain of the public interest and the form of the state? What advantages, however, does he associate with democracy as the form of the state? Evaluate his position.
6.46 Consider similarities and differences in the positions of Marx and Dewey with respect to the individual and society. Are their differences resolvable? Would you say that one position is superior to the other? Be sure to consider the objections and possible replies dealing with their positions in making your evaluation.
1. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto (English translation of 1888), in Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, and Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto, (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 209.
2. Ibid., p. 211.
3. Ibid., p. 214.
4. Ibid., pp. 213-214.
5. Ibid., p. 215.
6. See ibid., p. 222.
7. Ibid., p. 223.
8. Ibid., pp. 230-231.
9. Ibid., p. 223.
10. Ibid., p. 225.
11. See ibid., p. 231.
12. John Dewey, The Public and Its Problems (Denver: Allan Swallow, 1954), p. 22.
13. Ibid., p.25.
14. Dewey, Liberalism and Social Action (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1935) , p. 48.
15. See Liberalism and Social Action
16. Dewey, The Public and Its Problems, op. cit., pp. 15-16.
17. Ibid., pp. 71-72.
18. See Ibid.
19. Dewey, from Individualism Old and New, in John J. McDermott, ed., The Philosophy of John Dewey (New York: Capricorn Books, 1973) Vol. II, p. 614.
20. See Dewey, The Public and Its Problems, op. cit., p. 207.