Introduction to Marx’s thinking by Paul D’Amato – Book Review
I was naive to think that I could
understand Marx’s thinking by simply picking up the Communist Manifesto out of
the blue and start reading it. Indeed, after this futile exercise several years
ago, I understand and remember nothing except for the call for workers to
unite, the last line of the manifesto.
Paul D’Amato did a brilliant job in
this title explaining to layman reader the essence of Marxist thinking. It is a
perfect place for any person to begin their journey to understand Marx’s
elaborated thinking. I discover the book some time ago when I asked myself a
question “If we gave everyone equal decent living wages to everyone, what will
be the motivation for people to work, innovate and use their creativity?” – I
landed on one of D’Amato writings on the net and discovered his book.
In his introduction, D’Amato exposes
the need to have an alternative thinking to solve various social issues. The raison
d’état for this need is the failing of capitalism – or the uncontrolled
mess created by modern capitalism to be inherited to future generation.
Capitalism created a huge gap between the rich and poor, often unbalance with
unimaginable wealth and great misery stood side-by-side. He gave a stark
example where per capita income of Sub-Saharan Africa stood at $490 whereas per
capita subsidy for European cow is $913.
Marx was heavily influenced by
Hegel’s philosophy, in fact he was considered a Young Hegelian during his early
years. Initially he considered the workers as a suffering being, not a shaper
of the world social condition. He still believed that change must come from
philosophy, not crude material struggle. But after witnessing French workers
commitment, workers strike in Britain, Germany, and France, Marx ceased to view
workers as a secondary component to social change.
Marx materialist method insist on
the importance of material change instead of only abstract value, ideologies,
or theories. In the absence of enough food, equality as a value means slow
death – an equality of suffering. Working class, now, viewed by Marx as active
agent for their own liberation. When he wrote that “The philosophers have
merely interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it” he is not
saying that abstract ideas are meaningless, it is meaningless if its stay on
its own without any change on the physical and material ground, idea must
transform material changes in society to be considered useful.
Through this thinking materialist
rejected the idea that “people are poor because they are lazy, if they work
harder, they can become wealthy”, which suggested human has unrestricted
“free-will”. The fact is however, people were poor because of material
condition such as factories close, wages are low, or people fell ill and can’t
work. These all are material condition that can be change, its not a matter of
abstract theory.
Because Marx was heavily influenced
by Hegel, D’Amato discussed in adequate depth the concept of Hegelian
Dialectics, which I enjoyed very much. He discussed how the death of old idea,
and the birth of the new idea, is not separate and distinct, but one that
negate from the other, the old idea create a condition for a new idea to
emerge. Its like a plant which grew out from a seed, it grew into a new shape
and form, yet both are the same plant. Marx applied this Hegelian Dialectics with
materialism for social change. He viewed that the development of new society
only made possible with the abundant material produced by capitalism. In other
words, capitalism provided material condition to create a new socialist
society. For example, the efficiency of food production makes it possible to
eradicate hunger, the material condition exists, what’s needed is a new
distribution system.
Other than Hegel, the book also
discussed Thomas Hobbes in the chapter of Marxist view of history. Hobbes
stated that a state, separate from the society is needed as an alternative to
war. The state, in Hobbesian view, acted as referee that regulate social brawl,
regulate conflict between different parties within society to maintain order by
exerting its coercive force. But this view is flawed as it assumes that the
state could be neutral, in reality the state also had interest in every issue.
He explained how Marxist rejected this justification for power, stating that,
through the writing of Engels, that the concept of state came at the later part
of history and does not arise in the earlier time when the society exist in its
egalitarian and classless form.
The discussion on economics, or
Marxist economics was confined in one chapter in this book. It started with the
flawed mainstream economic models that cannot predict economic crises, the
mainstream economics dressed up themselves as “science” but it isn’t. He then
put forward the labor theory of value (LTV) which was the foundation of Marx’s
theory on capitalism. The theory supposed that value came from workers labor,
and to create profit, capitalist cannot simply mark-up the price because these
will cancel each other’s out in the commerce, they need to pay workers less
than what their labor produce, the surplus become profit. This is the core of
injustice towards workers, the book also discussed workers condition in company
such as UPS and Amazon where workers literally managed and treated like
“robots”.
In the capitalist system
“over-production” means that a product was overproduced and cannot be
profitably sell for profit. The supply and demand of overproduction does not
correspond to human needs. That is why we can have “grain-glut” yet millions of
people go hungry every year. India have 200 million malnourished people, yet
India export 5,000,000 metric tonnes of rice in 1995.
Socialism according two D’Amato was
possible and necessary for two main reason, one, the material abundance created
by capitalism. This abundance makes it possible for everyone to live with
dignity, without hunger, what socialist advocated is the distribution system
base on human need not greed. Two, is the periodic crisis brought by capitalism,
socialist advocate for a much more sustainable system, that is not based on
short term profit, but by long term sustainable planning. The systemic change
also possible, by the creation of a new set of people by capitalism, the
proletariat.
Revolution is not a fancy vacation.
Through out history it filled with blood, the question then is, can we reform
the system without revolution? Or change the system gradually within the bound
of constitution? D’Amato brought a wealth of historical example on the failure
of the “reformist” and “constitutionalist”. One of them is the killing of
Allende of Chile, he concluded that the ruling power will not give the key to
power and privilege easily, it needs to be wrestled. To make sure that the
power can be wrestled, the military must be on their side, and remain on their
side once they have the power, so that restructuring can be carried out without
falling back to the counter-revolution.
The history of Russian revolution
also was discussed, albeit somehow briefly. D’Amato take the readers on how the
Revolution was won, the tactics and strategies played out by Lenin and the
Bolsheviks, and also how the revolution was lost, degraded into autocratic
dictatorship of Stalinism. One of the strategies of Lenin was to never halt the
work even though if the organization was thrown into illegality, the work must
continue underground, according to the current condition, and resurface once
condition allowed. The Russian Revolution failed because of the lack of
material condition at that time, in order for socialism to succeed it needs
material abundance, something that Russia was lacking. This disadvantage put a
halt to the revolution from becoming, in Trotsky’s word “permanent revolution”,
that is revolution works permanently until all her aim achieved. Permanent
Revolution also means that it will not stop at national border, socialism
cannot survive when confined in a nation as an island surrounded by an ocean of
capitalism.
At the core of his argument, D’Amato
insist on the definition of socialism, it not about nationalization, but what
important is that workers control over production and distribution. What we
have today is abundance of produce but disproportionately distributed, the system
distributed product base one profit. Socialism on the other hand will base
their distribution on human needs. This distribution system can only be
achieved through internationalism, it cannot survive as island of socialism in
the middle of capitalist ocean, as the failing of Soviet Union has shown.
Quoting the English writer William
Morris on profit:
“It is profit which draws men into
enormous unmanageable aggregations called towns, for instance; profit which
crowds them up when they are there, into quarters without garden or open
spaces; profit which won’t take the most ordinary precautions against wrapping
a whole district in a cloud of sulfurous smoke; which turns beautiful river
into filthy sewers; which condemns all but the rich to live in houses
idiotically cramped and confined at best, and at the worst, in houses for whose
wretchedness there is no name.”
On Zionism, D’Amato is very clear
that the project is racist, but different from their South African counterpart,
Zionism goes further than just oppressing native population, it seeks the
removal of native Palestinian from their land to build exclusive Jewish state.
D’Amato dispelled Zionist propaganda that Palestine was “a land without a
people for a people without a land”. He also elaborated on the connection and
contact of Zionist leaders with the Nazis, as they share the same goal, the Nazis
want Europe without Jew, the Zionist want all Jew to fled Europe to resettled
in their new Jewish nation, both shared the same goal of “separation of Jews
from gentile”.
Finally, what does the future that
socialism seek to build?
D’Amato answered this with the words
from Eugene Debs “Production and distribution for all the people, collective
ownership of industries and their management, elimination of rent, profit, and
interest, the end of class rule, slavery, ignorance, poverty, cruelty, and
crime”. Socialism seek to abolish class, and with that it rendered the existence
of state as instrument of enforcement disappears. Whilst we may find that many
of the solution proposed is hard to churn, many would agree on the failing and
flaw of capitalism in structuring our modern society. We don’t have to be a Marxist
or socialist, but, we all need to work together to re-created a more just and
sustainable society.
