I am no expert on Marx and I just have a very peripheral idea about what his work was all about. I know that is bad, especially coming from a state where his name divides the people into two opposing camps. Maybe, some day.
The point I found interesting is that Marx defined his 'exploiter-exploited' relationship under various means of production. In feudalism, there was the landlord-serf relationship, during slavery there was master-slave relationship and so on. In the present capitalism, of course, there is the capitalist-labourer relationship. Now, while looking at feudalism and slavery, these systems were not destroyed by the 'exploited sections'. Slavery ended mainly due to the efforts of free men and not slaves themselves and feudalism ended due to the efforts of the newly born capitalist and merchant classes. So we find that it is an emerging 'middle class' that effectively put an end to the previous form of exploitation. Only those classes had the means to achieve their ends. Again, these efforts were aimed at strengthening these emerging classes and curtailing the power of the ruling classes of those times. The lower classes, though they participated, were more like lambs being herded by leaders from the 'middle' classes.
Now, if that is the case, capitalism, going by the history of its precedent 'forms of exploitation', will not be taken down by the proletariat which according to Marx, will become a 'class-for-itself', but by the class that will capture power from the capitalist class. Moreover, this emerging ruling class will have, among its members, a significant number of people who belong to the existing ruling class too. That is, there will be a group which will be constituted by an overlap of the existing and the future ruling classes. For example, a significant number of early capitalists were also aristocrats and landlords. They paved the way for the emergence of capitalism. Again, the emergence of any new 'means of production' has been a gradual, comparatively peaceful process encompassing within itself fleeting but bloody political revolutions as well as enduring movements for social change. These movements as well as revolutions are generally led by members of the emerging ruling class, with a majority of these leaders coming from the transitional class. The transitional class appears to make the inevitable process of change less painful to the class that is losing its power. Nevertheless, it is painful.
Looking at the current scenario, it appears that the technocrat-professional manager class is gradually displacing the capitalist class from the positions of power. Governments are getting increasingly bureaucratised, family-run businesses are making way from professionally run ones, politics is being controlled by lobbyists who in turn obey the professional managers. There is a significant overlap of the two classes - capitalist as well as managerial now but we do not know if this will continue in the future. With services gaining an upper hand on manufacturing, knowledge-technology combine may soon displace capital-labour combine as the predominant means to create wealth. Or may be it already has.
The emergence of each new 'means of production' has enhanced the probability of increaed socio-economic mobility of individuals. If you were born a slave, most probably you died a slave unless your master took pity on you. In capitalism, a person born in the working class has a greater probability of making it to the higher strata. This mobility is bound to increase with the rise to the pre-eminence of the managerial class. The world will require good managers, no matter what their background is. Governments will universalize education not out of compassion but because they need good managers to stay put in the race.
We may also witness an era of cold-blooded rationality soon. In feudalism, the landlords could afford to take decisions about production based on emotion alone. Capitalists rely more on rationalism, but occasional emotional decisions do occur. However, managers, with their first and usually their sole responsibility to their firms may find it hard to factor in emotions - even if they would like to.
Of course, greedy managers are going to mark the initial phase of the rise of the managerial class. That should come as no surprise. From our experience in India, we know that the first few generations of landlords were bloodsuckers. And nobody needs to be reminded of the working conditions in the factories across the world during the initial days of capitalism to prove how greedy early capitalists were. If we link the salary of the managers purely to the profits generated or the revenue generated, we cannot remain blameless when managers act ruthlessly without regard for others.
Increase in 'alienation' remains a strong possibility. According to Marx, production was more fulfilling in the days of primitive communism i.e., ancient, primitive societies, when men produced as well as identified themselves with the goods they produced. Their thoughts were parts of their selves, as were the things they produced. In feudalism, they became alienated. The landlords took many of the decisions regarding production. Capitalism resulted in the almost complete transfer of decisions regarding production to the capitalists but at least the thoughts of the labourers were their own. In managerialism, as knowledge becomes the source of wealth creation, thoughts and ideas woukd become properties of firms and man will have nothing to call his own. The social networking sites are only a beginning. The future is as scary as it is exciting and we do not know we are headed. Happy journey, mankind!
No comments:
Post a Comment