Karl Marx did not only involve himself in
abstract conceptual work on how to understand the capitalist social relations
of production. He was also an engaged analyst of class struggles at his time.
This included three separate writings on developments in France: The
Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 (1850); The
Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852); and The
Civil War in France (1871). In this post, I will discuss key aspects of
Marx’s historical materialist approach in relation to The
Class Struggles in France, 1848-50 and conclude with some ideas of what
this method implies for efforts today to understand the global political
economy as well as the possibilities for revolutionary change.
Key aspects of Marx’s method include (1) a focus
on the social relations of production, (2) an acknowledgement of different
class fractions, (3) the importance of the international dimension in
understanding class struggle, as well as (4) the historical specificity of
developments in individual countries.
Focus on the
social relations of production
For Marx, a focus on the social relations of
production is essential, when analysing historical developments and class
struggle. He asserts that ‘wage labour is the existing bourgeois organisation
of labour. Without it there is no capital, no bourgeoisie, no bourgeois
society’. Equally, when examining the reason for the eventual defeat of
workers in France in the period of 1848 to 1850, he refers to the social
relations surrounding production. ‘What succumbed in these defeats was not the
revolution. It was the pre-revolutionary traditional appendages, results of
social relationships, which had not yet come to the point of sharp class
antagonism’. It is on the basis of how production is organised that he
identifies a range of different relevant classes and class fractions in the
French struggles from 1948 to 1950.
Different
class fractions
Marx assumed that ultimately all capitalist societies
would be divided into two large classes, capital and labour. However, he was
sensitive to the fact that the development towards this situation was a historical
process, within which many more classes and class fractions were involved. In
other words, rather than simply thinking in terms of capital and labour, he
identified a range of relevant classes on the basis of an analysis of the
social relations of production. In France in 1848, this included the industrial
proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie such as small shop keepers, the peasant
class as well as capital. The latter were sub-divided into different class
fractions. ‘The bourgeois class fell apart into two big fractions, which,
alternately, the big landed proprietors under the restored monarchy and the
finance aristocracy and the industrial bourgeoisie under the July monarchy, had
maintained a monopoly of order’. He further established that finance
capital was dominant in France, while manufacturing played a subordinate role. In short, Marx was prepared to modify and adjust his general concepts
such as capital and labour to the concrete empirical situation he was
investigating.
The
international dimension
Marx always understood capitalism as an
international phenomenon and appreciated that class struggles within one
country were directly affected by economic developments elsewhere. In 1848 he
wrote that ‘French production relations are conditioned by the foreign trade of
France, by her position on the world market and the laws thereof; how should
France break them without a European revolutionary war, which would strike back
at the despot of the world market, England?’ And equally, when
discussing why there had been a revolution in France in February 1848, he
pointed out that ‘the second great economic event which hastened the outbreak
of the revolution, was a general commercial and industrial crisis in England’. The capitalist social relations of production and class struggle can
only be understood within an international context.
The
historical specificity
When analysing concrete struggles, Marx was
careful not to generalise his findings from one country to another. In the case
of France, he acknowledged the rather different production structure from the
one in England, which then, in turn, led to a different assessment. Discussing
the position of French manufacturing, he stated that ‘in England industry
rules; in France, agriculture. In England industry requires free trade; in
France, protection, national monopoly besides other monopolies. French industry
does not dominate production; the French industrialists, therefore, do not
dominate the French bourgeoisie. This focus on historical specificity
already included an implicit reference to uneven development, the fact that
different countries are in rather different positions within the global economy,
which was later developed by Leon Trotsky in the notion of ‘uneven and combined
development’. ‘Just as the period of crisis occurs later on the Continent than
in England, so does that of prosperity. The original process always takes place
in England; she is the demiurge of the bourgeois cosmos. On the Continent, the
different phases of the cycle through which bourgeois society is ever speeding
anew, occur in secondary and tertiary form. This historically different
location has then also implications for where revolutionary uprisings are more
likely to erupt. ‘Violent outbreaks’, Marx argues, ‘must naturally occur
earlier in the extremities of the bourgeois body than in its heart, since here
the possibility of adjustment is greater than there’ (see also Uneven
and combined development and the issue of resistance in the UK!).
Karl Marx and
the analysis of the global economic crisis
In his assessment of class struggles in France from
1848 to 1850, Marx highlighted the importance of crisis as an opportunity for
revolutionary change. ‘A new revolution is only possible in consequence of a
new crisis. It is, however, also just as certain as this’. Today, we
face another, much larger economic crisis on a global, but especially also
European scale. Marx’s method developed more than 100 years ago remains
relevant. First, we cannot understand the crisis by looking solely at issues
such as the regulation of financial markets, as vulgar economists do. Rather,
we need to analyse the underlying social relations of production and the
related developments, which have brought this crisis about. Second, we need to
identify the different social class forces, when thinking about agency for change.
We cannot automatically assume, for example, that all workers are likely to be
revolutionary agents. Different class fractions of labour are likely to act
differently. Third, the international dimension is of importance. As different
countries are in a different location in the global economy, so are different
labour movements. It is no surprise that Greek workers are much more involved
in open resistance, being in the periphery of the European political economy,
than British workers from the core. Finally, we need to investigate the
historical specificity of the capitalist social relations of production and
here the way capitalism has evolved since the mid-19th century. While
Marx’s method can be used for an analysis today, his findings cannot simply be
transferred.
Prof. Andreas Bieler
Professor of Political Economy
University of Nottingham/UK
Andreas.Bieler@nottingham.ac.uk
Personal website: http://www.andreasbieler.net
@Andreas_Bieler
5 July 2012
Posts
Hi Andreas, nice read. I was looking at application of Marxian theory of social change to comprehend the changes in developing countries.
ReplyDeleteAny pointers??