Marx's socialism?

Question

It is often noted that Marx's socialism was a direct reaction to the Industrial revolutions, but it was also in many ways a product of romanticism. To what extent Marxism is the result of the Industrial Revolution and Romanticism?

Answer 1

I'm thinking the Industrial Revolution was very exploitative of human resources in 1850, much as it tries to be in 2008, succeeding nicely as it shifts to other geographic locations.

People were made desperate, unable to compete by continuing their cottage industries, and, as they came to the factories and towns, poorly paid, psychologically and physically abused by employers and social structures.

I can see how an economic philosophy fairer to the masses could be obvious to Marx in those conditions, which would be the talk of the dinner table, the barber shop, the tavern, every social encounter. Like Yahoo Answers, some obscure guy would begin to philosophize and one might put his thoughts to paper and publish.

Each of us is an entrepreneur, marketing our skill set, either to manufacture a commodity or deliver a service, either directly to the consumer, or by 'keeping company' with another entrepreneur who 'employs' us as extra heads and hands to produce THEIR commodities or deliver THEIR services.

By investing our human competence in product or services, we make a 'capital economic connection,' what Marx called 'cash nexus.' We exchange our human competence for capital, through sales of our skills, as manifested in commodities or services. Look about you at product invested with human competence (or not.)

That capital-economic-connection enables us to make 'consumption-economic-connection,' supplying our demands for food, clothing, shelter, and whatever other desires and demands we may have.

The tug-of-war between what the 'consumer' is willing and able to exchange for our product, whether produced by us for sale by us, or in capital exchanged for our competence in producing for an employer, determines whether we are 'fairly' compensated or not. Everyone wants to pay as little as possible for their commodities and services, including employers. Everyone wants to BE paid as much as possible.

When employers have all the power, the exchange is likely to favor them, low wages, high prices. If the workers have all the power they may not deliver their competence as fully as is expected, regardless of the wage. A fair and reasonable exchange is the constant issue between consumer and buyer, whether of labor or commodities or services.

The Industrial Revolution was comparable to the dynamic disruption one might expect in a war, hence the name. It changed the 'economy-of-residence' of every man, woman, and child, and every 'commercial being,' the 'corpora ficta,' companies given life by force of law. Their 'life' and 'health'  were subject to the winning and losing of the tug-of-war, much of it beyond the control of the people as those with the gold made the rules.

The power of the monied classes, the big entrepreneurs, became even greater as 'energy slaves,' machines, combined with concentrated human competence, a labor force, to garner great capital fortunes.

Human nature tends to exercise power over others, power corrupting, absolute power, absolutely. The social abuses widened the rift between labor and management, the gentry and the working classes, rich and poor, races, genders. Greed makes those with the power want more than they're getting, so what is fair to them is not fair in the estimation of consumers or those marketing their competence.

Watching China, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and India take over the commerce of planet Earth in the late 20th and early 21st century, we are seeing the demise of the Industrial Revolution in the places that emerged in Marx's day, and its reconstruction in those 'dragons' of economic success.

The inequities of the tug-of-war are probably quite evident in these places, if the truth is allowed to be spoken. They are in evidence in their outlet in North America, WalMart, where a pattern and a practice of abuse of human resources has been shown. WalMart, with 80% of its commodities made in China, is the largest employer in N. America; that's Canada, the U.S.A., and Mexico. Their 'industrial revolution' kills the smaller companies that can't compete where their superstores open, much as The Industrial Revolution killed cottage industries in the 1850's, etc.

A logical adaptive response to this threatening change in the environment where human and commercial beings are trying to maintain life and health is for cottage industry to re-emerge, supplying demand in local niches, or, via the internet, to those niches globally.

What might Marx or other economic theorists make of this 'revolution' we're in the midst of in 2008?

The influence of Romanticism on Marx's socialism eludes me.

Answer 2

Marx did not help the Industrial Revolution.  If he had it his way mankind would spiral downwards fast.

Answer 3

You are right Marx was more romanticism influenced than realist or objective. He was less influenced by logic but more influenced by the rich - poor divide. He could not tolerate frustration nor could revolt against the social order that he faced. So he wanted to dream about a future of equality in all respects - no market based or cooercive distribution of income, but sacrifice based income distribution: those who needed more can get more and those who can contribute to others should contribute. Marx ideas were unscientific. What he wrote  could have been expressed much better as poems or novels.