Marx and Justice
Jonathan Wolff: Department
of Philosophy, UCL
1. When we read Marx's Early
Writings, his writings on capitalism (esp
Capital) and other political
writings, we have the sense of someone writing with an enormous sense of moral
outrage against the workings of the capitalist system. Aspects of his language
seem clearly to imply a moral critique. For example he refers to exploitation
as 'robbery' 'embezzlement, 'plunder', 'booty' and so on in various
of his writings (Husami in MJH p. 45). The term
'exploitation' itself seems morally loaded.
2. Yet when we look for
explicit moral condemnation of capitalism we find virtually nothing. There are,
apparently, some speeches where he comes close to moral criticism, but it is
said that there are letters to Engels where he explains why he did this, and
excuses himself for it. Thus not only does Marx omit to criticize capitalism in
moral terms, he tries his best to avoid doing so. So, for example, he refers to
exploitation as 'a piece of good luck for the capitalist but by no means an
injustice for the worker' Capital.
3. The 'Tucker/Wood' thesis:
Marx condemned capitalism in many ways, but not because he thought it unjust.
4. Wood's argument:
5. To thi
6. Marx did not have a juridicial concept of society
7. Therefore: not appropriate
for Marx to make criticisms in terms of justice
8. This is not just a verbal
matter of a stipulative definition - a substantive
matter is involved
9. What is a juridicial concept of society? It identifies the 'social
whole' with the 'state' and conceives of the task of political philosophy to
fashion principles for ideal state: ideal laws, assignment of rights and duties
- thus legalistic notion dominant from Plato to Hegel, perhaps to Rawls.
10. What is Marx's concept of
society, and how does it differ from a juridicial
conception? It places human productive activity at forefront. Human beings act
upon nature, changing the world and changing themselves. At the centre of his
account is the mode of production, not the political or juridicial
state.
11. In this conception the way
in which we produce our means of substistence
explains the nature of the economic institutions we have, which in turn
explains the nature of the political institutions, and perhaps moral
conceptions that we have. This is the essence of historical materialism.
12. Thus the state is thus seen
as an entity which, at least in large part, is determined by the economic.
13. What, then, is the relation
between a conception of society and the appropriateness of criticisms of
justice?
14. Basic idea. If you want to criticise the capitalist economy from the standpoint of
justice, then it seems that justice must provide an independent standard of
some sort: i.e. to assess something as just or unjust might be start out with a
notion of the 'ideal state' - the just state will be 'just according to the
laws of the ideal state'. Capitalism may then be criticised for falling short
of this ideal.
15. However this is the
precisely the account of the state that Marx does not have. The state does not
provide an independent standpoint because the nature of the state (and
morality) is determined by the economic.
16. In particular, in the
'functional' reading of historical materialism, the state exists in order to stabilise the existing economic relations. Thus we would
expect a society's state and morality to endorse whatever norms are most suited
to efficient production.
17. Illustration of claim:
American slavery came to end not because of a moral crusade against it, but
because it was no longer economically efficient (even though this may not have
been how it appeared to those taking part in the anti-slavery movement). [n.b. I have no view as to whether this is the correct
explanation – it is intended only as an illustration of the Marxist position
according to the Wood thesis.]
18. From Marx's perspective:
What is just depends on what arises from the relations of production. Under capitalism slavery and fraud are
unjust, but those transactions which "fit" the prevailing mode of
production are perfectly just.
19. The Marxist critique of
justice: Justice does not give a universal or ahistoric
standpoint to judge modes of production, but is a standard which a mode applies
to elements within that mode.
20. Abstracted from its
historical place judgements of justice are simply empty.
21. Wood: this is not a
relativistic conception of justice: there is always a right answer, no
insoluble disagreements.
22. Consequence: no injustice in relation between worker and capitalist - capitalism
could not exist without profits to reinvest etc., and as justice is
defined in terms of its appropriateness to mode of production this cannot
possibly be an injustice.
23. Yet Wood does agree that
Marx thi
24. So is it any more than a
verbal matter what we call that criticism?
25. Why this is said not simply
to be a verbal matter:
26. To suppose that capitalism
is unjust is to suppose that what is wrong is a distributive matter:
unfair division of the spoils. But:
27. That is to treat production
and distribution as distinct. But Marx, like Nozick, thi
28. The ideal society will be
one in which there are no principles of justice at all: see Lukes.
29. According to Lukes Marx is calling for a form of society 'beyond'
justice. This relies on Hume's idea that justice is appropriate only within the
'circumstances of justice' . The circumstances of
justice are:
30. Moderate material scarcity (neither grave scarcity or abundance).
31. Division of
interests/competition between separate individuals.
32. If there is either great abundance of goods,
or some sort of complete fellow-feeling among citizens - - if you love others
as you do yourself - - there will be no conflicts, and thus no reason to have
norms of justice. Consider distribution of air – at the moment there is so much
of it, we don't have disputes about using it and thus no need for norms of justice.
However if it becomes scarce (e.g. for people trapped in a coalmine) there may
be a need for norms of distribution.
33. Communist society will be beyond justice,
according to Marx, on Lukes' reading. Either because
of transformation of production to produce abundance, or because of
transformation of human nature (for discussion see Cohen's paper on reading
list). This is why it is incorrect to describe communist society as just.
34. Wood and Lukes
have distinct arguments for the same conclusion: that Marx did not thi
35. Main opposition to this view
comes from Husami, who attempts to find evidence that
Marx thought that capitalism was unjust.
36. Note that even if we are
convinced by Husami that Marx thought that capitalism
is unjust, we have to continue to consider the question of why he took such
steps to deny this. If Marx thought capitalism unjust, why didn';t he say so?
37. Husami accepts that though direct
and explicit statements are 'few and far between' Marx employs the sort of
language typically used in philosophical discourse and seems to be condemning
capitalism for its injustice.
38. But what about the fact that
he never actually says it is unjust and sometimes says it is just
. Husami says that we have to understand
Marx's use of irony
here.
39. According to Husami, Wood has failed to understand the distinction
between Marx's sociology of morals, and Marx's moral theory.
40. Wood appears to believe that
for Marx, there would be a dominant moral position prevalent in society, and
this, in effect, would be whichever morality was most to the advantage of the
ruling classes. However Marx position, according to Husami
is more complex. His sociology of morals says that the moral ideas people come
to have is determined both by the
mode of production, and their class
position (although people may go over the boundaries)
41. In a given society the only
ideals that may be realized are those
of the ruling class: it is in this sense that 'right can never be higher than
the relations of production'. But it does not follow that other moral
standpoints cannot be used to evaluate capitalism. So, for example, from
proletarian standpoint capitalism can be criticised.
42. Husami claims that Marx's moral
theory is that of the proletariat under capitalism. What are the principles of justice? These
appear in Critique of Gotha programme - look in
detail as the second topic.
43. Summary of Husami: we must interpret Marx as deliberately making a
distinction between 'real justice' and 'so-called justice' or 'what passes for
justice under capitalism'. Wood
collapses this distinction, and fails to see that Marx does not mean what he
says when he says capitalism is just.
44. Objections to Husami:
45. Textual analysis does not
seem to confirm his position: there is something to what he says, but no
concrete evidence that Marx saw himself as arguing from the standpoint of a
particular moral theory.
46. Why does Marx say so little
about justice?
47. But: he has unearthed enough
material to show that Marx felt that capitalism was unjust, but not enough to dissolve
Wood's arguments.
48. General problem: Wood may
have excavated the official position, but not eliminated worries about the
unofficial. Husami has convinced us of unofficial
position, but not that there is no Wood-like official position: i.e. the debate
simply reinscribes the paradox. In effect we are back
wehere we started.
49. Cohen's position (mentioned
in Geras and Lukes) Marx
thought capitalism unjust, but did not thi
50. To explain, we should not
assume that people have complete first person authority about their beliefs. An
individual's beliefs may be better revealed not by what they explicitly say
about a topic, but what they say on related issues, in unguarded moments, and
how they act.
51. But if Marx thought that
capitalism was unjust, why was it so important to him to maintain the belief
that he didn't thi
52. One possibility: given the
theory of historical materialism, he couldn't hold a an
ahistoric moral theory. So he tried not to, rather
than admit that the theory needed modification.
53. Another possibility.Marx
had reasonably clear vision of justice, but despaired of being able to get
anywhere by moral argument. Why not:
54. He saw people apparently
making anything follow from anything. Ideas which contradicted each other were
often both claimed to be 'self-evident'. So not only is there no agreement in
morality, but no agreement as to proper method for argument or proof.
'Hollow phrases can be
twisted and turned.'
55. People have many reasons for
believing things: often not because they have good evidence, but because it
serves their purposes (although they don't realize this). This is particularly
true in the case of morality. So argument may not shift them, however good it
is, because beliefs are not held on the basis of the rational reasons for them.
56. Thus he couldn't mount the
revolutionary movement on basis of moral persuasion. However he also thought he
didn't need to: history would win the argument for him, and he could show with
scientific rigour that it would.
57. Part of motivation of
historical materialism is to turn away from ineffectiveness arguing on basis of
morality. In any case it becomes redundant. He can win the argument without
descending to crude moral terms.
58. Yet paradoxically it is the
moral vision which led him to take the argument outside of moral terms i.e.
because he saw things as so clearly unjust that the wanted his vision realised:
this led him to abandoning moral argument: hence the contradiction between
official and unofficial views.
59. Note this is only one
possible interpretation. See Geras for a general
survey.
60. What is his view of justice?
See Topic 2.
Topic 2: Distribution under communism
61. What are Marx's views about
how production and distribution are to be arranged under Communism? Take as our
main text, the Critique of the Gotha Programme.
62. We will also look at the
question of how consistent this is with what he says elsewhere about communism:
in particular about the nature of labour under communism.
63. Background to the Critique of Gotha
Programme .The Gotha Programme was produced by
German Socialists as a joint statement of principle for adoption at the Gotha Unity Conference in 1875. The point of the conference
was to unite the working class movement after previous splits.
64. Marx thought that the draft
programme was a retrograde step for the workers movement, and wrote a scathing
attack on it. Fortunately his bile leads to pedantry and so gave more detail
about his views here than we get elsewhere.
65. Start with one important
element in programme: it calls for an equal right to the "undiminished
proceeds of labour".
66. Something like this is often
taken as Marxist theory of distribution, yet according to Marx it is a very
naive demand.
67. First it is not clear what
"proceeds of labour" means: probably intended to mean "suplus produced" or "net social product".
Marx takes it to mean "total social product" in value terms i.e. the
value of all goods produced - but Marx points out that this cannot all be
shared out.
68. More sophisticated account
has to incorporate various deductions:
69. First those of economic
necessity:
Cover to replace means of
production used up
Portion for expansion
Insurance fund for
calamities
70. Second: administration and
social services -
Paying the administrators
Communal needs - schools and
health services
For those unable to work
71. After these deductions, how
are the proceeds of labour to be distributed? Here Marx distinguishes two
levels of communism: later called by Lenin socialism (lower level) and
communism (higher level).
72. The lower stage is
"still stamped with its capitalistic birthmark": not possible to go
directly from capitalism to full communism, and intermediate stage required.
73. Thus, ignoring those unable
to work, lower communism will be regulated by the bourgeois principle of
exchange of equivalents: equivalent labour - each according to their labour.
Each person will receive a certificate saying how many labour hours worked, and
this can be exchanged for goods.
74. What is wrong with this? Why
can't it be the final stage? Like all
rights, this equal right is a right of inequality
75. Some are better able to work
etc
76. Some have more dependents
77. Thus this equal right will
lead to unequal social consumption.
78. However "right can
never be higher than the economic structure" i.e. at this level of
productive power nothing better is possible. Remember that this was one the key
quotes in the 'critique of justice debate'. In context, is Marx saying anything
more than 'ought implies can'? That is, there is no
point seeking to impose communist principles of distribution if the level of
economic production is not yet adequate? Thus there is a question of whether
this quote really bears the weight that Wood supposed.
79. However, although this is an
improvement on capitalism (which arguable doesn't meet up with its own
distributive standard of exchange of equals, for the capitalist makes a profit
without offering anything equal in return – see
80. Would some other standard of
equal distribution do better than 'each according to their labour'? Marx rather claims (without much real
argument) that no equal standard will be satisfactory, as it will have unequal
effects on people.
81. Why not a right to equal
consumption, on condition that you have worked to your ability?
82. Marx would probably reply:
by the time this would be workable it would be unnecessary. Socialism is still
stamped with capitalistic attitudes - could you take people's word that they
have worked to their abilities? How else
could you tell?
83. By the time attitudes have
changed 'bourgeois right' can be left behind and a new principle adopted, which
is not a principle of equality.
84. The higher principle:
"from each according to their ability to each according to their
need." Warning important to
understand this properly. Marx is saying here that people should contribute
according to their ability, and receive according to their needs.
85. Note that there are at least
two possible readings of this:
86. Conditional reading – it is
a condition of receiving anything that you work according to your ability.
87. Prediction reading – under
communism this is how people will behave. We don't need to set conditions to
get people to work because that is what they will want to do in any case. Cohen
argues in favour of the 'prediction reading'. This does seem more in the spirit
of Marx's thought.
88. What does marx mean by needs? Clearly more
than bare survival needs, but less than 'whatever you desire'. Note that is not intended to be applicable
immediately after revolution, when people would still be infected with
bourgeois attitudes and hence are likely to exaggerate their needs.
89. However, to keep this in the
context of Marx's general thought, remember the Marxist principle that
distribution of goods is consequent on the method of production. So we need to
ask what method of production would be required to make this possible?
90. In the Early Writing
(1845) Speeches in Elberfeld Engels said
something about the organisation of production:
91. In communist society it will
be easy to be informed about both production and consumption. Since we know how much, on the average, a
person needs, it is easy to calculate how much is needed by a given number of
individuals, and since production is no longer in the hands of private
producers but in those of the community and its administrative bodies, it is a
trifling matter to regulate production according to needs.
92. In Engels 1847 Principles
of Communism Overproduction beyond the immediate needs of society will mean
the satisfaction of the needs of all, the creation of new needs, and at the
same time the means to satisfy them.
93. Thus idea of abundance
is clearly at play here. Central planning of the economy would create such
efficiency advantages that an absolute wealth of goods would be available.
(Easier to believe in 1847 than 2001.)
94. Note also abundance leads to
the end of class divisions, for class divisions arise over division of surplus,
yet the surplus would be such that all could satisfy their needs.
95. Is this problematic? Some
would say that there could still be ethnic/religious division. But even putting
that to one side, couldn't class divisions arise over who does the work?
96. Standard Marxist reply:
under communism work becomes life's prime want -Critique of the Gotha Programme. This is
also a theme we encountered in studying the Early Writings.
97. Yet in 1840's Engels still
saw labour as something negative: assuring his audience that because communism
would not need the various levels of unproductive labourers
e.g. middlemen, domestic servants, standing armies and could utilize the
unemployed etc. there would actually be less work to do. However, it has to be
said that in the Speeches he was addressing an audience of workers, who may
have found it hard to believe that there would ever be a time when work would
be 'life's prime want'.
98. The main problem is
rendering everything Marx and Engels say about the nature of work and
production under communism consistent. On the one hand, production must be
highly efficient to create the level of abundance that will make possible
distribution according to need. On the other hand, work is meant to be
non-alienated, and life's prime want. How are both
things possible?
99. In the few places where Marx
describes work/life under communism, it doesn't look very productive.
100.In The German Ideology presents a vision of idyllic rural life:
101.In a communist society,
where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished
in any branch he wishes, society regulates general production and thus makes it
possible for me to do one thing today, and another tomorrow, to hunt in the
morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after
dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, cowherd
or critic.
102.How much hunting and fishing
would there be? Deliberately ironic?
103.Recall the notion of unalienated labour from On
James Mill - two aspects:
104.In production I would
express my individuality and in contemplation of my product realised that I am
an objective creature.
105.In your enjoyment of my
product I would realise that I would satisfy a human need.
106.Problem 1. No sense of
individual creation under highly productive division of labour.
107.Problem 2. Because of
abundance, my product may not even be consumed.
108.Separate problem, beyond the
scope of this discussion: scarcity of raw materials. Marx never thought about
environmental issues.
109.Of course assumption all
along: planned production much more efficient than anarchy of competitive
market. No reason for Marx to question
that? Do we have reason? But let's grant
assumption for now:
110.Most sensible idea: lighten
load of labour by production techniques, abolish foolish wants by recognition
of their foolishness, and leave enough free time so people can do what they
want.
111.Would this be a situation in
which labour would be life's prime want? Surely not. This free time can be
called labour, but nothing substantive is so achieved. Perhaps alienation cannot be abolished, but
it can be compensated for.
112.Not hard to see why this has
appeared such an attractive idea to so many.