Excerpt from: Deconstructing Karl Marx & Communism
The implausible construct that Marxism relies upon the most is the very thing that ties the others together and keeps them afloat – it concerns the product of communism: the communist man. Liberated from alienation, human beings would revert to their original nature – that of a communal being, a social being. No longer restricted by the division of labor, no longer separated by class divisions, no longer blinded by the desire to “have”, the individual becomes united with his “species-being” – all of humankind. Free to develop himself “in all directions,” man now works to give expression to his potential; no longer alienated from his species, he becomes acutely aware that his labor contributes to his entire species, which, as a social being, fills him with immense joy. All of this jolts his productivity to unseen levels, resulting in a superabundance equally accessible to all – so that there will be no more need for greed or selfishness.
With everyone turned into a social being, “the public interest is no longer distinct from that of each individual,” Engels stated in his first speech in Elberfeld.[i] “In communist society … the interests of the individual are not opposed to each other but united … the interests of all coincide.” Conflicts “will be easily settled by arbitrators.” More than that: “In communist society… we abolish the opposition of the individual against all others – we replace social war with social peace, we put the axe to the root of crime.” Communist man would be so empathic, good-natured and forgiving that the legal system would become redundant, even more so the penal system. Rights would not need to be coded in any official way, as everyone would respect each other as much as themselves, conscious as they are of their common species-essence. If the communist man should ever commit a crime, his social consciousness would have him beating himself over the head so badly that others would rise to his comfort, unable to behold his self-imposed anguish. The culprit would then “see in other men his natural saviors from the punishment which he has imposed on himself,”[ii] Marx asserted.
It goes without saying that this good soul will never neglect cleaning the communal bikes after using them, nor would he abuse his labor freedom by picking the plum assignments for himself and leaving the heavy lifting to others. Reborn as social beings, the revolutionary vanguard will definitely and without question handle the immense concentration of power of the proletarian dictatorship responsibly: with utmost prudence and care. There can be no doubt that the revolutionary leaders would of their own accord abolish their dictatorial rule (and the power and privileges that come with it) to unite as equals with their fellow men; these communist beings will only be too happy to share the spoils of the revolutionary war with everyone in equal measure.
Once the classless society is established, peace would reign on earth indefinitely. Continued from the Elberfeld speeches:
“In communist society, it would not occur to anyone to think of a standing army. What for? To preserve the inner peace of the country? As we saw above, it will not occur to anyone to disturb this inner peace.”
Marx hinted that “society will produce in six hours the necessary surplus, even more than now in 12 hours.”[iii] Laziness would exist no more, as work would become “life's prime want.”[iv] Communist man would consider work “the activity of real freedom.”[v] This freedom Marx defined as man’s “positive power to assert his true individuality”[vi] (that of a social being). With the superabundance in place, communist man works not to have things, or because he must (to survive), but to develop his potential and to enrich his fellow men, whose enjoyment of his labor feeds back into his own happiness. Even the experience of enjoyment will have lost its egotistical nature, to the point that the communist man can proudly state:
“The senses and minds of other men have become my own appropriation.”[vii]
Both man’s nature and his senses will have been freed from alienation, and he will look at the world entirely differently. Work would assume a flair of creative expression – indeed, communist man would create things only “according to the laws of beauty.”[viii] Everyone will participate in some creative or scientific activity, as “the antithesis between mental and physical labor has vanished.”[ix] With everyone always eager and willing to cooperate, managers would have no need for coercive means of any kind – they would “simply” direct everything like “the conductor of an orchestra.” And like orchestra players, communist men and women are all highly skilled (at least, considerably more than today’s humanity). In fact, they will be specialists in many areas, and able to “quickly” learn a variety of skills. With such a splendid workforce, securing the superabundance will be a matter of course! (It may not be entirely coincidental that Marx considered gullibility to be the most easily excusable vice).[x]
Marx and Engels were clearly convinced that anti-social behavior was entirely induced by the arrangement of society. Psychology and genetics say otherwise, and this has been uncontestably documented. That said, societal arrangements do have their effect on the individual. But they might not be as large as Marx assumed. The communist man will probably be different from today’s people because his societal circumstances will be different. The question is, will he be different enough to allow communism to succeed? Marx relies heavily on this communist man to bring forth the classless society – the communist man is the one factor that makes the implausible Marxist constructs plausible; he is the only chance that Marxism has at succeeding. But where is this man? Where do we find him? He is supposed to be the product of the classless society, yet at the same time he is the one Marx relies upon to establish that very society – the thing that is to give him birth. How could this ever work?
First, some attention should be given to the double meaning of “the abolition of private property” within Marxism. The term refers to two separate processes or two distinct phases of the same process.
In its first meaning, “the abolition of private property” refers to the proletariat “seizing the means of production” – capitalist and bourgeois property – during the revolutionary phase. Here, “private property” refers to the mills, the mines, the factories, the distribution channels, and the accumulated capital of the ruling classes. This “abolition of private property” does not target the private possessions of the workers (yet), nor those of land owning peasants – it focuses on communizing the productive forces and the subsequent abolition of the division of labor. These are two sides of the same coin: the workers collectivize the factories so they can choose themselves where and when to work, and what to produce.
However, under conditions of advanced or “higher” communism, the “abolition of private property” assumes a very different meaning. Here, it refers to the complete rejection of the concepts of property and ownership by the human mind, collectively – “the positive transcendence of private property” as Marx called it – and thus the transcendence of the species out of selfishness.
When Marx and Engels talk about the abolition of private property as the victory of mankind over its fundamental alienation, it is understood that the prerequisite is the availability of a superabundance able to satisfy the needs of everyone. The superabundance would atrophy the human desire to “have”. The required abundance is realized through the abolition of the division of labor. Productivity will undergo “such an expansion that what we now see will seem as petty in comparison.”[xi] Ergo, the abolition of the division of labor comes before the transcendence of private property.
Back to the early stages of communism: though “bourgeois property” has been confiscated and communized, the workers themselves are allowed to keep their individual possessions, which includes their personal belongings, real-estate (if they have any), family possessions, inherited valuables… For their work, they still get paid, be it with vouchers instead of money. But this means that the workers’ personal habitat remains mired in private property – and therefore, so will their thinking. Now, Marx said private property made man stupid and selfish. So will this post-revolutionary worker, still surrounded by his private property, not still be selfish? As a still selfish man, he will find it hard to think socially. Would this worker then not, as a result, respond selfishly to the freedoms created by the abolition of the labor division?
Man’s still selfish nature will likely complicate the production processes, which now, after the abolition of labor division, depend entirely on voluntary initiative – freely chosen – and socially (altruistically) motivated cooperation. In the absence of labor division and labor coercion, and still alienated from his communal nature by his own private property, this still selfish man may decide to work fewer hours, put in less of an effort, and quit when he gets tired or has had enough for the day instead of completing his normal shift. He may take a very long break or stroll to his next activity (which again shortens his productive time), where he may again leave if the situation proves too burdensome. Of course, he won’t cut his day short every day, but how will this man produce on average more than before, let alone superabundantly more?
As we’ve seen, many people opt to lower their productivity somewhat when they become exempt from labor coercion. This may not be so for the creative professions, like painting, writing, or creating videogames, but when it comes to boring work, tedious chores, or hard and dangerous labor, people will generally do less of that when they are free to do other things instead. This post-revolutionary man, working for vouchers, still living in his private home surrounded by his personal property, will still have selfish motivations – he is essentially no different from today’s people. Without any form of labor coercion, this man will be wholly unable to produce the communist superabundance – the necessary precondition for man to overcome his selfishness.
To summarize: private property makes man selfish. Private property will disappear only under the condition of superabundance. This abundance is achieved through the abolition of the division of labor. But the abolition of the division of labor produces an abundance only if the labor force is already selfless to begin with.
The only possible conclusion is a damning one: Marx’ “communist man” is an unattainable promise based on a botched conception of cause and effect (assuming there is even a causal chain to speak of)* – a shocking testament to the philosophical aptitude of Karl Marx!
*[In Private Property and Communism, Marx doesn’t even attempt to produce a causal chain of events. He first discusses the chaos of raw communism and then, at once, describes the state of higher communism where all these things – the transformation of man, the abolition of property, the abolition of labor division – have already been simultaneously realized. A causal chain can only be inferred by assuming that the abolition of the labor division will trigger the superabundance. But even so, the emergence of the selfishness-transcending communist man cannot be accounted for: there simply is no causal mechanism present here.]
Check out the blog
[i] Engels, Speeches in Elberfeld, February 1845; MEW, 2, pp.536-557
[ii] Marx, The Holy Family, Revelation of the Mysteries of Law
[iii] Marx, Theorien über den Mehrwert – Vol.III, ed. K. Kautsky, J.H. Dietz, 1910, p.304
[iv] Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme
[v] Marx, Grundrisse
[vi] Marx, The Holy Family
[vii] Marx, Private Property and Communism; MEGA, 1/2, p.393
[viii] Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
[ix] Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme
[x] Marx’ daughters loved the Victorian parlour game “Confessions” and asked their father to fill in the questionnaire of his likes and aversions. See: Wheen’s Karl Marx, p.387
[xi] Engels, Principles of Communism