A Critique of Ahsanul Karim’s “Why Marx’s Social Evolution Doctrine Is Not True”
By Christopher Henry
First of all let me thank Mr. Karim for his opinions and the work he put into his article. I have a great deal of respect for anyone who takes the time and effort to give society at large a chance to engage in civil and logical debate that helps to broaden intellectual horizons, even if I happen to disagree with a persons particle point of view. My critique of Mr. Karim’s article deals specifically with the many statements about Marxian communism that follow the typical internalized view of communism, and other historical, socio-economic statements made by Mr. Karim as well.
At the beginning of his article Mr. Karim states that communism is an egalitarian system, this statement is true in some aspects, however, economically speaking it is not true. No system, communism included, is egalitarian, this is a typical internalized view held by most people that in communism everyone is equal, i.e. everyone makes the same. Marx, on countless occasions, states that this is simply not correct. In “Value, Price and Profit” Chapter VII he states, “The cry for an equality of wages rests, therefore, upon a mistake, is an insane wish never to be fulfilled. In the “Critique of the Gotha Program” he says “Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence and equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid these defects, right instead of being equal would have to be unequal”.
In the third paragraph Mr. Karim says, “The preparatory stage of modern Communism is Socialism”. Now, I am unsure of his use of the word “preparatory”, if he is using it in the context of the dictionary
definition, then he is incorrect. If he using the word in the context of a transition stage, then he is again incorrect. Marx stated that communism would only come forth from a highly technologically advanced capitalist society, so therefore, advanced capitalism would actually be the “preparatory” phase of communism. In the “Critique of the Gotha Program” section 4, Marx uses the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” to describe the transition from capitalism to communism, not socialism. The notion that socialism is the transition phase from capitalism to communism is quite ridiculous for the simple reason that Marx was a socialist and his system [communism] is but a version of socialism, and it is totally nonsensical to say that the preparatory or transitory stage of communism is socialism.
Mr. Karim makes the point that Marx “also has professed for the easier path to inter into Socialism by nationalization”. This statement is half true, for Marx the “easiest” way to socialism/communism was for the proletariat to rise up and violently overthrow the bourgeois. However, Marx was of the opinion that in “democratic” countries a violent revolution was probably not necessary for the proletarians of such countries would more than likely have a better chance of success through “democratic” procedures.
Also, the mode of production being nationalized or put under government ownership during this (transition) phase needs to be elaborated on. On the surface and to those not familiar with Marx’s ideas on this particular subject, the thought of state control of the economy is one that is not desirable to the average person. In Marx’s view, however, the means of production being under state control is the right path provided…provided that the state is under the control of the proletariat i.e. under the control of the working class as a whole, hence the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat”. He [Marx] says that the state should be converted from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinated to it. Now conversely, again in Marx’s view, the means of production are all ready under state control for the reason that the state is an instrument and/or institution run by and primarily serving the interests of the bourgeois. That is why he described the capitalist system as the dictatorship of the bourgeois.
The statement that “human society would enter into Communism instantly with the abolition of the State” is overly simplistic. The abolition of the state would not instantly transform society into communism, how could it? Since society would have to traverse the transition period between capitalism and communism. Marx has stated that the end of bourgeois rule (abolition the state) would not mark the immediate transformation into a communist society. Because the new emerging society would still bear some of the marks of the old, such as a continuation of the use of money, a long transition period would be necessary to free society of the last vestiges of bourgeois habits. Not only that, if you look at it common sensically, people by and large are adverse to drastic or sudden change. Example, if one was accustomed to waking at eight in the morning and suddenly had to start waking up at four in the morning, that would, to use the vernacular, suck. If however, one would be acclimized to waking up at four by getting up a little earlier each day that would be far more palatable. So, the transition phase would be a period of acclimization to free them from the old capitalist habits and to teach them how to work toward the mode of production for need instead of for profit.
Mr. Karim and most everyone else has the misguided notion that the USSR and Eastern Europe were communist or at best socialist. These countries were not socialist nor were they communist nor were they even the least bit democratic, there are four socio-economic theories pertaining to these countries and not one of the four theories calls them socialist or communist. The one theory that best describes these countries is state-capitalist, some may disagree with that description, however, the facts cannot be denied;
bottom line is that in no way shape or form were these countries communist or socialist. After their demise many people, Mr. Karim included, believe that Marx’s theories, beliefs, etc. have diminished or have died out. I will submit to you that nothing could be further from the truth; to this day tens of millions of people (including many people in these former so-called communist/socialist countries) continue to believe in his writings, I come in contact with many Marxists and people wanting to learn of Marxism, both young and old. Marx and Marxism are eternal, his influence is far to great to just fade away and/or be forgotten.
In the fifth paragraph Mr. Karim writes, “With the development of Democratic values, the Roman Empire had become Republic. Republic of Roman State was continued around for five hundred years (509-27 BC).” He is incorrect, the Roman Republic preceded the Roman Empire, the democratic values of the Republic and the Republic itself pretty much vanished when Caesar was made dictator for life in 44B.C.
Mr. Karim writes in the sixth paragraph “If the egalitarian ILP had prevailed from the very beginning, the Euro societies would not passed successively through undemocratic Slavism, Feudalism and capitalism.” I can only assume that ILP stems from or was contained in the Corpus Juris Civilis, hence his reference to Justinian I. The notion that western society would not have gone through the successive economic phases that it had if “egalitarian” ILP had prevailed is dubious at best for the simple reason that it had less to do with law and more to do with technology. With major technological advances the mode and method of production advanced as well. In paragraph eight he states, “The character of Islam ILP may be ideal or natural egalitarian or democratic as it may be proportional to inheritance of social property. And for this reason, the Islam ILP creates ideal egalitarian or natural democratic distribution of wealth and consequently, no economic or social class is emerged.” And, “the social classes based society of thousands years in India is gradually transferring to equalitarian Democratic society.” In every society, you will find social stratification, there are class differences in Islam, Saudi Arabia is a case in point, even in Kuwait where the social property (in this case oil revenues) are shared with all citizens, a class structure exists, and, in India the caste system (though abolished in the 1950’s) is still very much in existence and is very influential.
In the ninth paragraph Mr. Karim says, “If the nature of prevailing ILP is monopolistic or undemocratic, the existing pattern and evolution of private ownership would be towards monopolistic or undemocratic. As a result, the mode and evolution of production, society and state will also be autocratic or undemocratic.” And, he also states “if the nature of prevailing ILP is equalitarian or natural democratic, the existing pattern and evolution of the private ownership as well as production, Social and State system will be equalitarian or natural democratic.” I understand this theory of ILP and I do find it intriguing, however, it is in the very rare society that inheritance of the mode(s) of production occurs on the societal level. In all most all societies it is the upper class that is in command and control of the mode of production, and, it is within the upper class that such inheritance occurs.
In modern sociology, societal types are divided into six categories and have evolved as follows- “hunter-gathering”, “horticultural”, “pastoral”, “agrarian”, “industrial”, “and post-industrial”. These six categories are contained within the five systems that Marx states and Mr. Karim lists. The first three would be categorized as primitive communism, slavism (which I assume Mr. Karim is referring to the slave system) first appeared in early agrarian societies. Feudalism also evolved in agrarian society fully developing sometime in the twelfth century. And of course, “industrial” and “post-industrial” are in the capitalist system. Each of the five systems is classified by what is referred to as systems of stratification, which are as follows- slavery, caste, estate, class. The slavery and caste system are the oldest and in some societies they still exist. The estate system came into being with the advent of feudalism, and, capitalism led to the devolvement of the class system.
All of these systems are a result of what modern sociology calls socio-cultural evolution. Marx was one of the early founders of sociology, his contribution to sociological understanding provided the foundation for the conflict perspective, which is one of the three major theoretical perspectives of modern sociology. In outlining socio-cultural evolution modern sociologists began with the works of Marx as a base and expanded on it. So to say that Marx’s theory of social evolution is wrong is to say that a major portion of modern sociology is wrong as well, which I, and many others would certainly not subscribe to.
To those not well versed in Marx, it is often not known that while attending the Universities at Bonn and Berlin Marx studied German law, European legal systems, Natural law, criminal law, Ecclesiastical law, criminal procedures, Prussian Civil codes and, Roman law, which of course included Justinian I and Corpus Juris Civilis. So it is highly probable that Marx would have been familiar with Inheritance Law of Property and, that is why he stipulated in the “ten points” at the end of the “Manifesto” (point #3) and in “ The Demands of The Communist Party in Germany (point # 14) that “restrictions should be placed on the rights of inheritance”.
Mr. Karim states in the last paragraph “the pattern and evolution of private ownership and capital as well as the mode and evolution of production, society and state society do not depend on the nature of ILP only. The pattern and evolution of private ownership and capital depends on a number of economic institutions…” This statement, in my opinion, more or less negates Mr. Karim’s theory of Marx being wrong, for by saying that the “evolution” of private ownership (of the means of production) and wealth being dependent on economic institutions only serves to strengthen Marx’s theory which I have elaborated on in my critique.
I would again like to thank Mr. Karim for his work; it is the rare article that compels me to do the amount of research that it took me to write this critique (Byzantine Emperor Justinian I and Corpus Juris Civilis specifically). By compelling me to do such research I am as well compelled to expand my knowledge and intellect, and it is for that reason in particular that I am extremely grateful to Mr. Karim. I wish him all the best
And look forward to more of his writings.
Christopher Henry
St. Louis, Mo.
|