A part of Marxian theory, a part with which I wish I didn’t
agree, is his notion of the superstructure.
I am not a purist or raw version believer; I believe in what I
understand Marx himself believed. That
is, the economy functions as a sort of a base for the society and over it,
metaphorically, is a superstructure made up of the major institutions of that
society. The raw view sees the
superstructure being dictated by the base; it follows the demands of the
economy. In the more modest view, the
one with which I agree, the base sets the parameters for the superstructure. The individual institutions are highly influenced
by the values and beliefs constituting the economic system. So, while the economic system does not
dictate all the activities in which these other institutions engage, it does
set boundaries and help define what is judged acceptable. This more modest view also allows for the
possibility that the institutions have some limited effects on the economic
base. In the last thirty years, you have
seen the effect that the economic system has had on the superstructure.
Of course, our basic economic system operates under the
controlling influence of capitalism, the ism that is based on private property,
property rights, and markets. Throughout
the history of capitalism, the economy has had varying degrees of control over
the other institutions. Here is my take
on this variance. We have, during the
reign of capitalism, been drawn to its dictates as an object is attracted to
earth. We might at various times be
“shot” away from it by some force, but as the force expends its energy, we fall
back to the capitalist way of thinking and resume acting much as an object
falls back to earth. And what is the
force that propels us away from capitalism?
Well, ironically enough, it’s the result of going through a period of
radical capitalism. When we approach an unbridled
form of capitalist, economic activity – unbridled markets – certain social
effects arise due to a magnification of dysfunctional levels of greed. This is characterized by more and more
economic behaviors pursuing profits irrespective of what consequences arise
from such strategies. History tells us
that what results are a maldistribution of wealth, high debt levels, and a
general disregard for those caught on the short end of the wealth and income
“stick.” In the twentieth century, we
had such a time during the 1920s, so raucous a time it was nicknamed the “Roaring
Twenties.” Of course, the result – the
force – that propelled the society away from this radicalism was the Great
Depression of the 1930s, in which most economists blame the excesses of the
previous decade for its eventuality. Of
course, the resulting depression, historians agree, was instrumental in the
rise of Hitler and Mussolini and the tragedy of World War II.
As a result of this historical evolution – perhaps,
revolution – there was an extensive attempt to bridle in raw capitalism. Western countries went through a period of
Keynesian economics noted for a set of policies that placed meaningful
regulations and restrictions on pure capitalism. What we learn and then seem to forget is that
markets don’t necessarily self-correct and they need to be regulated. In addition to regulatory policies, particularly
on the financial industry, there was a plethora of welfare and recovery
programs to better distribute income.
This included minimum wage and work programs. Some have survived but have been
diminished. They have been diminished as
part of an overall creep, once again during the thirty years preceding our
latest financial crisis, toward the rawer or radicalized capitalist thinking –
that gravitational pull has once again had its detrimental effects, resulting
in the Great Recession of 2008. As we study
this latest version, though, two historical factors should be kept in mind.
One, the latest manifestation has had a strong supportive
mental disposition that is quite conducive to the capitalist mindset; that is,
the ascendency of the natural rights construct has become part and parcel of
our social thinking. Natural rights,
with its emphasis on individual value determination and lack of substantive
moral precepts, makes ignoring the more social aspects of a healthy society
easier to accomplish. Let me share
Michael J. Sandel’s thoughts:
[With market triumphalism] some of
the good things in life are corrupted or degraded if turned into
commodities. So to decide where the
market belongs, and where it should be kept at a distance, we have to decide how
to value the goods in question – health, education, family life, nature, art,
civic duties, and so on. These are moral
and political questions, not merely economic ones. To resolve them, we have to debate, case by
case, the moral meaning of these goods and the proper way of valuing them.
These examples illustrate a broader
point: some of the good things in life
are corrupted or degraded if turned into commodities…
This is a debate we didn’t have
during the era of market triumphalism.[1]
Naturally, all that sort
of valuing, lack of valuing, and calculations accelerated our gravitational
pull toward radical capitalism. As I
alluded to above, this radicalism can be traced to the thirty years prior to
the 2008 financial crisis. The
difference, though, was that this latest version, at the point of the debacle, despite
our natural rights bias, was met with a more active government reaction than
was the case in the 1930s.[2] This was more of an accidental happenstance;
the more progressive party was in power.
During this version, the critical implosion was stymied, and while many
suffered, the catastrophe did not reach the drastic levels of the earlier
depression.
So the question this time is:
how forceful was the force? To
what extent did the economic downturn generate the levels of suffering that would
result in the reactive forces to propel us away from those gravitational forces
of capitalist thought and policy? A lot
of what is going on politically is about this very question. While many have jobs, nowadays, their jobs
are not paying very well and many families are still dealing with the
consequences of the recession. This
includes deleveraging from steep debt obligations. I have lost count of the number of ads I’ve
seen that refer to some strategy by which to handle poor credit ratings. It is my belief that the push away from raw
capitalist biases was not strong enough among many citizens as they maintain a
healthy belief in markets, while for others, socialist solutions – a la Sanders – do not seem as foreign as
they once did. What has resulted is a
confused period in which no one vision, as Keynesian economics was, has emerged
to point a way out of our collective woes.
Two, the predictable response of nationalism is less strident
this time around, but has made its presence known nonetheless. The Brexit and Trump – and to some extent
Sanders – phenomena can be viewed this way.
No, these are not totalitarian versions of either nationalism or
socialism that befell Europe during the 1930s, but it is enough to undermine
the dreams of the post-World War II leaders for global semi-governance. Those dreams were activated so as to lessen
the probabilities of another global conflict that inflicted untold suffering
and destruction. Given the potential destructive
power of today’s weaponry, this is no small matter. In this context, the Brexit vote seems
worrisome. Perhaps the decision that Britain
is to leave the European Union is not a done deal and the parties can
reconsider the vote.
To get back to Marx, all of these social understandings –
those emanating from the superstructure – hopefully can influence the base; that
together, between our economic and political institutions, we can devise those
policies that allow us to establish a workable level of protections from
unbridled capitalism. Such a move would
make our political-social-economic realities less worrisome and, hopefully,
more promising for a brighter future.
Can we learn from our historical past, a past that was not so long ago?
[1] Sandel, M. J.
(2012). What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral
Limits of Markets. New York,
NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, p. 10.
[2] By way of a reminder, the initial event that led to
the onset of the Depression was the Stock Market collapse on October 29,
1929. FDR’s administration began on
March 4, 1933. The interim years allowed
the collapse in the economy to take a strong hold.
