Friday, November 03, 2006
comment on Engaged Citizen's "Marxist Tradition and Electoral Reform"
In his posting “Marxist tradition and Electoral Reform,” Engaged Citizen (EC) summarizes the Marxist ideal, highlighting its significant concepts and perspectives. Based on this analysis he suggests three possible Marxist critiques of the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system, concluding that a proper solution would be to adopt a more proportional electoral system. While not necessarily disagreeing with this conclusion, I would like to suggest that the three critiques of FPTP, and their corresponding implications, which EC cites are not actually in line with Marxist thought. A more thorough inspection of the manner in which the proletariat is mobilized in Marxist thinking shows that what EC suggests might do more to hamper a communist revolution than begin one.
Marx gives an account of the proletariat’s development from disordered workers to revolutionary class in The Communist Manifesto. He suggests that with the proletariat’s “birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual laborers” who then unite on occupational and geographical grounds, as “operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labor.” Thus at first, the workers are hardly a unified class; rather, they are “an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition.” [i]
At this stage Marx details the expansion of the capitalist system and its effects. EC illustrated this expansion’s effect on the proletariat quite well, detailing the feelings of alienation and degradation workers feel in such a system. What is important to note, and emphasize, is that it is these very conditions and feelings that are necessary to bring about communism:
The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes [the proletariat’s] livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois…. Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers.[ii]
Discontent provides the impetus for transformation, and therefore worker discontent is necessary for a Marxist revolution. This discontent serves two necessary functions: a) it creates the solidarity of workers into a proletarian class, and b) creates disillusionment with the present situation that is so strong it behooves the proletariat to radically alter the existing systems of production. To summarize, Marxist revolution hinges on the dual notion that discontented workers understand their discontent not as individual, but as a universal malady of the working class, and that this working class is in a bad enough state to warrant radical change.
EC notes correctly that there is an “absence of a strong mobilization of the proletariat in Ontario and Canada, and hence a lack of real class consciences,”[iii] concluding that this “denies any contemporary implementation of Marxism within Canadian politics.” While I completely agree that this class-consciousness is necessary in Marxist thought, I don’t think it necessarily rules out the implementation of Marxism, in that the development of class-consciousness could theoretically still be developed. A Marxist critique or solution to electoral systems in Canada, therefore, should be targeted at the development of the working class and their interests. Solutions that abandon this development, I would argue, fall outside of the Marxist vision, no matter how labor-friendly they are in scope.
Understanding this, I would like to assess EC’s argument for proportional elections made through his trifurcated critique of FPTP. The first flaw of FPTP he notes is that it disadvantages smaller parties, thereby facilitating the “ongoing election of governments that continue to reflect the interests of the bourgeoisie.” While it is true that a proportional system would allow for smaller parties to gain representation, this would not only include the left parties that represent the interest of the workers, but also those of the far-right, as well as special interest parties like the “Marijuana Reform” party. EC’s second argument is that proportional elections would give workers more choices in terms of representatives who could help protect them, and relieve them, from “the adverse effects of economic slow-downs.” This reason is in fact far-flung from the Marxist notion that class-consciousness can develop, and rests on the assumption that “the democratic process will continue to be the only legitimate means for the people to strive for refuge.” In this way EC mistakes socialist reform for Marxist transformation and precludes the growth of a proletarian class. The third argument, that proportionality would increase proletarian voter turnout and thus increase the election of proletarian parties, I think falls into the same trap. While I am not necessarily barring the idea that a Marxist revolution could take place through a non-violent, democratic process, I don’t think that the mere opening up of the system to more party options can produce this.
This does not mean, however, that proportional representation is necessarily incompatible with a system of Marxism. If one does believe that the modes of production could be altered in line with Marxist ends through nonviolent and even electoral processes (which would entail the belief that the current government institutions would be capable of a change this drastic in scope, of which I think there is good reason to doubt), than I think proportional elections do offer a characteristic in line with Marxism. Proportional representation would dismantle the constituency-based system of FPTP. What this could do is allow for broad-based support for parties based on ideology and interest as opposed to geographical location. In this way an actual worker’s party could be created whose constituency base in fact the workers, and not merely an arbitrary geographical area. In this way, perhaps, proportional elections might help facilitate the development of class-consciousness and unite a growing proletariat. However, even with this capacity, I am skeptical of how realistic a Marxist revolution via the electoral institution is.
[i] Marx & Engels, “The Communist Manifesto” in Karl Marx: Selected Writings, ed. David McLellan. Oxford, (Oxford University Press, 1997) p. 227-228.
[ii] Ibid, 228. (emphasis added)
[iii] Though I would argue that it is the lack of class consciousness that precludes the mobilization of the proletariat and not vise-versa.
Marx gives an account of the proletariat’s development from disordered workers to revolutionary class in The Communist Manifesto. He suggests that with the proletariat’s “birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual laborers” who then unite on occupational and geographical grounds, as “operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labor.” Thus at first, the workers are hardly a unified class; rather, they are “an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition.” [i]
At this stage Marx details the expansion of the capitalist system and its effects. EC illustrated this expansion’s effect on the proletariat quite well, detailing the feelings of alienation and degradation workers feel in such a system. What is important to note, and emphasize, is that it is these very conditions and feelings that are necessary to bring about communism:
The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes [the proletariat’s] livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois…. Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers.[ii]
Discontent provides the impetus for transformation, and therefore worker discontent is necessary for a Marxist revolution. This discontent serves two necessary functions: a) it creates the solidarity of workers into a proletarian class, and b) creates disillusionment with the present situation that is so strong it behooves the proletariat to radically alter the existing systems of production. To summarize, Marxist revolution hinges on the dual notion that discontented workers understand their discontent not as individual, but as a universal malady of the working class, and that this working class is in a bad enough state to warrant radical change.
EC notes correctly that there is an “absence of a strong mobilization of the proletariat in Ontario and Canada, and hence a lack of real class consciences,”[iii] concluding that this “denies any contemporary implementation of Marxism within Canadian politics.” While I completely agree that this class-consciousness is necessary in Marxist thought, I don’t think it necessarily rules out the implementation of Marxism, in that the development of class-consciousness could theoretically still be developed. A Marxist critique or solution to electoral systems in Canada, therefore, should be targeted at the development of the working class and their interests. Solutions that abandon this development, I would argue, fall outside of the Marxist vision, no matter how labor-friendly they are in scope.
Understanding this, I would like to assess EC’s argument for proportional elections made through his trifurcated critique of FPTP. The first flaw of FPTP he notes is that it disadvantages smaller parties, thereby facilitating the “ongoing election of governments that continue to reflect the interests of the bourgeoisie.” While it is true that a proportional system would allow for smaller parties to gain representation, this would not only include the left parties that represent the interest of the workers, but also those of the far-right, as well as special interest parties like the “Marijuana Reform” party. EC’s second argument is that proportional elections would give workers more choices in terms of representatives who could help protect them, and relieve them, from “the adverse effects of economic slow-downs.” This reason is in fact far-flung from the Marxist notion that class-consciousness can develop, and rests on the assumption that “the democratic process will continue to be the only legitimate means for the people to strive for refuge.” In this way EC mistakes socialist reform for Marxist transformation and precludes the growth of a proletarian class. The third argument, that proportionality would increase proletarian voter turnout and thus increase the election of proletarian parties, I think falls into the same trap. While I am not necessarily barring the idea that a Marxist revolution could take place through a non-violent, democratic process, I don’t think that the mere opening up of the system to more party options can produce this.
This does not mean, however, that proportional representation is necessarily incompatible with a system of Marxism. If one does believe that the modes of production could be altered in line with Marxist ends through nonviolent and even electoral processes (which would entail the belief that the current government institutions would be capable of a change this drastic in scope, of which I think there is good reason to doubt), than I think proportional elections do offer a characteristic in line with Marxism. Proportional representation would dismantle the constituency-based system of FPTP. What this could do is allow for broad-based support for parties based on ideology and interest as opposed to geographical location. In this way an actual worker’s party could be created whose constituency base in fact the workers, and not merely an arbitrary geographical area. In this way, perhaps, proportional elections might help facilitate the development of class-consciousness and unite a growing proletariat. However, even with this capacity, I am skeptical of how realistic a Marxist revolution via the electoral institution is.
[i] Marx & Engels, “The Communist Manifesto” in Karl Marx: Selected Writings, ed. David McLellan. Oxford, (Oxford University Press, 1997) p. 227-228.
[ii] Ibid, 228. (emphasis added)
[iii] Though I would argue that it is the lack of class consciousness that precludes the mobilization of the proletariat and not vise-versa.
