Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Marxism
Section A. Philosophy/political theory

In one sense, Marxism refers to the array of beliefs held by German philosopher and social critic Karl Marx, the intellectual founding father of communism. But as time has passed, clearly Marxist ideas have been put to a variety of different uses, many with obvious regrettable consequences (such as Soviet oppression). This debate should focus on retaining the core ideas of a Marxist theory, without simply harping on about the failures of certain past attempts to put them into practice. Another important point is that there are many sensible alternatives to Marxism that are themselves very different; this topic presumes that Marxism is being compared with a broadly egalitarian distribution of wealth favoured by philosophers such as John Rawls, who argued that we should only accept inequalities in so far as they benefit the least well-off in society. Marxism, however, favours a much more radical restructuring of society that goes well beyond redistributive taxation.

Pros

[1] The central tenet of Marxism is that the core of politics is class struggle; we should not accept redistributions of income that ultimately leave the central structures of the class system intact, and allow the rich access to large amounts of political power, as well as control of top jobs. Instead, we should move towards communal models of ownership where all such inequalities are abolished.

[2] Inequality is too deeply embedded in our social system for tinkering at the edges to effect any real change. The power of the elite is perpetuated through political funding, educational institutions, cultural prestige and myriad other subtle techniques of social control. Therefore, the only way to change society sufficiently is a revolutionary abolition of private property and existing state institutions, so that we can start again from scratch.

[3] The free market is inherently unequal and exploitative. In particular, it allocates excess profits to those who control capital, and allows them to exploit their employees. Labourers become wage slaves who have no choice but to work for those who control society’s resources, even though they receive far less than they are actually worth. Moreover, even with labour protection laws, they are still subject to the whims of their capitalist masters, easily hireable and fireable, with little power to control their own lives.

[4] No one deserves any advantages that they obtain under the capitalist system. Not only are their social advantages, such as education and inheritance, morally arbitrary and not chosen, but their natural attributes, like intelligence and strength, are also just things they are born with, and therefore they do not deserve advantages from them. Even the propensity for hard work can be seen as an arbitrary trait of birth, rather than a source of moral worth.

Cons

[1] The abolition of class is not a realistic or desirable objective. Inevitably, in any real communist system, certain elites will develop which in fact have considerable power, and will perpetuate this power through the same types of network as the upper classes do currently. Moreover, while we should undoubtedly seek to abolish the inequalities which lead to children being born into higher classes, that does not mean that class itself is damaging; rather, on a basic level, it simply means that people do the jobs that they are best suited for.

[2] Institutions do not encode any particular power structure; they are neutral tools that can be used to whatever ends the government of the day wants. We can perfectly well promote equality within a system that acknowledges private property; indeed, by having property assets that are divisible, we allow for their redistribution; in communal systems, the ’ownership’ of such assets may be less transparent.

[3] Nothing about the market is inherently exploitative; markets are simply efficient means for allocating goods to people. If people want something enough, then they will be willing to pay for it, and this is the basic principle of the market. The same is true of employment; people are paid precisely what they are worth to others, providing they are willing to work for it. Where generous welfare systems exist, no one is truly compelled to labour.

[4] It ridiculously strips people of all of the attributes that make them unique and individual to say that they do not deserve anything based on their attributes at birth rather than things they have chosen. Attributes of birth are essential components of who we are, and we should be unwilling to sacrifice them.

Possible motions

This House believes that workers of the world should unite.

This House would abolish private property.

This House believes that modern politics needs more Marxism.

Related topics

Capitalism v. socialism

Privatisation

Welfare state

Monarchy, abolition of

Salary capping, mandatory