The last laugh?

Alan B. Carter's "Marx: A Radical Critique" is an anarchist and vaguely Green criticism of Marxism. Unfortunately, the book is written in a technical, pretentious and pseudo-scholarly style, with constant references to relatively unknown Marxist academics (and a few more known ones). Since the book was published in 1988, it might be unfair to accuse it of being anachronistic, but, frankly, who cares about Lukács, Althusser and Poulantzas today? In a sense, the ivory tower style of Carter's book is a pity, since the author does seem to have some interesting things to say. He attempts an "immanent" criticism of Marxism, i.e. a criticism on Marx' own turf, so to speak.

The author points out that the development of capitalism makes the industrial-technical-scientific apparatus more and more complex, making the techno-bureaucracy indispensable for running the system even on a day-to-day basis. Even if we assume (with Marx) that world history is driven forward by the development of the productive forces, this development will not strengthen the working class. Rather, it could lead to a "revolution" in which the techno-bureaucracy takes power from the bourgeoisie, creating a kind of "state capitalism" run by the technocrats. This would be analogous to the Marxist analysis of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, where the bourgeoisie became economically dominant before taking political power. In the same way, the techno-bureaucracy gestates in the bosom of bourgeois society, eventually being propelled by the development of the productive forces to overthrow capitalism and usher in a new, bureaucratic system.

Contrary to Marx, the author believes that the capitalist system could overcome its crises by monopolies and automation. Nor is the working class necessarily revolutionary. Rather, capitalism mystifies the workers, making them fight each other. Lenin's theory of the vanguard party is really a theory of middle class domination over the working class. As for the development of the productive forces, it's not even desirable since the resources of our planet are finite. If super-abundance is necessary for the creation of a classless society, such a society is impossible. The real revolutionary force is the Third World, especially those parts of the Third World which haven't yet become integrated in the world capitalist system with its attendant industrialism. These nations should introduce the "small is beautiful" alternative technology of E. F. Schumacher rather than introduce fully-fledged industrialism. Cooperatives, fair trade networks and peace movements in the First World (to stop attacks on the liberated Third World nations) are other proposals in this book. Carter believes that the system is ultimately based on ideology, and therefore advocates a kind of personal emancipation from the dominant paradigms. He also writes that since world history is going in the wrong direction (the direction of techno-bureaucracy, presumably), we have to stop the course of history through sheer force of will.

Yepp, this sure is anarchism, alright.

"Marx: A Radical Critique" was written in 1988, when the permanent crisis of the Eastern bloc was obvious for all to see. The collapse of the Soviet bloc was only a few years away (1989-91). Despite this, Carter believes that a planned, techno-bureaucratic economy can overcome its crisis! At one point, he admits that there is a crisis in the Soviet Union as well, albeit not a "capitalist" one. Well, no, but doesn't this disprove his theory about a crisis-free techno-bureaucratic system? Today, 24 years after the book was published, the idea of a crisis-free capitalism also sounds rather corny. In fact, it sounded very "1965" already in 1988. Ironically, the Marxist idea that the capitalist system is inevitably beset by "the falling rate of profit" sounds more logical than Carter's idea about monopolies and robots overcoming economic crises!

Nor are there any signs that the techno-bureaucracy is an independent, ascending class with interests different from those of the haute bourgeoisie. The bureaucracy took power in nations where the bourgeoisie, the working class and the feudal nobility were weak - such as the Soviet Union or China. But not even this was a techno-bureaucracy connected to the production process. Rather, it was a déclassé state bureaucracy imposed from without. Perhaps China and Vietnam are evolving into something resembling Carter's (negative) vision, but there are no signs that East Asian "state capitalism" is on the table in the United States or Europe. As for the Third Wold, the Third World nations who can are attempting to follow the example of the First World: more industrialization, less Schumacher. Only a few nations go in the opposite direction. Bolivia? Another problem: since the techno-bureaucratic, Communist regimes were less efficient than capitalism, an "immanent" criticism of Marx surely cannot see them as the wave of the future. Indeed, it's difficult to see how a planned economy can run a complex 21st century economy, certainly not on a global scale. Only if the system becomes less complex, or breaks down completely, would a planned economy become feasible. This means that a techno-bureaucratic revolt against the bourgeoisie will become possible only in a situation where society at large is decomposing. It will be a symptom of decay and collapse, not its solution.

Of course, none of this means that we are moving in the right direction. Quite the contrary. Carter is right that world history is moving in the wrong direction, and that it will take a lot of will power to turn it around. Perhaps the lecturer in his ivory tower will get the last laugh, after all? Maybe. And then, maybe not. Somehow I doubt that sufficient "will to power" can be found among Green hippies buying ecological coffee from Nicaragua...