Read Why Marx Was Right for Free Online Page B

thing—with the property relations within which they have
been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces,
these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social
revolution. 2
    There are numerous
problems with this theory, as Marxists themselves have been quick to point out.
For one thing, why does Marx assume that by and large the productive forces
keep evolving? It is true that technological development tends to be
cumulative, in the sense that human beings are reluctant to let go of what
advances they make in prosperity and efficiency. This is because as a species
we are somewhat rational but also mildly indolent, and thus inclined to be
labour-saving. (It is these factors which determine that supermarket checkout
queues are always roughly the same length.) Having invented e-mail, we are
unlikely to revert to scratching on rocks. We also have the ability to transmit
such advances to future generations. Technological knowledge is rarely lost,
even if the technology itself is destroyed. But this is so broad a truth that
it does not serve to illuminate very much. It does not explain, for example,
why the forces of production evolve very rapidly at certain times but may
stagnate for centuries at others. Whether or not there is major technological
development depends on the prevailing social relations, not on some built-in
drive. Some Marxists see the compulsion to improve the forces of production not
as a general law of history, but as an imperative specific to capitalism. They
take issue with the assumption that every mode of production must be followed
by a more productive one. Whether these Marxists include Marx himself is a
contestable point.
    For another thing, it is
not clear by what mechanism certain social classes are "selected'' for the
task of promoting the productive forces. Those forces, after all, are not some
ghostly personage able to survey the social scene and summon a particular candidate
to their aid. Ruling classes do not of course promote the productive forces out
of altruism, any more than they seize power for the express purpose of feeding
the hungry and clothing the naked. Instead, they tend to pursue their own
material interests, reaping a surplus from the labour of others. The idea,
however, is that in doing so they unwittingly advance the productive forces as
a whole, and along with them (at least in the long run) the spiritual as well
as material wealth of humanity. They foster resources from which the majority
in class-society are shut out, but in doing so build up a legacy that men and
women as a whole will one day inherit in the communist future.
    Marx clearly thinks that
material wealth can damage our moral health. Even so, he does not see a gulf
between the moral and the material, as some idealist thinkers do. In his view,
the unfurling of the productive forces involves the unfolding of creative human
powers and capacities. In one sense, history is not at all a tale of progress.
Instead, we lurch from one form of class-society, one kind of oppression and
exploitation, to another. In another sense, however, this grim narrative can be
seen as a movement onwards and upwards, as human beings acquire more complex
needs and desires, cooperate in more intricate, rewarding ways, and create new
kinds of relationship and fresh sorts of fulfillment.
    Human beings as a whole
will come into this inheritance in the communist future; but the process of
building it up is inseparable from violence and exploitation. In the end,
social relations will be established that deploy this accumulated wealth for
the benefit of all. But the process of accumulation itself involves excluding
the great majority of men and women from enjoying its fruits. So it is, Marx
comments, that history "progresses by its bad side.'' It looks as though
injustice now is unavoidable for justice later. The end is at odds with the
means: if there were no exploitation there would be no sizeable