Sunday, February 28, 2010

Marx and Practicality

Alienation in the workplace seems inevitable, as I experienced when I worked at FedEx in the summer of 2009. Don’t get me wrong; it was fun job to me, and I enjoyed nearly all of my co-workers’ presences. But true to Marx’s claims, when it came time for performance reviews and evaluations, each person would pull out all the stops to avoid being the bottom performer. Yes, this is not a unique experience, but reviewing it with a Marxist lens tends to make the entire process easier to comprehend. Bosses would constantly warn us against forming unions, because FedEx is surely aware of the dehumanizing work that they require of their employees. They would separate us from not only the “goods” that we produced (a fast delivery service), but they would also try to divide workers with constant threats against unions. However, I was generally pleased with the compensation that I received, and the alternative of just lounging around the house was not enticing, so I was not really appalled with the oppressive nature of FedEx. I guess I failed Marx in just interpreting what I saw at my job, rather than seeking to change it. But the fact is I don’t want it to change. Frankly, by giving in the bourgeois, like my parents probably have before me, it allowed me to opportunity to encounter Marx in some capacity, but usually quickly dismiss him. For one so consumed with condemning the theoretical and emphasizing the practical, or what can be accomplished, Marx historically has fallen short, as his revolution has just never been able to come together or continue successfully. I would have figured if Marx’s political and philosophical assertions were as implementable as he claims, then why haven’t they occurred? Apathy certainly plays a large role, but maybe it is just not the most viable option. Along with apathy towards Marx that works to undermine his claims are the cartoon-y stereotypes of communism that exist mainly due to things such as war propaganda and the “Red Scare” that keep anyone from carefully examining what Marx really suggests. So not only does Marx have human emotions like greed working against him, but he also has to combat apathy and misconstrued viewpoints of his own material. Marx has a mountain to climb just to become neutral again, but even so, it seems doomed to just be an interesting and influential historical concept that has failed in practical existence.

3 comments:

  1. I think that the reason most Marxist revolutions have failed are because they weren't truly Marxist. Look at Russia; Lenin and Stalin (but mostly Stalin) used communism to veil a military dictatorship. The same thing happened with Mao in China and Castro in Cuba. Americans point to these countries as examples of Marxism's failings, but I think that it might be more a result of corruption in authority figures. An alternative? Anarcho-communism, as suggested by some of Marx's contemporaries like Kropotkin, who made the claim that capitalism and the state are inextricably linked, and so to abolish one we must abolish the other.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Abolish the state? Whoa. I agree with the idea, and if the population of the community that were to accept a kind anarch-communism were fully aware of the concept and sincerely dedicated to it, then I'm all for it. I suppose I am just worried as to how exactly we would address our currently stratified economic state? Even if were to redistribute wealth, and reform education and eliminate large corporations by refusing to participate, then how would we handle infrastructure?

    ReplyDelete
  3. In response to why hasn’t a revolution occurred I would suggest that the strength of ensnaring illusions such as religion and the American dream have been severely underestimated and play such a large part in our culture that people don’t even realize that they should revolt.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.