modern capitalism and the new marxism - part 1

At the risk of saying things that you my already know very well, I need to start with a ludicrously redacted version of Mark's theory of history. In short Marx argued that every age spawns the seeds of its own destruction. Thus, he believed, nineteenth century indutrial capitalism created an exploited working class that would ultimately rise up and destroy it. We do not need here to discuss whether, or why, Marx was wrong, but it is a good starting point for a discussion of modern post-industrial capitalism and where it is headed. 'New' marxism may be described as the use of his dialectic theory to analyse modern society, without necessarily passing judgement on its validity or exclusiveness. Marx, along with many other historians, also pointed out that, as civilizations approach their demise, they inevitably become decadent and grotesque exaggerations and distortions of their central elements emerge. The excesses of Rome are well known to us and Marx accurately foresaw the development of excessive 'conspicuous consumption' in the later stages of capitalism. Well it must now be clear where this is leading. If the analysis is useful it is in one particular aspect of modern capitalism that we should concentrate upon. And here I am referring only to the 'developed' West - the issue of the devloping world is very different. That is growing inequality. The key difference between the remarkable growth period which lasted from the early 1990s to 2008 (with the notable exception of Japan) and the period since 2008 is this: While inequality grew in both periods, in the first, the vast majority of people saw their living standards rise, even those at the bottom of the invome scale, either because growing wealth did indeed 'trickle down' or because of improved welfare systems. Thus the contradictions, to use a marxian term, odf inequality were not at all clear. This second period is more corrosive. This is becase, for the first time for many years, the living standards of the poor are actually falling. This is where the picture becomes forbidding. We are seeing massive increases in the wealth and incomes of the small group of perhaps 1-2% of western populations in a period when overall wealth is declining. Orwell, in Nineteen-Eighty-Four, painted a picture of a world where the poor are subdued by constant exposure to popular culture of a type that dulls their consciousness and manipulates their perception of the world. Marx had referred to religion (the opium of the masses) performing this role. I don't need to illustrate this devlopemnt which must be clear to anyone who turns on a TV or opens up a computer games programme. However, the Internet and the open access to it, renders the Orwellian nightmare impossible. The deprived in our societies are fully aware of their own deprivation and are capable of creating their own culture. While this is going on the excesses of the extremely rich are all too clear to see, whether it be dishonest bankers, corrupt politicians, megalomaniac newspaper proprietors, greedy CEOs or spoiled footbsllers. Are these the indications of the decadence of a dying civilisation ? Will growing inequality and the emergence of increasing desprivation create a marxist-style revolution ? Does the Internet make revolution more possible, or will it diffuse alienation so much that nothing tangible will occur ? More in part 2.

The War on Drugs

I notice this Monday morning that a Commons select committee is recommending a review of the drugs laws in the UK. Two things to say at the outset. The first is that, apparently, the use of illegal drugs and offences connected with them, have been falling significantly. This may mean the current war on drugs is succeeding or, as I suspect, it simply means drugs are becoming less fashionable. Secondly, there is a wide gulf in cultural outlook of people who were born before 1945 and those who were born since. Yes, as precise as that. The older of the two groups will be, on the whole, very fearful of any liberalisation of drugs laws;the younger group, however, are likely to take a more balanced view. Thus, as the older 'drugs-conservative' group age, or die, or at least vacate positions of influence, the agenda is bound to change merely through the passage of time. That time is approaching. My view is very strong, which is that virtually all drugs should be de-criminalised unless there is a dramatic threat to public health (ketamine may be an example. It is absurd that alcohol and tobacco remain legal while other types of narcotic are not. But, more compellingly, there is a deep philosophical argument that says the state has no business telling peole how they lead their lives. Many people voluntarily take risks and we do not make such activities illegal, as long. of course, as there is an extensive public campaign to demonstrate the risks (as occurs with smoking and alcolhol consumption. True, the activity of persading people to take risks, i.e. use potentially dangerous drugs, may well be a crime, but, here again, we do not prosecute people for persuading them that parachute jumping, hang gliding or extreme mountaineering are good ideas. No, the misuse of drugs is a health and cultural issue and should be treated as such. Ask yourself this question. 'If we were to start again from scratch, knowing what we now know, and drugs narcotics suddenly appeared on the scene, would we handle the situation as we currently are ?' Clearly not. By crminalising the production, marketing and use of narcotics we would be creating a whole new set of crimes and a whole new criminal community overnight. So, we must study, carefully and rationally, the experience of Holland, Portugal and the handful of US states who have voted to legalise cannabis. But I would be more radical. In the specific case of heroin and crack cocaine, the state should offer all current (not new) users free prescriptions in return for agreement to undergo rehabilitation programmes and to use the drugs under controlled conditions. This would destroy the market for such drugs virtually overnight, take away the incentive for anyone to persuade others to start to use such drugs (there would no longer be a commercial interest in doing so, by pushers and dealers)and would eliminate the crimes associated with use and dealing. In particular, users would not have to resort to crime or prostitution to finance their habit. This will only happen, of course, when the demographic as I described above comes about. But that time is coming. I believe that, in ten years time, such changes in law and practice will become publicly acceptable. We should start preparing for that day right now.