!

"#$% &% Ian Wang Professor Loeffler Self, Culture, Society 12-12-2013 Karl Marx, the infamous German political economist, had radical ideas for changes in society. Many believe his theories to be dated and backwards thinking, but through issues still relevant in contemporary journalism, it is clear that Marx critiques and solutions are still applicable to current day crises. However, in order to bridge the gap between Marx Industrial Revolution era critique of political economy and contemporary journalisms Digital Revolution era critiques, we must first clearly analyze Marx positions on these issues: first being an analysis of Marx idealistic society and secondly, of his critique on capitalism. From that point we are able to analyze issues and solutions brought up by current day journalists and apply Marx theories to them. Finally, it will be analyzed whether or not Marxist ideals and contemporary ideals can be reconciled into a coherent optimistic view for a post-capitalist, post-labor society. Marx cannot be analyzed without first describing his ideal vision for a society. Marx ideal for a post-capitalist society is developed on the basis of three radical shifts including both industrial and societal changes: the overtake of labor by technology as the source of productive powers, thus leading to the destruction of labor time as the measurement of wealth, and furthermore leading to a massive social change in the concept of leisure from time off work to education and refinement of the individual. He lays out the first radical change in production for this utopian-esque system:

!"#$% '% The specific mode of working here appears directly as becoming transferred from the worker to capital in the form of the machine, and his own labour capacity devalued thereby. Hence the workers struggle against machineryThe creation of real wealth comes to depend less on labour time and on the amount of labour employed than on the power of the agencies set in motion during labour time, whose powerful effectiveness is itself in turn out of all proportion to the direct labour time spent on their production, but depends rather on the general state of science and on the progress of technology, or the application of this science to productionAs soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great wellspring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. (Marx. Grundrisse, 284) As it has already been observed in capitalism, technology greatly diminishes the expression of wealth in terms of labor. Value of the laborer is transferred to the capital of the machine. Thus, wealth, instead of being based in labor time, is now dependent on the general state of science and on the progress of technology.(Marx, 284) Once this shift has been made, it is clear that exploitation of the workerby increasing absolute (the working day) surplus value to its maximumwill have no purpose in society. Marx analyzes this trend of moving away from a labor-value based economy as leading to an increase in leisurely activities: The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic,

!"#$% (% scientific, ect. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them. (Marx, 285) For Marx, as the goal of society shifts from being the reduction of necessary labor time in order to increase surplus value to the reduction of necessary labor of society in general, leisure time will increase, thus leading to more fulfilling activities of self-discovery in the arts, sciences, ect. Thus, the shift from capitalism to Marxism is complete: through the advent of technology as the dominating method of production, society is able to unchain itself from the fetters of a system in which wealth is measured in labor time, which in Marx optimism, will lead to a society that bases wealth not on labor time put into production, but rather, disposable time outside that is needed in direct production, for every individual and the whole society. (The Source and Remedy ect. 1821, p.6) However optimistic Marx may be about the post-labor society, he still realizes that it is deeply rooted in the assumption that labor time and exchange value, intrinsic and deeply engrained aspects of capitalism, can in fact be overcome. Marx does not believe they can be overcome within the capitalist framework and criticizes capitalism on many fronts: the marginalization of the individual as only being a means to production, describing the inherent contradiction of capitalism itself, and the instabilities of the system that lead to unavoidable crises. Marx criticizes the purpose of the individual within capitalism: Forces of production and social relationstwo different sides of the development of the social individualappear to capital as mere means, and are merely means for it to produce on its limited foundation. (Marx, 285) Marx, as analyzed previously, was shown to advocate the discovery of the individual through leisurely activities such as artistic or scientific endeavors. Capitalism, however, uses these methods

!"#$% )% of creativity and social relations as only a means of increasing production. Through this clash with Marx ideals and the inherent characteristic of capital, Marx does not see how a post-labor society could be built within capitalism. Marx also describes the paradox within capitalism: Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as sole measure and source of wealth (Marx, 285) This contradiction that Marx describes reveals the instability of the system; the two central dogma of capitalismincreases in production (which presses to reduce labor time) and measurement of wealth in terms of labor time are inherently opposite and will clash eventually. Marx further analyzes these crises that are inherently built within capitalism: The growing incompatibility between the productive development of society and its hitherto existing relations of production expresses itself in bitter contradictions, crises, spasmsSince this decline of profit signifies the same as the decrease of immediate labour relative to the size of the objectified labour which it reproduces and newly posits, capital will attempt every means of checking the smallness ofliving labourHence the highest development of productive power together with the greatest expansion of existing wealth will coincide with the depreciation of capital, degradation of the labourer, and a most straitened exhaustion of his vital powers. These contradictions lead to explosions, cataclysms, crises, in whicha great portion of capitalis violently reduced to the point where it can go on. (Marx, 291) The crises described here are indicative of the contradiction of capitalism: as profit decreases, capital will try to decrease labor value in order to increase relative surplus

!"#$% *% value. In this situation of both high productivity and high existing wealth, capital will decrease and the situation of the laborer will degrade. As capital decreases, the crisis begins and will only alleviate itself once capital has been reduced to the point where it can go on. (Marx, 291) Thus, due to the intrinsic contradictions within capitalism, Marx argues that crises and cataclysms are only a natural part of this flawed system. These crises that Marx describe are not abstract; in fact, current journalism describe situations similar to Marx. Just as Marx predicted, new technologies are wreaking havoc on employment figures (Rushkoff, Are Jobs Obsolete). The increasing unemployment rate has raised many concerns for journalists as they each try to find and solve the issue. However, there appears to be three classes of journalists: ones who do not and ones who do seek for solutions past capitalism, and ones who acknowledge the vision of a post-capitalistic society yet are critical of it. Belonging to the first class of journalists, some articles believe technologically-made-obsolete forms of unemployment such as menial labor are merely an adaptation of capitalism towards a polarization of the workforce(Rotman. How Technology is Destroying Jobs), as highly skilled jobs(at one end of the spectrum) and non-mechanizable unskilled jobs(at the opposite end of the spectrum) are still in high demand. Thus, for these articles, the problem is the solution: capitalistic adaptability ousted human labor in favor of mechanized labor, but the adaptability of capitalism will still require human labor in other fields. Marx would argue that such a change of labor into the service industry does nothing to solve the root of the problem: the contradictions of capitalism are still present and this paradigm shift is merely a condition of its self-preservation.(Marx, 291)

!"#$% +% However, to a second class of journalists, the veil of capitalism is on the verge of lifting. They begin to question fundamental characteristics of capitalism such as Since when is unemployment really a problem?...Do we all really want jobs? (Rushkoff) Journalists like Rushkoff and Gutting not only realize these fundamental problems, but they seek to solve it in ways similar to Marx. Rushkoffs ideas are closer to capitalism than to Marx: he advocates for a society that makes games for each other, writes books, solves problems, educates and inspires one anotherand we can pay one another using the same money.(Rushkoff) Marx would argue that although Rushkoff realizes individual enlightenment is the key to overcoming the inherent flaws of capitalism, Marx believes that he does not think beyond capitalism; instead he builds a system of informational work that still revolves around exchange and capital. Gutting, however, takes Rushkoffs solutions a step further and bridges the gap between Rushkoff and Marx: Gutting develops this definition of leisure, the leisure Aristotle has in mind is productive activity enjoyed for its own sake. (Gutting, What Work is Really For) which is surprisingly similar to what Marx had in mind: the artistic, scientific, ect. development of the individuals in the time set free. (Marx, 285) For Gutting, the solution to these crises is to aim to produce self-determining agents [by schooling] who can see through the blandishments of the market and insist that the market provide what they themselves have decided they need to lead fulfilling lives. (Gutting) Marx would argue that although the definition of leisure as productive activity enjoyed for its own sake is accurate, educating self-determining agents in order to protect society against the greed of capitalist profit is very similar to one of his critiques of capitalism that the social development of society is only a means to further support the system of capitalistic profit.

!"#$% ,% There is, however, a third class of journalists like Posner who acknowledge a post-capitalistic society based on leisure as productive activity enjoyed for its own sake(Gutter) yet are critical of it. Posner states: They say that the true sense of the word [leisure] is activity without extrinsic end: The sculptor engrossed in cutting marble, the teacher intent on imparting a difficult idea, the musician struggling with a score, a scientist exploring the mysteries of space and time such people have no other aim than to do what they are doing well. That isnt trueit is ridiculous to think that if people worked just 15 or 20 hours a week, they would use their leisure to cut marble or struggle with a musical score[these] descriptions [are] of their work, not of their leisure activites. (Posner, Working 9 to 12) Posner does not believe productivity for its own sake is possible: no one wants to struggle if there is no extrinsic end(Posner) to the struggle. The unlimited amount of leisure in the post-capitalistic society will be filled with unproductive activities similar to those enjoyed by the English aristocracy such as: hunting, gambling, and seduction(Posner) Posner sees the post-labor society as too idealistic and incomplete: without a direction or aim to drive excess leisure time, this new society will be as aimless as Marx would argue that capitalism is. I do not know how Marx would respond to these criticisms as I believe Posners view to be the most realistic. None of the contemporary articles truly offer a Marxian solution because a truly Marxian solution is too idealistic to succeed. Instead, Rushkoff and Gutter merely incorporate sensible aspects of Marx theoriessuch as the paramount importance of self-discovery and a shift from viewing education as necessary to enter

!"#$% -% capitalistic production to education as a way of forming intelligent individuals who can see through the blandishments of the marketinto an already functioning, albeit unstably, capitalist system of production. Marx vision for a post-labor society and his criticisms of capitalism are all sound, but the bridge between now and then is too long to be seen, as shown by contemporary attempts to solve the contradictions of capitalism. However, Marx works should not be set aside as dated or too idealistic, because as society progresses through its track of development, we may need to cross the Marxian bridge to a fully post-labor society at some point.