people need or require powerfully specialized
computers, dresses worn but one time, or a
Ferrari. But if such products are truly that good why should not all people have access to them, why should not that standard be available to all if they desired them?
Implications for Capitalism
The implications for capitalism are straight forward. Underpinning the whole notion of Marxian economics is a philosophical framework. In other words, Marxian economics is first created and then guided by rules and regulations set forth by men. And this should be recognized as holding true of all other economic systems, as well: economic systems do not exist independently, in-and-of-themselves, and they do not derive their legitimacy through a law of nature. The so-called “laws” of economics are nothing more than rules and regulations, defined and written by men. That does not mean we are necessarily living in a ‘postmodern’ world, defined solely through language, where all is relative and nothing more than words. Rather, men’s actions do mean things and they have consequences. Thomas Piketty makes a similar point, noting “the history of distribution of wealth has always been deeply political, and it cannot be reduced to purely economic mechanisms.”54
Second, we must admit Marx is very good at analyzing conditions and articulating the process by which alienated labor can be transformed into a good or commodity. And he provided great insight into how commodities (people and things) can infinitely transform themselves, being but bundles of energy. Effectively anticipating the fourth dimension and the theory of relativity by decades, the implications were and are quite large: people
and things can progress indefinitely by
becoming other things, which also means they
do not have to conform to progressing in a linear fashion. But this raises a whole set of new issues to be addressed – namely, capitalism is extremely flexible and can transform itself in a nonlinear manner. This makes it difficult to judge not only the stage within which capitalism finds itself, but also what steps would be wise to undertake when proposing reform.
For example, systems can move historically not only forward and backwards along a line but sometimes follow not a spiral (as claimed by Harvey and others) but instead loops in a way that resembles an infinity sign that skips and moves against points of time through, within, and across multiple dimensions. This would account for the fact that revolution may not necessarily result in greater individual autonomy or freedom. It would also account for the fact states in more recent times may revert to feudal or less advanced states of capitalism, as Marx himself noted. And it would account for the fact, as has been the case in the former Soviet Union and China, that, as all becomes defined through process, there will be a tendency toward totalitarianism.
But understanding development in this way also accounts for why Marx had to resort to a linear and logical structure for remedying ills,
95
Marx positions himself as a moral theorist acting within the tradition of philosophers who have commented on moral theory across centuries. And he speaks through the language of political economy primarily because it is the defining element of his and our time.