Justice as end of exploitation
In the eighteenth century, demand for justice on economic basis became an important thread in socialist thought in Europe. In fact, economic and social equality and justice became an important demand. The most scientific and vocal argument came from the Marxian school led by Marx and Engels. This is known as Marxian or socialist theory of justice. In Marxian perspective, treatment of justice is not separated from the overall analysis of class relations, private property and private means of production. It does not accept legal justice, which is the mainstay of the liberal school. Marxian or socialist theory of justice talks about distributive principle on economic basis and rejects the concept of legal justice.
Rejection of legal justice as class concept: The Marxian school treats legal system (and also educational, political, cultural) as part of the superstructure, which is determined by the infrastructure or the economic relations. The economic relations that pertain to infrastructure, determine law, politics, education and everything that pertains to the superstructure. In class analysis, law is considered as a reflection of the economic interests of the dominant class. The Marxian perspective forcefully rejects the idea of legal justice, as justice requires resolving the primary contradiction that exists at the economic level. This is because legal justice cannot provide the basis of real justice unless economic relations based on class dominance is eliminated. The focus of Marxian analysis is on economic relationship reflected in the private means of production and private property. It finds private property and private means of production inimical to economic justice. Marx and other Marxian writers advocate justice on economic basis. Barker in his Principles of Social and Political Theory illustrating the emphasis on economic justice given by Marx and others such as Proudhon and Bakunin, suggest that Marx identified justice with communism, Proudhon with ‘mutualism’ and Bakunin with anarchism.
Class analysis does not recognize any possibility of justice in a society where private property exists. Justice in its legal form would always be employed to protect the interest of private property. The main purpose of the state and what Engels calls, its ‘public force’ (armed men, prisons and other repressive institutions), is to ‘maintain law and order’. And Burns adds, ‘but in maintaining law and order it is maintaining the existing system.’21 Legal system is only one of the organs of the state that is meant to reinforce the existing conditions so that the existence of private property is justified. In a society with private property and private means of production, one can argue, the legal system is largely oriented to enforce and secure the terms and conditions of contract that is required for running the capitalist system. This highlights the irrelevance of the legal system and the concept of legal justice as a fair and impartial procedure in a class divided society. It outright rejects the idea that the legal system is fair, impartial and reasonable and could be the basis of even procedural justice. Marxian perspective argues for substantive justice and that could be possible only where the social means of production prevails, i.e., the socialist society.
Impossibility of economic justice and redistribution of surplus value in the capitalist system:
Marxian analysis rejects any possibility of legal justice under the capitalist system. Moreover, in such a system it seriously doubts any idea of economic justice. This is because economic justice requires a substantive concept of justice, which is nothing but the principle of justice in a classless society.
In Marxian analysis, three distinct aspects of distribution can be identified. In the capitalist system, economic relations are based on class relations, private property and surplus value. Roughly, surplus value is related to the following aspects: (i) worth of a commodity produced (i.e., price it is sold in the market), (ii) amount of ‘socially useful labour’ put into it by the workers (Marx showed that worth of the commodity is actually was the value of labour put into it as labour only creates value), and (iii) the amount received by the worker as wages. Marx in his Capital explained that wages paid to workers for producing a commodity is less than the socially useful labour put into it. This means that the worth of the commodity is more than what is paid to workers. Marx considered that labour is the only productive element that creates value and he rejected the argument that the worth of commodity depends on market situation (i.e., demand and supply). If labour is the only productive element, the difference between the wages paid and the worth of the commodity constitutes the surplus value. Since, worker does not get product of labour, the capitalists appropriate it. As such, it becomes an instrument of exploitation of workers, the proletariats by the owners of means of production, the capitalists. In this situation when the instrument of exploitation is inbuilt in the economic relations of classes, can there be possibility of economic redistribution or economic justice? This is the first aspect of economic distribution, which is exploitative. Marx concluded that there could not be economic justice when surplus value was a means of exploitation in the capitalist society. Marxian perspective seeks to remove this undesirable condition. This is possible by abolition of classes through proletarian revolution, which will lead to establishment of dictatorship of the proletariat. During the phase of dictatorship of the proletariat, complete equality is not possible, as it would still be society with class differences remaining. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a class rule but this time the rule of the majority. This is the first phase of communist society.
Economic justice in the first phase of Communist Society: A second principle or aspect of economic distribution appears here. This is ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his work’. It is a revision in the principle of equality, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’22 which would ultimately prevail in the ‘higher phase of communist society’. This revision is necessitated due to the incomplete nature of transition to the communist society and existence of the state, which has still to ‘wither away’. Lets us briefly see the background in which Marx advocated two different principles of distribution.
Before Marx, some of the Utopian socialists, such as Comte de Saint-Simon (1760–1825), advocated distribution as per the principle of ‘work’. This was meant to counter unearned income from landed property.23 Unearned income means income that comes from rent on land. Ferdinand Lassalle (1825–64), born to German Jewish parents, whom Lenin calls a ‘petty-bourgeois socialist’, was another thinker who advocated radical ideas on wages and the principle of ‘equitable distribution of product of labour’. The latter means ‘the equal right of all to an equal product of labour.’24 Lassalle advocated criteria of distribution based on work. Lenin, citing Marx’s explanation, in the Critique of the Gotha Programme maintains that the equal right criteria in this phase automatically amounts to inequality. Everyone being different in capacity if given equal share for equal performance, would mean that those with more capacity would get more than those having less capacity. According to Lenin ‘the first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality: difference, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production …’25 In this phase, criteria of distribution is ‘amount of labour performed’ and not ‘needs’.
Justice in the higher phase of Communist Society: in the higher phase of communist society, social ownership of means of production would be complete and the state as a bourgeois institution would wither away. The socialist theory of justice based on economic distribution as per needs would prevail. Marx gave expression to the socialist theory of justice in his book, Critique of the Gotha Programme. In this, he proposed that the formula of justice in a communist would be ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’. ‘Need’ here does not refer to wants or preferences or desires, rather it should be understood in terms of ‘necessity’. Necessity or needs, to agree with Heywood, ‘are often regarded as “basic” to human beings …’26 Marxian thought accepts ‘needs’ of each individual as the distributive principle. Criteria such as rights, entitlements, merits or deserts, etc., as the basis of distribution of material benefits and resources are rejected in Marxian framework as bourgeois principle. It suggests that classless society and social ownership of means of production would be the final stage of historical evolution. The principle of justice in a classless society can only be based on needs. Before Marx, François Babeuf and Louis Blanqui in the first half of the nineteenth century had advocated the principle of distribution as per ‘needs’. Table 10.2 outlines the Marxian or socialist theory of economic justice.
Table 10.2 Marxian or Socialist Theory of Economic Justice
Marx propounded socialist and communist principles of distributive justice on the economic basis. Principle of distribution in a capitalist society is considered exploitative as it is based on extraction of surplus value. It helps the economically dominant class, which is the capitalist class to accumulate profit through surplus extracted from the labour. In the first phase of the communist society, i.e., the socialist phase, which will come after the revolution, distribution is proposed based on performance of labour, i.e., work. In the final phase, which is the fully realized communist society, distribution is based on needs. Liberal tradition generally invokes the criteria of right, merit or entitlement for distribution. The criteria of needs proposed by the Marxian framework compared with that of the liberal tradition (right or merit), appears more relevant as a basis of a welfare or just society. It is closer to egalitarian principle and relates meaningfully with the concept of substantive justice and justice based on results or outcomes. Fulfilment of needs of human beings seems a reasonable criterion of distribution of material resources.
In the wake of abject poverty and malnutrition in most parts of the world, satisfaction of basic needs of human beings is the primary requirement. These basic needs may include basic medical and health care, education, housing, drinking water, sustainable employment and remuneration. The UN Millennium Agenda does provide a statement of such a vision. If the vow of the international community is to secure distribution of the material resources in such a manner, which at least satisfies the basic needs of the people, then one can ask—where does the Marxian vision falter? We can have ‘hierarchy’ or pyramids or even a mountain of needs, but access to basic human requirements should be priority.
Leave a Reply