17 Political Economy/ Marxian Approach

Sanjay Kumar

Introduction

Among the various approaches, the political economy approach deals with all those factors that are a common concern of economics as well as political science. Political Science is that branch which deals with the process of decision-making, running the state, electing a government and further rights of individuals, relationship between the individuals, relationship between the individual and the state etc. Economics in the traditional sense, dealt with the analysis of expenditure, revenue, production and distribution. It also deals with how human behavior changes because of the process of production, distribution and exchange. Economics has evolved and presently studies the process of production, distribution and exchange. Economics has grown as a subject and presently studies the above mentioned factors and also the factors that affect the human behavior at any point of time during any exchange or distribution.

Political economy analyses all those factors that would assist in offering a theory that is economically viable and also politically workable. It offers a plan of action that helps the political system to make policies keeping the economic factors in mind and combining them in the best possible way for the welfare of all.. The word, ‘Political economy’ is derived from the Greek word, ‘Politikos’ which means ‘state, social and ‘oikonomia’ which means, ‘how to manage household economy’. ‘Oikos’ means ‘house’ and ‘nomos’ means ‘the law’. ‘It is a science which studies the social relations that evolve between people in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of the material benefits.’1 It also studies the effect of economic factors on the political system as well as the attitude of the people. The advocates contend that the various modes of production decide the various social formations in the society. Thus, it is a dire necessity to study and analyse the economic factors so that a stable political system can be formed and maintained. All the conflicts in the society are because of the economic demands of the people. Only when the needs of the people are addressed can we have a stable and workable political system. Wide economic disparities, exploitation, unequal distribution between the various sections of the society, always lead to continuous friction that leads to unrest than revolutions. ‘This necessitated regulation of economic activity and subordination of economics to public control. The result is the renewed mutual interest between economies and political science’.2 A political system can be deemed successful only if it is able to manage the various demands and achieve a certain balance, equilibrium in the society. Only when the political system can tackle the various economic problems finding solutions on the way can it deliver security and stability to its inhabitants. A political system has to understand the impact of economic factors and then frame laws and make policies. According to Marx and

Engels, it is economic factors that shape politics anywhere and everywhere. ‘No political system can sustain itself unless it demonstrates its ability to cope with the conflicting demands by evolving a somewhat stable equilibrium, harmony or reconciliation. This requires a deeper understanding of economic forces and factors. Policy decisions or planning by the State – from the control of foreign trade to the regulation of the internal economic life of the community – will be devoid of essence, unless the underlying economic issues are properly sorted out and resolved satisfactorily’.3

1      M.I, Volkov (ed.), A Dictionary of Political economy, 1985, Progress Publishers, Moscow, p. 275,

2       O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory, 2013, Macmillan, New Delhi, p. 141.

     https://www.google.com/search

Political economy is the interplay between politics, law and economics and how the structures, institutions develop because of the economic systems. It studies the production, trade, distribution and wealth etc. in relation to law and government. This phrase was used by leading economists like John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Political economy is an attempt to understand the phenomena of the economic factors in the formation of any system. ‘Mercantilism’ was the earliest approach that analyzed the economic factors but expressed the interests of the bourgeoisie class. But this approach was substituted by the ‘vulgar bourgeois political economy; which defended ‘the interests of the urban and rural petty bourgeoisie…..’4 This appeared in the beginning of the 19th century and advocated protectin the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie. They emphasise that the big business companies exploit the  small bourgeoisie, especially during circulation. The ‘Vulgar Bourgeois’ political economy approach ‘…conceals the real source of value and surplus value and thus negates the fact that the working class is exploited by the capitalists. It was Karl Marx and his friend, Frederick Engels, who revolutionised political economy.’ 5

     Gauba, Ibid., p. 141.

M.I, Volkov (ed.), op. cit. n.1, p. 275.

Marx’s view

Marx believed that private property and ‘true democracy’ cannot exist together. He also blamed, ‘commodification’ of everything in the society. Also known as founder of the ‘scientific communism’ he tried to discover the role of material forces in the process of social development. His concept of ‘surplus value’ and ‘dialectical materialism’ are milestones. Marx and Engels ‘….established the fact that the economic system is the base with the political super-structure towering above it, that the interaction of the productive forces and production relations in the process of social production forms the concealed foundation of the historical development of any society, including bourgeois’.6 Marx inquiry into political economy was a lifelong journey. He rued the fact that it was private property, exploitation of the labour, alienation of the proletariat from his labour that was the bane of the capitalist system. This all would also lead to the inevitable death/collapse of the capitalist system. As Marx wrote in Capital (1867), ‘Capital comes (into the world) dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt’.7 He believed that ‘true democracy’ could be attained only when the working class, the proletariat would be in power. He said that capitalism had created massive productive forces that were in favour of the bourgeoisie. But capitalism, itself, had all the ingredients of an eventual collapse. ‘Over-production would lead to ‘crises for there would be excess supply. Communism was another name for achieving, ‘political democracy’. For this, the workers would have to unite and not let boundaries between countries separate them. ‘The Workingmen have no country’,8 was his contention. The working class would have to spring into action. The workers would also unite the peasants and the urban middle class to form a grand alliance to overthrow capitalism.

  Ibid., p. 275.

Ibid., p. 213.

Joel Krieger ( Ed.) The Oxford Companion to International Relations, 2014, Oxford University Press, p. 54.

Ibid., p.56.

 https://www.google.com/search

Marx gave his theory of political economy seeing the oppressive conditions of the working class. While speculators grew richer, the working class grew increasingly poor, malnourished and insecure. Marx and Engels saw history as nothing else but a continuous strife between two antagonistic classes, the rich and the poor. ‘This conflict arises from the faults in the mode of production in which one class comes to gain ownership and control of the means of social production and compels the other class to work on terms and conditions dictated by itself. This conflict reaches its peak in the age of capitation when it can be resolved only through a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, placing all means of social production (land, building, mines, forests, machinery and capital, etc.) under social ownership and control, enforcing universal labour and ensuring full development of the forces of production’.9

His theory is an economic criticism of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist society. He feels that workers feel alienated from their work and also feel detached because they are not involved in the process of production. The means of production are owned by a particular class, the bourgeoisie, who amass wealth and get rich. He contends that irrespective of the Age, be it Ancient Rome, feudal or the Middle ages, there has always been a class struggle. One class has always exploited the vulnerable one. If in ancient Rome, there were the slaves, plebeians, knights, the Middle ages, were marked by feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, serfs and in the modern bourgeois society the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat, the working class. Class antagonism exists in every society. Proletariat feel alienated because they insert value into every commodity, yet do not get their due. They are unable to develop their human capacities and their humanity because the production system is based against the proletariat. ‘But in a system of production where ownership is divorced from the act of production and objects are produced for profit in distant markets; those engaged in production neither flourish nor enhance their capacities’.10

Marx believed that the mode of production decided the existing political system in that society. Men enter into definite relations because of the necessities of life which are indispensable and independent of their will. The hostility between the classes continues which ultimately leads to revolutions and collapse of the capitalist system. Class antagonism exists because of the clash of the interests of both classes, one the bourgeoisie wanting to exploit and the other, the proletariat, unwilling to be exploited forever. ‘The sum total of these selections of production continues, the economic structure of society – the real foundation, on which rise legal and political superstructures and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness’.11

Because the modern day state is a tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie, the workers are not allowed to rebel for a long time. This time can span centuries but ultimately the proletariat would rise in revolution. For him, matter was the cause of any social change. He placed the economic factors at the base and whatever changes would occur at the base would lead to change in the superstructure that was built upon the base. ‘However, economic determinism is understood as not only the process of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services but also the way in which human beings responded to the material challenges of their existence’.12 This approach says that all historical changes take place only when there are changes in the material conditions. He even termed ‘family’ as a bourgeoisie institution for it is only through the family that the property rights can be safeguarded, perpetuated as well as inherited. That is why, he reasons, private property has to be eliminated and placed in the hands of the society which would be classless and stateless. Private property is blamed for dividing the society.

Barrie Axford, Gary K. Browning et .al., an introduction, Politics, 2002, Routledge, p.244.

Appadorai, A., The Subsistence of Politics, OUP, p. 117.

understood as not only the process of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services but also the way in which human beings responded to the material challenges of their existence’.12 This approach says that all historical changes take place only when there are changes in the material conditions. He even termed ‘family’ as a bourgeoisie institution for it is only through the family that the property rights can be safeguarded, perpetuated as well as inherited. That is why, he reasons, private property has to be eliminated and placed in the hands of the society which would be classless and stateless. Private property is blamed for dividing the society.

The political economy approach focuses on the argument that all political institutions and activities are given shape by the economic system that prevails at a given time. Even the mode of production decides the pattern of political institutions and behavior. The approach believes that the clash of economic interests between classes is the main reason behind all social conflicts. Only if the economic issues are resolved can there be peace, goodwill and harmony in the other relations. This clash occurs because the system of production is not organized on a rational system of production. A rational system means a system of production where there is social ownership of the means of production and distribution, technology is advanced in such a way so as to maximize production and labour should be universalised so as to produce for the fulfillment of the basic needs of the people. Unfortunately, production is monopolized in the hands of a few, in the capitalist system. This leads to exploitation of the proletariat by a few bourgeoisie. A revolution was inevitable which would help the proletariat improve their lot because only after the revolution they would be masters of their destiny. The political economy approach was not based on principles but on facts. The political economy approach was the materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation.

Marx believes in the role of class struggle in systemic economic changes and he used the economic and socio-political inquiry to trace the development of capitalism. According to him the proletariat perform the role for producing highly productive mechanized and socialized production but they are not rewarded for that. The bourgeoisie appropriate the profit which leads to contradiction between the two classes. For this approach, society is not made of individuals

12  R. K. Misra, An Introduction to Political Thought, 2012, Pearson, p. 135.

but is a sum of interrelations. All features of the society stem from the economic activities. Exploitation is the feature that distinguishes between the social classes. Because the means of production are controlled by one class it leads to inequality. The worker is forced to enter into an exploitive work relationship with the bourgeoisie. Unlike the pre-capitalist society/economy where the labourer was physically coerced to work even against his wishes, in the capitalist economy, the exploitation continues but is more subtle. Exploitation is inevitable because the labourer has to work as his ‘labour’ is perishable. A labourer can feed his family only when he earns. Thus, he has to work and to be exploited in the process. The labourer has to sell his labour power to survive. The bourgeoisie own the means of production so are in a position to buy labour as their own will and price. Bourgeoisie, thus, is a profit seeking class. The workers produce things but the prices are controlled by the market forces.

Marx minutely scrutinized the market economy in his book, Das Kapital. He ardently believes that human beings are productive beings and add value by their labour. The unequal exchanges that take place in the society lead to accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few. The labourer creates value in a commodity but the profit goes to the capitalist and not to the labour. This gap grows every day which leads to contradictions in the society. Their internal contradictions spell down for the capitalist system and ultimately, it collapses.

The class struggle gradually takes an acute form. As the proletariat become aware of their exploitation, their loss, they rise in revolt. The labourers fight for emancipation and an end to all forms of institutionalized violence. The workers were encouraged to struggle collectively and were told that capitalism was not the only alternative. The proletariat started believing that their interests were not subordinate to their employers, the bourgeoisie, but were diametrically opposed. The State was an instrument of exploitation, that aided the bourgeoisie. The latter had created state and all its agencies like the police, judiciary law etc. to be an eye-wash.

Conclusion

The theory of ‘surplus value’ given by Marx is an outstanding concept. In ‘ Capital’, Marx gives a detailed account of how profit represents the surplus value exploited out of labour power, and of how capital is beset by inner contradictions exemplified in periodic crises and a declining rate of profit’.13 The bourgeoisie is able to appropriate the ‘surplus value’ that is added to any product by the labour. It is the labourer who creates value in a commodity but is denied to profit from it. It is the bourgeoisie that benefits from the labour created by the proletariat. It is the labourer who is at a loss because he continues to be exploited because he has to survive. Ultimately, the proletariat would rise up in a revolt overthrow the bourgeoisie and put all the means of production, the land, factories etc. under the control of the society, the public. The proletariat would confiscate the various means of production and utilize them for welfare of all. ‘When organising production anew on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers’, wrote Engels, ‘society will banish the whole State-machine to a place which will then be the most proper one for it the – museum of antiquities – side by side with the spinning wheel and the bronze axe’.14

Blaming private property for all the problems in the society, Marx floated the slogan, ‘from each according to his capacity, to each according to his work’. This would gradually pass all the property rights in the hands of the community. The State would slowly wither away. Politics and State arise because of the division in the society as they exist to serve the petty interests of one class – bourgeoisie. Because the interests of the two classes vary, they can never reconcile. The approach does not treat the political system as an autonomous structure, rather a structure that has its foundations in the base i.e. the economic factosr. It is the economic base that is responsible for creating the social structure. Only when the base changes, would there be any changes in the superstructure. ‘The economic structure or the mode of production itself changes with the development of forces of production (i. e, means of production and labour power). This would bring about corresponding changes in the political system and other aspects of superstructure’.15

Marx, through his scientific socialism, brought forth the crucial role that economic factors play in any society. Though there are thinkers who differ with Marx, yet we cannot defy the fact that economic relations within a society are great determining factors in forming relations in the society. Though there are thinkers who differ with Marx, yet we cannot deny the fact that economic relations within a society do form relations in the society. Lack of harmony in economic relationship would definitely affect any society and its inmates because the basic needs of the people would not be fulfilled. This would lead to discord, rise in frustrations and finally revolutions.

Barrie Axford, Gary K. Browning et .al., op. cit., no. 10, p. 245.

Appadorai, A., op. cit. n.11, p. 118. Gauba, op. cit., n. 2, p.131.

The political economy approach has linked economics with politics and philosophy. The theory of ‘Surplus Value’ and ‘theory of alienation’ depict the constant struggle, between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. The theory of alienation proves that the work for the labourer becomes monotonous and the workers loose touch with the objects they produce. Capitalism is a big obstacle in the formation of a humane society. The emphasis is on how the economic factors shape the society, relationship between individuals and the institutions. Marx and his political economy approach contend that it is the economic structure that is the real basis of the society. This economic structure includes the labour, material forces of production as also the relations of production. Thus, a change at the base, the economic structure would lead to positive changes in the superstructure i.e. the society.

‘For Marx communism was not a doctrine but a movement, a movement to change the ownership of the means of production. Marxists firmly believe in the centrality of property relations in social revolutions…….’16 Only when the mode of production would change hands,

could the motion of ‘true democracy’ aiming for ‘equality’, be achieved. The workers were a revolutionary class but had to be won over by a conscious, disciplined and active leadership among the communists who would organize the workers. The spread of capitalism has led to a spread of exploitation and coinage of new words like ‘developed’, ‘underdeveloped’ etc. ‘Global capitalism ensures what Marx and Engels could only anticipate: a world in which most producers are wage workers and thus, subject to the same destabilizing forces inherent in its mode of production.17 He stressed on the determining role of the material production in the development of the social, political, religious and cultural systems. All history is nothing but a result of the interplay between the various economic factors. The labour and his worth in putting value in a raw material is true for it is the labour that creates something of worth.

.Suggested Readings

• Caramani, Daniele, Comparative Politics, 2011, Oxford University Press.
• Gauba, O.P. , An Introduction to To Political Theory, 2013,Macmillan, Delhi.
• Hague, Rod and Harrop, Martin, Comparative Govt. and Politics, An Introduction, 2015, Palgrave Macmillan, Replika, New Delhi.
• Harris B. Peter, Foundations of Political Science, 1976, Hutchinson, London.
• McKinnon, Catriona, Issues in Political Theory, 2012, Oxford University Press.
• Misra, K.K., Contemporary Political Theory, 1983, Pragati, Delhi.
• Andrew Heywood, Political Theory, An Introduction,2012, Palgrave Macmillan

EDIT