[...] Marx suggests that social classes do not develop until there is a possibility of productive surplus; that is, not until an individual human being, on average, can produce more than he or she needs in order to survive. Once surplus is possible, this also opens up the possibility of one group, or class, living off the work of another class. Now the more productive society becomes, the greater the potential surplus, and the bigger and richer the exploiting class can become. Under capitalism one class lives a relatively leisured, potentially fulfilling, life, with the opportunity to pursue educa- tion, art, literature, and culture (whether or not they decide to avail themselves of this opportunity), while another class struggles to feed and clothe itself. However, once society becomes sufficiently productive it becomes, in theory, possible for everyone in society to lead a life finally worthy of human beings. Free from need, people can develop their individual potential.

The idea of the economics first model is that just as feudal economics gave way to capitalist economics long before feudal politics was overturned, capitalist economics would fall to communist economics, before the communist political revolution. Here is one way of developing this idea. At a time of capitalist crisis unemployed workers could pool their meagre resources to set up co-operative enterprises of their own. Working conditions would be reasonably decent, for the workers would not impose terrible conditions on themselves. Wages could also be higher than elsewhere in the economy as the bloodsucking, parasitic capitalist is not there demanding his piece of the action. Prices of goods might also be reasonable as the workers would be selling to themselves, or, at least, people like them. Co-operatives would share knowledge with other enterprises as they need not see them as competitors, to everyone’s benefit.

One important dispute revolved around Marx and the leading anarchist Bakunin. Marx had argued that after the revolution there must be a period of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ in order to expunge from society those still existing elements of the capitalist economy. But sooner or later this revolutionary state would ‘wither away’. Bakunin countered that once it had its dictatorship the proletariat would never let go. The dictatorship of the proletariat may not be all that much of an improvement over the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Communism is not for us a state of affairs which is to be established, or an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. (M. 187)

Finally, a quick word about distribution. How should goods be allocated to individuals? Marx’s dictum that each would contribute according to their ability, but receive according to need obviously anticipates a world in which everyone willingly pulls their weight—they do what they can. They do not raise questions about the return they are getting for their labour, or try to ensure some proportionality between input and output. Utopian? But this is how the family often works. You contribute what you reasonably can, and your needs are taken care of as far as this is possible.

The crunch question, of course, is what about those who refuse to contribute? If they fail to contribute according to ability, will communist society refuse them what they need? Marx does not discuss this, but I think that his official answer is that this question would not arise. Once labour is ‘life’s prime want’ who would refuse to work if they could? But the point can be pressed. Suppose there are people who just refuse to play the game. Presumably Marx should say that communist society would have to find a way of dealing with this issue, if it does arise, but it is not for him, from the standpoint of capitalist society, to tell them what to do.

Suppose, then, that Feuerbach’s thesis is true: human beings invented God. Marx’s innovation is to attempt to explain why it is true. Yet should we accept that religion has its source in our misery, and, specifically, the misery of alienation? One difficulty is that even in relatively affluent societies religion continues to exist, even among the more affluent classes. So at least at first sight it is hard to see religion in all its manifestations as a solace. Of course, there are several Marxist-style replies that could be made. First, although some contemporary societies are relatively affluent in material goods, they are still class divided and thus still alienated. So we do all need consolation after all. Second, and distinctly, the existence of religion in class-divided societies is very useful in keeping the workers in check. Distracted by thoughts of heaven, they are less likely to protest about hell on earth. This connects with the theory of ideology. Their social betters have every reason to perpetrate this myth, for their own self-interest. [...]

So Marx makes two predictions that do not seem to follow from the basic theory of historical materialism. This yields a startling result: one can believe Marx’s theory of history, yet argue that within this theory there is no good reason to think that capitalism will end, or, if it does, that it will be replaced by communism. This would make one a very peculiar sort of follower of Marx, but is an entirely coherent position.

But what about the theory itself ? Nothing I have said so far is intended to cast doubt on the main claims that history is the story of the development of human productive power, or that societies rise and fall on the basis of whether they further or impede that growth. So we should look at this now.

Much of the weight of the theory comes down to the following claim: that should a form of society frustrate the growth of the productive forces, then, eventually, that society will give way. Now this may be true, and certainly supporters of Marx have tried hard to establish it. But let us consider a (fictional) example. Imagine a society of great class division. A small aristocracy has both wealth and power, and is protected in its privilege by a strong, well-paid, military. The remainder of the people, who do most of the work, are relatively impoverished. However their sense of community is so strong that they do not resent their place in society, and their religious belief further supports their acquiescence. They see their rulers as social betters, entitled to their advantages.

So the labour theory of value does not explain the source of profit. Consequently the law of the declining rate of profit fails too, for that starts from the assumption that only labour can create value. Does it also follow that workers are not even exploited? Here opinions differ. Some have argued that once the labour theory of value falls there is no basis left for the charge that workers are exploited. But others believe that there is still a strong argument to be made. Suppose you work eight hours a day. Imagine that there is nothing you can buy with your wage that took more than a total of four hours to make. There appears, then, a clear sense in which you have lost something in this. We can say, surely, that there has been an unequal exchange of labour. Someone else is getting the benefit of some of your labour. The truth of this does not depend on any particular theory of value or profit.

Now, is it true that workers under capitalism are exploited in this sense? For the affluent workers of developed economies, probably not. Most Western workers can command more hours of labour than they have to work; provided it is the labour of Third World workers. A day’s Western wages might buy you weeks of an Indian or Chinese labourer’s work. These are the truly exploited (although who is the exploiter is a more subtle question); and often work in exactly the condition Marx wrote about in the England of the mid-nineteenth century.

The now well-known point is that the market is a fantastic information exchange. Changing prices are signals of shortage and surplus. Furthermore, the capitalist market gives people an incentive to respond to these signals in the search to maximize profits (private vices, public virtues again). Take away the market and the profit motive and you remove both signal and incentive. However skilled the planner, it is impossible to gain the quantity of fine-grained information about consumer demand and changing market conditions that even a small market automatically produces. But even if we did have this information, responding efficiently also relies on a level of good will and power we are unlikely to see. Despite its apparent attractions a planned economy just cannot do what it is designed for.