Tocqueville and Marx: Two competing figures

Tocqueville vs. Marx The liberal vs. the socialist on the fundamental nature of society and its future

Xhensila Gaba

Instructor: Ermal Hasimja, PhD Class: Classics of Political thought Fall 2012

~1~

Introduction Alex de Tocqueville and Karl Marx are two controversial, yet influential figures, whose ideas are of worth to study not only because of them being enshrined into thick chapters of wellknown philosophical, economic or political books, but also because of them being so prominent and relevant in explaining the emerging trend in the new social order which we still experience today. Their visions, despite the surrounding polemics, have been farfetched given the times they lived in, and that is why they have managed to survive in time and still be able to grab the attention of scholars and policy-makers. Why is of interest in comparing Tocqueville with Marx?

How can this two contrasting and divergent point of views be comparable? The common denominator for allowing comparison is the context in which they both lived in and got inspired.

They both experienced the decline of the old aristocratic regime in Europe during 1800s and the emergence of a new order embracing modernization. The time of the aristocracy and feudal system had come to an end. Industrialization, rapid urbanization imposed a transformation of the society both in political and economic terms. The old regime was hierarchical, exploitative and rigid. It was hierarchical because aristocracy and landholders were a privileged class in the society, whereas the other classes lacked their privileges in terms of wealth and power. It was exploitative because poor people were forced to work for the aristocracy and not themselves.

They were paid up to subsistence level and the rest of gains were flowing into the pockets of the landholders, thus feeding the feudalist system. Last, it was rigid, because social mobility was an impossible option. A person could only be born an aristocrat, not made. Moreover, if a person was born poor, he would die poor.

Both Tocqueville and Marx agree that the old regime could not sustain itself anymore and change was inevitable. Some of the reasons that brought change are: (1) the aristocracy was

~2~

losing its power and influence by detaching from the daily problems of the citizens and engaging more into inward-focused aristocratic events. The Industrial revolution presented new patterns of social and political relations based on the modernization of production. Moreover, massive production of goods in low costs made possible the creation of economic surpluses; hence the enlargement of the “pie” invoked the developing of the middle class, which was asking for political representation as well. The new ideas of the French Revolution and Enlightenment redefined the concepts of justice, equality and freedom. These were the times that the French philosopher and the German genius were living through; all an inspiring context for brilliant minds to activate.

Questions and purpose of the essay The purpose of this essay is to highlight the different perspectives that Tocqueville and Marx had on the configuration and fundamental nature of the new social order. Moreover, what accounts for these differences? How comes that, even though both were experiencing the same historical events, they present contradicting and contrasting points of view? What conclusions did they reach regarding the future of the world? Which of them has best predicted the future?

Configuration of the new world by the liberal and the socialist: Divergences in equality, freedom and revolution Tocqueville was a French philosopher coming from the aristocracy class whose family suffered from the decline of the regime. He went to America where he got fascinated by the way in which the whole system was organized. He analyzed it from the view of an “outsider” and compared to the events in Europe, particularly in France. The book “Democracy in America”, his masterpiece, explains that in America there was no concept of class. People were isolated individuals in pursue of their self-achievements. The whole system was based on the principle

~3~

“equality of conditions”, which meant same accessibility to opportunities for each individual, regardless of their gender, race, or class. Everyone was equal to enter the system and benefit from it. Tocqueville saw that there was no distinguishable “class” of rich or poor people (actually he never defines the concept class, for the sole reason that there was no class in America or at least not at the same meaning as that in Europe). The social mobility was high. Everyone had the chance to pass from poor to middle class and then to the rich class. The status in the society was not born, but made. How then can be explained the inequalities in the America if everyone was starting from the same equal conditions? Tocqueville argued that inequalities will exist because people approach freedom in different ways. Some are risk-lovers and others risk-averse. Hence, the one that pursues more risk and makes better assessment of the opportunity provided, get richer and the other less, which means inequalities emerge. However, these inequalities are not fixed and unchanged, but rather fluid and constantly changing. The equality of conditions is what preserved the social stability. People have no incentives to oppose and rise against the system, because their freedom is guaranteed, even though the existence of inequalities would call for changes, but yet not a revolution. Why the revolution was an excluded option in an egalitarian society? First, there were no fundamental class distinctions. Second, the majority of people had vested interests in the society, such as property, and thus they avoided threatening their interests.

Third, people were equality weighted in their opinions, thus the majority was always correct (=the sum of equally weighted opinions), and anti-conformity was not justifiable or accepted.

Below, I will argue how Tocqueville feared the tyranny of the majority, as a consequence of the passion people had for equality, and how it would put a burden on freedom. Again, Tocqueville was an “outsider” in America; this helped him to see beyond the “visible”: in America, all were

~4~

enthusiastic for their social order and their values of freedom and equality, however, threats are present and democracy id fragile, as Tocqueville argues.

On the other hand, the new social order looked completely different to the German socialist Karl Marx. He said that the new world is hierarchical and exploitative in nature the same as the old system, for the mere exception that the model is simplified in two antagonistic classes: the bourgeoisie/capitalists and the proletariat/labors. This new classes were to be defined in economic terms because they emerged as a result of new modes of production. The capitalists were the ones owning the means of production and they were constantly engaged in accumulating capital. The labors had nothing but their labor power, which was a commodity that the capitalist could buy in the labor market. However, the labors were the ones who were working with the machines (capital) and they were the ones directly engaged into the production process. Thus the real value, according to Marx, belonged to the labor, (not to the machines) and it was stored in the goods produced. The gains or profit from selling those goods were going into the capitalists’ pockets, instead of to the “real producers�, the labor. Thus Marx explained this relationship as unjust and unequal because the workers were being exploited by the capitalists and paid to a minimum wage, below their marginal productivity. Hence, the labor class had to revolt and start a revolution against the capitalists, because they were not equal in conditions and opportunities, as Tocqueville witnessed in America. The revolution, made possible from a raise of class consciousness, would lead to a classless and equal society.

Tocqueville and the idea of participatory democracy The new social order was composed of isolated, individualistic people who were constantly struggling to upgrade their status in society by maximizing benefits from

~5~

opportunities provided in the system. Hence, the connections between individuals are weaker and there is no sense of belonging to a community. The central unit of society is the individual, not the class. However, given this isolation and individualism, two models of regime might emerge: democracy or despotism. And Tocqueville argues that the latter has the higher possibility to occur if not deterred on time. For example, in France, right after the French Revolution, Napoleon took over and his rule was more despotic than any other previous monarch. The individual being a self-interested rational and atomistic actor in pursuit of private gain becomes a safeguard for despotism, because he is completely detached from the policy-making and governance. As Tocqueville argues, “..despotism in which exists an equality of servitude and apathy towards a powerful stranger called the government”.

How to avoid this? The best away was through giving people incentives to get involved in the policy-making, for example, through small-scale participatory self-governing bodies. This would avoid the alienation of government from people and would counterbalance the central power. The interest groups are one feature of small scale governing bodies; they put pressure by adapting the law in convergence to their interests. Tocqueville was among the first to coin the term the ‘tyranny of the majority”. Since people were equally weighted, the majority was always right and no one could contradict it. However, the majority not always presented the best option or best solution to a problem, because that would depend on the knowledge and the experience that “the majority” had regarding a certain issue. What if the majority was decided arbitrarily on something, or even worse blind decision given the ignorance on that issue? That implies that in an egalitarian society, individual intellectual achievements are not given any extra weight in the policy-making. One way to prevent the tyranny of the majority is through establishing a proportional voting system, in which elites are weighted slightly more.

~6~

For Marx, democracy was just a façade, an appearance that would be eliminated as soon as the interests of the dominant class were threatened. Democracy was a political system that reflected the economic inequalities, thus it was not fair and just system. Marx was an advocate of social democracy as a political system in the hands of the proletariat, for ensuring equality. The revolution would create a self-governed system by an equal society.

Concluding remarks: Why Tocqueville is still relevant today and why Marx failed to predict the future of the society?

Tocqueville remains still relevant and prominent with his farfetched ideas. America is a place of equal opportunities, as he described it, composed of individualistic actors in pursue of a better status in the society. Class has no meaning in America. Tocqueville argued that building a free and equal society depends heavily on the context that this “formula� will be applied to.

What worked in America, failed in France. Freedom and individualistic behaviors would yield social upheavals in Europe, because of the legacy that the feudal system left. Freedom meant risks, and risks meant inequalities. The word inequality scared the Europeans, because they had suffered from it in the past. Thus people were passionate about equality up to the point to sacrifice part of their freedom. That explains why the European countries tend toward socialist ideas rather than free-market and capitalist system. Equality again prevails over freedom. Some argue that it works in America because of its exceptionalism; America was a new society composed of emigrants, all equal and starting from zero. In Europe, class had a painful legacy, difficult to be eroded.

Marx, despite his genius, failed to predict the future of the society. He said that capitalism was self-destructive, but time has shown that communism was self-destructive. First, Marx misframed the capitalist realities and its democratic spill-over effects. And of course, he is not to

~7~

blame, because he experienced the brutal form of capitalism, the social Darwinian times of Rockefeller and his friends. However, due to the ability of liberal democratic systems to improve themselves in time, workers are not anymore unprotected and exploited, as Marx described them.

Labor unions and syndicates for example, show that labors now have a higher bargaining power in the market and they are also protected by law through job contracts. There is no need for revolution because workers are profiting for the gains of capitalism as well. They are able to consume and increase their utility. Capitalism is a system composed of rational self-interested and utility maximizing individuals, including the workers, who now have vested interests in the system (property, consumerism, education), enough to keep them away from revolution.

If there is one thing that the liberal and the socialist agreed upon is the evolution of history in linear pattern towards more freedom and equality, no matter how contradicting this two notions sound. The passion for equality remains the “engine of history” at any time, be that the times of Tocqueville, Marx or “our times”.

~8~

References

Aron, R. (translated by Hasimja, E.). Les etapes de la pensee sociologique [The steps of sociological thought], p.217 Heilbroner, R.(1997). Teachings from the worldly philosophy. Norton&Company: New York

~9~