The Arab Springs and Karl Marx’s Theory of Capitalism
Introduction
Sociology resonates around analysis and observation of social relations. It goes further than that and explains occurrences in life and their remedies. In the field of sociology, Karl Marx occupies an important niche for his appreciated contribution in terms of analysing, explaining and predicting societal events and outcomes. One would remember that Karl Marx opposed the concept of capitalism and predicted that it would crumble down to socialism before finally settling on communism. Indeed, it is also historically recorded that Karl Marx was the face and father of communism. His original theory has been adjusted by contemporary versions by revisionist theorists. In addition, the fall of capitalism is still yet to occur. What the world has witnessed is a regression, a slackening or an opposition to pure capitalism. Today, while all nations have traces and samples of capitalism, no single nation practises pure capitalism. Even the United States of America, which is believed to be the custodian of capitalism, practises embraces some elements of socialism, snippets of which can be seen in the progressive tax regime and the social welfare systems. A good case in point is the recent Obamacare law. This paper intends to give some relevance to Karl Marx’s theory of capitalism and explain its declining trend using the recent and ongoing Arab Spring Movement. The Arab Spring Movement refers to the uprising against the political, economic and social setup in North Africa and the Middle East. So far, the nations that have borne the brunt of the Spring include Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria. This paper would first explain the Marxist theory of Capitalism then draw a parallel relation of it to the occurrence of the Arab Springs.
Capitalism explained
Karl Marx advocated against capitalism in his theory. He posited that capitalism divided society into three classes. He advocated against the class system of life. In the class structuring, it was the position of Marx that community members belonged to any of the three groups, the upper class, the lower class and the middle class. Marx also applied a different classification of society in which he asserted that people belonged to two main groups, that is, the upper class, which he called the bourgeoisie, and the lower class, which he called the proletariats. Marx in the latter case was trying to address the industrial revolution and how production system worked in capitalist societies. He was quick to observe that the bourgeoisie controlled the factors of production. To this effect, the group had total control of the proletariats. In fact, Marx observed that proletariats had to work for the bourgeoisie in order to earn a living. Since the former knew the latter depended on them, they offered pay for the labour services at the least cost possible. Indeed, this practise still informs capitalism up to date. The labour costs in many industries and enterprises are set at the lowest price possible that the labourer can accept and take home.
As Marx rightly observed the labourer was at the mercy of the owner of the factor of production. One may ask how such a preposition arises. The economics of society best explains it. Ordinarily, factors of production are scarce. This means the groups that own the factors of production are few and that the demand for the factors is high. The lower the supply, the higher the demand. On the other hand, labourers willing to offer labour services are many. In fact, most of them are drawn from the lower classes if not the lowest of classes. Since they are many, their demand is lower than their supply. This pushes their costs lower and makes the owners of factors of production offer lower rewards to the chagrin of the labourers. They, the latter, have to accept the low prices to remain competitive and with gainful employment. This is what Karl Marx called capitalism.
He also noted that ordinarily, the law would be applied by the upper class to protect themselves against the lower class.
Arab springs related to capitalism
The Arab Spring movements has mentioned before has so far occurred in four countries located in North Africa and the Middle East. Cases in point are Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria. It is the contention of this paper that the movements and events unfolding are part of the unravelling of the reality that is the theory of capitalism by Karl Marx. It is first imperative to note that the above four nations are under the capitalist mode of economics. As in any other capitalist nation, the classes are structured in accordance with Karl Marx’s pyramid of classes where the majority poor fall under the lower classes and the minority rich fall under the upper classes. In addition, the political system is wrought with members of the upper classes accumulating power for themselves and the lower class members acting chiefly as subjects. The systems in these countries allow the political class to determine, craft and enact legislation. To this extent, another of Marx’s observation comes into play. This is as concerns the use of the law to defend and protect the exploits of the upper classes from the destruction by the lower classes. These nations have blatantly employed the Marxist script to the letter. It was, therefore, expected that the Marxist preposition as to end times would befall them. The next paragraphs would now analyse the events specific from one country to the other. It is important to note at this point that capitalism has not collapse in total as Marx had anticipated. However, the fact that rebellion has sprung and caused havoc in the nations should send signals cautioning the nations and indeed the larger world of an unprecedented future collapse of the capitalist system of economics.
Tunisia
The Arab Spring Movement was born unconsciously in Tunisia. In this country, one morning, a street worker who could no longer provide for his family and had lost hope in the nation set himself ablaze in the streets. This action would send everyone questioning himself about the country and the systemic lapses that characterised their lives. The worker had illuminated the struggle and suffering in a way so powerful it could no longer be ignored. The masses had gone through enough. What was wrong with the political and economic system of Tunisia?
The Tunisian situation can be explained in the rot perpetuated by the political class. There had been nepotism and practises of cronyism entirely. The government was ineffective. Corruption was rife and life was unbearable for the common man, if you like the lower classes. On the other hand, the owners of factors of production were busy enjoying their exploits. They did basically nothing in terms of actual work. However, they enjoyed the loot the most. The King had effectively put his family and his cronies in every strategic economic sector. Theirs was to siphon the benefits and enjoy as the common man worked. The law was used to protect this economic injustice and exploitation by the capitalists. Corruption ensured nobody could overturn or challenge this regime. It was a game of join them if you cannot beat them. Sadly, the upper class could not contain every citizen. Once the top of the pyramid was full, the other citizens had to occupy the lower bases. It is the balkanising of the citizenry in the lower class that facilitated the revolution. The citizens revolted against the political class which represented the upper class in the Tunisian society. The script was pretty much what Karl Marx had said, that the masses would disregard the rule of law. They would use violence, abuses, insults, force, among other methods to offset the status quo.
What happened in Tunisia saw the King and his hegemonic rule overthrown. The political class was sent packing. However, the failure of the system in Tunisia in remedying the situation is that the succeeding government continues to favour and apply capitalism. The continued but contained discontent among the Tunisian citizenry today perhaps suggests that the new government should embrace socialism. This would be in line with Marx’s prediction that capitalism would be followed by socialism before getting into communism.
Egypt
Soon after the unrest in Tunisia, the same rebellion visited Egypt in a similar fashion. The people of Egypt had been led by Hosni Mubarak for over forty years. Almost one half of the citizenry had known no other president. The political class had acted in the same fashion as that of Tunisia. The upper class enjoyed power and the trappings of wealth that accompany power. The lower class continued to toil hard for economic income. They had to work and fend for themselves. Egypt indeed is an economic powerhouse in Africa. However, the capitalist system makes redistribution of income a pipe dream. This is essentially what had caused the rebellion. As Marx predicted the lower class would become tired of the upper class and rebel against them. This would involve complete abrogation and disdain of the law. The law was seen in the Egyptian situation as a tool used by Mubarak to retain power and contain the people. The system worked for some time until the masses gained the courage and capacity to resist. Indeed, the manner in which Egyptian citizens reacted can be attributed to the motivation they received from the occurrences in Tunisia.
Egyptians had just had theirs to the fill and could not take in anymore. This conforms to Marx’s narrative. The fact that the citizenry may be blinded for some time after which they rebel was evident. In addition, prior to that it was prevalent in Egypt that everyone was determined to progress from one class to the next. This is in consonance with the suggestion of Marx that the class struggle would be characterised by competition by everyone in a bid to move from one class to the other. The failure of the system led to the uprising that would cause the eventual downfall of Mubarak. The case of Egypt demonstrates the fact that capitalism has its own ills. It also proves that the law can be abused by the upper class for selfish interests and that in the long run, rebellion by the masses would be inevitable. The case also served to show the world of the weaknesses of capitalism and the need to temper capitalism with a little practise of socialism. Indeed, the successive government still ponders with the need to address the economic issues that led to the uprising. It may not lead to the complete destruction of the capitalist system, but it would definitely lay a precedent for socialism in government. As long as the upper class accumulate wealth, the needs of the lower class as to basic requirements ought to be fulfilled.
Libya
The rebellion did not stop at Egypt. Soon, it found its ugly head in Libya. The land that had been led by, one, Mohammar Gadaffi. In Libya, the circumstances were a bit different. This is because the case of Libya was not purely out of capitalism. Rather, it was a war against oppression and freedom of choice. The veteran president had indeed developed the land. Economically, most of the citizens were empowered. Everyone had something to eat and the ills of capitalism were not as adverse. However, the fact that the incumbency had perpetuated a hegemonic rule on the land could be likened to what Karl Marx had foreseen. The president used his power to the advantage of his people, family and friends. The citizens were left without choice other than to tore the line and submit to the presidential system which was unfavourable. In addition, it is reported that Gadaffi had ignored areas that were strongholds to his critics. This could have been one of the motivation for the uprising that successfully so the decline of his rule. It is noteworthy that the fighters and rebels who volunteered to fight Gadaffi troops were from the lower classes. They had suffered enough from the economic disadvantages the president had exposed them to. They had to fight for their liberation. In the case of Libya, one cannot fail to mention the role of NATO in the war. Indeed, without the NATO troops, Gadaffi would have easily defeated the rebelling third class who applied primitive weaponry compared to the president’s men who used modern combative ammunition. In the event that happened, it would have proved the assertion by Karl Marx that the upper class use the law to protect their interests. Gadaffi had conveniently retorted that the rebels (mostly members of the lower class) were committing an affront to the law and would, therefore, be dealt with as criminals. This he did in protection of his own self-interest. Indeed, the predictions of Karl Marx came to pass in Libya. However, the system has not been upset in its entirety perhaps suggesting that the process is evolutionary and not merely revolutionary as Marx had suggested.
Syria
Syria completes the list of countries that have borne the bruises of the Arab Spring. It is unique in two senses. One, the rebellion and fighting is still going on. Secondly, it has taken the longest time. In Syria, poverty is just among the issues in contest. The citizenry also felt oppressed politically and wanted a democratic space. However, Karl Marx’s theory finds application in the sense that the masses did rebel against the rule perpetuated by the Assad led government. The system was a replica of situations in Tunisia and Egypt. This is because the lower class was continuously exploited by the upper class in Syria. The political class enjoyed power and used legislation to protect their interests. These were consequences of capitalism. Indeed, Marx had warned that the capitalist system allowed the owners of factors of production to wield immense power that they used for protection of their interests. However, the Syrian situation played out like a perfect narration of Marx’s theory. The people got tired of the economic and political deprivation. They hated the hegemony represented by Assad and believing rebelling could upset the situation and allow the nation a new leaf of life. Whether this will be the case is yet to come to pass. But the occurrence shows the strength in the masses who may not have the economic capacity but retain the power of rebellion. The world is keen to see the stop of war and return of normalcy in Syria.
Conclusion
Karl Marx’s conclusion that capitalism would collapse may be overlooked in the current economic context. However, the occurrences such as the Arab Spring reminds the entire world that indeed there are systemic issues with capitalism and that if remedial measures are not put in place, it would indeed collapse. The Arab Springs also bring out the unfortunate abuse of the law by the elite to protect their interests. In the long run, the world must contextualise the advice by Karl Marx and consider a place for communism in the coming societies.
References
Allman, P. (2010). Critical Education Against Global Capitalism: Karl Marx and Revolutionary Critical Education. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Bell, P., & Cleaver, H. (2008). Marx's Theory of Crisis as a Theory of Class Struggle. The Commoner, 65-76.
Bhardwaj, M. (2012). Development of Conflict in Arab Spring Libya and Syria: From Revolution to Civil War. Journal of International Affairs, 76-97.
Callinicos, A. (2004). The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx. Biddles, 1-24.
Goodwin, J. (2011). Why We Surprised (Again) by the arab Spring. Swiss Political Science Review, 17(4), 452-456.
Ollman, B. (2011). Marx's use of "class". The American Journal of Sociology, 50(3), 573-580.
Rosenbaum, T. (2013). A Bleak Anniversary for the Arab Spring. Wallstreet Journal, 3.
Salamey, I. (2012). The Many Colors of the "Arab Spring". Journal of International Affairs, 1-4.
Sayers, S. (2007). Individual and Society in Marx and Hegel: Beyond the Communitarian Critique of Liberalism. Science and Society, 71(1), 84-102.
Unver, A. H. (2012). Legacy of the Arab Spring: The Question of Independence and Sovereignty. Journal of International Affairs, 3(2), 23-34.
