Karl Marx and the Good Society

Clearing out books has led me to reread Justice, Equality and Community: An Essay in Marxist Political Theory, a study of the influence of Marx by Vidhu Verma (Sage, New Delhi, 2000). This is a book that will stay on my shelves a little longer.

The question is, what did Marx say about justice, exploitation and the just society. Her own preference was for a non-judicial form of justice, that is justice not as a mechanism of the courts, but a human value. Marx said most on exploitation, especially that based on power differentials and class. On justice and the good society, Verma has attempted, well, a jigsaw puzzle. Justice is not a matter of redistributing wealth to the needy, even if the big picture of socialism and communism was redistribution. The reality was more complex. Justice carried implications of fairness over vested interests, something we still have not worked through. Justice in a judicial sense is not justice at all but a game between advocates seeking to shed doubt on clear guilt. Only the innocent have much to fear from court 'justice'.

So today, what is justice, and what is "the good society"? The big issue is how to balance the aspirations of individuals with general social well-being. I deal first with the individual. Marx dealt with exploitation on a class level, and in particular the exploitation of workers by owners. The decision not to unfairly exploit any other person but to deal justly at all times is an aspect of ethical personal development, which is gradually developed from childhood on by example and by principle. Religions have promoted moral relationships, but they are not dependent on religious belief, and not all religious people are as ethical as the ideal. Thus, this is an agenda for families, schools and other influences, including writers and the media. In short, "What kind of person am I?" is a key educational and social question.

Justice then is an automatic act of such an attitude of mind. It is internalised. It is focused on strangers and ememies as much as family and friends. It cherishes difference and seeks to help the needy. It is hard edged too, for fighting injustice becomes a natural moral response, which means never turning a blind eye.

How to combat injustice and exploitation also has a constitutional and judicial aspect. A constitution lays down expectations; governments create laws to control specified unethical acts such as theft and murder; and courts make decisions and set sanctions. The best sanctions are curative, turning offenders into future ethical individuals. The reality is that sanctions do not do this, and are seen more as taking difficult people off the streets. For sanctions to be therapeutic is expensive. Finland prefers this option with young people, of whom only three are held in custody. This reminds me of Ernest Thompson Seton in America at the beginning of the 2oth century. Noticing that local lads were vandalising the new farm he had bought, instead of calling the police, he invited them for a weekend of woodland activities ending with a campfire. This was the beginning of the American Scout movement, and he was able to observe later in life that all, even the villains, had grown up to become successful fathers and businessmen.

How schools and society can foster this internalised sense of justice, self respect and respect for others is the greatest challenge both nationally and globally. There is no time left for the small-minded political bickering about curriculum and assessment. The stakes are too big.
Seton...