According to Marx, alienation refers to the separation of things that naturally belong together, or to put antagonism in things that are perfectly in harmony[1]. Thus, alienation eventually brings about capitalism which in turn forces people to depend on work more and more each day in order to survive.
This shows that before capitalism was introduced, people could depend on nature for survival. People did not have to work for wages in order to survive, but they had enough supplies to survive on. Contrary, nowadays, one has to work so as to get paid and then use the money received from his work to buy the commodities he so needs to survive. In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 page 74-77, Marx identifies four types of alienation in labour under capitalism:
Alienation from the work: this is when the worker is separated from the goods he produce. The way the finished product is modeled and the process it goes through before it is finished is decided not by the person who works on it but by the capitalist class. Apart from the laborer not having any power over the motif and manufacture of the good, this type of separation also passes on to the change of the value of the good into a substitute value. In simpler terms, this type of separation subjects the worker to the extent of his expertise in producing goods that at the end have to satisfactorily serve the customer making the workers survival dependent on the customer’s ability to purchase the said product. This type of alienation also ensures that the worker gets minimal returns for his hard work as exploitative middle men enjoy the profits from the product by themselves.
Alienation of the worker from working: this type of alienation separates the worker from the action of producing the said good. This kind of alienation subjects the work process to the capitalist mode of production whereby the laborers hard work is equified to a system of wages that are minimal and no incentives to encourage the laborers hence no work satisfaction. According to Marx one class is being rewarded while it upholds domination over the topic of its labor by the capability to decide how it shall be made use of precisely or swapped for something else. Capitalism eliminates the privileges of the worker to implement jurisdiction over the worth or results of his labour, denying him of the capacity to either make use of the product he makes directlty or get complete price of the product when it is sold. The first kind of alienation is a factor to the second kind of alienation as it eliminates the laborers feeling of possession and the end price of the finished product. This lack of being in charge interrupts the skill of the laborer to concentrate therefore isolating all the actions he does;
Alienation of the worker: this kind of alienation separates the worker from himself as being the manufacturer. According to Marx, man has the predisposition and longing to fit in place numerous actions to improve their communal endurance, reassurance and feeling of togetherness. The worth of man lies in his capabilities to envisage the consequences of his actions as reasonable thoughts are unique at every known pace of knowing them: man is able to tell the difference between the ideas he has (the subject), and products of his ideas (the object). When a laborer is denied of this chance then his work though is satisfactory and up to the market standard, it not fulfilling to him and he feels cheated buy the system of wages put in place by the capitalist society. A laborer is then subjected to following the will of other people and not his own as he has to make money so as to survive;
Alienation of the worker from other workers: the idea of capitalism has reduced labour to profitable service to be bought and sold on the market, while it is quite a shared association amid people who are engaged in an everyday struggle for continued existence or improvement for their lives. The ever competitive labour market is a set of connections in the industrial capitalist economies to maximize the profits in from of capital from the people who run their own businesses and who manage the means of production of goods. This brings forth the unhealthy competition between worker and worker as each wants to outshine the other hence conflict an effect termed as false consciousness by Marx with in turn causes the relations of production.
In reference to the German Ideology, Marx (1844, 82) states that “things have now come to such a pass that the individuals must appropriate the existing totality of productive forces, not only to achieve self-activity, but, also, merely to safeguard their very existence”. In essence this means that capitalism is a system that seems to make and keep the rich richer while the poor continue getting poorer, forcing them to work so as to survive.
Each individual should find a way of getting a livelihood that will sustain him or her and ensure of his or her survival in this capitalist world. It also means that in this current universe, if one does not work or have a steady income of wages then his or her own survival is threatened and it might as well be eliminated.
Immanent critique
Immanent critique is an approach from a social point of view that seeks to evaluate cultural ways by finding criticisms in the regulations and organizations needed for the creations of those views. This technique aims to put into perspective not only the entity of its study but also the thought where the entity came from; both the entity and its thoughts are therefore revealed as outcomes of a historical progression.
In reference to Marx, Antonio, writes; “setting out from idealism…. I hit upon the idea in the real itself. If formerly the gods had dwelt above the world, they now had become its centre’ Marx finished by saying immanent critique was necessary in the world as it brought about radical changes that were desperately needed and called for. This immanent critique then became the axis of his emancipator critique of capitalism[2].
Marx was opposed to the idea of individuals owning private property and working for themselves. He wanted individuals to work of the betterment of the whole society and not only one person. He wanted a communal society that would overthrow the selfishness and greed of man that made him want to privatize property for his own personal gain.
Sayers argues that a social theory that Marx develops cannot give results that are from a decisive view point. The accessible social order is not straightforward and stationary; rather it is filled with nervousness and disagreements, which include both pessimistic and optimistic features and energy that hold it up and maintain it. Disagreements give rise to radical changes in the society some may be good changes while others may be bad point is, disagreements bring about change.
According to Marx, the feudal society was taken over by capitalism which then gives way to socialism. This provides the structure in by which Marx disapproves of capitalism and envisions socialism, his condemnation of capitalism is not definite as he bases it on principles which are historical and reasonable.
The disapproval of capitalism is reasonable to the dispute conditions which come before it, it comprises of an advance radical historical progress. With the settings for socialism gaining roots and becoming more common among people, capitalism continues to become an obstacle to more development.
In this light, capitalism can be condemned on the fact that it creates different classes of people who separate themselves in terms of wealth.
Capitalism creates wealth classes which is not the best thing to do as hatred and jealousy emanate from such classes. Communism on the other hand does not have such classes of wealth as all men are equal wealth wise and they all work towards a communal goal, the truth therefore has to fine-tune itself to communism. Therefore communism can be termed as the actual movement which brings to an end the present condition of things.[3]
Sayers states that both Hegel and Marx by default know that human nature is communally and traditionally created, while economic development guides to the improvement of additional requirements.
Their requirements and their fulfillments are therefore made up of chronological and reasonable substance, the average development they supply is more likely to be relative and historical. In the same way capitalism is evaluated by the extent to which it fulfills or fails to fulfill the needs of individuals, these are the desires that capitalism has brought forth single handedly.
According to Rousseau, the growth of needs is a purely negative phenomenon[4]: the more our desires the more we get tied down to them and become prisoners of our needs. Hegel and Marx look at this from a dissimilar point of view and they take into account that the increase of human desires is an inevitable vital part of human nature on a universal point of view.
In turn Hegel disputes that straight forward and prehistoric life is conflicting with indisputable human satisfaction, while on the other hand it is animal nature and simply an ordinary state. This means that one cannot live a simple life because every day brings forth new needs and desires to be satisfied and therefore he has to work hard to enable him to take care of his needs satisfactorily.
Concept of alienation and the idea of immanent criticism
According to Marx, the concept of alienation brought forth capitalism which resulted in people having to work for minimum wages so as to satisfy their needs and wants. This concept of alienation then brought forth the idea of immanent criticism whereby Marx and Hegel disputed the idea of capitalism where individuals would privatize property for their own gain and make maximum profits form having other individuals work at minimum wages.
They also disputed the idea of capitalism as it brought about social classes and differences among people there were the royalty or elite then the common man who had to work for his mere survival. Marx argued that capitalism would provide social tensions that would eventually lead to its own destruction[5] giving way to socialism leading to a stateless, classless society which would be termed as pure communism.[6]
In a way Marx succeeded in his quest of bringing forth a stateless, classless society where all men worked for the good of the community and not for the good of the community. Some states in the world today are referred to as communist or socialist states as they adopted this view of Marx that men should look out for his fellow man and work towards the betterment of both of them, although this has severally failed, for instance in the Cold War wave.
On the other hand, Marx did not succeed as majority of the people seemed to want to acquire individual properties where they could make maximum profits while contributing little effort as possible. These people and states are referred to as capitalist states and their main aim is to make profits so as to fulfill their needs fully. Both the capitalist and communist or socialist states coexist peacefully with each other as they are interdependent on each other for their survival.[7]
In conclusion, the concept of alienation and the immanent critique are connected as one gave rise to the other bringing about numerous fundamental changes in the world over. Both these two different concepts have a meeting point whereby they both agree that mans needs are recurring and need to be fulfilled as they occur so as to ensure ones survival.
Capitalism brought about business minded individuals who then brought about different society classes determined by how much wealth one has to his name. At the same time, communism brought forth equality of all man and the working towards common good and fulfillment. [8]
Both aspects are based on similar assumptions which in turn contradict each other and at the same time find common ground with each other. The ideas of communism and capitalism has been universally accepted and at times they are used together so as to bring forth good results and achievements not only for the individuals themselves but also for the society at large.
From the paper above immanent critique is not looked as a way of condemning capitalism but as a way of expanding, broadening it and developing it so as it can fulfill the human needs fully, effectively and efficiently.
Bibliography
Anon., 1981. “Immanent Critique as the core of critical theory”. British Journal of Sociology Vol. 32, No.3 pp. 333.
Baird, E. and Walter K. 2008. From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Marx, K. 1975. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, in Early Writings. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Marx, K. 1965. The German Ideology. New York: International publishers
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1975). The German Ideology, Collected Works, Vol. 5. Moscow: Progress, 49-90.
Rousseau, A. 1994. Needs in the Philosophy of History. New York: Oxford University.
Sayers, S. 2003. Progress and Social Criticism University of Kent: New York: Sage.
Footnotes
K, Marx, 1965. The German Ideology. New York: International publishers, 74-78.
Anon., 1981. Immanent Critique as the core of critical theory. British Journal of Sociology Vol. 32, No.3 pp. 333.
K. Marx and F. Engels, 1975. The German Ideology, Collected Works, Vol.5. Moscow: Progress, pp.49.
A. Rousseau, 1994. Needs in the Philosophy of History. New York: Oxford University, 71.
E. Baird and K. Walter, 2008. From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 132.
S. Sayers, 2003. Progress and Social Criticism. University of Kent: New York: Sage, 56.
K.Marx 1965. The German Ideology. New York: International publishers, p. 98.
K. Marx, and F. Engels, 1975. The German Ideology, Collected Works, Vol.5, Moscow: Progress, 49- 55.
Philosophers describe conflict as the disagreement of authority. According to these philosophers, power can take on different forms depending on the person at the helm. While some form of power might be humane and manipulative, another might as well be coercive and physical. While some people in power might choose to lead in an assertive and bargaining way, others decide to do so in an inductive and rational manner.
Due to the variations in the forms of power, there is usually the likelihood of manifestation of conflict. In this light, social conflict therefore addresses the confrontation of social powers. Ideally, all social theorists seek to address power or conflict based on social powers and their dialectics. (Cattell, 1957, p. 23)This essay seeks to examine the status of social conflict in the work of both Karl Marx and Max Weber.
Karl Marx
According to Marx, the society encompasses an existing balance of opposing forces that give rise to social change by their constant tension and struggle. In presenting his theory, Marx based his vision on an evolutionary point, which was contrary to the theories existing at that time.
For him, tension and struggle rather than passive development was the driving force of progress. Marx considered strife the father of all good things and social conflict the center of chronological progression. This philosophy presented by Marx deviated from earlier versions but corresponded with the 19th century view of society.
According to Marx, the need for adequate food and drink, of housing and for clothing were man’s chief goals at the beginning of the race, and these needs are still fundamental when efforts are made to scrutinize the intricate structure of contemporary society. However, man’s strive against nature does not stop once these pursuits are attained. If translated literally, this statement means that meeting one need gives rise to a host of others and this becomes a sort of a vicious cycle. (Giddens, 1983, p. 101)
In their bid to gratify both the principal and inferior needs, men engage in aggressive cooperation immediately they leave the primeval, shared period of development. According to Marx, specialization brings with it opposition of ideas from the different classes. In his hypotheses, Marx claimed that all social relations between men, as well as the existing systems of ideas are exclusively rooted in the past.
He also maintained that, although class strives, had marked all history, the competitors in the struggle had changed in the course of time. Although there was obviously a similarity between the travelers of the middle ages who fought against guild masters and today’s industrial workers who take on capitalists, the contestants were merely the same characters placed in different situations. (Blau, 1964, p. 23)
For Marx, the analysis of social class, class organizations and modifications are crucial to understanding capitalism and other social structures or means of production. In his theory, work and labor, and ownership of property with the means of production were the only ways that could be used to explain and define classes.
Today’s capitalism according to Marx exhibits these economic factors than in any other period in history. While the previous societies contained alliances that could have been considered classes, these were mere elites who were not wholly based on economic factors. (Bottomore, 1983, p. 96)
According to Marx, capitalism has two major groupings namely the bourgeoisie and proletariat. It is actually important to understand that Marx viewed the structure of society vis-à-vis its major classes, and the resistance between them as the force of alteration in this structure. Indeed, Marx theory was not based on balance or consensus.
Conflict was forever present within the societal structure and the existing classes were not meant to be purposeful elements maintaining the structure. According to Marx, this structure was like a major ingredient in the struggle of classes. Indeed, Marx only sought to explain his conflict view based on his observation of the 19th century society. (Marx, 1971, p. 65)
Marx defined class as simply the possession of property. In his explanation, he claimed that such an ownership gives a person the power to bar other people from the property and to utilize it for personal intentions. By looking at the bourgeoisie, landowners and proletariats, one realizes that their main asset was property and not revenue or status.
Indeed, these are determined by supply and expenditure, which itself definitely replicates the production and power associations of classes. According to Marx, this makes the issue of class a hypothetical and recognized relationship among individuals. In a bid to fit in to one of the three classes, there arises an informal class membership force otherwise known as class interest.
Due to the identical class conditions, individuals in the different classes tend to act in the same manner. This leads them to unconsciously form a kind of reciprocal reliance, a society, and shared interest interconnected with common revenue of yield or of wages. Because of this common interest, what follows is a formation of an interest class meant to protect their property. The formation of the interest classes often leads one group in to a struggle with the opposite group. (Marx, 1971, p. 68)
Initially, the interests associated with land possession and rental fee are dissimilar to those of the bourgeois property. However, as the society matures, there is usually a merger between capital and land ownership, which in turn forces a coalition between landowners and bourgeoisie.
At the end, the association of production, the natural struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie ends up being the determinant of all the events that follow. According to Marx, this constant struggle is necessary for any society that is maturing since its absence would ground a society to a halt. At the beginning of class conflict, the struggle between the various classes is usually carried out at individual production units.
As capitalism matures, the rising inequality between the living conditions of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat extends the strife to coalitions across industrial units. With the passage of time, there is a manifestation of class conflict within the societal level. According to Marx, this new level leads to a rise in class-consciousness, which ultimately leads to the clamor for political power. This therefore transforms the existing classes in to political power, which is the other form of class. (Marx, 1971, p. 70)
According to Marx, the spread of political power is determined by the power of production. Production grants political power, which the bourgeois class uses to legalize and safeguard their property and resultant group affairs. Class relations are therefore political and in a mature society, the government is involved with the bourgeoisie affairs. This fact leads to a state of restlessness in the remaining classes something that widens the rift between them even further.
Additionally, the state of the already exploited worker deteriorates further and in most cases, this leads to the collapse of the entire social structure. Ultimately, this transforms the class struggle in to a blue-collar revolution. In effect, this wipes away the existing classes and gives rise to a classless society. With the collapse of classes, the political power needed to protect the bourgeoisie against the laborers becomes obsolete leading to the collapse of political power and the state at large. (Cattell, 1957, p. 5)
Marx’s emphasis on class conflict as representing the dynamics of social change, his consciousness that change was not accidental but the result of a conflict of interests, and his observation of social relations based on political power were new findings in the society. However, the passage of time and history has made most of his suppositions and prophecies obsolete.
Today, capitalist possession and the control of production have been divided. Instead of workers becoming homogenous as Marx predicted, they are now divided in to various specialization groups. On the other hand, the strengthening of the middle class and communal mobility has further weakened the class solidity thus discrediting Marx theory in a large manner.
Instead of there being a big disparity between the rich and the poor, there has been a social intensity and an increasing highlight on social fairness. Finally, the growth of worker-oriented laws has weakened the bourgeoisie power that Marx predicted would characterize the modern society. Most importantly, the demonstration of conflict between laborers and capitalist has been institutionalized through combined negotiation legislation and the validation of strikes.
Despite the exhibit of chronological trends discrediting these theories, Marx’s sociological outlines have much value. Of importance, his highlighting on conflict, classes, and their association to political influence, and on communal alteration was a dominant perspective that the modern society should not abandon. Indeed the spirit, if not the essence of his hypothesis merits further development to guide the modern society. (Giddens, 1983, p. 105)
Max Weber
Marx saw the division of classes as the mainly important foundation of class conflict. Weber’s scrutiny of class is similar to Marx’s, but he discusses class in the framework of social stratification in a more general manner. Weber claims that class and social status are different dimensions of the social structure and both are noteworthy contributors of social difference. In fact, the way Weber treats class and status is an indication of the manner in which the substance basis of society is related to its perception.
Social conflict can therefore be a result of the substance or the ideological basis. Unlike Marx, Weber did not dwell on explaining how class conflict occurs but he highlighted the role of power, domination and societal action in the matter. Weber defines power as the aptitude of an actor to recognize his will in a social action, even against the will of team players. He relates this to the ability to sway resources in a fastidious sphere of influence.
Therefore, economic power is the ability to manage substance resources in order to guide production, dominate accretion and dictate expenditure. Societal power as outlined by Weber includes monetary power, societal power, lawful or political power among other centers of influence. Although controlling these spheres of resources usually go together, they characterize diverse mechanisms of power and are therefore theoretically distinct. (Giddens, 1983, p. 108)
On the other hand, Weber described domination as the implementation of power. Therefore, possessing power in any sphere of life resulted in to automatic dominance. In what he called charismatic domination, Weber claimed that some individuals might use inspiration, coercion, communication or even leadership to direct and coordinate social action. This charisma according to Weber usually emerges during times of social crisis.
Because this leadership tends to be personalized, it is short-lived and does not extend beyond the rule of its founder. In exercising this power, the leader often finds himself in a form of conflict with the subjects. In traditional authority, there is absolute loyalty to the leadership. In most cases, the lines of this authority are almost non-existent and there is no clear differentiation between private and public life. (Shortell, n.d)
In the matter of communal action, Weber claims that it is oriented based on a common conviction of association. In other words, the actors believe that by some means they belong together in a certain way. The actions of these actors come from and are co-coordinated by this feeling. This is in contrast to societal action, which is somehow oriented to a coherent modification of welfare. The motivation is therefore not gotten by a sense of communal rationale, but relatively, identification of common good.
On the issue of class, Weber identified three distinct classes, which included a specific fundamental section of actors, which rests entirely on monetary interests and is embodied under an environment of labor and product markets. According to Weber, the possession of property defines the major class difference. Property owners have explicit advantages and in some cases even a monopoly in the marketing of commodities.
The same property owners have a limited access to the foundations of wealth creation, by virtue of possession and management of the markets. Unlike Marx, Weber did not believe that class interests necessarily led to consistency is social action. Additionally, Weber did not concur with Marx that proletarian revolutionary action would arise because of structural inconsistency.
In certain situations, Weber believed that there was a possibility of societal action developing from a common class situation. This meant that the extent of the contrasts between the property owners and the property less laborers must first be translucent to the laborers in order for communal action around the issue of class to crop up. (Shortell, n.d)
Conclusion
Both Marx and Weber have addressed the status of social conflict albeit in different words. Weber’s view on the status of class conflict was not much different from the one outlined by Marx although both views are stated differently. On his part, Marx discussed the repercussions of class in terms of the substance conditions of survival. He also classified property possession in a definitive manner and in light of capitalist class relations.
Additionally, Marx did not think that the variations in the kind of labor were important though he accepted that specialization had greater value than unskillful labor. On his part, Weber believed that the disparities in wages resulted in considerable substantial conditions thus dissimilar models of social action. Weber’s theory also suggests that rivalry among those without property can be based on lucid reasons, and not false awareness as Marx suggested.
Reference List
Blau, P. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley. p. 23-46.
Bottomore, T. (1983) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 96-103.
Cattell, R. (1957) Personality and Motivation. New York: World Book. p. 5-16.
Giddens, A. (1983) Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 101-109.
Marx, K. (1971) Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Tr. S. W. Ryanzanskaya, edited by M. Dobb. London: Lawrence & Whishart. p. 65-81.
In the middle of the 19th century, the ideas of capitalism have been already spread across the whole world. There were a number of theorists, who were ready to analyze this economic system and define its role in society.
Due to the political instability that could be easily noticed in many European countries, there was a need to create a theory or a program according to which people could get a chance to improve their future and understand the conditions under which they had to live.
The point is that different countries faced a number of the same problems, still, they did not want to unite their efforts and knowledge to find one powerful solution. Instead, European theorists introduced a variety of ideas, which turned out to be weaker in comparison to the already established capitalism.
There were two prominent German political economists, whose ideas and approaches were recognized in the world. Max Weber and Karl Marx were both intrigued by the social development and changes that could not be understood by ordinary people.
The period of industrialization was not simple, this is why political experts like Marx and Weber wanted to prove that their individual understanding of such concepts like human nature, resistance, power, and society had to be accepted.
The peculiar feature of these two economists was the fact that they realized that changes, which happened to society, were not really appropriate. In other words, people were not ready to accept the changes and live in accordance with their own demands and desires.
Still, even such understanding of the living conditions made Marx and Weber took different positions and protected their theories in different ways. Weber did not want to believe that there was a possibility to change the situation, this is why it was necessary to evaluate the reasons of why capitalism became one of the most crucial systems within a short period of time, still, he did not see any hope to improve the situation.
Marx could not accept Weber’s fears and inabilities. What Marx offered was the revolutionary approach to solve the problems and encourage people.
Though the ideas of Marx and Weber may seem to be similar in some ways, it is wrong to believe that these theorists took the same positions; Marx found it obligatory to critique the activities of such people like Weber due to their inability to identify problems and offer the solutions, this is why Marx’s attitude to social change, human nature, and the desire to gain power as the means to survive turn out to be more interesting and provocative as for the society in the 19th century as well as for modern people.
Definition of Capitalism by Marx and Weber
Capitalism is the system according to which three main concepts such as power, society, and resistance are closely connected to each other and define the development of people from different classes and with different abilities.
Still, Weber and Marx define the essence of capitalism in different ways and prove that their approaches may help to understand the same ideas from different perspectives. Marx criticized Weber a lot as he admitted that power had to be understood as “the chance of a man or of a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action” (Weber 180).
Marx mentioned that in addition to such explanation of the matter, Weber failed to add the importance of human decisions that contradicted human nature as it is. Marx, in his turn, said that capitalism is the opportunity for the workers to prove their own views.
The vast majority of their activities are victorious in nature, still, “the real fruit of their battles lies… in the ever-expanding union of the worker. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry” (Marx and Engels 481).
Human Nature
Taking into consideration the opinions of two theorists, it is possible to think that their differences lie in the nature of their understanding of such issue like human nature. According to Marx, people have enough powers and skills to protect their rights.
Still, people are divided into classes, this is why it is correct to accept a man as a “species being, not only because in practice and in theory he adopts the species as his object… but also because he treats himself as the actual, living species; because he treats himself as a universal and therefore a free being” (Marx 71).
Human nature has to overcome certain changes from time to time, and labor is the reason of human nature’s dynamics. There is a tendency that people have to work in order to exchange the products and meet their needs. And labor has to be mutual as one man cannot achieve the required desire alone.
Labor is group activity, and human nature cannot resist this simple truth, this is why it is useless to search for other explanations like those, offered by Weber. This theorist explained human nature as the association of various impulses with the existing need to work and importance of religious preferences.
As people lived in the period of uncertainty, they could find some kind of support in religion, and human nature aimed at disclosing various possibilities. But Marx did not want to underline the role of God in human lives when the idea of capitalism was developed.
It was the time to forget about human dependency on some spiritual issues but focus on the activities, which were available to people. The question of human power and skills turned out to be important.
Power
Marx explained that power had to be based on economics that promotes the possession of production and should always have certain roots. There are a number of classes, and their structure is organized in the way that one class could easily gain power over other class to achieve the desirable control.
In other words, Marx supported power as the means to control society and direct people accordingly. At the same time, Marx was ready to argue Weber, who defined power as the possibility for a man to achieve the goal regarding the resistance of society for his own sake.
This is why power cannot be stable because as soon people destroy the existing domination, there is no necessity of power, and Marx could not accept the world without power and the control body.
Political Resistance and Society
The evaluation of the development of human relations during the 19th century shows that capitalism became a crucial point in different types of relations between people. Resistance turns out to be a component of human life, still, its value may be defined in several ways.
For example, Weber believed in human ability to fight against the resistance in society. He offered to analyze the roots of human weaknesses and think about the ideas with the help of which it was possible to improve the future.
Unfortunately, Weber focused his investigations on the struggles within society when Marx underlined the role of class struggle against political resistance.
The point is that both theorists believed that the conditions under which people have to live were not the most successful for human beings, this is why it is useless to promote the conflicts in society but search for more powers to change the world without radical changes of society.
And the position of Marx seems to be more appropriate and stable in regards to the one offered by Weber. Society of the 19th century as well as people from the 21st century should believe in their own powers and create the conditions under which they could properly define their potential and control the development of the events in respect to their own demands.
The Role of Marx and Weber in Political History
The role of Karl Marx in human history remains to be important from a variety of perspectives. With the help of his studies, people got a chance to understand how rich their potential could be and how significant their decisions were.
During the whole century, Marx aimed at creating theories, which disclosed the main ideas of the relations in society. People’s needs and beliefs vary considerably, and if the changes that happened to society could not be defined as appropriate, people should not search for some errors in themselves but search for more powers to detect the errors in the system and improve it.
Still, the worth of the majority of Marx’s works could hardly be understood without the works of another prominent theorist, Max Weber. His controversial ideas and the attempt to criticize Marx were noticed and evaluated accordingly.
This man had another position and had a number of reasons to share his ideas with the others. This is why talking about the role of Karl Marx and his arguments for society, it is necessary to admit the role of his colleague, Max Weber, and try to compare their positions to gain the truth.
Conclusion
In general, the ideas of Karl Marx and Max Weber have a number of positive and negative aspects. The point is that different social backgrounds as well as different living principles promote the development of different theories.
Capitalism was the period, when people could hardly be sure of their own ideas. They did not even understand how to formulate their needs in a right way, and Marx as well as Weber helped to make the right decision and understand how it was possible to change the world.
Sometimes, some inspiration and stimulation are required for people, and the works of Marx and Weber may become the sources where certain help could be found. Though their works differ considerably, both of them had one goal indeed: to explain what went wrong with society and offer the solutions to prevent the destruction of safe future.
As their works were created at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, and it is the 21st century now, it is possible to believe that all their attempts to help society were successful indeed.
Works Cited
Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” In The Marx-Engels Reader by Tucker Roberts C. New York: W.W. Norton, 1978, p. 469-500.
Marx, Karl. “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (19844).” In People, Power, & Politics by Rod Wise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 57-75.
Weber, Max. “The Concepts of Status Groups and Classes.” From Max Weber: Essay in Sociology by Hans Heinrich Gerth and Bryan S. Turner. New York: Routledge, 1991, p. 180-195.
Karl Marx is a well known individual in the field of history. Marx was a philosopher, a historian, and a social scientist who engaged himself with a variety of issues that affected the community. For this reason, Karl Marx is considered to be among the most influential socialist thinkers of the 19th century.
The socialist movement utilized Marx’s political, social as well as economic ideas to achieve success in its processes and practices. Among the many things that Marx is associated with is the idea of communism and socialism. This entails collective ownership of property and organization of labor in such a manner that all members benefit (Polan 1984).
This piece of paper looks at the concept of communism and all that surrounds it. Much emphasis will however be given to Karl Marx’s point of view or ideology in regard to communism and how realist or desirable it was.
Communism
Communism can be defined as an economic system that is characterized by aspects such as collective ownership of property and an organization of labor that is meant for the common advantage of all the involved members.
It could also be said to be a system of government whereby the state is involved in the planning and control of the economy and an authoritarian party holds power and works towards establishing a higher social order where all goods and property are shared equally among the communities.
It is a doctrine that seeks to overthrow capitalism form of governance. Communism ideology aims at establishing a revolutionary, stateless, and classless socialist society that is based upon commonality particularly with regard to ownership and means of production or division of labor (Ashley and Orenstein 2004).
Marx and the Idea of Communism
Marx is well known and remembered up to today for his idea of communism and his desire to do away with the capitalist form of governance. Communism and Marxist-Leninist interpretations played a critical role in influencing history of the 20th century.
This was seen in the intense of rivalry that was built up between the western world that was characterized by liberal democratic form of government and market economies and the socialist world that entailed social states that were governed by communist parties. This was serious enough that it culminated the Cold War that existed between the Free World and the Eastern bloc (Gaus and Kukathas 2004).
In the communist manifesto, it is evident that Marx distinguished between socialism and communism. To him, socialism was a term that was more comprehensive while communism was an advanced stage of socialism. Socialism was a process that was deemed to be in a position of preparing the way for communism.
This was to be made possible through nationalization of the means of production and putting them under the control of the workers; the individuals who he viewed to be the major producers of wealth. To Marx, economic equality was an extremely significant aspect that was capable of making political equality and freedom complete.
This made Marx to consider the redistribution of economic power as a key process in allowing for success in all economic and political activities. He therefore advocated for its implementation with the main aim being the extension of democracy to a greater level than that which was achieved by the democratic revolutions that prevailed earlier.
One observation that Marx linked with socialism and communism is the provision of services such as housing, education as well as health to the people for free. In addition to this, people were to be paid wages that was equivalent to the work they were involved with. This sound pretty good and everyone would appreciate the system (Berki 1975).
According to Marx, an international communist society would come to pass once all the nations would develop and implement successful socialist economies. As mentioned earlier, the main vision of communism was simple; to have a classless and stateless society in which the central government had no powers and democracy was a key issue in the place of work (Levin 1989).
The system also advocated for the abolition of the market system. This means that there would be neither money nor the processes of buying and selling but instead, an establishment of a system where people would work on a voluntary basis for the common good (Ollman 2004). This was supposed to be led by the believe and understanding that they would receive whatever they needed in their day to day lives for free according to the combined efforts of all and the needs of everyone involved.
Through this, it was believed that there would be no conflicts and that national boundary and governments would be eliminated. Although Marx had a strong believe that this system would succeed, he knew that it would not come to pass immediately but rather, it would take a relatively long period of time to be established and flourish (Ashley and Orenstein 2004).
One stumbling block towards the success of socialism was considered to be ignorance or lack of knowledge of what the system of communism really entails. This therefore necessitated that the people be educated to get them out of the selfish orientation that was associated with capitalism but instead bring into their understanding the benefits associated with communism.
Although many people who worked with Marx insisted that it was not possible to realize communism by having to go through a period of governance that retained and reinforced the centralized state government, Marx was certain that that was the only way out since it could not in any way be possible to directly shift from capitalism to communism. It required some gradual change.
Giving a critical analysis of the two arguments, it seems that achievement of socialism or rather communism is not an easy thing especially due to the fact that it involves changing the attitudes of people who have been used to another form of governance. Dealing with human nature is also tricky.
This is more so because human nature is subject to change depending on the environment people live in for instance the economic system. Marx believed that the people who lived under capitalism were to a grater extent motivated by motives associated with capitalism and needed some form of education to enable them to change their minds and embrace communism.
Economic transformation is deemed to play a great role in changing people’s mind and perceptions towards various things and this is the idea that Marx clings on and hopes to achieve success. The fact that people’s values have changed in the past gave Marx hope that people would certainly change in the future and that they only needed some conditioning.
Although communal ownership of property such as factories is a principal element when it came to the system of socialism, it was not expected to be an easy and natural process (Momoh 1991). Under normal circumstances, human beings will always present some form of resistance to change and hence the need to introduce any form of change in a rather gradual mode as opposed to bringing up issues in a rapid way (Perry 1974).
Mark had a number of theories that were all aimed at advocating for the ideology of communism. The theories were all about the society, politics and economics. The theories also known as Marxism hold that all societies are constantly in a progressive move. They do so through means of class struggle.
Marx was critically against capitalism as a socio-economic form of society. He associated it with dictatorship. This is because it was run by people in the wealth and upper class who were basically led by their own desires and therefore sought ways of benefiting themselves at the expense of the societies.
Marx believed that just as the social-economic systems that ruled before the capitalist system, capitalism would not rule for a long period of time before its self-destruction as a result of internal tension. For this reason, there would be a need for a replacement of the system by another system known as socialism (Polan 1984).
According to Marx, socialism was still not the best option although better than capitalism. Under the system of socialism, the society would be run by the working class which would therefore still have some elements of dictatorship. Due to its inefficiencies, Marx believed that socialism would be replaced by communism which he described as a classless and stateless society.
Marx was involved in advocating for the implementation of both socialism as well as communism systems of governance. This made him to state that both the underprivileged individuals and the social theorists ought to come together and carry out appropriate revolutionary actions directed towards tumbling the capitalism system and bringing about socio-economic change that is beneficial to the majority of the society members.
Marx’s idea of communism was accepted and implemented by various governments in different countries in the 20th century since some benefits were associated with it. This led to of socialist states such as the People’s Republic of china (PRC) and the Soviet Union in 1949 and 1922 respectively.
Other aspects that are linked to the Marxist ideologies include Maoism, Trotskyism, Leninism as well as Stalinism. All this achievements and contributions made Karl Marx to be recognized as an influential figure in human history and the field of social science as a whole (Zakharov 1985).
Although Marx‘s ideology of communism sounds very encouraging and desirable, its practicability is somehow questionable. The fact that individuals irrespective of their location in the world should all own farms, tools and factories that are used in the production of food and goods does not for example seem practical and it is difficult to translate it into reality. This is a form of social process that is known of common ownership which stipulates that there is no private or individual property.
The main goal of communism is to allow workers to take full control of factories and businesses as a way of managing the economy in a democratic manner.
This was to be achieved through establishment of a government, by the workers, in the interest of all those involved after which they would gradually bring all tools of production under their control with the main aim being the creation of a stateless and classless society. Although it was an outdated idea, its popularity heightened after the French revolution and other common movements that took place in Europe in the early 19th century.
It is evident that all that is contained in Marx’s idea of communism sound positive and it could greatly enhance the lives of the society members if it were implemented successfully. However, it sound difficult especially due to the fact that the situation was to be established afresh thus necessitating active revolutionary actions to be put in place in order to achieve success. Marxist concepts have been greatly criticized.
Most of his prediction did not come to pass. For instance, Marx major presumption was that there could be a wave of socialist revolutions that would originate from the most industrialized nations, aimed at overturning capitalism. A specific example is his predictions that there would be an ultimate fall of capitalism that would be replaced by socialism for better governance and achievement of success. This did not happen because even the state socialism is in retreat since the late 19th century.
This has been attributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the shift of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) towards a market economy. This is enough justification that even though Marxist ideology of communism was deemed to be capable of bearing some positive results, the results were short-lived.
This therefore dictates that Marx’s idea of communist is not much of a reality but linked with over-emphasis of some concepts. Marx also asserted that profits are solely generated through surplus labor. However research indicates that profits could also be generated from investments in human capital as well as technology. These are some of the criticism that has been put forth with respect to communism as discussed or argued by Karl Marx (Zakharov 1985).
There are various reasons that can be put forth in regard to why Karl Marx’s ideas in the communist of manifesto may not happen or work out as expected. For instance, Marx does not seem to truly understand human nature and all that surround it. He seems to be too positive about human nature to appoint of overlooking some aspects that are key to human nature.
In the communist manifesto for instance, Marx seem to believe that people ought to work simply because they are supposed to work. This is not the case because people need some form of incentives or motivational elements in order to work to the best of their ability. This is human nature. Individuals require some form of appreciation and motivation to carry on and produce desired results (Graham 1986).
Under normal circumstances, most people may not be willing to work hard if they do not expect to get something in return. This is because human nature is characterized by competition and the need to succeed and move on to the next level. Human nature is also incentive-based. People usually work hard driven by the belief that they will get some personal benefits. Very few people could be in a position to work expecting nothing in return.
This is linked to the fact that individuals have various needs that ought to be catered for instance food, shelter, education, health services and clothing. It is however clear that despite there being a lot of negative criticism on the issue of Marxist communism, the Marxist concepts are still considered to be significant in modern social science. The concepts have found some applications even in modern times.
To have a clear understanding of Marx’s perception of communism, it is good to look at the issue with respect to Marx’s major critiques of capitalism. This will help in having a good picture of why he was in favor of communism and against capitalism and hence have a critical evaluation of how realistic communism was as form of governance. Marx claimed that capitalism would immoderate workers, that labor would be exploited in both ethical as well as economic senses.
According to Marx, there would be a fall in wages and working conditions were subject to deterioration. True to this argument, wages in advanced economies that practice capitalism are far below the productivity level. This does not however mean that communism would mean a complete opposite of this since some factors ought to remain constant (Marx and Engels 1999).
Crisis related to overproduction was also an issue of concern that Marx thought with respect to capitalism. Marx believed that as the workers continued to get less and less in terms of payment; capitalism would definitely suffer continuous crises as a result of overproduction. This was attributed to the fact that the workers would not be in a position to purchase or even invest well to keep the economy growing.
Looking at this argument in a critical manner, it sounds real. Over the recent past, global crises that are associated with the effect of overproduction have been experienced (Fanon 1968). Marx also argued against capitalism on the issue of alienation. Marx believed that as a result of separation between the workers and the output of their labor they would tend to be alienated.
The workers were subject to lack a sense of satisfaction, purpose and meaning, an aspect that is very crucial if success in the workplace and the economy at large is to be achieved. This is a concept that is real in modern work places and economies. Although communism would help in solving the issue of alienation among the workers, the need for motivation that lacks in it would make it to be no better.
Another issue that bothered Marx in regard to capitalism is stagnation. This is considered to be among the controversial predictions of Marx. He predicted that as economies would stagnate, the real rates of profit would without doubt fall. Marx also associated capitalism with false consciousness where people would not even realize that they were being exploited. These could be seen in the distribution of power among the existing classes where people would tend to accept the prevailing situation (Marx n.d).
Marx played two major roles in his life and in the world’s history. One, he was an advocate of socialism and communism and secondly, he was a critic of capitalism. However, it is worth noting that despite the fact that Marx was so much into socialism and communism, he wrote very little about it.
Most of his writings involve critiques that are laid against capitalism. This is considered ironic since he was a strong believer in the significance of enhancing socialism but used up most of his time and energy in criticizing the capitalist system. He used this as a tactic to support socialism. His critique has found a lot of application among historians, sociologists and people in other disciplines. Neo- Marxism has also been based on the original ideas that Marx put forth in regard to communism (Hook 1975).
From the above criticism that was raised by Marx against capitalism, it is clear that he had a reason fro fighting against capitalism and advocating for communism. All in all, communism does not seem to be a form of governance that would deal with or solve the problems of capitalism at all.
This is because it is also linked with a lot of limitation due to its simplification of human nature. Further more, it has also failed in areas where it has been implemented. Most of the communist world has crumpled. Although capitalism seems to have some limitation it is with no doubt that it is better and more realistic than communism form of governance (Marx 2008).
The communist theory asserts that there is only one way that can help in the abolishment of the inequalities that are associated with the capitalist form of governance. This is having the working class people who are generally involved in the production or generation of wealth in the society but consequently exploited by the wealthy class, overthrowing the capitalist system through a form of social revolution.
The communist revolution entailed some aspects of armed rebellion in most cases although it was experienced different in different parts of the world depending on the environment of origin of a particular communism theory (Engels 1978).
Marxism has been a significant concept even in today’s world. This is however not because it has succeeded but rather because there is much that can be learnt from it especially through the nations that applied it. Some of the countries that have given a try of communism include Vietnam, Korea, China and Cuba. Among these, none has been very successful. For instance, China and Vietnam are involved in practices that are aimed at building market economies.
This is considered to be a step towards defying the concepts that Marx brought up about communism. This shows that the form of governance have not bore positive results and hence the urge to go back to capitalism. With respect to Korea and Cuba, they are not doing any better. The economies seem to be barely surviving under communism form of governance and they are not to be desires (Burawoy 2000).
The communist theory asserts that there is only one way that can help in the abolishment of the inequalities that are associated with the capitalist form of governance. This is having the working class people who are generally involved in the production or generation of wealth in the society but consequently exploited by the wealthy class, overthrowing the capitalist system through a form of social revolution.
The communist revolution entailed some aspects of armed rebellion in most cases although it was experienced different in different parts of the world depending on the environment of origin of a particular communism theory (Engels 1978).
According to Oseni (2009), the understanding of human nature is of great importance in the development of any ideology that is deemed to excel. The drawbacks of both Marxist- Leninist African socialism and scientific socialism are mainly as a result of lack of a deeper understanding of the nature of human beings and what surrounds human nature in general.
Some of the aspects of human nature that Marx failed to recognize include; the desire to have a meaningful life, self-consciousness, the desire to have a life free from pain through its avoidance, the desire to acquire property, the zeal for distinction, the desire for freedom from any external interference and many more.
Most of these elements are absent in socialism system. The desire to acquire and own property is however the most elaborate. Another major observation is that both African and scientific socialism do not in any way enhance personal ambition, an aspect that is extremely crucial in allowing for self satisfaction and fulfillment.
This dictates that socialism and communism are not realistic enough as they overlook most attributes that define human nature. This is the number one cause of failure in the implementation of both forms of socialism (African socialism and Marxist-Leninist socialism) in different nations (Martell 2010).
For any form of governance to succeed in its operations, it should consider all the aspects that surround human nature in an effort to incorporate the needs in the system of governance to avoid any form of conflicts. The understanding of human nature and the elements that constitute it will help in coming up with a well organized society. This will be through understanding that there is much to human beings than just being historic or socio-economic beings (Held 2006).
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it is evident that Karl Marx was determined to do anything to see to it that communism came to pass. However he faced a lot of opposition and it was only after his death that his economic, social and political ideas were accepted and utilized in the socialist movement. There has been a lot of criticism laid against Marx’s idea of communism with most critics claiming that it was not realistic or practical but could only apply in a theoretical setting.
Communism is a good form of governance and the concepts that are presented in its favor are pretty desirable. However socialism and communism do not sound realistic and even though they were applied in different parts of the world, their success were short lived. Most of the governments failed for instance the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). The major problem however comes on the issue of how Marx perceives human nature.
For instance, in regard to labor or work people are not expected to work just for the sake of working and achieving good results without getting some returns or benefits accrued to their hard work as Marx asserts. In reality, people tend to work through motivation for example where they gain some incentives and rewards in return, for their hard work. Human nature is shaped by human needs for instance food, shelter clothing, education and proper health.
This therefore follows that people are on the move towards fulfilling these needs. The needs can only be satisfied through the returns they get from their hard work for instance money. Communal ownership is also tricky. People are driven by the desire to achieve more and gain some personal property.
Working hard to have one’s efforts shared equally among all people could not be appreciated by many. This therefore dictates that although there are many desirable concepts in communism form of governance, it is not realistic and practical. The major controversy is however on the issues of human nature and its constituents.
Reference List
Ashley, D. and Orenstein, D. M., 2004. Sociological Theory: Classical Statements. 6th ed. Pennsylvania, Allyn and Bacon.
Berki, R.N., 1975. Socialism. Michigan, Dent.
Burawoy, M., 2000. Marxism after communism. Theory and Society 29: 151-174.
Engels, F., 1978. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. New York, International Publishers.
Fanon, F., 1968. A Dying Colonialism. New York, Grove Press.
Gaus, G. F. and Kukathas, C., 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. New York, SAGE.
Graham, K., 1986. The Battle of Democracy: Conflict, Consensus And The Individual. California, Wheatsheaf.
Held, D., 2006. Models of Democracy. 3rd Ed. New York, Polity.
Hook, S., 1975. Revolution, Reform and Social Justice. New York, New York University Press.
Levin, M.,1989. Marx, Engels and Liberal Democracy. Michigan, Macmillan.
Oseni, T.A., 2009. Human Nature in Marxism-Leninism and African Socialism. Thought and Practice: A Journal of the Philosophical Association of Kenya (PAK) New Series, Vol.1 No.2, December 2009, pp.25-40.
Perry, M., 1974. Man’s Unfinished Journey: A World History. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company.
Polan, A.J., 1984. Lenin and the End of Politics. New York, Taylor & Francis
Karl Marx’s article was essential in explaining how the working class and the elite relate to one another through the capitalist machinery, while the play ‘Mrs. Warren’s Profession’ confirms Marx’s assertions by portraying the effects of an exploitative system of labor. The paper will start with the basics of Marx’s theory in the book and relate them to its manifestations in Shaw’s play. Thereafter, the report will identify commonalities between these two writer’s schools of thought and make a conclusion.
Comparison
Karl Marx argues that the failures of capitalism will eventually lead to its destruction because it is self contradictory. Marx affirms that wages are what a laborer receives for his work; it is thus a commodity like the equipment that the employer uses to get work done or the lease agreement that he pays in order to open shop.
Therefore, labor may be regarded as an investment in production. A worker has the option of selling his labor (commodity) to any investor he chooses at any time. However, he has no right to refrain from selling it at all as he will have no earnings and no means to sustain himself; as the author eloquently puts it “he works in order to live” (Marx 204). A laborer’s life is all about selling his labor for sustenance. In other words, capitalism has minimized his choices and forced him to contend with this scheme of things.
The same concepts prevail in George Bernard Shaw’s play – Mrs. Warren’s profession. In this Victorian society, men have no option but to sell their labor. However, women experience even worse predicaments than their male counterparts. They can only sell their labor if they are as highly educated as Vivie.
Most of them do not even have the option of exchanging labor for wages. They must reduce themselves to prostitutes or unhappy wives. Capitalism is inherently exploitative in the play because it gives male workers minimal choices and women even worse alternatives.
Karl Marx explains that capitalism is exploitative because employers steal the actual value of worker’s input for benefits. When a laborer works for the capitalist, his pay is equivalent to his value as a commodity. The wage is what is necessary to create the laborer as the employer must train and prepare him for the job (Marx 207). However, Marx notes that laborers produce more value than they consume, and this makes the employer-employee relationship unequal.
In order to get profit, capitalists take advantage of the surplus value that a worker produces. For instance, if a worker need to give 6 hours of his time in order to match his sustenance, then any extra hours will be a surplus that exceeds the value of what it took to produce the worker. The stolen excess of a laborer’s worth is an employer’s gain (Marx 208). Therefore, no equal exchange takes place between workers and employers; cheap labor is the means with which the ruling class attains its status.
These sentiments echo throughout George Bernard Shaw’s play. Vivie learns about Mrs. Warren’s profession from her mother. When Mrs. Warren defends her profession, she says “How could you keep your self respect in such starvation and slavery? And what’s a woman’s worth? What’s life worth? Without self respect! Where would we be now if we minded the clergyman’s foolishness? Scrubbing floors for one and six pence a day and nothing to look forward to but the workhouse infirmary” (Shaw 219).
Mrs. Warren was conscious of the unequal exchange that takes place in most conventional professions for women. The worth that women, in particular, provided their employers were in no way related to the meager earnings the got. These exploitative conditions were similar to the ones that slaves experienced.
It should be noted that although George Shaw’s play appears to support prostitution, the industry is still just as exploitative as other conventional ones. This proves Karl Marx’s point that no matter how promising a certain industry may seem workers have no choice but to remain buyers of the capitalist class. The aristocrat Croft explains that he regarded the industry of prostitution as a highly profitable one. He asserted that if he turned away from this opportunity, then he would be behaving like an insensible man.
Other people were seizing opportunities to make money in various industries so this should come as no surprise. The callousness inherent in the business world was evident in the profession of prostitution, as well. Mrs. Warren objects to the exploitative nature of the business world; consequently, she chooses to become a prostitute (Shaw 260).
However, she contradicts these objections by perpetuating the same level of exploitation against innocent girls. Mrs. Warren rose to the rank of madam by first starting as a conventional prostitute and then climbing the ranks. By running brothels in different parts of Europe, she is doing the same thing that caused her to become a prostitute in the first place. Just like capitalists who cannot survive with exploiting workers, Mrs. Warren could not become a madam without exploiting other women.
Marx believed that workers have the freedom to move from one employer to another but never from one class to another. There were structures that kept the working class in their place. The meager wages that they derived from their work was never sufficient to remove them from this cycle; it was only enough to feed them or meet their basic needs. Likewise, in the case of prostitutes in George Bernard Shaw’s play, they had wealth but no virtue; consequently, society never accepted them.
One can see this when the Reverend hosts an event in which he finds it appalling that Mrs. Warren is attending it. Society was limiting their choices and ensuring that women always result to an underpaid and overworked position by frowning upon other alternatives to wealth creation. Capitalists make certain that they always have a constant supply of workers by minimizing their options and keeping them in lack.
Karl Marx notes that the interests of the working class will always antagonize those of the elite. Eventually, this may lead to the demise of the capitalist system as it will implode (Marx 209). When workers appear to be getting more wages as a result of growth in their places of work, this is equivalent to getting more crumbs from the rich man’s table as he is enjoying the lion’s share of those rising profits.
Therefore, capitalism operates in a mutually exclusive way; one group will always benefit at the expense of another. Likewise in the play, Mrs. Warren chooses to become a prostitute because of her discontent with the exploitative nature of work.
Many others like her enter this secret profession because their needs antagonize those of their employers. In essence, an implosion occurred in this society because capitalism had failed to live up to its promise. Prostitution was the unnatural response to a system of work that undermines the same people it depends on for survival.
The author of the play – Mrs. Warren’s Profession – clearly indicates that he is a socialist and a firm supporter of Karl Marx’s principles in the book “Wage, labor and Capitalism”. One can determine this by the playwright’s choice of characters. Mr. Croft is a shrewd capitalist who does not even conceal the unethical nature of his business practices. In one situation, Croft even boasts about his business. He compares himself to his brother who is in charge of a factory that hires 600 girls.
Croft believes that prostitution is far superior because even though his brother gets 22% from the factory, none of the girls earn enough to live comfortably. The audience reacts to this self righteousness by disliking Croft. George Bernard Shaw wanted to show that capitalists are often morally repugnant. Vivie’s response to Croft’s assertions enforces these sentiments. She explains that his words are quite offensive and polluting. One can, therefore, realize that the playwright was speaking out against injustices inherent in a capitalist world.
In Karl Marx’s writing, he talks about the notion of the alienated worker. Since members of the working class have no choice but to keep selling their labor power to capitalists, most of them must contend with this role exclusively (Marx 206). They focus so much on creation of value for the employer that they even lose their humanity. Such people misplace their individualism and uniqueness thus becoming like machines.
The same thing is evident in the play – Mrs. Warren’s profession. The women in this play have lost their sense of humanity as society assesses their worth by how much they can clean or scrub (Shaw 66). Those who choose a daring path such as Mrs. Warren have also reduced their humanity to their secularity. Consequently, one can see that capitalism alienates workers and transforms them into machines.
Employers and many capitalists have created a lot of mystery concerning the way they do business as well as in the value of the things that they create. Karl Marx explains that commodities reflect the social relations and the labor that people put into them. The price of the item often obscures this fact (Marx 209). Capitalists have given money a mythical significance in order to neutralize their effects.
Even bourgeois economists minimize the exchange of commodities to financial patterns alone. These individuals do not look at what happens in terms of the social aspects of money. Members of the lower class may, therefore, not be aware of the exploitative nature of wage labor. The shift away from the social relations of labor thus protects the proletariat from potential inquisitions and protests from the working class.
Similarly, the same issue of deflecting the real value of commodities exists in the play – Mrs. Warren’s Profession. Croft chose not to focus on the exploitative nature of his work and instead extolled the profits earned from the trade (Shaw 150). He was justifying his actions by talking about the amount of money made from the trade. However, prostitution still uses vulnerable girls to make profits; this case was not an exception.
Conclusion
Capitalism promotes class conflicts as explained by Karl Marx, which can only lead to undesirable consequences. George Bernard Shaw’s Victorian society exploits workers and gives females extraordinarily few choices for sustenance. As a result, some of them have lashed out against this exploitation through immoral acts such as prostitution.
Works Cited
Marx, Karl. “Wage Labor and Capital.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin & Michael Ryan. MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. 201-210. Print.
Shaw, Bernard George. Mrs. Warren’s profession, NY: Broadview, 1902. Print.
Marx has interesting views on nationalism and imperialism during the second half of the 19th century. Indeed, most of his sentiments on these highlighted issues have been widely discussed in the current society. Karl Marx’s “communist manifesto” demonstrates a variety of critical issues that were eminent during the second of the nineteenth century. In these statements, it is evident that Karl Marx did not like the idea of nationalism and imperialism.
According to him, imperialism led to the development of a biased nationalism (Kinzer 11). Therefore, nationalism is born from the much destructive theme of imperialism. He elucidated the fact that the developing nations must stay away from the detrimental impacts and manipulations of imperialism. As he indicates, imperialism is the basic means through which the western nations propagate their capitalistic and materialistic ideologies.
The ideological influence from the developed nations compromised the effective advancement of the budding countries. In addition, Marx is of the opinion that imperialism contributes to the emergence of a false single identity (Kinzer 21). Consequently, this falsehood identity or tag destroyed the capacity of victim nations to develop self-realization. His basic perception is that the west have assumed greater advantages and reaped potential benefits from the less developed states.
He justifies the fact that the Chinese have been secluded from the western society due to intense imperialism from the western nations. The imperialists forced their pattern of life and societal norms on the emergent nations. Karl Marx categorically highlights the fundamental objectives of the imperialists in his philosophical arguments. He denotes that they have a potential aspiration to curtail and regulate the developing nations. However, they yearn to attain this under the pretext of westernization of civilization.
The process of civilization is nothing other than a typical and complete adoption or duplication of the injurious culture of the west. The developing nations are deprived of their vital natural and manmade resources. Karl Marx identifies all the negative implications associated with this practice. Brain drain and over-reliance on the western beliefs and way of life include some of the negative implications cited by Karl Marx.
Generally, the philosopher noted that imperialism and nationalism impeded individuality and self-reliance (Kinzer 26). These in turn derail the self-esteem of individuals. Therefore, such nations produce citizens with typical lifestyles. They fail to think at individual level. Moreover, they also lack creativity and innovation. There is less internal development but more dependence on the imperials due to their financial and knowledge power.
Analysis of Imperialism
The human nature requires a lot of freedom. This is eminent within all sectors of life. Business and resource exploitation include some of the potential areas that call for maximum human freedom.
Karl Marx observed the significance of this freedom. Particularly, Marx developed the laissez-faire philosophy to enhance this belief (Kinzer 31). Generally, there is a philosophical belief that the freedom enhances the capacity of man’s engagement in business. However, there are further philosophical beliefs that denote significant critics on this perception.
For instance, the fact that human beings must be controlled or monitored led to the development of imperialism. Even Karl Marx recognizes the importance of regulation and control within any free market. This is applicable within all fields of human operation. Therefore, it is imperative to indicate that human beings only thrive well when curtailed. However, the regulations must not be punitive and demeaning to the persons involved.
Regulations must respect human dignity and reduce the instances of indoctrination and proscription. These views expressed by Karl Marx and other potential philosophers led to the emergence of imperialism. Principally, the need to gather and control key players and people within the society arose in most developing nations. Through colonialism, the imperialists introduced their themes of nationalism with an aim to assume total dominion over these subjects.
In the process of introducing nationalism, imperialism and other related practices emanated (Kinzer 39). Excessive capitalism and increased liberty catapulted the rate of imperialism. Due to massive accumulated wealth, the richer few started to ape the practices of the westernized world. This habit created a gradual process of initiation into the ideological principles of imperialism. The demonstrations and views of the classical liberal best potentiate and explain this gradual but indicative process.
Human beings like to curve their identities through the adoption and practice of unique cultures. This attribute played a crucial role in speeding up the process of civilization and imperialism. It is specified that those with higher ambitions to affiliate and associate with the western culture helped in spreading the concept of imperialism (Kinzer 45).
The western nations slowly took advantage of the readily charged group. The final impact has been the total adoption of imperialism, packed in form of civilization and nationalism. These critical elements have contributed to making imperialism an inevitable practice in the entire world. There is need for further examination and study of the human factors that have led to the development of imperialism.
Racism Evident in Western Imperialism
It is evident that ideological views based on classical liberal theories had vital influences in the development of imperialism. It is also noteworthy to analyze the impacts of these ideologies on the issue of racism during this period. While trying to ape civilization and the western culture, most Africans remained alienated.
It is observable that the more the developing nations aped this system of life, the more they remained alienated. The westerners cut out their niche as an elusive group with adorable culture and beliefs (Kinzer 50). The continuous intrusion of the western culture in the African communities led to the emergence of negligence and potential discrimination.
It is evident that this pattern was not only observed within the white and black communities. It is trend that cut across nearly all the racial classes. A systematic process of social stratification based on tribal and racial orientation developed. The pattern remains evident globally even within the present society. The classical liberals argued held antagonizing viewpoints regarding the origin of specific cultures (Kinzer 56).
These disparities were also eminent in the perceptions of how certain culture influenced and shaped the life of personalities. However, these opinions were placed on major cultures. Therefore, people from minority races and less recognized cultures suffered severe discrimination. Apart from this, they were also secluded from the mainstream. Instead, a stream of dominant and oppressive culture emerged and prevailed upon the global community.
Conclusively, the classical liberal thoughts had immense contributions in the development and emancipation of racism. This observation has been noted several times within the western imperialism. A critical investigation and study of the phenomenon reveals that the trend is still eminent and ongoing within most communities. Eradication of racism shall take a long time given its philosophical and social complexities.
Private property is a human concept that is interesting and raises several philosophical questions. Karl Marx presents important points at the way society and those with power view private property and the issues it leads to.
The ownership of any property is consicidered to be private. The society and the industry of a nation have placed a certain limit and frame on the way private property is viewed. It is very much connected to wealth and its accumulation. The surrounding environment and the economical industry have made a person somewhat of a property. The labor that an individual produces is a product of someone’s efforts and can be quantified by the industry.
All the objects or property that someone possesses exist outside of the body and personality and so, is without a doubt private property, if that person is the one who has contributed efforts in the acquisition of the products. Even though the politics and the economy think of a man as an entity in and of itself, in relation to property and ownership, the work and the effort that someone puts in towards the said economy has become its property.
It is possible to assume that this concept has some validity. The work that is required of someone would be non-existent if there was no reason or purpose for someone to work. The fact that an idea and opportunity is given to work, which is created by the state or some industry, can be seen as a property that is lended to a person. Even though it is immaterial, it is symbolic and thus, can be thought of as the sole creation of the industry.
As Karl Mark mentions, the earliest private property was land and other objects that someone had. Things were much simpler when the society was not as complex, as it is today. But the hardships of modern industry have distanced a person from the country because they are viewed as property themselves.
They are almost forced to put in the time and effort, in order for the industry to use someone for personal goals or wealth. This has a straight connection to greed where a person is being used through violation of moral codes and all conduct with a particular interest in the end result. When someone is in possession of land and they work on it, grow crops and take care of animals that make products, which can be used or sold, the person is working for themselves.
Their labor and its results are the private property of a person and this is considered to be the most clear cut definition of private property. It is a true form of ownership where an individual is the only owner of all the entities that they themselves produce. The natural order of things requires a person to be self efficient, which in turn leads to them being productive for their own purposes.
The industrialization has changed the perspective and definition where a person has become a part of the economy and is used only as means to reaching wealth for someone else. It can be aligned with feudalism and the person becomes de-personalized, a part of a bigger system where they are just a minor piece, in contrast to the structure of industry. Overall, a person can become private only in the comfort of their own property and not the society.
The following essay examines the Socialism and Communism after Marx. Socialism and Communism are two main approaches of the political theory. Karl Marx is among the modern political thinkers whose concepts have continued to have a special meaning as far as political theory is concerned. It is important to first consider the life and works of Marx before examining the socialism and communism after him.
Karl Max was one of the most renown scholar and theorist who lived between 1818 and 1883.The work of Karl Marx played an important role of changing the manner in which individuals operates. Marx theoretical works was based on social sciences, history, economics and philosophy. For a couple of years, the political and economic theories by Karl Marx were linked with several key political movements around the world.
For instance, the theory of Marxism was the official theory that guided Germany before the First World War.Also; Marxim theory was the official theory that guided Soviet Union and other nations in Eastern Europe for 72 years. Karl Marx in his theory enabled the majority poor people to triumph over the upper class.However; Karl Marx failed in his Marxism theory as a result of the establishment of the middle class.
Even though he failed, Karl Marx was a respected philosopher as he was the man behind communism in many countries of the world such as Russia. His life and works played an important role of changing the way individual’s reason in the modern world. As a result of his works, people became approachable and also quick-thinkers as far as creating thoughts on politics are concerned.
Karl Marx spent a large proportion of his life criticizing capitalism system. He participated in radical activities and wrote trenchant critiques that showed capitalism as a means of exploiting human beings. He therefore emphasized on socialism and communism. Karl Marx worked hand in hand with Friedrich Engels and the two men maintained a long lasting collaboration until the time when Marx died in 1844 (Rockmore 55).
Socialism and Communism after Marx
Following Karl Marx’s demise in 1844, Friedrich Engels who was became the narrator of the Marxism theory that was developed by Karl Marx.
Engels approached an easy literary style and also had a tendency of offering simple answers with regards to complex philosophical issues. For instance,Engels answered the philosophical question of the relationship between thought and being in a very simple way which has been discussed for many years.
Engels played an important role of setting the tone for the future political Marxists i.e. he enabled the future Marxists to decide philosophical questions in an easy manner.
Engels also reinterpreted the Marxism theory by simplifying it in that where Karl Marx had given emphasis on preference and alternatives,Engels emphasized on needs and requirements. Where Karl Marx had emphasized on the importance of studying social process regarding extraction and production, Engels on the other hand emphasized on materialism as the guiding principle (Carver 37).
Friedrich Engels died on 1895 and a different analysis of the Marxian theory took shape. The interpretation of the Marxism theory after Engels was later done by Eduard Bernstein in Germany who held the view that the theory required to be modified as it was old fashioned. Bernstein argued that nonviolent political as well as economic development of capitalism system to socialism system was the most ideal way of dealing with unnecessary revolutionary struggles.
As Bernstein interpretation of Marxism theory among Germans’ socialists, another diverse variant was taking shape in Russia. During this period, Russia was a medium sized economy and the Marxism theory was not much popular. Agriculture was the main economic activity and the farmers were mainly small-scale farmers.
Karl Marx had commented about the condition of rural life in his theory whereby he held the view that the communities who practice agriculture have much lower prospects for progressing as compared to the urban communities.However, some Russians criticized these remarks and in turn believed that Russia was capable of changing. Among the Russian revolutionalists who believed in change was George Plekhanov who in turn influenced an adolescent male by the name Lenin (Ball and Farr 57).
Lenin on his part agreed that Russia was not yet ready for the revolutions due to various reasons such as the fact that Russian workforce was largely composed of agricultural laborers instead of industrial laborers. Lenin thus held the view that there was need to educate the laborers so that they can fit into their respective class. Lenin during his life emphasized on communism and he criticized imperialism for he believed that it was the main reason behind the outbreak of the First World War.
Lenin howenr died inn 1924 and afterwards another revolutionalists by the name Joseph Stalin emerged .Joseph Stalin emphasized on the law of the dialect i.e. the revolution from old into new society. Stalin also went further to argue that this law was ideal in case of a society that is divided into several hostile classes. Stalin also held the view that socialism requires to be practiced in Soviet Union prior to being practiced in any nation around the world.
Stalin passed away in 1953 and fifty years from then, Soviet Union does not exist.However, some countries including Russia still exercises his views. On the other hand, communism is still being practiced in China.
The main theorist behind communism in China was Mao Zedong. Mao just like his predecessor i.e. Engels, Lenin, Beinstein and Stalin made various amendments with regards to the Marxian theory. Mao brought about several ideologies among them proposing that the city will guide the village. He also warned that city life is dangerous since it could hinder the revolutionary efforts by the communist and also cause ideological decay amongst the party carders.
There were scholars who criticized socialism and communism by Karl Marx.The critics held the view that the government should not exist and that it should be brought to an end as it is a means of oppressing the citizens. These critics argued that vesting power in only a few communists is a means of promoting corruption. Among the scholars whom criticized socialism and communism by Karl Marx were Kropotkin and Bakunin (Rejai 78).
Conclusion
Following the death of Karl Marx, there have been many socialists and communists who have altered the original Marxism theory. Among the socialists and communists after Karl Marx includes Engels, Lenin, Bernstein, Stalin and Mao Zedong .There has also been scholars who have criticized the philosophical work of Karl Marx among them Kropotkin and Bakunin. Karl Marx’s theoretical work has been changed and misinterpreted since his death by his predecessors.
Works Cited
Ball,Terence and Farr, James. After Marx. California: CUP Archive, 1984.
Carver, Terrell. Engels after Marx. Manchester: Manchester University Press ND, 1999.
Rejai, Mostafa. Political ideologies: a comparative approach. London: M.E. Sharpe, 1995.
Rockmore, Tom. Marx after Marxism: the philosophy of Karl Marx. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2002.
Marxism refers to a socioeconomic inquiry that uses a materialist approach to interpret history, economics, and capitalism. This interpretation is based on the use of a dialectical perspective. This paper provides answers to the question: Why Marxism is Scientific. It is divided into various sections that examine the scientific basis of Marxism. The first section provides answers to aspects of Marxism that make it scientific.
Within this section it is evident that scientific knowledge develops from a foundation of claims, which are guarded by theories. The development of scientific knowledge and methods is progressive as opposed to having a degenerative approach and is consistent with the theories. Just like the theories depicted in Marxism, some of the claims and theories in science have come to pass.
The second section illustrates that the history of the development of Marxism is scientific and it conforms to the progressive development common to the development of scientific knowledge. The last section illustrates various aspects of Marxism related to science.
Why is Marxism Scientific
The postulation that Marxism is scientific is based on the claim by modern day economists who strongly defend the scientific status of Marxism. However, the failure of modern day economics to find solutions to the current economic crisis tends to disregard its scientific basis.
The failure of the current discipline of economists to find solutions to the ongoing economic crisis despite the availability of powerful computer technologies and numerous theories of classical economics is a likely indication that Marxism is relatively stronger and possibly more scientific. Marxism has the ability to predict solutions to future problems (Gasper 1998).
The scientific nature of Marxism is best explained with regard to the concepts of the Darwinian evolution. According to Marxism, the evolution of the human society is very similar to the evolution of biological life characterized by changes over time. These changes occur in adaptive patterns induced by random events. This implies that Marxism exhibits a scientific model of transformation, which makes it scientific.
Marxism is scientific because Marxists, such as Karl Marx strongly believed that the concepts of the evolutionary theory as depicted by Darwin could be used to provide answers to questions related to the nature of the human society.
In his writing, Marx believed that the human society exhibits an evolutionary process, which should go on until the emergence of social classes is extinct. In his thoughts regarding the concepts of biological evolution, he indicates that;
Darwin has amazed us by the concepts of nature, such as the development of organs in living organisms, especially with regard to organs that enhance the chances of production and survival. The history of the development of vital productive organs among human beings, which form the basis of social structures, equally should be given much attention. (Burawoy 1990, p.784)
The relationship between the theories of social and biological evolutions as depicted by Marx and Darwin is best described by Engel. In his writing he indicates that, “the law of natural evolution was discovered by Darwin while the law of human evolution was discovered by Marx” (Burawwoy 1990, p.789).
This indication was later reaffirmed by Lenin who added on to say that, “ whereas Darwin brought an end to the concept of the existence of natural species as God’s creation giving preference to biological basis, Marx gave sociology a scientific basis” (Burawoy 1990, p.790).
Acknowledging Marxism as a science with regard to the relationship between Marxism and evolution requires the understanding of the transformation of the interpretation of evolution. This interpretation has undergone several changes following its first interpretation by Marx.
The transformation of this interpretation is a clear illustration of the willing power of Marxism to advance and subsequently disregard the Darwin’s theory of gradual change. This type of transformation will depict Marxism as a dialectic discipline in which the concepts of evolution will be viewed in a manner that denies the existence of supernatural powers but supports the concept of dialectics.
Irrespective of the scientific or unscientific basis of the concept of evolution as depicted by Darwin, there is sufficient evidence to proof that Marxism is scientific. The use of the concepts of evolution provides a strong basis for the Marxism philosophy and theology.
Without this formulation, it is impossible to explain the concepts of the evolution of human beings, the society, and the universe by Marxists. As indicated by Engels, the evolutionary concept of the universe in Marxism does not bear any supernatural creation or ruler.
Both societal and biological evolutions are characterized by the struggle to survive, which distinguishes nonliving organisms from living organisms and societies. The insights by Marx and Engels in 1845 and 1846 respectively with regard to the Germany ideology of social change depicts change in the society as an evolutionary process characterized by a struggle for survival.
Later in 1859, Darwin indicates that the biological evolutionary process is equally characterized by a struggle for survival, where the best fit are favored against the least fit.
Darwin’s concept of evolution was based on the diversity of biological life whereas the Marxism concept of evolution was based on the accumulation of wealth and the generation of social status. The resemblance of the evolution of the society as depicted by Marxism and the biological evolution of life is a clear indication that Marxism equally is scientific (Gasper 1998).
The above relationship does not imply that the scientific concept of Marxism emerged after the development of the Darwin’s concept of evolution. This is because both Marx and Engels had already established a social evolution approach that examined the development of human beings and the organization of societies.
This social evolution map was characterized by an inevitable struggle with natural forces. In this regard, human beings more fit in the society had a better chance of surviving compared to the less fit. This is very similar to the concept of biological evolution in which organisms more fit have a better chance of survival compared to those not fit.
According to Engel and Marx, the accumulation of material wealth in the society increased the need to pursue more wealth and further increased the inevitable struggle for survival. They predicted the existence of an economic surplus as a way of measuring the edge of the society in the struggle against other societies and nature.
The process of accumulating wealth as depicted by Marx and Engel is slow and not common to societies characterized by minimal economic powers and privileges.
Societies presumed to be calm sought less economic wealth geared at enhancing survival and avoiding mortality. In addition, the pursuit of wealth was geared at enhancing the ability to reproduce, which is analogous to the behavior of species as described by Darwin (Burawoy 1990).
Because of the unique nature of human evolution, an evolutionary advantage was created in which survival activities were characterized by material advantages. The later implied the existence of a few societies that dominated over others. Marxism is basically a discipline of social science in which the concept of the existence of domineering societies was viewed coldly.
According to Engel and Marx, this was an aspect of social transformation that they could not have easily changed. In addition, both Engels, and Marx viewed the existence of the process of social transformation as the basis for the existence of labor divisions, workers, and soldiers.
Is Marxism Scientific?
Answering this question requires answers to three other major questions. The first question inquires if the Marxism view of the world is scientific. The second question inquires if concepts, such as politics, economics, and sociology are scientific. The last question inquires if Marxism has any scientific contribution.
Marxism is scientific and Marxists acknowledge the need to abandon associations to disciplines that enslave, debase, and disregard humanity. It is strongly based on an imperative of transforming the world through the scientific analysis of the possibility of liberating mankind. This implies that Marxism is formulated on the basis of human science and cannot be expected to adhere to the conditions of celestial mechanics.
For instance it is thought to have been fraudulent for a natural scientist to have predicted what would have followed the communist manifesto that called for the unification of workers. This manifesto is referred to as, “the workers of the world unite.” The analysis presented by the natural scientist is thought to be fraud because as opposed to the possibility of the analysis of expected trends, this was basically a call to arms.
A concept of prophecy is depicted in the initial writings of Engels and Marx, in which Engels predicts the revenge of English workers. Several years later, he adds on to comment on some of these prophecies. In particular, he indicates that his prophecy on the social revolution was driven by his youthful ardour. Later Karl Marx writes to Engels indicating that;
Reading your book severally has made me regret with regard to my concern for the increase in age. Passionately with strong hope and without any scientific doubts, the same things are dealt with! With the illusion that there will be a better tomorrow or that the day after tomorrow shall bring some warmth and humor as opposed to the later where ‘grey on grey’ amounts into an unpleasant contrast (Marx & Engels 1942, p.103).
This phrase implies that Marx had similar illusions despite that he doubted everything in the process of his own writing. Despite that he allowed himself to be angered, he did not anticipate results from the study. In particular, capital is a scientific study based on the analysis of the economy.
In this study, Marx describes various scientific methods and adds on to comment that, “the analysis of the economy does not require chemical reagents or microscopes. The use of these items in the scientific analysis of the economy has been replaced by the force of abstraction” (Karl & Engels 1942, p.123).
This force has been used to analyze various commodities, profits, and value on the capital market. This analysis makes Marxism scientific because it meets Ron Guignard’s definition of science, which is based on capitalism. According to Ron, Marx’s prediction of capitalism was correct, especially with regard to the period of under-consumption and overproduction.
In addition, Marx also predicted a greater power concentration, in which resources are held by a few powerful companies. Ron indicates that many of the predictions depicted by Marx have come to pass.
Compared to bourgeois economics, Ron’s fourth definition of pure science is infallible and cannot be associated to human science. This is because according to the bourgeois economics, the occurrence of economic crises was unheard off. An attempt to disregard Marxism as a science leaves an open door because Marx and Engels formed a movement geared at opposing the concept of socialism.
The theories presented by Marx and Engel are collectively referred to as scientific socialism by Engels. Despite that these theories were geared at utopian socialists, Engel still believed that Marxism was a scientific approach of viewing the world (Engels 1935). Marxism is indeed scientific because of its concept of materialism characterized by various inquiries in the pursuit of the truth.
This aspect is very similar to the conventional scientific inquiry in which various aspects of matter are examined with the hope of establishing laws that influence the movement and behavior of matter. The basis of Marxism is taken from a similar point of view.
The manner in which the concept of the world is analyzed by Marxism is very scientific. This is because the implicated analysis is based on an empirical observation. Anybody who disagrees with the indication that Marxism is not scientific tends to disregard the scientific value of psychology, sociology, and economics.
A shift from the question of need regarding the doctrines of Marxism indicates the concept of dialectical materialism. Engel attempts to illustrate the concept of the dialectics of nature in an attempt to establish the implicated qualities. The later depicts the relationship between what is observed in the world and the observer. There is a strong indication that sociology and economics are disciplines in science.
This is because the two disciplines use scientific methods in the formulation and testing of hypotheses. The use of these methods in the discussion of the concepts of sociology and economics by Marx makes Marxism scientific. In addition, his desire to begin most of his discussions from the basic needs of mankind and the construction of laws that govern these basic needs makes him scientific.
Despite that some Marxists have not depicted a strong scientific basis of their theories, the theories depicted by Engels and Marx are very scientific, especially with regard to the time in which they were formulated. Engels is one of the greatest scientists of his generation (Engels 1935).
The drawbacks of Marxist science are not associated to either Marx or Engels but rather related to the nature of science at the time of their writing. It is wrong to rate the books written by Engels with the scientific concepts depicted in other books, such as the Darwin’s Origin of Species.
This is because of the difference in the nature of science that existed when these two books were written. However, it is still very correct to indicate with some certainty that the scientific methods used in the writing of these books were correct with regard to the science of that time.
Just like the evolution of species, social evolution or transformation was also measured by unsuccessful events, such as isolation in which some societies were deprived of resources. Many of the deprived societies were presumed to be unsustainable and they perished with time.
The existence of powerful societies went on and yielded more surpluses and Marxists like Marx and Engels devoted their time to identifying the implicated forms of human exploitation. The existence of powerful societies facilitated the purchase of free labor, which marked the beginning of social evolution among human beings (Burawoy 1990).
Based on this observation, Marx, and Engels predicated the coming of a time in which the approaches used in the exploitation of human beings would not only outweigh their relevance but also develop into a mechanism of survival. This prediction has come to pass in the current economic situation in which the existence of powerful social organizations is a threat to the survival of less powerful societies.
The prediction by Marx and Engel is a reality in the present world in which living standards are declining as the rates of poverty increase among the less powerful. Transformation of societies just like the transformation of living organisms in evolution is not just desirable but also very necessary.
Beside Engels and Marx, Lenin equally is a good example of a Marxist whose writings are worthy examination (Harding 1983). Some of his work foresaw the problems of science. For instance, in his opposition of the Austrian Physicist Mach Ernst, he presented an argument of the extreme positivism and confusion presented by the Marxists’ concepts of matter.
His argument is similar to modern day arguments revolving around the controversy of invisible electrons. Despite that Lenin did not wish to disregard the existence of invisible matter, like fellow Marxists, he could predict the difficulties presented by the existence of such scientific theories in the future. Given more scientific knowledge, Lenin equally could have made a good argument on the natural existence of dialectics.
This possibly implies that Marxists stand a good chance of contributing to science given the right knowledge and material basis. Analyzing the ways in which Marxism has been empirical, it emerges that history has defamed Marxists. However, this does not imply that Marxism is not scientific.
There is much need to examine the response of Marxism to the historic unkindness. This can best be examined with regard to questions, such as has the improvement of the living standards of the proletariat resulted into a decrease in the state of misery. The answer is an inevitable no. In fact, not even has the expectation that the transfer of communism will occur changed anything (Marx & Engels 1942).
Marxism and Science
Marxism claim to be scientific has been belittled by Weber, Pareto, and Durkheim’s efforts by assailing Marxists for replacing moral passion for scientific reasoning. In addition, the three strongly indicate that Marxism has no regard for evidence and is yet to adopt methods of social science. Marxists in their defense for their scientific status have demonstrated every justification to prove their scientific basis.
This possibly explains the existence of scientific Marxists whose main efforts have been to develop economic laws that are analogous to the laws of natural sciences. Marxism is very concerned with the transformation of the world as opposed to reflecting the world.
The main concern of Marxism is to provide solutions to common problems in the world. Marxism is different from other fields that focus on the thoughts of the world because of its regard for economic aspects and the liberation of mankind (Burawoy 1990).
During the Russian revolution, science became a key topic among Marxists in Russia, especially moments after the fall of the 1905 revolution. Many of the Marxists during this time were highly influenced by aspects of philosophical thinking about science. These ideas of philosophical thinking had emerged previously in parts of Western Europe.
The entire 19th century was measured by a pessimist mood characterized by influential thoughts related to bourgeois intelligence in Western Europe. Many individuals seemed to gain knowledge on the dehumanizing impacts of the development of capitalism (Marx & Engels 1942).
The existence of this pessimist mood provided an ample opportunity for the emergence of idealist and irrational ideas and coincided with a crisis in science. At this time, it was evident that the thoughts of natural science, especially classical physics could not offer sufficient basis for understanding the concepts of scientific aspects like radioactivity and electromagnetism.
This explains why many scientists at the time opted to compromise and interpret science in a manner that would maintain its rationality and resolve the crisis in classical physics.
Because most of these scientists attempted to deny the indication that science equally is metaphysical, an open opportunity was created for individuals, such as the Catholic Duhem to embrace an anti-materialist metaphysics alongside science (Marx & Engels 1942).
Marx provides the basis on which Darwin’s theory of the origin of species is formulated. Engels and Marx devoted their time toward the development of a communistic society whereas Darwin devoted his time on the development of the theory of evolution and further developed a stir in the society of intellectuals.
Some individuals at the time of the development of these theories presumed that the theory of evolution would provide the basis for the development of a materialistic society. The importance of Darwin’s theory was discovered by Marx and Engels when explaining the basis of their concept of dialectical materialism (Marx & Engels 1942).
Writers like John Hoffman have indicated Marx’s interest in Darwin’s work. According to Hoffman, Marx send a copy of his own book to Darwin and later made unsuccessful attempts dedicate his second volume of capital to him.
Marxism exhibits some concepts that mimic scientific theories. For instance, the acceptance of the theory of evolution depicts the disregard for the existence of God. Marxism and its major theories have no regard for the existence of God. This possibly explains why Marxists were quick to embrace the theory of biological evolution because of its disregard for the existence of God.
In his writing, Marx indicates that Darwin’s work on the origin of species was a blow to theology. Other writers like Konstantinov while refereeing to the Fundamentals of Lenin on to indicate that “Darwin’s theory of the origin of species is the third best theory in science developed in the 19th century’’ (Konstantinov 1982, p. 67).
This is because Darwin managed to put an end to the concept of the existence of divine creation and instead laid the basis for the formulation of theoretical science.
Marxism has various reasons for being scientific. Among the driving factors is the need to appreciate the impact of modern science on the society, especially through technological development. Marxism and science exhibit a relationship through which the concepts of either side are shared.
The role of Marxism is vital to the understanding of scientific concepts because Marxism forms the basis of understanding the concepts of a human society. Marx and Engel are strong defenders of science and are very sensitive to any attempts by the capitalist to defame science.
These two equally are enthusiasts of novel scientific discoveries. In fact, there is an assumption that the marxist theory regarding the human society depicts human beings with the ability to understand and control the world (Gasper 1998). The later are aspects of science, which is characterized by innovativeness and the ability to change the natural existence of the world to make it a better place to live in.
The development of various scientific theories is thus a representation of the development of the human society. Marx and Engel admired science because of their indication that their concept of materialism provides a scientific background for understanding human societies.
Marx made several remarks in his writing, which provide a clear indication of his appreciation for science. For instance, he acknowledged that sense-experience occurs on a scientific basis and was opposed to the empiricist perspective. According to Marx, Empiricism is a method of thinking in which the world is thought to be dominated by lifeless facts.
This possibly explains why Marx criticizes the empiricists’ concept of observation, which tends to disregard the value of theories. In addition, Marx disregards the empiricists’ way of treating theories and science as approaches for explaining unrelated facts as opposed to explaining the implicated reality.
Marx is a scientist who acknowledges that science is geared at providing knowledge required for understanding the existence of a material world. According to Marx, science risks being superfluous is the outer appearance of objects coincides with the inner essence of the same objects (Kuhn 1962).
Nearly all forms of science reflect the existence of the ruling class, which is an aspect of Marxism. Marxism and science are more related on the basis of the contribution of the human society in the pursuit of practical scientific knowledge on aspects of nature.
It is evident that the aspects of egotism are present in the connection of science with the exploitation of social structures, such as the political economy and the generalization of the human experience. These aspects tend to reduce its contribution toward the enrichment of knowledge. In experimental sciences, various levels of integrity exist with regard to the extent of the generalization of knowledge (Bemstein 1981).
This implies that the bourgeois aspects have been incorporated in scientific methods. Based on this observation, it would be naïve to claim that the proletariat should revamp scientific aspects derived from bourgeoisie prior to the application of a socialist reconstruction.
This indication is related to the coming of moralists before the emergence of a new society in which the proletariat should rise above ethics. On this basis, the proletariat will be in a position to develop ethics and radical changes in science after the development of a new society (Marx & Engels 1942).
Marxism and Dialectics
Because Marxism is based on dialectics, Marx is justified to indicate that science is a dialectical process in which the implicated methods and theories develop gradually through interaction with the material world and each other. The dialectical aspects of science, according to Marx are depicted in two ways.
The scientific inquiry is an empirical process, which reveals a dynamic world filled with elements related to each other via interconnected processes. These elements equally can conflict with each other to attain the inherent development (Bemstein 1981). According to Karl Marx, the dialectic concept of science revolves around its recognition for the existence of the state of matter.
The concept of dialects and the realization that science equally is dialectical is further reinforced by the emergence of Darwin’s evolution theory. Marx indicates that, “at the conclusion of my third chapter, I confirm that the law discovered by Hegel bears some vital role in natural science and history” (Marx & Engels 1942, p. 90).
Therefore, if it is true that nature is dialectical as depicted in Hegel’s law and in Darwin’s theory, there is a likelihood that Marx believed and regarded the theory of evolution as postulated by Darwin because it is dialectical.
The theory of evolution in particular is dialectical to Marxism because of the gradual process of development that it portrays. According to Engel, Darwin’s concept of nature was fulfilled in many respects. The theory dissolved all rigidity, fixity, and particularity. The three aspects had been initially regarded as eternal, but the dialectical concept behind them made them transient.
The theory of evolution is also thought to have reinforced Marxism on the basis of the evolution of simple forms to more complex forms of life. According to Marxism, dialectics is characterized by an upward spiraling process in which the current state of form is better than the previous state of form.
The theory of natural selection relies on the same concepts, and only more advanced organisms are fit to survive in any particular environment (Konstantinov 1982).
The concepts of dialectics are based on an axiom that did not have a consensus of support. The dialectical concepts in Marxism are mainly derived from Hegelianism. The development of these concepts is similar to the scientific inquiry in which techniques used for inquiry are developed gradually over time.
The scientific methods are formulated on a broad consensus with regard to reality. The existence of unified methods can be achieved only in a long investigatory procedure divided into sections. If Marxism is compared to common types of social science, various merits are shared (Marx & Engels 1942).
Conclusion
Marxism has an outstanding scientific basis, which is depicted in the works of Marx, Engels Lenin, Bukharin, and others. The Marxist scientific status has further been demonstrated in the contemporary works of writers, such as Lewontin and Rose. Understanding Marxism provides a broad insight into the understanding of the concepts of modern science.
This type of insight cannot be obtained from other fields of social disciplines. Marxism is scientific because of the various ways in which it adopts scientific methods and at the same time provides the basis for understanding and analyzing scientific concepts.
Reference List
Bemstein, H 1981, “Marxist Historiography and the Methodology of Research rograms”, istory and Theory, vol. 20, no.4, pp. 424-49.
Burawoy, M 1990, “Marxism as Science: Historical Challenges and Theoretical Growth”, American Sociological Review, vol. 55, no.6, pp.775-793.
Engels, F 1935, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, International Publishers, New York.
Gasper,P 1998, “Bookwatch: Marxism and Science”, Journal of International Socialism, vol. 79, no.1, pp. 1-9.
Harding, N 1983, Lenin’s Political Thought, MacMillan, London.
Konstantinov, F 1982, The Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, Progress Publishers, Moscow.
Kuhn, T 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Marx, K & Engels, F 1942, Selected Correspondence, International Publishers, New York.
Even though Karl Marx died long ago, his legacy cannot be ignored, especially when it comes to analyzing the rise and the outcomes of globalization. Free trade, economy going global, borderless manufacturing and entrepreneurship, and other consequences of the propaganda of the capitalist world and the dominance of this ideology nearly in every country of the world were all criticized by Marx. He believed that capitalism is the “unjust and self-destructive system” (Schuman par. 2). His point of view was that the globalization would inevitably lead to the concentration of wealth in the hands of relatively small groups of economic actors, and that will entail the emergence of the economic crises, unemployment, and, as the result, widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Moreover, his theory centered on the assumption that capitalism would impoverish the masses.
Marx was right in his belief that the rise of the capitalist system would inevitably lead to the growth of inequality in access to wealth. That said, in the United States, for example, three-fourths of the income goes to and is concentrated in the hands of the richest people, and the gap between the poor and the rich continually grows (Schuman par. 3). For the rest of the developed countries, the situation is nearly the same – 0,1 to 1 percent of the richest control the wealth that sums up to 90% of the rest society (Monaghan par. 2,8).
Moreover, the so-called bottom families become poorer as the wages melt because of the recent economic crisis. What is even more troubling is the fact that the openness of the world economy and manufacturing made it easier for the companies to hire workers from foreign countries if they know that the potential employees have the needed skills instead of training local people, thus leading to their impoverishment. This trend is one more argument proving the Marx was right in criticizing capitalism and globalization.
What Marx was wrong about, however, is his idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He believed that the working class would rule the political system. Of course, he was right that the working class would demand its share in access to wealth and economic equality. We can see it all over the world as the people take to the streets with the request of filling the gap between the rich and the poor, and these protests can be seen all over the globe from the most developed countries such as the United States and Europe to the developing ones located in Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Arab world. But in his ideal theory, the government would react to the demand by establishing a fair socialistic society where everyone has equal access to wealth. What we see in reality is that labor unions are weak and fail to be persistent in reaching their primary objectives while the government is firm and preserve their position in keeping most wealth in the hands of the relatively small group.
To sum up, what Marx was right about is his criticism of capitalism praising globalization, free trade, and openness, as he believed that their outcomes for the working class would be negative. On the other hand, he was wrong in designing the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat because workers lack unity in fighting for their interests and minimizing the gap between the rich and the poor while the governments are preserving it.