Category: Karl Marx

Introduction

Speaking about the problem of modernity in the works by Marx and Rousseau, we should remember about the utopist basis of their views. And really their works can be considered as the carriers of antimodernity.

Main text

So, “Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx in fact is the only work in Marxism which has some results of the Revolution. They are the following:

1. Privacy abolishment.
2. The abolishment of the bourgeois families where woman is “an instrument of production”. Here Marx speaks a lot about the role of woman and the disadvantages in her life, though he says nothing about the communistic family.
3. The changing of the home (class) education into the public education.
4. The abolishment of the bourgeois individuality Marx considers that the concept of the bourgeois individuality demands reformations and abolishment, great changes to the new ideas and ideals.
5. The abolishment of national differences and antagonisms. People do not have right to exploit each other as well as no nation should be exploited.
6. The process of economy becoming state. The workers use their political power for taking the capital from bourgeoisie and to centralize all the instruments and as a result to enlarge the size of producing powers: “The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage labor. Wage labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.” (Marx, p451)

Despite all variety of questions touched by K. Marx, the basic and precisely outlined subject of his researches, in opinion of experts, was capitalism and the problem of motivation of labor activity connected with it. Opening the understanding of capitalism, K.Marx says that the term “modern capitalism” covers not all forms of capitalism existing now, but only the West-European and American capitalism. Thus, the predicate “modern” specifies not historical time, but to the degree of development of on what it is applied. Two moments – the representation of capitalism as universal transhistorical process and the concentrated expression of the capitalistic nature not in its basis, and in its superstructure named by “spirit of capitalism”.

K.Marx could not arise the theories of labour motivation and business activity because of two reasons: he did not pay enough attention to the human factor and in his concept economic forces have overshadowed the social and cultural ones. Though he is the author of the most advanced variant of the cost labour theory and he has devoted many pages to the description of anatomy of labour process.

However the change of the out-of-date forms of capitalism by the newest was represented as the process of replacement of simple commodity manufacture actually on capitalist, like the removing of the formal submission of work to the capital by the real one. K.Marx could not open the plurality of forms of capitalism because according to him the modern capitalism was preceded not by the adventurous capitalism (or any other form), and simple commodity manufacture. The set of capitalisms do not enter to his unique scheme of evolution social-economic formations.

According to Marx, a capitalist era has begun in XVI century, and occupies much more modest piece of history – approximately three hundred years (including its early stage). The modern science – both economy, and sociology (it is enough to glance in the western monographs and textbooks) – considers, that capitalism is maximum three hundred years, but not three thousand.

The way of reduction of the number of applicants and increases in severity of criteria of selection was kept by K.Marx also. Into the number of attributes of developed capitalism he included a special way of forming the powerful market of wage labor, transformation of formal labor submission to the real, dialectics exchange and consume costs and great variety of other parameters. But the socialistic society was described by Marx very abstractly and with the big love. It should be mentioned that the specific “spirit of socialism” is present in Marx’s views. It only refers to as a spirit of collectivism.

Then, in connection with appearing of a private property, classes, economic operation and the state approximately 5-6 thousand years ago, the mankind has deviated a “right” way. There were three delays in a way – slavery, feudalism and capitalism. According to historical measures of time it took about three thousand years for such stops. Those during which, according to scheme by Weber, there were first gleaming of capitalism and its some mature forms had time to appear. According to Marx, it should be replaced by more progressive regime – communism.

Thus, rationality characterizes the worldwide-historical process in the theories by K.Marx. He speaks about the process of accumulation of progressive features of economic and social life. Marx focuses on the elements of atheism, accounting and collectivism. From the classification point of view Marx belongs to the supporters of the universal-historical theory of social and economic regime of public life: “All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property” (Marx, p456).

Speaking about materialism and idealism, we should protect Marx from another misunderstanding: economic interpretation of history often is named as a materialistic interpretation. So it has been told by Marx. This phrase has extremely increased the popularity of this concept. Actually it is absolutely senseless. Marx’s philosophy is no more materialistic, than Hegel’s philosophy, and its historical theory is no more materialistic, than any other attempt to explain the historical process by the means which are available at the disposal of empirical sciences. It is necessary to understand, that logically it is compatible with any metaphysical or religious belief – in the same way as the last is compatible to any physical picture of the world. The medieval theology itself gives the methods by means of which it is possible to prove the similar compatibility.

The obvious specification should be brought from the very beginning. Social structures, social types and sights, similarly to coins, are not erased quickly. Once having arisen, they can exist for centuries and as different structures and types find out various abilities for survival, we almost always find, that actually existing groups and real national behavior more or less deviate what they should be if we have tried to deduce them from dominating forms of production. Though it takes place everywhere, especially evidently it is visible, when extremely the steady structure is completely transferred from one country to another.

It is worth mentioning that Marx has many contrasting points in the understanding of causes of transition to capitalist modernity.

Marx did not consider his works to be antimodern because in his point of view they had the sense of the current importance of that time.

The positions of Marx express the complementary of the ways of development of East and West. Marx’s in general is the mirror of Western logic with his position of the scientific realism. Marx’s task is the complicated scientific analysis of the historical situation and the inventing of the program which would allow releasing the exploited class.

In this context it is possible to see the motive which is a characteristic of Marxism: the simple motivation of the communist movement. Marx ignored the priorities and antagonisms which are not important for the economy – racial and language, religious and national feelings.

According to “Communist Manifesto” by Marx the solving of the main world problems is adjusted to the radical reconstruction of the way of producing, including the centralization of transport, combining the landing and manufacture, the abolishing of differences between urban and village territories.

K, Marx sees only Western countries, especially Great Britain. The economic causes which prepared the ‘place’ for the revolutionary fighting exist only in Western Europe. Thus, communism (according to the version of 1848) will be formed only in the Western Europe.

Nevertheless there is one more current issue: the relationship between communistic Western Europe and the rest of the world.

Another work that is considered to be antimodern is the “First Discourse” by Rousseau. The author of this work considers that arts and science destroy humanity. Of course now it is considered to be antimodern. Because now people pay a great attention to science and arts: “It will be difficult, I sense, to adapt what I have to say for the tribunal before which I am appearing. How can one venture to blame the sciences in front of one of the most scholarly societies in Europe, praise ignorance in a famous Academy, and reconcile a contempt for study with respect for truly learned men? I have seen these contradictions, and they have not discouraged me. I am not mistreating science, I told myself; I am defending virtue in front of virtuous men.

Integrity is cherished among good people even more than erudition is among scholars. So what am I afraid of? The enlightened minds of the assembly which is listening to me? I confess that is a fear. But it’s a fear about the construction of the Discourse and not about the feelings of the speaker. Equitable sovereigns have never hesitated to condemn themselves in doubtful arguments, and the most advantageous position in a just cause is to have to defend oneself against a well-informed party, who is judging his own case with integrity.”(Rousseau,p247)) So, these words show that the human morality is much higher than the scientific exploration of the world.

It is very important to mention Rousseau’s attitude towards the historical progress. It should be mentioned that it was strongly connected with his attitude towards the role of science and arts in the life of society. In his First Discourse he says that the development of arts and science (the false entertainments, according to his opinion) causes the worsening of ethics.

Rousseau’s esthetical criterion is the supremacy of feelings and close relationship with nature.

People should glorify the creations of God and the main creation is a Human.

A special attention Rousseau pays to simple people, to their sufferings, love and problems and he opposes them to the rich and spoiled people, who are full of egoism.

Summary

Rousseau sees the importance in the feelings of every person and he considers emotions to be the basis for knowledge. He underlines that sensationalism rules physical and spiritual activities of the person. Mind, according to Rousseau, leads to mistakes and confusion. That is why he considered science to be an obstacle for civilization, because everything should be based on feelings and emotions. Of course it does not correspond to the issues that we have today when everything is based on scientific technologies and artistic views.

References

Rousseau Jean-Jacques, Discourse on the Sciences and Arts (First Discourse) and Polemics (Collected Writings of Rousseau), Dartmouth; 1st edition (1992).

Marx Karl, The Communist Manifesto, Penguin Classics; New edition (2002).

Introduction

One must bear in mind that the writings of Karl Marx were produced at the time of grave exploitation of workers in Europe when the working hours ranged between 12 and 16 hours a day and even children and women were not spared the hardships at work spot. Some of the enlightened provisions of working conditions would come only later on. Also, Germany was not united then, the English and the French were the leading capitalist states establishing overseas colonies and reaching out for raw-materials and market for finished products in distant and different continents. Industrial Revolution began to take deep roots, urbanization had come to stay and all the early hiccups of free-trade and colonialism and competition among the big powers were at full swing which would culminate later on in the First World War.

Marx was neither the first nor the last of the socialists, though his name is often linked to revolutionary communism due to his own struggle in the years between 1840 and 1870 and subsequently the rise of Soviet power in the second decade of the twentieth century, which founded the first workers’ state and where Lenin had drawn much from Marxian writings, modified them and brought about a successful overthrow of the Tsars. Trained to be a Philosopher, Marx turned out to be a Social Scientist, perfected his tool of ‘dialectical materialism’, delving deep into historical growth of institutions and developed his class-struggle which he emphasized would eventually lead to classless society as only in that condition there would be no exploitation of vast multitudes of people by one or two small sections of mankind.

Mode of Production

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” (Marx, Preface to Critique of Political Economy). Like Hegel, Marx too believed in the moving panorama of historical forces determining the course of events. But unlike Hegel who considered ‘nations’ to be ‘thoughts of God”, Marx consciously went about condemning the role of God or religion and characterized religions as ‘opium’. He ridiculed the idea of people obliged to put up with the unbearable living conditions for a hypothetical Heaven. He believed that appropriate awakening of social consciousness among the workers would lead to unity among them and ultimately change the structure of the society itself. His was a pure materialist interpretation of history, everything in history impinging on material factors.

So the growth of human history from pre-historic times to feudalism and dismantling of feudalism started with the French Revolution were no doubt great movements but in all these changes the worst affected had been the labor class, where under prosperous or poor social conditions, the workers were always at the raw end and had to solely survive on subsistence wages. The other factors of production could diversify their path or just remain idle and would not lose their worth but labor cannot afford to save its energy or sell the same at a higher price because of poor bargaining capacity. It is the only commodity it has for exchange and that too had to be expended under all circumstances in unfavorable ways. The French Revolution was undoubtedly a turning point because it began the process of liquidating the authority of nobility and the church but remained committed to the interests of the middle class.

Industrialization had brought about vast changes in the output of commodities and technological growth subsequently in the output of services as well, but these did not bring about much cheer to the lives of the working class. Marx passionately believed that the ‘surplus value’ of labor was appropriated by the capitalist class and in fact was the source of the creation of all wealth. But those who created this wealth were kept under the shackles. This is because the division of labor and inexhaustible supply of labor made the working class vulnerable to the dictates of the capitalists. The exploitation would continue and because of internal contradictions in the capitalist order, the severer the competitions among the capitalists, the worse would be the fate of the proletariat. The only solution would be the establishment of a society transcending the barriers of nations, a society in which there would be no drive for profit to be had by the propertied or investing class and a society in which each will work according to his capacity and each will receive according to his needs. The ‘States’ will wither away and society would be self-functioning.

For those of us who have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union and the apparent triumphal march of capitalist structure and the buoyancy and stability it had given to world economies and who have read Alan Greenspan’s Age of Turbulence, these ideas would seem to be coming out of almost a phobia against free enterprise, allowing market forces only to regulate demand and supply and possibly total lack of appreciation for humanitarian considerations in economic policies and their implementation.

But at the same time when we go through events like Great Depression of late twenties in the 20^th century, the constant recurrence of business cycles, the periodic stock market collapses, the Asian financial crisis, and more recently the impact of crisis in sub-prime mortgage market impact of the US on the world economy as a whole, there is a feeling that there could be inherent contradictions between national economies and globalization. Also it is interesting to note that among the factors of production while capital and enterprise only now-a-days enjoy great and almost unprecedented mobility, labor has its own constraint and even rich nations are wary of permitting intrusion of laborers in very large number from other countries into their countries. This could be seen in the US, European Union and elsewhere. Globalization does not seem to envisage unrestricted movement of labor force but welcomes outsourcing manufacturing activities to low-wages labor areas, again procuring labor at cheap levels which affects the laborers back at the advanced nations and the new labor force as well.

Capital and labor

Marx believes that “capital is thus the governing power over labor and its products. The capitalist possesses this power, not on account of his personal or human qualities, but inasmuch as he is an owner of capital. His power is the purchasing power of his capital, which nothing can withstand.” (Profit of Capital). For Marx, “Capital is stored up labor”. So long as capital would function, per force the exploitation would continue. The forces of production should, therefore, be controlled not by a section of the people but decided by the proletariat itself and should serve the needs of the majority of the people and not for the profit motive of a small self-serving group. Accordingly till that higher stage of evolution came about there would be struggle between the classes and the interests of the classes. Marx believed that Augustine Thierry was “the father of the class struggle in French Historical writing” (quoted by G.H.Sabine).

Accordingly it was the conviction of Marx, that “Whilst the division of labor raises the productive power of labor and increases the wealth and refinement of society, it impoverishes the worker and reduces him to a machine. Whilst labor brings about the accumulation of capital and with this the increasing prosperity of society, it renders the worker ever more dependent on the capitalist, leads him into competition of a new intensity, and drives him into the headlong rush of overproduction, with its subsequent corresponding slump.” Capital and labor, therefore, would be forever antagonistic classes, the former interested in keeping the latter under its chains and the latter unable to wriggle out of the situation. Property relations in a society would decide the control over labor for labor would not be in a position to ‘accumulate’ property.

Marxian conception would , therefore, seek to define all the existing forms of society to strive for protecting the properties and propertied class. The state, its laws and the instruments of government would be used only to protect the same. The proletariat has to have greater consciousness to realize its role in transcending class and state and need to assume dictatorship for a while to abolish the vestiges of private property. The control of means of production is the control of the social order. So long as property would be recognized, perpetuity of exploitation of one class was bound to be there. To free the society from the individual propertied elements is to free the society from the exploitation of one class over the other. When the means of production are controlled collectively under the care of the proletariat, there would be no exploiters or exploited ones. It is for this reason that the workers had to be in the vanguard of the revolution because they would not seek to exploit anyone.

How does Marxian critical analysis force us to rethink so much of what we have previously taken for granted in everyday life?

Perhaps we are accustomed to view life of mankind as a growth from pre-historic times to modern times in fits and starts, a transition from nomadic to settled habitat and by virtue of continuity in thinking and innovating making steady progress. Perhaps we take for granted loyalty to clan, small groups, villages, small kingdoms to empires as natural transitions and by products of this growth. Of course it sometimes puzzles as to why common aspirations could not be had by one and all so that needless wars and loss of lives could have been avoided. But when we find that even in religious views so many differences persist despite so much nobility guiding the same, we feel that it is all part of human nature. But looking around at what is happening in the present race for control of resources and intense competition for the same by powers that be, we feel that oneness of humanity would continue to be only a distant ideal but none the less would be pursued by enlightened groups though for the present inevitable divisions would continue. With this cushioned outlook when we settle to read the works of Marx , we are no doubt jolted out of our complacent attitude. Also when we read conditions of appalling poverty and starvation in some African countries and only see that token measures are taken, despite tremendous technological advancement to alleviate the same, our complacency is rudely shaken again.

While there is a disquiet regarding the shabby treatment meted out to the working class, we do feel whether class conflict struggle and violent overthrow of the existing order is the only answer to the problem. Are there no ways out of this curious situation where capital would have to appropriate maximum from the working class? The present outsourcing methods do make us sensitive about the plight of the working class, division of the labor and perhaps inevitable involuntary unemployment due to jobs going overseas.

We may not be able to concur with all analyses of Marx. Do all actions of human being solely flow only from economic necessities.? Do we not have music, dancing, literary pursuits and a host of other activities which are independent of earning livelihood and one’s own station in life? Should and can everything under the sun be solely attributed to economic motives or drives?

Conclusion

Of course, we do realize that very few in the world would voluntarily renounce their possessions or the right to possess. Also, there is no guarantee that collective or communal ownership of the means of production would per se resolve all economic problems of the world. It is true that the working of the Soviet Union and the bloc under its control were not true to Marxist conceptions developed by Lenin and Trotsky but changes arising from “One-State Socialism” of Stalin. Marxism basically entrenched itself upon only internationalism, wanted to destroy narrow national or religions or ethnic or linguistic boundaries. Russian experiment under Stalinism did not abolish inequalities in wages or living conditions or in a hundred other practical things of the day. But perhaps it cannot be denied that while it lasted the suppression of the working class was not that much. That is no consolation while we consider the loss of much human values and freedoms. So the conflict between conventional democratic liberalism and a possible collectivism would continue.

References

Arendt, Hannah, From: Social Research , Highbeam Encyclopedia, Karl Marx and the tradition of Western political thought.2002.

Abstract from Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy — Transcription/ Markup & Abstracted by: Zodiac/Brian Basgen Marx/Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1993, 1999, 2002.

Karl Marx Works 1844, Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Karl Marx.

First published Tue Aug 26, 2003; substantive revision Mon Jan 28, 2008.

G. H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Oxford & IBH, Calcutta, 1971.

Karl Marx’s ideas of economic stratification are hinging upon class-consciousness and inequalities in the society due to inequitable access to the means of production. The bourgeoisies versus proletariats is a historical phenomenon (neue rheinishe: December 1947). US society has historically been divided and shaped on the basis of access to the resources. In this perspective Marx provides a strong theoretical framework for the analysis of social structure.

The class-consciousness in the capitalist society like United States, according to Marx was instilled in the minds of feudal and capitalist bourgeoisies and not in the working class proletariat. He gave a strong and emotional appeal to the laborers of the world to unite. The communist manifesto draws all strength from Marx theory of class-consciousness. He emphasized that unless the laborers were conscious of their rights the exploitation was bound to continue.

However, to say that economic reasons are the only basis of class stratification in society is unrealistic. Another weakness is that Marx has never stressed upon competitive class feeling within the working classes themselves. The stark division of US society into only two classes i.e. upper and lower class without reference to the middle class is another theoretical gap in Communist manifesto that can be found when explaining income disparity within US Society. Cultural affinities, historical connections and common aspirations of people are not seen in Marxian theory of class struggle and class-consciousness and social stratification (Weber, Max 1976).

An unending conflict situation between the laborer and employers is also not the order of the day in the US society. Therefore despite some strengths Marx theory has also some weaknesses but it definitely fostered and contributed to the classical sociological thought of 19th and 20th century in the US intelligentsias. Labor unionism and land reform activists around the world put his ideas in a high esteem. It is the case with United States. After debacle of Soviet Union in late 1980s and fall of socialism in most of Eastern Europe he Marxists have also began counting them selves in the list of post modernists.

Today the world has changed entirely. Globalization has changed the modes of production. The employers employee relations are determined by the labor laws, industrial relations commissions and labor courts are prevalent the world over (Giddens, Anthony. Oxford 2001). Labor unions as bargaining partners are present in every productive concern. International Labor Organization is the main UN body to oversee the production relations in all the member countries. The laborer wages are determined through contracts. Social security and old age benefits are the hallmarks of industry. NGOs and civil society organizations like human rights watch take care of employees’ rights. Income disparity in the United States particularly and in the capitalist world generally cannot be explained alone by the Marx theory.

However it is suggested that Marxism may not be taken at the outset as an anti capitalist approach. His approach is people centered and majority of the people in the world are poor and have skewed access to the resources. This inequitable distribution of wealth is the cause of poverty, hunger and death around the world. US have also stark economic disparities within the ranks and files of society. The poor remains poor and rich become richer.

The gap between rich and poor is increasing. Public policy options can take Marxism as one of the angle to look at the poor of US society. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Marxism explains largely but not sufficiently, the income disparity in the US society.

References

The original lectures of Karl Marx published by him in neue rheinishe zeitung a German language magazine 1847.

Weber, Max 1976; the protestant ethic and spirit of capitalism. London 1904.

Giddens, Anthony; Sociology. Blackwell Publishers. Oxford 2001.

Introduction

“The Russian Revolution is the mightiest event of the world.” (Luxemburg 25) It marked the rise of the nation against the Bolshevik’s quest for power. The seizure of Winter Palace by the Bolsheviks gave birth to the communist movement in 1917, when and died in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and in 1991, when the Soviet Union was abolished. The revolution which overthrew all class relations and bourgeoise oppression brought a group of leaders who were again called authoritarian dictators by social scientists (McFarland, Ageyev and Abalakina-Paap).

Literature on communist Russia believes that the communism that was upheld by the new state was framed by Stalin and was not the original idea of Marx. Stalin is believed to have transformed the ideas as presented by Karl Marx and/or Vladimir Lenin and substantially Russified their ideologies into the dictator’s dogmatic pronouncements. Stalin’s ideologies were deeply engrained in authoritarianism, bureaucratic statehood, and patriotism. Though there exist two schools of thought regarding this: the first school believes that the dictator did indeed impose a drastic shake-up of ideologies presented by Marx in order to legitimize his dictatorship, and the second school believes that Stalin was basically reiterating established Marxists ideas (Ree). What I discuss hereafter is that (in line with the first school of thought) Stalin tried to legitimize his ideologies of authoritarianism through Marxist ideologies. The dictator did reformulate Marxism, even though to some extent his ideas remained consistent with the western revolutionary traditions. The paradox of the Russian evolution is confronted here: why and how did the Russian leaders transform Marxist ideologists to Stalinist ideologies?

Stalinism and Marxism: how different are they?

Gustav Wetter in his Der dialektische Materialism discusses Stalin’s contributions to historical materialism (Wetter). The thesis presented by Wetter posed that Stalin’s ideologies do not preserve the “socialist content” (228). He further mentioned that in soviet socialism the ideas the Marx were diffused with global socialism. In accordance with the new regime under the paternity of Stalin, Russia became the central figure for human history and names from the tsarist past, such as Ivan the Terrible or General Kutuzov, were renewed.

Scholars have argued that there lies a great schism between Marxism and Stalinism (Leonhard). This literature points out some of Lenin’s innovations to be “socialism in one country”. The idea states that the economic prerequisites of socialism may be established after industrialization which is enforced by law. Lenin also highlights his idea of collectivization of agriculture, the intensified class struggle, “strengthening of the socialist state”, sacrificing the revolution of the world for Soviet patriotism, the Great Russian chauvinism, and peaceful coexistence with the capitalist world (Leonhard 95-125).

Another criticism of Stalin’s ideologies is that he presented a counter-revolutionary digression from Bolshevism (Trotsky). It is believed Lenin’s ideologies led to the isolation of Russia with his notion of “socialism in one country” and preservation of state bureaucracy, instead of being absorbed in democratic organs, as was believed by Marxian ideologies.

Stalin presented a ‘creative Marxism’ which claimed that Russia would lead the way to socialism, and accepted the formula of “Russia One and Invincible”. This is where Stalin diverted from Lenin’s idea of ‘building socialism’, which again was a modified version of the Marxist idea that revolution could occur only in industrialized countries. But Lenin identified the need to associate with the rest of the advanced world in order to bring socialism in backward Russia. But Stalin’s version of socialism digressed further away from Marx’s concept of ‘world revolution’. Stalin propagated a revolution that was carried out ‘from above’ and was enshrined by the terroristic state bureaucracy. This was again different from the reformist ideal of Lenin, in which Stalin reinterpreted the world revolution in the spirit of the Russian revolution primarily through the Red Army operations (Tucker).

Brandenberger and Dubrovsky discuses Stalin’s ideas which introduced the new ‘national Bolshevism’ embedded in his state-oriented patriotic ideology. Stalin’s ideologies accepted the role of Bolshevism in the historical Russian state-building and celebrated the role of the individual in history, including the tsars and tsarist officials — a departure from materialist proletarian internationalism. The new Stalinist ideologies were ‘national in form, statist in content’ (Brandenberger and Dubrovsky). A recent study points out that in abandoning Marxist principles of the nation as a modern construct, Stalin adopted the ‘primordial’ interpretation of the nation as an ethnic entity with deep historical roots (Martin). Another ideology that Stalin proposed was Russian centrality which found expression through “Friendship of the Peoples” around which his communist ideologies were pivoted (Martin, p. 442).

It has been argued by Robert Vincent Daniels, Stalinism was a clear divergence from Marxism, especially in its “bureaucratic hierarchy and the totalitarian state” (Daniels, p. 199). It has been argued that under the idea of Lenin’s democratic centralism, which envisaged one-party power, the Communist Party was formed in a state which was essential “military in spirit” (Daniels, p. 201). Given this ‘culture of War Communism’, the party bureaucracy got attracted by militancy and authoritarianism (Tucker).

The dictatorial presence of Stalin has been reiterated through the demonstration of totalitarianism which was realized in Russia was applied to collectivize the peasants, militarize the urban economy, and tyrannize all sectors of cultural and intellectual life (Daniels). The totalitarian nature of the Stalinist regime has been compared to Hitler’s campaign of international genocide.

The economic thought as presented by Marx and Engels established that there should be a democratic government formed in the countries like Great Britain, Germany, and France, where the working class was in the minority. They professed that the governments of these countries should attack the private properties and bring all sectors, i.e. industries, agriculture, and trade, under the umbrella of the state. The Communist Manifesto urged all workers to nationalize all means of production and ‘multiply them as quickly as they can’ (Marx). The Russian experience demonstrated that there is no case of perfect socialism. Stalinism envisioned bureaucratic state socialism paralleling the capitalist fad of organizational concentration, which here is enforced by political and governance mechanisms of totalitarianism.

Marx believed that socialism could progress only through cooperation with the rest of the world. Stalin shut Russia from the rest of the world. The core of Stalinist foreign policy was to maximize the security and influence of the Soviet state. Under Stalin Soviet, Russia did not shy away from the capitalist world but was bitten by xenophobia that was rooted in layers of the country’s political culture which surfaced under Stalinist leadership.

The second school of thought as presented by Rees shows that there was hardly any innovation in Stalinist communist theory. This school of thought believed there were ample Orthodox ideas ingrained in Stalinist theories, only to the exception that Stalin’s formulations were dogmatic in s5tyle and presentation with hardly any element of innovation is not present (Brandenberger and Dubrovsky). It is believed that Stalin’s ideas cannot be explained by a collection of statements, but its interpretation lies in the emergence of Stalin as an all-power interpreter of Marxism. According to Kolakowski, “Marxism as codified by Stalin” showed a “bold, primitive version” of Leninism (4). He further noted that the only deviation was in Stalin’s idea of “socialism in one country” and “intensification of class struggle”, which was evident only in the pre-1950s after which Stalin reiterated traditional Marxist motives (Kolakowski, p. 12).

Some theorists believe that Stalin’s contribution to Marxism was literally non-existent. The only thing that could be said to be purely Stalinist was the nature of the closed, didactic style Marxism, and the indoctrination of its usage. As far as the ideologies were concerned, Stalin could be said to be a true “Lenin’s faithful disciple” (Walicki 398). The radical ideas of Stalin were not something new, as Lenin never rejected the option of state violence. Walicki further noted that Stalin as a dictator divided the pre-Revolutionary Russian culture into the popular and reactionary sections. Thus, Stalin’s notion of national patriotism was merely an instrument to enhance his totalitarian control.

To sum up, it can be mentioned that Marxism as an ideology was not transformed a bit by Stalin. He preserved every bit of Marx’s ideologies. But the differences arise when the practical implementation of the ideologies are seen. Stalin intensified “class struggle” so as to legitimize terrorist state activities.

Stalinist ideas

Richard Stites believes that Soviet history till the 1930s was marked with utopianism. Lenin has been accused by many scholars as to the “dreamer in Kremlin” who had given history his ideologies which were “impossible to realize, a heartless experimenter determined to turn his patrimony into a vast laboratory, and emotionally immune to the human cost” (Stites 41). It has been argued that the Russian revolution and its state afterwards which presented the dictatorial version of Marxism was Lenin’s or Stalin’s creation and its roots were embedded in the Russian culture (Stites). Marxist ideas can be negated from being utopianism because they were adopted in other countries – namely the East European countries – but they did not demonstrate the “dreaming, the maximalism, and the euphoric expectation that occurred in Russia…during the Revolution.” (Stites 4) Thus, we see that the ideas presented during the pre and post-revolutionary phase were primarily a Russian leadership construct.

In this utopia were born the Russian leaders who idealized a state that was one and singular: a state that envisaged its governance, beliefs, culture, and nationalism as one. In this pursuit, Stalin tried to enforce the ideologies of “revolution from above” in doing so the dictator crushed two elements, namely the peasantry and the Ukrainian nation (Conquest 3). The dictatorial regime of Stalin abolished the Soviet peasantry and tried to implement dekulakization and collectivism. Dekulakization means the killing and/or deportation of the peasants and their families to the Arctic. Collectivization implied the effective abolition of private property inland, and the peasantry remaining collectively as a farm under the direct control of the Party. These policies resulted in the murderous elimination of millions. Further, the 1932-4 famine in Ukraine was called the “terror-famine” which was aggravated by the policies implemented by Stalin’s regime: “grain quotas far above the possible, removing every handful of food, and preventing help from outside” (Conquest, p. 4).

The revolution from above was unique as it was a state initiative, but it failed to generate mass support (Tucker). Historical evidence shows that there was no collective effort to enforce “cultural revolution” through a long-term educational plan which would prepare the peasantry mind for voluntary acceptance of cooperative farming. The banner of collectivism, “liquidation of class” was achieved through the lives of millions of people and the establishment of socialist cooperatives as a formal façade. The second phase of the revolution from above wanted to enforce an industrialization drive [again] from above. This resulted in a “state-directed, frantic, military-oriented industrialization drive whose very slogan, “Fulfill the Five Year Plan in Four” reflected the gap between what actually happened and the Plan” (Tucker, p. 83). Some historians believe that mass collectivization was the means to extract the agricultural surplus to finance the great authoritarian designs of industrialization as it was used to pay for “importation of foreign machinery and technicians and to supply the urban population with food and industry with raw materials.” (Tucker, p. 83). The reason for this is provided by many as the process of meeting the increased scarcity of food supply to the urban population hat Stalin took this drastic measure which pushed the famine of the 1920s to reality.

This era of totalitarian control over the Soviet Union by Stalin has been called as “counterrevolution from above” (Daniels, p.269). The first phase of this was between 1928 and 1932 when Stalin enacted the “cultural revolution” similar to that of Mao Tse-tung in China. This was the era when Stalin imposed his forcible reconstruction of Soviet economic order and dictatorial control on all phases of Russian lives. In his pursuit to bring about a Russian nationalism, nationalistic history, and Russification of the Soviet minorities, Stalin left the main ideal of the Marxian revolution and only clinging to the revolutionary’s language.

While discussing the Russian revolution by Stalin, it is important to mention that orthodox Marxism believes that revolution is feasible only under the conditions of developed capitalism. According to Marx and Engels, a breakthrough to communism in Russia might be possible provided a revolutionary government could stop the disintegration of the people (Ree). But it cannot be verified [and historians believe it to be unlikely] that they said that once the country was industrialized the working-class dominating there should be proletariat government. This idea was brought by Stalin to gain support for his “proletariat dictatorship”.

Stalin as a dictator

After having clearly discussed the ideologies of Stalin and Marx, we try to ascertain if Stalin was really a communist? This question has stormed the academicians since the 1930s. The Stalinists are building is not Socialism but a social form of industrial organization based upon the exploitation of wage-labour with many objectionable features practised by Nazis and Fascists.

According to Marx, the establishment of an absolute necessity for Socialism is a highly developed industry and industrial technique. That necessary development of industry was carried out by capitalism between 1775 and 1900, that is to say, the period of the industrial revolution. But the same industrial stage had not been reached by Russia in 1917. In any case, therefore, Socialism could not have been established there at that time. As had been written in The Times issue of 6th July 1937, showed that:

“When Lenin seized power in Russia in November 1917, his views on the nature of the State were unimpeachably Marxist. The State, being in its very essence an instrument for the oppression of one class by another, was, therefore, an evil which could have no place in the classless Communist society.” (Socialist Labor Party 3).

In 1944 definition of Stalin’s “Soviet patriotism” means dedication and loyalty to the motherland, conceived by a “unified brotherly family” of different nations where the local tradition was preserved (Ree 172). The USSR was presented as the nation of all, a unified entity. The idea of Stalin’s Russia was an industrialized land with national homogeneity, developed culture and its loyalty to the state. Soviet patriotism ultimately referred to the Soviet state as the avant-garde of the internationalist communist movement and a centre for world politics. Stalin’s departure from Marx’s ideas was in his formulation of the nation as a fatherland as Marx and Engels objected to the patriotism illustrated through workers having “no fatherland”.

Once the departure between Marx’s ideals, it I important to open a discussion on the similarities or dissimilarities between Communism as professed by Stalin and fascism, between Stalin and Hitler. There are few startling similarities. Like fascism, Stalinism too came after a revolution (in Germany and Spain) or near revolutionary situations (in Italy). Fascism too functioned, like Stalinism, in a post-revolutionary dictatorship, with totalitarian regimes. The difference, nonetheless, lies in their overt ideologies.

To quote Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1890), “Any revolution from above is inevitably revolution by dictatorship and despotism” (Suny (as quoted in)). According to Ronald Suny, as Stalin assumed power as the leader of the newly formed Soviet Union, he gained paramount force and repression which was available to be used in the service of socialism, which was defined in Stalin’s mind as identical to his own policies and preservation of his personal position. Once he had reached his exalted position as a chief oligarch, he spoke in the name of the party and the Central Committee without consulting anyone else. And he moulded his own version of Leninism as an effective weapon against pretenders.

The element of Stalin’s dictatorial regime came from the snaked exercise of his authorities. But the totalitarian regime is said to have gained popularity among the sections of the society which faced repression and were victimized by White anti-Semitism. It grew popular among workers, many peasants, intellectuals, certain nationalities like the Jews. According to Figgs, “As long as the peasants feared the whites, they would go along, feet dragging, with the demands of the Soviet regime…. Thus the Bolshevik dictatorship climbed up on the back of the peasant revolution” (Figes, p. 354).

Though Stalin gained some popularity and support (which was due to his regime just after the monarchial fall) he was still considered to be an autocratic totalitarian. Moshe Lewin describes Stalin’s urge to become an autocrat as:

Stalin was not ready to accept the role of just a cog, however powerful, in his own machine. A top bureaucrat is a chief executive, in the framework of a constraining committee… But Stalin had had the power and the taste for it — for evermore of it — since he had led the early stage of the shattering breakthrough and gotten full control over the state in the process. At this point, the traits of his gloomy personality, with clear paranoid tendencies become crucial. Once at the top and in full control, he was not a man to accept changes in the pattern of -his personal -power… He, therefore, took the road of shaking up,-of destabilizing the machinery and its upper layers, in order to block the process fatally working against his personal predilection for autocracy. (Lewin 130-131)

The limitless tyranny of Stalinism was the creation of the Great Purges, which concurrently eliminated all probable opposition and created new and more loyal leaders with which the tyrant like Stalin could rule. Numerous interpretations have been offered by historians as to the causes of the Purges and what were its aftereffects were. Some have suggested that eradication or purging was completely essential for authorities based on totalitarianism in place of democratic elections. Others view the purges as simply the most extreme manifestation of the amorality of the Marxist vision. Another line of thought argues that the Purges as a more extreme form of political infighting:

The existence of high-level personal rivalries disputes overdevelopment or modernization plans, powerful and conflicting centrifugal and centripetal forces, and local conflicts…made large-scale political violence, possible and even likely (Getty, p. 206).

Thus the history of the Stalinist regime is ingrained in violent oppressions by the state on the local feudatories (particularly in the union republics), and mass arrests and executions brought in their wake. There was a regime that practised not only concentration of power at the top and centre, but even greater disorder and insecurity:

Nothing seems to warrant the traditional image of Soviet politics in the the1930s with its omnipotent dictator and his totally controlled instruments of unlimited power. Everything points to the assumption that, far from being an autocrat’s successful offensive against a whole society, the central political phenomenon of the decade resembled much more a kind of feudal anarchy or institutionalized civil war. (Tucker, p. 159).

In a more traditional term, the main reason behind the Great Purges has been seen as Stalin’s effort “to achieve an unrestricted personal-dictatorship with a totality of power that [Stalin] did not yet possess in 1934.” (Tucker xxix)

Conclusion

To sum up we may say that Stalin’s idealism and his view of communism were unlike those developed by Marx. He, though believed in the Marxian idealisms and did draw a few concepts from the original ideologies, but presented them in his own colours. His dogmatic views and totalitarian attitude in presenting a utopian idea of Marxism into operation in a state that followed complete isolation from the rest of the world and started viewing not all with suspicion was what Marx envisioned. Stalin revised Marx’s ideologies to present his own agendas. This led him to demonstrate the ideologies of “revolution from above”, Russian nationalism, and one state theory. When Stalin declared the advent of socialism in the Soviet Union and the proliferation of the world’s “most democratic” constitution, both democracies as a symbol and democracy as the empowering of the disenfranchised had become victims of his limitless despotism.

Karl Marx and Marxism

Marxism can be defined as a method social inquiry which looks at economic, socio- economic and socio-political aspects of a society. In its attempt to explain social change, the method relies on the concept of historical materialism, the rise and development of capitalism as a mode of production and the study of opposites (dialectical view).

Marxism was founded by two Germany scholars namely Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels from the start of the 19^th century to mid-19^th century. They rejected the ideas of realism, liberalism but focused on class struggle as the basis of international relations.

However, Karl Marx is seen as the most influential in the foundation and development of Marxism, thus the name of Marxism which was derived from his name. Marx was mostly interested in the study of society in terms of what he referred to as class struggle, which he argued was responsible for social change.

On his part, Friedrich Engels based his argument on the study of opposites, arguing that social change was as a result of conflicting ideas, which influence the actions of people in the society, the argument being that the idea which is more dominant over the others shapes social change within a given society (Marx 87).

Karl Marx sees people as both producers and products of the society in which they live. According to him, society is made up of different parts which influence each other but the economic part has the greatest influence. He argues that the history of human society is the history of tension and conflict.

As per the manifesto written by him and Friedrich Engels in 1848, ‘the history of all existing societies is the history of class struggle, that of free men and slaves, lords and serfs who stand in a relationship of an oppressor and oppressed and thus are always in constant oppositions to one another.

The conflict between the oppressor and oppressed is sometimes hidden or open war and at the end, they always have a reconstituted society. In the manifesto, Marx stated that ‘you do not have to be poor, nobody was born poor but the conditions that made man poor were created by man himself, and therefore can be changed by man’.

Karl Marx gave more attention to the economy, which he argued formed the base of society while the superstructure which comprises things like culture, religion, social life and media were a reflection of the economic mode of production of the society.

Karl Marx presented two class models of society namely the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the capitalists who are few in number and are the owners of capital. They are also rich, powerful, oppressors, exploiters and they always win elections in democratic countries.

On the other hand, the proletariats are the workers, owners of labor and they are the majority in numbers but are powerless since they are oppressed and exploited by the rich and they always lose in elections in democratic nations. The proletariat can be described as a class in itself in the sense that they share same objectives and relationships to the means of production, that is, they are laborers who are paid in wages.

The two classes are always in conflict with each other because their interests are incompatible. While the bourgeoisie have the interests of maintaining the status quo which ensures their dominance, the proletariats are interested in changing the status quo which deprives them of good life.

However, the two classes are not aware of the nature of the circumstances which they live in but assume that the situations which they find themselves in are natural and nothing can be done to change them. This is what Karl Marx calls a false class consciousness.

The bourgeoisie are not aware that they are the exploiters while the proletariats are not aware that they are exploited or oppressed; they are also not aware that they are poor but assume that they are naturally supposed to be poor.

However; when the proletariats become aware of the reality, that is, when they know that they are exploited by the bourgeoisie, what follows is a revolution. Marx argues that the Russian revolution of 1917 was as a result of the realization of the proletariats that they were being oppressed by the bourgeoisie.

According to Karl Marx, the defining features of social class are the ownership or lack of ownership of the means of production. He argued that those who owned the means of production were able to exploit those who did own them. Marx was of the view that both labor and capital were very essential in the stability of the economy.

This is because the capital cannot transform itself into wealth without the labor while the labor cannot create wealth without the capital. It therefore follows that both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat must work together, because none can exist independently of the other. What this means is that both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are equal shareholders in the wealth which is created through their interaction.

However, this is not always the case. This is because at the end of the production process, the sharing of the profits is not fair since the supply value is more appropriated by the bourgeoisie at the expense of the proletariat, who produces more labor which is not paid for.

According to Karl Marx therefore, the levels of profits made by organizations was inversely proportional to the level of exploitation of the proletariat. That is, the more the companies make profits, the higher the levels of exploitation and vice versa. In other words, what Karl Marx was arguing was that profit was synonymous with surplus value, which is labor that is not paid for.

Unfortunately, the proletariats are not aware of this and they even go to the extent of celebrating when they hear that the companies which they work for have made significant increment in the amounts of profits. Karl Marx understood work as alienating. His argument was based on the capitalistic mode of production which has its roots in the industrial revolution of 1600.

This mode of production is characterized by two groups of people namely the capitalists and the proletariats. According to Karl Marx, the proletariats own nothing except their labor, which they sale at cheap price to the capitalists.

Karl Marx also explained the concept of alienation which simply means the existence of some dividing forces between things which are essentially supposed to be in harmony with each other.

For example, man created and discovered religion, but the same man subjects himself to uncomfortable religious beliefs or practices like refusing to take medicine due to religious beliefs. In this situation, religion makes man uneasy, yet it is the same man who creates the religion.

Marx argued that the ideal purpose of work was to make man happy by enabling him move towards the actualization levels in his life. But due to the capitalistic economy, work is no longer playing its primary function in man, but rather, it is alienating him.

According to Marx, man can be alienated in three major ways namely the alienation from the results of labor, alienation from the other workers and alienation of the worker from him or herself.

Alienation from the results of labor happens when man works but he does not have a stake in the products of his labor and only gets his wages, which are way below the worth of the products of his labor. This is what Karl Marx calls exploitation, which creates profits in form of surplus. Paradoxically, the surplus is not attributed to the workers but rather to the capitalists.

Alienation from other workers takes place when the worker is transformed into a commodity to be used in the competitive capitalist economy. In this situation, the worker is not viewed as a social being but is tied to his or her work, in which he or she is paid as per his or her output.

Alienation of the worker from himself takes place when the worker is robbed of his ability or opportunity to enjoy the intrinsic value of work. In the capitalistic economy, personal life is separated from work, meaning that the worker is transformed into a machine. This makes him or her to work for the sake of working, but not as a way of serving humanity or quenching his passion to work in a certain field.

Immanuel Wallerstein

He writes about post capitalism and agrees that Marx’s description of capitalism was accurate in the 19^th century but out-dated in the 20^th century. This is because major changes took place in Western Europe and North America which are now post-capitalists.

Instead of the two social classes getting polarized as Marx had argued, the opposite has happened. For example, population of skilled workers has grown tremendously; inequalities in income and wealth have been reduced due to changes in social structure and the intervention by the State (Wallerstein 26).

Social mobility is now more common and he link between ownership and control have been broken. In the organizational context for example, managers, but not the owners of the business exercise day to day control of the organizations as well as over the means of production.

Under these circumstances, Marx’s argument that conflict was based on the concept of ownership of the means of production is therefore not valid today because there is no longer any close association between wealth and power.

Wallerstein went ahead to argue that conflict therefore was not about the control over the means of production but over authority, which according to him was a legitimate power attached to a particular social role. For example, a manager or a teacher has a right to make decisions in an organization or classroom regardless of the wishes of the workers or students respectively.

In all organizations, there are positions of dominance and subjection, some make decisions legitimately, others do not and this is the basis of conflict in post capitalism society.

Those in the subject positions have the interest of changing the social structure that deprives them of authority and those in dominant positions have the interest of maintaining dominant structure in many social situations not just economic ones and so nobody is confined to dominant or subject positions and therefore society presents a picture of plurality of competing dominant and subject positions.

Just like Marx, Wallerstein argued that there is a possibility of capitalism being replaced by socialism. According to him, false class consciousness may come to an end thus triggering revolutions which would eventually bring capitalism to an end.

Jean Baudrillard

His main ideas were centered on consumerism. He is one of the few scholars who loosely associated themselves with Marxism. One of his main points of departure from Marxism in regard to capitalism is that while Marx saw production as the key force behind capitalism, Baudrillard considered consumption as the key force behind capitalism (Tormey 73).

He also differed significantly with Marx in regard to the issue of use-value. While Marx saw needs as genuine and innate, Baudrillard saw them as being constructed by people and therefore, the needs preceded the production of goods. In this sense therefore, consumption was more important than production because the desire to consume certain goods comes before the goods are produced.

In his later works, Baudrillard completely rejected the ideas of Marx especially with regard to sign value of commodities. His argument was that commodities had a sign value which was one of the determinants of why people preferred certain commodities to others.

To him therefore, the cost of a commodity was not as much important as the sign value of the same commodity. On his part, Marx had argued that the cost of production was the key determinant of the value of commodities in the market economy.

Works Cited

Marx, Karl. Theories of Surplus Value Vols. 1-3, Amherst, N.Y, Prometheus Books, 2000. Print.

Tormey, Simon. Anticapitalism: A Beginner’s Guide, Oxford, Oneworld Beginners’Guides, 2004.Print.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the Changing World-System, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991. Print.

It is traditionally believed that Marx and Engels were opposed to capitalism, which implies that they were against the Industrial Revolution, but an argument can be made that they believed industrialization was good for the ultimate benefit of mankind. In fact, the Communist Manifesto is clear in indicating that industrialization was a process that led to the overall improvement of society in doing away with the hardships of the majority of the population (Hunt et al, 2004).

Karl Marx has outlined in the Communist Manifesto his observations in regard to the historical aspects of the bourgeoisie era and its connection with the doctrine of industrial capitalism. Marx has commented that industrial capitalism takes different tenors and in some respects views it as useful and remarkable. Nevertheless, he speaks about destroying the system primarily because of its ruthlessness and manifestation of society. Marx ultimately believes that industrialization is imperative in bringing about the destruction of such a process. Marx has admired industrial capitalism as being a phenomenal constituent of society in saying that modern industry has led to the development of the global markets. For example, the development of the markets in China and East Asia and the increased trading between colonies that were led by the colonization of America resulted in a new life being given to industry, navigation and commerce. Such developments not only led to an increase in the scope of industrialization but also improved communicative means on land such as the rapid expansion of the railways.

The Communist Manifest characterized industry as a revered and extraordinary force. By the process of industrialization, the bourgeoisie had demonstrated how such activities can bring about wonders for mankind that exceed achievements such as the Pyramids of Egypt or the Gothic Cathedrals. Additionally, industrialization has brought about productive forces that are far superior to previous generations. In the viewpoint of Marx, such forces include the invention of machinery, the application of new technologies in agriculture and industrialization, the telegraph and steam navigation. Marx felt that this unique force enabled society to improve in several ways. The establishment of large cities as created by industrialization assisted a substantial part of the population in getting away from the unproductive lifestyles in rural areas. Moreover, the rapid introduction of productive and communication processes converted the majority including the most brutal nations into civilized lot. It is clear from the Communist Manifesto that industrialization was a positive and beneficial influence on the new bourgeoisie orders. But despite the accomplishments emanating from such capitalist ways, Marx has promoted the obliteration of capitalism in view of its damaging influence on society (Wilson, 2009).

Marx has welcomed the destruction of capitalism for different reasons. He believed that capitalism makes objects out of the people, mainly workers. According to him, it is the naked self-interest that reigns supreme and that the personal value of people has been converted into being a means of exchange. Marx does not favour capitalism because the family loses its emotional values and becomes mainly concerned with relationships led by concerns for money. He says that children too have been converted into objects of business and tools of labour while wives have been viewed as a means to only produce children. Marx also believed that capitalism leads to fluctuations in markets which have a direct and adverse bearing on the levels of employment.

Works Cited

1. Hunt Lynn, Martin Thomas, Rosenwein Barbara H, R. Po-chia Hsia, Bonnie G. Smith, The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures, 2004, Bedford/St. Martin’s
2. Wilson Richard, Communist Manifesto Analysis.

Most noted for influential ideas in the spheres of economics and labor, development of communist ideology. Marx’s most famous works are “The Communist Manifesto” and “Capital.”

Biographical Information

Marx’s ideology made a big impact on multiple spheres of life, such as economics, politics, and the structure of society. These ideas influenced educational systems and ideologies of the whole world. In 1844 Marx wrote “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts” and explored his idea that a man has “free, conscious activity,” this idea made an impact on education (Price, 2012).

Marx believed that a person’s self-creation and self-education happen mainly through labor. Marx created stimulation for the educational systems to start teaching about the importance of labor and involving the students into their first labor experiences.

Historical/Political Context

The era when Marx’s most active stages of life happened was the time of class struggle in Europe. Marx was one of the radical thinkers and writers, involved in movements that were considered dangerous and extremist. Marx and his wife were banned from Paris and then from Germany for the kinds of articles the philosopher was writing, his ideas and his attempts to publish his own works and make them available for wider access. According to Karl Marx, society can be divided into two classes, called bourgeoisie and proletariat.

The philosopher wrote that capitalist society is the society ruled by the dictatorship and domination of the bourgeoisie class, where the rights, freedoms, and opportunities for the working class to develop were limited. This included the educational system; the children coming from not wealthy proletarian families were denied to have an education.

Beliefs on Education

Marx was the philosopher who used a materialistic approach in order to understand the processes of social development. This means that his ideas were based on the belief that humans have certain material needs, and that the physical conditions of their lives define the way the society develops.

Marx believed that all necessary material requirements are fulfilled through physical work. Physical work or labor was, according to Marx, a source of development and self-education. All the needed knowledge, essential for a good proletarian could be learned through being involved in labor.

Impact on Education

These days schools are no longer viewed as socially neutral institutions (Anyon, 2011). Schools are parts of the social structure, they are involved in political and economic issues, and they play a significant role in shaping society, its views, and ideas about the world and culture. Marx’s theories have created a big impact on the way society and the processes going on in it are being studied. His teachings about class-struggle as the basis of social development and a very important moving force in the economic structure of the countries.

Besides, Marx’s ideas have influenced the way history is being studied these days. Societies of the past are now viewed along the lines of class division and struggle, ruling layers of the societies and the working classes, connections between them and what happens when the boundaries between classes get erased or mixed, results of events leading to a situation when one class takes over the other class.

These are all very important processes; Marx has attracted the scholars’ attention towards them and helped the educational institutions widen their views and knowledge about these processes.

Others’ Criticisms

Many scholars these days support the opinion that Marx’s views, ideas, and teachings are old-fashioned and could only be applied for the society, politics, economy, and industry of his time (Rees, n. d.). It is a common opinion that today’s world is very different from the era when Marx lived and wrote his works; this is why his understanding of the world cannot be used by modern scholars. There was no way Marx could predict the development of industry and the way labor changes, the way it impacts the world’s economy.

This opinion is quite popular, yet far, not all modern scholars support it. According to this category of contemporaries, Marx has predicted many events and developed systems of criteria that are still met by modern societies.

For example, he correctly noticed that the structure of capitalist society is doomed to fail, as the occurrence of massive mega-corporations, which will defeat smaller business owners and traders, will lead to the economy controlled by a small number of leading corporations. Marx wrote that this would be the point when the moving force of development, such as competition seizes to exist.

Critique

I support the opinion that Marx’s ideas and teachings became the base of the modern understanding of important spheres of life such as social structure, economic development, labor and production, politics, history, industry and, of course, education. I believe that understanding of all these spheres of modern life comes to us through the education, Marx has significantly widened the perception of the world for people of his time, and he made an impact on the modern society.

Of course, some of his ideas cannot be applied to the relationships and processes happening in the modern world. Physical labor was one of Marx’s main principles of creating a happy proletarian. These days workers of intellectual labor are in much higher demand and more well-paid, they also require a proper education that in most cases cannot be received through physical labor.

Reference List

Anyon, J. (2011). Marx and Education. London, United Kingdom: Taylor and Francis.

Karl Marx [Image]. (2010). Web.

Price, R. F. (2012). Marx and Education in Russia and China. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Rees, J. Marx in the Modern World. Web.

The issue of how man relates to nature and how free is his existence has been a subject of much debate among social theorists and philosophers. The pursuit of individualism as propounded by John Locke and Capitalism by Adam Smith laid the foundations for the industrial revolution and democratization of the Western World. This view was challenged by Marx and Engels who held both philosophies as evil and contrary to the natural freedom of man. This essay examines the works of Marx and Engels in their critique of industrialization.

That man profited from industrialization is a fact. The levels of production of Great Britain more than trebled with the advent of the industrial revolution and more land and raw materials could be exploited more efficiently thanks to industrialization. Industrialization made it possible for the West to suitably exploit and enhance their profits, wealth, and hold over much of the developing world. It can be said without doubt that the fruits of the industrial revolution allowed advances in science and technology including the science of war which ensured the victory of the Christian world over the Muslims led by the Ottoman Empire which had lagged behind on industrialization. Since commodities became available in large numbers, more finished products were made available to a larger number of people and thus more money could be generated with the sale of those goods thus prosperity increased. Hence industrialization undoubtedly helped those countries. Marx and Engels however, believed that industrialization served to exploit the workers getting cheap labor and reaping the profits from the lands that belonged to everyone. According to them Industrialization increased the divide between the rich and the poor and shackled the poor to the chains of servility and penury. Their clarion call, “Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains. (Jackson 122)” evoked the Russian revolution. Engels amplified that despite the growing wealth of the rich the workers were “sinking into pauperism (Marx, Engels and Moore 65)”. According to Marx and Engels, the problems of industrialization did not lie in its natural form but in the ‘bourgeoisie capitalism’. Industrialization in which equitable distribution of wealth was ensured was good however that required state ownership of land and industries. It required that the produce of those industries and industrialization, in general, be distributed to all members of the state without enriching the few against the toils of the many. Hence ‘collectivization’ was the way forward as enriching the few only increased greed, avarice, and corruption. An egalitarian society where all were equal including their economic status was according to Marx and Engels, the epitome of human society.

The writings of Marx and Engels were adopted by the socialists and the communists with a gusto that led to the establishment of the communist state of Russia. However, both Marx and Engels have been proved wrong by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the repudiation of Marxism by Communist China which now embraces capitalism and industrialization with as much fervor as the West. The experiment with ‘state ownership’ failed badly in the former Soviet Union and productivity declined because the practical application of Marxism requires coercion and forced labor, just the opposite of what Marx had theorized. It can thus be concluded that industrialization with western capitalism triumphed over Marxism.

References

Jackson, John Hampden. England since the industrial revolution, 1815-1948. NY: Taylor & Francis, 1975.

Marx, Karl, et al. The Communist Manifesto. NY: Penguin Classics, 2002.

Canada has experienced massive job losses for the past five years with many people going into self-employment. In 2008, it was reported that many people were in lower employment opportunities. Statistics showed that by October 2009, 503,500 jobs were lost especially from women and young people. People preferred to work for their own businesses rather than for other people. There is a very high rate of job loss even today in Canada. Canadians are continuously leaving the corporate world and opening their own businesses.

Karl Marx urged that specialization could cause employees to have poor expertise in general and lack motivation in their jobs. He said that alienation makes employees focus on a particular activity over and over thus causing one to be totally isolated. He insisted that allowing division of labor employees get miserable both internally and physically. He stated further that for workers to be productive they require freedom and thus he insisted that specialization should occur temporarily when it is completely necessary.

Social class structures were defined in the United States in the early days. In modern society, there are still class structures that people fit in within the society. In the United States, people have various ways of classifying themselves by way of the wealth they have, power, status capability, education level, profession, and where they reside. Social class in modern society mainly refers to all aspects of an individual’s position in the societal chain of command. Many citizens in America define social class as just the upper class who are the rich in the society, the middle class as those working class, and the poor who are semi-skilled and living in poor living standards. However, many levels have been defined today including the upper class, which is for the wealthy and influential. The upper-middle-class belongs to those with good education and well-paying businesses. The lower middle class belongs to those who have college education jobs, office associates, secretarial, and blue-collar jobs with work that is regular. Then there is the lower class that is amid working poor and under rank.

Marx believed that class structures and how they change are what capitalism was all about. According to Marx, classes are made and prepared by issues that relate to occupation and labor, ownership of land, and the level of income. He stated that classes included the bourgeoisie as well as the proletariat. The other classes were not very essential like proprietors, minor bourgeoisie, peasants, and the lumpenproletariat. The Bourgeoisie are the ones who possess the capital, buying and taking advantage of manual labor. They were making use of excess manual labor available to advance their wealth. He argued that capitalists do not have just wealth but use their power to exploit manual laborers to achieve more riches.

The proletariats are those who had the potential to work with their own hands without any other form of resources. This means they had to look for work from the capitalist who was exploitive. Marx explained that landlords were a small group who were once landowners and powerful but had with time lost their essential position in manufacturing within the social order. They had to use their land as an investment in order for them to hang on to their status. The minor bourgeoisie and lower middle class were consisting of the small producers, shopkeepers, peasants and artisans. They had property but it was not enough to employ workers. They had to work so that they could make ends meet and that meant they had double life i.e. as small property owners and workers.

Plastic surgery has been on the increase in the modern society and Canada is not an exception. Many people today undergo plastic surgery to fix certain defects in their bodies. Women mostly and even young girls are the most frequent users of plastic surgery. People with fat bodies also under go the operation to help them reduce. Plastic surgery is also used to make a person look younger when they show signs of aging. Some of these people feel more at ease once they undergo the procedure and participate actively in many things.

Marx argued that commodity fetish is a way in which social relationships come up in commercial like communities. This means that social activities are changed into what can be said as objects of money. This can be illustrated in the case of plastic surgery where people have their bodies modified, like objects. He states that value is found in the objects like the body rather than being put to the bodies by working. This he states is misusing the concept of work which can bring harm to the person. He argues that people use the value of an object to get a certain benefit thus it becomes a commodity. This to him is not right because human beings should work to provide for themselves.

The other area that applies Marxist theory of fetish commodity is the idea of prostitution. This does not reflect the idea of work since individuals use their bodies to make money. This causes many problems for the body and the individual in using the body like an object. Marx argues that this is not right since it does not show how one is using his work to help the body. It is important to note that prostitution is making the body make money for you rather than working to protect the body. This can be harmful in many ways and it is unsafe. (Avineri)

Works Cited

Avineri, Shlomo.The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Introduction

The term Russian revolution refers to a series of revolutions that took place in 1917 that eventually destroyed the Tsars autocracy. The series of revolutions had begun in February 1917 whereby the Tsars autocracy was destroyed and replaced by a Provisional Government which had the soviets selected by the low class and the peasants. This Provisional Government was overthrown later by the Workers Union which was led by Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik party.

Lenin had based his ideas on Karl Marx’s ideas which were against capitalism. It was the interpretations of Marxism theories by Lenin that were the force behind the Russian Revolution and the formation of the Soviet Union (West). This essay will summarize the role that the Karl Marx Theory played in the 1917 Communist Revolution. It will then show how Lenin modified the Marxist theory in the years after the revolution.

Led revolt against the government

Lenin led his party into a revolt against the then Provisional Government which the party had said was not effective. The liberal monarchist through their organized Army (White Army) fought this revolt. This white Army could not maintain Industrial peace, that plus the fact that Russia was losing the war in the continuing World War I led the army to be defeated. At the same time, the Bolshevik Army was gaining in support and therefore the revolution, however, resulted in a freely elected Soviet membership though with opposition from the Socialist Revolutionary Party (Wittfogel). These oppositions led to the later resolutions between the years 1919-1921.

Development of modern communism

Karl Marx’s ideas played an important and significant role in the development of modern communism. Marxism is the economic and political theories based on theories thoughts and believes by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel. Marx had argued that capitalism would create internal wrangles which would lead to its destruction. He had believed that there was a possibility that Russia would change to socialism without necessarily passing through the process of capitalism.

According to Marx capitalism, the worker was separated from his efforts because; the worker would produce more in order to increase his wage from this production. As a result, the production would increase leading to a balance which would be taken as a profit by the owner of the firm where the worker was working. This profit would be recapitalized in the business improving the efficiency in production which leads to a higher balance.

This process would continue resulting in exponential growth and even more profit. However, the benefits do not fall back on the worker but on the business owner, which would increase the gap between the worker and the business owner/ employer. Karl Marx interpreted this as exploitation of the workers. His idea of revolution was however did not indicate any preference in using war or terror but in reforming the beliefs of the working class. His beliefs had been based on the liberation of humanity from oppression by the governments.

Imperialism as a form of capitalism

Leninism is the doctrines by Lenin which though based on Marxism theory were modified with the emphasis that imperialisms the highest form of capitalism, this theory was called Marxism-Leninism. In this concept of imperialism, the attention is shifted from developed countries to underdeveloped countries. Marxism-Leninism saw the beginning of communism which was experienced in the twentieth century. Leninism believes that the only way that capitalism can be overthrown was by a revolution, that any attempts to reform within would not be successful. The theory believes in violent revolutions and it was through this belief that Lenin and his party formed the Russian Revolution.

The theory goes ahead and explains that after the revolution and forming the government that this new government would educate the working class to remove the ideas that had been planted in their minds, by the capitalist government, to ensure that they had remained docile so as to offer their services. They were then to hold democratic power through the soviets. Marx had argued that socialism which meant there were no different classes in the society, and that would be stateless would replace capitalism. He called this pure communism. He had believed that this is as a result of transitional processes from “dictatorship of the proletariat” where workers would be in a democracy, and the results would be the creation of a socialist class.

Conclusion

In diverging from Marxism Leninism the developments that had it necessary for Lenin to diverge was because the working class were adopting a conservative attitude and not he idea that Karl Marx time had anticipated where they would be taught to join in fighting communism. Lenin, in his book ‘What is to be done’ (1902), has implied disappointment in the working class character of non-revolutionalism, and says that a well organized revolution would have to lead the workers into a revolution.

In economics and in capitalism, Lenin preserved Marx’s theory on capitalism in a manifest by transferring of finances from the developed countries to the colonies and to the Third World countries. In summary those who support Leninism have argued that Lenin did not divert from the Marxist theories but he developed his theories based on the Marxism theories.

Works cited

West, Thomas. Marx and Lenin. 2006. Web.

Wittfogel, Karl. The Marxist View of Russian Revolution. 2010. Web.