Category: Marxism

Introduction

The mid 19^th century was a period of great political revolutions where most of the political philosophies were established. Maxim defined imperialism as the unequal relationship between capitalism and non-capitalism. Capitalism is the situation whereby the means of production of goods and services for profit are owned by the private sector. It involves capital accrual, competitive markets, and the price system (Fernandez-Armesto 15).

These controls are the dynamics that the Marxism theorist used to develop their theories based on material possessions. In the 19^th century, there were revolutionary movements that opposed the capitalist model of governance replacing it with other systems that were acceptable to the people. This paper will discuss Marxism theories to establish how he anticipated nationalism and imperialism as well as the ideological views of the classical liberalism.

Imperialism theory

Imperialism theory is the formation of a disproportionate economic, cultural territorial rapport between countries (Fernandez-Armesto 15). This relationship is normally based on empire domination and subordination of other states (Fernandez-Armesto 11). Imperialism exploits the native people with the aim of enriching a few influential people in the political class. There are two types of imperialism, which are the regressive imperialism and the progressive imperialism.

The regressive imperialism is based on pure conquest where undesired people are removed from the territory (Fernandez-Armesto 16). In the case, the desired people are settled in the vacancies created by the mass eviction of the perceived adversaries. The progressive imperialism on the other hand is based on the cosmopolitan principle. In this case, individuals are not evicted but the living standards of the natives as well as their cultural practices are replaced by imperial civilization (Fernandez-Armesto 9).

Bourgeoisie

A social class called the bourgeoisie characterizes the Marxist theory of imperialism. The term describes the scopes of social classes based on economic and materialistic possessions. Marxist philosophy describes bourgeoisies as the individuals who control and own the means of production and who are only concerned with the value of property and maintaining capital (Fernandez-Armesto 9).

They were the intermediaries between the peasants and the property owners and they controlled the money market. The bourgeoisie emerged as a political and social phenomenon during the period when Europe developed into commercially focused cities enhancing urban expansion (Fernandez-Armesto 9).

The bourgeoisie social class was seen as a progressive social class because of its support for a constitutional model of governance. This model replaced the traditional laws of privilege and the ultimate rule by divine right of the nobles.

Their support was influenced by the need to limit government involvement that was interfering with their rights and mostly their commercial rights. Ownership of property was also a problem that the bourgeoisie class attributed to federal interference which directly affected their ability to control the means of production.

This class of the wealthy controlled the economic elements in the society and consequently the industrial revolution in the 1750-1850 (Fernandez-Armesto 9). They controlled and influenced the business activities and all economic functions and they became very influential in the political directions taken by the governments. The formation of this class, which controlled the wealth of the entire community, formed the basis of Marxism theory of the minority wealthy individuals at the expense of the majority poor people.

Marxist theories of imperialism, the evolution of a concept

Marxism was based on materialistic interpretation of the historical political development and the view of social interactions in the 19^th century (Fernandez-Armesto 12). Marxist interpretations have shaped quite a number of political ideologies in the past.

According to the Marxists, the means of production are the component of social interaction and social development primarily depends on them (Fernandez-Armesto 12). It is through the means of production that social phenomena such as social development, political and legal systems, ethical and moral obligations are formed (Fernandez-Armesto 19).

Marxists view capitalism as the imbalance between appropriations of the means of production where the small minority political class controls the largest share (Fernandez-Armesto 12). These minority private owners of the means of production are called the bourgeoisie.

These imbalances led to the social revolution as the conflict between the two antagonistic social classes intensified (Fernandez-Armesto 11). The conflict eventually resulted into a new system of ownership that was more inclusive compared to the imperial model. The people enforced through revolution the model of cumulatively owning the means of production termed as cooperative ownership.

Distribution of profits and benefits in cooperatives was based on personal contribution. Marx however theorized that as this new model of ownership advanced, there was a possibility that the society was taking a communist direction where the means of production will be under common ownership (Fernandez-Armesto 11). This meant that there will be no class and the society will be living in a principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (Kinzer 14).

Dependency theory and World Systems theory

Dependency theory is a good interpretation of imperialism. In this theory, the wealthy states exploit resources from the poor resources. This enriches the former at the expense of the former creating a huge economic disparity (Kinzer 23). This theory explains why the rich and wealthy states continue to flourish while the poor states remain poor or even worse. This theory was developed in response to the modernization theory that argued that all states go through similar stages of development.

The developed countries argued that their responsibility in helping the underdeveloped world was in investments and technology transfer. The dependency theory disapproved this view arguing that the wealthy countries are not helping the undeveloped ones rather they are putting them in a defenseless position economically (Fernandez-Armesto 11).

The world system theory similarly is a modern imperialistic tactic. This theory divides the entire world into three worlds. They include the core countries, the semi-peripheral countries, and the peripheral countries (Kinzer 23).

The core states are the developed countries, which deals with the high skill capital-intensive production (Kinzer 20). The other two worlds are left with the low-skill labor-intensive production, which include the mining of raw resources (Kinzer 20). These two theories, which are based on Marxism theory, have contributed to making imperialism inevitable.

Conclusion

Marxism theory has defined and influenced most of the existing political philosophies all over the world. Maxim theories greatly foretold the inevitability of the imperial and capitalist models of governance which are still experienced today especially within the developing worlds. The view of the wealthy dominating the poor as well as wealthy nations enforcing their culture and civilization of the poorest countries is a good example of progressive imperialism which is evident to date.

The power of music is not fully appreciated. For hundreds of years, the art of music has evolved from modest one note beats to complex layers of multiple notes. Music might have started simply as a form of audible entertainment. But, since then, it has also become a tool for propaganda and a powerful instrument to influence people.

Music has inspired great artists and philosophers and, in some cases, the great artists and philosophers have served as the muses for some of the rich, multisensory music we know and admire today. This is true when one compares and analyzes the philosophy of Karl Marx to musician John Lennons composition entitled Imagine.

In 1971, John Lennon released his popular single Imagine. At present, Imagine is still very popular. The lyrics provide topics for discussion that are still relevant today. The song Imagine is a dream. It is an idea that living in a utopian world is possible. It can be argued that Karl Marxs ideas influenced the creation of the said song. The proponent of this paper will defend this assertion by analyzing both the lyrics to the song and the idea of Karl Marx.

At the same time, the following question will be answered: 1) Why has this song become so popular and why does it have a great appeal on listeners?; 2) Is it possible to build and live in a utopian world based on the ideas of Karl Marx?; and 3) With regards to the interpretation of the lyrics and the interpretation of Marxs ideas, how was it applied in a real world setting?

Lennons Imagine

The popularity of John Lennons Imagine never waned from its release in 1971 to the present day. There are only a few songs that endured the test of time. Songs that remained relevant are not ordinary songs but works of art that are meaningful and evoke a great deal of emotions from its listeners.

It is important to determine the popularity of the song before it can be connected to Karl Marx. The simplest explanation with regards to its popularity is the Beatles phenomenon of the 1960s. If John Lennons band, the Beatles, was very popular in the 1960s, then, the name Lennon is easily recognizable a decade later.

It can be argued that there were numerous fans of the Beatles that were still interested in the lives of the former band members. Therefore, when it was announced that John Lennons produced a new album and that one of the songs in that album is a composition entitled Imagine, it was easy to understand why a horde of loyal fans will buy the album. However, to attribute the popularity of the song to the Beatles phenomenon is not entirely correct because many year later, people continue to listen to the said composition.

Another possible explanation is the charisma and talent of John Lennon himself. It is important to point out that even without the Beatles, Lennon can easily become an influential and popular artist. According to one historian, he was a mass-mediated star, a creation of his time, a construction who was discussed and debated in public and given meanings by other people (Makela 236).

Lennons legendary status in the music industry is a valid explanation for the popularity of the song. But there were other artists who were accorded the same status as Lennon and yet some of their songs are not as popular anymore. Therefore, the popularity of the song Imagine must also be attributed to the song itself. A very good explanation can be seen through the following commentary:

The genius of this composition is the marriage of Lennons controversial lyrics, that is, imagination of a world without religion or civil states among other things, with instrumental music that could very well have accompanied the sentimental, melodramatic compositions of the pre-rock era. The tension in this song is created by the juxtapositions of a pretty and understated melody with a radical message (Bielen 90).

In other words, this song is well-crafted work of art. It was not done haphazardly. There was a clear purpose in the mind of the composer and lyricist. There was a reason why a particular melody was used. More importantly, the words were not chosen in random. This particular song is an anthem. It is a declaration that emanated from the heart of Lennon. Thus, this song was not created for entertainment purposes only. It was created to influence people.

The popularity of the song is not just due to the appeal of Lennon and the beauty of the melody. The song continues to be popular because of the radical message it contains. Consider the first few lines of the song. It provides a suggestion to the listener and invites him to imagine that there is no heaven.

The impact of the first salvo was cushioned by the assuring words that it is not difficult. It went on to suggest that there is no hell and ends with an equally radical assertion that there is nothing above but only sky. If taken together the song challenges the normal conventions of society.

Lennon made the declaration that there is no God. The end result, according to Lennon, is a mindset that is only preoccupied with the present (Wesson 21). One can just imagine the impact of these lyrics to those who were brought up in a religious manner. Consider the reaction of church leaders who can easily characterize the song as sacrilegious. But Lennon was just warming up.

Lennon did not spare the politicians and the leaders of civil society. The songs second stanza provided another set of radical messages. The composer suggested that there is no such thing as a geopolitical state. Lennon believed that politics and obsession with nationalities and ethnicities are the major causes of conflict. Lennon made the declaration that if nations eradicate the concept of a national state, then, those who believe will experience life in peace (

In the first three stanzas, Lennon made the suggestion to eradicate the concept of religion and nationality in order to live in the moment and to live a life of peace. But, in the process, Lennon did not only suggest the destruction of social institutions. Lennon also challenged the root cause of inequality.

In his mind, poverty is the result of greed. If people learn how to live every moment as if it was there last, then, they have understood the essence of the song. However, it is imperative that Lennon must provide an alternative scenario if national governments are no longer functional.

In the latter part of the song, Lennon offered a solution. He said that people should have no possession. It must be clarified that the alternative solution to the problem is to establish a utopian society wherein the citizens are prevent from acquiring non-essentials. In other words, Lennon wanted to remove these vices because these are not pre-requisites. These factors continue to influence thinkers and philosophers alike.

Karl Marx

It can be argued that John Lennon was influenced by the writings of Karl Marx (Elster 12). The lyrics found in the latter part of the song suggest a utopian world, a world that can be created using the ideas found in Karl Marxs work. It was Marx who provided a clear understanding of social forces that shaped the modern world.

He traced the root cause of the problem to conflict between different groups of people in a particular society. At the latter part of the discussion, more people became aware of the futility of traditional social conventions. Marx was a German philosopher who lived in London. He was convinced that at the core of the problem is the struggle between social classes (Williams 25).

Marx philosophy was a byproduct of his time. He was deeply affected by the circumstances that surrounded him. For example, he saw the impact of urban sprawl as well as the contentious relationships between an employer and employee (Popkin & Stroll 16). Marx said that social stratification is not practical and effective. Marx also suggested that it in order to experience a radical transformation it is important to remove all social institutions that are supposed to help people but in reality caused them pain.

The primary goal, therefore, is to eradicate these social institutions and replace it with a utopian community based on the ideas of Karl Marx (Gillham 34).

A Marxist form of utopia was expected because of the removal of social norms that was believed to be the root cause of the problem. But when applied in a real world setting, the experiment in the former Soviet Union and Cambodia failed. Consider, for instance, the impact of Marxism in the former Soviet Union and their failed attempt to develop a utopian society:

Seven decades have passed since the Bolsheviks came to power, but Soviet society is still poorer than the capitalist West and not very egalitarian, either. Alas, much of the history of the USSR may be thought of in terms of social catastrophe  war, famine, poverty, heartless administration, and militaristic expansion. Only after the death of Stalin in 1953 did a more humanitarian spirit prevail and the well-being of the people received due attention (Matthews, 1989).

In the case of Cambodia, the revolution was led by a mad man called Pol Pot. He too wanted to build a utopian society. Pol Pot believed that it is only possible to build a Marxist utopian world through the total eradication of social classes. He incorporated Marxism into his mental framework.

But Pol Pot went further and did not only develop a political party to support his views; he also initiated the mass murder of intellectuals, the professionals and the middle-class of Cambodia. During that time period Pol Pot was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and their bodies were dumped in what will be known all over the world as the killing fields (Pouvatchy 440).

When Pol Pot secured his political and military power, he went on to build a utopian society free from the social stratification found in most countries. He envisioned a society without professional titles and without a hierarchy (Zacek 21). Everyone was supposed to have equal stats. More importantly, he abhorred technology and ostentatious display of wealth.

Pol Pot did not succeed in the creation of a utopian society. In fact, he subjected Cambodia to terror. There was no happiness and there was no peace. When social conventions were removed a utopian society was not immediately created afterwards. But instead of creating a blissful community, the absence of social conventions resulted in chaos, poverty and violence (Gamble 1993).

In the case of the former Soviet Union and Pol Pots Cambodia, there were deliberate steps made to ensure that there should be no dominant social class. The Soviets boasted of a centralized government because they believed that a government must serve its people and not the other way around. But, instead of the creation of a utopian society, the centralized governance of the Soviet Union created problems for the people.

In the struggle for equality, the Soviets inadvertently proved that there is no such a thing as a utopian society that can be built on the basis of principles gleaned from the study of Marxism. But it was able to prove that coercion and manipulation cannot be sustained in the long run. It is much better to govern people without the need to intimidate and coerce. Another major realization is that it is impossible to build a utopian society where people do not work. The dreamy existence that Lennon envisioned is impossible to accomplish.

It is interesting to note that although Pol Pot did not hear the song composed by John Lennon, Pol Pot successfully developed a way to apply the principles seen in the song. Pol Pot did not believe in God as well as heaven and hell but Pol Pot made the attempt to personally apply ideas that he believed will lead to the creation of a utopian society. But he was wrong and as a result, the whole nation suffered due to various unintended consequences.

It can be argued that in order to establish a utopian society, the primary requirement is revolution. In the case of Pol Pot realized that a utopian society is only possible if he can turn Cambodia upside-down. But Pol Pots major miscalculation is the need for many people to die.

Lennons goal was three-fold. He wanted people to live in the moment. Lennon dreamed of a society where people are not forced to work like those workers in the factory. But, in the case of Cambodia and Pol Pot, the people had to work as farmers. They had to perform back-breaking labor in order to support the community. The same thing can be said about the inefficient production models of the former Soviet Union.

John Lennon had another dream. He wanted people to live in peace. But the application of Marxism in countries like Cambodia, China, Russia and North Korea produced a great deal of conflict within their respective societies. In a godless state like North Korea and the former Soviet Union, it required heavy military presence in order for people to behave in a certain way. John Lennon had another dream. He wanted a brotherhood of man. But, so far, there was no evidence that the application of Marxism had created such a community.

Conclusion

John Lennons song entitled Imagine is very popular because of its radical message. Lennon wanted to apply Marxism in order to develop a utopian society. But it can be easily ascertained that there was no successful experiment that was reported in history. Tyrants like Pol Pot saw an opportunity to build a utopian society but failed. The absence of religion and other social conventions can cause confusion, panic and great harm to society.

Works Cited

Bielen, Kenneth. The Lyrics of Civility. New York: Routledge.

Elster, John. Karl Marx. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Print.

Gamble, Andrew. Marxism and Social Science. Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1993. Print.

Gillham, Oliver. The Limitless City. Washington, D.C.: New Jersey: Island Press, 2002. Print.

Makela, Janne. John Lennon Imagined. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2004. Print.

Matthews, Mervyn. Patterns of Deprivation in the Soviet Union under Brezhnev and Gorbachev. CA: Hoover Press, 1989.

Popkin, Richard and Avrum Stroll. Philosophy Made Simple. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Print.

Pouvatchy, Joseph. Cambodian-Vietnamese Relations. Asian Survey 26.4 (1986): 440-451. Print.

Wesson, Robert. Lenins Legacy: The Story of the CPSU. CA: Hoover Press, 1978. Print.

Williams, Andre. Marxism and Social Science. IL: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Print.

Introduction

The Marxism philosophy is the brainchild of Karl Marx with the assistance of Friedrich Engels in the mid-nineteenth century. Nevertheless, Marxism philosophy is more synonymous with the philosopher Karl Marx. Marx was a German-born philosopher, political economist, and sociologist. The Marxist theory was mainly a product of studies that were aimed at investigating the working class citizens and the role that they play in society. The basis of the Marxism philosophy is contained within The Communist Manifesto, a book by both Marx and Engels in 1848. The books main ideas alluded to the element of class struggles in the then European society.

The advent of Marxism philosophy coincided with the burgeoning industrial revolution. The oppression of the working class citizens was a major issue in the nineteenth century. Eventually, Europe became the playground of social revolutions and this situation only added credence to Marxism. There have been concerns that the original intentions and constituents of Marxism philosophy have been altered over time. This essay outlines the intentions of the nineteenth century Marxism philosophy including some of its most prominent constituents.

Marxism Philosophy

One of the core ideologies behind the concept of Marxism is that of social reality. Marx and Engels are the brains behind this philosophy and they were both interested in representations of social realities. Engels was of the view that most social philosophies had the right intentions but they were motivated by false unconsciousness. Therefore, the real motive forces impelling people to do things are mostly unknown to them (Balibar, 2013, p. 18).

This translates into a situation where most social studies are not purely ideological but subtle nudges from unknown forces. According to the original Marxism philosophy, most of the prevailing social ideas are mainly motivated by the needs of the ruling class. Therefore, it is likely that the ideas of the ruling class will always control the entire society and also form a superstructure of the said society. The conclusion was that the ideology of a society is of enormous importance since it confuses the alienated groups and can create false consciousness such as commodity fetishism (Sperber, 2013). The underlining factor in Marxism philosophy is that the ideologies that are given credit for social consciousness are not reliable in the long run.

Another prominent concept in Marxism philosophy is the fact that all human beings have needs and wants. Consequently, the hallmark of all societies is to align its production abilities in a manner that matches the needs and wants of its people. Marx was of the view that historical data indicates that the goal of all past societies has been to improve their position using all available means. This ideology also indicates that the only reason why political and ideological concepts exist in history is to impact social improvement. However, Marxism also notes that the needs, desires, and demands of different social classes often clash or contradict with those of others (Haldane, 2016).

For example, when the business-owning class strives to make bigger profits, the working class could suffer from this desire when they earn lower wages. Low wages translate into higher profits for business owners and lower satisfaction for the workers. Early Marxism is premised upon the concept of class struggle and this is also the basis of Marxs view on other relevant factors. According to Marx, the ruling class is at the center of the class struggle because in all societies this group controls the means of production and/or capital.

In capitalist societies, it is common for capital to be in the hands of private citizens and not by state agents or the working class. The group that owns or controls capital is also the group that dominates other social aspects. For example, in most capitalist societies the wealth holders also happen to be the dominant players in democratic and parliamentary forms of government. Therefore, the semblance of equality of classes in capitalist societies is a fallacy. Nineteenth-century Marxism indicated that even the existing political systems are designed to give an impression of equal representation and democracy when the truth is that these institutions only support the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Nineteenth-century Marxism uses the concept of base-structure to underline the idea of social versus economic production. According to Engels and Marx, the two philosophers behind Marxism, base-structure is the concept that is used to explain the wholeness of peoples relationships with regards to how the social production of their existence creates the economic basis for legal and political institutions (Sperber, 2013, p. 59).

On the other hand, the concept of base-structure is corresponded by different forms of social consciousness including philosophical, religious, and other leading social ideologies. The base-structure concept is in charge of conditioning both social consciousnesses and superstructures. The class struggle is embodied within a perpetual development whereby there is a conflict between opposing forces. For instance, the conflict between productive forces and the factors of production is the main cause of social revolutions.

Furthermore, the result of any social revolution is a change in economic alignment and the subsequent alteration of superstructures. Marxism considers any changes in the superstructure not to be a definite process but a reflexive one. In this case, the superstructure does not change completely but is always remains as the basis of any social organization. The concept of how the base relates to the superstructure has henceforth been used as a basis for scientific and historical socialism.

In the early days, the Marxism philosophy was mainly concerned with the method of production and its related concepts (Schrift & Conway, 2014). Some of these close relations include having humans as means of production, tools, labor, power, land, and raw materials. Although these aspects are the material factors of production, Marxism also includes socially inclined elements in regards to the aforementioned process. For instance, several social concepts affect production including the control relations that govern the core assets of any society. Social production elements are often entrenched within a society in the form of laws that govern associations, cooperation, and other forms of relations.

Although these laws give the impression that there is a means of protecting individual interests, they mostly work by protecting the interests of certain classes while ignoring those of other ones. The concept of production methods is also closely related to that of a political economy.

Before Marx came up with the Marxist philosophy, he had mostly worked as a political economist. Political economy was a concept that mostly referred to the analysis of the circumstances under which production was controlled in the context of a capitalist nation. Consequently, the political economy is concentrated on the modes of human activity that manipulate materials and distribute surplus or deficits of the production process (Haldane, 2016). Political economies were major determinants of the resulting form of both capitalistic and political climates within any society. The political economy also determined how the revolutions of the 1800s began and ended.

Marxism has since become synonymous with economic factors as opposed to the other issues of class and historical economies. However, the nineteenth-century Marxism has strong connections to economic analysis. Karl Marx gives credence to the importance of economic systems in Marxism through his book, Das Kapital. In this book, the philosopher turns more to the concepts of classical economists than to those of philosophers. However, in this branch of Marxism, the author mostly concentrates on the concept of surplus-value. The main principle in Das Kapital is that human beings are productive by nature. Therefore, the key to the well being of any economy is the value it derives from human labor. Within the realm of Marxism, economic aspects can be considered as either relative or wholesome.

Conclusion

Nineteenth-century Marxism was a prominent philosophy that touched on several disciplines including politics, history, and economics. Although the development of this philosophy is mostly attributed to Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels also made significant contributions. The main argument in the classical form of this theory is that society develops through phases, but capitalism is always a determinant of this progress. Social struggles are also brought about by the need to realign the methods of ownership among other economic foundations. Eventually, several aspects of Marxism have changed but class struggles have remained constant. The class that controls capital also controls society by default. Furthermore, workers are likely to be exploited for profit to be increased.

References

Balibar, E. (2013). Masses, classes, ideas: Studies on politics and philosophy before and after Marx. London, UK: Routledge.

Haldane, B. (2016). The Marxist philosophy and the sciences. London, UK: Routledge.

Schrift, A. D., & Conway, D. (2014). Nineteenth-century philosophy: Revolutionary responses to the existing Order. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sperber, J. (2013). Karl Marx: A nineteenth-century life. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.

The international political economy deals with economics and politics, in the world matters. It seeks to understand the driving forces of the economy and the key actors in the world economy. Gilpin (265) asserts that politics largely determine economic activities. This paper looks at three schools of political economy; Marxism, liberalism and mercantilism, while identifying their similarities and differences.

Marxists and Liberals on Politics and Economics

Marxists assert that the world economy is characterized by competition. They believe in capitalism, and argue that economic relations are determined by class struggle between capitalists (oppressors) and the working class (oppressed). The capitalists own means of production, and are rich. Capitalists embark on increasing their profits by exploiting the working class, who in turn enhance their struggle in the competition (Gilpin 270).

They use their wealth to set the standards of the political economy. Eventually, the non-capitalists submit to their order. Liberals believe in existence of a free market. Their emphasis is on free trade and movement of capital, which allow flow of investment. In this class of economy, countries are able to exploit natural resources and benefit from specialization.

The economy is enhanced by availability of currencies that can be freely exchanged as well as open markets. Marxists and liberals assume that the state is a significant instrument in the world economy. It exists to resolve conflicts that occur in the world economy. They oppose the managerial conception of a state. The two also agree that a free market is advantageous, as long as there is an invisible hand (policies) to control the market.

Marxists, Mercantilists and Liberals

The mercantilists believe in a competitive economy whereby there are many actors in the market. The strong states are able to survive in competitive markets, whereas the weak ones are pushed out of the competitive markets. According to the mercantilists, it is a scenario of survival for the fittest.

The states with the most power are the ones that set the rules as well as limits to the economy. This is done through ways such as alliances and hegemony. In this competition; states endeavor to maximize their wealth, as well as independence. This is achieved through the creation of self-sufficiency in key industries, and protecting trade through tariffs and quota systems.

There is minimal order in such an economy, and it is upon the governments to enhance smooth operations in the markets (Gilpin 275). They should come up with strong economic policies to enhance these operations. It is worth noting that corruption and ignorance lead to poor economic policies. Marxists and mercantilists agree that the world economy is competitive.

They also look at the aim of this competition as a desire to have profits. Furthermore, there are groups which benefit more than others, in this competition. However, liberals do not look at the economy as a competition realm. They look at it as a free arena whereby everyone can participate in the economy.

Principle Actors of Political Economy

The principal actors in the mercantilist school are the states. They compete to eliminate others and the strong states survive in this competition. In the Marxism, the core actors are the classes (capitalists and workers) as well as the social groups (Gilpin 280). Governments and economic actors are the key elements in the economy, according to liberalism.

The governments provide favorable policies for free trade. Marxists and mercantilist theorists believe that competition is significant for a robust world economy. On the contrary, liberal theorists view free trade as the best characteristics of international economic interactions.

In essence, there are various actors in the political economy and different schools of thought in the world economy. A country should follow a school that best suits its economy so as to survive in the competitive global arena.

Works Cited

Gilpin, Robert. Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.Print.

Introduction

Governance is a challenging issue throughout the world. This is mainly because people come from different cultures. Moreover, the varying cultures bestow different behaviors in them. Therefore, they have different perspectives about politics. Political philosophy explores links between societies and individuals. It tries to ensure that everyone is satisfied through good governance in society.

However, achieving good governance is the most difficult challenge in life. This is because it encompasses numerous variables. Society needs are many and diverse; it therefore requires critical thinking and deliberations in order to succeed. This paper will explore various political theories, their similarities and differences. It will also pick on the best political philosophy.

Political Theories

Over the years, different political theories have been proposed. These include socialism, liberalism, conservatism and anarchism, among others. These theories try to define relationship between societies and individuals. In this sense, the theories consider freedom, its limits, speech and action. Political theories consider situations when governments can act against their citizens and vice versa.

In essence, it encompasses peoples lives and governance. In this regard, several philosophers and theorists have come up with varying political theories aimed at achieving good governance. These are Plato, Marx, Hobbes and Locke, among others.

Their theories have a number of similarities although they diverge in many areas. Evidently, they chose these theories with a view to attaining a perfect society and governance. However, it is important to note that these thoughts have drawn a number of criticisms. This is attributed to diversity and individual needs, which varies.

Plato

Plato was a Greek philosopher who is credited with western philosophy. He is also credited with science in western world. Plato lived between 428 and 358 BC. His works were prominent in his period. They included philosophies in recurrent themes, metaphysics, among others. His political theory was based on meritocracy.

Meritocracy was based on the fact that an individual could not provide alone, he/she had to incorporate help of others. In this sense, Plato believed that good governance could only be achieved through metocracy. Moreover, he campaigned for paternalistic theory. According to Plato, a ruler should govern people and this ruler should be the smartest of all. He believed that two steps could be utilized to find this person (ruler).

The first step involves universal education, where everyone is subjected to some form of education, which evens out his or her natural advantages. After which, tests can be given to determine the smartest. Plato also believed that smart people could become smarter through hard study and intelligence. He therefore proposed that this person should become ruler or governor of society.

The governor is to dictate society values, and rule on among other issues right/wrong and right to choose good parents. In addition, the governor should not be allowed to own property, marry or farm. Moreover, he believed that an individual could rule irrespective of race or sex.

Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher. He lived between 1588 and 1679. He was popular for political philosophy, which is credited for western philosophy in politics. He believed in social contract theory, which emphasized the need for people to give up their rights and allow for governments. In essence, he believed in absolute sovereignty.

He also believed in some form of liberalism. According to him, human nature caused him/her to be selfish. Therefore, they needed a government that could protect them from others. He therefore believed in government for protection of people. However, he believed in a democratic government that would ensure good governance.

Hobbes believed that society would give up virtually everything to move out of state of nature. Moreover, he believed that all governments are good. Hobbes also believed that good laws help people while bad laws hurt them.

He also thought that a world without government would be detrimental to society as everyone would then do as he or she chooses. In essence, he believed that human nature could not allow them to rule themselves due to selfishness. Therefore, he chose government as the best option since it created order in society.

Locke

John Locke was an English Philosopher. He lived between 1632 and 1704. He was well known for liberalism thoughts, which gave him the famous name, father of Liberalism. Like Hobbes, Locke also had socialist contract views albeit with some modifications. He believed in human nature and considered them selfish. However, his belief on selfish nature of man was not absolute.

This is because of his liberal thinking which believed in a rational man. According to Locke, people had the capability of living without government. He thought that rational people had ethical principles that could enable them to govern themselves. He also believed that ethical principles could tell people what to do. He also diverged from Hobbes thoughts on social contract by saying that agreements had limits.

In essence, citizens would not give up everything; there are things they hold to whatever happens. He therefore emphasized that life without a government meant a state of nature.

He also believed that citizens and government were like two sides with demand. In that regard, the government could do things against citizens if their demands were not met. Similarly, citizens could also act against government to demand their needs. Even though Plato believed in best government, Locke did not.

Marx

Karl Marx was a German philosopher. He lived between 1818 and 1883. He was also an economist, historian, sociologist and journalist. He is credited for socialist revolution and had a significant role in social science. Some of his notable works were in communist manifesto and capital. His theories were known collectively as Marxism. In this regard, he held that societies would only progress through conflict of class struggle.

He was strongly opposed to capitalism. Marx also believed that socioeconomic systems were prone to clashes than socialism. According to him, self-destruction of capitalism was inevitable and people would come back to socialism. He criticized hypothetical philosophy as well as evaluating ideology and metaphysics.

He believed in human nature but stressed that it could be transformed through history and interaction with others and material objects. He believed that capitalism was based on two principles namely laws of supply and demand as well as survival for the fittest. He categorized social classes in capitalism. According to him, social class was hinged on the relationship between class and their means of production.

In this sense, proletariat sold labor power for salaries and therefore did not own means of production. He also pointed out that Bourgeoisie owned the means of production and therefore exploited proletariat. Moreover, small proprietors were known as Peti Bourgeoisie.

Those who had no stake in economic systems were considered as Lumpenproletariat. Landlords were considered important as opposed to peasants. He therefore identified stages of development namely, primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism.

Similarities

These theories have a number of similarities. These include belief in human nature as is seen with Hobbes, Locke and Marx. In this sense, the three theorists believe in human nature. It is also important to note that these group of theorists also believed in the fact that people are selfish. Another point of convergence in these philosophical thoughts was on government.

They all concurred that some form of government was necessary irrespective of the method. It can then be said that they had confidence in a society, which is governed albeit with different structures of governance. Another element of concurrence in these theories is on protection of people and property. Every form of governance proposed by the theorists was aimed at protecting people and their property.

Differences

Political philosophy theories have differences based on their structures and theorists. For instance, as much as the three theorists Hobbes, Locke and Marx believed in human nature, they differed on its influence. While Hobbes believed in human nature, he also insisted that they are selfish and this behavior could not allow them to govern each other.

On the other hand, Locke believes that as much as human are selfish, they also posses rational aspects, which enables them to note wrong things. Plato on the other hand did not believe in human nature, instead, he emphasized on metocracy. Moreover, even though Marx believed in human nature, he stressed more on the fact that they could be transformed through interaction with material objects.

These political theories also differed on the form of government. For instance, Marx gave stages of development in a society which transverses from primitive communism, through capitalism to communism.

On the other hand, Plato believed on a ruler or governor with all powers to dictate social values, right/wrong, among others. Contrariwise, Hobbes believed in an absolute sovereign government, which dictates and protects its citizens. This was also slightly different from Lockes version; he believed that government had a trivial role to play in society.

It is also quite important to note that Plato considered governance to be based on intelligence. In fact, he believed that only the smartest could govern society. This thought is different from that of Hobbes who thought that man is selfish and therefore cannot manage himself, he insisted on a government for all irrespective of their thoughts. He believed that people would give up everything for governance.

On the contrary, Locke believed in a rational man, even though he could be selfish and therefore gave chance to a society without government. Marx on the other hand thought of transforming human nature and society that relates to means of production. In the process, he came up with various stages of development that defines system of government.

Plato believed in best government, which could be attained through universal education and tests, on the other hand, Hobbs and Locke did not. While Hobbs believed that all governments were good, Locke did not, instead he thought of it as an optional need.

However, Marx believed in classes defined by economic system. From all the theories above, it is very clear that Platos political philosophy emphasized heavily on dictatorial system in which one man decides everything. The system looks perfect and unrealistic since people give up too much rights and responsibility to governor.

Choice

From the given theories, it can be noted that they all have advantages and disadvantages. For instance, Platos theory promises a lot in terms of efficiency and perfection although this is unrealistic. Hobbes on the other hand gives a political system in which people are not trusted. Surprisingly, they are given opportunity to lead the government. This is quite difficult to understand as the same people who are selfish lead government.

Lockes theory on the other hand gives chance to democracy and rationale of men. However, he also puts too much faith in people to be able to govern themselves. Marx on the other hand describes a political system through class, which is defined by economic systems. Therefore, I would choose Marxs theory since it defines most contemporary governing systems and rewards hard work although it has disadvantages too.

Reasons for Choice

People come from diverse backgrounds. Just like the theorists, they have different philosophical thoughts on governance. Some people love aristocracy, where everyone does whatever they want. Others love variously capitalism, socialism and feudalism, among others. This discredits Platos system of governance, which expects people to have a single thought, which is forced on everyone by a dictator.

Moreover, it discredits Hobbs theory, which thinks that people can give up everything for a state of nature. This is untrue from experience since people tend to cling to some values, which are valuable to them. Moreover, not all governments are good, some commit atrocities on their citizens. Lockes theory is also less attractive since it gives too much power to people in the name of ethical principles.

Therefore, it is Marx theory that realizes diversity and upholds it in relation to means of production. In this sense, it is obvious that we cannot have a perfect world. Again, we cannot have a self-governing society because we need protection against inversion. Therefore, the best political philosophy is Marxism.

Conclusion

The world is diverse with different cultures. Similarly, people have varying thoughts, which defines how they relate to environment. Society therefore requires a form of government that realizes these differences and upholds them for success. Otherwise, clashes can be realized in most societies with repressions and its repercussions.

Platos theory works on metocracy model, which emphasizes dictatorship by the smartest of all people. This is quite unrealistic since people have different skills and cannot accept dictatorship. Hobbes theory on the other hand believes that all governments are good and must be in place to create order. This is hypothetical since there are governments that perpetuate atrocities.

Locke shares Hobbs sentiments although he believes that people are rational. This is true although it must be considered that being rational is not an obligation and therefore people can do things against their principles for selfish reasons too.

Clearly, the only possible system is Marx, which accommodates various classes of people with regards to their means of production. This theory rewards those who work hard and tries to balance the chain of command. It should be noted that it also has its disadvantages, which include exploitation of the poor, among others.

Karl Marx is the founder of new doctrine and the author, together with Friedrich Engels, of the Communist Manifesto (1848), one of the most influential documents in the history of humankind. The Manifesto contains a brilliant analysis of capitalisms specifics, a description of various classes, and objective laws of social development. It has become the principal program document of the first communist organization. Marx and Engels dedicated their work to not only present the concept of socialism as the only way any society can progress. The documents vital part discusses proletarian education as determined by the material living conditions and social relations (Wang 960). Moreover, Marx believed that by educating the working class the capitalism would dissolve, and the society would transition into socialism with the proletariat as the ruling class.

To better understand Marxs stance on education, it is crucial to look at how he outlines the capitalist social structure. The Communist Manifesto separates the working class, or proletariat, from the bourgeoisie, a small social group represented by the wealthy, who owns most of the societys land, properties, and means of production. The working class in the capitalist world does not have access to education and is viewed by the bourgeoisie as tools to ensure a successful production process (Wang). To some extent, the Manifesto stresses that the wealthy are afraid to educate farmers and factory workers since the consciousness improved by knowledge will result in the ruling class overturning the present regime. In this sense, Marx presented education as a tool that will eventually lead the exploited working class to resist. The Manifesto sees the final goal of socialism as the proletariats triumph over the bourgeoisie and the abolition of social classes (Floyd 4). Therefore, communism is acting as a stepping stone or an aggressive revolutionary movement that would eventually lead to a happy socialistic state.

Marx and Engels started the Manifesto with an impactful phrase about a ghost that is threatening Europe. In other words, communism, or the specter, is believed to have the power to change the current societys structure and the economic system known as capitalism (Cole 6). The phrase is wide-known because it serves as the introduction to the action plan for a communist movement.

Marx and Engels work was published at the right time because it had an enormous influence on people. The Manifesto so moved the public that Marx was forced by the German government to leave the country. The Manifesto also gave rise to the social movement and the 1871 Paris commune (Cole). Moreover, it became the basis for the revolution in 1917 in Russia, when Marxs theories came to life. The proletariat was provided with an education that gave them the capacity to govern as the ruling class (Brown 6). Thus, learning was claimed to be accessible to everyone and not only to a small part of society.

While being generally correct about the unjust distribution of power, Marx and Engels did not foresee the emergence of the middle class. There is an impression that the ideas presented in the Manifesto were too broad, which led to various, often very extreme, interpretations of what communism and socialism should involve. It also may seem that the document is overemphasizing the working class and taking its side. However, it is vital to understand that when the Manifesto was written, Europe was undergoing a severe transformation that was historically inevitable. Therefore, while being critiqued by many as too general, the Manifesto is still a crucial document that provided a basis for societal change and improved the educational system.

Works Cited

Brown, Martin. Is There a Marxist Perspective on Education? Culture Matters, 2018, Web.

Cole, Nicki L. The Main Points of The Communist Manifesto. ThoughtCo, 2019, Web.

Floyd, David. What is the Difference Between Communism and Socialism? Investopedia, 2020, Web.

Wang, Gaohe. The Enlightenment of the Educational Thought of the Communist Manifesto to Postgraduate Education. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, vol. 71, 2018, pp. 960963.

Marxism is an ideology that has been around since the year 1917. Created by Karl Marx himself, Marxism revolves around the idea of economics and how it relates to class. Terry Eagleton who wrote the article ‘Marxism and Literary Criticism’ defined Marxism as a scientific theory of human societies and of the practice of transforming them; and what that means, rather more concretely, is that the narrative Marxism has to deliver is the story of the struggles of men and women to free themselves from certain forms of exploitation and oppression. The Marxist theory can be applied to Toni Morrison’s short story ‘Recitatif”. The story ‘Recitatif’ is about two young girls Twyla and Roberta who were best friends, they both grew up in an orphanage where they were forced to live due to the economic status of both their parents. Additionally, they were both separate races and learned how to grow up in the Civil Rights-era America. Their journey stemmed from their young years in the orphanage to the adult years of becoming mothers with children. As time passes, by they both reunited with each other at different places and each time they met up they both had different economic standings. When analyzed using the lens of the Marxist criticism, Toni Morrison’s ‘Recitatif’ serves as a perfect example of the Marxist theory through the changing and different economic positions of both girls Twyla and Roberta. Social class is a hybrid topic throughout Marxist criticism. David Shirley who wrote ‘Critical Theory Today’ stated social class is described as the main outcome for happiness and struggle. David Shirley uses the terms ‘upper class’ and ‘lower class’ to define the struggles depicted in the text.

Firstly, at the beginning of the story ‘Recitatif’, the main characters Twyla and Roberta are in an orphanage. They live in semi-decent conditions, with “four to a room” and food such as “spam, Salisbury steak-even jello with fruit cocktail in it”. At this point in the story, the two would be classified as proletariats. According to the Marxist theory, both Twyla and Roberta would be labeled as a lower class because they do not live in the most suitable conditions and they are limited to what they can eat and do. However, another part in the story that can be a distinction between both girls’ social class is when Twyla liked the orphanage’s cooking while on the other hand Roberta did not, this can be an indication that maybe Twyla is from a poorer social status; so, therefore, people would think she is black and would eat anything while Roberta is depicted to be white because she is from a much higher class than Twyla.

Later in the story ‘Recitatif’, the two girl’s mothers visit and have lunch with them. Mary who is Twyla’s mom did not bring anything to the visit, because Twyla’s mom didn’t bring anything to this, the two girls “picked fur and cellophane grass off the mashed jelly beans and ate them”. It can be concluded that she did not bring anything because of her current economic status. Due to this, the Marxist theory would classify Twyla’s mom as being of the lower class, in which she “suffers the ills of economic privation”. In contrast, Roberta’s mother “brought chicken legs and ham sandwiches and oranges and a whole box of chocolate-covered Graham’s”. Even though Roberta’s mom brought food for her unlike Twyla’s mom, she would still be considered as lower class. According to the Marxist theory, she is limited to what she can bring, which means that she is “struggling to support her daughter”. This deems true when Roberta is originally sent to an orphanage, reinforcing the idea that her mother was living in substandard economic conditions.

As the story advances these girls were not in a situation where they were considered the high class. They spent the next few years at the orphanage and then went out into the world. Twyla found a new line of work – “working behind the counter at the Howard Johnson’s”. This proof has demonstrated Twyla’s monetary position has changed since she moved out of the orphanage. Utilizing the Marxist focal point Twyla would now be classified as being the working class, expressing that she has “more financial stability than the lower classes” because of her current economic conditions. Moreover, Roberta, on the other hand, has expanded her financial status also. She currently has “a powder-blue strap and shorts outfit and hoops the size of bracelets”. Much the same as Twyla, Roberta’s new financial position would classify her white-collar class also. Lois Tyson wrote in her journal, ‘Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide’, that Marxism “economics is the base on which the superstructure of social/political/ideological realities is built”, this relates to Roberta and her wealth since her appearance and actions reflected her economic status. Yet, as the story continues on Twyla gets married to a man in her neighborhood and now gets the title ‘Mrs. Benson’. However, regardless of Twyla getting married, her financial position remains the equivalent and doesn’t change. Unique to Twyla, Roberta’s financial position changed strikingly. She currently has “diamonds on her hand, a smart white summer dress” and a “dark blue limousine”. Due to a gigantic move in her financial status, the Marxist theory would classify her as the economically privileged upper class. The upper class is seen as the individuals who “appreciate lavish ways of life” and “have a lot of monetary security”. It is obvious in the story that Roberta has a superior financial position in comparison to Twyla’s economic position.

In summation, economic statuses are a controversial aspect of our society and are present in Toni Morrison’s ‘Recitatif’. Many believe your life depends on how much money a person makes and what is done with it. Marxism relates to this story greatly and is the main topic in ‘Recitatif’. The girls grew up together and thought nothing of social class or money. As they grew older though, these views were different. One girl thought of money as to how successful they were and the other believed money was just a material object. In ‘Recitatif’, Roberta and Twyla started as lower class. As they got older, Roberta moved to high class and Twyla rose to low-middle class throughout Toni Morrison’s short story ‘Recitatif’, the Marxist theory is present. Morrison uses her main characters both Twyla and Roberta as symbols to portray the different economic status of people in America. As the American Dream would claim, hard work and determination will lead to economic prosperity.

Some of Marx’s ideas can be really thought-provoking. They strongly challenge some of the things about capitalism we never really think about but just blindly follow to this day. Before beginning to answer the question, I think it is important to ask, ‘Who is Karl Marx, what were his ideas and why were his ideas ever relevant at all? Marx was a German philosopher whose critical theory was that societies emerge through class struggle. He is thought of as one of the greatest thinkers of the 19th century and his ideas had a tremendous influence on many people such as Vladimir Lenin and they continue to be debated and referenced today.

One of Marx’s theories is called the labor theory of value and it describes how the value of a good is determined by the amount of labor used to produce it. This theory had a slight problem, it raised the question of how do capitalists make a profit if the price they sell at is equal to the cost of the labor?

The profit arises as a result of the surplus value created by worker’s labor. This is Marx’s theory of surplus value, that labor itself produces surplus value for the capitalist. Marx made a distinction between labor and labor-power, a worker may be hired for a certain amount of money per hour, i.e. given a wage, however in this time they may produce products in excess of their wage. This idea is definitely relevant today in the western world where most of us live and work in a capitalist society, and it is not an idea to be ignored. It is in fact common knowledge and shows just how deeply capitalism is ingrained in our minds that of course nobody is going to pay for example a factory worker in China 1000$ to make an iPhone. It just wouldn’t be economical. They wouldn’t earn a profit and therefore it wouldn’t be produced. The workers in these factories earn far less than the value of the goods they produce. I think Marx’s idea is relevant here as it offers an opposing view to the way capitalism operates and makes us question if it is really fair and the right way for things to be.

This leads me on to discuss Marx’s conflict theory. This is his idea that society has two main classes. The bourgeoisie who owns capital good and exploit workers, and the proletariat, the workers who sell their labor and are controlled by the bourgeoisie. Marx’s theory is that throughout history there has been a class struggle between the two, the rich bourgeoisie wanting to dominate and exploit the proletariat as much as possible. Marx predicted that if workers kept being exploited that the workers would eventually overthrow the capitalists. Clearly society today is not exactly as the theory suggests. Workers can no longer be exploited due to unions and government regulations such as a minimum wage. However, I still think the idea is relevant as it does explain a general divide between the rich and working class in most populations. Especially here in Ireland where we have house prices around Dublin skyrocketing and people dying on waiting lists at public hospitals.

Marx also had a theory of alienation in which he explains that in a capitalist society workers become separated from a number of things including the products they produce and normal human interaction. “All these consequences follow from the fact that the worker is related to the product of his labor as to an alien object. For it is clear on this presupposition that the more the worker expends himself in work the more powerful becomes the world of objects which he creates in face of himself, the poorer he becomes in his inner life, and the less he belongs to himself” (Marx, 1964). He believed that working within capitalist systems made people become more like a profit-making machine rather than a human being with feelings and emotions and doing the same thing every day eventually leads to the worker becoming alienated and isolated even from themselves. This idea may not be entirely correct and alienation may not always result directly from capitalism, however I still believe this idea of his is still very relevant today. The technology of today is advancing at such a fast rate is it hard for people to keep up. Those who get left behind and don’t manage to pick up the new technology fast enough can become alienated from the rest of us. From my personal experience it tends to be the older generations who get isolated easier, as they just don’t have the time to learn about the new technology and engage with it. They’d rather stick with a medium they know, like a newspaper. Younger children could also be isolated from their friends if they don’t have access to the same kind of up technology. When it comes to technology there does tend to be an unequal distribution, which could further separate the rich and the poor.

I could see a counter-argument that Marx’s ideas are not at all relevant for today considering capitalism pretty much dominates most of our societies and communism seems to be generally frowned upon. Marx did ultimately make a prediction that eventually capitalism would come to an end and that hasn’t quite happened yet, although it could be argued it almost did. However, Sayers (2009) correctly explains how Marx argued capitalism was prone to crisis and would not have been surprised of the financial crash in 2008 that many economists failed to see coming at all. It can’t be denied that Marx had some great ideas about the problems associated with capitalism that almost 200 years later still prove true.

Marxism is a social, political, and economical system of thought, named after German philosopher, Karl Marx, but it only came into existence after his death in 1883. It looks at the impact of free enterprise on work, productivity, and financial development and contends for a worker revolution to collapse a capitalist society for socialism. It establishes that the battle between social classes, in particular between the bourgeoisie, or capitalists, and the working-class, or laborers, characterizes economic relations in a capitalist economy and will indefinitely prompt communist revolution. While Marx was the founder of Marxism, his good friend and fellow German philosopher, Friedrich Engels, was often regarded as the co-founder of Marxism, and by extension, Marxism also embraces the ideas of supporters that are derived from or based upon his work. The term ‘Marxism’ was first used by Lafargue during the socialist movements of the 1870s and 1880s.

The focal point of Marxism is the idea that outlines why capitalism is doomed and why socialism is destined to be its ultimate successor, but lest we forget, this is still just a philosophy of a certain kind. Ludwig Feuerbach, another German philosopher, was the first known influence on Marx. As Marx put in a series of short, but philosophical notes, known as the ‘Theses on Feuerbach’ (1845): “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it”. He hence considered his work to be as both a theory of society and a socialist political venture. The seriousness of Marx’s writings derives partially from his reluctance to separate theory from execution and his belief that as people form their world, all the while, they are additionally assisting with forming themselves.

Marx criticized past socialist thinkers, such as Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen as ‘utopians’ on the premise that their socialism was grounded in the longing for all out social change separate with the need of class struggle and revolution. Contrariwise, he attempted an arduous, empirical examination of history and society, hoping thereby to acquire some form of knowledge into the idea of future developments. However, whether with Marx’s help or not, Marxism as the endeavor to gain historical understanding through the applications of scientific methods, later formed into Marxism as an assortment of scientific truths.

For Marx, the most important conflict in society takes place in the economic base, which is a combination of ‘forces of production’ (human labor power and the means of production, i.e. non-human, physical inputs) and ‘relations of production’ (relations of property, power and control governing society’s productive assets). As these productive forces develop, they come into conflict with exploitative relations of production; these conflicts are reflected in class struggles that fundementally drive social change. In the first chapter of the ‘Communist Manifesto’ (1848), Marx and Engels wrote: “The History of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. In the preface of ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’ (1859), Marx suggested that social consciousness and the ‘legal and political superstructure’ arise from the economic base, the genuine establishment of society. This base comprises essentially of the ‘mode of production’ (i.e. typical ways in which goods and services are produced) or economic system capitalism, socialism, and what have you.

Marx argues that capitalism is about the exploitation of one social-class over another then social equality doesn’t work, subsequently the only purpose of the welfare system is as an instrument of the ruling-class, because welfare appeases the common workers when, truth be told, welfare is a form of social control. This is on the grounds that the welfare system provides education, preventing absolute poverty as well as providing effective and free healthcare to the workers, so the state looks as though it cares when it doesn’t.

Relations of production specify two main classes: capitalists (i.e. bourgeoisie; the dominant or ruling class), who own the means of production, and workers (i.e. proletariat; the subordinate class), who do not own means of production, but labor power instead. However, we should also understand that Marx doesn’t say that society has only these two main classes, he also accepts that there are residues of classes from previous production, such as landowners, as well as evolution of classes within capitalism: growth of middle class and divisions within the capitalists (for example industrial vs financial capital).

According to Marx, capitalism was doomed because the key conflict within capitalism occurred between the capitalists and the workers. Capitalists buy labor from workers who then use their wages to buy goods and services from capitalists to reproduce their labor power. Capitalists end up with a profit, but workers go back to where they were initially. Capitalists also make profit by paying workers less than the true value they generate (i.e. exploit them by appropriating the surplus value. This exploitation of workers was the main source of class struggles, which would therefore prompt a higher stage of development in the foundation of a socialist (and in the long run communist) society.

Marx paid little attention to the institutions of welfare because they hardly existed during his time. He also overlooked the developments in the Victorian era, which have now come to be viewed as the early stages of the welfare state. That being said, Marx studied factory legislations, which was the very first achievement of the worker against the capitalist. In ‘Capital Vol. 1’, Marx studied the factory legislation that set up some limits on the level of exploitation. For example, the Ten Hours Act 1847, restricted the working hours of women and children to, of course, ten hours. In his analysis of the factory legislations, Marx highlighted the inconsistencies of the ‘bourgeois state’. Marx’s argument was that the bourgeois state largely serves the interests of the dominant class, meaning the capitalists, but he also acknowledged that the state, to a certain extent, has to represent the community as a whole. Marx recognized that welfare could begin to be established through the collect actions of labor, but for him, the prospects of welfare reform was limited. The analysis was based on laissez-faire capitalism, but since then, we witnessed important development, increased state intervention in social and economic life, and which is more, the development of the welfare state.

Marxists emphasize the role of the working class in the development of the welfare state. They view welfare states as a series of concessions won by organized labor movement (Gough, 1979). It was also a response to the threat of radical socialism, because after the post-war period, there were parallel socialist systems being developed in many nations, such as the Soviet Regime. Therefore, in order to make the existing capitalist system palatable, they had to offer some concessions to the workers and to deal with the threat of radical socialism, welfare states were introduced. Marxists object to ideological claim that welfare state is aimed at accomplishing democratic outcomes (Saville, 1957; Offe, 1972). They argue that social services are largely financed by the working classes, but resources are distributed more within than between classes, and that when the whole range of state activities and subsidies are concerned, the welfare state benefits the rich the most; they believe that the welfare state is ‘capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich’ (Offe, 1972: 482).

The welfare state is viewed as a social control mechanism that is critical to the legitimization and the maintenance of the capitalist system. This notion of the welfare state being a mechanism for social control is evident within the ideas about ‘the capitalist state’ (Miliband, 1977, or Poulantzas 1978), as well as the contradictory functions of the welfare state (O’Connor, 1973). There are two different views on the capitalist state, the instrumentalist view, and the structuralist view. Instrumentalists, such as Ralph Miliband (1977), view the state as a tool in the hands of individual capitalists. They also see the state remain capitalist by nature, because of the occupation of key positions by the upper classes. Structuralists, such as Poulantzas (1978), also see the state as capitalist by nature, but this is in light of the fact that the very structure of the economy is capitalist also. They suggest that the state is ultimately interested in preserving the capitalist system, as well as having ‘relative autonomy’ to act against certain, short-term interests of individual capitalists; in other words, protecting capitalism in the long run.

According to O’Connor (1973), the welfare state serves as a capital accumulation function. This role involves making the conditions for the foundation and development of markets, such as by improving physical infrastructure and productivity of labor. The state also serves as a legitimation function, meaning that this role would require making the operation of the capitalist system acceptable, such as by changing the manner in which people think and act and by offering concessions to appease them. For O’Connor (1973), the capital accumulation and functions tend to conflict with each other as fulfillment of these functions require increased public expenditure. Since the economic surplus accumulates in private hands, however, the state cannot raise adequate funds for it, coupled with claims by specific interest groups, such as corporations, labor and the unemployed for a share in public expenditure. These functions cause economic instability and crisis. For O’Connor, these two functions are not easy to fulfil as they contradict each other.

In conclusion, with all theories and philosophies, there is their main field and Marxism is no exception. Since Marxism has its own field of origin, it is better at explaining social policy welfare developments in areas strong economic implications. The Marxist argument on the role of thesis on the role of organized labor movement is a plausible role, in which is supported by evidence. Marxism, however, does not talk about conflicts within the working class and does not take the influence of professionals, charities, gender, ethnicity, nationalism, etc. has on the welfare state. Yet, the Marxist concept of linking the welfare state to the economic base remains relevant, especially because of the concessions offered to working classes to ensure greater stability within capitalism in the threat of socialism or any other kind of radical change. It remains relevant also because the ways in which the welfare state benefits middle and upper classes, and this relationship between the welfare state and economic base also remains important in the recent reforms eroding the welfare state.

The relationship between art and politics has been re-discussed in recent years in connection with the change in perception brought about by the debate of modernism/postmodernism. The discourse that pure modernism is an autonomous nature of art and therefore should not mediate politics (as well as morality, religion, and tradition) in ‘non-art’ spheres has lost its old power; modern methods of representation and criticism have been replaced by postmodern tendencies.

Since the late 19th century, it is known that the main ideology that explores the relationship between art and politics is Marxism. Even the modernist critics who came to the point of claiming that art should be independent of politics could not dismantle this doctrine which they were once very impressed with and benefit from its methods and concepts in their analysis (Greenberg, 1997: 357-363; 2004: 244-263).

Those who remained loyal to Marxist doctrine continued to see the artist as a creative producer and art as one of the means to free the working class from its chains. According to them, the modernist thesis that art should be independent of politics is a bourgeois ideology and is totally deceiving. Because in a society whose interests are divided into conflicting classes it is impossible to remain impartial. Impartiality means affirming it by keeping silent to the wheel of exploitation. Therefore, the artist, who is himself a producer himself, must stand by the working class; it must reveal and reflect contradictory social realities; it must do its part in the process of building a new society (Fischer, 1993: 7-14; Lukacs, 1985: 33-76; Ziss, 1984: 31-41).

Until the 1980s, art was perceived as a simple presentation/representation relationship in Marxist circles; but now this approach is far from responding to contemporary problems. The artist, as a requirement of autonomy, should not compromise his private life or artistic preferences, but he should stop repeating eroded styles. Traditional representation habits should be broken down and new methods and tools should be tried. It is not only the works that deal with current political issues; and even beyond them, erotic paintings attacking established moral rules and narcotic values may be of a very political character. In sum, creating excitement and debate in a dead-soil environment and creating stimulating work should be regarded as a political activity (Kahraman, 1995: 95-108).

In order to better understand the current relationship between art and politics, it is useful to take a closer look at the development of the idea of art autonomy. Because the idea of artistic autonomy is directly related to how bourgeois art politics evolved from past to present, both in individual and civilian and social and official contexts.

From the 18th century onwards, political discourses in art had increased in the West. Party artists, such as Jacques-Louis David, for example, have clearly declared that they devote their work to revolution. However, as the idea of individuality and freedom developed in the nineteenth century, even artists who voluntarily presented their art to the service of an ideology began to resist ‘external’ political pressure or interference. Because the ideas imposed by the circles of power were contrary to the idea of artistic autonomy because they did not reflect the artist’s inner voice. Even if the artist had a relationship with contemporary politics, this decision should have been entirely his own. (Hauser, 1984: 123-148; Kreft, 2008: 19).

The autonomy tendency of art was born as a political art program. Its leading slogan is ’art for art’. At first, glance, although it may seem to be non-political or neutral, given the circumstances of the period, it is clear that this slogan stands at ‘the intersection of current political conditions’ and ‘art’s domestic politics’ (of autonomous nature). In the preface to his novel Mademoiselle de Maupin, Theophile Gautier wrote that art had an independent nature of morality, religion, or politics, so instead of obeying them, it was only necessary to follow its own rules. According to him, ‘art was for art. The artist should stay away from ‘non-art spaces’, not deal with unnecessary burdens, and only concentrate on artistic problems. This also meant a rebellion against the dominant powers and the traditional point of view. For centuries, both religious and aristocratic circles in the West have used art as a means to maintain their power. Therefore, their deprivation of this instrument was very important for both the emerging new class (the bourgeoisie) and the artists who were fond of their freedom. In the struggle for political power, it was wise for the bourgeoisie to applaud the artists’ demands for autonomy. It was an excellent art policy to draw the artists from the aristocratic circles to the bourgeois ranks. Now, more clearly, this move of the bourgeois class in the 19th century was not apolitical. On the contrary, this move had anti-political content. Because it was opposed to the official art policy of those years, and also a radical critic of the new capitalism and constitutional republic that was dominant in France after the 1848 Revolution (Kreft, 2008: 35).

In the following process, the bourgeoisie took care to evacuate the revolutionary content of this autonomous art politics and transform it into its own form. Once bourgeois power was established, the artists could continue to freely discuss material and style among themselves in the capitalist market environment; however, they were locked in a golden cage’ (Hauser, 1984: 227). From the 19th century to the 20th century, artists such as Delacroix (Visual 2), Courbet, Daumier (Visual 3), Picasso, Kollwitz (Visual 4), Dix (Visual 5), Léger and Cahun (Visual 6), ) while dealing with various political issues, while trying to make their voices heard from this golden cage.

Until the 1940s, the center of this modern art politics was Paris. After World War II, New York took on the role. The US-led Western Bloc, during the cold war with the USSR until 1991; showed a special interest in neutral artists and their stylistic research, especially abstract tendencies. Museums and educational institutions are also shaped in this direction (Clark, 2004: 13, 168; Guilbaut, 2008: 251-61).

Undoubtedly, Picasso’s Guernica comes to the fore when it is mentioned as a political work in connection with the modern period (Visual 7). Guernica’s strength stems not only from its being anti-war but also from the tradition of classical representation. In addition, Picasso became a leading artist in the left circles because he was a member of the French Communist Party (Berger, 1989: 174-181; Clark, 2004: 55-63). Both this work of 1937 and its by-products, as well as the words he wrote in 1945, have taken their place among the unforgettable memories of not only the modern era but of all times:

What do you think of an artist? If a painter is a fool with only eyes, a musician with only ears, and a poet with a lyre in every corner of his heart? On the contrary, he is a political entity that is always on the lookout for the fiery, happy, or fearful events in the world, always ready to reflect on such events. How can you break yourself out of life on the pretext of being neutral? How is it possible not to take care of other people who add so much to your life? No, the painting is not made to decorate houses. An attack and defense tool against the enemy picture. (Ashton, D., (der.), (2001). 165-166)

In the meantime, it should be remembered that the artist is not only owned by the left but also by the bourgeois circles. In the process of the footsteps of the Second World War, countries such as the United States, Britain and France seemed to be side by side with the USSR and other left circles in the context of their struggle against fascism. Picasso’s heart was in favor of socialists, but he also found their view of art directive and conservative. The leftist parties in the capitalist countries insisted on socialist realism whose content was determined by Stalin’s art commissioner Judanov and proposed against modernism (Clark, 2004: 55-63).

Most intellectuals in the United States remained close to Marxism until the 1940s; They also supported Trotsky against Stalin in the internal party fight in the USSR. One of the reasons why the intellectuals looked warmly at Trotsky was his cultural accumulation. Since Trotsky was in exile in Mexico at that time, the artistic community had the opportunity to benefit from his views. When Trotsky was killed by a Stalinist Spaniard in 1940, the enmity of the US intellectuals increased one more time Stalin. In the following period, this hostility spread and turned into anti-USSR and leading them to move away from Marxism. In fact, the intellectuals have been vacillating between Americanism and Marxism for some time, looking for a way out. The fact that Trotsky was massacred by Stalin and that orthodox Marxists supported socialist realism as opposed to modernism gave American artists the opportunity. If the US government and business circles decided to support modernism, then it was wise to come under the wing of this cultural policy (Guilbaut, 2008: 31-57).

In Europe, the influence of Marxism lasted longer. Ernst Fischer and Georg Lukacs began to examine art and culture issues from the 1930s onwards and were effective until the end of the 1980s. In addition to these writers, other Marxist thinkers, such as Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse, set out in 1923 to analyze the political atmosphere of their time; but they were able to draw attention from the 1950s. The common aim of these thinkers, who came together under the umbrella of the Institute for Social Research (Frankfurt School) in Germany, was to take Marxism from a critical perspective and return it to its essence. Because according to them, this doctrine had already turned into a dogma.

When Adorno and Horkheimer emigrated to the United States in 1933, escaping from the Nazi oppression, they found it worth exploring the cultural environment being built there, while at the same time distancing themselves from orthodox Marxism. Until the return of these two thinkers to Germany in 1953, their research in the United States formed the basis of what is now known as the culture industry.

According to the observations of Adorno, capital directly governed both politics and art. This meant that the boundary between art and politics became ambiguous and even disappeared. The cultural industry (through the film, music, television, and advertising sectors) put an end to the distinction between high and low culture. The culture was no longer a mass-born, but an industry that was offered to the masses by capital (Lunn, 1995: 186-215; Adorno, 2003: 76-78). Adorno and his colleagues were, of course, heralding postmodern theses after them.

Michel Foucault was also trying to introduce new explanations to the power and political issues in capitalist countries since the 1970s. According to him, discourses such as class struggle, the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist party, and the intellectuals bringing consciousness to the masses were eroded. Power relations were not just relations between the state, parties, and society (classes). Foucault stated that the struggle for power took place everywhere (at home, at work, among individuals, in the media, between communities and genders, and even in the body of every individual person). The masses had nothing to learn from intellectuals who believed in orthodox Marxism. Anyhow, a worker’s knowledge of his own position and work was more than that (Foucault, 1994: 32,45; 2000: 15,45,181-5, 238-50).

The collapse of the Eastern Bloc in 1989, and two years later under the internal contradictions of the USSR, heralded the complete elimination of the obstacles to the neo-liberal politics of the US and Britain (Hardt and Negri, 2001: 195). It was the time of the new world order. According to Francis Fukuyama, one of the spokespersons of neo-liberalism, the era of history and great narratives had come to an end when liberalism overthrew fascism and communism. Marx had taken the idea of the ‘end of history from Hegel, but with the collapse of Marxism, humanity had been freed from this impossible and unnecessary dream (Fukuyama, 1993: 192-200).

In the 2000s, the new concept of globalization has been introduced. With the globalization of capital and communication, cultural similarities have arisen not only in business but also in every field, from sports, entertainment, clothing, nutrition, and art. This inevitably recalled the assumptions of Marx and Engels more than a century and a half ago. In the Manifesto, which they co-wrote in 1848, that the bourgeoisie would constantly revolutionize the means of production, hence the relations of production and thus all social relations; that by constantly transforming the production in every field of material and spiritual, it will continuously shake all social segments (Marx and Engels Manifesto) it outlines the globalizing nature of capital in general. According to Aren, this was an inevitable process. In fact, globalization means the rasping of national independence and therefore cultural uniqueness. But there is no way to stop it. What needs to be done in this case is to create products that can compete with developed countries in every field, rather than inward (Aren, 2002: 59-67).

Meanwhile, another issue that should not be overlooked is that global capital groups are competing with each other rather than peace. They try to influence the official institutions in their favor with the instinct of profit and they struggle against each other. International biennials and art fairs in New York, London, Venice, Berlin, Istanbul, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Shanghai, Beijing, and many other cities are directly linked to these capital movements. Art policies of companies should be considered as part of their general policies (market share strategies). This inevitably means that, as Haacke points out, every artist who is willing to work with these companies becomes the gear of their art politics (Haacke, 1993: 105).

So, are all roads blocked? Are there any non-system areas where artists who want to remain opposed to everything can breathe? The truth is, there is no place outside. Everything is going on here. At the very least, chaotic spaces can be mentioned as difficult to control. The most prominent ones are the internet and the streets. These two environments inspire pirated-spirited artists to produce criticisms and expressions that will shake the system, leaving legal limitations helpless and hoping for new searches.