Fitzgerald’s characters represent Marxist ideas, through his representation of the different classes, and his interpretation of how their class defines their life.
Fitzgerald set this story during post-World War I, where both he, Carraway and Gatsby all fought in. However, it doesn’t mark the active capitalist culture it portrays but unveils the hidden side of society at the time. It highlights how the pursuit of money weakens personal values, as occurred with Gatsby when he lost everything because of his life’s goal to reach the top of the ‘heap’. The richest characters, like Tom and Daisy, as well as the people who attend Gatsby’s parties are really the most unpleasant and shallow ones, making an imitation of the ‘American Dream’ which was the height of American ambition in the ‘Roaring 20’s’.
Fitzgerald’s stance would appear to be significant of the upper class, as conclusively the rich characters come to unhappy demises, yet, accidentally or not, he reinforces stereotypes of the different classes and portrays poor people in a fairly negative standing. The class that ‘The Great Gatsby’ represents in the most positive light is the narrator himself, Nick Carraway, who comes from a middle-class family and seems to be the only one content with his lot in life. Nick’s experience of society is very similar to Fitzgerald’s, as although Nick comes from a richer family than Fitzgerald, the author was basically raised as if he were rich, so would be used to being around people like Nick, and would know how they view things. His social status allows him to see things objectively. There are Tom and Daisy who both come from wealthy families who have been ‘in the money’ for generations. Then there’s Myrtle and her husband George, who both represent the lower working class, and finally Gatsby – who started life as low class, and moved up in the world with his questionably acquired wealth. Throughout the novel, poor people are represented in a very negative way. While the rich people are the ones who have all the fun, attend parties and have frivolous romances, the less well-off citizens live in a “valley of ashes”, where men move “dimly and already crumbling through the powdery air” (Fitzgerald, 23).
It would seem that Fitzgerald is indicating that money makes you an interesting and happy citizen, while lack of this inevitably leads to a boring, ‘grey’ life in the valley of ashes.
The Marxist literary lens analyzes literature by understanding the historical conditions and factors that produce it and the structural cause of society behind it. This style of criticism is concerned with the interactions of societal “levels” and social relations, and how class struggle, oppression, and inequality are portrayed (Eagleton 18). Karl Heinrich Marx’s theories and ideas of politics and psychology, specifically known for criticizing the capitalist society and how “labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity” are used by the upper class, made him known as the founder of Marxism (Marx 18). He frequently quoted or alluded to Shakespeare’s plays in his writings and was heavily influenced by Shakespeare, as referenced to in Marx’s Shakespeare (Ledwith). Thus, a thorough Marxist critique of The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, would reveal how Marxist critiques of class struggles, commodification, and the gentry could be applied to Shakespeare’s plays and consequently, exhibit links between Marxist and Shakespearean philosophy.
Although Shakespeare lived many years before Marx, both historical eras indicate radical changes, class conflict, and materialistic tendencies, and “twentieth-century historians such as R.H. Tawney and Christopher Hill have demonstrated that profound economic, social, and cultural revolution was taking place during Shakespeare lifetime” (Hatlen 91). In Shakespeare’s time, the feudal system was common and people often struggled to free themselves from their monarchs, as they often lacked loyalty to one. Shakespeare had a commoner father that saw the corruption and immorality of the ruling class, which impacted and led Shakespeare to depict the struggle between and within social classes in his works. Marxist criticism concerns class struggle perceived throughout history and since the historical situations around Shakespeare’s time reflect those that are portrayed in his plays, Marxist criticism is applicable to Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
In Hamlet, class struggle and gaps in social classes are prominent. Characters such as Horatio, Marcellus, Guildenstern, and Rosencrantz are all lower in class than Hamlet and his family. Hamlet and his family are part of the royal class and the way that they address and treat the lower class is as objects and tools used to achieve their goals. For example, when Claudius and Gertrude call upon Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on Hamlet to achieve their goal of figuring out what has made Hamlet “mad”. Higher ranked individuals oppress the lower rank ones and use them as their own commodity however they like, and enforce this by using their superior position to the lower class in order to make them obedient and obey the command of their authorities. As a result, their role and impact in the play have been intentionally ignored by the upper class and their marginalized voices silenced.
Claudius, as King of Denmark, uses his higher rank and power to oppress his “rival” in the play, Hamlet. When Hamlet refuses to be obedient, Claudius does everything he can to suppress him, ultimately wanting to kill Hamlet. Through the Marxist lens, Hamlet wanted to overthrow and overcome Claudius’s oppressive rule. When Hamlet becomes aware of the corruption of the royal class (in this case, the murder of King Hamlet), he separates himself from the ruling class by faking madness and resists the efforts by the ruling class (specifically Claudius) to control and oppress him. The issue of commodification, a cornerstone of Marxism, is clearly shown in Claudius as he commodified all the people around him for his own benefit and sacrifices them for his own benefit. Claudius commodifies Gertrude and marries her with political implications in order to use her power against Hamlet, while he uses Hamlet to show that he and Laertes have a common enemy. In the reverse, he also uses Laertes to indirectly kill Hamlet, instead of doing it himself. He uses Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on Hamlet to figure out the source of his “madness”, and “keeps them, like an [apple], in the corner of his jaw, first mouthed, to be last swallowed” (4.2.17-19). When Hamlet explains this to him, wants them to understand that Claudius only uses them for as long as he needs them, then “swallows” them once they have gleaned but he needed. He second-handedly commodified Ophelia when he allows and agrees with Polonius to use Ophelia in order to find the reason for Hamlet’s madness and to determine if the cause was truly their love. Therefore, Claudius uses his power and social rank to manipulate others to get what he wants and for his own benefit.
Similarily to her husband, Gertrude also commodifies others for her own benefit, therefore establishing the fact that she is not just a victim to Claudius’s manipulation. Although she was still grieving over her husband’s death, she agrees to hastily marry Claudius to preserve her power and ensure her position as Queen of Denmark. Also like Claudius, she is not reluctant to use Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to uncover the reason for her son’s madness and agrees with Claudius’s manipulation of them: “… I beseech you instantly to visit/My too much changed son” (2.2.35-36). Her active participation in encouraging Claudius’s manipulation of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern imply how she uses her social power as queen to have those from the lower classes do the work, similar to the relationship between proletariat (the working class, symbolized by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) and bourgeoisie (the employers of the proletariat, Claudius and Gertrude). Then, when Ophelia went truly mad, the queen first refuses to speak with her, showing the lack of empathy once Ophelia had done her part in the scheme to expose the reason behind Hamlet’s madness and only using her for as long as they need her, similar to how Claudius treats Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (4.5.1).
The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark also shows parallels between King Claudius and the real-life Henry VII of England, who married his dead brother’s wife, Katherine of Aragon (The Bill/Shakespeare Project). An immediate connection is made to Claudius marrying Gertrude, his dead brother’s wife, and both unions were described as “incestuous” and the legitimacy of both unions was questioned. In Gertrude’s case, she had a son by her first husband before the second, and if she did have a son with Claudius, it would lead to succession issues and conflicts. For Henry VIII, the doctrine at the time meant that it would be incestuous for Henry to marry his brother’s wife, just as Hamlet protests that his mother’s marriage to Claudius is incestuous.
Shakespeare introduces the theme of ancestral revenge with Laertes and Fortinbras. While Laertes, when he learns of his father’s death, he bursts into the palace with armed men to demand an answer from the king:
LAERTES.
I thank you. Keep the door. [Exeunt his Followers]
O thou vile king,
Give me my father.
QUEEN. Calmly, good Laertes (4.5.13-16)
In comparison, Fortinbras does not believe in ancestral revenge and only sees it as a way for political advancement, and finds it easy to take action:
Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honor’s at the stake (4.4.54-56)
Although there is no “great argument” for Fortinbras to lead an army against Poland, Fortinbras doesn’t need a good reason and immediately gets into action. Hamlet stands in between these two and is tormented by his passivity and lack of action:
To take him in the purging of his soul,
When he is fit and season for his passage?
No. (3.4.85-87)
Hamlet shows in inaction by delaying his chance to kill Claudius. It is possible to interpret this torment that Shakespeare expressed through Hamlet in terms of decay of absolutism around 1600, which underlined the degeneracy of the English court. Most importantly is the analysis of Polonius, who is both shrewd and foolish. His traits show that he has adapted to the aristocracy way of life–he is partly bourgeois but also concerned for his family name. Reasonably, Laertes and Ophelia have the same feudal characteristics. Ophelia has her blind obedience to her brother and father, and Laertes’s violent rage and duty to his family when he takes revenge for the death of Polonius. By depicting the family of Polonius in similarity to the bourgeois, Shakespeare criticizes the gentry and primary accumulation. The time period that Shakespeare lived in saw the rise of the bourgeoisie, which had torn apart feudal ties and left no other bonds than self-interest and egotistical calculation, and within the family, “torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation (Marx 16).
Although Shakespeare lived any years before Marx, the class struggle exists in both eras as Marx and Engels stated in the Communist Manifesto, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx 19). Through analyzing Shakespeare’s play Hamlet with a Marxist lens and its critiques of class distinction, the power struggle between social classes, and commodification of the lower social classes, corruption, and oppressive ideologies, Shakespeare’s Hamlet depict and represent ideas of social reformation and form which Marxism agrees with.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. The Tragical History of Hamlet Prince of Denmark, edited by A.R. Braunmuller, Penguin Books, 2001.
Hatlen, Burton. “Feudal and Bourgeois Concepts of Value in The Merchant of Venice.” Shakespeare: Contemporary Critical Approaches, edited by Harry. R. Garvin and Michael D. Payne, Bucknell University Press, 1980, pp. 91.
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto. Translated by Samuel Moore in cooperation with Frederick Engels, vol. One, Progress Publishers, 1969.
Royanian, Shamsoddin, and Omrani, Elham. “Class Oppression and Commodification in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Merchant of Venice”, World Scientific News, 2016, http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WSN-50-2016-186-196.pdf
Eagleton, Terry. Marxism and Literary Criticism. London, Routledge Classics, 2002.
TheBillShakespeareProject. “Hamlet: Elizabethan/Historical Analog?” The Bill/Shakespeare Project, 17 April 2015, thebillshakespeareproject.com/2015/04/hamlet-elizabethan-historical-analog/.
Marxism is a political theory that was introduced to the world in 1848, through the publication of ‘The Communist Manifesto’. Marxism-Leninism, in contrast, is a strand of Marxism that was developed by Vladimir Lenin, who sought to adapt early twentieth century Russia to those until-then theoretical ideas of Marx and Engels. Discussed below will be a brief summary of what I feel are the most prominent differences between the two strands of thought.
Before I begin, it is important to note that unlike Marxism, Marxism-Leninism was created to adapt an entire country, meaning that Lenin was forced to look at economic matters in much more detail than Marx had ever needed to. Marx’s writings had largely been expecting these communist revolutions to be happening in much more developed and advanced capitalist countries – Something which Russia most definitely was not. By the time of 1917, where Lenin-Marxism first came into play, Russia was an economically stagnant country that was mainly inhabited by peasant farmers, most of whom were also illiterate. Thus, economic and industrial development were two key areas for Marxism-Leninism to focus on, whilst Marxism was created with the assumption that these revolutions would take place in those world powers that already contained well-developed industrial and financial infrastructure. Therefore, many of the differences between the two strands stem from this fact, and it is not surprising that many other communist regimes such as those in China and Laos have chosen to follow Marxism-Leninism instead.
The next major difference between these two strands of thought lies within when they believed the proletariat revolution would take place. Marxism firmly believed that the revolution was inevitable in capitalist countries due to the continuation of classist suppression. And so he believed that this continuation would thus incite the revolutionary wrath of the working class, who would then single-handedly enact the Proletariat Revolution. In contrast, Leninism did not believe this, and instead argued that the expansion of Imperialism ensured that the working class would never develop this revolutionary consciousness that Marx believed in. The expanding powers and wealthiness of more developed nations, Lenin argued, meant that governments could just provide their working classes with just enough capital and benefits to dampen any revolutionary feelings they may have. The set-up of the Duma – the ‘first genuine attempt towards parliamentary government in Russia’ – following the 1905 Revolution would be a key example of this. Therefore, whilst Marxism believed that a revolution was bound to take place due to a whole class awakening of the working class, Marxism-Leninism instead believed that the continuation of imperialism made it so that the working class benefitted from the system just enough to not develop this awakening, and the theory goes even further to argue that to reach this revolutionary stage, a political party would need to guide those people there.
The second major difference between these two strands of thought lie in each’s belief surrounding the develop of the class consciousness that is needed to get to the point of a revolution. Marxism, to begin with, firmly held the belief that the working class would spontaneously develop a class consciousness, despite the class being largely uneducated. Upon doing so, Marxism argued that the people would immediately push for a proletariat revolution, where they, the people, can take control. Marxism-Leninism, again, did not believe this, and instead firmly believed in the formation of a political party that represented the people. They would use this party to break the workers from their capitalist state of mind, and educate to help the workers develop a communist one instead.
Finally, in what is perhaps the biggest major difference, the two strands of thought differ on who they believe would be in control as the revolution took place. Marxism strongly advocated in the idea of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ which would happen when the post-revolutionary state seizes the means of production in the nation. They would push for the implementation of direct elections on behalf of the ruling proletarian state party, therefore instituting elected delegates into representative workers’ councils that nationalize the ownership of the means of production, ensuring collective ownership. Leninism, in contrast, strongly advocated for the ‘dictatorship of the Communist party’, whereby the leaders of said party act on what they think would be best for the working class.
In summary, Marxism pushed for a new state run by the people, whilst Marxism-Leninism pushed for a new state that would continuously run by a party that was ‘for the people’.
Capitalism is the dominant social system in modern societies across the world. Many authors criticize this system for inattention to the social values and traditions of people. The four books discussed in this paper are written by earlier and later authors who explore the essence of capitalism and its interaction with society. Although they all argue about the phenomenon from different angles, shared themes can be found in their works. In particular, they agree that, although capitalism arose as a natural consequence of the development of society, it contradicts social values and disrupts cultural balance. Moreover, all authors emphasize that in society, one way or another, a reaction among communities and groups of people arises. Thus, capitalism has its goal of enrichment and profit, ignoring the natural needs of society.
Black Marxism and Emergence of Black Radical Tradition as a Reaction to Capitalist Values Imposed on Africans by European Society
Robinson argues that Marxism fails to understand the central importance of racial segregation and discrimination to capitalism. According to the author, racism arose long before the development of capitalist society but shaped its structure. Robinson argues that the phenomenon in European society “was not simply a convention for ordering the relations of European to non-European peoples but has its genesis in the “internal” relations of European peoples” (Robinson, 2005, p. 2). Thus, racism is not a consequence of capitalism but its prerequisite. At the same time, it is an integral part of European society and has developed as a natural phenomenon.
In particular, Robinson argues that the expectations of Marx and Engels were false. Philosophers of Marxism counted on the consciousness of Europeans, whose “bourgeois society would rationalize social relations” (Robinson, 2005, p. 2). However, the development of the structure of capitalist society was based solely on racial differences, which determined the ideology. The ideas of Marxism regard capitalism as a revolutionary direction to feudalism. However, the author emphasizes that the modern socio-economic system arose on the basis of the old one and did not deny it. Robinson calls this phenomenon racial capitalism, which is dependent on imperialism and slavery.
This idea explains why the author focuses on Europe when talking about Black people. Robinson believes that racism is a key characteristic of Western society, on the basis of which the entire system is built. In particular, he criticizes socialist ideas as a way to disguise the feudal order as a more liberal concept. The author emphasizes that “socialism began as one expression of the bourgeois society and the bourgeoisie that it came to oppose explicitly” (Robinson, 2005, p. 47). Thus, he calls the middle class, not the proletariat, the ancestors of the ideological critics of capitalism. For example, Robinson calls the creation of the Irish working class a consequence of colonialism. Anglo-Saxon chauvinism made segregation possible, which explained the mistreatment and low wages of the Irish people. This example illustrates a particular form of European racism, the consequence of which is the construction of the capitalist system.
Robinson argues that European racism created Africans solely as a means of production. Thus, it deprived them of the traditions and rights which they had in their homeland. The author argues that while “violence did not come naturally to African peoples,” the desire for violence and domination is an innate feature of European society (Robinson, 2005, p. 309). Thus, Black radicalism was born, consisting of denying the historical ties between Africans and Europeans and dehumanizing Blacks as a labor force. The author calls the aspirations of the Blacks, which contradict the European values, the Black Radical Tradition.
Robinson emphasizes that Western society has transformed the portrayal of Africans and their influence on history, which has become the basis of racism. Capitalism was later justified and defined as “the importance of Black labor power possessed for the world economy sculpted and dominated by the ruling and mercantile classes of Western Europe” (Robinson, 2005, p. 4). Thus, the slave trade and racism have natural links with economic development. Robinson argues that capitalism was not created artificially but determined by long historical processes.
Robinson says that the foundation of the radical movement was “the Black historical experience nearly grounded under the intellectual weight and authority of the official European version of the past” (Robinson, 2005, p. 170). Thus, capitalism and racism developed as a consequence of the evolution of Western society, while Black radicalism was a response to this process. Racism in Europe arose naturally, as the first proletarians were racial subjects such as the Irish or the Jews. According to Robinson, capitalism was not a modernizing trend but sought to reduce “regional, subcultural, and dialectical differences into ‘racial’ ones” (Robinson, 2005, p. 26). Thus, this order ignores any tradition and nature of the people, turning it into a unified means of capital.
Robinson argues that the proletariat did not constitute a revolutionary movement opposed to bourgeois culture. Since their views and ideas were shaped by the historical context, they could not represent radical groups. From the point of view of capitalism, “they were its negation, but that was hardly the source of their being” (Robinson, 2005, p. 4). However, the resistance shown by African slaves is the only force of opposition since they have their own culture, formed outside of Europe. The author describes several uprisings and individuals which influenced the development of capitalist society. Thus, the formation of Black radicalism was “social and political as well as a historical process” (Robinson, 2005, p. 5). In particular, the ideas of Marxism were the basis for organized resistance to exploitation and racism.
First of all, it can be concluded from Robinson’s book that European racism was formed as a natural consequence of feudal and colonial relations. Robinson argues that even within European nations, there was a hierarchical order which later became the basis for the division of people along racial lines. Capitalism, in turn, began to develop in this racial direction without refuting the legacy of previous eras. Then racism penetrated into the social structures which were created by the capitalist order. Thus, racism, according to Robinson, was not a precursor or consequence of capitalism but an integral part of it. The content of Black Radical Tradition is the desire of Blacks, particularly in European countries, to preserve their traditional heritage and to assert cultural differences which have been suppressed. Thus, radicalism consisted in the desire to declare the traditional social order of Black people, which is their characteristic and is different from the European one. Black Radical Tradition arose as a result of the rejection of a social order unusual for the African people. The long suppression of traditional values forced them to declare their needs.
The Great Transformation and Social Response to Liberal Economic Ideas as a Means of Maintaining Social Balance
Karl Polanyi, in his book, explores the process of the birth of capitalism in Western society. The most crucial concept in his analysis is the double movement that characterized 19th-century capitalism. On the one hand, there was a process of recognizing the market economy as organizing, which led to a decrease in public control over the economy. On the other hand, the old social structures disintegrated to form a new market society. Thus, the author argues that “the market expanded continuously, but this movement was met by a countermovement checking the expansion in definite directions” (Polanyi, 2001, p. 136). In particular, the double movement consists of the process of destruction of traditional socio-economic systems and counteraction to it in the form of more modern forms of control.
The market system, according to Polanyi, has the main feature, which is self-regulation. The author argues that there has never been a true market economy since it is a utopian artificial concept. However, the formation of a new society was based on the introduction of new institutions and an almost instantaneous reaction of society, which ensured the double movement. Thus, the author considers such an economy as a mechanism which is “directed by market prices and nothing but market prices” (Polanyi, 2001, p. 45). In other words, in a market economy, money acts as signals which people receive and interpret to gain benefits.
The market economy, according to Polanyi, requires minimal institutional structures. He emphasizes that a liberal state and a gold standard are needed. The former provides regulation and subsequent response, while the latter involves international trade and competition. Special attention is paid to the fact that the market economy becomes independent of both social and political institutions and is governed exclusively by economic motives. The author believes that capitalism is disembedded from the social structure of society.
Such minimalistic institutionalization cannot but affect the psychological state of people and society. Polanyi argues that capitalism is the first economic system to imply “justification of action and behavior in everyday life, namely, gain” (Polanyi, 2001, p. 31). Thus, people in a given structure must obey logical economic laws and also act rationally. A person within the framework of a market economy is transformed into an “Economic Man” (Polanyi, 2001, p. 45). Although the author criticizes Marx in fundamental principles, he supports the philosopher in the fact that under capitalism, a person is forced to sell the labor, which becomes a commodity. A participant in a market economy is motivated either by the accumulation of funds or by the sale of labor to receive wages. Consequently, guided exclusively by accumulation motives or the desire for survival, a person becomes selfish, and the main goal is profit.
Polanyi constitutes a critique of capitalism as an abnormal society in comparison with past eras. The author argues that in a traditional society, “man’s economy, as a rule, is submerged in his social relationships” (Polanyi, 2001, p. 48). Thus, material goods serve to protect the social status and maintain communication. However, in a market economy, these goals become secondary, giving way to exclusively economic aspects. Polanyi argues that in earlier societies, a person is guided by social norms or institutions, as well as by their social values. The economy served to meet the needs of society and ensure survival; it was controlled by people who collectively cared for others.
Polanyi, based on the presented arguments, concludes that the emergence of capitalism is associated with changes in social structures which violate the traditions which were the basis of human existence. In particular, the author claims that “labor and land are made into commodities, which, again, is only a short formula for the liquidation of every and any cultural institution in an organic society” (Polanyi, 2001, p. 167). An example of this phenomenon, he calls the slavery of Africans, who were sold to the West for an artificial purpose. Capitalism did not exist for them, was not developed in their local community. Europeans brought them into a society with a completely different organizational structure.
The counteraction arising as one of the elements of the double movement is presented as a mechanism for protecting society from the crisis. Polanyi states that “since the working of such markets threatens to destroy society, the self-preserving action of the community was meant to prevent their establishment or to interfere with their free functioning, once established” (Polanyi, 2001, p. 210). The author often appeals to protectionism as a manifestation of the community’s group interests in opposing exclusively market motives. Thus, Polanyi’s central argument rests on the assumption that these countermovements provide resistance to the capitalist structure.
To a greater extent, the author concentrates on describing the difference between the ideology of liberalism and the real facts of its functioning in society. According to Polanyi, the concept of a self-regulating market arose as a response to the process of early industrialization. Thus, English thinkers created an organizational principle that later spread globally. However, according to the author, market liberalism could not function as intended, and its institutions only created tension between countries and peoples. Thus, in fact, the society sought to protect itself from the self-regulating market, which led to the subsequent collapse of the economy. The involvement of the state in the creation and maintenance of markets is natural for the human economy. Polanyi’s central argument is that the economy is not autonomous; it is subject to other spheres of social life. Thus, in his opinion, the idea of self-regulating markets is contrary to the needs of society and cannot function in it.
Shared Theme Presented by Robinson and Polanyi
Although both works explore capitalism from different angles, they focus on the transformation of psychology and the place of man in the development of a new society. First of all, capitalist society is considered exclusively as an economic structure which is dis-embedded from the social. Robinson emphasizes that Africans in Europe were perceived as a means of labor. Polanyi also described human motives in a market economy as purely economic. Consequently, both authors underline negative psychological and social changes which occur to a person in a capitalist society. They also refer to the study of the experience of earlier societies, identifying the prerequisites for the development of such a situation.
However, the most evident common theme discussed by the two researchers is resistance. Both Robinson and Polanyi consider the opposition to the capitalist order as the main reason for maintaining social balance and resolving the cultural crisis. In particular, Robinson describes the Black Resistance in Europe as a means of eliminating racism and slavery, which Europeans are not capable of. In turn, Polanyi considers more local examples in the form of protectionism, when people defend not economic but social interests. Thus, both authors consider the development of capitalism as a natural but negative state for society. Robinson and Polanyi refer to the ideas of Marxism as more socially oriented and capable of providing a sufficient basis for resistance. Although Robinson criticizes Marxism to a greater extent than Polanyi, both authors agree that this ideology is the main one for opposing the capitalist one.
Robinson’s and Polanyi’s reasoning complements each other since Polanyi’s book explains in more detail the formation of capitalist society and the principles on which it is built. Robinson, on the other hand, pays more attention directly to traditions and culture. Thus, the authors explore both the inside and outside of capitalism. Polanyi examines this process from the point of view of ideology and perception of society. Robinson, in turn, focuses on the expansion of capitalist ideas and their interaction with other systems.
This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate and Capitalism as the Main Cause of the Ecological Crisis
Naomi Klein’s book, “This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate,” explores the relationship between capitalism and climate change. The author’s central argument is the assumption that it is impossible to combat climate change in the modern world, although most people recognize it as a significant threat. Klein (2014) argues that “we have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism” (p. 18). Thus, the author believes that the problem of climate change and its overcoming is in the modern social order, in particular, capitalism.
While anthropogenic climate change only became important to the public in the 1980s, it also coincided with the rise of neoliberal capitalism. Klein stresses that factors such as the limitations of government market regulation, transnational corporations in free trade, and market fundamentalism have created the conditions for modern circumstances. Moreover, according to the author, neoliberal capitalist ideology prevents the spread of awareness in society. The author argues that corporations benefit when people question the reality of climate change which is the result of capitalists order. Klein criticizes conservative politics, free-market fundamentalism, corporate opposition to the fight against negative anthropogenic factors, and the history of the exploitation of natural resources. The author emphasizes that the denial of the ongoing changes is solely the result of ideological differences which discuss the future of capitalist society. She calls this conflict of interests of society and the modern economy a “crusade to morally redeem capitalism” (Klein, 2014, p. 40). Thus, the author believes that the capitalist system and the conservative politics are fighting for their existence and well-being in spite of the natural needs of people.
Modern people are socially separated from the natural environment, which shapes their attitude to the climate. Klein (2014) defines the process as a “nonreciprocal, dominance-based relationship with the earth, one purely of taking” (p. 169). The central argument in this regard is the desire of the capitalist order to exploit natural resources in order to extract material benefits. The author gives examples of such territories which were used exclusively as “sacrifice zones” (Klein, 2014, p. 169). Klein emphasizes that such territories and even communities act as voluntary payments for the achievement of material benefits. Despite the obvious negative consequences of this process, society is making only fragmentary efforts to solve the problem.
Klein stresses that modern climatology cannot deal with the needs of corporations who are willing to drain entire regions to extract fuel. The author gives examples of various organizations, including public ones, that use the green agenda to increase their profits. She also notes that the only real answer is possible from local initiatives and communities, which “are simply saying No” (Klein, 2014, p. 335). Klein continues to explain that in the modern world, global climate problems are truthfully addressed exclusively by social movements. She argues that earlier “sacrifice zones” were remote and isolated areas which did not have an impact on the life of society. However, in the context of globalization, the problem of exploiting nature for enrichment affects all territories and communities which are also under threat.
Klein stresses that only internal social resistance can change the existing capitalist order. Although it is rooted in the minds of modern people, they are able to change their habits and attitudes to begin the transformation. Thus, the author focuses more on local protests and social movements as a means of combating the negative consequences of capitalism. Klein stresses that “we are nothing but selfish, greedy, self-gratification machines” (Klein, 2014, p. 62). With this statement, she calls on society to think about its nature and needs. The modern world seems to the author to be subordinate exclusively to economic and political needs, while such significant areas as climate are left unattended, which will lead to dire consequences.
Shared Themes Presented by Klein, Robinson, and Polanyi
The book presents several general aspects, which are also discussed by Robinson and Polanyi. Klein (2014) states that in modern society, “climate change fuelled disaster capitalism – profiteering disguised as emission reduction, privatized hyper-militarized borders, and quite possibly, high-risk geoengineering when things spiral out of control” (p. 155). Klein, as Polanyi, argues that the idea of a liberal economy, in particular a self-regulating market, provokes a reaction. However, Klein notes that the reduction in government regulation of the economy is leading to the expansion of the dominance of the needs of corporations. As a consequence, an imbalance arises between the natural needs of society in the form of climate change and the economic needs of ideology. Polanyi, as Klein, argues that the economy should serve other spheres of social life and not subordinate them. These arguments complement each other since Klein’s discussion is a more specific case of the process which Polanyi describes.
Compared to Robinson’s book, Klein talks about similar processes. She emphasizes that capitalism and capitalist thinking are characteristic of Western society, while Robinson also argues that the development of capitalism was natural. In particular, she emphasizes that a change in the creation of society is necessary to advance climate initiatives. Both authors focus on social movement and reactionism, which advocate the values and needs of society. Thus, Klein and Robinson express the same point of view on the essence of the social response to the existing order. While Black Radical Tradition was based on the resistance of the Blacks to the imposed order of Europeans, so modern society needs to fight against the imposed order of corporations. Thus, three books describe how a social response gradually emerges to capitalist ideas and needs that are not natural to society.
The Mushroom at the End of the World and Social Response in the Form of Salvage Accumulation
Anna Tsing, in her book “The mushroom at the end of the world,” explores economic instability and environmental degradation through the commodity chain of matsutake mushrooms. In particular, the author discusses all stages of the production of goods, from picking mushrooms to their use by consumers. Tsing employs three key concepts to describe the values of modern capitalist society: scalability (as well as nonscalability), global supply chain, and salvage accumulation. Scalability in the terminology of the author means “the ability of a project to change scales smoothly without any change in project frames” (Tsing, 2021, p. 38). Tsing explains that a scalable business does not change its organization as it expands. She also explains that this process is possible only if the company’s relations remain stable and do not change the business.
Thus, the central argument of the author is that capitalist society does not take into account a diversity of contexts. Scalable projects, among other aspects, ignore the various difficulties and peculiarities which they may encounter when working with such diversity. Nonscalability, therefore, means the opposite process, where an organization is sensitive to and influenced by diversity. According to Tsing, modern capitalist society prioritizes scalable projects which in particular ignore environmental nonscalability. Thus, the author emphasizes that the diversity that capitalist society denies is the basis for the functioning of all processes.
Attention to nonscalable factors is the key to understanding salvage accumulation. Tsing (2021) defines ‘salvage’ as “taking advantage of value produced without capitalist control” (p. 63). The author criticizes the capitalist propensity to exploit raw materials for profit. Therefore, salvage accumulation means “the process through which lead firms amass capital without controlling the conditions under which commodities are produced” (Tsing, 2021, p. 63). Tsing thus uses the concept of primitive accumulation introduced by Marx, which implies that capitalists violently use resources to produce goods.
In turn, salvage accumulation occurs through the global supply chain. Thing (2021) explains that “supply chains are commodity chains that translate value to the benefit of dominant firms; translation between noncapitalist and capitalist value systems is what they do” (p. 63). In the context of these terms, the author discusses the matsutake mushroom business system. Tsing explains that this mushroom cannot be grown in captivity, meaning under capitalist control. The author emphasizes that although mushroom picking takes place for the purpose of sale, the participants in this business have a different motivation. Many people gather matsutake solely as a way to escape the capitalist labor system. Moreover, mushrooms are more common in Japan, where they become a symbol of community and family, which gives them a special social role. Tsing (2021) stresses that “it spends only a few hours as a fully alienated commodity” (p. 128). Thus, the goods of a capitalist society have the sole purpose of bringing benefits to their creators. Whereas salvage accumulation is aimed at developing supply chains within which goods have many values, including social ones.
Shared Themes Presented by Robinson, Polanyi, Klein, and Tsing
All four books described have common themes which focus on the relationship of capitalist society and social values. Robinson emphasizes that Black Radical Tradition arose as a reaction to the imposition of capitalist European views on Africans and ignoring their culture and special traditions. Polanyi discusses how the liberal idea of a self-regulating market does not match the reality of society and provokes a reaction in the form of government regulation. Klein (2015) explores the topic of climate change as a consequence of a capital order which ignores the natural human needs to satisfy ideological values. Finally, Tsing (2021) argues that modern capitalist society ignores diverse contexts and that the only purpose of goods in this system is enrichment. Thus, all four authors discuss that although capitalism is a natural consequence of human development, it does not correspond to the social needs of society.
All four books reviewed share a common theme that can be combined with the terminology presented by Tsing. The essence of capitalism is scalability, which in Robinson’s discussion can be defined as imposing European values on Blacks and ignoring their traditions and culture. Black Radical Tradition, in this case, is salvage accumulation, which is used to preserve nonscalable factors. This phenomenon also correlates with the response to the creation of self-regulating market principles described by Polanyi. In this case, liberal economic ideas ignore nonscalable social needs, which also leads to reactions. Klein’s central argument in this framework is also relevant, in part because, as Tsing, she mainly discusses environmental issues. Ultimately, the four books collectively complement each other as they provide a view of many aspects which, as Paulie noted, should be primary in relation to capitalism. After examining their content, one can conclude that the capitalist society is based on human vices and subordinates all other spheres to itself, which causes a reaction from communities and groups of people. Capitalism has goals which are not inherent in people and are not primary for them. Robinson, Polanyi, Klein, and Tsing seek to illustrate what consequences this process leads to and question the ability of its long-term existence.
References
Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon and Schuster.
Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. [PDF document]. Web.
Robinson, C. J. (2005). Black Marxism: The making of the Black radical tradition. University of North Carolina Press.
Tsing, A. L. (2021). The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton University Press.
Marxist Geography is critical in nature, and it utilizes philosophy and theories of Marxism to look at the spatial relations of human Geography. Marxist Geography attempts to change the world as well as explaining it.
Marxism perceives human beings as gradually transforming or changing themselves in stages until social perfection is reached (Peet, 1977). This transformation is viewed as an aim towards which society should be moving. The change is brought forth by dialectical systems bringing about a new process which is again contradicted and the process is replicated (Richard 1985).
To effectively be able to comprehend geographical relations, it is important that the social-structure be observed. Marxism Geography tries to change the society by changing its basic structure. The forces behind the changing society are seen as entities which are the modes of production. They include capital, labour, class, capitalism, the market, the state and society.
Marxist geography looks at the conflicting forces between social processes and the natural relations together with the spatial relations. It revolves around the modes of production which mold the social structure, remold it continuously to form the superstructure of the society. This paper will critically look at Marxism geography of development (Kitchen and Thrift, 2009).
Marxism in Development Geography
David Harvey (1973) is the primary developer of the Marxist movement in human geography. According to Marxist geography, social formations of capitalism give birth to environmental and spatial problems, for example, destructions of habitats and uneven employment. It studies the inherent capitalism contradictions as they appear in landscape and relate with each other (Yeung, 2005).
This theory will explore the geographical paradigms brought out in Marxism geography, detailing the principles of Marxist geography with reference to the concepts of space and place. Kuhn (1962) came with the idea of paradigms and argued that periods dominated by one research mode, in science, are separated by periods of rapid change (Haggett 1990).
Paradigms are described by Harvey (1973: 120) as a set of accepted relationships, categories, concepts and methods, throughout a community at given time. Anomalies occur over time that cannot be explained by the existing paradigms. These accumulations continue to a point where it calls for investigation (Hagget 1990).
Revolution and creation of new paradigms may result when problems created by the anomalies are attempted to be solved (Harvey 1973). Marxism perceives human beings as gradually transforming or changing themselves in stages until social perfection is reached.
The Marxist geographers heavily depend on Marxist economic and social theories to show how the means of production in capitalist structures, control the human spatial distribution. By changing the workings of production, Marxist geography aims at changing the fundamental operations of social processes. This leads to investigations being done which leads to revolution and creation of new paradigms.
Kuhn’s analysis may not directly, be relevant to the evolution and structure of geography, but, its three elements can explain what has happened with the discipline (Johnston, 1997). Marxist geography is composed of a disciplinary matrix paradigm which has shared values with social theory world view paradigm, in contrast with spatial science geography (Johnston, 1997).
Human geography as explained by Johnston (1997) is a multiple discipline paradigm which is effectively in competition. Johnston’s view contradicts Kuhn’s view of a new paradigm which is almost universally accepted.
Development of Marxism geography
Marxist geography came into existence as a response to criticism on spatial geography, which dominated the, period (Richard 1985). Cox (2005) is of the view that the creation of the new paradigms is not a cheap process. Combining of the various bits and pieces of the Marxist world view ends up with quite an eclectic mix of concepts.
A Marxism in favor of exchange and competition instead of class and production, for instance it might be simply a concern of unequal outcomes (Cox 2005. 3). Marxism geography underwent a quantitative revolution other than the historical preoccupation with description of unique places in details.
Instead, this new science identified universal spatial laws, and concerned with applying scientific methods and creating models which could predict spatial patterns and human behavior (Cloke et al 1991).
Spatial science according to Johnston et al (2000) was based on a belief in positivism where observation, repetition and empirical research could be done, tested, verified and spatial laws of science uncovered. Humanistic geography was also in line with the Marxist geography in criticizing the spatial approach. It was in respect to spatial analysis also to the emergent Marxist geography (Cox 2004).
In Duncan and Ley (1982) paper, it was featured as a deterministic and economistic approach. Humanistic geography however, lacked strong theoretical underpinnings which dismissed it as a credible response to the challenge posed by the Marxist geography. The now called ‘the new cultural geography’ is the response that emerged in the early eighties.
Criticism of spatial science developed along two distinct lines. It did not consider the processes of independence and creativity among human beings, and it also ignored the effects of political, economical and social structures in developing spatial patterns (Cloke et al 1991). These two factors developed the humanist, in the first instance, and radical, in the second instance, strands of geography.
Marxist geographers incorporated Marxist’s ideas into Geography to come up with Marxist geography (Moseley et al., 2007). Other aspects like feminist geography got hooked up with Marxism and the attraction of the new cultural geography became very strong and dominated the field (Cox 2005). Embracing the universalistic view of Marxism mirrored what was taking place in the real world.
Harvey (1973) pointed out that class was, in fact, being sidelined by gender and race as pivots of oppositional politics in the United States. Harvey (1985a) outlines Marxist analysis key ideas, modes of production, which are the ways in which daily social life is produced reproduced and replicated.
Marxism main focus is on the capitalist mode of production, and he outlines the need for continued circulation of capital, profit being its core motive. Continuous circulation of capital can only be maintained if there is continuous expansion of commodities produced value and; hence economic growth is achieved.
Marxism major achievement was the identification and understanding of exploitation as central in capitalist form of development (Cox 2004). The relations of production that necessitated exploitation in the work place extended the same to the living place through commoditization of the living place (Harvey 1985b).
Critical human geographers argue that exploitation instead of being an essential of capitalism, it occurs in times at particular places depending on the circumstances. The economic growth achieved as a result of continuous expansion of commodity values, expects workers to increase the value in production by giving more in production, than they are given in exchange for their labor.
They, therefore, provide profits to the owners of modes of production. This gives rise to class relations in that capitalists who own the means of production prosper from the profits they get from exploiting the laborers, who in turn continue to be exploited. The workers must sell their labor for them to survive, and the owners of production continue exploiting them, hence replication of capitalism and exploitation (Marx, 1970).
This perspective is incorporated in the Marxism geography to help change the society by facing the problems facing them, which is majorly capitalism. Harvey (1985a) echoes Marxism notion that capitalism has inherent conflicts, which make it, subject to crisis. For example, capitalists will seek to use technology to replace living labor in order to diminish the powers of workers by gaining competitive advantage (Brenner, 1977).
This is in contrast with the fact that human workers are needed to the value expansion of commodities, the maintenance of capital circulation and creation of profits for the owners of production. Marxism’s belief is that capitalism will eventually fail because of these contradictions and, this will pave the way for a new mode of production (Marx & Engels, 1978).
Marxism geography not only criticized the spatial geographers for not taking account of the factors. They discovered in capitalist socio- economic and political causes of patterns in geography. They also criticized it for claiming objectivity through the support of positivism and the use of scientific methods. Research, argued by the radical geographers can never be value free.
The choice of what to study also requires judgment in value. Therefore, stating research values should be done and clearly stated. Marxism geography has come under a lot of criticism, being challenged by newer and developing ideas like cultural geography, postmodernism and feminism, though they later integrated themselves into Marxism geography making it the main idea in the field (Cox 2004).
For example, Howell (et al 2003) looks at class as only one factor in social patterns development, while there are others like ethnicity, sexuality, gender, color, language and even race. Rose, a feminist (1993, cited Holloway et al (2003) criticizes its male dominated analysis. Marxism geography has been questioned due to the backdrop of the changing world events and even the collapse of socialist states.
Conclusion
Space and place are the key concepts within the concept of Marxist geography. Some of the core ideas of Marxism geography can be deduced from the way the concepts of space and place have been analyzed. Marxist analysis reveals contradiction within capitalism through the analysis of space and place. This is explained by Harvey (1982), as because capitalism will try to unify and integrate space.
Marxism developed from criticism of spatial science and dominated the social theory of geography. Some of the criticisms have been integrated into the Marxist geography making it dominant. Marxist geography looks at space as a social construction and looks at the connections between places (Smith, 1984).
It is a vital and essential element in the geographical discipline development and potions of its analysis have been and still are widely accepted over the past 30 years. It is, however, facing the challenges of maintaining its importance and relevance in the face of emerging new ideas, changing times, and an overall changing world.
Humanistic geography, which provides most, criticism to Marxist geography, ironically is seen as lacking in explaining the behavioral constraints brought about by the social structures and the social agencies.
References
Brenner R. (1977). “The origin of capitalist development: a critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism.” New left review, 104: 25- 92.
Cloke, P. et al, (1991). Approaching Human Geography: An Introduction to Contemporary Theoretical Debates. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Haggett, P. (1990).The Geographer’s Art, Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City. London: Edward Arnold.
Harvey, D. (1982). The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (1985a). The Geopolitics of Capitalism, in Gregory. D. and Urry, J. eds (1985) Social Relations and Spatial Structures. Critical Human Geography. London.
Harvey, D. (1985b). Consciousness and the Urban Experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Holloway, S. et al. (2003). Key Concepts in Geography, London: Sage.
Johnston, R. (1997). Geography and Geographers, (5th Ed). London: Arnold.
Johnston, et al. (2000). The Dictionary of Human Geography, (4th Ed). Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, N. (1984). Uneven Development. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Cox R. K. (2004). “Globalization, the class relations and democracy”. Geo Journal. 60: 31- 41.
Cox R. K. (2005). From Marxist geography to critical geography and back again. Department of geography Ohio University. Ohio State University. Columbus.
Duncan J. and Ley D. (1982). Structural Marxism and human geography: a critical assessment. Association of American Geographers: Annal. 72: 30- 59.
Kitchen, R and Thrift, N. (2009). International encyclopedia of human geography. London: Elsevier.
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1978). The German ideology. International publishers. New York.
Marx, K. (1970). Capitalism, Volume 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Moseley, W. et al (Ed). (2007). The Introductory Reader in Human Geography: contemporary debates and classic writings. Oxford: Blackwell.
Peet, R. (ed) (1977). Radical geography. Chicago: Maaroufa Pres.
Richard J. (1985). “An introduction to Marxist Geography.” Journal of Geography, 84(1): 5-10.
Yeung, H. W. (2005). “Rethinking relational economic geography.” Institute of British Geographers, 30: 37–51.
Marxism is presented as the comprehensive worldview necessary to understand the social world. It provides the theoretical armament necessary to attack capitalist hoaxes and the scientific vision necessary to mobilize the masses for struggle. The central task for Marxist intellectuals is to expound on the basic revolutionary concepts of Marxism in such a way that its influence grows, especially among the oppressed classes (Ulam, 2019). This is often done in the form of a dogmatic proclamation of Marxism as an all-powerful doctrine: “Marxism is one of the most influential intellectual movements in the history of ideas”(Kumar & Kumar, 2020, p. 15). The central issue is that Marxism should be made universally accessible so it is internalized as a subjectively vivid belief system.
Marxism is a major manifestation of the dialectic of modernity, both sociologically and theoretically. As a social force, Marxism was the full-fledged offspring of modern capitalism and Enlightenment culture. Karl Marx was a proponent of emancipatory reason; he respected the individual’s freedom from exploitation and oppression (Therborn, 2018). Marxist parties, movements, and intellectual currents became the most important ways of embracing the contradictory nature of modernity for at least a hundred years, from the nineteenth to the late twentieth century.
Marxism is an analytically strong tradition of social theory that is vital to the scientific understanding of the dilemmas and possibilities of social change and reproduction in contemporary society. Marxism is needed, especially for those who want to change the world in the spirit of egalitarian and emancipatory projects, and politics is a direct legacy of Marxism (Therborn, 2018). This does not mean, however, that every element in Marxism, as it now exists, is sustainable. If Marxism aspires to be a scientific social development theory, it must be constantly challenged and transformed. The construction of Marxism thus also means its restructuring. Marxism is not a dogma that definitively establishes the ultimate truth. At the same time, Marxism is also not simply a disparate collection of interesting ideas. Moreover, if our goal is to develop our understanding to change the world, then Marxism’s construction (development) should be a key task for us.
Liberalism and enlightened rationalism, more recently including post-Marxist social democracy and post-traditionalist conservatism, embodied the affirmation of modernity and did not raise questions about science, accumulation, growth, or development. Traditional religious and secular conservatism countered the negativity of modernity. Marxism defended modernity to create another, more advanced version of it: “Marxism was the theory of this dialectic of modernity as well as its practice” (Therborn, 2018, p. 67). Its theory focused on the rise of capitalism as a progressive stage of historical development and its “contradictions”: class exploitation, the movement toward crises, and the creation of class conflict.
Marxism and its ideas are particularly in demand in the 21st century. The global financial and economic crisis that shook the world in 2007-2010, as well as the end of capitalism and the triumph of socialism, were predicted by Marxists (Delanty, 2022). This crisis reminded us that we do not live simply in a market economy. The modern world is where economic and political power belongs not to the people but to capital. Capitalism, however, is a social system characterized by profound contradictions. Without studying them, it is impossible not only to conduct entrepreneurial activity successfully but also to live normally and stably; it is impossible to maintain the normal course of national and world economies.
Modern science goes far beyond what Karl Marx wrote a century ago. Moreover, Marxism helps to understand the underlying contradictions of capitalism and the forms of their resolution: “The deepening and expansion of capitalism seem to increase the predominance of unfree labor” (Rioux, LeBaron, & Verovšek, 2020, para 1). Marxism develops and answers the most urgent questions of our time: from the causes and alternatives of globalization to understanding the nature of the contemporary cultural and ecological crisis.
Marxism is a source of interesting and thought-provoking ideas, many of which remain useful for the scientific analysis of contemporary social relations. Marxism is the distinctive cognitive perspective of the modern world and society (Therborn, 2018). Some Marxist ideas may have been deeply flawed from the beginning, and others may have lost their significance for understanding contemporary society. However, the Marxist tradition still contains many useful ideas and arguments and should be preserved as an enduring legacy. Much of what is presented today under the rubric “Marxist sociology” is of the kind that allows selective use of particular concepts and themes from the Marxist tradition to understand particular empirical problems. However, one does not need to be a “Marxist” to use Marxism this way.
The construction of Marxism is a most ambitious view of the Marxist tradition, going beyond the mere use of explicitly or implicitly Marxist categories to address a range of sociological problems. The goal here is to promote Marxism as a unified theoretical structure by understanding its shortcomings and restoring the strength of its arguments. In practice, this engagement with Marxism involves making a serious normative commitment, not simply believing in the scientific merits of Marxist ideas: “Marxism has been part of an intellectual and sociopolitical history, with alternatives, rivals and opponents” (Therborn, 2018, p. 94). Marxism’s construction (development) as an intellectual project is closely linked to the political project of the struggle against capitalism as a social order.
Sociological Marxism without liberation Marxism degenerates into a cynical, pessimistic critique of capitalism that ultimately encourages passivity in the face of capitalism’s enormous potential for reproduction. Marxism, together with sociological Marxism, tends to reach a deep base in the real contradictions of capitalism, capture people’s minds and reach authentic humanity (Gili & Mangone, 2022). Only by building Marxism in a combination of these two components can we neutralize the influence of the present image of capitalism’s apparent naturalness and inevitability, which can turn all alternatives to capitalist relations into far-fetched projects that cannot be realized. Marxism is a powerful tool for developing theoretically sound, well-thought-out economic, social and cultural policies, making historically grounded and future-oriented practical decisions of vital importance for social structures and individuals.
Marx’s conclusions on the problem of transforming society were ambiguous, leaving much room for choosing forms of social transformation and a significant opportunity for their diverse interpretation. Only the conclusion about the objective necessity of these transformations was unambiguous and categorical. The orthodox followers of Marxism adopted only this and did everything to implement it. However, the ideas of Marx, the politician, turned out to be much less viable than the ideas of Marx, the economist. The contribution of Marxist economic theory to science is recognized by economists of all generations and in all scientific fields. Scientists still use many aspects of the theoretical-economic concept proposed by Marx because this concept is logical, built using a method based on the principles of dialectic and historicity, the combination of theory and practice, comparison and comparison, and the use of statistics and modeling. In many cases, Marx was a harbinger of modern economic theories. Therefore, Marxist economic theory can be considered a fruitful development of economic thought.
References
Delanty, G. (2022). Capitalism and crisis: Thinking through capitalist Crisis with Schumpeter and Polanyi. In Capitalism, Democracy, Socialism: Critical Debates (pp. 241-258). Springer, Cham.
Gili, G., & Mangone, E. (2022). Is sociology of hope possible? An attempt to recompose a theoretical framework and a research program. The American Sociologist, 1-29.
Kumar, R. & Kumar, P. (2020). Marxism in the 21st century. Journal of English Language and Literature, 7, 14-17.
Karl Marx is one of the best known scholars who contributed to the development of theories that help in interpreting political, social and economic phenomena in the society. He is particularly known for the development of the Marxism theory which is has political, social and economic dimensions.
Marx studied the concept of social class and how it affected social relations (Ritzer 123). He concluded that the various classes in the society are always in conflict with each other and their conflicts lead to social change. This paper will focus on Marx’s view on the role of political systems in regard to social change.
Class Conflict: Bourgeoisies Verses Proletariats
Marx believed that there are two classes in the society namely the proletariats’ and the bourgeoisies. The bourgeoisie is the social class that is associated with the “ownership of the means of production” (Ritzer 125).
This means that they are the rich in the society. The proletariats’ on the other hand refers to the lower social class that has little or no material wealth. Thus they earn their livelihood by selling their labor to the bourgeoisies. According to Marx, the bourgeoisies focus on exploiting the proletariats in order to gain their wealth.
This is based on the fact that the output of the proletariats was “valued in terms of the labor embodied in them” (Jayapalan 105). Thus the bourgeoisies were not justified to own the good that were produced by the proletariats since the former did not apply their labor to the production process. This formed the basis of the exploitation.
The proletariats were compensated though wages while the rich retained the surplus value or the profits that accrued form the sale of the goods. This led to class conflict as the bourgeoisies focused on reducing costs (wages) while the proletariats focused on earning the highest wages possible (Jayapalan 107).
The private ownership of capital was associated with the capitalist society. Thus in order to resolve the conflict between the bourgeoisies and the proletariats, Marx suggested that the capitalist system should be replaced with a socialist system.
Role of the Political System
Marx believed that the class conflict between the haves (bourgeoisies) and the have-nots (proletariats) can be resolved through an effective political system. As discussed above the inequality between the two classes can be reduced by replacing the capitalist system with the socialist system. Capitalism is an “economic system that is characterized by profit maximization and private ownership of property” (Ritzer 128). Socialism on the other hand encourages communal ownership of property and equity in regard to distribution of wealth.
According to Marx, the political system should favor socialism in order to promote equality (Jayapalan 107). This means that the government should discourage private ownership of property. In the contrary all resources or wealth should be owned by the government. Such wealth will then become the property of all citizens since the government represents the citizens.
Besides, the resources should be used for the benefit of the citizens especially the poor who are also the majority in the community. This involves eliminating the profit motive in order to facilitate equal distribution of resources by lowering the cost of accessing resources. Thus Marx believed that the political system should promote socialism in order to encourage equality. This leads to a reduction in class conflict.
Socialism: Role of Revolution
As discussed above, Marx believed that social change can only be achieved through class struggle. Thus capitalism will only be defeated through the proletariats’ revolution. The proletarian revolution is a “socio-political revolution in which the workers attempt to over through the bourgeoisies” (Jayapalan 108). The revolution is thus an integral aspect of the process of defeating capitalism. Marxists perceive the revolution as the first step in the process of replacing capitalism with socialism.
The revolution is meant to help the proletariats to gain control of the government in order to have power over the bourgeoisies. After gaining power, the proletariats will have the opportunity to implement the reforms that serves the interest of the poor. Such reforms include confiscating all the wealth or property that is privately owned by the bourgeoisies (Ritzer 128).
The confiscated property will then be used to benefit all citizens especially the poor. This will lead to equality since the resources will be redistributed from the rich minority to the poor who forms the better part of the population. The implementation of the reforms will culminate in communism which is a classless society.
Conclusion
The above discussion indicates that the society is divided into two classes namely, the bourgeoisies and the proletariats. The class struggle between the two social classes leads to social change such as equitable distribution of resources and elimination of exploitation.
According to Marx, the role of the political system is promoting socialism in order to facilitate equity and elimination of class struggle. This involves replacing capitalism with socialism (Ritzer 128). Socio-political revolution is thus a tool that is meant to help the poor (proletariats) to gain political power in order to introduce socialism.
Works Cited
Jayapalan, Nicholas. Sociological theory. New York: Atlantic Publishing, 2001.Print.
Many political, economics, and philosophy scholars contend the Karl Marx is an iconic thinker who has influenced the modern political, economic, and social systems in numerous ways. Central to Marxist theory is the argument that societies are divided into two main strata.
The first stratum is composed of all those people who own all means of production or what Karl Marx called bourgeoisie. The other stratum is composed of subordinates (proletariat). They are the labourers hired to support and ensure that the production process continues without being halted.
These two strata provide substantive grounds for cutely understanding the mechanisms of operation of social relationships in the international arena. Marxists hold that social relations are enshrined within the perspectives of the “material conception of life” (Samir 1982, p.48). For nations to remain materially endowed, they engage in capitalistic productions. Imperialism also holds a similar point of view.
With regard to Barbara (2006), imperialism involves “the massive export of capital to foreign countries for the purpose of exploiting and dominating both their labour forces and markets” (p.45). Therefore, it may be argued as encompassing the highest order of capitalism, a concept that advocates for globalisation view as being the only way that societies can remain competitive.
The paper argues that the modern political systems are giving a rebirth to the reemergence of situations characteristic of societies operating under imperialism and Marxism revelations. Therefore, it is suggested that Marxism offers a coherent account of the modern international political system.
Interpretation of modern international political system from paradigms of Marxism
The international political system is ideally capitalistic in nature. Therefore, the postulated concepts of class struggles, materialism, and the surfacing of a capitalistic world market incredibly provide a point of alignment of the Marxism concepts and theories of international relations.
However, while associating Marxism concepts with the interpretation of the international political system, it is crucial to note that Karl Marx never postulated a theory of international or world politics. The interpretation offered for Marxism paradigms sets forth a means of interpreting the concepts of materialism and class struggles within the modern international politics.
Advocates of Marxism are predominantly concerned with providing an explanation of various world events from the perspective of economic factors. In this context, Marxism runs short of being a right paradigm of interpreting the modern international politics since such categories of politics are driven by many factors rather than just economic self-centeredness.
Nevertheless, it is also possible to argue that economic gains supersede any action taken by nations to influence the political environment in any particular direction. Marxists essentially claim that they are able to subtly understand various world’s events among them being treaties and wars from the context of global capitalism (Hobden & Jones 2008, p.144).
Arguing from the dimension of impacts of capitalism, as suggested by Karl Marx, being a mega trait that is shaping the modern international politics, global capitalism has the implication of fracturing the world’s population into two main distinct groups. At the core of the political arena, the wealthy and the dominant group exist. On the other hand, the poor and powerless are situated at the periphery.
What makes the occupants of the core prosper materially is the possession of an ability to oppress those in the periphery. Arguably, this happens because the poor and powerless have no equal capacity to control the factors of production. The aftermath of this is creation of an ever-enlarging inequality gap between the two groups of people. In the modern international politics, the ideas of Karl Max related to class struggle are still relevant.
Nevertheless, the Marxism theory fails to operate purely as a mechanism of interpreting the modern international politics. In fact, “the conflict has shifted from the bourgeoisie and the proletariat who are confined by the national boundaries within the core and periphery operating in a world-market without national boundaries” (Hobden & Jones 2008, p. 146).
Nonetheless, the modern international politics has the historical materialism concept of Marxism still resonating in it. The chief argument for holding this position is that historical change is a depiction of various societal economic progressions. This means, “Economic prosperity or change drives social relations, which are responsible for social change” (Dunn 2009, p.47).
Therefore, economic factors in any society determine the history of that society in a vivid way. The Marxism theory outlines two main economic factors that propel the history of people. These are the “means of production and the relations of production” (Anievis 2010, p.79).
These two concepts are related though different in some aspects, especially in their capacity to influence the modern international politics. McComick (1990) exemplifies this relationship when he argues, “as the means of production develop, for example, technological advancement, the relations of production become outdated hence restricting the full utilisation of the new technology” (p.127).
Therefore, when new production means occur, development of different production relations follows as well. Arguably, this situation has happened in the international political arena in the recent past. A good example is the formation of trade treaties among various nations following the rapid embracement of technology in the production of consumables in a cost-effective way.
In particular, there has been a rapid migration of many corporations to base their production plants in emerging economies especially in Asia, which is done to ensure that the corporations remain competitive in the world market hence continuing with their domination in the international market.
Arguably, in the context of Marxism theory, this claim suggests a full embracement of the concept of ‘material conception of life’ in the modern international political system. Although this concept is inherently economic in its stipulation, it has the ability to alter political and legal international relations.
From this argument, it sounds sufficient to infer that, despite the fact that Marxism theory is laid on economic stratum, it may be a subtle paradigm of explaining the modern international political system.
People opposed to the argument that Marxism theory can be used to explain the modern international political systems see liberalism and realism as close approximations of paradigms that can be deployed to provide an explanation to the problems that are experienced in the modern political systems.
One of the cited evidence for this is, “realism was vindicated by the power politics of the cold war, and Liberalism is relevant because of an increase in interdependence and reliance on international institutions” (Samir 1982, p.50). On a different perspective, the modern international political system may be described from the contexts of being a process of seeking international understanding and harmonisation of ideas.
In this dimension, the incidences of engagement of superpower nations in wars to curtail individual acts of other nations perceived as exposing the international human race to danger are attempts to enforce particular ways of social interaction between international communities.
Congruent with this line of argument, Marxism theory introduces a significant problem when explaining the reason why the war against individual nations is justified though it amounts to exposing the citizens to life risks.
The concept of capitalism and or how it shapes relationships of persons who are economically segregated is evident in the modern international political system in the sense that some nations have dominated the world markets simply because they are wealthier and hence owning most of the global factors of production.
However, the ideas of Marx have a myriad of limitations. For instance, cultural and feminists’ critics believe that Marxism theories are predominantly economic. They over-dwell on perspectives of class dominations.
Therefore, Marxism ignores “other forms of oppression and dominations that exist in the modern society, including those based on gender, race, or ethnicity” (Little 2010, Para.11).
Arguably, utilisation of Marxism theory as an explanation of the modern international political systems places concerns on critics of capitalism, which makes Marxism theory inappropriate in explaining the modern forms of ideological oppressions and dominations.
In the same line of augment, theorists who investigated the roles played by media in shaping international political systems immensely believe that the forms of oppression and domination produced by public opinion instruments cannot be explained by Marxism theories.
Indeed, Kornai (1992) declares the forms of oppressions presented by such opinions “as profound as the more visible forms of political and economic domination that Marx emphasized in the contemporary world” (p.107). Amid these critics of the Marxism theoretical paradigms’ capacity to explain the international political systems, Marxism has a central vision for emancipating people from economic forms of oppression.
Economic forms of oppression give rise to other types of oppression since, even in presentation of public opinions, the economic endowment levels of different people play active roles in determining the vocal levels in the international political arena.
Therefore, the modern political system forms of oppression can be traced collectively as having their roots ingrained in economic and social class struggles discussed by Karl Marx. All these oppressions hinder the collective development of people across the globe, even in the modern age where equality is a central public debate.
New imperialism accounts and the modern international political system
Consistent with classical Marxism arguments, imperialism represents capitalism of the highest order. It occurs the moment the production capacity of nations reach high levels such that all the products and services produced intrinsically within the nations cannot be fully consumed by the citizens (Barbara 2006, p.52). Consequently, external markets must be sort.
Myriads of international politics scholars deploy the term imperialism to refer to any form of subordination and domination, which is structured such that there is a centre of expression of power and with peripheries, which are the subordinated and the dominated persons.
“Internal logics of the capitalists’ competitive systems forced them to seek opportunities to control raw materials, markets, and profitable fields of investment from the less developed countries” (Dunn 2009, p.64). Apparently, the modern political system is shaped by such quests.
For instance, many areas where confrontations have occurred in the recent past are the areas endowed with resources. Such resources include oils and minerals. In particular, oil has been a significant propeller of economies since the onset of industrialisation. The nations, which are well endowed with oil reserves, have the capacity to control the global economy if not maintained under checks.
For this reason, wealthier nations with global influences strategically move to control capitalisation of the management of oil and other minerals that drive the global economies in foreign nations. Opposed to pure imperialism that existed in the imperialism age, this new form of imperialism has no formal colonies.
However, as Barbara (2006) argues, “informal imperialism with no formal colonies is properly described as such, and remains a controversial topic among historians” (p.46). Nevertheless, the modern expression of indirect colonialism is mostly an expression of milder forms of imperialism.
Stemming from the above arguments, a crucial question is whether the traditional Marxism beliefs on imperialism are coherent interpretations of the modern international political systems. In response to this question, Castree (2006) argues that domination has been the main driver and source of motivation of global conflicts (p.36).
To exemplify this argument, in the age of imperialism, the US was widely opposed to the exercise of imperialism claiming that it adhered to the democratic rights of people. Unfortunately, during the early 20th century, policies aimed at ensuring that the entire world embraces democracy received hefty military backings.
However, such an endeavour was not directly implied since the participation of the military mostly took place behind scenes that were enshrined within the perspectives of hegemony. After the end of World War II, the US had a clear interest of being the world’s superpower, as well evidenced by the US’ participation in resolution of global conflicts, something that prompted the collapsing of the Soviet Union.
Even after the collapsing of the Soviet Union, the US never heralded its efforts to project military force in ensuring that it remained a superpower solely. This resulted to a ‘unipolar’ global domination. In the twenty-first century, domination is also a central objective of globally influential nations.
Cohen (1997) amplifies this argument by further claiming, “Department of defense and the US’ administrations stated and restated in the various Quadrennial Reports, force posture statements, etc. in execution of its role as the sole remaining superpower” (p.27). By 2005, the US had established about 737 foreign nations’ military bases.
The spending on the military is also tremendous since, by 2010, it stood at 43 percent of the global total. The significance of these statistics is that they indicate the US’ concerns in protecting its status of dominating the world’s political system.
Arguably, in the context of this example, the classical Marxism beliefs on imperialism are valid, subtle, and coherent explanations of the modern international political system. Amid the position held in the above discussion, classical Marxism beliefs on imperialism face a significant drawback in explaining the international political systems coherently.
The position that classical Marxism may be used to explain the political systems of the world is based on the argument, “Marxism is viewed as a ubiquitous and benign theory apt to explain all kinds of social injustice ranging from slavery and poverty to the malfunctioning of colonial institutions and political systems” (Adama 2011, Para.1).
Unfortunately, using it to explain an array of issues characterising the modern political systems subjects political scholarship to challenges because any scholarly body of knowledge cannot predominantly depend on a single paradigm to provide explanations to many problems, which are often different in nature, as classical Marxism would attempt to suggest.
When a single paradigm is applied to explain a range of issues in any scholarly body of knowledge, it infers that the explanation rests on very thin and inappropriately anchored conceptions. However, this criticism does not put off the fact that the modern world globalisation politics has resulted to the reemergence of imperialism theory under the tag name ‘new imperialism theory.’
Whether it is denied that Marxism beliefs on imperialism can be used to explain the modern international political systems or not, it is widely contended by many political scholars that globalisation politics are based on capitalism concepts raised by Karl Marx.
The reason why every nation (especially the industrialised) would like to seek for global markets for its industries is pegged on the needs to acquire new markets for their excessive productions. Many of the markets sought by such nations are located in the less developed nations.
Since the paradigms of capitalism, as set out by Marxism theories, are principally framed to take optimal advantages of markets, substandard goods are produced and sold in these markets because such goods are cheap and can be afforded by the periphery occupants of the global market sphere. Arguably, this exemplifies the concept of class distinctions and divisions central to the classical Marxism.
Therefore, even though it is possible to argue that, based on the interpretations of the modern international political systems on the classical Marxism beliefs on imperialism, which introduce narrow conceptions of explaining a wide range of issues, imperialism theory has reemerged.
Indeed, it has high probabilities of leading to vivid and substantive theories of explaining the modern international political systems, especially when integrated with the Marxism theories.
Conclusion
Through globalisation of politics, the modern international politics has prompted the reemergence of imperialism theory as a possible explanation of the modern political systems. In this paper, several arguments about the possibility of the classical Marxism beliefs about imperialism to provide a mechanism of explaining the modern international political systems have been considered.
Several challenges are experienced by deploying Marxism paradigms as means of coherently explaining the modern political systems.
However, the paper maintains that, in the modern world societies, capitalism has fully impinged their production systems so that the owners of the means of production are all oriented towards gaining the maximisation at the expense of consumers, as well as those who support their means of production by providing labour.
The central objective is to gain global competitiveness. Additionally, the needs of the powerful nations such as the US to remain in power have been argued as crucial indicators of the reemergence of imperialism. Opposed to the kind of imperialism that existed in the age of imperialism, which the US highly opposed, the modern imperialism has no formal colonies.
However, the immense political power possessed by the wealthy nations makes it possible for them to impose an indirect colonisation to poor countries tantamount to that of imperialism age.
This move has the consequence of leading to subordination of the poor nations besides domination of the wealthy nations in the global markets in global policy enforcement. From this stand, the paper holds that Marxism beliefs on imperialism can coherently explain the modern political systems.
References
Adama, N 2011, The fallacies of classical Marxism, ideas on imperialism and development. Web.
Anievis, A 2010, Marxism and World Politics, Routledge, London.
Barbara, B 2006, Imperialism and Post-colonialism History: Concepts, Theories and Practice, Longman, New York.
Castree, N 2006, ‘David Harvey’s Symptomatic Silence’, Historical Materialism, vol.14 no. 4, pp. 35-57.
Cohen, W 1997, Report of the Quadrennial defense review, Department of Defense, United States of America.
Dunn, B 2009, Global Political Economy, Pluto, London.
Kornai, J1992, The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
During the 19th century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed a world view theory referred to as Marxism (Player 165). So far, this theory has been severally reviewed by other scholars and political philosophers who have offered their own perspectives. Some of the inherent perspectives that have been developed to date include eco-socialism, Marxist humanism, feminism and Christian Marxism.
As a theory, Marxism has four main elements that are closely related and which may largely assist towards understanding how society transformed as well as evolved over the years especially among the capitalist economies. As a matter of fact, some of the elements of change that have characterized transformation in society include materialistic approach to history, social class divisions, dialectical approach to historical changes and commitment to socialism (Player 166).
It is also imperative to underscore the fact that during the very 19th century period, Marxism was adopted as the main ideology in running the communist’s governments that were spreading all over the world. Initially, the ideology was first introduced in Canada by the British intellectuals and as a result, it ended up dominating the ideals and major principles of the socialist parties in the country (Player 165).
However, it is evident that Marxism began to stagnate in the 20th century due to several interconnected reasons. We may also not ignore to mention that since Marxism theories have been critiqued by scholars, certain pieces of opinions have also developed which tend to assert that these theories may not be suitable in the 21st century (Hundelson 259). This paper explores some of the theories on Marxism and argues that the latter may not be suitable or applicable in the 21st century.
A brief overview of Marxism
It is apparent that, in order to understand why Marxism is not suitable as a major ideology in the 21st century, it is important to have an overview of what the theory is all about. It is also worthy to mention that, the proponents of Marxism targeted to fight self- emancipations that existed among the working class people. In a more subjective manner, it also aimed at eliminating any form of domination of the bourgeoisies against the poor in society.
As a result, Marxism gradually progressed and came up with movements that fought against all forms of domination by virtue of gender, race and social class. According to the Marxists’ view, the only way of decimating manifold domination and exploitation was through liberating the working lass from being oppressed by rich employers. In the process, Marxism gave birth to a socialism movement that was destined to eradicate all forms of institutional sadism.
Meanwhile, in the process of destroying the concentration of power among specific classes of people in society, Marxism aimed to empower and strengthen workers’ movements (Row thorn 26). Karl Marx and Friedrich had already realized that workers freedom was greatly limited by the wealthy elites (Keynes 9).
Therefore, they proposed to enhance it by expanding the capacity of collective action thus increasing possibilities for individual intensification within the society. Karl Marx argued that workers freedom could not be enhanced by limiting their autonomy but rather facilitating individual participation in the economy (Rowthorn 26). In this case, the freedom was to be achieved by use of a theoretical approach.
In addition to this, Marxism applied practical critiques through political actions (Hundelson 261). Therefore, the theorist mobilized masses of people to oppose certain manifold dominations. However, since Marxism had different faces, there were no specifically set principles in the sense that no face could embody any historic achievement in the entire process. In this case, the movement and its integral concerns adopted the name of its key proponent namely Karl Marx.
Meanwhile, irrespective of the many contributions of Marxism’s, the movement has several shortcomings. Criticisms of the movement have originated from a political point of view. In other words, democratic socialists declined to accept the views of Marxism on the issue of socialism (Rowthorn 34). According to Karl Marx, socialism could only be achieved through class conflict and grassroots, revolution.
Contemporarily, there are very few supporters of Marxist ideology as opposed to other movements such as liberalism and democracy. Moreover, the basic fundamentals of Marxism that have been criticized by thinkers creating a negative illusion in peoples mind (Sowell 112).That not withstanding, it is imperative to understand why the theory was highly criticized as a major ideology of the century.
Critiques of Marxism
Considering the intellectual basis of Marxism, one of the main fundamentals was on historical materialism. According to Karl Marx, advancement in technology and modes of productions impact a change on the social relations (Keynes 8). However, this view has some limitations because it fails to consider the superstructure of the society. Such factors include ethnicity, culture, religion and political views.
According to this view, Karl Marx tends to overlook both the real and perceived causes of economic underdevelopment. With Marxism, there is a general perception that material factors such as technology are the main causes of economic decline. He bases economic development on law, politics, morality and religion.
According to Marxist critics, Karl Marx oversimplified nature of the society on their impact on economic development (Rowthorn 26). The controversy here is that, the theory does not bring out clearly whether it is the material factor or the superstructure of the society that influence development. Furthermore, thinkers have argued that though Marxism theory is testable there is lot of falsified facts.
Therefore, it is arguable that the issue of historical materialism is very narrow to act as a pedestal for indulging the complexity and numerous power structures. In this case, there is a conventional twist that rules out the scientific status of Marxism. In the 21st century, we need a theory that will emphasize on the possible factors that are responsible in enhancing development (Player 165).
It is also vivid that Marxism does not put into consideration the role and effect of governments on the capitalist system of production. Karl Marx asserts that economic investors and businessmen need monopoly over their businesses (Rowthorn 43).
While the latter approach towards economic empowerment sounds awesome, Marxists did not consider that capitalism can collapse the very economy it defends and that exclusive monopoly could result to social revolution. Instead, Karl Marx perceived capitalistic monopoly as, an inherent tendency towards to overcome fiscal and ecological crises (Keynes 7).
Moreover, he perceived that capitalist system would eradicate poverty, unemployment, disparity, disaffection and environmental destruction once every individual was given an opportunity to participate in production. Karl Marx fails to understand that, capitalist system can not collapse on its own but as a result of resource depression (Hundelson 264). However, it is evident that when businesses monopolize the market forces it can be dangerous and this requires the government to regulate the market forces.
Failure to regulate investments results to capitalism system reaching its final stage. Optimum trust and monopoly in businesses affect the regular and natural mode in which the economy is run by the government (Sowell 117). In another words, total monopoly eradicate government regulation through unionization and legislations. Predictably, thinkers argue that such a state can result to economic collapse in a country.
In this case, if the theory is applicable in the 21st century, there is n way we can overcome problems associated with monopolistic nature of the current investments (Sowell 120).
Additionally, Marxism theory assumes that there are other factors other than the economy that that drives history (Keynes 12). According to some thinkers, considering economy as the only drive for history may be quite a narrow and oversimplified way of revisiting such a theory.
Needless to say, economy as a factor cannot be used to explain the history of civilization (Sowell 118). Thinkers feel that, in order to understand civilization, we need to use superstructures of a particular society in order to examine the struggles and achievements up to the contemporary period (Keynes 8).
Moreover, though Karl Marx figures out human superstructure as source of underdevelopment, it is vivid that, in as much as man needs freedom he requires a bit of barbarism such as tribalism and racism. This helps him to explore himselves and finally establishes his identity. This implies that, to some extent conflict is inevitable and thus important in shaping man’s destiny.
In one way or the other, conflict triggered competition, responsibility and increased human experience. Due to this reason, anarchists feel that, 21st century deserves a more realistic theory that will put into account the idea of self-realization. Finally, thinkers and scholars perceive that Marxism is vulnerable to corruption by the fact that all the means of productions are at the hands of private citizens (Sowell 112).
As mentioned earlier, the fact that Karl Marx assumed the role of government in regulating production, the effects is that there will be no revenues to run a state. Lack of strict regulation of wealth by the government will deprive the state from getting funds obtained from taxes (Govind 75). This also gives people the freedom to conduct businesses on their own means and thus some wealth might be created through unethical strategies.
In this case, anarchists find this theory unsuitable since it will bring revolutions that have the exact nature of those that they are struggling to overthrow. Considerably, Marxism creates ample conditions for the socialists who destruct the normal nature of a state (Keynes 18). This implies that, the anarchist campaign against Marxism reduces its chances to return as a major ideology in the 21st century.
Conclusion
To recap it all, it is factual that Marxism is outdated and can hardly stand as a major ideology in the progressive and dynamic 21st century socio-political and economic life. Although Karl Marx’s theory appears consistent, the assumptions are extremely disputed. This has been attributed by the complex errors and ambiguities identified when the theory was being analyzed by scholars.
Furthermore, Marxism has failed to provide an accurate theoretical framework that can rescue the world states from capitalist totalitarianism. Indeed, even the existing framework lacks coherence and means of accessibility especially among developing countries. Proactively, the 21st century era demands a theory that is independent of religious and close-minded fanatics.
Works Cited
Govind, Rahul. Equality, Right, and Identity: Rethinking the Contract through Hobbes and Marx. Telos, 1.154 (2011): 75.
Hundelson, Richard . Popper’s Critique of Marx. Philosophical Studies 37 (1980) 259- 70.
Keynes, Anderson. Not Just Capital and Class: Marx on Non-Western Societies, Nationalism and Ethnicity. Socialism and Democracy,24.3 (2010): 7-23.
Player, Job. On Marx: An Introduction to the Revolutionary Intellect of Karl Marx. Capital & Class,35.1 (2011): 165-167.
Rowthorn, Bob. Skilled Labor in the Marxist System. Bulletin of Conference of Socialist Economists, 8 (1974) 25-45.
The mid 19th 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 19th 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 19th 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.