Category: Marxism

Introduction

This assignment is a discussion on international relations theory. The discussion is based on the question of whether Post-Marxism and critical theory has strengthened Marxism. It will be argued in the discussion that Post-Marxism has strengthened Marxism by a way of re-shaping the original ideas of Marxism to fit in the contemporary social, political and economic world. The discussion starts by looking at a brief overview of international relations theory and its constituents which include realism, liberalism, constructivism and globalisation.

The discussion then narrows down to Marxism and Post-Marxism. Key Marxists to be discussed includes Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels while key Post-Marxists to be discussed include Antonio Gramsci, Jürgen Habermas, Ralf Dahrendorf and Marx Weber. At the end is a conclusion which restates the thesis and sums up the main arguments of the discussion.

Thesis statement

Post-Marxism has strengthened Marxism by adjusting the original ideas of Marxism to fit in the contemporary social, political and economic world.

What Is International Relations Theory?

A theory is a set of ideas which provide an explanation for something. Theories act as frameworks for guiding scholars and researchers in their work, so as to avoid duplication of ideas or repeating the mistakes which were made by previous researchers or scholars. In international relations, theories are used to explain the relationships between nations of the world. The theories look at the philosophies which shape the relationships between nations and the key interests of the nations which participate in international relations (Acharya and Buzan, 2009).

Various theories have different explanations about why, how and to what extend do nations interact. However, the overriding principal in all international relations theories is that nations relate for specific interests, and in their relations, nations usually try to create a win win situation, which is characterised by a symbiotic kind of relationship. The key elements of international relations theory include realism, liberalism, constructivism and globalisation (Brown and Ainley, 2009).

Realism

This is a state-centric international relations approach in that it looks at states as the key actors in international politics. The theory of realism is based on historical writers such as the works of Rousseau, Machiavelli and Thucydides (Edkins and Vaughan-Williams, 2009). The main argument of realism is that international relations is characterised by anarchy, in which states interact for their selfish interests. Realism therefore negates the mutual understanding of states in their relations but rather puts more emphasis on the struggle of nations to amass as much resources as possible in order to advance their own interests. With realism, economic success is the leading interest in international relations (Booth and Smith, 1995).

Liberalism

This is the idea that nations of the world relate not only for political power and economic purposes but also for cultural purposes. With liberalism therefore, the relationship between states is characterised by a lot of cooperation in various aspects like in trade and cultural exchange. Liberalism also claims that nations which interact in trade and cultural exchange rarely make war and these acts as an incentive to international peace (Burchill, et. al, 2009).

Constructivism

This is the augment that international relations are based on ideas but not on material things like wealth creation or cultural exchange. Countries which have similar ideologies are therefore more likely to relate or interact with each other than those which have different ideologies. According to constructivists, the interaction between states is influenced by collective values, social identities and culture. The constructivist approach therefore does not see any anarchy between nations and also blames realism and liberalism for failing to predict the end of the cold war (Sitglitz, 2003).

Global imperialism and international relations

Globalisation can be defined as the minimisation of the differences between people of the world and the maximisation of their similarities through interactions, cooperation and communication (Krieger, 2006). During the pre-world war period, the world was characterised by minimal interaction, communication, cross-border movements and language homogeneity. However, after the world war, this situation changed. The changes were mainly triggered by the desire for nations of the world to unite in various spheres of development mainly the economy, education, employment, the environment and governance (Beck, 2000).

The main driving forces for globalisation was however the advancement in information and communication technology, improved transport systems, liberalised trade as well as liberalised immigration policies which have with time transformed the world into a global village (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2010).

Globalisation is however characterised by politics of domination between the rich and the poor nations or simply put, between the North and the South. This has seen nations in the North try to push for what is referred to as a new world order. The term new world order is used to refer to a bureaucratic system of governance of the world which advocates for global governance in disregard of the traditional state sovereignty which advocates for national sovereignty (Jørgensen, 2010).

The term has its history from what was referred to as “illuminati” which was a movement responsible for the French revolution as well as revolutions in Europe (Bieler, et al, 2006). Recently, new world order has taken the form of institutions which have global influence, appeal and presence like the United Nations and its affiliated institutions as well as the so called Breton wood institutions (Hirst and Thompson, 2001).

The main idea of new world order is to come up with full pledged global institutions which are responsible for the control and regulation of world’s affairs including politics, culture, economy, technology transfer and to some extent religion. These regulations, according to the proponents of new world order would help the world to achieve universal culture of the world in which people of the world subscribe to universal rules, principles and regulations in almost all aspects of life. The proponents of the new world order are mostly the super powers of the world like the United States and the nations which are members of the European Union (Scholte, 2005).

These rich nations have been very instrumental in interfering with state sovereignty in countries like Yugoslavia, Iraq Afghanistan and Libya among others with the disguise of protecting civilians from bad or dictatorial leadership.

Marxism

This can be defined as a method social inquiry which looks at economic, socio- economic and socio-political aspects of a society. In its attempt to explain social change, the method relies on the concept of historical materialism, the rise and development of capitalism as a mode of production and the study of opposites (dialectical view) (Gills,1987.pp.265-272). Marxism was founded by two Germany scholars namely Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the period between the start of the 19^th century to mid-19^th century. They rejected the ideas of realism, liberalism but focused on class struggle as the basis of international relations (Kubálková and Cruickshank, 1985.pp.1-24).

However, Karl Marx is seen as the most influential in the foundation and development of Marxism, thus the name of Marxism which was derived from his name, Marx. Marx was mostly interested in the study of society in terms of what he referred to as class struggle, which he argued was responsible for social change (Maclean, 1988. pp.295-319). On his part, Friedrich Engels based his argument on the study of opposites, arguing that social change was as a result of conflicting ideas, which influence the actions of people in the society, the argument being that the idea which is more dominant over the others shapes social change within a given society (Lenin, 2000).

The conflict theory

The roots of conflict theory are found in Karl Marx and Marx weber. To both of them, coercion but not consensus was the basis upon which social order was maintained. Karl Marx argued that conflict in the society was about economic resources while Max Weber accepted the idea and added that political power was also a cause of conflict in the society (Marx, 1970).

Both Karl Marx and Max Weber agree that the society is naturally unstable and the main force of social change is conflict. They also agree that in all societies, there are winners and losers and that those with power dominate and control the powerless. In this sense therefore, conflict is always happening in society which comprises of many groups and individuals with differing interests in which some end up benefiting more than others, which in turn continues to sustain the potential of conflict within the society (Marx, 1993).

Karl Marx

Karl Marx sees people as both producers and products of the society in which they live in. According to him, society is made up of different parts which influence each other but the economic part has the greatest influence. He argued that the history of human society is the history of tension and conflict. As per the manifesto written by him and Friedrich Engels in 1848, ‘the history of all existing societies is the history of class struggle, that of free men and slaves, lords and serfs who stand in a relationship of an oppressor and oppressed and thus are always in constant oppositions to one another (Marx, 2000).

The conflict between the oppressor and oppressed is sometimes hidden or open war and at the end, they always have a reconstituted society. In the manifesto, they go on to state that ‘you do not have to be poor, nobody was born poor but the conditions that made man poor were created by man himself, and therefore can be changed by man.Karl Marx gave more attention to the economy, which he argued formed the base of society while the superstructure which comprises of things like culture, religion, social life and media were a reflection of the economic mode of production of the society.

Social class

Karl Marx presented two class models of society namely the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the capitalists who are few in number and are the owners of capital. They are also rich, powerful, oppressors, exploiters and they always win elections in democratic countries. On the other hand, the proletariats are the workers, owners of labour and they are the majority in numbers but are powerless since they are oppressed and exploited by the rich and they always lose in election in democratic nations. The proletariat can be described as a class in itself in the sense that they share same objectives and relationships to the means of production, that is, they are labours who are paid in wages.

The two classes are always in conflict with each other because their interests are incompatible. While the bourgeoisie have the interests of maintaining the status quo which ensures their dominance, the proletariats are interested in changing the status quo which deprives them of good life. However, the two classes are not aware of the nature of the circumstances which they live in but assume that the situations which they find themselves in are natural and nothing can be done to change them. This is what Karl Marx calls a false class consciousness.

The bourgeoisie are not aware that they are the exploiters while the proletariats are not aware that they are exploited or oppressed, they are also not aware that they are poor but assume that they are naturally supposed to be poor. However; when the proletariats become aware of the reality, that is, when they know that they are exploited by the bourgeoisie, what follows is a revolution. Marx argues that the Russian revolution of 1917 was as a result of the realisation of the proletariats that they were being oppressed by the bourgeoisie.

According to Karl Marx, the defining features of social class are the ownership or lack of ownership of the means of production. He argued that those who owned the means of production were able to exploit those who did own them. Marx was of the view that both labour and capital are very essential in the stability of the economy. This is because the capital cannot transform itself into wealth without the labour while the labour cannot create wealth without the capital.

It therefore follows that both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat must work together, because none can exist independently of the other. What this means is that both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are equal shareholders in the wealth which is created through their interaction. However, this is not always the case. This is because at the end of the production process, the sharing of the profits is not fair since the supply value is more appropriated by the bourgeoisie at the expense of the proletariat, who produces more labour which is not paid for.

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

Unfortunately, the proletariats are not aware of this and they even go to the extent of celebrating when they hear that the companies which they work for have made significant increment in the amounts of profits, not knowing that what that means is that the companies are saying that they have intensified the exploitation of the workers.

Religion

According to Karl Marx, religion was opium of the masses. His argument was based on the fact that religion does not solve social problems but rather makes life bearable. He argued that the rich use religion to maintain their dominance in positions of power. They use certain quotes of the holy books which reinforce the argument that the blessed are those who are poor while on earth because when they die, they will be the richest. According to him, this is a conspiracy to make the poor believe that there is hope in their life after death so that they do not question the systems whim oppress and exploit them.

Alienation

Karl Marx understood work as alienating. His argument was based on the capitalistic mode of production which has its roots in the industrial revolution of 1600. This mode of production is characterised by two groups of people namely the capitalists and the proletariats. According to Karl Marx, the proletariats own nothing except their labour, which they sale at cheap price to the capitalists.

The concept of alienation simply means the existence of some dividing forces between things which are essentially supposed to be in harmony with each other. For example, man created and discovered religion, but the same man subjects himself to uncomfortable religious beliefs or practices like refusing to take medicine due to religious beliefs. In this situation, religion makes man to be uneasy, yet it is the same man who creates the religion.

Marx argued that the ideal purpose of work was to make man happy by enabling him move towards the actualization levels in his life. But due to the capitalistic economy, work is no longer playing its primary function in man, but rather, it is alienating him. According to Marx, man can be alienated in three major ways namely the alienation from the results of labour, alienation from the other workers and alienation of the worker from him or herself.

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

Alienation from other workers takes place when the worker is transformed into a commodity to be used in the competitive capitalist economy. In this situation, the worker is not viewed as a social being but is tied to his or her work, in which he or she is paid as per his or her output. Alienation of the worker from himself takes place when the worker is robbed of his ability or opportunity to enjoy the intrinsic value of work. In the capitalistic economy, personal lives are separated from work, meaning that the worker is transformed into a machine. This makes him or her to work for the sake of working, but not as a way of serving humanity or quenching his passion to work in a certain field.

Critique of Marxism

Marx has been criticised on various grounds. First of all, his argument that class conflict is the cause of social change has been overtaken by events because apart from growing in intensity, it has been institutionalised especially in advanced capitalistic economies which are now accepting social classes. The idea of the society being composed of only two social classes does not work today especially due to the emergence of the middle class and the low class, which comprise the unemployed (Skocpol, 1977.pp.1075-1090).

Marx was also criticised for emphasising on communism as the solution to the problems of social inequities. This is after it emerged that even in communism, there are some forms of inequalities. similarly, his emphasis on the economy as the key determinant of the superstructure has also been criticised through the findings of Max Weber (Protestantism and work ethics) which actually showed that religious beliefs or ideas actually provided motivation for working hard so as to accumulate capital and wealth, an indication that even the superstructure can also influence the base (the economy). Marx emphasised that the ownership of means of production formed the basis of power but other theorists have argued that the control of the government machinery forms the basis of power because the rich are able to use government’s machinery to influence the social, economic and political ideologies of a country.

Post-Marxism

These are sociologists who were inspired by Marxists theories but developed their own theories. They are also the recent theorists who accept Marx’s ideas but revise and re-orient those ideas to fit in the contemporary economic, social and political world. All of them however generally dispute the idea of Marx that economic factors are the ones which determine the historical changes in the society. They include Antonio Gramsci, Jürgen Habermas,Ralf Dahrendorf and Max Weber (Skocpol, 1977.pp.1075-1090).

Antonio Gramsci

He was an Italian sociologist who was influenced by the works of Marx, but was of a different view in regard to various issues as discussed by Marx. First of all, he argued that ownership of the means of production was not sufficient to guarantee the ruling class dominance and monopoly over the poor and the powerless but that the ruling class has to actively win the support of the other classes so as to retain its dominance.

In this argument, he was disputing the idea of false class consciousness by stating that either class in the society is fully aware of its situations. For example, he argued that the poor are aware of their situation and that is why they demand for the payment of leave allowances, medical bills or insurance by their employers. The employers are also fully aware in that they offer sponsorship for their employees to further their education as a way of human resource development (Tormey, 2004).

He also disputed the idea of historical materialism, which puts more emphasis on economic determinism as the key force of influencing social change, by arguing that the masses can act to bring social change irrespective of the economic mode of production. Gramsci was of the view that the state does not always act exclusively on the interests of the owners of the means of production and gave the example of the existence of labour laws which are meant for protecting the proletariats from exploitation and oppression by the employers.

On the issue of social class solidarity, he disputed the argument that the proletariat usually have common interests arguing that there are wide divisions among the social classes and especially among the proletariats, who are faced by different problems and have different grievances. For instance, he argued that industrial, mine workers and agricultural workers have different interests and grievances and it is these differences in interests and grievances among the proletariats which give the bourgeoisie an opportunity to exploit the proletariats thus creating what he called ruling class hegemony.

Gramsci also placed more emphasis on superstructure in influencing the economy arguing that cultural ideals greatly influenced the people’s perception on the mode of economic production and also the extent to which people attached value to accumulation of wealth. He also argued that ideas are generated by intellectuals, extended to the masses who put them into practice and therefore, the masses require the elite in order for them to be self-conscious. He went on to state that ideas are needed for social change but not economic factors and in this regard, he highlighted the importance of ideas which was rejected by Marx.

Jürgen Habermas

This is another sociologist who belonged to a group of sociologists who were connected to the institute of social research in Frankfurt University in 1923. This group was mainly concerned with the development of Marx’s ideas shortly after his death. Jürgen Habermas analyses capitalism as presented by Marx in a book called ‘Legitimation Crisis’. He argues that Marx had predicted that economic crisis was inevitable and it would bring capitalism to an end.

However, Habermas argues against this idea by saying that the state is able to intervene and avert the economic crisis. A good example is the current global economic crisis, which has affected many countries. The case of the United States government’s intervention is a good example of how the state can intervene to avert economic crisis (Wallerstein, 1991).

While Marx had argued that the state was part of the superstructure, Habermas is of the view that the state is part of the base (substructure) because it is involved in economic affairs. Marx had argued that the potential of class conflict was to increase as capitalism decreased and as the poor became poorer. However, Habermas argues that class compromise was acceptable and that the potential of class conflict was not inevitable especially as a result of the emergence of the Woking class.

Habermas agrees with Marx that advanced capitalist societies tend to be subject to social crisis but he sees the tendency towards crisis in ideas not in the economy. As state resolves economic problems; it creates the problems of legitimation. Habermas, just like Marx therefore believes that that the state always acts in the interests of the bourgeoisie and it will always try hard to stabilise the economy on which power and interests of the bourgeoisie lie but in doing so, it presents itself as a representative of bourgeoisie and in the process creates a legitimation crisis. In other words, the economic crisis is averted but a legitimation crisis is created.

Ralf Dahrendorf

He writes about post capitalism and agrees that Marx’s description of capitalism was accurate in the 19^th century when he was writing but in the 20^th century, those ideas are out-dated as a basis for explaining conflict. This is because major changes have taken place in Western Europe and North America which are now post-capitalists. Instead of the two social classes getting polarised as Marx had augured, the opposite has happened. For example, population of skilled workers has grown tredemosly; inequalities in income and wealth have been reduced due to changes in social structure and the intervention by the state (Wilkinson and Clapp, 2010).

Social mobility is now more common and he link between ownership and control have been broken. In the organisational context for example, managers, but not the owners of the business exercise day to day control of the organizations as well as over the means of production. Under these circumstances, Marx’s argument that conflict was based on the concept of ownership of the means of production is therefore not valid today because there is no longer any close association between wealth and power.

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

In all organisations, there are positions of dominance and subjection, some make decisions legitimately, others do not and this is the basis of conflict in post capitalism society. Those in the subject positions have the interest of changing the social structure that deprives them of authority and those in dominant positions have the interest of maintaining dominant structure in many social situations not just economic ones and so nobody is confined to dominant or subject positions and therefore society presents a picture of plurality of competing dominant and subject positions.

Max Weber and bureaucracy

While Marx put a lot of emphasis on the idea of economic base as the determinant of the social relationships, Weber was of the view that the superstructure, mainly religion was very instrumental in shaping peoples’ economic behaviour. In his study of the protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism, he tried to show that there was a relationship between Protestantism and capitalism in that capitalism was caused by the behaviour of the Protestants (Weber, 2009).

He examined the relationship between the behaviour of Protestants and the western industrial capitalism and argued that capitalism was about profits. According to him, capitalistic enterprises are organised in a bureaucratic manner while the protestant ethics contended that man has a calling in life, a well-defined career which must be pursued in a determined and a single-minded manner. God has commanded man to work for his glory, and therefore success means the individual has God’s blessings.

Accordingly, making money is a sure proof of success in ones calling. Christians must extract what they can, save all they can in order to grow rich. The riches must not be used in luxuries or in expensive lifestyles but must be used for re-investment in businesses so as to create more wealth.

Protestants attacked time wastage, laziness, idling, gossiping, and sleeping too much, sexual pleasures outside marriage as sins before God. Making money became a religious duty as well as a business interest and therefore, the Protestants’ interpretation of profit making justified the activities of the business man. The Protestants ethic was based on the spirit of self-denial and frugality and recommends sober and quiet life, avoidance of affluence and re-investment of wealth for creation of other enterprises. Weber therefore argued that religion provided the disciplinary ways of life that led to capitalism success in that ‘being chosen’ was indicated by material prosperity which created a strong desire towards economic success.

By pursuing a new way of life, the early protestant entrepreneurs had little awareness that they were creating capitalism. Weber believed that economic interests (as presented by Karl Marx) did not provide sufficient incentive for human beings to love wealth but religion did. That is, social change takes place when ideas change just the way religion, which is a set of ideas led to economic change.

Weber also presented the theoretical approach of bureaucracy in 1947.The approach conceptualizes organisations as being guided by hierarchical chains of command, in which decisions were made based on the top down approach. Those who are at the top management positions are responsible for making the decisions while their juniors are responsible for the execution of those decisions. In the hierarchy, each position is composed of specific roles and responsibilities as well as some amount of authority to make decisions or to command other workforce down the hierarchy.

Weber conceptualizes organisations as being characterized by division of labour and specialization. Each position in the hierarchy is held by specialized individuals or bureaucrats who have acquired education and training on that particular position. The specializations are accompanied by some powers and authorities depending on the position in the hierarchy.

Weber views organisations as being guided by formal regulations and rules which are formed and communicated well within the organisation. There are the rules of conduct in the workplace which govern things like working hours, holidays, offs, the language to be used, communication protocols within the organisation based on the hierarchy, and the communication channel regarding assignments for specific positions in the hierarchy. These rules and regulations govern the procedures and the processes of the organisation so as to give it an identity as well as stability and make it possible to predict it’s because everything is planned in advance and followed to the letter without failure or compromise.

Critique of Post –Marxists

Post-Marxists can be criticised for reducing the clear alternative approach to understanding societies; for example, the role played by the economy. They instead attach interests on cultural and ideological aspects of society. They are also not able to determine when and how cultural factors are more important in shaping the society.

Conclusion

This assignment was about international relations theory and the relationship between Marxism and Post-Marxism. The main elements of international relations theory which have been discussed include realism, liberalism, constructivism and globalisation and how it relates to international relations. The discussion has also analysed Marxism and Post-Marxism. The main Marxist scholars who have been discussed are Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels while the Post-Marxist theorists who have been discussed include Antonio Gramsci, Jürgen Habermas, Ralf Dahrendorf and Marx Weber.

Throughout the discussion, it has emerged that many Post-Marxist theorists used the original works of Marx in their attempted to explain society and social change. However, most of them seem to disagree with Marx’s’ idea that the economy was the key determinant of social change and the superstructure but argue that even the superstructure, which comprises of things like religion, culture and social life are also able to influence the economy. It can therefore be argued that Post-Marxists and critical theory have strengthened Marxism, by re-inventing it to fit in the contemporary social, political and economic world.

Reference List

Acharya, A., and Buzan, B. (eds). (2009). Non-Western International Relations Theory.London: Routledge.

Baylis, J.S., Smith, and Owens, P. (eds). (2010). The Globalization of World Politics.(5^th, Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beck, U.(2000). What is globalization? Oxford: Polity.

Bieler, A. et. al. (2006). Global restructuring, state, capital and labour: contesting neo-Gramscian perspectives Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Booth, K., and Smith, S. (eds). (1995). International Relations Theory Today, Oxford:Polity.

Brown, C., and Ainley,K. (eds). (2009). Understanding International Relations (4^th, Ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Burchill,S, et. al., (eds). (2009). Theories of International Relations (4th Ed.).Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Edkins , J., and Vaughan-Williams, N. (eds). (2009). Critical Theorists in InternationalRelations. London: Routledge.

Gills, B. K.(1987). ‘Historical Materialism and International Relations Theory’, Millennium Journal of International Studies, 16(2):pp. 265-272.

Hirst, P., and Thompson, G. (2001). Globalization in question: the international economy and the possibilities of governance (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Polity.

Jørgensen, K.E. (2010). International Relations Theory. A New Introduction.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Krieger, J. (ed). (2006). Globalization and state power: a reader. New York: Pearson Longman.

Kubálková, V. and Cruickshank, A. (1985). Marxism and International Relations. Oxford:Oxford University Press. pp. 1-24.

Lenin, V. I.(2000). Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism: a popular outline. New Delhi:LeftWord.

Maclean, J.(1988). ‘Marxism and international relations: A strange case of mutual neglect’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies 17(2):pp. 295-319.

Marx, K. (1970). Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.London: Lawrence.

Marx, K.(1993). Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy.London: Penguin.

Marx, K. (2000). Theories of Surplus Value Vols. 1-3. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalisation: A Critical Introduction, (2^nd Ed.). Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.

Sitglitz, J. E. (2003). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton.

Skocpol, T. (1977). ‘Wallerstein’s world capitalist system: A theoretical critique’, AmericanJournal of Sociology, 82 (5): pp.1075-90.

Tormey, S. (2004). Anticapitalism: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oneworld Beginners’Guides.

Wallerstein, I.(1991). Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the Changing World-System.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weber,C. (2009). International Relations Theory. A Critical Introduction, (3rd Ed.). London: Routledge.

Wilkinson, R., and Clapp, J. (eds). (2010). Global Governance, Poverty and Inequality. London: Routledge.

Introduction

The contemporary world has seen many philosophers relating the trends in international relations to the ideologies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Popularly known as Marxism, the concept entails the development of laws that propagate a balance of power between states while brewing anarchy. The inclination of international laws is also highlighted by the political and economic imbalances that foster the development of laws to accommodate the changes. Marxism is also a materialistic philosophy that has been used to highlight the role of capitalist and communist policies in international law. The concept is particularly useful in providing criticism to both economic models by revisiting the sociological and historical aspects of the models.

Basically, international law, from the perspective of Marxists, is an attempt of the nations across the world to strike a balance of power based on their respective production power. One of the most interesting aspects of Marxism is that it tends to view society as a totality, and the contradictions within the society are responsible for the changes that people witness in international law. This implies that from a Marxist perspective, international law is an attempt of the international community to adapt to the contradictions that exist in the world. This paper looks into Marxism and international law with a close focus on the four discourses of Marxism, which include imperialism, dependency, hegemony, and the empire. Marxism is the core of international law in the contemporary world.

Imperialism

Imperialism refers to the process of enhancing a state’s power over other nations through the application of diplomatic approaches or the use of military power. Marxist imperialism is a concept that has recurrently been linked to Western Power because it is the foundation of the capitalist economic model that drives it. Imperialism, in the eyes of Marxists, is a concept that can either be viewed systemically or structurally (Ozsu & Marks, 2010). However, regardless of the perspective one takes, it is apparent that imperialism and capitalism go hand-in-hand. The current international laws can be linked to the need for the Western states to expand their productivity and power over the rest of the world. The expansion of imperialism is dependent on the centralization of capital, and the necessity of social changes to facilitate political and economic growth to the states instigating imperialism.

A critical view of the current international laws reveals that imperialism has been a major driver of the treaties and policies developed between various nations. It is only by viewing capitalism from a historical perspective that one gets to understand the role of Marxist imperialism in the development of contemporary international laws. For instance, the WWI and WWII were based on the need for respective nations to expand their power through military power (Ozsu & Marks, 2010). Diplomacy followed, and the results were numerous treaties between nations to adjust to the new shift in power. In the modern world, the concept of globalization has played a major role in enhancing imperialism, but the sociological requirements for the facilitation of globalization have forced the nations to use diplomacy in the development of policies that eliminate anarchy. However, the military-political paradigm is still actively employed by the superpower status in the world to meet their partisan needs. The superpowers are likely to assume anarchy whenever they want to compel other states to yield to demands that facilitate imperialism for the superpowers.

Dependency

Marxist international laws are deeply enshrined on the elements of the dependency theory. Dependency refers to the need for the developed nations to enhance the dependency of the developing nations on the developed states. This is a strategy that has been traditionally used to enhance the ability of the developed nations to leverage natural resources and revenue from the developing states. Dependency is instigated on the developing nations by the developing states assuming the role of political and economic advisors to the states (Mignolo, 2011). The infiltration of multinational companies into the developed nations also provides the developed nations with a chance to reap more revenue from natural resources in the developing nations. For instance, by taxing the multinational companies, the developed nations receive more revenue than the royalties paid to the developed nations, which own the natural resources. This ensures that the developed nations stay in power, economically and politically, while the societies in the developing nations enhance their dependency on aid from the developed states.

Capitalism is the main tool used to influence developing states to become dependent on developed nations. The promise to help them attain a higher level of international power is an enticing strategy used by the imperialists. The developed nations are driven into signing agreements and treaties that not only guarantee long-term dependence on the developed states, but they also give the developed states the power to influence their political and economic decisions (Mignolo, 2011). This results in the assumption of international laws that cripple the developing states.

Hegemony

Marxist international laws are inclined toward the development of a social, economic, and political environment where those in power stay in power. While the laws are applied through mutual consent of the powerful states and the states that depend on them, it is apparent that hegemonic intentions are always tied to the international laws (Mouffe, 2011). Capitalism is the main ideology that has been traditionally used by the superior Western nations to ensure that the developing states maintain their dependency on them.

It is apparent that hegemony influences the development of a consciousness that enhancing the ability of its instigators to remain in power. For instance, the education system and cultural beliefs of the Western nations have been widespread in the wake of globalization, which has led to many societies subscribing to international laws that indirectly increase the superiority of the Western states over other nations in the world. The indoctrination of the ideologies that promote hegemony involves the development of platforms to facilitate sharing information (Mouffe, 2011). For instance, the media has played a major role in promoting hegemonic ideologies in the contemporary world. Marxist international laws also influence cultural hegemony in the contemporary world through the spread of the Western cultural beliefs and influencing various societies to accept that the upper social class has the power to rule and to influence changes. The idea of the presence of a ruling class has become widely accepted in the world because the international laws facilitate social norms associated with differences in power among social classes. Hegemons have a very high influence on the nature of today’s international laws, which implies that Marxism plays a very big role in the development of the laws.

Empire

The discourse of the empire is a concept that has been developed in recent times as international laws in the modern world seem to eliminate imperialism as they consolidate power networks among different states. Imperialistic states seem to have reached a point where it makes more sense to bring more states on board in their quest of developing power structures, and this has been seen through the numerous treaties and agreements signed between states. The resulting architecture of power highlights a decline in the expansion of imperialism, and an inclination of the imperialistic states toward developing empires (Panitch & Gindin, 2012). The consolidation of power enhances the bargaining power of the empires in the development of international laws. The conflicts between the superpower states might come to an end if the international law continues to alter power structures, and this will result in conflicts taking place in blocks of international networks.

Conclusion

International law is developed through the societies’ subscription to specific ideologies. Various theories have been used to facilitate the development and implementation of ideologies, and it is apparent that Marxism is widely manifested in contemporary international law. This is clearly portrayed by the presence of the four discourses of Marxism in international law. Dependence is clearly highlighted in the approaches used by the developed nations to maintain the dependence of the developing nations on them. Imperialism is a function of the need for the developed nations to continue expanding their power through culture and ideologies. However, imperialism is gradually being overtaken by the empire discourse, which entails the consolidation of power for different states to make political, social, and economic decisions as a block. Marxism has, indeed, played a major role in the development of international law in the modern world.

References

Mignolo, W. (2011). The darker side of western modernity: Global futures, decolonial options. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Mouffe, C. (2014). Gramsci and Marxist Theory (RLE: Gramsci). London, UK: Routledge.

Ozsu, U., & Marks, S. (2010). International law on the left: Re-examining Marxist legacies. Leiden Journal of International Law, 23(3), 687.

Panitch, L., & Gindin, S. (2012). The making of global capitalism. Brooklyn, NY: Verso Books.

Introduction

Human society is often more complex in terms of formation and organization than that of any other creatures on earth. The genesis of such complexity often varies depending on reasons and circumstances of formations, some of which include protection of property rights, survival, and symbiotic trade relationships among others.

Regardless of the reason for the formation of any society, the element of conflict is always present, precisely because human beings have different perceptions and opinions regarding the procedure of operations in such a society, the superiority element of societal stratification, and the issue of morality and what constitutes right as opposed to wrong. Many philosophers have tried to explain the issue of the occurrence of such conflict according to their perspectives on the constitution of ideal societies.

Karl Marx is one of the most renowned philosophers of all time due to his contribution to the issue of societal structures and the genesis of conflicts. The nineteenth-century philosopher’s works have been the basis for the formation of governments as well as the dissolution of others. In addition, Marx’s works have generated controversy among philosophers who have read his works, some of whom agree with his opinions while others refute them with reasons. This paper constitutes a critical analysis of Karl Marx’s political manifesto, The Communist Manifesto, which he compiled with the help of Frederick Engel in the nineteenth Century, even though it remains relevant to date. The paper’s discussion also includes the opinions of other scholars including that of philosopher Mikhail Bakunin on the principles of Marxism regarding the class conflict.

The Communist Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto was first published in 1848 under the commissioning of the First Communist Political Party, as an activist group whose main agenda was to foster the establishment of communism as a form of governance in continental Europe starting with England. In the manifesto, Marx begins by noting that the society at the time considered communism a specter and that all “the old powers of Europe had entered into a holy alliance to exorcise it” (Marx & Engel, 1948, p.1).

This statement implies that according to Marx, the society thought of communism as a radical idea for which the authorities in power worked hard to quash. Marx also states in the first chapter that the “history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles” (Marx & Engel, 1948, p.2). He then goes ahead to explain his view on the class conflict by noting two significant classes of people whom he thought made up every society and determined the social and consequently political set up of societies. The division entails the bourgeois and proletarians, whom he later refers to as the oppressor and the oppressed respectively.

Marx’s opinion, as he expresses throughout the manuscript, is that throughout history and in every existing society with the example of Europe, there have always been conflicts in which the ruling class, viz. the bourgeois, always controls the social and consequent political power in society, thus leading to conflict with the working class. He states that often, the conflict occurs in different phases depending on circumstances, most of which entail uninterrupted opposition to one another, sometimes hidden, and other times open, each time ending “either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large or in a common ruin of the contending classes” (Marx & Engel, 1948, p.4).

In Marx’s theory, which has become popularly known as Marxism, the root of the entire conflict lies in the control of wealth and resources, including the redistribution of the same among individuals living in a society. He vulcanizes capitalism by terming it as the tool by which the bourgeois control the social functioning of the society and use such social control to gain and maintain political power with which they make laws that favor their interests.

Marx traces the beginning of such social and political order in the early epochs of history by noting arrangements of people in societies in various orders. By often taking the form of graduating social ranks, he gives examples such as the patricians, knights, and slaves in Rome, where one social class is often subordinate to another. In every case, the ruling or superior class treats the subordinate class with great antagonism.

In Marx’s opinion, the antagonistic nature of relations between classes remains constant even as society changes. With time, societies form “new classes, new conditions of oppression, and new forms of struggle in place of the old ones; however, everything remains essentially the same (Marx & Engel, 1948, p.4). Over the years, social stratification always boils down to ownership of property as people place more value on the amount of money that they have and use it as a means of defining themselves.

According to Marx, by placing the value of people in what they own, society has turned social institutions that once focused on moral accomplishments into business entities, thus resulting in the demise of values such as altruism and chivalry. Self-interest rules the actions and decisions of many including those in power, hence leading to the formulation of laws such as tax laws, property ownership laws, and trade laws that serve personal interests.

He gives the example of free laws on free trade as one of the ways that the rich remain rich and maintain their power to oppress individuals in the working class. In his explanation, he states that the rules of free trade sound appealing to everybody including people in the working class as they give the impression of hope for equality in property ownership. However, an analytical look into the circumstances surrounding free trade reveals that the bourgeoisies have always had an unfair advantage as history provides them with the means with which to obtain and control most of the tradecraft, thus resulting in the stagnation of the working class, who work under the illusion of ascension to power (Markell, 2003).

Marx describes such power ownership by using the analogy of a few individuals over a multitude in the society as a country operating under the rules of a town. The conflict thus takes the form of the working class trying to correct the injustices it perceives in society while the ruling class resists for the purposes of maintaining social control and political power.

An analysis of Marx’s ideology

An analysis of Marx’s theory reveals various aspects that make sense and others that limit the viability of his theory. For instance, Marx’s observation of the existence of social stratification and the presence of antagonism lends credibility to his theory. In most cases, there is always a conflict between job owners and the working class over the rules of engagement and the feeling that the working class is often getting a raw deal. This observation explains the need for the establishment of workers’ unions throughout history to champion the rights of the working class against oppressive rules by job owners (Kreijen, 2002).

Secondly, the link between the ruling class and their wealth status cannot be ignored. In most instances, the wealthy members of society tend to possess political positions that they often keep for a substantial duration. Even in instances where such upper-class individuals do not directly engage in political affairs, their influence concerning the choice of leadership and subsequent policy implementations that protect their interests is undeniable.

For instance, in modern-day politics, campaigns require sufficient financial stamina in order for candidates to stand out enough to have their visions realized in society. Upper-class individuals, often with business interests to protect, offer financial aid to facilitate successful campaigns for politicians who present manifestos that best represent their interest in exchange for the implementation of the manifestos once in power.

Therefore, even though the ideal aim for most campaigns is public service, the ability of a politician to stand out in society depends on the success of his or her campaign, which in turn depends on funding from the ruling class (Markell, 2003). Overall, the ruling class shortlists the type of leaders to present to society for election to the legislature, while the working class simply chooses one of the few that weighs better than others do in terms of perceivable moral integrity and reliability.

This view also explains why most people complain that leaders change once in power and engage in vices such as corruption and why society fails to change such vices even with the choice of alternative leadership. The element of self-interest and measurement of self-worth in terms of wealth creates a scenario where leaders often lose their way once in leadership and work towards self-progression instead of serving the society’s need (Callcut, 2009).

Finally, Marx’s explanation sheds light on the reasons why social stratification in most societies remains a pertinent issue. Even in developed countries, class stratification is a salient feature in the societal structure, often with the aid of political policy. It is also evident in such circumstances that the element of subordination among the various classifications is a prominent feature and constitutes rules regarding interaction amongst people in society.

For instance, in most cases, communities in various cities exist in an arrangement that complies with social stratification resulting in neighborhoods where the wealthy live in isolation from the working class and the latter from the poor. The economic differences between the classes dictate the terms of segregation in this case, thus leading to situations where the rich are in a position to develop their neighborhoods to suit their needs while the poor and working-class also live persistently within their means in regions where development is stagnant. This realization is one of the reasons why there exist conflicts between the wealthy and the working classes in any society (Sartorious, 2009).

Marx’s opinion is that the wealthy members of any society have the ability to develop the social lives of the working class through political policy. However, they refuse to do so in order to ensure that they have a sufficient labor force to work in industries and companies and generate more income to ensure the status of the wealthy remains consistent. Even in instances where the upper class relaxes rules such as taxes to create financial relief for the working class, the application of the same rules to their own income in the name of equality creates the perception of an unfair advantage.

Parts of Marx’s theory bear striking resemblance to the sentiments of Thomas Hobbes, a seventeenth-century philosopher who is famous for his views on the process and purpose of the formation of the government. His theory creates the impression that government representatives possess more power than the rest of the population and they utilize the power as they deem fit by using the interest of the people as a justification. According to Hobbes, human beings are inherently concerned with self-preservation above all other principles, thus leading to the occurrence of social injustices (Hampton, 1986).

He states that people establish governments as tools by which to remedy such injustices and acquire equal rights that guarantee the survival of every individual as long as they comply with the rules set by their governments. According to his explanation of the theory, in the state of nature, man lives in a constant state of conflict that favors the strong over the weak. In pursuit of self-preservation, human beings form societies, which require them to select an individual or institution comprising a group of individuals to act as leaders. The leaders then formulate rules with which every member of the society must comply (Heywood, 2012). However, this assertion does not mean that the leadership position changes the characteristics that the leaders exhibit as individuals in their state of nature.

One of the elements that Marx borrows from in this theory is the view that the ruling class that forms the leadership in any society possesses more power than the subjects who appear subordinate after the surrender of authority. The second element that stands out in Hobbes’ theory is that man is inherently more concerned with self-preservation than he is with service to society, regardless of possession of power and leadership, both of which create an obligation to act in the best interest of society.

However, even in the light of facts that support Marx’s ideology with regard to class struggle, it has attracted controversy in the past and still does in various aspects. For instance, some scholars argue that class conflict often emanates from a myriad of causes and that Marx’s basis of societal and political formation on capitalism is often lacking. Others still argue that Marx vulcanizes capitalism without giving the benefits of communism to provide contrast and create some objectivity in his ideology.

While some scholars reject his ideas in the manifesto completely, others like Mikhail Bakunin, a philosopher during Marx’s era, pick specific aspects of the manifesto, which they regard as contentious. Bakunin explains his opinion on the aspect of class struggle by citing elements that he finds inadequate or missing in Marx’s theory. His manuscript, Marxism, Freedom, and the State contain much of his insight on the topic of discussion. He is an example of people that Marx inspired during his era. Bakunin ended up developing his own ideas from that which Marxism, as a school of thought, proposes.

Marxism, Freedom, and the State

The manuscript by Mikhail Bakunin was a reactionary paper, which lay the basis of its arguments on Karl Marx’s paper and movement in support of communism. Although Bakunin acknowledged the validity of Marx’s observations regarding class conflict, he disagreed with the way in which Marx chose to deal with the issue and his perception of what constitutes liberty. According to Bakunin (1950), Marxism did not advocate for the true liberation of the working class from the clutches of the bourgeois in European society. He points out that Marx only highlights the problem, but provides a solution that would only cater to motivate the working class to fight for partial rights and freedoms instead of full liberty (Bakunin, 1950).

His issue of contention with the limitation of liberty in Marxism stems from Marx’s suggestion that the ruling class should do what is moral and implement policies that ensure real equality among all members of society. He perceives this idea as naïve and impractical and suggests the annihilation of government as an idea in its stead, as the only means the working class can achieve full liberty. He envisions a society without the government as one without social stratification and one where everyone is his and her own boss.

He posits that he is a “fanatical lover of liberty…considering it as the only medium in which [one] can develop intelligence, dignity and happiness” (Bakunin, 1950, p.2). He further states that the “first condition of humanity is that liberty must establish itself in the world by the spontaneous organization of labor and the collective ownership by productive associations freely organized and federalized in districts, and by the equal and spontaneous federation of districts, but not by supreme and tutelary action of the state” (Bakunin, 1950, p.4)

Bakunin’s opinion mirrors that of John Locke, a prominent proponent of the natural law theory. Locke presents the idea that governments play a passive role in society while the people control its operations. The amount of power that the people entrusted to the governing body or individual is dismal in comparison to that which they keep for themselves, thus leaving them the option of changing the government whenever they feel dissatisfied.

In his version of the natural law theory, man is inherently good and thus he makes decisions that are moral in nature. In the state of nature, people respect each other’s property rights and treat each other with dignity and respect. He also states that due to the intelligent nature of man and varying opinions that each person possesses, some people choose to act in a manner contrary to the conventions. This view necessitates the establishment of a body that can watch over the rights of every individual equally and punish members of society that choose to break the status quo. (Heywood, 2012).

One of the main similarities between Locke’s theory and Bakunin’s ideology is that they both form their opinions on the premise that man is inherently good, happy, and content in the state of nature. Secondly, they both consider man’s power over any governing body to be inherent and superior thus negating the possibility of social stratification as every person is his or her own boss. However, their opinions vary in terms of the need for the establishment of government, as Bakunin champions for the eradication of the concept.

In his view, the establishment of government grants the power of dominance to a few people over others, thus creating a rift that results in permanent social stratification and development of class injustices and subsequent class conflict. Bakunin’s advocacy for the abolition of the state and private ownership of any means of production has earned his philosophy the name ‘collective anarchism’. He considers the liberation of the working class as an inevitable fact.

Bakunin is not the only philosopher who preferred the concept of anarchy to Marxism. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French philosopher, developed the concept of spontaneous order in which he envisioned a society with a sufficient level that did not have to rely on a central institution to coordinate activities and create order on its own terms. In his work, What is Property, Proudhon considers the issuance of complete rights to use and abuse one’s property as he or she pleases as theft.

In his opinion, limited ownership of perpetual property and resources for periods when the same is in continuous use should suffice in order to allow everyone access to the benefits that accrue from such continuous usage. He argues that property forms the only hold that the state has over power upon the people and allowing the institution to control such power often results in social stratification, thus creating class conflicts between those who own property and resources and those that claim mutual rights to such property (proletarians) (Heywood, 2012).

Analysis of Bakunin’s ideology

Mikhail Bakunin was born in the year 1814 in the province of Tsar. His father was a retired diplomat from a Russian family of ancient nobility. He spent most of his childhood at his father’s estate before enrolling in the military during his teenage years and he had the chance to experience the life that peasants led a first hand. This element is evident in his work and ideology and possibly, it fueled his fire for liberation.

Bakunin’s concept of complete liberty from the state’s control gained popularity mainly due to its timely introduction during a time when revolutions were imminent in most European states. The Spring of Nations, which was a series of revolutions against existing state governments in Europe, began in February 1848 and ended sometime within the early months of 1849. The event happened a few years after the initiation of the industrial revolution.

The idea of freedom to own property and gain equality with industry and landowners seemed appealing to the working-class population at the time and ignited significant interest in the theories (Scott, 2000). In his manuscript, Bakunin argues that communists consider ideas to produce facts while idealists, including him, consider ideas as the genesis for facts. He explains that proof of the success of his ideology would transform it into a fact.

However, as enticing as the ideology appeared to a majority of the population at the time, the concept exhibits some limitations. One such limitation is the view that social stratification often occurs due to various factors aside from property ownership and control of resources. For instance, Charles Darwin established the concept of survival for the fittest in which he stated that in the state of nature only the strongest survive. Therefore, it is possible that in a stateless society, even with the existence of laws, stratification would take the form of the strong dominating the weak. In such a scenario, the strong would control the resources, while the weak would need to submit to their will in order to survive. In this case, there would be no difference between the condition of the society before and after the abolition of the state.

Secondly, his ideology overlooks the various benefits that governments play in society. According to Locke’s theory, the government serves as an impartial formulator and enforcer of laws for the benefit of everyone in society. The rules to property ownership and distribution of resources apply in exactly the same way to every individual (Callcut, 2009). Therefore, it is up to the aggrieved working-class citizens to figure out ways of advancing their social status through making smart financial decisions.

In addition, laws related to taxation often consider the earnings each class makes in its determination of appropriate tariffs. The more a person gains, the more taxes he or she pays. Such taxes are often applied in the development of social amenities and essential services for working-class individuals at relatively cheaper rates and sometimes free of charge. This aspect enables the affordability of quality amenities that most people in the working class would otherwise lack the financial ability to afford.

The concept of property ownership also serves as one of the main motivations for every person regardless of one’s class, to work harder at whatever profession s/he chooses. Although the element of communal ownership would enable everyone to get a share of property and resources under contention, it would also foster laziness and result in vices such as crime. Additionally, the possibility of the creation of different strata in the society would still exist, as people possess different capacities regarding management.

Some people are comfortable managing large portions of properties and resources, while others prefer smaller portions as they confer fewer responsibilities upon the owners (Lukes, 2008). Bakunin’s suggestion of the ideal nature of a stateless society also overlooks the need for maintenance of order that the state plays. The suggestion of spontaneous order is impractical as people bear different conceptions of what morality should be in essence.

A stateless society provides the opportunity for every individual to play out his or her conception of morality, thus leading to the likelihood of the creation of chaos (Sartorious, 2009). As John Stuart Mills mentions, under the concept of utilitarianism, every individual should have the right to do as he or she pleases as long as such decisions and actions do not affect others negatively in society. However, as there are always disagreements regarding elements that constitute morality, society sets up an institution, viz. the state, to establish essential moral values that appeal to the majority, while allowing everyone to establish any others on his/her own.

For instance, murder qualifies as one of the essential moral vices, and most state governments thus shun it. If Bakunin’s description of the majority consists of the working class, according to Mill, the state often acts in the class’s best interest. The state aims at ensuring the protection of elements of morality that create the greatest pleasure to the greatest majority and reduces pain (Mill & Bentham, 2004).

Conclusion

Karl Marx’s ideology in The Communist Manifesto essentially presents a negative opinion of capitalism and suggests the establishment of communism as a remedy to the situation. In his opinion, social stratification has roots in every society and it often occurs in the form of oppression of the working class by the ruling class, with property and resources as the motivation. He posits that in the European society at the time, the ownership of property and resources was the preserve of a few individuals, viz. the ruling class. Due to its ability to control property, resources, and the benefits that accrue from the two, the ruling class acquired enough influence to control the political arena and facilitate the creation of laws that worked in its favor, to the detriment of the working class.

He explains that the aim of such laws existed to ensure that the ruling class always had a constant labor force, thus negating the possibility of economic independence for the working class. In his view, communism cures capitalism by fostering equality in ownership and eradicating social classes. Mikhail Bakunin supports some of the elements in the Marxist theory but points out one key area, which he states is the main limitation in Marx’s ideology.

In his opinion, Marx’s theory fails to comply with the principle of full liberty by stating the state’s involvement in the liberation process of the working class as a vital ingredient. Bakunin (1950) views the state as part of the problem, and thus he perceives impracticability in the actualization of the Marxist ideology. His version of an ideal society entails spontaneous coordination and order where everyone is his and her own boss. Property and resource ownership is communal, which does not depend on the rules of a single institution.

Although the need for social and economic liberty in both theories stands out as a noble gesture for the creation of both ideologies, the authors fail to provide viable solutions with fewer negative effects than the maintenance of the status quo creates. The happiness of the majority, which is one of the significant elements in both theories, receives support from other philosophers, but both authors fail in its execution. Regardless of the limitations, the manuscripts by both Marx and Bakunin provide good points regarding the development of government and means of reducing class conflict in modern-day societies all over the world.

References

Bakunin, M. (1950). Marxism, Freedom, and the State. London, UK: Freedom Press.

Callcut, D. (2009). Mill, sentimentalism, and the problem of moral authority. Utilitas, 21(1), 22-35.

Hampton, J. (1986). Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Heywood, A. (2012). Political Ideologies: An Introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kreijen, G. (2002). State, Sovereignty, and International Governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lukes, S. (2008). Moral Relativism (Big Ideas/ Small Books). London, UK: Picador Publishing.

Markell, P. (2003). Bound by Recognition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1948.) The Communist Manifesto. New York, NY: International Publishers.

Mill, S., & Bentham, J. (2004). Utilitarianism and other essays. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Sartorious, R. (2009). Individual Conduct and Social Norms: A Utilitarian Account of Social Union and the Rule of Law. Charleston, CA: BookSurge Publishing.

Scott, J. (2000). England’s Troubles: Seventeenth Century English Political Instability in European Context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

Wang, Gaohe. “The Enlightenment of the Educational Thought of the Communist Manifesto to Postgraduate Education.” Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, vol. 71, 2018, pp. 960–963.

Introduction

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

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

Marxism Philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

Marxism, a political ideology created by Karl Marx, has influenced the world in major ways. It proposed a new way of political organization of society and its economy, popularizing the existing ideas of socialism and communism and critiquing the capitalistic structures. Marxism remains a topic of fierce debate and re-interpretation to this day. Its influence can be observed even in subtle ways through the news stories.

ABC News Network. (2022). Explainer: What’s behind difficult Taiwan-China relations? ABC News. Web.

This article reports the recent attack on the church in southern California by David Chou, a member of the China-backed organization that supports the idea of annexing Taiwan. It argues that this incident is fueled by hate and attempts to place it in the context of China-Taiwan relations and the reach of Chinese state propaganda. The article mentions this propaganda as one of the attributes of Marxist regimes.

The view of propaganda is consistent with the idea of Marxism as a worldview by Myers and Noebel (2015). The Marxist theory explains everything for the supporters of Chinese communism, fueling their intense emotions against any opposition to their worldview. Through this method of propaganda, the Chinese government coerces people from other countries to support its actions.

Applebaum, A. (2021). Democracies don’t try to make everyone agree. The Atlantic. Web.

This article proposes that the main difference between democracies and states based on Marxism is the diversity of the opposing opinions. From the observation of communist states, the lack of opposing ideologies is clear. The main issue of Marxism is that it tries to cover not only economic structure but the society overall, which leads to it becoming a worldview rather than just economic theory.

Myers and Noebel (2015) would further argue for the idea of Marxism being a worldview. It first stems from the certainty of the fatal downfall of capitalism and the emergence of communism, not leaving any other options open. The latter supporters take it to the extreme by incorporating Marxism into everything in their lives, including religion, philosophy, family structure, and others.

Hancock, T. (2022). Marxism makes a comeback in China’s crackdown on ‘disorderly capital’ – BNN Bloomberg. The Japan Times. Web.

This article reports on the speech of Chinese President Xi Jinping at Beijing’s Renmin University of China. In his speech, Xi Jinping refers to the recent political crackdowns in Beijing and cites Karl Marx, surprising the media. Over the several decades, the Chinese Communist Party tried to avoid the reference to Marxism, as it promoted the vision of a free-market economy. This development, however, just reaffirms the roots of Chinese state ideology.

The main issue with Marx’s work is that he does not provide the exact pathways to achieve his political structure, only referring to capitalism’s downfall and communism as inevitable in developed capitalistic countries. Myers and Noebel (2015) would also agree with the fatalism in Marx’s work. Therefore, Lenin created the idea of vanguards to fulfill this void and adapt the ideology to Russian feudal conditions at that time. This vanguard permits the easy exploitation of the system and consequent corruption and dictatorship or cronyism, as Myers and Noebel (2015) refer to it. It was the basic idea behind the Chinese reformation, consistent with the recent crackdowns in China.

Jeffries, S. (2012). Why marxism is on the rise again. The Guardian. Web.

This article outlines the instances showing the surge of Marxist ideology’s popularity. The paper argues that it is connected to the recent decrease in favor of capitalism in Western countries. This decline stems from the frustrations of the working class because of the growing inequality and increasing poverty in the light of the rising fortunes of the richest one percent. Even though many scholars do not agree with the fatal collapse of capitalism or the idea of communism, they argue that Kral Marx provided the most comprehensive critique of capitalism. Therefore, it is obvious how the working class finds it appealing to see their struggles being described relatively precisely.

As Jeffries becomes doubtful of the future of the state guided by Marxism, in response, Myers and Noebel (2015) would argue that Marxist ideology would only lead to corruption and dictatorship. They would claim that instead of fighting against the class division for the betterment of the working class condition, Marx removed the competition and, in its vacuum, established cronyism.

Rai, A. (2021). Marx and Lenin gather at ‘Communist’ Indian wedding. The Independent. Web.

This article recounts the wedding in India’s southern Kerala state, which was visited by the communist party members named after Marx, Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh. Rai claims that this is quite common across India, especially in the town of Athirapilly, known for the dominant majority of the communist party representation. The same phenomenon could also be observed in the Soviet Union in the past.

Naming children in the memory of famous people is nothing new. However, if Myers and Noebel’s (2015) claim of Marxism as a worldview is taken into account, it can be interpreted as signs in support of this argument. In the example of the Soviet Union, it can be seen how the state ideology overtook every aspect of the people’s lives, including the economy, philosophy, religion, family, workplace, and others. It did not permit any opposing or alternative views, which is now practiced by modern-day Marxist thinkers, who pass on their ideology to their children.

References

ABC News Network. (2022). Explainer: What’s behind difficult Taiwan-China relations? ABC News. Web.

Applebaum, A. (2021). Democracies don’t try to make everyone agree. The Atlantic. Web.

Hancock, T. (2022). Marxism makes a comeback in China’s crackdown on ‘disorderly capital’ – BNN Bloomberg. The Japan Times. Web.

Jeffries, S. (2012). Why marxism is on the rise again. The Guardian. Web.

Myers, J., & Noebel, D. A. (2015). Understanding the times: A survey of competing worldviews. David C Cook.

Rai, A. (2021). Marx and Lenin gather at ‘Communist’ Indian wedding. The Independent. Web.

Introduction

Why do many ghost stories involve an encounter between the higher and the lower social orders? Why is prostitution the last resolution to survival? Several theoretical perspectives can be used to respond to the above questions. One of such perspective is the Marxist theory. Marxism is an idea that includes a number of different smaller ideas.

In1850’s, several literary texts were completed reflecting Victorian era themes. One of such texts is a ghost story text To be taken with a Grain of Salt authored by Charles Dickens. When Christmas fire was lit, ghost stories could be told, which brought out hidden secrets. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the literary text by Charles Dickens from the Victorian Ghost stories using the Marxism theoretical perspective.

Analysis

To be taken with a Grain of Salt brings out several aspects of ghost stories. It shows an aspect of the dead coming back to life together with their representatives. An interaction between the dead and the living is well developed in the story. Nevertheless, it is arguable that the author had no intention to create a story, which scares or renders the reader uncomfortable (Manning & Granström 2011).

The Victorian period extended through the time of Queen Victoria (1837-1901). In this period, England experienced many changes including politic and social transformations. Since several literary texts record and/or criticise such changes (Fairhurst 2011, p.32), it is anticipated that To be taken with a Grain of Salt possesses economic, social, and political developments in the Victorian era.

While there are a number of joint decisions about the requirement to build written judgments of the capitalist society, Karl Marx introduced the Marxist theory of how the society functions, how it has developed, and/or the reasons for its development. He focused mostly on the nature of capitalism (Trainer 2010). Marx insists the idea that life in the society depends on the serious disagreements of interests.

The most important disagreements are those that exist between people who have the power to control the method of production that is often referred to as Bourgeoisie and those who would purely exchange their labour power for money in the market place (Parkin 2002, p.32). These are known as proletariats. Marx defines a class as the things that belong to a person.

Perception of this ownership gives a person the right and power to prevent others from using the property for their own personal use. What people own determines their class in the society. Parkin (2002) agrees with this line of argument and further asserts that class is not determined by a person’s earning or status, but is determined by how things are distributed and/or consumed (p.32).

This claim then verifies the production capacity and strength of a given class. According to Marx, the social status of the bourgeoisie is known by what they own (Kingston 2000). The notion of social classes became well established in England during the Victorian era. This notion had the repercussion of worsening the working conditions of people, with child labour becoming rampant.

Children belonging to low social economic families were employed to help in improving their family budget. The Victorian period is associated with a huge success. It is sometimes called the period of the second English Renaissance. During the period, social classes had begun to emerge in England to mark the beginning of modernity.

Older hierarchical orders were disoriented, with middle classes developing at a first rate (Sally 1996). In addition, the composition of the higher classes started to change from being passed on by parents having high social rankings to a mixture of people with titles that belong to a high, wealthy, and social class.

This matter perhaps reveals the significance of Marxism theory, which develops various theoretical explanations to class struggles between two main groups of the society: bourgeoisie and the proletariat (Rummel 2009, p.235). Symbolically, the notion of interactions of the dead and the living developed by To be taken with a Grain of Salt perhaps exemplifies the differences in the classes of people.

While the perceptions of the ghost often associated with the dead seems like unreality to the living, the working class or the labourers live in turmoil as Marxist theory claims. Among the living, it is fearful to think of interacting with ghosts (Manning & Granström 2011). Much similar to this finding, the higher class of the society, which comprises the wealthiest members of the society who own all factors of production, does not interact with the low socio-economic status class of people.

While there is fear in ghost stories that interaction with ghosts may create personal suffering to the living, in the development of the Marxist theory of class struggles, the high socio-economic status class of people do not mingle with the low socio-economic status class of people akin to the perception of inferiority and insignificance (Kingston 2000).

In fact, the later class of people is considered defiant of the social order that is guided by social and moral norms. This finding perhaps reveals why the developments of themes like prostitution are dominant in the Victorian era ghost stories such as To be taken with a Grain of Salt.

Attempting to interpret this theme from the context of the Marxist theory makes it paramount to argue that class struggles are important in determining engagement of people in activities that are considered out of the social moral order such as prostitution. The proletariats are often oppressed. They hardly earn enough to sustain their lives (Kingston 2000).

Why should they not then engage in activities considered ghost-like by the higher-class people? Marxist theory responds to this query by claiming that any activity that supplements the budgetary constricts of the low-class members of the society would be justified as worthwhile activities in the extent that they aid in narrowing the gap between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (Trainer 2010).

The perception of class differences and struggles advocates for the necessity of the creation of a justice system that would enhance equality among all persons. This aspect is developed in the To be taken with a Grain of Salt. In charismatic and prolific manner, Dickens unveils the tale of a murdered man attending the trial for his murderer (Dickens 2011, Para.3).

The dead man is eager to see his murderer brought to justice (Dickens 2011, Para.5). In the story, various movements of the ghost of the murdered man coupled with all attendants of the trial process in the court are described. This case perhaps depicts the eagerness of all people as one that is negatively influenced by segregation of people into classes during the Victorian Era so that some people (the proletariats) were rendered non-vocal in the public domain.

From the Marxist theoretical perspective, the proletariats were rendered non-vocal by the Bourgeoisie in that this class of people utilised their capital power to oppress the proletariats. The murdered man has no power or ability to fight for his justice. He has to rely on the court system to acquire justice.

The presentation of ghosts is particularly moving. Considering the relationship between the Bourgeoisie and the proletariats, the use of the ghosts in helping to develop the notion of class struggles is not coincidental. Ghosts are considered unreal appearances to the living. Analogically, proletariats who seek punishment for Bourgeoisie are also unreal.

Consistent with this assertion, Rummel (2009) maintains that the proletariats have no protection for their rights. However, the Bourgeoisie class has both political and economic powers to protect it from facing legal consequences for its oppressive acts (p.242). In the developments of the themes of inequality in accessing justice, Dickens is purposeful and careful in the use of the dead man (Fairhurst 2011).

Indeed, he uses mild and smooth expressions to portray the victim’s agony for justice. This strategy creates an atmosphere of two classes of people. One is able to fight for its course while the other is incapacitated in the extent that a person who was killed by the powerful force represents it. Some lines in Dickens’ text reflect this atmosphere.

For instance, Dickens says, “A certain murder was committed in England, which attracted great attention…We hear more than enough of murderers as they rise in succession to their atrocious eminence” (Cox & Gilbert 2003, p.55). Therefore, the acts of murder were treated with simplicity by the legal forces in the effort to protect the mighty members of the society as evidenced by the phrase “…and I would bury the memory of this particular brute, if I could, as his body was buried, in Newgate Jail’’ (Dickens 2011, Para.12).

At the time of writing the text, the working conditions for the working class of people were still not encouraging. For instance, child labour was a reality that the society had to face. Children worked in dangerous working environments without negating the fact that they were also paid poorly. Agile boys were hired to work in chimney sweeps while small children got jobs for scrambling machineries to remove bobbins of cotton (Sally 1996).

Children also worked in mines for coal, especially where crawling in narrow tunnels was required. Additionally, they were involved in the selling of cheap goods besides serving as domestic workers. In the mid of 18^th century, the number of children working as domestic workers was more than 120, 000 (Sally 1996). Working hours ranged from 64 hours a week for the case of builders in summer while during the winter season they worked for 52 hours.

Domestic servants worked for an average of 80 hours in a week (Sally 1996). From the above arguments, struggles for justice pursued by the dead man were a clear exemplification of the need to provide equal social orders. Those who are oppressed, as Marxist theory suggests, are those belonging to the low socio-economic class such as children from poor households.

In the practical world, ghosts (representatives of the dead people) are not anticipated to seek any legal justice just as children in the Victorian Era and other poor people could not do it. This similarity perhaps reveals well why ghost stories involve an encounter between the higher and lower social orders.

Indeed, tantamount to the way the murdered man appeared in the form of a ghost to listen to the proceeding of the case against the murderer in the effort to witness justice being delivered, children and the low socio-economic class of people (often oppressed by the Bourgeoisie) live with eagerness for justice to apply in all aspects of life. This way, they can be freed from the capitalistic exploitations acerbated by the Bourgeoisie.

Living in a society that has little to cater for fundamental needs requires the members of a given society to seek all possible alternatives to ease the economic challenges. According to Brown, a ghost refers to a type of spirit (2010 p. 5). Hence, as may be evidenced by the To be taken with a Grain of Salt, the ghosts are a representation of fights against certain cultural and social oppressive orders.

Indeed, in many of the ghost stories of the Victorian Era including the text under scrutiny, the ghost re-appears to fight for a cause, which is not justified from the contemporary social order. Consequently, it is arguable that Victorian ghost stories reflect very deep concerns of the society. Hence, they fail to serve the purpose of creating fear in their readers.

One of the major social concerns for the Victorian Era was the increasing cases of prostitution. In London, many of the prostitutes belonged to the age gap of 15 to 22 years during this time (Sally1996). With regard to the national census conducted in 1851, the population of Britain was about 18 million. In this population, about 750, 000 women were considered superfluous in the extent that they did not have men to match them since women were in excess (Sally1996).

Considering the position of women in the society during the Victorian Era, it meant that these women had no men to provide for them. They had to look for alternative ways of eking out a living. In many instances, they opted to engage in prostitution. This being a social problem, it was inevitable for any literary work in the Victorian Era to be developed fully without a reflection of prostitution as the last resolution to survival, especially among the surplus women.

From the context of the Marxist theory, prostitutes fitted into the low social economic social class of people who had to do anything within their reach to eke out a living lest they be overtaken by events. Such people were less like the Bourgeoisie, but more like the ghosts seeking justice in a court of law, which is captured in Dickens’ text.

Consequently, prostitution is arguably a social problem that emanates from struggles between various classes within a society. In such a tag war, one class is overpowered (proletariat) and becomes economically drained by the more powerful and superior class (Bourgeoisie) (Rummel 2009). However, the inferior class must survive. Hence, it cannot shun away from engaging in activities considered ghost-like by the superior class such as prostitution and poorly paid labour often involving physical, mental, and spiritual torture.

Conclusion

In conclusion, discussing the applicability of Marxist theory in the To be taken with a Grain of Salt calls for a talk of the condition of life among the proletariats. This consideration may also help to lay a fundamental background why many ghost stories involve an encounter between the higher and the lower social orders and why prostitution is the last resolution to survival.

References

Brown, N. 2010, The Paranormal, Alpha, New York & London.

Cox, M. & Gilbert, A. 2003, The Oxford book of Victorian ghost stories, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Dickens, C. 2011, To be Taken with a Grain of Salt. Web.

Fairhurst, R. 2011, Becoming Dickens: The Invention of Novelist, Harvard University Press, London.

Kingston, T. 2000, The Classless Society, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Manning, M. & Granström, B., 2011, Charles Dickens: Scenes from an Extraordinary Life, Frances Lincoln Children’s Books, New York.

Parkin, F. 2002, Marx’s Theory of History: A Bourgeois Critique, Columbia University Press, New York.

Rummel, R. 2009, ‘Marxism and Class Conflicts’, European Journal of Public Governance, vol. 3 no. 2, pp. 235-247.

Sally, M. 1996, Daily Life in Victorian England, Greenwood Press, Greenwood.

Trainer, T. 2010, Marxist theory: A brief introduction. Web.

Introduction

Evolutionary influences can be mainly seen in the legal theory of Karl Marx, who neither believed in God nor supported the doctrine of human sin. Rather, Marx believed that laws were products of people and represented the will of the social classes that stood above others on the hierarchy. Based on these views, there were attempts to disregard the rule of law as it existed and instead establish a secular utopia among various societies around the globe. However, in reality, the efforts of governments to establish the equality of wealth proposed by Marx created a lot of inequalities as well, such as political oppression. For instance, in the twentieth century alone, the governments that were inspired by Marxist ideology contributed to the killing of nearly a hundred million citizens who were subjected to the worldview that the great representatives of society were the only ones who could decide between right and wrong.

Western views on law were predominantly shaped by the influence of Darwin’s evolutionary theory, which supported a change in legal studies during the nineteenth century. Marx espoused and reinforced the belief that human laws are mere accidents and rejected all belief in the idea of natural law, which was used by the fathers of democratic constitutionalism in the United States. The key ideas of Marx regarding the law were laid out in his collaboration with Engels, the Communist Manifesto, in which the authors criticize the entire institution of government being subjected to the rule of law, stating that such a tradition is a selfish misconception. This paper will focus on examining the legal histories of the United States and Europe and finding links between them and the writings of Marx and Engels to determine whether they are any inconsistencies that could be accounted for with the help of other theoretical traditions.

It is crucial to mention that Karl Marx did not put the entire focus of his work on legal theory; therefore, it can be quite complicated to clearly outline his views on the law. One of the reasons for this complexity is the fact that Marx’s writings form a complex synthesis of various intellectual sources, directions, and opinions. For instance, while Marx was linking himself to the tradition of idealism, where Hegel prevailed, he did not agree with the support of authoritarianism to achieve an egalitarian order of society, as was being proposed by the French utopian socialists (Sutton 62). Because the inspirations for his philosophical stance were diverse, in the periods of his early work, Marx took a primarily humanistic and philosophical approach to his worldview; however, later, he started to become more concerned with finding connections between the social and economic forces that exist in societies.

Law and Society in Marx’s Ideology

The relationship between law and state in the classical model proposed by Marx revolves around three key ideas: societal structure, the methodological approach, and connections between social organization and human personality (primarily the concept of alienation). Indeed, ideas of alienation are closely intertwined in the theoretical approach of Marx, who states that human personality in a capitalist society is based on the activities of production in everyday life. Alienation occurs when a human being loses his or her grasp of creative faculties (Sutton 64); in this way, Marx links the notion of alienation to the production of commodities within a society. Therefore, labor becomes social when there is a universal alienation of individual types of work (A Contribution to the Critique 38). While there is evidence of some sort of anthropological romanticism in Marx’s discussions of separation, to him, alienation is the product (or result) of tensions between realizations and potential that have been integrated into the history of societies.

In his most outstanding work, Capital, Marx writes that objects, as they are, are external to human beings and thus are alienable. For such alienation to become retaliatory, people must treat one another as private owners of alienable objects and, thus, as independent individuals (Marx, Capital 61). The method of historical materialism proposed by Marx was used to analyze the social change in an identifiable historical context. While Marx did not fully apply religious consciousness to his exploration of society, he still held the opinion that the material world is a product of the labor of human beings, and thus, it is a product of religion, politics, and other influences that have existed at different stages of societal development. Lastly, the base-superstructure model was used by Marx to explain the relationships that exist between consciousness and societal structures. In his writings, societal structures are divided into the real foundation (the basis for the society) and the legal and political superstructure (including morals, ideology, religion, culture, and so on) (Sutton 69).

United States: Law and Society

The general view that the rule of law is embedded in the principle of democracy suggests that law is impartial and thus instrumental in resolving societal conflicts. However, according to Hammerstrom, the law is not unbiased, nor it is impartial (1); instead, it includes the social and political misconceptions of the legislators and judges who participate in forming and upholding it. For example, in the wake of industrialization in the United States came the challenges of private injury and personal damage, both of which required some legal accommodation. Nevertheless, it was not the democratic society that was assigned to make the required changes in legislation—because the Federalist elite who participated in the creation of the Constitution did not trust the majority to make crucial decisions, they developed a system in which the property-owning top layers of society played the determining role in shaping the country’s legal, political, and social structures. A similar view is held by Walter Gellhorn, who in his work Individual Freedom and Governmental Restraints writes that “there is nothing more to the problem than discovering whether one likes or dislikes the results reached by administrators” (67), pointing out the triumph of bias over the principles of civil liberties and democracy.

However, if one is to apply Marx and Engels’ views on democracy to the context of the law and the legal system of the United States, there are some similarities and inconsistencies between the two. In Marxist thinking, the role of democracy is predominantly attributed to society’s transition from capitalism to communism, although the historical development of the United States aimed towards establishing capitalism rather than communism. The characteristics of America as a capitalist country are discussed in Mark Green’s article “When Money Talks, Is It Democracy?” in which he examines the political action committee (PAC) and its contribution to the freedoms of speech and democracy. Green asserts that money speaks in American politics and argues that this situation presents a major problem for society since money is not speech and thus should not be protected constitutionally.

The capitalist nature of American law, politics, and society, in general, follow the principles of democracy in which people of all social classes have the opportunity to voice their opinions through a system of elections; however, when it comes to real-life decisions, especially in the legal sphere, American society is rooted in a system in which money and privilege make all decisions (Domhoff 97) and the poor do not have a voice. According to Derthick and Quirk, American politics and the law system have been associated with the power of narrow interests (7), so the authors focus on examining American industries that have experienced some tremendous changes in competition. Within these industries, the authors find that the rule of money prevails over other forces, which makes the processes of commerce even more challenging. According to Marx in the “Contribution of Critique of Political Economy,” each industry (e.g. manufacturing, agriculture, shipping) has been turned into a real source of wealth.

Europe: The Jewish Question and Socialism

About the historical development of law in Europe, one of the prominent questions that Marx and Engels wanted to answer was associated with the “Jewish Question,” a term that refers to the issue of the civil rights of Jews (47). For centuries, the Jewish nation was considered a pariah throughout the entire European continent (Sutton 72); however, in the eighteenth century, their legal status started improving as the result of the democratic revolution. The shift towards acceptance occurred most slowly in Eastern Europe (predominantly in Germany), which attributed the official religion and political rights to Christians only. As mentioned by Neumann, Jewish society formed an “important fighting league of middle-class traders” (42) who were despised for their higher wages and unemployment insurance, which contributed to society’s growing antipathy toward them. In their letters, Engels and Marx agreed that Jews had higher intelligence compared to the other representatives of the bourgeoisie (especially in the context of anti-Semitism) (309); they had experienced centuries of oppression but still managed to withstand it.

In Nazi Germany, various legal acts supported by the Führer were designed to oppress the non-Aryan population (predominantly Jews). Under the Führer’s rule, the National Socialist Party regarded courts as not authoritative enough to delegate the Party’s scope of operations. For example, while Jewish small businesses were not legally subjected to any specific regulations, the National Socialist Party still contributed to the demolishment of their undertakings and the forced closings of their businesses, as mentioned by Kirchheimer (159). Moreover, the rule that prevailed in Nazi Germany did not consider such attacks on Jewish businesses to be social disturbances; indeed, the National Socialist Party was discontent with the Jewish businesspeople who filed complaints about the acts of disrespect and violence that were committed against them (Kirchheimer 160). In the case of the “Jewish Question” explored by Marx, the evolution of the German legal system was a continuous process grounded in the concept of National Socialism.

It is also important to mention the contrasts between the National Socialist labor laws under the rule of the Führer and the labor regulations that prevailed in England, France, and Belgium during that time. To gain support from industrialists, the Führer guaranteed a monopoly and allowed them to determine their labor relations (Kirhheimer 160). However, in other countries at that time, labor relations were determined based on organized social groups of workers and employers; the labor conditions and compensations for work depended on the strength of the organizations. Moreover, intervention from the state took place only in cases where the social groups of employees and employers were unable to agree collectively on a mutual decision.

However, the National Socialist Party’s seizure of all powers in Germany stopped the opposition between labor and capital by replacing Marxist unions with the German Labor Front, which enforced psychological tasks rather than social processes. Consequently, National Socialism in Germany led to the domination of leaders over employees, which resulted in the discontent of the working class. To withstand the opposition of workers, the National Socialist Party integrated a bold juristic innovation (secular courts of honor) that forced employers to treat employees with the respect of “German ethnic comrades” (Kirchheimer 161). In return for this, employees were required to treat their employees without bias, despite the existing differences in social status. Thus, the Führer invested in maintaining and protecting the established social order by integrating a strict psychological atmosphere within industries.

Conclusions

The key ideologies of Marx and Engels regarding issues of law cannot be directly attributed to the historical developments of the legal systems that emerged in Europe and the United States. While Germany embraced socialism under its totalitarian rule, other European countries grounded their legal institutions on open relationships between different layers of society. However, the United States of America moved in the direction of capitalism and the rule of the wealthy over the poor, which went against Marxist ideologies and its idealist beliefs.

Works Cited

Derthick, Martha, and Paul Quirk. The Politics of Deregulation. Brookings Institution Press, 1985.

Domhoff, William. The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America. Random House, 1971.

Gellhorn, Walter. Individual Freedom and Governmental Restraints. Praeger, 1969.

Green, Mark. “When Money Talks, Is It Democracy?” The Nation, September 5, 1984.

Hammerstrom, Doug. “The Rule of Law Versus Democracy.” What Authority, vol. 5, no. 1, 2002, pp. 1-8.

Kirchheimer, Otto. “Legality and Legitimacy.” The Rule of Law Under Siege, edited by William E. Scheuerman, University of California Press, 1996, pp. 44-64.

Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. Collected Works. Lawrence & Wishart, 2010.

Marx, Karl. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Progress Publishers, 1859.

Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Progress Publishers, 1887.

Neumann, Franz. “The Decay of German Democracy.” The Rule of Law Under Siege, edited by William E. Scheuerman, University of California Press, 1996, pp. 29-44.

Sutton, John. Law/Society: Origins, Interactions, and Change. Pine Forge Press, 2001.

Introduction

Of late, there has been a significant rise of interactions between countries. They are interacting mostly in terms of trade and technology. It is rare to get a country that has no trade link with others. This is because there is none that has enough resources to cater entirely for its requirements. This then brings the issue of globalisation, viewed as the process by which countries “share” what they produce, buy, or sell, with others around the globe.

This is no more than trade, and hence economic globalisation, which result to the establishment of global markets. Though economic globalisation has been there before, its today’s rate of occurrence is a bit higher. Many views have been given concerning it and among them, are the Marxism views. Marxism pictures today’s economic globalisation as being destructive, unstable, among others.

Marxism view of economic globalisation

“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.” (Marx 1975). According to this quote, economic globalisation in the unseen nature of capitalism, is spreading at an alarming rate and soon it will be everywhere around the globe.

Marxists points that this globalisation is depriving the world of its heritage and traditions and owing to the crises therein, the whole world is seen to be approaching a permanent disaster. Marxism mentions capitalism pointing out a number of capitalist continents, Asia, Africa, not sparing Antarctica.

Though, crises are known to be more in the developed countries of today, Marxism reckons a time, based on today’s observations of capitalism, when the globe will be industrialised, a situation that will render the world economy unstable. Marxism predicts that as this unfolds, the world will slowly be approaching a depression. Marxism movement bases its arguments on the entire globe criticising the rising capitalism.

Besides this, Marxism has presented a precise view of the misuse of labour as well as the changes arising in the field of politics. Marxist economic analysis shows that currently, the United States leads in capitalism posing that it is experiencing a high competition from Japan, among others.

In the near future, not far from today, Marxism presents the view that, these capitalist countries will be many and their oppression to the working class will be on the peak covering virtually the entire globe. This is why Marxism posits that the economic globalisation of today carries with it the destruction of the globe.

Conclusion

Though it was highly criticised, virtually all the predictions made by Marxism are evident in today’s economic globalisation. Mass redundancy, world capitalist calamity, introduction of technology that would bring about the reduction of working hours, world-wide fall of profit levels, the rising living standards, not sparing the third-world war, to mention a few, were among the issues Marxism pointed.

It stands out that almost all are being experienced today in the whole world. It is deducible that Marxism had the picture of the state of the global economy as possessing the aforementioned characteristics, which are evident today.

Reference List

Marx, K (1975), Manifesto of the Communist Party, Moscow, Progress Publishers.

Introduction

Means, relations, and mode of production are concepts that are vital in the labor market. While means of production entail the non-human resources, relations of production imply the social unions that people develop so that they meet their needs as they undertake various processes of production. Consequently, mode of production comprises the methods and organization that owners of the means of production use to manufacture, design, and create products (Banaji 33). Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to define the concepts of production such as means, relations, and mode in relation to the perspectives of Karl Marx.

Overview of Marxism Perspective in Production

Karl Marx explains the concepts of production such as means, relations, and modes using the various economic systems. In the perspective of Marx, individuals engage in production because they have to fulfill a need. According to Marx, economic systems deal with the development of strategies and policies that govern the behavior and employment of the means of production. In the explanation of Marx, means of production are the initial components that determine production and facilitate efficient production processes (Evans 165).

The basis of the argument that Marx advances is that the means of production comprise instruments of labor, for instance, machines, computers, factories, and equipment used in adding value to products. In addition, he argues that subjects of production include raw and natural resources that people manufacture, process, or design. Marx believes that when individuals devise the initial step of production, which entails arrangement of the means of production in an organized manner, all other steps of relations and mode of production succeed.

To substantiate his argument, Marx explains that the production process can employ two economic systems that are prevalent in several countries of the world. The two systems are capitalism, which several countries in the West practice, and communism, which numerous countries in the East exercise. In his argument, Marx asserts that countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, use the capitalist economic system in executing their operations (Evans 178).

Capitalism, in Marx’s explanation, is an economic system that focuses on personal achievement and individual progress. In capitalism, entities that own the means and subjects of production dictate their subordinates and underpay them. Furthermore, in the capitalist economic system, the chief focus is on the resources and profits. As a result, employers encourage their workers to optimize their efforts.

As a consequent, employers overwork employees and underpay them, a factor that creates dissatisfaction. According to the belief of Marx, disappointment and anger ensue among workers leading to the development of forces that attempt to overthrow capitalists and initiate the communist economic system (Cohen 24). Unlike the capitalist economic system, the communist economic system focuses on collective success and encourages equal pay for an equivalent effort that individuals exert.

Marx explains that employers often alienate employees from their families and workplaces. The issue transpires because the employees feel that their management compromises their efforts. Essentially, the issue of alienation and inadequate commitment, according to Marx, is more evident in areas where the capitalist economy is in practice. Since the capitalist economic system focuses on profits and maximum productivity, employers often underpay workers and disregard their concerns.

As some of the implications of underpayment and disregard of welfare, workers reduce commitment to work and experience alienation from other colleagues in the workplace and the places of residence (Plat and Heynick 36). In the perspective of Marx, the issue is a catalyst that propels workers to fight for communism, which improves their welfare and creates a fair production system that offers better services and treatment.

Means of Production

Means of production is a concept that refers to a wide number of resources that facilitate production. The resources, also known as inputs, are non-human, and their use leads to value addition. Individuals usually employ the inputs to initiate and sustain a production process in an economic system. It is important to highlight that the means of production fall into two categories, namely, subjects and instruments of labor. Plat and Heynick state that the labor instruments entail machinery, tools, and equipment whereas subjects of production include the resources that generate products (109).

Raw materials and natural resources are the main subjects of the production process. Evidently, the combination of the instruments and subjects of production creates an effective means of production. When individuals plan to create a product, they must use the instruments of labor to design, manufacture, or process the raw materials into finished products, which are not only beneficial but also relevant to the desired needs.

Over time, the means of production have evolved and encompassed several aspects that relate to the advancements in factors such as technology and processes. In the modern societies, means of production refer to a set of subjects and tools applicable in the process of production. The tools usually encompass machinery, facilities, factories, and computers. While these tools are universal and multifaceted, they are integral in the production process, and their employment leads to the development products.

According to Fuchs, modern societies have witnessed the development of a wide range of tools and subjects of production that collectively facilitate effective production (90). Fundamentally, the concept is different from the one of the Agrarian times when the means of production encompassed outdated instruments such as shovel and soil, which played the roles of subjects. The difference that is apparent in the tools and subjects of production in modern, industrial, and agrarian societies demonstrates the evolution of the means of production over time.

Relations of Production

Relations of production comprise the associations that people develop in their quest to meet and satisfy their daily requirements. These relationships stem from the needs that life presents. Some of the needs that individuals require in their daily endeavors include food, clothing, and accommodation. Since the needs and wants require some level of financial and personal commitment, individuals have to create a social relationship with parties that can satisfy the needs (Lackner and Seddon 204).

Notably, the parties have different levels of autonomy basing on the level of influence that they have over the others. For instance, in relationships, employers usually have a higher level of influence than the workers do. The relationship does not use personal will, but it compels individuals to join in an attempt to satisfy their needs and wants.

Parties involved in the relationship of production usually include employers and employees. According to Marx, the employers hire workers and pay them for their personal commitment (Banaji 167). The implication that the influence has on the parties leads to different scales of autonomy that parties to the relationship exercise. The employees have limited autonomy and respond to the employers who give directives and orders. In contrast, employers enjoy a high degree of independence, and hence, give policies that govern the operations of production in respective economic systems.

In effect, employers who own an economic system are responsible for the organization of the subjects and instruments of labor in line with their preferences and externalities that dictate the subject environment. As such, it is clear that the relationships are necessary and free of independent will. The relationships also demonstrate a varying level of influence and independence from the parties involved, who are the employers and employees.

Mode of Production

Mode of production refers to the organization of the means and relationship of production to establish the manner in which an economic system undertakes its process of production. Individuals utilize means such as factories, tools, and equipment. Moreover, individuals utilize subjects such as raw materials in the relationships. While the employers organize, direct, supervise, and instruct employees to undertake certain tasks of production, employees utilize the instruments of labor and implement the directives.

According to Cohen, Marx perceives that the mode of production represents the method that economic systems use to employ the means and parties involved in production relationship (157). In the assertion of Marx, the parties involved in the production process, as well as the instrument of labor, should have the ability to perform.

By elucidating the ability to perform, Marx implies that the instruments of labor should be in good condition and match the prevailing requirements. Consequently, another implication of the assertion concerns the productivity of the human resources, who may be employers or employees, in implementing the production.

One major aspect that is evident in the mode of production is the constant evolution. Over the recent past, several advancements in technology, consumer trends, and political structures have transpired. The advancements have initiated pronounced changes in production that have affected the mode of production. Lackner and Seddon explain that transition from Agrarian to industrial modes of production led to changes in the various instruments and subjects of production (213).

Consequently, the shift from industrialization to modern forms of production has witnessed tremendous changes that rendered some instruments of labor redundant. The element of evolution is continuous and compels all the parties involved to engage in regular research and study so that the changes do not disqualify their expertise and productivity. Apparently, failure to stay in line with the continuous evolution makes individuals incapable of production. Inadequate capacity to perform takes place because the individuals, who are not in line with the advancements, cannot use the new instruments of labor, and hence, become redundant.

Conclusion

Karl Marx advances various concepts in elucidating the issue of production. Indeed, he advances the concepts of means, relations, and modes of production. As such, Marx is one of the principal individuals who play an integral role in discussing issues of production. Means, relations, and modes are all components that dictate the manufacture, design, and creation of products with the aim of increasing their value and use.

Effective employment of means, which comprise instruments and subjects of labor with relations, is instrumental in the production process. Therefore, an analysis of the perspective of Karl Marx and an in-depth definition of the concepts such as means, relations, and modes of production are integral in advancing the knowledge of individuals in production.

Works cited

Banaji, Jairus. Theory as History: Essays on Modes of Production and Exploitation. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Print.

Cohen, Gerald. Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defense. London: Clarendon Press, 2000. Print.

Evans, Michael. Karl Marx. London: McGraw-Hill, 2013. Print. Fuchs, Christian. Digital Labor and Karl Marx. London: Cengage Leaning, 2015.

Lackner, Helen, and David Seddon. Relations of Production. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Plat, Herman, and Frank Heynick. Economics of Property Management: The Building as a Means of Production. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.