all about marxism

Marxism refers to the philosophy and social theory based on Karl Marx's work on one hand, and to the political practice based on Marxist theory on the other hand (namely, parts of the First International during Marx's time, communist parties and later states). Marxism identifies the race towards communism in a number of stages. The first stage being feudalism, second one being capitalism, which is then followed by socialism. The closing stages result in communism. Marx, a 19th century socialist philosopher, economist, journalist, and revolutionary, often in collaboration with Friedrich Engels, developed a critique of society which he claimed was both scientific and revolutionary. This critique achieved its most systematic (albeit unfinished) expression in his most famous work, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, more commonly known as Das Kapital (1867). Nevertheless, there have been numerous debates among Marxists over how to interpret Marx's writings and how to apply his concepts to current events and conditions. The legacy of Marx's thought is bitterly contested among proponents of numerous viewpoints who claim to be Marx's most accurate interpreters. There have been many academic theories, social movements, political parties and governments that lay claim to being founded on Marxist principles. Indeed, academic theorising on Marxism is so widespread that there are a number of different schools of Marxism in addition to the classical Marxism of Marx and Engels. Similarly, the use of Marxist theory in politics, including the social democratic movements in 20th century Europe, the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries, Mao and other revolutionaries in agrarian developing countries have added new ideas to Marx and otherwise transmuted Marxism so much that it is difficult to define its core.
FUTURE OF MARXISM
Has Marxism a future, now that communism has collapsed throughoutEastern Europe and is in crisis everywhere else? It is oftensaid that Marxism is discredited and refuted by these events:they signify the triumph of capitalism and the free market, the`end of history'. At the other extreme, some Marxists in theWest would like to believe that history has not yet begun. Forthem, socialism is still a distant dream. The old regimes of theSoviet Union and Eastern Europe had nothing to do with truesocialism. Their demise, therefore, has no bearing on Marxism:no rethinking is required. Neither of these responses is satisfactory. It is clearthat the momentous changes that have occurred cast doubt on manyaspects of Marxism, and necessitate a fundamental rethinking ofsome of its most basic ideas. Dramatic as these events havebeen, however, they do not signify the end of Marxism. This iswhat I shall argue. First, I will briefly explain why, in myview, it is wrong to think that Marxism has been entirelyrefuted; and then I will discuss some of the issues on which, Ibelieve, rethinking is necessary.Marxism and CapitalismMarx's work is focused primarily on the analysis and explanationof capitalist society. Capitalism, he shows, is a system whichinvolves ineliminable contradictions. For this reason, it is notthe `end of history'. It is a particular stage of historicaldevelopment, which is eventually destined to pass away and besuperseded by further stages. Marx's elaboration of this theory,though now more that 100 years old, continues to provide by farthe most comprehensive and powerful account of the capitalistsystem. This is not to suggest that Marx's account of capitalism canany longer be accepted in its entirety. In some respects, it hasclearly been refuted by the actual course of history during thelast 100 years. The advanced capitalist societies have provedfar more durable, economically successful and politicallydemocratic, than Marx or other early socialists ever envisagedpossible. Contrary to Marx's expectations, the working class inthese societies has not been impoverished, nor has it become arevolutionary force. The Marxist account of capitalism must berevised to take account of these facts, if it is to continue tohave application to the modern world. In other respects, however, Marx's account of the nature anddevelopment of capitalism has proved remarkably accurate. WhenMarx was writing, in the 19th century, capitalism wasunchallenged; socialism was not a significant force anywhere inthe world. Since then, capitalism has been overthrown byrevolutionary movements in large areas of the world, andsocialism has become a major political force almost everywhereelse. Moreover, the economic and social conditions which, in thepast, drove capitalism into crisis have not ceased to exist. Thecontradictions which, Marx argues, are inherent in capitalism arestill present. These are most evident in the Third World, wheremany still live below subsistence level and where the conditionsfor revolution are ever present. And, it must be remembered, thecapitalist system includes much of the Third World. Those whotalk of the triumph of capitalism tend to forget this, and thinkonly of advanced capitalist societies. Even in advanced capitalist societies, class divisions andconflicts persist; and the cycle of boom and depression has notbeen eliminated (though it is now more controlled thanpreviously). No doubt, the nature of the classes which make upmodern capitalist society has changed significantly since the19th century, and this is another aspect of Marxism that needsbasic rethinking; but there is no good reason to believe thatclass division has ceased to be a fundamental feature ofcapitalist society. In short, the contradictions of capitalism,which Marx describes, still exist. And, while they continue todo so, there is no reason to believe that capitalism constitutesthe `end of history', or that the basic ideas of Marxism havebeen refuted.The Socialist WorldHowever, what gives plausibility to the view that Marxism hasbeen refuted is not its account of capitalism, but rather thecrisis in the socialist world. It is these events which castdoubt on traditional ideas of socialism, and necessitate a basicreassessment of Marxism. Before describing some of the areas in which suchreassessment is needed, however, it is also important to see thatthe socialist experience has not been entirely negative, at leastin those countries where socialism has come about through arevolutionary, and not by external imposition. Thus the Russianrevolution was an epoch-making historical achievement; a turningpoint not only in Russian but in world history. As a result ofit, Russia emerged out of the chaos and disintegration ofCzarism. Despite civil war and a devastating world war, it hasdeveloped from semi-feudal backwardness, into an industrialnation and a world power. In the process, the health, educationand material well-being of the Russian people have improved verygreatly. Similar things can be said of China. This indicatesthat there is some validity in the ideas of socialism, and thatthey should not be entirely rejected on the basis of the currentcrisis. This is not to deny still less to excuse or condone theterrible human cost of these developments for the Russian people. Nor is it to deny the acuteness of the crisis which has nowengulfed the communist world. This crisis necessitates afundamental rethinking of traditional ideas of socialism. Andthe issues go deep: they involve some of the most basic tenets ofthe theory of Marxism itself. I will focus particularly on twomain areas where such rethinking is needed (without wishing tosuggest these are the only problematic areas).DemocracyThe relation of socialism and democracy is the main _political_issue raised by the crisis of communism. Socialism is supposedto be a democratic form of society; but actually existingcommunist regimes have not been so. In the Marxist traditionthere has been a disastrous tendency to reject the liberal andpluralistic idea of democracy. The state, Marx argues, is a mereinstrument of class rule. In capitalist society, the state is abourgeois state; and the existence of parliamentary institutionsand individual legal rights does not alter this fact. HenceMarxists have often dismissed parliamentary democracy as acharade which hides the true character of the state, andpresented `socialist democracy' as an alternative to it. Socialists have rightly insisted that there is more to fulland genuine democracy than the existence of the rule of law and apluralistic political system. These can coexist with very greatreal inequalities of power and influence, as experience in theWest shows. Nevertheless, the central political lesson of 1989is that a pluralistic political framework is a necessarycondition for democracy. Socialist democracy must not,therefore, be regarded as an alternative to liberal democracy. Rather, it should be seen as a continuation and furtherdevelopment of liberal democracy, involving the extension ofdemocratic rights from the political to social and economicareas. A pluralistic system is needed when there are differentclasses or interest groups in society, each demanding politicalrepresentation. This is certainly the case in capitalistsocieties, where different classes and interest groups exist. However, it is also the case in communist societies. Animportant lesson of recent events is that different andcontending social groups continue to exist in these societies. The Marxist picture of socialism portrays it as a classlesssociety, and denies the very possibility of this. According toMarx, socialism is a `transitional' stage, `between capitalismand communism'; and he believed that this transition would berelatively brief and painless. Once private property in themeans of production is abolished, the material basis for classdifferences is, supposedly, eliminated. Class divisions, andeventually the state as well, should `wither away' more or lessautomatically. Unfortunately, nothing like this has happened inany actual communist society. Moreover, it is evident that national, regional and racialsocial differences persist under socialism. The traditionalMarxist view is that such differences, and the conflicts theygenerate, should lessen automatically as economic development andintegration proceed; and liberals have often shared this view. However, experience has shown that these differences andconflicts are far stronger and more persistent than thesetheories suggest. They have been re-emerging, strongly anddangerously, in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe. There are two important lessons for Marxism in all this. First, if socialism is, indeed, a `transitional' stage, then theprocess is going to be far lengthier and more problematic thanenvisaged by Marx. Second, during this period, socialistsocieties will continue to be divided into conflicting groups,and socialism must involve a political system in which theirdifferent interests can be effectively represented. If Marxismis to be of any use as a theory of socialism, then it must tacklethese issues, rather than functioning as a form of statepropaganda which denies them.The Role of the MarketThe crisis in the communist world has been as much economic aspolitical. Traditionally, socialism has been conceived as asystem of state ownership and central planning; while privateownership and the free market have been seen as definitive ofcapitalism. The socialist economies which were set up accordingto these principles in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, hadhighly centralised `command' structures, with very little scopefor private enterprise or the free market. These economies allsuffered from crippling problems of stagnation, waste andinefficiency. The clear lesson from this is that state ownership andcentral planning are not efficient in many areas of the economy. This is particularly the case with small scale enterprises andservices. It is essential to question the hostility to themarket and to private ownership which runs through the wholesocialist tradition, and to recognise that there is an essentialrole for private enterprise, even in socialist societies. Such views are often taken to imply that state ownership andeconomic planning cannot work, and that the free market is theonly possible basis for an industrial economy. This does notfollow. On the contrary, the pure free market is a myth: it doesnot operate anywhere in the world. In all the main capitalistcountries, major sectors of the economy are controlled andregulated by the state. These include basic agriculture,railways, roads, housing, health, education, and often majorareas of industry as well. In fact, all economies in the worldtoday are `mixed' economies, which combine public and privatesectors (although, of course, the specific sectors in public andprivate ownership vary greatly in different countries). Market forces are not an automatic recipe for economicdevelopment, as experience shows. Thus, in Britain, it isdoubtful whether Mrs Thatcher's programme has resulted in anyreal economic growth. If the market results in the developmentof some regions, it also leads to the impoverishment andexploitation of others. It produces stagnation and crisis, aswell as enterprise and growth. The free market is neither a puregood nor a pure evil. Rather, it must be judged according towhether or not it is effective in promoting economic development. The introduction of the market into previously socialisedareas of the economy inevitably increases inequalities and socialdivisions. This has been the experience in Britain, whereunemployment, poverty and social tension have all increasedsharply. The same effects are now appearing in Eastern Europe asfree market policies begin to operate. Regrettably, the euphoriaof liberation has been short-lived, and the negative aspects ofthe market are beginning to emerge. These are precisely theproblems inherent in capitalism, which Marx so powerfullyanalyses and criticises. As they intensify, it will becomeincreasingly clear that we have not reached the `end of history',and that Marxism not in its old dogmatic form, but rethoughtand renewed still has much to offer as a theory forinterpreting the modern world and changing it.