Ideologies Using a Marxist Approach - Essay Example

of Lecturer 7 May Ideologies using a Marxist approach Everyone in life has one ideology or the other. No human mindis a tabula rasa (Locke 33). The schools of thought we belong to are shaped by different factors. For instance, a person who grows in a neighborhood where the people are always marginalized because they are not well to do has a higher likelihood to embrace Marxism than someone who was not raised under similar circumstances. This does not however mean that everyone who was brought up under a social unfavorable environment would become a Marxist. The point that is being made is that even though there are many approaches that can be adopted in viewing a theory, Marxism can never be pushed aside. This is because the economy and its indices play very important roles in determining who we are. Modern socialism is, in its content, primarily the product of the perception on the one hand of the class antagonisms existing in modem society between possessors and non-possessors, wage workers and bourgeois; and, on the other hand, of the anarchy ruling in production. In its theoretical form, however, it originally appears as a further and ostensibly more logical extension of the principles established by the great French philosophers of the eighteenth century. Like every new theory, it had at first to link itself to the intellectual material which lay ready at hand, however deep its roots lay in economic facts. Engels 185 Marxism principally has to with the modes of production in any society. Marxism recognizes that there are two main social classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The division can be further divided into petit-bourgeoisie and the lumpen-proletariat. The mode of production which Marxists advocate is socialism. Socialism is a system of production in which everyone in the society is equal; in this society, every form of inequality as a result of ownership and control of the mode of production by individuals is not welcome. Unlike what obtains in a capitalist state, the majority will no longer toil only for the non-working upper class to reap the fruit of their labor. However, Marxists believe that the transformation from capitalism will not happen all of a sudden. The change will go through some evolutionary and revolutionary stage. The change which the people desire would only come when they arrive at that point where they determine that they want it bad enough to ask for it—this is the time the proletariat have been pushed to the wall. Marxists believe that capitalism will not exist forever because before it, there were some other modes of production like feudalism and slavery. When the proletariats have taken the reins of power from their oppressors, then socialism will emerge. Socialism is the stage where the masses have been able to remove class stratification. Yet, socialism is itself not perfect until the mode of production become communist. The bottom-line is that no matter what the ideology is, the Marxist approach is against it if it promotes social inequality. In trying to come out as conquerors in the battle waged against capitalism and other holders of ideologies that are incoherent with what Marxism stands for, Marxists are well aware of the fact that one of the first places key to their victory is the minds of the oppressed. In daily living, our consciousness plays a very integral role. Every human being makes use of their consciousness in everything they do. Capitalism has succeeded, through bourgeois ideology, in capturing the operations of the consciousness of many people such that they themselves are now the ones that have given themselves to the dictates of capitalism. All these happen because anything that happens under capitalism is built under the construct of ideology. It is the belief of capitalists that profit must be made at all cost. So, they explore all they can; every machine, every human power. The situation in many capitalist enterprises is such that the laborer is far less important than the machine. Capitalism reduces the value and sanctity of human lives to the level of irrelevance. For this system of production to run, it sets in motion some institutions, behavioral patterns and conditions. The people are made to believe that if there is a change in the control and ownership of the mode of production, the economy would no longer be prosperous as it should be and that they might even lose their jobs. This is a psychological battle which the bourgeois sets in motion. The laborer is made to believe that they are paid amounts commensurate to the work they do. But the truth is that the upper class just pays them peanuts that will only be enough to bring them the next day. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie make the bulk of the money. The workers are made to believe that they are nothing without their work, so they put all they have into ensuring that they retain their work. All these reveal the ideologies that have been set in motion to oppress the upper class, ensuring that upper class keep themselves on top and perpetually keep the lower class under. One of the most important institutions used by the capitalist to suppress the desire of the laborer for change is religion. When the people get into their place of worship, they are blind to unpleasant reality of the real world. They enter into a place where all things are perfect. The effect religion has on them is like that which opium has on anyone that takes it. “Religion is the opium of the masses” (Marx a 17). When the people leave the world of religion, they are however re-awakened to their saddening reality. Marxists, in no way, support of religion because they believe it is a very potent tool in the hand of the capitalist. Many aspects of religion are against what Marxism stands for. One of the aspects is the belief held in many religions that those in charge of how their lives are run were put there by God, so the people have no power to remove them; only God has the prerogative. By implication, it means that those members of the society, the capitalists for example, were made rich and empowered to occupy the position that they occupy over other. The Marxist believes that this only encourages complacency and fatalism. In fact, some of the religious books even states that what the poor have shall be taken from them and will be given to the rich. This is the direct opposite of the tenets of socialism. Marxists regard a human being as a social product. They also regard nature as the product upon which humans exert their capabilities. It is humans that change nature. Humans are the ones that use their understanding of nature to bring about change to it. And so it happens that in Manchester, for instance, Feuerbach sees only factories and machines, where a hundred years ago only spinning-wheels and weaving looms were to be seen, or in the Campagna of Rome he finds only pasture lands and swamps, where in the time of Augustus he would have found nothing but the vineyards and villas of Roman capitalists (Marx b 63). The manner in which people bring about change to nature is the way they bring about change to one another. It is the same way the oppressor impose their ideologies on the non-oppressor. In considering ideologies from the Marxist point of view, one of the areas that must be checked is the role played by state agency in matter of the economy. Capitalists, in their power and might, have made their influence felt in all arms of government. In many societies, the capitalists are very instrumental to the emergence of many government officials. They, more than any other thing, provide the money which these people use to campaign. When their candidates eventually emerge, the capitalists dictate the tone. For instance, if a capitalist was instrumental in the emergence of many legislators, the laws that are passed are those that would likely enhance the good of their sponsors. These legislators are also bound to pass laws that would make dissenters keep quiet. Some other institutions like the police are also very instrumental in silencing those that might want to raise objection to the domination of the rich class. All is done to ensure that economic condition remains favorable to the dominant economic class, ensuring that the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. Every action taken by the dominant class is to ensure that the leading ideologies would be in their favor. At this juncture, it is apt to state that both the oppressor – the bourgeoisie – and the oppressed – the proletariats – have ideologies. What happens is that there is competition between ideologies. In determining the group whose ideology comes top, the economic means plays an important role. As a result of possession of the greater economic means by the capitalists, the ideologies of the proletariat will be relegated. However, if the proletarians are persistent, their ideology would overcome at the end of the day. Because they do not possess enormous economic means, before any revolution can take place, their ideologies must have gone through some small leaps and evolutionary stages (Berlin & Alan 32). What happens with the ideologies of both opposing ideologies is similar to what happens to classes themselves. It reflects dialectics. Dialectics is the manner in which two opposites co-exist (Dialectics for the New Century 18). For instance, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie would live together even though they are opposite. Before any change happens, both classes have to continue to relate. This is because both parties have benefits which they stand to gain from their relationship. While the proletariat was very useful to the bourgeoisie because the former is able to help the latter get more riches, the latter is also able to help the former makes ends meet. This level of relationship persists, in spite of its imbalanced nature. Even when the change desired by the proletariat materializes, the bourgeoisie are still in there. It will not be the case that the revolution would wipe out every member of the former ruling class. What will happen is that the former members of the upper class would dissolve into the almost classless society which capitalism offers. What ideologies do is that they disguise reality. The members of the upper rung of the society never want the member of the lower rung distinguish between what the powers-that-be make things look like and reality. The bourgeoisie is well aware of the fact that the time the proletariat are able to differentiate between their situation and their reality, an end would come to their hegemony. In essence, ideology in the hands of the ruling class is to ensure that the proletariat thinks that their unfavorable circumstance is what their life was destined to be. They are thus automatically made to consciously think about things that make them believe that they were pre-destined to be poor even before they were born and that riches and comfort are not their lot. So, they believe that if they have been destined to be poor, it is not in their powers to bring any change to it. Marx, in his criticism of bourgeois ideology, makes known his dislike of capitalism when he describes capital as a “critique of economic categories, or if you like, the system of bourgeois economics exposed in a critical manner” (Qtd in Rubel 129). Marxism in no way has anything to do with capitalism and everything that can be associated with it. Any ideology that ensures the prosperity of a few and the poverty of many is strongly criticized in Marxism. Marx and his followers advocate an ideology that promotes the wellbeing of all and sundry (if such an ideology exists). Marxists desire a situation which promotes the commensurate payment of workers, a situation in which there is dignity in labor. No ideology should be capable of jettisoning the equality of all human being. No institution, be it social or religious, should be capable of truncating the proper course of the life of anyone. The reaction of Marxist to ideologies is that they should not be reckoned with if they do not promote the wellbeing of all of humanity, without paying preference to any. Work Cited  Berlin, Isaiah & Alan, Ryan. Karl Marx: His Life and Environment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Print Dialectics for the New Century, ed. Bertell Ollman & Tony Smith, Palgrave Macmillan, England, 2008. Print Engels, Fredrick. "Anti-Duhring." Engels: Selected Writings. London: Penguin Books. 1967. Print Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Kenneth P. Winkler. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. 1996. Print Marx, Karl. Introduction to A Contribution to the Crique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Vol. 3. New York: Hammondsworth. 1976. Print Marx, Karl. The German Ideology. London: Lawrence and Wishart.1970. Print Rubel, M. "Fragments sociologiques dans les inedits de Marx." Cahier internationaux de sociologie, XXII. 1957. Read More