Marxism a trend of socio-political thought - Essay Example

 Marxism a trend of socio-political thought It is well known that Marxism is a trend of socio-political thought, a system of philosophical, economic, social and political views, which amounted to a revolutionary ideology of the proletariat. Proletariat is considered to be the most disadvantaged part of the working class, which, by virtue of its material and economic failure, has become a major force in the struggle for a just social order without antagonistic classes and private property. The founders of Marxism - Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels (1820 - 1895) severely criticized capitalism and so-called exploitation of man by man; the only way to liberation of workers, according to their ideology, was the revolutionary transformation of bourgeois society into a communist one (“Karl Marx – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). The mere fact that the beginning of the Marxism was 1848, when Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published the Communist Manifesto, speaks for itself: it was a different time. And the current XXI century is not the XIX century, and, if Marxism was not to gain a foothold in the minds of people in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, then this will not happen in the twenty-first century. And such notorious Marxist terms and phrases as “the proletariat”, “Rent”, “world revolution”, “communism - a bright future for all mankind” are can not often be heard even at rallies and demonstrations organized by the Communists at the present time. We know that in the twentieth century the ideology of Marxism was adopted by the Soviet Union, some countries of Eastern Europe, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Cuba. Lots of aforementioned countries still remain the supporters of Marxism nowadays. Even in the most developed capitalist countries there are always some Communist Parties. With all respect to certain postulates and the noble ideas of Marxist philosophy, our contemporary society can not possibly accept Marxism as a whole, so the given ideology is unlikely to return as a major ideology in the twenty first century. Let us take, for example, such a doctrine of Karl Marx, as his famous theory of surplus value. Marxists believe that under capitalism a great part of the produced surplus value is given to the capital, which inevitably leads to an increasing stratification of society and the growth of class struggle (“Karl Marx – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). In accordance with this postulate (and the inevitable growth of the class struggle), it is possible to make a conclusion that sooner or later the global economic crisis and revolution will occur. Besides, ultimately the means of production, sooner or later will move to the workers and peasants. Thereafter, in accordance with the following Marxist postulate, productivity growth will sooner or later lead to the fact that human capabilities will outstrip human needs, thus, social wealth will flow an endless stream, comes communism. Under these circumstances, the postulate that “material existence of any person ultimately determines his or her consciousness” will work. Thus, we can run to the conclusion that each person will receive material benefits according to needs. And all the people will automatically become happy. An era of universal happiness will come. That what is said about the strengthening of the class struggle in the Manifesto of Communist Party, “Over the past few decades, the history of industry and commerce was nothing but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and its rule. It suffices to mention the commercial crises that, coming back from time to time, call into question the existence of the entire bourgeois society ... The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises lead to the fact that the wages of the workers become more and more unstable” (Dmitriev 197). In accordance with the labor theory of value, cost of goods is determined by the labor invested in the product during its manufacture. In fact, the objective value of the cost of goods is determined by the cost of labor (rather than the quantity of labor) invested in the product during its manufacture. And, as it turns out, the price and value can be regarded as synonymous, which in practice already takes place, and that Marxist theory is not justified. In accordance with the labor theory of value, cost of goods is determined by the labor invested in the product during its manufacture. In fact, the objective value of the cost of goods is determined by the cost of labor (rather than the quantity of labor) invested in the product during its manufacture. And, as it turns out, the price and cost can be regarded as synonymous notions; the given fact already takes place in practice, and it is not substantiated by Marxism theory. It is surprising that researchers are trying to solve the mystery of the value chain of goods and inventing the most complicated theories do not seem to notice that the real buyers and sellers without any complications, and theories on a daily basis form the ratio of exchange. But the simplicity of forming an exchange ratio suggests that the participants of the exchange make a profit on some basic and clear to everyone circumstances. But what are these circumstances? There is no need to invent anything, suffice it to have a look at the work of a real market, it is easy to see that its members of exchange will be satisfied with the exchange, if, by comparing their economic situation with that of its competitors, find at least equality of provisions. If it is translated into the language of dialectics, we obtain the following: struggle in the form of competitive buyers generates market demand for goods, where the sellers have the same equal product prices for all buyers. Struggle in the form of business competition forms so-called flow of funds from the less profitable types of businesses into more profitable ones by aligning all average income with the market average one, and it generates market supply at prices equal to the average cost of production, plus the average market profits from equal value expenses. The “struggle” between buyers and sellers for the satisfaction with the price of goods forms a correspondence between supply and demand on the price level, equal to average production costs of goods, plus the average market return with the value of costs, corresponding to the goods. It becomes obvious that the theory of Karl Marx represents the eternal conflict between sellers and buyers itself, and, as the practice showed, the given theory gave a failure initially. Simply, it was already a mistake, even for nineteenth century - the century, in which Marxism was born. In accordance with the basic tenets of Marxism, it is possible to make the following conclusions about the inevitability of revolution, the inevitability of communism and the inevitability of universal happiness. In the twentieth century some political leaders accepted the Marxist ideology as the only efficient and true., Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) in Russia (Soviet Union), Mao Zedong in China, Paul Pot in Kampuchea (Cambodia), Kim Il Sung in North Korea, Fidel Castro - on the island of Cuba and many other Marxists, who came to power, develop the given ideology and tried to apply it in their states. Marxist-communist experiment in Russia lasted from 1917 (if to take into consideration the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - since 1922) till the very Soviet collapse in 1991. The founder of the Soviet state Lenin and his supporters took fragmentary arguments and conclusions from Marxism. Lenin and his entourage, relying less on the postulates and the logic of Marxism, but rather on its findings (communism - is the inevitable future of all mankind, which can be achieved only through the dictatorship of the proletariat), built a tactical steps necessary to the seizure of power by the party, positioning itself as the best expresser of proletariat’s interests. Thus, the loyal Leninists and Stalinists built a dictatorship of the proletariat in accordance with their representations. Afterwards, as the history shows, the theory stopped functioning. Eventually, the labor productivity grew up, and the communism did not come. There was a stalemate. To break this stalemate we must return to the original tenets of Marxism as a theory. Let's start with the sources and components of Marxism. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (245) singled out the following sources and components: - German classical philosophy; - British political economy; - French utopian socialism. The logic of Marxism with regard to human development (according to the arguments of Marx and Engels) can be summarized in three tenets: 1) The material existence of any human being ultimately determines his or her consciousness. 2) The growth of human abilities (productivity) occurs at an exponential rate, and the growth of human needs - in the arithmetic. 3) Under capitalism, the growing proportion of surplus-value produced is assigned to the capital, which inevitably leads to an increasing stratification of society and the growth of class struggle. The first postulate stemmed from Hegel's dialectics. The second postulate stemmed from the historical materialism of Marx. The third postulate stemmed from the theory of surplus value. So, the delusions with Marx’s theory are obvious. The revolution is not necessary for the further development of society; the eternal and universal human happiness is utopia; communism, as a society, which is always meeting the needs of citizens, is impossible, since human needs are evolving at the same rate with the human potential. Besides, human desires often outstrip human capabilities. The practice of communism introduction has shown that existence does not fully determine the consciousness. And it is human nature not to want to work and to desire to have as much as possible. Accordingly, there are at least two things, which can not be changed by any existence: it is impossible to make all people want to work, as well as be content with less than they can get. Marx's denial of the fact that presence of individual conflicts in society, which, in accordance with the principle of commonality of interests and concerns, form the group, class and inter-state conflicts, was false. According to Marx, destruction of class contradictions will immediately result in disappearance of individual ones (McLellan 245). First of all, this delusion became the basis for the idealization of the proletarian class, within which there could be no contradictions, and for this reason the dictatorial form of government is appropriate for the society. Still, there was an apprehension that the dictatorship of the proletariat could degenerate into a dictatorship of a handful of proletarian leaders and into nonmarket forms of distribution of wealth in society. Life and knowledge of human psychology suggests that personal or production conflicts among workers even within one company can reach such a scale that eternal conflict “between labor and capital” may seem a grain of sand in the desert. And the main thing is that no country professing Communist Marxist ideology managed to build the notorious communism, i.e. the dreams of universal human happiness did not come true. In countries that are not reputed to be communist, the economic prosperity was achieved much faster, and it can not be compared with that of Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea, which have not renounced Marxism yet. Yes, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were wrong, but they have made an enormous contribution to the development of social sciences. Karl Marx believed that the revolution should take place in some backward capitalist countries, such as Russia. All the attempts to apply Marxism in one of the most backward countries (Russia, Cambodia, etc.) resulted in a drastic reduction of their populations. But this is not the entire fault of the author of “Das Kapital”; no doubts, that his followers and ardent supporters, who erred so much. And these errors are well-known to us, people living in the twenty first century. So why should we take Marxism with all its drawbacks to the coming century and, moreover, make it the main ideology of modern humanity? Let it remain one of the past theories, standing in the same row with the theories of Thomas More, Robert Owen, Charles Montesquieu, Hegel, and other scholars of the past, who dreamed of making human life better and happier. Works Cited Dmitriev, V. K. Economic Essays on Value, Competition and Utility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Print, 1974. “Karl Marx – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy”. Web. 7 Jun 2011. . McLellan, David. Marxism After Marx. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Print, 2007. Read More