Marxs Ideas - Book Report/Review Example

Marx's Ideas: An Analysis Karl Marx has been credited with influencing entire generations through his ideas. His ideas on communism and related matters have been a focal point for the way entire countries run their economies and politics in the social context more than anything. The book titled Assault on Ideology - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Political Thought, is an important volume in this regard. This paper uses the book in question by James F Pontuso to analyse the role of Marx's ideas in people's lives, through a discussion of those very ideas that have been described in the book. This book is a statement of the various ideas laid down by Marx with a deep contextual discussion of how they affected the everyday man. Comprehensive and detailed, the book presents a point of drama around which the discussion revolves. To begin with, Pontuso has reflected on Solzhenitsyn - the man himself. A revolutionary and an unsung hero of the Second World War, Pontuso has portrayed Solzhenitsyn as one among important political figured and revolutionary leaders of the time like Mao Tse Tung and Che Guevara. Solzhenitsyn thrived at a time when Marxism was at its very peak and considered a workable and practical option by most nations around the world. Through his political thoughts, Solzhenitsyn endeavoured to perpetuate the idea of Marxism as a 'cancer'. His ideas were based on his particularly 'grim' description of East West relationship and that in itself was foresight enough for him to rally against Marxism. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 1) While Communism rose and spread its tentacles, especially in the USSR region during the rule of Khrushchev, it claimed many lives through its extremist ideas. Solzhenitsyn's voice gradually died out. Yet his ideals remained. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 3) A Legacy of Terror A man who recognised subtle intricacies of lives in the various social strata, Solzhenitsyn understood the terror that undoubtedly came with the spread of Marxism. On an incident among many, of peasants being harassed and then being sent for execution in a certain Marx state, Solzhenitsyn commented on how Marxism had perpetuated itself into the lives of the most common man through a reign of terror. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 9) The space and cause of Communism was lost to arrests and killing paralleled only by derogatory statements made by leaders like Comrade Stalin, who is believed to have personified the reign of terror. An incident like one where Stalin was received at an occasion to thunderous applause comes to an unpleasant turn when the clapping is stopped after ten minutes by one man. The man in question was arrested and sent to a gruesome execution. Is this communism, asks Solzhenitsyn of the gory details of such reality and logic defying ideals that had come to rule an entire country. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 10) Terror had a special place in the communist country - whether in the arrests of innocent people or in the capture and torture of German soldiers. While Marxism had developed as an answer to the very German atrocities, it had come to place a special importance in the atrocities that were meted out to the most common man in order to reign with fear and mould with w whiplash of threats. Women and children were not spared and the reign of terror simply became an integral part of Marx ideas. Leadership Style In an effort to understand Stalin's compulsion as a leader to exercise gruesome tactics to control the people and the land he was ruling, Solzhenitsyn has tried to use the metaphor of differences within the political party's leadership. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 31) He reasons that the use of Marxism through the use of terror inflicting ways had more to do with personal fear. This is what was reflected outside as well with the infliction of fear at every nook and corner. The Soviet government at that time was made of varying elements who wanted different things for the Soviet Union. Stalin was forced to use the terror aspect of Marxism in order to seek the following: Centralised use of power Avoidance of confusion and the reign of wrong doing in the bargain A break up of resources due to the victorious and unchecked emergence of vested political interests. In order to keep a lid on the differences that threatened to break up the Soviet Union, Stalin kept alive terror that he knew within. This is Solzhenitsyn's point of reasoning as he endeavours to understand the use of terror in the name of Marxist ideas. In a bid to understand Stalin, Solzhenitsyn has regarded the murder of Sergei Kirov in 1937 as well as the confusion that followed within the political party. He points out that the murder and the turn of events that followed actually had little to with politics. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 30 - 31) Ordinary people were slowly coming into their own as far as raising political voices in a bid to run their daily lives effectively was concerned. This would inevitably lead to a plethora of thoughts and ideals before complete confusion and back tracking as far as any kind of progress was concerned. In this regard, the use of terror was deemed necessary and fit in order to hold back the surge of conflicting ideals and voices that would eventually divide the land beyond repair. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 31) Stalin used Marxism to develop a certain style of leadership. The use of Marxism had more to do with developing a leadership style that would propagate and justify the use of terror and fear to harness the common masses as well as the highest echelons in the country's government. Industrialisation Many, including Solzhenitsyn, believe that Stalin was driven by a need to introduce and achieve complete industrialisation in his country. It was alleged that Stalin was to a great extent, influenced and caught up by the success of Britain as far as that aspect was concerned. Britain had risen from the dark ages with a systematic effort towards widespread industrialisation. This had made it a powerful nation that spread its conquests overseas in the form of colonies and more colonies. Before Britain and its Allies were successfully ousted in the World Wars that followed, it had been a major power to reckon with. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 39) Inspired by industrialisation, Stalin was believed to have invested all efforts into adopting the similar legacy for widespread economic upliftment of the vast and sometimes unmanageable Soviet Union. This led to forceful employment of people either into the army or into the industrial sector. Further, in a bid to do away with the evils of the feudal society, Stalin concentrated his efforts on creating the necessary climate that would force people into the industrial sector. This was done by systematically brining peasants of entire villages to their knees through forced arrests as well as taking their land away. With no means of sustenance, people began to turn to whatever jobs they might get and the nation began to surface as an industrialised one. The method of forced collectivisation was followed by Stalin in this regard as terror alone did not seem to do the trick. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 39 - 40) According to these measures, forced collectivisation followed the strategic method of premise building. In the beginning, the well to do peasants were portrayed as the devil incarnate and perennial 'blood suckers' who did nothing for the economy per say. The political party thus endeavoured to zero in on this community in order substantiate the need for hands in the industrial revolution. Following these judgements, the peasants were dragged out of their fields and harassed until they themselves wanted to come out of the 'cursed' community which had not so long ago helped them lead prosperous lives. This culminated into the mass generation of the need for alternate means of employment. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 40 - 41) With these tactics, Stalin managed to give a "Lenin" twist to the use of Marxism. He completely turned against the peasants besides managing to successfully turn the peasants against himself. Once a feudal society, the Soviet Union became a picture of misery with the use of Marxism to fund the ideals of industrialisation for widespread economic progress. Allied Rise to Power With the rise of Lenin, came the rise to power through the use of allies. Marxism has no sympathy for long suffering revolutionaries and this showed in the case of Lenin. A good tactician and strategist more than anything else, Lenin's rise was a matter of his contempt for his roots, which consisted of the petit bourgeois of the empire. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 46) The cause of Marxism was furthered through the use of allies in the rise to power. With the rise of Lenin came the rise of allied support. The war against the Swiss socialists was followed by a surge of Soviet revolution by the Bolsheviks. This became the story of Marxism as spread by Lenin until he was finally put to death. Quashing anything socialist in a bid to promote any communist became the cry of Marxism as it spread through the land in the wave of widespread revolutions. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 46 - 47) While the German High Command aided the rise of the Bolsheviks and the powerful position they had come to occupy, the monarchy slowly went into oblivion following the dismal state of the economy. Marxism as a means for damage control sought this out. Not a big fan of the monarchy, the precursors of the Marx ideas in the Soviet land sought to solve the problems of the economy through measures like rapid industrialisation as well as communist take on things where there would be a more equitable distribution of income and the sources of wealth. "Revolutionary Humanism" was hacked to death through a degradation of the intelligentsia as well as the educated class. The well heeled were left out in the cold while the "Great Natural Order" killed any kind of social structure. This great natural order was a necessary idea that sprung from Marxism. It led to the belief that all humans were 'equal' and were meant to do similar work and earn a similar kind of income. This sprung from the basic premise that everyone was meant to enjoy an equal dose of everything in life. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 48 - 51) Once in power, Lenin increased the focus on means like violence and terror to spread his ideals. This led to a crippling of peaceful methods as terror became an important tool of the state. With widespread means like intolerance, callousness and outright cruelty, Lenin is said to have changed the very nature of Marxism. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 60 - 61). Complexity in Political Thought Another legacy of Marxism that perpetuated itself into the lives of the most ordinary man, was the complex nature of political thought and thinking that was attached with the adoption of anything Marx. Marxism had become a much-feared development in the Soviet Union by 1940. This was primarily due to the fact that Stalin as well as Lenin used Marxism and its manifold implications to suit their own purpose. This purpose included a need to unleash a reign of terror in order to spread a basic ideology through the land. Without the use of spreading awareness regarding a particular agenda, there was a constant flow of confusion regarding the very basis of the birth of a certain ideal or program within the government. With fear as far as challenging the same to spread understanding was concerned, the common masses simply complied. This made things more complicated. Marx ideas emerged as a source of complex ideas that only dampened spirits and promoted fear. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 67 - 69) In a world free of Marxism, the methods are less extreme in the political arena. The political scheme of things in such countries is one of peaceful methods to spread understanding regarding the choice of certain agendas. The deployment of resources and the decentralisation of power are important features that are completely bereft in Marxism. In such cases, the political agendas are challenged before they are allowed to take precedence above all else. The very people who form the common masses do this. In common speak, this is known as democracy. Marx ideas are more extreme as anyone who challenges the ruler is punished harshly. This is a method of forcibly employing everything including political programs and agendas. This in effect leads to complication and confusion regarding the actual state of political affairs where no one knows or can predict where or when the next agenda will come up and how it will affect people in general. This kind of confusion is the very basis of Marxism according to Solzhenitsyn. He maintains that the ideas that form a part of Marxism shun any kind of intruding or questioning by the common man regarding the political machinery being employed within the state. (Pontuso, 1990; Pp 67 - 69) Conclusion The use of Communism and Marxism in the Soviet and other countries was essentially a matter of garnering forced support through a reign of terror. This is what Solzhenitsyn believed in his work. While most of his work was a criticism of Stalin and Lenin, he also held the view that their agendas like a more equitable society and industrialisation were justified and practical even though the means to achieve the same were not exactly humane. At the same time, Solzhenitsyn believed that the leaders in this region had heavily distorted the ideas of Marxism and strayed from the actual ideals of a more equitable society as they were merely answering to the basic fear of disintegration. References: Pontuso, James F (1990) Assault on Ideology - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Political Thought. (Second Edition) University of Virginia Press. Read More