Karl Marxs Social Theory - Essay Example

Karl Marx’s Social Theory Marxism has been an influential social theory for more than 150 years. It has given society an undeniably enhanced appreciation of history’s social dynamics and reveals many of its obscure yet significant attributes. However, the theory does contain several weaknesses. These can be considered substantial specifically because of how its simplicities influence those practitioners of Marxist ideology and their ability to fully comprehend the social surroundings and thus their inability to enact positive changes. Karl Marx theorized that the evolving ideologies of society as a whole are governed by the upper-classes. Ideologies in this context refer to the values, feelings and ideas by which people perceive their particular societies which the upper-class controls so as to prevent people in the lower-class from knowing how society truly operates. For example, literature can be used to form a society’s ideology as was prevalent in eighteenth century England. The fundamental conception behind Marxism is identified as materialism, socialism and the unification of action and structure. Marx’s idealistic view of socialism involved actions that would better serve society within the realm of unselfish inspiration, a society not interested in existing social inclinations. The wealth of a nation should be divided not according to greed but to need. He sees the technological advances as the basis for entire societies to be redistributed in accordance to the requirements of the upper class. Marx “sees the source of these changes in changing technologies, ‘productive relations,’ which bring changes in the way people are organised or ‘social relations.’” (Sowell, 1985: 70). His theory does not suggest philosophical concerns or the study of social structures alone but the actions necessary to implement social change as well. One of the most often used axioms in the Marxist ideology is that their ambition is ‘not to study society but to change it.’ According to Applebaum (1988: 15), society should “understand how Marx sought to bridge the concerns of both philosophy and science in developing a theory that operates simultaneously at the levels of structure and action […] the philosophic critique of consciousness, the ‘scientific’ analysis of capitalist economic institutions, and the historical study of politics and society.” This is the intent of this discussion along with identifying various strengths and weaknesses of the theory and to examine the reasons why Marx’s social theory has had a strong influence on the societies of the world. The central concepts of Marxist economics include the theory of labour value, the disposition of production and the inevitable conflicts between the classes. Conflicts will always persist because the upper class can never totally control the lower classes. Lesser concepts include the idea of increased misery, the obsession with possessions and the consequences of economic alienation. Marx’s theories of labour value combined with his concepts of capitalism endeavour to clarify how the revenue system operates to the benefit of the upper classes and the detriment of the lower classes. Marx defines wealth as something produced by labour from resources originating in the natural world. In terms of capitalism, wealth becomes a vast accrual of possessions. Commodities are articles of wealth created solely as a means to exchange other objects so as to enhance wealth. The instruments of production such as factories, railroads and land are considered capital when they are employed to exploit human labour in order to enhance profits. Money is capital in the purest form. The Marxist conflict theory views capitalist production as an essential element of class struggle. A social class consists of individuals grouped in relation to their ability to produce wealth and in their shared relationship to those that own the production methods. “For Marx and Engels the class struggle between the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and the proletariat (working class) is the great lever of modern social change” (Knox, 1988: 160). The three classes Marx identified based on their income source, labour, capitalist and landowner status is today low classes, labour and capitalist. This theory of class distinction is criticized by some who do not term class by means of ownership or the methods of wealth creation but with regard to lifestyle and prestige. However, this point of view seems very hollow when considering that a mere two percent of the world’s population possess enough wealth to subsist comfortably on the revenue it provides while the vast majority are employed by others or survive via welfare benefits. Marxism theorizes that as capitalism persists, it exacerbates the misery level for working class individuals. The level of working class misery is termed only in relation to the distance between them and the capitalist classes and not meant to imply all persons of labour are necessarily unhappy. “… although the enjoyments of the worker have risen, the social satisfaction that they give has fallen in comparison with the increased enjoyments of the capitalist […] Our desires and pleasures spring from society, we measure them, therefore, by society and not by the objects which serve for their satisfaction” (Marx & Engels, 1968). Alienation is a Marxist concept which implies man is subjugated by his own labour, which, may have taken the appearance of subjective possessions (Kolakowski, 1978: 178). Because of capitalism, people are alienated from others as well as from themselves. People can rise above alienation only by expunging themselves of privately owned property and constructing a socialist society (Stratman, 2002). Marx uses the phrase fetishism of commodities, a concept associated with alienation, to describe people who are overly influenced by the “products of their own activities but do not realise this and attribute an independent existence and power to those products” (Marx, 1954: 71-83). According to Marx, an explicit social relationship exists between people and the products of their labour. The Marxist theory of politics demonstrates his views on the method by which society can alter its course to socialism from the oppressive nature of capitalism. Marx suggests coercive actions and a dictatorial type of proletariat leadership. Marx does not refer to the term dictator in its commonly held understanding. His definition is of the classic variety in that the dictator had wide-ranging powers but was not limitless (Hunt, 1974: 286). With regard to political structure, Marx stated, “The class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat. In destroying the existing conditions of oppression by transferring all the means of labour to the productive labourer, and thereby compelling every able-bodied individual to work for a living, the only basis for class rule and oppression would be removed” (Marx, Engels & Lenin, 1975). A proletarian army and dictator are necessary before this type of change could be accomplished, however. Marx and his colleague Friedrich Engels predicted a revolution in England because of the wide divide between social classes, a revolution that obviously never happened. However, it has been said that when a person is hungry, they don’t want communist theories, they want a meal. “It may be expected that by the time the rising comes the English working classes will understand basic social problems sufficiently clearly for the more brutal elements of the revolution to be eventually overcome” (Engels, 1958). The term ‘brutal’ reveals much in Marxist thought. He believed the transformation from a divisive and oppressive capitalist society to a more communally-minded, tolerant and humanitarian socialist society would involve a brutal transitional stage, a forceful uprising of the working class. Marx garnered widespread popularity by being a vocal advocate of workers in their fight for higher wages and better working conditions. Marx and Engels wrote very persuasively in the Communist Manifesto appealing for rebellious actions against the bourgeoisie. “Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing society and political order of things” (Marx & Engels, 1952: 94). The rebellions referred to in the Manifesto call for mass actions against the nobility. This should not be confused with uprisings relating to the bread riots or trade union activism. It speaks to functions in a broader social context. Marxist theory envisions the future of society as free of capitalism, replaced by the collective utopia brought about by communism. This was thought to be the natural course of mankind in which Marx had drawn-up the blueprint (Hunt, 1974: 212). Marx and Engels held the optimistic viewpoint that the working class would create a society based in equality and more humane than capitalism was capable. Marx envisioned that communism would produce “a society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” (Sowell, 1985: 25). This type of social setting is considered more fulfilling than the accumulation of wealth and vital to a truly civilised society. This was even more important than the material standard of living. Marxist philosophy cannot be narrowly viewed as a simply an explanation of the conflict between poor and rich. Both Marx and Engels wrote about economic concerns at times in great detail but their primary interest was deeply philosophical in nature which has spawned many others in varied fields to advance theories based on Marxism. “Sometimes a writer sympathetic to the ideas of Marx and Engels can interpret them in a novel way, one that brings out the best in what they had to say and perhaps sees in their words a meaning that the original authors may not have intended but would very probably have agreed with” (Kolakowski, 1978). Marx’s purpose was to incite a not-so-subtle call to action and his words spoke to the potential he believed society could achieve. Marx theorized that the conversion of minds and social structures to communism would end the divisions between social class in addition erasing the tyrannical line that divides governmental authority and society. There would be no need for political institutions or private property. Social justice would not have to be legislated because the antagonistic obstructions to social accord Marx believes stems from as an individual’s ego and ‘one-sided development’ would be all but eliminated. Individual would ‘de-alienate’ and be absorbed into a new, closer-knit society and recognize humanity as more than a concept. “Voluntary solidarity, not compulsion or the legal regulation of interests will ensure the smooth harmony of human relations […] the powers of the individual can only flourish when he regards them as social forces, valuable and effective within a human community and not in isolation” (Marx & Engels, 1978: 179). According to Marx, communism allows people to make suitable use of their human capabilities. Marx’s writings showed he was concerned about the outcomes of capitalism. It has been more than a century and a half since Marx’s writing and capitalism has evolved considerably since that time, though structurally, not fundamentally. This system remains one of an exploitative nature. The production of commodities still alienates people from what is produced and in a very real sense from themselves as well. It can be reasonably suggested that Marxism is concerned more for the alienation factor present in capitalism than the uneven distribution of wealth inherent in the system and the impoverished conditions that results. This is not to imply that Marxist thought is not concerned with the depravation and suffering that comes from poverty but to illustrate Marx’s profound apprehensions regarding the reduced quality of existence that capitalism is responsible for. For example, consider the pollution of the environment for the sake of capitalistic ventures, sardine-like rush-hour traffic and sensationalistic news programmes that seek revenue over critical, thoughtful information. Both Marx and Engels could not have been more wrong regarding the demise of capitalism and in their calculations regarding the timing of a communist rebellion. Engels foretold of the end-time of capitalism being about eight years from 1845, the year of his prediction. He viewed the 1847 depression as the beginning of the end for capitalism. Marx and Engels were rather over-optimistic in their collective assessment of the rise of socialism and somewhat unwise to set a specific date. This can be written-off to their confidence in the socialist system but it is puzzling that these learned men believed the working masses would collectively and quickly educate themselves then systematically adopt socialist ideals (Hunt, 1974: 141). The radical ideology involved in the conflict theory has many critics because it was conceived, in part, as a reaction to structural functionalist thought, the method by which societal institutions create stability and fills the needs of individuals. The conflict theory does not address stability and social order and is condemned for its mono-dimensional approach in addition to the fact it could very well lead to the economic downfall of a society. It is a simplistic theory attempting to explain the complexities within societal structures. Marx theorized that the structure of society embodies two main elements, economic foundation and ‘superstructures.’ Individuals must meet their economic needs such as food and shelter prior to pursuing endeavours in the ‘superstructure’ such as art, religion, literature, ideologies, politics, religion, etc. “Methodologically, Marx was believed to be a macro dynamic analyst. For Marx, ‘class’ was his unit of analysis, though it was too narrow to explain society” (Wallace, 1995). Marxism theorizes that the socialist system redistributes resources much more equitably that the capitalist system thus making the socialist society the favoured way for people to exist. He believed social inequalities can be resolved by socialism. A person’s contribution to society, as evidenced by their labour output, determines to what degree their needs are met. The philosophy for the distribution of resources is based upon labour, not need. In this and in many respects, Marx’s theory was thought of as idealistic, naïve and somewhat contradictory to his arguments. “Marxism is impotent in explaining the social inequality in distribution of resources” (Zhou, 2003). Marxist theory contains many unresolved issues which sociologists have considered since the time of Marx. The limitations of Marx’s premise has given rise to differing forms of neo-Marxism which has attempted to modify the conflict theory as it applies to modern sociological and economic theories. Some suggest, however, that Marxism should not be considered a plausible, workable social theory at all. The former Soviet Union was viewed as the ultimate test of communism and Marxist thought. Its failure was widely seen as the failure of Marxism. It should be noted, however, some believe governmental corruption was at least as much to blame for the fall of the Soviet Union. An accurate assessment regarding the soundness of any theory can be made by examining how its stands up to historical scrutiny. Many of Marx’s prophecies have been proven correct which serves as validation for his theory. Marx foretold of periodic economic depressions which would continually plague a capitalist society. This, he predicted, is because labourers earned insufficient wages and are ultimately unable to purchase all of the products they generate resulting in overproduction which leads to workers being laid-off their job. This leads to a further depressing of worker’s purchasing ability which creates a continued downward economic spiral. “The value of a product is determined by the amount of human labor necessary to create the product. Since the capitalist takes a considerable amount of that value as profit, the workers do not have the purchasing power to consume all they create” (Sudborough, 2004). Marx also spoke of centralisation, the mergers of large capitalist industry, would become increasingly frequent. Centralisation enlarges market share, decreases competition and further reduces labour costs. The one element of a nation’s wealth that the working class would forever take part in is its national debt. A truer prediction has never been postulated. The ruling class creates the debt by subsidising needed and, some would argue, un-needed projects that fuel personal interests in addition to military expenditures. Workers must pay off this debt with a portion of their earnings. “Taxpayers pay interest to the rich bondholders of that national debt. The rich make money both ways – in the creation of the debt and the interest paid on it” (Sudborough, 2004). Marxism, with all its weaknesses and strengths, has captured the imagination of sociologists and the average citizen alike. Marx’s assumption that people alone and not the government have the ability to decide what is best for them is a viewpoint that has been and certainly always will be a popular sentiment amongst the people. Autonomy is the right of the people according to Marx and institutions should not be allowed to put limitations on their choices. The citizenry should be able to control their own destiny and the morality of others should not be legislated or otherwise controlled by an entity other than the citizenry themselves. Regulations in the name of morality restrict individual and societal sovereignty. “Neither god nor church, neither tradition nor past, can now authorize what should be, but only ‘the people.’” (Marx & Engels, n.d.). Marxism teaches that economic law imprisons the populace but ‘theoretical enlightenment’ serves to free them. All of these Marxist stances are at least intriguing to not only the people of the 19th century but to those of today and most probably beyond. It is no wonder why Marxism has held the public’s imagination regarding social and political thought even though in practicality terms, the communist experiment of the Soviet Union was a decided failure. The systematic, historical study of contemporary societies conceived by Karl Marx provides an innovative example of social theory and allows for intellectual insights into social conflicts and societal structures. The strengths and limitations of Marxism are associated with the theory’s exceptionally large-scale aspirations concerning social progression which Marx assumed would lead to the formation of a socialist and democratic social structure. Marxist theory has mirrored for people of all time periods and geographic locations of societal evolution the universal aspiration for individual development, democracy, and social freedoms both personal and economic. Marx’s conception is that if society transitioned from capitalist to socialist thought, this would result in a higher form of civilization. References Applebaum, R.P. (1988). Karl Marx. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Hunt, R.N. (1974). The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press. Knox, E. (August 1988). “Marx, Class and Socialism.” Socialist Standard. Kolakowski, L. (1978). Main Currents of Marxism. Vol. I, The Founders. Oxford: Clarendon. Marx, K. & Engels, F. (n.d.). The German Ideology. W. Lough and C. P. Magill (Trans.). R. Pascal (Ed.). New York: International Publishers, p. 69. Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1952 ed.) Manifesto of the Communist Party. Moscow. Marx, Karl. (1954). Capital. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, Vol. 1. Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick. (1958). Manifesto of the Communist Party. London and Moscow: Lawrence & Wishart and Progress. Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick. (1968). “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” Selected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Marx, Karl; Engels, Frederick, & Lenin, Vladimir. (1975). The Humanism of Communist Society. Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Pub. House. Sowell, Thomas. (1985). Marxism. New York: Basic Books. Stratman, Dave. (2002). “Why Marxism Always Fails: A Reply To The New Unionist.” Retrieved November 15, 2006 from Sudborough, Gary. (January 31, 2004). “The Relevance of Marxism.” Indymedia South Africa. Retrieved November 15, 2006 from Wallace, Ruth A. et al. (1995). Contemporary Sociological Theory. (4th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zhou, Peterson B. (January 15, 2003). “A Theoretical Test by Sino-U.S. Relations.” Superdirector. Retrieved November 15, 2006 from Read More