A Critical Evaluation of the Feasibility of a Marxist Political System - Essay Example

A Critical Evaluation of the Feasibility of A Marxist Political System Introduction Marxism ushered in a new era in the history of political science as well as political system in the twentieth century. Because of the profoundness of the Marxist perspective about human society and its economic functions, it tends to trace and to foretell the processes of changes of human society from its penultimate stage, namely capitalism, to the final stage, socialism, a form of the power of working class people. But there have been a lot of debates on the question whether Marxism offers a coherent account of the modern international political system. But a modern historical and political analysis of Marxism will necessarily reveal that though Marxism quite effectively can explain the heart of capitalist exploitation, it, as a political system, fails to provide a coherent account of modern political system. The most notable example of its failure to build up a fruitful political system is the Soviet Union whose eventual collapse was engendered by the flaws and paradoxes lying at its heart. In the first place, Marxism fails to perceive the corruption of absolute power. Secondly, it fails to perceive that ruling proletariats in the power of a socialist state are bound to assume the behaviors of capitalist elite class. The third flaw lies in its attempt to impose equality and to steal away freedom in the name of a classless society. Such socialist attempt to maintain equality by robbing a man’s freedom is essentially Totalitarianism which inspires corruption and discourages people’s protest against this corruption. Further the paradox of an equal society does not permit a congenially productive economic system. When the equal distribution of wealth among the citizens theoretically seems to contribute to an equal and just society, this distribution ultimately discourages the individual to involve in production activities. Thus a socialist economy goes futile. Again, a Marxist state continually aims at establishing the working class at the power of a country. Therefore, a socialist political system poses threat to other states which do not hold a socialist view. A Brief Overview of Marxism and a Marxist State Being commissioned by the Communist League, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels jointly wrote the book, “The Communist Manifesto”, in 1848, which is often accepted as one of the most influential political documents around the world. Indeed, Marxism is regarded as a social theory which foretells and philosophizes about the future of modern capitalist society as well as human history. But it is also true that the Communist Manifesto can be considered as the political guidance for those who are involved in the production system of the modern capitalist society. For these authors, modern society is essentially the latest one of those changes in the mode of production throughout the evolution of human society. At the same time, since Marx and Engels envisaged that the stage of human society, next to Capitalism, is a world of the working class people, in Marx and Engel’s word the proletariats, that is based on the socialist modes of labor as well as production, the proletariat or the working class people of the world should unite themselves to take the society to this stage. Theory of Class-struggle and Marx’s View of a Socialist Political System Marx and Engels have assumed that the Capitalist society has evolved from the breakdown of the previous feudalist society through the conflicts between the feudal landowners and their subjects. Through this dissolution of the feudal society two more incompatible classes emerged: the bourgeoisie and the working class. While the bourgeoisies, occupying a country’s political system, control the instruments of production, the working-class are economically subjugated by those in a capitalist political system. These bourgeoisies are exclusively profit-driven. Though they lack any morals, they continue to support any moral system which is congenial to their exploitation. These people handle all the “religious, political and other social institutions in order to achieve their own end of accumulating wealth” (Mehring 45), as in the Manifesto, the authors say, “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations...for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (Marx and Engels 43). In the first chapter, “Bourgeois and Proletarians”, of the Manifesto, Marx and Engels elucidate that because of the capitalist’s exploitation the working class is going to oppose the capitalists; eventually the capitalist society will disintegrate into a society without class distinctions, as Marx and Engles assert, “Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another” and the conflict between the two “each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.” (Marx and Engels 43). Observably Marx and Engels have analyzed the heart of the capitalist economic system as a determinant of a country’s political system and power structure, as John Raines says, “The tool of money has produced the miracle of the new global market and the ubiquitous shopping mall. Read The Communist Manifesto, written more than one hundred and fifty years ago, and you will discover that Marx foresaw it all." (5) Referring to Marx’s notion about this interrelation between economy and the political system, Chris Harman further says, “There is still a compulsive quality to its prose as it provides insight after insight into the society in which we live, where it comes from and where it’s going to.” (3) But Marxism’s problem lies in the fact that it takes for granted that the working classes or the proletariats are the most demoralized and exploited class of the capitalist society. It also assumes that they are mainly exploited by those who own the production systems. Such extreme-end explanation of a society’s production system theoretically seems to be perfect but practically it appears to be flawed within itself. The power dynamics in a capitalist society are such that the conflict between the working-class and the bourgeoisies must come to a balance before reaching the ultimate exploitation. So Marx’s prediction of a classless society is indeed a fallacy in need. Moreover, Marx and Engel failed to consider the fact that the working-class people themselves play a major part as the consumer in between the duo of owners-workers relationship. Indeed there is no strict dichotomy that can separate a day-laborer from being a consumer of a capitalist and of course, a consumer is an asset for a capitalist. Paradox of Marx-envisioned Socialist Political System Though in the “Communist Manifesto”, Karl Marx’s advocacy for this transformation of a capitalist political system to the one which is controlled by the working class seems to be well-argued and soundly philosophized, the traditional communists’ or Marxists’ rigid hope for the rise of a revolutionary working class which can bring revolutionary changes in the governments of the world essentially appears to Karl Marx’s political tricks to motivate the activists of the Communist League to be united in the country’s politics. While as a social scientist, Karl Marx philosophizes about the process of Capitalist-to-Socialist transformation, he, as a political propagandist, has had to set a goal, to accelerate the Capitalist-to-Socialist transformation, for the activists of his party. As a result, on one hand, the philosophical dimension of Marxism as well as of the Communist Manifesto seems to convincing to innumerous scholars of the west, as John Percy says in this regard, “Even today, after the “end of communism”, Marx and Engels’ political ideas continue to haunt the world’s rich and powerful ruling elites.” (5) Millions of people around the world have found Marxism as a means of relief from the capitalist exploitation and they also have been “inspired into lives of activism and heroic sacrifice by its brilliant analysis of capitalist society, history and politics and by its call for revolutionary change.” (Percy 6) On the other hand, the same convincing power of Marxism and a Marxist’s hope for a rigid change in the world’s political systems has alarmed the governments and capitalist frontiers in international politics. Indeed, the ultimate flaw within Marxism’s view about a political system lies in its hope for bringing a radical Capitalist-to-Socialist transformation which would otherwise be inevitable. Whereas a democratic political system allows the citizens to express their opinions about the capitalist exploitation and even to express their support for a classless society, Marxism’s rigidity about a political system deters the possibility of that transformation by imposing authoritarian rule on the people and by suffocating people’s free voice for what they feel right. Apart from this totalitarian nature of a Marxist political system, Marxism has failed to perceive the paradox of envisioning a working-class dominated political system. Whereas the western capitalist society, on its own, could disintegrate into a classless society, and a democratic political system could allow the proletariats to dominate a political system, a socialism-forced imitation of a classless society and political system ingeniously allows the frontiers in a country’s socialist political system to exploit the proletariats in the name of equality. In fact, Karl Marx failed to delve deep in the corrupting nature of human being in power. But his analysis of the capitalist exploitation still haunts the scholar’s mind. In this regard an article in the Australian finally admits, “He might have been wrong about the virtues of communism. But Karl Marx’s views about capitalism are being echoed by business types who would rather be flogged than labeled as lefties…” (Percy 7). Theory of Class-struggle and Marx’s View of a Socialist Economy Mark’s class-struggle envisages a political system which depends on a centralized production system and the equal distribution of wealth. Behind this apparently just and naive statement, there lies a drab self-consuming paradox which ultimately can devour the main drives a modern political system. At the end of the Industrial Revolution, the capitalist states began to be determined increasingly by the growing individualism of the late nineteenth century. According to Durkheim, the changes in the division of labor were the basics for initiating the process of modernization. Indeed division of labor lies in the heart of a society’s structural harmonious functions. According to Durkheim, since one’s work tends to shape one identity and norms, he or she is supposed to follow. Necessarily one gender, race, religion, class identities are shaped by a group’s pattern of labor. Durkheim argued that since labor was not less fragmented, its members’ social identity was less infringed. Therefore, solidarity prevailed in those societies to a great extent. But being preceded by the Enlightenment and industrial Revolution, the pattern of labor was highly divided. Along the progress of industrialization innumerous groups of people emerged with special working skills, Filloux says, “Since modern society is based on growing industrialization and increasing division of labour, the result is a greater degree of differentiation in social roles, the specialization of social functions and, eventually, a risk that ‘social solidarity’ will disintegrate” (5). Obviously the emergence of groups with specialized skills in highly divided labor pattern in the production system grossly affected the existing social structure. Therefore the Feudal society began to disintegrate with the introduction of the heterogeneous mode of labor in the industrial society, because collective identity was being overpowered by the work-based individual identity of the working class people, as again Filloux says, “The increasing division of labor in modern society’s demands that more attention should be paid to the individual. This gives rise to ‘individualist’ ideologies which, in turn, result in the emergence of institutions to protect ‘human rights” (4). Since man in an industrial society enjoys the opportunity to be employed in a number of diverse industrial, gradually the state’s economy began to shift its attention to the individual more and more. As a result, the individual needed to reevaluate his or her position in a country’s political system as well as in the economic system. Democratic-capitalist political system began to emerge in response to the individuals’ demand to get more attention in a country’s politics. This demand of the individual to be acknowledged by the existing political system appears to be the drive of modern economy as well as of the modern democratic political system. Modern man’s role in the state’s economic production system not only contributes to his or her political awareness, but also inspires him to retain his position socio-politically in the state by ensuring the same mode of production of production. Therefore, in the capitalist-democracy, an individual works to retain his or her sociopolitical status. Simultaneously, an individual’s sociopolitical status inspires him or her to work more to consolidate his position in the society. But Marxism destroys the individual in the very first place by confiscating man’s right to own property and by centralizing the production in the hand of the state. As Marx says in this regard, The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. (Marx and Engels 34) By prohibiting man to spontaneously play in the state’s production system, Marxism not only destroys the individual but also attempts to perish the economy of modern state. Since in capitalist democracy man is free to do and to own property, he employs the best part of his psychophysical ability to produce what the entire society can benefit from. In it, individual’s self-image as a doer involves in the state’s economic activities not only for himself or herself but also for others, since he or she wants to be acknowledged by the society in terms of his or her ability to do something better than others. On the contrary, Marxist fallacy of an equal society destroys a man’s self-image as a doer by assimilating him or her as a part of the state’s production machine. It is the machine in which man’s self-interest as the motivation of production is sacrificed for the sake of communal happiness. Indeed an ideal Marxist state tends to reduce man’s every sort of happiness into equal consumption of what the state’s production machine can produce. But what happens behind the state-owned production machine is that the distorted (in cases, vanished) individuals who are entitled to “equal obligation…to work” (Marx and Engels 43) cannot play at his or her best in the production, since he is disheartened by the knowledge that if he produces, he may rewarded less. But the perpetual corruption that Marxism gives birth the proletariat’s mind that shunning duty by trick will never affect his or her share. Conclusion Modern concept of state is indispensably concerned with human right. Since the individual occupies the center of modern state, ensuring individuals’ right is its first and foremost duty. But being inspired by a drab sense of equality, Marxism revokes a proletariat’s right to own and inherit property, to own land, etc. Marx’s advocacy for “Equal obligation of all to work” essentially reduces to what modern human right activists call ‘forced labor’. For the sake of withering exploitation out from the society, Marx does not allow the proletariats to believe in any religions, as he says, “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience” (Marx and Engels 67). Marxism abolishes these rights of the proletariats in build up an exploitation-free society. With sheer naivety, Marxism tends to believe that man will remain happy with what the state assigns him to produce and with what he receives for consumption from the state’s equal distribution. In a Marxist political system, people possess the only right to receive allowances, which can be revoked anytime the state wants. Such totalitarian nature of a Marxist state does not draw any clear demarcation between morality and immorality; between right and wrong; between law and anarchy, since “it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis” (Marx and Engels 67). Eventually the state holds the absolute power to rule as well as to ensure equal living condition for all. Thus, Marx believed that all’s government cannot exploit all, since everybody belongs to and also since everybody is equal in the eye of the state. But the irony in Marx’s belief is that when a political system which tends to control the most private aspects, such as religious belief, economic activities, love, choice of labor, etc, of its citizens’ life ultimately turns into the tyranny of the state. In a modern state, since traditional issues like morality, right and wrong, etc are abolished and replaced by the communist versions, the state’s legal system is grossly monopolized by those in the helm of the state-power. As a result, the state’s monopolization of law and morality severely injure the traditional family system which is the most effective socialization house of a man. By destroying the family system and by advocating free-love, the Marxist state, indeed, sows the seed of its own destruction. Moreover, Marx asserts that the property of the immigrants and rebels will be confiscated by the state. Such attitude towards the immigrants is bound to alienate a Marxist state from the rest of the world. In modern world, when the states are facing the surge of immigrants induced by modern transportation technology, a capitalist democratic state can successfully handle the inbound foreign labor for the development. On the contrary, by confiscating the immigrant’s property, a Marxist state not only discourages the import of foreign labor but also stirs up enragement in international politics. Works Cited Durkheim, Emile. “Individualism and the Intellectuals,” In E. Durkheim, On Morality and Society, edited by R. N. Bellah. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1995 Filloux, Josef. “Emile Durkheim”, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, vol. 23, no.1/2, 1993, p. 303–320. Harman, Chris. "The Manifesto and the World of 1848". The Communist Manifesto (Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich). Bloomsbury, London: Bookmarks. 2010. Marx, Karl and Engels, Fredrick. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Penguin group, 1998. Mehring, Franz, Karl Marx: The Story of His Life. Routledge, 2003 Percy, John. “The relevance of the ‘Communist Manifesto’ today.” Democratic Socialist Journal. Sydney. 3 January 1998. Web. 24 December 2012. Available at http://links.org.au/files/pdf/10_percy.pdf?q=links/files/pdf/10_percy.pdf Raines, John. "Introduction". Marx on Religion (Marx, Karl). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 2002. Read More