Karl Marx: Main Themes and Ideas in Marxs Works - Essay Example

Main Themes and Ideas in Marx’s Thought If there is a single idea that best represents Karl Marx is the idea of Communism. Though often misunderstood and interchanged with Socialism, Communism is the stage where social stratification is not present. Where a state no longer exists, a society that is classless where industry or the means of production are or industry commonly owned by the proletariat and the workers. They would also have a free access to those products created by the means of production, or the articles of consumption where wage labor is ended and private properties no longer exists in the means of production. Communism is a period in the historical evolution where there would be an abundance of material wealth, where it will be distributed according to one’s needs. This stage inevitably occurs from the productive forces in society. Once achieved, individuals can already freely associate themselves, without social restrictions, to produce and reproduce their individual condition of existence to fulfill their needs and desires. Marx abhorred the idea of capitalism. The economic structure where the means of production or industry is privately owned which he called the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” believing that it is only managed by the rich and upper class and only serves their own selfish interest. He argued that because of these, internal tension or conflict will be inevitable. This process is called “dialectical materialism” where the synthesis will be brought by two opposing thesis and anti-thesis. Marx argued that these structural contradictions in the private ownership of production by capitalism will cause its own demise, giving birth to Socialism which will ultimately leads to Communism. To quote Marx: In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen. ." (Karl Marx, 1848) This conflict or tension will be inevitably replaced a new system called Socialism. At this stage, the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” will be toppled and be replaced by the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or the workers. But this is only temporary. Ultimately, he argued that this will eventually lead to the final stage where there is an abundance of everything, where state no longer exists nor the stratification of social class. This process inherent in the private ownership of production as overseen by capitalism, like urbanization, the proletariat or the mass, or the working class, will increase and grow their ranks and numbers and along with it a class consciousness. This class consciousness, in a matter of time, will make them realize that they have to change the system (class struggle). Marx espoused that if these private ownership of means of production are to be taken by the working class, this would inspire social relations that benefits everybody equally. Without an exploiting class in a system that is less vulnerable to cyclical crises. And this will materialized through the organized actions of working class ending Capitalism: Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." (Marx, 1932) Comparing Marx’s Idea with Adam Smith Perhaps, the most glaring idea of Adam Smith is the idea of the “invisible hand” or the “market forces”. This the concept of “market forces” of which modern economist today typically infers as the self-regulating dynamic of the market spawned by individuals pursuing their self-interest for the greater good of society, has been tremendously attributed to be an idea of Adam Smith. Adam Smith originally meant that the mechanism of the invisible hand is a result of the market settling the distribution of goods and the prices between what the producers want to produce and what the consumers chooses freely what to consume. As a result, producers will have to create goods that are cheaper to produce undermining competition and gain market share. This competition will ultimately benefit the individual consumer and hence, the greater community as a whole. To paraphrase Adam Smith in his book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it (Smith, 1776). Recent interpretation of Smith’s invisible hand elaborated that “Adam Smith argued in The Wealth of Nations, 1776, that, under the mechanism of a free market, the pursuit of profit leads each participant to act to the material advantage of society as a whole, as though ‘led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention”. (2007). And though most modern scholars interpret Smith’s invisible hand with regard to investment as preferential to the domestic economy, this was however an oversimplification as argued by Gavin Kennedy when he elaborated the circumstance that led Smith to infer it as such, “referring to degrees of caution about the risks associated with distant trade with the British colonies in North America, which incentivised some, but not all, merchants to act circumspectly in their preference for domestic projects, thereby unintentionally benefiting the domestic economy. Referring to degrees of caution about the risks associated with distant trade with the British colonies in North America, which incentivised some, but not all, merchants to act circumspectly in their preference for domestic projects, thereby unintentionally benefiting the domestic economy (Kennedy, 2009). The stark differentiation of Marx’s ideology in contrast with Smith is their treatment of how the market works. Marx predicted the inevitable collapse of capitalism or private ownership of the means of production as it espouses exploitation of the working class and resulting in the uneven distribution of the articles. Marx argued that this kind of economic arrangement brings out internal conflict within the system where the working class will achieve social consciousness and mount a class struggle to the demise of the capitalist system. In effect, he abrogated the market dynamics of a capitalist structure and called for a centralized ownership of production where the articles of production are to be distributed evenly. This will eradicate the need of the state and the stratification of the social class as everybody is equal. Smith however embraced the dynamics of the market. He argued that this private greed of private enterprise will eventually be good to society as prices will eventually even out as the market compete leading to the efficiency of the production of goods. Whose Ideas I find More Persuasive Given with what is happening with the former and still Communist States like the former USSR and China, it is Smith’s idea of “invisible hand” that regulates the market that withstood the test of reality. Even China, a communist state has already opened up its economy and adopted the capitalist structure. Communism is not just doable. The equal distribution of the articles of production cannot just be achieved. The state will never know the individual needs of its citizen to supply it according to its needs. States will continue to exist and so is social stratification. Communism is a very good idea but it will not stand the test of market reality. I find Smith’s invisible hand more persuasive because it is grounded on the reality of market forces that regulates the market. The existence of the market cannot be negated where goods compete for the limited purchasing power of the consumer. Private ownership of the mode of production than centralized planning as it is more efficient when run by businesses compared to the government which is known for inefficiency and incompetence. Communism is a very good idea but it will not stand the test of market reality. Besides, conflict at this day and age is no longer welcome which is necessary in achieving communism where there is a class struggle to topple the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”. References: Kennedy, Gavin. Econ Journal Watch, May2009, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p239-263, 25p. Retrieved from Marx, Karl (1848). The Communist Manifest p. 13. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/course/mscp.pdf. pg. 13 Marx, Karl (1932). The German Ideology. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf Smith, Adam (1776), The Wealth of Nations. Retrieved from http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/Wealth-Nations.pdf Read More