Essential Marx Engels Reader - Term Paper Example

ESSENTIAL MARX ENGELS READER Karl Marx is one of the greatest philosophers, thinkers and political scientists of not only 19th century, but also he belongs to all ages and all countries of the world at large, who has made splendid contributions in the disciplines of political economy, cultural anthropology, philosophy, sociology, and political science and has left indelible imprints of his intellect, wisdom and thoughtfulness on the works and minds of the future generations to come. His wonderful work under the title Das Kapital (The Capital) serves as the Bible of Socialism, the principles and rules of which are observed and followed by the socialists and communists all over the globe. It is Karl Marx, whose philosophy was adopted by almost all communist states of the world particularly during the twentieth century, and the regimes and rulers of various countries followed his philosophy making it the pattern of the nature and system of their government. Marxist perspective seriously condemns exploitation of the poor and oppressed classes at the hands of the privileged ones and looks for the equal distribution of wealth and resources for all human beings, which is the inner core of Marxism. One of the most fundamental aspects of Marxist perspective is social conflict theory articulated by Karl Marx and his comrade, co-worker and companion Friederich Engels, which discusses the conflict existing between different social classes within a society. Class conflict theory is the pivotal point of the Marxist perspective, and all other Marxian ideas and concepts revolve round this fundamental notion, where the most critical element among the methods of the Marxist Perspective is to find out classes prevailing in societies all over the world, and study the techniques in which the classes interact. Dr. Murphy (2006) regards absence or lack of class conflict in any society not only unconventional, but also it deserves special attention to study and manipulate. Also, Marxism examines both hidden and explicit conflicts existing in society. It is therefore, when a political order based on class is found which seems to lack class conflict, special attention is paid for its exploration. Marxism is particularly suited to ferreting out the hidden resistance present in religion and ideology. Marxism is of course dedicated to examining the modes of production present in any society, and there may be more than one present. The dialectical method is also an important concept in Marxism, which is built on the examination of contradictions between classes, ideas, etc. Marx and Engels have adopted the idea of reason and rationality from Hegel’s philosophy. Kant and Hegel are of the view that individuals maintain the ability of exploring all that is universally valid out of the reason they have. Similarly, rationality is something that is the most required i.e. the ideal state and extremely necessary for the growth as well as stability of the nations. The Marxist concepts of reason and rationality are based upon the prevailing social inequality everywhere in the world. Since there is always the situation of conflict in a social set up, the rivalry between haves and haves-not is a valid reason of this conflict. But rationality suggests end of classes and inclusion of classless society with the passage of time, where societies should not be divided into different socioeconomic statuses on the basis of wealth, privilege and resources. Marx and Engels take the idea of imminent conflicts and wars from Hegel and Kant. While critically evaluating the history of the world from the most primitive societies of Paleolithic and Neolithic times to the most modern ones of contemporary technological era, it becomes crystal clear that social inequalities and injustices always existed in all human societies that have given birth to stratification and conflict. Political philosophers and thinkers have defined the causes and consequences of conflict between different groups and remedies for it in order to escape anarchical situation in the society. Sociological researches too reveal the very fact that even during the ancient times different classes existed in every culture and civilization. The idea of human nature also leads towards the Marxian concept of social conflict. The conflict between human brain and heart, Marx and Engels submit, is similar to the conflict between classes, where both the two have different interests and priorities to perform. Brain is the representative of rationality and acts according to the instruction of conscience, while heart instigates towards the devilish urges and enticements. The disagreement between heart and brain has also a strong relationship with religion and the Marxian concept of nature and God, which has been derived from Kantian theory of the presence of an authority for the proper observance of rule of law. Human instinct and nature seeks attraction towards divergent objects, which create pleasures and dissipation while the pricks of conscience dictate for the compliance with the commands of God and thus stop them going astray consequently, and hence apply a demarcation in respect of doing one thing or the other. The famous Russian Philosopher Immanuel Kant has presented his theory of Perpetual Peace in 1795, in which he has described the causes of war and consequent peace settlements, the most important of all is the absence of a regularity authority. He stands for the eradication of the major causes of hostilities among sovereign states rather entering into temporary armistice, in order to perpetuate peace by bringing an end to the wars and aggressions from the world. He takes the rule of law as most significant thing to combat conflicts and lays stress on the permanent implication of rule of law to avoid any aggression and wars between the countries. Kant had recognized a challenge that went to the very foundations of his political philosophy. “He believed” Solomon (2003:106) submits, “that a social life under a rule of law was a prerequisite for the rational and moral capabilities and the achievement of maximum human autonomy and freedom.” Kant has shown the juxtaposition of reason and reality, according to which the human individuals measure validity of reasons on the basis of universal reality. Being the reasonable ones, human strive to find out their place under the commands of natural law, which regulates the activities of individuals and societies. It is on the basis of reason, the real features and characteristics existing in human societies are estimated with a historical background. Karl Marx also observes the same in his theory of class conflict and believes that based on reason and rationality, class conflict will surely pave the way towards the growth and progress of society. Alienation is the notion that strives to explore the estrangement of labor class from his work place and society. The workers or proletariats work very hard for the productivity purposes, but the increase in production enhances their personal devaluation, which creates the state of alienation among the workers. This state of alienation, Marx and Engels opine, can be observed in human society on the same pattern as it is found out between the concept of nature and God. The obedience of one means the disobedience of the other. Same is the case with laborers and the production. The growth of production causes the acceleration of the miseries of the proletariat. Further, Marxist perspective is exercised to observe the progress of various societies at different extents. There are more than one unifying methods used in Marxism, and it is not confined to one single visions. The theories of Marxism are based on a scientific method of thought which is called “dialectal materialism”. Dialectical materialism is defined as the Marxian interpretation of reality that views matter as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements. Conflict has been the main subject of Marxism, and all the perspective revolves around this concept. Conflict is not only hidden or internal; rather, it may be explicit or external. It is dialectic materialism that turns the conflict winning central place in Marxian theory. The role of dialectic, Bourne states, is in analyzing the relationship between two opposite forces. (2006). It makes conflict innermost theme of the dialectical relationship, and social class conflict that leads to social change. This, according to him, is the basis of Marxian theorizing, though it is more complicated than this simple and faceless explanation. Marxist perspective has been named after and is based upon Marx’s political and economic theories. The several social theories that emphasize social conflict, according to Ryanzanskaya, have roots in the ideas of Karl Marx. (1971). The Marxist conflict approach emphasizes a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical method of analysis, a critical stance toward existing social arrangements, and a political programme of revolution or, at least, reform. (Theda, 1980). Lewis Alfred Coser, famous social theorist and critical analyst of contemporary times, has analyzed Marx’s Theory of Social Class in his book “Masters of Sociological Thought” (1977). The main focus of Marxism, according to him, is the analysis of social class, class structures and changes in those structures which are keys to understanding capitalism. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels are of the view that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. (Quoted in Adams and Sydies, 133). According to this view, Coser states, ever since human society emerged from its primitive and relatively undifferentiated state it has remained fundamentally divided between classes who clash in the pursuit of class. Lewis Cosers analysis of Marxist Thought, Gouldner writes, associates Critical Marxism with backwardness. Essentially Coser sees Scientific Marxism as grounded in the industrially advanced parts of Europe, particularly Germany, thus missing the way in which Scientific Marxism serves to counterbalance the decline of religion as a source of security among workers. (1980: 52). Marxist conflict theory does not charge capitalism the only reason of class conflict. Rather, it is inherent in every differential society. Capitalism only provides potential to this class conflict. Marx notes, according to Coser, that unequal access need not at all times and under all conditions lead to active class struggle. But he considered it axiomatic that the potential for class conflict is inherent in every differentiated society, since such a society systematically generates conflicts of interest between persons and groups differentially located within the social structure, and, more particularly, in relation to the means of production. Sociological researches too reveal the very fact that even during the ancient times different classes existed in every culture and civilization. Tumin also supports the existence of social classes in primitive ages. According to historical and archaeological records, he states, stratification was present even in the small wandering bands that characterized society in the earliest days of man. In such primitive conditions, according to him, both age and sex in combination with physical strength must have been important criteria of stratification. (1978: 16). Similarly, Marx and Engels look for the existence of a political authority to supervise the activities of a social set up. Many times, Marx is found to insist how the class defines itself, or is a class only as it acts in opposition to other classes. Stating the emergence of the bourgeoisie as a class in early capitalist Europe, Giddens and Held view, Marx notes how the separate individuals form a class only insofar as they have to carry on a common battle against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms with each other as competitors. (1982: 20). English philosopher of seventeenth century Thomas Hobbes and American theorist John Locke of the same era have also advocated for the need of an authority for the smooth running of a government. Both these philosophers worked on the concept of Social Contract Theory, which was also adopted by French philosopher Rousseau and played decisive role in awakening the French nation and bringing about French Revolution of 1789. Social Contract Theory submits that man is free by nature and if there is no authority to determine the limitations of human beings, they will start harming and hurting one another leading towards anarchy and chaos in the whole society. In his wonderful “The Leviathan”, Hobbes has presented the concept of laws of nature as well as commonwealth, religious and political laws revealing the requirements necessary for the maintenance of peace and evasion from war. Defining peace, Hobbes means to state that nature always guides humanity to seek peace in the first hand. On not complying with this law and revolting from peace, disintegration and chaos are created in a society, which may cause civil war within the state. “The first law of nature”, according to him, “is to seek peace and follow it. But if the advice does not prove advantageous for mankind, the second law of nature says that by any means necessary, mankind must defend ourselves from the rest of the population through violence.” (Quoted in Esscort.com) He also views that there remain a situation of competition and jealousy in the individuals, intensity of which may turn into serious conflict among them. Hence, there must be not only laws in a sovereign state, but also a statute body to implement such laws. Absence of a regulatory authority, according to Hobbes, results in civil war. Wars have always brought destruction, disappointment, unemployment and turmoil in societies. There are many examples of deterioration and disturbances in the aftermath of war in various states of the world. “During the thirty years from 1883 to 1913”, Arnstein views, “only one man in twenty had been unemployed in England; during the post war years of 1921-1938, unemployment was the fate of one man in seven.” (1988: 274) Nevertheless, Hobbes declares laws of nature as immortal and eternal ones. Marxism advocates individualism taking it the mode of freedom and liberty. Marx declares individualism very essential for the protection and promotion of workers, who have been undergoing sufferings under the chariot wheels of exploitation at the hands of bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie i.e. the upper and middle classes contain the ownership of land, industry and property, none of which is owned by the labor classes or the proletarians. All the development and progress of industry is dependent of the hardest labors made by the proletariats who earn almost nothing out of the continuous toil they make during the course of their work. They are paid very little amount of money as remuneration, which is not sufficient even to keep the wolf from the door. It produces the feelings of alienation in their minds and they feel themselves strangers at their work place. Marxism does not see eye to eye with the theory of unchecked liberty and freedom. As unchecked liberalism gives birth to excesses in society, there is always a need of implementation of policies by force in a political set up. The force may be the political, militarily or republic. “If one wants”, Machiavelli opines, “to preserve a city that is accustomed to being independent and having free institutions, it is more easily held by using its citizens to govern it than in any other way.” (Quoted in Porter, 1997: p 226) Machiavelli declares use of force an essential element to maintain order in society. He suggests to the new ruler three ways of holding a sovereign state, which include destroying of the existing institutions, living in the same area of rule, and let the population continue to live according to their prevailing rules of law. He considers the first one as the most favorable one in order to run a powerful system of government and maintain peace and harmony within the republic as well as citizenship. Though agrees to few points, Karl Marx maintains some different view in this regards. He considers conflict as the solution of political and social turmoil and predicts the evidence of a revolution in case of anarchical situation in a society, where unequal distribution of wealth and resources create a socio-political turmoil. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels are of the view that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. (Quoted in Adams and Sydies, 133). According to this view, Coser states, ever since human society emerged from its primitive and relatively undifferentiated state it has remained fundamentally divided between classes which clash in the pursuit of class. When a political order based on class is found that seems to lack class conflict, special attention should be paid. Marxism is particularly suited to ferreting out the hidden resistance present in religion and ideology. Marxism is of course dedicated to examining the modes of production present in any society, and there may be more than one present. The dialectical method is also an important concept in Marxism, which is built on the examination of contradictions between classes, ideas, etc. Marx considers capitalism a serious threat to the interests of the labour classes or proletariat, and beneficial only for the upper class or bourgeois. He proposes a model of history in which economic and political conditions determine social conditions. Marx and Engels were to counter the social hardships stemming from the rise of capitalism. Appropriately, their theories are formulated specifically to analyze how society functions in a state of upheaval and constant change. He is yet not afraid of the existence of the clash of interests between the classes. Instead, he welcomes change taking place in some specific society. Social change is the rule, not revolution in his point of view. It is the way of development that is to be faced, not a thing to be avoided. Conflict is, Marx insists, the major source of change in social systems. They develop through the exposure of people, he emphatically states, occupying particular social positions to particular social circumstances. Thus, in early industrial enterprises, competition divides the personal interests of a crowd of people who are unknown to each other.(Coser, 1978:149). The existence of conflict in each and every society is inevitable and every group finds its challenger class since its own birth and creation. Lockwood insists on the presence of some mechanism in all societies resulting in inexorable conflict among its individuals. (1956:134) The mechanism of such kind serves as natural check and is responsible for the survival and solidarity of societies and cultures. Marx has linked the social stratification to the means of production. The major modern classes are, according to him, "the owners merely of labor-power, owners of capital, and landowners, whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground-rent. Different individuals make up the production of an organization, but the major profit goes to the upper class or bourgeoisie only, which works far less than the labor classes. The deprivation of rights arise the sentiments of revenge in labor class and conflict arises in society. Marxism perspective shows that Karl Marx lists a number of classes and (antagonistic) social relationship such as freeman and slave, lord and serf, oppressor and oppressed in describing different classes in a society that characterize different historical stages or modes of production. George Ritzer, famous contemporary sociologist, obtains some different views on Marx’s conflict theory. He in his works has criticized Marx and declares his sociological thought a failure especially in respect of being unable to see the positive points and bright aspects of Capitalism. Marx has failed to foresee, in the words of Ritzer, how well capitalism would adapt itself to worker demands (through such mechanisms as legalized labor unions, workers’ compensation, minimum wage, workplace safety and other standards for worker protection). (2003). Further, Marx did not know that the concept of ownership of the means of production might suspend in the joint stock company, Ritzer declares. It has not only ended the concept of confrontation between the classes, but also gave the individuals from different social classes the right of ownership. As Marx had no deep vision and foresight, he could not foresee the marvellous and multi-dimensional aspects of Capitalism due to his prejudice towards this economic system. Many times, Marx is found to insist how the class defines itself, or is a class only as it acts in opposition to other classes. Stating the emergence of the bourgeoisie as a class in early capitalist Europe, Giddens and Held view, Marx notes how the separate individuals form a class only insofar as they have to carry on a common battle against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms with each other as competitors. (1982: 20). Social groups are not only divided into different classes in respect of socio-economic status and different occupations and professions, but also distribution of a society is based on age, gender and religion too. Social inequalities are found in all fields of life and in all the institutions prevailing in a society. In this pretext the Feminist perspective theory came into existence. The idea of division of labor on the basis of gender gave birth to feminism. It was a strong voice against the inequalities between men and women in respect of social status, division of power as well as work and gender discrimination. Marxist-feminists characterise women as alienated especially in capitalism, though radical feminists state alienation exists in all economic system existing in the contemporary world. Women at different parts of the world, whether developing or developed, contain a rich and long-term history of struggle against male domination and exploitation. They have strived in an organized way, on their own behalf against exploitation and diminishing circumstances. This history, according to Chowdhury, has been repressed because it is threatening to the state and the power-structure that benefits from women’s oppressed conditions. (1994, 18) The history of women’s resistance is complex and rich in the diversity of ways that women have fought back in their specific cultural location and most effective methods for the situation. Both Marxist and Feminist perspectives reveal the very fact that conflict does exist between the classes of almost each and every society of the world. This conflict has long roots in history perhaps with the establishment of clans and tribes in ancient times. The conflict either apparent or latent is based on resources between haves and haves not. Marxists theorists view this conflict as the result of the struggle between different social classes of society. They also blame capitalism responsible for the conflict, and state socialism as an ideal economic system. Marxists view that unequal distribution of wealth and resources is the root-cause of conflict between the classes. Marx’s concept of bureaucracy is also based on his class struggle theory. In bureaucratic system, the high stratum always looks for the exploitation of the lower strata. The elite members of bureaucracy not only create hurdles on the way of the individual and collective development of the lower stratum, but also keep them engaged in different tasks to perform, which creates feelings of hatred in their heart against their superiors. The rivalry between the two slows down the pace of work and puts the progress of official obligations and accomplishments in jeopardy on the one hand, and destroys the passion of the workers to serve their industry and institution with devotion on the other. By examining all the concepts described above, it becomes evident that all these ideas have very well been knitted under the theoretical framework of Conflict Theory, which depicts the Marxian perspective concentrates upon demanding the respectable place for all human beings without any discrimination on the foundations of caste, class, community, clan, tribe, region, religion, race, ethnicity, gender, age and socioeconomic status. Some of the theorists mistakenly view Marx as standing against stratification, but Marx never claims social stratification as a negative phenomenon that creates competition and conflict among the individuals and societies. The theorists are of the view that existence of class struggle between different groups of society for capturing more and more privileges and rights, gives birth to class conflict. Thus, social conflict is often based on socioeconomic differentiation as well as unequal distribution of wealth, opportunities and resources. All these conflicts on communal, national and international levels have caused civil wars, anarchy and even great wars are also the outcome of conflict and rivalries among individuals, groups, societies and nations. Even then, Marx does not consider stratification as a non productive characteristic of society; rather, stratification not only maintains so many advantages in its fold, but also it is very essential for the systematic functioning of all the social institutions and organizations at large. Marxist perspective indicates towards this problem and declares stratification as harmful for the very foundations of a society, but does not negate its significance. Class struggle always starts taking place for the just division of rights and obligations. The advantages of class struggle include the end of social inequality and feelings of deprivations among the individuals. English philosopher of seventeenth century Thomas Hobbes and American theorist John Locke of the same era have also advocated for the need of an authority for the smooth running of a government. Karl Marx also imitates the footprints of Kant and Hegel with slight differences of opinion in it. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson., J. R. Cognitive Psychology And Its Implications. (Third Edition, W.H. Freeman & Company, New York.1990) 3 Arnstein, Walter L. Britain Yesterday and Today: 1830 to the Present. Fifth Edition. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 263-300. 1988 Chowdhury, Najma, (1994). Redefining Politics: Patterns of Women’s Political Engagement from a Global Perspective. Women and Politics Worldwide. New Haven: Yale University Press. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought 1990 Giddens, Anthony and David Held, Classes, Power, and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982). HT675 C55 1982 Bristow, Duane. What are the Characteristics of Intelligence? (Quoted in http://www.kyphilom.com/www/txt/smarts.txt) (December, 1991). Bull, Headley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Second Edition. Columbia University Press 1977 Doyle, Michael. Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part I, Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 12, no. 3 (Summer, 1983) 205-235. 1983 Franceschet, A. Popular Sovereignty or Cosmopolitan Democracy? Liberalism, Kant and International Reform. European Journal of International Relations 6, 277-302). 2000 Henry Thomas & Dana Lee Thomas. Great Philosophers. (Bhavan’s Book University Bombay 1971) 9-13 Paul, R. and Elder, L. Foundation For Critical Thinking, Online at website: www.criticalthinking.org (June 1996) Plato. Euthyphro: Translated by Benjamin Jowett. 380 B.C. (Quoted in http://philosophy.eserver.org/plato/euthyphro.txt) Plato. Apology Porter, Jene M. Classics in Political Philosophy. Second Edition. Prentice-Hall Canada. 293-402 1997 Ritzer, George and Douglas J Goodman.: Classical Sociological Theory. 4th Edition. 2003 Skocpol, Theda. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1980 Snell, Melissa. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (Quoted in http://historymedren.about.com/od/burckhardt/a/cri_i8.htm) Solomon, Benjamin. Kants Perpetual Peace: A New Look at this Centuries-Old Quest. The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution Summer 5.1 ISSN: 1522-211X | www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/5_1solomon.htm 106-126 2003 Sunic, Tomislav. Liberalism or Democracy? Carl Schmitt and Apolitical Democracy. Retrieved in http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/schmitt.php Wilson, Garret. Review of the Anarchical Society. (Quoted in http://www.garretwilson.com/books/anarchicalsociety.html) 1999 World Politics and Domestic Challenges, 1890-1914 (Quoted in http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyB2.html) http://classics.ucdavis.edu/1/Classics_1/notes2.html www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socratesaccount.html http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/socr.htm http://www.reemcreations.com/literature/socrates.html The Philosophy Forums (Quoted in http://www.unco.edu/philosophy/current/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=281) http://www.ualberta.ca/~rmorrow/Resources/Marx-alienation-Tucker-sm%20c.pdf http://www.iaapa.de/zwang3/contradiction.htm -Human Nature -Universal Principle -Purpose -Nature vs. God -Autonomous Mind in regard to freedom -Instincts, passions, and ambitions -what fuels the application of Reason ie. Conflict, contradictions, and oppositions -Self-Consciousness -History -alienation -Capacities vs. Capabilities -Forces of Production -Means of Production -Ownership of Production -Capital and Capitalism -Wage labor -Class -3 instruments of man: Natural Resources, Human Labour Power, tools -Labour Power, skilled vs. unskilled or concrete vs. abstract -Sovereignty in regards to individual ownership (of nature and resources etc.) -Division of Labor -Technology and the advancement of Technology -Social Consciousness -Ideologies and how they are a detriment -Bourgeoisie -Proletariat -Vanguard -Laws of Exchange -Define Ideology as Marx would! -Scientific Socialism -Beaurocracy -Economic Structure vs. Political Structure -Role of the State -Counter-Vanguard -Individualism -How societies should and will transfer to Communism -Bottom up change as opposed to top down (why the soviet union failed) -Ownership transferred to the workers -Technological Determinism -Ideological superstructure and the Status Quo Philosophers and thinkers are always the rebels of their contemporary society. The foundations of their philosophy erect on human welfare. Before the mighty French Revolution it were philosophers like Voltaire, Rousseau and others who awoke the sleeping nation and fought for the noble cause of equality and justice by their wonderful writings. The philosophical theme behind the literature of that time paved the way towards equal distribution of power, pelf, possession and prestige for all strata of French Society. Thus unjust measures enforced by the French laws came to an end. Read More