Marxist Approach to Politics and Policy - Essay Example

Using the Marxist approach to the study of politics and policy: explain why you think that the approach you have chosen does not constitute the mainstream approach to studies of politics and policy. The Marxist approach toward politics and policy is not mainstream. Mainstream politics are more democratic societies. True Marxism has a foundation steeped in equality for everyone, whereas mainstream politics consists of equality of opportunity for everyone. This paper will explain why the Marxist approach does not constitute the mainstream approach to studies of politics and policy. INTRODUCTION Marxism is often confused with communism. Communism is generally connected with the former U.S.S.R. Since the former Soviet Republic failed miserably, Marxism is considered a failure, not a mainstream political policy. What is forgotten is the communist government of Russia was only influenced by Marxs theories as interpreted by Lenin. This essay will examine using the Marxist approach to the study of politics and policy: It will also explain why this approach does not constitute the mainstream approach to studies of politics and policy DEFINE MARXISM They first myth about Marxism is that all communist countries follow Marxs theories explicitly. This is absolutely not true. First a definition of Marxism is required. Marx exposed a few basic concepts, not just relating to politics. A few concepts are: 1) Mode of production- Mode of production is productive forces like human labour, equipment, buildings, technologies, tools, relations between social classes, and anything that produces work or an outcome. 2) Base- The base is the means of production of society. A base is made up of all the workers and utilities that make a productively successful society. 3) Superstructure- The superstructure is at the top of the base. The superstructure is the societys ideology. A societys ideology includes political, legal, and religious system. The base creates the superstructure. The base and superstructure have a dialectical relationship. 4) Class consciousness- Class consciousness is the self-awareness of social classes and the ability to act in its own interests. 5) Ideology- Because a ruling or elite class dictates societys means of production, it also dictates the societys superstructure. The superstructure reflects the ruling classs interests, not the society as a whole. This makes societal ideology vital, because a false consciousness can be formed or confusion of minority groups, like the false notion that labor is capital. 6) Political economy- Political economy, at first, meant the study of production conditions of new capitalist systems. Then political economy started studying the workings of human activity in organising material, plus the mechanism of distributing excess or handling the deficit result. This study includes looking at production and capital, and how this is transformed into economic activity. 7) Historical materialism- Historical materialism was never a termed used by Marx, but formed because of his theories and writing. Basically historical materialism is the study into causes of changes and developments in societies concerning the way humans collectively make the means to life through economic and every aspect of the economic base. 8) Exploitation- Marx wrote about exploitation of one class by another in societal terms. Marx especially expressed and criticized the exploitation of upper class toward the working class in capitalistic societies. Marx felt that the upper classes deservingly benefited from the labour of the working class. 9) Alienation- Marx defined alienation as people alienated from their human nature. Marx declared that alienation is the position of people in a capitalistic system. It did not matter if the person felt alienated or not, Marx believed that alienation was the result of living in a capitalistic system. (McLellan, 1975) Pure Marxism promotes a society with equal treatment, without alienation or exploitation, where everyone has the same opportunities. What Marx failed to take into account was human nature. At the time he formed his theories, he felt that Marxism would be the perfect system followed to the letter. That was not the case. After men like Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Ho Chi Mihn not only used his theories, but reformed them. The reformation created communism, which meant that revolutions were necessary. Marx did not advocate violence. Because of the revolutions, men would spout equality, but in reality was creating another class system. The communist leaders created workers and a governmental class. The governmental class became the higher class, with the works as the lower class, totally cutting out the middle class (Gamble, Marsh, Tant). The bottom line is that although communism was based on Marxism, it is not pure Marxism. DEFINE MAINSTREAM THEORIES Mainstream theories can be defined as what most humans hold acceptable or agreeable to. This can relate to everything from the media to politics. In todays world democracy or capitalistic governmental systems has swept every corner of the earth. Democracy and its politics are mainstream. Some authors suggest “Through multilevel governance (MLG) is rapidly acquiring the status of a fashionable mainstream concept” (Marsh and Stoker, 1995). Multilevel governance, MLG, like democracies and capitalist governments, that are mainstream politics. There are several reasons that capitalistic countries have become mainstream. The first and foremost is the connection between capitalism and democracy. Democracies have spread after both World Wars, collapse of colonial countries, and revolutions. The democracies that formed generally better the countries. Examples of governmental change for the better are South Africa, Romania, Bosnia, and other Eastern European countries, formally of the Soviet communist block, adopted a new government for the better. The former Soviet State has not prospered as well under democracy, but that is one country out of many in the eyes of the media. After dictatorships and communist rule, democracy is equated to freedom to newly liberated countries. Democracies and capitalistic systems only give the illusion of freedom. In reality, democracies and capitalistic systems only give their citizens more choices. These choices can help advance a persons position in society, but a person cannot just take what they want. There are rules. Another reason democracies and capitalistic political systems have become mainstream is the advancement of technologies. With advance technologies come more opportunities for individuals to file for patents. These individuals benefit from these technologies. For example, Bill Gates created a billion dollar company by inventing Windows. In a true Marxist society, Bill Gates would create his Windows to benefit the society. That might seem unfair, but in a true Marxist society Bill Gates would also benefit from others inventions and labour. SAY WHY MARXISM ISNT MAINSTREAM Marxism is not mainstream. For one reason, todays mainstream politics and policies focus on the individual, not the collective whole. No matter the concern and charity doled out in democracies and capitalistic countries, people are selfish. Capitalistic countries are made up of selfish people. Many charities have people donate their time and money, but in the UK, US, and other democratic countries no one would give up the chance to become part of the upper class. and live collectively. That is one reason Marxs policies and politics are not mainstream, most people would not give up life in a democracy. It does not matter that Marx warned, "Under capitalism, a free labour market conceals exploitation, and political democracy suggests equality rather than continuing privilege and power" (Marx, 1977). Marx knew that most democracies were based on class, not equality. Secondly, Marxism is not mainstream because of the equal treatment doled out to every citizen, especially women. Some authors explain “whilst not automatically endorsing them, they have taken up notions of patriarch and the masculinity of mainstream politics as hypotheses to investigate” (Marsh and Stoker, 1995). Most democracies are dominated by men, despite a few exceptions, like Margret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi. Marxism creates a system where men and women are equal in politics. HISTORICAL MATERIALISM Historical materialism is a concept that humans must work together to exist. The product of everybodys work, depending on the society, is what sustains the society. Although Marx never used the term historical materialism, the best description given by him is as follows: In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. (Marx, 1972) Historical materialism is the matrix of all societies, whether Marxist, communist, democracy, or capitalist. No man is a society unto his self. A society must have product created together to survive. Not every person works to create the same product. In Marxs opinion, a book maker was just as important as a government worker or a farmer was as important as a steel worker. Every job was important to create the product of the society. Marx did not think every person worked the same way. In Capital Marx wrote: A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. (Marx, 1977) Marx understood that not everyone was equal in ability, he knew that work was a social connection between people. Marx just thought everyone should benefit from a collective labour force. WHY IS MARXISM AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY AND NOT A MAINSTREAM. (HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK, DEFINITION OF CRITICAL THEORY, EMPERIAL EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF MARXISM TO UNDERSTANDING POLICY MAKING). Historically speaking Marxism has been reformed by many movements. Many have interpreted Marx, for example: Marxism has revolved around attempts to interpret and reinterpret Marx himself. Marxs work, like that of all theorists, contains consistencies and ,as such, can and has, sustained different interpretations. (Marsh and Stoker, 1995) Marsh and Stoker point out the obvious, Marx was a man. Of course he made mistakes and changed his mind. The biggest change in Marxism came from Marx himself. Upon going to Russia to help with their plight, Marx had a change of heart toward his initial writings. This does not mean that he changed his mind, but softened his stance on socialism a little. In Marx, “According to White, Marx” had not been able to see ancient society in this way before, because in his judgment in this respect had been blinkered: he had always associated the search for a social ideal in the past with Romanticism, against which he and other Young Hegelians had campaigned in the days when the idea of the “Critique [of political Economy] was first conceived reorientation towards the Romanticism movement, to which Marx belong to in his youth. (McLellan, 1975) This change of heart restricted Marx in his theories and writings. This change of view allowed his writing The Capital to fall by the wayside. He was never to complete this collection. While in Russia studying, Marx recovered his Romanticism roots. Speaking about the Russian society, Marx stated:: No social order is ever destroyed before all of the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and a new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. (McLellan, 1975) Here Marx is being more realistic than current day political leaders. Soldiers, politicians, or anyone else cannot go into a existing society, whether peacefully or by force, and create a perfect new society from scratch. One look at Iraq proves that point. New governments must be built from the ashes of the old government. The people that were governed by the old regime still exist, so the government must be formed to reflect the natives. Eventually Marx came to define the term “communism”. Marxs definition was as follows: 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 results from the premises now in existence. (McLellan, 1975) Marx is catching a glimpse that his theories, though very good and respected, might not always be carried out by mere mortal men. Marxs theories, in a Utopian society, would work, but humans do not live in a Utopian societies. Marx believed that capitalism would be replaced by communism. Even when he realized and started doubting his work, Marx had no doubts about capitalism. He thought capitalism was evil. He wrote: The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. (McLellan, 1975) Marx truly believed that socialism was the new path of enlightenment. Another reform of Marxs theory is the critical theory. Marx himself did not write on the critical theory, but followers of his work developed this concept. Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School of Social Science first created the phrase of critical theory in a 1937 essay Traditional and Critical Theory (Dunleavy and OLear). Critical theory is a social theory. Critical theory critiques and changes societies, where as traditional theory only wants to analyse and understand society not change it. Critical theory changed the way social and political students studied societies. Before social and political students were led to believe that they must accept the current society, to understand the current society, no matter how corrupt or bad. Critical theory allows the student to try and change corruptness in societies. Empirical evidence is experimental science evidence. Empirical research is any science that judges reality by observation. Social sciences, politics, anthropology, psychology, and other sciences fall into this category. Marx used empirical evidence to analyse democracies. For example: first is the method- ological and analytical question of how to order the diverse empirical outcomes associated with capitalism. Can we deal with inequality independent of class, poverty apart from economic and other forms ... (Marx, 1977) Marx studied capitalism and reject it as an acceptable society. He wanted a more equal society for everyone, not just royalty and the upper class. IDENTIFY FACTORS THAT MAKE MARXISM AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY Marxism is an alternative theory, not just to politics, but society as a whole. There are many reasons, but due to the length, only a few will be mentioned here. The first is the equality true Marxism promotes. Under Marxist socialism, every member of society is important. It would not matter what color, background, intelligence, or gender everyone would be needed and important. What Marx did not clarify was the handicap, terminally ill, or plain lazy people who could not provide a product would fit in. Many pro-Marxist would argue that these people would be taken care of as part of the society. In reality, the lazy would go to jail. The terminally ill and handicapped would be taken care of out of duty. These views are opposite of the mainstream political view. Mainstream politics take “the role of male power or patriarchy and the masculine character of mainstream political institutions” (Marsh and Stoker, 1995). Another reason Marxism would be alternative solution to democracies and capitalist countries is the ability to work at what a person does best. In a democracy people work for money, not what they love. Rarely do people in a democracy find a true passion. Money makes sure they cannot afford that luxury. A Marxist society would have members doing what they did best. The ideal of fitting into a society and being accepted for a persons strength would be alluring. The most important fact Marxism would be an alternative is the critical theory. Marxism can change. Critical theory in Marxism would allow a collective social society that could change (Gamble, Marsh, and Tant, 1999). People have assumed that only democracies can change, that socialism was stagnant. People have associated the lack of change in current socialist countries to a lack of change in a true Marxist country. The critical theory of looking at societal faults, then changing them is truly Marxism. Marxists have had a “response to the critiques and changes already identified is clear. Most modern Marxists adopt a critical realist epistemological position This is a really optimistic point lost in the tarnished reputation of Marxism. The Soviet Union and other countries have made Marxism an alternative theory, instead of a mainstream theory, by showing Marxism in a bad light. If true Marxism would have spread Marxs prediction of the collapse of capitalism would have came to pass, making Marxism a mainstream political force. Marxs “predictions concerning the imminent overthrow of capitalism by a proletarian revolution had failed to come" (March and Stoker, 1995). Stalin and the failure of the Soviet Union made Marxism an alternative theory. If men like Marx had governed Russia, things might have turned out differently. CONCLUSION The reason socialism did not succeed in sweeping the world can be summed up in a list of names: Stalin, Ceausescu, Ho Chi Mihn, and others. These men used socialism to conquer and control a power base for their own sick needs. For example, Stalin used random killings to solidify his power base. One author states, “In order to consolidate the bureaucratic caste around him and the system of Stalinism, Stalin had to murder the last remnants of the Bolshevik party in the purge prior to the 1930s” (Taaffe). Marxism was twisted to fit Stalins needs. These men perverted socialism to fit their needs. That is what Marx never envisioned, men abusing their power in his name. He would have been horrified to have seen the events of the twentieth century unfold. True Marxism might be a Utopian dream, but with mortal man Marxism does not stand a chance. Some men, like Stalin and Ceausescu, are ruthless and have no conscious will wrest control from true followers of Marx. Some authors believe, “The death of Stalin in 1953 and the invasion of Hungary in 1956 were important events that led some Marxist intellectuals to question the practice" Collective societies can work, but not in a form that is widespread. Communes and kibbutzs have succeeded under democratic governments. Marxs collective theory of not only studying, but changing societies is his greatest contribution. As long as each society keeps striving for a better life, studying how to make their lives better, Karl Marx has achieved more than even he dreamed. References Dunleavy, P. and O Leary, B (1987) Theories of the state, London: Macmillan. Gamble, A, Marsh. D and Tant, T (1999) Marxism and Social Science, London: Macmillan. Kelly, D. (1999) The strategic-relational view of the State Politics, 19/2:109-115. Marx, Karl. (1972) A contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, London: Beekman Books. Marx, Karl. (1977) Capital: Volume I, London: Vintage. Marsh, D and Stoker, G (eds) (1995) Theory and methods in political science, London: Macmillan. McLellan, D. (1975) Marx, London: Fontana Taaffe, P. (2005) Lenins life rewritten. Socialism Today, 93. Retrieved January 10, 2007 http://www.socialismtoday.org/93/lenin.html Read More