Marxist analysis views a society's economicmode of production as the foundation of its social, political, and intellectual life, a concept known as thebase and superstructure model. In itscritique of capitalism, Marxism posits that the ruling class (thebourgeoisie), who own themeans of production, systematically exploit the working class (theproletariat), who must sell theirlabour power to survive. This relationship, according to Marx, leads toalienation, periodic economic crises, and escalating class conflict.[5] Marx theorised that these internal contradictions would fuel aproletarian revolution, leading to the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of asocialist mode of production. For Marxists, this transition represents a necessary step towards a classless, statelesscommunist society.[6]
Since Marx's death, his ideas have been elaborated and adapted by numerous thinkers and political movements, resulting in a wide array ofschools of thought. The most prominent of these in the 20th century wasMarxism–Leninism, which was developed afterVladimir Lenin's death and served as the official ideology of theSoviet Union and other Marxist states.[7] In contrast, various academic and dissident traditions, includingWestern Marxism,Marxist humanism, andlibertarian Marxism, have emerged, often critical of state socialism and focused on aspects like culture, philosophy, and individual liberty. This diverse evolution means there is no single, definitive Marxist theory.[4]
Marxism stands as one of the most influential and controversial intellectual traditions in modern history. It has inspired revolutions, social movements, and political parties across the world, while also shaping numerous academic disciplines.[8] Marxist concepts such as alienation, exploitation, and class struggle have become integral to thesocial sciences andhumanities, influencing fields fromsociology andliterary criticism topolitical science andcultural studies.[9] The interpretation and implementation of Marxist ideas remain subjects of intense debate, both politically and academically.
Marxism seeks to explainsocial phenomena within any given society by analysing the material conditions andeconomic activities required to fulfill human material needs. It assumes that the form of economic organisation, ormode of production, influences all other social phenomena, including broader social relations, political institutions, legal systems, cultural systems, aesthetics and ideologies. These social relations and the economic system form abase and superstructure. Asforces of production (e.g.technology) improve, existing forms of organising production become obsolete and hinder further progress.Karl Marx wrote: "At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era ofsocial revolution."[10]
These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society which are, in turn, fought out at the level ofclass struggle.[11] Under thecapitalist mode of production, this struggle materialises between the minority who own themeans of production (thebourgeoisie) and the vast majority of the population who produce goods and services (theproletariat).[12] Starting with the conjectural premise thatsocial change occurs due to the struggle between differentclasses within society who contradict one another,[13] a Marxist would conclude thatcapitalism exploits and oppresses the proletariat; therefore, capitalism will inevitably lead to aproletarian revolution.[14] In asocialist society,private property in the means of production would be replaced bycooperative ownership.[15][16] Asocialist economy would not base production on the creation of private profits but on the criteria of satisfying human needs—that is,production for use.Friedrich Engels explained that "the capitalist mode of appropriation, in which the product enslaves first the producer, and then the appropriator, is replaced by the mode of appropriation of the products that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production; upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, as means to the maintenance and extension of production—on the other, direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and of enjoyment."[17]
Engels did not support usingMarxism to describe either Marx's or his views.[21] He claimed that the term was being abusively used as a rhetoricalqualifier by those attempting to cast themselves as genuine followers of Marx while casting others in different terms, such asLassallians.[21] In 1882, Engels claimed that Marx had criticised self-proclaimed MarxistPaul Lafargue by saying that if Lafargue's views were considered Marxist, then "one thing is certain and that is that I am not a Marxist."[21]
The discovery of the materialist conception of history, or rather, the consistent continuation and extension of materialism into the domain of social phenomenon, removed two chief defects of earlier historical theories. In the first place, they at best examined only the ideological motives of the historical activity of human beings, without grasping the objective laws governing the development of the system of social relations. ... in the second place, the earlier theories did not cover the activities of themasses of the population, whereas historical materialism made it possible for the first time to study with scientific accuracy the social conditions of the life of the masses and the changes in these conditions.
— Russian Marxist theoretician and revolutionaryVladimir Lenin, 1913[22]
Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.
Marxism uses amaterialist methodology, referred to by Marx andEngels as the materialist conception of history and later better known as historical materialism, to analyse the underlying causes of societal development and change from the perspective of the collective ways in which humans make their living.[24][25] Marx's account of the theory is inThe German Ideology (1845)[26] and the prefaceA Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859).[10] All constituent features of a society (social classes, political pyramid andideologies) are assumed to stem from economic activity, forming what is considered thebase and superstructure.[27][25] The base and superstructure metaphor describes the totality of social relations by which humans produce and re-produce their social existence. According to Marx, the "sum total of the forces of production accessible to men determines the condition of society" and forms a society's economic base.[28]
The base includes the materialforces of production such as thelabour,means of production andrelations of production, i.e. the social and political arrangements that regulate production and distribution. From this base rises a superstructure of legal and political "forms ofsocial consciousness" that derive from the economic base that conditions both the superstructure and thedominant ideology of a society. Conflicts between the development of material productive forces and the relations of production provokesocial revolutions, whereby changes to the economic base lead to the superstructure'ssocial transformation.[10][29]
This relationship isreflexive in that the base initially gives rise to the superstructure and remains the foundation of a form ofsocial organisation. Those newly formed social organisations can then act again upon both parts of the base and superstructure so that rather than being static, the relationship isdialectic, expressed and driven by conflicts and contradictions. Engels clarified: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.Freeman andslave,patrician andplebeian,lord andserf,guild-master andjourneyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."[30]
Marx considered recurring class conflicts as the driving force of human history as such conflicts have manifested as distincttransitional stages of development inWestern Europe. Accordingly, Marx designated human history as encompassing four stages of development in relations of production:
While historical materialism has been referred to as a materialist theory of history, Marx did not claim to have produced a master key to history and that the materialist conception of history is not "an historico-philosophic theory of themarche générale, imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself."[31] In a letter to the editor of the Russian newspaper paperOtechestvennye Zapiski (1877),[32] he explained that his ideas were based upon a concrete study of the actual conditions in Europe.[33]
According to the Marxist theoretician and revolutionary socialist Vladimir Lenin, "the principal content of Marxism" was "Marx's economic doctrine."[34] Marx demonstrated how the capitalistbourgeoisie and their economists were promoting what he saw as the lie that "the interests of the capitalist and of the worker are ... one and the same." He believed that they did this by purporting the concept that "the fastest possible growth of productivecapital" was best for wealthy capitalists and workers because it provided them with employment.[35]
Exploitation is a matter ofsurplus labour—the amount of labour performed beyond what is received in goods.[36][37] Exploitation has been asocioeconomic feature of everyclass society and is one of the principal features distinguishing the social classes.[38][39] The power of one social class to control themeans of production enables its exploitation of other classes.[40] Under capitalism, thelabour theory of value is the operative concern, whereby thevalue of acommodity equals the socially necessary labour time required to produce it. Under such conditions,surplus value—the difference between the value produced and the value received by a labourer—is synonymous withsurplus labour, and capitalist exploitation is thus realised as deriving surplus value from the worker.[36][41]
Inpre-capitalist economies, exploitation of the worker was achieved via physicalcoercion. Under the capitalist mode of production, workers do not own the means of production and must "voluntarily" enter into an exploitative work relationship with a capitalist to earn the necessities of life. The worker's entry into such employment is voluntary because they choose which capitalist to work for. However, the worker must work or starve. Thus, exploitation is inevitable, and the voluntary nature of a worker participating in a capitalist society is illusory; it is production, not circulation, that causes exploitation. Marx emphasised that capitalismper se does not cheat the worker.[42]
Alienation (German:Entfremdung) is the estrangement of people from their humanity and a systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism, the fruits of production belong to employers, who expropriate the surplus created by others and generate alienated labourers. In Marx's view, alienation is an objective characterisation of the worker's situation in capitalism—his or her self-awareness of this condition is not prerequisite.[43][full citation needed]
In addition to criticism, Marx has also praised some of the results of capitalism stating that it "has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together"[44] and that it "has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal arrangements."[44]
Marx distinguishes social classes based on two criteria, i.e. ownership of means of production and control over thelabour power of others. Following this criterion of class based on property relations, Marx identified thesocial stratification of thecapitalist mode of production with the following social groups:
Proletariat: "[T]he class of modernwage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live."[45][46] The capitalist mode of production establishes the conditions that enable the bourgeoisie toexploit the proletariat as the worker's labour generates asurplus value greater than the worker'swage.[47]
Bourgeoisie: those who "own the means of production" and buy labour power from the proletariat, thus exploiting the proletariat. They subdivide as bourgeoisie and the petite bourgeoisie.[49]
Petite bourgeoisie: those who work and can afford to buy little labour power (i.e.small business owners,peasants,landlords and trade workers). Marxism predicts that the continual reinvention of the means of production eventually would destroy the petite bourgeoisie, degrading them from themiddle class to the proletariat.[49]
Landlords: a historically significant social class that retains some wealth and power.
Peasantry and farmers: a scattered class incapable of organising and effectingsocioeconomic change, most of whom would enter the proletariat while some would become landlords.[50]
Class consciousness denotes the awareness—of itself and the social world—that a social class possesses and its capacity to act rationally in its best interests.[51][52] Class consciousness is required before a social class can effect a successful revolution and, thus, thedictatorship of the proletariat.[53]
Without definingideology,[54] Marx used the term to describe the production of images of social reality. According to Engels, "ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or seeming motive forces."[55]
Because the ruling class controls the society's means of production, the superstructure of society (i.e. the ruling social ideas) is determined by the best interests of the ruling class. InThe German Ideology, Marx says that "[t]he ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is, at the same time, its ruling intellectual force."[56] The termpolitical economy initially referred to the study of the material conditions of economic production in the capitalist system. In Marxism, political economy is the study of the means of production, specifically of capital and how that manifests as economic activity.[57]
Marxism taught me what society was. I was like a blindfolded man in a forest, who doesn't even know where north or south is. If you don't eventually come to truly understand the history of the class struggle, or at least have a clear idea that society is divided between the rich and the poor, and that some people subjugate and exploit other people, you're lost in a forest, not knowing anything.
— Cuban revolutionary and Marxist–Leninist politicianFidel Castro on discovering Marxism, 2009[58]
This new way of thinking was invented becausesocialists believed thatcommon ownership of the means of production (i.e. theindustries, land, wealth of nature, trade apparatus and wealth of the society) would abolish the exploitative working conditions experienced under capitalism.[17][59] Through working class revolution, thestate (which Marxists saw as a weapon for the subjugation of one class by another)[60][61] is seized and used to suppress the hitherto ruling class of capitalists and (by implementing a commonly owned, democratically controlled workplace) create the society ofcommunism which Marxists see as true democracy.[62] An economy based on cooperation on human need and social betterment, rather than competition for profit of many independently acting profit seekers, would also be the end of class society, which Marx saw as the fundamental division of all hitherto existing history.[44] Marx saw the fundamental nature of capitalist society as little different from that of a slave society in that one small group of society exploits the larger group.[63]
Throughcommon ownership of the means of production, theprofit motive is eliminated, and the motive of furthering human flourishing is introduced. Because the surplus produced by the workers is the property of the society as a whole, there are no classes of producers and appropriators. Additionally, as the state originates in the bands of retainers hired by the first ruling classes to protect their economic privilege, it willwither away as its conditions of existence have disappeared.[64][65][66]
According toThe Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'Communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death."[67]
According toorthodox Marxist theory, overthrowing capitalism by asocialist revolution in contemporary society is inevitable. While the inevitability of an eventual socialist revolution is a controversial debate among many differentMarxist schools of thought, all Marxists believe socialism is a necessity. Marxists argue that asocialist society is far better for most of the populace than its capitalist counterpart. Prior to theRussian Revolution,Vladimir Lenin wrote: "Thesocialisation of production is bound to lead to the conversion of the means of production into the property of society. ... This conversion will directly result in an immense increase in productivity of labour, a reduction of working hours, and the replacement of the remnants, the ruins of small-scale, primitive, disunited production by collective and improved labour."[68] The failure of the1905 Russian Revolution, along with the failure of socialist movements to resist the outbreak ofWorld War I, led to renewed theoretical effort and valuable contributions from Lenin andRosa Luxemburg towards an appreciation of Marx'scrisis theory and efforts to formulate atheory of imperialism.[6]
Classical Marxism denotes the collection of socio-eco-political theories expounded byKarl Marx andFriedrich Engels.[91] AsErnest Mandel remarked, "Marxism is always open, always critical, always self-critical."[92] Classical Marxism distinguishesMarxism as broadly perceived from "what Marx believed." In 1883, Marx wrote to his son-in-lawPaul Lafargue and French labour leaderJules Guesde—both of whom claimed to represent Marxist principles—accusing them of "revolutionary phrase-mongering" and denying the value of reformist struggle.[93] From Marx's letter derives Marx's famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, 'ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste' ('what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist')."[93][94]
Marxist humanism was born in 1932 with the publication of Marx'sEconomic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and reached a degree of prominence in the 1950s and 1960s. Marxist humanists contend that there is continuity between the early philosophical writings of Marx, in which he develops histheory of alienation, and the structural description ofcapitalist society found in his later works, such asCapital.[106] They hold that grasping Marx's philosophical foundations is necessary to understand his later works properly.[107]
Contrary to the officialdialectical materialism of theSoviet Union and interpretations of Marx rooted in thestructural Marxism ofLouis Althusser, Marxist humanists argue that Marx's work was an extension or transcendence ofenlightenmenthumanism.[108] Whereas other Marxist philosophies see Marxism asnatural science, Marxist humanism reaffirms the doctrine that "man is the measure of all things"—that humans are essentially different to the rest of thenatural order and should be treated so by Marxist theory.[109]
V. Gordon Childe, an Australian archaeologist and one of the 20th century's most prominent Marxist academics
According to a 2007 survey of American professors byNeil Gross and Solon Simmons, 17.6% ofsocial science professors and 5.0% ofhumanities professors identify as Marxists, while between 0 and 2% of professors in all other disciplines identify as Marxists.[110]
Thetheoretical development ofMarxist archaeology was first developed in theSoviet Union in 1929, when a young archaeologist namedVladislav I. Ravdonikas published a report entitled "For a Soviet history of material culture"; within this work, the very discipline of archaeology as it then stood was criticised as being inherently bourgeois, therefore anti-socialist and so, as a part of the academic reforms instituted in the Soviet Union under the administration of General SecretaryJoseph Stalin, a great emphasis was placed on the adoption of Marxist archaeology throughout the country.[111]
These theoretical developments were subsequently adopted by archaeologists working in capitalist states outside of the Leninist bloc, most notably by the Australian academicV. Gordon Childe, who used Marxist theory in his understandings of the development of human society.[112]
Marxist sociology, as the study ofsociology from a Marxist perspective,[90] is "a form ofconflict theory associated with ... Marxism's objective of developing apositive (empirical) science of capitalistsociety as part of the mobilisation of a revolutionaryworking class."[113] TheAmerican Sociological Association has a section dedicated to the issues of Marxist sociology that is "interested in examining how insights from Marxistmethodology and Marxist analysis can help explain the complex dynamics of modern society."[114]
Influenced by the thought ofKarl Marx, Marxist sociology emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. With Marx,Max Weber andÉmile Durkheim are considered seminal influences inearly sociology. The first Marxist school of sociology was known asAustro-Marxism, of whichCarl Grünberg andAntonio Labriola were among its most notable members. During the 1940s, theWestern Marxist school became accepted within Western academia, subsequently fracturing into several different perspectives, such as theFrankfurt School orcritical theory. The legacy of Critical Theory as a major offshoot of Marxism is controversial. The common thread linking Marxism and Critical theory is an interest in struggles to dismantle structures of oppression, exclusion, and domination.[115] Due to its former state-supported position, there has been a backlash against Marxist thought inpost-communist states, such asPoland. However, it remains prominent in the sociological research sanctioned and supported by communist states, such asin China.[116]
Marxian economics is a school of economic thought tracing its foundations to the critique of classicalpolitical economy first expounded upon by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.[4] Marxian economics concerns itself with the analysis ofcrisis in capitalism, the role and distribution of thesurplus product andsurplus value in various types ofeconomic systems, the nature and origin ofeconomic value, the impact of class and class struggle on economic and political processes, and the process ofeconomic evolution. Although the Marxian school is consideredheterodox, ideas that have come out of Marxian economics have contributed to mainstream understanding of the global economy. Certain concepts of Marxian economics, especially those related tocapital accumulation and thebusiness cycle, such ascreative destruction, have been fitted for use in capitalist systems.[117][118][119]
Marxist education develops Marx's works and those of the movements he influenced in various ways. In addition to the educational psychology ofLev Vygotsky[120] and the pedagogy ofPaulo Freire, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis'Schooling in Capitalist America is a study of educational reform in the U.S. and its relationship to the reproduction of capitalism and the possibilities of utilising its contradictions in the revolutionary movement. The work ofPeter McLaren, especially since the turn of the 21st century, has further developed Marxist educational theory by developing revolutionary critical pedagogy,[121] as has the work of Glenn Rikowski,[122] Dave Hill,[123] and Paula Allman.[124] Other Marxists have analysed the forms and pedagogical processes of capitalist and communist education, such as Tyson E. Lewis,[125] Noah De Lissovoy,[126] Gregory Bourassa,[127] and Derek R. Ford.[128][129] Curry Malott has developed a Marxist history of education in the U.S.,[130] andMarvin Gettleman examined the history of communist education.[131] Sandy Grande has synthesised Marxist educational theory with Indigenous pedagogy,[132] while others like John Holt analyse adult education from a Marxist perspective.[133]
Other developments include:
the educational aesthetics of Marxist education[134]
Marxist analyses of the role of fixed capital in capitalist education[135]
Marxist historiography is a school ofhistoriography influenced by Marxism, the chief tenets of which are the centrality ofsocial class andeconomic constraints in determining historical outcomes. Marxist historiography has contributed to the history of theworking class, oppressed nationalities, and themethodology ofhistory from below. Friedrich Engels' most important historical contribution wasDer deutsche Bauernkrieg about theGerman Peasants' War which analysed social warfare in early Protestant Germany regarding emerging capitalist classes.[144]The German Peasants' War indicates the Marxist interest inhistory from below with class analysis and attempts a dialectical analysis.[145][146][147]
Marxist aesthetics is a theory ofaesthetics based on or derived from the theories ofKarl Marx. It involves adialectical andmaterialist, ordialectical materialist, approach to the application of Marxism to the cultural sphere, specifically areas related to taste, such as art and beauty, among others.[156] Marxists believe that economic and social conditions, and especially the class relations that derive from them affect every aspect of an individual's life, from religious beliefs to legal systems to cultural frameworks.[78]
Marx addressed thealienation andexploitation of the working class, thecapitalist mode of production and historical materialism.[157][158] He is famous for analysing history in terms of class struggle, summarised in the initial line introducingThe Communist Manifesto (1848): "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."[44]
Together with Marx, Engels co-developed communist theory. Marx and Engels first met in September 1844. Discovering that they had similar views of philosophy and socialism, they collaborated and wrote works such asDie heilige Familie (The Holy Family). After Marx was deported from France in January 1845, they moved to Belgium, which permitted greaterfreedom of expression than other European countries. In January 1846, they returned to Brussels to establish theCommunist Correspondence Committee.[159]
In 1847, they began writingThe Communist Manifesto (1848), based on Engels'The Principles of Communism. Six weeks later, they published the 12,000-word pamphlet in February 1848. In March, Belgium expelled them, and they moved toCologne, where they published theNeue Rheinische Zeitung, a politicallyradical newspaper.[160]
In 1919, the nascent Soviet Government established theCommunist Academy and theMarx–Engels–Lenin Institute for doctrinal Marxist study and to publish official ideological and research documents for the Russian Communist Party.[169][170] With Lenin's death in 1924, there was an internal struggle in the Soviet Communist movement, mainly betweenJoseph Stalin andLeon Trotsky, in the form of the Troika of Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev[171] and theLeft Opposition, respectively. These struggles were based on both sides' different interpretations of Marxist and Leninist theory based on the situation of theSoviet Union at the time.[172][page needed] This period is marked by the development ofMarxism–Leninism and it becoming the dominant ideological strain.[7][173]
The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should regard it not as a dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is not merely a matter of learning terms and phrases but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution. It is not just a matter of understanding the general laws derived by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin from their extensive study of real life and revolutionary experience, but of studying their standpoint and method in examining and solving problems.
At the end of theSecond Sino-Japanese War and, more widely,World War II, theChinese Communist Revolution occurred within the context of theChinese Civil War. TheChinese Communist Party, founded in 1921, conflicted with theKuomintang over the country's future. Throughout the Civil War,Mao Zedong developed a theory of Marxism for the Chinese historical context. Mao found a large base of support in the peasantry as opposed to the Russian Revolution, which found its primary support in the urban centres of the Russian Empire. Some significant ideas contributed by Mao were the ideas ofNew Democracy,mass line andpeople's war. ThePeople's Republic of China (PRC) was declared in 1949. The new socialist state was to be founded on the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.[175][176]
From Stalin's death until the late 1960s, there was increased conflict between China and the Soviet Union.De-Stalinisation, which first began underNikita Khrushchev, and the policy ofdetente, were seen asrevisionist and insufficiently Marxist. This ideological confrontation spilt into a broader global crisis centred around which nation was to lead the international socialist movement.[177]
Following Mao's death and the ascendancy ofDeng Xiaoping,Maoism and official Marxism in China were reworked. Commonly referred to associalism with Chinese characteristics, this new path was initially centred aroundDeng Xiaoping Theory, which claims to uphold Marxism–Leninism and Maoism, while adapting them to Chinese conditions.[178][179] Deng Xiaoping Theory was based onFour Cardinal Principles, which sought to uphold the central role of the Chinese Communist Party and uphold the principle that China was in theprimary stage of socialism and that it was still working to build a communist society based on Marxist principles.[180][181][182]
In 1959, theCuban Revolution led to the victory ofFidel Castro and hisJuly 26 Movement. Although the revolution was not explicitly socialist, upon victory, Castro ascended to the position of prime minister and adopted theLeninist model of socialist development, allying with the Soviet Union.[183][184] One of the leaders of the revolution, the Argentine Marxist revolutionaryChe Guevara, subsequently went on to aid revolutionary socialist movements inCongo-Kinshasa and Bolivia, eventually being killed by the Bolivian government, possibly on the orders of theCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA), although the CIA agent sent to search for Guevara, Felix Rodriguez, expressed a desire to keep him alive as a possible bargaining tool with the Cuban government. He posthumously went on to become an internationally recognised icon.[185]
In thePeople's Republic of China, theMaoist government undertook theCultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976 to purge Chinese society of capitalist elements and achieve socialism. UponMao Zedong's death, his rivals seized political power, and under the leadership ofDeng Xiaoping, many of Mao's Cultural Revolution era policies were revised or abandoned, and a large increase in privatised industry was encouraged.[186][187]
The late 1980s and early 1990s saw the collapse of most of those socialist states that had professed aMarxist–Leninist ideology. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the emergence of theNew Right andneoliberal capitalism as the dominant ideological trends in Western politics championed by United States presidentRonald Reagan and British prime ministerMargaret Thatcher led the West to take a more aggressive stance towards the Soviet Union and its Leninist allies. Meanwhile, the reformistMikhail Gorbachev becameGeneral Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1985 and sought to abandon Leninist development models towardsocial democracy. Ultimately, Gorbachev's reforms, coupled with rising levels of popularethnic nationalism, led to thedissolution of the Soviet Union in late 1991 into a series of constituent nations, all of which abandoned Marxist–Leninist models for socialism, with most converting to capitalist economies.[188][189]
At the turn of the 21st century, China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam remained the only officially Marxist–Leninist states remaining, although a Maoist government led byPrachanda was elected into power in Nepal in 2008 following a long guerrilla struggle.[190][191]
The early 21st century also saw the election of socialist governments in several Latin American nations, in what has come to be known as the "pink tide"; dominated by the Venezuelan government ofHugo Chávez; this trend also saw the election ofEvo Morales in Bolivia,Rafael Correa in Ecuador, andDaniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Forging political and economic alliances through international organisations like theBolivarian Alliance for the Americas, these socialist governments allied themselves with Marxist–Leninist Cuba. Although none espoused a Stalinist path directly, most admitted to being significantly influenced by Marxist theory. Venezuelan presidentHugo Chávez declared himself aTrotskyist during the swearing-in of his cabinet two days before his inauguration on 10 January 2007.[192] Venezuelan Trotskyist organisations do not regard Chávez as a Trotskyist, with some describing him as a bourgeois nationalist,[193] while others consider him an honest revolutionary leader who made significant mistakes due to him lacking a Marxist analysis.[194]
For Italian MarxistGianni Vattimo andSantiago Zabala in their 2011 bookHermeneutic Communism, "this new weak communism differs substantially from its previous Soviet (and current Chinese) realisation, because the South American countries follow democratic electoral procedures and also manage to decentralise the state bureaucratic system through theBolivarian missions. In sum, if weakened communism is felt as a spectre in the West, it is not only because of media distortions but also for the alternative it represents through the same democratic procedures that the West constantly professes to cherish but is hesitant to apply."[195]
Chinese Communist PartyGeneral SecretaryXi Jinping has announced a deepening commitment of the Chinese Communist Party to the ideas of Marx. At an event celebrating the 200th anniversary of Marx's birth, Xi said, "We must win the advantages, win the initiative, and win the future. We must continuously improve the ability to use Marxism to analyse and solve practical problems", adding that Marxism is a "powerful ideological weapon for us to understand the world, grasp the law, seek the truth, and change the world." Xi has further stressed the importance of examining and continuing the tradition of the CPC and embracing its revolutionary past.[196][197][198]
The fidelity of those varied revolutionaries, leaders and parties to the work ofKarl Marx is highly contested and has been rejected by many Marxists and other socialists alike.[199][200] Socialists in general and socialist writers, includingDimitri Volkogonov, acknowledge that the actions ofauthoritarian socialist leaders have damaged "the enormous appeal of socialism generated by the October Revolution."[201]
Criticism of Marxism has come from various political ideologies and academic disciplines.[202][203] This includes general criticism about lack of internal consistency, criticisms related to historical materialism, that it is a type of historical determinism, the necessity of suppression of individual rights, issues with the implementation of communism and economic issues such as the distortion or absence of price signals and reduced incentives. In addition, empirical and epistemological problems are frequently identified.[204][205][206]
Some Marxists have criticised the academicinstitutionalisation of Marxism for being too shallow and detached from political action.[207] ZimbabweanTrotskyistAlex Callinicos, himself a professional academic, stated: "Its practitioners remind one ofNarcissus, who in the Greek legend fell in love with his own reflection. ... Sometimes it is necessary to devote time to clarifying and developing the concepts that we use, but indeed for Western Marxists this has become an end in itself. The result is a body of writings incomprehensible to all but a tiny minority of highly qualified scholars."[208]
Additionally, some intellectual critiques of Marxism contest certain assumptions prevalent in Marx's thought and Marxism after him without rejecting Marxist politics.[209] Other contemporary supporters of Marxism argue that many aspects of Marxist thought are viable but that the corpus is incomplete or outdated regarding certain aspects of economic, political orsocial theory. They may combine some Marxist concepts with the ideas of other theorists such asMax Weber—theFrankfurt School is one example.[210][211]
Philosopher and historian of ideasLeszek Kołakowski said that "Marx's theory is incomplete or ambiguous in many places, and could be 'applied' in many contradictory ways without manifestly infringing its principles." Specifically, he considers "the laws of dialectics" as fundamentally erroneous, stating that some are "truisms with no specific Marxist content", others "philosophical dogmas that cannot be proved by scientific means", and some just "nonsense"; he believes that some Marxist laws can be interpreted differently, but that these interpretations still in general fall into one of the two categories of error.[212]
Okishio's theorem shows that if capitalists use cost-cutting techniques and real wages do not increase, the rate of profit must rise, which casts doubt on Marx's view that the rate of profit would tend to fall.[213]
The allegations of inconsistency have been a large part of Marxian economics and the debates around it since the 1970s.[214]Andrew Kliman argues that this undermines Marx's critiques and the correction of the alleged inconsistencies because internally inconsistent theories cannot be correct by definition.[215]
Critics of Marxism claim that Marx's predictions have failed, with some pointing towards the GDP per capita generally increasing in capitalist economies compared to less market-oriented economics, the capitalist economies not suffering worsening economic crises leading to the overthrow of the capitalist system and communist revolutions not occurring in the most advanced capitalist nations, but instead in undeveloped regions.[216][217] It has also been criticised for allegedly resulting in lower living standards in relation to capitalist countries, a claim that has been disputed.[218]
In his books,The Poverty of Historicism andConjectures and Refutations, philosopher of scienceKarl Popper criticised theexplanatory power andvalidity of historical materialism.[219] Popper believed that Marxism had been initially scientific in that Marx had postulated a genuinely predictive theory. When these predictions were not borne out, Popper argues that the theory avoidedfalsification by adding ad hoc hypotheses that made it compatible with the facts. Because of this, Popper asserted, a theory that was initially genuinely scientific degenerated intopseudoscientific dogma.[220]
Anarchism has had a strained relationship with Marxism. Anarchists and many non-Marxist libertarian socialists reject the need for atransitory state phase, claiming that socialism can only be established through decentralised, non-coercive organisation.[221] AnarchistMikhail Bakunin criticised Marx for his authoritarian bent.[222] The phrases "barracks socialism" or "barracks communism" became shorthand for this critique, evoking the image of citizens' lives being as regimented as the lives ofconscripts inbarracks.[223]
Other critiques come from an economic standpoint.Vladimir Karpovich Dmitriev writing in 1898,[224]Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz writing in 1906–1907,[225] and subsequent critics have alleged that Marx'svalue theory and the law of thetendency of the rate of profit to fall are internally inconsistent. In other words, the critics allege that Marx drew conclusions that do not follow his theoretical premises. Once these alleged errors are corrected, his conclusion that aggregate price and profit are determined by and equal to the aggregate value and surplus value no longer holds. This result calls into question his theory that exploiting workers is the sole source of profit.[226]
Marxism and socialism have received considerable critical analysis from multiple generations ofAustrian economists regarding scientific methodology, economic theory and political implications.[227][228] During themarginal revolution, a theory of subjective value was developed byCarl Menger,[229] with scholars viewing the development of marginalism more broadly as a response to Marxist economics.[230] Second-generation Austrian economistEugen Böhm von Bawerk used praxeological and subjectivist methodology to fundamentally attack the law of value.Gottfried Haberler has regarded his criticism as "definitive", arguing that Böhm-Bawerk's critique of Marx's economics was so "thorough and devastating" that he believes that as of the 1960s, no Marxian scholar had conclusively refuted it.[231] Third-generation AustrianLudwig von Mises rekindled the debate about theeconomic calculation problem by arguing that without price signals in capital goods, in his opinion, all other aspects of the market economy are irrational. This led him to declare that "rational economic activity is impossible in a socialistcommonwealth."[232][better source needed]
Daron Acemoglu andJames A. Robinson argue that Marx's economic theory was fundamentally flawed because it attempted to simplify the economy into a few general laws that ignored the impact of institutions on the economy.[233] These charges have been disputed by other influential economists, likeJohn Roemer[234] andNicholas Vrousalis.[235]
^abcWolff, Richard;Resnick, Stephen (1987).Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical.Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 130.ISBN978-0801834806.The German Marxists extended the theory to groups and issues Marx had barely touched. Marxian analyses of the legal system, of the social role of women, of foreign trade, of international rivalries among capitalist nations, and the role of parliamentary democracy in the transition to socialism drew animated debates ... Marxian theory (singular) gave way to Marxian theories (plural).
^Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). "Marx's Theory of Change".Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century.South-Western College Publishing. p. 62.ISBN0618261818.
^Cohen, G. A.; Veryard, R.;Mellor, D. H.; Last, A. G. M.;Quirk, Randolph; Mason, John (8 September 1986). "Historical Inevitability and Human Agency in Marxism [and Discussion]".Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences.07 (1832).Royal Society:65–87.JSTOR2397783.
^Burkett, Paul (2012). "Marx's Vision of Sustainable Human Development". In Ollman, Bertell; Anderson, Kevin B. (eds.).Karl Marx (1st ed.). London:Routledge.ISBN9781315251196.
^Zaleski, Pawel (2008). "Tocqueville on Civilian Society. A Romantic Vision of the Dichotomic Structure of Social Reality".Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte.50. Felix Meiner Verlag GmbH:260–266.JSTOR24360940.
^Screpanti, Ernesto (2019). "Measures of Exploitation".Labour and Value: Rethinking Marx's Theory of Exploitation. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. p. 75.doi:10.11647/OBP.0182.ISBN9781783747825. Retrieved24 July 2023.Marx's value theory is a complex doctrine in which three different kinds of speculation coalesce: a philosophy aimed at proving that value is created by a labour substance; an explanation of the social relations of production in capitalism; and a method for measuring exploitation.
^Parenti, Michael (1978). "Class Consciousness and Individualized Consciousness".Power and the Powerless. St. Martin's Press. pp. 94–113.ISBN0-312-63373-4.
^Dworkin, Dennis (1997).Cultural Marxism in Post-War Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies. Durham:Duke University Press.
^Hartley, John (2003). "Culture from Arnold to Schwarzenegger: Imperial Literacy to Pop Culture (destination democracy?)".A Short History of Cultural Studies. London:SAGE Publications. pp. 31–57.
^Hall, Stuart; Morely, Dave; Chen, Kuan-Hsing (1996).Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London: Routledge. p. 418.ISBN978-0415088039.Archived from the original on 19 March 2022. Retrieved4 March 2013 – viaGoogle Books.I have no hesitation in saying that this represents a gigantic crudification and simplification of Marx's work—the kind of simplification and reductionism which once led him, in despair, to say "if that is marxism, then I am not a marxist.
^Memos, Christos (2012). "Anarchism and Council Communism on the Russian Revolution".Anarchist Studies.20 (2): 22–47 [30].ISSN0967-3393.
^Martin, Jim.Orgone Addicts: Wilhelm Reich Versus The Situationists.Archived from the original on 8 March 2010. Retrieved24 April 2022.I will also discuss other left-libertarians who wrote about Reich, as they bear on the general discussion of Reich's ideas...In 1944, Paul Goodman, author ofGrowing Up Absurd,The Empire City, and co-author ofGestalt Therapy, began to discover the work of Wilhelm Reich for his American audience in the tiny libertarian socialist and anarchist milieu.
^Howard, Dick (1975). "Introduction to Castoriadis".Telos (23): 118.
^Bourassa, Gregory N. (June 2019). "An Autonomist Biopolitics of Education: Reproduction, Resistance, and the Specter of Constituent Bíos".Educational Theory.69 (3):305–325.doi:10.1111/edth.12370.S2CID212828309.
^Rikowski, Glenn (2020). "The Psychology of Capital". In Pejnović, Vesna Stanković; Matić, Ivan (eds.).New Understanding of Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belgrade:Institute for Political Studies. pp. 9–31.ISBN978-8674193303.
^Ford, Derek R. (October 2021). "Pedagogically Reclaiming Marx's Politics in the Postdigital Age: Social Formations and Althuserrian Pedagogical Gestures".Postdigital Science and Education.3 (3):851–869.doi:10.1007/s42438-021-00238-4.S2CID237850324.
^Hamilton, Scott (2012). "Yesterday the struggle: 'Outside the Whale' and the fight for the 1930s".The Crisis of Theory: E. P. Thompson, the New Left and Postwar British Politics. Manchester:Manchester University Press. p. 52.
^Howell, David (10 October 2014). "Creativities in Contexts: E. P. Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class".Contemporary British History.28 (4):517–533.doi:10.1080/13619462.2014.962918.
^Acton, Edward (1997). Acton, Edward; Cherniaev, Vladimir Iu.; Rosenberg, William G. (eds.).Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921.Indiana University Press. p. 8.
^Hosking, Geoffrey A. (1993).The first socialist society: a history of the Soviet Union from within (2nd enl. ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.ISBN978-0-674-30443-7.
^D'Encausse, Helene Carrere (1993).The End of the Soviet Empire: The Triumph of the Nations. Translated by Philip, F. New York:The New Republic. p. 16.ISBN978-0465098125.
^Horton, John (1977). "A Contribution to the Critique of Academic Marxism: Or How the Intellectuals Liquidate Class Struggle".Synthesis–Fall 1977.2 (1/2). Social Justice/Global Options:78–104.JSTOR43783343.
^Howard, M. C.; King, J. E. (1992). "7".A History of Marxian Economics. Vol. II,1929–1990. Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press. §§II–IV.
^Howard, M. C.; King, J. E. (1992). "7".A History of Marxian Economics. Vol. 1929–1990. Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.
^Kliman 2007, p. 3: "Marx's value theory would benecessarily wrong if it were internally inconsistent. Internally inconsistent theories may be appealing, intuitively plausible and even obvious, and consistent with all available empirical evidence—but they cannot be right. It is necessary to reject them or correct them. Thus the alleged proofs of inconsistency trump all other considerations, disqualifying Marx's theory at the starting gate. By doing so, they provide the principal justification for the suppression of this theory as well as the suppression of, and the denial of resources needed to carry out, present-day research based upon it. This greatly inhibits its further development. So does the very charge of inconsistency. What person of intellectual integrity would want to join a research program founded on (what he believes to be) a theory that is internally inconsistent and therefore false?", However, in his book, Kliman presents an interpretation where these inconsistencies can be eliminated. The connection between the inconsistency allegations and the lack of study of Marx's theories was argued further byCassidy, John (20–27 October 1997). "The Return of Karl Marx".The New Yorker. p. 252.His mathematical model of the economy, which depended on the idea that labor is the source of all value, was riven with internal inconsistencies and is rarely studied these days.
von Bortkiewicz, Ladislaus (1952) [1906–1907]. "Value and Price in the Marxian System".International Economic Papers.2:5–60.
von Bortkiewicz, Ladislaus (1984) [1907]. "On the Correction of Marx's Fundamental Theoretical Construction in the Third Volume of Capital". InBöhm-Bawerk, Eugen von (ed.).Karl Marx and the Close of his System. Philadelphia: Orion Editions.
^Howard, M. C.; King, J. E. (1992). "12".A History of Marxian Economics. Vol. II,1929–1990. Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press. §III.
Johnston, Les (2015) [1986].Marxism, Class Analysis And Socialist Pluralism: A Theoretical and Political Critique of Marxist Conceptions of Politics. Routledge Library Editions: Marxism. Vol. 15.Routledge.ISBN978-1-315-71497-4.
Kliman, Andrew (2007).Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency. Lanham, MD:Lexington Books.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
