Criticisms of Marxism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on

Marxism

Theoretical works The Communist Manifesto A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy Das Kapital The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon Grundrisse The German Ideology Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 Theses on Feuerbach

Social sciences Alienation · Bourgeoisie Base and superstructure Class consciousness Commodity fetishism Communism · Socialism Exploitation · Human nature Ideology · Proletariat Reification · Cultural hegemony Relations of production

Economics Marxian economics Scientific socialism Economic determinism Labour power · Law of value Means of production Mode of production Productive forces Surplus labour · Surplus value Transformation problem Wage labour

History Marx's theory of history Historical materialism Historical determinism Anarchism and Marxism Capitalist production Class struggle Dictatorship of the proletariat Primitive capital accumulation Proletarian revolution Proletarian internationalism World revolution Stateless communism

Philosophy Marxist philosophy Dialectical materialism Philosophy in the Soviet Union Marxist philosophy of nature Marxist humanism Marxist feminism Western Marxism Analytical Marxism Libertarian Marxism Marxist autonomism Marxist geography Marxist literary criticism Structural Marxism Post-Marxism Young Marx

People Karl Marx · Friedrich Engels Karl Kautsky · Eduard Bernstein Georgi Plekhanov · Rosa Luxemburg Vladimir Lenin  · Joseph Stalin Mao Zedong  · Kim Il Sung Antonio Gramsci  · Leon Trotsky Antonie Pannekoek  · Georg Lukács Karl Korsch  · Frankfurt School Louis Althusser  · Guy Debord more

Criticism Criticisms of Marxism

Categories All categorised articles

Communism portal

v • d • e

Various aspects of Marxist theory have been criticized. These criticisms concern both the theory itself, and its later interpretations and implementations.

Criticisms of Marxism have come from the political left as well as the political right. Democratic socialists and social democrats reject the idea that socialism can be accomplished only through class conflict and a violent proletarian revolution. Many anarchists reject the need for a transitory state phase. Some thinkers have rejected the fundamentals of Marxist theory, such as historical materialism and the labor theory of value, and gone on to criticize capitalism - and advocate socialism - using other arguments.

Some contemporary supporters of Marxism argue that many aspects of Marxist thought are viable, but that the corpus also fails to deal effectively with certain aspects of economic, political or social theory. They may therefore combine some Marxist concepts with the ideas of other theorists such as Max Weber: the Frankfurt school is one example.

[edit] Historical materialism

Historical materialism is normally considered the intellectual basis of Marxism. It proposes that technological advances in modes of production inevitably lead to changes in the social relations of production.^[1] This economic 'base' of society supports, is reflected by and influences the ideological 'superstructure' which encompasses culture, religion, politics and all other aspects of humanity's social consciousness.^[2] It thus looks for the causes of developments and changes in human history in economic, technological, and more broadly, material factors, as well as the clashes of material interests among tribes, social classes and nations. Law, politics, the arts, literature, morality, religion – are understood by Marx to make up the [superstructure], as reflections of the economic base of society.

Many critics have argued that this is an oversimplification of the nature of society. The influence of ideas, culture and other aspects of what Marx called the superstructure are just as important as the economic base to the course of society, if not more so. Indeed, historical materialism calls into question why Marx would espouse his ideas so vehemently if he thought that they would have no influence.

However, Marxism does not claim that the economic base of society is the only determining element in society as demonstrated by the following letter written by Friedrich Engels, Marx's long-time contributor:

According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase^[3]

However, this also creates another problem for Marxism. If the superstructure influences the base then there is no need for Marx's constant assertions that the history of society is one of economic class conflict. This then becomes a classic chicken or the egg argument as to whether the base or the superstructure comes first. Peter Singer proposes that the way to solve this problem is to understand that Marx saw the economic base as ultimately real. Marx felt that humanity's defining characteristic was its means of production and thus the only way for man to free himself from oppression was for him to take control of the means of production. According to Marx, this is the goal of history and the elements of the superstructure act as tools of history.^[4]

[edit] Implementation of Communism

Anarchists have often argued that Marxist communism will inevitably lead to coercion and state domination. Mikhail Bakunin believed Marxist regimes would lead to the "despotic control of the populace by a new and not at all numerous aristocracy." Even if this new aristocracy were to have originated from among the ranks of the proletariat, Bakunin argued that their new-found power would fundamentally change their view of society and thus lead them to "look down at the plain working masses.^[5]

Historian Richard Pipes describes how many Marxists at the turn of the Twentieth century believed in the coming of the "new man" without vices; in essence a new superior species, albeit one caused by socio-economic changes, not genetics. In order to reach this stage, Pipes argues, it was necessary to completely destroy the existing institutions that had formed the current wretched humans and that this would in turn make it possible to dispense with the state. Pipes argues that such thinking inevitably leads to a devaluation of the importance placed on the lives and rights of current human beings.^[6]

[edit] Ethical

To some Marxists the ends justifies the means, though it wasn't the case for Marx himself who wrote:

An end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end.^[7]

This was addressed by Leon Trotsky who wrote:

Dialectic materialism does not know dualism between means and end. The end flows naturally from the historical movement. Organically the means are subordinated to the end.^[8]

This approach was criticized by Max Weber in his 1919 lecture Politics as a Vocation:

We must be clear about the fact that all ethically oriented conduct may be guided by one of two fundamentally differing and irreconcilably opposed maxims: conduct can be oriented to an 'ethic of ultimate ends' or to an 'ethic of responsibility.' ... ...Whosoever contracts with violent means for whatever ends--and every politician does--is exposed to its specific consequences. This holds especially for the crusader, religious and revolutionary alike. ... ...The leader and his success are completely dependent upon the functioning of his machine and hence not on his own motives. Therefore he also depends upon whether or not the premiums can be permanently granted to the following, that is, to the Red Guard, the informers, the agitators, whom he needs. What he actually attains under the conditions of his work is therefore not in his hand, but is prescribed to him by the following's motives, which, if viewed ethically, are predominantly base.^[9]

This criticism is echoed by Gandhi in the work Satyagraha, which outlines his philosophy of non-violence. The theory of Satyagraha sees means and ends as inseparable. The means used to obtain an end are wrapped up and attached to that end. Therefore, it is contradictory to try to use unjust means to obtain justice or to try to use violence to obtain peace. As Gandhi wrote:

They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end... ^[10]

Bertrand Russell, explained:

In the social field itself this provokes some rather odd consequences. For if you do not agree with the Marxist Doctrine, you are deemed not to be on the side of progress. The term of distinction reserved for those who have not been visited by the new revelation is the word 'Reactionary'. Literally, the inference is that you are working against progress, in a backward direction. The dialectic process, however, ensures that you will be eliminated in due course, for progress must win in the end. This, then, becomes the rationale for violent removal of non-conformist elements. There is here a strong messianic streak in the political phylosophy of Marxism. as the founder of an earlier creed put it, he who is not with us is against us. This is clearly not the principle of a democratic doctrine. ^[11]

[edit] Economic

Marxist economics have been criticised for a number of reasons. Some critics point to Marxist analysis of capitalism while others argue that the economic system proposed by communism is unworkable.

Marx's version of the labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics.^[12] The theory holds that the value of a commodity is defined by the socially necessary labor time for its production. However, labor theories of value, including Marx's version, are often rejected by many modern economists in favor of marginalism.^[13] Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk offered a point by point refutation of Marx's interpretation of the Labor Theory of Value, especially in the light of the Transformation Problem, in his book Karl Mark and the Close of his System.

Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom argued that a centrally-planned socialist economy would inevitably function poorly due to factors such as the economic calculation problem. Economic theory maintains that an economic system based upon individual choice allows for technological and social advance through entrepreneurship and trial and error. It is argued that economic systems based upon central planning will tend towards stagnation as individual enterprise is stifled.

[edit] Empirical and epistemological

Many have argued against Marxism for empirical or epystemological reasons. Some argue that the Marxian conception of society is fundamentally flawed.

The Marxist stages of history, class analysis, and theory of social evolution have been criticized. Robert Conquest argues that detailed analyses of many historical periods fail to find support for "class" or social evolution as used by Marxists. Marx himself admitted that his theory could not explain the internal development of the "Asiatic" social system, where much of the world's population lived for thousands of years.^[14]

Many notable academics such as Karl Popper, David Prytchitko, and Francis Fukuyama argue that many of Marx's predictions have failed.^[15][16][17] Marx predicted that wages would tend to depreciate and that capitalist economies would suffer worsening economic crises leading to the ultimate overthrow of the capitalist system. The socialist revolution would occur first in the most advanced capitalist nations and once collective ownership had been established then all sources of class conflict would disappear. However, while there have been economic crises in capitalist societies, it is argued that there has been an unprecedented level of sustained economic growth since the Second World War and average wages in many advanced capitalist economies have tended to increase. Furthermore, these advanced capitalist economies have not experienced socialist revolutions while less socio-economically developed states, such as China and Russia, have experienced such upheaval.

Popper has further argued that historical materialism is a pseudoscience because it is not falsifiable. Popper believed that Marxism had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. When Marx's predictions were not in fact borne out, Popper argues that the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which attempted to make it compatible with the facts. By this means a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.^[18]

Marxists respond that the social sciences are inherently unfalsifiable because they rely upon interpretation and analysis of complex events, which are never fully conclusive, unlike the experimentation of hard science.^{[citation needed]} Popper agreed on this, but instead used it as an argument against central planning and all-encompassing historiographical ideologies.^[18] Thomas Kuhn rejected Popper's theory of falsifiability and instead proposed that a gradual emergence of contrary data eventually leads to a paradigm shift in which scientists re-evaluate their underlying theoretical beliefs and even metaphysics.^[18] This has been used by some Marxists in an attempt to show that Popper's criticisms is invalid and unrealistic.^[19]

Francis Fukuyama argued in his essay The End of History and later in his book The End of History and the Last Man that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberal democracy no longer faced any serious ideological challenges and thus had proved itself to be the only sustainable and successful form of government. Marx used the phrase 'the end of pre-history' to denote the triumph of communism over capitalism. Playing on Marx's phrase, Fukuyama claimed that capitalist liberal democracy would eventually spread to all states and that this would be 'the end of history'.^[20][21]

[edit] Sociobiology

Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, referring to ants, once said that "Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species",^[22] meaning that while ants and other social insects appear to live in communist-like societies, they only do so because they are forced to do so from their basic biology, as they lack reproductive independence: worker ants, being sterile, need their ant-queen to survive as a colony and a species and individual ants cannot reproduce without a queen, thus being forced to live in centralised societies. Humans, however, as a more advanced biological being, do possess reproductive independence so they can give birth to offspring without the need of a "queen", and in fact humans enjoy their maximum level of Darwinian fitness only when they look after themselves and their families, while finding innovative ways to use the societies they live in for their own benefit.^[23]

[edit] See also

• Anarchism and Marxism
• Criticisms of communism

[edit] Notes

[edit] External links

• Marx and totalitarianism
• The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Marxism
• Main Currents of Marxism. Volume I: The Founders, Volume II: The Golden Age, Volume III: The Breakdown critique by Leszek Kołakowski
• The Open Society and Its Enemies. Volume II: The High Tide of Prophecy (Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath) critique by Karl Popper
• Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) critique by Imre Lakatos
• Lecture XXXV "A Philosophy of Life" includes a critique by Sigmund Freud
• Exporting Marx Instead of Smith to Africa, by Christian Sandström
• Liberalism, Marxism and The State, by Ralph Raico
• A Farewell to Marx: An Outline and Appraisal of His Theories, by David Conway
• Marx Lite, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
• Marxist Dreams and Soviet Realities, by Ralph Raico
• Marxism, by David L. Prychitko
• Museum of Communism
• Marxism As Pseudo-science, by Ernest Van Den Haag
• History of Economic Thought - Volume II: Classical Economics, by Murray Rothbard
• Resurrecting Marx: The Analytical Marxists on Freedom, Exploitation and Justice, by David Gordon
• Economic critique of Marx in Ludwig von Mises' Human Action
• Philosophical critique of Marx in Ludwig von Mises' Theory and History
• Decline of the Left in India
• Eight-fold Path to Marxism and Back