INTRODUCTION
In this final post of the Philosophy of Marx, criticisms towards his theories will be discussed. The criticisms are generally directed at his ideas of history, economics and how attempts to apply Marxist principles have not worked.
MARXIST CONCEPTION OF HISTORY
In part 1, the idea of the dialectic was discussed, as well as Marx's interpretation that all events in history are subject to it. Although it may be a useful way at looking at the past, to claim that the dialectic is a general law that effects all events, past and future can be criticised. Such a claim cannot possibly be verified. Furthermore, to claim that society is heading towards the ideal of a classless system can also be attacked, for is this society the ideal? Can the process not continue on?
Marx also claims that as society develops, it becomes ethically superior. The classless system is therefore superior to those societies that preceded it. If we speak of such historical progress, then we are judging those societies against some moral criterion, which Marx will not admit the validity of. He himself claims that moral values are not expressions of 'eternal truths' but are relative to which society they are in. Thus, one can see an inconsistency between Marx's objective ideals of history and his subjective views of social morality.
MARXIST ECONOMIC THEORY
According to Marx, the capitalist system inevitably produces periodic depressions, misery of the workers and ownership of wealth by the owners of production. Such misery is what causes a revolution and inevitably the establishment of a classless society.
However, defenders of capitalism may argue that none of this can be confirmed. If anything, the workers are doing better, as they have more money and can afford to work fewer hours, and have a higher standard of life. Capitalism has produced higher standards of living and better relations between the workers and the owners. Within the system there are also developments that protect the workers: the growth of trade unions, anti-trust laws, and social-security measures that keep they system working.
On the other hand, a response to this maybe that the many of these measures are socialist measures; perhaps this system maybe preferred. Measures such as trade unions are needed to stop the system destroying itself; otherwise capitalism will take the part already described by Marx.
The view that capitalism requires within it safeguards to protect the workers maybe valid, but this does not imply that capitalism should be completely replaced.
MARXISM IN THE 20TH CENTURY
Many countries such as the former East Germany, Hungary, the former Soviet Union and many other parts of eastern europe adapted Marxist principles. When they applied Marx's theories, there were obvious flaws.
Firstly, the idea of the state being replaced by a classless society was shown to be false. Many countries since 1917 which attempted to apply Marxism became dictatorships and suppressed the ability of their people to democratically participate in Government (not being able to join any political party except the communist party for example) and became increasingly unpopular. Eventually in the late 1980's and early 1990's, massive opposition to governments meant that countries such as the former Soviet Union, combined with economic difficulties disintegrated and were replaced.
Marxism does underestimate the force of nationalism and ethnic rivalries and identifications. These, rather than belonging to an economic class have motivated changes in countries such as Yugoslavia, where ethnic differences, rather than communist ideals, led to disintegration of the state.
Finally, economically speaking Marxism has not worked. In areas such as the former Soviet Union, people's standard of living fell behind those in the west, and especially in the Soviet Union, where after many years of planning could still not produce enough food to feed it's population.
It could be argued though, that many of these countries did not apply Marxist principles properly. There are countries where socialist principles have been applied in a democratic system such as the Scandinavian countries and countries such as France and Italy, which make for better models of Marxism.
So what do we make of this system? Maybe we could say it is still relevant, maybe it should dismissed out right. In the middle, is the view that Marxism is correct in highlighting some of the negatives in capitalist society and that there are ways to deal with them, but that the ideals themselves are impossible to follow.
Sources: Philosophy (Popkins and Stroll)
Religion and Science (Mel Thompson)
No comments:
Post a Comment