Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto in 1848 as the political platform of the working class. This work summarized the tenets of scientific socialism, offered a materialist conception of history, and sounded the call for socialist revolution. Just over a century later, more than one-third of the world’s population would find itself living under states that claimed to adhere to the doctrine of revolutionary scientific socialism (Hobsbawm, 18). Although Marx’s ideas have unquestionably inspired generations of activists and revolutionaries alike, there has been a constant and growing chorus of critics who question the validity of his theories.
Criticism of Marxist thought has generally come from two fronts. The first front, and possibly the most common, seeks to invalidate Marxism by associating it with socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The second front comes from those who attempt to evaluate the validity of Marx’s work itself. Concentrating on Marx’s economic theories, these critics seek to deconstruct the Marxist analysis of political economy. Critics from both perspectives have generally concluded that Marxist thought is either based upon erroneous assumptions or is no longer crucial to a modern analysis of capitalism and society. Both approaches represent serious challenges to the validity of Marxist analysis and it is necessary to thoroughly address them both.
Those who criticize the application of Marxist theory in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union often characterize the history of 20th century socialism in that part of the world as intolerable (Storper, 157). These critics are often fond of saying that while Marxist theory looks good on paper, in application it yields terrible results. While this sentiment is not an evaluation of the theory itself, it is typical of the smear campaigns that have become fashionable for undisciplined intellectuals who wish to refute Marxism, but are either not willing or are not capable of analyzing the particulars of Marxist theory. However, its popularity in discourse requires a critical response.
The contention is that once there is an attempt to implement the theoretical structures of Marxism, the theories lose their attractiveness. Accordingly, the appeal of Marxism for western intellectuals is purportedly based upon a lack of experience with Marxist-inspired regimes (Hollander, 23). Therefore, there is an inherent assumption that intellectuals from the socialist bloc nations, having lived under its institutionalized application, are inclined to reject Marxist theory.
This oversimplification of the appeal of Marxist thought is not consistent with the actual attitudes of those intellectuals who lived under East European and Soviet socialism. The same proponents of this idea of a dichotomy between socialist bloc and western intellectuals’ conception of Marxism are themselves forced to admit that there is no uniform consensus of the validity of Marxist thought among intellectuals who lived under socialist regimes. Many intellectuals who lived in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union hold Marxist theory in high regard and show a preference for the socialist systems of that region over capitalism (Hollander, 25).
Although their characterization of the socialist bloc intellectual’s position is inconsistent with the record, the greater flaw is found in their broader characterization of life under the socialist regimes as intolerable. They contend that there was little popular support for the socialist governments (Hollander, 22 & 23) and that the average citizen lived in fear of the secret police and the gulag (Storper, 157). While it is unquestionable that life under such conditions would be intolerable, it is not certain that this is an accurate characterization of life in the socialist bloc.
To understand what life was like for people living under the socialist regimes, there can be no better place to look than to the people who actually lived there. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union there has been a noticeable decrease in the amount of coverage given to the attitudes and concerns of the people of that region. Perhaps this is because the conservative intellectuals and the corporate media do not like what these citizens have to say. Opinion polls taken since the collapse of the Soviet Union have demonstrated consistent support for the Bolshevik revolution. With 43 percent of interviewees stating that they would have supported the Bolsheviks a second time round and only 6 percent stating that they would have absolutely opposed them, honest observers are left to wonder how accurate the negative descriptions of a despotic system with little popular support actually are (White, 75).
The revisionist Communist Party has the largest individual membership in Russia and won the most seats in the 1995 and 1999 Duma elections (White, 74). Polls have also indicated that 67 percent of Russians believe the former socialist system offered them more advantages than the capitalist system that was introduced after the fall of the Soviet Union (White, 75). When the question of life under the socialist regimes is taken out of the lofty towers of cynical academicians and brought before the people who actually lived under those regimes a different story begins to emerge. This story is one of popular support and substantial social benefits. If the characterization of anti-Soviet intellectuals is wrong, as the evidence seems to indicate, then the attempt to discredit Marxist theory by associating it with the record of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is also wrong. The intellectuals are not necessarily wrong in their assertion that the governments sought to build Marxist-inspired socialist societies. They appear to be wrong however, that the application of Marxist theories was wrought with popular discontent and failure. The socialistic features, retained by the system after Khrushchev started the Soviet Union down the path of revisionism in the 1950’s and Gorbachev reintroduced openly capitalistic property relations in the 1980’s, had the full support of the people before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the association of Marxist theory with the performance of socialism in the socialist bloc cannot be used to undermine the legitimacy of Marxism.
The second approach to evaluating Marxist theory is more detailed. Because critics of Marxism choose to concentrate on one of any number of Marxist theories, it is difficult to respond to every possible contention that may be raised about a particular Marxist theory. Instead, it is more reasonable to narrow the scope of Marxist criticism and to respond to just those evaluations that deal with fundamental or prominent aspects of the Marxist theoretical structure. According to Marxist critics the theories dealing with the relation between capital accumulation, crisis and class struggle are central components of Marxism that require careful analysis (Clarke, 93). Perhaps even more fundamental to Marxist epistemology is the concept of dialectical materialism (Engels, 694-99). Therefore, criticisms that attempt to discredit Marxist theories dealing with these subjects pose the greatest threat to the validity of Marxist thought and warrant the most concentration.
Although a serious criticism of dialectical materialism is rare, the most common attack on dialectics comes from those who contend that dialectics offers no superiority over conventional logic. A common contention is that there is no superiority in the dialectical method of thought because one cannot “state a proposition that would be false according to conventional logic, but true according to dialectic” (Muravchik, 36). Dialectics is primarily a method of reasoning that takes into account the movement, change, and interconnection of the things it seeks to analyse with consideration given to the unity of their opposite and contradictory elements. While it may be true that there are some similarities between the conclusions arrived at through conventional logic and through dialectical analysis, this does not undermine the strength of the dialectical process. Of course some of the outcomes will be similar. This does not mean that dialectics offers no advantage over traditional methods of evaluation. Dialectics and conventional logic stand in relation to each other similar to the relationship between higher and lower forms of mathematics. Dialectics represents a higher form of reasoning that takes into account the complicated inter-relationship between various elements of the object of analysis.
The Marxist understanding of class struggle and the development of historical epochs are predicated upon a dialectically and historically materialist method of analysis. The real strength of the dialectical method is found in the wholeness of its approach and the fuller understanding it sheds on the results.
Dialectics does not seek to isolate variables from their whole and hold them constant as a way of evaluating a phenomenon. Rather dialectics takes into account the innumerable actions and reactions and the effected progressive and retrogressive change of a variable (Engels, 697), allowing dialecticians to arrive at the appropriate conclusions sooner and utilize them more effectively by understanding the full context in which they operate. The dialectical method can be employed in historical evaluation, sociology, the sciences or any other branch of study. The superiority of the Soviet space program (Ebenstein & Fogelman, 32) and the success of the preventive approach of the Cuban healthcare system (Boseley, 13) are examples of the advantages the dialectical method has offered in science and medicine.
Other direct criticisms of Marxism deal more with the theories that are based upon the dialectically materialist method. Perhaps the most common criticism dealing with a particular prediction of Marx concerns a specific aspect of his class analysis. Marx’s claim that society is dividing into two great hostile classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (Marx & Engels, 58), is the subject of much criticism. Many intellectuals contend that the trade union movement and the rise of social democracies have disproved this fundamental aspect of Marxist class struggle (Muravchik, 36). They use this alleged “fact” in an attempt to further discredit the entirety of Marxist theory.
One is left to wonder if these critics have completed even a serious perusal of Marx’s works. Marx himself predicts that technology and other forces that allow for a growth of productive capital will benefit the working class to some degree. According to Marx, “to say that the worker has an interest in rapid growth of capital is only to say that the more rapidly the worker increases the wealth of others, the richer will be the crumbs that fall to him, the greater is the number of workers that can be employed…. the more can the masses of slaves dependent on capital be increased” (Marx, 211). In other words, increased productivity on the part of the worker allows for the necessary conditions the capitalists need to adapt capitalism to new situations, such as the welfare state, where the worker in the advanced capitalist state is relatively better off than before and yet more dependent, and by extension less hostile, to capital. This fact in no way undermines the theory of class conflict. Exploitation of the working masses and the extraction of profit from the surplus-value of their labor breeds inevitable hostility between the owning class and the working classes. However, it does demonstrate that Marxist theory takes into account the ability of capitalists to enact schemes that temporarily alleviate the conditions of the working masses. This temporary alleviation may delay the revolutionary culmination of class conflict on a global scale, but it certainly does not eliminate it.
Example after example can be provided of critical evaluations of particular Marxist theories. To varying degrees the critics will be correct in their conclusion that a particular prediction has not yet come to pass. Occasionally a prediction will have failed to come to pass because of a change in the character of capitalism, such as its evolution to a higher stage like imperialism (Lenin, 106). Most often the critics will simply be wrong because of a misunderstanding of Marxist theory.
Marx intended that his theories be used to analyze capitalism, not just in the 19th century, but also in the 20th and 21st centuries and as long as it survived as a mode of production. The validity of Marxism does not rest upon the fulfillment of any one Marxist prediction based upon 19th century conditions. In true dialectical fashion, Marx was constantly updating his predictions to conform to new events (Engels, 52-3). Marxism approaches social relations from a scientific, not a religious approach. As such it tries to unlock the truth about how society operates and political economy is organized, but recognizes that as the historical conditions change, so must the theory adapt to take into account the new character that capital has assumed.
Marxist theory is not like the Bible, where if you can demonstrate that life was not created within six days you have dealt a major blow to the authenticity of its structure. Marxist theory is a living breathing theory in the dialectical sense. In its very epistemology it takes into account the rapid and ever-changing state of the world. Implicit within this acknowledgement is the understanding that the theory will have to be applied to new circumstances and events in a way that may result in some new conclusions and predictions. With a great degree of success and continuity of thought this is what the adherents of Marxism have done through the development and expansion Marxist theory by the secondary and tertiary architects of Marxism – Lenin and Mao. Certainly Leninism took Marxism and adapted it to the conditions of the 20th century, giving revolutionary socialists a new understanding of the character of modern capital, and the methods necessary to break its hold on power. Mao further developed Marxism with a scientific theory of people's war in the underdeveloped world and an improved understanding of contradictions within socialist society. Mao also paved the way by placing an emphasis on revolutionizing the culture and attitudes of the people while simultaneously laying the foundation for a strong material base that will further develop a new superstructure and mold a revolutionary social consciousness. The flexibility of Marxist application to a variety of historical conditions is partly responsible for its popularity. This elasticity is an essential component of Marxism’s indispensable character. Applying Marxism to specific historical time periods and unique national conditions in this fashion does not weaken Marxism. Instead it tends to demonstrate the strength and relevance of Marxism as a scientific and theoretical structure.
It matters not whether it is an attempt to undermine Marxism by confronting its application in the socialist states or an effort to criticize the theory itself for alleged shortcomings, those intellectuals who work to discredit Marxist theory have not succeeded in their endeavor. Despite the claims of those who contend that Marxism has gone out of fashion (Storper, 156), it lives as a source of inspiration for movements and revolutions around the world. Perhaps this is because Marxism is not a fad, but is a social theory, that provides a revolutionary method of analysis and conception of history, an understanding of the exploitative character of capitalism, a revolutionary program for social change and whose importance today is as relevant as it was almost a century and a half ago.
Hundreds of millions in the socialistic countries of Cuba, Vietnam, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea still derive their inspiration from the application of Marxist theory to the particular conditions of their country. While it is true that the revolutions in these countries are on the retreat, the legitimacy of their government still rests upon their claim to being a worker’s dictatorship in the Marxian sense. Millions more fight in Marxist-inspired revolutions from Turkey to Nepal and India to the Philippines in order to experience socialism first hand themselves. Even in the advanced capitalist states the relevance of Marxist theory is evident as thousands of activists and revolutionaries are motivated to volunteer in the labor movement in order to build organizations for workers’ power and democracy. The relevance of Marxist thought, and the accuracy of its theory, has proven itself in application over and over again. It is not likely that its critics will succeed in eradicating its influence anytime soon.
Boseley, Sarah. (2000) Britain Studies Cuban Healthcare System, The Guardian. Monday Oct. 2, 2002.
Clarke, Simon. (2001) The Globalisation of Capital, Crisis and Class Struggle, Capital & Class. Issue 75, Autumn 2001.
Ebenstein, W., Fogelman E. (1985) Today’s Isms: Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, Socialism. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Engels, Friedrich. (1880) Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, The Marx-Engels Reader. 1978, W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., New York.
Hobsbawm, Eric. (1998) Introduction to The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition. Verso, London.
Hollander, Paul. (2000) Marxism and Western Intellectuals in the Post-Communist Era, Society. Jan/Feb. 2000.
Lenin, VI. (1996 ed.) Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Pluto Press, London.
Marx, Karl. (1849) Wage Labour and Capital, The Marx-Engels Reader. 1978, W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., New York.
Marx, K., Engels, F. (1964 ed.) The Communist Manifesto. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Muravchik, Joshua. (2002) Marxism, Foreign Policy. Issue 133, Nov/Oct. 2002.
Storper, Michael. (2001) The Poverty of Radical Theory Today: From the False Promises of Marxism to the Mirage of the Cultural Turn, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol. 25.1, March 2001.
White, Stephens. (2001) Communism and its Collapse. Routledge, New York.
