Criticisms of Marxism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on Marxism
Theoretical works
The Communist Manifesto Das Kapital The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon On The Jewish Question Grundrisse The German Ideology Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 Theses on Feuerbach
Sociology and anthropology
Alienation · Bourgeoisie Class consciousness Commodity fetishism Communism Cultural hegemony Exploitation · Human nature Ideology · Proletariat Reification · Socialism Relations of production
Economics
Labour power · Law of value Means of production Mode of production Productive forces Surplus labour · Surplus value Transformation problem Wage labour
History
Anarchism and Marxism Capitalist production Class struggle Dictatorship of the proletariat Primitive capital accumulation Proletarian revolution Proletarian internationalism World Revolution
Philosophy
Historical materialism Dialectical materialism Analytical Marxism Marxist autonomism Marxist feminism Marxist humanism Marxist geography Structural Marxism Western Marxism Libertarian Marxism Young Marx
Prominent figures
Karl Marx · Friedrich Engels Karl Kautsky · Georgi Plekhanov Rosa Luxemburg Antonie Pannekoek Vladimir Lenin · Leon Trotsky Georg Lukács · Guy Debord Antonio Gramsci · Karl Korsch Che Guevara · Frankfurt School Jean-Paul Sartre Louis Althusser
Criticism
Criticisms of Marxism
All categorised articles
Communism Portal
This box: view • talk • edit

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] General criticisms

Eric Hoffer, in his book The True Believer, sees Marxism^[1] as one of the chief examples of a mass movement which offers The True Believer a glorious, yet imaginary, future to compensate for the frustrations of his present. Such movements need people to be willing to sacrifice all for that future, including themselves and others. To achieve this aim, such movements need to devalue the past and present. This is not only a criticism of communist tenets specifically; Hoffer's other chief examples are Fascists, Nationalists, and the founding stages of religions.

Arthur Koestler describes Marxism as a closed system, like Catholicism or orthodox Freudianism. Such systems have three peculiarities: they claim to represent a universal truth which explains everything and can cure every ill; they can automatically process and reinterpret all potentially damaging data by methods of casuistry which are emotionally appealing and beyond common logic; and they can invalidate criticisms by deducing what the subjective motivation of the critic must be, and by presenting this motivation as a counterargument. An example of the third feature might be the disregarding of such concepts as the free market or self determination as instances of false consciousness engendered by bourgeois ideology.

[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.^[2] This economic 'base' of society supports, is reflected by and influences the ideological 'superstructure' which encompasses culture, religion, politics and all other aspects of man's social consciousness.^[3] 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, that essentially rests on the economic base of the society.

Critics have argued that this is an oversimplification of the nature of society. For example, Francis Fukuyama cites Max Weber's study of the development of capitalism as evidence of the impact of ideas on economic and material development. Weber argued that the work ethic among Protestant societies led to the development of modern capitalism.[3][4]

Althusserian Marxism asserts, however, that reductive interpretations of the Marxist thesis that "the mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life processes in general"^[4], such as that held by Trotsky and criticised by Pipes, are misreadings. Engels:

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^[5]

Althusserian Marxism has in turn been subjected to an epistemological critique by the British sociologists Barry Hindess and Paul Q. Hirst, who view it as privileged discourse over others and using these "privileged discourses" as a base on which to build further arguments. For Hindess and Hirst, such privileging is unjustified.^[6]

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.^[7]

[edit] The "New Man"

Certain, pre-Althusserian interpretations of Marxism have held that human nature is completely determined by the socio-economic base. Historian Richard Pipes describes how this interpretation led to a belief in a coming "new man" without vices, in essence a new superior species: albeit one caused by socio-economic changes, not genetics. Trotsky thought that this new man would be able to control all unconscious processes, including those controlling bodily functions like digestion, and have the intellect of Aristotle^[8]. In order to reach this stage, Pipes argues, it was seen as necessary and right to completely destroy the existing institutions that had formed the current wretched humans; 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.^[9] For Pipes, self-interest could not be destroyed by communism and the new ruling caste, the nomenklatura, quickly replaced the old aristocracy; periodic attempts to destroy it, such as the Cultural Revolution during Mao's regime, failed.^[10]

[edit] Hegel

Another criticism of historical materialism is due to Max Stirner, who argued that the philosophy of Hegel (one of the most significant influences on historical materialism) leads to nihilism. Marx himself wrote a lengthy response to Stirner in The German Ideology, although it was not published until well after Marx's death.

Anarchist criticism of Marxism

Main article: Anarchism and Marxism

All Anarchists and most Libertarian socialists reject the need for a transitory state phase and often criticize Marxism for being too authoritarian. Most Anarcho-capitalists reject socialism (both Marxist and non Marxist varieties) entirely and instead advocate an economic system based on lassez faire capitalism, while Anarcho-primitivists reject left wing politics in general (and theoretically by extension Marxism) as they typically see left wing politics as corrupt and civilization as un-reformable.

[edit] Violent proletarian revolution

During the lifetime of Marx and Engels, even if elections were allowed, the franchise was limited by gender, race, and property restrictions. Thus a violent proletarian revolution would be necessary in order to overthrow capitalism. Even if the proletariat gained power through an election, then this would have to be followed by an armed struggle against the bourgeoisie if socialism was implemented. Socialists such Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky argued against this. Socialist reformism (seen by orthodox Marxists as a form of revisionism) argued that gradual democratic changes could reform capitalism. Many of the current social democratic and labor parties were originally Marxist parties that adapted reformism. They later rejected Marxist ideology and the need for pure socialism in favor of a reformed capitalism.

[edit] Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Marxist theory includes a transitory state phase known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Later, the state will "wither away" and the dictatorship of the proletariat will be replaced by the communist society. The Communist states claimed to be this dictatorship of the proletariat.

The concluding chapter in the Black Book of Communism argues that a belief in Marxist ideology, with its claims of scientific truth and utopian ultimate society, justified and contributed to the mass terror the book describes. Mass terror was the only way for a regime only supported by a small minority to stay in power and apply its radically different "scientific" doctrines. In Communism there also exists a form social Darwinism where obsolete and damaging social institutions and classes are to be replaced by an utopian society. Eliminating such damaging and inferior obstacles is thus seen as both scientific and justified.^[11]

Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom argued that a socialist centrally planned economy inevitable would function poorly due to factors such as the economic calculation problem. These failures, as well as the need for continued coercion in order to implement central planning reallocation of resources when the market does not do this, lead inevitably to an oppressive dictatorship.

[edit] Alienation

Max Weber has given what has been seen as different explanation for alienation than then one proposed in Marx's theory of alienation. For Weber alienation is due to increasing bureacracy in more complex societies. A centrally planned socialist state necessitates more bureacracy and thus more alienation.[5]

[edit] Marxian labor theory of value

Marx's version of the labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics.[6] This theory, including Marx's version, is rejected for various reasons by the vast majority of economists today in favor of marginalism.^[12]

[edit] Business cycle

Professor of Economics David L. Prychitko writes that in constrast to Marx's explanation for the business cycle many economists argue that state intervention (through monetary policy carried out by central banks and government policies on taxation and spending) and less an inherent feature of markets as such.[7] Other economists, such as those supporting Keynesian economics, see the business cycle as part of capitalism but give different explanations than Marx and have different views regarding what state intervention can do to change the cycles.[8]

[edit] The concept of class and historical analysis

Some argue that class is not the most fundamental inequality in history and call attention to patriarchy or race. However, Marxists argue that these inequalities are linked to class and therefore will largely cease to exist after the formation of a classless society.

The Marxist stages of history, class analysis, and theory of social evolution have been criticized. The historian Robert Conquest argues that detailed analyses of many historical periods fails 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 most of the world's population lived for thousands of years.^[13]

[edit] Marx's predictions

Karl Popper, a former Marxist, argued in The Open Society and Its Enemies that many of Marx's predictions have failed. Marx predicted declining rather than rising wages for the working class and a declining rate of profit for capitalists. He did not believe that state intervention in capitalist societies could affect trends he thought associated with capitalism such as increasing poverty. The socialist revolution would occur first in the most advanced capitalist nations. Once collective ownership had been established then all sources of class conflict would disappear

Professor of Economics David L. Prychitko also argues that Marx's predictions have not withstood the test of time. Although capitalist markets have changed over the past 150 years, competition has not devolved into monopoly with fewer and fewer capitalists as predicted. Real wages have risen and profit rates have not declined. Nor has there been a growing reserve army of the unemployed.[9]

[edit] Pseudoscience

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 made it compatible with the facts. By this means a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.^[14]

Marxists respond that some social sciences are not falsifiable, since it is often difficult or outright impossible to test them via experiments (in the way hard science can be tested).^{[citation needed]} This is especially true when many people and a long time are involved. Popper agreed on this, but instead used it as an argument against central planning and all ideologies that claim to know the future.^[14] Some Marxists argue that not even all theories of hard science are falsifiable, at least at any given moment, citing philosophers of science such as Lakatos and Feyerabend. Others have attempted to find ways in which historical materialism might hypothetically be falsified.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Historicism

Popper also criticized the holism and historicism of Marxism. Holism is the view that human social groups such as classes are greater than the sum of their members and are entities in their own right They are seen as acting on their human members and shape their destinies. They are also seen as subject to their own independent laws of development. Historicism, closely associated with holism, is according to Popper the belief that history develops inexorably and necessarily according to certain principles or rules towards a determinate end (as in Hegel's philosophy which influenced Marx). The link between holism and historicism is that the holist social group is explained only in terms of the historicist principles which determine its development.

These beliefs lead to what Popper calls ‘The Historicist Doctrine of the Social Sciences’, the views (a) that the principal task of the social sciences is to make predictions about the social and political development of man, and (b) that the task of politics, once the key predictions have been made, is, in Marx's words, to lessen the ‘birth pangs’ of future social and political developments.^[15]

Popper argues that this view of the social sciences is both theoretically incorrect (in the sense of being based upon a view of natural science which is totally wrong), and dangerous, as it leads inevitably to totalitarianism and authoritarianism in the form of centralised governmental control of the individual and the attempted large-scale social planning. Against this Popper argues that any human social groups are no more (or less) than the sum of its individual members, that what happens in history is the (largely unplanned and unforeseeable) result of the actions of such individuals, and that such large scale social planning will fail and is dangerous precisely because human actions have unforseen consequences. Furthermore, Popper argued that believing that history has an ultimate goal leads to the conclusion that the ends justify the means. Immoral actions become justifiable.^{[16] [14]}

[edit] The End of History

Francis Fukuyama argued in his essay The End of History and later in his book The End of History and the Last Man that liberal democracy has repeatedly proven to be a fundamentally better system (ethically, politically, economically) than any of the alternatives. The growing spread of liberal democracy around the world will lead to it becoming the final form of human government. He also argues that for a variety of reasons Marxism, another End of History philosophy, is likely to be incompatible with modern liberal democracy. He sees no sign of a major revolutionary movement developing in liberal democracies, only in other societies. Therefore, in the future, democracies are overwhelmingly likely to contain markets of some sort, and most are likely to be capitalist or social democratic.^[17][18]

[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