WikiPortallus: Criticisms of Marxism.html

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

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.

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:

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

Implementation of Communism

Many critics claim that the implementation and maintenance of communism would always necessitate serious and violent coercion, contrary to Marx's claims that communism would liberate humanity. It is argued that to achieve the ends of communism such as the abolition of private property, communist regimes would always be forced to use violence. Critics point to the purges in Soviet Russia and the Cultural Revolution in China as evidence of this inevitability (Stalin is quoted as saying "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is just a statistic"). The two regimes murdered more human beings then any other in history, including Nazi Germany.⁵ Marxism also provided the theoretical base for the creation of massive slave societies such as Pol Pot's Cambodia and Kim Il-sung's North Korea.

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 proleteriat, 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.⁶

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.⁷

Marx argued that bourgeois capitalist society would never allow for the aims of communism to be achieved through capitalist political systems and thus only violent political revolution could succeed in fundamentally changing society. Socialists such Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky rejected this suggestions. Socialist reformism argues that gradual democratic changes could reform capitalism. Many of the current social democratic and labor parties were originally Marxist parties that adopted reformism.

Ethical Criticism: The Ends Justifying the Means

In Marxist theory the ends justifies the means. This was addressed by Leon Trotsky who wrote:

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:

Economic Criticisms

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.¹¹ The theory holds that the value of a commodity is defined by the amount of labor required to produce it. However, labor theories of value, including Marx's version, are often rejected by many modern economists in favor of marginalism.¹²

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 and coercion will tend towards stagnation as individual enterprise is stifled.

Empirical and Epistemological Criticisms

Many have argued against Marxism for empirical or epystemological reasons. Marxian predictions of a global socialist revolution, ever rising unemployment, increasingly turbulent economic cycles, a falling rate of profit and the like have not been borne out by historical events and thus the theory is discredited. Furthermore, 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.¹³

Many notable academics such as Karl Popper, David Prytchitko, and Francis Fukuyama argue that many of Marx's predictions have failed.¹⁴¹⁵¹⁶ 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.¹⁷

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.¹⁷ 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.¹⁷ This has been used by some Marxists in an attempt to show that Popper's criticisms is invalid and unrealistic.¹⁸

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'.¹⁹²⁰

Sociobiology

Some sociobiologists have criticised communism on evolutionary grounds: Edward O. Wilson, referring to ants, once said that "Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species",²¹ 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.²²

Criticisms of Marxism.html

Contents

Historical Materialism

Implementation of Communism

Ethical Criticism: The Ends Justifying the Means

Economic Criticisms

Empirical and Epistemological Criticisms

Sociobiology

See also

Notes

External links