How relevant is Marxism today?

Early in the 20th century, revolutionary socialism was not only gaining momentum but appeared destined to conquer the world. By mid-century, the red flag flew over capitals in Eastern Europe, Russia, China, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America; by the 1970s over one-third of the world's population lived under socialist regimes. But with the 20th century drawing to a close, the political map of the globe looked very different: most socialist states had collapsed, revolutionary movements have been abandoned, and the United States stood (and perhaps still stands) as the world's solo superpower.


Marx predicted that economic depressions would continue to appear periodically in capitalist societies because workers are alienated from not only their ‘labour’ but also from their own being which will result in their low economic purchase power, mental dissatisfaction and soon a ‘crises of over production’ will take place, precipitating layoffs of workers (Industrial Reserve Army) as well as the shut down of industries which are basically small scale and thus unable to counter the competition prevailing in the bourgeois market . This further depresses purchasing power, creating a downward spiral. This perhaps had influenced the economist ‘Keynes’ during the early part of the 20th century to advice that governments should step in and adjust this imbalance which will have serious repercussions in the future otherwise. The value of a product is determined by the amount of human labor necessary to create the product. Since the capitalist takes a considerable amount of that value as profit, (the theory of surplus value by English Economist ‘Adam Smith’ ) the workers do not have the purchasing power to consume the goods that they produce socially in the private firms of the capitalist entrepreneurs, and this basic contradiction between socially carried out production process and the private appropriation of profit by the capitalist entrepreneurs (where the workers have but a meager share) will create situations for a social class revolution by the proletariats.


What Marx perceived for a socialist state, though he never explained this conception with much clarity, was a unique sentiment of near utopian nature, which he thought would be finally fulfilled in his final stage of what is called “communism.” He saw the minority dominant class of the bourgeois finally losing it’s ground and ultimately giving way to the proletarian dictatorship and socially owned means of production superceding the previous barbaric private capitalist appropriation of the fruits of production. This is indeed an unique contribution of Marx in the intellectual sphere though this kind of an utopian state conception was already in circulation much before. Many philosophers and intellectual thinkers thought of the conception of such an utopian nature in a state, from the contractualists to many other individual thinkers. What Marx contributed to this was perhaps was to scientifically explain this abstract concept, which differed him from his predecessors and made his theory much sound and popular. Marxian ‘Dialectics’, ‘Historical Materialism’; he used scientific explanation for his theories which would otherwise be as vague and mere theory as Hegelian ‘Dialectics’.


But the question that arises is how relevant is Marxism today specially with the closure of the cold war in the simultaneous collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991 witnessing the sad departure of the practical application of the Marxian theory that had been cited by many till then. Clearly, the truth (undeniable) today speaks of the success of the Capitalist Democracies around the globe and how nations; large and small is trying to wrap itself under the warm comfort of democracy against the bitter chills of Communism. The question also revolves around the issue that while democracy still finds relevance and acceptance, and perhaps even desire to some extent among most nation-states, communism is more silent and it is no error is realizing that nations which had pioneered socialism before have now slowly introduced such constitutional measures which marks a sharp contrast to what fundamental Marxism stood for. Former Soviet Union collapsed to give way to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and finally adopted a quasi-presidential form of governance in Russia, which is largely democratic though there are evidences of some degree of centralism, but not in way to jeopardize the element of democracy. People’s Republic of China (PRC) has too deviated from it’s initial stance of communism and has introduced a ‘communism’ with Chinese characteristics which promptly introduced such un-Marxist measures like opening it’s door to foreign investments and introduction of private property.


What is it then that is preventing Marx’s prediction to achieve reality? It can be broadly attributed to two dynamic factors:- 1.) The success of democracy of the capitalist type in the world today, and; 2.) The certain impracticable aspects in the theory itself that are standing in it’s way to success. First looking at the latter part of my argument, I would reckon that there are some impractical notions in the theory itself that makes is hard for Marxism to hold it’s ground for too long in any society, even the nations that have witnessed the establishment of socialism had markedly deviated from Marx’s real philosophy. Taking the case of USSR for instance, with the establishment of socialism there after the Bolshevik revolution the founders of the revolution had deviated from stance Marxism and had conditioned it around their needs of the time. Marx had firstly spoken of socialism being established in a nation only after capitalism reaches its zenith. But Russian economy was never under the experience of USA style of capitalism, but it was rather largely a feudal society with nascent industrialization. Yet the revolution took place there. Marx had not explicitly defined his visions on the concept of revolution, yet the contributions of Mao and Lenin form the basis of this concept today. Baring that, there had been a high level of controversy and debate among his (Marx’s) followers themselves regarding the way of the revolution. The STALIN – TROTSKY debate arose questions like whether the revolution is possible in one country alone or whether the revolutionaries should try to spread it over other regions as well (to retain it’s success). After the Russian revolution, the much anticipated German revolution never took place.
The Chinese picture also speaks of a similar story. Mao ZeDong realizing China to be a semi-feudal and under imperialist regime provided for his own personal theory of Marxism that he called “New Democracy’. He spoke of a direct leap to socialism and then communism without having to witness capitalism at all. Thus both these nations- who were cited as true witnesses to socialism of the Marxian style actually molded the original essence of Marxism to their personal need and preferences.


Speaking of Marxian Dialectics, Marx fully inverted the Hegelian concept of dialectics and revised it to give it a complete change in character. Marxian Dialectics, contrary to Hegel, spoke of the material reality of man as primary and his ideas as secondary. What it meant was that the material conditions surrounding men are the actual determining factors that changes his realm of idea. He laid stress, therefore, on materialism i.e, the wages and salaries a man receives for his labour that will influence his thought processes. This not only is a sound concept but also holds good element of truth in it as it is but undeniable that money is what really matters in the material aspect of life and the only reason one seeks to work in society is to live in basic comfort, which will be available only when one is paid his deserved allowance for his productive input in society. This thought Marx held is true for all socialist as well as non socialist exponents in society and steps like the International Labor Organization (ILO) branch of the United Nations and the world-wide recognition of fair pay for fair work and humane working conditions for both men and women in the world society, abolition of child labour: they are upheld and ensured simply with one aspiration; to keep the work force satisfied which will not only enhance production but also improve the social structure along with it.


Marxian Historical Materialism however does not seem to me as applicable as that of his dialectics. To Marx, all the stages in development in society is a historical process. The primitive society led to the evolution of the slave society that witnessed a revolution transforming it into a feudal society. The feudal society in its latter phase saw capitalism in its nascent form which slowly evolutionized to the capitalist society. The inevitable contradiction between the modes of production will lead in a class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariats and this will emulate into a revolution establishing a socialist stage in his historical development. Socialism, with the introduction of the rule of the proletariat for the first time in the history of mankind and the social ownership of the means of production with abolition of private property in any form, will create conditions which will complement the mode of production in society and the achievement of Human Emancipation; thus finally establishing a classless, stateless communism where as Marx had predicted the state will ‘wither away’.


His ideas for a communism are novel indeed but one may have serious reservations about the degree of practicality in the lexical order of the stages in the historical development and whether the stages he predicted have any rational basis at all. The contractualists had envisioned a pre-political and even a pre-social State of Nature from which a contractual state emerged. The proponents of the Theory of Force as well as that of Divine Origin had their ideological conceptions regarding the state as well. Thus, to fully accept the Marxian order of the evolution of the stages is not at all reliable and examples like that of the Russian and People’s Republic of China’s reach of socialism shows that this stage can be achieved even in the exclusion of the capitalist stage which Marx had predicted to occur betwixt the two. The crises of capitalism, which Marx envisioned never really occurred in any of the two. Thus it is not a flawless theory and his followers themselves have tampered with Marx’s original vision and prediction to tailor to their own personal convenience and liking. Where his Dialectical Materialism have found somewhat a logical basis in defining the world in the language of materialism (economics), his Historical Materialism does lack in some respects and his lexical order of the stages of development in society and the predictions of the socialist stage finally giving way to communism raises some element of reservations in the minds of many due to obvious circumstantial evidences both in the case of Russia and the People’s Republic of China.


Marx had also predicted the inevitable collapse of capitalism with the rise of the suppressed class of proletariat against the dominant bourgeoisie capitalist which leads to the establishment of the proletariat rule in socialism. Marx predicted that the crises of over production will lead to the shut down of the small scale industries leading to major unemployment amongst the proletariat and thus finally in the revolution to Socialism. But today, all the developed nations of the world are the industrial economies be it the United States of America, the United Kingdom or Japan. Even China today, under her new revised constitution of 1992 had opted for industrialization and foreign investments through the loans from the World Bank, IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the MNC’s (Multi National Corporations) in their economy. She has also allowed for private ownership of property showing signs of the slow transfusion of Capitalism into her veins of Chinese Socialism it stood for so long. Therefore it can be pointed out that the Marxian prediction has not achieved much success here as the spirit of Capitalism has not only been able to overcome its shortcomings, but at the same time has induced in itself an infective element which is spreading fast and all nation-states now desire capitalist democracy in some form or the other.


Thus in providing with this argument I have tried to explain my first argument in the causes as to why Marxism has not stabilized itself in the states where it had been practiced while Capitalism of the bourgeoisie style have been gaining popularity by the day with much little effort on its part. But Marxian concepts are not totally abandoned in these democracies of the Capitalist essence. The concept of the Welfare Economy has totally replaced the Laissez-Faire theory (of free market economy) and it is found that a degree of state involvement in the market is necessary and many have opted for a centrally planned capitalist economy.


Evidences can also be fetched from the facts that even today, when Capitalism has truly championed over the Socialist states, there exists the Communist Party Of America which acts as a good lobby if not a political party like that of Republicans and Democrats. In UK, too, a Communist Party is in existence. And they are the champions of Capitalist Democracies. In India, which has a mixed economy with free market and planned economy existing side by side, there is a Communist Party of India (Marxist) ruling it many of her territories. Thus it can be surmised that Marxian thoughts and teachings still prevails over the human society even when the attainment of Socialism have received a backdrop against the celebrated success of Capitalist triumph among nation-states. Though the Marxian prediction has proved to hold no success among the nation-states today, Marxian teachings and thoughts still hold a place of high esteem among the intelligentsia and will continue to do so for long simply because of its innovative contribution to the arena of political and social thought and the sharp contrast it presents to other such theories in explaining the evolution of human society and the desire for the attainment of a much desired stage of Communism which promises of a classless, stateless utopian society abundant both in prosperity and in happiness.



-Sonia Roy
Political Science (Honours)
Second Year.