• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How did Marx conceive the transition from capitalism to communism?

Extracts from this document...


Modern Political Ideas and Doctrines a) How did Marx conceive the transition from capitalism to communism? Karl Marx is considered to be a historian, a philosopher, a political thinker, and an economist amongst other things. There is a standard misconception that Marx had no idea of economics, by contrast he was quite the economist, and was able to layout the transition of capitalism to communism in a very logical and understanding way. The transition of capitalism arises through three core factors: the philosophy behind the capitalist system, the economic and the political part of it Marx presented the fact that capitalism was doomed, by bringing in history and showing how other systems (such as feudalism) fell. Marx theorized the transition of capitalism to communism, in the same way history showed stage which tribal systems shifted to a feudalist system, and thereafter a feudalist system to a capitalist system. The basics therefore behind his theory of capitalism falling was that everything which starts must end due to changing factor affecting it, and the un flexibility of each system to cope. "Capitalism had to be replaced, according to Marx, because the evolution of society's institutions is a natural and inevitable process of history"1 Firstly Marx outlined the philosophical aspects which outline the transition; Marx believed that every aspect of society could be characterizes as a thesis, whilst its contradictory other characterized as an antithesis. ...read more.


b) How closely did the Soviet experience of "building socialism" conform to Marx's theories? To a great extent the Soviet Union did experience a build of Socialism, which conformed to Marx's theories; these mainly being through the periods of the 1917 revolution, and the period of Leninism. To a great extent however this "building of socialsm" was and is still considered as a charade for historians as it contradicted many aspects of Marx's theories. I will mainly concentrate on Lenin and Stalin*, and on how close they came to building socialism according to Marx. Lenin has been known both for his harsh line when it came to doing work, as well as a major political thinker; characterized often as a man of great intellect. After supervising a successful revolution in 1917, Lenin began building socialism. Lenin tweaked the communist theory before the revolution in order for it to attract the common people; he made use of slogans such as "Peace, Bread and Land", and published "State and Revolution". For this reason he has been portrayed as the father of soviet communism, but was he? To a great extent Lenin persisted, and made it known that the revolution and setting up of socialism was a transitional dictatorship of the workers, until true communism could be achieved. Lenin had to make the theory popular in order for it to gain support from the people. ...read more.


Stalin preferred to take a hard line when he came to power, executing millions of people and sending thousands to the gulags. We can therefore see the rift of Stalinism in accordance to Marx's theories, in the late 1930's when tension surfaced between Germany. Stalin started building upon the foundations of Lenin in completely different manners, making the party more centralized and eliminating even the smallest of enterprises. The rule of Stalin became more totalitarian at the time when it shouldn't have; since socialism was supposed to be a transitional stage inorder to fight off counter-revolutions, since this threat had been almost completely eliminated by Lenin, Stalin still continued with a ruthless approach of building arms, and forming a more high secured secret police. Finally Stalin insisted on state involvement, in many affairs including social, and economical. This building of socialism did not conform to Marx's theories because state involvement was supposed to gradually diminish, whilst under Stalin it was strengthened. In conclusion as time passed and Soviet leaders changed, the building of Socialism started rifting even more and more from Marx's theories. Khrushchev concentrated on the second world war and built the Berlin War, instead of concentrating on building socialism. Whilst Brezhnov and Gorbachov seemed to lose their grip on solidarity within the USSR. Perhaps Lenin must be considered to be the closest in conforming the building of socialism in accordance to Marx; to a great extent Stalin also achieved this, although mainly due to the solidarity he built within the USSR. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. 'Socialists have disagreed on both the means and ends of socialism' - Discuss

    Similarly, rather than supporting absolute equality social democrats support relative equality, and prefer to ease problems with class conflict than to abolish the class system and have a completely classless society. It is obvious that social democrats have watered down their ideology quite significantly, however these ideas have been further diluted by 'third way', or neorevisionist socialists.

  2. Why does Marx believe that capitalism will inevitably give way to socialism?

    the relations between owners/employers and their staff (Marsh et. al. 1996, pp51-53). These explanations are important as they provide a necessary background to the points I will make, in regard to Marx's critique of capitalism. Conflict and contradiction arises according to Marx, in all but two of the historical societies

  1. What did Karl Marx mean by 'exploitation' in a capitalist economic system?

    He alleged it could come into power either by exercising democratic rights to vote where such rights were universal and not subject to corruption, or by violent struggle where the ruling class managed to thwart the will of the majority.

  2. How did Marx explain the collapse of Capitalism and how did the ideas of ...

    In effect, progress is the consequence of internal conflict. For Hegel, this explained the movement of the 'world spirit' toward self-realisation though conflict between a thesis and its opposing force, an antithesis, producing a higher level, a synthesis, which in turn constitutes a new thesis. Marx, as Engel's put it, 'turn Hegel on his head' by investing this Hegelian dialectic with a materialistic interpretation.

  1. The strategic retreat of NEP (New Economic Policy), Lenin said, was forced on the ...

    . .' In Shuia, where the campaign to seize church property in aid of famine relief had provoked violent demonstrations, Lenin counselled that 'as many as possible' local clergymen and bourgeois must be arrested and put on trial. The trial must end: With the shooting of a very large number of the

  2. What exactly is Weber's Protestant Ethic Thesis?

    The issue of wealth is a somewhat delicate one, in particular the accumulation of wealth, as it often tends to result in the emergence of materialistic characteristics and greed - hardly qualities that reflect God's will. However, there are a few essential points for discussion here.

  1. Socialist uses of workers' inquiry

    Are there sufficient safety appliances against fire? 26. Is the employer legally bound to compensate the worker or his family in case of accident? 27. If not, has he ever compensated those who suffered accidents while working for his enrichment?

  2. Karl Marx was the greatest thinker and philosopher of his time. His views on ...

    His father wanted him to be a lawyer much like himself but when Karl's reckless university life was getting in the way after a year Heinrich transferred him to Berlin. Also, he did not go to most lectures, and showed little interest in what was to be learned.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work