To what extent is Marxism a flawed political ideology?

Authors Avatar

To what extent is Marxism a flawed political ideology?

        Ever since Marxism was established as a political ideology it has been subject to much scrutiny; as Karl Marx gave his opinions of society based on either scientific evidence or personal belief, it was only natural that some would disagree and thus criticise his convictions.

        The majority of Marx’s ideology was based on the idea that the superstructure of society was totally dependent on the economic base (and any changes made to it), and that the capitalist society in which we currently live would create a revolutionary working class which would ultimately lead to a communist society. Essentially, Marx claimed that communism was inevitable, and this was a heavily criticised aspect of Marx’s overall ideology. As this suggested that human history is not something that individuals have any control over, critics argued that Marxism was more comparable with a religion rather than a scientific theory. This was further reinforced by Karl Raimond Popper’s argument that Marxism was unscientific as it could not be disproved. Defenders of Marx claimed that although Marx had publicly used the term ‘inevitable’ on several occasions, it was only to emphasise the importance of his ideas; in his more serious works he did not suggest that communism and other stages of history which he discussed were inevitable. For example, it is argued that one of his ideas that was often misconstrued was the idea that a capitalist society would eventually collapse and become a communist society, when in reality he was simply saying that there are social pressures which gives capitalist societies a ‘tendency’ to collapse, rather than it being an inevitable process.

Marx also claimed that his theories could be scientifically investigated i.e. to take an objective and rational approach to the investigation of economic history to prove that socialism was more efficient than capitalism. Those opposing this approach i.e. taking an emotive irrational approach argued the case for socialism in moralistic and humanistic terms. Marx objected greatly to this view has he never claimed that communism was necessary because capitalism caused suffering, but because it could be scientifically proved that capitalism was a flawed economic system that would eventually lead to crisis. He supported his argument by trying to explain features of society by exploring firm evidence, rather than supernatural forces as well as acknowledging verifiable natural and social laws.

Additionally, he viewed issues beneath superficial appearance in order to investigate their real nature.

“All science would be superfluous if the forms of appearance of things coincided with their essence.”

Another result of Marx’s fundamental theory that the superstructure is entirely dependent on the economic base has caused critics to call him an ‘economic determinist’ in that he refuse to attribute any other factors in the outcome of society.

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but on the contrary, it is their social existence which determines their consciousness.”

Join now!

Quotes such as this have led critics to believe that Marx suggested that human thought cannot be controlled by human choice, and that individuals are merely puppets of the environment in which they live. In Marx’s defence, it was argued that he believed that the working class would only be able to revolt and create communism once they realised their position in society, and false consciousness was eliminated. Moreover, it as also argued that although Marx believed that a truly democratic society could only be created once the economic base (in a capitalist society) was changed, he never suggested ...

This is a preview of the whole essay