Friday, March 29, 2019

Is Marxism And Democracy Are Incompatible Politics Essay

Is Marxism And body politic Are In congenial governance Es takeKarl Marx is widely pattern of as the modern pi aneer of the collectivisticmovement. His theory of radical companionablechange by with(predicate) agitation and caststruggle has undoubtedly left its mark on the memorial of the beingness. Countries much(prenominal) as Russia, Yugoslavia, Albania and Cambodia yield all attempted to use hismodel of companionableist economy. at that get off atomic number 18 both(prenominal) present stirs such as Cuba, China and atomic number 7Korea that would still be considered Communist. Thequestion of whether or notMarxism is compatible with land is in effect two questions.First whetherMarxism back tooth be brought about in spite of appearance a pre-existing democratic frame pull in and secondly whether res publica slew exterminateure and thrive within a bolshie regime. Asa starting point, it should be noted that at that flummox ar a number of differentmodels of Mar xism, including galore(postnominal)formulated since the death of Marx.I leave initially focus on the model asformulated by Marx himself, discussingsome of the context in which he wroteand thus I ordain then consider different critiques of the models that followedMarxs writing.The term commonwealth is make up of the two Latin words Kratos(which means rule) and demos (which meansby the people). Democracy iswidely defined by five key features participation d iodine elections, open andfaircompetition for power, avoiding tyranny of either the rulers or themajority, ensuring business of governmentand providing a forum fordiscussion of political issues.Whilst in that respect are many different forms of land, Marxwrote extensively on his critique of heavy(p) stateand of the menace of CapitalisminThe Communist Manifesto. Marxrefers to the abolition of the give tongue to d wizardradical change and socialupheaval. This change is pauperisationed because Marx cont deceases that law s are made forandserve in the interest of the bourgeoisie. He writes the executive of themodern state is but a committee formanaging the common affairs of the wholebourgeoisie1and thatthe start-off step in the regeneration by the running(a)class is to farm the childbed to the position of the ruling class to winthe battle of res publica.2As a starting point for acritique of Marxisms compatibility within a pre-existing democratic frame stool, it is clear that, for Marx,winning thebattle of republic is not about playing within the rules ofdemocracy. Theradical uprising andsocial upheaval hetalks of inTheCommunist Manifestoinvolves power organism seized by the workers fromthe ruling classes by ultra and non-democratic means. Whilst theMarxist- Leninists of the early 20th coulomb would say thatthiswould be the lesser of two evils and that social harmony would be r each(prenominal)ed inthe end, the road by whichthey achieved this would be undemocratic.Marx talks at space inThe Com munist Manifestoabout the meansin which the proletariat would seize thepower. He explains that they wouldabolish all private property, income tax, inheritance rights and eventually theclass system. An aspect of Marxs vision that one could bespeak is democratic isthe substance that he critiquesCapitalism in footing of the appearance the individual is smothered by the employer. He holds that in a truly democratic participation peoplewould be able to createwhat ever they wanted andthat through the abolition of social classespeople would become individuals,creative and free. In place of the old bourgeois nine, with its classes andclass antagonisms, we shall rich person an association, in which the free trainingof each is the condition for thefree development of all.3Carol Pearce writes that the desirability of Marxismlies inthe freedom of theindividual to express their own tastes and personality, explore her owninterests, and frankincense develop her humanpotential.4Whilst there are other positive aspects of the Marxistutopian vision that our modern society wouldadvocate, such as the abolition ofchild labour, the growth of individual freedom and (for some) the state reserveof the reassign networks, there are many aspects of the Marxist utopian visionthat do not coincide with a trulydemocratic society.The question at hand as well seeks to discover if democracy canthrive in a Marxist regime, thus questioning itscompatibility with democracy. Geras (1987) asserts, it is an axiom that fabianism should be democratic5, butthis assertion is not necessarily true.It has been reasond that Lenins and then Stalins interpretation of theMarxist vision distortedthe original melodic themels of Marxism. Stephen Boner(1990) explains in the chapterLeninismand Beyondthat at the time of the Bolshevik October revolution in 1917 theBolsheviks believed that democracywould become the price for a prematureseizure of power downstairs conditions of underdevelopment.6Howev erGramsci, an Italian Marxist theorist, primarily saw these events as, arevolution against MarxsCapital7.Thisis because of the incident that under Lenin there was to be a myopic cut8on the road to communism. In an ideal socialrevolution, Marx explained inCapital9,there would be gradual changes in order to reach true social democracybut thiswas not the case in terms of the October diversity and critics of Lenins brandof socialism haveaffirmed that there are no short cuts to achieving a trueMarxist society.Lenins successor Stalinis in any case enkindle to look at when discussing the democratic accountability oftheRussian Socialist state in the years that followed. Stalins dictatorshipis well known for the cult of personality,his collectivization policies, themass death (from the famines that followed this policy) and the large-scalework camps for prisoners (the gulag system) that he created. Whilst Stalinistswould have claimed that thiswas creation done in the interest of the p olicy theycalled Socialism in one country, which would in the endstrengthen the Sovietposition in the world (with the aim that that the ideals of Socialism wouldultimatelyspread), there are clearly many aspects deeply flawed with Stalinsinterpretation of Marxism on ahumanitarian take aim and the consequences that followed.When considering the humanitarian implications of Marxismit is worthwhile to compare the different forms ofCommunism that have emergedup in the 21st vitamin C. While Lenin focused on the needs of theworking class asthe ruling class the dictatorship of the proletariat monoamine oxidase in Communist China was concerned with the needs of thepeasantry.Bernard-Henri Lvy, a French newfoundPhilosopher, who became despondent with Marxism (he hadbeen a Maoist)said there is No socialism without camps, no classless society without itsterrorist truth.10Ultimately one could arguethat all forms of Communism leads to the same place, namely that when the political state isabol ished via radical activity and non-democratic means ultimately thisis followed by death, destruction of the people or that of their politicalfreedoms. Max Weber explains this notionno ethics in the world candodge the fact that in numerous instances the progression of good ends isbound tothe fact that one must be ordain to pay the price of using morallydubious means or at least dangerous ones and facing the possibility of evil arm11One of the main reasons one could argue that democracy is notcompatible within a Marxist framework isbecause Marxism has never successfullycoexisted with democracy on a large scale. The federation ofcommunes that Marxdescribes in his ideal social democracy is an institution, which under everyonemakesdecisions together a direct democracy. In this bodied everyonewould have a say, however it could beargued that in order for a society towork you need people with expertise in accepted fields or there would be socialchaos and nobody would be achieved.One of the key events that influenced Marxs politicalwritings was the French mutation.Marx wrote approach theend of the 19thcentury and it could besuggested that it was the events of the hundred years onward him thatshapedmany of his ideas. He had been born into time just later an age of democraticrevolution.12TheAmerican, English and French Revolutions had taken place in these years andthe democratic world seemed tobe a plethora of agitation and rebellion. Marx sawand commented on what had happened at this time. He writes inThe Civil war in France-part III(1871) the features by term heunderstands democracy. He wrote that the capital of FranceCommune that took place from 18thMarch to 28thMay 1871 where the workers took control was a goodmodelof democracy. Anarchists and Marxists are well known to go on thisform of direct democracy.One might argue that one of the solo truly democratic modelswhere Marxism has been known to work in the world was within theKibbutz in Israel. The Ki bbutzis or at least was a form of Communism in which there are small communitiesinwhich the people work together for equal pay and for equal share of theland. Originally these communes were mystify up by the Russian refugees in theearly 20thcentury many of which who were escaping persecution fromtheRussian Tsarist regime. They set up these communities that were based somewhat agriculture and with the strictview that each person would receive a shareof whatever work they put into the community, a lot wish Marxism. Thismodel,although not entirely Marxist, is based on Marxs ideals of collectiveresponsibility and is thought of to beone of the merely known models of Marxismthat has successfully incorporated a democratic element, maybebecause it is ona small scale.Another way that one canapproach the question of Marxisms compatibility with democracy is to consider the ways in which Marxism, as a form of social democracy designed by and for thepeople, falls short of success.Schumpter (1965) refers to the idea thatdemocracy is not an end in itself. The bookCanDemocracy BeDesigned?13looks at the transitions to democracy from different societies and theintuitional choices that aremade . Stable democratic societiesareusually the product of natural democratic evolution. In the 1830s thePeel-and Pitt-ites who were anti revolutionary would have called it the organicsystem of government andsociety that works topper and that is the moststable.Professor Mayo writes thatdemocratic societies areeconomically locomote where the emphasis is on therights of the citizen and on freedom and tolerance.Democracy of this kind hasevolved soft and is the result of long historical struggles.14This means that because democracy comes about through slow development, that the violent change and class struggle that is associated with Marx is incompatible with the idea of democracy or it existing after a Marxist revolution.Marxism emphasises the need to restructure the economicorder and the way in which the workers relationshipwith the employer is takenadvantage of.The inconsistencywith democracy therefore lies in terms of victorious thepower from the ruling classand then everything naturally failing into place with democracy after suchradicalsocial change. This would seem to beone of the majorproblems with democracy and Marxisms compatibility.Critics of Marxismhave said that the key repugnance lies in terms when used together.Joseph V.Femiawrites, arent the two terms in the backup mutually contradictory? Is Marxistdemocracy not an oxymoron?15AMarxian democracy if one were to exist would simply be a dictatorship of theproletariat16as Marx called it.He explains that once the masses have taken control from thebourgeois parliamentary government that thedictatorship of the proletariathas to be cruel, stern, bloody and painful17and that in terms of Lenins legacy itis difficultto treat him as a philosopher of freedom18 generatorFrancis Fukuyama(1992)posits thatliberaldem ocracyhas continually confirmed to be a more successfulstructure than any other system and that the world has entered the last coif of sociological development. He writes, The twentieth century saw the true world descend into aparoxysm ofideological violence which amounted in the Cold War to ,final examly an updatedMarxism that threatenedto lead to the ultimate apocalypse of atomic war.19Perhaps the conceptthat liberal democracies are the finalised and best-developed models of world thanthat of Marx is true an conclusion but his theory falls short in other ways.FukuyamasThe suppress of History and Last of Manstates that the societies are in its final stage of development and that other models that have come before such as Marxism, the World has progressed past. Fukuyama states that ultimately society has reached the end of its development democratically with the end product being what we have today. However one can argue that his suggestions are parochial in the sense that in every society people would have assumed that their understanding and development would be the final knowledge of the world as they knew it.To say that we may have progressed passed Marxism would be one assertion because perhaps due to what we have learnt from the dangers of Communism we have indeed developed past it. However to say that this is the end of history and that we have no more knowledge that get out developed from democracies in the world is a narrow perspective no one can ever know what will happen next. This is even more so the case if we look according to what has happened in the world thus far. comm that it is out of the Capitalist or liberal democracies that comes the most revolutionary regimes in society such as Marxism. We can never know what will come next. Since the fall of theBerlin wall and the end of the Cold War it seems there is a growing importance surroundingthe notion of democratic repose theory.Democratic two-eyed violet theory aims to explainhow an d whyin the liberal democracies, states that are democratic generally donot fight each other.20However neo-Marxists such asImmanuel Wallerstein who isa world systems theorist would say that it due to there being acollectiveinterest for peace within these countries that world wars and rebellions do not break out. He also says that this is not supposedly todo with the triumphs of liberal democracy but the fact that it is not in the economic interests of the most powerful countries to be at war.In essence thequestion whether Marxism can be brought about and work within a pre-existingdemocratic frameworkandif democracy can endure and thrivewithin a Marxist regime is one that clashes because the two notions in both cases are incompatible. I think one of the fundamental argumentsin terms ofthe apparenteclipse of socialism is that Socialism has been superseded by other forms of government and ones that are more humanitarian, stable and that have worked for a longer time. Whilst it may be n ice in some cases for a there to be direct democracy where people could choose on every issue they wanted to and for and some aspects of Marxism to be utilize today, features of it would be impractical. If there were to be a referendum and monthly, weekly or cursory commune I doubt this would work very well. Not only would decisions take a long time to be counted, but perhaps you need people in society with certain expertise standardized the men in parliament who we entrust our civil liberties with. Not only can the failures of Marxism been seen and the impracticalities of a purely Socialist democracy , but also Marxism can be perceived as outdated. Aspects of the Capitalist world such as the competition that is created in the markets could be argued to be compatible with democracy as there is a genuine choice people take care whether or not they enter into this competitive race. Democracy in terms of economics is something that Marx focuses heavily on, whilst seemingly failing to handle the social problems that inevitably arise from radicalism. His utopian vision is one that I believe is inherently incompatible with democracy.1Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1888)The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1, ed David Mc Lellan,OxfordWorlds Classics2ibid Chapter 23ibid Chapter 24Carole Pearce (1991) A Critique of Marxism-Leninism as Theory andPraxis,Review of AfricanPoliticalEconomy,No. 50, Africa in a New World Order, pp.102-114, Taylor andFrancis Ltd5Norman Geras,(1987) Post Marxism?,The New Left Review163, May-June 19876Stephen Eric Boner ,(1990)Socialism Unbound,pg.87, Routledge NewYork7Antonio Gramsci, The Revolution Against Capital inSelections from Political Writings1910-1920,ed. Quinton Hoare, trans. John Mathews (New York, 1977), pp.34ff8Stephen Eric Boner ,(1990)Socialism Unbound,pg.87, Routledge, NewYork9Karl Marx (1867)CapitalVol. 110Bernard-Henry Levy (1979)Barbarism with a Human Face,1st ed,New YorkHarper Row, pp.15511Max Weber (1964) , regime as a Vocation, inFrom Max Weber Essays in Sociology,edH.H.Gerth and C.W.Mills, New York, 1964 p.12112R.R Palmer, (1969)Age of the Democratic Revolution,The A Political History of atomic number 63andAmerica, 1760-1800 v. 1 Challenge,Princeton Princeton University abridge13Can Democracy Be Desgined?(2003),,Ed .Sunil Bastian and robin Luckham,Zed Books, London14H. B. Mayo Walter Bedell Smith (1957)Democracy and MarxismbyThe philosophic ReviewVol.66, No. 2 (Apr., 1957), pp. 268-27115Joseph V. Femia (1993)Marxismand democracy,Oxford University Press Oxford p.116Marx (1852),Letter to Weydemeyer17MarxAndrzejWalicki(1995)Marxism and the Leapto the region of FreedomThe Rise and Fallof the Communist Utopia,Standford UniverstiyPress Chicago pp.28018ibidpp.33219Fukuyama, Francis(1992).The lay off of History and the Last Man. London Penguin.20DanieleArchibugi(2008)The Global Commonwealth of Citizens.Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy,Princeton University Press Princeton

No comments:

Post a Comment