 |
Business | Industries | Finance | Tax |
| Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
|
|||||
| First Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next Last |
Marxist theory has been criticized from various points of view.
Many proponents of capitalism have argued that capitalism in fact is ultimately a more effective means of generating and redistributing wealth than socialism or communism, and that the gulf between rich and poor that concerned Marx and Engels was a temporary phenomenon. Some suggest that greed and the need to acquire capital is an inherent component of human behavior, and is not caused by the adoption of capitalism or any other specific economic system (although economic anthropologists have questioned this assertion), and that different economic systems reflect different social responses to this fact. The Austrian School of economics has criticized Marx's use of the labor theory of value. In addition, the policies and actions of various soi disant socialist states, which typically claimed to follow some form of Marxism, have done much to destroy Marx's reputation in the Western World.
Marx has also been criticized from the Left. Evolutionary Socialists reject his claim that socialism can be accomplished only through class conflict and violent revolution. Others argue that class is not the most fundamental inequality in history, and call attention to patriarchy or race. Some today question the theoretical and historical validity of "class" as an analytic construct or as a political actor. In this line, some question Marx's reliance on 19th century notions that linked science with the idea of "progress" (see social evolution). Many observe that capitalism has changed much since Marx's time, and that class differences and relationships are much more complex — citing as one example the fact that much corporate stock in the United States is owned by workers through pension funds. (See post-structuralism and postmodernism for discussions of two movements generally aligned with the left that are critical of Marx and Marxism.)
Still others criticize Marx from the perspective of philosophy of science. Notably, philosopher Karl Popper has critized Marx's theories for not being falsifiable, which would render his historical and socio-political arguments unscientific. Primarily, this stems from Marx's prediction that capitalism will fall to class revolt. The skeptic may say "this will not happen," to which the Marxist may reply "but it will." This makes any argument over Marxism on empirical grounds impossible. From this position, Popper argues that despite Marx's claims to restoring science to the study of history, Marxist thought is anything but scientific. Anticommunists often vilify Marx individually in the West, influenced by the actions of certain Communist Party-led regimes and seeing his philosophy through the prism of Cold War politics.
Openly Marxist political parties and movements have significantly declined since the fall of the Soviet Union. Critics, mostly right-wing, argue that the Soviet Union's numerous internal failings and subsequent collapse were a direct result of the practical failings of Marx's program, but Marxists claim that the Soviet Union's Leninist and Stalinist policies were only superficially similar to Marxist theory. Marx analyzed the world of his day and refused to draw up plans of how a future socialist society should be run saying he did not "write recipes...for cook-shops of the future". Outside Europe and the United States, communism has generally been superseded by anti-colonialist and nationalist struggles which sometimes appeal to Marx for theoretical support.
Contemporary supporters of Marx argue most generally that Marx was correct that human behavior reflects determinate historical and social conditions (and is therefore changing and can not be understood in terms of some universal "human nature"). More specifically, they argue his analysis of commodities is still useful and that alienation is still a problem. Some argue that capitalism does not exist as an independent system in any one country, and that one must analyze it as a global system. They further argue that when examined as a global system, capitalism is still organizing and exacerbating the gulf between rich and poor that first caught Marx's attention when he read Engels' book on Britain.
In 1953 the German Democratic Republic renamed the city of Chemnitz to Karl-Marx-Stadt. However, in a plebiscite in 1990 the citizens of Karl-Marx-Stadt favoured the old name, so that the city was renamed again.
Supply-side economics advocate Jude Wanniski (who was influential in developing U.S. President Ronald Reagan's economic policy) claims Karl Marx as a supply sider. He sees Supply Side economics as a return to production focused economics in keeping with many of the traditions of Marx.The message carved on Marx's tombstone, in Highgate Cemetery, London, is: "Workers of all lands, unite." Those five simple words are one key to understanding his legacy. As soon as one tries to understand them, one encounters the chief schisms among the legatees over the years.
Who is a "worker"? Does the term refer chiefly to industrial workers, or are peasants also "workers" in the relevant sense? And if both are workers, will the industrial variant play a leading role in a revolutionary alliance of the hammer with the sickle? Mao Zedong would one day split world communism with his view that the agrarian proletariat could take the lead.
What is meant by the phrase "of all lands"? Does this mean that it is wrong to seek to build socialism "in one country"? that socialists anywhere must be pressing for revolutions everywhere? That was the key to the distinction between Stalin and Trotsky.
Even if the subject of the sentence were clear, there would still remain the predicate. What does it mean to "unite"? Within what organization? Does this mean "unite behind the leadership of a communist political party"? or does it mean, rather, "unite through a radical trade union"? It may of course mean both, but then what is to be the connection between the two organizations? This is the cause of tension between political communism on the one hand and syndicalism on the other.
| Politics | Business | Finance |
 |
 |
 |
|