Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Economics Marxism Marxism At heart, all economic theories are born of common roots; the question of how society is operating, and whether or not there is room for improvement. All economic theories try to address the basic question of how an economy can, and should, be maintained. One of the most interesting economic philosophies is Marxism. The fact that economic theories can share common roots is especially evident in Marxism; It even shares a basic premise of laissez-faire with capitalism, a philosophy it directly contradicts (Sowell 12). In studying Marxism, two basic necessities must be addressed; the nature of Marxism and its basis, and the political and economic implications of Marxism. Curiously, Marxism was only partially originated by Karl Marx. A great deal of the philosophy behind and rationalization for Marxism- perhaps even the larger part of that thought- was from Marx's greatest contemporary, Friedrich Engels. Engels and Marx worked together to write The Communist Manifesto, and, after Marx's death, Engels became the surviving originator of Marxism; it was he who carried Marx's torch, and who published the latter of Marx's philosophies- though whether or not he was true to Marx's beliefs, and whether he altered them slightly according to his own, no one can be sure (18). Despite this, however, Marx's beliefs were relatively clearly expressed and published, beginning, in part, with the Manifesto. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" (Marx, The Communist Manifesto 9). In that statement, the opening sentence of the Manifesto, Marx clearly defines the basis of his theories. Marxist economics are based on Marxist philosophy, and Marxist philosophy is based entirely on that statement. Marx believed that society was constantly faced with an unending struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; the upper class of usurpers and extortionists, and the lower working class of downtrodden laborers (12). Thus, his forthcoming economic principles and philosophy would mirror that belief by maintaining, essentially, an abolition of private property (23). Marx maintained that, in his economic system, labor can "enrich" and "promote" the existence of the laborer, as opposed to a capitalist system, wherein such labor is required for the effectiveness of the society, but nonetheless looked down upon. Marx ardently defended his views concerning a lack of private property. He insisted that, though common society holds no such beliefs concerning an abolition of private property, such a lack occurs, regardless. For one-tenth of a population to have some form of property, nine-tenths of the population must forgo possessing that property. Thus, Marx asserted that his views would remove in name only something that had already, at heart, been removed; he would simply treat that removal in an assisted and official way, promoting fairness in doing so (24). In investigating further the basis of Marx's philosophy, one must note the shared belief of Hegel's and Marx's Dialectics. Dialectics is a philosophy at the heart of Marxism; it holds that all things exist not as what they are, but that every thing is in a transitory stage. An acorn is not simply an acorn; it is a future oak tree. A caterpillar exists as a future butterfly. By this philosophy, which can be understood and accepted rather simply (without an offhand disregard for the uniqueness and importance of each individual present stage of an object); it is Marx's later social implication of this philosophy which would meet resistance (Marx, Capital 103). As it were, Marx's Dialectics, at their heart, were simply a method whereby he claimed to understand more the essence of something, rather than its appearance. An appearance alone- the acorn, the caterpillar- fundamentally ignored the essence of something; the future oak tree, the future butterfly. Appearances were not necessarily deceiving or untrue, they simply did not- and could not- represent the whole of something's existence. A caterpillar is indeed a caterpillar, but since one knows that a caterpillar is also most likely going to be a butterfly, he must consider that essence as well. From this basic foundation of Marxism was born what would become both a strongly supported and internationally hated economic theory, and ultimately, a struggle over which two American wars would be waged, and one Cold War would flare. Little of this was likely foreseen by Marx. Put bluntly, Marx was, during his lifetime, totally unsuccessful (Wesson 32). While visualizing upheaval and social revolution, Marx was granted only lukewarm interest. While he wrote of a tremendous catharsis of the class system, Marx received something between mild and nonexistent response, and then he died. None could have foreseen the popularity and momentum his writings would achieve after his death, when the very struggle of a revolution in the name of Marxism was what made it a prevalent and enduring theory (33). Marxism became etched into the annals of history only after inscribed with the indelible ink of bloodshed. After Marxism was set into motion, only then did it see some societal application. In that application does the true economic thought of Marxism become evident. Marx's theories have added to and formed many other beliefs, from those of social democrats to those of Communists (Sowell 118). Noted economists such as Joseph Schumpeter have noted and embraced the contributions Marx gave to economics, though not necessarily embracing Marxism itself. In this discussion does Marx's version of Dialectics again become prominent. Marx denied the effectiveness of treating an economy simply as an economy, one to which laws would universally apply. Marx, utilizing the transitory philosophy of his Dialectics, noted that economies were always in a stage of change, moving from one thing to another; every stage has its own laws and rules, and could not be predicted based on the laws and rules that applied to some other stage (Marx, Capital 102). This way of viewing economies was but contribution of Marx as far as actual economic theory is concerned. Marxism's general economic premise relies on two main points: the labor theory of value, and the idea of surplus value. The labor theory of value represents the idea that every finished product has as its net worth the amount of work put into its production. This idea reinforces the importance of the working class, and the idea of surplus value, conversely, decries the bourgeois. Surplus value is the difference between the value of the products a worker produces and the amount he himself can purchase (McLellan 363). Marxism holds that a worker can purchase very little; that his wages will undoubtedly be so small that he can employ them to a far less satisfactory level than a bourgeois member of society can in purchasing what that worker produces (364). These two basic premises of Marxism serve to establish Marx's proclaimed injustice of the bourgeois, who can in modern terms be represented by the capitalists. Marx decries these capitalists unceasingly in his economic and philosophical thought; strangely enough, Marx himself was dependent upon the reading and writing materials provided by the bourgeois, and he never in his life visited a factory or other place harboring those workers whom he so ardently defended (Sowell 161). Marx's theories and economics can be thus simplified: Marx believed in the abolition of private property, due to the oppression of most ordinary people by the wealthy minority. He defended his theories through his two basic economic premises, the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value. His supreme ethic- the only thing he ultimately aimed for in his theory- was historical justification; a society succeeded in his mind when it could be viewed by future generations as correct and justifiable. Fate has treated the memory or Karl Marx with a certain irony; he has been decried by major world religions and many governments as completely not correct or justifiable (McLellan x). Marx's life and writings can primarily be viewed as a struggle between socialism, Communism, Marxism, or any other embodiment of his thoughts, and capitalism, such as that which is practiced in America today. In viewing this struggle, and in questioning which theory is correct, several important factors must be considered. First, the times in which Marx wrote were notably different from those times we now live in. Marx saw a definitively oppressed lower class of workers and a definitively oppressive bourgeois; at least, he painted them thus. In today's world, in capitalist, laissez-faire America, we see not even nearly the horrible oppression the likes of which Marx wrote about. In a country where capitalism is almost universally embraced, the levels of unemployment and poverty are nearly nonexistent. Capitalism has continually succeeded where Marxist thought has failed; except in the horrible working conditions in this country before the establishment of labor unions, Marxism has found little or no acceptance. This is simply because people are relatively happy with their situation. Capitalist society leaves room for improvement; the closest thing in today's society to an oppressed, degraded worker would probably be a fast food employee, and even that occupation is easily a stepping-stone to a better one. Marx's society, in all its glory, gives no such chance for improvement. Another reason for the supremacy of capitalism over Marxism lies in human nature itself. In Marxist society, ever concerned with the just and equitable treatment of every man as another's equal, no thought is given to that fact that people are not equal. All men are created equal, and all men have equal opportunity- such do we believe as Americans. But men have a chance to prove themselves worthy through their deeds and actions. Societally speaking, a man who sweats blood in genuine determination to fulfill his duty to his country is not equal to a criminal who takes ceaselessly from his society without considering his actions. Both are men, and both deserve equal treatment, but one abuses the system he has been born into. In a capitalist system, the former would be rewarded, and the latter, punished. This is another flaw in Marx's system. If people have no incentive to work, and no reason to aspire, they will probably not do so. Some people will inevitably shirk their responsibilities and opt to work less, choosing the path of least resistance. After all, such an attitude, in Marx's system, will result in the same salary as a genuinely dedicated person. There are places in the world where a Marxist approach does work to some degree. One such example is a convent. In a convent, where religious nuns who have dedicated their lives to their calling spend their days, such a system of equal treatment can be effectively pursued; these women are on the whole bound to be more moral than an ordinary society. Nuns, under the supervision of a Mother Superior, are given totally equitable treatment because, in all likelihood, none are expected to shirk her responsibilities. Finally, the validity of Marx's theories can be questioned because of their incongruence. Marx once said, "I am not a Marxist" (Sowell 23). He nearly renounced his theories later in his life. He never associated with the working class, the plight of whom he had to imagine rather than experience. His theories were at first nearly ignored- One of his 'greatest' works, Das Kapital, sold 200 copies when first published (Wesson 33) If Marx had been remotely correct, he would have been noticed rather than ignored. Marxism has enjoyed brief trials when put into practice, but its effectiveness can be clearly viewed in the collapse of the Soviet Union and the contemptible labor conditions in communist China. Capitalism has simply been proven much more successful. Engels once claimed that Marx would "endure through the ages" (Sowell 220). This is not entirely incorrect. Marx was not wholly foolish, simply mistaken. His legacy has been felt in the influence of Vladmir Lenin, who seized power in Russia; it has been seen in the haunting pictures of early industrial America, where bruised, overworked children hold signs decrying the capitalist system which forced them into labor at an extremely unsafe age. Marxism does, in short, have a following. The Communist Manifesto closes with the statement "Workingmen of all countries, unite" (Marx, The Communist Manifesto 44)! Marx implored the world to follow his vision; whether it was a true hope for the betterment of the world or a vision of his own wordily success was a secret that died with him. The fact remains that Marx was inspired by that vision, and nothing illustrates it more clearly than the fact that a man who so clearly failed during his life has become a figurehead of enduring renown. Bibliography: Works Cited Marx, Karl. Capital: Volume 1. Toronto: Vintage Books, 1970 Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. New York: International Publishers, 1948 McLellan, David. Karl Marx: Selected Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977 Sowell, Thomas. Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. New York: Quill, 1985 Wesson, Robert. Why Marxism? New York: Basic Books, 1976 Word Count: 2095
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.