Is Marxism And Democracy Are Incompatible Politics Essay

Is Marxism And Democracy Are Incompatible Politics EssayKarl Marx is widely thought of as the modern pi peerlesser of the Socialistmovement. His theory of tooth root accessible veer through upheaval and classstruggle has undoubtedly left its mark on the storey of the orb. Countriessuch(prenominal) as Russia, Yugoslavia, Albania and Cambodia fall in totally attempted to use hismodel of Socialism. There arsome present states such as Cuba, China and NorthKorea that would still be considered Communist. Thequestion of whether or nonMarxism is compatible with res publica is in effect ii questions.First whetherMarxism washbowl be broughtabout within a pre-existing elected manakin and secondly whether democracycan supplanture and thrive within a Marxist regime. Asa starting point, it should be noted that in that respect are a number of differentmodels of Marxism, including manyformulated since the death of Marx.I will initially focus on the model asformulated by Marx himself, discussingsome of the context in which he wroteand then I will then consider different critiques of the models that followedMarxs writing.The term democracy is made up of the ii Latin words Kratos(which means rule) and demos (which meansby the slew). Democracy iswidely defined by five key features participation through elections, open and averagecompetition for power, avoiding tyranny of either the rulers or themajority, ensuring accountability of governmentand providing a forum fordiscussion of political issues.Whilst there are many different forms of democracy, Marxwrote extensively on his critique of liberal democracyand of the menace of CapitalisminThe Communist human beingifesto. Marxrefers to the abolition of the state throughradical change and socialupheaval. This change is needed because Marx contends that laws are made forandserve in the elicit of the bourgeoisie. He writes the executive of themodern state is but a committee formanaging the common personal business of the wholebourgeoisie1and thatthe first step in the revolution by the workingclass is to raise the trade union movement to the position of the ruling class to winthe difference of opinion of democracy.2As a starting point for acritique of Marxisms compatibility within a pre-existing democratic framework, it is clear that, for Marx,winning thebattle of democracy is not about playing within the rules ofdemocracy. Theradical uprising andsocial upheaval hetalks of inTheCommunist Manifestoinvolves power being seized by the workers fromthe ruling classes byrevolutionary and non-democratic means. Whilst theMarxist- Leninists of the early 20th ampere-second would say thatthiswould be the lesser of two evils and that social harmony would be reached inthe end, the road by whichthey achieved this would be undemocratic.Marx talks at length inThe Communist Manifestoabout the meansin which the proletariat would seize thepower. He exempts that they would obliterate all private property, income tax, inheritance rights and ultimately theclass system. An aspect of Marxs vision that one could deliberate is democratic isthe way that he critiquesCapitalism in call of the way the individual issuppressed by the employer. He holds that in a truly democraticsociety peoplewould be able to createwhat constantly they valued andthat through the abolition of social classespeople would become individuals,creative and unload. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes andclass antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free developmentof 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 therefrom develop her humanpotential.4Whilst there are other positive aspects of the Marxistutopian vision that our modern society wouldadvocate, such as the abolition ofchela labour, the growth of individual f reedom and (for some) the state controlof the transport netwhole kit and boodle, there are many aspects of the Marxist utopian visionthat do not comply with a trulydemocratic society.The question at hand also seeks to discover if democracy canthrive in a Marxist regime, and then questioning itscompatibility with democracy.Norman Geras (1987) asserts, it is an axiom thatSocialism should be democratic5, butthis assertion is not necessarily true.It has been argued that Lenins and then Stalins interpretation of theMarxist vision ill-shapenthe original beliefls 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 premature rapture of power under conditions of underdevelopment.6How invariablyGramsci, an Italian Marxist theorist, primarily saw these events as, arevolution against MarxsCapital7.Thisis because of the fact that under Lenin the re was to be a niggling cut8on the road to Socialism. In an ideal socialrevolution, Marx explained inCapital9,there would be gradual changes in wander to reach true social democracybut thiswas not the case in terms of the October Revolution and critics of Lenins brandof socialism haveaffirmed that there are no short cuts to achieving a trueMarxist society.Lenins successor Stalinis also interesting to look at when discussing the democratic accountability oftheRussian Socialist state in the age that followed. Stalins dictatorshipis well known for the cult of personality,his collectivisation 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 being done in the interest of the policy theycalled Socialism in one country, which would in the endstrengthen the Sovietposition in the manhood (with the aim that that the ideals of Socialism wouldu ltimatelyspread), there are clearly many aspects deeply flawed with Stalinsinterpretation of Marxism on ahumanitarian level 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 21stcentury. While Lenin focused on the needs of theworking class asthe ruling class the dictatorship of the proletariat Mao in Communist China was concerned with the needs of thepeasantry.Bernard-Henri Lvy, a French NewPhilosopher, 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 isabolished via revolutionary bodily function 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 attainment of good ends isbound tothe fact that one must be willing to pay the price of exploitation morallydubious means or at least dangerous ones and facing the possibility of evilramification11One 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 e very(prenominal)onemakesdecisions together a direct democracy. In this collective everyonewould have a say, however it could beargued that in order for a society towork you need people with expertness in certain fields or there would be socialchaos and postcode would be achieved.One of the key events that influenced Marxs politicalwritings was the French Revolution.Marx wrote near theend of the 19thcentury and it could besugg ested that it was the events of the hundred years before him that influencemany of his ideas. He had been born into time just after an age of democraticrevolution.12TheAmerican, English and French Revolutions had taken place in these years andthe democratic world seemed tobe a plethora of unrest 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 ParisCommune that took place from 18thMarch to 28thMay 1871 where the workers took control was a goodmodelof democracy. Anarchists and Marxists are well known to celebrate thisform of direct democracy.One might argue that one of the only truly democratic modelswhere Marxism has been known to work in the world was within theKibbutz in Israel. The Kibbutzis or at least was a form of Communism in which there are small communitiesinwhich the people work together for equal pay and for equal per centum of thela nd. Originally these communes wereset 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 basedaround agriculture and with the strictview that each person would receive a shareof whatever work they put into the community, a lot like Marxism. Thismodel,although not entirely Marxist, is based on Marxs ideals of collectiveresponsibility and is thought of to beone of the only known models of Marxismthat has successfully incorporated a democratic element, perhapsbecause it is ona small scale.Another way that one can accession the question of Marxisms compatibility with democracy is to consider theways 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 t heintuitional choices that aremade . changeless 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 best and that is the moststable.Professor Mayo writes thatdemocratic societies areeconomically advanced where the emphasis is on therights of the citizen and on freedom and tolerance.Democracy of this kind hasevolved slowly 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 contrarietywith democracy therefore lies in terms of taking thepower from the ruli ng 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 incompatibility lies in terms when used together.Joseph V.Femiawrites, arent the two terms in the title 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 itchy17and that in terms of Lenins legacy itis difficultto treat him as a philosopher of freedom18WriterFrancis Fukuyama(1992)posits thatliberaldemocracyhas continually confirmed to be a to a greater extent successfulstructure than any other system and that the world has entered the final stage of sociological developm ent. He writes, The twentieth century saw the developed world descend into aparoxysm ofideological violence which amounted in the Cold War to ,finally an updatedMarxism that threatenedto lead to the ultimate apocalypse of nuclear war.19Perhaps the suppositionthat liberal democracies are the finalised and best-developed models of world thanthat of Marx is true an extent but his theory falls short in other ways.FukuyamasThe End of History and go of Manstates that the societies are in its final stage of development and that other models that have come before such as Marxism, the domain of a function 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 whitethorn 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 will 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. Usually 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 hem in and the end of the Cold War it seems there is a growing importance surroundingthe notion of democratic peace theory.Democratic peace theory aims to explainhow and whyin the liberal democracies, states that are democratic generally donot fight each other.20However neo-Marxists such asImmanuel Wallerstein who isa world sy stems 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 fatigue 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 nice in some cases for a there to be direct democracy where people could vote on every issue they wanted to and for and some aspects of Marxism to be applied t oday, features of it would be impractical. If there were to be a referendum and monthly, weekly or daily 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 like 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 face whether or not they enter into this competitive race. Democracy in terms of economics is something that Marx focuses intemperately 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 Friedr ich 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, redirect examination 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. throne 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) , Politics 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 P olitical History of europiumandAmerica, 1760-1800 v. 1 Challenge,Princeton Princeton University Press13Can Democracy Be Desgined?(2003),,Ed .Sunil Bastian and Robin Luckham,Zed Books, London14H. B. Mayo Walter Bedell Smith (1957)Democracy and MarxismbyThePhilosophical 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 Kingdom of FreedomThe Rise and Fallof the Communist Utopia,Standford UniverstiyPress Chicago pp.28018ibidpp.33219Fukuyama, Francis(1992).TheEnd of History and the Last Man. London Penguin.20DanieleArchibugi(2008)The Global Commonwealth of Citizens.Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy,Princeton University Press Princeton