feminismliberalismsocialismcons

ervatismanarchismfascismfemini
smliberalismsocialismconservati
smanarchismfascismfeminismlib
Understandi
eralismsocialismconservatisman
ng
archismfascismfeminismliberalis
Political
msocialismconservatismanarchis
mfascismfeminismliberalismsoci
Theory
alismconservatismanarchismfas
cismfeminismliberalismsocialism
conservatismanarchismfascismf
eminismliberalismsocialismcons
ervatismanarchismfascismfemini
smliberalismsocialismconservati
smanarchismfascismfeminismlib
eralismsocialismconservatisman

On a level plain, simple mounds look

like hills; and the insipid flatness of our
present bourgeoisie is to be measured
by the altitude of its great intellects.
-Karl Marx
Marxism derives its name from that of Karl Marx (1818-83), a
famous German economist and social philosopher of the
nineteenth century who is the chief exponent of this theory. It is
interesting to recall that this term was unknown in Marxs own
lifetime. It was towards the end of the nineteenth century that
G.V.Plekhanov, a Russian Marxist, announced that Marxism is a
worldview. However, despite its name, Marxism should not be
regarded as a system of thought exclusively belonging to Marx.
Marxism, in fact, comprises a rich tradition of social thought- a
living tradition with immense possibilities.
Unlike our early modern thinkers Marx was living in a highly
industrialized, urbanized world, one where there were fast
developing the kinds of communication networks that we would
recognize today. He was also writing in age of revolution, a
revolution based not only upon the consequences of the changes
brought about by the collapse of aristocracy and the Enlightment
of the eighteenth century, but a revolution that was changing the
way people lived, thought of themselves and others in relation to
the world. The revolution that Marx was witnessing was the
coming of the modern world. Modernity was a process of slow
social, cultural, political and economic change. Marx recognized
that in his own time these processes of modernity had already
brought about profound and irreversible changes. This included,
of course, a dominant economic system called capitalism. While
Marx was ambivalent about most features of modernity he was

not about this new economic structure. For him, capitalism was
the root of all social and political evils. It tainted all that was good
about modernity and condoned all that was bad. Capitalism was a
worm, rotting away the wonderful liberating potential of
modernity.
The most distinctive part of Marxism should be traced in its being
a theory of action. Unlike the earlier socialists, Marx offers a
programme of action so that the workers may win the battle of
democracy. But the question arises as to what would occur after
the successful revolution. On the two occasions Marx speaks of
transitional state as dictatorship of proletariat. It would be a state
in the hands of working class committed to eliminate the class of
the exploiters and the oppressors by all forcible means. But if the
dictum that power corrupts can be relied on, it would be a moot
point as to who gets eliminated. Again in the final state of
socialism there would be no classes, no state and so law of
dialectic would cease to operate. The society will inscribe on its
banners from each according to his abilities, to each according to
his needs. In short, the complete application of socialism will
allay all class antagonism. Marx however did not have adequate
grasp of human psychology. The ideal he envisaged is nice but
quite difficult to realize. He also did not take into consideration
the significance of factors like rationalism, patriotic sentiments,
ethnicity, religious loyalties and caste feelings which often cut
across class solidarity. His prophecy has not come true in the
advanced capitalist societies. Instead the trends globally go to
prove that capitalism is getting reinforced.
Marxism had brought about great changes in Russia. It had
enabled Russia to shed the age old pattern of society and create
an industrial system leading to better national growth. Before the
October revolution, Russia lived as if in the medieval age. An
outlaw state in 1917 governed by an out caste regime had grown
into a well knit sovereign state and became one of the two

superpowers under the banner of Marxism. But the momentum of

progress could not keep pace with the changing world scenario. It
is an irony of fate that even Marxism had degenerated as any
other preceding one. In fact Marxism developed its own ruling
classes obsessed with power towards greater bureaucratization
and party control. Both bureaucracy and party had been
competing with each other for privileges. Marxism as practiced in
Russia and China had failed to evolve an institutional mechanism
against corruption.
In Russia there was fusion of party and state. Marxian ideology
was institutionalised, ritualized and identified with status quo. In
short party exercised complete control over the society. In due
course of time Russia was packed with problems. The economy
was slothful and marked by stagnation in key industrial sectors
and successive failures in agriculture.
In 1985, Gorbachev set out with his revolutionary trinity i.e.,
glasnost (openness), perestroika (restructuring) and myshleniyc
(new thinking) to set the house in order. Movement in China for
opening up the great wall was also an attempt to rectify the
defect of their system. Gorbachev was playing an historical role in
changing the soviet society and taking it towards openness,
freedom, competition, political pluralism and decentralization. But
the changes were too sweeping. Soon the soviet satellites of
Eastern Europe began to enjoy full sovereignty. Taking cue from
them, the Baltic States too declared their independence. The
other republics demanded full autonomy. All these developments
culminated in the collapse of communism and the disintegration
of Soviet Union.
With the disintegration of Soviet Union there has been perceptible
change in the attitude of communist china and Marxist party
world over. Where communist regimes continue, as in China,
Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and elsewhere, they have either
blended political Stalinism with market orientated economic

reform or suffered increasing isolation. These developments were

a result of a number of flaws from which orthodox communism
suffered. Chief among these were that while central planning
proved effective in bringing about early industrialization, it could
not cope with the complexities of modern industrial societies and
in particular failed to deliver the levels of prosperity enjoyed in
the capital west. A far more serious problem for Marxism is the
failure of Marxs predictions about the inevitable collapse of
capitalism and its replacement by communism to be realized.
Quite simply, advanced industrial societies have not been
haunted by the spectre of communism. Even those who believe
that Marxs views on matters such as alienation and exploitation
continue to be relevant, have to accept that Marxism failed to
recognize the remarkable resilience of capitalism and its capacity
to recreate itself.
Some would regard a discussion of socialism in a global age as
pointless. Socialism is dead, and it is largely the dynamics
unleashed by globalization that have brought about its demise.
From this perspective, globalizing tendencies can be seen to have
brought about the collapse of communism. Orthodox communism
was weakened by the tendency of economic globalization to
bolster growth rates in the capitalist West from the 1980s
onwards, thereby widening material differentials between
capitalism and communism. However, socialists with a longer
sense of history are unlikely to succumb to this despondency. Just
as predictions at the beginning of the twentieth century about the
inevitable victory of socialism proved to be flawed, so
proclamations about the death of socialism made in the early
twenty first century are likely to be unreliable. Globalization has
definitely brought challenges for socialism but as well as
opportunities. Just as capitalism is being transformed by the
growing significance of the transitional dimension of economic
life, socialism may be in the process of being transformed into a
critique of global exploitation and inequality. In this way, socialism

in the twenty first century may be reborn as global anticapitalism.

Socialism both as thought and practice remains an important
critique of the mainstream form of economic production in the
modern world and a powerful reminder of the fact that the central
liberal values of freedom and equality can be rendered
meaningless in the face of the structural inequalities produced by
capitalism. Socialism, as Bernard crick reminds us, is both an
empirical theory and a moral doctrine. It is not an historical and
abstract philosophical theory of equality but a specific response to
the economic and moral contradictions inherent in modernity
the existence of severe economic inequality since the industrial
revolution along with liberal moral values. If one is truly
committed to the ideal of human emancipation, one cannot ignore
the stinging critique of contemporary society and the eloquent
vision of a new society given by socialism.

Key words

Alienation: To be separated
from
ones
genuine
or
essential nature; used by
Marxists to describe the
process
whereby,
under
capitalism, labour is reduced
to being a mere commodity.
Capitalism: An economic
system in which wealth is
owned by private individuals
or businesses and goods are
produced
for
exchange,
according to the dictates of
the market
Communism: The principle
of the common ownership of
wealth, or a system of
comprehensive
collectivization; it is often
viewed
as
Marxism
in
practice
Democracy: Rule by the
people; democracy implies
both popular participation
and government in the public
interest and can take a wide
variety of forms
Dictatorship
of
the
proletariat: A Marxist term
denoting the transitionary
phase between the collapse
of
capitalism
and
the

establishment
of
full
communism,
characterized
by the establishment of a
proletarian state
Pluralism:
A
belief
in
diversity or choice or the
theory that political power is
or should be widely and
evenly dispersed
Rationalism: A belief that
the world can be understood
and explained through the
exercise of human reason,
based on assumptions about
its rational structure.
Socialism: A political theory
and
economic
system
advocating state ownership
of industry
Stalinism:
A
centrally
planned economy supported
by systematic and brutal
political oppression, based on
the structures of Stalins
Russia
The
Enlightment:
An
intellectual movement that
reached its height in the
eighteenth
century
and
challenged traditional beliefs
in
religion,
politics
and
learning in general in the
name of reason and progress

Bibliography

Bhargava, Rajeev and Acharya, Ashok (2009) Political

Theory an Introduction
Gauba, O.P (2006) Political Theory and Thought
Heywood, Andrew (2012) Political Ideologies: An
Introduction
Sparks, Chris and Isaacs, Stuart (

) Political

Theories in Context
Varkey, K.T (2003) Political Theory Part I

Thank you