1.

Details of Module

Module Detail

Subject Name Political Science

Paper Name 07: Political Theory and Thought: Western and Indian Traditions

Module Name/Title Approaches to the Study of Political Theory –Marxist

Module Id

Pre-requisites

Objectives This module is a broad overview of major approaches/traditions in

political theory- Marxism.

Keywords Marxism, feminism, postmodern, agency, individual, state, power,

historical materialism, economic determinism, genealogy,
alienation, public/private, patriarchy

2. Development Teams

Role Name Affiliation

Principle Investigator Prof. Ashutosh Kumar Department of Political

Paper Coordinator
Content Writer/Author (CW)
Science, Panjab
University, Chandigarh
Dr. Krishna Menon Associate Professor,
Department of Political
Science, Lady Shri Ram
College, University of
Delhi.
Lakshmi Radhakrishnan JNU, New Delhi.

Content Reviewer (CR) Dr. Krishna Menon Associate Professor,

Language Editor (LE)
Department of Political
Science, Lady Shri Ram
College, University of
Delhi.
Professor Ashutosh Kumar Panjab University,
Chandigarh
 Module: Marxism

(Political theory has been enriched with multiple approaches and traditions that tend to analyse and
understand politics in different and often contradictory ways. Each of these approaches have certain
core premises and postulates that define its identity. However, each of them is also extremely
variegated and sometimes informed by the other traditions. This paper is a broad overview of Marxist
approaches/traditions in political theory.)

Vincent (2009) identifies Marxism as a strand within the variegated doctrine of socialism.
Marxism, in Vincent’s view is a distinct version of socialist thought that can be described
as ‘revolutionary socialism’. On the other hand, Jon Elster (1985) speaks of a distinct
‘Marxist method’ to study social phenomena, implying that Marxism offers a different
method and approach to study society and politics. Gamble et al. (1999) further argues that
Marxism proposes a direct link between theory and practice, and therefore crises and
reassessments are not new to Marxism. Gamble argues that Marxism was never one
paradigm; there were distinct and variegated intellectual currents within Marxism. Gamble
identifies the interdisciplinary approach of Marxism as a prominent feature. Interestingly,
different disciplines have dominated Marxism at different points in history. In the 1970s,
state theory dominated Marxist approaches tan political economy approach (see Gamble
1999: 6). However, twentieth century Marxism is generally identified with economism,
determinism and structuralism-all interrelated (Mars 1999).

A dominant trend in Marxism is its perception of society as a totality, an organic whole,

characterized by interconnectedness. This was suggested by Marx in Grundrisse (see Singer
2001: 53). The interconnectedness is exemplified in the two important concepts of historical
materialism and base-superstructure analysis particularly dominant in mainstream Marxist
analyses. As Gamble (1999) contends, Marxism in the 19th century was centred on a critique
of political economy and political liberalism using the method of historical materialism and
the category of class struggle. Marx pointed out that liberalism failed to deliver its ideals.
Historical materialism is a central feature of traditional Marxist approach. Marx did not
formulate the theory of historical materialism; it was developed by Engels after the death of
Marx. Engels explains historical materialism as thus:

designate[s] that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great
moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of society, in the
changes in the modes of production and exchange, in the consequent division of society into
distinct classes, and in the struggles of these classes against one another (Marx and Engels,
in Wood 2005: 13).

Will Kymlicka concisely explains historical materialism:

According to this theory, the development of human societies is determined by class struggle,
which is itself determined by the development of the means of economic production, and the
inevitable result of this development is the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the
proleteriat. Capitalism would be replaced first with socialism, and eventually, once abundance
has been achieved, with full-blown communism. (Kymlicka 2001: 167).

Historical materialism assumes that society moves in a linear mode of history with successive
stages determined by relations of production. Marx’s historical materialism was characterised
by the stages of primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and
communism. Historical materialism has prompted critics of Marxism to call it a teleological
theory- a history with an end- communism (see Popper 1966). Will Kymlicka similarly
attributes the absence of normative engagements in Marxism on rights, justice, liberty, etc to
the inevitability and historical necessity of a transition to communism (Kymlicka 2001: 175).
G.A. Cohen gives a different interpretation of Marx’s historical materialism. Cohen contends
that Marx’s historical materialism is not teleological but is in sync with modern scientific
theories of causality and explanation. Cohen argues that Marx is not making a prophecy
through historical materialism; he is only speaking of a possibility of transitions in the
absence of countervailing forces (Levine 2004). Others defend Marx’s theory of history
against the charge of teleology with the argument that it was only an explanation of history
and not a scientific account of historical stages (see Singer 2001: 57).
The base-superstructure framework developed by Marx in Preface to a Contribution to a
Critique of Political Economy is further a key to understanding economic determinism and
historical materialism in Marxist tradition:

The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of
society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to
which correspond definitive forms of social consciousness. The mode of production
of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general
(Marx, in Mars 1999: 321).
The aforesaid statement is a clear postulate of economic determinism, a structuralist
explanation where the mode of production- the economy- determines everything else
including consciousness. The base-superstructure framework offers little agency to the
individual, unlike in the liberal tradition where the autonomous individual is the core of
liberalism philosophy. Historical materialism and base-superstructure in Marxism underline
certain inevitable developments in history, over which individuals need not be in complete
control. Moreover, relations of production determine the course of history. Marxian analysis
also almost denies the existence of individuals independent of their class position. 1 This
version of Marxism is also identified as the more scientific Marxism where certain laws of
society determined the course of history objectively. This is best seen in the works of Marx
and Engels exemplifying ‘orthodox’ historical materialism, which is ultimately a brand of
economic determinism. Human nature in this perspective is alterable depending on the
changes in material relations of production (Vincent 2009; Singer 2001). In Western
Marxism, this is exemplified in Louis Althusser’s structuralist Marxism were the structure
over determines the course of events, and were economy determines in the last instance. This
version of Marxism is also referred to as anti-humanist Marxism/Marxist anti-humanism (see
Hindess 2007: 393). In this version of structural overdetermination, the economy appears as
one level of the structure as well as determines the structure and the relationship between the
parts (see Hindess 2007).2 Individuals, in this perspective are nothing more than bearers of
the functions emerging from their location in the structure (ibid).

1
An exception can be traced in the distinction Marx draws between class-in-itself and class-for-itself, the latter
being marked by consciousness of the working class about their exploitation, while class-in-itself merely
denotes the belongingness to a common class. This distinction is often cited as a defence of Marx against
complete structural determination, in favour of human agency in revolution.
2
Hindess explains this as ‘structural causality’ in Altusser’s Marxism.
With the decline of communist regimes in early 1990s, Marxism was deemed ‘dead’ (see
Fukuyama 1991). This view has been refuted by many scholars who point towards the
relevance of Marxist approach in a different way. The rebirth of Marxism post-Cold War is
manifested in the works of western Marxists. This is called ‘Analytical Marxism’ since it
attempts to reformulate Marx’s ideas in the light of contemporary analytic philosophy (see
Levine 2004; Kymlicka 2001). It is important to note here that while Marxism traditionally
approached issues through class politics and historical materialism, undermining the role of
moral argument, analytic Marxism purports to develop normative arguments to defend
Marxist insights. As Kymlicka contends, when Marxism defended the inevitability of
proletarian revolution, it was not required to explain the desirability of socialism or
communism (Kymlicka 2001: 167).

However, the normative component gains significance with subsequent Marxist attempts to
denounce the inevitability of revolution. Marxism now had to explain why the Marxist
alternative is superior or better (ibid). Kymlicka explains the shift in Marxist approach as
thus: “In other words, the death of 'scientific' Marxism as a theory of historical inevitability
has helped give birth to Marxism as a normative political theory” (Kymlicka 2001: 168). This
also represents the more humanist form of Marxism in the works of Lukacs and Gramsci, that
gives an important role to human agency or autonomy. Indeed many have pointed to the
striking methodological individualism in analytical Marxism (see Hindess 2007). In the
humanistic version, there is an ontology for human beings that is not determined by material
relations of production. Marxism now has to explain the limitations of and provide an
alternative to liberal theories of justice (Kymlicka 2001: 168). On the other hand, Andrew
Levine (2004: 76) contends that the moral argument 3-based nature of analytical Marxism
“collapsed Marxism into liberalism”. Roemer, another analytical Marxist agrees on this point.
In Roemer’s view, the boundaries between analytical Marxism and left-liberal philosophy are
fuzzy (Lebowitz 2009: 41). Roemer, for instance retains only exploitation as the key idea in
Marxism, while the other arguments are close to liberalism.

The new Marxism is a rejection of economism, determinism and structuralism (Mars 1999:
321).

3
Levine (2004) argues that Marx was not against moral arguments. E cites the example of alienation as a moral
argument in Marx. However, Marx refused to apply this moral argument to social contexts. In other words,
Levine calls fro making a distinction between moral argument and normative argument in general to discuss
Marxism.
David Mars however warns that it is a fallacy to identify every Marxist with economic
determinism. Mars cites Kautsky, Lukacs, and very importantly Antonio Gramsci as
Marxists who engaged with the importance of ideology and hegemony rather than economic
determinism to explain the sustenance of capitalism and the hurdles for a revolution.4 Colin
Hay similarly cites Poulantzas’ ‘relative autonomy’ theory as a non-economic explanation of
state theory within Marxism (see Hay 1999). Interestingly, non-economic factors like
intentions, desires and beliefs are part of Marxist method (Elster 1985; Singer 2001). The
theory of alienation in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Singer argues, is a part of
the materialist conception of history. In Singer’s view, alienation and historical materialism
are not two stages in Marxism5. For example, Singer contends that the Eighteenth Brumaire
itself suggests the role of ideas and personalities and not merely productive forces in
changing human history (Singer 2001: 50). Also, the Communist Manifesto describes history
of all societies as history of class struggle and not the history of economic forces. Singer thus
concludes that Marx observes that the productive forces of human history make human being
alien from each other and hence the materialist conception of history and the theory of
alienation are part of the same theory. In a similar vein, Wood (2005) cites ‘practical-critical
activity’ in the Theses on Feuerbach and the role of class consciousness in the Communist
Manifesto, that are departures from the base-superstructure view in many other works. Robert
Brennan, another analytical Marxist, argues that the driving force of change in Marxism is
not mode of production; the agent of change is class struggle (see Hindess 2007: 398).

David Mars’s description of Marxism as a realist epistemology throws light on Marxist

approach to political theory as well. Mars (1999) argues that Marxism is not relativist
because it is based on the assumption that knowledge of the social world exists independently
of our knowledge of it. This is a positivist view of knowledge. However, unlike positivism,
Marxism believes that every relationship between social phenomena cannot be directly
observed. However, like positivists, Marxism agrees that there is a logic of necessity and
causality, making Marxism almost a science (ibid). The contribution of Marxism however
lies in not only interpreting and unraveling causal explanations but also in changing it. Mars
therefore underlines Marxism at its best as “a humanity-centered and activist philosophy”
(Mars 1999: 332).

4
See Gramsci (1971).
5
As argued by many western Marxists who distinguish between young Marx and old Marx. This is further
discussed in the context of Western Marxism.
Marxism’s interesting contribution lies in the nuanced position on structure and agency, or
class relations and individualism. Elster (1985) underscores ‘methodological collectivism’ as
the mainstay of Marxist methodology- i.e., in the explanatory order, there are supra-
individual entities prior to the individual. At the same time, an ethical individualism is
manifest in Marx’s German Ideology and the theory of alienation wherein communism is
superior to other forms for Marx on account of its potential towards full realization of human
beings. In the 1990s, the more autonomy-based Marxism combined with postmodernism and
resulted in a new version of post-Marxism “where class and similar concepts become ‘social
imaginaries’, rather than definite empirical realities” (Vincent 2009: 98).6

6
In other words, post-Marxists like Laclau and Mouffe started destabilizing class as an available category; class
is also seen increasingly as a constructed category.