7
Marx and Marxism in Politics
INTRODUCTION
Marxism has been defined and studied as a
political theory, political ideology and political
movement. In political studies, Marxism refers
to a specific school of social and political
theory about human life, historical develop-
ment, capitalist crisis and communist revolu-
tion, which was developed by Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels during the mid-to-late 19th
century, and subsequently elaborated on by
their disciples from various backgrounds all
over the world. Although there are inconsist-
encies and contradictions in Marx’s theory
during the different periods of its develop-
ment, and there are considerable debates and
disputes over its nature and structure, some
basic consensus can be reached based on an
analysis of Marx’s works and the studies on
the subsequent evolution of Marxist theory.
Marxism is not only one of the most impor-
tant social and political schools of thought,
but also the guiding ideology in the commu-
nist revolution and the socialist construction
of many countries worldwide.
Dingping Guo
CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT AND THE
BIRTH OF MARXISM
Karl Marx, one of the most famous and influ-
ential theorists of the modern historical age
from whom the socialist or communist move-
ments have derived their ideas, was not only
a political thinker but also social philosopher
and economist whose research ranged widely
over many fields. Marx has had a profound
impact on the thoughts and actions of people
in many countries since the mid 19th century,
and in the 21st century he is still regarded as
the greatest instructor by the political left,
including the adherents of communist par-
ties, and is derided as a source of political
and social chaos by the political right. The
ideas and programs developed by Marx and
Engels have been generally called Marxism.
Born in Trier, German Rhineland, into a
Jewish family on May 5, 1818, Karl Marx
received a good education and displayed
great potential as an outstanding student.
During his student days at the universities of
Bonn and Berlin, Marx studied law and the
 MARX AND MARXISM IN POLITICS
history of philosophy, took a strong interest in
the works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
and joined a student/professor group called
the ‘Young Hegelians’. Marx submitted his
doctoral dissertation at the University of Jena
in 1840 and received a doctoral degree the
following year. This dissertation is entitled
‘The Difference between the Democritean
and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature’ and can
be regarded as the starting point of his tran-
sition from idealism to materialism (Jessop,
1999: 98). After his initial failure to establish
an academic career, his liberal political views
led him to find employment as an editor of
a radical newspaper in Cologne, Rheinische
Zeitung. Because of his journalistic abilities
and radical views, Marx was well received in
liberal circles and quickly promoted to edi-
tor of the newspaper. This radical newspaper,
under the guidance of Marx, had to face the
problem of censorship by the authoritative
Prussian government, and was finally sup-
pressed after the printing of Marx’s article on
the poverty of farmers in the Mosel Valley.
In 1843, Marx married Jenny von
Westphalen and emigrated to Paris with her
in order to escape political persecution. There
he became acquainted with French social-
ist thinkers and began to witness firsthand
the living conditions of people in poverty
by socializing himself with working-class
people. More importantly, he first encoun-
tered, and subsequently established his life-
long friendship with Friedrich Engels, the
author of the classic work, The Condition
of the Working Class in England in 1844.
As a result of his economic and philosophi-
cal researches, Marx wrote Economic and
Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, in which
he showed great concern for the dignity and
freedom of the individual. In February 1844,
together with the philosopher and political
writer, Arnold Ruge, Marx published the first,
and only issue of a new journal, Deutsch-
Französische Jahrbücher [German-French
Annals] in which he published articles on a
broad range of matters such as philosophy,
politics and society. His radical ideas were
not tolerated in France. After Marx published
115
an article on capitalism in German-French
Annals, he angered his partner Arnold Ruge
and their journal was banned in France and
Germany. Based on his experiences of living
among the working class and his compre-
hensive researches on history, economics,
politics and philosophy, Marx became an
ardent communist. He proposed his ideas
about communism by criticizing the aliena-
tion of labor in a capitalist society. According
to Marx, under capitalism, the working class
invests its creative labor, while the capital-
ist class appropriates the results of this labor
in exchange for wages. This means that the
human world created by the proletariat does
not belong to them, but is owned instead by a
class of non-laboring owners.
In January 1845, Marx was expelled
from Paris by Premier François Guizot at
the instance of the Prussian government
and moved to Brussels. During his stay in
Brussels, Marx exchanged polemics with
the Hegelians, Feuerbach, Stirner and the
‘True Socialists’, and finished two important
works in collaboration with Engels, The Holy
Family and The German Ideology. In the The
German Ideology, Marx and Engels provided
a historical and material basis for Marx’s rad-
ical views and insisted that the nature of indi-
viduals depended on the material conditions
determining their own productions. In 1847,
Marx started another polemical exchange
with the French anarchist thinker Pierre-
Joseph Proudhon and wrote The Poverty of
Philosophy, in which he developed the fun-
damental propositions of his economic inter-
pretation of history.
By early 1846, Marx established the
Communist Correspondence Committee in
order to connect all of Europe’s socialist lead-
ers. Next year, the League of the Just held a
congress in London where the two groups
merged to form the Communist League.
Marx and Engels attended the Second
Congress of the Communist League at which
they were commissioned to write a manifesto
for the League, which became Manifesto
of the Communist, inspired by Engels’
The Principles of Communism (1847). The
116 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Communist Manifesto, originally written as
the platform of the Communist League, has
become one of the most radical and influ-
ential books since it was first published in
February 1848. It begins with the famous
proposition: ‘The history of all hitherto exist-
ing society is the history of class struggles’,
and contains a summary of Marxist theory
(Carver, 1996: 1–30). For example, one of
the major points is to abolish private property
and implement public ownership of the econ-
omy. The theory of the communists may be
summed up in the single phrase: ‘abolition of
private property’. The second point is to bring
the proletariat to power and annihilate the
exploiting class, especially the bourgeoisie,
in politics. According to Marx and Engels,
the first step in the revolution by the work-
ing class is to raise the proletariat to the posi-
tion of ruling class in order to win the battle
for democracy. (This was why Mao Zedong
defined the nature of his new republic as the
‘people’s democratic dictatorship’, a hundred
years later.) The Communist Party as the
avant-garde of the proletariat then comes to
power after winning the struggle against the
old classes, the landowners and the bourgeoi-
sie. The third is to envision a classless soci-
ety in ‘which the free development of each
is the condition for the free development of
all’ (Carver, 1996: 20). Upon publication
in 1848, The Communist Manifesto quickly
became the credo of the poor and oppressed
all over the world and led to the greatest polit-
ical upheavals of the 19th and 20th centuries
and the establishment of the communist gov-
ernments that ruled half the globe for several
decades. It is regarded as the most important
classic text for Marxist political theory.
After the Manifesto came to light, even
the relatively tolerant Belgium government
served Marx with an expulsion order and he
returned to Paris. The revolutionary atmos-
phere in Germany in 1848 enabled him to
return to Cologne where he persuaded some
liberal industrialists to back a new version
of his old newspaper, the Neue Rheinische
Zeitung. It became extremely radical and
took an anti-government stance under the
editorship of Marx and it was again sup-
pressed by the authorities. In protest, Marx
printed the last issue of the Zeitung in red ink.
He was arrested for press offences and incite-
ment to armed insurrection, but after a long
and powerful speech delivered at his trial,
Marx was acquitted by a jury in Cologne.
Faced with expulsion from Cologne and sup-
pression of his newspaper, Marx visited Paris
again as a representative of German democ-
racy before the Paris National Assembly, but
similarly was served with an expulsion order
from Paris.
Following his expulsion, in 1849 Marx
moved to London where he lived with his
large but devoted family until his death.
Although Marx was a correspondent to the
New York Tribune from 1852 to 1861, for the
most part he was dependent for his livelihood
on the generous financial support of Engels.
His typical day was spent in the Reading
Room of the British Library, where from
10am to 7pm (when opening hours allowed)
he wrote a number of volumes on different
subjects. Sometimes he lacked money for
the postage to send his manuscripts to his
publishers. Afflicted with multiple health
problems and a contentious and uncompro-
mising temper, Marx was not a prepossess-
ing figure during his final years. Although
virtually unknown in England, he enjoyed
great popularity on the Continent, especially
in liberal circles and among working peo-
ple, and in 1864 was invited to participate in
the formation of the International Working
Men’s Association. Also known as the First
International, the organization was founded
at a meeting in St. Martin’s Hall, London,
and Marx was invited to draw up the guid-
ing principles in the ‘Inaugural Address’.
In 1867, the first volume of Marx’s greatest
work, Das Kapital [Capital], was published.
The second, third and incomplete fourth vol-
umes did not appear until after Marx’s death
in 1883 (McDonald, 1962: 347).
In Capital, Marx analyzed the secret of
capitalist production by focusing on the
 MARX AND MARXISM IN POLITICS
concept of surplus value and formulated his
revolutionary theory by revealing the injus-
tice of the capitalist system. According to
Marx, labor is a commodity like any other
commodity; therefore, following the labor
theory of value, it must be valued by the
man-hours devoted to its ‘production’, that
is, to feeding, clothing and sheltering the
worker in order to maintain life at subsist-
ence level. In the capitalist system, labor is
bought just like any other commodity. But,
unlike any other commodity, labor is not
consumed in a clearly determined period
of time. A laborer is bought for the price of
sustaining him physically, prorated in hours
or days or weeks. But he may produce the
equivalent of the price in economic value in
6 or 8 hours of work, whereas the factories of
Marx’s day kept men going for 10, 12 or 14
hours a day. The difference between what the
worker does and what he is paid is surplus
value, the source of all capitalist profits. In a
capitalist society that is divided into the capi-
talist class with the means of production, and
the proletariat without the means of produc-
tion, the injustice heaped upon the workers is
not the result of bad men, but of a particular
system. Reform within the system, however
well intentioned, is doomed to failure. Only
revolutionary overthrow of the whole capi-
talist system can lead to the liberation of the
working class.
Marx died and was buried in Highgate
Cemetery, London, with a tombstone epitaph
reading ‘Workers of all lands, unite’, the final
slogan in The Communist Manifesto. In the
years following his death, Engels edited and
translated his works, and in many ways con-
tinued their friendship until his own death in
1895. Since the intellectual activity of Marx
and Engels was intertwined based on their
close friendship and great collaboration,
when most people today speak of Marxism
they are speaking of the joint output of Marx
and Engels (McDonald, 1962: 345). Although
Marx spent most of his life in reading and
writing as a student and scholar, he has had
a strong influence not only on modern ideas,
117
but also on political practices and social
movements in many countries around the
world. Today, his works are reprinted and
read widely, and his ideas discussed and
debated in the fields of philosophy, sociology
and political science.
MARXISM AS A POLITICAL THEORY
Marxism is the system of social and political
theory about human life, historical develop-
ment, the capitalist crisis and the communist
revolution developed by Marx and Engels,
and elaborated on by such disciples as Lenin
and Mao. Although there are inconsistencies
and contradictions in the Marxist develop-
ment, the basic doctrine of Marxism can be
outlined as follows.
Theoretical Sources
Marx developed his eponymous theoretical
system from many different sources, such
as utopian socialist thought in France and
England, classic philosophy in Germany,
political economics in England and the
Greek political and philosophical tradition
(Xu, 2005: 277). Among these, three major
sources are especially important: German
philosophy, French politics and English
economics. In his early works, Marx
showed great interest in law and philoso-
phy; and his later works were more con-
cerned with political economy and political
strategy.
The German philosophy on which
Marx drew was primarily that of Hegel but
included the Young Hegelians and Ludwig
Feuerbach’s materialism. During his student
days at the universities of Bonn and Berlin,
Marx studied history and philosophy, took
a strong interest in the works of Hegel and
joined a student/professor group called Young
Hegelians. Many of Marx’s basic ideas, such
as his critique of civil society and private
118 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
property, emerged when he was writing the
Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. He
asserts that religion is the ‘opium of the peo-
ple’ and calls for an ‘uprising of the proletar-
iat’ to realize the conceptions of philosophy,
a point also made in Theses on Feuerbach
(1845). Marx had been strongly influenced
by Hegel’s Logic and dialectical method, and
his great work Capital is imbued with intel-
lectual categories derived from Hegel. As one
scholar pointed out, ‘Hegelian dialectic is a
permanent tool of Marxist thought’ (Jessop,
1999: 128).
French politics and socialist movements
played an important role in shaping Marx’s
thoughts. Marx’s father-in-law, Baron von
Westphalen and his teachers were all strongly
influenced by the French Enlightenment.
Marx was also strongly influenced by the
French Revolution and French thinkers such
as Jean-Jacques Rousseau. After he emi-
grated to Paris together with his wife in order
to escape political persecution by the German
authorities, Marx became acquainted with
French socialist thinkers and began to wit-
ness the living conditions of people in
poverty by socializing himself with working-
class people. French socialism, as expressed
and explained in the works of Henri de Saint-
Simon and Charles Fourier, enabled Marx
to break with Hegel’s teleological approach
to history, to develop a broad-ranging social
economy, to understand the social and per-
sonal impact of modern industry and grasp the
significance of socialism. After studying the
development of Bonapartism and comment-
ing on the nature and significance of the Paris
Commune, Marx completed several political
works (The Class Struggles in France, 1840–
1850 and The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis
Bonaparte), and expounded his major politi-
cal ideas about the State and revolution.
The third major source of Marx’s theory
is English (and Scottish) economics exempli-
fied by writers such as Adam Smith, David
Ricardo and Thomas Malthus. It was during
his years in Paris that Marx began his study
of English economics. From the early 1840s,
he made an increasingly detailed study of the
works of English economists. After moving
to London, Marx undertook deep and sys-
tematic research on the development of the
capitalist mode of production in England. In
writing the 1844 Manuscripts, Marx relied
extensively on the work of Adam Smith,
especially his views on the division of labor,
rent, subsistence wages and the three stages
of society. Once he became acquainted with
Ricardo’s work, On the Principles of Political
Economy and Taxation (1817), Marx aban-
doned the economic theory developed in
the 1844 Manuscripts. His critique of The
Poverty of Philosophy was Ricardian in char-
acter. By absorbing the ideas in the works
of classic political economists and analyz-
ing the capitalist development in England,
Marx established his own status as political
economist.
Although Marx drew on various sources,
he did not merely combine them mechani-
cally. A distinctive feature of Marx’s theory
is his creative ability to synthesize. By study-
ing German philosophy, French politics and
English economics, Marx was able to develop
his own philosophical, economic, social and
political theory.
Historical Materialism and Social
Development
Marx’s unique contribution to historical phi-
losophy is his historical materialism and
theory of social development. According to
his explanations in The German Ideology
(1846) and The Critique of Political Economy
(1859), the nature of individuals depends on
the material conditions determining their
productions. In the social production of their
existence, people enter into definite relations
that are indispensable and independent of
their will. According to Marx in The Critique
of Political Economy:
[These] relations of production correspond to a defi-
nite stage of development of their material forces of
 MARX AND MARXISM IN POLITICS
production. The sum total of these relations of
production constitutes the economic foundation of
society on which there arise legal and political
superstructures and to which correspond definite
forms of social consciousness. (Preface)
As Marx and Engels put it in The German
Ideology: ‘In direct contrast to Germany phi-
losophy, which descends from heaven to
earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven’
(O’Malley, 1994: 125). Returning to The
Critique of Political Economy, we learn that:
[t]he mode of production of material life condi-
tions the general process of social, political and
intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men
that determines their existence, but, on the con-
trary, their social existence that determines their
consciousness. At a certain stage of their devel-
opment, the material forces of production come
eventually into conflict with the existing relations
of production. … From forms of development of
the forces of production these relations turn into
their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolu-
tion. With the change of economic foundation
the entire immense superstructure … is more or
less rapidly transformed. In considering such
transformations the distinction should always be
made between the material transformation of
the economic conditions of production … and
the legal, political, religious, aesthetic, or philo-
sophical, in short, ideological transformation.
(Marx, 1859: Preface)
All ideological transformations ‘must be
explained from the contradictions of
material life, from the existing conflicts
between the social forces of production and
the relations of productions’ (ibid.).
Therefore, the ‘legal relations as well as the
forms of state could neither be understood
by themselves, nor explained by the
so-called general progress of the human
mind; they are rooted in the material
conditions of life (ibid.).
Since every society is divided into various
groups, a strong minority tends to use their
economic power in order to exploit the mass
of the population by appropriating the eco-
nomic surplus for their own benefit. This
inherently conflicting situation gives rise to
a class struggle that centers on the ownership
119
and control of the means of production. The
social group that controls the means of pro-
duction forms the ruling class, and the group
without the means of production constitutes
the ruled class. All political institutions and
cultural beliefs are shaped by the ruling class
so as to bolster the unequal distribution of
resources:
The history of all hitherto existing society is the
history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patri-
cian and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and
journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed,
stood in constant opposition to one another, car-
ried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open
fight that each time ended, either in a revolution-
ary re-constitution of society at large, or in the
common ruin of the contending classes. (Marx and
Engels, 1848: Section I)
Based on the conflict between the forces of
production and the relations of production,
the history of mankind progresses through
revolutions to the next higher stage. This
theory of social development is usually
called historical materialism. In the Marxist
view of history, the primitive agrarian soci-
ety was followed by the slave society of the
ancient world, the feudal society, the capi-
talist society and finally by the communist
society. The progress is made by inevitable
and ultimately uncontrollable material
forces, rather than human thought and ini-
tiative. This is sometimes summarized as
so-called economic determinism or histori-
cal determinism. In fact, while Marx
emphasized the crucial role of material
forces in social development, he also ana-
lyzed the important and strong influences of
political superstructure and human initia-
tive on history. Political institutions and
political leadership play an important role
in many cases of historical development. As
Wang Huning explains, political superstruc-
ture is not completely passive and inert, and
contrarily, it may exert some decisive influ-
ences on economic foundations in some
special cases, especially during the prelimi-
nary stage of the socialist states (Wang,
2004: 60–1).
120 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Capitalist Crisis and Proletarian
Revolution
In February 1848, Marx and Engels pub-
lished the Manifesto of the Communist
Party, generally regarded as a public state-
ment of the general theory and political
ideology of Marxism, and a call for general
cooperation among different workers’
organizations. According to their analysis,
capitalism as a revolutionary mode of pro-
duction was fundamentally changing the
course of civilization. It introduced market
relations into all spheres of society and
throughout the world:
[T]he markets kept ever growing, the demand ever
rising. … This market has given an immense devel-
opment to commerce, to navigation, to communi-
cation by land’.… The bourgeoisie cannot exist
without constantly revolutionizing the instruments
of production, and thereby the relations of produc-
tion, and with them the whole relations of society.
(Marx and Engels, 1848: Section I)
By continually modernizing the forces of
production and promoting the division of
labor, capitalism prepared the material condi-
tions necessary for social cooperation and
planned management in economic life.
Despite the ever increasing social character
of capitalist production or socialization of the
forces of production, the capitalist system
was operated for private profit under private
ownership. The search for private profit
imposed fetters on the further development
of production. The capitalist relations of pro-
duction came finally into conflict with its
forces of production. While a huge sum of
wealth was accumulated in the hands of capi-
talists, its direct producers were impover-
ished. Lack of demand coexisting with unsold
goods produced an ever worsening economic
crisis of overproduction. This dynamic of
capitalism created conditions of its own
overthrow.
Moreover, capitalism was creating the
industrial proletariat as ‘its own gravedig-
gers’ (Carver, 1996: 14) (Manifesto). As
capitalism destroyed pre-capitalist modes of
production at home and abroad, other classes
were eliminated and the proletariat expanded.
As a result, the whole capitalist society was
increasingly divided into two major classes:
capitalist and proletarian. According to Marx:
With the development of industry the proletariat
not only increased in number; it became concen-
trated in greater masses, its strength grew, and it
felt that strength more. The various interests and
conditions of life within the ranks of the prole-
tariat were more and more equalized, in propor-
tion as machinery obliterated all distinctions
of labor, and nearly everywhere reduced wages
to the same low level. (Marx and Engels, 1848:
Section I)
As individual workers, then groups of work-
ers in a factory or trade, and eventually all
workers in a nation-state or even the world
economy mobilized to resist capitalist
exploitation, the proletariat would grow
more conscious of their shared class position
and their common interest in the overthrow
of capitalism. When their economic strug-
gles encountered the resistance of the State
as well as individual capitalists and groups of
employers, the working class would develop
a revolutionary consciousness and move
from trade unionism to political party. With
the economic crisis deepening and the prole-
tariat gaining in strength, the revolution
would be inevitable.
Since the revolution is an inevitable his-
torical product as the result of the conflict
between the forces of production and the
relations of production, and especially class
struggle between the bourgeoisie and the pro-
letariat in capitalist society, neither Marx nor
Engels paid attention to the means of revolu-
tion, especially political leadership and politi-
cal strategy which would be explained and
expounded by their followers such as Lenin
and Mao Zedong. They also said little about
what would happen after the revolution. It
was believed that it would be absurd to predict
the future society in detail. Nonetheless, some
major ideas about socialism and communism
can be found in the classic works of Marx and
Engels.
 MARX AND MARXISM IN POLITICS
Marx’s Socialism and Communism
When the revolution broke out, the proletariat
seized the power of the State and transformed
the means of production in the first instance
into State property. As Marx and Engels sug-
gested, the revolutionary measures in the
most advanced countries would include the
abolition of private property, a heavy progres-
sive or graduated income tax, the abolition of
all rights of inheritance, confiscation of the
property of all emigrants and rebels, centrali-
zation of credit in the hands of the State and
centralization of the means of communica-
tion and transport in the hands of the State
(Carver, 1996: 19–20). By doing so, it puts an
end to itself as the proletariat, it puts an end
to all class differences and class antagonisms,
and it puts an end to the State as the State.
The government of persons is replaced by the
administration of things and the direction of
the process of production. The State is not
‘abolished’, it withers away. But in a few
places Marx and Engels referred to the tran-
sitional ‘socialist’ stage as ‘the dictatorship
of the proletariat’. As the avant-garde of the
proletariat in the revolution, the Communist
Party is established and then lead the struggle
against the old classes: the landowner and the
bourgeoisie. Therefore, the existence of
classes is bound up with particular, historic
phases in the development of production; the
class struggle necessarily leads to the dicta-
torship of the proletariat after all other antag-
onistic classes are annihilated; this
dictatorship itself only constitutes the transi-
tion to the abolition of all classes and to a
classless society. With regard to post-revolu-
tionary politics, Marx cited the experience of
the Paris Commune and talked about the
possibility of bridging the gap between the
State and civil society that had been opened
up by capitalist democracy. As an instance of
the abolition of the division of labor in poli-
tics, Marx welcomed the Commune’s pro-
posal to have all officials, including judges,
elected by universal suffrage and revocable at
any time; to pay officials the same wages as
121
manual laborers; to replace the standing army
by the armed people; and to divest the police
and clergy of their political influence. The
initiative of the Commune could yield a
decentralized, federal political structure and
an economy based on cooperatives united by
a common plan.
According to Marx’s explanation and pre-
diction, the fundamental features of commu-
nism include at least the following elements.
The first is to eliminate the private prop-
erty and implement the public ownership in
economy. The second is to limit free compe-
tition and carry out economic planning. The
classic socialist believes that the capitalist
market competition may lead to economic
disorder and increasing inequality. Only after
all economic activities are placed under the
comprehensive economic plan can economic
development be promoted and economic
crisis avoided. The third is to distribute the
economic surplus based on labor and need.
In contrast with the capitalism in which capi-
tal plays the most important role in the pro-
cess of distribution, the communists insist
that labor and need are the most important
factor in distributing social wealth. Finally,
the State as a tool of rule by the ruling class
would wither away and gradually be replaced
by the administration of public affairs.
As Marx described:
In a higher phase of communist society, after the
subjection of individuals to the division of labour,
and thereby the antithesis between mental and
physical labour, has disappeared; after labour has
become not merely a means to live but the fore-
most need in life; after the multifarious develop-
ment of individuals has grown along with their
productive powers, and all the springs of coopera-
tive wealth flow more abundantly – only then can
the limited horizon of bourgeois right be wholly
transcended, and society can inscribe on its
banner: from each according to his abilities, to
each according to his needs! (Critique of the
Gotha Programme, part I, in Carver, 1996:
214–15)
In place of the old bourgeoisie society, with its
classes and class antagonisms, there shall be
an association, in which the free development
122 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
of each is the condition for the free develop-
ment of all.
WESTERN MARXISM AFTER MARX
The classic Marxist theory was expounded
and elaborated based on the historical devel-
opments in Western industrialized countries
such as England, France and Germany. After
economic, social and political changes took
place, many social theorists and political
leaders tried to redefine and develop Marxism
based on the new situations.
During the period of economic depression
and political repression in the 1880s, Marxism
became dominant in the German Social
Democratic Party. Karl Kautsky ‘explained
and defended the theories of surplus value,
immiseration, class polarisation and capitalist
crisis’ (Geary, 2003: 220). His works ‘defined
Marxism for the generation after Marx and
constituted the fundament of “orthodox
Marxism”’ (Geary, 2003: 220). Another theo-
rist, Eduard Bernstein, ‘launched the revi-
sionist attack on “orthodox Marxism”’, and
‘refuted the theories of surplus value, impov-
erishment, capital concentration and crisis’
(Geary, 2003: 228). According to Bernstein,
‘[w]orkers were not becoming poorer; the
numbers of peasants was not declining; a
“new middle class” was growing in size and
importance; share ownership refuted the claim
of capital concentration; and capitalism was
developing mechanisms to reduce competi-
tion and remove recurrent economic crisis’
(Geary, 2003: 228). Therefore, these revision-
ist Marxists such as Bernstein rejected the
violent way of revolution against capitalism
and proclaimed the possibility of a peace-
ful, gradual and legal transition to social-
ism, brought about through the adoption of
the parliamentary road. During much of the
20th century, Marxism was thus divided into
two different camps. Orthodox Marxism was
adopted and developed by Lenin in Russia
and Mao Zedong in China, and transformed
into socialism and communism. By contrast,
the revisionists and reformists tended to
accept the European economic and political
system, and practiced parliamentary politics
and social democracy.
Meanwhile, a more complex and philo-
sophical form of Marxism entitled ‘Western
Marxism’ developed in Western Europe from
the early 20th century. As McLellan tells us:
Unlike the previous generation of Marxist theoreti-
cians, most of the thinkers grouped under the
rubric of ‘Western’ Marxist were not important
figures in political parties. They tended to be aca-
demics rather than activists, writing in a period of
declining working-class activity [due to capitalist
democratic and economic developments] and
therefore in comparative isolation from political
practice. … [T]he term ‘Western Marxism’ nor-
mally excludes orthodox communists of strict
Marxist obedience … and is confined to the …
collection of thinkers that centred around the
work of Lukács and Korsch in central Europe, that
of Gramsci in Italy, and perhaps above all, of the
Frankfurt school in Germany. Western Marxism is
thus a philosophical meditation on the defeat of
Marxism in the West.…While some people might
question whether these modes of thought were
really compatible with anything recognisable as
Marxism, they undoubtedly extended the horizons
of Marxist discussion beyond the rather limited
perspectives of the Second International and
Leninist orthodoxy. Gramsci’s concept of hegem-
ony and its consequences for political culture, the
treatment of Freud by Marcuse, the drastic critique
of the Enlightenment in Horkheimer and Adorno –
all these attempts to remedy weaknesses or gaps
in the classical Marxist tradition have produced a
compelling, if sometimes rather convoluted, litera-
ture on philosophy, politics and society. (McLellan,
2003b: 282–3)
The first important thinker of Western Marxism
is the Hungarian philosopher Georg Lukács
whose major ideas were expressed in his work,
entitled History and Class Consciousness
(First published in 1923). Lukács reevaluated
the role of Hegel in the formation of Marx’s
thought and reinterpreted Marxist dialectics.
Unlike Engels who emphasized the dialectics
of nature, Lukács focused more on the dialec-
tics of human history. For Lukács, the subject
and object have become separated in
 MARX AND MARXISM IN POLITICS
the long history of human development. Only
with the rise of the proletariat in capitalist
society, would subjective thought and objec-
tive action be finally united. ‘This historical
interaction of subject and object was for
Lukács the basic form of the dialectic’
(McLellan, 2003b: 284). However, the class
consciousness of the proletariat, its unifica-
tion of the roles of subject and object was
blocked by the comprehensive process of
‘reification’ in capitalist society. According
to Lukács, ‘as the product of capitalism the
proletariat must necessarily be subject to the
modes of existence of its creator. This mode
of existence is inhumanity and reification’
(1971: 76). This process of reification has
originated from commodity fetishism in the
age of modern capitalism and transformed the
social relations between persons both subjec-
tively and objectively into relations between
commodities. The reified consciousness is
‘trapped in the two extremes of crude empiri-
cism and abstract utopianism’ (Lukács, 1971:
77) and led to the ideological crisis of the
proletariat. The economic crisis will certainly
increase the possibility of revolution in capi-
talist society, but ‘the fate of revolution (and
with it the fate of mankind) will depend on the
ideological maturity of the proletariat, i.e. on
its class consciousness’ (Lukács, 1971: 70).
Another influential figure in Western
Marxism is Antonio Gramsci. He participated
in revolutionary activities, helped to found the
Italian Communist Party in 1921 and became
its leader for the two years before his arrest
and imprisonment in 1926. His basic ideas and
theoretical innovations were contained in his
Prison Notebooks (1971) which he compiled
in prison during 1929–36. First, Gramsci ana-
lyzed the role and function of intellectuals in
society and made a distinction between the
the traditional and the organic. While the tra-
ditional intellectuals considered themselves
to be autonomous of social class and have no
substantial links with the social and economic
changes, the organic intellectuals maintained
close relations with their social class and con-
sidered themselves to be members. Second,
123
after discussing the organic quality of the intel-
lectuals and their degree of connection with a
fundamental social group, Gramsci fixed two
major superstructural ‘levels’: ‘civil society’
and ‘political society’ or ‘the State’. According
to Gramsci, these two levels correspond on the
one hand to the function of ‘hegemony’ which
the dominant group exercises throughout soci-
ety and on the other hand to that of ‘direct
domination’ or command exercised through
the State and ‘juridical’ government; the intel-
lectuals are the dominant group’s ‘deputies’
exercising the subaltern functions of social
hegemony and political government (Gramsci,
1971: 12). Gramsci analyzed the civil society
in detail and developed a quite different theory
about it from Marx. While, for Marx, the civil
society usually meant private spheres and eco-
nomic relations, Gramsci tended to use it to
refer to the superstructure, that is, all the organi-
zations and technical means that the ruling
classes used to justify their ideology. Finally,
based on the studies of civil society, Gramsci
drew a distinction between two different revo-
lutionary strategies in the East and the West.
In less-developed societies, such as Russia,
where there was no active civil society and the
ruling class tended to use State power to sup-
press public protest; the target of revolution was
naturally the State and governmental bureau-
cracy. Gramsci called this kind of attack ‘a war
of movement or manoeuvre’ (Gramsci, 1971:
233). By contrast, in more-developed societies,
where there was an advanced civil society and
intellectuals played an important role in sup-
porting and legitimizing the ruling class, a ‘war
of position’ was more effective because a longer
period of cultural assault on the ideological sup-
port of the ruling class was needed. According
to Gramsci, in the most advanced States,
‘the superstructures of civil society are like the
trench-systems of modern warfare. In war it would
sometimes happen that a fierce artillery attack
seemed to have destroyed the enemy’s entire
defensive system, whereas in fact it had only
destroyed the outer perimeter; and at the moment
of their advance and attack the assailants would
find themselves confronted by a line of defence
which was still effective’ (Gramsci, 1971: 235).
124 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
This is because the civil society has become
a very complex structure. Gramsci’s analysis
of cultural hegemony and revolutionary strat-
egy represents a new development of revolu-
tionary theory in the Western advanced
societies.
Among the varieties of Western Marxism
after Karl Marx, the Frankfurt School
represented the latest and most philosophical
developments. It took its name from the
Institute of Social Research founded in
Frankfurt in 1923. ‘Originally concentrating
on a more orthodox form of Marxism, the
Institute changed its orientation with the
appointment of Max Horkheimer as its
director in 1930’ (McLellan, 2003b: 289).
He and his colleagues, Theodor Adorno and
Herbert Marcuse, together with the most
influential figure of the second generation
of the School, Jürgen Habermas, contributed
greatly to its development from the 1930s
to the late 20th century. The results of their
research were described as ‘critical theory’,
perhaps originating from Horkheimer’s
seminal article of 1937 entitled ‘Traditional
and Critical Theory’. Critical theory was
directed above all against positivism
and empiricism, a source of reification
and an endorsement of the status quo in
Western capitalism. The works of the
Frankfurt School were a blend of Marxist
political economy, Hegelian philosophy
and Freudian psychology, which focused
on the comprehensive critique of the
Western advanced societies and contributed
greatly to the revival of Western Marxism.
Moreover, thanks to the wide spread of
Marcuse’s works and his ideas about one-
dimensional man, the Frankfurt School had
a considerable impact on the New Left in
the 1960s and some substantial influences
on political research (Jay, 1996: 9).
Perry Anderson is one of the most
famous Marxist political scientists and
has contributed greatly to the study of
Western Marxism. He served as the edi-
tor of New Left Review for many years
and published several books on Western
Marxism such as Considerations on Western
Marxism (1976), In the Tracks of Historical
Materialism (1983) and The Antinomies of
Antonio Gramsci (2017). More importantly,
Anderson applied historical materialism
to his studies of historical sociology in his
brilliant work, Lineages of the Absolutist
State (First published in 1974). According
to Anderson, there are ‘two different planes
of Marxist discourse’: while Marxist histo-
rians have paid little attention to theoreti-
cal questions about historical materialism,
Marxist philosophers have sought to solve
the theoretical problems without engaging
with the specific empirical issues posed by
historians. Anderson designed his work as
a Marxist study of Absolutism and tried to
explore a mediated ground between the two
by combining theoretical analysis and his-
torical studies. Anderson argued that ‘[t]he
arrival of Absolutism was never a smooth
evolutionary process for the dominant class
itself: it was marked by extremely sharp
ruptures and conflicts within the feudal
aristocracy’ (Anderson, 2013: 20). With
the growth of commodity relations, ‘reor-
ganization of the feudal polity as a whole
and the dilution of the original fief system,
landownership tended to become progres-
sively less “conditional” as sovereignty
became correspondingly more “absolute”’
(Anderson, 2013: 20).
Many others have conducted their research
based on their understanding of Marxism
and social development. For example,
Barrington Moore Jr. studied the relation
between political developments and social
classes in Social Origins of Dictatorship and
Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making
of the Modern World (1966), and discussed
the issues of authority, inequality and justice
in Moral Aspects of Economic Growth (First
published in 1998). Immanuel Wallerstein,
the master of world-systems theory, analyzed
the capitalist development and emergence of
a world market, and argued that capitalism
has brought about immiseration in the Global
South in his book, Historical Capitalism, with
 MARX AND MARXISM IN POLITICS
Capitalist Civilization (First published in
1983). Michael Burawoy examined the legit-
imization mechanism in capitalist societies
in Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the
Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism
(1979), and called for ‘bringing workers back
in’ in The Politics of Production: Factory
Regimes under Capitalism and Socialism
(1985). Burawoy argues that ‘the industrial
working class has made significant and
self-conscious interventions in history.…
[and] these interventions were and continue
to be shaped by the process of production’
(Burawoy, 1985: 5).
THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION AND
RUSSIAN MARXISM
Contrary to Marx’s expectations, the socialist
countries were not founded in the Western
advanced countries but in some underdevel-
oped countries such as Russia. After the
Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917, the
first socialist country was established in
Russia under the strong leadership of V. I.
Lenin. To lead the proletarian revolution,
Lenin contributed much to Marxist theory
with his theory of the Party and his concept
of capitalistic imperialism.
By musing on the theoretical points in
the works of Marxist writers and studying
the political and economic realities, Lenin
developed his own theory about capitalism
and imperialism in Imperialism: The Highest
Stage of Capitalism in 1916. According to his
analysis, imperialism is the monopoly stage
of capitalism in which capitalist free com-
petition is displaced by capitalist monopoly.
Specifically, this definition of imperialism
includes the following features:
(1) the concentration of production and capital has
developed to such a high stage that it has created
monopolies which play a decisive role in economic
life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial
capital, and the creation, on the basis of this
‘finance capital’, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the
125
export of capital as distinguished from the export
of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
(4) the formation of international monopolist capi-
talist associations which share the world among
themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the
whole world among the biggest capitalist powers
is completed (Lenin, 2008: 239).
At the stage of imperialism, monopolies have
stimulated the seizure of the most important
sources of raw materials and also produced
fierce competition for resources and markets
among the biggest capitalist powers. This
intense struggle for economic territory, for
the division and redivision of the world, will
inevitably lead to militarism and imperialist
war. This war has not only revealed the
nature of parasitic and decaying capitalism,
but also created the opportunities for the pro-
letarian revolution in some underdeveloped
or colonial/semi-colonial societies. Based on
this assessment, the socialist revolution could
happen and succeed at the weak point of the
global imperialist system.
Lenin insisted that the revolutionary a
vanguard party play a crucial role in the
socialist revolution because he realized that
the proletariat, easily deluded by bourgeoi-
sie ideas for improving their working and
living conditions, would not overthrow the
whole capitalist system. A revolutionary
party must be established on a very firm
foundation of Marxist theory, comprised
of professional and dedicated revolution-
aries capable of exercising ideological
leadership through political education. Its
organization was to be based on the rigor-
ous and truly iron discipline and the prin-
ciple of democratic centralism combining
free discussion and efficient action. The
Party was to serve as the vanguard of the
working class and act in the interests of
the proletariat class with the fullest and
unreserved support from the entire mass of
the working class.
In the process of building the first social-
ist country, Lenin had been searching for
several models of socialism, such as War
Communism and the New Economic Policy,
126 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
in the face of foreign invasion and domestic
hardship. In comparison with the comprehen-
sive State direction and management of the
economy in ‘War Communism’, the ‘New
Economic Policy’ was the strategic retreat in
which ‘the state withdrew from the ownership
and management of small and medium enter-
prises, retaining only the very large-scale
strategically important parts of industry and
communications. Freedom for peasants and
traders to market their goods was extended
as the state withdrew’ (Harding, 2003: 261).
However, after Joseph Stalin ascended to
the leadership of the Soviet one-party State,
he proceeded to announce radical plans for
the rapid industrialization of the country
and the collectivization of agriculture. When
Stalin announced the First Five Year Plan in
1928, it started the ‘second revolution’ of the
1930s, which brought about the swift and
total eradication of private enterprises. All
resources were brought under the control of
the State, and a system of central planning
dominated by the State Planning Committee
was established. During the 1930s, empow-
ered by his cult of personality, Stalin estab-
lished an increasingly brutal authoritarian
dictatorship through a series of purges that
suppressed and destroyed all opposition. This
system combining central planning and per-
sonal dictatorship has been called Stalinism
or Stalin-style socialism. Although some
mistakes were corrected and reforms imple-
mented after the death of Stalin in 1953,
the core principles of the Leninist Party and
Stalin-style socialism stubbornly resisted
pressure for reform and has had a huge
impact on political and economic develop-
ments in many other Communist countries.
THE RISE OF CHINA AND CHINESE
MARXISM
The October Revolution in Russia acceler-
ated the spread of Marxism and the develop-
ment of the Communist Revolution in China.
During the long period of the communist
revolution and socialist construction, the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its
leaders applied Marxism and Leninism to the
military struggle, economic development and
political construction of China. Communist
leaders, with Mao Zedong as their best repre-
sentative, have developed many new ideas,
concepts and theories, all of which embody
Chinese Marxism. Mao Zedong is the princi-
pal Chinese Marxist theorist, and communist
statesman who contributed to the founding of
the CCP in 1921, the Communist Army in
1927 and The People’s Republic of China
(PRC) in 1949. In contrast with Karl Marx
spending his most of life in reading and writ-
ing as an editor, reporter and scholar, Mao
had taken part in almost all military strug-
gles, political conflicts and social move-
ments during his time. He emerged as a
supreme leader in 1935 in the CCP because
his smart ideas and correct tactics were
adopted by most of the CCP leaders. He was
chairman of the PRC from 1949-59 and
chairman of the CCP until his death in 1976.
Maoism as Sinicized Marxism
Maoism, officially called Mao Zedong
Thought in China, is composed of many ide-
ologies, strategies and tactics believed to be
the creative result of applying Marxism-
Leninism to China, a semi-feudal and semi-
colonial country without modern industrial
development. Maoism developed along with
the progress of the communist revolution and
socialist movement.
After a bloody split in April 1927, Chiang
Kai-shek of the Kuomintang, or Nationalist
Party, dismantled the united front with the
Communist Party against the warlord gov-
ernment in Beijing and broke with his allies
in the Communist Party. In the following
campaigns, many communist organizations
were destroyed, and a large number of com-
munist leaders and members killed. Mao
led several peasant uprisings in Hunan and
 MARX AND MARXISM IN POLITICS
Jiangxi provinces and established the com-
munist military bases during the early 1930s.
Based on these experiences, Mao realized the
importance of the Chinese peasantry in the
Chinese communist revolution. In October
1934, Mao and the communists retreated
from Jiangxi under strong military attack
by Chiang’s Nationalist Army and started
their epic Long March to the new base in
Shanxi province. By making use of the sec-
ond united front with the Nationalist Party
against the Japanese, Mao and his commu-
nist comrades had not only consolidated their
base and expanded their sphere of influence,
but also formulated an ideology and meth-
odology for Chinese revolution which was
officially described as Maoism in 1945. In a
new civil war between the communists and
nationalists from 1946 to 1949, the national-
ist government ruled by Chiang was defeated
and retreated to Taiwan. As a result, the
Communist Party came to power and Mao
declared the founding of the PRC in Beijing
on October 1, 1949. During the long period of
military struggle against the Nationalist Party
and the Japanese, ‘one of the most original
contributions to the theory and practice of
contemporary Marxism was his conception
of guerrilla warfare’ (McLellan, 2003a: 270).
According to the logic of Marxist social-
ism, only after the capitalist commodity
economy developed fully would socialism
succeed. After the communist revolution suc-
ceeded and the CCP came to power in 1949,
Mao and the communist leaders – dream-
ing that their countries would immediately
leap forward into communism – decided to
implement and promote a socialist transfor-
mation of the Chinese economy and society,
unfortunately ignoring the basic facts about
the country’s underdevelopment. In order
to build socialism and realize communism
as soon as possible, they conducted radical
and drastic reforms in socialist practice in the
light of Marxist theory, especially Stalinist
theory imported from the Soviet Union. The
Party tried to eliminate private ownership
and establish public ownership, reduce free
127
competition and develop a planned economy,
limit the role of capital in the distribution
of resources and promote egalitarianism in
order to eradicate exploitation and suppres-
sion. To promote the socialist transforma-
tion and build a new socialist country, the
Communist Party must always keep power
in the hand of the proletarian class, take the
class struggle as basic line and consolidate
the central leadership. After eight years of
the socialist transformation, in 1957, Mao
declared confidently:
We are now building socialism.… The petty bour-
geoisie in agriculture and handicrafts and the bour-
geoisie in industry and commerce have both
experienced changes.… [the] individual economy
has been transformed into collective economy, and
the capitalist private ownership is being transformed
into socialist public ownership. (Mao, 1977: 403)
In search of its own socialist model, after
Stalin was criticized at the 20th Congress of
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in
February 1956, China, under Mao, adopted
many radical policies and launched mass
movements one after another. The most
important was the ‘Great Leap Forward’
(GLF, 1958–60) and the ‘Cultural Revolution’
(1966–76). During the period of the GLF, in
rural areas of China, 750,000 higher-stage
cooperatives were merged into 25,000 peo-
ple’s multifunction communes in order to
bring private farmers into peasant collectives
in the pursuit of egalitarian ideals. A huge
amount of manpower had been mobilized to
build the famous backyard steel furnaces and
extensive irrigation works. China’s leaders
were eager to catch up with Britain, and
eventually with the United States, and at least
for a brief moment were willing to believe
that utopian methods worked and would pro-
duce more tons of steel and food. The GLF
caused a great deal of waste by mobilizing
great manpower and huge resources to pro-
duce low-quality, even useless, steel in an
unproductive way in the development of the
socialist economy. What is more, owing to
this policy placing emphasis on the
128 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
development of heavy industry rather than
light industry, the meager development of
heavy industry came at a huge cost with little
or no improvement in people’s living stand-
ards. The GLF caused an immense famine
and an unusually high death rate – the conse-
quence not only of declining harvests but of
excessive requisitioning of grain, based on
false reports that far more grain had been
produced than was actually the case. Many
years later, official sources admitted that 8
million people had died of causes related to
the GLF; unofficial sources estimated the
figure at about 30 million (Saich, 2004: 41).
During the period of the Great Proletariat
Cultural Revolution, Mao took the class
struggle as fundamental. He believed that
the main goal of the Cultural Revolution was
to save Chinese socialism from the threat of
‘revisionism’ by purging his lieutenants who,
as in case of Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping,
attached greater importance to economic effi-
ciency than ideological purity. The Cultural
Revolution placed emphasis on purifying the
superstructure rather than changing the eco-
nomic conditions, because Maoists believed
that purification would give a push to eco-
nomic development in which the bureaucrats
would engage directly, and to which the
masses, imbued with revolutionary ideals,
would exert themselves on behalf of collec-
tive undertakings. Meanwhile, with the ideal
of egalitarian, a leftist ‘wind’ swept through
the country, resulting in the curtailing of
private landholding, a free market and other
personal rights. However, the facts show that
China ended up in 1976, at the end of the
Cultural Revolution, with neither efficiency
nor equity.
Although Maoism contains many different
and sometimes contradictory elements during
the different stages of Chinese Revolution and
socialist construction, several salient features
can be found in his works and experiences.
The first important feature is his emphasis on
the importance of peasant issues in Chinese
revolution and socialist construction. The
Marxist-Leninist tradition treated peasants as
incapable of revolutionary initiative and only
marginally useful in backing urban proletar-
ian revolution. Based on his life experiences
and his analysis of the rural situation in China,
Mao came to recognize the potential power
of China’s hundreds of millions of peasants
and decided to establish his base in rural
areas instead of big cities. The peasants con-
stituted the vast majority of China’s popula-
tion and most of them were hard-pressed and
lived in extreme poverty. According to Mao,
they were very receptive to revolutionary
agitation and could become a revolutionary
force if fully mobilized and properly guided.
Proceeding from this belief, Mao proposed
to instill in them a revolutionary conscious-
ness and make their force alone suffice for the
revolution. By so doing, Mao led the Chinese
revolution to succeed and gradually formed
a special sentiment for the peasants. During
the Cultural Revolution, Mao sent many city
workers, intellectuals and bureaucrats to rural
areas and forced them to receive re-education
through agricultural labor, working alongside
the peasants, because Mao believed the big
cities were a corrupting influence for many.
In Mao’s thinking, there were long-stand-
ing populist elements and continuous empha-
sis on the ‘mass line’. The mass line means
the emphasis on the interests and prefer-
ences of the common people and demands
that the government be responsive to them. It
was first created in the revolutionary period,
based on the idea of class struggle. The idea
of the disadvantaged classes overthrowing the
privileged classes through interclass struggle
naturally entailed the idea of mobilizing the
oppressed masses to fight for their own inter-
ests against those of the oppressing classes.
Thus, the notion of class struggle led to Mao’s
stress on the importance of the masses and
mass movements and to what Mao explic-
itly labeled as the ‘mass line’ in the Yan’an
period (late 1930s and early 1940s) and thus
it is extolled as one of precious traditions in
communist history. Therefore, it is common
to assert that the mass line is a style of leader-
ship, which is, at its best, a democratic style
 MARX AND MARXISM IN POLITICS
of leadership, just as indicated in the slogans
such as ‘Serve the People’ and ‘Everything
depends on the Masses, from the Masses,
to the Masses’. Mao believed that even the
vanguard Party needed to be rectified and
reformed through criticism from the people
it led and that the masses of China should be
encouraged to become involved in even the
highest affairs of the State. In the Cultural
Revolution of 1966–76, the masses had been
mobilized so broadly and deeply that the
country verged on the edge of anarchy.
In spite of political disorder and economic
depression in China, Maoism developed into
a worldwide movement in the 1960s and
thereafter. All Maoists expressed fidelity to
the thought of Mao Zedong. But at a prac-
tical level, self-identified Maoist political
formations differed considerably. In parts of
Asia where conditions were similar to those
that prevailed in China before 1949, Maoism
was largely a peasant movement, engaging
in guerilla warfare and establishing bases in
rural areas, and if successful, surrounding the
cities and seizing State power. Elsewhere in
the Third World, especially in Latin America,
facing very different conditions, Maoists had
to modify classical Maoist forms of revolu-
tionary struggle. In the developed capitalist
countries, Maoism meant something very
different. Western Maoism was particularly
attractive to young people during the 1960s,
if only for its ostensible purity and populist
nature. Although Maoism has been upheld
as one of the major guiding principles in the
CCP and other left-wing parties, it has gradu-
ally lost its appeal in China and other parts of
the world since China adopted a new ‘reform
and opening’ policy in 1978.
Contemporary Chinese Marxism
This is socialism with Chinese characteris-
tics; contemporary Chinese Marxism, pro-
posed by the communist leaders with Deng
Xiaoping at its core. After the death of Mao
and the end of the Cultural Revolution, Deng
129
Xiaoping emerged as the new supreme leader
and began to review and revise the basic line
adopted by Mao. He was dissatisfied with the
poor performance that had been achieved in
the preceding 30 years and made the painful
discovery that Chinese socialism had pro-
duced only meager results in comparison
with the other nations of capitalist East Asia.
He believed that these were consequences of
a rigid and dogmatic understanding of social-
ism; that is, taking classic socialist theory as
the CCP’s guideline without considering
China’s special circumstances and blindly
believing that socialism equals public owner-
ship plus planned economy. So Deng
Xiaoping thought it imperative to give a new
perspective on socialism and make a break-
through in socialist theory under the banner
of ‘emancipating the mind’ and ‘seeking the
truth from the facts’ (Deng, 1994: 140). The
new theory of socialism with Chinese char-
acteristics has been expounded and enriched
by Deng Xiaoping and other communist
leaders during recent decades.
In 1978, at the Third Plenary Session
of the Eleventh Central Committee of the
CCP, the Party with Deng Xiaoping as its
core leader, restored the principle of ‘seek-
ing the truth from the facts’, stopped using
the slogan ‘politics taking command’ and
shifted the major goals to socialist construc-
tion, focusing on economic development and
modernization. This made a good start on
‘reconsidering’ socialism and brought about
the historic decision on ‘reform and opening
up’ – the Opening of China – which marked
the beginning of China’s era of reform. At
the time, China had a clear desire to increase
productivity and raise living standards by
reforming its economic system. However,
it didn’t have a clear objective of what the
new system would be like and thus pro-
ceeded with the reform as though ‘crossing
the river by touching the stones’. In 1982, at
the 12th National Congress of the CCP, Deng
Xiaoping proposed the idea of constructing
socialism with Chinese characteristics by
combining the basic principles of Marxism
130 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
and China’s special national conditions. By
1987, at the 13th National Congress of the
CCP, the Party had a new perspective on the
progress of socialist development, proposing
that as China was still in the primary stage,
the private economy should be encouraged.
At the beginning of 1992, Deng Xiaoping
made a famous southern tour in which he
talked a lot about the nature of socialism,
redefining it as ‘liberating productivity, devel-
oping productivity, eradicating exploitation,
getting rid of the polarization between rich
and poor, and finally getting rich together’
(Deng, 1993: 373). He said: ‘The planned
economy is not equal to capitalism, and there
are plans in the capitalist countries. The mar-
ket economy is not equal to capitalism, and
there are markets in the socialist countries.’
‘The measure of socialism or capitalism is not
that there are more markets or more plans’,
‘but whether it is helpful to develop produc-
tivity, enhance the comprehensive national
power, and improve the living standard for
common people’ (Deng, 1993: 372–3). In
October, at the 14th National Congress of the
CCP, Jiang Zemin, the new supreme leader as
General Secretary of the CCP, attributed the
fruits of ‘reform and opening up’ to the theory
of socialism with Chinese characteristics pro-
posed by Deng Xiaoping, and declared that
the goal of economic structural reform would
be to establish the socialist market economy
(Jiang, 2006a, 210). In 1993, at the Third
Plenum of the Fourteenth Central Committee
of the CCP, the leaders adopted ‘the Decision
on Issues Concerning the Establishing of a
Socialist Market Economic System’, which
was the turning point on China’s road to mar-
ketization. Thus, the Chinese government
and Communist Party formally admitted and
adopted the market economy, in which the
market would play the fundamental role in
allocating economic and social resources. In
contrast with the traditional socialist theory,
which rejected the commodity economy and
market mechanism, the new theory insisted
on the coexistence of socialism and the mar-
ket economy because socialism has been
redefined in grand schemes for developing
productivity and creating wealth, and the mar-
ket is regarded as the mere means to organize
and regulate economic relations. In 1997, at
the Fifteenth National Congress of the CCP,
the leaders made an official decision to adopt
Deng Xiaoping’s theory as their guiding prin-
ciple along with Marxist-Leninist and Mao
Zedong Thought (Maoism).
In the process of developing the socialist
market economy, the private economy has
been playing a more and more important role
and a new stratum of private entrepreneurs
has become more powerful and influential. At
the Meeting Celebrating the 80th Anniversary
of the Founding of the CCP, Jiang Zemin
said that most of these people, such as pri-
vate entrepreneurs and technical personnel,
have contributed to the development of pro-
ductive forces and other social undertakings
through honest labor or lawful business oper-
ations, and they are also working for build-
ing socialism with Chinese characteristics
(Jiang, 2006b: 286). This officially opened
the door for private entrepreneurs to join
the CCP. For the Communist Party, which
insisted on the eradication of exploitation
and the exploiting class for such a long time,
this decision to permit private entrepreneurs
as ‘new blood’ was revolutionary. In 2002, at
the 16th National Congress of the CCP, the
CCP leaders endorsed officially the important
thought of the ‘Three Represents’ proposed
by Jiang Zemin as their guiding principle
along with the Marxism-Leninism, Mao
Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping theory.
The ‘Three Represents’ means that the CCP
must represent the most advanced productiv-
ity, the most advanced culture and the most
comprehensive interests of Chinese people
(Jiang, 2006b: 2). This marked the fundamen-
tal transformation of the CCP from the party
of the working class to a catch-all party.
Although China has achieved rapid growth
and improved living standards for most of its
residents, the developments in China are lim-
ited, imbalanced and at a low-level in terms of
GDP per capita and technological innovation,
 MARX AND MARXISM IN POLITICS
and also at high-cost. There are widening gaps
between the urban and rural areas, between
the east and west and between the coastal
and mountainous areas. Environmental deg-
radation and the low efficiency of resource
consumption as a result of fast industrializa-
tion and urbanization have all contributed to
a bottleneck in sustainable development. After
Hu Jintao came to power as supreme leader in
2002, the theory of scientific development and
harmonious society was proposed as the new
development of Chinese-style socialism. The
concept of scientific development was first
launched by Hu Jintao at the Third Plenum
of the 16th Central Committee in 2003. It
emphasized equitable, balanced and sustain-
able development. The building of harmoni-
ous society is aimed to enable all the people
to share the social wealth brought by reform
and development, forge an ever closer rela-
tionship between the people and government
and result in lasting stability and unity. Social
harmony is an essential attribute of social-
ism with Chinese characteristics. Scientific
development and social harmony are integral
to each other; neither is possible without the
other. In 2007, at the 17th National Congress
of the CCP, the leaders decided to build the
socialist harmonious society according to the
notion of scientific development.
Since Xi Jinping rose to be the supreme
leader as the General Secretary of the CCP in
2012, enormous and massive political changes
have taken place in China. In contrast with
Deng Xiaoping’s ideas about the limited role
of the Communist Party, General Secretary
Xi has called for the overall leadership of
the CCP in all areas. On February 13, 2017,
when delivering a speech at the study session
attended by provincial and ministerial lead-
ers, Xi Jinping emphasized that ‘the Party
exercises overall leadership over all areas of
endeavor in every party of the country’ (Xi,
2017: 20). In the political report delivered
at the 19th National Congress of the CCP,
Xi Jinping insisted that ‘the defining feature
of socialism with Chinese characteristics is
the leadership of the Communist Party of
131
China; the greatest strength of the system
of socialism with Chinese characteristics is
the leadership of the Communist Party of
China; and the Party is the highest force for
political leadership’ (Xi, 2017a: 20). In the
revised Constitution of the PRC, endorsed by
the National People’s Congress in 2018, the
communist leadership has been included and
reemphasized in an added article. This new
definition of socialism and the CCP’s role rep-
resented the latest development in contempo-
rary Chinese Marxism and will contribute to
the party-centered governance in China.
CONCLUSION
From the above reflections and discussions,
we may conclude that Marxism has been
developing along with historical develop-
ment. During different periods of historical
development, Marxism can be understood
from very different perspectives. For exam-
ple, the new perspectives on socialism during
the reform era in China represented the theo-
retical transition from the pure, classic and
traditional socialism characterized by public
ownership, planned economy and class strug-
gle, to socialism with Chinese characteristics
emphasizing the reform and opening up, the
development of the market economy and the
building of a prosperous and harmonious
society under the leadership of the CCP.
Taking a long and broad view, global con-
flict between Marxism and liberalism, com-
munism and capitalism, left and right has
dominated world politics during the past two
centuries. On the left there have been many
controversies and disputes over the inter-
pretation of Marxism and its application.
Generally speaking, Marxism has been criti-
cized and rejected when capitalist countries
are prosperous and socialist countries decline
and collapse; on the contrary, Marxism has
been adopted and embraced when capitalist
countries face crisis and socialist countries
make progress.
132 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
REFERENCES
Anderson, Perry. 1976. Considerations on West-
ern Marxism. London: Verso Edition.
Anderson, Perry. 1983. In the Tracks of Historical
Materialism. London: Verso Edition.
Anderson, Perry. 2013. Lineages of the Absolutist
State. London: Verso (New Left Books).
Anderson, Perry. 2017. The Antinomies of Anto-
nio Gramsci. London: Verso Edition.
Ball, Terence and Richard Bellamy, eds. 2003. The
Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Politi-
cal Thought. Cambridge University Press.
Burawoy, Michael. 1979. Manufacturing Consent:
Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly
Capitalism. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Burawoy, Michael. 1985. The Politics of Produc-
tion: Factory Regimes under Capitalism and
Socialism. London: Verso (New Left Books).
Carver, Terrell, ed. 1996. Marx: Later Political Writ-
ings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Deng Xiaoping. 1993. Deng Xiaoping Wenxuan
(Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping), Volume 3,
Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (People’s Press).
Deng Xiaoping. 1994. Deng Xiaoping Wenxuan
(Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping), Volume 2,
Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (People’s Press).
Engels, Friedrich. 1993 (First published). 2009 (Reis-
sued). The Condition of the Working Class in
England. Edited with an Introduction and Notes by
David McLellan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geary, Dick. 2003. ‘The Second International:
Socialism and Social Democracy’, in T. Ball and
R. Bellamy (eds) The Cambridge History of
Twentieth-Century Political Thought. Cam-
bridge University Press, pp. 219–238.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the
Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New
York: International Publishers.
Harding, Neil. 2003. ‘The Russian Revolution: An
Ideology in Power’, in T. Ball and R. Bellamy
(eds) The Cambridge History of Twentieth-
Century Political Thought. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, pp. 239–266.
Jay, Martin (Mading Jie). 1996. Falankefu Xuepai
Shi (The Dialectical Imagination: A History of
the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social
Research, Chinese version). Guangzhou, China:
Guangdong People’s Press.
Jessop, Bob (with Russell Wheatley), eds. 1999.
Karl Marx’s Social and Political Thought (Volume
V: Marx’s Life and Theoretical Development).
London and New York: Routledge.
Jiang, Zemin. 2006a. Jiang Zemin Wenxuan Diyi-
juan (Selected Works of Jiang Zemin Volume 1).
Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (People’s Press).
Jiang Zemin. 2006b. Jiang Zemin Wenxuan Disan-
juan (Selected Works of Jiang Zemin), Volume 3,
Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (People’s Press).
Lenin, Vladimir I. 2008. Revolution Democracy
Socialism: Lenin’s Selected Writings 1895-1923
(Edited and with an introduction by Paul Le
Blanc). London: Pluto Press.
Lukács, Georg. 1971. History and Class Conscious-
ness. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Mao Zedong. 1977. Mao Zedong Xuanji (Selected
Works of Mao Zedong), Volume 5, Beijing:
Renmin Chubanshe (People’s Press).
Marx, Karl. 1973. Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts of 1844. Edited with an Introduc-
tion by Dirk J. Struik. London: Lawrence &
Wishart Ltd.
Marx, Karl. 1990. Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of
Political Economy. Introduced by Ernest Mandel.
Translated by Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin
Books in association with New Left Review.
McDonald, Lee Cameron. 1962. Western Political
Theory: The Modern Age. New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World.
McLellan, David. 2003a. ‘Asian Communism’, in
T. Ball and R. Bellamy (eds) The Cambridge His-
tory of Twentieth-Century Political Thought.
Cambridge University Press, pp. 267–281.
McLellan, David. 2003b. ‘Western Marxism’, in T.
Ball and R. Bellamy (eds) The Cambridge History
of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. Cam-
bridge University Press, pp. 282–298.
Moore, Barrington, Jr. 1966 (Reprint in 1993).
Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy:
Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern
World. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
Moore, Barrington, Jr. 2018. Moral Aspects of
Economic Growth and Other Essays. Ithaca and
London: Cornell University Press.
O’Malley, Joseph, ed. 1994. Marx: Early Political
Writings. Cambridge University Press.
Ricardo, David. 2004. On the Principles of Political
Economy and Taxation. London: Dover
Publications.
Saich, Tony. 2004. Governance and Politics of
China. Palgrave MacMillan.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2011. Historical Capitalism
with Capitalist Civilization. London: Verso Edition.
Wang, Huning. ed. 2004. Zhengzhi De Luoji:
Makesi Zhuyi Zhengzhixue Yuanli (The Logic of
Politics: Marxist Principles of Political Science).
Shanghai, China: Renmin Chubanshe (Shanghai
People’s Press).
Xi Jinping. 2017. The Governance of China (II).
Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
Xi Jinping. 2017a. Juesheng Quanmian Jiancheng
Xiaokang Shehui Duoqu Xinshidai Zhongguo Tese
Shehuizhuyi Weida Shengli (Secure a Decisive Vic-
tory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society
in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New
Era). Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (People’s Press)
Xu Datong, ed., 2005. Xifang Zhengzhi Sixiangshi (A
History of Western Political Thought), Volume 4,
Tianjin: Renmin Chubanshe (Tianjin People’s Press).