criticisms of Marxism

Criticisms of Marxism come from the political right as well as the political left. Generally capitalists and anarchists are the main critics of Marxism. Capitalists criticize Marxism because it challenges their power. Democratic socialists and social democrats reject the idea that socialism can be accomplished only through class conflict and a proletarian revolution. Anarchism reject the need for a transitory state phase. Some thinkers have rejected the concepts of historical materialism and the labor theory of value, and gone on to criticize capitalism - and advocate socialism - using other arguments.

Historical materialism

Historical materialism proposes that technological advances in modes of production inevitably lead to changes in the social relations of production. This economic 'base' of society supports, is reflected by and influences the ideological 'superstructure' which encompasses culture, religion, politics and all other aspects of man's social consciousness. It thus looks for the causes of developments and changes in human history in economic, technological, and more broadly, material factors, as well as the clashes of material interests among tribes, social classes and nations. Law, politics, the arts, literature, morality, religion – are understood by Marx to make up the[superstructure],as reflections of the economic base, that essentially rests on the economic base of the society.

Francis Fukuyama claimed this is oversimplification of the nature of society. He cites Max Weber's study of the development of capitalism as evidence of the impact of ideas on economic and material development. Weber argued that the work ethic among Protestant societies led to the development of modern capitalism.[4][5]

Althusserian Marxism asserts, however, that reductive interpretations of the Marxist thesis that "the mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life processes in general", such as that held by Trotsky and criticised by Pipes, are misreadings. Engels:

According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase

Althusserian Marxism has in turn been subjected to an epistemological critique by the British sociologists Barry Hindess and Paul Q. Hirst, who view it as privileged discourse over others and using these "privileged discourses" as a base on which to build further arguments. For Hindess and Hirst, such privileging is unjustified.

This also creates another problem for Marxism. If the superstructure influences the base then there is no need for Marx's constant assertions that the history of society is one of economic class conflict. This then becomes a classic chicken or the egg argument as to whether the base or the superstructure comes first. Peter Singer proposes that the way to solve this problem is to understand that Marx saw the economic base as ultimately real. Marx felt that humanity's defining characteristic was its means of production and thus the only way for man to free himself from oppression was for him to take control of the means of production. According to Marx, this is the goal of history and the elements of the superstructure act as tools of history.

The "New Man"

Certain, pre-Althusserian interpretations of Marxism have held that human nature is completely determined by the socio-economic base. Historian Richard Pipes describes how this interpretation led to a belief in a coming "new man" without vices, in essence a new superior species: albeit one caused by socio-economic changes, not genetics. Trotsky thought that this new man would be able to control all unconscious processes, including those controlling bodily functions like digestion, and have the intellect of Aristotle. In order to reach this stage, Pipes argues, it was seen as necessary and right to completely destroy the existing institutions that had formed the current wretched humans; this would in turn make it possible to dispense with the state. Pipes argues that such thinking inevitably leads to a devaluation of the importance placed on the lives and rights of current human beings. For Pipes, self-interest could not be destroyed by communism and the new ruling caste, the nomenklatura, quickly replaced the old aristocracy; periodic attempts to destroy it, such as the Cultural Revolution during Mao's regime, failed.

Hegel

Another criticism of historical materialism is due to Max Stirner, who argued that the philosophy of Hegel (one of the most significant influences on historical materialism) leads to nihilism. Marx himself wrote a lengthy response to Stirner in The German Ideology, although it was not published until well after Marx's death.

Violent proletarian revolution

During the lifetime of Marx and Engels, even if elections were allowed, the franchise was limited by gender, race, and property restrictions. Thus a violent proletarian revolution would be necessary in order to overthrow capitalism. Even if the proletariat gained power through an election, then this would have to be followed by an armed struggle against the bourgeoisie if socialism was implemented. Some socialists like Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky argued against this. Socialist reformism (seen by orthodox Marxists as a form of revisionism) claimed that gradual democratic changes could reform capitalism. Many of the current social democratic and labor parties were originally Marxist parties that adapted reformism. They later rejected Marxist ideology and the need for pure socialism in favor of a reformed capitalism.

Alienation

Max Weber has given what has been seen as different explanation for alienation than then one proposed in Marx's theory of alienation. For Weber alienation is due to increasing bureaucracy in more complex societies. A centrally planned socialist state, according to Weber, also necessitates bureaucracy and thus alienation.

Marxian labor theory of value

Many economists try to reject Marx's version of the labor theory of value in favor of marginalism.

Business cycle

Professor of Economics David L. Prychitko writes that in constrast to Marx's explanation for the business cycle many economists argue that state intervention (through monetary policy carried out by central banks and government policies on taxation and spending) and less an inherent feature of markets as such.[6] Other economists, such as those supporting Keynesian economics, see the business cycle as part of capitalism but give different explanations than Marx and have different views regarding what state intervention can do to change the cycles.

The concept of class and historical analysis

Historian Robert Conquest criticized Marxist class analysis and theory of social evolution. He argues that detailed analysis of many historical periods fails to find support for "class" or social evolution. Marx himself admitted that his theory could not explain the internal development of the "Asiatic" social system, where most of the world's population lived for thousands of years.

Karl Popper's criticism

Karl Popper, a former Marxist, argued in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies that many of Marx's predictions have failed. Marx predicted declining rather than rising wages for the working class and a declining rate of profit for capitalists. The socialist revolution would occur first in the most advanced capitalist nations. Once collective ownership had been established then all sources of class conflict would disappear.

Popper alleged that historical materialism is a pseudoscience because it is not falsifiable. Popper believed that Marxism had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. When Marx's predictions were not in fact borne out, Popper argues that the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.

Marxists refuted this argument by saying that many social sciences are not falsifiable, since it is often difficult or outright impossible to test them via experiments (in the way hard science can be tested). This is especially true when many people and a long time are involved. Popper agreed on this, but instead used it as an argument against central planning and all ideologies that claim to know the future. Marxists argue that not even all theories of hard science are falsifiable, at least at any given moment, citing philosophers of science such as Lakatos and Feyerabend.

Popper also criticized the holism and historicism of Marxism. Holism is the view that human social groups such as classes are greater than the sum of their members and are entities in their own right They are seen as acting on their human members and shape their destinies. They are also seen as subject to their own independent laws of development. Historicism, closely associated with holism, is according to Popper the belief that history develops inexorably and necessarily according to certain principles or rules towards a determinate end (as in Hegel's philosophy which influenced Marx). The link between holism and historicism is that the holist social group is explained only in terms of the historicist principles which determine its development.

These beliefs lead to what Popper calls ‘The Historicist Doctrine of the Social Sciences’, the views (a) that the principal task of the social sciences is to make predictions about the social and political development of man, and (b) that the task of politics, once the key predictions have been made, is, in Marx's words, to lessen the ‘birth pangs’ of future social and political developments.

Popper argues that this view of the social sciences is both theoretically incorrect (in the sense of being based upon a view of natural science which is totally wrong), and dangerous, as it leads to totalitarianism and authoritarianism in the form of centralized governmental control of the individual and the attempted large-scale social planning. Against this Popper argues that any human social groups are no more (or less) than the sum of its individual members, that what happens in history is the (largely unplanned and unforeseeable) result of the actions of such individuals, and that such large scale social planning will fail and is dangerous precisely because human actions have unforseen consequences. Furthermore, Popper argued that believing that history has an ultimate goal leads to the conclusion that the ends justify the means. Immoral actions become justifiable.

Transitory state phase

All Anarchists and most Libertarian socialists reject the need for a transitory state phase and often criticize Marxism for being too authoritarian. Most Anarcho-capitalists reject socialism (both Marxist and non Marxist varieties) entirely and instead advocate an economic system based on laissez faire capitalism, while Anarcho-primitivists reject left wing politics in general (and theoretically by extension Marxism) as they typically see left wing politics as corrupt and civilization as un-reformable.