Karl Marx

“With Marx, socialism became international or cosmopolitan n scope in contrast to the association or national industrialism of his predecessors.” (R. G. Gettell)


Introduction:
Karl Marx born in a prosperous family became a victim of misfortunes, a prey of perpetual crushing poverty and a painfully sensitive to see the incredible sufferings of humanity because of economic inequality, social disparity, incalculable violence and mal-treatment towards laborers at the hands of feudal lords and industrialists. He was born at Treves in Prussia on 5th May, 1818. His aristocratic Jewish parents embraced Christianity when Karl Marx was only a child. At the age of 17, he became a law student at Bonn University. In 1826, he left for the University of Berlin. In 1843, he married Jenny, a member of petty nobility who remained a faithful counterpart throughout his life.

In 1841, Karl Marx got his degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Jena on the tropic of “The Difference between the Natural Philosophy of Democratus and Epicurus.” He mixed with the revolutionaries and his radical thinking made him suspicious which created obstacle in the security of employment as a university teacher. Then he entered into the field of journalism. Karl Marx studied Hegel very thoroughly and noted basic fallacies in his idealistic philosophy.

In early 1845, Karl Marx left Paris for Brussels. But before he left France, he got an ever-lasting friendship with Friedrich Engel which brought many changes in his life. Marx-Engel collaboration was one of the history’s most unique prominent and enduring collaboration. Friedrich Engel became the friend, disciple and passionate seeker of knowledge and a warm partner. In the summer of 1845, Friedrich took Karl Marx to England and there he was introduced to the founders of the “German Workers Educational Union” that had recently started in London. After remaining for sometime in London, he again came back to Brussels. Marx had to flee from one country to another on account of his conspiratorial activities. Then he steeled down in London till his death.

“England has often been called the mother of Exiles”, but for Karl Marx, it became the dwelling place of miseries and misfortunes. He experienced great distress and poverty along with his big family. In spite of lot of misfortunes and hardships, Karl Marx made endeavors relentlessly to unchain the working classes from the bondage of capitalism. Karl Marx worked round the clock in the British Museum for developing the economic theories of capital. Karl Marx wrote many pamphlets defending himself and severely criticizing his opponents. He died as a wounded soul on March 14, 1883. He led a life of full of pangs and despondency and faced the hardships of worldly agency with determination, courage and perseverance. In a speech over his grave in High ate Cemetery, Friedrich Engel declared that “his name and works will live on through the centuries.”

Karl Marx was a great writer and will ever live on the pages of existence. He wrote the following master works:

1. Communist Manifesto immortalized Karl Marx. He wrote this with the assistance and help of his faithful friend Friedrich Engel. This is considered the Bible of the Communism all over the world.
2. Das Kapital is considered as the foundation stone of communism.
3. Poverty of Philosophy
4. A Contribution to the critique of Political Economy
5. The Holy Family
6. Revolution and Counter Revolution

Political Philosophy of Karl Marx

Karl Marx is rightly called the Father of Modern Communism. The theory of communism owes its birth to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel. According to the theory of communism, the only practical thing was to acquire mastery over the governing laws of society. Apart from this, Karl Marx and Engel wanted to know the causes of economic changes in human society. They also wanted to explore what further changes are required. They concluded that the changes in human society were not the least accidental like changes in external nature. They worked out a scientific theory of society based on the actual experience of men. Karl Marx applied this theory to the society in which he lived mainly Capitalist Britain. He was of the opinion that it was quite impossible to separate his economic theories from historical and social theories. Marx attacked the existing capitalist institutions. He did not believe in the essential goodness of man. He conceived of a man more as an economic as a political animal.

Karl Marx borrowed from Hegel the apparatus of Dialectics but substituted matter of Hegelian idea. He built his concept of dialectic materialism by interpreting Hegel’s World Spirit as an economic force. Karl Marx held the view that the meaning of history lay in the interpretation of material world. Karl Marx is correctly divisible into three portions:

1. A purely philosophical section on dialectics
2. Pure economics
3. Historical materialism


Hegel’s influence over Karl Marx:
Karl Marx remains incomplete without the study of Hegel. It is true that Karl Marx rejected the substance of Hegel’s political philosophy and it is a stark reality in history that Karl Marx adopted the dialectical method developed by Hegel, as the basis for his historical materialism. Hegel was of the view that history gained its meaning from the interaction of ideas. There was a perennial struggle of ideas for dominance over one another. Out of this struggle of ideas, new ideas emerged and these new ideas corresponded more closely to the ultimate perfection of God himself.

Every idea according to Hegel, is incomplete with inherent contradiction. The incompleteness or inherent contradictions is every idea led naturally to its opposite, which may be called anti-thesis. From the struggle between the two, i.e. ‘thesis’ and ‘anti-thesis’ there emerged the truth embraced by both which may be called “synthesis”. This ‘synthesis’ becomes a new thesis and again there came an ‘anti-thesis’ and again emerged a ‘synthesis, and the process repeated itself in an unending chain. Karl Marx opined that history unfolded according to a dialectical plan. Here he fully agrees with Hegel. But he was of the view that ideas were not the controlling factors. Ideas do not control the reality. These are the outcome of material conditions.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel developed communism as an ardent opposing force to capitalism. Appalling degradation of man in society and crushing poetry were the real basis for the communist protest. The degradation was accompanied by uncontrolled industrialization in the middle of the nineteenth century. The whole Europe was engulfed in moral turpitude, degeneration and oppression which fully justified the advent of communist’s bitterness and scorn against the capitalistic structure of society. This caused great frustration among the masses and consequently they became inquisitive to bring about social justice.

Karl Marx was a social scientist. As a social scientist, he made efforts to look at this injustice quite impersonally. But these consequences according to Karl Marx were essentially involved for the accumulation of capital. Karl Marx viewed that in each and every society industry, “the wages paid to the workers are not the equivalent of the full value they produce, but only equal to about half of this value or even less. The rest of the value produced by the worker during his working day is taken outright by his employer.”

“The truce and the false together in Karl Marx constitute one of the most tremendously compelling forces that modern history has seen. For the power of his message and for his influence upon the future movement of the communism, Karl Marx can be sure of his place amongst great masters of political thought.” (Wayper)

Proletarian Dictatorship

The Proletariat class comprises of the workers, laborers or wage-earners would naturally be in the vast majority in every society. Karl Marx was of the view that it is then quite natural that the dictatorship of the proletariat would be a democracy of the majority. The “Communist Manifesto” also says “The first step in the working class revolution is the raising of the proletariat to the position of the ruling class, the victory of democracy. The proletarian movement is the conscious movement of the immense majority in the interest of the immense majority.” Karl Marx believed in the inevitability of this class struggle and the ultimate victory of the proletariat after a successful bloody revolution, he did not like to leave this development to the forces of economic evolution. He wanted that this revolution should be precipitated through organization and energetic sophisticated action on the part of workers. All the confronted titanic forces should be crushed by the laborers.

The Marxian ideal was to bring about proletarian dictatorship through violent means and not through peaceful evolution, resulting in the political and economic domination by the proletarians. The proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie class in the state is directed towards the achievement of two ends:

1. Firstly, this proletarian revolution has to destroy the capitalist structure of society. In destroying the capitalist stat it is very essential for the proletarian revolution to destroy all the social, political, legal and other such institutions of the capitalist state.

2. Secondly, the proletarian revolution has to replace all the social, political, legal and other institutions with new institutions. These new institutions should be such as it suits the needs of the proletarian class.

Karl Marx said, “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of proletariat.” Lenin was the true follower of Karl Marx. He was of the view that Communism is to be achieved in two stages. The first stage of Communism follows immediately after the seizure of power by the proletarian. In this stage of communism, society would not be a free society. This stage of communism contains the blend of vestiges of old and bourgeoisie order. In the old capitalist state, the capitalist employer and exploiter used to suppress the minority and in the new stage of Communism or in the proletariat dictatorship it would be proletariat class which would suppress the minority or the capitalist. The Communist state differs from the capitalist state in two ways:

a) In it the majority i.e. the workers will expropriate the majority.

b) The revolutionary proletariat will abolish all classes and then disappear as a class.

The proletarian dictatorship in the transitional period is not a fluctuating period of “Super Revolutionary” deeds and decrease. On the contrary, the dictatorship of the proletariat must be regarded as an entire historical epoch full of external conflicts and civil wars. In the dictatorship of proletariat there is a constant organizational work along with economic progress. In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat will be given full opportunity to educate itself.

Lenin said, “Under the dictatorship of the proletariat we will have to re-educate million of peasants and petty proprietors, hundreds of thousands of office workers and bourgeoisie intellectuals to subordinate all these to proletarian state and to proletarian leadership, to overcome their bourgeoisie habits and traditions, to re-educate in a protracted struggle under the controlling auspices of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletarians themselves, for they will not be able themselves of own petty bourgeoisie prejudices at the first stroke as if by magic, or at the behest of the Virgin Mary, or by a slogan, resolution or decree it can be done only in the course of a long and difficult mass struggle against the mass of petty bourgeoisie influence.”

The Communist holds that the proletarian dictatorship means the despotic rule of the Communist minority. It will be a victory of democracy and not a despotism of a minority. The proletariat class in power will not maintain the affairs of the state with repression and violence. Laski was of the view that the dictatorship of the proletariat means, not the anti-thesis of democracy, but the anti-thesis of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It will be exercised through elected bodies and subject to public opinion. Lenin also remarks in this regard, “Revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is power won and maintained by the violence of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie power that is unrestrained by any law.”

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not an end, but a means to an end the creation of society in which the basic principle of life and social organization would be, “from each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” The dictatorship of the proletariat is transitory in nature. After the establishment of the society, dictatorship of the proletariat will not remain. The state will wither away. All functions of the state will administer themselves and administration will be a matter of technical and scientific knowledge instead of exercise of political will and authority. There will be an ideal society of the free and the equal without any internal disruption and mutual dissension.

__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga

Karl Marx and Capitalism

Karl Marx devoted a great part of his life to the study of capitalism I order to describe the capitalist method of production of his own age and for all ages to come. By studying capitalism, Karl Marx wanted to know the guiding principle of its change. Karl Marx studied the capitalism with missionary spirit to make a scientific forecast on its development. The salient feature of the feudal production was production for local consumption. In the age of feudalism, persons used to produce for themselves and for their feudal lords. In those days, production was meant for consumption. Gradually feudal units of production began to break up. Profit became the only aim of production in the modern world. Production for profit required two things, capitalists’ means of production, and the laborers whose only chance of getting a livelihood was to sell his labor.

In this new system of production, there was a complete change. Now the laborers produced things not for their personal use. On the contrary the production was meant for the capitalist to sell for money. In this new system of production, things were produced not for consumption but for sale in the market. Laborer received his wages for his capitalist employer for his work and the capitalist employer received profit. Karl Marx is of the view that profit arises in the course of production. Sale of products does not produce profit.

According to Karl Marx, the exchange value of product depends upon the Labor Time spent in its production. A product has a great exchange value if more human labor has been put into its production. Labor time spent in producing labor power means the time spent in producing the food, shelter, clothes and other such things which are essential for the laborer maintenance. Nowadays a laborer is able to produce in a day more than is necessary to his survival but he is paid by his employer a wage commensurate with a subsistence level of existence. The difference is called surplus value. In the modern capitalist society this surplus value is appreciated by the capitalist employer.

Karl Marx is of the view that capitalists are permanent profit makers because they appropriate surplus value. It is very true that there is always a difference between the exchange value of a product produced by laborer and the value of labor power. In simple terms this difference may be called surplus value. Karl Marx opined that under capitalist structure of production in each and every factory and industry, “the wages paid to the workers are not the equivalent of the full value they produce, but only equal about half this value or even less. The rest of the value produced by the worker during his working days is taken outright by his employer.”

In the capitalist system of production, the capitalist always become greedy and ambitious to increase the amount of surplus value which means more profit for him. Lust for profit is the prime factor in the capitalist system of production. The capitalist make more profit only by exploiting the laborer. According to Karl Marx exploitation of the laborer is another salient feature of capitalism. This exploitation results in class struggle. Class struggle is perennial and perpetual in the capitalism. The worker is fighting for the existence of his life and he wanted to avoid intimidation and ultimately class struggle starts. The laborer demands higher wages and shorter hours of work for improving his position. On the other hand, the capitalist wants to make more profits and hence there is a constant clash and struggle between the capitalist and the laborer, which can never come to an end so long as the capitalist system of production lasts.

Karl Marx is of the view that property in any form is not capital, unless it is used to produce surplus value. The early accumulation of capital was very largely open robbery. But there was another way also through which capital came into existence. According to Karl Marx the primitive accumulation is the real origin of capital. He ridicules the legend of men, moderate in food and drink who served from their meager living. Karl Marx said, “This primitive accumulation plays in political economy about the same part as original sin played in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell upon the human race. In times long gone by there were town sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent and above all frugal elite: the other lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more in riotous living. Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth and the latter sort had a t last nothing to sell except their own skin. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labor, has up to now nothing to sell but itself and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work.”

With the victory of the proletariat, the class struggle puts an end to this process by ending capitalist system of production. Apart from class-struggle, there are other obstructions to the smooth development of capitalism. In other words we may say that these obstacles as a matter of fact are inherent in the capitalism. The most important among these obstacles, is the economic crisis. This crisis creates a great obstacle to the smooth course of capitalist development. Whenever economic crisis occur, it checks the expansion of capital. Economic crisis do not check the expansion of capital, but often led to the destruction of the capital accumulated in past years. Karl Marx said, “In these crisis there broke out an epidemic that, is all earlier epochs, would have become an absolutely the epidemic of over-production.”

__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga

Theory of State

“The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie as a whole.” (Karl Marx)

State is thought of as parliament or some representative institution. Karl Marx concluded that the development of the state had nothing to do with any form of representative institutions. But he was of the view that state is a machine through which the ruling class imposes its will on the majority. According to Karl Marx, state is not meant for the promotion of the welfare of its people nor bestows any right of political obligation and obedience but its coercion and that a class coercion. The state acts as an agency of class coercion in the hands of dominant economic class rather than an association of citizens is the pursuits of a common purpose.

According to the Communist theory, the state is nothing but a tool of the dominant class in society. Economic is the domineering factor which becomes the base of all structures of the society. According to Aristotle the state came into birth for the sake of life and state continues to exist for the sake of good life. According to classical view, state is an institution meant for the proper development of the personality of its each and every citizen. Laski said, “State strives to hold a just balance between the different elements in society. It strives by its policy to effect such an adjustment of the relationship between citizens and will enable each of them to realize, if he so desires, the fullest implications of human personality.”

Karl Marx vividly differs from the classical views regarding state. He says the state has never and can never aim at the common good of the community as a whole. According to Communist Manifesto, the state is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie. Karl Marx said, “State is nothing more than the form of organization which the bourgeoisie necessarily adopt both for internal and external purpose for the mutual guarantee of their property and interest.”

According to Karl Marx, there was no state in primitive society and as soon as human society was formed it bifurcated into two classes. It became very essential for the privileged class to have an armed force for the purpose to maintain the privileges of the privileged class and secondly to protect the interests of the privileged class. Friedrich Engel said, “This public force exists in every state, it consists not merely of armed men, but of material appendages, prisons and repressive institutions of all kind.” Naturally, the ruling class having the apparatus of force and absolute rod of authority will always coerce upon the other classes of society. Fear and intimidation of the ruling class constrained the people to subdue for complete obedience and hence the Marxian state aims at crushing the independent will of its subjects. Communists hold the views from the record of history that the state exists only to help the capitalist in exploiting and suppressing the laborers.

Karl Marx viewed state as a product of class antagonism. Lenin said, “Where, when and to what extent, the state arises depends directly on which where and to what extent, the class antagonism of a given society cannot be objectively reconciled. And, conversely the existence of the state proves that class antagonisms are irreconcilable.” Karl Marx was of the view that the state will be able to wither away completely when society has realized the value, “From each according to his ability: to each according to his needs.” Then there would be no problem of production and its distribution. There would be no question of mine and thine. Every one will work voluntarily according to his ability and capacity and will get share according to his needs and requirements.


Classless Society:
Karl Marx was of the opinion that class struggle is perpetual and constant between man and man and consequently man always fought for his own existence. It ends only if the final and ultimate victory of the labor is achieved. This is a known factor that in the capitalist structure of society, but not over the means of production and its direction was vested in the hands of the capitalist. Proletariats in that society are neglected people always living at the sweet mercy of capitalist. When violent bloody revolution in the name of communism bring about complete and ultimate victory to the proletarian revolutionaries, and the complete annihilation of the aristocratic and capitalist class in the society ushers a new epoch of social equality and economic parity. With the advent of proletarianism, a new system of legal, economic, political and production world emerges out. In this new system, all the functions of the government and the means as well as technique of production were to be controlled by the society.

Friedrich Engel said, “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians it creates the power which under penalty of its own destruction is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production already socialized into state property. It shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into state property.” All the class distinction in society would disappear, and with the disappearance of the class distinctions in society, the class struggle would also come to an end. The proletariat would use their power to eliminate private ownership of means of production. As soon as private ownership of means of production is eliminated, all class distinction would automatically vanish and society would become a stateless and classless society.


Criticism:

1. Karl Marx’s theory of state stands against the classical theory of state. According to classical view, the main reason for the existence of the state is the promotion of the good of the community. On the contrary, Karl Marx’s state is a machine by which one class exploits and suppresses the other.


2. Karl Marx’s views do no explain the exact nature of the state. It gives a wrong conception. He says that the ruling class is the representative of an economic class and the ruling class is always interested in pursuing its own interests. This is incorrect view of Karl Marx. The example of medieval kings and emperors stand against the theory of Karl Marx as they were not the representative of an economic class and consciously pursuing the interests of their own class. On the contrary, the ancient and medieval kings were the representatives of the whole society.


3. Karl Marx’s theory of stat is quite applicable to the first half of the nineteenth century, but for twentieth century it is quite inapplicable. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Laissez-faire policy was predominant but today its forces are no longer reliable. Now we live in an era of democratic socialist planning. Nowadays state is meant for the promotion of the common good. Thus it can be said that Karl Marx’s theory of state is not at all applicable to the states of modern times.


4. The conception of Karl Marx that victory of proletariats over the capitalists would result in the disappearance of class distinction is absolutely incorrect and untrue for glaring reasons that he had created class distinction i.e. bourgeoisie and proletariat, two great hostile camps and two prominent classes constantly indulging in class struggle and warfare which culminated into oppression and chaos.

__________________
Kon Kehta hy k Main Gum-naam ho jaon ga
Main tu aik Baab hn Tareekh mein Likha jaon ga