Chapter 3: Marxist Criticism

According to Tyson, (1999) “economics is the base upon which the superstructure of social/political/ideological realities is build. Economic power therefore always includes social and political power as well, which is why Marxist today refers to socioeconomic class, rather than economic class, when talking about the class structure” (p. 50). This is based on the social and political theory of Karl Marx, a 19th century German socialist philosopher, economist, journalist, and revolutionary. His work is influenced by Hegel's philosophy, the political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and theorists of 19th century French socialism, to develop a critique of society, which he claimed, was both scientific and revolutionary. This critique achieved its most systematic expression in his masterpiece, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Since its inception and up to the present day, Marxism has been positioned largely outside the political mainstream, although it has played a major role in history. Today, Marxist political parties exist in most countries around the world but as Taylor points out, “there has never been as far as we know a true Marxist society on the face of the Earth. Although Communist societies claimed to be based on the principles developed by Marx, in reality, “oligarchies control the money and the guns and forces its policies on a population kept in line through physical intimidation” (p. 49).

Many of the terms develop by Marx continue to define the attributes of capitalism, which is a system of wage-labor and commodity production for sale, exchange, and profit, which is controlled by private or corporate owned elite who reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. This has created a stratified class system in America of the Haves and Have-Nots, which Marx defied as the bourgeoisie and the working class or proletariat. The working class are forced sell their labor for an hourly rate, which tends to be kept low so that the rich can profit in the market by keeping cost down, which includes labor. In America, we saw an emerging middle class, those individuals who where not part of the very wealthy bourgeoisie who do not produce anything instead they control the means of production, where the middle class not only employ labor but also work themselves. As we have seen over the past forty years, the economy has grown to global scale, referred to as globalization. Marx predicted that the middle class would eventually be destroyed by efficiency (use of technology to replace human labor) resulting in the forced movement of the vast majority of the middle class to the proletariat. An example of this would be many small businesses giving way to fewer larger ones, without increasing the number of petty bourgeois bureaucrats required to administer each company. We saw this process in the early 1980s when many white-collar workers were laid off during recession.

The struggle for equality in a capitalist system continues to create tension given the challenge of diminishing resources and the rapid and dramatic rise in population. The world's population increased from 1.65 billion in 1900 to 3.02 billion in 1960. With world population at 6.5 billion and rising, the richest 20 percent of humanity consumes 86 percent of all goods and services used, while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3 percent. The wealthy consume 45 percent of all meat and fish, use 58 percent of all energy produced and own 87 percent of the vehicles. Last year the World Wide Fund for Nature reported that humans are plundering the world's resources at a pace that outstrips the planet's capacity to sustain life; we currently consume 20 percent more natural resources than the earth can produce. Humanity's reliance on fossil fuels, the spread of cities, and the destruction of natural habitats for farmland and over-exploitation of the oceans are destroying Earth's ability to sustain life.

Marx believed that the transition to a socialist society would require a revolution of the working class and the dissolution of the capitalist state. Yet many argue that the ideal atmosphere envisioned by Marx has not yet happened. According to Tyson, this may be the function of ideology, which is a belief system or “product of cultural conditioning [which include] for example, capitalism, communism, Marxism, patriotism, religion, ethical systems, humanism, environmentalism, astrology, and karate are all ideologies” (p. 52). The “American Dream” would be considered another example of ideology that blinds the middle class to the oppressive nature of capitalism, which tell them that if they get an education, work hard, and are innovative, they too can become successful, famous, and wealthy. Unfortunately, education and handwork are no guarantee of success, there is evidence that those who work hardest continue to be exploited by the fringe and black market economy, where immigrants, minorities, and other economically disadvantaged members of America pay higher interest and taxes, which subsidize the lives of the truly wealthy.

According to Eric Fromm, the renowned psychoanalyst discusses how the principals of economics also have a strong influence on our love relationships. In his book The Art of Loving, he describes love as status and a commodity that can be exchanged on the market. For example, an attractive woman will leave her blue color boyfriend for a wealthy man who can provide her luxury, in the transaction, the man is able to display a “trophy wife” that he can show off to business associates and friends. This has led to a significant shift in social attitudes, behaviors and institutional regulations surrounding sexuality since Freud opened the door to the bedroom. Since then, sexuality has moved closer to the centre of public debate than ever before sparked by a sexual revolution in America during the1960 and 1970. Writers of the so-called "new left" such as Herbert Marcuse & William Riech fused Marxism and Psychoanalysis to forge a revolutionary sexual radicalism that argued that capitalism sexually repressed the masses in the interests of its life negating and exploitative goals. Capitalism demanded self-restraint and compulsive work, both it was argued were contrary to any liberated and spontaneous sexual expression. Sexual libido had been colonized and brought into the service of capitalism’s nexus of production and consumption. The bourgeoisie a century earlier had forged an identity around the confinement of sexuality within the private domain of the heterosexual family. The anti-authoritarian and revolutionary movements of the 1960s saw the reproductive suburban family along with its morality of self-restraint, hard work, and moral puritanism as an expression of class domination. Sexual freedom was tied to revolutionary outcomes. The so-called "permissive" or "swinging sixties" has become a metaphor for contemporary social conflict. For progressives it is heralded as a time of revolutionary upheaval resulting in social change and redefinition of civil rights including, decolonization, women’s liberation, gay & lesbian liberation, green and peace movements. For conservatives it has become a scapegoat to blame many contemporary problems upon and the call for the return to “traditional family values”. Issues such as pornography, marriage breakdowns, single parent families, welfare state dependency, drugs and youth crime are all seen as having their origins in the "permissiveness" of the sixties.

Tyson, L. (1999). Chapter 3: Marxist Criticism. In L. Tyson (Ed.), Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide (pp. 49-79). New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.