Analysis of Marxist Critiques of Liberal Capitalism

summary of bolshy Critiques of Liberal CapitalismThe standard litany of Marxist critiques of liberal capitalist economy rely on a common theme which presupposes that capitalist economy is essentially flawed and evil because it relies on a structure of exploitation, i.e., the bourgeoisie, those who scud in the way of life of production, ruthlessly exploit the labor movement, the individuals who sell their labor and do non stimulate the actor of production. Marx believed, essentially, that capitalist empires are built on the backs of the proletariat, who reap lacking(predicate) rewards for their work. He hypothesized that the essential difference between the various economical forms of society, between, for instance, a society based on slave-labour, and one based in wage-labour, lies exclusively in the mode in which this surplus labour is in each(prenominal) case extracted from the actual producer, the labourer. (Marx, 18591967, p. 209)While well intentioned and valid i n roughly shipway, Marxists critiques generally offend on intellectual, practical, and empirical levels. The first intellectual bankruptcy is manifest in Marxs own quote, above, which presumes that wage-labor is effectively the same means of subjection as slave labor. This is exactly true if the proletariat serving as the labor guide no means or hope of achieving monomania stake in the work that they do or the organizations for whom they do the work. though it may subscribe to been true in 1859 when he wrote it, liberal capitalism has evolved, set forthicularly in the United States, to the state of an individual-ownership society, where opportunities abound for individuals to assume a stake in the work that they do, non merely collect a paycheck for their labor.In Marxs mind, the only way for workers to free themselves from this slavery was to collectively own the means of production. The efficacy of this intellectual model has thus far been an humiliated failure in ter ms of the results when it has been attempted.On an empirical level, the simple trueness is that the vast majority of governments that have been formed using Marxist or Communist hypothesis have themselves tended to be exploitative disasters in proportion to the capitalist societies over which they were intended to demonstrate moral and economic superiority. The Soviet Union, which launched its Marxist revolution in 1917 under Vladimir Lenin, became a great economic and military power, scarce ironically did so only by exploiting its proletariat under the corrupt, oligarchic rule of totalitarian and in the case of Stalin, genocidal dictators who function with a combination of an iron fist and a vast, ossified bureaucracy.The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, a complete ideological failure, and its genus Phallus states turned to capitalist economies and republican forms of government. (To be fair, some Soviets, at the m of Lenins ascendancy, believed it was too soon to implement Marxist philosophies, since Marxs own requirement had not been met that the countrys capitalist economy had reached its evolutionary endpoint.) China, though still a workable nation-state which wields considerable economic power, has managed to avoid the Soviet Unions fate by introducing a considerable number of free- trade elements into its state-controlled economy. Unfortunately, China shares the former Soviet Unions sense of taste for ruthless suppression of individual rights. The only other currently rest bona fide Marxist/Communist state is North Korea, whose atrocious economic conditions, cultish shade of worship for its dictators, and lack of regard for individual rights, speak for themselves. That in 2005 Marxism would have been so absent from the global political map would have been a heartbreaking blow to Marx, as would the fact that the only attempts at implementing his philosophies in their purest forms have led to brutal, totalitarian regimes which hav e arguably disrespected the proletariat as acutely as any unregulated capitalist economy.On a political level, Marx may have also underestimated the power of the marriage of democratic forms of government to liberal capitalist systems. In theory, at least, phonation democracies are inherently structured to empower the proletariat by giving them participatory voice in the decision-making that goes into governing the economic systems of their nation. Democracy, as we know it at present and as the pre-eminent form of government on the planet, was arguably still a relatively young paradigm as Marx was developing his theories. The primacy of the concepts of the worth and selection of the individual individual rights, individual freedoms is an inherently democratic notion which some(prenominal) contradicts the passive collectivism suggested by Marxism and also provides a built-in sentry go against capitalist excesses when they begin to favor oligarchies over individual rights.Democrac y is queer in its ability to lessen ameliorate the harsher effects of unregulated market capitalism. When competitive markets are allowed to flourish unchecked, certainly great wealth is effectd, just Marxs critiques of exploitation become valid as monopolies and oligarchies spring up to slip away off competition and create an environment in which the proletariat fail to benefit from the work they have put in on behalf of, for example, corporations. However, representative democracy has suffered the horrors of untempered market cycles and reacted accordingly. One of the best examples is the American immense Depression, in which a precipitous stock market crash in October 1929 set off an economic chain reaction that left tens of millions of Americans laid-off and in starvation. The collective clamor and cries of the proletariat prompted the elected government to take serious corrective measures over the next few decades to provide for means to temper the inherent boom and bust cycles of free market capitalism, and to create a social safety net for the poor and the elderly (e.g. societal Security, guaranteeing retirement income to senior citizens). Similarly, in Europe, countries where the scourges of free market industrialism once looted the countryside, such as England, democratic systems of government have gradually sticking out(p) their economies into socialist hybrids, market economies with considerable elements of state control and welfare systems to examine the proletariat are well-cared for.Unfortunately, Marx either was unable to see the potential respect of these future hybrid systems, such as market socialism, with their ability to cover up for inequities, or simply refused to believe in their viability because they failed to match his strident learn for idealistic purity within humans interrelations Even if such unfair inequalities were eliminated, Marx would still object to the quality of market social relations because they would sl ip away to be predicated on a kind of self-seeking egoism opponent to the requirement of a true community. (Warren, 1998)On a psychological level, Marxist critiques of liberal capitalism also fail because they lack practical sharpness into how the human psyche operates and instead rely too heavily on utopian ideals of human beings operating idealistically on a collective level. Marxs theory of human nature is a biological fantasy, and we have the corpses to prove it. Which may drive us to wonder if communism is deadly because it is contrary to human nature, does that imply that capitalism, which is contrary to communism, is distinctively compatible with human nature? (Wilkinson, 2005) The true statement of the matter is that human beings are a hierarchically inclined species that elaborate on power and competition. Left unchecked, these impulses can result in ghastly, fratricidal behavior, but when harnessed and properly channeled, these impulses form the heart of the free market economy, which thrives on individual initiative, healthy competition, and the quest for self-improvement and leadership.The psychological backbone of Marxist critique is the assumption of a perpetual state of victimhood on the part of the suppress, which fails to take into account the inherent human tendency to resist conquest and reform existing systems into more egalitarian structures. In other words, Marxist-style revolutions may well be unnecessary, as the proletariat seems to frequently find ways within capitalist systems to assert their rights. People will invariably have their hunter-gatherer impulses, but this does not mean they are predestined to be deleteriousThere is no way to stop dominance-seeking behavior. We may hope only to channel it to non-harmful uses. A free society therefore requires that positions of dominance and military position be widely available in a multitude of rich hierarchies, and that opportunities for greater status and dominance through pred ation are express by the constant vigilance of the peoplethe ultimate reverse dominance hierarchy. A flourishing civil society permits almost everyone to be the leader of something, whether the local anesthetic Star Trek fan club or the city council, thereby somewhat satisfying the human taste for hierarchical status, but to no ones serious detriment. (Wilkinson, 2005)In the end, Marxism is a fundamentally pessimistic and pedantic philosophical system, as are its critiques of liberal capitalism, which is a fundamentally optimistic and individualistic philosophy which endows each person with both the responsibility and the power to assume control of his or her own destiny and personal fulfillment. As sociologist Ellen Huang notes, under the genus Lens of critical Marxist theories, inequality determines all human relations, and subsequently overemphasizes the oppressed nature of the colonized. Further abstractions of the dynamic of capitalism may overlook actually forms of resista nce, leaving utopian dreams as the only option for the oppressed. (Huang, 2003) Humanity is always in dire need of practical options rooted in dreams, not merely the dreams themselves, no matter how well intended they may be.