Q.Discuss critically Marx's contribution to political thought.
Ans. Marx is considered as the greatest social philosopher of the world Dr. Wayper writes, "Marx must be regarded as one of the most important and most influential, political philosophers who have ever lived. He did, indeed, offer an interpretation of the world, but much more important from his point of view, he can claim to have fashioned one of the great formative forces of history." He represented the end of one era in political history and the beginning of another. In the period prior to Marx, the political thought was viewed from either the legalistic or the historical or the philosophical angle. The philosophers and thinkers based their thinking and theories on philosophical approach. Marx did not accept their line of reasoning. On the contrary he introduced an element of realism in social thinking and based his philosophy on the historical facts. He declared that it was the econoinic structure of the society which constituted the real basis. In other words he asserted that the legal and the political structure of the society was based on economic foundations. He accepted the role of the economic forces and material conditions of life to explain the course of history and the social changes. He introduced us to the element of contradictions existing in the capitalist system, leading to the class-war. On the basis of the class struggle and the economic determinism, he built a new socialist thought. He interpreted the nature of ultimate reality in terms of matter.
Marx argued that the economic conditions and forces influence the course of social development, independent of man's will. He gave a secondary place to the role played by the human mind and the ideas, but this does not mean that he completely ignored the role of the human mind, because he introudced a new phrase in his socialist thought, known as "relations of production". Marx applied himself to the task of constructing scientific
socialism and the magnitude of his achievement cannot be denied by even his' most unsympathetic critic. He uncovered vital truths, and he foresaw important developments that were hidden from his contemporaries. He realised, as they did not, what was the relationship between the trade cycle and over-production and unemployment. He saw that machine industry would grow too big to be confined within national frontiers. He knew that the volume of trade is no true test of national well-being. He was sure of the evil results that can follow from making men mere minders of machines and he was right in believing that, by way of compensation, concentrating people in large factories or mines would produce in them a strong psychological feeling of unity. He saw that industrialisation must necessarily involve great changes in social relationships. In showing that economic factors have been overlooked by historians, he opened up new possibilities in historical writing. It can certainly be agreed that his idea of the interdependence of political and legal institutions with the prevailing economic system is one of the most fruitful of 19th century conceptions. Perhaps it can even be admitted that because of this he was the most important social philosopher of the whole 19th century.
Criticism. Marxism has been subjected to severe criticism by a host of critics, which include a very large number of western scholars. His philosophy has been attacked by various writers from various stand points. Some of the important points of criticism of Marxism can be discussed as under :
1. Economic interpretation of history given by Marx, presents one-sided view: Marx has interpreted history in economic terms. Economic determinism or the economic interpretation of history is one of the basic principles of Marx. This has been challenged by various thinkers, particularly the sociologists, tike Hobhouse and Giddings. These thinkers are of the view that human history has been determined not by one single factor, may be economic or political or racial, but by a large number of factors and forces such as religious, geographical, political, economic, cultural, psychological and numerous others. The econoinic factor is only one among such factors. Moreover the economic factor cannot be viewed in isolation, because even the econoinic factor itself is influenced by the other factors.
2. Historically invalid: Some critics are of the view that Marx's philosophy suffers from serious historical faults. Wayper says that Mar's justification for his division of history into four main periods. The dialectic seems to demand it, and therefore it is arbitrarily done, centuriels difficult to fit into the division of being conveniently, forgotten in the process, Marx can not be blamed for not knowing what has only been learned since his death-that modern anthropology would not substantiate his description of primitive communism. But there is no excuse for his view of the ancient world.
3. Criticism of Marx's concept of Class Struggle: Marx's theory of the classes is also objectionable. An examination even of the Western civilisation does not support the view that the economic position always determined social existence. Marx is wrong in his static conception of classes. Classes are not fixed and rigidly maintained blocks.
4. Human role in social evolution ignored: Some ctitics believed that the sociological approach of Marx is also open to objection. Popper in his historiticism led him to look upon the human actors on the stage of historicism including the bi ones as puppets, irresistibly pulled by economic wires-that by historical forces over which they have no control. The state 'the kingdom of necessity'. "It can not be denied that man is a tool into the hands of the historical. forces to a great extent. But the other aspect of the picture is also there which can not be ignored.
5. Unacceptable Method (Revolution) of Social change : The methods advocated by Marx for bringing about change from the present capitalist order to the socialist order are also open to serious objections. It is a common belief that the means used for the transformation or bringing about transition from one state to another must have some relation to the 'end'. In other words there should not be consistency between the ends and the means. But this is not a case in the Marxian advocacy of the means. Marxs lays emphasis on the method of the class struggle for which he relies upon the use of violence or revolution.
6. Marxian analysis of human society based on class struggle is highly objectionable: The marxian analysis of human history is based on the concept of class struggle. It is open to sever criticism. In the words of Prof. J.P. Suda, "whatever the extent to which struggle, strike and violence characterise human life, it nevertheless remains that man and society maintain their existence of earth because of the role lplayed by love, mutual aid and self-sacrifice in human life. The law which sustains the universe and makes for human progress is the lalw of love, co-operation and self-sacrifice and not that of the struggle and conflict." t means that it is not the struggle and the contradictions in history that make human society prosper.
7. Marxian Analysis of Capitalism has proved to be invalid : The critics further observe that the Marxian analysis of the laws of capitalist development has also been found incorrect to a large extent. Marx predicted that in the capitalist society, the rich will get richer and poor will become increasingly poorer. But this has not come out to be true in all cases. In the industralised societies of the West, there has been a marked improvement in the economic conditions and standard of living of the working class, with the result that the economic disparitis are not greater these days but they could be and were during the days of Marx. So many laws have been enacted to improvle the economic conditions of the working class.
