Marx ~ Political Philosophy on a Timeline
Lenin, Trotsky, & Mao; despite the familiarity of these names in political philosophy, Karl Marx trumps all three with startling ease. Known as the mascot of the communist school of thought, writings such as the Communist Manifesto were pivotal in cultures of all sorts, countries of all sorts. Though the gist of Marxism is commonly understood, oftentimes, people have yet to delve deeper past “Workers of the world, unite!”. So what exactly was Marxism? What did it deem just? And how did it contrast with ancient schools of thought, i.e. Confucianism?
Marxism
Marxism, broadly, was a philosophy unifying social, political, and economic theory to highlight issues in a capitalist system. Through Marx’s lens, the capitalist status quo was a society partitioned into the ownership class and the working class– the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, respectively– where the bourgeoisie owned the means of production and exploited the working class’s labour, reaping profits for themselves. To resolve this oppressive relationship, Marx not only proposed a novel system of shared ownership to eliminate class division, but anticipated the self-destruction of capitalist systems: that capitalist competition would escalate and businesses would be consumed by massive monopolies, and the exploited workers of the majority would become indignant and overthrow their common oppressors, the bourgeoisie, to own the means of production.
But beyond the conception of Marxism that most are familiar with, Marx identified several other facets of exploitation upon the proletariat, separate from labour. Ideology was a prominent example; he posited that the most prominent and widespread ideological beliefs in society originated from the bourgeoisie and were reinforced by class-divisioned systems. These were the beliefs that shaped the legal, political, religious, and philosophical views of each citizen in society, the forces that infringed upon their self-actualization; for example, policies in the interest of the economically dominant class portrayed to be in the interests of society as a whole.
Religion, as well, was thought to be a diversion from the worker’s reality of oppression. Notoriously labeled “the opium of the people”, Marx asserted that religion was a tool of the ruling class to oppress workers (e.g. through claiming closer connections to deities), and numbed the pain of being materially restricted. Moreover, he posited that, following the Protestant Reformation’s separation of the church and the state, the modern state provided an illusion of a community of equals in the eyes of the law– despite being the opposite. Under Marx, the truest form of equality could only be achieved through communism– socioeconomic equality that would transcend the illusions of both religion and capitalism.
The Role of the State
Unlike the simple question of Marx’s thoughts and critiques on the capitalist system, there was never one singular answer of his regarding the state; tidbits of remarks were sprinkled throughout his life, and discussed even contemporarily. There were largely three different models in his writings, identified by Jon Elster, of the political relationship between the state and the upper-class.
The “instrumental” model depicted the state to be a mechanism for class oppression, for the economically dominant class to achieve their own interests. The repercussions of the state’s actions, in these instances, would always be at the expense of other classes. In Marx’s words, “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” (MECW 6: 486). This was Marx’s largest contention with the capitalist world.
The “class balance” model portrayed the state and the different classes to be distinct, and each with their own interests. It manifested in a scenario where the bourgeoisie and proletariat, the capitalists and workers, are balanced but tense; the state was then able to gain independence from exploiting the inter-class conflict, “promising each of the major classes to protect it against the other, [so] the government can rule autonomously” (Elster 1985: 425). The state, in this case, was not a weapon of the capitalists but an autonomous third party with its own interests; the interests of the major classes served rather as constraints on their own interests.
The “abdication” model posited the bourgeoisie would avoid possessing political power and affiliating with the state, whether this be through resigning or simply never joining the state in the first place. A situation as counterintuitive as this surprisingly held many explanations: perhaps political power was incompatible with their economic advances, or political rule was time-consuming, or short-termism of their own would be fatal when handed both political and economic power.
All three models of the capitalist world were ones Marx opposed. Regardless of the specific relationships, the bourgeoisie dominated nonetheless– insofar as they controlled wealth, the enabler of quality of life. In the “instrumental” model, the state was akin to their weapon; in the “class balance” model, it was likely they would possess more sway than their proletariat counterparts, on account of their existing power and wealth; in the “abdication” model, the ultimate political ruler would only be in power due to the abstinence of the bourgeoisie– even the most seemingly independent state was a product of the upper-class’s wishes.
Interestingly, Marx provided little illustration of the existence of the state in a communist society– often, people perceived a Marxist state to be no state at all, a complete abolition. But Marx held certain preferences of the state’s form in a communist society, that resemble that of current western liberal democracies: regular elections & universal suffrage, decentralization, and the “de-professionalization” of public offices to become regularly circulating working positions with an average worker’s wage.
“Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it. (MECW 24: 94)”
Comparison
At the end of the day, both Marx and Confucius were oriented towards the populace’s well-being. Confucius expected virtuous traits in leaders to moralize the people, and Marx desired the liberation of the oppressed proletariat. Both philosophers promoted equality– Confucius through equal education and Marx through a classless society. Yet Marx and Confucius differed in the mechanisms to achieve these goals; the hierarchy of the “virtuous” and the “filial piety” between the citizen and the ruler in Confucius’s ideal state would be abhorrent to Marx, an opponent of stratification, prioritizing materialistic well-being over virtue.
Though discrepancies in the difference of time exist, they simply prove society’s adaptation to different forces throughout history– in this case, the wealth derived from innovation. In Confucius’s time of feudalism, oppression was conducted by one unvirtuous ruler; in Marx’s time, oppression was enabled by the concentration of wealth in a few’s hands. But regardless of the time period or the origin of the philosopher, the fusion of different perspectives in political philosophy births us insight into different types of states, as well as developments across history.
Sources
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/#StatCapiSoci