research paper topics on marxist theory

102 Marxism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best marxism topic ideas & essay examples, 📌 most interesting marxism topics to write about, 👍 good research topics about marxism, ❓ research questions about marxism.

• A Reflection of Marxism in the Modern World This is often done in the form of a dogmatic proclamation of Marxism as an all-powerful doctrine: “Marxism is one of the most influential intellectual movements in the history of ideas”.
• Schools of Political Economy: Marxism, Liberalism and Mercantilism It seeks to understand the driving forces of the economy and the key actors in the world economy. Governments and economic actors are the key elements in the economy, according to liberalism.
• Liberalism versus Marxism Marxism isolates the predispositions and laws of capitalism so as to understand the direction of capitalism; and in this case the direction of capitalism is in four phases which include the beginning, maturity, decline and […]
• What Does Marxism Tell Us About Economic Globalisation Today? Though, crises are known to be more in the developed countries of today, Marxism reckons a time, based on today’s observations of capitalism, when the globe will be industrialised, a situation that will render the […]
• Marxism and Health Economic Inequalities Tackling health inequalities is a top priority for this Government, and it is focused on narrowing the health gap between disadvantaged groups, communities and the rest of the country and on improving health overall.
• Marxism in Development Geography Marxist Geography is critical in nature, and it utilizes philosophy and theories of Marxism to look at the spatial relations of human Geography.
• Marxism as a Sociological Theory The bourgeoisie is the social class that is associated with the “ownership of the means of production”. This is based on the fact that the output of the proletariats was “valued in terms of the […]
• Religion and Marxism in Metropolis Speaking about the way the film addresses religious topics the characters of Maria and John Frederson, the story of Babylon, and the idea of Mediator is to be mentioned.
• The Ideas of Marxism: Marxism, Religion and Emancipatory Politics The essence of man, according to Marx, is formed in the relation of man to man and the relation of man to nature.
• Discussion of Marxism Impact on News This article reports the recent attack on the church in southern California by David Chou, a member of the China-backed organization that supports the idea of annexing Taiwan. The view of propaganda is consistent with […]
• Capitalism, Black Marxism and Social Balance Thus, capitalism and racism developed as a consequence of the evolution of Western society, while Black radicalism was a response to this process.
• Education in Marxism: The Communist Manifesto Karl Marx is the founder of new doctrine and the author, together with Friedrich Engels, of the Communist Manifesto, one of the most influential documents in the history of humankind.
• Poverty by Anarchism and Marxism Approaches It is important to note that the very different ways in which social scientists approach the study of social phenomena depend to a great extent upon their particular philosophical view of the social world, a […]
• Political Realism in Light of Marxism and Idealism The reason for the above statement is because the underlying principle behind this theory is that politics is rational and that there is a reasonable explanation for the actions of states in politics.
• Minimum Wage According to Marxism Analyzing the issue from the Marxist viewpoint, it can be concluded that increases in the minimum wage are beneficial to the working class but not to capitalists.
• Class Conflict in Marxism and Other Theories Regardless of the reason for the formation of any society, the element of conflict is always present, precisely because human beings have different perceptions and opinions regarding the procedure of operations in such a society, […]
• Marxism Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century The Marxism philosophy is the brainchild of Karl Marx with the assistance of Friedrich Engels in the mid-nineteenth century. One of the core ideologies behind the concept of Marxism is that of social reality.
• 19th-Century Marxism with Emphasis on Freedom As the paper reveals through various concepts and theories by Marx, it was the responsibility of the socialists and scientists to transform the society through promoting ideologies of class-consciousness and social action as a way […]
• American and European Legal Histories and Marxism The key ideas of Marx regarding the law were laid out in his collaboration with Engels, the Communist Manifesto, in which the authors criticize the entire institution of government being subjected to the rule of […]
• Marxism and International Law The inclination of international laws is also highlighted by the political and economic imbalances that foster the development of laws to accommodate the changes.
• Marxism vs. Feminism: Human Nature, Power, Conflict Marx asserts that the ruling class uses power to exploit the working class and this argument forms the principle of Marxism.
• Has Post-Marxist and Critical Theory Strengthened Marxism? The theories look at the philosophies which shape the relationships between nations and the key interests of the nations which participate in international relations.
• Marxism Perspective in Production According to Marx, economic systems deal with the development of strategies and policies that govern the behavior and employment of the means of production.
• The Best Political Philosophy is Marxism It is also important to note that these group of theorists also believed in the fact that people are selfish. On the contrary, Locke believed in a rational man, even though he could be selfish […]
• Application of Marxism Theoretical Perspective in ‘To be taken with a Grain of Salt’ Symbolically, the notion of interactions of the dead and the living developed by To be taken with a Grain of Salt perhaps exemplifies the differences in the classes of people.
• Why Marxism is Scientific The second section illustrates that the history of the development of Marxism is scientific and it conforms to the progressive development common to the development of scientific knowledge.
• Human Rights: Universalism, Marxism, Communitarianism Marxist and Communitarian do not believe in the existence of human rights. In fact, having and exercising human rights will not benefit the members of the society.
• Relationship Between Institutionalized Racism and Marxism The owners of the means of production utilize their power to subjugate and dominate the inferior class, which is the minority race in the US.
• Contribution of Marxism and Imperialism in Shaping the Modern International Political System Therefore, the postulated concepts of class struggles, materialism, and the surfacing of a capitalistic world market incredibly provide a point of alignment of the Marxism concepts and theories of international relations.
• Income Inequality in Marxism, Structuralism, Neoliberalism, and Dependency Theory The peculiar features of every country’s development should be discussed from the point of the character of the economic relations within the country and from the point of the country’s position within the global economic […]
• History paper, Marxism theory The formation of this class, which controlled the wealth of the entire community, formed the basis of Marxism theory of the minority wealthy individuals at the expense of the majority poor people.
• Marxism will not return as a major ideology in the 21st century Initially, the ideology was first introduced in Canada by the British intellectuals and as a result, it ended up dominating the ideals and major principles of the socialist parties in the country.
• The Various Stages of Development That a Society Goes Through from Marxism Perspective
• A Comparison of Philosophies in Socialism, Marxism and Communism
• Development Models; Isisbter’s Modernization, Dependency and Marxism Theories Applied to Bangalore in India
• The Main Ideas of Marxism, Functionalism and Internationalism
• Marxism and the Revolutionary Tradition
• Comparison of Marxism and Feminism
• Vladimir Lenin and His Revisions to Classical Marxism
• The Role of Intellectuals in The Rise of Marxism History
• The Importance of Marxism in Literature and Critical Theory
• The Fundamentals of Marxism and Economic Liberalism
• The Application of Marxism Theory in Looking at the Cause of the American Civil War
• The Poisonwood Bible: Marxism and American Arrogance Towards Congo
• The Highlight Reel of Marxism in American Football
• The Horizons of Theory: Jameson, Marxism, and Poststructuralism
• Assess the Contribution of Marxism to Our Understanding of the Role of Education
• The Evolution of Marxism in Regards to Feudal Mode of Production
• How Does Cloud Atlas Offer an Interpretation of Marxism in a Highly Tech
• The Distinction Between Animalism and Marxism in Orwell and Maryx
• The Concept of Power Between Conservatism and Marxism
• The Juxtaposition of Platonism and Marxism
• Marxism Through Galileo Common People
• Contributions and Drawbacks of Marxism
• The Philosophy of Liberalism and Marxism
• The Great Depression Summarized by Marxism in Carson Mc Cullers Novel, the Heart is a Lonely Hunter
• The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics and Postwork Imaginaries
• The Influence of Marxism on Darwin’s Origin of Species
• The Poverty of Radical Theory Today: From the False Promises of Marxism to the Mirage of the Cultural Turn
• The Theory of Marxism : Marxism, Marxist, Politics, and Ideology
• Understanding Functionalism, Marxism and Liberalism
• Marxism Literary and the New Criticism Theory
• Analysis of Alesdair MacIntyre’s Marxism and Christianity
• The Social Perspectives, Functionalism and Marxism
• Assumptions of Marxism: Contradiction and Conflict
• The Democratic Firm as a New Perspective for Marxism
• Liberalism and Marxism in Global Political Economy
• The Ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Giving Way to the Ideology of Marxism-Leninism
• Understanding Marxism in Relation to Communist Ideals
• Dehumanization: Marxism and Modern Era
• The Evolution of Marxism and the Fate of Capitalism
• What Are the Concepts of Marxism and Feminism?
• What Should You Know About Marxism?
• How Important Was Marxism for the Development of Mozambique and Angola?
• Does Marxism Adequately Explain the 1917 Russian Revolution?
• Does Neo-Liberalism or Neo-Marxism Provide the Most Credible Account of International Politics?
• What Role Does Culture Play in Western Marxism?
• What Is the Difference Between Functionalism and Marxism?
• What Is the Connection Between Great Expectations and Marxism?
• What Are the Class Conflict and Marxism?
• How Did Marxism and Socialism Challenge the Status Quo in Russia at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century?
• What Is the Difference Between Liberalism Marxism and Corporatism?
• What Was the Marxism?
• Why Has Marxism Been So Popular Among Latin American Intellectuals?
• How Does Marxism Explain the Role of Education in Society?
• What Is the Connection Between Marxism and the Fall of Willy Loman in Death?
• How Did Lenin Revise Marxism?
• What Were Lenin’s Views on Marxism?
• What Does Marxism Tell Us About Economic Globalization Today?
• Who Followed Marxism More? Stalin or Lenin?
• How Does Cloud Atlas Offer an Interpretation of Marxism in a Highly Technological Society?
• How Did Lenin Add to Marxism up to 1905, and What Were the Consequences?
• Has Post-Marxist and Critical Theory Strengthened Marxism?
• Why Has Marxism Been Neglected for International Relations?
• Can Feminism and Marxism Come Together?
• What Walrasian Marxism Can and Cannot Do?
• Why Did Western Europe Never Fully Envelope Marxism?
• What Is Cultural Marxism?
• How Much Did Stalin Deviate from Marxism?
• What Is the International Political Economy Interpreted Through Nationalism, Liberalism, and Marxism?
• How Did the Russian Marxism Movement Evolve in the Period?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 29). 102 Marxism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/marxism-essay-examples/

"102 Marxism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 29 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/marxism-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '102 Marxism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 29 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "102 Marxism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/marxism-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "102 Marxism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/marxism-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "102 Marxism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/marxism-essay-examples/.

• Imperialism Questions
• Socialism Ideas
• Totalitarianism Questions
• Sociological Perspectives Titles
• Utilitarianism Research Ideas
• Morality Research Ideas
• Epistemology Essay Titles
• Globalization Essay Topics

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Understanding Marxism as a Critical Study and Research Paradigm: A Framework for a Critic in Literary Analysis

Marxism in Literary or Art in our 21 St centuries is built around a debate of methodology and application when a critic is requested to evaluate a literary text or genre. Though disparities of thoughts in the point of views of some scholars such as: Georg Lukacs, Karl Korsch, Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser etc. have been involved in scientific debates whether Marxism as a sociological approach finds a better reliable application in literature. Marxism as a political ideology of Karl Marx was not designed for literary study, literature in terms of form, politics, ideology, and consciousness, numbers of research skills are required for a critic in almost literary components. While the question of methodology and application in literary analysis is still unsettled in the areas of literary studies so, it appears very difficult and ambiguous to some literary students and English teachers in our local universities in Bukavu (DRC) when prior involving in literary evaluation. Furthermore,...

Related Papers

Asian journal of multidisciplinary studies

junaid shabir

Marxism gives a new dimension to the study of literature by laying stress upon the importance of history within which various social and cultural trends emerge. It helps us to gain a practical and systematic world view by devoting self to the intense study of history. It evaluates the modern society from a unique prism of master-slave view— Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. The account of the horrid tale of proletariat’s oppression is recorded well in the seminal works of Karl Marx like Das Capital , The Communist Manifesto , The German Ideology and so on. A literary artist is deeply affected by the social, economic and political upheavels in the society and tries to give a true account of it in his literary works. Marxism helps the artist to unravel the self interest of the bourgeoisie by putting an end to the patriarchal and feudal idyllic relations which shook the ecstacies of brutal exploitation coated with religious fervor and sentimentalism. In this paper, an attempt has been made...

complex, more than Shakespeare because we know more about the lives of women—Jane Austen and Virginia Woolf included. Both the victimization and the anger experienced by women are real, and have real sources, everywhere in the environment, built into society, language, the structures of thought. They will go on being tapped and explored by poets, among others. We can neither deny them, nor will we rest there. A new generation of women poets is already working out of the psychic energy released when women begin to move out towards what the feminist philosopher Mary Daly has described as the "new space" on the boundaries of patriarchy. 8 Women are speaking to and of women in these poems, out of a newly released courage to name, to love each other, to share risk and grief and celebration. To the eye of a feminist, the work of Western male poets now writing reveals a deep, fatalistic pessimism as to the possibilities of change, whether societal or personal, along with a familiar and threadbare use of women (and nature) as redemptive on the one hand, threatening on the other; and a new tide of phallocentric sadism and overt woman-hating which matches the sexual brutality of recent films. "Political" poetry by men remains stranded amid the struggles for power among male groups; in condemning U.S. imperialism or the Chilean junta the poet can claim to speak for the oppressed while remaining, as male, part of a system of sexual oppression. The enemy is always outside the self, the struggle somewhere else. The mood of isolation, self-pity, and self-imitation that pervades "nonpolitical" poetry suggests that a profound change in masculine consciousness will have to precede any new male poetic—or other—inspiration. The creative energy of patri-archy is fast running out; what remains is its self-generating energy for destruction. As women, we have our work cut out for us. 1976 In the preface to his book, Eagleton writes ironically: "No aoubt we shall soon see Marxist criticism comfortably wedged between Freudian and mythological approaches to literature, as yet one more stimulating academic 'approach,' one more well-tilled field of inquiry for students to tramp." He, urges against such an attitude, believing it "dangerous" to the centrality of Marxism as an agent of social change. Despite his warning, however, and because of his claims for the significance of Marxist criticism, Eagleton's opening chapters, dealing with tuo topics central to literary criticism, are here presented for some thoughtful "tramping." "Marxism," which in some quarters remains a pejorative term, is in fact an indispensable concern in modern intellectual history. Developed primarily as a way of examining historical, economic, and social issues, Marxist doctrine does not deal explicitly with theories of literature; consequently, there is no one orthodox Marxist school (as there is an orthodox Freudianism), but rather a diversity of Marxist readings. Eagleton's own discussion partly illustrates this diversity: he uses the familiar derogatory term "vulgar Marxism" to refe-to the simplistic deterministic notion that a literary work is nothing more than the direct product of its socioeconomic base. Aware also of how Marxist theory can be perverted, Eagleton in another chapter 's scorn-" ful of such politically motivated corruptions as the Stalinist doctrine From Marxism and Literary Criticism;

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya

An attempt to dispel the notion that Marxist literary criticism is nothing but the sociology of literature. On the contrary, the joint yardstick of the historical and the aesthetic is of essence.

Journal of Teaching and Research in English Literature

Aditya Kumar Panda

In 20th century, literary criticism has witnessed influences from many schools of critical inquiries. One of the major schools is Marxist literary criticism. This paper highlights the major tenets of Marxist literary criticism. In other words, it studies the Marxist approach to literature.

Mathias Nilges , Emilio Sauri

a special issue of Mediations (24.2), edited by Emilio Sauri and Mathias Nilges

International Research Journal Commerce arts science

Since the industrial revolution flourished, there was the continuous exploitation of the labor class. Marxism is the method of social economic Analysis of Capitalism, Cultural and Literary analysis which relates with the class struggle. Marxism is based on materialistic understanding of social development which includes social relation, political and legal system, morality and ideology. The main purpose of this study is to analyses the social responsibility activities carried out by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who chiefly concerned themselves with the capitalistic theory and their mode of production. This theory was later followed by the many writers.

Historical Materialism

Daniel Hartley

Appeared online here: http://www.historicalmaterialism.org/index.php/reading-guides/marxist-literary-criticism-introductory-reading-guide?fbclid=IwAR2vioz8HnlwSHpgoUdnH6cnwFNE7D2gb7juShyG0-z2LxNmyzYevqJLH8I

Zubair Hussain

The ground aspects of phenomenological perspective provide a wide range of the literature study in collaboration with literary theories but the same, the Marxism cannot be studied better in the phenomenological perspectives rather it can be better studied in critical perspectives. The relationship of the Marxism and literary theories with phenomenological common grounds is highlighted in the current study through descriptive method of research. The study illustrates the relationship of Marxism and literary theories in phenomenological perspectives in the light of previous studies and as a sample textual analysis of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice.

Wan Anayati

DOI: 10.21276/sjahss.2018.6.5.11 Abstract: This paper attempts to elaborate the milieu of Marxist criticism by exposing the types of Marxist movements and ideologies occurred throughout the history. The objective of this study is to present various milieus of Marxism that can be incorporated in the realm of literary discussions. Therefore, the authors utilized the qualitative descriptive approach by selecting various texts that encompass the existence of Marxism criticism. The authors believe that the exploration of this research brings a comprehensive alternative toward Marxist as one of the school of literary criticisms taught in every English department. Marxism is a scientific theory of human societies and of the practice of transforming them; and what that means, rather more concretely, is that the narrative Marxism has to deliver is the story of the struggles of men and women to free themselves from certain forms of exploitation and oppression (Eagleton 12). Furthermore, it is...

RELATED PAPERS

Avi Allalouf

Fabio Tonoli

Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950)

Jack a. Elias

Journal of Immunology Research

Ghada Abd El-Raheem

Jose Eduardo Padilla Alvarez

Avrasya Uluslararası Araştırmalar Dergisi

Almas Kuralbayev

Bruna da Silva Santos , Rodnei Souza , Emmanuelle Silva

Tuija Virtanen

H. Sofia Pinto

Luka Tomašević

Jurnal Pertanian UMSB: Penelitian dan Kajian Ilmiah Bidang Pertanian

Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology

James Scott

Investigaciones Geográficas, Boletín del Instituto de Geografía

Raul Rivera

Wanderson José Francisco Gomes

LOWONGAN PRAKERIN, 0813-2103-2094 Pkl Tempat Magang Smk Jogja Sleman

Infopkldijogja Pkl

Investigative Radiology

Albert Kasel

Ricostruire Magazine ISSN 1593-4535

Journal of Physical Activity and Health

Susan Snelling

Middle black sea journal of health science

Fikri Özdemir

Journal of Biochemical and Molecular Toxicology

Odunayo Taiwo

Behavioural Brain Research

Gloria Console

An International Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Clinics

Shama Hegde

Recent Patents on Nanotechnology

Mohsen Minaiyan

International Journal for Equity in Health

Stalin Vilcarromero

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Marxist Theory of Organizations

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 17 January 2017
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Osaore A. Aideyan 2  

82 Accesses

Contradictions between activity and outcome ; Forces and relations of production ; Labor and product ; Organizational contradiction

A theory that sees organizations as objective historical outcomes of practical collective activity, especially activity organized around the production of material life and the production of social life.

Introduction

Compared to other classical organizational theories – scientific and administrative management – Marxian theory of organizations presents a rather unfamiliar view of organizations since Marx himself provided little in terms of a theoretical analysis of organizations. As a result, Marxist ideas have been interpreted and appropriated in a number of different ways leading to a number of competing schools of Marxism on organizational forms. Among the competing schools are structural, humanist, determinist, political, economistic, and autonomist. Underlying these different schools are several common categories and propositions that...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Acker J (2000) Gendered contradictions in organizational equity projects. Organization 7(4):625–632

Article   Google Scholar  

Acker J, Van Houten DR (1974) Differential recruitment and control: the sex structuring of organizations. Adm Sci Q 19(2):152–163

Adler P (2006) Beyond hacker idiocy: a new community in software development. In: Heckscher C, Adler P (eds) The firm as a collaborative community: reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy. Oxford University Press, New York

Google Scholar  

Adler P (2009) Marx and organization studies today. In: Adler P (ed) The oxford handbook of sociology and organization studies: classical foundations. Oxford University Press, New York

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Adler P (2011) Marxist philosophy and organization studies: Marxist contributions to the understanding of some important organizational forms. In: Tsoukas H, Chia R (eds) Philosophy and organizational theory (Research in the sociology of organizations). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley

Braverman H (1974) Labor and monopoly capital: the degradation of work in the twentieth century. Monthly Review Press, New York

Burawoy M (1990) Marxism as science: historical challenges and theoretical growth. Am Sociol Rev 55(6):775–793

Calas MB, Smircich L (2006) From the woman’s point of view ten years later: towards a feminist organization studies. In: Clegg SR, Hardy C, Lawrence TBN, Nord W (eds) The sage handbook of organization studies, 2nd edn. Sage, London

Fields G (2004) Territories of profit: communications, capitalist development, and the innovative enterprises of G. F. Swift and Dell Computer. Stanford University Press, Stanford

Hearn F (1978) Rationality and bureaucracy: Maoist contributions to a Marxist theory of bureaucracy. Sociol Q 19(1):37–54

Heydebrand W (1977) Organizational contradictions in public bureaucracies: toward a Marxian theory of organizations. Sociol Q 18(1):83–107

Hobden S, Jones RW (2014) Marxist and critical theories of international relations. In: Baylis J, Smith S, Owens P (eds) The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, New York

Jermier JM (1985) When the sleeper wakes: a short story extending themes in radical organization theory. J Manag 11:67–80

Kelly K (2005) Labor movements and mobilization. In: Ackroyd S et al (eds) The oxford handbook of work and organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Marx K (1904) A contribution to the critique of political economy. C. H. Kerr, Chicago

Marx K (1970) The German ideology. Lawrence and Wishart, London

Nelson D (1980) Frederick Taylor and the rise of scientific management. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison

Nelson D (ed) (1992) A mental revolution: scientific management since Taylor. Ohio University Press, Columbus

Schachter HL (1989) Frederick Taylor and the public administration community: a reevaluation. State University of New York Press, Albany

Smith RA (2002) Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: theory and research. Annu Rev Sociol 28:509–542

Sweezy, Paul and Paul A. Baran. 1966. Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order. New York: Monthly Review Press

Vidal M, Adler P, Delbridge R (2015) When organization studies turns to societal problems: the contribution of Marxist grand theory. Organ Stud 36(4):405–422

Wright, Erik. 1974/75. “To Control or to Smash Bureaucracy: Weber and Lenin on Politics, the State, and Bureaucracy,” Berkley Journal of Sociology, 19, 69–108.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Politics and Government, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA

Osaore A. Aideyan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Osaore A. Aideyan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA

Ali Farazmand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Aideyan, O.A. (2017). Marxist Theory of Organizations. In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_59-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_59-1

Received : 31 December 2016

Accepted : 03 January 2017

Published : 17 January 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-31816-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-31816-5

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Economics and Finance Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Marxism Research Paper

View sample Marxism Research Paper. Browse other research paper examples and check the list of political science  research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Also, chech our custom research proposal writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

I. Introduction

Academic writing, editing, proofreading, and problem solving services, get 10% off with 24start discount code, ii. the life and times of karl marx, iii. marxism, iv. human nature, v. economic determinism and historical and dialectical materialism, vi. the rise and collapse of capitalism, vii. socialism and communism, viii. the role of the professional revolutionary, ix. conclusion.

Socialist political philosophy has existed since the beginning of recorded history. It has also taken on a great number of forms since its emergence in antiquity. However, no theory of socialism has had a greater impact on the modern world than the philosophy constructed by the 19th-century German thinker Karl Marx. Marx’s theory of socialism originated from (and was a direct response to) the capitalist mode of production. Marx, particularly, focused on the relationship between capitalism as an economic system and industrial development in Western Europe during the middle of the 19th century. Along with his lifelong collaborator, Friedrich Engels (1820–1895), Marx wrote several epic volumes that impacted almost all Western political thought from his time through the present. Some of Marx’s most influential works, such as the first volume of Capital and The Communist Manifesto, were published during his lifetime. However, many of his significant writings, such as two subsequent volumes of Capital, the German Ideology and the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, were published posthumously. In those volumes and in many more pieces, Marx developed an analysis of industrial capitalism that was both complex and comprehensive. After his death in 1883, Marx’s theory was repeatedly expanded on by devotees and detractors alike. Whether they offered a new interpretation of a particular aspect of Marxian thought or a rigorous critique of his ideas, all those who responded to Marx ensured that his ideas will continue to live far beyond his corporeal existence. More than a century after his death, Marx remains the unequivocal “father” of modern socialist thought.

To understand Marxism and its emergence, one must have some sense of the context in which it emerged, as well as of Karl Marx the man. It was a combination of his own experiences, the philosophical influences on his work, and the social and economic context of the 19th century that led to the emergence of one of the most powerful philosophical and ideological influences of modern times.

Karl Heinrich Marx was born in Trier, Germany, on May 5, 1818, to Hirschel and Henrietta Marx. His father was one of the most respected lawyers in the city, a man who had converted from Judaism to Protestantism in order to keep his job. The young Marx grew up in a comfortable middleclass household and led a fairly uneventful life. At 17, he enrolled at the University of Bonn to study law. At Bonn, he spent a great deal of time “socializing” and running up rather large debts from his adventures at local beer halls. He also became engaged to Jenny von Westphalen, the daughter of Baron von Westphalen, a prominent member of Trier society. When Marx’s father found out that Karl had been wounded in a duel, the elder Marx insisted that his son withdraw and enroll at the more “sedate” University of Berlin, in the Prussian Empire (Wheen, 2002).

At the University of Berlin, professor Bruno Bauer (1809–1882) introduced young Marx to the writings of the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and his philosophy of dialectical idealism. Bauer also introduced Marx to atheism and other radical political opinions that got Marx into trouble with the authorities. Marx was especially impressed by Hegel’s theory that a thing or thought could not be separated from its opposite. For example, the slave could not exist without the master, and vice versa. Hegel argued that unity would eventually be achieved by the equalizing of all opposites, by means of the dialectic (logical progression) of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The ultimate thesis was the “truth.” This was Hegel’s theory of the evolving process of history and the ideals that motivated history. Marx joined the Young Hegelian movement, which fiercely criticized both the Prussian aristocracy and its opposition (McLellan, 1973).

Following the death of his father (and source of financial support) in 1838, Marx decided to earn a doctorate and become a university professor. However, after completing his doctoral thesis at the University of Jena, a thesis which was a fierce critique of spiritualism and which laid out the basis of materialism, the idea that material reality produces thought in humans and not the other way around, Marx was unable to find a teaching position (largely because of his radical anti-Prussian views). In 1842, he found a job in Cologne as the editor of a newspaper, Rheinische Zeitung, which opposed the Prussian attempt to dominate the West German principalities. As editor, Marx wrote a number of editorials that compelled the local government, under pressure from the Prussians, to close the paper. Marx quickly married his fiancé Jenny and then emigrated to France, arriving in Paris at the end of 1843 (Mehring, 2003; Wheen, 2002).

In Paris, Marx made contact with several noteworthy radicals, including the exiled Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), the idealist anarchist Pierre J. Proudhon (1809–1865), and Marx’s most important collaborator, Friedrich Engels, the son of a wealthy German industrialist. In Paris, Marx and Engels decided to work together, bringing to the table different skills: Marx was best at conceptualizing and abstraction, and Engels was better at communicating abstract concepts to a mass audience. Thus began a mutually beneficial lifelong partnership.

In 1844, the authorities expelled Marx. He moved his family to Brussels, Belgium, where he remained until 1847. Engels subsequently moved to England, where Engels’s family had cotton spinning interests in Manchester. Marx had already published several works that outlined his theory of materialism and its impact on the development of history and predicted the collapse of capitalism. In Brussels, Marx joined the Communist League, a group of German émigrés with its center in London. Marx and Engels became the major theoreticians of the organization, and at a conference of the League in London at the end of 1847, Marx and Engels were commissioned to write the program for the organization: The Communist Manifesto.

The Communist Manifesto was published immediately before the Year of Revolutions, 1848. These revolutions were a series of political upheavals throughout Europe in the spring of 1848. Essentially it was a revolutionary wave that began with the French revolution of 1848 and then spread rapidly throughout Europe. Although most of the revolts were put down very quickly, a significant amount of violence occurred, with tens of thousands of revolutionaries executed.

The causes of upheaval were many, but one of the major factors was the rise of industrial capitalism in Europe and the rapid urbanization of the population that accompanied industrial expansion. Early capitalism had led to rapid economic expansion but was also accompanied by the widespread misery of the working classes. Unemployment, poverty, and the lack of a political voice via the right to vote all contributed to the beginning of the upheaval. Although the revolution in France had started as a protest movement led by the middle classes against the Orleans monarchy of Charles X, the last Bourbon king, it quickly became an uprising of the working classes in the cities.

Early in 1848, Marx moved back to Paris when the revolution first broke out and then on to Germany, where he founded, again in Cologne, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. The paper openly opposed the Prussian autocracy and pressed for revolt. The paper was suppressed, and Marx fled to London in 1849 to avoid arrest, an exile that was to last the rest of his life.

In the early period of his exile, Marx was quite optimistic about the prospect for another major revolutionary upheaval that would destroy capitalism and all its evils. He rejoined a resuscitated Communist League in London and wrote two pamphlets that argued that another revolution was imminent, the Class Struggles in France and the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. As the years passed, he became more interested in the study of political economy in order to understand what led to the conditions for revolution. He spent the next years working in the British Museum and living in abject poverty in a three-room flat in the Soho section of London with his family. He had a total of six children and depended almost entirely on gifts from Engels, whose family business in Manchester was doing quite well. He also worked as foreign correspondent for the New York Daily Tribune at this time (Barnett, 2009).

Despite all his problems Marx continued to work, and in 1867, the first volume of his greatest work, simply entitled Capital, was published. The volume is a detailed analysis of capitalism and how it created the conditions of abject poverty and worker alienation. Marx also deals with the issue of revolution, arguing that capitalism creates the conditions for its own destruction. In 1871, Marx began working on the second volume of Capital. He had been encouraged by the formation of the Paris Commune in March 1871 and the abdication of the French dictator Louis Napoleon but became despondent after the revolt collapsed. Volume 2 was never finished as Marx’s health and his wife’s deteriorated. Jenny Marx died in 1881, and Marx’s eldest daughter died in January 1883. Karl Marx died 2 months later, on March 14, 1883.

From Marx’s thousands of pages of writing (much published only after his death), some fundamental themes emerge. First, it is important to note that Marx built his theories on several assumptions that were prevalent in economic thought of the time. The first was the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics, which is quite apparent in Marx’s masterpiece, Capital. The basic claim is rather straightforward: The value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor that is invested into that commodity. For example, a primitive axe made of vines, wood, and a stone is more valuable than its component parts because of the labor invested in it. Or, if a pair of shoes takes twice as long to make as a pair of pants, then shoes are twice as valuable as pants, regardless of the value of the physical inputs. Although this theory has been disproven, early economists such as Adam Smith (1723–1790) and David Ricardo (1772–1823), who influenced Marx’s thought, were proponents of this idea. The theory meant that because all value was created by labor, capitalism stripped the producers of their humanity by extracting “surplus value” for the benefit of the capitalists.

Another prevalent assumption in economic theory of the time was the iron law of wages. Although the idea is most closely associated with Ferdinand Lassalle (1825– 1864) and Thomas Malthus (1766–1864), David Ricardo was said to subscribe to it. According to Lassalle, wages in capitalism are reduced to the cost of reproduction, or the amount required so that labor can physically reproduce itself by having children. This is because competition between firms requires that capitalists reduce the costs of production to be competitive. Because value is created solely by labor (according to the labor theory of value), then the primary cost of production is the cost of labor, or wages. Over time there is pressure to reduce wages to the minimal subsistence level, or the cost of reproduction. This idea was to play an important part in Marx’s argument regarding the inevitability of the collapse of capitalism.

Based on these common economic assumptions of the period, Marx fashioned a comprehensive view of the evolution of human history that included several key elements. The first is his view of human nature, the second is related to his views on economic determinism and historical and dialectical materialism and his explanation of capitalism’s inevitable collapse, and the third is the role of professional revolutionaries in facilitating the revolution.

Marx’s theory of socialism originated from his unique perspective on human nature. Unlike most of the prominent Western political theorists before him, Marx did not adopt an essentialist conception of human nature. Rather, he and Engels asserted in German Ideology that at any given time in human history, the “natural” condition of humankind was significantly influenced by the material and social conditions that were dominant at that moment (Tucker, 1978). From this perspective, humans are not naturally born with anything at all (in direct contrast with many of the liberal theories of the 18th century that spoke of natural inalienable rights). In particular, these material or social conditions affect all that we do as human beings.

It is important to note that Marx did not think that humans were merely passive reflections of their environments (as would be the case if one were to argue in favor of nurture as opposed to nature). Indeed, as other contemporary thinkers associated with the positivist movement of the 19th century (especially Auguste Comte, 1798–1857), Marx believed that humans had the ability to shape and change their material conditions. As a result, Marx claimed that humans were participants in the crafting of their own consciousness rather than simply passive blank slates whose nature changed with arbitrary changes in material conditions (Tucker, 1978).

Although Marx would agree in general that human beings were not born with anything, he believed one impulse was natural to humans. Like all animals, humans confront their surroundings as they find them and then alter the material world through their productive capacity. Humans are unique, however, because they are the only animal conscious of their own productive acts and have a natural desire to produce what they can imagine. Therefore, Marx claimed, the symbiotic relationship between human consciousness and the given material conditions, at any point in history, becomes established by conscious human action (Tucker, 1978).

Based on his assumptions regarding human nature (that human beings are naturally economic beings), Marx argued that everything that human beings create therefore has some economic purpose. Thus, everything—religion, culture, laws, government—is designed for particular economic purposes, generally to keep the dominant class dominant. For instance, Marx noted that most laws made by the state were meant to protect property, an instrument by which one class rules another. In most of their writings, Marx and Engels seem to see the state as a neutral tool, much like a weapon (Evans, 1975). Similarly, religion has an economic purpose. As Marx notes, it convinces the oppressed of a better life after the current world (as long as they are obedient), thus making the oppressed accept their condition. “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people” (Marx, 1844, para. 3).

Another important element of Marx’s theory is that history moves in distinct stages, and what causes movement from one stage to another is conflict, particularly class conflict. Here Marx draws on the notion of Hegelian dialectics. For Marx, class was defined by an individual’s relationship to the means of production. Means of production referred to those things that are used to produce other things. Thus, for example, land, water, and buffalo were the means of production for the Plains tribes of North America. These resources were used to produce other goods (such as shelter and tools). In Rome, the primary means of production were land and slaves. In modern industrial society, the means of production are the machines and factories used to produce other products that are then consumed. Class is determined by the extent to which people own most, some, or little of the means of production, or by their relationship to the means of production. It is generally conflict over control or access to the means of production that drives history.

For Marx, history is driven by the never-ending, cyclical process of humans’ acting on their material conditions, altering those surroundings, and, in turn, being affected by a newly generated set of material conditions. Inspired by Hegel’s distinctive theory of history and idealist philosophy, Marx postulated that human social and political development are advanced through conflict between antithetical class forces. Marx made a major departure from Hegel, however, on the nature of this conflict. Marx is said to have “stood Hegel on his head” by claiming that it was conflict rooted in the material conditions of existence that drove history, and not conflict over antithetical ideas, which Hegel asserted was the principal mover of human history. Thus Marx distinguished his own form of dialectic as dialectical materialism, in contrast to Hegel’s dialectical idealism.

Marx examined the dominant material conditions at various moments of human history and stated that each set of dominant conditions bred a set of conflictive conditions. In the hands of human beings, these contradictory conditions contributed to conflict; at times, this conflict became so deep and irresolvable that it transformed human development in profound ways. Marx asserted that human beings drove this process by acting collectively and particularly as members of an economic social class. As a result, for Marx and Engels, history moved in distinct stages or epochs, and within each epoch, one could find the contradictions (or class conflicts) that would pave the way to the next stage. Marx identified the following stages:

• Primitive communism
• Slave society
• Socialism and communism

Unlike earlier liberal democratic theory, which held that there had been a time in human history when humans did not live in a society (or the so-called state of nature), Marx argued that humans had always lived in some kind of society. The first of these societies he called primitive communism. Although Marx is associated with this term, primitive communism was most fully elaborated by Engels (1884), who thought of it as a period when the collective right to basic resources, egalitarianism in social relationships, and the absence of authoritarian rule and hierarchy all existed. This stage was characterized by a society much like the tribal communities of the North American Plains. Although humans possessed personal items (their clothes, some tools, etc.), there was no sense that individuals owned the major means of production—the land, the water, the buffalo, and so forth. Without private property (in this sense of ownership of the means of production), there were no classes to speak of. Since this was a classless society, it was communist. What made it primitive was the very low standard of living and the great dangers facing tribal members.

Eventually, primitive communism gave way to the next stage of history, slave society. Although Marx and Engels are not clear as to how primitive communism collapsed, there is a suggestion by Engels (1884) that it was a “natural” development. In other words, someone somewhere inevitably claimed a particular piece of land or a particular herd of cattle. This claim created the basis of the haves versus the have-nots, or class contradictions. Slave society was in many ways the first epoch with class contradictions. In slave society, the principal means of production were land and slave labor, as was the case in Rome. Wealth in slave societies was defined in terms of land ownership and slave ownership. In such societies, there were classes: those who owned most of the land and slaves (or most of the means of production), such as the large landholding patricians of Rome; those (such as artisans) who owned some of the means of production; and those who owned nothing, not even themselves (slaves). Societies such as Rome were rocked by internal conflicts among these classes for control over the means of production (such as the slave revolt led by the gladiator Spartacus in the 1st century CE). Eventually these conflicts led to the demise of slave society and the emergence of feudalism.

Feudalism, like slave society, was characterized primarily by agricultural production controlled by large estates of landholding nobles. However, unlike slave society, primary labor was based, not on slavery, but on peasant and serf labor. Although serfs were legally bound to land and could not freely leave, unlike slaves, who were property, serfs owned themselves. In feudalism, there were also other classes, particularly the merchants, or the early bourgeoisie. The early bourgeoisie, unlike the landholding nobility, derived their livelihood from the control of trade (such as ships, transport) and finance. With the expansion of trade routes east and west, the European bourgeoisie grew in economic status and demanded political power as a result.

Ultimately, the bourgeoisie triumphed, and feudalism as an epoch gave way to capitalism. Unlike previous epochs, capitalism is based, not on agricultural production, but on industrial production. The dominant class, the bourgeoisie, created bourgeois democracy as a means to defeat the feudal lords and establish its supremacy. The other major class in capitalism is the proletariat. Members of the proletariat own none of the means of production, but they do own themselves. They sell their labor in exchange for wages. In the early period of capitalism, there were other classes, such as the petite bourgeoisie (little bourgeoisie), or those who owned some of the means of production (such as mom-and-pop merchants or owners of family farms). Over time, the petite bourgeoisie had been competed out of existence by larger, more efficient producers (the industrial bourgeoisie), and subsequently the petite bourgeoisie joined the ranks of the ever-expanding proletariat. Indeed, over time, a polarization of sorts would occur, with wealth being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and the proletariat growing ever larger and more impoverished.

Somewhat surprisingly, Marx did not consider capitalism to be completely devoid of any positive impact on humanity. In fact, he claimed that capitalism provided a dynamic means to concentrate resources and convert those resources into unprecedented technical advances in very short order. Indeed, capitalism was the most efficient and productive epoch in human history. However, Marx asserted that this dynamism came at a severe price. First and foremost for Marx, capitalism facilitates an exploitative relationship between the two major social classes— the owners of capital (the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat). Briefly, Marx claimed that the profit (also known as surplus value) derived from the capitalist production process was merely the difference between the value generated by the proletariat and the wages that they earned from the bourgeoisie. Therefore, according to Marx’s conception, the proletariat generated all value as a result of its labor but had only a portion of that value returned to it by the bourgeoisie in the form of wages. Since the proletariat created surplus value, but the bourgeoisie enjoyed the fruits of that value, the bourgeoisie was effectively exploiting the proletariat on a consistent and ongoing basis.

Marx asserted that this exploitative relationship was an essential part of the capitalist production process. Among other things, surplus value was used by the bourgeoisie to reinvest, modernize, and expand its productive capacity. All members of the bourgeoisie had to expand the scope of their productive operations, or eventually they would be put out of business by rivals from within their own social class. Therefore, for Marx, capitalism could not continue as a mode of production without the unceasing exploitation of the proletariat, which comprises the majority of human beings in advanced industrial societies.

Not only did Marx claim that the capital–wage labor relationship was exploitative, but he also claimed that this economic relationship left the majority of human beings feeling estranged from their own humanity. Because Marx believed that productivity was a naturally human act, he concluded that the capital–wage labor relationship degraded something that was a fulfilling, meaningful, and free act into drudgery that was performed solely for the purpose of basic survival. Since humans constantly reproduced their material conditions and, in doing so, refashioned human nature, work performed for the sole purpose of survival ultimately served to alienate all members of the proletariat from their very humanity.

Marx predicted that capitalism, like every dominant economic mode of production before it, possessed internal contradictions that would eventually destroy the system. Not only was the everyday capital–wage labor relationship marked by exploitation, but the nature of the market system also guaranteed that the economy would slip into periodic crises that made the exploitative nature of the association between the bourgeoisie and proletariat clear for all to see. These would be revolutionary moments when the proletariat would achieve revolutionary consciousness, or the realization that the source of its misery was the system of capitalism itself, and would rise up and destroy it.

Classical economists of Marx’s time recognized the negative impact that periodic economic recessions had on capitalist economies, but they generally viewed such downturns as acceptable (some even considered them positive events) and temporary. Marx, on the other hand, interpreted these recessionary periods as a sign of profound contradictions inherent in capitalism. These recessions were moments of crisis, Marx thought, and not necessarily temporary in nature. Furthermore, Marx predicted that, over time, crisis periods would get progressively longer, recessions would get deeper, recoveries would be shallower, and times in between moments of crisis would get shorter. Ultimately, like all other modes of production before it, Marx claimed, capitalism would come to an end and be replaced by an economic system that had fewer internal contradictions.

Following the collapse of capitalism and the seizure of power by the proletariat, a transitional period would follow, socialism, ultimately leading to full-blown advanced communism. Marx spent very little space discussing his vision for socialism and communism, but he and Engels discussed it briefly in The Communist Manifesto (1848). He also referred to life under socialism in The German Ideology (1845), and he commented on the basic principles of socialism and communism in commentaries such as the Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875). From these indications, the following picture emerges. During the transitional period, the proletariat uses the coercive power of the state to defend the revolution from the remnants of the bourgeoisie. However, because the “habits” of the past are not easily discarded, Marx and Engels contended, some form of exchange would continue. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), Marx states that in a socialist society, the laborer will receive, in return for a given quantity of work, the equivalent in means of consumption, or the formula later adopted by the Soviet Union, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor.”

Over time, with continuing production comes the elimination of material want (a blessing of industrial capitalism that provided the productive basis for the communist epoch) as well as the disappearance of the last vestiges of the bourgeoisie. Under socialism, the proletariat would represent both the majority of society and the dominant class. Under communism, there would be no classes, because all would have equal access to the means of production. Production in such a system would be designed to serve human needs rather than extracting the highest possible levels of surplus value. Marx sums it up in the following words:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all around development of the individual, and all the springs of co operative wealth flow more abundantly only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! (Marx, 1875, Part I, para. 50)

Full communism would have some key characteristics (Marx & Engels, 1848). It would be a classless society, because class differences would disappear. One might wonder why class differences would disappear, given that Marx’s account of history was almost entirely based on class conflict as “naturally” arising. In part, their disappearance is one of the blessings of capitalist production. Capitalism is so materially productive that it would produce such abundance that no one would want for anything. Technology had provided for such material abundance that there would be no need for haves and havenots, that is, no classes. As a result, given that the state was seen as a tool of the dominant class, communism would ultimately be a stateless society as well, because the state would ultimately “wither away” of disuse. This idea was especially developed by Freidrich Engels in Anti Duhring (1877). Furthermore, communism would be a nationless society because, Marx and Engels believed, national identities were a product of capitalism, and such identities would disappear, to be replaced by a universalist proletarian identity. For Marx, under communism, people would be free to do all that they wish. He described life under communism in the following terms:

Communist society would make it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. (Marx, 1845, para. 10)

Some argue that Marx defies his own foundational philosophy by declaring that socialism and communism are a historic inevitability. However, there is little evidence that Marx genuinely believed that socialism or communism represented the essential next step in human history. In fact, in the The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels confess that the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat may very well be vicious enough that it leads to the destruction of humankind rather than the dawn of a new millennial age.

In sum, Marx expends much more of his intellectual career analyzing and critiquing capitalism than he does defining the nature of socialism and communism or life after the revolution. In general, this squares with his philosophical roots. If history is defined by human activity and conflict, as Marx postulated, then it would be impossible for anyone to describe future modes of production in any level of detail—the details by necessity would be provided by those who refashion history.

What then is the role of the professional revolutionary, if the laws of history appear to predetermine the inevitable collapse of capitalism? For Marx, although the proletariat has a historic mission, this mission is not always clear. Thus a revolutionary party is needed to enlighten the proletariat and help form it into a class, which would then lead to the overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy and the subsequent conquest of political power by the proletariat. The role of the professional revolutionary party was to prepare the proletariat for its revolutionary mission by educating the masses as to their historic purpose.

Marx certainly encouraged members of the proletariat to be conscious of their class status and organize as producers into revolutionary unions, political parties, and fraternal organizations. He would leave the specifics to the many who would follow in his wake.

Marxism has been one of the most influential political ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries. Marx’s ideas not only inspired a variety of schools of thought, but his ideas have inspired a vigorous debate over a whole range of issues—such as the balance of the state and the market in production and the proper role of government in society. Indeed, one of the main criticisms of Marx and Engels is their tendency to underestimate the power of the capitalist state to stave off the inevitability of revolution. Indeed, Marx did not foresee the power of the welfare state in saving capitalism from itself.

Furthermore, the number of schools of thought that have derived from Marx’s ideas are too numerous to recite in a brief research paper such as this. However, those inspired by Marx fall roughly into two categories: revolutionary socialists and evolutionary socialists. Of all the revolutionary socialists, the writings of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (better known as Lenin) stand out as the most prominent. The Western European tradition of social democracy, in which the interests of the proletariat are represented by a political party that seeks to gain power through democratic elections, offers a stark nonrevolutionary contrast to Leninism. In spite of the intense differences between these two schools of socialist thought, both undeniably owe their foundational ideas to the work of Karl Marx. They are subjects of other research papers.

Although the study of Marxism after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 has gone out of vogue in many intellectual circles, its relevance now has become increasingly apparent. The concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands via corporate mergers and hostile takeovers, the disappearance of the petite bourgeoisie (family farmers and mom-and-pop enterprises), and the apparent collusion between big capital and the state—all were suggested by Marx and Engels. Perhaps a rediscovery of Marxism among students of political science would help them better understand the direction of the world in the 21st century.

Bibliography:

• Barnett, V. (2009). Marx. London: Routledge.
• Engels, F. (1877). Anti-Duhring. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/
• Engels, F. (1884). The origin of the family, private property and the state. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm
• Evans, M. (1975). Karl Marx. London: Macmillan. Marx, K. (1844). A contribution to the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
• Marx, K. (1845). The German ideology. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/
• Marx, K. (1867). Capital. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/
• Marx, K. (1875). Critique of the Gotha programme. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm
• Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The communist manifesto. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
• Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1884). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/
• McLellan, D. (1973). Karl Marx: His life and thought. New York: Harper & Row.
• Mehring, F. (2003). Karl Marx: The story of his life. London: Routledge.
• Tucker, R. C. (1978). The Marx Engels reader. New York: Norton.
• Wheen, F. (2002). Karl Marx: A life. New York: Norton.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER