Criticism of Marxism

Part of a series on
Marxism
Theoretical works Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 The Condition of the Working Class in England The German Ideology The Communist Manifesto The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte Grundrisse Capital Critique of the Gotha Programme Dialectics of Nature The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State What Is to Be Done? The Accumulation of Capital Philosophical Notebooks Terrorism and Communism The State and Revolution Essays on Marx's Theory of Value History and Class Consciousness Prison Notebooks The Black Jacobins On Practice Theses on the Philosophy of History Dialectic of Enlightenment A Critique of Soviet Economics The Long Revolution Guerrilla Warfare The Wretched of the Earth Reading Capital The Society of the Spectacle Pedagogy of the Oppressed Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses Ways of Seeing How Europe Underdeveloped Africa Social Justice and the City Women, Race and Class Marxism and the Oppression of Women Imagined Communities Hegemony and Socialist Strategy The Sublime Object of Ideology Time, Labor and Social Domination The Age of Extremes The Origin of Capitalism Empire Late Victorian Holocausts Change the World Without Taking Power Caliban and the Witch An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital Capitalist Realism Capital in the Anthropocene Towards Socialism or Capitalism? The Revolution Betrayed Literature and Revolution Their Morals and Ours: The class foundations of moral practice
Philosophy Alienation Dialectical materialism Ideology Philosophy of nature Philosophy in the Soviet Union Reification Marxist ethics
Critique of political economy Capital (accumulation) Crisis theory Commodity Concrete and abstract labor Factors of production Falling profit-rate tendency Means of production Mode of production Capitalist Socialist Productive forces Scientific socialism Surplus product Socially necessary labour time Value-form Wage labour
Sociology Base and superstructure Bourgeoisie Class Class consciousness Classless society Commodity fetishism Communist society Critical theory Cultural hegemony Democracy Dictatorship of the proletariat Soviet Radical Democratic centralism Exploitation False consciousness Human nature Immiseration Imperialism Lumpenproletariat Metabolic rift Proletariat Private property Relations of production State theory Working class
History Class struggle Historical determinism Primitive accumulation Proletarian revolution World revolution Theory of historical trajectory
Aspects Aesthetics Archaeology Criminology Cultural analysis Cultural Studies Ethics Film theory Geography Historiography Literary criticism Marxism and religion Sociology Philosophy
Common variants Structural Autonomist Marxism–Leninism Guevarism Maoism Titoism Trotskyism Neo-Gramscianism Regulation school Third-worldist Hegelian Budapest School Frankfurt School Humanist Neue Marx-Lektüre Open Political Praxis School Both Black Classical Communization Feminist Leninism Neo Post Western
Other variants Analytical Austromarxism Centrist Council communism Eurocommunism Instrumental Marxism–Leninism–Maoism Nkrumaism Orthodox Revisionist Situationist Socialism with Chinese characteristics Wertkritik
People Marx Engels Morris Lafargue Kautsky Plekhanov Du Bois Connolly Lenin Luxemburg Liebknecht Kollontai Bogdanov Stalin Trotsky Grossman Zinoviev Bloch Lukács Korsch Bukharin Ho Serge Gramsci Galiev Pashukanis Bordiga Benjamin Mao Basu Mariátegui Horkheimer Dutt Brecht Marcuse Kalecki Fromm Cox Lefebvre James Adorno Padmore Sartre Deutscher Hoxha Beauvoir Sombart Nkrumah Sweezy Emmanuel Hill Bettelheim Draper Jones Hobsbawm Althusser Hinton Williams Freire Mandel Sivanandan Miliband Cabral Thompson Bauman Fanon Kosik Berger Castro Guevara Liebman Heller Guattari Mészáros O'Connor Wallerstein Mies Tronti Debord Amin Hall Nairn Parenti Negri Jameson Gonzalo Dussel Harvey Laclau Bahro Poulantzas Vattimo Badiou Harnecker Altvater Anderson Löwy Vogel Sison Easthope Rancière Berman Przeworski Cohen Therborn Losurdo Ture Postone Rodney Bannerji Spivak Newton Sakai Wood Federici Wolff Balibar Eagleton Kurz Hartsock Rowbotham Mouffe Geras Brenner Davis Massey Cleaver Bishop Haraway Panitch Clarke Jessop Davis Wright Fraser Burawoy Holloway Rose Screpanti Tamás Hampton Cano Žižek Berardi Sankara Hennessy McDonnell Douzinas Roediger Foster West Ghandy Marcos Heinrich Prashad Kelley Dean Lordon Linera Fisher Li Coulthard Malm Seymour Toscano Bhattacharya Moufawad-Paul Srnicek Horvat Hamza Saito
Journals Antipode Capital & Class Capitalism Nature Socialism Constellations Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory Historical Materialism Mediations Monthly Review New Left Review Race & Class Rethinking Marxism Science & Society Socialist Register
Related topics 21st-century communist theorists Anarchism Creative destruction Conflict theory Criticism of Marxism Communism Communalism Economic determinism History of communism Left-wing politics Marxian economics New Left Old Left Municipalism Political ecology Socialism Authoritarian Democratic Market Reformist Revolutionary Social Utopian Left-wing populism Universal class Vulgar Marxism Economism Worker cooperative Workers' council
Outline Communism portal Philosophy portal Socialism portal
v t e

Various aspects of Marxist theory have been criticized. These criticisms concern both the theory itself, and its later interpretations and implementations.

Criticisms of Marxism have come from the political left as well as the political right. Democratic socialists and social democrats reject the idea that socialism can be accomplished only through class conflict and a violent proletarian revolution. Many anarchists reject the need for a transitory state phase. Some thinkers have rejected the fundamentals of Marxist theory, such as historical materialism and the labor theory of value, and gone on to criticize capitalism - and advocate socialism - using other arguments.

Some contemporary supporters of Marxism argue that many aspects of Marxist thought are viable, but that the corpus also fails to deal effectively with certain aspects of economic, political or social theory. They may therefore combine some Marxist concepts with the ideas of other theorists such as Max Weber: the Frankfurt school is one example.

Historical materialism is normally considered the intellectual basis of Marxism. It proposes that technological advances in modes of production inevitably lead to changes in the social relations of production.^[1] This economic 'base' of society supports, is reflected by and influences the ideological 'superstructure' which encompasses culture, religion, politics and all other aspects of humanity's social consciousness.^[2] It thus looks for the causes of developments and changes in human history in economic, technological, and more broadly, material factors, as well as the clashes of material interests among tribes, social classes and nations. Law, politics, the arts, literature, morality, religion – are understood by Marx to make up the [superstructure], as reflections of the economic base of society.

Many critics have argued that this is an oversimplification of the nature of society. The influence of ideas, culture and other aspects of what Marx called the superstructure are just as important as the economic base to the course of society, if not more so. Indeed, historical materialism calls into question why Marx would espouse his ideas so vehemently if he thought that they would have no influence.

However, Marxism does not claim that the economic base of society is the only determining element in society as demonstrated by the following letter written by Friedrich Engels, Marx's long-time contributor:

According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. More than this neither Marx nor I ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase^[3]

However, this also creates another problem for Marxism. If the superstructure influences the base then there is no need for Marx's constant assertions that the history of society is one of economic class conflict. This then becomes a classic chicken or the egg argument as to whether the base or the superstructure comes first. Peter Singer proposes that the way to solve this problem is to understand that Marx saw the economic base as ultimately real. Marx felt that humanity's defining characteristic was its means of production and thus the only way for man to free himself from oppression was for him to take control of the means of production. According to Marx, this is the goal of history and the elements of the superstructure act as tools of history.^[4]

Many critics claim that the implementation and maintenance of communism would always necessitate serious and violent coercion, contrary to Marx's claims that communism would liberate humanity. It is argued that to achieve the ends of communism such as the abolition of private property, communist regimes would always be forced to use violence. Critics point to the purges in Soviet Russia and the Cultural Revolution in China as evidence of this inevitability (Stalin is often wrongly quoted as saying "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is just a statistic"). The two regimes, according to some sources are claimed to have murdered more human beings then any other in history, including Nazi Germany.^[5] Some Marxist ideas also provided the rhetorical justification for the creation of Pol Pot's Cambodia and Kim Il-sung's North Korea.

Anarchists have often argued that Marxist communism will inevitably lead to coercion and state domination. Mikhail Bakunin believed Marxist regimes would lead to the "despotic control of the populace by a new and not at all numerous aristocracy." Even if this new aristocracy were to have originated from among the ranks of the proletariat, Bakunin argued that their new-found power would fundamentally change their view of society and thus lead them to "look down at the plain working masses.^[6]

Historian Richard Pipes describes how many Marxists^[who?] at the turn of the Twentieth century believed in the coming of the "new man" without vices; in essence a new superior species, albeit one caused by socio-economic changes, not genetics. In order to reach this stage, Pipes argues, it was necessary to completely destroy the existing institutions that had formed the current wretched humans and that this would in turn make it possible to dispense with the state. Pipes argues that such thinking inevitably leads to a devaluation of the importance placed on the lives and rights of current human beings.^[7]

Marx argued that bourgeois capitalist society would never allow for the aims of communism to be achieved through capitalist political systems and thus only violent political revolution would be able to succeed in fundamentally changing society. Socialists such Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky rejected this suggestions. Socialist reformism argues that gradual democratic changes could reform capitalism. Many of the current social democratic and labor parties were originally Marxist parties that adopted reformism.

To some Marxists the ends justifies the means, though it wasn't the case for Marx himself who wrote :

An end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end.^[8]

This was addressed by Leon Trotsky who wrote:

Dialectic materialism does not know dualism between means and end. The end flows naturally from the historical movement. Organically the means are subordinated to the end.^[9]

This approach was criticized by Max Weber in his 1919 lecture Politics as a Vocation:

We must be clear about the fact that all ethically oriented conduct may be guided by one of two fundamentally differing and irreconcilably opposed maxims: conduct can be oriented to an 'ethic of ultimate ends' or to an 'ethic of responsibility.' ...

...Whosoever contracts with violent means for whatever ends--and every politician does--is exposed to its specific consequences. This holds especially for the crusader, religious and revolutionary alike. ...

...The leader and his success are completely dependent upon the functioning of his machine and hence not on his own motives. Therefore he also depends upon whether or not the premiums can be permanently granted to the following, that is, to the Red Guard, the informers, the agitators, whom he needs. What he actually attains under the conditions of his work is therefore not in his hand, but is prescribed to him by the following's motives, which, if viewed ethically, are predominantly base.^[10]

This criticism is echoed by Gandhi in the work Satyagraha, which outlines his philosophy of non-violence. The theory of Satyagraha sees means and ends as inseparable. The means used to obtain an end are wrapped up and attached to that end. Therefore, it is contradictory to try to use unjust means to obtain justice or to try to use violence to obtain peace. As Gandhi wrote:

They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end...

^[11]

Marxist economics have been criticised for a number of reasons. Some critics point to Marxist analysis of capitalism while others argue that the economic system proposed by communism is unworkable.

Marx's version of the labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics.^[12] The theory holds that the value of a commodity is defined by the amount of labor required to produce it. However, labor theories of value, including Marx's version, are often rejected by many modern economists in favor of marginalism.^[13]

Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom argued that a centrally-planned socialist economy would inevitably function poorly due to factors such as the economic calculation problem. Economic theory maintains that an economic system based upon individual choice allows for technological and social advance through entrepreneurship and trial and error. It is argued that economic systems based upon central planning and coercion will tend towards stagnation as individual enterprise is stifled.

Many have argued against Marxism for empirical or epystemological reasons. Some argue that the Marxian conception of society is fundamentally flawed.

The Marxist stages of history, class analysis, and theory of social evolution have been criticized. Robert Conquest argues that detailed analyses of many historical periods fail to find support for "class" or social evolution as used by Marxists. Marx himself admitted that his theory could not explain the internal development of the "Asiatic" social system, where much of the world's population lived for thousands of years.^[14]

Many notable academics such as Karl Popper, David Prytchitko, and Francis Fukuyama argue that many of Marx's predictions have failed.^[15][16][17] Marx predicted that wages would tend to depreciate and that capitalist economies would suffer worsening economic crises leading to the ultimate overthrow of the capitalist system. The socialist revolution would occur first in the most advanced capitalist nations and once collective ownership had been established then all sources of class conflict would disappear. However, while there have been economic crises in capitalist societies, it is argued that there has been an unprecedented level of sustained economic growth since the Second World War and average wages in many advanced capitalist economies have tended to increase. Furthermore, these advanced capitalist economies have not experienced socialist revolutions while less socio-economically developed states, such as China and Russia, have experienced such upheaval.

Popper has further argued that historical materialism is a pseudoscience because it is not falsifiable. Popper believed that Marxism had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. When Marx's predictions were not in fact borne out, Popper argues that the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which attempted to make it compatible with the facts. By this means a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.^[18]

Marxists respond that the social sciences are inherently unfalsifiable because they rely upon interpretation and analysis of complex events, which are never fully conclusive, unlike the experimentation of hard science.^{[citation needed]} Popper agreed on this, but instead used it as an argument against central planning and all-encompassing historiographical ideologies.^[18] Thomas Kuhn rejected Popper's theory of falsifiability and instead proposed that a gradual emergence of contrary data eventually leads to a paradigm shift in which scientists re-evaluate their underlying theoretical beliefs and even metaphysics.^[18] This has been used by some Marxists in an attempt to show that Popper's criticisms is invalid and unrealistic.^[19]

Francis Fukuyama argued in his essay The End of History and later in his book The End of History and the Last Man that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberal democracy no longer faced any serious ideological challenges and thus had proved itself to be the only sustainable and successful form of government. Marx used the phrase 'the end of pre-history' to denote the triumph of communism over capitalism. Playing on Marx's phrase, Fukuyama claimed that capitalist liberal democracy would eventually spread to all states and that this would be 'the end of history'.^[20][21]

Some sociobiologists have criticised communism on evolutionary grounds: Edward O. Wilson, referring to ants, once said that "Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species",^[22] meaning that while ants and other social insects appear to live in communist-like societies, they only do so because they are forced to do so from their basic biology, as they lack reproductive independence: worker ants, being sterile, need their ant-queen to survive as a colony and a species and individual ants cannot reproduce without a queen, thus being forced to live in centralised societies. Humans, however, as a more advanced biological being, do possess reproductive independence so they can give birth to offspring without the need of a "queen", and in fact humans enjoy their maximum level of Darwinian fitness only when they look after themselves and their families, while finding innovative ways to use the societies they live in for their own benefit.^[23]

• Anarchism and Marxism
• Criticisms of communism

• Marx and totalitarianism
• The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Marxism
• Main Currents of Marxism. Volume I: The Founders, Volume II: The Golden Age, Volume III: The Breakdown critique by Leszek Kołakowski
• The Open Society and Its Enemies. Volume II: The High Tide of Prophecy (Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath) critique by Karl Popper
• Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) critique by Imre Lakatos
• Lecture XXXV "A Philosophy of Life" includes a critique by Sigmund Freud
• Exporting Marx Instead of Smith to Africa, by Christian Sandström
• Liberalism, Marxism and The State, by Ralph Raico
• A Farewell to Marx: An Outline and Appraisal of His Theories, by David Conway
• Marx Lite, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
• Marxist Dreams and Soviet Realities, by Ralph Raico
• Marxism, by David L. Prychitko
• Museum of Communism
• Marxism As Pseudo-science, by Ernest Van Den Haag
• History of Economic Thought - Volume II: Classical Economics, by Murray Rothbard
• Resurrecting Marx: The Analytical Marxists on Freedom, Exploitation and Justice, by David Gordon
• Economic critique of Marx in Ludwig von Mises' Human Action
• Philosophical critique of Marx in Ludwig von Mises' Theory and History
• Decline of the Left in India
• Eight-fold Path to Marxism and Back