Free Essay

Anarchysm & Marxism

In: Social Issues

Submitted By Valentine93
Words 4623
Pages 19
Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, Marxism & Hope for the Future
The following are excerpts of an interview with Noam Chomsky published in Issue 2 of Red & Black Revolution. RBR can be contacted at Red & Black Revolution, PO Box 1528, Dublin 8, Ireland. The interview was conducted in May 1995 by Kevin Doyle.
RBR:First off, Noam, for quite a time now you've been an advocate for the anarchist idea. Many people are familiar with the introduction you wrote in 1970 to Daniel Guerin's Anarchism, but more recently, for instance in the film Manufacturing Consent, you took the opportunity to highlight again the potential of anarchism and the anarchist idea. What is it that attracts you to anarchism?
CHOMSKY: I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way.
Beyond such generalities, we begin to look at cases, which is where the questions of human interest and concern arise.
RBR: It's true to say that your ideas and critique are now more widely known than ever before. It should also be said that your views are widely respected. How do you think your support for anarchism is received in this context? In particular, I'm interested in the response you receive from people who are getting interested in politics for the first time and who may, perhaps, have come across your views. Are such people surprised by your support for anarchism? Are they interested?
CHOMSKY: The general intellectual culture, as you know, associates 'anarchism' with chaos, violence, bombs, disruption, and so on. So people are often surprised when I speak positively of anarchism and identify myself with leading traditions within it. But my impression is that among the general public, the basic ideas seem reasonable when the clouds are cleared away. Of course, when we turn to specific matters - say, the nature of families, or how an economy would work in a society that is more free and just - questions and controversy arise. But that is as it should be. Physics can't really explain how water flows from the tap in your sink. When we turn to vastly more complex questions of human significance, understanding is very thin, and there is plenty of room for disagreement, experimentation, both intellectual and real-life exploration of possibilities, to help us learn more.
RBR: Perhaps, more than any other idea, anarchism has suffered from the problem of misrepresentation. Anarchism can mean many things to many people. Do you often find yourself having to explain what it is that you mean by anarchism? Does the misrepresentation of anarchism bother you?
CHOMSKY: All misrepresentation is a nuisance. Much of it can be traced back to structures of power that have an interest in preventing understanding, for pretty obvious reasons. It's well to recall David Hume's Principles of Government. He expressed surprise that people ever submitted to their rulers. He concluded that since "Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. 'Tis therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular." Hume was very astute - and incidentally, hardly a libertarian by the standards of the day. He surely underestimates the efficacy of force, but his observation seems to me basically correct, and important, particularly in the more free societies, where the art of controlling opinion is therefore far more refined. Misrepresentation and other forms of befuddlement are a natural concomitant.
So does misrepresentation bother me? Sure, but so does rotten weather. It will exist as long as concentrations of power engender a kind of commissar class to defend them. Since they are usually not very bright, or are bright enough to know that they'd better avoid the arena of fact and argument, they'll turn to misrepresentation, vilification, and other devices that are available to those who know that they'll be protected by the various means available to the powerful. We should understand why all this occurs, and unravel it as best we can. That's part of the project of liberation - of ourselves and others, or more reasonably, of people working together to achieve these aims.
Sounds simple-minded, and it is. But I have yet to find much commentary on human life and society that is not simple-minded, when absurdity and self-serving posturing are cleared away. [...]
The Spanish Revolution
RBR: In the past, when you have spoken about anarchism, you have often emphasised the example of the Spanish Revolution. For you there would seem to be two aspects to this example. On the one hand, the experience of the Spanish Revolution is, you say, a good example of 'anarchism in action'. On the other, you have also stressed that the Spanish revolution is a good example of what workers can achieve through their own efforts using participatory democracy. Are these two aspects - anarchism in action and participatory democracy - one and the same thing for you? Is anarchism a philosophy for people's power?
CHOMSKY: I'm reluctant to use fancy polysyllables like "philosophy" to refer to what seems ordinary common sense. And I'm also uncomfortable with slogans. The achievements of Spanish workers and peasants, before the revolution was crushed, were impressive in many ways. The term 'participatory democracy' is a more recent one, which developed in a different context, but there surely are points of similarity. I'm sorry if this seems evasive. It is, but that's because I don't think either the concept of anarchism or of participatory democracy is clear enough to be able to answer the question whether they are the same.
RBR: One of the main achievements of the Spanish Revolution was the degree of grassroots democracy established. In terms of people, it is estimated that over 3 million were involved. Rural and urban production was managed by workers themselves. Is it a coincidence to your mind that anarchists, known for their advocacy of individual freedom, succeeded in this area of collective administration?
CHOMSKY: No coincidence at all. The tendencies in anarchism that I've always found most persuasive seek a highly organised society, integrating many different kinds of structures (workplace, community, and manifold other forms of voluntary association), but controlled by participants, not by those in a position to give orders (except, again, when authority can be justified, as is sometimes the case, in specific contingencies).
RBR: Anarchists often expend a great deal of effort at building up grassroots democracy. Indeed they are often accused of "taking democracy to extremes". Yet, despite this, many anarchists would not readily identify democracy as a central component of anarchist philosophy. Anarchists often describe their politics as being about 'socialism' or being about 'the individual'- they are less likely to say that anarchism is about democracy. Would you agree that democratic ideas are a central feature of anarchism?
CHOMSKY: Criticism of 'democracy' among anarchists has often been criticism of parliamentary democracy, as it has arisen within societies with deeply repressive features. Take the US, which has been as free as any, since its origins. American democracy was founded on the principle, stressed by James Madison in the Constitutional Convention in 1787, that the primary function of government is "to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority." Thus he warned that in England, the only quasi-democratic model of the day, if the general population were allowed a say in public affairs, they would implement agrarian reform or other atrocities, and that the American system must be carefully crafted to avoid such crimes against "the rights of property," which must be defended (in fact, must prevail). Parliamentary democracy within this framework does merit sharp criticism by genuine libertarians, and I've left out many other features that are hardly subtle - slavery, to mention just one, or the wage slavery that was bitterly condemned by working people who had never heard of anarchism or communism right through the 19th century, and beyond.
RBR:The importance of grassroots democracy to any meaningful change in society would seem to be self evident. Yet the left has been ambiguous about this in the past. I'm speaking generally, of social democracy, but also of Bolshevism - traditions on the left that would seem to have more in common with elitist thinking than with strict democratic practice. Lenin, to use a well-known example, was sceptical that workers could develop anything more than "trade union consciousness"- by which, I assume, he meant that workers could not see far beyond their immediate predicament. Similarly, the Fabian socialist, Beatrice Webb, who was very influential in the Labour Party in England, had the view that workers were only interested in "horse racing odds"! Where does this elitism originate and what is it doing on the left?
CHOMSKY:I'm afraid it's hard for me to answer this. If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism, in my opinion, for reasons I've discussed. The idea that workers are only interested in horse-racing is an absurdity that cannot withstand even a superficial look at labour history or the lively and independent working class press that flourished in many places, including the manufacturing towns of New England not many miles from where I'm writing - not to speak of the inspiring record of the courageous struggles of persecuted and oppressed people throughout history, until this very moment. Take the most miserable corner of this hemisphere, Haiti, regarded by the European conquerors as a paradise and the source of no small part of Europe's wealth, now devastated, perhaps beyond recovery. In the past few years, under conditions so miserable that few people in the rich countries can imagine them, peasants and slum-dwellers constructed a popular democratic movement based on grassroots organisations that surpasses just about anything I know of elsewhere; only deeply committed commissars could fail to collapse with ridicule when they hear the solemn pronouncements of American intellectuals and political leaders about how the US has to teach Haitians the lessons of democracy. Their achievements were so substantial and frightening to the powerful that they had to be subjected to yet another dose of vicious terror, with considerably more US support than is publicly acknowledged, and they still have not surrendered. Are they interested only in horse-racing?
I'd suggest some lines I've occasionally quoted from Rousseau: "when I see multitudes of entirely naked savages scorn European voluptuousness and endure hunger, fire, the sword, and death to preserve only their independence, I feel that it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom."
RBR: Speaking generally again, your own work - Deterring Democracy, Necessary Illusions, etc. - has dealt consistently with the role and prevalence of elitist ideas in societies such as our own. You have argued that within 'Western' (or parliamentary) democracy there is a deep antagonism to any real role or input from the mass of people, lest it threaten the uneven distribution in wealth which favours the rich. Your work is quite convincing here, but, this aside, some have been shocked by your assertions. For instance, you compare the politics of President John F. Kennedy with Lenin, more or less equating the two. This, I might add, has shocked supporters of both camps! Can you elaborate a little on the validity of the comparison?
CHOMSKY: I haven't actually "equated" the doctrines of the liberal intellectuals of the Kennedy administration with Leninists, but I have noted striking points of similarity - rather as predicted by Bakunin a century earlier in his perceptive commentary on the "new class." For example, I quoted passages from McNamara on the need to enhance managerial control if we are to be truly "free," and about how the "undermanagement" that is "the real threat to democracy" is an assault against reason itself. Change a few words in these passages, and we have standard Leninist doctrine. I've argued that the roots are rather deep, in both cases. Without further clarification about what people find "shocking," I can't comment further. The comparisons are specific, and I think both proper and properly qualified. If not, that's an error, and I'd be interested to be enlightened about it.
RBR:Specifically, Leninism refers to a form of marxism that developed with V.I. Lenin. Are you implicitly distinguishing the works of Marx from the particular criticism you have of Lenin when you use the term 'Leninism'? Do you see a continuity between Marx's views and Lenin's later practices?
CHOMSKY: Bakunin's warnings about the "Red bureaucracy" that would institute "the worst of all despotic governments" were long before Lenin, and were directed against the followers of Mr. Marx. There were, in fact, followers of many different kinds; Pannekoek, Luxembourg, Mattick and others are very far from Lenin, and their views often converge with elements of anarcho-syndicalism. Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of the anarchist revolution in Spain, in fact. There are continuities from Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities to Marxists who were harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism. Teodor Shanin's work in the past years on Marx's later attitudes towards peasant revolution is also relevant here. I'm far from being a Marx scholar, and wouldn't venture any serious judgement on which of these continuities reflects the 'real Marx,' if there even can be an answer to that question. [...]
RBR: From my understanding, the core part of your overall view is informed by your concept of human nature. In the past the idea of human nature was seen, perhaps, as something regressive, even limiting. For instance, the unchanging aspect of human nature is often used as an argument for why things can't be changed fundamentally in the direction of anarchism. You take a different view? Why?
CHOMSKY: The core part of anyone's point of view is some concept of human nature, however it may be remote from awareness or lack articulation. At least, that is true of people who consider themselves moral agents, not monsters. Monsters aside, whether a person who advocates reform or revolution, or stability or return to earlier stages, or simply cultivating one's own garden, takes stand on the grounds that it is 'good for people.' But that judgement is based on some conception of human nature, which a reasonable person will try to make as clear as possible, if only so that it can be evaluated. So in this respect I'm no different from anyone else.
You're right that human nature has been seen as something 'regressive,' but that must be the result of profound confusion. Is my granddaughter no different from a rock, a salamander, a chicken, a monkey? A person who dismisses this absurdity as absurd recognises that there is a distinctive human nature. We are left only with the question of what it is - a highly nontrivial and fascinating question, with enormous scientific interest and human significance. We know a fair amount about certain aspects of it - not those of major human significance. Beyond that, we are left with our hopes and wishes, intuitions and speculations.
There is nothing "regressive" about the fact that a human embryo is so constrained that it does not grow wings, or that its visual system cannot function in the manner of an insect, or that it lacks the homing instinct of pigeons. The same factors that constrain the organism's development also enable it to attain a rich, complex, and highly articulated structure, similar in fundamental ways to conspecifics, with rich and remarkable capacities. An organism that lacked such determinative intrinsic structure, which of course radically limits the paths of development, would be some kind of amoeboid creature, to be pitied (even if it could survive somehow). The scope and limits of development are logically related.
Take language, one of the few distinctive human capacities about which much is known. We have very strong reasons to believe that all possible human languages are very similar; a Martian scientist observing humans might conclude that there is just a single language, with minor variants. The reason is that the particular aspect of human nature that underlies the growth of language allows very restricted options. Is this limiting? Of course. Is it liberating? Also of course. It is these very restrictions that make it possible for a rich and intricate system of expression of thought to develop in similar ways on the basis of very rudimentary, scattered, and varied experience.
What about the matter of biologically-determined human differences? That these exist is surely true, and a cause for joy, not fear or regret. Life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share. That should be elementary. What is commonly believed about these matters is strange indeed, in my opinion.
Is human nature, whatever it is, conducive to the development of anarchist forms of life or a barrier to them? We do not know enough to answer, one way or the other. These are matters for experimentation and discovery, not empty pronouncements.
The future
RBR:To begin finishing off, I'd like to ask you briefly about some current issues on the left. I don't know if the situation is similar in the USA but here, with the fall of the Soviet Union, a certain demoralisation has set in on the left. It isn't so much that people were dear supporters of what existed in the Soviet Union, but rather it's a general feeling that with the demise of the Soviet Union the idea of socialism has also been dragged down. Have you come across this type of demoralisation? What's your response to it?
CHOMSKY: My response to the end of Soviet tyranny was similar to my reaction to the defeat of Hitler and Mussolini. In all cases, it is a victory for the human spirit. It should have been particularly welcome to socialists, since a great enemy of socialism had at last collapsed. Like you, I was intrigued to see how people - including people who had considered themselves anti-Stalinist and anti-Leninist - were demoralised by the collapse of the tyranny. What it reveals is that they were more deeply committed to Leninism than they believed.
There are, however, other reasons to be concerned about the elimination of this brutal and tyrannical system, which was as much "socialist" as it was "democratic" (recall that it claimed to be both, and that the latter claim was ridiculed in the West, while the former was eagerly accepted, as a weapon against socialism - one of the many examples of the service of Western intellectuals to power). One reason has to do with the nature of the Cold War. In my view, it was in significant measure a special case of the 'North-South conflict,' to use the current euphemism for Europe's conquest of much of the world. Eastern Europe had been the original 'third world,' and the Cold War from 1917 had no slight resemblance to the reaction of attempts by other parts of the third world to pursue an independent course, though in this case differences of scale gave the conflict a life of its own. For this reason, it was only reasonable to expect the region to return pretty much to its earlier status: parts of the West, like the Czech Republic or Western Poland, could be expected to rejoin it, while others revert to the traditional service role, the ex-Nomenklatura becoming the standard third world elite (with the approval of Western state-corporate power, which generally prefers them to alternatives). That was not a pretty prospect, and it has led to immense suffering.
Another reason for concern has to do with the matter of deterrence and non-alignment. Grotesque as the Soviet empire was, its very existence offered a certain space for non-alignment, and for perfectly cynical reasons, it sometimes provided assistance to victims of Western attack. Those options are gone, and the South is suffering the consequences.
A third reason has to do with what the business press calls "the pampered Western workers" with their "luxurious lifestyles." With much of Eastern Europe returning to the fold, owners and managers have powerful new weapons against the working classes and the poor at home. GM and VW can not only transfer production to Mexico and Brazil (or at least threaten to, which often amounts to the same thing), but also to Poland and Hungary, where they can find skilled and trained workers at a fraction of the cost. They are gloating about it, understandably, given the guiding values.
We can learn a lot about what the Cold War (or any other conflict) was about by looking at who is cheering and who is unhappy after it ends. By that criterion, the victors in the Cold War include Western elites and the ex-Nomenklatura, now rich beyond their wildest dreams, and the losers include a substantial part of the population of the East along with working people and the poor in the West, as well as popular sectors in the South that have sought an independent path.
Such ideas tend to arouse near hysteria among Western intellectuals, when they can even perceive them, which is rare. That's easy to show. It's also understandable. The observations are correct, and subversive of power and privilege; hence hysteria.
In general, the reactions of an honest person to the end of the Cold War will be more complex than just pleasure over the collapse of a brutal tyranny, and prevailing reactions are suffused with extreme hypocrisy, in my opinion.
RBR: In many ways the left today finds itself back at its original starting point in the last century. Like then, it now faces a form of capitalism that is in the ascendancy. There would seem to be greater 'consensus' today, more than at any other time in history, that capitalism is the only valid form of economic organisation possible, this despite the fact that wealth inequality is widening. Against this backdrop, one could argue that the left is unsure of how to go forward. How do you look at the current period? Is it a question of 'back to basics'? Should the effort now be towards bringing out the libertarian tradition in socialism and towards stressing democratic ideas?
CHOMSKY: This is mostly propaganda, in my opinion. What is called 'capitalism' is basically a system of corporate mercantilism, with huge and largely unaccountable private tyrannies exercising vast control over the economy, political systems, and social and cultural life, operating in close co-operation with powerful states that intervene massively in the domestic economy and international society. That is dramatically true of the United States, contrary to much illusion. The rich and privileged are no more willing to face market discipline than they have been in the past, though they consider it just fine for the general population. Merely to cite a few illustrations, the Reagan administration, which revelled in free market rhetoric, also boasted to the business community that it was the most protectionist in post-war US history - actually more than all others combined. Newt Gingrich, who leads the current crusade, represents a superrich district that receives more federal subsidies than any other suburban region in the country, outside of the federal system itself. The 'conservatives' who are calling for an end to school lunches for hungry children are also demanding an increase in the budget for the Pentagon, which was established in the late 1940s in its current form because - as the business press was kind enough to tell us - high tech industry cannot survive in a "pure, competitive, unsubsidized, 'free enterprise' economy," and the government must be its "saviour." Without the "saviour," Gingrich's constituents would be poor working people (if they were lucky). There would be no computers, electronics generally, aviation industry, metallurgy, automation, etc., etc., right down the list. Anarchists, of all people, should not be taken in by these traditional frauds.
More than ever, libertarian socialist ideas are relevant, and the population is very much open to them. Despite a huge mass of corporate propaganda, outside of educated circles, people still maintain pretty much their traditional attitudes. In the US, for example, more than 80% of the population regard the economic system as "inherently unfair" and the political system as a fraud, which serves the "special interests," not "the people." Overwhelming majorities think working people have too little voice in public affairs (the same is true in England), that the government has the responsibility of assisting people in need, that spending for education and health should take precedence over budget-cutting and tax cuts, that the current Republican proposals that are sailing through Congress benefit the rich and harm the general population, and so on. Intellectuals may tell a different story, but it's not all that difficult to find out the facts.
RBR: To a point anarchist ideas have been vindicated by the collapse of the Soviet Union - the predictions of Bakunin have proven to be correct. Do you think that anarchists should take heart from this general development and from the perceptiveness of Bakunin's analysis? Should anarchists look to the period ahead with greater confidence in their ideas and history?
CHOMSKY: I think - at least hope - that the answer is implicit in the above. I think the current era has ominous portent, and signs of great hope. Which result ensues depends on what we make of the opportunities.
[RC NOTE: In previous versions of my webpage, this was obtained by link. That link seems to be dead. Fortunately for me, I had saved the text to my disk. After some consideration--including the reflection that Chomsky's ideas are far too rarely disseminated outside a limited political circle--I decided to copy it here. I have cut a few Q&A for space. As most anarchist publications are not copyrighted, I think I'm safe, but if the copyright holder cares to contact me I will proceed accordingly. The labor of HTML markup was originally performed by Charles Munson.]

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Marxist Theory of State, and How It Might Be Criticised

...ESSAY – ‘What is the Marxist theory of the state and how might it be criticised?’ Introduction Marxism first arose in 1987 when Marx and Engels were commissioned to write the manifesto for the political party of radical workers, The Communist League; this political party was formed in order to create a unity of the ‘working men’, in favour of the creation of a classless society. The purpose of The Communist Manifesto, and much of Marx’s early writings on the state, was to promote social change, in refutation to Hegel’s theory of the dialetic. This is achieved through the construction of a materialist interpretation of the state as ‘the active, conscious and official expression (of) the present structure of society' (Collected Works, 3, p. 199). Marx’s ultimate aim was to “lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society.” (Marx, Capital [1867] 1965, p10), which is to… This essay will explain and analyse Marx’s theory of state, a nd assess the legitimacy of the theory through criticisms. Marx’s theory of history/state: History is a study of past events in human affairs; Marx believes that historical events are driven forward by changing economic factors within the ‘base’ of society. According to Marx, human society is made up of two measures: a base and a superstructure. The superstructure is the set of 'non-economic institutions whose character is explained by the nature of the economic structure (the base).' (G. A. Cohen Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence pp......

Words: 1749 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Cultural Analysis

...English 1020-L22 November 3, 2013 Cultural Analysis-“From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle” “From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle” is an essay written by Min-Zhan Lu, in which she describes the effects, both positive and negative, she experienced while trying to obtain somewhat of a balance, between the learning techniques and language forced on to her and her sisters by their parents, and the education and language taught and enforced by their country, China. Lu describes the emotional strain, confusion, and the political persecution she experienced, beginning at the young, tender age of four years old, the year after the Communist Revolution of 1949. For many years, the only memories Lu had were of the many hardships she faced during the years of getting her education, which made it difficult to recall the benefits of her education. While writing this essay, Lu was forced to reflect over these particular years of her life and the effects it had on her, both good and bad. She finally realized that as hard as it was to endure these hardships, personal benefits resulted from these difficult times as well. Lu explains her revelation by stating, “My understanding of my education was so dominated by memories of confusion and frustration that I was unable to reflect on what I could have gained from it” (148). One of the benefits Lu gained was growth, in both her reading and writing skills, by persevering through the confusion and frustration during that time. ...

Words: 1370 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Manifestation of Communism

...Marx, K. & F. Engels ‘Bourgeois and proletarians’ Tom Considine Marx, K. & F. Engels (1972 [1848], p.1) said ‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.’ (Marx, K. & F. Engels 1972 [1848], p.1) This is the opening text from Marx and it is the theme of the rest of the chapter. Marx writes of the oppression of the proletarians and how the capitalist bourgeoisie have commodified them. He describes his disapproval for the capitalists stating that there is revolt from the proletariats due to the exploitation that was taking place, this would be the same for any capitalist society. Throughout the text there is the overriding idea that society would benefit with equality and public ownership (socialism). Then I will discuss the argument in favor of capitalism and the argument against socialism. The main concept of this text is that the capitalist society will always self destruct because of the tensions that occur between the bourgeois and proletarians. This tension is caused by the exploitation of the laborers, who work very hard for very little. Marx demonstrates that capitalism can be a destructive thing as it decreases a whole societies relationships to one that is based on greed and money. Anyone that once had a highly regarded job such as a doctor or lawyer is now a wage-laborer working in the industrial sector for the capitalists. His idea of a functioning economy is one that has societies working in cooperation with one another......

Words: 781 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay


...Marx’s on Religion Karl Marx’s thought of religion as destructive in his theory of socialism. He went as far as calling it the opium of the people. He felt that religion exploited people and prevented them from their true destinies. In Marx’s theory he separate people into two social classes the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. That is they are the owners of businesses and the workers. In Marx’s theory he believed the bourgeoisie created religion to oppress the proletariat. He thought that it was created to keep the proletariat docile and accepting to the way things were. Marx’s also contended that region was an enemy to his socialist revolutionary state. This was base on that religion was sedating and misdirecting so being it was taking away from the proletariat rising and moving forward toward the perfect classless society. Now although Marx believed religion, was created by the bourgeoisie I tend not to agree with this theory. Religion was created long before the bourgeoisie. As we know religion has roots to the beginning of time. It is not to use to keep people in line as explained by Marx. People have used religion for various reasons whether it is for an explanations for why things happen, for a spiritual well being or for attaining eternal life. I do not believe it can be used a trickery so to speak to keep people in line. Of coarse I am sure it can be if one tries to manipulate it. I guess you may see this within some cults. But Marx was talking about......

Words: 512 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Evaluate the Usefulness of Marxist Theory to Our Understanding of Crime and Deviance

...Marxist explanations of crime and deviance, like their work on other areas like the family and education, rest on an economic and structural analysis of society that sees a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This struggle comprises the attempts by the proletariat to free themselves from the domination of the bourgeoisie as they seek to take over the means of production. David Gordon argues that crime is an inevitable product of capitalism and the inequality that it generates. He argues that inequalities in wealth and income create poverty and homelessness for the working class and crime is a rational response to these problems. This idea is supported by research which shows property crime rising during recession. Gordon suggests capitalism encourages values such as greed and materialism which are conducive to all classes committing crime. Such values promote non-economic crimes such as violence, rape, child abuse, vandalism and hooliganism because inequalities in wealth and power lead to frustration, hostility, envy and alienation for some members of the working class who may commit crime in an attempt to retrieve power and status. This theory argues that it is surprising that there is not more working class crime. The idea explained is one of continual conflict and of crime being a continuation or extension of the class battle. However, critics point out that such a view is a bit sweeping, and that the whole of the working class isn’t in revolt...

Words: 1166 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

“to What Extent Was Rapid Economic Growth the Cause of Social Tensions in Wilhelmine Germany?”

...“To what extent was rapid economic growth the cause of social tensions in Wilhelmine Germany?” In Wilhelmine Germany, an industrial revolution was taking place. By 1910, Germany had almost caught up with Britain on the production of industries such as coal and steel, with the rate of growth overwhelmingly surpassing that of the Britons. Germany was also home to new industries, like that of chemicals, which quickly saw 90% of the world’s hair dye exported from Germany alone. However, the impact of a healthy economy was not entirely positive. Rapid economic growth brought an increase in class divisions, as the traditional system came under threat as a result of changing methods. Further, the industrial revolution saw urbanisation become a growing trend as people relocated to the job-filled cities; nonetheless, overcrowding saw a fall in living conditions and a rise in discontent with the working environment, leading to increased membership in trade unions. Moreover, pressure groups began to emerge as funding became readily available and confidence grew among the prosperous public. Although rapid economic growth was the main cause of social tensions in Wilhelmine Germany, the Constitution’s failure to establish the role of the Army led to anger among the public who felt as if they were being ignored by the Kaiser and the Chancellor. In addition, the increased following of socialism caused tensions between the traditional, conservative side of Germany, and those who felt......

Words: 1933 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Marxist Theory

...Marxist Theory Marxist stems from conflict theory that concentrates on social class, distinct by the relationship of a group to the means of production. This perspective claims that capitalists, who own and control the means of production, use the law to protect their property from people who threaten it like the lower or working class. Marx believed that throughout history, human societies have consisted of two classes: those who have power to create the rules everyone has to live under and those who neither resources nor the political power to have a say what those rules will be. Examples of these economic or political systems are lord versus serf, capitalist versus proletariat and master versus slave. The capitalists are those who own means of production and the proletariats are those who work for them. Crime of the wealthy and powerful is attributed to the greed generated by capitalist economic system, and crime by the powerless is attributed to the need violate the law in order to survive. Marxist asserts the relationship between capitalism and crime, but they offer little evidence that capitalism generates crime to a greater degree than alternative economic systems, such as socialism. Marx used a base structure metaphor to describe the role of social institutions, with the economic mode of production providing the base of that structure. For Marx, the mode of production determines the characteristics of other social institutions, examples the social, political,......

Words: 306 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

French Student Revolution

...French Student Revolution Dunia Kaakati Lebanese International University Monday, December 2, 2013 During May 1968, students and workers in France united in the biggest strike and the largest mass movement in French history. Protesting capitalism, American imperialism, and Gaullism, nine million people from all walks of life, from shipbuilders to department store clerks, stopped working. The protests started on May the 3rd when students, motivated by their exotic and revolutionary ideas rebelled against the struggles that were associated with the capitalistic system of France and were soon joined by young workers. The nation was paralyzed—no sector of the workplace was untouched. The revolution had such a strong impact on the political leaders that all the conditions were maturing for a successful, even peaceful, overthrow of capitalism. The working-class’ leaders, the Parti Communiste Français however, were not as motivated in the people’s power. They feared the French working class engaging in a struggle that might push them aside. They feared workers replacing capitalism with a genuinely democratic form of socialism. Therefore, the PCF used the media’s power to influence the masses perception of the situation. The PCF press peddled the lie that the mighty capitalistic state could not be overthrown. There would have been violence, it argued. But even the bourgeois papers were commenting that to use the army against the workers’ movement would have been......

Words: 486 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Marxism Through the Characters in the Great Gatsby

...that fought the war turned to wild and extravagant living to compensate. The Great Gatsby is highly symbolic meditation on 1920s America as a whole, in particular the disintegration of the American dream in an era of unprecedented prosperity and material excess. Fitzgerald portrays the 1920s as an era of decayed social and moral values, evidenced in its overarching cynicism, greed, and empty pursuit of pleasure. So, choosing The Great Gatsby and had the characters as its focus in this paper because it covers Marxism where each character’s purpose in life is money, and the essence of desire is wealth. It is clear within the text that the characters feel as if they are totally limited by the amount of money they make, therefore, their view of being satisfied and achieving in life is depicted against their financial status. b. Background of Choosing the Topic Characters is choosed as the focus in this paper because it is the most dominant topic to discuss in marxism approach. According to Lois Tyson, Marxist theory was...

Words: 1497 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay


...Sociology November 15th 56 Up Throughout a lifetime, one may not realize all the changes that take place; however, Michael Apted managed to record the many changes an individual goes through and turn it in to his documentary, 56 Up. This documentary is about the lives of the same group of people over the course of 56 years. The interviews started when they were 7, and then they continued every seven years. The final interview takes place when they are all 56 years old. 56 Up contains many sociological terms, such as the various types of social mobility. To begin, one sociological term used in this documentary is social mobility. 56 Up represents many of the types of mobility with the subjects. First, Sue shows intragenerational mobility. Sue is a woman who at 56 works in the administration department of a big university in London, despite never going to college. Typically, women with no education are in a lower class; however, Sue moved up within her lifetime, which demonstrates intragenerational mobility. Along with this, Sue experienced vertical mobility. Sue experienced vertical mobility within her job changes. Her part time jobs were viewed as lower than her administrative job now. Paul, on the other hand, started in a lower class. He lived in a children’s home and never went to college. His daughter, Katie, was the first in the family to ever attend a university. This shows intergenerational mobility because going to college and getting a good education could......

Words: 386 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay


...Americans generally have a negative view towards communism. This is because communism preaches the exact opposite views on which our country was built on and what it stands for. Communism is a social, political and economic movement that establishes a common ownership of the means of production. In this society it is not like capitalism. They do not believe in the views that some people should be wealthier and have other luxuriates that others don’t. The theory was to abolish capitalist inequalities to have a working class who constitute the main producer of wealth in society. Since the communist views are complete opposite to American views, there are some key reasons why Americans are against it. For one, Americans say it goes directly against what our constitution says. Communism is all about the redistribution of wealth which we as Americans would not stand for. It also calls for a dictator to not fall apart. Marxist philosophers have also talked about gassing those who are mentally unfit or disabled and also they sometimes force sterilization to stop unneeded births of certain groups of people. In a communistic society you own nothing and you have no right to religion. This is directly taking away from the freedom of the peoples. The government controls the people, which we view as unconstitutional and unfair. All Americans should have the right to have their own views on religion and own personal luxuries as they please. Also, communism government has unlimited......

Words: 282 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay


...Great Expectations offers a diversity of interpretations so various responders will be engaged by the text. The main character, Pip, is used to establish the journey of a young boy’s life as he learns the true meaning of life and what values are most important. Dickens uses a range of characters to show Pip learning this lesson and to provide insights into various aspects of the Victorian era culture. Characters such as Joe and Magwitch provide an insight into the education and the crime and justice systems of Victorian England, along the importance of social class and wealth. Whilst, Estella and Miss Havisham provide an insight into the position of women and the inequality of power between the genders. Throughout the novel Pip encounters a range of people and undergoes various experiences. It is through these people and experiences that Pip learns numerous lessons in life. Pips main learning-catalysts are Magwitch, Joe, Miss Havisham and Estella. Education was an important cultural aspect of the Victorian era. Education allowed wider access to employment, and respect; for one could not become a gentleman and part of the upper-class without an education. Yet access to education was greatly determined to one’s position in society. Those in the upper class were given a higher priority to receive education than those in the lower class. Therefore it was very difficult for one to advance within society. This provides Dickens with the opportunity to gently......

Words: 1110 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Sociology Perspective

...Sociology Sociology Perspectives Functionalist; This is where the group is made up of lots of separate institutions. They believe that for a society to work they all have to work together as a whole, for example, the organs in a body had to work together for the body to work itself. Their beliefs in the working of the education system is such one, that each stage leads/prepares you for the next one e.g. nursery – primary school – comp school – college – work. They have a structuralist theory. “The functionalist view is that illness has a social consequence and must be swiftly dealt with, where possible, for the smooth running of society” (Billingham, 2007, p.350) Marxist; The approach of these people is biased on the social class of society, they believe that there are two roles of people, the bosses (bourgeoisie) and the worker (proletariat). They feel that they can exploit the worker as much as possible because they individually cannot make an impact on a whole. They difference is great between a boss and a worker because the boss controls the within working times. “Their job is to provide the company with a healthy workforce. In addition, the government allows companies to make profits from products that cause ill health, for example, tobacco and junk food.” (Billingham, 2007, p.351) Interactionist; This approach is the complete opposite to the Marxist way of looking at the society as a whole. They believe that every person has their own right to speak up and......

Words: 793 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Stalin's Revolution

...Essay response to: Why did Stalin implement forced Industrialization, Collectivized Agriculture, and the Terror in the Soviet Union? Why did many Soviet peoples cooperate in this “Stalin Revolution,” despite the violence, cruelty, and tremendous sacrifices involved? Joseph Jughashvili (1878 – 1953), later known as Joseph Stalin believed that industrialization was necessary in order to create a true proletariat class so a true communist revolution could occur. Stalin and true Marxists believed that only through a modern industrialized economy could a true proletariat class be developed. Additionally, Stalin believed that the Soviet Union was “backward” and behind in the times and had to catch up with the rest of the world, otherwise the Nation would be conquered. Stalin made this clear when he said, “we are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. Either we do it, or they crush us” (Perry, 193). In doing so, Stalin brought about sweeping changes of economic reform. While Vladimir Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) was successful in returning agricultural harvests to prewar levels, by the late 1920’s, Stalin sided with the critics of Lenin’s NEP in that the Soviet Union could not catch up with other industrialized countries by relying on taxes from peasant farmers (Coffin/Stacey, 908). In 1927, Stalin implemented the first five-year plan, which he referred to as the “revolution from above” and called for a command economy (McKay et al., 907). The......

Words: 1930 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Joe Bao

...Social class Murray Chapter 8 July 3rd – 2nd exam- Tuesday June 21st class cancelled Social class and stratification in Canada Essay topics 1250 words, 5-10 references 1. Sociological Imagination” of your life, gender, family, ses, ethnic, migration 2. Sociological Analysis of a current event Toronto star – police violence, poverty , loss ofmanufacturing jobs 3 other topics of personal interest or HR Interest Annotated bibliography due July 10l 50 – 150 words on 4 research sources; proposal includes theses and outline What does sociology know about this Chapter focus: how are the lives of Canadians affected by social inequality how do prestige , power and wealth determine socialclass? What roles does occuptational structure play in a functionalist perspective What is social stratification? the hierarchical arragngement of a large social groups based on their control over basic resources “Life changes” the extent to which individuals have access to important societal resources such as food, clothing, shelter, education and health (102) Stratification systems are described as being closed or open closed: the boundaries between levels in the hierarchies of social stratification are rigid and peoples position are set by ascribed status Open: the boundaries between levels in the hierarchies of social stratification are flexible and may be influenced (positively and negatively) by people’s achieved status Social mobility the movement of......

Words: 1160 - Pages: 5