MARXISM Explained

1. MARXISM Explained

2. MARXISM: Core Principles • Marxists adopt a CONFLICT perspective on power. • They see the POWERFUL (Bourgeoisie) and POWERLESS (Proletariat) as having different interestswhich often lead to conflict in society. .They believe that Power is used in the interests of the powerful (wealthy) .Power they believe is CONCENTRATED on a MINORITY in society MARXISM .They stress the different interests of the POWERFUL and POWERLESS and the potential this has for CONFLICT • NOTE: • All the points here are SHARED with elitists BUT…. • Marxists do not assume that power rests with those who occupy key positions in society (the elite ) • For Marxists the source of power is ECONOMIC

3. MARX & ENGELS Power & the State MARX and ENGELS BELIEVED: • Those who have ECONOMIC CONTROLhave POWER. • In all stratified societies the MEANS OF PRODUCTION(factories) are owned and controlled by the RULING CLASS. • The relationship of this class to the means of production provides the basis of its dominance. • THEREFORE the only way to return power to the people is communal ownership of the means of production. • In a communist society power would be equally distributed among the whole population since no one person would have greater economic power than any other individual

4. MARX & ENGELS Power & the State MARX and ENGELS BELIEVED: In capitalist societies ruling class power is used to exploit and oppress the subject class. The bourgeoisie appropriate the profits from the proletariat’s labour. Marxists see the use of power to exploit others as COERCION: This is an illegitimate use of power.

5. MARX & ENGELS Power & the State • ORIGINS OF THE STATE (Engels) • The ‘State’ did not exist in primitive communist societies. • Kinship (Relationships) formed the basis of social groupings. • There was little division of labour. • The Means of production communally owned. Little surplus produced. • People lived on subsistence level, had enough to get by • When societies began to produce a surplus – ruling class emerged, the state was needed to hold antagonisms in check. • In primitive communist societies individuals shared the same interests. • USE OF COERCION • In class societies a minority benefited at the expense of the majority. • Engels argues that the ruling classes needed to hold down the subject class, this was done through the use of force or coercion. • Engels believed that the police, army and state run institutions were used for repression. Engels believe that while early states used coercion to control the population, more advanced states were less obviously a coercive tool of the ruling class.

7. MARXISM & DEMOCRACY • Engels argued that democracies were the ‘highest form of state’ as they foster the ILLUSION OF EQUAL POWER e.g.; through universal suffrage. • In democracies the existing order is projected as fair, just and legitimate and consequently it is accepted by the population, as a result of this the state does not need to rely so heavily on coercion. • Engels argues that in capitalist societies DEMOCRACY WAS AN ILLUSION as REAL POWER rested in the hands of the owners of the means of production.

8. 'THE END OF THE STATE' A States purpose is: - To protect the position of the ruling class. - To control the subject class. Therefore : Once classes disappeared the state would become redundant. • Immediately after the PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION the proletarians would ‘capture the state’ and establish communal ownership of the means of production. • They would destroy the bourgeoisie. • Once these objectives were reached class divisions would cease and the state would wither away. • Marx believed that, ‘The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

9. CRITICISM OF MARX BY ENGELS • Marx’s work is too generalised, simplistic and vague. • In societies professing to be communist the state didn’t wither away. • Marxists themselves disagree over: • The ways in which they see the bourgeoisie controlling the state • The extent to which the state is independent of the ruling class. • The importance of the state in maintaining the predominance of the bourgeoisie in capitalist societies.

10. RALPH MILLIBAND • . Ralph Milliband was a Marxist theorist (and father of David and Ed)who produced his own version of Marxism called the NEW LEFT. • He recognised flaws in Marxism and was highly critical of harsh communist regimes in post war Europe.

11. RALPH MILLIBANDS THEORIES The state is run by a number of elites. They include cabinet ministers, MP’s, senior police and military officers & top judges He believes they act together to defend the ruling class. They all share wish to preserve capitalism and defend private property. Millibands NEW LEFT ELITE & THE RULING CLASS Miliband’s views were similar to C Wright Mill’s (power elite) BUTMilliband sees the elites as acting in the interests of CAPITALISM not just in their own interests.

12. RALPH MILLIBANDS THEORIES He produced empirical EVIDENCE – (to try and back his theories) • Many members of bourgeoisie occupy elite positions. • USA (1899–1949) 60% cabinet ministers were businessmen. • UK (1886–1950) 33% cabinet members were businessmen. • Even non-businessmen in state elite act in interests of bourgeoisie Groups like politicians, senior civil servants, and judges are united by ties of kinship, friendship, and mutual outlook. • Social origins similar. Education similar (Oxford and Cambridge). They are socialised into identifying with interests of bourgeoisie, any lower class people who join ruling class have undergone a process of ****“bourgeoisification”,**** even if you have come from a lower class you can go through this process. • Actions of state elites have tended to benefit ruling class. (e.g. Judges’ primary duty to protect private property) Labour since 1945 have done little to challenge ruling class (limited nationalisation, businesses still run in a capitalist way by businessmen).

13. LEGITIMATION LEGITIMATION (Indoctrination/ Brainwashing) Miliband argues: • The subject class is persuaded to accept status quo. • The Third face of power – Ruling class, determine beliefs and wishes of the population. • This is what Milliband terms the ‘Process of Legitimation’ requires massive indoctrination – brainwashing through media etc. It uses advertising to back his point. Businesses use advertising to • Promote their business • Make people accept capitalism • Promote ruling class power and privileges

14. POULANTZAS The STRUCTURALIST VIEW OF THE STATE GREEK MARXIST THINKER • Poulantzas also writes from Marxist perspective BUT disagrees with Miliband in many areas. • *He adopts a ‘structuralist’ approach which emphasises the importance of social structure and minimises the importance of individuals actions.***

15. 1) State is vital for maintaining capitalism 2) State serves interests of ruling class POULANTZAS Structuralist theory 3) Ruling class don’t have to occupy elite positions in state, capitalist system is sufficient to ensure state works to benefit of ruling class. 4) Background of state elite not important, their position not their class origin determines their behaviour. Will act in interest of bourgeoisie regardless of their background.

16. POULANTZAS RELATIVE AUTONOMY • The Capitalist state best serves interests of capitalist class when ruling class is NOT the politically governing class. • The Ruling class does not directly govern but its interests are served through the medium of the state. • The State is relatively autonomousfrom ruling class but is still forced to represent the interests of capital. (Money) • The State requires a degree of freedom and independence to serve ruling class interests. If it was staffed by members of the bourgeoisie it would lose its freedom of action

19. POULANTZAS Why is Relative autonomy of State important? • The bourgeoisie is too internally divided, to represent its common interests, state must have freedom to act on behalf of class as a whole. • If bourgeoisie ruled directly, its power might be weakened by internal wrangling, therefore might not have united front in class conflicts. Relative autonomy allows it to rise above factions and represent interests of class as a whole. This gives state flexibility to deal with threats to ruling class dominance. • Relative autonomy allows the state to give concessions to subject class which bourgeoisie might not agree with. These concessions serve to defuse radical working class protest. • Relative autonomy promotes myth that the state represents the masses.

20. POULANTZAS Repressive & ideological State apparatus • Poulantzas DISAGREES with Miliband about the importance of legitimisation. He goes much further in seeing this process as being directly related to state. • Poulantzas has a broader definition of state. • It has two parts: 1) REPRESSIVE APPARATUS Examples: (Government, Army, Police, Tribunals and Administration) Exercises coercive power 2) IDEOLOGICAL APPARATUS Examples: (church, political parties, unions, media and family) Manipulates values and beliefs

21. POULANTZAS Repressive & ideological State apparatus • Poulantzas also makes the additional point that: • Family is part of state as it is necessary for survival of capitalism. • Ideological apparatus depends on repressive apparatus to maintain it. • Changes in repressive apparatus of state will lead to changes in its ideological apparatus. (Fascist Germany state controls each) • Communist aim of ‘withering away of state’ will only be achieved by abolition of institutions like the family.

22. Criticisms of POULANTZAS • Miliband accuses Poulantzas of structuralist super determinism (not all aspects of behaviour of state are determined by infrastructure: There are fascist and democratic states within capitalism). • His theories are not backed by empirical evidence to prove state acts in interests of capitalism. • Miliband disagrees that institutions like the family are part of the state. Families are not directly controlled by state & are largely independent of it. • His theory of ‘relative autonomy of state’ is vague and ambiguous. How is it possible for the state to have relative autonomy and at the same time always work in interest of the masses? Relative autonomy theory impossible to prove or disprove. • Neo-Marxists (Gramsci) see concessions as more than token gestures. Working class have some power and influence over state.

23. CRITICISMS OF MARXISM • Marx & Engel’s views seen as too vague, simplistic and generalised. • Marxist predictions of proletarian revolutions in capitalist states like Britain, Germany and USA didn’t materialise. What happened in Russia and China - predominantly agricultural. • State never withered away (very important) • Marx accused of selectively choosing evidence to accommodate his pre-conceived theories. • Marxists theory does not accept the fact that there are alternative sources of power e.g. religious power in democratic states or military power.

24. CRITICISMS OF MARXISM Poulantzas criticised for: • Lacking empirical evidence to back up his theories. • Theory of relative autonomy vague, ambiguous and contradictory, Giddens questions how the state can be relatively autonomous from ruling class yet always work in its interests. • Miliband accuses Poulanatzas of structural super-determinism.

25. CRITICISMS OF MARXISM • From a Pluralist perspective Marxists are fundamentally wrong when they contend that power is monopolised by the bourgeoisie. • Pluralists argue that power is widely dispersed and they quote studies like Dahl, Hewitt and Grant and Marsh who have produced evidence that in liberal democracies like UK & USA no one group dominates and that power is widely dispersed. • They also argue that government can’t afford to uphold the sectional interest of the capitalists as they are voted in by all the people and would therefore jeopardise their prospects of being elected if they consistently favoured one section of the population. • Pluralist also refute the claim that the state always acts in the interest of the economic elite and rather see the state as an ‘honest broker’ mediating between the conflicting demands of a wide variety of groups