Karl Marx was a German sociologist, economist, philosopher and revolutionary soviet who is heralded as one of the greatest minds to ever live. In the 19th century he posited theories about society, history, economics and politics advocating communist ideals. His collective works became known as Marxism and his writings have influenced subsequent political, social and economic history. Marx’s theories are certainly significant in understanding some aspects of political history but they are not outside of the sphere of criticism. Marx’s theories of history, the economy and his predictions of socialist revolution throughout the world are based on scientifically groundless philosophy, which in turn falsifies much of his claims. Marx’s theory of historical materialism was dogmatic in his assertions and failed to account for the complexity of society. His classical belief in the erroneous labour theory of value debased his economic theories and failed to offer a viable alternative to capitalism. His predictions of crisis theory resulting in social revolution failed and instead his theories were perverted by the communist regimes that adopted them.
Marx’s theory of historical materialism devalues the complex nature of society and in a way ambiguous enough that followers of his school of thought can manipulate the meaning to the point that it becomes contradictory to its own assertions. Marx posited that humankind inevitably enters into definite relations of production that constitute the economic structure of society and are the foundation upon which a legal and political superstructure arise. Marx was strongly influenced by the teachings of Hegel and his dialectical method resonated with Marx. While he strongly followed Hegel, he did not completely accept his philosophy. As an idealist, Hegel believed in the notion that reality is based on ideas or the mind but Marx disliked idealism and called it the “mystificatory side of the Hegelian dialectic”. In rejecting idealism, he developed his concept of history around materialism which is the notion that matter is the only thing that can be proven to exist and therefore precedes all consciousness. He stated,
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”
While Marx disagreed with Hegel’s idealist philosophy, he incorporated and developed Hegel’s dialectical method which, put simply, suggests that society is driven by its ability to replace man’s perception of reality with newer and truer forms. He believed these perceptions are created through the interaction between the thesis and antithesis which are stages that exist in contradiction to each other, with contradiction in this instance meaning oppositions that are necessary for and yet destructive of each other. Marx used this interpretation to inform his own theory of historical materialism which posited that economic forces conditioned the general process of social, political and intellectual life which he called the ‘superstructure’. Furthermore, he suggested that social evolution was propelled along due to the conflict between the economic or productive forces, relations of production and superstructure within society. In short, while the forces of production (e.g. technology) is constantly improving, the current relations of production exist to serve the best interest of the ruling class. The working class wants to take advantage of the ever-improving productive forces but the ruling class prevents this from happening and the contradiction of classes culminates in social revolution. The ruling class is overthrown by the working class and new relations of production as well as superstructure are formed to serve the interest of the new ruling class and the cycle repeats. Put simply, Marx posited that economic relations form the foundation of society and economic conflict drives social evolution. Friedrich Engels, Marx’s long-time friend and co-author on a number of his works, wrote that Marx “discovered the law of development of human history” similar to Darwin’s discovery of the development of organic nature. Engels believed that, as Darwin’s theory of evolution had radically transformed the scientific landscape, Marx’s concept of historical materialism would too change many fields of thought. But the cyclical nature of Marx’s theory of history is criticised as being deterministic, for Marx the future was decided. Batra noted,
“Whenever a single factor, however important and fundamental, is called upon to illuminate the entire past and by implication the future, it simply invites disbelief, and after closer inspection, rejection … Today historical determinism is regarded by most scholars as an idea so bankrupt that it can never be solvent again”.
Additionally, many disagree that economic forces above all other factors influence social change and criticise Marx for trying to reduce the process of social evolution to one driving force. Popper suggests that “under certain circumstances the influence of ideas (perhaps supported by propaganda) can outweigh and supersede economic forces”. MacIver corroborates this, adding that such views “misunderstand the extreme complexity of the relationship between life and environment”. Engels, however, later countered this evaluation stating that neither he, nor Marx, ever claimed that the economic foundation of society was the only determining element in social evolution. The problem with this statement is that if the superstructure affects the base then the assertion that the history of society is fundamentally predicated on economic class conflict is a fallacy. The statement is contradictory of itself. Popper concludes that Marx’s theory of history in its initial form was testable and ultimately falsified but instead of accepting the refutations, the followers of Marx altered the theory and evidence to equate them to one another. As a consequence, he states, “they rescued the theory from refutation; but they did so at the price of adopting a device which made it irrefutable”. By being unfalsifiable, Popper suggests that the theory is no longer scientific in its status. In response, Marxist sociologists have suggested that numerous critics have misunderstood Marxist theories such as dialectic method. Many critics of Marxism agree that, as a rule, their opinions are denounced as having failed to understand the dialectic, or proletarian science. As the laws of dialectics at the foundation of Marxism are fundamentally flawed, so too are the theories that Marx based his economic analyses and theories on.
Marxian economics have been criticised for being based on flawed economic theories meaning Marx’s analysis of capitalism and the Marxist economic system offered as an alternative are inherently flawed. Marx’s pinnacle economic work Capital is interlaced with the labour theory of value, which is predicated on the notion that “the value of goods and services is determined by the amount of direct and indirect labour inputs needed to produce them”. Economists with the Austrian School of Economics aimed criticism at the labour theory of value. Von Mises held that the socialist economy was not viable because there is no way to calculate the value of capital goods without private property existing in the means of production. The Austrian School of Economics wasn’t alone in their criticism of the labour theory of value that Marxian economics is based on, British economist Alfred Marsh attacked Marx for ignoring the value of risk-taking, imagination, investment and entrepreneurship. He noted that the capitalist forfeited the money for investment which ultimately and by risking their capital through investment they contribute to the work. He stated,
“It is not true that the spinning of yarn in a factory … is the product of the labour of the operatives. It is the product of their labour, together with that of the employer and subordinate managers, and of the capital employed.”
Marshall points to the intersection of supply and demand as determining value and Von Mises corroborates this with his assertion that the needs of consumers as well as cost of labour contribute to value. Additionally, Mises criticised the proposal of social distribution. He unpacked the problem of how to reasonably distribute food and resources. The difficulties arise in the variations in individual needs which in turn leads to shortages and surpluses, ironically being the same problem Marx heavily criticised capitalist economies for having. Mises and later Hayek suggested the only way to avoid this would be to understand the need of consumers for individual goods but without a free market to indicate the values through supply and demand, this would be impossible. This is evident historically in socialist states with centrally planned economies such as North Korea, Cuba and the USSR, all of which have suffered from frequent and widespread shortages in goods and resources. Preeminent economist, John Stuart Mill condemned socialism for abolishing the incentive in the “superior and signal ability in every work of life”. He stated, “The result [of taking away incentive] would inevitably lead to a deadening extension of mediocrity”. Other economists point to human nature as an obstacle for a Marxian economic structure as individuals differ radically in their motivation for and competence in making money. Hayek and Mises noted that Marx’s economy assumed omniscience and benevolence in man’s ability to know the right thing to do and do it. Mises compared the individuals administering the social distribution to a board of directors, he stated,
“We may admit that the director or the board of directors are people with superior ability, wise and full of good intentions. But it would be nothing short of idiocy to assume that they are omniscient and infallible.”
It is evident that Marxian economic theories are flawed and offer no reasonable economic structure that could successfully incentivise individuals to work while perfectly meeting their needs through distribution of resources. As with his flawed theories on the economy, so too were his predictions of social revolution.
Marx’s predictions of the fall of capitalism via social revolution failed and instead his theories became the foundation of cruel totalitarian regimes. Classical Marxist socialism made two claims, it argued that capitalism that was sustained by exploitation of labour would lead to its eventual collapse and that by contrast, communism would stand to be a superior economic structure. The first claim was predicated on the hope that the internal economic contradictions of capitalism would perpetuate class conflict which would incite social revolution. Economically, Marx developed a theory, presented in its most developed form as “the tendency for the rate of profit to fall” and this what he believed would undermine the capitalist system. The theory goes that as capitalists increased their capital, the wages of workers would continue to fall. Workers were then depended on as consumers but as their wages decreased so too would their spending thus causing reduction in demand and exacerbate the economic downturn. The continued downward trend of profit rates would be capitalism’s undoing. Marx believed that after the large capitalist economies fell then communism would be the strongest option on a global scale. Marxist class analysis was “pitting economic classes against each other in a zero-sum completion. In that competition, the stronger parties would win each successive round of competition, forcing the weaker parties against each other … until capitalism generated an economic social structure …”. According to Marx, solidarity among workers would increase simultaneously and they would recognise they were the victims of exploitation by capitalists. In his opus work “The Communist Manifesto”, Marx wrote,
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”
He determined that the existing social and political system needed to be changed through social revolution. Additionally, Marx predicted that increased purchase of capital would increase the population of the working class, the middle class would split with a small percentage moving into the ruling class and the rest moving to the working class and the capitalists would also decrease to a very small population. The strategy of Marxists, who protested violence and believed a peaceful revolution would be attained through class struggle waited for the large capitalist economies to fall in line with crisis theory. Yet, by the early twentieth century all three predictions failed successfully classify the class systems of the developing capitalist nations. Manual labour had decreased in popularity, the middle class was considered large and wealthy and the upper class had also grown. Perhaps the factor most responsible for the distortion of Marx’s vision of communism in Russia was the fact that the world revolution of 1917 only succeeded in a small part of the world, dissimilar to what Marx had predicted. Instead of his vision of a liberated proletariat class and sweeping equality, his theories became the foundation of some of the most brutal totalitarian regimes. The communism of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union after 1922 was a perversion of his thought. Ginsberg suggests this was because communism cultivated the cult of personality, ironically “what was conceived to be the historical power of a mass-movement [became] inseparable from the power of forceful individuals”. Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, Tito – the cult of personality was an attractive quality of communism. Sowell agreed stating, “Marxism was – and remains – a might instrument for the acquisition and maintenance of power”. Clearly, Marx’s predictions of economic capitalist nations failed and instead his theories were perverted into totalitarian regimes that strayed from his vision.
It is evident that Marx’s theories of history, economics and his predictions of the fall of capitalism through social revolution were founded upon erroneous theories, which ultimately falsified many of his claims. Marx’s notion of historical materialism was deterministic and dogmatic and failed to appreciate the complex nature of society. His belief in the flawed labour theory of value undermined his economic philosophies and failed to offer a feasible alternative economic structure. His predictions that crisis theory would result in social revolution were unsuccessful and instead his theories were adopted by totalitarian regimes that didn’t uphold Marx’s views. While Marx’s philosophies should be criticised and scrutinised, it is clear that his theories have contributed to shaping the economic, social and political landscape on a global scale and he remains one of the most recognised scholars in recent history.