Deviations of Marxism

The problem of a earthly concerns scotch and government activityal barrendom has been widely discussed by specialists throughout centuries. Chomsky (1987), Bakunin (1934), Rousseau (1960), Humb oldish (in Botting 1973) cook alone questi superstard the issue whether a man can ever be free in the federation. The conjecture of Marxism can be regarded as a subtraction and conclusion of stainless political economy, particularly of utopian state-controlled causations from which Marx borrowed m any(prenominal) ideas. The teaching of Marx is powerful because it is true.It is complete and symmetrical, offering an integrated view of the world, irreconcilable with any superstition, with any reactionism, or with any defense of bourgeois oppression. (Eastman, Marx 1959, p. xxi). The problem of freeing man from the curse of stinting victimisation and political and tender enslavement in Marxs works has been discussed by Highs (2004), Kozyn (1987), Sayer (1991), Suny (1993), and Wood (1997). As the sources argue, according to the imprint of Marx, this problem can be solved, but scarce after legion(predicate) an(prenominal) assortments take place in the society.Capitalism is designate to fail and be replaced by fabianism which can put an end to contradiction between 2 amicable disunitees- bourgeoisie and the working class. Opposite to the carcass of capitalism, socialism was dismission to be base on the principles radic each(a)y different from the principles of capitalist society, and olibanum end economic growth. According to Marx, plenty could become free if they were free economically, and thereof the end of economic exploitation was going to determine the immunity for people.In The Criticism of the Gotha Program Marx devotes major attention to the analysis of ownership and the problem of workers estrangement of the results of their work as the major peculiarity of exploitation deep down the cooperative society, based upon the common o wnership of the means of production, the producers do non exchange their products the labor of the individual becomes, no longer in a roundabout way, but directly, a component part of the total labor. (Eastman, Marx, 1959, p. 5).According to Marx, the exploitation of workers provided on all take aims of production, their estrangement from the results of work all were the reasons of the inevitable changes in the future. The fact that surplus value was obtained by the capitalist was also one of the arguments for the future change in the organise. The class of workers realized that the results of their work were taken by the capitalist even though they were the ones who actually created the value. Therefore, they were eventually destined to struggle for their economic granting immunity, which would also lead to their social and political freedom.The dialectics argues that contradictions ar the driving force of progress. Once contradictions appear in whatever system, the system impart need to undergo many changes and develop until the naked as a jaybird level in which the synthesis of new qualities depart be finally reached. Therefore, as it was correctly noticed by Marx, the phase of capitalism could not be all over- it would just develop until its new phase socialism and the around positive features of both systems would be present in the final synthesis of the two systems.People would reach the freedom only after the final branch of evolution, because earlier stages would still contain some features from the earlier system. Marx argues that communistic society still bears, in every respect, economic, moral and intellectual, the birthmarks of the old society from whose uterus it is issuing (Eastman, Marx, 1959, p. 5). Therefore, it is impossible to conclude that collectivism entirely frees people from economic exploitation and political and social enslavement. Communism is not a tout ensemble new system and has connection with the previous sys tem of capitalism.It interacts with it in some ways but at the resembling time it has many new features which are beneficial for the working class and liberates people in many aspects of life. In The Poverty of Philosophy Marx argues that eventually, communism is going to give political freedom to people. The working class will substitute, in the course of its development, for the old tell apart of civil society, an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will no longer be political power. (Eastman, Marx, 1959, p.2). The author also states that in the new socialistic society, all of the assets will be expropriated from the capitalists and thus they will not be able to obtain the benefits of the surplus value anymore. Therefore, economic exploitation will be finally brought to an end. An another(prenominal) feature of socialism is the equality of people, when they are able to work according to their abilities for themselves and the state they love i n. The socialist society is not divided into classes because it regards people equal in all the ways.Marx mentioned that unfortunately, all of the major developments needed to happen not as the result of evolution but as the results of struggles and revolutions because they were the only ways of goal of the old system. Marx did not deny the role of evolution in the offshoot of freeing people but he had very radical views and thus regarded revolution as the best tool of speeding up the evolution process which was going to lead to the long-waited changes in any case. As the author stated, the final end to capitalism could be put and the new socialist society could be established only with the help of arms.A remarkable feature of Marxs surmise of capitalism development and evolution into socialism is that he does not share the opinions of utopian writers on this issue. Many utopian writers considered that social changes could be originated by the government of the country or by a cl ass of educated capitalists. Marx was totally against these theories because he was confident that the former capitalists and members of government were unable to bring any changes into the countrys social structure.In order to form the new society, the new principles needed to be established and those people who belonged to the rival class of the workers were unable to bring any of the mentioned changes. It is also infallible to investigate the problem of freeing man from the curse of economic exploitation and political and social enslavement in Soviet confederacy. As the fancy of the country shows, action of Marxism theory in Soviet Union all told failed to achieve its goals.As it was mentioned by Geoffrey (1997), Grigor (1993), Khazanov (1992), Lieven (1998), Kon (1993), one of the major mistakes make in Soviet Union was connected with Russian exceptionalism. As Grigor (1993) states, Soviet Union employ the concept of Marxist farmingless society in a way completely differ ent from its original meaning. Instead of freeing citizens of the country as Marxism stated, Soviet leadership oppressed all of the nations except Russians. Russia was the major center of all activities going in the country.Soviet Union was a very peculiar structure because it united a large number of nations which were very different in many ways. Some of the nations included in the country were quite block to one another (Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine), while other republics in the Soviet Union structure were very different by their destinations. For example, Eastern republics, like Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan belonged to Islamic countries, and had very different traditions from Russians, but Russian nation forced all of them to act according to the traditions of the dominant nation.This was one of the major reasons of the empires failure in the following years. Sovietology paid far too petite attention for far too long to the non-Russian peoples, to the extrapoli tical social environment, and to the particular contexts, contingencies, and conjunctures of the Soviet past. (Grigor, 1993 3) According to Marxists, all the nations within the Soviet Union had to be completely alike and without any differences between them. Soviet leaders took the features of the Russian nation as the basic features. Therefore, all other nations had to adapt to the new culture which was not very familiar to them.The nationless society in reality false out a Russian society with total dominance of the Russian nation in all the ways. All the nations other than Russians were oppressed greatly. They were all considered a step lower in the society ladder collectable to their origin, and did not have any political freedom. Policy of the country was in many ways channeled to the development of Russia and its cities. The largest sums from the budget were assigned to the development of Russia. dapple Russias economy was booming, particularly the economy of Moscow, all o ther economies were at a much lower level of development.Besides exceptionalism, there were many other problems with application of Marxist theory in Soviet Union. For example, Soviet leaders did their best to apply the principle according to which every person was necessitate to contribute to the wealth of the country at his best and would get operate from the state in the maximum amount. Instead, it was easy to notice that leaders of the communist party got all of the benefits from the state while working people got only the minimum. As Lieven (1998) states, the reality of Soviet Union was very far from plentiful any freedom to its citizens.During capitalism workers were oppressed greatly and did not have a chance to satisfy all of their needs. The situation did not change much when Soviet leaders brought communism to the country because the oppression remained the same it just came not from capitalists but from communist leaders. Communist leaders in Vietnam also failed to imp lement principles of Marxism in the country. Similar to Lenins Soviet Union, Ho Chi Minhs Vietnam failed to liberate people from economic exploitation and did not give them social and political freedom. According to Anh (1995, p.126), one of the major reasons of communisms failure in Vietnam is lack of background for it in the country. Marxism required the struggle between classes as the radical of the future revolution. In cracker-barrel Vietnam, there were no antagonist classes similar to industrial Britain or Russia. The handout of people in Vietnam could not be solely based on Marxs principles due to the radical differences between the British society which Marxism based his theory on and the Vietnamese society. There was no working class in Vietnam looking for liberation from capitalist exploitation.The major figure in Vietnamese society was a peasant fighting against the exploitation by foreigners oppressors. At the centre of Vietnamese history, stands the peasant, tenacio us and heroic defender of the put down inherited from the ancestors against the foreign invaders, but recurrently rising up against the get the hang from within in an endless rebellion. (Le Vietnam traditionnel. Quelques etapes historiques, 1971, p. 170). Communism in Vietnam was supposed to attend to the interests of peasants in their fight against French oppressors.The highly destructive system of economic exploitation installed by the colonial regime gave birth to new social forces, while aggravating the situation of the countrified masses. (Institute of Historical Studies, Vietnamese peasantry and rural society in the modern period, 1990, p. 35). Despite the attempts of application of Marxs theory in Vietnam, it was destined to fail because Vietnam was eventually liberated from oppressors, and any basis for the struggle between antagonist classes disappeared.In conclusion, it is necessary to mark that in its exquisite version, Marxism provides an answer to the question of how to liberate people from economic, political and social oppression. firing of people from economic exploitation comes first and as long as it is achieved, political and social freedom can also be targeted. However, the attempts of the application of Marxism in Soviet Union and Vietnam have showed that peoples freedom cannot be achieved in real life due to fatal mistakes made by communist leaders in the application of Marxism.