Criticisms of Marxism

Criticism of Marxism, that is, a critical examination of that form of social theory that refers to the writings of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), since there are already Marxism are. The critics come from both outside as well as from the ranks of Marxism itself - then as a form of self-criticism and further development of Marxism.

• 3.1 Primary Sources
• 3.2 secondary literature

Overview

Inner Marxist critical approaches

Within the present-day Marxism, which is divided into a number of partially completely contradictory directions, almost all elements of the Marxian theory are discussed controversially. Particularly controversial points are for example:

• The role of the working class and their relation to other social movements
• The definition ( and organization) of "socialist democracy "
• The conditions of a socialist transformation of society
• Various questions of the value
• The ratio of base and superstructure

Following Leon Trotsky modified Ernest Mandel with a Marxist version of the theory of long waves that put forward by Marx law of the tendency of the rate of profit by emphasizing that his opposing forces can gain the upper hand for long periods.

Neo-Marxists reject particular the dogma of the Marxist system of thought as a " proletarian world view " from which was particularly evident in the state doctrines of real socialism.

Euro Communists and Reformists, however, reject the class struggle as a means to achieve socialism and try to find democratic ways to overcome class antagonisms. Some post- Marxists doubt with the value of criticism of his class theory and philosophy of history.

From Marx influenced thinkers accuse him that he had in his description of the use value of a commodity overestimated its impact on a transition to communism and hardly incorporated the culture and nature in his economic theories. Controversial are the conditions for the transformation of a socialist society in a communist. Marx himself noted that their success only after a worldwide revolution was possible.

Non- Marxist critical approaches and counter-positions

Almost every non-Marxist critic rejects the Marxian theories from the only truth, and supports at least parts of the intra- Marxist critique. In addition, everyone already part of Marxism was seriously doubted or denied.

So be about the Hegelian dialectic - build on the historical and dialectical materialism - from the ground up wrong, criticized such as Karl Raimund Popper in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies. Marx's thinking would lead to a "closed society". This is characterized in that it is being planned on the drawing board so to speak of elites who believed in the possession of allegedly scientific knowledge about the " objective interests " of the subjugated, even if it differs from their perceived interests differed significantly. The closed society is thus a totalitarian dictatorship. In his essay " The Poverty of Historicism " criticized Popper 1957, the idea of historical materialism,

• That history purposefully get lost,
• That certain patterns were due to her by certain subsequent pattern
• That the supposedly " objective" knowledge of this basic pattern forecasts the course of history and normative statements about liberty, as he had influence.

Overall, "scientific socialism " but is by no means scientific, because he was not falsifiable. This applies especially when Marxist theses, sealed with the means of ideological criticism outwards: skeptics who doubted about the law of the tendential fall in the profit rate or the reduction of all history to the history of class struggles is assumed here, that their doubts not honestly would, but only the production of ideology in the interests of the ruling class. The more the skeptics insist on his concerns, the clearer believe the ideology critic to recognize his alleged intentions behind. Conditions under which he would admit that his theories were wrong, he could not name thus. In this interpretation, Popper, Marxism appears as a pseudo-science. About his theories and the scientific nature of the dialectical method of positivism dispute was fought out in the sixties.

Other critics say the narrowed causal relation between base and superstructure, as can be observed, among other things Stamokap theory or in some vulgar Marxist theories cartel. Here the institutions and institution of the State are represented as a direct command recipient of the industrialists, to mere "agents of monopoly capitalism." The German historian Gerd Koenen and the American political scientist Daniel Pipes called for this reason Marxism- Leninism as a conspiracy theory.

There is also criticism that the road to communism via a powerful party apparatus ( dictatorship of the proletariat ) runs the risk that the powerful leaders no structural reforms in the interests of the proletariat initiate, but also defend their own political interests. Many researchers, such as the editor of the Black Book of Communism therefore assume that the millions of mass murders, the professional end of to be Marxist dictators like Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot were organized, no aberrations of the really positive Marxist doctrine, but would be invested in herself.

Some critics of Marxism see the reasons for the failure of socialism and communism a confirmation of their counter-positions to Marxism.

Critic

Famous liberal critics were about Milton Friedman ( Chicago School ) and Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises (the Austrian school). For criticizing John Maynard Keynes, whose theories until the second half of the 20th century had a significant influence on the economic policies of the industrialized countries.

Response to criticism

The critique of Marxism has not gone unchallenged. The counter criticism emphasizes that Marx and Engels had taken place in their creative time developments in their theoretical assumptions. It should always be considered, from which period date the respective versions of Marx and Engels. Reference is made in particular to the differences of the statements in his early work and the later work of Karl Marx. So Marx, for example, further developed historical materialism by the dialectical materialism.

Neo-Marxist approaches to solve from a teleological and deterministic interpretation, represent the main criticisms of Marxist theory. Social Development is committed neither as uncommitted, understood themselves to a specific goal in mind evolving process, nor is it by its physical environment or by the mode of production in a society. Also, do not determiniere the base of the superstructure. There is no sequence of stages of development, this is in principle open. The criticism of Popper, Marxist theory would find laws and a goal in the historical development, in order to derive solutions for the future is denied in this regard. At the same time on a normative model of the criticism is held.