The Marx-Engels Reader, Essay Example

Introduction

It may be argued that, long centuries of attempts and constructions of limited success notwithstanding, socialism remains the political ideology perpetually elusive to humanity.  It is continually promoted as an ideal by varying societies, leaders, and philosophers, yet it invariably is defeated or eclipsed by governments and societies unwilling or unable to implement it as a living and consistent mode of existence for societies. This is a reality not entirely lost upon the leading proponents of socialism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, which in turn generates a debate ongoing today; namely, is socialism more likely to be successfully constructed through revolutionary or more gradual processes?  As the following will explore, the lack of a known answer does not weaken the importance of the argument, as the opposing views of this conflict are examined.

Analysis

As is widely known, Marx and Engels share a vision, if not a complete agreement about the most crucial aspects of the idealized socialist state. For both men, socialism represents an understanding of basic truth, and one which may only emerge when humanity comprehends its existence as collective, or social.  Both also employ, not unexpectedly, capitalist systems as contrasting this necessity and consequently opposing truth.  In plain terms, the workers of the capitalist culture both comprise the vast majority of the population and work to sustain the interests of the view.  It is work as slavery, and slavery accepted by the slaves because they fail to recognize the truth of humanity as social.  For Marx, the identity of the individual does not lie in any material effort or role, but in the social  being (Marx 4).  He and Engels believe that mankind demands education in the truest sense of the word, as a “leading out,” to bring it to its senses: “The reform of consciousness consists only in enabling the world to clarify its consciousness, in waking it from its dream about itself, in explaining to it the meaning of its own actions” (Marx 15).  Marx himself devotes exhaustive efforts to exposing, through ancient and modern history, that this necessity is evident because humanity consistently elevates the state and subsequently denies the truth – and natural rights – of humanity itself.

All of this inevitably goes to a single drive: revolution as essential for the liberation of the human truth.  In Marx and Engels, and hardly surprisingly, it is not in the state’s interests that mankind should attain an awareness of its natural liberties, so there is a consistent emphasis on conflict in the thinking of the two men.  The typical state of affairs is such that tension must develop as mankind has an innate sense of the injustice of the systems and, when the “awakening” occurs, overthrow is inevitable.  In his more emphatic moments, Marx virtually delights in the perceived just violence, as he assesses the conditions of his native country: “But war upon the state of affairs in Germany! By all means!” (54).  Marx’s justification for this, or insistence upon it as the only viable means of such wide-ranging change, is somewhat based upon a sense of the laws of physics; that is,  there can be no rising of the lowest orders, the workers, without an immense displacement of the tiers of authority above them. Given the structures of capitalist and monarchist states, the sheer factor of oppositional interests cannot allow for anything else.  Then, gradation is rendered virtually irrelevant in this viewpoint because  a gradual process still must literally upset the hierarchical order, and consequently generate a proportionately powerful reaction of resistance.

For Marx, and his excitement over the idea of war in Germany aside, violence itself is not essential to the rise of socialism, provided the core action of the people assuming political power occurs.  Nonetheless, there is a realism in Marx and Engels regarding revolutionary socialism, in that they acknowledge the far greater likelihood of change as revolutionary due to state efforts to retain power.  There is as well in Marx the tacit, but irrefutable, sense that the inherent injustice of the state as wielding power warrants the abrupt – and sometimes violent – response of revolution.  For Marx there is a gross immorality (to use a term he would despise) in systems which exploit workers. They debase mankind through an unconscionable fiction, and present  reality in which the worker’s being, productivity, and even dreams belong to another (100). Consequently, revolution is the best avenue to socialism, and the ultimate construction of communism, because it pragmatically addresses the intensity of state response and encompasses the intrinsic right of humanity to so strongly resist so base a system.

Regarding similarities and differences between revolutionary and reformist, or gradual, socialism, the most apparent connection is the shared achievement of the socialist society.  Both ideologies reflect this as the foundational commitment and motivation;  there is to be at the end the state wherein the working class has control over its productivity and essential being, which manner of liberation must transform the nature of the society completely. In plain terms, as men and women work for themselves, they serve the interests of one another, and power is exercised in an equitable way, with no elite force dictating to – and exploiting – the many.  As to differences, they are immense, and go to what may be termed radically contrary ideas of human ambition. Reformist socialism may exist only when those holding power are at least somewhat amenable to surrendering power; any other reaction would inevitably translate to some form of revolutionary action as necessary to secure the socialist state. Consequently – and ironically – reformist socialism demands some measure of socialist thinking within the power base installed.  It must be willing to accommodate the change eventually eliminating itself, and be at least hypothetically in agreement as to socialism as the better social agency.  Clearly, the revolutionary ideology does not perceive this as plausible, a view which may be seen as more pragmatically aware of the motives behind the capitalist or monarchist power structures.

The reformist stance, however, may not be as unrealistic an agenda as it appears.  It offers critical advantages in that it does not entail the disruption of the society necessitated by revolution, as it the gradual processes of reform may in fact further themselves in their processes. For example, when reform goes to initiating economic parity,  the tension between the classes likely dissipates because the workers gain both economically and in terms of a greater sense of true identity, as serving their own interests, while the dominant class discovers it is not facing hardship or even extinction.  Put another way, gradual reform may “awaken” the state elite to the socialist reality of betterment for all. At the same time, the inherent aspect of moderation, of gradual modifying of existing capitalist agendas within the state, raises concerns based on the actual entirety of the state/nation, which in turn powerfully connect to economic factors.  It is certainly rational to observe that, if the essential capitalist system remains in place at all, any reform will be implemented only if it supports to some degree the greater economic interests of the governing class.  In a state of even modest complexity, nationalism and economics are inextricably linked, a reality evident in how Western leaders require immense funding to campaign for offices in “democracies.”  Viewed in this light, reformist socialism may be said to be an inherently self-defeating proposition, in that it irrationally relies on motivations antithetical to it.

Conversely, revolutionary socialism dismisses such a “hopeful” ideology and offers the advantage of a more practical assessment of the actual forces driving the system to be replaced.  Such revolution must be, even in its most non-violent form, almost unimaginably disruptive. The nature of the revolutionary approach, moreover, focuses more on power, perceiving this as the tangible impact of the economic inequality; as reform would more typically seek change through shifting economic realities, revolutionary centers on unseating the power created by the wealth, and this is then far more impactful on a national scale. It is as well more immediate, as the nature of revolution of any kind is abrupt and consequently more radical in restructuring the state. If this provides the advantage of a more comprehensive or national change, it also then weakens control over the changes as intrinsically tumultuous, and potentially beyond the direction of those leading the revolution.

Adding to the debate is John Stuart Mill, who somewhat favors socialism but in a way infusing it within a capitalist doctrine. Mill believes in reform absolutely and insists on the individual’s right to exercise power within the state.  For him, the state must establish the processes by which the working class may be heard and have impact.  He is not, however, open to any revolutionary path to socialism because he ultimately supports a concept utterly antithetical to a Marxist conception of real socialism: property.  It must be remembered that, for Marx, socialism is a means to the greater end of communism, which dispenses with the idea of private property. Marx would then dismiss Mill as unrealistically clinging to, not any socialist agenda, bot something of an idealized capitalism in which equity is somehow assured by a power elite working against its own interests.  Similarly, Marx would not likely be tolerant of Mill’s insistence on morality as guiding such processes, as Marxist thought perceives morality itself as an instrument employed by the elite to further oppress the working class.

Conclusion

In arenas of political thought, socialism remains something of the never fully realized dream. This in turn enables intense debate as to what course may best create this society in which power belongs to all, and the worker labors for their own interests. Marx and Engels, later moderation aside, promote revolutionary means as necessary.  If reformist strategies may bring change with minimal disruption to the state, they also, to a Marxist mind, perpetuate the structure requiring overthrow. What is then revealed, ultimately, is a controversy not likely to soon be resolved.  If socialism is viewed as an ideal, or even better, foundation for a state, conflict continues to exist in opposing ideologies promoting gradual reform of outright revolution.

Works Cited

Tucker, Robert C. (Ed.)  The Marx-Engels Reader.  New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978.  Print.