MARXISM

Marxism is an ideological system within socialism that developed out of, and drew
inspiration from, the writings of Karl Marx (1818–83). However, Marxism as a
codified body of thought came into existence only after Marx’s death. It was the
product of the attempt, notably by Friedrich Engels (1820–95), Karl Kautsky
(1854–1938) and Georgi Plekhanov (1856–1918), to condense Marx’s ideas and
theories into a systematic and comprehensive world view that suited the needs of
the growing socialist movement. The core of Marxism is a philosophy of history
that outlines why capitalism is doomed, and why socialism and eventually
communism are destined to replace it. This philosophy is based on historical
materialism, the belief that economic factors are the ultimately determining force
in human history, developed into what Marx and Engels classified as ‘scientific
socialism’. In Marx’s view, history is driven forward through a dialectical process
in which internal contradictions within each mode of production, or economic
system, are reflected in class antagonism. Capitalism, then, is only the most
technologically advanced of class societies, and is itself destined to be overthrown
in a proletarian revolution that will culminate in the establishment of a classless
communist society[…]”

“However, there are a number of rival versions of Marxism, the most obvious ones
being classical Marxism, orthodox Marxism and modern Marxism. Classical
Marxism is the Marxism of Marx and Engels (though Engels’ Anti-Dühring,
written in 1876, is sometimes seen as the first work of Marxist orthodoxysince it
emphasizes the need for adherence to an authoritative interpretation of Marx’s
work). Orthodox Marxism is often portrayed as ‘dialectical materialism’ (a term
coined by Plekhanov and not used by Marx), and later formed the basis of Soviet
communism. This ‘vulgar’ Marxism placed a heavier stress on mechanistic
theories and historical inevitability than did Marx’s own writings. However, further
complications stem from the breadth and complexity of Marx’s own writings and
the difficulty of establishing the ‘Marxism of Marx’. Some see Marx as a humanist
socialist, while others proclaim him to be an economic determinist. Moreover,
distinctions have also been drawn between his early and later writings, sometimes
presented as a distinction between the ‘young’ Marx and the ‘mature’ Marx. The
‘young’ Marx developed a form of socialist humanism that stressed the link
between communism and human fulfilment through unalienated labour, while the
‘mature’ Marx paid much greater attention to economic analysis and appeared to
subscribe to a belief in historical inevitably. Modern Marxism (sometimes called
Western or neo-Marxism) has tried to provide an alternative to the mechanistic and
determinist ideas of orthodox Marxism by looking to Hegelian philosophy (see
dialectic), anarchism, liberalism, feminism and even rational choice theory, and has
been concerned to explain the failure of Marx’s predictions, looking, in particular,
at the analysis of ideology and the state.
Significance

Marxism’s political impact has been related largely to its ability to inspire and
guide the twentieth-century communist movement. The intellectual attraction of
Marxism has been that it embodies a remarkable breadth of vision, offering to
understand and explain virtually all aspects of social and political existence, and
uncovering the significance of processes that conventional theories ignore.
Politically, it has attacked exploitation and oppression and had a particularly strong
appeal to disadvantaged groups and peoples. However, Marxism’s star has dimmed
markedly since the late twentieth century. To some extent, this occurred as the
tyrannical and dictatorial features of communist regimes themselves were traced
back to Marx’s ideas and assumptions. Marxist theories were, for example, seen as
implicitly monistic in that rival belief systems are dismissed as ideological. The
crisis of Marxism, however, intensified as a result of the collapse of communism in
the Eastern European Revolutions of 1989–91. This suggested that, if the social
and political forms that Marxism had inspired (however unfaithful they might have
been to Marx’s original ideas) no longer exist, Marxism as a world-historical force
is dead. The alternative interpretation is that the collapse of communism provides
an opportunity for Marxism, now divorced from Leninism and Stalinism, to be
rediscovered as a form of humanist socialism, particularly associated with the ideas
of the ‘young’ Marx.
”

Excerpt From: Andrew Heywood. “Key Concepts in Politics and International

Relations”. Apple Books.
INDIVIDUALISM

Individualism is a belief in the primacy, or supreme importance, of the individual

over any social group or collective body. It is usually viewed as the opposite of
collectivism. Individualism, however, may be either a descriptive or a normative
concept. As a descriptive concept, in the form of methodological individualism, it
suggests that the individual is central to any political theory or social explanation –
all statements about society should be made in terms of the individuals who
compose it. As Margaret Thatcher put it, ‘there is no such thing as society, only
individuals and their families’. As a normative concept, in the form of ethical
individualism, it implies that society should be constructed so as to benefit the
individual, giving priority to the individual’s rights, needs or interests.
What ethical individualism means in practice nevertheless depends on one’s view
of the individual or theory of human nature. In its most familiar form, egoistical
individualism (also called ‘market’, ‘possessive’ or ‘atomistic’ individualism), it
stresses human self-interestedness and self-reliance. The individual is the exclusive
possessor of his or her own talents, owing nothing to society and being owed
nothing in return (this form of individualism overlaps most clearly with
methodological individualism). On the other hand, what may be called
developmental individualism emphasizes personal growth and human flourishing,
and is expressed in the idea of individuality. As this form of individualism allows
for “social responsibility and even altruism, it blurs the distinction between
individualism and collectivism.
Significance

The doctrine of individualism emerged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

as a result of the development of market or capitalist societies, in which individuals
were expected to make a wider range of economic and social choices and to take
personal responsibility for their own lives. It constitutes the basic principle of
liberalism and, as such, has come to be one of the major components of Western
political culture. Methodological individualism has a long and impressive history,
having been employed by social contract theorists such as Thomas Hobbes
(1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704), by utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham
(1748–1832), by economic theorists from Adam Smith (1723–90) onwards, and by
modern rational choice theorists. Its attraction as a mode of analysis is that it
enables theories to be constructed on the basis of seemingly empirical, and even
scientific, observations about human behaviour. In short, understand the individual,
and social and political institutions and mechanisms become explicable. However,
the drawback of any form of methodological individualism is that it is both asocial
and ahistorical. By building political theories on the basis of a pre-established
model of human nature, individualists ignore the fact that human behaviour varies
from society to society, and from one historical period to the next. If experience
and the social environment shape human nature, the individual should be seen as
the product of society, not the reverse.

As an ethical or political principle, however, individualism has usually had

strongly anti-statist implications. For classical liberals, the New Right and
individualist anarchists, the central thrust of individualism is to expand the realm
of civil society and the ‘private’ sphere at the expense of political authority.
Individualism thus implies negative freedom, the expansion of individual choice
and responsibilities. However, this egoistical individualism has been rejected by
socialists, traditional conservatives and modern communitarians. In the view of
socialists, individualism promotes greed and competition, weakening the bonds of
the community; in the view of conservatives, it produces insecurity and
rootlessness and undermines traditional values; and in the view of communitarians,
it robs society of its capacity to establish moral order and encourage collective
endeavour.”

Excerpt From: Andrew Heywood. “Key Concepts in Politics and International

Relations”. Apple Books.

SOCIALISM
Socialism is an ideology defined by its opposition to capitalism and its attempts to
provide a more humane and socially worthwhile alternative. The core of socialism
is a vision of human beings as social creatures united by their common humanity;
as the poet John Donne put it, ‘No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a
piece of the continent, a part of the main.’ This highlights the degree to which
individual identity is fashioned by social interaction and the membership of social
groups and collective bodies. Socialists therefore prefer co-operation to
competition, and favour collectivism over individualism. The central, and some
would say defining, value of socialism is equality, socialism sometimes being
portrayed as a form of egalitarianism. Socialists believe that a measure of social
equality is the essential guarantee of social stability and cohesion, and that it
promotes freedom in the sense that it satisfies material needs and provides the basis
for personal development. The socialist movement has traditionally articulated the
interests of the industrial working class, seen as being systematically oppressed or
structurally disadvantaged within the capitalist system. The goal of socialism is
thus to reduce or abolish class divisions.

Socialism, however, contains a bewildering variety of divisions and rival

traditions. Ethical socialism, or utopian socialism, advances an essentially moral
critique of capitalism. In short, socialism is portrayed as being morally superior to
capitalism because human beings are ethical creatures, bound to one another by the
ties of love, sympathy and compassion. Scientific socialism undertakes a scientific
analysis of historical and social development which, in the form of Marxism, does
not suggest that socialism should replace capitalism, but predicts that, inevitably, it
would replace capitalism.

A second distinction is regarding the ‘means’ of achieving socialism, namely the

difference between revolution and reform. Revolutionary socialism, reflected most
clearly in the communist tradition, holds that socialism can only be introduced by
the revolutionary overthrow of the existing political and social system, usually
based on the belief that existing state structures are irredeemably linked to
capitalism and the interests of the ruling class. Reformist socialism (sometimes
termed evolutionary, parliamentary or democratic socialism), on the other hand,
believes in ‘socialism through the ballot box’, and thus accepts basic liberal
democratic principles such as consent, constitutionalism and party competition.
Finally, there are profound divisions over the ‘end’ of socialism; that is, the nature
of the socialist project. Fundamentalist socialism aims to abolish and replace the
capitalist system, viewing socialism as qualitatively different from capitalism.
Fundamentalist socialists, such as Marxists and communists, generally equate
socialism with common ownership in some form. Revisionist socialism aims not to
abolish capitalism but to reform it, looking to reach an accommodation between
the efficiency of the market and the enduring moral vision of socialism. This is
expressed most clearly in social democracy.

Excerpt From: Andrew Heywood. “Key Concepts in Politics and International

Relations”. Apple Books.