Marxism After Marx

Discipline Course – I

Semester - II

Paper : Marxism
Lesson Developer: Ambar Ahmad
College: Kamala Nehru, University of Delhi

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 1

 Marxism After Marx

Table of Contents

Chapter : Marxism After Marx

 INTRODUCTION

o Challenges to Marxism

 MARXISM AFTER MARX

o Lenin’s theory of Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism

o Trotsky and Proletarian Internationalism
o Althusser on Ideology
o Gramsci on Hegemony
o Miliband-Poulantzas debate on Nature of the Capitalist State

 ASSESSMENT

o What has Marxism contributed to social theory?

o Is Marxism relevant for the future?

 EXERCISE

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 2

 Marxism After Marx

CHALLENGES TO MARXISM

In the last chapter we studied the central concepts in Marx’s writings and the major
theoretical criticisms leveled against them. An important critique of Marx’s work is
related to the predictions that he made about the future of Capitalism. Marx had claimed
that the income gap between the capitalists and the workers would increase and with the
passage of time, because of the tendency towards concentration of capital in a few
hands, more and more independent producers will be pushed down into the Proletariat,
dividing society into a few rich capitalists and a large and ever growing mass of poor
workers. Wages of the workers will remain at subsistence levels except for short lived
exceptions when they may rise. Marx also believed that the rate of profit would fall, and
beset with repeated crises, capitalism would ultimately collapse because of its internal
contradictions.

As a writer points out, Marx wrote at a time when capitalism was struggling through the
pains of its birth and not the anguish of its death, as he had thought. (Issacs: 235)
Despite undergoing crises from time to time, capitalism not only survived, but it
appeared to thrive and grow. Instead of increasing pauperisation and growth in the
numbers of the working class, a rapidly growing middle class blurred class boundaries
and class polarization did not occur as Marx had predicted. The situation of the working
class improved in absolute terms. In the industrialised western world, ripe for revolution
by Marxist standards, the states adopted welfare policies that appeared to be in the
favour of the working class rather than the capitalists. This too was contrary to the
Marxist belief about the state serving the interests of capitalism. The nature of capitalism
itself seemed vastly transformed from its early brutal form. At the same time, Russia
and China, underwent revolutions that were termed communist. (The use of
‘communism’ to describe these revolutions should not be confused with the usage of
communism as a classless and stateless society envisaged by Marx.) These countries
had not undergone industrialization and China in particular was a primarily agricultural
society, with a very small and nascent industrial sector. Hence, the countries where
capitalism was most advanced were no closer to revolution than before, while
revolutionary impulses actually arose in countries which were predominantly agricultural
and had not undergone significant industrialization.

After the revolutions, in these societies, collectivisation was implemented with the vision
that it would lead to socialisation of the means of production as well as economic
progress. However, the actual experience was very different and social classes emerged
in these states as well.

Marxism was therefore subjected to theoretical critiques and also had to grapple with the
unforeseen economic, political and social developments in the world. This led to
reformulation and reinterpretation of core Marxist ideas. As a consequence, we find that
Marxism after Marx took several different forms.

In the post-revolutionary socialist states, Marxism became a dogmatic creed. It was also
adapted to the specific needs of the situation. The ideas of Lenin and Trotsky in
particular are important in this regard.

In the West, despite the fact that liberal capitalist democracies were firmly entrenched,
one could still see the impact of Marx’s ideas. There was a time when Europe was
‘aflame with revolutionary hopes,’ but, although a socialist revolution did not actually

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 3

 Marxism After Marx

occur, the spectre of it was sufficiently frightening to make the governments sit up and
take notice. Especially after the Russian revolution, and the failed western attempt to
overturn it, governments in western countries undertook reforms that led to
improvement in the life conditions of the working class. The days of unbridled capitalism
were over. Also the experience of the Great Depression when it appeared that Soviet
Union had emerged from it unscathed, led to a rethinking about economic strategies. All
these factors impacted the discourse about Marxism in the western world during the
twentieth century.

Of central importance was the question – how does capitalism perpetuate itself so
effortlessly and without coercion? In the west, capitalism appeared to have taken on an
almost ‘automatic’ quality and any coercive intervention by the states on its behalf could
not be discerned. Several Marxist scholars attempted to address this question. The
works of Althusser and Gramsci are important in this regard.

Another key issue that Marxists in the West addressed was related to the role of the
state in capitalist societies. Marx had left an ambiguous legacy regarding his
understanding of the state, which could be interpreted in different ways. The debate
between Miliband and Poulantzas focuses on the issue.

In the final section of this chapter, we will assess the relevance of Marx’s ideas in a
world very different from the one that he wrote.

MARXISM AFTER MARX

Lenin and Trotsky :

One of the earliest and most influential efforts at reinterpreting Marxist ideas to
understand the changing world was made by Vladimir Lenin in Russia. Lenin was a
revolutionary even before he encountered Marxist ideas to which he made significant
contribution.

One of the main architects of the October Revolution of 1917 in Tsarist Russia, Lenin’s
interest in Marxism was not just academic. He confronted the problem of capitalism’s
persistent flourishing instead of the collapse predicted by Marx and propounded an
explanation. He theorised that Imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism, a
phenomena that Marx could not have foreseen. Lenin argued that the nineteenth
century was the age of imperialism, whereby the capitalist countries expanded their
colonial possessions in Africa and Asia. These colonies served two purposes. When the
capitalist countries faced a crisis of overproduction as Marx had envisaged, colonial
expansion made possible the export of capital, the exploitation of new markets and
ultimately the stabilisation of the capitalist world. Secondly, the exploitation of these
colonies yielded high profits which could then be used to provide the domestic working
class back home with a higher standard of living and welfare provisions. This obviously
resulted in better living conditions for the working class who were ‘bought off,’ their
revolutionary potential negated. As a consequence, the revolution would not necessarily
take place in the advanced capitalist countries of the west. The exploited masses of the
colonial world were now the new proletariat.

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 4

 Marxism After Marx

Lenin had considered Russia ripe for revolution. The competition among capitalist
countries for colonial possessions leads to military conflict – in fact, for Lenin, that the
First World War was one such conflict- which would destabilize the world economic
system making revolution possible. Despite not being industrialised or economically
advanced, Russia would be the right place for the revolution to start because the
workers had not been brought off as in the west. While the indigenous bourgeoisie was
weak, there was enough industrialisation to create a class-conscious Proletariat.
Therefore, the industry in Russia was the weakest link in the chain of international
capitalist imperialism. A revolution in Russia would soon spread to other parts of the
world, bringing the whole system down.

Lenin believed that in the underdeveloped countries, the peasantry would also be an
agent of revolutionary change along with the industrial proletariat.

Lenin’s second major contribution to Marxist theory was the idea of the vanguard party.
He proposed the creation of a small party of revolutionaries who would be thoroughly
conversant with Marxist theory and trained in revolutionary activities. The party would
be organized on the principle of Democratic Centralism, that is, open discussion and
exchange of opinion would occur through the hierarchy, but once a decision was made at
the top, it would be enforced throughout the party.

Lenin believed that this party would be the vanguard of the proletariat, the elite and
most class conscious part of the working class. Instead of relying on the spontaneous
development of class consciousness in the working class, Lenin saw the party as the
catalyst that would generate this consciousness by politically organizing the masses and
familiarizing them with revolutionary ideals. He was skeptical of trade unionism as the
basis for a socialist revolution because its goals would be improvement of economic
conditions rather than revolution. For bringing about revolution and seizure of state
power, the party was the key weapon.

After the revolution, the dictatorship of the Proletariat is established under the
hegemony of the party. Lenin considered it essential that the structures of the capitalist
state be destroyed.

Lenin’s ideas came to be known as Marxism-Leninism and were adopted by the Soviet
Union and the world communist movement. After Lenin’s death Stalin assumed power in
the Soviet Union. His ideas and policies were subject to a lot of controversy. Stalin
wielded absolute power in the Soviet Union for nearly a quarter of the century and tried
to implement a ‘revolution form above’ to rapidly improve the agricultural output and to
industrialise the Soviet Union. This involved collectivisation of agriculture that was
strongly resisted in the countryside. Stalin’s vision could be implemented only with great
centralization of power and absolute dictatorship. Stalin also made theoretical
interventions in Marxism, the most important of which was the notion of ‘socialism in one
country.’ In direct contravention of classical Marxism that held that the socialist
revolution would be an essentially international phenomena, and would succeed only
when it would not be limited one country, Stalin held that it was possible to build
socialism in one country, without depending upon, or attempting to start revolutions in
other countries as well. He also believed that the state would have to be considerably
strengthened before one could expect it to ‘wither away.’ Stalin’s ideas are subject to
controversy and many reject his ideas on Marxism, claiming that flouted the
fundamental tenets of Marxism by establishing tyrannical state.

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 5

 Marxism After Marx

One of the major critics of Stalin was Leon Trotsky, an eminent Marxist leader who had
led the Red Army in the aftermath of the Russian revolution, when it was threatened by
counterrevolutionary forces supported by the Western powers. Although Trotsky had
differences with Lenin, they were ultimately reconciled. His disagreements with Stalin
were more serious.

Trotsky opposed Stalin’s notion of ‘socialism in one country’ and advocated proletarian
internationalism. Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution held that the economic
system could not be limited to national boundaries and had to be seen as a world
system. Therefore, for The Russian revolution to succeed, it would depend upon
revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries of the West. He also believed that an
authentic dictatorship of the proletariat would be based on democratic principles rather
than being an absolute dictatorship where power was vested in the hands of individuals
and in the unaccountable bureaucracy. Trotsky was ultimately exiled from the Soviet
Union and later assassinated.

While Marxists in Russia grappled with the question of revolution and working class
internationalism, questions related both to Marxist theory and practice, Marxists in the
western world dealt with the entrenched nature of capitalism in their societies.
Capitalism in the twentieth century was not what it was in Marx’s time. Especially in the
post war years, it appeared to be a system that required no outside intervention or
coercion, to keep it stable. It was in no danger of imminent overthrow by a proletarian
revolution. The working class enjoyed a better standard of living than ever before and
the state appeared to be intervening on behalf of the proletariat when they instituted
labour and wage legislations.

What made capitalism perpetuate itself so successfully and escape collapse as predicted?

Althusser on Ideology :

Louis Althusser argued that in order to perpetuate itself, a social formation would have
to reproduce both the productive forces as well as the relations of production. The state
has at its disposal, ideological state apparatus as well as repressive state apparatus.
Reproducing the conditions under which capitalism would continue to flourish requires
reproduction of not just material goods, but also of a certain dispositions and attitudes
towards the system. It becomes necessary to create consent about the desirability of
capitalism. Althusser argues that Ideology plays a crucial role in this. The educational
system in capitalist countries is a dominant ideological state apparatus that instill in the
future citizens an acceptance of the dominant ideology. It is evident that Althusser gives
greater importance to the role of ideology than Marx had given. For him, ideology is a
system of the ideas and representations which dominate the mind of a man or a social
group. It is also a representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to the real
conditions of existence. Ideology has a material existence and it has the function of
constituting individuals as subjects. Ideology is not just a reflection of the economic
base, but also has a reciprocal action upon the material base.

Althusser argued that the economic factor cannot be singularly held responsible, and
the superstructure has a degree of independence from the economic base. However, ‘in
the last instance,’ the economic base asserts itself.

The state has at its disposal both means of violence (RSA) and non-violent coercion
(ISA) to ensure the domination of one class over another, and to safeguard capitalism.

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 6

 Marxism After Marx

Althusser argues that while the use of RSAs is use of overt coercion, the use of
ideological means to create consent for capitalism is a more subtle task. It also absolves
the state of any charges of repression. It is easier to maintain a system to which people
are reconciled, than one in which RSAs have to be deployed against them. In the
Western countries, successful use of ISAs is crucial for the success of capitalism.
However, if ISAs fail, then the state would have no compunction in resorting to the use
of violent RSAs.

Gramsci on Hegemony :

Antonio Gramsci also focused on the role of ideology in maintaining the power of the
dominant class. The supremacy of the bourgeoisie rests not just on economic
domination, but also on intellectual and moral dominance. The dominant groups in
society secure the spontaneous consent of the subordinate groups by persuading them
to accept its moral, political and cultural values in keeping with the former’s interest.
These became ‘common sense’ values that were accepted as given or inevitable.
Gramsci used the term hegemony to describe this phenomenon. Hegemony implies the
willing adherence due to ideological acceptance of a doctrine, rather than its imposition
through the use of repressive power. Hence, people from the working class start
believing that their own interests will be served by the advancement of the bourgeoisie,
and the fundamental irreconcilability of interests between the two classes is hidden by
the hegemonic discourse. This helps in maintaining the system and discouraging the
subordinate classes from revolting. It reconciles them to their lot. The media plays a
crucial role in manufacturing hegemony. Hence, the superstructure impacts the base
rather than just being influenced by it.

Gramsci argued that the working class needs to develop its own cultural hegemony and
emphasized the role of intellectuals in this regard. These intellectuals should be from the
working class rather than being imposed from outside.

Another crucial question that confronted Marxists scholars in the twentieth century was
about the nature of the state in capitalist societies. Was the state an instrument in hands
of the bourgeoisie? Why then did it undertake reforms and legislative measures to
change the situation seemingly in favour of the working class? How could one account
for those actions of the state that appeared to contradict the interests of the dominant
classes?

Marx himself had left an ambiguous legacy regarding the state. There are two positions
that can be discerned in his writings regarding the state. More dominant is the
understanding of the state and its bureaucracy as class instruments that coordinate a
divided society in the interest of the ruling class. The other, more nuanced position
concedes that the state generally and bureaucratic institutions in particular can take
diverse forms and constitute a source of power which need not be directly linked to the
interests of, or be under the unequivocal control of, the dominant class in the short
term. In other words, the state could act in ways that appear contrary to the immediate
interest of the dominant class. By this account, the dominant class, the state is relatively
autonomous of the dominant class and its institutions and operations cannot be seen as
a direct reflection of functioning of class forces in society.

Nature of the Capitalist State :

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 7

 Marxism After Marx

In 1969, Ralph Miliband published State in Capitalist Society in which he pointed out the
centrality of the state in western societies and assessed the relationship between the
state and social classes. Rejecting the liberal democratic notion that the state can be a
neutral arbiter among competing social interests, he argued that in capitalist society, the
dominant class that owns and controls the means of production has close links to
powerful institutions, political parties, military etc and also has disproportionate
representation at all levels of the state apparatus, especially in the ‘command’ positions.
He believed that the highly cohesive capitalist class constituted a remarkable constraint
on the state and its institutions, ensuring their own continued domination of society. In
other words, the state acts the way it does, because of the class that controls it. At the
same time, Miliband argued that to be politically effective, the state has to separate itself
from ruling class factions and even on occasion undertake policies that seemingly
contravene the interests of that class.

In a famous debate conducted in the pages of the New Left Review, Nicos Poulantzas
challenged Miliband’s views. He labeled Miliband’s position ‘subjectivist’ because he had
attempted to explore the relation among classes, bureaucracy and the state through
interpersonal relationships. For Poulantzas the social background and class affiliations of
those occupying key administrative positions in the state apparatus was less important
for its concrete functioning than the structural components of the capitalist state. The
class character of the state was inherent in its form and cannot simply be identified with
the class which appears to hold political power. The state is capitalist, not because the
bourgeois class controls it but because the primary task of the state is to protect the
long term framework of capitalist production even if it leads to conflicts with some
segments of the capitalist class. Poulantzas argued that the state’s function is to ensure
the ‘political organisation’ of the dominant classes which break into factions as a
consequence of competitive pressures and differences of immediate interest. It also has
to ensure the political disorganization of the working classes, which can threaten the
hegemony of the dominant classes. The dominant class has a tendency to fragment, and
their long term interest require state protection. The state can discharge this function
only if it remains relatively autonomous from the particular interests of diverse factions.
Also, the state itself is not a monolithic bloc, controlled clearly by the dominant class,
but an arena of conflict and schism. (Held:59-61)

MARXISM: ASSESSMENT AND RELEVANCE FOR THE FUTURE

During the twentieth century Marx’s ideas were reinterpreted and given new directions in
keeping with the changes taking place in the world. However, the twentieth century was
also one in which repressive dictatorships were established in several countries in the
name of Marxism. The excesses of Stalin and Mao in Soviet Union and China
respectively, as well as Soviet policy in the countries of Eastern Europe, its brutal
interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, all combined to create a dilemma for the
Marxist scholar. Did adoption of the Marxist worldview commit one to the defense of
indefensible? Was belief in Marxism also belief in Stalinism? For the Marxists, assertion
of belief in Marx’s ideas had to be accompanied by the rejection of the form it had been
given in the communist blocs. Also, in these socialist countries, the state instead of
withering away had acquired massive proportions and the entrenched bureaucracy
constituted the basis for the emergence of new social classes. No sane minded
intellectual would have wanted to become an apologist for the excesses committedly
wrongly in the name of Marxism.

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 8

 Marxism After Marx

Therefore, when the communist bloc collapsed in the last decade of the twentieth
century, it was in some ways a relief for Marxists to no longer have to defend their
Marxist worldview while simultaneously distinguishing it from the ‘Marxism’ practiced in
the eastern bloc. While the liberal world celebrated ‘end of history’ and the triumph of
capitalism, those ideologically committed to Marxism reassessed the relevance of Marx’s
ideas in a fundamentally changed world. For one, Marxism was no longer the only radical
movement. Several radical movements espousing fundamental changes in the social,
political and economic realms had emerged in the previous decades. Among these were
a vibrant feminist, ecological, and civil rights movements.

Capitalism in the western world was no longer about assembly line production in
factories. In the era of Post-Fordist production, manufacturing activities in the west had
been largely out-sourced and the rapidly growing service sector had taken its place. If
large industrial complexes were the earlier face of capitalism, then huge investment
banks represented it now. What then is the relevance of Marx’ ideas?

With neo realism on the ascendant since the 1970s, it had become fashionable to
dismiss Marxism as outdated, irrelevant and dangerous. However a pragmatic
assessment of our world shows that the more the world has changed, the more it has
remained the same. The functioning of capitalism may have changed, but the primary
profit motive underlying it remains constant. The inequalities generated by capitalism
persist. Hence, Marx’s ideas continue to be relevant to our understanding of the world.

Terry Eagleton has rightly pointed out that Marx was not a Prophet, but a philosopher.
His ideas are not perfect, but they are certainly plausible.(Eagleton: x) Marx’s writings
constitute a formidable bulk and he is not an easy writer to read, not just because of the
grand scale on which he has written, but also on account of the plurality of strands that
appear throughout his work. A distinction is often made between the ‘humanist’ writings
of early Marx and the more ‘scientific’ work of the later, more mature Marx. This
contributes to the complexity of his work.

Marx’s ideas were profound and far reaching. His account of capitalism is considered
brilliant. Marx was perfectly aware of the productive potential of capitalism and what it
could do when harnessed to the goal of human fulfillment. In fact, Hannah Arendt had
described the opening pages of the Communist Manifesto, as the ‘greatest praise of
capitalism you ever saw.’ (Eagleton : 24). However, Marx also understood with
uncommon clarity, the logic underlying capitalism: profit. Profit making was of
paramount importance and every other consideration had to be subordinated to it.
Marx’s assessment of capitalism remains unparalleled. However much the nature of
capitalism may have changed, the profit motive continues to be the driving force, leading
to the emergence of newer and more threatening problems for human existence.

Marx also deepened our understanding of human nature. Decisively rejecting the
prevalent liberal notion of the abstract individual concerned with self-aggrandizement,
and deriving satisfaction and pleasure from it, Marx emphasized the social nature of
humans. As he said – man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Not only do
we live in a social setting, people realize their human potentialities only in specific
historical and social contexts that involve other people as well. Marx also argued that
there is no fixed, unchanging human nature, constant across time and space. We are

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 9

 Marxism After Marx

social creatures, who are also the products of our history and our context. Selfishness or
greed are not the defining human characteristics; rather they are aspects of human
psyche that capitalism brings out in full force. Marx did not claim that under communism
all humans would become altruistic and selfless; rather, the system would structurally
render the individual greed and selfishness unrewarding. Marx therefore links human
‘nature’ with the structural conditions in which one lives. This was an important
contribution and has forever changed our understanding of how we see ourselves.

Marx gave the most incisive critique of the liberal understanding of freedom. Liberalism
celebrates the idea that individual decisions freely taken by rational individuals lead to
the best possible outcomes at the aggregate level. They argue in favour of maximum
individual liberty. For liberals in Marx’s age, a person would be considered free is no one
was deliberately interfering with him, or obstructing him in what he wished to do. This
conception of freedom sat very well with the unrestrained capitalism of that age. Both
the capitalist and the workers are free – the capitalist to employ a worker for the wages
that he offers, the worker to accept or reject the offer. The argument that capitalists
exploited workers or charged exorbitant rates for the products could be easily dismissed
by saying that no worker was forced to work for that capitalist nor a customer forced to
buy his product. Marx pointed out that under capitalism, it was structurally impossible
for people to be free. However, there was a deeper issue involved. The freely taken
individual decisions that liberalism celebrates lead to collective irrationality. For instance
it may be in the individual interest of each capitalist to ignore norms to protect the
environment and maximize profit, but collectively it creates a disastrous situation for all
concerned. When we all choose in our own interest, the result is in no one’s interest.
Marx believed that capitalism involved this kind of collective irrationality. Under
capitalism, our free choices create a society and an economy that controls us, rather
than the other way round. We do not have control over our world. Economic relations
determine not just our wages but also our politics, culture, religion, art and ideas. The
liberal would not see economic forces as causing unfreedom, because they do not
deliberately interfere. However, despite being our own creations, they control almost all
aspects of our life, rendering us alienated and unfree.

Marx’s own understanding of freedom was linked to the idea of de-alienation and human
fulfillment, a fulfillment that would be individual and at the same time compatible with
the fulfillment of others in society.

Finally, Marx’s contribution is also evident from how it is no longer possible to theorise
about human society without acknowledging the linkages between the realms of the
economic and the political.

What about the future? Is Marxism relevant for the future? The economic recession of
the recent years has had a ravaging effect on people’s lives across the globe and has
revived the interest in Marx’s ideas. Capitalism has long been promising abundance and
well-being, but has failed to deliver it. Its crises are becoming more and more vicious in
their impact on human life. It is true that Marx had analysed capitalism at a very
different stage of its history. Critics argue that what Marx had written about capitalism
nearly two centuries ago may have been valid, but the system has changed beyond
recognition, and therefore Marx’s ideas are no longer valid. This is not true.

What have been the consequences of capitalism? Two self-evident ones are chronic
inequality and ecological disaster.

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 10

 Marxism After Marx

Proponents of capitalism have long claimed that market forces if left unfettered will
generate enough wealth to benefit all. Actual experience shows that capitalism freed
from democratic constraint has led to rapid increase in poverty and inequality. The
inequality between the rich and the poor has increased in the developed countries,
especially those that have embraced neo liberal economic policies and abandoned
welfare measures. Globally, the gap between the poor and rich countries has also grown.
Moreover, the global capitalist system works in a manner that functions against the
poorer nations of the developing world. Unfair terms of trade, debt burdens, and ill-
advised structural adjustment programmes have all contributed to the chronic poverty
that afflicts large portions of the world population today.

Unregulated global capitalism has also contributed significantly to environmental

degradation. An instrumentalist view of nature is inherent in capitalism. The exchange
value of everything takes precedence over all other aspects, therefore anything that can
be sold for money and profit will be exploited. Besides, products harmful for the
environment, such as pesticides have been peddled by large MNCs leading to destruction
of land fertility. There are several other such examples.

Capitalism is incapable of either reducing inequality or solving the ecological crisis. These
problems cannot be subjected to free market solutions and require collective decision
making at the global scale.

What does capitalism look like today? Terry Eagleton argues that it is more ruthless and
predatory than ever before. The size of the working class has actually increased. The gap
between the mega-rich and the poorest of the poor is appalling. (Eagleton : 19-12)

We live in a world where the very existence of the planet is threatened by the pursuit of
profit over all other human and ecological considerations. In this context Marx’s
characterization of capitalism as inherently alienating and dehumanizing is of particular
relevance. (Valerie and Bryson: 100)

The relevance of Marxism lies not just in how well it analyses the ills of the capitalist
system, but also in the forging of possible alternatives to it. It provides us with the
necessary analytical tools to understand our world, which is a prerequisite to being able
to change it.

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 11

 Marxism After Marx

EXERCISE

1. Critically analyse Lenin’s contribution to Marxist thought.

2. ‘Manufacturing ideological consent is as necessary to capitalism as

reproducing its material conditions of existence.’ Comment with
reference to the works of Althusser and Gramsci.

3. Is the capitalist state a tool in the hands of the Bourgeoisie? Discuss in light of
the debate between Miliband and Poulantzas.

4. What are the main contributions of Marxism to social theory?

5. Is Marxism relevant in the contemporary world? Give reasons for our

answer.

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 12

 Marxism After Marx

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Singer, Peter (2009) Marx: A very short Introduction, Oxford University Press

Eagleton, Terry (1997), Marx and Freedom, Phoenix

Eagleton Terry (2011), Why Marx was Right, Yale University Press

Bottomore, Tom (Edited) (1983) A dictionary of Marxist Thought, Harvard University

Press

Adams and Dyson (2003) Fifty Major political Thinkers

Bryson and Blakeley ed. (2005) Marx and other four letter words, Pluto Press

Sparks, Chris and Issacs, Stuart (2004) Political Theorists in Context, Routledge

Entry on Karl Marx from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy accessed on 1 July, 2013 at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/

Held, David (1984), 'Central Perspectives on the Modern State,' in Hall, McLennan and
Held edited 'The Idea of the Modern State.

Institute of Lifelong learning , University of Delhi 13