POLITICAL SCIENCE OPTIONAL

IDEOLOGY OF MARXSIM

BY Dr. SUSHANT VERMA

ORTHODOX MARXISM

Vladimir Ilich Lenin

• Lenin wrote his first major work -Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899). In this work, he
described how capitalism was growing in Russia during its initial phase. He also edited a paper named
Iskara in which he launched an anti-Tsarist campaign. In 1902, he wrote his second important work -
What is to be done which deals with party organization. In 1916 when the First World War had reached
a very grim stage, Lenin produced his most incisive work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism wherein he analyzed the phenomenon of imperialism.
• In October 1917, he assumed power in Russia. By doing so, Lenin earned the credit for the first
successful Marxist revolution and that too, in a capitalistically less developed country like Tsarist
Russia where feudalism was deeply entrenched.
• This prediction of Marx, however, did not prove true and the development of capitalism in Europe did
not lead to proletarian socialist revolutions. Lenin tried to explain why the Marxian prediction about
the proletarian socialist revolutions and demise of capitalism had not come true. Now it had capitalism
received a lease of life.
• In his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin accepted much of Marx’s basic
thesis, but argued that the character of capitalism had changed since Marx published the first volume
of Capital in 1867. Capitalism had entered a new stage—its highest and final stage—with the
development of monopoly capitalism. Under monopoly capitalism, a two-tier structure had developed

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 1

 within the world-economy with a dominant core exploiting a less-developed periphery. With the
development of a core and periphery, there was no longer an automatic harmony of interests between
all workers. The bourgeoisie in the core countries could use profits derived from exploiting the
periphery to improve the lot of their own proletariat.
• In other words, the capitalists of the core could pacify their own working class through the further
exploitation of the periphery. However, capitalism in its imperialist manifestation had created
conditions for a socialist revolution at the global stage.
• The success of the Bolshevik Revolution in a capitalistically under-developed country like Russia in
1917 raised two new problems for Lenin. The first problem was to reconcile and interpret this
revolution in Marxian terms. Lenin did so by inventing 'the weakest link of the chain' argument. It
meant that Tsarist Russia where capitalism was not yet fully developed constituted the weakest link of
the imperialist chain and strategically it is quite appropriate to break the chain at its weakest rather
than at its strongest point. The Leninist argument was that the capitalistically advanced countries of
Europe constituted the strongest point of the imperialist chain; while 'Czarist Russia constituted the
weakest link.

• He expressed the view that this wage labor class was not fully conscious of its exploitation. He further
added that only the industrial proletariat (factory workers) was capable of articulating the grievances
of this whole class in the revolutionary direction. This could be done only by transcending local

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 2

 economic grievances and narrow trade unionism. For this, there was a need of a national level political
organization. Only such an organization could raise the level of political consciousness of the workers
by transforming the wage labor class into a revolutionary proletariat class capable of staging a
successful revolution. Lenin indeed tried to do so in actual practice, the biggest task for him was to
create a working class in Russia which was conscious of its exploitation. This in his view needed a
communist organization,
• In short, the problem for Lenin was how to do these twin tasks:

1) creating a national level organization of Russian wage workers, and

2) raising their level of political consciousness.

• The Leninist strategy on these two issues is contained in his What is to be Done. In this work, Lenin
argued that in conditions prevailing in Russia there was need of a Communist Party which could act
as a Vanguard of the Proletariat.
• Lenin did not only emphasize the need of such a Communist Party in Russia, he also added that this
vanguard party should consist of or at least be led by whole time professional revolutionaries.
Only then a successful revolution could be brought about. By making this argument Lenin departed
from the original Marxian position. In fact, the task which Marx had assigned to the proletariat class
in staging a successful revolution got transferred to the Communist Party as the vanguard of this class.
• Lenin advocated a certain type of organizational structure for the party. His thesis is popularly known
as 'democratic centralism. To put it in simple words, democratic centralism consisted of two
elements: democracy and centralism. It meant that the hierarchical structure of the Communist party
should be such that each higher organ of the party should be elected by the lower organ and all the
party matters should initially discuss freely at all the levels of the organization, from the lowest to the
highest. However, once a decision has been taken by the highest organ it should be imposed strictly
on all the lower organs and all of them must abide by it. While theoretically democratic centralism has
democracy as well as centralism, in actual practice the party became less and less democratic and more
and more centralized.
• Marx had expressed considerable faith in the revolutionary potential of tile working class. But in
Lenin's argument, the spontaneity element inherent in Marx gave way to selectivity of time and
place. Lenin was critical of the view expressed by the Mensheviks (minority faction in the party) that
revolutionaries should wait for the development of spontaneous revolutionary action of the masses.
He argued that without strong leadership from outside its ranks, the working class could never
rise beyond trade unionism. He considered such trade unionism reformist rather than revolutionary.
It amounted to saying that the leadership of the Communist Party would decide where and when the

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 3

 revolution is to be attempted. In other words, the agenda of revolution would be decided by the party
and not by the workers. '
• Rosa Luxemberg argued that since the decision about time, place and strategy of the revolution was
to be decided by the Communist Party, the spontaneity element of a revolution which is inherent in
Marx would give way to selectivity of time and place. This, she further added, would blunt the self-
emancipatory efforts of the working class.
• The Capitalist State, according to Lenin, emerged as an organ of class rule. It was a special organisation
of force and violence for the exploitation of the working class. This capitalist state had to be replaced
by a socialist state. In his State and Revolution, Lenin offered some outlines of his strategy to build
such a socialist state in Russia. He argued that the bureaucratic military state was to be replaced by
soviets modeled on the lines of the lines of the Paris Commune.

Rosa Luxemburg

➢ Rosa Luxemburg was a Polish-born German revolutionary and agitator who played a key role in the
founding of the Polish Social Democratic Party and the Spartacus League, which grew into the
Communist Party of Germany. As a political theoretician, Luxemburg developed a humanitarian
theory of Marxism, stressing democracy and revolutionary mass action to achieve international
socialism.
➢ Rosa Luxemburg saw in Bernstein’s book a dramatic break with Marxism that had far-reaching and
dangerous implications, which could threaten the entire workers’ movement and subvert the upheavals
occurring throughout Europe. She wrote Reform or Revolution, in which she examined Bernstein’s
arguments and exposed their weaknesses. Luxemburg pointed out, if workers’ struggles lead to reforms
which enrich workers at the same time as strengthening the capitalist system, then why should
socialism ever become necessary? How could the working class and its organizations be at once the
seed of a socialist society and a pillar of support for capitalism? She defended Marxist orthodoxy
and the necessity of revolution, arguing that parliament was nothing more than a bourgeois
sham.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 4

 ➢ To her, nationalism and national independence were regressive concessions to the class enemy, the
bourgeoisie. She consistently underrated nationalist aspirations and stressed socialist internationalism.
This became one of her major points of disagreement with Vladimir Lenin.
➢ Luxemburg advocated the mass strike as the single most important tool of the proletariat, Western
as well as Russian, in attaining a socialist victory. The mass strike, the spontaneous result of “objective
conditions,” would radicalize the workers and drive the revolution forward. In contrast to Lenin, she
deemphasized the need for a tight party structure, believing that organization would emerge naturally
from the struggle.
➢ Luxemburg, like the Bolsheviks, maintained a steadfast opposition to the First World War and
called for socialist revolution internationally to end all wars. Like the Bolsheviks, Luxemburg
demanded political power for the workers’ and soldiers’ soviets. However in her work Die russische
Revolution (The Russian Revolution 1922) she criticised Lenin’s party on its national self-
determination stands and its dictatorial and terrorist methods.
➢ She also argued that since the decision about time, place and strategy of the revolution was to be
decided by the Communist Party as said by Lenin, the spontaneity element of a revolution which is
inherent in Marx would give way to selectivity of time and place. This, she further added, would blunt
the self-emancipatory efforts of the working class.
➢ Luxemburg always remained a believer in democracy as opposed to Lenin’s democratic
centralism. She was never able, however, to exercise a decisive influence on the new party. Because
of their role in fomenting a communist uprising known as the Spartacus Revolt, she and Liebknecht
were arrested and murdered in Berlin on January 15, 1919, by members of the Free Corps (Freikorps),
a loose assemblage of conservative paramilitary groups.
➢ Perhaps the greatest tragedy of Rosa Luxemburg’s life was that she did not build such an organization
like the Bolshevik Party in Germany, or indeed in Poland where she was also politically influential.
She was unquestionably a courageous fighter and an articulate voice in combating the reformist
degeneration of the SPD in the period before the war. However her ideas did not have an organizational
expression, in the form of a genuinely Marxist tendency that could have built an important base
amongst the advanced sections of the German working class. It was only during the war itself, and
later with the founding of the German Communist Party (KPD) in December 1918, that she attempted
to rectify this. Notwithstanding the fact that it attracted outstanding revolutionary class fighters, the
KPD was too inexperienced and lacked sufficient support amongst the German working-class to play
a decisive leadership role.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 5

Leon Trotsky

➢ Leon Trotsky was one of the leading theoreticians of the Russian Bolshevik Party and a leader in
Russia’s October Revolution in 1917. He was later commissar (the head of a government department)
of foreign affairs and of war in the Soviet Union (1917–24). In the struggle for power following
Vladimir Ilich Lenin’s death, however, Joseph Stalin emerged as victor, while Trotsky was removed
from all positions of power and later exiled (1929). He remained the leader of an anti-Stalinist
opposition abroad until his assassination by a Stalinist agent.
➢ Trotskyism, a Marxist ideology based on the theory of permanent revolution first given by Leon
Trotsky (1879–1940), and a leader in the Russian Revolution. Trotskyism was to become the primary
theoretical target of Stalinism in Russian Communist circles in the 1920s and 1930s.
➢ Trotsky’s theory of “permanent revolution” held that, historically, an economic system had to be
seen as a world system rather than a national one. All national economic development was affected by
the laws of the world market, even though such regional factors as location, population, available
resources, and pressure from surrounding countries made the rate of development different in each
country. Thus, in Trotsky’s view, the Russian Revolution, to be permanently successful, would
have to depend on revolutions in other countries, particularly in Western Europe. His theory also
emphasized the hegemony of the working class over the revolutionary class because of their strategic
position in industry and other advanced sectors of the economy.
➢ In contrast to Trotsky’s ideas of permanent revolution was “Socialism in one country,” given by
Stalin. It was an attitude of national self-sufficiency and self-centeredness that became Stalin’s
watchword in 1924. It declared a world economic system as a combination of national systems, so
that Socialism could be built in any single country without dependence on other revolutions. It
held that, though the socialist goal of world proletarian revolution was not to be abandoned, a viable
classless society could be built within Soviet boundaries despite encirclement by a largely capitalist
world. Stalin, appealing both to socialist revolutionary fervor and to Russian nationalism and launched
in the late 1920s a program of rapid industrial development of unprecedented magnitude.
➢ The development of the Soviet Union’s productive forces was controlled by the Communist Party,
which in the 1920s was becoming increasingly bureaucratized. Trotsky in 1924 launched an attack on

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 6

 the bureaucracy, the so-called Bolshevik Old Guard. He called for more democracy outside and within
the party, which meant more dependence on the rank and file workers at their plants and within the
party cells. He opposed the conception of a monolithic party and called for more freedom for various
trends of thought as long as they adhered generally to the party program.
➢ Stalin, after consolidating his power, exiled Trotsky and other opponents in 1929. Thereafter,
Trotskyists intensified their attack on the Soviet bureaucracy—calling it “Bonapartist,” meaning a rule
based on the dictatorship of one man—and developed the concept of a “degenerated workers’ state,”
a state in which the means of production have been nationalized but in which a bureaucratic regime
rules. With the rise of Fascism in Germany in the early 1930s and the subordination of the Comintern
to Stalin, Trotskyists advocated a “united front” with the trade unions to fight Fascism and the
development of a Trotskyist Fourth International to replace the Comintern.
➢ After Trotsky’s murder in Mexico in 1940 by Stalin’s agent Ramón Mercader, a small Trotskyist
movement continued to exist. However, Trotskyism has since become a loose generic term for extreme
revolutionary doctrines of various kinds, whose advocates are united only in their opposition to the
“bourgeois” Soviet form of Communist rule.

Mao Zedong

• Mao is the second Marxist revolutionary (Lenin being the first) who brought about a successful
revolution in a backward country like China. Moreover, he did so primarily with the help of the
peasantry - a class which, Marx thought, had no revolutionary potential. Even Lenin had not placed
much faith in the peasant class.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 7

 • Mao, like Lenin was both a practitioner of Marxism and also its theoretician. Mao wrote his first major
work - Analysis of Classes in the Chinese Society. Mao is believed to have written two serious pieces
"On Practice" and the other called "On Contradiction", both of which were published after the success
of the Chinese revolution. In the 1940s, he gave a blue-print of the future Chinese Government titled
"New Democracy" (1 945).
• He took a highly nationalist posture against the Japanese invasion and tried to organize the Chinese
people around the national sentiment. He also refined his theory and practice of guerrilla warfare.
• While the Marxist-Leninist legacy greatly influenced him, Mao is a great innovator in his own right.
He modified Marxism Leninism by relying heavily on the peasantry's revolutionary potential. It
needs to be remembered that Marx has treated the peasantry with some degree of contempt. For the
most part, peasantry for him was conservative and reactionary; it was no more than a bag of potatoes
unable to make a revolution. Even Lenin had relied mainly on the proletariat in the urban centres of
Russia for mass insurrections and had not placed much faith in the peasantry's revolutionary potential.
• Mao's fundamental contribution, therefore, was to bring about a successful revolution in China mainly
with the help of the peasantry. More than anything else, his revolutionary model became relevant for
several Afro-Asian peasant societies.
• In his famous essay titled "On Contradictions (1937), he formulated the notions of antagonistic
contradictions and non-antagonistic contradictions. According to him, antagonistic contradictions
are those which can be resolved peacefully. In his 'On Correct Handling of Contradictions' (1957) Mao
further elaborated this view. He argued that the following contradictions were non-antagonistic-

o Between the peasantry and the proletariat

o between the peasantry and the proletariat on one hand, and the petty bourgeoisie on the other

o between the peasantry, the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie on the one hand and the national
bourgeoisie

o between the various communist parties were

• But the following contradictions were antagonistic-

o between the Chinese people and the comprador bourgeoisie

o between the socialist and the capitalist camp

o between colonial countries and imperialism.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 8

 • Mao realized that the peasantry in China was not strong enough to win the revolutionary struggle
against imperialism and feudalism. Therefore, it was necessary to seek the help of the other classes of
Chinese society. It was in this context that Mao emphasized the concept of a United Front. It was
seen as an alliance between different partners who had some common interest like opposition to
imperialism. The nature of such a United Front would depend on the historical situation. Its object
would be to pursue the resolution of the principal contradiction. Such a United Front strategy was
employed by Mao by establishing the alliance of Chinese peasantry with the proletariat, the petty
bourgeoisie and even the national bourgeoisie. The United front had to be a broad alliance of the
Chinese people against Japanese imperialism and western powers.

• Mao realized that the peasantry in China was not strong enough to win the revolutionary struggle
against imperialism and feudalism. Therefore, it was necessary to seek the help of the other classes of
Chinese society. It was in this context that Mao emphasized the concept of a United Front. It was
seen as an alliance between different partners who had some common interest like opposition to
imperialism. The nature of such a United Front would depend on the historical situation. Such a United
Front strategy was employed by Mao by establishing the alliance of Chinese peasantry with the
proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and even the national bourgeoisie. The United front had to be a broad
alliance of the Chinese people against Japanese imperialism and western powers.
• In pursuance of his United Front strategy, Mao gave a call in 1940 for a new democratic republic of
China. It was to be a state under the joint dictatorship of several classes. In 1945, he proposed a state
system which is called New Democracy. While the united front consisted of an overwhelming majority
of the Chinese people, the leading position in the alliance had to be in the hands of the working class.
It meant that the petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie would not only be partners in the
United Front, they would also be partners of the ruling alliance, but they had to be only junior partners.
He called such a state as the 'People's Democratic Dictatorship'. In doing so Mao deviated from the
classical Marxist notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact, he combined Marxism and
nationalism.

Mao’s Permanent Revolution

➢ Mao's perception of revolution was characterized by a unique notion of permanentness in time and
unlimitedness in space. In particular, Mao persistently emphasized the necessity of "continuing the
revolution" after the Chinese Communist Party seized power in 1949.
➢ However, Mao's notion of permanent revolution was by no means a simple repetition or minor
alteration of earlier formulations by Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky. While adopting such Marxist discourse
as the "law of historical development" to justify his revolution, Mao often used the Chinese term

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 9

 tianxia ("all under heaven") to define the space in which the revolution should occur. The tianxia
concept had its historical/cultural origin in the long development of Chinese civilization—implying
that the Chinese way of life was the most superior in the known universe.
➢ Mao's perception of revolution reflected the profoundly voluntaristic belief that human
consciousness, rather than the material conditions of society, would determine the orientation of
historical development. For Mao, an essential condition for a revolution was the consciousness and
will on the part of the "great masses" to carry out revolutionary changes. In the final analysis, whether
a revolution should be judged a success or a failure depended on whether it had created a new order in
the hearts and minds of the people.
➢ Also closely connected with the above two features, the Maoist notion of revolution put greater
emphasis on destruction than on construction. Indeed, Maoism proved more ready to deal with
tasks of destroying the "old" than to cope with missions of constructing the "new." Mao believed firmly
that "no construction happens without destruction; only when destruction is under way does the process
of construction begin." Not surprisingly, Mao's revolution was one of the most violent and destructive
in history, not only during the stage of "seizing political power," but in the stage of "continuous
revolution" as well.
➢ Maoism also represents a series of strategies and tactics concerning how to make, enhance, and sustain
the revolution. The central mission of Maoist revolutionary strategies concerned mass
mobilization. In particular, Mao emphasized the importance of taking the peasants as the main force
of the Chinese revolution. This clearly distinguished Maoism from the urban, working-class–centered
mobilization strategies favored by orthodox Marxism-Leninism. He highlighted armed struggle,
united front, and the Party's leadership role as the three keys that led the Chinese revolution
toward victory. A firm believer in the idea that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
➢ He summarized the basic principle of guerrilla war as "when the enemy advances we retreat to avoid
him, when the enemy stops we harass him, when the enemy is tired we attack him, and when the enemy
retreats we chase after him"
➢ In the history of the Chinese communist movement, the re-emergence of the term "permanent" or
"uninterrupted" revolution is clearly associated with the Great Leap Forward of 1958.
Great Leap Forward
Great Leap Forward was the campaign undertaken by the Chinese communists between 1958 and
early 1960 to organize its vast population, especially in large-scale rural communes, to meet China’s
industrial and agricultural problems. The Chinese hoped to develop labour-intensive methods of
industrialization, which would emphasize manpower rather than machines and capital expenditure.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 10

 It was decided that agriculture and industry could be developed at the same time by changing
people’s working habits and relying on labour rather than machine-centred industrial processes.
The inefficiency of the communes and the large-scale diversion of farm labour into small-scale
industry disrupted China’s agriculture seriously, and three consecutive years of natural calamities
added to what quickly turned into a national disaster; in all, about 20 million people were estimated
to have died of starvation between 1959 and 1962.
➢ One faction in the party took the failure of the Great Leap as proof that China must rely more on
expertise and material incentives in developing the economy. Some concluded that it was against the
latter faction that Mao Zedong launched his Cultural Revolution in early 1966.
➢ The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution represented an attempt by Mao to go beyond the party
rectification campaigns—of which there had been many since 1942—and to devise a new and more
radical method for dealing with what he saw as the bureaucratic degeneration of the party. It also
represented, beyond any doubt or question, however, a deliberate effort to eliminate those in the
leadership who, over the years, had dared to cross him. The victims, from throughout the party
hierarchy, suffered more than mere political disgrace. All were publicly humiliated and detained for
varying periods, sometimes under very harsh conditions; many were beaten and tortured, and not a
few were killed or driven to suicide.
Socialism With Chinese Characteristics
First coined by Deng Xiaoping in 1982, the concept of socialism with Chinese characteristics aims to
redefine the relations between planning and socialism, and market economy and capitalism. It has
preserved institutions of socialism and public ownership while importing sophisticated management
experience and advanced market mechanism from developed countries. The existence and growth of
private ownership, according to Deng, does not necessarily undermine socialism and promote capitalism in
China.
The reform and opening-up initiated by Deng in late 1978 adopted elements of the market economy, which
became the first major step in the creation of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
To further crystalize what is considered the country's guiding principle, Xi has injected new elements into
the concept of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
"The Chinese socialist system and state governance system did not drop out of the sky but emerged from
Chinese soil through a long process of revolution, economic development, and reform," Chinese President
Xi Jinping said.
Xi Jinping overviewed 6 guidelines to unlock the development of productive forces, 6 areas to further
improve China’s socialist democracy, and additional commentaries on developing China’s socialist culture,

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 11

 people’s well-being, ecological civilization, defense, reunification, international relations, and Party
building.

NEO-MARXISM

Contemporary debates on Marxism focus on the relative importance of its basic tenets and identification of
some new forms of domination and conflict emerging in the present-day society. It is no longer believed that
the superstructure is wholly dependent on the base. Recognition of a sort of interdependence between base
and superstructure has led to extensive analysis of various aspects of superstructure.

Broadly speaking, contemporary Marxist thought—better known as neo-Marxism—has developed in

two directions: humanist and scientific. The humanist train of neo-Marxism draws particularly on the work
of the Young Marx and constitutes the mainstream of critical theory. Its dominant themes are the problems
of alienation and ways to human emancipation. On the other hand, the scientific strain of neo-Marxism is
primarily concerned with its scientific and explanatory character. It is particularly interested in structures as
well as relative importance of cultural, ideological and social factors. Thus Louis Althusser (1918-90), a
French communist and philosopher, challenged the humanist themes of Marxist thinking in the early 1960s,
and asserted the importance of analysing the deep structures of human societies—especially their modes of
production.

CRITICAL THEORY

Both Gramscianism and critical theory have their roots in Western Europe in the 1920s and 1930s-a place and
a time in which Marxism was forced to come to terms not only with the failure of a series of attempted
revolutionary uprisings, but also with the rise of fascism.

Critical theory developed out of the work of the Frankfurt School. This was an extraordinarily talented group
of thinkers who began to work together in the 1920s and 1930s. As left-wing German Jews, the members of
the school were forced into exile by the Nazis' rise to power in the early 1930s, and much of their most creative
work was produced in the USA. After the downfall of Hitler it was re-established in Frankfurt in theearly
1950s.

Scholars of this institute were hostile to capitalism; they were also disillusioned with Soviet socialism. They
sought to evolve an alternative path for social development in accordance with the essence of Marxism as
understood by them. The ideas evolved by the Frankfurt School are comprehensively described as 'critical
theory', although they do not fit into a single framework.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 12

The exponents of critical theory advanced new interpretations of Marxism in several directions and various
spheres of learning, including those of philosophy, economics, political science, sociology, anthropology,
social psychology, psychoanalysis, music and fine arts, etc. The leading lights of the first generation of the
Frankfurt School included Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse. A subsequent
generation has taken up the legacy of these thinkers and developed it in important and innovative ways. The
best known is Jurgen Habermas, who is regarded by many as the most influential of all contemporary social
theorists.

Main Ideas

The first point to note is that their intellectual concerns are rather different from those of most other Marxists,
in that they have not been much interested in the further development of analysis of the economic base of
society. They have instead concentrated on questions relating to culture, bureaucracy, the social basis and
nature of authoritarianism, the structure of the family, and on exploring such concepts as reason and rationality
as well as theories of knowledge. In other words, in classical Marxist terms, the focus of critical theory is
almost entirely superstructural. They were all critical of all forms of domination and exploitation in society.

The critical theory stated that the economic determinist’s failure was not giving significance to the economy,
but to leave behind other aspects of the social life. The aim of the Critical School was to rectify this unbalance
by focusing on the cultural field. They are more concerned with cultural and ideological issues than with
political economy which is the core of orthodox Marxism. Their goal is the critical analysis of the modern
society and its components. They argued that the locus of control in the modern world had changed from
the economy to the culture. Domination in the modern world was related to the cultural elements more than
the economic ones. Frankfurt School theorists have been particularly innovative in terms of their analysis of
the role of the media, and what they have famously termed the 'culture industry'. Therefore, one of the aims
of the Critical School is to analyze the cultural repression of the individual in the modern society.

They were critical of all ideologies because ideologies do not offer a true account of reality. They were
particularly critical of those ideologies which attempt to conceal and legitimize systems of exploitation and
domination. Through critical analysis of such ideologies, they wanted to trace the hidden roots of domination
in them. By doing so, they tried to create true consciousness among the masses and prepare them for
revolutionary action. Thus, their goal like Marx is revolutionary transformation of society, but in a different
way.

The central concern in the writings of the Frankfurt school is domination and authority. They argued
that in liberal as well as socialist societies, domination and authority are justified in the name of reason which
they call instrumental rationality. In fact, it is the result of the application of the positivist methods of natural

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 13

sciences to social sciences. In natural sciences, we study the physical phenomenon with a view to control and
regulate it, but in human sciences the object of study of society should not be to control and regulate human
beings, but to emancipate them from all sorts of bondages. All socio-cultural practices in western as well as
eastern societies are aimed at stablizing the system of domination. In this sense, we can treat the Frankfurt
School as the advocate of a counter-culture. They are critical of the processes by which public opinion is
manipulated by political parties and through market research and advertising agencies.

Another key feature is that critical theorists have been highly pessimistic about the proletariat in
contemporary society embodying the potential for emancipatory transformation in the way that Marx
believed. Rather, with the rise of mass culture and the increasing commodification of every element of social
life, Frankfurt School thinkers have argued that the working class has simply been absorbed by the system
and no longer represents a threat to it. This, to use Marcuse's famous phrase, is a one-dimensional society, to
which the vast majority simply cannot begin to conceive an alternative.

Finally, critical theorists have made some of their most important contributions through their explorations of
the meaning of emancipation. Emancipation, as we have seen, is a key concern of Marxist thinkers, but the
meaning that they give to the term is often very unclear and deeply ambiguous. Moreover, the historical record
is unfortunately full of examples of unspeakably barbaric behaviour being justified in the name of
emancipation like what happened in imperialism and Stalinism. Traditionally, Marxists have equated
emancipation with the process of humanity gaining ever greater mastery over nature through the development
of ever more sophisticated technology, and its use for the benefit of all. But early critical theorists argued that
humanity's increased domination over nature had been bought at too high a price, claiming that the kind of
mind-set that is required for conquering nature slips all too easily into the domination of other human beings.

Views of Critical Theorists

Herbert Marcuse (1964) strongly criticized the modern technology as he thought it led to totalitarianism. In
fact, he argued that it provided with new ways of control. The main example would be the use of
television as a way of socialize and tame the people. He rejected the idea of technology being neutral in
the modern society and he saw it as a mean of domination. It is really efficient, because it seems even and
neutral, when the reality is that it is enslaver. Modern technology has invaded and crippled the actor's inner
freedom. The result is what Marcuse called a “one-dimensional society” whereby the individuals lose their
ability to think in a critical or negative way about society. Although Marcuse didn't think technology itself
had to be considered an “enemy”, the capitalist society used it for its own benefit.

In his One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society (1964) Marcuse focussed
on the theme of alienation in contemporary Western society. He gave a penetrating critique of capitalism as

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 14

regards its impact on human freedom. According to him capitalism exercises monopolistic control not only
on production and distribution, it also creates the desire and demand for commodities through a clever
manipulation of the mass media. The result is a widespread craze for consumer goods which develops
into a distorted second nature of man. Consumer capitalism renders the oppressed sections insensitive to
their original discontent, by stimulating their trivial, material desires which can be easily satisfied. Under the
spell of gratification of these trivial desires, the genuine urge for freedom disappears. Against this background,
the alienated human beings become unaware of their alienation. Under the circumstances, they should first be
awakened to realize their condition of alienation in order to arouse their urge for freedom.

In Eros and Civilization (1966) Marcuse has given a blueprint of society where alienation will be removed
and freedom will be restored. It will be a democratic community where work will become play, and necessary
labour will be organized in harmony with liberated, and authentic, individual needs. Marcuse concludes with
an optimistic note that the Western society has already evolved a technology which is geared to meet most of
the human needs. It is sufficient to enable men to live in freedom and dignity. Once they understand the
necessary conditions of freedom, they can transcend the era of violence and anarchy and build a new society
where freedom will reign supreme.

Marcuse's view concerning the possibility of happiness has been criticized on many grounds. Some critics
believe that human needs are endless; gap between aspiration and achievement will never allow human beings
to attain happiness. Then who would bring about revolution? Marcuse has no faith in the revolutionary
potential of the proletariat. He pins his hopes on the marginal elite of unbrainwashed students and radically
dispossessed members of the poorest classes. Some critics argue that after denying the revolutionary potential
of the proletariat Marcuse loses his claim to be called a Marxist.

Unlike early critical theorists, Habermas's understanding of emancipation is more concerned with
communication than with our relationship with the natural world. Setting aside the various twists and turns of
his argument, Habermas's central political point is that the route to emancipation lies through radical
democracy-that is, through a system in which the widest possible participation is encouraged not only in word
(as is the case in many Western democracies) but also in deed, by actively identifying barriers to participation-
be they social, economic, or cultural-and overcoming them. For Habermas and his many followers,
participation is not to be confined within the borders of a particular sovereign state. Rights and obligations
extend beyond state frontiers. This, of course, leads him directly to the concerns of international relations, and
it is striking that Habermas's recent writings have begun to focus on the international realm. However, thus
far, the most systematic attempt to think through some of the key issues in world politics from a recognizably
Habermasian perspective has been made by Andrew Linklater.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 15

Andrew Linklater has used some of the key principles and precepts developed in Habermas's work to argue
that emancipation in the realm of international relations should be understood in terms of the expansion of
the moral boundaries of a political community. In other words, he equates emancipation with a process in
which the borders of the sovereign state lose their ethical and moral significance. At present, state borders
denote the furthest extent of our sense of duty and obligation, or at best, the point where our sense of duty and
obligation is radically transformed, only proceeding in a very attenuated form. For critical theorists, this
situation is simply indefensible. The goal is therefore to move towards a situation in which citizens share the
same duties and obligations towards non-citizens as they do towards their fellow citizens.

To arrive at such a situation would, of course, entail a wholesale transformation of the present institutions of
governance. But an important element of the critical theory method is to identify-and, if possible, nurture
tendencies that exist in the present conjuncture that point in the direction of emancipation. On this basis,
Linklater identifies the development of the European Union as representing a progressive or emancipatory
tendency in contemporary world politics. If true, this suggests that an important part of the international system
is entering an era in which the sovereign state, which has for so long claimed an exclusive hold on its citizens,
is beginning to lose some of its pre-eminence. Given the notorious pessimism of the thinkers of the Frankfurt
School, the guarded optimism of Linklater in this context is indeed striking.

STRUCTURAL MARXISM: VIEWS OF LOUIS ALTHUSSER

Louis Althusser was a Marxist but unlike most left thinkers who focussed on Marx’s early works, he moved
on to the later Marx who was more of a “Scientific-theorist” and had moved away from his early humanism
that was the influence of Feuerbach and Hegel. For him there was a radical “epistemological break” in Marx
from 1845 onwards.

He labelled himself as an “anti-humanist.” He saw Marxism as a science of society. He felt that Marxists
had not paid attention to Marx’s scientific approach to an understanding of history (“historical materialism”)
in which he advocated a radical view of social change. In fact, Althusser states that Marx himself was not fully
aware of it. Althusser wanted to re-read Marx and expand his theories to go beyond humanistic interpretations.

Unlike the Structuralists, Althusser’s was not a language based philosophy. For him, the economic
structure and its mode of production were instrumental in social formations. It is because of this
viewpoint that Althusser was called a Marxist Structuralist.

Structuralists do not see individual experiences as being determined outside the forces of the structures
of society. Althusser too believed in structures affecting individuals. He wanted to show how individual acts
were already influenced by the dominant ideology of the state. The individuals were “always-already” in
performing their individual acts. In other words, individual acts were not carried out as the result of free

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 16

will or agency, but were always and already dependent upon, and part of, larger social structures and
influences.

He moves beyond Marxism and argues that the structures of society were not related to the economic base
of society alone. Althusser believed that rather than understanding social structures from bottom upwards
through economic determination alone that affected the political, social and religious structures at the
superstructural level, he spoke of how ideology had a role to play in social formations. He used the idea
of “interlocking.”

For him, the superstructure had relative autonomy. Broadly speaking, Althusser speaks of a distinct
concept of social formation which relates to the dialectics of the economic base and the political and the
ideological superstructures. These different levels have a capacity to influence one other. But, it is the
economic base that “determines in the last instance” the political and ideological levels even as it is
“overdetermined” by them. It is in this sense that Althusser speaks of the “relative autonomy” of the
political and ideological levels. In other words, these levels are relatively independent but in the ultimate
analysis they are determined by the economic base

At any given point the social formation of a society is influenced by the Ideological and Repressive State
Apparatuses which emerge from the dominant mode of production. These social formations change
depending on the mode of production and in the interest of those in power. By introducing these ideas and
interrogating some Marxist assumptions, Althusser brought a refreshing elaboration of Marxist theory to give
it a new direction.

Reproduction of labor power

Althusser’s essay, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Toward an Investigation, has been
seminal in contributing to a broader understanding of Ideology. For Althusser, like for Marx, every social
formation arises from a dominant mode of production. Karl Marx in Volume 2 of Das Kapital had stated that
no production is possible without it reproducing the material conditions of its own production.

Althusser distinguishes between reproduction of the means of production and the reproduction of the
productive forces. The latter, for him, is linked to the reproduction of labour power. How is this labour
ensured? One way, as Marx had stated, is to provide labour with the material conditions to reproduce itself
viz. food, shelter, clothing etc.

But reproducing labour power alone is not enough. What is needed, Althusser states, is diversified skilled
labour that is competent for “a complex system of the process of production”. How is this provided for in
capitalism? He argues that during slavery and serfdom, the skill is acquired “on the spot” through trial and

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 17

error and experience. Under capitalism this is not the case. It is “achieved more and more outside
production: by the capitalist education system, and by other instances and institutions” by which he
means the Church, and other “apparatuses like the Army”.

The education system, according to Althusser, not only teaches children knowledge in their different
disciplines but it also teaches them “proper” rules of society. That is, how to conduct themselves without
crossing boundaries and learning to respect the job divisions in society, which “actually means rules of respect
for the socio-technical division of labour and ultimately the rules of the order established by class domination”.

The point Althusser makes is that the reproduction of labour power includes not only reproduction of
its skills but also a “submission to the rules of the established order”. This allows for the ruling ideology
to manipulate and exploit the workers. It is “in the forms and under the forms of ideological subjection that
provision is made for the reproduction of the skills of labour power”.

Ideological State Apparatus And Repressive State Apparatus

Althusser is very particular about pointing to the role of ideology in enabling the ruling classes to use the state
in its domination over the working classes. In the Marxist tradition, Althusser states, the state is seen as a
repressive apparatus that enables the ruling class to continue with their domination over the working class.
This enables “the former to subject the latter to the process of surplus-value extortion” .

Marx distinguishes between State power and State apparatus. The latter may survive even if the former
is ousted. He gives the example of what happened after the socialist revolution in Russia in 1917. Although
the state power was seized by the peasantry and the proletariat alliance, the state apparatus survived. Althusser
states that in Marxist theory, the State Apparatus constitutes the government, the administrations, the army
the plice, the courts, the prisons. To the Marxists, the State Apparatus functions by violence. Althusser states
that something else has to be added to the Marxist theory of the State. Apart from taking into account
state power and state apparatus another reality has to be taken into account. This reality, he calls the
ideological state apparatuses.

What constitutes the ideological state apparatus? He says that there are a certain number of realities that form
“distinct and specialized institutions.” He gives some examples of these:

i) The religious ISA (Churches and other such bodies / institutions)

ii) The educational ISA ( this refers to public and private schools)

iii) The family ISA

iv) The legal ISA. (This, Althusser states, belongs to both the RSA and the ISA)

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 18

v) The political ISA (includes different political systems, parties etc).

vi) The trade union ISA

vii) The communication ISA (this would include the media, press, television etc.)

viii) The cultural ISA (literature, arts, sports)

However, Althusser states that we should not confuse the Ideological State Apparatus with the Repressive
State Apparatus. He distinguishes between them in the following ways-

1) If there is one Repressive State Apparatus that is the STATE, there is a “plurality of Ideological State
Apparatuses”.

2) The RSA belongs to the public domain but the ISA to the private (family, schools, churches etc.).

3) It is important to note that both RSA and ISA have ideology but the main difference between the two
is that the RSA functions “massively and predominantly by repression (including physical
repression), while functioning secondarily by ideology”. It uses law and the court initially against
people or groups who threaten the dominant rule of ideology and if things are not contained to
incarceration and police force and eventually the army itself. Also the army and the police are
ideologically influenced to perpetuate and reproduce the values they represent. Similarly, the ISA
functions basically as ideology and only secondarily by repression. For example, schools and
churches have their own methods of punishment for those who disobey.

Althusser goes on to explain that although there are a plurality of ISAs, there is one thing that binds them
together despite their contradiction and that is the ideology of “the ruling class.” He argues that since the
state power is held by the ruling class, both ISA and RSA are at their disposal. The ruling class uses it to
reproduce and maintain their power. He gives the example of how concerned Lenin was after the revolution
to change the educational ideological apparatus so that the proletariat who had taken over state power could
retain it.

During ‘serfdom’ and its social formation what was dominant was the feudal mode of production. It had a
single repressive state apparatus: absolute monarchy. The ISA too existed but at a smaller scale. The Church,
for example, covered a lot of functions: cultural, educational etc. But these became independent over a period
of time. In the capitalist social formations the school/family units have replaced the church /family units.

The reason why the educational State apparatus is important is because it contributes to the “relations of
production” that is, “of capitalist relations of exploitation”. Of course other ISAs like press, religion, family
and culture also contribute variously to support the ruling ideology by instilling into individuals loyalty,

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 19

patriotism, liberalism to name just three. But it is education within capitalism which is the most important
ISA. It teaches children in school to be knowledgeable in the know-how of the ruling ideology. All of them,
by the time they leave school are ready to maintain the relations of production in their society through their
various roles as adults in society.

Interpellation

Louis Althusser, in his 1970 essay, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Toward an
Investigation argues that ideology interpellates individuals as subjects. The term interpellation was an idea to
explain the way in which ideas get into our heads and have an effect on our lives, so much so that cultural
ideas have such a hold on us that we believe they are our own. Interpellation is a process, a process in which
we encounter our culture’s values and internalize them. Interpellation expresses the idea that an idea is
not simply yours alone (such as “I like blue, I always have”) but rather an idea that has been presented to you
for you to accept

For Althusser, interpellation works in a manner much like giving a person a name, or calling out to
them in the street. That is, ideologies “address” people and offer them a particular identity which they are
encouraged to accept. However, one is not forced to accept that role through violence. Because those roles
are offered to us everywhere we look, or even assigned to us by culture, they are presented in such a way that
we are encouraged to accept them. This works best when it is an invisible, but consensual process. It
works best when we believe these values are our own, and reflect the most obvious, logical way to live.

Ideologies, therefore, play a crucial role first in constructing our identities and then giving us a
particular place in society. To say that someone is fully interpellated is to say that he or she has been
successfully brought into accepting a certain role, or that he or she has accepted values willingly. In other
words, Interpellation is the experience of being "hailed"(like a taxi driver is hailed by a person on the sidewalk
sticking her arm out to get a lift). Each person identifies herself with a category, a role, and when hailed (like
when someone shouts " hey you! ") we feel the need to respond.

Althusser calls the ideological state apparatus “the site of class struggle” that is, ideology becomes the
ground in which conflicting interests of the exploited and exploiting classes are embattled for supremacy. In
this sense, the ideological territory is occupied either by the ruling class or by a new revolutionary class.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 20

POULANTZAS’ VIEW

Concept of Power Bloc

In order to get a clear perspective of Poulantzas’s state theory, it is important to first examine the power bloc.
It is a widely accepted fact that for every society, there is a group of classes that form the dominant and
dominated classes. In this respect, Poulantzas noted that the economically dominant class could only establish
political dominance in the society through the capitalist state. He called this group of dominant class the
‘power bloc’ which comprises of the capitalist class and the economically powerful classes.

The interests of the power bloc are heteros and the make-up and balance of forces in the power bloc vary from
state to state. Undeniably, for every society, there will always be contradictory and competing interests
especially among the different ruling classes. Given the divergent interests of the power bloc, it becomes
the state’s primary role to ensure that such conflicting interests within the power bloc do not undermine
the dominance of the bloc as a whole nor pose threat to unity.

It thus becomes the role of the state to unify and organize the various classes and to uphold their political
interests without posing threat to unity. It follows that the class differences within the power bloc should not
hinder the state’s task of maintaining unity and the subordinance of the subaltern classes. Poulantzas, in this
respect, views the state as playing an active role in the reproduction of relations and maintenance of class-
hierarchical status quo.

Poulantzas’s State Theory

Poulantzas state theory reaffirm’s the view that the political realm is independent and is not, as
articulated in classical Marxism, a reflection of the economic realm. He thinks of the state’s autonomy as
central in all circumstances and independent of its territory. According to Poulantzas, the state is by definition
a capitalist state, which constitutes the political unity of the dominant classes, thereby establishing them as
dominant.

He rejects the so-called instrumentalist perspective articulated by Miliband on grounds that the states
autonomy is independent of the ruling class and argues that the state is not a mere instrument of the ruling or
dominant class, but is instead a separate entity with its own agenda.

Ralph Miliband (1924-94) and Nicos Poulantzas (1936-79) are other neo- Marxist thinkers who have
expressed conflicting views on the relative autonomy of the state. Miliband (The State in Capitalist Society;
1969) has accepted the unity of state power and class power. His view is described as 'instrumentalist theory
of the state'. He adheres to classical Marxist position that the state is invariably an instrument of class power.
He has argued that the class character of the capitalist state is perpetuated by:

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 21

(1) the middle class or upper-class background of the state officials;

(2) the economic power of the capitalist class; and

(3) the inherent desire of the politicians and bureaucrats to continue the existing economic system on which
their own position depends.

Poulantzas disagreed with the Instrumentalist Marxist view and instead argued that the capitalist class was
more focused on individual profit rather than maintaining class’s power as a whole. Poulantzas, in his work
Political Power and Social Classes (1973) has drawn a clear distinction between the position of the capitalist
class and the state power. His view is described as 'structuralist theory of the state'. He has conceded the
relative autonomy of the state, He has argued that class domination is not automatically translated into state
power and the state cannot properly be regarded simply as the instrument of a class. The state enhances its
legitimacy by invoking authority of 'the people'. The capitalist class enhances its legitimacy by dissociating
itself from state repression. Relative autonomy of the state helps in improving its economic performance on
the one hand and promoting capitalist interests on the other. Rejecting Miliband's concept of the unity of class
and state power, Poulantzas treats the state itself as an arena of class struggle.

VAJIRAM & RAVI Page 22