Deviations of Marxism

The bother of a mans scotch and policy-making liberty has been widely discussed by specialists throughout centuries. Chomsky (1987), Bakunin (1934), Rousseau (1960), Humb experient (in Botting 1973) retain both questi mavind the issue whether a man abide ever be free in the club. The theory of Marxism can be regarded as a deductive reasoning and conclusion of degreeical political economy, in item of utopian kindist occasions from which Marx borrowed m each ideas. The educational activity of Marx is both-powerful because it is true.It is complete and symmetrical, offering an co-ordinated view of the world, irreconcil fitting with ein truth superstition, with any reactionism, or with any defense of bourgeois oppression. (Eastman, Marx 1959, p. xxi). The problem of loss man from the flagellum of sparing developing and political and amicable imprisonment in Marxs full treatment has been discussed by Highs (2004), Kozyn (1987), Sayer (1991), Suny (1993), and W ood (1997). As the sources argue, check to the opinion of Marx, this problem can be solved, simply only after galore(postnominal) changes take place in the friendship.Capitalism is fate to fail and be replaced by fabianism which can throw away an end to contradiction between two friendly classes- bourgeoisie and the working class. Opposite to the dodging of capitalism, fabianism was waiver to be establish on the rationales reportly different from the principles of capitalist fellowship, and so end economical exploitation. According to Marx, spate could become free if they were free economically, and thence the end of economic exploitation was going to determine the freedom for populate.In The Criticism of the Gotha platform Marx devotes study attention to the analysis of self-command and the problem of workers disaffection of the results of their work as the study feature of exploitation in spite of push throughance the cooperative night club, base up on the common self- ordain of the means of production, the producers do not flip-flop their products the labor of the individual becomes, no eight-day in a roundabout way, still directly, a comp unmatchednt part of the gibe labor. (Eastman, Marx, 1959, p. 5).According to Marx, the exploitation of workers provided on all levels of production, their estrangement from the results of work all were the reasons of the inevitable changes in the prox. The fact that surplus value was obtained by the capitalist was also one of the arguments for the future change in the structure. The class of workers established that the results of their work were taken by the capitalist even though they were the ones who actually created the value. on that pointfore, they were last articled to struggle for their economic freedom, which would also lead to their favorable and political freedom.The dialectics argues that contradictions ar the driving force of progress. Once contradictions appear i n most system, the system go out need to undergo many changes and ascend until the innovative level in which the implication of new qualities will be lowestly accomplished. Therefore, as it was correctly heard by Marx, the phase of capitalism could not be alone over- it would just develop until its new phase socialism and the most appointed features of both systems would be present in the net synthesis of the two systems.People would reach the freedom only after the final stage of ontogenesis, because earlier stages would still obtain some features from the earlier system. Marx argues that communist fiat still bears, in e real respect, economic, honorable and intellectual, the birthmarks of the grizzly inn from whose womb it is proceeds (Eastman, Marx, 1959, p. 5). Therefore, it is impossible to conclude that communism all frees muckle from economic exploitation and political and social enslavement. Communism is not a alone new system and has community with th e previous system of capitalism.It interacts with it in some ways still at the same(p) time it has many new features which ar beneficial for the working class and liberates batch in many aspects of life sentence. In The exiguity of Philosophy Marx argues that eventually, communism is going to pee-pee political freedom to mass. The working class will substitute, in the course of its evolution, for the old run of civil society, an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will no longer be political power. (Eastman, Marx, 1959, p.2). The author also acresed estates that in the new socialistic society, all of the assets will be expropriated from the capitalists and therefrom they will not be able to obtain the benefits of the surplus value anymore. Therefore, economic exploitation will be in the long run brought to an end. Another feature of socialism is the par of raft, when they are able to work correspond to their abilities for themsel ves and the state they live in. The socialist society is not divided into classes because it regards people mate in all the ways.Marx mentioned that unfortunately, all of the study developments needful to happen not as the result of organic evolution but as the results of struggles and revolutions because they were the only ways of destruction of the old system. Marx did not deny the role of evolution in the process of freeing people but he had very composition views and thus regarded revolution as the scoop out tool of speeding up the evolution process which was going to lead to the long-waited changes in any case. As the author stated, the final end to capitalism could be put and the new socialist society could be established only with the help of arms.A incomparable feature of Marxs theory of capitalism development and evolution into socialism is that he does not share the opinions of utopian writers on this issue. Many utopian writers considered that social changes could be originated by the government of the uncouth or by a class of improve capitalists. Marx was completely against these theories because he was confident that the source capitalists and members of government were unable to bring any changes into the countrys social structure.In order to form the new society, the new principles needed to be established and those people who belonged to the pertain class of the workers were unable to bring any of the mentioned changes. It is also necessary to investigate the problem of freeing man from the curse of economic exploitation and political and social enslavement in Soviet wedlock. As the association of the country shows, screening of Marxism theory in Soviet joint completely failed to strike its goals.As it was mentioned by Geoffrey (1997), Grigor (1993), Khazanov (1992), Lieven (1998), Kon (1993), one of the major mistakes do in Soviet Union was affiliated with Russian exceptionalism. As Grigor (1993) states, Soviet Union applied the concept of red ink nationless society in a way completely different from its original meaning. Instead of freeing citizens of the country as Marxism stated, Soviet leading ladened all of the nations except Russians. Russia was the major center of all activities going in the country.Soviet Union was a very bizarre structure because it united a enlarged number of nations which were very different in many ways. Some of the nations included in the country were quite close to one another (Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine), while other republics in the Soviet Union structure were very different by their cultures. For example, Eastern republics, desire Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan belonged to Muslim countries, and had very different traditions from Russians, but Russian nation forced all of them to act according to the traditions of the dominant nation.This was one of the major reasons of the empires disaster in the following years. Sovietology paid removed too little attention for off the beaten track(predicate) too long to the non-Russian peoples, to the extrapolitical social environment, and to the particular contexts, contingencies, and conjunctures of the Soviet past. (Grigor, 1993 3) According to Marxists, all the nations inwardly the Soviet Union had to be completely alike and without any differences between them. Soviet leaders took the features of the Russian nation as the basic features. Therefore, all other nations had to fit to the new culture which was not very familiar to them.The nationless society in truthfulness turned out a Russian society with total dominance of the Russian nation in all the ways. alone the nations other than Russians were oppressed greatly. They were all considered a step lower in the society ladder due to their origin, and did not have any political freedom. Policy of the country was in many ways channeled to the development of Russia and its cities. The largest sums from the budget were assigned to the development of Russia. man Russias economy was booming, particularly the economy of Moscow, all other economies were at a much lower level of development.Besides exceptionalism, there were many other problems with diligence of Marxist theory in Soviet Union. For example, Soviet leaders did their best to apply the principle according to which every person was requisite to contribute to the wealth of the country at his best and would get services from the state in the maximum amount. Instead, it was easy to notice that leaders of the communist party got all of the benefits from the state while working people got only the minimum. As Lieven (1998) states, the reality of Soviet Union was very far from adult any freedom to its citizens.During capitalism workers were oppressed greatly and did not have a chance to satisfy all of their needs. The web site did not change much when Soviet leaders brought communism to the country because the oppression remained the same it just came not from capitalists but from communist leaders. Communist leaders in Vietnam also failed to implement principles of Marxism in the country. resembling to Lenins Soviet Union, Ho ki Minhs Vietnam failed to liberate people from economic exploitation and did not give them social and political freedom. According to Anh (1995, p.126), one of the major reasons of communisms failure in Vietnam is lack of background for it in the country. Marxism postulate the struggle between classes as the reason of the future revolution. In agricultural Vietnam, there were no resister classes similar to industrial Britain or Russia. The liberation of people in Vietnam could not be solely based on Marxs principles due to the radical differences between the British society which Marxism based his theory on and the Vietnamese society. There was no working class in Vietnam looking for liberation from capitalist exploitation.The major figure in Vietnamese society was a peasant stir uping against the explo itation by foreigners oppressors. At the centre of Vietnamese history, stands the peasant, tenacious and heroic defender of the land inherited from the ancestors against the foreign invaders, but recurrently rising up against the masters from at bottom in an endless rebellion. (Le Vietnam traditionnel. Quelques etapes historiques, 1971, p. 170). Communism in Vietnam was supposed to serve the interests of peasants in their fight against French oppressors.The highly destructive system of economic exploitation installed by the colonial regime gave birth to new social forces, while aggravating the situation of the rural masses. (Institute of Historical Studies, Vietnamese peasantry and rural society in the modern period, 1990, p. 35). Despite the attempts of application of Marxs theory in Vietnam, it was destined to fail because Vietnam was eventually liberated from oppressors, and any basis for the struggle between antagonist classes disappeared.In conclusion, it is necessary to ma rk that in its consummate(a) version, Marxism provides an answer to the question of how to liberate people from economic, political and social oppression. Liberation of people from economic exploitation comes first and as long as it is achieved, political and social freedom can also be targeted. However, the attempts of the application of Marxism in Soviet Union and Vietnam have showed that peoples freedom cannot be achieved in real life due to fatal mistakes made by communist leaders in the application of Marxism.