Criticisms of Marxist Theory

In class, we began studying Marxist philosophy. A good portion of our time was spent discussing what makes capitalism violent. Namely the following:

·          

      The social classes are reduced to two, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat.

·         Relationships between the classes rest on a fundamental conflict: unequal distribution of wealth.

·         Conditions of the workers will necessarily become more and more wretched.

Marx also believes that the biggest problem of Capitalism was that it causes alienated, or estranged, labor. The ways that labor is alienated are from nature, from himself/herself, from “species-being”, and from other humans. Although we spend a great deal of time discussing the flaws of capitalism, we have yet discussed to faults of Marx’s theory.

Multiple general criticisms of Marxist theory exist. One common criticism is that socialism could not be accomplished only through class conflict and a proletarian revolution, and many anarchists reject the need for the transitory state phase that Marx describes. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx describes ten courses of action that he thought would be applicable to all modern industrial nations, advising the redistribution of land and production for a transitional society before communism. Some thinkers believe that redistribution of any property is a direct form of coercion. Anarchists have also argued that Marxist communism will inevitably lead to coercion and state domination. Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian philosopher who is often called the father of anarchist theory, believed that having a Marxist regime would lead to the “despotic control of the populace by a new and not all numerous aristocracy.” Even if this new aristocracy was to originate and rise from within the ranks of the proletariat, Bakunin argued that their newly found power would change how they viewed society and cause them to “look down at the plain working masses.”

Some critics of socialism argue that state of income sharing heavily reduces the individual incentives to work. This is only preventable by incomes being as individualized as possible. Income sharing is further criticized because in a society where everyone holds equal wealth there can be no reward for work well done and no incentives will exist to promote better work. It is also argued that incentives increase productivity for all people, and the loss of those effects would lead to stagnation.

So, thoughts? Do you think that socialism could be accomplished solely through class struggle and a proletarian revolution? What do you think working would be like if you never had any incentive to do better, and no reward when you did something particularly well?