FirstName LastName 2
Question #2: What are the main differences between Marx’s view of ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’? In your view, can ‘communism’ (in the Marxian sense) be realized in practice? Why or why not?
Karl Marx was a German political philosopher and thinker who is most recognizable for his contributions to the rise of socialism. Perhaps most notable to his contributions in socialism was his publication entitled The Communist Manifesto, in which Marx was openly critical of earlier socialist models (communism). This essay will differentiate and explore the critical differences between how Marx perceived socialism and communism, prior to a discussion over the practicality of Marxist communism.
First and foremost, both of these terms predated Karl Marx even though they are terms that have generally been associated with Marx. Media and laypeople alike often make the mistake of using the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. This is problematic because they do not mean the same thing. Especially from the perspective of Marx, they mean different things and hold different applications.
Socialism is essentially an intermediate transition state between capitalism and communism whereby a social revolution (such as the workers who represent the majority of society) is a prerequisite to entering communism. The underlying theme here is that all politics is the result of economic struggles, or the mode of production, which contributes to class struggles. This dominant mode of production is reflected in capitalist societies, which consist of two antagonistic classes. These classes are the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production and are in control of the state, and the proletariat, who are workers that are forced to sell their labour power on the open market to the benefit of the bourgeoisie.
Crucially, Marx believed that this antagonistic element of capitalism is too contradictory. Specifically, too many services and products are produced without sufficient consumption by society because workers continue to be too poor to purchase items. Against this backdrop, Marx theorized there would eventually be a collapse of capitalist society. This is because more of society will become proletariats, resulting in the mass seizing the capitalist state. Once this occurs, society will enter a rational socialist state consisting of a humane and efficient government run economy. Finally, this socialist state will eventually end and give way to communism.
To Marx, communism is the end state of having key means of production that are owned communally. After the state, or government disappears, there would be minimal conflict apart from any that arise that are attributable to the ‘administration of things’. Also, a communist society is class and Marx believed that those in this society will mostly be cooperative. A third critical element of communism was that there would be no division of labour. That is, the wealth will be plentiful for all, thereby allowing anyone to work at whatever they wish. Along those same lines, Marx’s communism suggests that there would be no individual greed, believing, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In other words, there will be free access to, and distribution of, goods, capital, and services.
Thus, the differentiation between the terms is crucial. It can arguably be likened on a spectrum consisting of capitalism socialism communism. Under this model, communists could possibly view socialists as those who are hopeful at arriving at a communist society in the future. However, there has never been a communist society nor a communist state. However, there has been some criticism of communist. Most notably, despite Marx’s insistences, it is often wondered whether Marx’s concept of communism leans too far into utopian ideals.
4. Describe G. Almond and S. Verba’s typology of political culture. Give an example of a real state which has (or had) a political culture which is incongruent (inconsistent) with its political system. In your view, can such a state be stable in the long run? Why or why not?
As discussed throughout the course, the phrase political culture is part of the political systems approach, as developed by David Easton in 1965. That is, political culture outlines how culture impacts politics. For example, individual beliefs, attitudes, orientations, and behaviour towards government and politics are some examples that influence politics. It is generally accepted that there are three primary classification systems that have been proposed to typify political culture. However, this essay will focus on the typology of political culture proposed by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba in 1963. Based on this examination of their work, a real-life example of a state with an incongruent political culture and state will be discussed and analysed.
Almond and Verba outlined three types of political culture, each of which are based on the level and type of political participation and individual attitudes. The first type identified is parochial, where the general populace is mainly ignorant of politics. Even though the populace is aware that government and politics exist, they generally remain distant and unaware of political events and phenomena. Simply put, they might be remotely aware of its’ presence but just are not interested or informed about politics and government. This type of political culture is often seen in many African countries, as well as in Mexico during 1961. Finally, Almond and Verba indicate that a parochial political culture tends to have greater congruence with traditional political structures.
The second type of political culture proposed by Almond and Verba is subject, where the populace is aware of politics but is mostly passive towards those who hold authority positions. More often than not, this passivity amongst the populace can end up being rather detrimental to the general well-being. A main historical example of this would be the Nazi dictatorship in Germany under Adolf Hitler, who exerted incredible power and influence over the populace. This type of political culture is congruent with a centralized authoritarian structure, with the populace being subject to the decisions made by those in authority. Critically, dissent is not encouraged or tolerated under this type of political culture.
The third type of political culture posited is participatory. Almond and Verba described this as occurring when the populace is aware of politics and plays an active role in governance. That is, individuals are able to influence the government is profound ways. This is important because these same individuals are often affected by the decisions made by their government. Also, a participatory political culture is oriented more towards the political and administrative structures and processes. This type of political culture is congruent with democratic political structures, such as the system used in Canada.