Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Soviet Union ideologies
Contribution of karl marx in russian revolution
Karl marx's impact on countries
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Soviet Union ideologies
It should not be surprising nowadays that Karl Marx’s name is often associated with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. After all, the USSR’s ideology was based on Marx’s ideas that were highlighted in his and Friedrich Engels’s “Communist Manifesto”. Consequently, it may seem that Marx’s idea of Communism and Soviet Communism are very similar. However, it is important to understand that Soviet Leaders only interpreted most of these ideas (Raico, 2010). As a result, there are undoubtedly some discrepancies that make these two ideas of communism quite different. Therefore, in order to find out how close was the Soviet Communism to Marx’s ideas, ten principles of communism, that are mentioned in “Communist Manifesto” and concern property, …show more content…
According to him, inheritance is only the change of people who have the “power of transferring the produce of one man’s labor into another man’s pocket” (Marx, 1869). This can be treated as one of the most obvious difference between the Marx’s idea of Communism and Soviet Communism because, although these rights were abolished by Bolsheviks in 1917 (Kimura, 1970), the inheritance of personal property and distribution of wealth between heirs by will were finally permitted in the mid-20th century (Swann, …show more content…
Samuel Hollander (2008) agrees with Marx’s idea and claims that, through the improvement of old factories and building of new ones, the relative employment decreases but the net number of workers increases. Also, in “Capital” (1894, Vol. 3) Marx highlighted that improving the soil makes the land more productive than it was before. As a consequence, in the Soviet Union five-year plans were introduced whose main goals were to expand an industry that produces the means of production and to increase the capabilities of agriculture (Obolensky-Ossinsky, 1935). Moreover, in 1953 some laws were enforced in order to increase the production on existing land and expand “the area under cultivation, in order to achieve a cheap and quick increase in grain production” (Harris, 1955). Therefore, it is clear that Soviet five-year plan’s aims were similar to the ones of the Marx’s common
The first five-year plan, approved in 1929, proposed that state and collective farms provide 15 percent of agriculture output. The predominance of private farming seemed assured, as many farmers resisted collectivization. By late 1929, Stalin moved abruptly to break peasant resistance and secure the resources required for industrialization. He saw that voluntary collectivism had failed, and many “Soviet economists doubted that the first plan could even be implimented.”1 Stalin may have viewed collectivization as a means to win support from younger party leaders, rather than from the peasants and Lenin’s men. “Privately he advocated, industrializing the country with the help of internal accumulation” 2 Once the peasantry had been split, Stalin believed that the rural proletarians would embrace collectivization . Before this idea had a chance to work, a grain shortage induced the Politburo to support Stalin’s sudden decision for immediate, massive collectivization.
Though the rewards are pleasing to the ear, the path to obtaining the benefits of communism is a violent one. This strict governing idea was derived from Communist Manifesto, a book written by two German economists, Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, who declare that many problems in society are caused by the unequal distribution of wealth. These two believe that “Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations.” To achieve the goal of happiness and prosperity for all, the lines that distinguish the differences between the rich and poor must be erased. Obviously, the rich will never voluntarily give up their goods or status; therefore the figureheads must force equality among the citizens. Communism places their citizens, whether they be the wealthy or the laborers, into working classes that specify their contribution to the government. With such balanced placement of the people, individuality is impossible for any single person to achieve.
Karl Marx 's writing of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ in 1848 has been documented by a vast number of academics as one of the most influential pieces of political texts written in the modern era. Its ideologically driven ideas formed the solid foundation of the Communist movement throughout the 20th century, offering a greater alternative for those who were rapidly becoming disillusioned and frustrated with the growing wealth and social divisions created by capitalism. A feeling not just felt in by a couple of individuals in one society, but a feeling that was spreading throughout various societies worldwide. As Toma highlights in his work, Marx felt that ‘capitalism would produce a crisis-ridden, polarized society destined to be taken over by
Temkin, G. (1998). Karl Marx and the economics of communism: Anniversary recollections. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 31(4), 303–328. doi:10.1016/S0967-067X(98)00014-2
Society is flawed. There are critical imbalances in it that cause much of humanity to suffer. In, the most interesting work from this past half-semester, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx is reacting to this fact by describing his vision of a perfectly balanced society, a communist society. Simply put, a communist society is one where all property is held in common. No one person has more than the other, but rather everyone shares in the fruits of their labors. Marx is writing of this society because, he believes it to be the best form of society possible. He states that communism creates the correct balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. And furthermore thinks that sometimes violence is necessary to reach the state of communism. This paper will reflect upon these two topics: the relationship of the individual and society, and the issue of violence, as each is portrayed in the manifesto.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels concocted the idea of Marxism, or Communism, in the mid-1800s, and this philosophy was one of the most influential ideologies of the time period, influencing many European political leaders such as Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov and Joseph Stalin. This brings up a question that historians have disputed for decades: who followed the Marxist policy more closely: Stalin or Lenin? Even though the rules of Stalin and Lenin were both based off of the concept of Communism, Lenin added on to it in the interest of the Russian people while Stalin modified parts of it to his personal benefit. Before it can be decided who was more Marxist, the doctrines of Marxism must be looked at. Marx and Engels collected their ideas in a book called The Communist Manifesto. This document outlines the principles of Marxism, which can be summed up in ten main points. First, private property and ownership of land by individuals shall become illegal. Second, income tax shall be adjusted according to the income of the individual; more income meant higher tax, and less income meant lower tax. Individual inheritance shall become nonexistent. Anyone who was not favorable to society would have their property taken away; this included foreign immigrants and rebels. The bank system shall be centralized into one national bank, and all individual money shall be placed in this bank. Transportation and communication shall be controlled by the government. The government shall gain increased holdings in the control of factories and other production facilities such as farms. All capable citizens shall be required to work and industrial and agricultural “armies” shall be created. Agricultural and industrial production shall be interconnected, and the...
Each person in a communist government doesn’t have savings. All of their money comes from a community pool and goes toward the society as a whole. Where as in a capitalist government, most responsible adults know where their money is at all times. Marx believed that the working class was better off in a communist government system. “In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they are always and everywhere represent the interest of the movement as a whole” (Marx). Marx, in this statement, is giving his opinion on why the communists are distinguished from the other working class parties. Though not all citizens are responsible for their money and their savings, all capitalist citizens are allowed to make their own money, and do with it as they please. Those who work hard and save their money wisely, succeed. Yet those who are lazy and refuse to work, do not succeed. Steven G. Marks, wrote a review and analysis of Johnathan Sperber’s book, Karl Marx: A Nineteenth Century Life. In this review, Marks compares and contrasts the differences and distinctions that are made by Sperber. He does this by comparing Marx and Sperber and giving descriptions and biographies of both. “Marx absorbed his permanently gloomy assessment of the capitalist economy from his readings of Adam Smith and
The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, a period of political turmoil in Europe. Its meaning in today’s capitalistic world is a very controversial issue. Some people, such as the American government, consider socialism taboo and thus disregard the manifesto. They believe that capitalism, and the world itself, has changed greatly from the one Marx was describing in the Manifesto and, therefore, that Marx’s ideas cannot be used to comprehend today’s economy. Others find that the Manifesto highlights issues that are still problematic today. Marx’s predicative notions in the Communist Manifesto are the key to understanding modern day capitalism.
In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx, with the help of Friedrich Engel, advocated for the violent overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a socialist society. According to Marx, “The history of hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (184). Notably, Marx and Engel were the main proponents of communism. Marx’s main argument was that the society is the product of class conflict that results in different social classes with opposing economic interests. Importantly, Marx believed that the society comprised the oppressor and the oppressed, and the two are in constant conflict with each other. The ensuing conflict results in the revolutionary reorganization of the society, or the ruin of the opposing classes. Therefore, Marx, like Kant, saw the institutions of a given society as influential in determining its future. However, Marx argued that traditional institutions were unsuitable for a free and just society that respected human dignity. For example, he saw the modern bourgeoisie society as a product of the “ruins of feudal society,” meaning that the modern society is yet to resolve class antagonisms (184). Indeed, he sees the modern-day social classes as the products of the serfs and burgesses of the middle ages. In this regard, he claimed that the modern social structures are the products of a sequence of revolutions in the systems of production, as well as exchange. However, modern social structures are yet to enhance equity in the society. Therefore, Marx advocated for a revolution that would change the existing social structures and prepare the society to adopt communism. Unlike Kant’s idea of freedom of speech, which is a mind influencing process, Marx seemed more violent by the stating that “let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution”
In the Communist Manifesto we see early versions of essential Marxist concepts that Marx would elaborate with more scientific rigor in mature writings such as Das Kapital. Perhaps most important of these concepts is the theory of historical materialism, which states that historical change is driven by collective actors attempting to realize their economic aims, resulting in class struggles in which one economic and political order is replaced by another. One of the central tenets of this theory is that social relationships and political alliances form around relations of production. Relations of production depend on a given society’s mode of production, or the specific economic organization of ownership and division of labor. A person’s actions, attitudes, and outlook on society and his politics, loyalties, and sense of collective belonging all derive from his location in the relations of production. History engages people as political actors whose identities are constituted as exploiter or exploited, who form alliances with others likewise identified, and who act based on these
Karl Marx, Adam Smith and Andrew Carnegie came up with various perspectives on how capitalism could be improved or changed for the betterment of society.
Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in which all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx #11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individual’s relationship to the mode of production (Marx #11, p. 256).
In his Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx created a radical theory revolving not around the man made institution of government itself, but around the ever present guiding vice of man that is materialism and the economic classes that stemmed from it. By unfolding the relat...
...y can be hard to reach. In the history of Soviet Union alone, true Marxist’s would argue that the Soviets did not adopt true Marxist ideas, and the reason for this is probably due to the fact that his ideas are too unrealistic to exist in the real world. Also the idea that there are two-classes of people because of private property is simplistic since he dismisses the importance of wages and the power that they give to the working class. I believe that the worker is free to use his wages for the acquisition of property or employees for himself. Yet these past readings have given me an open mind on the different views of the capitalist world. Private property in another sense should not be abolished in my opinion, since it is a human right and would be impossible to abolish in today’s society. Marx’s criticism is of private property is based on the value of freedom.
According to most historians, “history is told by the victors”, which would explain why most people equate communism with Vladimir Lenin. He was the backbone of Russia’s communist revolution, and the first leader of history’s largest communist government. It is not known, or discussed by most, that Lenin made many reforms to the original ideals possessed by many communists during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He revised Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles’ theories to fit the so-called ‘backwardness’ of the Russian Empire. Lenin’s reforms were necessary to carry out a socialist revolution in Russia, and the contributions he made drastically changed the course of history. It can be assumed that, the Soviet Union would not have been as powerful if it was not for Lenin’s initial advocacy of violence and tight organization.