Marxism Is Nor Dictation, It Is the Power to Justice, the Power to Accept Diversity

by Alagie Jinkang

Although I am not a Marxist myself but accept all forms of analysis claim to be Marxism. There are two main claims for my approach. First because Marx himself those not claim any authority over what is claim to be what is now call Marxism. Second, I believe Marxism is a transitional process and thus no single analysis can claim authority. In fact, that will be a totally outside academic discussions and against critiques a fundamental principle of Marxism. I love analysis that provoke generality. Marxism that holds some connection into our every affair of life cannot be unique. We both have a share in saying what we think needs adjustment in Marxism.

I claim Marxism to be universal. In this I do not mean it is suitable everywhere for this is why I am first a Marxist. However, I aim to say that Marxism as a political and economic theory could be used as a critique to look into our ways of life. Society of course is dynamic and this was a claim in every analysis of Marxism. What is Marxism is yet not clear as there is no conscious to this theory. But this is also the beauty of it. What is does clear is the differences among so-called narrators and interpreters. I am definitely not at ease in any single approach toward Marxism.

The worldview and a way of societal investigation focusing on relationships like class, problems that might either be due to material possessions as related to its translations and social growth what Polanyi may refer to as the great transformation. This might be difficult but also important in looking at various societies and how Marxism is related to this. Dialectics here is important.

I want to be very straight forward and a little arrogant here. Any analysis that neglects economics and socio-political questions in our way to looking at capitalism is thus strange to Marxism. Our academic lives should embrace all form of Marxism at least for the purpose of looking diversely into our socio-political systems. Our class struggles within capitalism is nothing strange and cannot claim any one source. Not even Marxists. When we talk about Marxism we most always embrace systemic economic change.

Many readers of this article will be force to turn at the19th century analysis of Marxism. From then on, many of you will come to know the real plurality of Marxism calling for a fair playing ground bringing together economics, sociology, philosophy and of course revolutionary theories towards social transformation browning the term of Polanyi. This is the real analysis into Marxism in my view.

It is now a growing difficulty for both professors and students accepting different views on what each one conceived to be Marxism. Marxism itself is contradictory and that is fundamental for any student or professor.

When we examine how our societal development survives, our material need is always at the middle towards self-satisfaction. The end does justifies the means in capitalism. Human society cannot survive without a material need nor without a mode of production within a market system but of course within a class structure. Whether or not this is true is a matter of wait-and-see.

Morality as in ideology is very essential in our social relations, economics and legal platforms that lead to a gradual construction of our social structures. Thus Marxism seems to embrace every aspect of life that is under metamorphosis. Our society is not autocatalytic. We cannot consider situations coming from anywhere in our analysis. Thus, the economic arrangements and social affairs are but a basic and strong towards our changing society. While the capacity of technology in production grows our society throws out the old class system but not without creating one. “There is no society without a class system”. Even though all men are equals some seems more equal than others repeating a slogan in the “Animal Farm”. It is transparent even to those hard of hearing and seeing that we continue to live in a society of injustices. Here I claim that if no class system exist how do the poor continue to be poor and the rich continue to be rich. The rich are only reach because the poor are poor. Thus a class system. Buttressing deeply into these classes we will still find out another class called the needy. The system of exploitation can continue only if classes exist. Capitalism cannot survive where we are classless at least within an economic level. And where there is an economic difference there is social as well. I do agree that a classes society may be joyful and interesting but we are yet to witness one. Our laws help in this. This is the real contradiction between Marxists which I play not part. These many inefficiencies demonstrate a class struggle. The umbrella over a professor is different from that of a student and within students themselves. This are all social realities of a class structure. Therefore claiming a classless society is both a misconception of the reality and a denial of it.

I do not want to follow any Marxist since I could analyse Marxism myself. Conflicts and especially that of class in ours is due to the development in capitalism at the expense of the underprivileged poor. Private control of production within a bourgeoisie system for accumulation purposes creats a state of fear. This may not lead into real cannibalism but cannot avoid an unhealthy relationship. The life of fear within ourselves will continue as long as capitalism survive. The more it reaches its maturity the more the majority will suffer.

My society of proletariat might yet be too primitive to see what capitalism really entails in the positive sense of the term. What is transparent to them is the social unrest they their little capitalist growth contributes to. Capitalism is a social revolution between those who are oppresses and the oppressors.

Marx did say that capitalism which will lead to socialism that will finally give way to communism might be an overstatement but is too early to either agree or disagree since the transition speeds. Communist societies undergoes social development calling all hands on deck opposing privatization. Marx shows probably what I will call in the terms of Prof. Ugo Mattei as “Beni Comuni”. This stage is unavoidable. Capitalism will later undermine its intentions and assume solidarity. When it does this an equalitarian society will be created. Here each is given according to each ability and each according to his needs. Cooperation, coordination and unhealthy competition shall seize to survive. Production becomes common and commutatively and relatively equal. Accumulation shall then carry no sense.

Karl Marx theorized that, as the productive services and know-how constantly grows , socialism would ultimately give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership. This is the “Beni comuni”.

Marxism acknowledging its development has led to a growing number of schools opposing each other. Some have looked at what favours their attempts ignoring others and at some extreme stages claiming authority of what Marxism is. This is first not Marxism and not modernity nor is it dialectics. Marxism does not claim to be a solution but an experiment into out laboratory call life. Me. Other arrogant narrators only focus on a single aspect of Marxism in determining social relations and economic outcomes. This is intellectual dishonesty. I cannot imagine a school not embracing dictatorship. This is also against modernity.

We have also read many books of Marxism basically looking at one aspect of Marxism as the determining force in social development like the mode of production, power-relationships, class or property and ownership arguing other aspects as less important. Yet current developments makes them irrelevant too. Absolute tin-pot dictators. Examples abound between different Marxian economists having clashing economic formats of which almost all share the same premises.

Such conclusions accidently and intentionally lead to socialist and communist parties and even common parties. Movements claiming the same flag have been found to bear different manifestations. Our current economic disturbances have not correct conclusion due to this fundamental fiasco. From Africa to Asia and from Europe to the America the routine is clearly the same all over. One theory for different goals. Marxism should be given more than it takes to explain. It’s a real life situation. It is both a reality and hallucination and thus every can share it. It is like looking at a mirror. In a mirror the right hand becomes the left and vice-versa…

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.