Marxist and Anarchist Critique of Capitalism Essay

Anarchism and Marxism ideologies significantly overlap, but they also have differences in approach to critical issues such as liberalism, equality, and welfare of the state. In this perspective, the Marxists and the Anarchists are anti-capitalists besides their view of the government as both a social and political instrument that perpetuate class oppression. The modern political theories study present-day politics as an integral component and a characteristic of human culture. However, the Marxism and anarchism treat theories of politics as a form of historical science that uphold super-structural relations. This aspect implies that super-structural legitimation of capitalism has its basis on political spheres. Hence, the legislative affairs at a specific time ought to fix class divide besides reproducing minority rule. Liberalism, however, reconciles with Marxism in the study of the connections between the state and economic power, which are two critical matters in politics. In the post-industrial and industrial age, anarchism is gradually replacing classical liberalism through self-liberation, social struggles and self-activity movements that drive the "anarchy in action" ideologies.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Marxist critique of liberalism is on the perspective of the central role of politics in peoples' culture and economic matters. Marxism point of view is that the aspect leads to the legitimation of capitalism, which causes a class divide, exploitation, differences of interest, and inequality. The contemporary power, according to Marxism hence creates a notion that the minority are not proper subjects of politics in the society besides emphasizing on private ownership as a primary means of production. The concept of liberalism from the Marxism perspective, therefore, raises a question of whether market economies and productive relations are non-political.

Liberalism has led to huge disparities in wealth ownership and thus is responsible for the super-structural relations and the existence of capitalism. The outcome of this interconnection is the emergence of a super-structure where influential factors such as religion, politics, literature, and the existing laws legitimize social classes. In this case, the class divide stimulates social relations in politics and economic affairs. It alienates segments that engage in the production of materials and their exchange in the market from the proletariat. Cumulative inequalities and disparities in wealth ownership are the outcome of liberalism, which is responsible for the existence of capitalism through legitimation of super-structural relations. The result is the creation of imbalance in economic opportunities, neoliberal policies, media control, oligopolies, and political influence on legislation. This situation in the perspective of the Marxism disrupts democratic political change besides its contribution to law-breaking (Scott 16).

The outcome of capitalism that includes cumulative disparities and inequalities in wealth distribution is evident in the real world. The underlying struggle for political and economic opportunities has led to the emergence of social movements that champion the interests of specific social classes. Hence, liberalism has empowered the underprivileged social classes to use various modes of public protects to express their concerns about inequalities. Some of these approaches are dissident media, organized social movements, strikes, and demonstrations. The members of such groups have no other recourse and accordingly engage in theft, poaching, and sabotage as a means to acquire economic resources. Thus, it is no doubt that revolutions in the modern world are because of economic disparities and inequalities in political powers.

The anarchists promote the ideologies of political actions and the empowerment of workers as alternatives to state politics. In this perspective, the objective of the left-anarchists is to exert political pressure to the state as an approach to disrupt the accumulation of capital in the hands of the government. Since their ideologies are against state dominance in political, social, and economic matters, the anarchists advocate for individual liberty within the nation. The critique against capitalism is that it is not productive; it is against economic doctrines and promotes wage slavery. Also, the anarchists view private ownership, which is a central feature of capitalism as absurd, unnecessary, and unjust. This aspect implies that political and economic equality of the entire nation-state according to the anarchist's view is impossible with capitalism.

However, anarchism and Marxism schools of thoughts are compatible with their approach to capitalism. The two ideologies are in consensus that the economic power of individuals and that of the state inter-connect. While individual freedom to practice economic affairs is critical, the two schools of thoughts reconcile in a view that human being has to work together in production and exchange in their activities. Precisely, people enter into definite relations and connections for production to take place (Marx 146). The author, in this perspective, further argued that social relationships among people engaged in production within the state determine the efficiency of raw materials and labor utilization. However, a monopoly in economic and political affairs emerges in instances where the Marxists and the anarchists have freedom in specific spheres. This situation, according to Marx, necessitates the state to intervene and hence suggests how both ideologies reconcile.

A perfect example of how anarchism works and how it advocates for self-governed societies in the real world is evident in how people view corporate responsibility. Consumers, for instance, boycott the products from irresponsible oil companies to make them do the right thing where their operations cause undue harm to the environment. This aspect shows how anarchism is substituting classical liberalism in the post-industrial age. Also, people in the present-day era embrace social struggles and self-liberation through "anarchy action movements." This aspect plays critical roles in empowering people to have freedom in exercising their economic, political, and social rights.

Anarchism and Marxism Approach to Revolution

Marxism has two critical principles that form a basis of its political and economic ideologies. First, it holds a view that a sound economic system should not promote inequalities, exploitation, and alienation of the majority in the nation-state. These elements are in terms of labor and wage systems in the market and among people who are in the production industry. Secondly, the purpose of Marxism system is to enable some people to obtain profits but not to satisfy the needs of all individuals. Marx criticized capitalism on the basis that the acquisition of wealth entirely depends on the work of the proletariat. Anarchism, on the other hand, advocates for the establishment of free markets, and self-ownership free from class hierarchy. The ideology is anti-capitalism, which they see as a vital instrument for class oppression besides impeding mutual and voluntary cooperation. Both anarchism and Marxism resort to revolutionary change to implement their ideologies.

Revolution among the anarchists occurs where the state and other groups impose or implement stringent laws and regulations that control people's social and political life. This situation arises since the ideology of the anarchists is to establish a stateless society where individuals have the freedom to exercise their desires. In this perspective, historical French and Russian revolutions occurred because the state used more powers besides extracting more resources from the population that it ought to serve. It is worth noting in this case that the anarchists are in favor of personal liberty instead of authoritarian rule that regulate their affairs and way of life. Thus it implies that the existence of autocratic governments or authorities that exercise more control over the people encourages the quest for revolutionary changes (Scott 16). Such instances stimulate revolutions since it promotes inequality among the anarchists.

Workers in a capital system gain knowledge about group activity in their workplace. Hence, emphasis on cooperation explains how the environment encourages revolutions as the factory workers channel their expertise to stage a successful movement cooperatively. However, anarchism revolution from capitalism perspective involves individuals and organizations, unlike Marxism movements that are against the state. The critical factors that stimulate the anarchism revolutions are remarkably modest. Scott points out aspects that encourage revolutionary changes among the anarchists. Some of these social aspects are desires for longer rests, better wages, and shorter working hours. The point is that class struggle leads to revolutions whenever the workers realize the power of cooperation. This aspect is what Marx terms it as 'class consciousness.'

The anarchists desire for a society where its members can negotiate for better relations with corporations without the involvement of the government. In this case, it is evident that some of these revolutions occur in the real world through trade unions. The latter, especially in the developed economies such as the United States, Canada, and the UK encourage revolutionary changes besides cautioning its members against exploitation, underpayments and offering their labor services in poor working conditions. Accordingly, such movement's supports anarchism ideologies, especially in the wake of multinationals that tend to maximize their profits without considering ethical and social issues facing the workers and society.

In the perspective of the Marxism, the working class (proletariats) control a significant proportion of economic resources. Such people are few, have economic opportunities, and can influence political representation, unlike the majority that may feel they do not have representatives. Unlike the anarchism where revolution emerges from the collective roles of the society, the movements underlying the Marxism in most instances involves the low social classes that perceive capitalism as a tool advancing inequalities and disparities in the distribution of economic resources.

However, the proletariats in the capitalist perspective, are forced to join the majority in revolutions to advocate for the abolition of systems that stimulates unrest. While the proletariat group may benefit from private property, it is no doubt that specific circumstances compel them to join movements and consequently revolutions. The aim in this perspective is to overhaul the systems underlying capitalism since it promotes alienation and unrest from the majority non-working class. However, the possessing group in the society is satisfied with the situation, but the majority exercise their powers because the system perpetrates human alienation (Marx 231).

However, the state is not the enemy of freedom, and hence, its justification for revolutions is unsound (Scott xiii). The author, in this case, supports the anarchism ideologies but is against the idea that the government is an institution that is everywhere to endanger freedom of is people. Instead, property possession is a primary factor that stimulates revolution since it encourages "despotism and theft." The author's view is that while the anarchists may be against the state, they ought to combine their efforts to join struggles for partial freedom. This situation exists in the modern world where extremist groups, especially in petroleum-rich countries, revolt against the government in their quest to control the critical resources. Since the government has powers to restrict or broad...