Discourse over Marxism, neo-Marxism, and post-Marxism, with their profound implications for society and state apparatuses, defy easy encapsulation. Marxism, in particular, is not just a theory; it is a philosophical framework that emerged from the seminal works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 19th century. Their focus on class relations and societal conflict, interpreted through a materialist lens of historical development, has fundamentally shaped our understanding of these concepts. The influence of their works reverberates in the diverse perspectives of many scholars, underscoring the gravity of these theories.
Marxism is not a realm of straightforward answers but a complex area of study that demands intellectual rigour. In Marx’s pursuit of establishing arguments through practical observation, he identified crucial aspects which profoundly shaped human life and society. His astute definition of how an individual as a worker is exploited in the capitalist mode of the production process is a testament to his intellectual depth. However, the field is not without its complexities and ongoing debates -- some scholars argue that Marx was overly spirited in his quest to uncover the economic relationship between workers and employers.
Critical concepts of classical Marxism include alienation, base and superstructure, class consciousness, class struggle, exploitation, historical materialism, ideology, revolution and power, means, methods, and relations of production. Therefore, if society is still divided into classes and if the working class does not yet find itself as a helpful and meaningful class in an industrial society, then what Marx envisioned about the nature and functioning of capitalism and its ugly exploitation in various aspects is still there. Therefore, it is a valid reason to think further about Marxism in the present time, mainly while globalization and neo-liberalism grasped the global economy under the dogma of the free-market economy system.
However, in the 20th and 21st centuries, several sociologists and social theorists approached society to interpret and construct relevant theories with methods of analysis generously influenced by the writings of Karl Marx; even though they have followed and reproduced theories of traditional Marxism in various ways. Some neo-Marxists share Marx's analysis of capitalism but do not share his belief in a communist revolution. The social revolution or movement is a massive structural change that needs to connect all within a society. Social revolution demonstrates changes in an existing failure of the structure of the society and state -- therefore, contemporary Marxist scholars often prescribe a cultural revolution rather than a violent communist movement that the world witnessed in the earlier centuries in some parts of the world such as Russia, China, and Yugoslavia.
Culture shock
Gramsci developed the concept of “cultural hegemony” to explain why the worker-led revolution that Marx predicted in the previous century had not come to pass. Central to Marx's theory of capitalism was the belief that the destruction of this economic system was built into the system itself since capitalism is premised on the exploitation of the working class by the ruling class. Marx reasoned that workers could only take so much economic exploitation before they would rise and overthrow the ruling class. However, this revolution did not happen on a mass scale.
Notably, Gramsci's emphasis on the concept of cultural hegemony was derived primarily from Karl Marx's theory that the dominant ideology of society reflects the beliefs and interests of the ruling class. Gramsci, however, argued that consent to the rule of dominant groups is achieved through disseminating ideologies -- beliefs, assumptions, and values -- through social institutions such as schools, churches, courts, and the media. These institutions socialize people into the dominant social group's norms, values, and beliefs. As such, the group that controls these institutions controls the rest of society.
Indeed, class conflict was evident in many parts of the world throughout the earlier and present centuries, but the victory was absent or could not be sustained. While social movement fails in any society or state, scholars, perhaps anti-Marxists, point out the social movement theory of Marx and insist it as a failure theory. In a critical analytical juncture, this is not a flaw of Marx’s theory; instead, the structural issue of that movement in which most of the society members were not part of the process or other essential elements were not supportive. Now, the question is what neo-Marxists would suggest overthrowing imperialism and anarchism from different parts of the world.
Again, like neo-Marxism, post-Marxism brings another theoretical perspective that emerged in aligning with the response to classical Marxism. Post-Marxism precisely refers to and critiques elements from Marxist theory while integrating insights from other intellectual traditions. Post-Marxists incorporate classical Marxism with the new ideologies that are currently happening around the world. Therefore, post-Marxism and neo-Marxism are the extent to which better adaptation with theoretical interpretations and expansion upon Marxist concepts to address contemporary social, political, and cultural conditions. For example, post-Marxists bring the critical discourse of classical Marxism that focuses on class struggle as the primary axis of social conflict.
Marxism is not a realm of straightforward answers but a complex area of study that demands intellectual rigour
However, post-Marxists, such as Laclau and Mouffe, in their seminal work Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics, advocate for a radical democracy that recognizes the multiplicity of social struggles and identities. They emphasize the importance of democratic pluralism and the need for broad-based alliances among diverse social movements. Laclau and Mouffe argue that the other forms of oppression, such as those based on gender, race, sexuality, and ethnicity, are equally significant and must be addressed in their own right. Nevertheless, perhaps post-Marxist thinkers now observe a different social structure than what Marx had seen in the 19th century.
A persistent struggle
However, class struggle persists in society, and what classical Marxism offers as a remedy is not unlike the hegemonic cultural transformation theory of Antonio Gramsci and Stuart Hall. On the other hand, Marx criticized trade unionism in England when he saw trade unionists were affiliated with the white English to save their skins. Hence, in his classical thinking, Marx also suggested that to see a radical social movement succeed, it is necessary to link up the trade union movement with the other organs and social members of the state.
Moreover, post-Marxist scholars also assert that the contingency of social and political identities does not always depend on certain contributing factors, such as economic factors that lead to social class fragmentation and a rise in conflict between workers and capitalists. Instead, identities are seen as fluid and constructed through ongoing political and cultural struggles, which Gramsci, Hall, Laclau, and Mouffe also point out.
Another 20th century eminent scholar, Michel Foucault, was not entirely a Marxist; however, his ideas about power, discourse, and social institutions have influenced post-Marxist thought. For example, Foucault invented several social theories, such as power and knowledge, disciplinary power, the panopticon model, governmentality, resistance and power relations and power. Of course, Marxism has some limitations on these social theories. For example, Foucault’s The History of Sexuality talked about the concept of biopower. The biopower theory reflects on the nature and function of a state and the way it regulates individuals’ bodies and mass people. The epochal message of the theory is it focuses on the management of life controlled by the social institutions. Foucault’s theory of governmentality also influences the understanding of how the state and its mechanism control the population, and perhaps it is seen in a state where anarchism prevails.
However, all these avenues have been opened up by the severe intervention of these thinkers on the foundation and superstructure issues. Inspiration has come from various sources, but as a common agenda, neo-Marxists across the spectrum take up socio-philosophical questions on methods of studying society (dialectic), structure and organization, the relationship between theory and socio-political practice, etc. The philosophical concerns of neo-Marxism hold the key to understanding concepts -- such as hegemony (Gramsci), the ideological state apparatus (Althusser) or the public sphere (Habermas) -- that have been hugely influential in sociological theorizing and theoretical-empirical research across societies.
Shifting theories
While there is a connection between classical Marxism, neo-Marxism, and post-Marxism, post-Marxism represents a significant shift from traditional Marxist theory as it seeks to address its perceived limitations and provide a more flexible and inclusive framework for understanding contemporary social and political issues. Yet the rejection of post-Marxism by classical Marxists stems from fundamental disagreements over the primacy of economic factors, the centrality of class struggle, the role of the state, and the methodologies used to analyze social phenomena.
According to the World Bank, in 2022, 712 million people globally lived in extreme poverty, an increase of 23 million compared to 2019. Suppose the economic factor is central to poverty. Therefore, despite the world witnessing the fourth stage of the industrial revolution and the emergence of AI, the fundamental question is still present in the academic discourse: Whether or not classical Marxism is still valid for eliminating the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeois through a social movement in which mass participation is a must.
It is too crucial to recognize the ongoing relevance of Marxism, particularly in the context of globalization and neo-liberalism. This is just a lame observation of pro-capitalist scholars who support the status quo which allows them to escape from their obligations and support the further expansion of capitalism with the exploitation of workers around the globe. For example, when RMG workers in Bangladesh fight for the minimum wage and are essentially quashed by the aggressive support of capitalists and state mechanisms.
Marxism and neo-Marxism, as dynamic theories, incorporate elements of other social theories into their analysis. Marxism, with its economic interpretation of history, and neo-Marxism, using Marx's ideas for anthropological analysis of contemporary society, are not isolated entities. They are interconnected, with a historical correlation that is interesting and highly relevant in scholarly discourse. This interplay of ideas enriches our understanding of societal dynamics.
Opponents, mainly critics of Marxism, often misleadingly portray the theory and their relevant practical implications from the surface
However, it is essential to consider the new elements that have shaped the world differently in the era of globalization and neo-liberalism during the current phase than what Marx saw in previous centuries, mainly in the 19th century, when capitalism was on the rise in Europe and worker exploitation was a dominant discourse in Marxism. Now the question is, do we see the world stand by the side of workers or marginalized populations, or is capitalism still exploiting workers? If so, then the validity of Marxism is still sustained.
Opponents, mainly critics of Marxism, often misleadingly portray the theory and their relevant practical implications from the surface and with a sceptical understanding of Marxism and claim that it is an invalid theory in the capitalist system of production in its present form. From research, a brief analysis suggests that there are many branches of Marxism. However, Marx's theory of exploitation comes mainly from two variables: (a) Low wages for workers and (b) surplus labour, which comes from pressure from capitalists or factory owners (employers). Therefore, these profoundly affect the relationship between workers and employers, affecting society, which means that Marxism is still valid in any form in the age of globalization and neo-liberalism.
Furthermore, as stated earlier, Marxism is not an imposed concept, theory, or model; instead, it is a fact-based philosophy that a good scholar must interpret from the heart and the practical observations, not from delusion. To be also aware that Marxism is not about the Communist Manifesto, which many scholars wrongly try to justify. Scholars often presuppose and devalue Marxism from the rise and fall of communism in Russia and Eastern and Central Europe over the past century, narrowing the concept of true Marxism in scholarly debate.
With a deeper understanding and the current state of exploitation of workers worldwide, it can clearly be said that Marxism will remain valid in academic discourse and industrial relations theory for an extended period of time until the world sees people (mainly workers) and their adequate inclusion in society to achieve social justice for all.
However, despite its sluggish process, the social movement in the 21st century is a must, and it must begin from the state level. It is a Marxist or better approach from modernist superstition that capitalism as a historical age will end when a new (but not communism) advanced society is in sight and ready to implement a revolutionary cause for the betterment of humanity in the world.
Dr ASM Anam Ullah (PhD) is an Australian academic, human rights activist, and OHS expert.
