THE FUTURE OF MARXISM

                                  Sean Sayers

                       University of Kent at Canterbury



Has Marxism a future, now that communism has collapsed throughout
Eastern Europe and is in crisis everywhere else?  It is often
said that Marxism is discredited and refuted by these events:
they signify the triumph of capitalism and the free market, the
`end of history'.  At the other extreme, some Marxists in the
West would like to believe that history has not yet begun.  For
them, socialism is still a distant dream.  The old regimes of the
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe had nothing to do with true
socialism.  Their demise, therefore, has no bearing on Marxism:
no rethinking is required.

      Neither of these responses is satisfactory.  It is clear
that the momentous changes that have occurred cast doubt on many
aspects of Marxism, and necessitate a fundamental rethinking of
some of its most basic ideas.  Dramatic as these events have
been, however, they do not signify the end of Marxism.  This is
what I shall argue.  First, I will briefly explain why, in my
view, it is wrong to think that Marxism has been entirely
refuted; and then I will discuss some of the issues on which, I
believe, rethinking is necessary.

Marxism and Capitalism

Marx's work is focused primarily on the analysis and explanation
of capitalist society.  Capitalism, he shows, is a system which
involves ineliminable contradictions.  For this reason, it is not
the `end of history'.  It is a particular stage of historical
development, which is eventually destined to pass away and be
superseded by further stages.  Marx's elaboration of this theory,
though now more that 100 years old, continues to provide by far
the most comprehensive and powerful account of the capitalist
system.

      This is not to suggest that Marx's account of capitalism can
any longer be accepted in its entirety.  In some respects, it has
clearly been refuted by the actual course of history during the
last 100 years.  The advanced capitalist societies have proved
far more durable, economically successful and politically
democratic, than Marx or other early socialists ever envisaged
possible.  Contrary to Marx's expectations, the working class in
these societies has not been impoverished, nor has it become a
revolutionary force.  The Marxist account of capitalism must be
revised to take account of these facts, if it is to continue to
have application to the modern world.

      In other respects, however, Marx's account of the nature and
development of capitalism has proved remarkably accurate.  When
Marx was writing, in the 19th century, capitalism was
unchallenged; socialism was not a significant force anywhere in
the world.  Since then, capitalism has been overthrown by
revolutionary movements in large areas of the world, and
socialism has become a major political force almost everywhere
else.

      Moreover, the economic and social conditions which, in the
past, drove capitalism into crisis have not ceased to exist.  The
contradictions which, Marx argues, are inherent in capitalism are
still present.  These are most evident in the Third World, where
many still live below subsistence level and where the conditions
for revolution are ever present.  And, it must be remembered, the
capitalist system includes much of the Third World.  Those who
talk of the triumph of capitalism tend to forget this, and think
only of advanced capitalist societies.

      Even in advanced capitalist societies, class divisions and
conflicts persist; and the cycle of boom and depression has not
been eliminated (though it is now more controlled than
previously).  No doubt, the nature of the classes which make up
modern capitalist society has changed significantly since the
19th century, and this is another aspect of Marxism that needs
basic rethinking; but there is no good reason to believe that
class division has ceased to be a fundamental feature of
capitalist society.  In short, the contradictions of capitalism,
which Marx describes, still exist.  And, while they continue to
do so, there is no reason to believe that capitalism constitutes
the `end of history', or that the basic ideas of Marxism have
been refuted.

The Socialist World

However, what gives plausibility to the view that Marxism has
been refuted is not its account of capitalism, but rather the
crisis in the socialist world.  It is these events which cast
doubt on traditional ideas of socialism, and necessitate a basic
reassessment of Marxism.

      Before describing some of the areas in which such
reassessment is needed, however, it is also important to see that
the socialist experience has not been entirely negative, at least
in those countries where socialism has come about through a
revolutionary, and not by external imposition.  Thus the Russian
revolution was an epoch-making historical achievement; a turning
point not only in Russian but in world history.  As a result of
it, Russia emerged out of the chaos and disintegration of
Czarism.  Despite civil war and a devastating world war, it has
developed from semi-feudal backwardness, into an industrial
nation and a world power.  In the process, the health, education
and material well-being of the Russian people have improved very
greatly.  Similar things can be said of China.  This indicates
that there is some validity in the ideas of socialism, and that
they should not be entirely rejected on the basis of the current
crisis.

      This is not to deny  still less to excuse or condone  the
terrible human cost of these developments for the Russian people. 
Nor is it to deny the acuteness of the crisis which has now
engulfed the communist world.  This crisis necessitates a
fundamental rethinking of traditional ideas of socialism.  And
the issues go deep: they involve some of the most basic tenets of
the theory of Marxism itself.  I will focus particularly on two
main areas where such rethinking is needed (without wishing to
suggest these are the only problematic areas).

Democracy

The relation of socialism and democracy is the main _political_
issue raised by the crisis of communism.  Socialism is supposed
to be a democratic form of society; but actually existing
communist regimes have not been so.  In the Marxist tradition
there has been a disastrous tendency to reject the liberal and
pluralistic idea of democracy.  The state, Marx argues, is a mere
instrument of class rule.  In capitalist society, the state is a
bourgeois state; and the existence of parliamentary institutions
and individual legal rights does not alter this fact.  Hence
Marxists have often dismissed parliamentary democracy as a
charade which hides the true character of the state, and
presented `socialist democracy' as an alternative to it.

      Socialists have rightly insisted that there is more to full
and genuine democracy than the existence of the rule of law and a
pluralistic political system.  These can coexist with very great
real inequalities of power and influence, as experience in the
West shows.  Nevertheless, the central political lesson of 1989
is that a pluralistic political framework is a necessary
condition for democracy.  Socialist democracy must not,
therefore, be regarded as an alternative to liberal democracy.  
Rather, it should be seen as a continuation and further
development of liberal democracy, involving the extension of
democratic rights from the political to social and economic
areas.

      A pluralistic system is needed when there are different
classes or interest groups in society, each demanding political
representation.  This is certainly the case in capitalist
societies, where different classes and interest groups exist. 
However, it is also the case in communist societies.  An
important lesson of recent events is that different and
contending social groups continue to exist in these societies.

      The Marxist picture of socialism portrays it as a classless
society, and denies the very possibility of this.  According to
Marx, socialism is a `transitional' stage, `between capitalism
and communism'; and he believed that this transition would be
relatively brief and painless.  Once private property in the
means of production is abolished, the material basis for class
differences is, supposedly, eliminated.  Class divisions, and
eventually the state as well, should `wither away' more or less
automatically.  Unfortunately, nothing like this has happened in
any actual communist society.

      Moreover, it is evident that national, regional and racial
social differences persist under socialism.  The traditional
Marxist view is that such differences, and the conflicts they
generate, should lessen automatically as economic development and
integration proceed; and liberals have often shared this view. 
However, experience has shown that these differences and
conflicts are far stronger and more persistent than these
theories suggest.  They have been re-emerging, strongly and
dangerously, in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe.

      There are two important lessons for Marxism in all this. 
First, if socialism is, indeed, a `transitional' stage, then the
process is going to be far lengthier and more problematic than
envisaged by Marx.  Second, during this period, socialist
societies will continue to be divided into conflicting groups,
and socialism must involve a political system in which their
different interests can be effectively represented.  If Marxism
is to be of any use as a theory of socialism, then it must tackle
these issues, rather than functioning as a form of state
propaganda which denies them.

The Role of the Market

The crisis in the communist world has been as much economic as
political.  Traditionally, socialism has been conceived as a
system of state ownership and central planning; while private
ownership and the free market have been seen as definitive of
capitalism.  The socialist economies which were set up according
to these principles in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, had
highly centralised `command' structures, with very little scope
for private enterprise or the free market.  These economies all
suffered from crippling problems of stagnation, waste and
inefficiency.

      The clear lesson from this is that state ownership and
central planning are not efficient in many areas of the economy. 
This is particularly the case with small scale enterprises and
services.  It is essential to question the hostility to the
market and to private ownership which runs through the whole
socialist tradition, and to recognise that there is an essential
role for private enterprise, even in socialist societies.

      Such views are often taken to imply that state ownership and
economic planning cannot work, and that the free market is the
only possible basis for an industrial economy.  This does not
follow.  On the contrary, the pure free market is a myth: it does
not operate anywhere in the world.  In all the main capitalist
countries, major sectors of the economy are controlled and
regulated by the state.  These include basic agriculture,
railways, roads, housing, health, education, and often major
areas of industry as well.  In fact, all economies in the world
today are `mixed' economies, which combine public and private
sectors (although, of course, the specific sectors in public and
private ownership vary greatly in different countries).

      Market forces are not an automatic recipe for economic
development, as experience shows.  Thus, in Britain, it is
doubtful whether Mrs Thatcher's programme has resulted in any
real economic growth.  If the market results in the development
of some regions, it also leads to the impoverishment and
exploitation of others.  It produces stagnation and crisis, as
well as enterprise and growth.  The free market is neither a pure
good nor a pure evil.  Rather, it must be judged according to
whether or not it is effective in promoting economic development.

      The introduction of the market into previously socialised
areas of the economy inevitably increases inequalities and social
divisions.  This has been the experience in Britain, where
unemployment, poverty and social tension have all increased
sharply.  The same effects are now appearing in Eastern Europe as
free market policies begin to operate.  Regrettably, the euphoria
of liberation has been short-lived, and the negative aspects of
the market are beginning to emerge.  These are precisely the
problems inherent in capitalism, which Marx so powerfully
analyses and criticises.  As they intensify, it will become
increasingly clear that we have not reached the `end of history',
and that Marxism  not in its old dogmatic form, but rethought
and renewed  still has much to offer as a theory for
interpreting the modern world and changing it.
 
June 1991