How does neo-Marxist or post-Marxist theories of ideology differ from the classical Marxist tradition Essay Example

How does neo-Marxist or post-Marxist theories of ideology differ from the classical Marxist tradition? Essay In a recent BBC online poll for finding the greatest thinker of the Millenium, Karl Marx came first. That Marx beat Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin and Stephen Hawking among other leaders in their fields amounts to a big statement of Marx’s relevance in the new millenium. The relevance of the results is magnified when we consider that neo-liberal capitalism has established itself as the dominant economic ideology today. With many leading economists of our time, including Thomas Friedman, Joseph Heath (and to a lesser extent Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz) not being critical of the capitalist ideology, the poll results give away the public pulse on this important issue. It is reasonable to assume that public sentiment and government economic policies (usually informed by contemporary economists noted above) are pulling in opposite directions. And the tensions created by these opposing tendencies are already giving rise to widespread social unrest, as shown by the emergen ce of the global solidarity movement and the World Social Forum. (Frankel,1997, p.58) In this context, it makes for an interesting exercise to understand contemporary interpretations, revisions and adaptations of Marxism, which have come to be termed variously as neo-Marxism and post-Marxism. Some of the leading figures in the neo-Marxist movement are Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Max Weber, Karl Korsch and others. To a lesser extent French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and Frankfurt School founders Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno contributed to the broader understanding of traditional Marxist theories. One of the driving forces for neo-Marxist and post-Marxist thought is the perceived inadequacies of conventional Marxist ideology in explaining and providing solutions to common politico-economic problems. For example, in the century and a half that has passed since Marx’s original theoretical formulation, only a few violence-ridden revolutions have taken place – a fact that belies Marx’s prophecies on communist revolutions. The establishment of socialist regimes at the end of such revolutions too have not lasted for long (barring the case of China). Even politically overhauling events such as the two world wars have not spurre d the implementation of communist ideology in a meaningful manner. While the erstwhile Soviet Union was nominally a communist state, in reality it was a brutal dictatorship not hesitant to crack the whip on its own masses. In the case of China, which is considered the last bastion for Marxist ideology, inequities between the elite and the masses has widened multi-fold since the country joined the neo-liberal bandwagon. (Frankel,1997, p.63) It is no surprise then, that traditional Marxism continues to be scrutinized and analysed for possible chinks in its ideological composition. This is the rationale for the emergence of neo-Marxist and post-Marxist ideologies of the last century, which is continuing even today. While neo-Marxist ideologies that have emerged in the twentieth century can be said to refine and reconfigure aspects of traditional Marxism, post-Marxism goes a step further and radically redefines its theoretical foundations. We will write a custom essay sample on How does neo-Marxist or post-Marxist theories of ideology differ from the classical Marxist tradition? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on How does neo-Marxist or post-Marxist theories of ideology differ from the classical Marxist tradition? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on How does neo-Marxist or post-Marxist theories of ideology differ from the classical Marxist tradition? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Intellectuals like Antonio Gramsci, Georg Lukacs and Karl Korsch are identified as the first wave of neo-marxist theorists, who have made immense contributions to the Marxist discourse. Antonio Gramsci was born in 1891, into a poor Italian family. Having seen his father’s financial struggles first-hand, as well as suffering due to his chronic bad health, it was natural for Gramsci to gravitate toward Marxist ideology. Despite not having a strong formal education, the self-educated Gramsci soon gained a reputation for his insightful scholarship and revolutionary thoughts. At a very young age he became the leader of the Communist Party of Italy. But the prospects for both his own personal security and the survival of his party were threatened by the rise of Fascism under Benito Mussolini. (Mclellan, 2007, p.11) Inspired by Marxist ideology at a very young age, Gramsci’s lifetime work involved identifying drawbacks in traditional Marxist thought and offering new solutions for old problems. One of his chief contributions was the notion of ‘hegemony’, which can be defined as the ideological co-option of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Gramsci was the first to identify that physical force is no longer the primary instrument of coercion and subordination of the proletariat. To the contrary it is the ideological conversion of the minds of the working class into believing the bourgeoisie propaganda. It should be remembered that under traditional Marxist framework, it was state power, as expressed by the police and bureaucracy which was the primary instrument of working class subordination. Gramsci correctly identified and expressed how this no longer holds true. Indeed, while Marx recognized the role of police in maintaining economic order, it was neo-Marxists such as Gramsci and Weber who explained new manifestations of power. (Mclellan, 2007, p.142) Gramsci notes in his Prison Notebooks that hegemony is a condition â€Å"in which the supremacy of a social group is achieved not only by physical force (which Gramsci called â€Å"domination† or â€Å"command†) but also through consensual submission of the very people who were dominated (a phenomenon that Gramsci variously called â€Å"leadership,† â€Å"direction,† or â€Å"hegemony†).† (Litowitz, 2000. p. 515) He goes on to say that there are two axes of domination: â€Å"The supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as â€Å"domination† and as â€Å"intellectual and moral leadership†. A social group dominates antagonistic groups, which it tends to â€Å"liquidate†, or to subjugate perhaps even by armed force; it leads kindred and allied groups. A social group can, and indeed must, already exercise â€Å"leadership† before winning governmental power (this indeed is one of the principal conditions for the winning of such power); it subsequently becomes dominant when it exercises power, but even if it holds it firmly in its grasp, it must continue to â€Å"lead† as well.† (Litowitz, 2000. p. 515) Gramsci’s notion of hegemony finds resonance in modern political discourse in the works of Noam Chomsky, the MIT linguist and philosopher. His book Manufacturing Consent (first published in 1988 and made into an award winning documentary film a few years later) talks about ruling-class propaganda apparatus, which has become the most potent mechanism of suppressing dissent and unrest in the general population. Drawing upon the conception of ‘hegemony’ by Gramsci, Chomsky himself had written a book titled ‘Hegemony or Survival’, which is a strong critique of American foreign policy under neo-liberal capitalist ideology. Unlike Gramsci, though, Chomsky cannot be bracketed under neo-Marxist or post-Marxist ideologies. While decidedly belonging to the American and global Left, Chomskyan analysis is remarkable for its ideological underplay while maintaining analytic rigour. (Bieler Morton, 2004, p.86) While the connection between the pervasion of hegemony and the education system is articulated most clearly by Chomsky, it was Gramsci who first identified its presence. According to him, the term ‘intellectual’ in the conventional sense is no longer accurate in describing those representatives of bourgeoisie who assume positions of power in the academia and mainstream media. In media parlance, what are called ‘talking heads’ are there to serve the interests of their own class, which is usually the ruling class. And hence, their interpretations and opinions should be treated with scepticism by the working classes. (Bieler Morton, 2004, p.89) Having first recognized that hegemony entails the battle for people’s minds, Gramsci went on to point out the role of bourgeoisie intellectuals in perpetrating hegemony by subtly restricting the range of thought and opinion. Hegemony could be seen in operation in major institutions such as the courts and th e parliaments. While the conventional mode of domination is linked to â€Å"coercive state action by the courts, the police, the army, and the national guard†, the modern mode of hegemony is â€Å"more insidious and complicated to achieve. It involves subduing and co-opting dissenting voices through subtle dissemination of the dominant group’s perspective as universal and natural, to the point where the dominant beliefs and practices become an intractable component of common sense. In a hegemonic regime, an unjust social arrangement is internalized and endlessly reinforced in schools, churches, institutions, scholarly exchanges, museums, and popular culture. Gramsci’s work on hegemony provides a useful starting point for legal scholars who understand that domination is often subtle, invisible, and consensual.† (Litowitz, 2000. p. 515) Max Weber is another important intellectual who has added to the neo-Marxist body of work. Weber, who was a successor to the socio-economic analytic tradition established by Marx, made critical observations of many of Marx’s theories and expanded traditional Marxist ideology. While Weber made important contributions to Marx’s work, he also brought in unique sociological perspectives to communist commentary. In this sense, Weber’s approach to explaining the rise of modern society can be stated as a ‘debate with the ghost of Karl Marx’ (Bakker, 1999, p.289). To begin with, there is considerable overlap between both their viewpoints, especially with respect to state power in capitalist societies. This is most visible in the role played by police, which is a law-enforcing agency. While the stated purpose of this agency is to serve the interests of the general public, it inevitably sides-up the wealthy and the powerful. In what is a neo-Marxist sys thesis spanning Marx, Weber and Chomsky, the role played by propaganda in modern societies can be seen as another manifestation of the conventional role played by police in controlling public unrest.