Political Theory of Marx
Then there is Soviet Marxism as worked out by Vladimir Ilich Lenin and modified by Joseph Stalin, which under the name of Marxism-Leninism (see Leninism) became the doctrine of the communist parties set up after the Russian Revolution (1917). Offshoots of this included Marxism as interpreted by the anti-Stalinist Leon Trotsky and his followers, Mao Zedong’s Chinese variant of Marxism-Leninism, and various Marxisms in the developing world.
In contrast the powerful would be those who own the means of production and would thus have more power and say in the capitalist system. In terms of Marx’s division of society into classes, the powerful would be the bourgeoisie while in the terms of the world-system theory; the powerful would be the countries in the core. Marx was committed to the cause of emancipation and his interest in the development of an understanding of the dynamics of capitalist society was mainly to discover ways to overthrow the prevailing order and replace it with a communist society. Given Marx’s predisposition towards the empowerment of the working class and thus their emancipation, it strongly suggests that Marx’s theory would be mainly for the ‘weak’. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx mentioned, ‘The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country.’ The use of words such as ‘exploitation’ denotes certain antipathy to the bourgeoisies’ method of spreading the capitalist mode of production. Furthermore, the main strands of Marxist thought seem to favour the weak. It is evident in both the World-system theory and Gramscianism. According to World Systems theorists, ‘the core, semi-periphery and periphery are locked in an exploitative relationship in which wealth is drained away from the periphery to the centre.’ Gramsci’s concept of hegemony reflects his conceptualization of power where, by cultivating Machiavelli’s definition of power arrives at the conclusion that power is ‘a mixture of coercion and consent.’
In American capitalism's latest crisis, the combination of growing unemployment and worsening inflation has confounded all the usual experts. The most powerful nation in history cannot erase poverty, provide full employment, guarantee decent housing or an adequate diet or good health care to its people. Meanwhile, the rich get richer (Engels, Friedrich). Only Marxism, as an account ofthe rational unfolding of a basically irrational capitalist system, makes sense of our current chaos. In class struggle, it also points the way out. The rest is up to us.
His conception of their nature derived itself from Hegel’s definition of “mystical,” and this definition, in turn, was Hegel’s reflection on Rumi’s poetry. It is indeed remarkable how far reaching the influence of Rumi can be, from inspiring a new genre of poetry to theories in political-economy. Rumi manages to influence the ideas of philosophers half a millennium after he wrote his poems and still continues to dance amongst us to the tune of a divine flute for what seems like eternity. Jamee calls him the revealer of a Book, whose Masnavi is the Koran in Persian, and Hegel calls him the embodiment of excellence.
Marx, Karl, Wage Labor and Capital.
Engels, Friedrich, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
Marx/Engels, Communist Manifesto.
Marx/Engels, German Ideology, Part 1.