critically discuss the marxian
approach to the study of political science
Answers
Answer+Explanation:
Marxism as a theoretical framework of studying societies emphasises on the material relations of production and describes various historical epochs in terms of its major contradictions based on the relations of production, called the class contradictions. Thus, within Marxist thought, the prime identity of a person is his or her class identity. As the hopes of Marx and Engels were fixed on class struggle, they did not put much emphasis on the issue of nationalism which proposes to unite people across class divisions, and blunts class consciousness.
But they could not totally ignore the historical events of the time, and interpreted various nationalist movements within Europe. While recognizing the fact that nationalist movements are mostly organized by bourgeois classes, they argued that it is a necessary step in the path towards communism, as bourgeois nationalism is the harbinger of capitalism in feudal societies.
Marx and Engels, however, did not presume that the historically progressive nature of capitalism in relation to feudalism would automatically justify support for every national movement. Rather, they emphasised the need to politically assess the national movements in each context, to decide whether they are worthy of support or not. Thus, Marx and Engels opposed the national movement of the Slavic people, of the Serbs, Croats and Czechs, during the 1848 revolutions of Europe, arguing that these forces were counter-revolutionary for a communistic social change.
Further, their support to the nationalist movements, wherever existed, was on a strategic ground rather than on any intrinsic value that they thought to be existing in national mobilizations. Rather they believed that with the expansion of capitalism, both in Europe and around the world, the significance of nation-states and movements for national independence would be lessened. The real eradication of national oppression, according to Marx and Engels, is possible not through nationalism, but only through socialism.
In this context, the writings of Karl Marx on the 'Asiatic mode of production', and his view that despite its coercive nature, a progressive role was played by colonial rule to help India break out of its age-old stagnant village societies is crucial (Thorner 1966).
Both Marx and Engels, however, at a later stage talk about the important role played by bourgeois nationalist revolutions to bring in democratic freedoms, where a socialist revolution was not yet possible.
To deal with the national question, Soviet communist Vladimir Lenin said that we need to make a clear distinction between two periods of capitalism. The first period is a period of waning feudalism and absolutism when bourgeois democratic society and state institutions are formed. According to Lenin, during this period, the national movements are mass movements that draw all classes of the population into politics. The second period is more complex. In the second period, the capitalist state is fully formed, and is characterized by long-established constitutional regimes. This phase is also characterized by a high level of antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeois classes.
According to Lenin, to take a decision on whether to lend support to a nationalist movement or not, the second period poses more difficult challenges for a Marxist. He points out certain important questions that one must try to seek answers to, before taking any course of action. Firstly, there is a need to see whether the people asking for nationality rights are really oppressed. Secondly, we need to ask whether a consciousness of being a nation has been formed among those who are oppressed. The existence of such a consciousness shows the actual existence of a nation. Thirdly, and most importantly, socialists must ask whether the support to such a nationalist movement would advance the interests of the working class. While asking this question, Lenin pointed out, that the leadership of a nationalist movement is invariably bourgeois at the beginning; but such oppressed bourgeois leadership, working for their own minority interest, also do have a general democratic content directed against oppression. He suggested that the unconditional support of the Marxists towards nationalist movements is only for this specific democratic content.