The strengths and weaknesses of the marxist theory of Revolution 




 Bibliography 

T. Carver               Marxs Social Theory            Oxford University Press         1982 
A C MacIntyre           Marxism: An Interpretation      SCM Press                       1953 
K. Post                 Regaining Marxism               MacMillan Press Ltd             1996 
P. Worsley              Marx & Marxism          Ellis Horwood Ltd               1982 
J. Townsend             The Politics of Marxism         Leicester University Press      1996 
D. McNally              Socialism from Below            EMU Press                       1986 
K. Marx & F. Engels     Communist Manifesto                                             (ibid) 
P. Singer               Marx                                                            1980 
A S Cohan               Theories of Revolution                                          1975 
T. Cliff                        Permanent Revolution            International Socialism         1963 
journal first series 
number 61 

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Marxist theory of revolution? 

        The Marxist theory of revolution must be evaluated in two lights in regards to its strengths and
weaknesses, first how it was relevant in Marxs era, second how it was relevant after his death.  The
two conclusions that could be reached by  assessing his theories in relation to the two different eras
could be expected to reach quite disparate resolutions.  Marx had the belief, inherited from Hegel
that the evolution of society was a valid philosophical topic, therefore he wrote his utopian ideals of
revolution with this in mind.  That is the greatest strength of his theory, that it can be altered
dependant upon the society of the day.  The fact that most of his writings are only relevant to the
world as he knew it does not obscure the fact that some of his meta narratives are still relevant and
thus strong in theory.  However, while some of the salient points in Marxs theory were once
relevant and simply became out dated, it could be argued, and has by several authors, that some of
his points were never particularly strong, based as they were on inaccurate information. 

The Manifesto was written on two levels, one which analyses the tendencies of society, the patterns
and historical points of interest, where they examine the underlying tendencies of a phenomenon, i.e.
world society.  This specific analysis was based in economics.  The other level of analysis, this one
hypothetical, which finds the existence of actual impurities in the model  in the form of political and
social factors which are   in 
some way independent from, or interact with the economic model.  This manner of theory was
strong, however it was one which needed constant revision.  They themselves in their introduction to
the German edition of the Communist Manifesto asserted that  its general principles were still
correct, although their practical application depended everywhere and at all times, on the historical
conditions for the time being existing.  It could be argued that the need for revision was also its
strength as it remained, at least past the two authors life times, relevant. 

Even in Marxs time other revolutionary groups, such as the Anarchists, argued that Marxs theories
were flawed, but these were his rivals and so their criticisms could in a sense be taken with a pinch
of salt;  however, they are still worth mentioning.  The Anarchists claimed that his revolution would
result in a new state and a new kind of class society,  with exactly the same values that they were
attempting to overthrow.  To a certain extent, history has proved them right, in countries where
Marxism is still followed, there is indeed two classes of society and a new system.  It is not truly
accurate to place the blame on Marxs theory, the countries which follow Marxism have generally
deviated from his true intent. 

Marxs writings had a mix of both truth with tangible evidence and some less well founded
arguments. For example, his writing: 

"What I did that was new was to prove" 

There was nothing new in what Marx proved, merely his interpretation of the data that was new. 
This meant that his theories were valid in the sense that they did have the base of solid rationale,  but
they had Marxs assumptions altering them slightly.  For example, Marx showed that classes were
shaped by changing social circumstance. However, in order to carry this obvious point to his own
conclusion, that class struggle lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat,  he could only rely on his
own deduction for evidence. 

As A MacIntyre  points out,   much of Marxs information and data that he used to write the
Communist Manifesto and Capital was gathered from Ricardo and Smith, economists of the time.
Whilst Marx took their information verbatim, later critics have 

mentioned that neither man was considered a good economist.   The two economists ignored the
economic trend, preferring to study static economy. This meant that the communist Manifesto, a
pamphlet ideally supposed to be malleable enough to fit to any sociological change, fell down when
capitalism altered in an unexpected manner.           T Carver  considers that Marxs theory was
entirely dependant upon this economic data, and therefore totally inaccurate.  However, other critics
and devotees of Marxism are not so quick to completely disregard the theories.  Alex Callinicos ,
self described as one of the last true Marxists, insists that while Marxs theories were economically
based, they are not dependant upon the economic data and therefore relevant even allowing for
inaccurate data. Either way, the fact that his theory was so fundamentally flawed is an obvious
weakness, however, the fact that Marxs prediction of the downfall of capitalism were correct apart
from two major facts suggests that his theory does support the view that communism was not entirely
based upon Marxs view of economy. 

Aside from the theories on the proletariat and economics, Marxs theories on the nature of capitalism
were also highly relevant to his overall view of the necessity of communism.  He considered that
capitalism had the tendency to self-destruct and create the necessary conditions for a socialist
society.   However, while this was applicable in his era, the world did not alter as he expected. 
Capitalism developed at different speeds in different countries.  It was also more antagonistic and
resilient than he had supposed.  Plus, the working class did not live up to the hegemonic expectations
he had of them. 

In his expectation of the collapse of capitalism and a proletariat revolution, Marx had not considered
either the rise of trade unions or the discovery of new capitalistic markets, colonialism.  Both of these
factors had a great impact, both upon the manner in which capitalism functioned in society and the
manner in which communism functioned in society.  Capitalism became more complex and
communism suddenly lost one of its major standing points, the role of the proletariat.  In Marxs era
neither of these was a factor, his initial judgement had been based upon the world as he knew of it. 
Both of these factors however have been very important in the continuation of capitalism.  It could
be said that Marx was partially correct in his assessment of capitalism, being proven in the 1929
depression and the subsequent other, smaller, market crashes such as that in the mid eighties. 

The fact that none of the depressions, the large one in 1929 included,  produced a revolution is in
part due to the fact that there were two factors involved which Marx had not considered in his
theory.  The first was that in times of trouble, a nation tends to pull together in nationalistic sympathy,
rather than fight each other.  The second was that capitalism had advanced to such a point it could
actually buy its way out of the depressions and recessions.  Although this really was non-existent 
funds being spent, it succeeded in moving the money around the country once more. 

Capitalism has not had entirely the effect Marx prophesied on another level.  The class system has
not been widened further so as too become the masses as the proletariat and only a few rich
capitalists.  Quite the contrary has occurred with the distinction becoming blurred.  How much of this
could be accredited to Marx himself is beyond estimate.  Whether the degree of blurring would have
occurred without Marxs impact there is no telling.  Still, it must be argued that Marx failed to take
into account in his theory that power becomes more important that profit.  Also, Marx failed to take
into account the importance of the middleman  who makes capitalism work.  With the advance of
capitalism comes the increase of the middle class, creating the class which actually runs the
capitalistic society.  Another great weakness of Marxs theory of revolution was his omitting to
consider that as a capitalistic society becomes richer, the 

proletariat profit.  The more advanced capitalist countries are also those which have the highest
standard of living, which runs directly contrary to Marxs theory. 

These mistakes in the estimation of capitalism has cost Marxism a great deal of credit.  The fact that
capitalism still works, granted some theorists, mainly Marxists, propose that the system is in a
downward spiral, eventually to destroy itself, means essentially that Marx was wrong, his theory was
too weak.   This viewpoint however would be inaccurate, much of what Marx  prophesied in his era
would have occurred, should the situation have remained static.  If the system were ever to break
down to such a level as it was in Marxs time, it would be safe to speculate that Marxs theories
would at least in part have some tangible evidence to back them up. 

Marx only considered the human factor in his theories in an abstract sense.  The proletariat only
became a factor in his theory of revolution quite late on in his writings and philosophical life. The fact
that Marx was writing his manifesto for the proletariat, not the majority of the populace at the time,
suggests one of two things. 
The first was that he perhaps changed his view that economics was the most important dynamic
factor in the evolution of society, affecting the people and instead began to consider that the
proletariat was in fact the dynamic force;  or there is another more substantiated theory. 

The fact that the Communist Manifesto, as previously mentioned, was  not written for a proletariat
majority, must have been recognised by Marx.  It could be assumed therefore that Marx felt that in
order to restore balance to the socialist movement, he must focus completely on one aspect and not
deviate.  In that sense, the theory was very strong, as he indeed did not deviate from his views even
in the face of evidence against them.  The manner in which Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto
could be considered evidence of a strength, he judged his readers well.  It was written in an emotive
manner, designed to imbue the proletariat with, as J Townsend  comments,  a confidence in, and an
awareness of, its own historic destiny 

As AJP Taylor comments, the theory of revolution ignores cases where rivalry occurs between
nations or factions of more or less equal strength.  The proletariat could work against each other in
much the same manner as the capitalists worked against each other.  Marx seemed to consider that
conflicts only appeared between classes, thus forming a revolution. He never considered that conflict
could also arise within a class.  This ran counter to all the economic experience, save that of Ricardo
and Smith.  One of the greater faults at the basis of Marxs theory was his lack  of understanding of
nationalism, he instead sought to discredit those backing national freedom, his revolutionary rivals. 

The main strengths of Marxs argument for revolution is that history has proven him correct on two
counts.  His foretelling of capitalism and the proletariat were both accurate.  The fact that he failed to
grasp the complexity is not really relevant.  In his era he was correct simply because the complexities
did not occur then. Capitalism was a simple as his theory.  The manner in which capitalism worked in
Marxs day was indeed doomed. The employer believing he could only survive by paying his
employees a very low wage for many hours work is used only in the poorer countries.  The
advances that capitalism has taken were completely beyond Marxs theory. 

Although Marxs theory is seriously flawed, as the above shows, there were also some very
significant strengths.  The greatest evidence of this is that Marxists still follow his philosophies and his
thoughts are taken seriously, granted with some modification.  The strengths of his theory are mostly
based in the historical sense, where it can be shown 

he was right for his era or mostly right by todays standards.  All politics is now tinged with Marxism,
free schooling is more or less directly Marxs work.  One on four people 
live in a government that describes itself as a Marxist government.  While these are in the poorer
countries, this is not necessarily a sign that Marxism would not work; Marx himself stated that
communism and socialism could only be achieved in a society which was sufficiently rich. 

One of the greatest strengths, and weaknesses, of Marxs theory of revolution, as the above has
shown, is how translatable to the readers ideal it is.  The fact that several disparate governments,
both historically and contemporary consider themselves to follow the bible that is the Communist
Manifesto shows this.  Marxs theory of revolution is open to interpretation, its true meaning is often
difficult, if not impossible, to divulge, especially with his later works.  In the end only speculation can
determine what the true strengths and weaknesses of Marxs theory of revolution are; whether Marx
would have ultimately been right had his era continued as he foresaw, and only the future can prove
whether he will be right should capitalism collapse under its own weight. 
  
  



Word Count: 2242 