:
Many proponents of
capitalism have argued that capitalism is a more effective means of generating and redistributing wealth than socialism or communism, or that the gulf between rich and poor that concerned Marx and Engels was a temporary phenomenon. Some suggest that self-interest and the need to acquire capital is an inherent component of human behavior, and is not caused by the adoption of capitalism or any other specific
economic system and that different economic systems reflect different social responses to this fact. The
Austrian School of economics has criticized Marx's use of the
labour theory of value. In addition, the political repression and economic problems of several historical
Communist states have done much to destroy Marx's reputation in the
Western world, particularly following the fall of the
Berlin Wall and the
collapse of the Soviet Union. Others suggest that the former USSR was a variant of state capitalism whose collapse does not affect the veracity of Marxism, but vindicates it.
Friedrich Hayek, in 1944, provided the first theoretic reply to Marx. In The Road to Serfdom Hayek shows, or attempts to show, that coordination problems in a socialist economy (the prerequisite for the subsequent pure communism and "whithering away of the state"), whether that socialist economy was democratically controlled or under Leninist direction, would necessarily create bottlenecks as the quasi-labor of "planning" replaces production for use. Followers of Hayek point to the queues and shortages that result from planned rationing (whether in Communist societies or wartime democracies such as Britain from 1939 to 1951) to demonstrate that in the short run, the socialist or Leninist economy seizes up and creates unfairness.
An intriguing critic of Marx, although he also paid tribute to many of Marx's basic ideas, was Louis Feuer, the late professor of philosophy at University of California, Berkeley. In his introduction to Selected Works on Economics and Politics by Karl Marx, published in 1960, Feuer argued strongly for the viewpoint, also expressed by others, that Marxism has many of the characteristics of a religion -- in other words, that Marxism largely depends upon a fervent kind of faith, not provable scientifically, which is typical of religious believers. Just the same, Feuer in his introdution, and in other works, pointed out that Marx has had a very enduring and positive influence on the social and economic thinking of almost every modern country, particularly in Western Europe, but also in the United States. He made the interesting comment that Marxism largely depends upon the injection of ethical thinking into economic and political analysis -- in contrast to modern trends which prefer to discuss these important areas in a totally "objective" manner without ethical values.
Marx has also been criticized from the Left. Some have argued that class is not the most fundamental inequality in history and call attention to
patriarchy or
race, as not being, as Marxists argue, dependent on class. It could however be argued that Marx does not suggest that class divisions are more fundamental than patriarchy, since the division between men and women, as Engels pointed out, predates class divisions, but only that the movement of history can be best understood in terms of class, and that class struggle is the mechanism of change.
Anarchists, on the other hand, have always opposed Marxism, even its most libertarian forms, as being too authoritarian, and missing the basic necessity of rebellion against authority by concentrating on economic matters. (See also
Anarchism and Marxism).
Some today question the theoretical and historical validity of "class" as an analytic construct or as a political actor. In this line, some question Marx's reliance on 19th century notions that linked science with the idea of "progress" (see
social evolution). Many observe that capitalism has changed much since Marx's time, and that class differences and relationships are much more complex — citing as one example the fact that much corporate stock in the United States is owned by workers through pension funds. Critics of this analysis retort that the top 1% of stock owners still own nearly 50% of the nation's publicly traded company stocks.
Still others criticize Marx from the perspective of philosophy of science.
Karl Popper has criticized Marx's theories for not being
falsifiable, which he believed rendered some aspects of Marx’s historical and socio-political argument unscientific; Popper's falsifiability standard has itself always been controversial. Popper also criticized Marx for
historicism, that is, a relativization of truth to a particular historical period.
Some argue that while
socioeconomic gaps between the
bourgeoisie and
proletariat remained, industrialization in countries such as the
United States and
Great Britain also saw the rise of a
middle class not inclined to revolution, and of a
welfare state that helped contain any revolutionary tendencies among the working class. While the economic devastation of the
Great Depression broadened the appeal of Marxism in the developed world, future government safeguards and economic recovery led to a decline in its influence. In contrast, Marxism remained extremely influential in
feudal and industrially underdeveloped societies such as Czarist
Russia, where the
Bolshevik Revolution was successful.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.10009,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
While Marx and Engels focused almost exclusively on developments in the West following the prospective development of capitalism, this left the problems of the less developed nations, such as Russia, largely unaddressed. This perceived problem with Marxist theory - that revolutions nevertheless took place in less developed areas of the world, even rather more than within the most advanced capitalist ones - was known from the beginning of the 20th century, and much of the work of
Vladimir Lenin and other Marxist and Marxian authors and theorists became dedicated to addressing it.
Trotsky famously developed the theory of
Permanent Revolution to show how revolutions in backward countries like Russia could succeed so long as they spread to the West. This was opposed by Stalin, who argued for "Socialism in one country". In essence, Lenin argued, taking the theory from several other contemporary Marxist writers, that through
imperialism the bourgeoisie of wealthy countries is using "superprofits" from the imperial colonies to effectively bribe the working class back home in order to appease it. Nevertheless, after the Russian Revolution of 1917, Western capitalist nations did experience (unsuccessful) revolutions more or less along the "proletarian" lines that Marx envisaged, notably in Germany (1918, 1919, 1923), and Spain (leading to the
Spanish Civil War) with upheavals in France, Italy, and the UK (the
general strike of 1926) and elsewhere.
Critics argue that the Soviet Union's numerous internal failings and subsequent collapse were a direct result of the practical failings of Marxism. Most Marxists on the contrary claim that it was precisely the abandonment of Marxism in the Soviet Union that led to its demise, due to its isolation in a backward country not ripe for socialism according to Marx. Marx saw more advanced modes of production as growing out of mature capitalism, and needing widespread education and democratic apparatuses to allow the eventual control of the state by the people themselves (and eventually, the "withering away of the state" under a truly mature communism) - only possible with a well educated and democratic populace. Marx did not appear to suggest that a stage of economic development could simply be skipped over, as the Soviet ideology implied. Rather, no nation should realistically be able to achieve socialism (let alone a mature communism) until it had developed a modern capitalist system, and mature communism was supposed to require a level of wealth and technology that would allow the basic material needs of all citizens to be produced with very little labor, on average, per person in a given time period. That achievement would then free people's time and energies to fully participate in the democratic running of society, and then to finally overcome the alienation that the pattern of technological revolutions had caused throughout history—a giant arc in which societies developed from the "primitive communism" of small bands that had little or no structural inequality, through the great agrarian empires (usually involving slavery at one end and the richest monarchs at the other) which Marx considered to be the pinnacle of inequality, through feudalism and capitalism to the socialist organisation of society in which all can participate equally due to this technological development. The "elites" of feudal and capitalist society become less able to dominate others either through economics or ideology - their role in society is finished - as the working class develops its strength and becomes the "gravedigger" of capitalism.
Others, like
Shlomo Avineri, have argued that it was the pre-capitalist structure of 1917 Russia, as well as the strong authoritarian traditions of the Russian state and its weak civil society, which pushed the Soviet revolution towards its repressive development.
Critics have also claimed to have shown problems with the concept of historical materialism. At the base of historical materialism, they claim, is the view that the mode of production creates all historical events and changes.
But critics have asked the question `Where does the mode of production come from?'.
Murray Rothbard argues that "...Marx never attempts to provide an answer. Indeed he cannot, since if he attributes the state of technology or technological change to the actions of man, of individual men, his whole system falls apart. For human consciousness, and individual consciousness at that, would then be determining [the mode of production] rather than the other way round." However, Marx's famous
Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy states "In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm Marx clearly attributes the productive forces and their development to the actions of human beings, but emphasises the social nature of this development, based on necessity, the need to maintain their existence, which thus develops "independent of their will", as individuals, and thus impacts back on the individual in ways which reflect the given social conditions.