Marx predicted that capitalism within a socioeconomic system would inevitably create internal tensions between social classes leading to its demise and replacement by a new system, communism. For Marx, the concept of class has always existed in society. Historically, a society has always been arranged into various orders of social rank. A defining characteristic of capitalism however, is that “it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (Marx and Engels 1848).
The decline of the Romanovs and the Russian revolution occurred due to varying influences externally and internally. The social and economic state of Russia and the changes transpiring had a large impact of the fall of the Dynasty. The actions of the Tsar and the influence from figures such as Rasputin helped to create discontent in Russian society. The character of Nicholas also helped to increase the social uprising and it was seen clearly that he lacked the capacity to effectively lead a country. The introduction of revolutionary ideas assisted sealing the fate of the Tsar.
This was an economic concession that Lenin was forced to make due to the deteriorating economic conditions and the real threat of a revolt against the Bolshevik government. It was always intended as a temporary measure, and the question after Lenin’s death wasn’t whether it should continue or not, but how it should be put an end to. The debate lay between the left-wing, lead by Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who advocated a quick movement into rapid industrialisation, which would mean abandoning the New Economic Policy, militarising the labour forces and exploiting peasants for grain to fund the industrialisation; and the right-wing, led by Bukharin, who wanted to continue the New Economic Policy for another 20 years, which would mean peasants would grow wealthier and be encouraged to buy consumer goods, which in turn would lead to more products being made in factories and a gradual process of industrialisation. This became a passionate issue because economic policy was also at the heart of the debate of what a socialist society should look like. The growth of a rich super class led to activities such as property dealing, land speculation, gambling and prostitution, all of which conflicted greatly with the ideology of Communism.
Assess the usefulness of Marxist approaches to an understanding of crime and deviance in contemporary society Marxist criminologists argue that the state passes laws which support ruling-class interests, and maintain its control and power over the subject class. They put forward the view that laws do not reflect value consensus, but instead reflect the values of ruling class ideology. Therefore, laws work towards false class consciousness, as laws only benefit the ruling minority. Many Marxists also argue that there are a vast number of laws protecting property, and Snider (1993) argued the state is often reluctant to pass laws which might threaten profitability. She also argued capitalist states often pour large amounts of money into attracting business; for example offering new investors tax concessions and grants.
There can be no ignoring the effect that World War I had on Russia, with the crippling affects of a major war and the resulting breakdown of infrastructure within the Russian Empire. From 1903 when the Bolsheviks were formed a rising threat had emerged to Tsardom, The Marxist intellectual Vladimir Lenin was emerging as an influential light in the revolutionary movement. His earlier pamphlet entitled ‘What is to be done?’ outlined his need for more organisation, discipline, and leadership within the socialist parties. His idea of having a tight-knit exclusive organisation of professional revolutionaries showed he had the coherent theories to be a real threat to Tsarism. According to Alan Wood, Lenin described the 1905 revolution as a ‘dress rehearsal’.
Assess the view that Lenin's rule between 1917 and 1924 was merely a brutal dictatorship 'Lenin the affable genius or Lenin the irascible tyrant" The two contrasting views which many historians still debate, whether Lenin was simply a mindless dictator or the soviet view which historian Read hints at by the words of "affable genius", in that Lenin's authoritarian rule was simply a way of maintaining control of the proletariat in order to further the socialist cause, and would then change back to communism when able to. Other historians take a different view and agree with Lenin himself when he said that the dictatorship was part of 'adaptations to the prevailing circumstances’, a reference to the substantial social, economic and political problems Russia faced such as extreme famine and the outbreak of civil war in 1918, but due to his strong marxist beliefs, it seemed that a brutal rule was the only option in taming the unrest throughout the country, particularly if he wanted to avoid a repetition of events such as the February revolution. Especially when putting into context, that up until 1917 Russia had endured a repressive tsar regime, which used brutality and force to maintain control, so the population were used to conforming by the threat of violence and judging by Lenins' statement of 'The soviet revolutionary republic will triumph no matter what the cost" it seems that Lenin felt it necessary to continue this ideology in order for Russia to function correctly. The level of brutality that Lenin used though is somewhat questionable, but in incidents such as Kronstadt, where the infamously barbaric Cheka were used to regain control, supports the view that rather that Lenin limiting the brutality of his regime " In fact he wanted the brutality to be as intense as possible in the short term so that it might not need to be unduly extended in time" so even
The working class want the ‘things’ that they see the middle classes with but they can't afford them so they resort to crimes such as stealing as a means of getting what they want. The explanation the marxists would give about the cause of crime is the working class fighting back against oppression and making their own means of acquiring wealth and the life of luxury. Marxists have many explanations of what causes crime, Traditional Marxists say that capitalism causes crime, the term we use for this is criminogenic capitalism. Crime is created by the structure of the capitalist society, the ruling class exploit the working class as they own the means of production. The working class gain a desire for material things, but breaking the law may be the only way that they can acquire the consumer good that they desire.
Communists do not stand apart from other workers, but are made up of the most advanced political sections of the working class. Marx says that Communists have been "reproached" for desiring to abolish the "right" of acquiring private property through the fruits of one's labor. However, he points out laborers do not acquire any property through their labor. Marx said " we communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally……..to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.” (374) Marx wanted to abolish all individuality freedom, and independence. Marx argument was against the "infamous" communist proposal of abolishing the family.
As a political philosopher, Marx disapproved of the capitalist system; particularly on the way how production was run. Therefore along with other economists, Karl Marx created communism. Marx’s communism is described to have no class structure and the wealth of production is served to reach the needs of common good. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx were writing in different socio- economic times, hence it is not surprising that their ideas conflicted with each other. Adam Smith lived through a mercantile system, which he highly opposed therefore the idea of a free market system seemed to be the best solution in a time period before the industrial revolution.
In fact, since Marx adopted the theory of conflict, the capitalist exploiter in society is experiencing at the extreme, the proletarian consciousness of the triggers and the fall of the capitalist society and the coming of communism. The Marxist perspective also tries to apply this conflicting