Research Topics: Marxist

Analysis of Marxism

OBJECTIVES As a person with experience knowledge of Marxism, the author has always brought up to his superiors the viability of strategy formation regarding the analysis of Marxism, and at times fails to understand the reasons or logic behind certain strategic implementations imposed on it. By delving into this project paper, the author intends to have better insights into how Marxism was thought up, formulated and then imparted down into the society. The author hopes to have an in-depth understanding as to why there have been criticisms regarding Marxism as a “bankrupt social theory”. In order to reinforce the learning objectives, two key focal issues were focussed upon i.e. innovation and diversity. Innovation was discussed with regard to Marxism where it was renowned for its developmental capabilities to constantly innovate. Diversity came under strategic thinking and formation as the author considered the diverse culture, political climate, economic surroundings, social environment, technological settings, government policies and legal systems in order to better understand Marxism and its criticism of being a “bankrupt social theory”.       EXECUTIVE BRIEF This essay utilized Marxism as the model philosophy to review its present management and how it dealt with critical situations. From the analysis, key trends in the Marxist philosophy were then identified, how it worked and its effectiveness in dealing with critical situations was then ascertained. The paper then moved on to assess these Marxist philosophies with regard to their suitability to critical situations, during which the internal capabilities of these Marxist philosophies in relation to the strategy being followed was determined also. An overall analysis of the criticism regarding Marxism as a “bankrupt social theory” was also conducted to assess and compare the capabilities of Marxist strategies with those of others. Gaps in the Marxist management capabilities and environment were then identified. Finally, several choices of strategies to improve the Marxist philosophy as effective means in critical situations were recommended and evaluated in terms of appropriateness to the issues reviewed, feasibility in carrying out the options and acceptability within the key stakeholders and decision makers. Several key implementation issues related to managing strategic change were also addressed as well.       INTRODUCTION Marxism’s main idea is the efficient and effective implementation of the policies and tasks necessary to satisfy a firm’s customers, employees, and management. Marxism focuses on the careful management of the processes involved in the production and distribution of products and services (Barry, 1992). More often than not, small companies don’t really have the capabilities to implement Marxist ideas and principle. Instead, these companies engage in activities that various schools of management typically associate with Marxism. These activities include the manufacturing of products, product development, production and distribution. However, Marxism deals with all operations done within business firms and social organizations. Activities such as the management of purchases, the control of inventories, logistics and evaluations are often related with Marxism. A great deal of emphasis lies on the efficiency and effectiveness of processes. Therefore, Marxism includes the analysis and management of internal processes. The criticism regarding Marxism that it is a “bankrupt social theory” will be investigated in this research.     REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Strengths of Marxism: <ul type="disc" style="margin-bottom: 0in"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Marxism employs services that boast of a very powerful retail. This includes a reputation for value of money, convenience and a wide variety of services (Dobson, 1992).</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> The Marxist ideas and philosophies have grown significantly over the years, and have experienced global expansion.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Marxism’s main competence lies on the use of labor to fully support its local and international mechanisms. </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Marxism is able to deliver good care to people and society in general, as the limited amount of work would mean plenty of time to devote to the citizens</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Marxism’s lead followers have established a strong reputation within the market.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Marxist principles afford to change direction quickly if the management finds that the firm’s strategy is not effective.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Marxist societies discourage the acquisition of deficits and overheads. Therefore the government can offer good value of service to citizens on a consistent basis.</li> </ul>     Weaknesses of Marxism: <ul type="disc" style="margin-bottom: 0in"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Marxism is one of the world’s most followed philosophies but has a weak control of their subordinates, despite their advantages in labor manipulation. This could lead to a decrease in productivity in some areas where they have the least control of (Lewontin, 1992).</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Since Marxism promotes their products across many sectors, it may lack the flexibility that some of its more focused competitors possess.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Marxism is known globally, but its presence is located in only relatively few countries worldwide.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Some of Marxism’s weaker communities lack market presence or reputation. </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Some of the Marxist’s followers still lack the essential skills base in many areas.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Marxist communities are vulnerable to the temporary losses of its vital people.</li> </ul> Opportunities for Marxism: <ul type="disc" style="margin-bottom: 0in"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Merging, or forming strategic alliances with other strong social philosophies while focusing on strong societies like Europe or the Greater China Region (Trotsky, 1972).</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> The branches of Marxism operate only on trade in a relatively small number of countries all over the world. Thus, this would open the opportunities in expanding to various strong and big communities, such as those in China and Europe.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> The opening of new Marxist communities offers Marxism the opportunities to exploit the community development in various parts of the world. This could lead to the diversification of Marxism’s followers from large centralized communities to local-based sites (Trotsky, 1990).</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Opportunities exist for Marxism to continue with its current strategy of establishing large communities of followers worldwide.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> The Marxist philosophy is continuously expanding, with plenty of future opportunities to exploit for success.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> The local councils of Marxism are in the process of encouraging local businesses with work whenever possible.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> The critics of Marxism may be slow to adapt to new advancements that its followers show.</li> </ul> Threats to Marxism: <ul type="disc" style="margin-bottom: 0in"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Marxism is the target of critics, both locally and globally. </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Being a globally acknowledged philosophy means that Marxism might be exposed to political problems in the countries where it has strong followings.</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> The latest developments in modern societies and their governments could possibly challenge Marxism’s ability to adapt to these changes </li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color: #333333; text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> A slight criticism with a strong impact might wipe out any global position that Marxism has achieved over the years. This could force the Marxist followers to specialize in rapid response but good value services to local businesses. This would put so much pressure on Marxist’s followers to keep informed with the latest changes where possible.</li> </ul> ANALYSIS It is interesting to know the basic negative innate characteristics of Marxism which contribute towards the development of its “bankrupt social theory” image. ·        Disregards Political and Social Stability Political and social stability is crucial especially in the pursuit of the correct decision as well as the management and development of the processes accompanying it. Since Marxism somewhat disregards the importance of political and social stability, it becomes impossible for the society to become updated with the latest developments to be able to stay aware and knowledgeable in all issues (Trotsky, 1975). ·         Disregards Performance and Credibility of Society The production of their best outputs of the society comes as a result of well-funded research management and development activities. The strong performance of their products and outputs in the market could also be linked to the effective strategic planning and human resource mobilization of the society. However, Marxism does not give special importance to the performance and credibility of the people in a society (Mandel, 1982), ·        Disregards Planning and Strategy Formation Capabilities Planning and strategy formation nowadays has created the need for societies to become aggressive especially in the area of marketing themselves. This is because the access to strong distribution channels is critical for their continued popularity. ·        Deprives people of decision-making abilities. Upon arriving at the correct decision or choice, the people in a society now gains confidence in their ability to make critical decisions or choices especially when their society’s integrity is on the line. Thus, they will now search for even more challenges and opportunities where they could further enhance their decision-making abilities regarding current issues. However, in a Marxist philosophy people are meant to simply obey what the existing capitalist rules are (Mandel, 1982). ·        Biased and Partial Mindset of Issues Through the exposure to various Marxist issues, the people in a society along the process are able to develop a biased and partial mindset regarding the issues surrounding them. The people now fail to become a keen observer of the truths and lies surrounding the issue being tackled, instead of searching on for the truth. The continuous exposure of the people behind the puzzling Marxist issues deprives them the opportunity to consistently practice and enhance a healthy and holistic mindset which would make it difficult for their detractors to give influence. Because of this biased and partial approach, the people in a society are not able to effectively select the right choice and continue to maximize this potential for future use (Lenin, 1992). Marxism and its Failure to Educate the Public In lieu of the present developments in Marxism, there have been significant visions of learning that evolved. A majority of these learning visions are based on the idea that learning is a social process where knowledge is denied instead of being acquired passively. Learning, then, transforms into an interactive process. The interaction is being verified through the help of the participants in the learning process such as the public. In this framework, high quality of learning would mean the continued guidance and support of the active learning process of the public. Obviously, this would call for an intensive and phased guiding strategy. And in this aspect Marxism is said to be “bankrupt” (Lenin, 1992) When in the active pursuit of knowledge and skills, the interaction with the public form an integral part towards its success. Through this approach, the general public can learn through the imitation of the techniques in the socialization processes. In the process, the general public is able to obtain the chance to see their own ideas in a different aspect and therefore be able to take alternatives into consideration. The relative effectiveness of this approach is determined with the capability of the public to continuously challenge their pre-acquired knowledge. CONCLUSION The results of the analysis carried out on Marxism indicated very significant effects, even amidst the threats of unrest. Therefore, we could conclude that Marxist philosophies could still be expected to improve faster than average. The review of the Marxism’s operations management capabilities and resources revealed very little inconsistencies regarding its strategies. This is coherent with its traditional inside-out approach. However, the need to reconcile both the inside-out and outside-in approaches becomes imperative now for Marxism. The analysis among the Marxist environment as well as its operations management and capabilities revealed certain gaps, most of which are biased towards the environment. However, these gaps paved the way towards determining a number of recommended strategic options to secure Marxism’s competitiveness. REFERENCES Barry, S. Alienation, Reification, and Dehumanization in Late Capitalist America, 1992 Dobson, A. Green Political Thought, 1992, Unwin Hyman, 224. Lenin, V. The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, Collected Works, 1992, Vol. 19, 23-28. Lenin, V. The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, Selected Works, 1992, Vol. II, 643-677. Lewontin, R. C. Not in Our Genes: Biology, ideology, and human nature, 1992, Pantheon Books, 322. Mandel, E. Materialist dialectics, Pluto Press, 1982, Chapter 16 of Introduction to Marxism. Mandel, E. Historical Materialism, Pluto Press, 1982, From Introduction to Marxism.. Trotsky, L. The Revolution Betrayed: What is the Soviet Union and where is it going?, Pathfinder Press, 1972, 314. Trotsky, L. In Defense of Marxism, Pathfinder, 1990. Trotsky, L. Terrorism and Communism, New Park Publications, 1975, 208.   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Analysis of Marxism

OBJECTIVES As a person with experience knowledge of Marxism, the author has always brought up to his superiors the viability of strategy...

COMMENTS ON THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO BY MARX AND ENGELS

I.                  Introduction The Communist Manifesto reveals the effort to clarify the intentions of Communism along with the principles that serves as a basis of its existence. It shows the existence of exploitation of one class to another, one being the more dominant class than the other. It claims that it is these exploitations that trigger the developments in history. The relationships between the classes are predetermined by the means of production present in a specific period. Nonetheless, there will come a time that these elements would not be complementary on the forces of production. The manifesto indicates that once this needed to take place, a revolution is bound to happen. It is these revolutions that generate new seats of power for the new breed of ruling class. It also claimed that large economies are among those that influence such changes. This paper will examine a specific passage from the manifesto and relate it on the recent occurrences that took place in Europe and other communist countries.   II.               The Proletariat and the Bourgeois   In the said passage, the manifesto establishes a number of the major principles of his theory. Among the major principles is that all of history up till now is an account of a chain of class struggles. The foundation of history, in that case, is this basic economic premise. The most essential idea being argued here is the idea that each social order has a distinctive economic arrangement. This arrangement rears diverse classes, which are in disagreement as they dominate or are exploited by each other. Nevertheless, this condition is not everlasting. Ultimately the resources of production stop being well suited with the class structure in its present condition. In its place, the arrangement starts to hinder the improvement of productive forces. At this instant, the preexisting arrangement has to be annihilated. This explicates the materialization of the bourgeoisie out of feudalism. It will similarly explicate the eventual eradication of the bourgeoisie. Marx considers that all of history is supposed to be construed in this manner. This means that it should be seen as the course in which classes realign themselves in conformity with varying means of production.   The said section starts to advocate the reason this might be, indicating a number of the means in which the modern age is distinctive. One of such reasons is that class rivalries have been made simpler as a couple of differing groups, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, materialized. Another reason as stated in the passage indicated that whereas unequal relationships were formerly concealed in the wake of elements like principles, now the shroud has been raised and the whole thing is perceived in the context of self- interest. Moreover, the passage also considers that so as for the bourgeoisie to carry on living, they have to recurrently transform the tools of production.   III.            European Economic System and the Manifesto The European region is among the main targets of the Manifesto. The attempt in unifying the region’s economic system has been one of the major factors that irk the principles of communism. However, as seen at present, European countries continue to thrive and their economies continue to expand annually. This may well be considered impressive if compared to the countries closely holding on to the principles of communism. There are several reasons why Europe is where it is today. One reason is that Europe made the most of capitalism by using it as a political tool. As seen in the case of Eastern Europe, they have used the principles of capitalism as a tool to reconstruct its economy. (, 2000, ) In this manner, the continuity in the said region is ensured in the same way that their economies are rescued from imminent collapse. Another reason why Europe has succeeded is that European economies have issued protective legislation to avert any exploitative relationships in the system. In the work of  (2003, ) he claimed that the accession to the European Union will most definitely result to the availability of more decent work. With the nominal convergence criteria predefined by the European Union, the countries seeking to join the Union will essentially take away the exploitative relationship once decent works are provided to the proletariat.      IV.           Failure of the Soviet Union One of the major issues on the effectiveness of the communist principles is the apparent collapse of countries that has been using such principles. One good example is the former Soviet Union. However, the failure is not at all attributable to the theories of Marx and Engels, instead it is the fault of the Soviet Union that it collapsed because it deviated from the virtues stated in the Manifesto.   Essentially, the Soviet Union became idle and disintegrated for the reason that there is a nonexistence of any market instrument. This made the Soviet reliant on the prejudiced judgments of its own individual planners. This aggravated both deficiencies of some products and over-creation of others, misuse, terrible investment strategies, environmental harm and the financing of incompetent enterprises to the detriment of proficient ones. The price that was demanded for these breaches of fundamental economic judgment was calculated in the increase of parasitism, apathy for possessions and resources, loss of political will, pitiable professional habits and, evidently, overwhelming budget deficits. (, 1993, ) The Soviet system’s basic fault, as indicated by the principles of Marx, was that its affairs of production were in disagreement with the stage of development of its forces of production. (, 2002, )   V.              Conclusion The Manifesto contends that development is unavoidable, and that capitalism is essentially unsound. The Communists mean to encourage this revolution, and will encourage the parties and associations that are shaping history towards its expected end. They contend that the removal of social classes is not able to happen by means of restructurings or alterations in government. In its place, a revolution will be necessary. However, the discussions above show that there are inherent flaws in the theory. The collapse of the Soviet Union is representative of that flaw along with the inability of the ruling party to mold the economy to a stable one. In the end, regions like Europe and the European Union come to be more successful in achieving economic success because it held on one of the claims of Marx and Engels, to continuously change the tools of production.       VI.           References   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

COMMENTS ON THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO BY MARX AND ENGELS

I. Introduction The Communist Manifesto reveals the effort to clarify the intentions of Communism along wit...

MARX’S CONCEPT OF CAPITALIST ACCUMULATION

Marx’s Concept of Capitalist Accumulation                 Karl Marx has been long considered as one of the most influential social thinkers of the 19th century. His principles and teachings regarding capitalism and social inequality among industrialized societies emerged as one of the most controversial discussions in the fields and disciplines of economics and politics which until now are famously lectured among universities all over the world. The influences of Marx’s teachings fueled the most contentious revolutions within and across nations as recorded in world history. The bulk of Marx’s arguments revolve around the issues on political economy emphasizing that initiating change in the current capitalist social will be only possible through the distinctions of the existing social problems and issues that confronts men. He further highlighted the importance of the individuals’ access to basic social needs such as food, shelter, and clothing in order to participate on social issues that beset the community they belong particularly when it comes to politics, economy, religion, and education (, 2000).               When it comes to profit accumulation, Marx clearly puts it that revenues and return on investments amassed and collected by the owners of production systems in a capitalist economy is a direct indication of exploitation of the labor force. Since the interest gained by capitalist through the goods and services produced by workers rely entirely on the added value or the excess and superfluous efforts from the members of the production system, issues regarding unequal return on the work rendered by laborers is a clear manifestation of exploitation particularly when they can not afford the output they delivered. In this regard, capital accumulation among capitalist societies and production systems creates economic classes characterized with the existing relationships between authorities and subordinates. Such relationship, called production relations, constitutes the unequal benefits appropriated by owners of the production system and that of the workers (, 2003).                      The proletariat in this respect is expected to be progressive in terms of initiating change in the economic structure of the production system so as to fashion the political structure into social communities can be identified with equality and freedom. Moreover, such change necessitates the occurrence and incidence of crisis within the capitalist economic system to overthrow the concept of capitalism. The resulting social relationship will create a state of equality among every member of the society characterized with socialist relationships that will eventually evolve into a communist society. Public ownership of the means of production will be then realized so as to undermine the inequalities that exist among capitalist societies. All these will cease the existence of economic crises among capitalist societies which gets more serious as time passes. Being able to participate fully in social, political and economic discussion across all members of the society is the main objective of Marxism theory of political economy (, 1867).   References: Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

MARX’S CONCEPT OF CAPITALIST ACCUMULATION

Marx’s Concept of Capitalist Accumulation Karl Marx has been long considered as one of the most influential social thin...

Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.

“Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”                                                                                                                                                          [1]Karl Marx, the son of Hirschel and Henrietta Marx, was born in Trier, Germany, in 1818. Hirschel Marx was a lawyer and to escape anti-Semitism decided to abandon his Jewish faith when Karl was a child. Although the majority of people living in Trier were Catholics, Marx decided to become a Protestant. He also changed his name from Hirschel to Heinrich. After schooling in Trier (1830-35), Marx entered Bonn University to study law. At university he spent much of his time socializing and running up large debts. His father was horrified when he discovered that Karl had been wounded in a duel. Heinrich Marx agreed to pay off his son’s debts but insisted that he moved to the more sedate Berlin University. The move to Berlin resulted in a change in Marx and for the next few years he worked hard at his studies. Marx came under the influence of one of his lecturers, , whose atheism and radical political opinions got him into trouble with the authorities. introduced Marx to the writings of , who had been the professor of philosophy at Berlin until his death in 1831. Marx was especially impressed by Hegel’s theory that a thing or thought could not be separated from its opposite. For example, the slave could not exist without the master, and vice versa. Hegel argued that unity would eventually be achieved by the equalizing of all opposites, by means of the dialectic (logical progression) of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This was Hegel’s theory of the evolving process of history. Has there ever been a successful socialist revolution? Let us first understand when can be a socialist revolution called successful? Is it by the time socialism is being practiced and unpracticed after a few weeks or months? Or is it by the time it is being practiced and still practicing up to this very moment or be permanent? Successful socialist revolution may be hard to achieve as a whole or a socialist country or government but it has won great achievements. Like for example, the Europe revolution; it was the year 1848 that saw the overthrow of King Louis-Phillippe and the proclamation of a republic in France, but it did not stop there. When the second republic was founded, and Louis Napoleon was elected president over Cavaignac and Lamartine, there is a general feeling of goodwill, but it disappears due to class conflict. There is a call for reform, mass activism, and feelings of uneasiness among the Bourgeoisie. In Germany; Marx’s predictions came swiftly true. A revolution began uniting the capitalist class, the peasants and the workers in struggle against the landowners and their regime. But the capitalists quickly did a deal with Kaiser and therefore won some concessions for them, and left the working class without political rights. The reason of the defeat of the revolutionary wave in 1848 was the aim that not to accept half-way measures, but to “make the revolution permanent” by pushing on to the overthrow of the capitalists and the establishment of a working class government. Another example is in 1871, when the revolutionary storm broke out once again. In a mass uprising in Paris, the first ever working class government, the Paris Commune, was formed. Marx threw himself into support for this historic step forward. From the defeat of the Commune he drew a vital lesson: that for the working class to set about introducing real socialist measures, it will not be possible to use the capitalists’ state apparatus, their parliament and armed forces. But once again they have failed because these institutions must be penetrated by revolutionaries in order to undermine them, but the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes. Instead, the military and bureaucratic state machine of the capitalists would have to be smashed and replaced by a far more democratic system of working class councils or communes, and a militia based on the arming of the whole working class. Karl Marx died in London in March 1883. His ideas have shaped the century that we live in. But as the century draws to a close, more people than ever believe that Marx and Marxism are somehow a thing of the past. They could not be more wrong. The collapse of the Soviet Union was not proof that “socialism does not work”, but that without full working class democracy, the transformation of society among socialist lines is impossible. Is the concept of socialism unrealistic? According to Marx, the concept of socialism is to refer to a society where political agency is derived from work, a truly democratic society where people have a say in determining what technology will produce through their labor. Though it has never won the battle to fight for a better society, the concept of socialism is never and never will be unrealistic. For those people who believe that socialism offers a system of values never fully achieved, and not a constructed model on display in any particular place, the concept of it is not unrealistic. In fact, the issue of socialism is being raised once again in other countries. Like for example, the countries in the East. The people start to struggle with unequal weapons. Intuitively, one can understand why people who have by force of arms made their own socialist, nationalist, and popular revolutions (the USSR, China, Yugoslavia, etc.) have an ideological weapon that may enable them to put a progressive complexion on their struggles. Now, if the concept of Socialism is unrealistic, why these people of the various countries are still trying to struggle for a better society? Has modernity defeated socialism? Though socialism never won any battle to fight for a better society yet won great achievements on implementing it in different ways, modernity has never defeated socialism. Like what I said, socialism is still the issue of various countries right now. Like for example, Philippines. Some or most of the Filipinos are still struggling for a better society up to now; for them to have a greener pasture. Some rallies are being conducted by the labor force and poor people in demand for the equal distribution of rights. And I know for a fact that Philippines is not the only country suffering from this crisis. Considering modernity, the issue of socialism has never been buried nor defeated. Is Karl Marx irrelevant? [2]Karl Marx’s ideas can be understood by anyone who takes the trouble to study them. They are not mechanical or needlessly abstract, but contain important truths about history and human society. They are not old fashioned or a failure, because they explain the world today. They are not boring or grey because they are about the red hot business of revolution. If Karl Marx is irrelevant, why does his studies of capitalism and how it works led him to predict such phenomena as globalization, monopolization, the growing divide between rich and poor and the strengthening of the proletariat, and so on. In fact, his philosophical outlook, dialectical materialism, has stood the test of time, and is a precious instrument in our hands to unravel all the complex mechanisms of economy, politics, and even science. It allows us to have a global view of all processes and thus be able to develop a perspective for the future development of society. Up to date, was voted most revered philosopher on BBC website. If Karl Marx is irrelevant, no one will admire his works and no one will remember him until now. Do certain elements of socialism linger in the contemporary world? Though socialism have not been able to successfully create a fully institutionalized socialist socioeconomic system because the forces of the capitalist world-economy, some of its elements still exists in a form of labor codes and laws that are being adopt from the early struggle for a better society; interests of laborers. It is being used to protect laborers’ interest from greedy capitalists. Somewhere; somehow, certain elements of socialism linger in the contemporary world.   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.

“Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.” ...

Critical Organization Theory: Marxist Approach

Critical Organization Theory: Marxist Approach               Critical Theory is based on the claim of its supporters that social science can and should contribute to the liberation of people from unnecessarily restrictive traditions, ideologies, assumptions, power relations, identity formations, and so forth, that inhibit or distort opportunities for autonomy, clarification of genuine needs and wants, and thus greater and lasting satisfaction (Alvesson and Willmott 1992, cited in Pfeffer 1997, p. 178).             Critical Organization theories are widely based on Marx’s ideologies regarding work and organization structure and design. The Marxist approach began essentially as a critique of the dominant rationalist views. Supporters of Marx argue that organizational structures are not rational systems designed to maximize control and profits. Work is divided not to improve efficiency but to ‘deskill’ workers, to displace discretion from workers to managers, and to create artificial divisions among the workforce. Hierarchy develops as an instrument of control and a means of accumulating capital through the appropriation of surplus value. Human relations reforms are misguided because they do not challenge the fundamental exploitative nature of organizations (Scott 1992 cited in Pfeffer 1997, p. 179). Equality, reflexive questioning and democratic process are central concerns in the writings of critical organizational theorists.     Marxist Critical Perspective of Employment Relation             Most approaches to understanding the structuring of the employment relation proceed from an efficiency rationale – focusing on minimizing both transaction and production costs. The presumed objective of control, whether achieved through the use of incentives or through socialization and inculturation, is enhanced organizational performance. Contingency theories of organizations asserts that organizations must be designed and managed in accordance to the environmental factors that organizations face such as competition and technology in order for them to survive. Thus employee relation are designed to improve performance in the face of changing environmental factors.               Marxist analysis challenges these arguments in two ways. First, it asserts that control, not efficiency, is the objective of organizing arrangement and that when there are trade-offs involved, efficiency concerns are often out-shadowed by achievement of control over the labor process. Second, a critical Marxist perspective argues that many of the prescribed mechanisms for achieving control of the work process are not benign and achieve their results at some substantial cost to the individuals working in organizations.               From the Marxist perspective of employment relations, organizations employing labor do so only in order to exploit it. The purpose of capitalism according to Marxists is to make surplus value/profit from the employment of resources in the labor process, and it is in this sense that it is argued that labor is exploited. This perspective views industrial organizations as microcosms of the wider society and the frictions in that wider society are likely to be reflected and present in the organization. Underlying the Marxist perspective is an assumption that power in capital society is weighted in favor of the owners of capital (employers), the means of production and not with the owners and sellers of the labor resource (employees). This is a perspective that uncompromisingly predicts a fundamental and continuing conflict of interest between employees and employers and the conflict is likely to be about who should control the labor process as well as about the price of labor.   Understanding Organizations through Marxist Perspective             Marxists argue that organizations in a capitalist society employ people not in order to use their skills and abilities to the full extent. The reason for employing workers is not to provide their needs and wants but to exploit them. Marxists argue that employment relations are oftentimes one-way, with the organization benefiting from its workers.             Marxist perspective called for the abolishment of capitalism and to the birth of a modern society (modern organization). The modern organization according to Marx must become the realization of principle of individualism, the individual existence is the final goal; activity, work, content, etc. are mere means. In modern society (organization), ties of personal dependence, distinctions of birth, education, etc. are broken, abolished. The individuals appear to be independent. They appear to collide with one another freely, and to exchange with one another in this freedom (Seyer 1991).             Marxist perspective provides a critical view of organizations that if seen through the right lenses and with open mind can offer guidance for modern organizations, managers, and governments to protect the modern-day workers. The Marxist perspective of organizations is critical of those organizational policies, procedures and strategies that alienate or hinder employees to realize their full potential, aspirations and satisfy their needs and wants. For me, Marxist perspective of organization provides a picture of what modern organizations must not avoid. It helps organizations to create policies and procedures that will benefit the workers.   Marxist View of Organizations: Personal Experiences             I believe that Marxism is primarily concern with equality. Marx believes that a modern society is a society where there are no class divisions and no inequalities and alienation. A modern society, is where individuals are free to labor in accordance with their potentialities, and their skills, abilities, talents and interests. Man labors in order to achieve self-actualization. One implication of Marx’s view of the modern society is equality – equal access to services and equal access to labor.             In our organization, Equality is valued. The management makes sure that everyone are given equal opportunities regardless of their cultural background, gender, social status, and religion. Our organization adheres to Equal Employment Opportunity set by the government. Equal employment opportunity (EEO) refers to policies aimed at preventing employment discrimination. EEO policies and laws were developed in response to discriminatory practices against persons based on race, color, gender, religion, national origin, disability, age and so forth. Equal employment opportunity laws are one group of laws that affect Human Resources issues. Equal Employment Opportunity is a group of policies that aims to ensure that all individuals are given equal opportunities to work regardless of the race, color, religion, gender or national origin (Sims 2002).             Another implication of the Marxist perspective is the development of employee empowerment strategies of many organizations today. Marxists argue that organizations aim to control the employment process. By doing this, employees lose their ability to influence their work and to take part in organizational decision-making. In order to avoid this, our company has employee empowerment schemes. According to Sims (2002) empowering employees is a popular approach to work organizations. It means giving employees the authority, tools, and information they need to do their jobs with greater autonomy, as well as the self-confidence required to perform the new jobs effectively. Empowering is inherently a motivational approach. It boosts employees’ feeling of self-efficacy and enables them to more fully their potential, satisfying high-level needs for achievement, recognition, and self-actualization. Empowerment results in changes in employees’ effectiveness. The result is that people take more initiative and persevere in achieving their goals and their leader’s vision even in the face of obstacles.   Postmodern Organization: Contingency Approach             Postmodernity or the search for the postmodern organization, analyzes the changes occurring in organizational forms and focuses on what agents actually do in organizations. Stressed, in particular, is the move away from the dominant organizational form described by Weber. The latter’s ideal typical model of a hierarchical, bureaucratic organizational form was based on a division of labor from which was derived several characteristics which typified modern organizations. Briefly, division of labor underscores task discontinuity, specialization and functional separation, with the result that organizational forms are characterized by stratification, hierarchization and coordination through an impersonalized formalization of rules. Emphasis is placed on standardization and coordination is centralized. Organized for mass markets, these ways of organizing no longer appear relevant for today’s market conditions. Postmodernity rejects these central beliefs of organizing and is identified in many cases by their polar opposites. The postmodern organization is characterized by flexibility. It purports to empower employees. Supervision stresses the importance of trust and the internalized recognition of and adherence to the organization’s missions and goals (Clegg et al 1996).             Postmodern organization theories, essentially focus on the postmodern changes that organizations are undergoing. Many postmodern theorists argue that the traditional ways of creating and managing organizations are not applicable to the postmodern business environment anymore. One of the popular  postmodern approaches to organization structure and management is contingency approach. Contingency Approach in Action             Postmodern theorists argue that there are different factors that affect the decision concerning organizational design. Organizational structure is no longer dictated by the desire to control but by the desire to create a flexible organization that will benefit all the shareholders. There are four factors that managers assess before designing an organization. These factors are the organization’s strategy, its external environment, its technical process, and its size. Each factor alone can affect design decisions, or they can collectively constrain or drive design choices. 1. Strategy             Many of top management’s strategic choices affect organization design decisions. An organization’s strategy describes the organization’s long-term goals and the way it plans to reach those goals. Strategies also specifies how managers should allocate resources to reach the long-term goals of their organization (Sims 2002). There are three basic strategies that are available to an organization. These are cost leadership, differentiation, and focused. Under cost leadership, an organization provides the same services or products as its competitors, but produces them at a lower cost. An organization that chooses this strategy seeks to gain a significant cost advantage over other competitors and pass the savings on to consumers in order to gain a large market chare. Such a strategy aims at selling a standardized product that appeals to an ‘average’ customer in a broad market. Organizations that use this strategy earn a better return on their investment in capital and human resources and attain significant economies of scale in key business activities. In a differentiation strategy, an organization seeks to be unique in its industry along dimensions that are widely valued or preferred by buyers. An organization that chooses a differentiation strategy typically uses a product organization design whereby each product has its own manufacturing, marketing, and research and development (R&D) departments. A focused strategy is designed to help an organization target a specific niche within an industry, unlike both the cost leadership and differentiation strategies, which are designed to target industry-wide markets. An organization that chooses a focused strategy may utilize any of a variety of organization designs, ranging from functional to product to matrix, to satisfy their customers’ preferences (Sims 2002). Augier and Teece (2006) argue that know-how, internal structure and human behavior affect the capability of the organization. Organizational capabilities affect strategies which in turn have implications on organizational structure. 2. External Environment             An organization’s environment is composed of those institutions or forces that are outside the organization and potentially affect the organization’s performance. These typically include suppliers, customers, competitors, government regulatory agencies, public pressure groups, and the like. The condition of the external environment has implications on the design and structure of the organization. Managers must deal with the changes in the external environment by adjusting the organizational structure (Sims 2002). External environment has implications on the organization. 3. Organization Size             The size of the organization also has implications on the design and structure of the organization. As organizations increase in size, the rules and procedures become formal. Large organization have more management levels and more structured work activities than small organizations and used decentralized form. Small organizations usually have more informal decision process and the organizational design tends to be simpler. Small organizations also have fewer diverse activities, fewer formal written procedures, and narrower spans of control (Sims 2002). 4. Technology             Technology influences organization design in terms of job design and the creation of teams and departments, the delegation of authority and responsibility, and the need for formal integrating mechanisms. Technology refers to how an organization transfers the inputs into outputs. Every organization has at least one technology for converting financial, human, and physical resources into products or services (Sims 2002).             In terms of organizational forms, the ‘organic system’ is popular in the postmodern environment.  An organic system is characterized by low to moderate use of formal rules and regulations, decentralized and shared decision making, broadly defined job responsibilities, and a flexible authority structure with fewer levels in the hierarchy. Top management typically makes decisions that determine the extent to which an organization will operate as a mechanistic system or an organic system.   Fred Fiedler: Contingency Theory in Leadership             Fred Edward Fielder is a globally recognized guru in the fields of psychology and leadership. Fiedler presented one of the most intuitive leadership models, which is known as the Contingency Theory. Fiedler proposed that effective leadership is a function of a proper match between the leader’s style of interacting with followers and the degree to which the situation gives control and influence to the leader. According to Fiedler, a leader’s style could be identified based on how the leader describes an individual he or she last enjoyed working with. When a leader describes this person in favorable terms, this indicates that the leader is interested in good relationships. Accordingly, that leader’s style would tend to be more people-centered. On the other hand, describing the least-preferred individual in unfavorable terms indicates more of a task-centered style. Fiedler felt that one’s style is fixed. Using three situational factors (degree of respect for employees; structured jobs; and influence over the employment process) he identified eight situations where either the task-centered or people-centered styles would work best. The situational factors according to Fiedler dictate which leadership style would be more effective (Sims 2002).             Fiedler developed the Least-Preferred Coworker (LPC) questionnaire, which claims to measure whether a person is task-oriented or relationship-oriented. Leader-member relations refers to the degree of employee confidence, loyalty, respect, and trust in the leader. Acceptance leads to commitment and loyalty, a rating of unacceptable leads to friction and tension. This dimension is measured on a continuum ranging from good to poor. Obviously, the better the relationship, the easier it is to lead people. When the relationship is characterized as poor, the leader is at a great disadvantage. Leader position power refers to the authority that is granted based on coercive, reward, and legitimate power. According to Fiedler, the more position power possessed, the easier it is to lead others. Fiedler classifies leadership styles into task-oriented and relationship-oriented categories using the LPC. Respondents describe the person they are least able to work with in either favorable or unfavorable terms. The leadership style of the person is judged relationship-oriented if the person is favorably evaluated, and task-oriented if unfavorably judged. To determine whether task or relationship is appropriate, the user answers three questions pertaining to situational favorableness, using the Fiedler model. After a leader’s style is determined through the LPC, a match can be determined through the other major contingency variables: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. Organizations, Fiedler claims, should match tasks and work environments with an individual’s leadership style to ensure high group performance (Sims 2002).               Fiedler argued that because leadership is primarily the exercise of social influence, the ease with which a leader is able to influence his or her followers should make a big difference on how favorable the leadership situation is for the leader. The most important consideration according to Fiedler is the quality of interpersonal relations between parties. If the leader is respected and liked by the followers, the leader can influence them with ease. Another consideration is the nature of the task assigned to the group, particularly the degree of clarity and structure in the task. Task clarity can increase authority and influence. The third consideration is the amount of authority that the leader held by virtue of a formal position or designation of leadership (Chemers 1997).   Strengths of the Contingency Theory             Fiedler’ model is considered as the first highly visible theory to present the contingency approach. It emphasized the importance of both the situation and the leader’s characteristics in determining leader effectiveness. It stimulated a great deal of research, including tests of its predilections and attempts to improve the model and inspired the formulation of alternative contingency theory (Sims 2002).   References Alvesson, M and Willmott, H 1992, ‘On the Idea of Emancipation in Management and Organization Studies’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 117, pp. 432-464.   Augier, E M and Teece, J D 2006, ‘Understanding Complex Organization: The Role of Know-How, Internal Structure, and Human Behavior in the Evolution of Capabilities’,  Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 395-416.   Clegg, S, Hardy, C, and Nord, W 1996, Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage Publications.   Pfeffer, J 1997, New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects, Oxford University Press, New York.   Sayer, D 1991, Capitalism and Modernity: An Excursus on Marx and Weber, Routledge, New York.   Sims, R 2002, Organizational Success through Effective Human Resources Management, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.               Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Critical Organization Theory: Marxist Approach

Critical Organization Theory: Marxist Approach Critical Theory is based on the claim of its supporters that social science c...