SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 2
Abstract
This paper attempts to explain the relationship and differences between socialism, Marxism, and
critical theory and how the influence of Karl Marx help shapes the thinking of many politics and
philosophy enthusiasts. Also, a good portion of the paper focuses on Marx’s belief that societies
are greatly influenced by the economic systems available to the different classes of people.
Ultimately, to explain human existence, Marx creates a following of supporters who idolize him
and his teachings which contradicts what the Christian faith teaches us. It is therefore important
to analyze Marx’s beliefs and highlight where he failed his supporters. Furthermore, many
believe that socialism, Marxism, and critical theory are outdated for an ever-changing world such
as the one we find ourselves in, and the paper attempts to confirm such stance. Finally, the paper
concludes the undisputed fact that the answers to the questions about human existence can only
be answered by God Almighty and not any living soul.
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 3
Socialism, Marxism, and Critical Theory
The nineteenth century triggered several ideologies mainly because several European
societies were simultaneously dealing with expanding their colonial reach across the globe, the
industrial revolution, and the rise of capitalism. These sudden and dramatic changes to the
societies and their economies brought about many theories to attempt to legitimize the socio-
economic changes brought about by capitalism. Similarly, these changes can be attributed to the
rise of the liberal political economy. As explained by Devetak & Weber (2012), this triggered an
“outgrowth of moral philosophy” and was motivated by the desire to implement political and
economic conditions of social change (p. 63). Furthermore, they argued that the traditional
wealth and land ownership in the traditional sense needed to be redistributed across the whole
society. As explained by Dr. Fischer, even though some may argue that the redistribution of
wealth prevents economic exploitation, such actions may infringe on peoples’ freedom and
liberties when viewed from the Biblical perspective (Fischer 2021).
Many theorists today believe that “the social basis of ideological thought has simply
disintegrated under the impact of widespread affluence and the lowering of class barriers”
(Merelman 1969, p. 752). This thought process is partially disputable in the sense that the world
as we know it today is miles ahead of the one in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries where
ideologies were ‘booming’, especially when analyzing the level of access to unrestricted
information about all political ideologies. Ultimately, the success of democracy across the globe
has narrowed our views to ignore other ideologies but it does not negate the fact that, the
founding principles of democracy is found in the corrective actions of the negatives presented by
ideologies such as liberalism and conservativism.
Socialism
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 4
Many Americans do not fully understand what socialism means but a good portion
associate it with the government playing the role of Santa Clause and enlarging the welfare sate
through free healthcare, education, and other benefits. A 2016 Pew Foundation poll showed that
69 percent of American voters thirty years and younger expressed their willingness to vote a
socialist as the President of the United States. This was highlighted by the millions of millennials
who voted for Bernie Sanders who describes himself as a ‘democratic socialist’ in the 2016
Democratic primaries (DiLorenzo 2016, p. 2). For many of us, Socialism represents a system
where very little respect is giving to individual liberties for the collective moral good of the
community and it eliminates the structures of the market economy that supports capitalism. The
goal of a socialist government is that all available resources are equally distributed amongst all
members of the society. Alexis de Tocqueville explains that as exciting as it may seem, the
redistribution of wealth is not always beneficial for the progress of the society. He believes it
isolates and breeds weakness of citizens and that “the movement of the multitude are not made
permanently by the will of any individual and at such times humanity seems always to advance
of itself”. In addition, he opines that “men who live in ages of equality have a great deal of
curiosity and little leisure, their life is so practical, so confused, so excited, so active, but little
time remains to them for thought” (Tocqueville 2013, pp.13-14).
The goal of achieving equality is attained from the socialist perspective by replacing
individual ownership with communal ownership. As explained by Koyzis, this goal may be
accomplished by “gathering people voluntarily into a community based on this principle or, if
socialists have stronger political aspirations, by gaining control over the government apparatus in
order to implement such ownership on a larger scale”. Unfortunately, in a socialist government,
“the coercive power of the state takes precedence over the voluntary element, with citizens
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 5
compelled to pool their resources, ostensibly for the good of the entire community” (Koyzis
2019, p. 153).
The socialist culture is believed to be one that limits innovation and curbs the amount of
effort people are willing to put into the economy. On the contrary, Lange et. al. (1938) believes
that, “a socialist economy by definition presupposes free consumer choice, and in a classical
sense, is one that socializes production alone, as contrasted with communism, which socializes
both production and consumption” (p. 9). Following the definition of Socialism from Lange et.
al., socialism is not much different from capitalism because from the classical point of view,
citizens in a socialist society express their preferences in products and services through their
demand prices which ultimately serves as a guiding principle for production and the allocation of
resources (Lange et. al. 1938, p. 9). Similarly, Spargo (1910) explains that “Marx never dreamed
of asserting that the economic force acts as the sole determinant of social evolution”. He explains
that Marx’s overemphasis of economic forces was to gain the attention of “thinkers of his time
upon his theory” but that did not stop him from warning his followers against viewing economic
factors as the “only active influence in social evolution” (Spargo 1910, p. 27).
On the other hand, Breda Luthar (2006) disagrees with Lange et. al’s perspective of
socialism, she views it as a “form of economic organization characterized not only by cultural,
legal, and economic constraints and control of demand, but also direct political forms of
disciplining and limiting demand (i.e., the political and ideological ‘dictatorship over needs’)” (p.
233). A socialist government through its total control over production wields the magic wand in
the sense of political control over the needs of the people. This political control by the
government gives it the freedom to decide for the people on what constitutes a need or a want.
According to Luthar (2006), this authority “legitimizes a specific moral economy and
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 6
conceptualization of authentic life that can be used as a basis for classifying some needs as more,
and others as less authentic” (p. 233). Unfortunately, socialism through its government run
monopolies creates a system that produces low quality products and services due to the lack of
competition that a free-market system provides. Koyzis sees socialism as a “stagnant economy
lacking incentives to work, bureaucratic interference in a variety of venues where it does not
belong, and confiscatory taxation penalizing the industrious and rewarding the idle” (Koyzis
2019, p. 152). Lange et. al. (1938) points out the fact that most socialists’ supporters have been
influenced by the Marxist view that the success of a socialist economy is reliant on socialists
having total control of the state (p. 5). Thomas DiLorenzo asserts that socialism started as the
“government ownership of the means of production” as showcased by the Soviet Union
governments confiscation of all factories, farms, businesses and to include the millions of
resisters in the process (DiLorenzo 2016, p. 4). Supporters of socialism tend to be blinded by the
overarching goal of equality where the end justifies the means. Sadly, the pursuit of equality
could “demand the sacrifice of human lives” (Koyzis 2019, p. 165).
Even though the underlining theme of socialism is the quest for equality, a majority of its
followers differ in what equality entails and its correlation to the other goals they may pursue.
According to Koyzis, democratic socialists are mostly focused on improving the working class
and redistributing wealth. Democratic socialists accept that achieving equality is nearly
impossible hence they pursue a “more egalitarian society by narrowing the gap between the
highest and lowest incomes” in the society (Koyzis 2019, p. 165). In addition, the redistribution
of resources in favor of the lower class leads to the creation of the new elite to replace the old
bourgeoisie that was responsible for setting the “economic parameters of wages, prices, taxes”.
Irrespective of the “greater privileges in nearly every area of human well-being, the differences
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 7
across income strata are generally less than what is found in comparable nonsocialist systems”
(Echols III, 1981, p. 3).
Interestingly, the influence of socialism has been felt in almost every democratic nation
across the globe except the United States. Lipset et. al. (2000) attempts to answer the question as
to why that is the case. Many Marxists of the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries
believed their theory supported that, “the United States of all countries in the world, was most
ripe for socialism” and they were left astonished because the United States was a “living
contradiction of Marxian theory, and raised fundamental questions about its validity” (Lipset et.
al. 2000, p. 18). It goes without mention that, Marxism and socialism have been synonymous for
many years and that can be attributed to the influence of Karl Marx to both ideologies. As Spargo
puts it, “it is quite remarkable that practically all socialists, whether they be opportunists or
impossibilists, proletarians or intellectuals, or even anti-intellectuals, claim to be Marxists”
(Spargo 1910, p. 22). Furthermore, as explained by Koyzis, the attraction of Marxism to
socialism was partly because of their commonality in their “promise of eradicating want and
class-based oppression” (Koyzis 2019, p. 168).
Marxism
Karl Marx was a believer of a modern society that was based on science, economically
developed and socially progressive (Lane 2020, p. 1). But he openly criticized capitalism
because he felt it promoted the salvation of the individual but exploited the economy (Therborn
2008, p. 68). Irrespective of Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism, some of his views were in line
with the thinking of liberal political economists. The liberals and Marx supported a progressive
concept of society. From this perspective, history presented a progressive learning opportunity
for people to plan forward to live more fulfilled and civilized lives than previous generations. In
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 8
this sense, “capitalism was modernizing society and generating progressive potentials for all
societies, even the most primitive” (Devetak & Weber 2012, p. 65).
The rise of capitalism displaced the hereditary lords whose power came from inherited
states and serfs. These were men whose authority came from trade, industry, and banking. Serfs
as the chief laboring class through the process of displacement were transformed into free mobile
wageworkers. This system led to a transition from capitalism to socialism which was seen in
significant parts of the world (Somerville 2005, p. 2). Somerville explains that society is not a
stagnant object but something that goes through constant qualitative transitions and the
institutions which make up for instance a “slave society are not simply larger versions of the
institutions of primitive communal society, nor is the capitalist society of today a larger version
of feudalism”. Every phase of society experienced at any given time is most often than not
unique in its own sense and thus needs to be analyzed and addressed as such. To understand the
“life of man” we need to delve into the causes of such changes in our societies, without such
answers, “sociology could never become a science”. According to Sommerville (2005), “to the
Marxist, a sociology that is incapable of getting beyond a static framework would be an
admission of defeat, an acknowledgment that the chief problems cannot be solved” (p. 2).
Socialism and Marxism share a common goal of eradicating want and class-based
oppression. Generally, socialism focused on achieving communal ownership and eliminating
want. But this effort as Koyzis explains is reliant on having followers and having capitalist
oppositional power. On the contrary, Marxism promises that future belongs as a matter of fact to
the disposed working class. This to the Marxist followers was based on the scientific patterns of
history which conforms that throughout history, the “dispossessed have always triumphed against
the ruling propertied class, whatever form the class struggle has assumed, then one can similarly
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 9
forecast the ultimate victory of the current propertyless class, the industrial workers, or the
proletariat, over the bourgeoisie” (Koyzis 2019, p. 168).
Marx differentiates society by first analyzing the relationship between property relations
and the material forces of production. Property relations he described as the legally bounded
relationships where people rely on each other in producing the necessities and luxuries of life as
seen in the slave-master relationship, the serf-lord relationship, employer-employee relationship
(Sommerville 2005, p. 3). Marx referred to these productive relations as the ‘foundations’ or the
‘economic structure’ of the society. According to Karl Marx, the productive forces are the
results of practical human energy, but this energy is itself conditioned by the
circumstances in which men find themselves, by the productive forces already won, by
the social form which exists before they do, which they do not create, which is the
product of the former generation (Marx 1973, p. 4).
The material forces of production which may be obvious include the natural resources such as
land, labor, minerals, etc. and the tools used in production including the skills and techniques.
The material forces of production are made up of two sections; the physical- technical
component which is made up of natural resources, tools, skills, etc. and the interpersonal
component which deals with the relationship between the people, the authority imposed and
involved in the activity, and ownership (Sommerville 2005, p. 3). The human being is
“fundamentally Homo economicus and is motivated in all activities by economic factors rooted
in one’s relationship to the means of production, or class” (Koyzis 2019, p. 169).
In addition, Sommerville points out a third level of Marx’s anatomy of society which he
classified as “superstructures” which includes the systems of law, government, religion, arts,
philosophy, and so forth. For social change to take place, all three forces must work together to
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 10
ensure mans needs are met. The constant desire of human beings to provide themselves with the
goods and services required for survival and enjoyment creates a “constant pressure for
improvement of the forces and tools of production”. Most significant changes be it
environmental or technological forces accommodates “changes in the relations of production;
and those changes, in a more subtle and less visible fashion, induce accommodating changes in
law, politics, religion, arts, philosophy” (Somerville 2005, p. 3).
Koyzis opines that, Marx was a progressive philosopher who believed that future was
heading in a positive direction by focusing on human freedom from oppression. The salvation of
the working class who had been ignored for years by other ideologies and governments was seen
by Marx as a historical event. According to Koyzis (2019), “history is travelling in a single
direction, moved by class struggle, but destined to transcend class struggle after the final
eschatological consummation that is, the revolution occurs” (Koyzis 2019, p. 170). Class
struggle in Marx’s philosophy is pivotal to the process of change and the forces of production
which ultimately determine social superstructures. Somerville defines class as a group with a
“common relationship to the means (forces, tools, techniques) of production, a relationship of
such a nature as to bring the group into necessary economic conflict with another group that has
a different relationship to these same means” (Somerville 2005, p. 3). Somerville explains this
further by analyzing the relationship between a slave and a slave master. A slave’s relationship to
the means of production is they can be “legally compelled to work” highlighting the “legally
negotiable forces of production”. Unfortunately, there was not much negotiation involved in such
relationships as history has shown. On the other hand, the slave owner’s relationship to the
means of production lies within his or her authority and ownership of the slaves with the
discretion to buy and sell them as he or she pleases. As Somerville puts it, this causes a conflict
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 11
of interest where the “slave wants to own himself and the fruits of his labor, while the master
profits from owning the slave and what the latter produces” (Somerville 2005, p. 3).
As explained by Somerville, the relationship between the classes is not a matter of
outlook or choice. For instance, the fact that a slave owner treats his/her slaves well does not
negate the fact that they (slaves) are “deprived of their liberty, economic and civil rights”. The
solution to this deep-seated issue is reliant solely on the elimination of the slave-master
relationship (Somerville 2005, p.4). Marxism acknowledges the differences of the class struggle
in capitalism with that of the slave and slave owner relationship, it still confirms that under
capitalism, the struggles are “independent of the will of the persons involved, once the economic
relationship has been entered into”. It is fair to assert that most capitalistic relationships are
drawn upon bargains and negotiations to reach an agreement. But, as Somerville explains,
regardless of how the conflict of interests are addressed, there remains a conflict in the worker-
employer relationship that would not exist if the parties involved in such a relationship were
equal partners (Somerville 2005, p. 4).
Koyzis declares that Marxism was flawed due to its misreading of the human nature. He
posits that, the assumption that every aspect of human life including “political rule, legal
systems, marriage, family life, religion, philosophies, and national solidarities” are generalized to
be reliant on class struggle is unfathomable (Koyzis 2019, p. 172).
Critical Theory
Critical theory believed that post Enlightenment modernity focused greatly on a type of
instrumental rationality whose main priority was to arrive at efficient means to an end while
ignoring the morality of the process and the result. According to Devetak & Weber (2012),
“instead of assisting humankind’s mastery over nature, instrumental rationality had arrested
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 12
human freedoms and empowered various forms of social domination” (p. 69). Critical theory
attempts to answer the ‘old’ question of why a modern society is struggling to establish rational
forms of social order. As explained by Rainer Forst, critical theory relies greatly on the analysis
of the concept of reason and its effect in supporting dominance in each society (Forst 2020, 6).
Furthermore, according to Horkheimer (1972), critical theory “lives in the dialectic tension
between accepting the economic categories of the existing order and condemning them
(Horkheimer 1972, p. 4). In addition, he analyzes the differences between traditional theory and
critical theory where he concludes that, the former is based on scientific principles of “positivism
and empiricism and designed to buttress the status quo” (Devenak & Weber 2012, p. 69) whilst
the latter is based on “interpretive and self-reflective methods and designed not just to describe
the world but to act as a force within it to stimulate change” (Horkheimer 1972, 215). Critical
theory as explained by Horkheimer, does not rely on existing reality, customs, and traditions but
its “end is the rational state of society forced by the present and not merely a means of relief of a
particular distress” (Horkheimer 1972, p. 6).
Critical theory attempts to remove the assumptions in our social, cultural, and religious
norms which can be oppressive but does not give us the authority to critique, which is something
we receive from the biblical worldview (Fischer 2021). Similarly, Horkheimer explains the
difference between the idea of fact separation from the side of the positivist and that of a critical
theorist. He asserts that, critical theory “examines and reflects on the theorist’s immersion in a
particular historical and socio-political context and seeks to remove forces and forms of
domination” (Horkheimer 1972, 69). As many researchers lay claim that critical theory and other
ideologies may be outdated, Daniel Formby does not dispute this fact but believes that they offer
an alternative way of thinking and not just accepting existing cultures as they are. He states that,
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 13
“the classical texts of critical theory, despite their age, still contribute the idea of radical reading
which forms the basis of much contemporary cultural criticism; and contemporary critics would
do well to remember that” (Formby 2012). As explained by Forst (2014), critical theory applies
to many aspects of human life especially the fight for human rights where he declares that “it
starts from the participant’s perspective in social struggles and reconstructs the basic
emancipatory claim of human rights” (Forst 2014, p. 75). Ultimately, the greatest challenge faced
by critical theory is Christianity because it holds the answers to the questions about human
existence.
Biblical principles of statesmanship and government
Our faith as believers teaches us the truth about the world we live in, which is one made
up of not only the physical one that we see but a spiritual one that helps us to be on one accord
with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Political ideologies and philosophies tend to imply that
the economic injustices we face are entirely physical and thus can and should be manipulated by
the state through the redistribution of wealth. But, irrespective of the so-called prevention of
economic exploitation that these ideologies profess, they fail to “really practice” wealth
redistribution because they tend to violate on people’s rights and liberties (Fischer 2021).
The biblical principle of government is underscored by the acknowledgment of God as
the absolute source of truth, power, and authority and acting under His authority in government
to protect the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property (Fischer 1998, pp. 13-14). Politicians
use their ideologies to oppress the people they have sworn to protect against the guidance of our
faith. The word of God tells us in Proverbs 11: 14 that, “where there is no guidance, a people fall,
but in an abundance of counselors there is safety” (ESV). Our leaders should turn to the Lord for
guidance rather than relying on their ignorance and foolishness to lead many astray.
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 14
Justifying political actions and decisions by “appealing to the witness of historical events
as if by way of demonstrative proof” is an “error of judgement similar to that which deludedly a
commensurate object for feelings of the sublime”. This according to Norris empowers the
“tribunal of cognitive understanding” and thus eliminates the ideas of reason (Norris 1990, p.
15). It is important to note that, the state’s authority is derived from God and thus He controls
how that authority should be used hence the states accountability is to God Himself and not to
the people they rule (Fischer 1998, p. 16). One may argue that many of these ideologies
including Marxism possess some religious undertones and thus should be followed. But I believe
Marxism’s influence on global societies were hampered when it sought to replace Christianity
with its teachings. According to Maclntyre (1984), Marxism has a good share of content and
functions of Christianity as an interpretation of human existence and it does so because it is the
“historical successor of Christianity” (p. 3). I beg to differ with Maclntyre, the word of God tells
us in Acts 4:12 that, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under
heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (ESV). Marxism just like all the other
ideologies before it may attempt to explain human existence based on science, economics,
history and so forth but they all fall short because their definition of salvation is reliant on
humans who as the Bible states in Romans 3:23 have all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of
God” (ESV).
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 15
References
Critical Theory. (2012). The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 26(2), 291-298.
De Tocqueville, A. (2013). Democracy in america-volume 2. Read Books Ltd.
Deutscher, P., & Lafont, C. (2017). Critical theory in critical times: Transforming the global
political and economic order. Columbia University Press.
Devetak, R., George, J., & Weber, M. (2012). Marxism and critical theory. An Introduction to
International Relations, 2, 62-75.
DiLorenzo, T. (2016). The problem with socialism. Simon and Schuster.
Echols III, J. M. (1981). Does socialism mean greater equality? A comparison of east and west
along several major dimensions. American Journal of Political Science, , 1-31.
Fischer, K. J. (1998). Biblical principles of history & government.
Formby, D. (2015). Why marxism and critical theory still
matter. https://newcritique.co.uk/2015/05/26/essay-why-marxism-and-critical-theory-still-
matter-dan-formby/
Forst, R. (2014). Justification and critique: Towards a critical theory of politics. Polity.
Horkheimer, M. (1972). Traditional and critical theory. Critical Theory: Selected Essays, 188,
201.
Koyzis, D. T. (2019). Political visions & illusions: A survey & christian critique of
contemporary ideologies. InterVarsity Press.
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 16
Lane, D. (2020). Building socialism: From ‘scientific’to ‘active’Marxism. Third World
Quarterly, 41(8), 1306-1321.
Lange, O., Taylor, F. M., & Lippincott, B. (1938). On the economic theory of socialism.
University of Minnesota Press, New York and London.
Lipset, S. M., & Marks, G. (2000). It didn't happen here: Why socialism failed in the united
states. WW Norton & Company.
Luthar, B. (2006). Remembering socialism: On desire, consumption and surveillance. Journal of
Consumer Culture, 6(2), 229-259.
MacIntyre, A. (1984). Marxism and christianity. University of Notre Dame Pess.
Marx, K. (1973). Karl marx on society and social change: With selections by friedrich engels.
University of Chicago Press.
Merelman, R. M. (1969). The development of political ideology: A framework for the analysis of
political socialization. The American Political Science Review, 63(3), 750-767.
Norris, C. (1990). What's wrong with postmodernism?: Critical theory and the ends of
philosophy. JHU Press.
Oliva, A. (2020). Marx and contemporary critical theory: The philosophy of real abstraction.
Springer.
Somerville, J. (2005). The philosophy of marxism; an exposition; PART TWO; principles of
social philosophy. Nature, Society, and Thought, 18(1), 79.
SOCIALISM, MARXISM, AND CRITICAL THEORY 17
Spargo, J. (1910). The influence of karl marx on contemporary socialism. American Journal of
Sociology, 16(1), 21-40.
THERBORN, G. (2008). From marxism to post-marxism?
