In this blog post, we will examine how the three components of Marxism—philosophy, economics, and socialism—combined to spark strong opposition from capitalism and the established academic community.
Backlash Against Marxism and Its Historical Significance
Marxism provoked strong hostility and aversion from bourgeois science, official academia, and liberal scholarship throughout the civilized world. The dominant academic circles and intellectuals of the time sought to dismiss Marxism as a kind of exclusive “sect”; here, the term “sect” originally refers to a religious faction, but in the context of political and revolutionary movements, it signifies an exclusive attitude that neglects unity with the masses and hinders the united front, leading to isolation.
However, the more fundamental reason is that in a society scarred by class struggle, there can be no such thing as “impartial” social science. Whether it be state-sanctioned academia or liberal science, even if each has its own role, they all tend to defend or justify wage slavery—that is, the capitalist system of exploitation—and Marxism has declared an unforgiving war precisely against this wage slavery.
The term “wage slavery” refers to the condition of workers who, while appearing to possess individual freedom in legal and formal terms, are economically exploited and subordinated by the capitalist class. Marxism laid bare this reality, thereby triggering strong backlash from the dominant academic establishment.
Nevertheless, Marxism was not a closed sectarianism but an intellectual achievement that provided answers to the questions raised by the broader intellectual discourse of the time. By inheriting and synthesizing the most advanced achievements of the traditions of philosophy, political economy, and socialism, Marx presented a holistic and coherent worldview. It is precisely this that reveals his genius.
The Three Sources and Components of Marxism
Philosophy — Materialism and Dialectics
The roots of Marxist philosophy lie in materialism. Throughout modern European history, and particularly in late 18th-century France—where it developed in opposition to absolutism, ecclesiastical power, and medieval relics—French materialism remained faithful to the natural sciences and was hostile to superstition and pseudoscientific beliefs. This tradition formed one pillar of the defense of democracy and the Enlightenment, and in opposition to it, idealists strove to refute materialism.
Marx and Engels resolutely advocated philosophical materialism and warned that deviating from its foundations would be a grave error. Engels’s works—such as his Critique of Ludwig Feuerbach and Critique of the Duhring Theory—clearly reflect this stance and are regarded as important texts that provide workers with a philosophical foundation.
However, Marx did not stop at 18th-century French materialism but advanced philosophy further. By accepting and critically building upon the achievements of German classical philosophy—particularly Hegel’s system—he further developed its dialectical character. Dialectics is a mode of thought that explains the relativity and gradual perfection of human knowledge as a reflection of the developing material world.
Advances in the natural sciences during the 19th century (e.g., the discovery of radium, electrons, and the transmutation of elements) presented numerous facts revealing the dialectical nature of nature, and these discoveries supported the validity of dialectical materialism. Engels enriched this theory by synthesizing the achievements of the natural sciences to present “the dialectics of nature.”
Marx extended philosophical materialism to the understanding of human society, thereby proposing historical materialism. This theory systematically explains how social institutions change in response to the development of economic productive forces and relations of production, and how the superstructure—including politics, law, and ideology—reflects the economic base. For example, instances where various political institutions serve to reinforce bourgeois domination are applications of this analysis.
In short, Marx’s philosophy stands as a fully developed political materialism, providing—especially to the working class—a powerful theoretical tool for recognizing their own condition and seeking a path to change.
Economics — The Theory of Surplus Value and the Analysis of the Capitalist Structure
Marx acknowledged that the political superstructure rests upon the economic base and, above all, focused his attention on the study of economic structure. His major work, ‘Capital’, is a study aimed at analyzing and critiquing the economic structure of modern capitalism.
Classical economics prior to Marx developed in Britain, where Adam Smith and Ricardo established the foundations of the labor theory of value. Marx built upon these achievements and developed them consistently from start to finish. He viewed the value of all commodities as determined by the amount of socially necessary labor time required to produce them.
While bourgeois economics focused solely on the exchange relations between commodities, Marx delved into the underlying relations between human beings. Money served as a medium that bound producers more closely together, and capital, as the developed form of this relationship, was the result of the commodification of labor power.
Workers use a portion of their daily labor as wages to support themselves and their families, but during the remaining time, they produce surplus value solely for the capitalist. This surplus value is the source of profit and the foundation of the capitalist class’s wealth. The theory of surplus value is the cornerstone of Marxian economics.
The accumulation of capital has driven small business owners into poverty and led to the decline of small- and medium-scale production; rather than broadening access, it has given rise to a small number of giant capitalists and groups with monopolistic positions. Large-scale capitalist management has gained the upper hand not only in industry but also in agriculture, and small-scale production is shrinking and declining due to mechanization and the dominance of money capital.
While production itself is increasingly taking on a social character, ownership of the means of production and the products of labor is concentrated in the hands of a small minority of capitalists. As a result, the anarchy of production, cyclical crises, market frenzy, and instability in the lives of the masses are intensifying. However, capitalism also gives rise to the great social force of combined labor.
Marx traced the entire process of capitalist development, from simple commodity exchange to large-scale social production. This analysis has been increasingly and clearly confirmed by the historical experiences of various countries. The global triumph of capitalism did not signify a true victory for labor; rather, it was merely a last-ditch measure for labor’s survival.
The laws of capital accumulation and concentration make large corporations the victors in a free-market society while subordinating small and medium-sized enterprises, ultimately serving as the precondition for the transition to a monopoly system. However, the emergence of monopolies does not completely eliminate free competition; rather, as monopolies and competition coexist within a free-market framework, contradictions and conflicts intensify further. Even within the monopoly system, competition continues in the form of cartels, syndicates, and trusts.
Socialist Thought and the Theory of Class Struggle
Amid the collapse of serfdom and the spread of capitalism, various socialist ideologies emerged as a protest against the oppression and exploitation of workers. Their early form, known as utopian socialism, criticized the evils of capitalism and sought to design an ideal society; however, it failed to organize a social force capable of changing the system through its own efforts and to explain the laws governing the development of capitalism.
Prominent figures of utopian socialism include Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen. They sought to use reason to design a new social system capable of eliminating the ills of capitalism, and at times attempted to realize this through model experiments or cooperatives. For example, Fourier conceived of a communal housing community called “Phalanstère,” while Owen implemented worker education and early childhood education at his factory in New Lanark, Scotland, and attempted to establish “New Harmony” in Indiana, USA, though these efforts were not successful. Nevertheless, their initiatives left a certain influence on the labor movement and the cooperative movement.
Marx recognized the limitations of utopian solutions and defined class struggle as the core driving force of historical development. He exposed the interests of each class hidden within moral, religious, and political rhetoric, and argued that reform or gradual improvement alone could not crush the resistance of the ruling class. He concluded that the only force capable of sweeping away the old order and achieving fundamental transformation was a social force that had enlightened and organized itself from within that society—namely, the proletariat.
Marx’s philosophical materialism presented a path for the oppressed class to break free from mental enslavement and regain self-awareness, while his economic theory clarified the true position of the proletariat within the capitalist system. This theoretical foundation provided workers with the basis for achieving social transformation through their own class-based organization and struggle.
Autonomous organizations of the proletariat proliferated around the world. From the United States to Japan, and from Sweden to South Africa, worker organization spread; through actual struggles, workers enlightened and educated themselves, freeing themselves from the prejudices of bourgeois society and growing into an increasingly united force.
Historical examples include various labor movements of the 1910s. In 1913, workers in Dublin staged a bloody strike, and in colonial regions as well, fierce strikes broke out in South Africa and Ireland between 1913 and 1914. In Spain, anarcho-syndicalist forces were strong, and in France, large-scale strikes occurred frequently, though in many cases they were unsuccessful. Differences in unionization rates between countries were also pronounced at the time, with France’s rate being relatively low. In the Balkans, movements emerged among social democrats seeking solidarity and collective action.
In conclusion, Marxism integrated three major sources—philosophical materialism, the scientific analysis of political economy, and the theory of socialist class struggle—to analyze the structure and contradictions of capitalist society and provide the theoretical foundation for the liberation of the working class. While each of these three components has its own distinct significance, they combine to form the overall strength of Marxism.
