AD603 Critical Theory

In Adorno’s essay in Aesthetic Theory, I found my self trying to discern if Adorno was speaking of art from the creators perspective, as the process of creation of art relates to society, or from the viewers or society’s perspective.  From the artist’s creation perspective I felt he was off-mark. Certainly the artist is a product of society, but, it seems to me the artist presents a way of seeing, which may or may not begin with a physical object, although it may, this process does not have to deal with the imperfections of society, or other motivations, political or otherwise as is suggested. 

The editor’s introduction to the essay The Culture Industry, suggests that Adorno and Herkheimer’s critique of the culture industry neglected to take into consideration the “opportunities for all kinds of individual and collective creativity and decoding”.  I don’t think this “neglect” was on oversight. In the essay Art and Mass Culture, Horkheimer suggests that the masses (and the elite) are losing their ability to express anything that is not directed by mass culture, and the realm of “High Art” is not unaffected – it’s ability to harbor principles that counter the world from which they originated is at risk. The commercial domination of our lives diminishes our ability to provide anything other than a conditioned response.

Horkheimer criticized totalitarian regimes in which Art had become “a race for the favors of the powers-that-be”.  The situation in our present American culture exhibits a similar dynamic. In the world of high art, the value of art is often measured by popularity - translating to dollars. Very often, with art marketed along the lines of entertainment, interpretation and significance is often supplied through marketing – providing viewers with a ready-made response to the art, saving the viewer from any undo contemplation or reflection, and … total control is maintained by the culture industry, reducing the role and importance of the art, the artist ,and the viewer.

In the art of the masses – supplied by the culture industry, the goal is mass appeal and consumption.  In this case “power” is achieved by accumulating a larger proportion of the market.  This goal for mass appeal shapes the product – “dumbs it down” -  to the comprehension and appeal of an eleven year old (as described by Adorno in Culture Industry Reconsidered) – or … in other words, eleven year olds are the new “powers-that-be”.

I’m not sure why Adorno sees the pursuit of “goodwill” as motivated by anything other than monetary gain -(again from Culture Industry Reconsidered) “The culture industry misuses its concern for the masses to duplicate, reinforce and strengthen their mentality, which it presumes is given and unchangeable” and ”the manufacturing of “good will” per se, without regard for particular firms or saleable objects (as Adorna describes) is a pretty good definition for co-marketing. Obviously the players who benefit from this dynamic enjoy a monetary gain. 

Erika commented that “Marx concludes that this interdependent relationship would be more functional if both party’s goods were equally valued in their exchange” I’d speculate that a valuation that provided an apparently equal return for the worker and capitalist — in which the worker received the same payment as the capitalist –would still not be acceptable to Marx since the capitalist is benefitting from the labors of others.  Though the dialog presented by Rius this dynamic is portrayed as getting money for nothing  Rius brushes aside the capitalists’ defense of higher returns from “putting up the money” by questioning where the money came from. This is a good question indeed, but what if the money was acquired through labor, creating a “sweat for sweat” equality?  Such an apparently equal transaction does not assign a value to risk. The worker gets paid in exchange for labor, regardless if the goods can be sold, or at what price.

As the fifth principle necessary for a successful transformation to communist system reads(page 122): 

Centrali(z)ation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.  

Apparently assessment of risk and the decision to investment in capital would be assumed by the State.  And again presumably, any benefit resulting from the investment would return to the State. No guarantee of sharing in any profit or loss is suggested. This system would reduce or remove incentives for innovation — substituting bureaucracy for personal risk taking and the rewards of entrepreneurship, ignoring the human desires for innovation and self-improvement.

 In Marx for Beginners Eduardo del Rio (Rius) provides a concise introduction of Marxist principles, in an easy to consume fashion. Karl Marx’s reaction to the inequalities of capitalism are clearly presented to members of an astounded cartoon audience. With bias veiled in humor, Marxism is presented as the inevitable emancipation of man. Socialist Society is presented as the fifth and final mode in the “Successive Modes of Production to occur after the retreat of capitalism.  

Marxism is presented as a reaction to the economic inequalities of capitalism.  The solutions suggested by the Manifesto are economic and political, largely ignoring human needs that may be at least as important as achieving a fair surplus value.

In David Held’s Introduction to Critical, he describes how the Frankfurt School and Critical Thinking evolved, beginning his introduction referring to Critical Theory as “what one may loosely refer to as a ‘school’ of Western Marxism”.  While some of the criticisms of capitalism are shared with Marxism, such as the dehumanization that occurs in a capital intensive commodity society, Critical Theory is concerned with much more than economics, providing us with the means to evaluate objective and subjective effects of human thought and activity.

Horkheimer’s “Postscript” in Critical Theory expounds on the holistic concerns of human nature that Critical Thinking facilitates, considering both the scientific and non-scientific nature of humans, conccious of the problems that thinking in narrow bands of specialization and concern may bring.

I was excited to begin the readings for class the first “Marx for beginners”, a reading that may actually bring a better understanding to the man referred to as the father of communism.  I was truly lost as to what Marxism was even though I have heard numerous people refer to Karl Marx and Marxism. 

Ahh. A sigh of relief Rius uses a comic book style to explain Karl Marx life and what people refer to as Marxism.  The sigh of relief comes from the fact that I have read books very similar to this such as Leader and Groves (1995) Introducing Lacan.  The style is quick, it keeps your attention and most of all it is easy to understand and read.  Trying to understand Marxism or communism in Marx’s own words is far from easy the way the book is set up clarifies the passages in order to better understand them.

We have most likely all had jobs that can directly relate to the reading.  Working hard so that your boss has to do little to nothing, and still getting pressured into completing more work on a daily basis.  While working for Michaels Arts and Crafts (a splendid corporation), in the framing center I had to look at the magnificent production management charts every day.  The was not physically demanding in any way I would like to add yet the time aloud to complete a customers frame was completely underestimated.  Day in and day out I would have to hear from my boss about not selling enough or not completing everything on the production chart.  It was impractical and insane, my boss knew that the production charts couldn’t possibly be completed in a day yet he would still yell at us. 

A communist society seems somewhat impossible; I think that it’s a great dream, but nothing more.  I would love it if everyone felt as though they were equal to each other, but the idea of not really owning objects seems unappealing.  This is where I get a little of track, I guess its because I have my own idea of what communism should be, and then again this may be due to the fact that I don’t truly have a full understanding of communism.  For my own sake I tend to see communism as a trade system, I give you an item in return for an item of similar value, where the ownership is still their, yet the trade is equal.  I would love it if I gave you a potato from my garden for an ear of corn from you garden. This past example is probably defined as some other sort or something; obviously I am not the first to this. What I want I guess is a pure equality and ownership over my work, the closest thing in reference would be Alex Garlands (1996) Novel “The Beach”.  The novel was later turned into a film in 2000 staring Leonardo DiCaprio.  DiCaprio is backpacking through Asia, meets a crazy dude who gives him a map to an island that is supposed to be weed nirvana.  Once he gets to the island he becomes part of a secret island society that works together in a similar fashion to what I described.  Obviously more happens in the film I was just getting to the point that was a comparison to my whole idea of pure communism.  Everyone helps each other out equally yet still has ownership over objects. Below is a clip from the 2000 movie The Beach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3T1W7FO4og&feature=related

Over all, the most difficult item for me to grasp is the ownership, in working I feel the need to posse’s items, to say this is my house, my chair, my food, it’s why I work!  It just feels like it goes against human nature, society enjoys a name, Prada, Sony, Apple, it gives us an odd sense of accomplishment.  I worked hard in order to have these objects.   This view may come from the idea that one object is better than another, yet it still seems natural to desire it.  I know that I am going of in my own tangent about one aspect; it’s just that it is the one aspect I don’t understand.

Now that I have a better understanding of the life and ideas of Karl Marx from Rius, I can discuss the other readings for the week.  Held brings us to a group of theorists that had concerns about Marx’s theories, but also shared similar views to that of Marx.  The concerns arose due to modern day realities.  Their largest concern with Marx was on his view that Socialism should be the next step.  In the next reading Horkheimer seems to show me that critical theory should free me from my current state.  I need to read this one again don’t fully understand his point.

I have gained a better understanding for Marxism and critical theory from these readings, yet still feel some what lost.  Not that I would ever argue with any one based on this knowledge but it’s always better than quoting Rage Against the Machine lyrics.

Since I am curious about how critical theory works in the design and related field, I quickly read through the three reading materials and trying to find the answer. In David Held’s Introduction to Critical Theory, a negative definition was given to critical theory in its induction because critical theory was considered more than what it is, due to the fact that critical theorists frequently criticized the works of others. The critical theorists rejected Kant’s transcendental method and many aspects of Hegel’s philosophy; they rejected a philosophy of identity; they rejected dialectical materialism; they rejected the positivist understanding of science and a correspondence theory of truth… If they rejected everything they meet then what are they? Or are they trying to shape themselves by rejecting others and providing advanced theories and mean while methods? Answers are given in the rest chapters of that book as well as Max Horkheimer’s ‘Postscript” in Critical Theory. Critical theory still keeps relation to political economy, aesthetics, psychoanalysis and the philosophy of history.

Critical social theory were built on Marxian political economy which is introduced in Rius’s Marx for beginners while in Max Horkheimer’s “postscript” in Critical Theory,  critical theory continues to respect and has positive influences on other special sciences. Its goal is clearly stated which is man’s emancipation from slavery and its dialectical function is to measure every historical stage. Since dialectical thought is considered to be the most advance state of knowledge, critical theory can make the final judge. Back to David Held’s introduction to critical theory, its background and its character can be easily found out.

I skipped Rius’s Marx for beginners because Chinese students have plenty of opportunities to get touch with it. Meanwhile, I’m trying to think about how to conduct a critic within my major and what theory should I use. If a dialectical theory exists and may works in my major then what I would be? I may not get the exact answer at this time, but a system composed of dialectical thought (society, history, value, market…) may have already been there. Not only the knowledge and design criteria of the industrial design itself, a wider view from philosophical aspect will also be provided. And it can definitely help us compare to the past and look at the future. All of these will contribute to the development of the subject, not a negative, but a more positive way. Since Marxian political economy is the foundation of this critical theory, I tried to find any direct relationship between it and any practical critic I am going to conduct.  More indirectly, these theories can help me understand how this world is operated. Although people still question the Marx’s theory, it is still the most advanced theory system in this world. Finally, we will no longer be an absolute ego when we reject others’ works. As a part of the development of the history, we are just the interpreter of it.

To be honest, I had no idea what critical theory is before reading these materials. Although I can not totally understand what has been discussed by Max Horkheimer, at least I have already learned some basic knowledge of Frankfurt School and their critical theory.

As far as I understand, the critical theory, founded by Frankfurt School, is concerned more about individuals and the mass culture rather than the society as a whole. As Max Horkheimer said, “For this theory is not concerned only with goals already imposed by existent ways of life, but with man and all their potentialities.” The development of society and the history moves on with the historical trends and rules as well as the men’s thoughts and their efforts. Compared to other modern specialized science, critical theory put more emphasis on individuals and their inside world. I’m sorry to say that I can not talk too much about psychologist or economy or politics, since I’m not such kind of persons who engaged in these specific fields of science. But I can talk about design or something similar. Probably it sounds too far away from design to critical theory or to philosophy, but please remember that, everything has something inside in common with others.

Whenever talking about art or design, people would think all these stuffs have no logic or rules to follow. In fact, that is not the case, especially for industrial design, which is concerned about markets, consumers, producers, fashions and the most important parts in my opinion, life experience and individuals. That is to say, everything has its own philosophy, simple or complex, we just can not ignore or even deny it. Imagine, with all these elements, markets, consumers, producers, fashions and individuals, what is coming up in your mind? Right, that is economics. So industrial design should also, on some degree, follow the rules of economy in order to make more money or win more customers and better reputations in the circle of industrial society. And in modern world of industrial design, the starting point of design is just from individuals and their needs or their particular preference. I guess that is why pop culture or pop music is so widely spread these days. And another trend which we should also keep an eye on is something called Non-mainstream culture has been developing fast underneath, which is the very unique form of language of expression for certain groups of individuals. And the products manufactured today are also pursuing such trends to satisfy the certain groups of people whose population is increasing quickly. Take Apple Company for example, which is an extremely successful case in industrial design, personally I appreciate the design but I can hardly afford it. And that is the point. Does the price really match the product we buy? Or it is only because the design or the idea of the laptop or something is so bright that people become crazy about it? Well, that is how Apple fans turned out. But if we look at this phenomenon in another way, at least one point can be concluded that the designers of Apple have totally understand the rules and the relationship between industry, customers and the work of design, that is commercial design. I can not clearly tell how individual has played the important part in this process, but we do have realized how significant an individual’s will is to this market. Well, another group of individuals who are also leading the direction of development in industrial design, is the designer. I always treat designer as a special group of people, since their personality are a little bit strange. On the one hand, they participate in the process of manufacture and marketing, on the other hand, they themselves are also consumers. Thus, they act as a bridge connecting the two sides, producers and customers. Whenever a revolution or of consumption is being on, which might roll the entire industry down, no doubt, it should be designers’ responsibility to get conscious of that before its coming.

Actually, not only the industrial designers, everyone is playing some different parts in reality at the same time, and what we do, what we think, how we act will also, more or less, influence the community we are living in.

That is just what I am thinking about while reading. 

Thanks.

As I sad down to read the first weeks assigned texts, I will admit, sadly, that my understanding of Marxism was very limited and flat. Knowing mainly that Marx was against the inequities of Capitalism and for what he saw as the equality of Socialism, I had little knowledge of the details of the Marxist argument and of how deeply our society reflects that which he greatly detested.

Going into Rius’ text “Marx for Beginners”, I was quickly interested in much of the arguments and did appreciate the use of illustrations and reiterating comments along with sections of primary text to keep the ease of absorption and understanding high. Having worked half a decade in a large corporate office for a massive national company, I could only too easily relate to the position of the proletariat as the seller of its own labor force at best only keeping a float economically to survive, while the Boss-man (bourgeoisie) seems gleefully free from the 8 hours of grueling monotonous work and at the same token blessedly free from economic worry and floating effortlessly above water (perhaps on the backs of those struggling to breath?).

Rius goes on to lay out how the current Capitalist system has developed by discussing the history of modes of production (Primitive Community, Slave State, Feudal State, Capitalist  System) and by expanding on Communism as defined by Marx and Hegel and it’s goals; then explained why the Socialist System was to Marx the inevitable next historical step or mode of production. He claimed this change in the modes of production to be inevitable and men are in control of it and could only achieve it through unity and it must lead to socialism.  Such a statement as change toward social justice being inevitable struck me as being my first major disagreement. Too many historical occurrences that would and have stopped such change in exchange for furthering the woos of many make such positive change seem less than inevitable, but the second reading addresses such, so on to that.

Seeming to grasp a much better basic knowledge of what Marx was after, “Introduction to Critical Theory” by Held, greatly benefited from that base information. This reading established an introduction definition of Critical Theory as a method and a known group of theorists regarded as in the Critical Theory camp. These theorists held similar concerns and some similar conclusions to Marx’s views, but due to their contemporary context (post WWI era through WWII), they questioned some of Marx’s fundamentals, particularly that socialism was an inevitable next step in history. “In changing historical circumstances how could the revolutionary ideal be justified?” To answer, Held goes on to discuss the works of Lukacs and Korsh, of whom held that examination of the origins and context of Marx’s thought was needed to reconstruct Marxist theory, as was now needed. This method of examining and researching the context and influences of Marx was used by Critical theorist there after as a way of reconstructing Marxism to apply to contemporary situations. This need of consideration of a specific social context in regards to reconstructing a solution made much more sense to me than stating social change as inevitable and making the role of man seem secondary to the path of history.

Held goes on to further define Critical Theory by addressing misconceptions and the basis of their conception and reason for falsehood. One such criticism is that Critical Theory doesn’t offer solution to practical political questions. They in fact didn’t develop a set of clear political demands, because the “process of liberation entails a process of self-emancipation and self creation”. He reiterated that they felt the relationship of theory and practice is ever changing and will continue to do so due to being within the context of a world that is also always changing.

The last text was written by one of the Critical Theorists Held had mentioned, Max Horkheimer, entitled “Critical Theory”. In this text Horkheimer further clarifies the specific and important role of Critical Theory, in contrast with such approaches as specialized sciences. He states that Critical Theory aims to not only hypothesize through research, but to ultimately free modern man from his contemporary form of slavery. He states that only through dialectic thought can decisive action occur. He also explains why Critical Theory has been so dominantly concerned with economy (which I had questioned myself), since the current social condition is so driven and controlled by economy so must its solution be found within economic change.

In an attempt at a short conclusion, I took from the readings an understanding that Marx was important in defining a social situation and struggle in a means that would call to action a desire for change (though didn’t agree exactly with his conclusion of how change was to occur and perhaps what the change was), Critical Theory attempts to address Marx’s arguments in terms of his own social context to then reconstruct it to further understand the social needs of current masses, and the goal of the change Critical theory strives for the happiness of all men through the realization (through research and dialectic though) of their potential (both of good and bad).

Here is a link to the “The Communist Internationale”, which written in the late 19th century in France, and has often been used as an anthem for socialist and communist struggles globally in a multitude of different languages:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suVB3YGIUk0

In the three kinds of readings, I could see the development of Marxism and its expanded version of Critical Theory of Frankfurt school. Critical Theory could be titled as “the renaissance of Marxism” because the philosophers associated Marxism with psychological and sociological aspects. Here I write what I figured out with Marxism and Critical Theory and their relation to each other though sometimes difficult and unfamiliar terms blocked my reading.

In Marx for Beginners, the ceaseless struggle and challenge of working class is the base of its theory.Marxism explains the movement of society and the following role of the working class in that change. Proletariat, the working class is described as who makes products, has no material interest, and a scapegoat of system that is studded with adverse privileges of “bourgeois(the boss, capitalist and the rich man)” and distinctions. So the emancipation from this hereditary proportion becomes the main goal for this class. Each evolutionary status of society-Slavery, Feudalism and Capitalism-has improved and created productive forces(technique, science, industry, etc.). However, if the system does not catch and satisfy the needs of these forces, the society would face opposition and revolution. With this regard, Marx can explain the contradictions of Capitalism which resulted in economic and social depression and finally Socialism, everyone has equal opportunity to benefit from a nation’s wealth(,  is newer and fairer system(p.133) The ideas of Marxism have been enriched by the working class and these ideas are used as the basis of the Labor Movement of today but it sometimes goes to extremism or radicalism with distorted or profit-seeking standpoint of a certain group.  

During reading Introduction to Critical Theory and Critical Theory-Selected Essays, the disposition of Frankfurt school was revealed. Critical Theory was derived from the philosophers’ desire to relieve the poverty of their country when Fascism became prominent in 1920s~1940s like Marx began to think of his own economic problems at the very beginning. The progress of Capitalism resulted in dehumanization and authoritarianism and they worried about the future of their society. Though Marx provided the idea of the theory, it is clearly distinguished in the point that  it is critical to the extent that it seeks human emancipation, ” to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them(Horkheimer)” At this point, ideologies (that prevents penetration into social relation and structure, that itself is to control the masses, and that educates the mass to think the society’s current system is the best, these ideologies cause monopoly and oligopoly) are included in “circumstances”.  

In light of the practical goal of identifying and overcoming all the circumstances that limit human freedom, the goal could be reached only by interdisciplinary study that includes psychological, cultural, and social dimensions, as well as institutional forms of rule. Human beings are producers of their historical form of life and it is society’s subject-object (p.22). In this sense, a capitalist society could be transformed only by becoming more democratic  to make all conditions are under control of “human beings” depend on mutual agreement.The focus on democracy as the location for cooperative, practical and transformative activity continues today in the work of Habermas, as does the attempt to determine the nature and limits of “real  democracy” in complex, pluralistic, and globalizing societies.

As a working class and a consumer of a society of globalization, in some ways, I tend to be controlled by certain power. This can be under the name of trend which is determined by some power-holders. In a view of Critical Theory, our creative and sur-realistic pursuit can be demolished by this kind of ideology. As an artist and an independent creature, we need to build our own pursuit  based on self-understanding for liberated satisfaction. To be the same does not mean the real globalization. Below link generates the question, “what is the globalization?”

http://www.geographyalltheway.com/ib_geography/ib_globalization/imagesetc/globalization.jpg

Historical background and personal experiences allow me to appreciate Marxism for its championing of the working class and its irresistible faith in change. A somewhat decent exposure to written materials about Marxist theory, coupled with extensive lecturing about the pros and cons of Communism during my childhood, inspired confidence in me upon approaching these readings.  Somehow, my positive approach resulted in a healthy but uncomfortable amount of confusion and a desperate need for clarification. The readings, when read in the following order: Ruis, Held, and Horkheimer, attempt to answer the following questions, respectively: “What is Marxism?” “How does critical theory assess Marxism?” and “What are those assessments good for, anyway?”  These fundamental questions informed my own concerns as an artist and human. Consequently, these new concerns have fueled a more intense desire to pursue change without radicalism—an issue that is pertinent to my work as an artist. I humbly present my findings:

Ruis’ Marx For Beginners greets you with a winking eye and a raised fist. First, I will say that the positive imagery and language in this piece make it difficult to think objectively. On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve ever had the opportunity to absorb an academic document so delightfully activated by imagery—it was enjoyable albeit distracting. Ruis provides basic information about the historical and social context, allowing us to clearly understand the background for Marx’s dissatisfaction and subsequent reaction. The relationship between the employer and the laborer is like the yin and the yang. Exhausting his physical capacities for the sake of supporting his family, the proletariat is easily dominated by his superior, the bourgeois. Without his employer’s monetary backing, the worker would not be able to  “sell himself by the hour.” In turn, the employer requires the willingness of the laborer if he plans on gaining profit from his exploitations.  Marx concludes that this interdependent relationship would be more functional if both party’s goods were equally valued in their exchange.  This is exactly the opposite of capitalism.

It would seem that throughout history, man has been motivated by greed, among other factors. We desire the best for ourselves and we exert ourselves until we obtain those goods. This desire is natural and nature has a selection process for distributing goods: the fittest win. Marx is appalled that capitalism is “incapable of solving the problems of humanity.” But capitalism does not attempt to solve those problems. If anything, it controls the problem of greed in that it creates a system, ugly as it may be, that is selective. In this system, only the greediest, or the most capable, have a high chance of obtaining goods. He proposes a new system that hopes to elevate the working class by eliminating the concept of competition, the driving force for an economy based on specialization and transaction of goods. It is obvious that Marx is exceptionally humanitarian but he assumes that everyone is just as interested in community as he is.

Shedding light on the intellectual response to Marxism, Held’s Introduction to Critical Theory presents the theorists: Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, and Habernas. These four sought to promote the idea of a “true, free, and just life” by employing rational thought. Kantian, Hegelian, Freudian, and other influences allowed them to engage in investigations regarding the transformation of society: an understanding of the relationship between man, society, and nature. The theorists’ works were affected by inter-war events, having witnessed the oppressive destruction of inadequately composed Russian socialist movements. We become acquainted with the events in Germany that eventually led to Nazi rule and complete abolition of communist movements. These critical events inspire a more careful consideration of the role of critical theory. Lukacs and Korsch begin their re-examination, then, of Marxist theory and it’s realization in orthodox Marxism. They find several discrepancies, one particularly important. In the execution of Marxist thought, too much attention is given to the objective, not enough to the subjective. One must ask, though, if the theory in the first place lends itself to subjectivism considering that it set out to destroy all types of personal identity in exchange for a universal one.

It is important to consider Marx’s desperation: witnessing the trampling of helpless proletariat by the incessant, stomping, bourgeois. Marx valiantly proposed an idea that revolutionized the notion of identity within communities- a particular driving force in my own work. Although communists, in their execution of Marxist thought, may not have escaped the inevitable tendency to become ironically destructive, their philosophy certainly has a contemporary impact. Holkheimer maintains in his Critical Theory: Selected Essays, that theory is not only concerned with present matters at hand but also “with men and all their potentialities.”  Further, “interpretation takes place necessarily, not freely.” Thus, it is the triggering of thoughts, which result in a more contemplative approach to problem solving. The outcome is “knowledge” and man’s true “emancipation from slavery”—that which Marx so passionately sought. In short, what we take from theory and how we activate the potential of the intellect is what is most valuable.

To connect to this idea, I have posted a link to a very short but extremely valuable clip about Diego Rivera. A Mexican muralist and very much a passionate communist, he was a leader among other communist artists in the 30s who fought to publicize art in the name of communism. Communism set out to accommodate the less advantaged and to be able to provide the same amount of goods to them that the elite had. Rivera, among other artists who were employed by the Works Progress Administration, created murals in public spaces. In this way, they transformed spaces, making use of their specializations, maximizing their intellectual potential, and embracing their identity within their community. Some parts of Marxism worked out nicely.

Like most historical scholars, Karl Marx’s theories were ignored during his lifetime and expeditiously accepted after his death.  His revolutionary ideas on society, economics and politics inspired many communist regimes to form during the twentieth century.  The concept of Communism (also referred to as “Marxism” or even “Proletarian Socialism”), however, raises a very familiar and complex question: is it an effective philosophy in the management of a modern day government system?

First we must understand the ideologies behind Karl Marx’s “fair” system of Socialism.  Thanks to Ruis’s comical and easy-to-read guide, Marx for Beginners gives us a concise summary of Marx’s biography, history of philosophy, and values of the communist context.  It’s important to recognize the economic standing of Germany that brought about the socialistic philosophy of wanting to resolve an unjust system. In one of Marx’s letter to Engels, he expresses the crisis that has encompassed his nation as well as his home; illness and financial deficiency.  Poverty brings about the realization of an unfair hierarchical system that consists of generally two rankings: the Proletariat (the worker who offers his labor-power in exchange for an equivalent wage) and the Bourgeoisie (the upper or merchant class whose power and status comes from the exploitation of the Proletariat).  Marx’s revolutionary philosophies of wiping out the hierarchical system and replacing it with upmost equality for the common (hence the word communism), are expressed in The Communist Manifesto.  Authored together with Friedrich Engels, a system of equality was produced through the abolition of private property, rights and religion, and the conquest of a government owned society.

Let’s take a look at a modern day Communist regime like The People’s Republic of China.  The country is ruled by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, which constitutes of an Incumbent by the name of Hu Jintao, who was elected by the people to hold numerous titles such as, Paramount Leader, General Secretary and President of the Communist Party of China.  The foundation of China’s ideologies are derived from the ideas of the people and in return, converted into state law.  The CPC doesn’t take the place of the government, but rather represents equal power to the people of the country and merely takes the role of transferring the decisions to legal, governmental representatives.  This may sound a like a fair procedure, but many incontrollable issues have come about due to the countries rapid economic growth - pollution, high prices, land disputes and a revision of the guiding ideology – causing riots, protests and petitioners across the country.  A monopoly of ownership and rights begin to emerge. How then do you unify a country and centralize the government, in the purest form, Marx’s form that is, of Communism in a modern era?

According to Horkheimer, liberating human beings from enslavement should be the underlying purpose of any Socialistic regime.  Whether it is through Communism, Capitalism or Libertarianism, critical theory studies these very aspects that make up the varied dimensions of Socialism.  What exactly is critical theory then and how does is promote the ideas of equality and freedom, especially in our day and age? Part one of David Held’s Introduction to Critical Theory, provides a fine illustration of the emergence of critical theory.  The Frankfurt School, a nickname designated to fine philosophers such as Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, used Marxist’s theories as a foundation for their individualistic interpretations of modern social philosophy and social psychology.  Critical theorists were beginning to look at areas that had not been studied before - due to the unexpected progression of society - and cultivating a more befitting alternative to the development of Social government.  

Critical theory encourages the exploration of history and modern day economics.  Studying these factors provides us with a broad set of models for Socialism’s past achievements and failures, enabling us to produce a more effective system for our future generations.  The question still stands: Is Communism an effective philosophy in the management of a modern day government system?

In milieu of the American presidential candidacy, I leave you with this amusing clip that claims that the Obama campaign is “riddled with socialism.”

Video: Riddled with Socialism