Neo-Marxism and its relevance in the 21st century

Neo-Marxism, as the name suggests is an extension or a sort of an amendment to the Marxist

theory, which has gained prominence in the second half of the 20th century. The term does not
refer to a single theory or approach, but rather is a colloquial reference to the combination of
various 20th century schools of thought and approaches that amend or extend Marxism and
Marxist theory. The neo-Marxist school of thought adds elements of other intellectual traditions
to the classical Marxist theory. It is a loose term with no fixed definition as per say and finds
application in various fields. Neo-Marxism includes elements of psychoanalysis (as in the
case of critical theory), Weberian sociology (as in Erik Olin Wrights theory of contradictory
class locations), or anarchism (as in the example of critical criminology) (Marshall and Scott,
2005).
Basically, the theories originally designated as neo- Marxist are concerned in particular with
culture and ideology, and with the role of capitalist states welfare institutions in retarding
rather than advancing socialism (Kolakowski, 1978).
One of the most widely accepted and popular forms of Neo-Marxism is the Frankfurt School.
It emerged from the Institute of Social Research at the University of Frankfurt in Germany.
This school follows the critical theory, which means a specific kind of social philosophy. The
Frankfurt school maintains its position as one of the severest critics of capitalism, but they also
steer themselves clear of the classic Marxist school of thought, saying that Marxism was
starting to become very close to communism, because Marxs followers had chosen to support
only a narrow selection of his broad ideas. The neo-Marxist ideology states that changes and
amendments need to be made to the classical Marxist theory in order to make it relevant and
useful to the current times (Surhone et al., 2010). It incorporates those changes keeping in mind
the changes in social conditions from Marxs time to ours.

The Advent of Neo-Marxism

It can be said that Karl Marxs original social theory is like the Adam & Eve of Marxism.
Each offspring of Marxs philosophy is Neo-Marxistic, as it is no longer the work of Karl
Marx (Plling-Vocke, 2005). The Biographical Dictionary of Neo-Marxism defines the
advent of neo-Marxism by saying that it is like as if Marxisms children have indeed gone
their separate ways.
The neo-Marxist school of thought developed after the first World War when the neo-Marxists
saw the failure of working-class revolutions in Western Europe. They interpreted these failures
as an inherent lack of adherence to the true Marxist theory, along with a lack of understanding
of the prevailing social conditions. They believed that class divisions under capitalism are more
important than sex-based divisions or any issues of race and ethnicity. In order to account for
the change in social conditions since Marxs times, these neo-Marxists chose the parts of
Marxs thought that might clarify social conditions that were not present when Marx was alive.
They filled in what they perceived to be omissions in Marxism with ideas from other schools
of thought (McCarthy, 2006).
Initially, like Marxism, neo-Marxism too began as a European phenomenon with a strong
presence in Germany through the Frankfurt School. However, it was the rise of the Nazi regime

under Adolf Hitler that caused the spread of this ideology to the United States, albeit
unintentionally. The Nazi authorities suppressed all forms of political ideologies and their
advocates were hunted down. As a result, during the Nazi regime, the members of the
(Frankfurt) school fled first to Geneva, Switzerland and then to the United States (McCarthy,
2006).
In the US, most of the noted pioneers of the neo-Marxist school of thought became attached to
the department of sociology at Columbia University in 1935. In 1941, these neo-Marxists
relocated to California. This way, the ideology spread to various parts of the country and
subsequently the world during the Second World War itself. After the end of the war, in 1949,
some of them (members of the Frankfurt school) namely Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno,
and Friedrich Pollock returned to Germany and 2 years later helped re-establish the Institute
for Social Research (McCarthy, 2006). This institute was to become the focal point for all
research in the neo-Marxist school of thought in the years to come.
Certain traits of the classical Marxism can still be found in all its offsprings, but one can say
that everything other than the fundamental, mandatory components of the theory can be termed
the neo in Neo-Marxism. History has forced Marxist scholars to adapt their social theories
to new challenges Karl Marx himself was never able to foresee (Plling-Vocke, 2005). So,
even if the children of Marxism have gone different paths, they still share a common bond and
some connection to the classical theory. In fact, experts have maintained that their constant
defence and articulation of their irreplaceable blood traits in ever-changing surroundings has
kept the family intact (Plling-Vocke, 2005).In other words, the neo-Marxist schools of
thought have managed to remain in close contact with each other as well as their parent- the
classical Marxist theory as they have constantly avoided their ties from being severed.
Pioneers of the Neo-Marxist School of Thought- Over the years, the neo-Marxist school of
thought has been propagated and pioneered by a number of commentators and authors from
around the world, particularly from Germany and the erstwhile Soviet Union. Some major neoMarxists who brought about important advances in the field after the First World War were
Georg Lukcs, Karl Korsch and Antonio Gramsci. As mentioned earlier, political
commentators like namely Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Friedrich Pollock were
instrumental in the establishment of the Institute for Social Research and the development of
the Frankfurt School. In fact, Horkheimer served as the director of the Institute and propagated
a holistic approach that combined theory and practice. Economists like Kalecki and Baran and
Sweezy integrated the Neo-Marxist approach to industrial economics, stressing upon the
monopolistic instead of the competitive nature of capitalism (Baran and Sweezy, 1966).

Difference Between Classical Marxism and Neo-Marxism

Many people consider neo-Marxism ideology as a sort of diametrical opposite to Marxism.
However, the truth is that the two schools of thought are related to each other, almost as if they
are from the same family of ideologies. As discussed earlier, neo-Marxist theories are like
offsprings of the classical Marxist theory. But despite all their similarities, the two have a lot
of differences and distinguishing features.

First of all, Marxism aims at attaining a sort of equanimity with regard to the people especially
between the rich and the poor. It has firm roots in history and is based on the history of society
in the past Marxism lays its ideologies for the uplift of the society.
It is important to understand here that the Marxist theory strongly believes in the
implementation of its theoretical interpretations and also expects practical applicability of those
theories on their own accord. This actually is the main difference between Marxism and neoMarxism, or any other system of political thought for that matter. Many political pundits
believe that Marxism is the foundation for the formation of several other political thoughts such
as Leninism, Socialism and other economic systems and thoughts including Neo-Marxism.
Neo-Marxism on the other hand is said to incorporate several ideas and philosophies from
Marxism including the concept of critical theory, psychoanalysis and other related ideologies.
Some of the examples of Neo-Marxist theories are Weberian sociology and Herbert Marcuse
theories.
So, in a way the neo-Marxist critics did not dispel classical Marxism all together but in fact
shed some light on the classical theories by considering new views and ideas. Most of these
ideas were developed by Weber and focus more on the social influences that perpetuate not
just economic oppression but also social oppression. They argued that Marx saw the economic
sector as preeminent, but he ignored the dialectical processes within it, such as politics,
religion, mass-media, etc. The neo-Marxists argue that these processes cannot be reduced to
something determined purely by the economy. Marxs scientifically oriented economic
determinism hypothesized that actors would be driven by the structures and processes of
capitalism into taking a series of actions, which would ultimately lead to praxis. However, this
postulation contradicted the dialectic by making individual thought and action totally
insignificant. It actually raised a critical question among neo-Marxists, as to why do individuals
need to act in the first place if the capitalist system was bound to collapse on its own anyhow.
With regard to this the notable Hegelian Marxist, Georg Lukacs proposed a new adaptation of
a number of Marxs theories. Marxs concept of the fetishism of commodities became the basis
for his concept of reification. However, the fundamental difference between the two was that
while Marxs concept was restricted to just the economic system; Luckas broadened this
concept so that it would include all systems of society viz. state, law and economic. Rather
than adopt Marxs view that reification was exclusive to just the economy alone, Lukacs
actually believed that all the social structures come to have a sort of an objective character,
which is out of the control of the individual. Lukacs also stated that the ability to achieve class
consciousness is a trait particular to capitalistic societies and that a variety of factors prevent
the development of a class consciousness. He firmly believed that the state was independent of
the economy while still affecting society. According to him, status consciousness supersedes
class consciousness. It is the ambiguity social positions that tend to prevent the emergence of
a class consciousness.
Another notable neo-Marxist was Antonio Gramsci who also helped the transition from
classical Marxisms staunch economic determinism to a far more socially holistic view.
Though Gramsci readily recognized the value of structural factors, particularly the economy,
he did not believe that economy alone could lead to praxis. He proposed that in order for classconsciousness to occur and give rise to revolutions, one needed a revolutionary ideology, one
that would emerge from collective ideas and not social structures. The social contradiction did

not hold true in the concept that the intellectuals generated an ideology and consequently,
extended it to the masses. In other words, it said that the masses could not become class
conscious on their own and required the help of the social elite. Gramsci argued that this
hegemony was nothing but a cultural leadership that was exercised by the ruling class. Only
they dictated that if the working class wanted to achieve class-consciousness they would
require cultural leadership to guide them. This way, the economic and state apparatus alone
cannot spontaneously build a culture through their shared experience alone.
Clearly, neo-Marxism began as a relaxation of the economic determinism and positivism
prevalent in the classical Marxist theories. It used other sociological views developed after
Marx in order to provide a more holistic view of social class structures and dynamics, keeping
a focus more on society than the economic system alone. Both Lukacs and Gramsci actually
offer views on the importance of both social and intellectual forces regarding the emergences
of class-consciousness. Their individual approaches provide insight into the dialectical process
explaining why capitalism remains so pervasive even in light of the peoples awareness or in
one case, unawareness of their oppression.

The Neo-Marxist Theories of Development

The Neo-Marxist approach to development is highly connected with dependency and world
systems theories (Taylor, 1974). Some development theories derived from the neo-Marxist
approach are as follows (Taylor, 1974; Limqueco and McFarlane, 1983)
Dependency Theory- This theory views underdevelopment as a historical process and not as a
condition intrinsic to less-developed nations. It gives importance to historical process and the
acknowledgment of the co-existence of dependency.
World Systems Theory- This theory also relates the concept of change in history. It maintains
that systems and institutions are being constantly constructed and destroyed, created and recreated. It implies that no nation stays as a permanent core.
Underdevelopment Theory- This theory was developed by Baran in 1950, and stated that it
was in the interests of capitalists to keep the third world as their indispensable hinterland as
it provided the West with a wide abundance of raw materials.

Criticisms of Neo-Marxist School of Thought

The neo-Marxist school of thought has found variety of uses and applications, but has similarly
attracted a lot of criticism as well. Here are some of the major criticisms of the neo-Marxist
ideology and theories.
Marxists concentrate only upon economic relationships and conflicts, while neo-Marxists also
broaden their horizon lightly. This way, both of these approaches tend to either overlook other
forms of non-economic conflict or make an attempt to explain these conflicts as having some
economic roots. This is inaccurate in most cases (Arato, 1993). For instance, radical feminists
argue that the roots of a male female conflict are simply not economic but patriarchal.

The subjective interpretations of individuals are under-emphasised when looking at the way in
which people see and act in the social world. A persons subjective interpretation of their class,
for example, might be quite different to their objective class position.
As an economic and political system, Capitalism has proven to be much more durable and
flexible than Marx had maintained. Hence, the advent of Communism does not appear
imminent in modern social systems.
Many forms of Neo-Marxism have often been criticised as being somewhat of a left-wing
variety of Functionalism. In fact, Jock Young has termed it Left Functionalism. Young
argues that the society does not exist for the benefit of all in the eyes of many researchers
and commentators. They simply substitute the idea that society actually exists for benefit of a
ruling class.
Some forms of Neo-Marxism resemble more a giant conspiracy theory, which maintains that
a Capitalist Ruling Class are able to manipulate all the other classes in society for their own
ends and benefits.
Critics have claimed that Marxism and neo-Marxism are unscientific in their methodology. In
particular, they say that neo-Marxism is not a theory as it cannot be tested and possibly falsified.
This is mainly because it involves the replacement of Capitalism by Communism as
historically inevitable.
The neo-Marxist perspective has one major drawback. It tends to always examine the social
relationships in terms of their conflictual basis. It is quite similar to the Functionalist
perspective looks at those same relationships according to the terms of their consensual basis.
This emphasis is very often misplaced.
Both classical and neo-Marxist schools of thought have attracted one common criticism. These
schools tend to ignore the role and position of women in the society. Women are quite often
marginalized to the periphery in much of the Marxist and neo-Marxist theorising. This is mostly
because of the focus upon work relationships and nothing else. However, with time new
theories are emerging and this criticism is starting to lose their significance (Preston, 1982).

Neo-Marxism in the 21st Century

Neo-Marxist thought has undergone substantial changes in the last few decades and many are
questioning the relevance of this school of thought in the 21st century. Researchers and analysts
have stated time and again that slowly and gradually the classic schools of neo-Marxist theory
are declining in utility and significance constantly. In fact, many believe that this decrease in
significance of the neo-Marxist ideology is a direct result of the fact that Marxs own ideas are
now slowly losing their importance globally. In fact, the post-Marxist thinkers are now drawing
less from the Marxist theory and the neo-Marxist ideologies and more from other different
intellectual tradition (Ritzer and Schubert, 1991).
Despite the loss in relevance, neo-Marxism has still managed to find application in modern
economics and is helping theorists understand the functioning of an autonomous state in a much
better way. We can take neo-Marxism as a starting-point. Here, the stress would be on the
economic-regulatory purposes of programmes. Let us take the case of two hypothetical

individuals here. One is a white woman, who is steered towards the skilled role of secretary
despite having limited experience and skill set for that. On the other hand is a black woman
who is pushed towards the low-skill role of waitress even though she has the education and
skills to do much better. Consequently, the first woman would refuse this role making herself
vulnerable, while the latter might conform and even excel, but would still remain financially
insecure. All this, while her employers profits rise on the surplus generated from her poverty
pay. Both women might eventually end up homeless. This is not an uncommon scenario in the
current day and age. Neo-Marxists would say that this is the work of a somewhat autonomous
state and its agents. Despite having a contradictory position on the subject of welfare, the state
works to the advantage of capital. It will function by depressing the pay of the poorest, thereby
keeping welfare less eligible. Hence, the workfare programmes can assure a continuing
supply of labour that is not only appropriately prepared, but can also rise and fall in perfect
harmony with the economic cycles of growth and retrenchment.

Conclusion
Neo-Marxism as a concept began in an attempt to answer the questions that hadnt been
explained in Karl Marxs works. It was to be an accessory to the classical Marxist theory, an
amendment rather. Currently, neo-Marxism is highly used to describe the opposition to
inequalities prevalent in the Lesser Developed Countries in a globalized world. It is seen as an
approach to economics that mainly stresses on the monopolistic nature of modern capitalism.
However, in order to survive in the 21st century amidst changing global political and economic
conditions, it will have to further adapt and amend itself, or it will cease to lose all relevance.

Marxism vs. Neo-Marxism

Marxism and Neo-Marxism are two kinds of political systems or thoughts that differ from each to some
extent in terms of their ideologies. Marxism is put forward by the legendary Karl Marx whereas NeoMarxism is a common term used for several other ideologies that were formed later based on Marxism.
This is the main difference between the two terms.
Marxism aims at bringing about a kind of equanimity among the people especially between the rich
and the poor. It has history as its firm basis and based on the history of society in the past Marxism lays
its ideologies for the uplift of the society.
It is important to understand that Marxism firmly believes in the implementation of its theoretical
interpretations and expects their practical applicability on their own accord. This is the main difference
between Marxism and any other system of political thought. It is believed by the political pundits that
Marxism is the foundation brick for the formation of several other political thoughts like Leninism,
Neo-Marxism, Socialism and other economic systems and thoughts as well.
Neo-Marxism on the other hand is said to incorporate several ideas and philosophies from Marxism
including its critical theory, psychoanalysis and other such ideologies. Some of the examples of NeoMarxist theories include Weberian sociology and Herbert Marcuse theories.
Frankfurt school of Neo-Marxism is said to have implemented many new ideology that shaped the
sociological and economic uplift of society. Herbert Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt
School were eminent sociologists and psychologists. Like Marxism, Neo-Marxism is also looked upon
as a branch of philosophy.
Sometimes the term Neo-Marxism is used in the sense that describes a kind of opposition to some of
the ideologies of the foremost Marxist truths. These are the differences between Marxism and NeoMarxism.