remains one of the more impressive political theories, particularly in
relation to the explanations of political change it advances. Many
‘democratic’ political theories, in contrast, are oriented towards a
static and idealistic analysis.
Features of Marx’s theory that remain credible are its dynamic
nature, and the systematic explanation it advances for political
change. As we have considered, the main political actors are seen to be
economic classes whose interests are in conflict. Political conflict
becomes more acute as the result of both an increasing consciousness
by classes of their interests and changes in their relative position as a
result of what would now be termed ‘economic development’. Major
revolutions such as the French Revolution and the English Civil
War can be seen in terms of an old dominant class (the rural feudal
aristocracy) being replaced by a new dominant class (the urban
capitalist bourgeoisie). Marx’s prediction was that the capitalist
system, in turn, would fail because of its in-built contradictions,
leading to the triumph of a new dominant class, the more numerous
and increasingly well-organised and militant proletariat. The logic of
Marx’s theory is that socialist revolution should take place in the
advanced capitalist states not in a semi-feudal state on the periphery
of Western capitalism (Russia).
The concept of the need for a ‘fit’ between the economic and
political systems and the dynamic role of class structures seems well
founded. A somewhat paradoxical example of this might well be the
fall of East European communism. Here, one might argue, the
command economy, having served its purpose in aiding the forced
industrialisation of underdeveloped and war-damaged economies in
conjunction with a centralised and dictatorial political system, was no
longer adequate to manage a more complex affluent and consumer-
oriented economy. Demands for greater political freedom thus fitted
well with demands for economic reform.
More doubtful is the idea of the inevitability of a bipolar class
system in which one class inevitably becomes dominant. This idea of
a historical dialectic, we have seen earlier, was inherited by Marx
from Hegel and, whilst politically convenient, seems far from
justified by events. As we have seen, academic analysis, as well as
observation, suggests that much political conflict (especially voting
behaviour) particularly in Europe – but also to some extent in North
America – can be explained in terms of class divisions. However, the124 PROCESSES