‘With the collapse of Communism, Marx’s contribution to the analysis of culture lost its contemporary significance.’ Discuss.

ART, CULTURE & SOCIETY

4,294 words

Student: 1160350

Introduction

When Eric Hobsbaum (2011) wrote that, ‘There are not many thinkers whose name alone suggests

major transformations of the human intellectual universe,’ he was referring to the deep and far-

reaching philosophical impact made by the writings of Karl Marx. Propounded against the

background of the great Western European socioeconomic upheaval known as the Industrial

Revolution, Marx’s controversial cultural analysis was a driver of political change across the world. It

inspired workers’ movements in the West, and the establishment of Communist states in Russia,

China, South East Asia and Latin America (Simon 1986).

For much of the 20th century, the world was ideologically divided between the Western capitalist

democracies and the Communist states. But with the fall of the Soviet Union and its Eastern

European satellites, practical attempts to apply Marxism were widely judged to have failed. Marx’s

theories of socialism seemed to lose their significance, both for politicians and intellectuals.

(Hobsbawm 2011) When the heavily symbolic Berlin Wall fell in 1989, a new economic era had

already begun, marked by the deregulation of markets and the growth of a global, neoliberal

capitalism that promised prosperity and plenty in the place of socialism’s restriction and repression.

(Petras 2003) In the light of capitalist successes and with no alternative system now apparent, it was

easy for the world to dismiss Marx’s doctrines as obsolete relics of a murky industrial age.

And yet in the past three or four years, academic literature), popular media and public discourse all

indicate a resurgence of interest in what the long-neglected German philosopher had to say.

(Panitch 2009, Lewis 2012)

The return of Marx?

The event that has reignited the debate is, of course, the global economic crisis (GEC). Owing to

overgenerous lending practices and overenthusiastic market speculation, key financial institutions

found themselves out of depth, and share values began to plummet in 2007/2008. The rapid and

devastating knock-on effect for businesses and state economies around the world led to a deep

economic recession that has seen employment rates and living standards decimated across Europe

and America (FT 2012), the heartland of free market capitalism. Civil unrest and public protest, born

out of dissatisfaction with the economic situation, has spilled repeatedly onto the streets of cities

like Athens, Rome, New York, London, Washington DC and Los Angeles. (Mason 2012) In this

context, the question of Marx’s contemporary significance becomes very relevant. The flaws of the

capitalist system are once again being held up to intense scrutiny, and many are turning to Karl

Marx, arguably capitalism’s most famous critic, for answers. (Anievas 2010)

Marx’s philosophy can be divided into two aspects, the first an analysis of capitalist culture, and the

second a revolutionary political vision. This essay will consider the relevance of the former in the

light of today’s globalised economy, and that of the latter with reference to the recent spate of

protest, specifically the anti-capitalist Occupy Movement. Through this, conclusions will be drawn

about whether, and to what extent, Marx’s philosophy can claim contemporary significance.

Marx’s economic and cultural analysis

Although Marx wrote a wide range of essays and texts, it will be useful here to break down his

analysis of capitalist culture and its effects into three essential parts: the base and superstructure

model, the alienating nature of capitalist production, and the social inequality it breeds.

Economic base and cultural superstructure

It was Marx’s belief that the system of economic relations adhered to form a basis on which the

legal, political and social structures of society are formed. He pointed to the prevalence of

patriarchal values and communitarian attitudes during the pre-capitalist feudal systems, contrasting

these with the values of ‘bourgeois economics’ which he blamed for replacing charitable social

relations and human worth with a culture of ‘callous cash payment...exchange value...egotistical

calculation.’ (Marx 1848,p82)

While the language of these assertions may be somewhat hyperbolic, it should be noted that the

quotations are drawn from The Communist Manifesto which, as a work of political rhetoric, is given

to strong and passionate language throughout. Marx likely overstates the ‘idyllic relations’ (ibid) of

pre-capitalism, while probably exaggerating the stark nature of social relations under capitalism.

However, his core assertion is that, ‘With the change of the economic foundation the entire

immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed.’(Baxandall 1974) If we examine the

economic shift beginning the late 1970s, and its effects on societies, this statement may begin to ring

true in contemporary ears.

Economic deregulation and financial boom came about mainly through the actions of Western

leaders in the late 1970s and 1980s. The United States and United Kingdom, led by Ronald Reagan

and Margaret Thatcher, are considered to have led this shift. (Colvin 2009) A long tradition of state-

regulated capitalism was abandoned for what has been termed ‘market fundamentalism,’ a

neoliberal system under which businesses are more or less free to operate according to market

forces. The immediate economic effects were a boom in globalisation, and a rise in international

currency trading; people could now speak of a truly global economy. (Bennett 2001) And Marx may

well have attributed the subsequent political, legal and social transformations, to these changes in

economic structure.

Political and legal effects

Several commentators have noted that over the decades following this, state policies and laws have

altered substantially, promoting the autonomy of the global economic system. Growing commitment

to the supremacy of free trade has elicited claims that state governments become subservient to

market forces. Deregulating laws were passed in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and the European

Union, with the intent of facilitating business operations. (Bratton 1997) To take one British example,

the power of trade unions, for decades influential political proponents of the working class, was

systematically dismantled by a series of Conservative laws, aimed at reducing the impact of

industrial action and employee pressure on the workings of business. (Towers 1989)

Furthermore, it is argued that these cultural changes affected the entire political spectrum. The Left

as a political force has been dwindling since the turn to neoliberalism. Even traditionally leftist

parties, such as Britain’s Labour Party under Tony Blair and France’s Socialists under Lionel Jospin,

pursued privatisation, reductions in state welfare and deregulation of business.(Hamilton 2008)

Petras and Veltmeyer (2003) claim that, ‘All of the European regimes have adopted the military

neoliberal agenda promoted by their banks and multinationals.’ (p111-113) Certainly what appears

to be the case is that the initial shift away from welfare and state control towards corporate-friendly

deregulation has created a political atmosphere in which governments increasingly support big

business. The power of the labour and financial markets to shift around the world exerts

unprecedented pressure on governments to make economic conditions favourable by slashing

corporation tax and reducing wage restrictions. This comes at the expense of workers, who in these

times of economic hardship find the burden shifted towards them via public service cuts, welfare

reductions and mass redundancies. (Kiado 2010)

This effective coupling of state policy to economic forces strongly calls to mind Marx’s claim that,

‘The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the affairs of the whole

bourgeoisie.’ (Marx,p82) It poetically describes the current situation, in which the economic elite are

often the greatest, or even the only, beneficiaries of government policies.

Social effects

There is evidence that the values fostered by the free market have filtered into human society and

had an effect on personal and social relations as well as political ones. The cliché associated in

popular imagination with the 1980s boom, ‘Greed is Good,’ provides a valuable, if trite, insight into

the shift. Commentators like Owen Jones (2011) and George Soros (1998) are convinced that the

neoliberal economic agenda helped to create a society in which material wealth is held in ultimate

esteem, and the poor are no longer pitied or respected, but disdained and blamed for their failure.

Major indicators of this attitude come from the popular media in deregulated countries like the UK.

Here, a culture of vilification of perceived ‘benefit scroungers’ and ‘spongers’ has built up, fuelled by

gleeful headlines like ‘Benefits cheat told to sell home after being caught on waterslide,’ (Sun 2012)

and moralistic programmes like The Jeremy Kyle Show, which ‘undermine support for government

anti-poverty programmes by presenting the less well-off as "undeserving" objects of

derision.’(Sparrow 2008). Such motivations lead to a cultural bias towards favouring the well-off. If

we recall Marx’s assertion that ‘the ruling ideas are forever those of the ruling classes,’ (Marx,p102)

it should come as no surprise that despite the high unemployment and falling incomes in today’s

Britain, cuts to welfare including child benefits and disability living allowance are on the government

agenda, along with moves to reduce the tax rate for the highest earners. (BBC 2012)

‘The capitalist system is alienating and corrupts human dignity’

Karl Marx was deeply critical of the effect that he perceived capitalist production to have on the

human experience. For him, labour was a natural and enjoyable part of human life, but he regarded

capitalism as devaluing people and their work:

All means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and

exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the

level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated

toil.

(Mclellan 1975, p54)

This reminds us that Marx was writing at the time of the great European sweatshops, when ever-

more mechanised factory production processes were indeed fragmenting work, dividing labour into

ever simpler tasks, and drawing on a large, replaceable workforce that was unskilled and poorly

paid.(Hopkins 1982) What relevance can these claims have in today’s largely service-based economy,

where laws and regulations have thankfully intervened over the past century and a half, to improve

working conditions and pay levels?

The answer is twofold. First of all, it is true that the Western economies to varying degrees have

shifted away from manufacturing and towards the service industries. This means that if we are not

to discount Marx’s ideas on the basis of mere semantics, we must take a less literal approach to his

terms ‘production’ and ‘labourer.’ Despite European Union regulations aimed at reducing working

times, (2003) it actually appears that the average working time is increasing, with research in the UK

and US especially pointing to increased levels of stress, and reduced leisure and family time across

the board. (Gillan 2005) Over the past decade, the number of British workers working in excess of the

European legal limit of 48 hours a week has more than doubled to over 25%. What’s more, over half

of employees avoid making full use of holidays and break-times provided, citing ‘a heavy workload or

fear of upsetting the boss.’(Bunting 2004) It seems that there is still a case for arguing that the

system transforms ‘lifetime into working time.’ (Mclellan,p54)

Secondly, the literal conditions of exploitative factory work to which Marx refers are not in fact

extinct. They are still with us in the developing and emergent economies of the world, which might

be said to be currently experiencing their own industrial revolutions. In China, India and Brazil, we

see rapid booms in construction and manufacturing, (MAPI 2011) driven to a large extent by cheap

labour operating in poorly regulated working environments. One survey of China’s factories found

that over 80% flout minimum wage laws, and 30% employ children under working age. (CLW 2010)

Once again the drive for accumulation and productivity is set above human welfare: Marx’s old

observation that man as the aim of production has given way to production as the aim of man.

(Baxandall,p63-4)

‘Capitalism promotes social inequality’

A major part of Marx’s discourse deals with class. The Communist Manifesto famously opens with a

bold claim that ‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.’ (1848)

This meshes with his theory that society is built on an economic base; his idea is that relations to

production have determined historical movements, and that these class-related movements have

been largely antagonistic. Although he does not give specific examples, these are readily supplied by

the imagination: Medieval revolts, European wars, New World conquest and colonialism all pitted

the economically advantaged against the disadvantaged, and were largely driven by desire for

material gain. Although these fall short of proving that all history can be attributed to class struggle,

they provide prominent examples of events that fit the pattern. The terms ‘proletariat’ and

‘bourgeoisie’ (or capitalists) are used by Marx to denote those providing labour for production, and

those controlling the means of production. He believed that the separation of these two functions,

which is a key feature of the capitalist system, was the root of inequality and class-based oppression.

Do the proletariat and the bourgeoisie still exist? Even those most staunchly in favour of capitalism

make no secret of the fact that it creates disparity. For Anthony Seldon, ‘Inequality is a necessary

result of allowing people to advance as individuals in the market.’(2007,p10) A less complimentary

opinion of today’s global capitalism is that it ‘generates excessive social inequalities, non-functioning

markets and political instability.’(Petras,p225) The fact is that the gap between the wealthy and the

poor has been expanding over recent decades and continues to do so, and a major reason for this

deepening divide is the opening up of international labour markets. (Bennett 2001) The globalised

nature of the modern economic system makes it easier for cheap labour to be accessed and

exploited; driving down production costs and raising profits. The corporate term ‘outsourcing’ refers

euphemistically to the now commonplace search for less financially taxing pools of labour

worldwide. (Dixon 2008) Thus the old divisions of proletariat and bourgeoisie take on a new,

international dimension, with wage-labourers in both developed and developing countries

dependent for livelihood on those controlling the means of production, the ‘transnational capitalist

class.’ (d225)

Ethan Kapstein (1996) argues that the deep North-South socioeconomic divide is creating a social

discontent that is inherently destabilising and untenable, tending towards uprising and unrest. He

refers to the orthodox terminology by which the world is divided roughly into the economically

advanced North and the less developed South. As we have seen in recent years, of course, these

divisions are shifting and breaking down as emerging markets enjoy rapid growth, and the

established economies of Europe and America struggle under debt, inflation and financial insecurity.

But more significant than the geographical parameters are the socioeconomic implications to which

Kapstein refers. His suggestion that the poor and exploited classes can be expected to react against

their lot under global capitalism, is a modern day echo of the second, more controversial part of

Marxist philosophy. Having considered the continuing relevance of Marx’s analysis of capitalism and

its effects, we can now move to consider whether his predictions of a proletarian uprising have any

contemporary significance.

Marx’s call to action

Partly in prophecy and partly in exhortation, Marx foretold that the inequality of the capitalist

economy would lead inevitably to popular uprising, resulting in the end of the system:

With this [the rise of capitalism] too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in

numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of capitalist production

itself...Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where

they become incompatible with their capitalist integument...The knell of capitalist private property

sounds.

(Mclellan,p56)

So for Marx, capitalism holds the seeds of its own destruction; the mechanisms of bringing together

labour forces and concentrating people under harsh conditions was bound to engender rebellion

and the establishment of a fairer system: communism, in which ‘all the springs of co-operative

wealth flow more abundantly.’ (ibid) In order for this to be achieved, however, Marx specifies that:

‘Man must recognise his own forces as social forces, organise them and thus no longer separate

social forces from himself in the form of political forces.’ (ibid,p30) More plainly, this is an appeal to

the workers to seize control of their own destiny, instead of feeling powerless before production, or

market, forces.

Can all this be taken seriously nowadays? We have already seen how the 20th century witnessed the

imperfections, abuses and eventual failures of regimes built on this quasi-utopian aspiration. Stalin’s

Soviet Union was harsh and repressive, as was Mao’s China. Their contemporary counterparts under

Presidents Vladimir Putin and Hu Jin-Tao might be said to combine the worst features of capitalism

and communism: large scale economic exploitation, and undemocratic leadership. There is a wide

consensus that Marx was overenthusiastic and simplistic in this part of his theory. Even Hobsbawm,

one of the most prominent British Marxists, has written, ‘As for the presumption that by historical

necessity the proletariat was or would be a ‘truly revolutionary class,’ it is now evident that this was

baseless.’ (Hobsbaum,p404-5) However, the failure of the proletariat to rise and overthrow the

entire capitalist system is insufficient reason to lightly cast aside the second part of Marx’s theory.

While history has not yet (and may never) vindicate his universal predictions, worker’s movements

across the globe continue to be inspired and influenced by the concepts and forces Marx describes.

Although it claims many supporters, capitalism is by no means without its enemies. The near-demise

of Communist regimes in the East and the withering of the traditional left wing politics in the West

have been accompanied by a rise in what has been termed the ‘extra-parliamentary Left.’

(Petras,p117) Since the rise of neoliberal capitalism, there have been waves of increasingly assertive

demonstrations from organisations and movements seeking to undermine the workings of

globalised capitalism and to highlight its injustices. (Mason 2012) The G8 summit of leading

economic nations, for example, was furiously protested in Italy 2001 and Canada 2002, and

continues to elicit angry anti-capitalist demonstrations every year. (Petras,p228-9) More recently,

the austerity measures imposed on Greece in 2011 as a condition of its EU bailout caused repeated,

violent uprisings as the populace reacted against the human cost, in jobs and livelihoods, of keeping

the international markets appeased. (Telegraph 2012) Such conflicts everywhere pit workers,

opportunity-starved young people and the financially disenfranchised against the corporations and

political elite, in a very Marxist class struggle. Moreover, these uprisings are born directly out of the

economic circumstances created by capitalist production, and so fulfil the warnings of Marx,

Kapstein (1996) and other commentators that the workings of the system are intrinsically disposed

to cause unrest and grassroots rebellion. Bringing us up to the immediate past, the Global Economic

Crisis (2008–) gave rise in 2011 to a new anti-capitalist movement demanding fundamental change.

With its massive international dimensions, and its unprecedented scale of influence, the Occupy

Movement bears examining in the light of Marx’s revolutionary theory.

Occupy Together: Does this global anti-capitalist movement have Marxist

significance?

Occupy Together describes itself as a ‘people-powered direct action movement,’ (OWS 2011) and

bears resemblance to other recent uprisings including the Arab Spring and the Spanish Indignants.

Starting with the Occupy Wall Street initiative in September 2011, the movement has mobilised over

1.4 million people in 82 countries (Scarr 2011) to protest against the economic injustices of modern

capitalism, manifested by the unequal distribution of negative economic consequences stemming

from the GEC. Grown and sustained by the technological interconnectivity of the world, the

international cohesion and solidarity owes much to the Internet and social media networks such as

Twitter and Facebook. (Waldram 2011)

Although the movement does not openly define itself as Marxist or socialist, perhaps due to the

negative connotations such terms have in the popular imagination in capitalist countries like the US,

(Newport 2010) the symbolism and language certainly seem to be aimed at dressing the movement

in Marxist or socialist clothing. The use of red as an official colour, and the rhetoric – ‘We stand

together,’ ‘Workers’ solidarity,’ and ‘We are the 99%’ – is all consciously redolent of collectivist,

grassroots action against the elite, which the movement defines as the richest 1% of society. (OWS

2011) But as Hobsbawm points out, not all movements that appear to be Marxist-inspired truly fit

the bill. (2011,p360) A closer look at the key features of the Occupy Movement is necessary before

judging its Marxist credentials.

Anti-capitalist ideology

The most obvious similarity to Marx is the movement’s antagonism towards the capitalist system.

The homepage of the Occupy Wall Street website sets out the following by way of a manifesto:

OWS is part of a growing international movement fighting against neoliberal economic practices, the

crimes of Wall Street, government controlled by monied interests, and the resulting income

inequality, unemployment, environmental destruction, and oppression of people at the front lines of

the economic crisis.

(OWS website, 2011)

There is a clear belief expressed here not only that the economic system is corrupt and unjust, but

also that it has given rise to an unfair political culture and an oppressive society. This chimes both

with Marx’s negative view of capitalism, and with his base and superstructure theory. There is also a

clear current of class antagonism further on: ‘These men and women [the protestors] represent the

99% with the goal of ending the greed and corruption of the wealthiest 1%,’ marking the struggle as

a reaction by the underprivileged against the perceived unworthy elite.

The international dimension

Occupy is a truly global movement, The online Occupy directory lists 1,288 different ‘chapters’ of the

Occupy Movement in 950 cities between September 2011 and the present time. (2012) In each

place, protests took on local interests and grievances; the withdrawing of the government fuel

subsidy in Nigeria, the prevalence of homelessness in Hawaii. Despite this, each set of actors

identified themselves with a unified international movement. Transnational cohesion in uprising is

one of the major points of Marx’s revolutionary vision. (1848) Furthermore, the role of Internet and

social media in facilitating Occupy’s globality is also important. The global communications network

used is of course a product and consequence of the globalised economy; Marx’s proposition that

capitalism creates its own problems takes on a new significance.

Modus operandi

Operating extra-politically is another feature of Marxist-inspired revolution, explained by the distrust

in political institutions. Petras and Veltmeyer echo this, stating that socialist reforms can only come

about in the combination of ‘political independence, the build-up of social power from below and a

vocation for state power.’ (2003,p130) The Occupy Movement lives up to this by taking collective

action in contravention of society’s regulations, where possible targeting what could be termed

temples of capitalism like the London Stock Exchange and Wall Street, and clashing with state police

authority on several occasions (Guardian 2011).The governance of the movement tries to implement

a socialistic model by ‘giving everyone a voice’ with a system of collective consultation and decision

making that it terms ‘General Assembly.’ (2011)

While time has shown that even this latest wave of uprisings is unlikely to swell into a universal

overthrowing of the capitalist apparatus, it can be seen that the revolutionary principles and

mechanisms that Marx espoused, as well as his cultural insights into the economic system, have had

a significant part to play in the most large scale anti-capitalist movement of recent years.

Conclusion

The question of whether Marx’s theories lost their contemporary significance in the wake of the fall

of state communism has been explored by examining the current economic situation of the world.

Marx’s economic and cultural analysis has been shown to still carry weight in the context of modern

day global capitalism. His assertion that economic base determines cultural superstructure is

supported by the political and legal adjustments undergone by societies in the wake of market

deregulation: a marked and general shift to the Right in terms of economic policy and evidence that

legislation is increasingly disposed to promote the interests of big business. I have also argued that

the neoliberal shift has had social ramifications in the form of an attitudinal shift towards glorifying

material acquisition and a fall in sympathy with the underprivileged. Marx’s accusation that

capitalism is degrading to human dignity and promotes social inequality unfortunately also still rings

true, particularly with reference to the global exploitation of cheap wage-labour, the rise in working

time and the poor conditions suffered by employees in the developing economies, all against a

background of increasing wealth at the upper end of international society.

Marx’s calls for uprising have clearly not been realised as dramatically or as universally as he

proposed, but they should not be entirely thrown out. In the wake of the latest capitalist crisis of

2008 – , a new wave of anti-capitalist protest has emerged, born out of the rising dissatisfaction of

the unemployed, financially disenfranchised and ‘austeritised,’ all of whom might be regarded as a

new proletariat. The Marxist significance of these protests lies not only in their nature as class-based

struggle against the privileged economic elite, but also in their increasingly united international

dimensions. The Occupy Movement, its ideology, international dimension, extra-political action and

socialistic governance is an attempt at revolutionising the system that has strong Marxist influences,

even if Marxism is not openly invoked.

Despite the fall of the flawed Communist states, Marxist ideas on economic culture and

revolutionary reform retain their importance. The times in which we live continue to present striking

vindications of the former, which is fuelling moves for the latter, increasingly international and large-

scale due to both the depths of the crisis and the advancement of communications. Marx’s

philosophy has been interpreted different ways at different times. (Hobsbaum 2011,p377) We must

admit that his utopian goal may never be realised, while acknowledging the many truths contained

in his work. In the words of Hobsbawm, ‘Once again the time has come to take Marx seriously.’

References

Anievas A. (2010). Marxism and World Politics: Contesting global capitalism. New York: Routledge

Baxandall L, Morawski S. (1974). Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: On art and literature. New York: International General.

BBC News (2012). Budget 2012: Tax allowances set to rise further [online]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17450719 [accessed March 2012]

BBC News (2012). Welfare Reform Bill passes final House of Lords hurdle [online]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17204301 [March 2012]

Bennett, O (2001). Political Decline: The New Capitalism in Cultural Pessimism: Narratives of Decline in the Modern World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Bratton W et al (1997). International Regulatory Competition and Coordination: Perspectives on Economic Regulation in Europe and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University PressBunting, M. (2004). Willing Slaves: How the Overwork Culture is Ruling Our Lives. London: HarperCollins

CLW (2011). Survey of Chinese Workers’ Working Conditions in 2010. China Labour Watch [online]: http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/news/new-328.html [accessed March 2012]

Colvin A, Darbishire O (2009). The emerging Anglo-American model? Convergence in industrial relations institutions. World Congress of the International Industrial Relations Association [online]: http://www.ilera-online.org/15thworldcongress/files/papers/Track_4/Wed_P4_DARBISHIRE.pdf [accessed March 2012]

Deoccupy Honolulu (2011). General Assembly [online]; http://www.deoccupyhonolulu.org/gaexplained.htm [accessed March 2012]

Dixon, P. (2008). The future of outsourcing – impact on jobs. Global Change [online]: http://www.globalchange.com/outsourcing.htm [accessed March 2012]

European Parliament (2003). Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. Official Journal L 299. 18/11/2003 P. 0009 – 0019

Gillan A. (2005). Work until you drop: how the long-hours culture is ruining our lives. The Guardian [online]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/20/britishidentity.health [accessed March 2012]

Hamilton P. (2008). The politics of free markets: the rise of neoliberal economic policies in Britain, France, Germany and the United States. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41:240-41

Hobsbawm E (2011). How to change the world: Marx and Marxism 1840-2011. London: Little, Brown

Hopkins E (1982). Working Hours and Conditions in the Industrial Revolution: A Re-Appraisal, 35:1:52-66

Jones, O. (2011). Chavs: The demonization of the working class. London: Verso

Kapstein, E (1996). Workers and the World Economy. Foreign Affairs, 75:3

Kiado A. (2010). Cuts and reforms – public services as we move into a new era. Society and Economy, 32:1:17-31

L, G. (2011). Social Media and the Wall Street Protests. The Economist [online]: http://www.economist.com/node/21532071 [accessed March 2012]

Lewis, A. (2012). Grantham wonders if Marx was right after all. Market Watch [online]: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/grantham-wonders-if-marx-was-right-after-all-2012-02-29 [accessed March 2012].

MAPI (2011). An Anatomy of the Growth in the BRICs: Past Trends and Future Prospects. Industry Today [online]: http://www.industrytoday.com/article_view.asp?ArticleID=we344 [accessed March 2012]

Marx K, Engels F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. trans. by Samuel Moore. Harmondsworth: Penguin 1967

Mason, P. (2012). Why it’s kicking off everywhere: the new global revolutions. London: Verso

McLellan D (1975). Marx. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins

Newport F (2010). Socialism viewed positively by36% of Americans. Gallup [online]: http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-positively-americans.aspx [Accessed March 2012]

Occupy Directory [online]: http://directory.occupy.net/ [accessed March 2012]

OWS (2011). Occupy Wall Street [online]: http://www.occupytogether.org/occupy-wall-st/ [accessed March 2012]

Panitch L. (2009). Thoroughly Modern Marx. Foreign Policy [online]: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/04/15/thoroughly_modern_marx [accessed March 2012]

Petras J, Veltmeyer H. (2003). System in Crisis: The dynamics of free market capitalism. Canada: Fernwood

Scarr P (2011). Statistics and demographics of Occupy and Tea Party Movements [online]: http://bloggingblue.com/2011/11/14/occupy-wall-street-vs-the-tea-party-movement-by-the-numbers/ [Accessed March 2012]

Seldon, A. (2007). Capitalism: A condensed version. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

Simon R (1986). Introducing Marxism. London: CPGB

Soros, G. (1998). The crisis of capitalism: Open society endangered. London: Little, Brown & Company

Sparrow, A. (2008). Jeremy Kyle Show ‘undermines anti-poverty efforts,’ says thinktank. The Guardian [online]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/10/thinktanks.socialexclusion [accessed March 2012]

The Sun (2012). Benefits cheat told to sell home after being caught on waterslide [online]: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4192339/Bikini-benefits-cheat-caught-out-by-water-slide-footage.html [accessed March 2012]

Towers B. (1989). Running the Gauntlet: British Trade Unions under Thatcher, 1979-1988. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 42:2:163-188

Various authors (2011). Occupy Wall Street: police evict protestors – as it happened. The Guardian [online]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/nov/15/occupy-wall-street-police-action-live?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 [accessed March 2012]

Various authors (2012). Greek protests and economic news. The Telegraph [online]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/ [accessed March 2012]

Various authors (2012). The Global Financial Crisis. Financial Times [online]: http://www.ft.com/indepth/global-financial-crisis [accessed March 2012]

Waldram H. (2011). Occupy Together: How the global movement is spreading via social media. The Guardian [online]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2011/oct/14/occupy-england-protests-gather-momentum-via-facebook [accessed March 2012]