Redesigning Marxism: a blueprint for societal uplift in Pakistan

Sarir Ahmad

In this article, I will delve into Marxism, focusing on its application taking my village as a microcosm of society.

In a village, I will show how class differences exist and how this class difference affects the environment. I will show in this article that looking at Marxism from the lens of great thinkers like Max Weber, Slavoj Žižek, and Che Guevara makes it more reasonable and a sign of change. By using my village as a case study, I will then extend these insights to the broader context of Pakistani society.

The landscape of my village contains fertile fields and humble abodes that make a canvas upon which the class struggles outlined by Marx come to life. The dichotomy between the land-owning class, who has authority over the lands, and the hardworking people, whose labor enriches the soil, represents Marx’s core idea about how capitalism works. The village square, stuffed with labor and fruits, becomes a tableau vivant of the concept of surplus by Marx. The surplus produced by the laborers, which exceeds their daily needs, serves as the economic bedrock upon which the praise and affluence keep aggravating. The natural cycles of farming reflect Marx’s examination of how the capitalist system exploits workers. In this setup, the benefits of hard work tend to concentrate among a select few who control production. As the villagers participate in the age-old practices of planting and harvesting, land ownership becomes a critical factor influencing social interactions. The significance of private property as a catalyst for class distinctions, according to Marx’s emphasis, is palpable in the dichotomy between those who own and those who work there.

The village encapsulates Marx’s gamut of assertions, moving around owning property and resources, laying the groundwork to start the division of society into distinct classes. In this rural microcosm, the very air carries whispers of Marx’s call for a class-conscious awakening. Whether consciously or not, the villagers represent the ongoing battle between those with economic influence and those whose hard work sustains the community. The village, like a stage for an ancient play, vividly illustrates Karl Marx’s enduring ideas, allowing us to observe the intricate dance of social classes within its seemingly tranquil rural setting. Karl Marx believed that to achieve fairness and equal access to resources, society must eliminate inequality and class distinctions. His solution was to divide property more equally, ensuring that both the bourgeoisie wealthy class) and the proletariat (working class) had comparable shares. This vision could lead to a prosperous and just community.
Building upon Marx’s theories, Max Weber delved into the intricate fabric of societal
development and class distinctions within communities. While he concurred with Marx’s call for equitable resource distribution, Weber emphasized additional factors beyond economics. He highlighted the political influence wielded by the upper class – the architects of enduring hierarchies. Simultaneously, Weber’s lens captures the nuances of social stratification, where the elite’s influence extends beyond economic standing to encompass social status and power dynamics. The village becomes a dynamic stage where the ideas of Marx and Weber converge.
Each thread in the social fabric reveals the complex dance of class dynamics, economic ties, and social structures within the tranquil rural setting. Max Weber’s three-component theory of stratification offers a nuanced view of social hierarchy. It considers class, status, and party as distinct dimensions that shape power dynamics. In your village, individuals with varying skills occupy different positions. While Marxism focuses on class struggle, Weber’s theory recognizes
the diversity of skills and aspirations within a community. In the village, there are more things beyond economics and the distribution of properties. Webber also said that everyone has a different skill and therefore, distribution of goods is not the solution rather emphasizing one skill and appreciating them inside a social system also aggravates a conducive environment in a community.

For example, in my village, some people do not want to work on the farms or do not want the properties, but rather want to study or follow up their interests and skills how could Marxism advocate this? Similarly, some passionate laborers work happily on farms, and at the same time some laborers do farming but out of no choice. Then in this case the one with skills should be dealt with differently according to Marx Webber.
A distinctive voice in contemporary philosophy, Slavoj Zizek, introduces a unique school of thought that challenges conventional notions of social systems and class differences. He questions the very foundations of societal structures, putting aside the traditional ideas of ownership and influence. In my village, as discussed earlier, land owners and labors are working for them which shows a class difference.

According to Žižek, the main focus should shift from the tangible aspects of who owns what and who has more influence, to a deeper inquiry into why these social structures exist. He focuses on collective well-being instead of accumulating wealth by a single person. This alternative framework for class differences becomes less about who possesses more and more about fostering a sense of community in them. Zizek was considering reevaluating the significance of material wealth and social status, urging them to consider the possibility of a more egalitarian existence. It becomes a thought experiment within the village square: Can a shared sense of responsibility and cooperation replace the need for distinct class boundaries?
When no one answered the question of Zizek and the same class difference continued, an Argentine Marxist named Che Guevara advocated a revolutionary form of Marxism and showed that it is possible. He was a strong supporter of Marxism and he was certain that taking socialism as a premise for a society can ensure equality and prosperity in a society. There is indeed a moment in everyone’s journey of life when he realizes what is good and what should I do for this cause.
Similarly, Che Guevara, when witnessed firsthand the exploitation of the working class by the elite in Latin America, realized and then started working for it. He contended that the existing socioeconomic systems in many countries like Latin America are deeply unjust, and characterized by extreme poverty, and land inequality. The same is the case with my village, with extreme class differences and inequality in property and especially in necessities. He believed that socialism was the only solution for solving this issue where the means of production must be handed over to people.
In a village where not everyone knows each other they can think, when it is conveyed to them, about how things work using ideas from four smart thinkers: Karl Marx, Max Weber, Slavoj Žižek,
and Che Guevara. Karl Marx talks about who owns something and who works day and night. Max Weber adds to it in a way that the ownership alone is not enough but the status and power of someone in a community also matters. Then, Slavoj Žižek comes in and, as he likes questioning, asks, why do we need ownership and respect or power in the first place? Can we imagine a village where we share things and care for each other without any showoff? Slavoj Zizek once said that We find ourselves ensnared in unhealthy competition, entangled in a ludicrous web of comparing ourselves to others. Our focus on measuring whether we experience more or less pleasure than everyone else prevents us from truly savoring what brings us joy.’
Che Guevara advocated Marxism and said that the people must hold the means of production in their hands and he wanted equality and justice in any community. These doctrines help us in shaping a village as the class difference should be minimized and equality must linger. The uniqueness of individuals must be appreciated and there must be respect for each other even if they know or do not know each other.
The people of the village must inculcate a sense of sharing and caring in them. These thinkers all together enrich our understanding of Marxism, making it a dynamic and relevant force in shaping societies to challenge the status quo and bring a ripple effect of change.
Looking at this in terms of Pakistan as a whole, coming out of the microcosm of my village, we can also apply the same concepts to improve this situation of Pakistan and it is the best way we could stand up like a community where people. Imagine a transforming face of Pakistan, where Marxist doctrines are moving through the nation’s veins, creating a society with equal opportunities and a proper playing field for every individual. The various chronic economic challenges of our country are solved and everyone has equal wealth distribution in its overpopulated and diasporic cities like Karachi. Similarly, in the bustling streets of Lahore workers find satisfaction and security, their rights being protected by the new Marxist political revolution. Meanwhile, Max Weber’s thoughts influence cultural engagements, where educational opportunities are the same and flourish collaboratively, bridging the gaps that once separated the elite and the destitute. In the amazing corridors of Islamabad, Weberian impacts manifest as social renaissance unfurls, with instructive establishments matching legendary foundations, eradicating the limits between the tip top and the majority. Imagine the picture of Pakistan where the major ethnic groups, Sindhi, Balochi, Pashtuns, and Punjabi come closer to each other in a community, with shared values, communal cooperation, and a newfound disdain for material excess. In the rugged landscapes of Baluchistan, imagine a society inspired by Žižek’s radical questioning of norms. The people show up with economic self-sufficiency, going beyond their traditional ideals. The thoughts of Che Guevara surge local industries, turn the province into an economic powerhouse, defy dependency to work by their own and feed themselves. This fantastical metamorphosis weaves a tapestry where echoes of Marxism, Weberian ideals, Žižekian aspirations, and Guevarian dreams converge, propelling Pakistan into a realm where social justice, equality, and collective prosperity reign supreme.
Embedding the fundamental tenets of Marxism, Weberian ideals, Žižekian inquiry, and Guevarian vision within the collective psyche of Pakistani citizens offers a pathway out of the current crisis. Cultivating a mindset grounded in economic fairness, equal opportunities, cross-cultural collaboration, and a rejection of material excess allows Pakistan to rise above its challenges. This ideological metamorphosis, deeply ingrained in the populace, forges a cohesive response to adversity, propelling the nation toward a future characterized by social equilibrium, shared prosperity, and unwavering resilience.