‘With the collapse of Communism, Marx’s contribution to the analysis of culture lost its contemporary significance.’ Discuss.' An analysis of the global Occupy protests in 2011/12 in light of Marxist philosophy.

1. MARCH 2012
‘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

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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’

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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,

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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.’

16. 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 Press
Bunting, 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

17. 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]

18. 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]