Karl Marx

Historical Materialism
Marx’s general ideas about society are known as his theory of
historical materialism. Materialism is the basis of his
sociological thought because for Marx material conditions or
economic factors affect the structure and development of
society. His theory is that material conditions essentially
comprise technological means of production and human
society is formed by the forces and relations of production.

Marx’s theory of historical materialism is historical. It is

historical because Marx has traced the evolution of human
societies from one stage to another. It is called Materialistic
because Marx has interpreted the evolution of societies in
terms of their material or economic bases. Materialism simply
means that it is matter or material reality, which is the basis
for any change.

Materialism means the materialist structure of society. It is

how the super structure of society is based on economic
infrastructure. Marx’s theory of historical materialism is the
materialistic interpretation of the history of societies. All the
societies have experienced similar pattern of history and every
history is built upon its materialist foundations.

Marx has tried to suggest that all society passes through

unilinear evolution, every society progresses stage by stage
and every society has marched ahead.
Basic Assumptions:
Historical materialism is based upon a philosophy of human
history. But it is not strictly speaking, a philosophy of history.
It is best understood as sociological theory of human progress.
As a theory it provides a scientific and systematic research
programme for empirical investigations. At the same time it
also claims to contain within it a revolutionary programme of
intervention into society. It is this unique combination of
scientific and revolutionary characters which is the hall mark
of Marx’s original formulation.

Marx’s views on human society and human nature:

1. Society as an interrelated whole.

2. Changeable nature of society.

3. Human nature and social relationships.

1. Marx views human society as an interrelated whole. The

social groups, institutions, beliefs and doctrines within it are
integrally related. Therefore, he has studied their
interrelations rather than treating them separately.

2. Marx views society as inherently mutable, in which changes

are produced largely by internal contradictions and conflicts.
Such changes if observed in a large number of instances,
according to Marx, show a sufficient degree of regularity to
allow the formulation of general statements about their causes
and consequences. Both these assumptions relate to the nature
of human society.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

3. There is one other basic assumption behind historical

materialism without which the theory cannot be held together.
This relates to the concept of man in general. According to
Marx, there is no permanent persistence of human nature.
Human nature is neither originally evil nor originally good, it
is in original potential.

If human nature is what human beings make history with,

then at the same time, it is human nature which they make.
And human nature is potentially revolutionary. Human will is
not a passive reflection of events, but contains the power to
rebel against circumstances in the prevailing limitations of
human nature.

It is not that people produce out of material greed or the greed

to accumulate wealth, but the act of producing the essentials of
life engages people into social relationships that may be
independent of their will. In most of human history according
to Marx, these relationships are class relationships that create
class struggle.

The Theory of Historical Materialism:

The clearest exposition of the theory of historical materialism
is contained in Marx’s ‘preface’ to A Contribution to the
Critique of Political Economy (1859). Here he says that the
actual basis of society is its economic structure. For Marx,
economic structure of society is made of its relations of
production. The legal and political super structure of society is
based on relations of production. Marx says that relations of
production reflect the stage of society’s forces of production.

Marx’s theory of Historical Materialism states that all objects,

whether living or inanimate are subject to continuous change.
The rate of this change is determined by the laws of dialectics.
Marx says that new developments of productive forces of
society came in conflict with existing relations of production.

When people become conscious of the state of conflict, they

wish to bring an end to it. This period of history is called by
Marx the Period of Social Revolution. The revolution brings
about resolution of conflict. It means that new forces of
production take roots and give rise to new relations of
production.

Thus we can see that for Marx it is the growth of new

productive forces which outlines the course of human history.
The productive forces are the powers society uses to produce
material conditions of life. So for Marx, human history is an
account of development and consequences of new forces of
material production. This is the reason why his view of history
is given the name of Historical Materialism.

The terms mentioned in Marx’s theory of Historical

materialism:
1. Social relations, over and above individuals:
Marx says that as a general principle, the production of
material requirements of life, which is a very basic necessity of
all societies; compel individuals to enter into definite social
relations that are independent of their will. This is the basic
idea of Marx’s theory of society. He stresses that there are
social relations which impinge upon individuals irrespective
of their preferences. He further elaborates that an
understanding of the historical process depends on our
awareness of these objective social relations.

2. Infrastructure and Super-structure:

According to Marx, every society has its infrastructure and
superstructure. Social relations are defined in terms of
material conditions which he called infrastructure. The
economic base of a society forms its infrastructure. Any
changes in material conditions also imply corresponding
changes in social relations. Forces and relations of production
came in the category of infrastructure. Within the
superstructure figure the legal, educational and political
institutions as well as values, cultural ways of thinking,
religion, ideologies and philosophies.

3. Forces and relations of production:

The forces of production appear to be the capacity of a society
to produce. This capacity to produce is essentially a function of
scientific and technical knowledge, technological equipment
and the organisation of labour force. The relations of
production arise out of the production process but essentially
overlap with the relations in ownership of means of
production.

Relations of production should not be entirely identified with

relations of property. At certain points in time, Marx speaks in
terms of transformation of society from one stage to another.
In explaining the process of transformation, Marx has given us
a scheme of historical movement.

4. Social change in terms of social classes:

Marx elaborates the significance of the infrastructure of
society by tracing the formation of the principal social classes.
He develops the idea of social change resulting from internal
conflicts in a theory of class struggles. For Marx, social change
displays a regular pattern. Marx constructs in broad terms, a
historical sequence of the main types of society, proceeding
from the simple, undifferentiated society of “primitive
communism” to the complex class society of modern
capitalism.

He provides an explanation of the great historical

transformation which demolished old forms of society and
created new ones in terms of infrastructural changes which he
regards as general and constant in their operation. Each
period of contradiction between the forces and relations of
production is seen by Marx as a period of revolution.

Dialectical relationship between the forces and relations of

production:
In revolutionary periods, one class is attached to the old
relations of production. These relations hinder the
development of the forces of production. Another class, on the
other hand, is forward looking. It strives for new relations of
production.
The new relations of production do not create obstacles in the
way of the development of the forces of production. They
encourage the maximum growth of those forces. This is the
abstract formulation of Marx’s ideas of class struggle.

Revolutions and the history of societies:

The dialectical relationship between the forces of production
and relations of production also provides a theory of
revolution. In Marx’s reading of history, revolutions are not
political accidents. They are treated as social expression of the
historical movement. Revolutions are necessary
manifestations of the historical progress of societies.

Revolutions occur when the conditions for them mature. Let

us take an example. Feudal society developed capitalist
relations of production. When these relations of production
reached a degree of maturity in Europe came the French
revolution. Marx here spoke of another process of
transformation from capitalism to socialism. This is how Marx
interpreted historical movement of societies.

Economic Determinism

Economic determinism is a theory suggesting that economic forces determine, shape, and

define all political, social, cultural, intellectual, and technological aspects of a civilization.

Economic determinism is a theory which states that financial status is the basis at
which all other societal arrangements such as political and social arrangements are
determined. The theory emphasizes that all societies are subdivided into economic
classes that are competing to control the political system. The ruling class utilizes
its economic power to exert political supremacy. In Karl Marx’s version, Marx pays
attention to the proletariat who are fighting with capitalists over the governing
system of the society. He believed that the struggle would only end through a
revolution that will overthrow the capitalism and install the system of socialism in
which resources are controlled by the states establishing a classless society.

What are Modes of Production?

Over a long time, various economic structures have come into existence. These
different economic structures are what Marx referred to as the “modes of
production”. The uniting factor among the multiple systems was that all of them
have a group of people who had control over them. The team solidified various
positions in power by exercising control over the means of production, for example,
technology and infrastructure that produced raw materials needed for survival. The
ruling group owned raw materials, machines, and land as a way of ensuring enough
accumulation of wealth. Marx stated that this practice is the sole reason why there
is poverty in the society.
Another mode of production is capitalism which was common during the era of
Marx. Capitalism is an economic structure in which the private business owners run
the industries under their control to generate profits and retained market in a largely
perceived free market. Marx believed that capitalism only benefited the business
owners, a group he called capitalists at the detrimental of the workers who he
referred them as proletarian.
Marx thought that capitalism came into existence in recent years following other
modes of production such as feudalism and slavery. According to him the presence
of poverty in the community was occasioned by the capitalism and Marx believed
that just like slavery and feudalism, capitalism would die off. The capitalists and the
labor providers called the proletariat (lower class) engaged in a struggle to
out-compete the other. In one of his pieces of work, Marx claimed that proletariat
would, at last, emerge the winner through the establishment of a classless society.
What Was the Argument Against Economic Determinism?
Marxism was criticized for lowering the development of history and community to
economic determinants only. Many have argued that the economic factor is not the
only important element and have suggested they play secondary roles among other
factors in the development of the society. Scholars that did not support Marxism
have objected the economic determinism describing it as an exaggeratedly
generalized theory and stressed that as far as rational historical justification is
concerned, economic actualities must at all times refer to non-economic realism.
What is the Myth of Economic Determinism?
According to some scholars, Marx’s thought on economic determinism is a myth.
They used Marx’s statement that men shape their history under the guidance of the
circumstances dictated by what had happened in the past. To those scholars, the
statement suggested that there is a an already constituted social system in the
world that restricts the way in which we shaped our history.
Theory of Surplus Value

The theory of surplus value is one of the significant contributions of Karl Marx to
political science. It is discussed in his monument work “Das Capital” which showed
the opaque side of capitalism and is ample testimony of worker’s exploitation in
capitalist society.
His theory is based upon the labour theory of value as Sabine remarks “the theory of
surplus value was professedly an extension of the labour theory of value already
stated by Ricardo and the classical economists”.

According to Marx, of the four elements of production viz., land, labour, capital and
organization; only labour is the source of value. Every commodity was exchange
value represented by price. However, workers get much less than what he produces.

Much of it is appropriated by the capi talist. This difference between the exchange
value of the manufactured commodity and the price paid to the worker for his labour
is called surplus value.

Under the socialist system the value of labour would be paid to the worker.
Moreover, Marx emphasizes that “He who does not work, neither shall eat”.

Criticism:
1. Marx neglects the efficacy of capital and entrepreneurship skill in production
process.

2. Marx is interested in egalitarian principles than growth.

3. Even his socialist Utopia has failed to remedy the disease that he thought to
diagnose very correctly.

4. His remedy through revolution is questionable. For, there may be more

adequate peaceful methods to deal with exploitation.

5. Despite limitations, Marxist conception of surplus value is noteworthy for

highlighting the intricate and complex exploitative character of capitalist
system of production. Perhaps this led to revision and rethinking within the
liberal paradigm the positive, welfare state was nothing out of a plea to
remedy the ill plight of weak and poor sections.
Alienation
Karl Marx’s thought is wide-ranging and has had a massive influence in,
especially, philosophy and sociology. Marx is best known for his two
unsparing critiques of capitalism. The first of these critiques maintains that
capitalism is essentially alienating. The second of these critiques
maintains that capitalism is essentially exploitative. 1  This essay focuses
specifically on Marx’s theory of alienation, which rests on Marx’s specific
claims about both economics and human nature.

1. Marx’s Analysis of Capitalism

For Marx, the idea of the means of production is a crucial economic
category. The means of production include nearly everything needed to
produce commodities, including natural resources, factories, and
machinery. The key element not included as part of the means of
production is labor.2 In a capitalist economy, as opposed to a communist or
socialist economy, the means of production are privately owned, as when a
businessperson owns a factory. As a result, members of the capitalist
economy find themselves divided into two distinct classes: those who own
the means of production (the capitalist class3 or bourgeoisie) and those
workers who do not (the proletariat).
2. Marx’s Concept of Species-Being
For Marx, whether capitalism and its class-division is a suitable
arrangement for human beings depends on human nature. Because
humans are biological beings, and not merely free-floating immaterial
minds, we, like all other biological beings, must interact with and transform
the natural world in order to survive.4 But what distinguishes us from all
other animals, like bees, spiders, or beavers, which all transform the world
based on instinct, is that we transform the world consciously and
freely.5 Thus, the essence of a human being – what Marx calls
our species-being – is to consciously and freely transform the world in
order to meet our needs. Like many other philosophers, Marx believes that
excellently doing what makes us distinctively human is the true source of
fulfillment.
3. Alienation in Capitalist Society
We can now make clear Marx’s claim that capitalism is alienating. The
general idea of alienation is simple: Something is alienating when what is
(or should be) familiar and connected comes to seem foreign or
disconnected. Because our species-being is our essence as human beings,
it should be something that is familiar. To the extent that we are unable to
act in accordance with our species-being, we become disconnected from
our own nature. So if work in a capitalist society inhibits the realization of
our species-being, then work is to that extent alienating.6 And since we are
being alienated from our own nature, alienation is not merely a subjective
feeling, but is about an objective reality.
So how are workers alienated from their species-being under capitalism?
Marx distinguishes three specific ways.7
1.  Workers are alienated from other human beings. In a capitalist
economy, workers must compete with each other for jobs and raises.
But just as competition between businesses brings down the price of
commodities, competition between workers brings down wages. And
so it is not the proletariat who benefits from this competition, but
capitalists. This is not only materially damaging to workers, it
estranges them from each other. Humans are free beings and are able
to not only transform the world themselves, but to cooperate in order to
transform the world in more sophisticated and helpful ways. As such,
they should see each other as allies, especially in the face of a
capitalist class who seeks to undermine worker solidarity for its own
benefit. But under capitalism workers see each other as opposing
competition.
2.  Workers are alienated from the products of their labor. Capitalists need
not do any labor themselves – simply by owning the means of
production, they control the profit of the firm they own, and are
enriched by it. But they can only make profit by selling commodities,
which are entirely produced by workers.8 Thus, the products of the
worker’s labor strengthen the capitalists, whose interests are opposed
to that of the proletariat. Workers do this as laborers, but also as
consumers: Whenever laborers buy commodities from capitalists, that
also strengthens the position of the capitalists. This again stands in
opposition to the workers’ species-being. Humans produce in response
to our needs; but for the proletariat at least, strengthening the capitalist
class is surely not one of those needs.
3.  Workers are alienated from the act of labor. Because capitalists own
the firms that employ workers, it is they, not the workers, who decide
what commodities are made, how they are made, and in what working
conditions they are made. As a result, work is often dreary, repetitive,
and even dangerous. Such work may be suitable for machines, or
beings without the ability to consciously and freely decide how they
want to work, but it is not suitable for human beings. Enduring this for
an extended period of time means that one can only look for
fulfillment outside of one’s work; while “the activity of working, which is
 potentially the source of human self-definition and human freedom, is
… degraded to a necessity for staying alive.”9 As Marx puts it in a
famous passage:
[I]n his work, therefore, he [the laborer10] does not affirm himself but denies
himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his
physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The
worker therefore only feels himself outside of work, and in his work feels
outside himself. He is at home when he is not working, and when he is
working he is not at home.11
If Marx is right about all of this, then contemporary complaints about the
degrading nature of work are not hyperbole. Insofar as capitalism prevents
us from realizing our own species-being, it is, quite literally, dehumanizing.
4. Conclusion
One may find great inspiration in the idea that true fulfillment can come
from creative and meaningful work. Yet most people’s actual experience of
work in capitalist economies is characterized by tedium, apathy, and
exhaustion. Marx’s theory of alienation provides a conceptual framework
for understanding the nature and cause of these experiences, and assures
us that these subjective experiences are about an objective reality – and,
crucially, a reality we can change.