4.1 Karl Marx : Historical materialism, alienation and class struggle.

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.

According to Friedrich Engels, the theory of historical materialism

was discovered by Karl Marx, but Marx thought it was Engels who
has conceived the materialist formulation of history independently.
We shall say that both of them used this theory, to quote Marx, as
the “guiding thread” of all their works.

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. He has suggested about the history of society,
i.e.

Primitive Communism → Slavery → Feudalism→ Capitalism

→Socialism →Communism

Historians recorded history in the manner it is found. But Marx had

a vision for future, how is history taking man through time. Each
stage sows the seeds of its own destruction. One will go and other
will come. Such precision and succession will continue till the
ultimate i.e. communism is reached.

Marx’s theory sought to explain all social phenomena in terms of

their place and function in the complex systems of society and
nature. This was without recourse to what may be considered as
metaphysical explanations clearly outlined in those early writings of
Hegal and his followers. This eventually became a mature
sociological conception of the making and development of human
societies.

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.

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.

Social reality and consciousness:

Marx has made a distinction between infrastructure and

superstructure. At the same time he has also distinguished social
reality and consciousness. For Marx, reality is not determined by
human consciousness. According to him, social reality determines
human consciousness.

This results in an overall conception in which ways of human

thinking must be explained in terms of the social relations of which
they are a part. Besides the forces and relations of production, Marx
has spoken about the mode of production. Accordingly he has
described stages of human history in terms of the four modes of
production; namely the Asiatic, the Ancient, the Feudal and the
Capitalist.

1. The Ancient mode of production is characterised by slavery.

2. The Feudal mode by serfdom.

3. The Capitalist mode by wage earning.

They constitute three distinct modes of exploitation of human

labour. Asiatic mode of production which does not constitute a
stage in western history is distinguished by the subordination of all
people to the state or the state bureaucracy.

Four Modes of Production:

1. Asiatic mode of Production:
The concept of Asiatic mode of production refers to a specific
original mode of production. This is distinct from the ancient slave
mode of production or the feudal mode of production. It is
characterised by primitive communities in which ownership of land
is communal. These communities are still partly organised on the
basis of kinship relations. State power which expresses the real or
imaginary unity of these communities controls the use of essential
economic resources and directly appropriates part of the labour and
production of the community.

This mode of production constitutes one of the possible forms of

transition from classless to class societies. It is also perhaps the
most ancient form of this transition. It contains the contradiction of
this transition, i.e. the combination of communal relations of
production with emerging forms of the exploiting classes and of the
state.

The concept of Asiatic mode of production is inadequate because

there was no class; no concept of private property. The entire
property is owned by the society. So that no individual has access to
it—so no clashes of classes. Resources were low and there was low
population.

Gradually towards the end of primitive communism there were

certain group of people who were physically strong and so towards
its end the concept of private property came into being. So primitive
communism could not survive and there emerged a different type of
society.

2. Ancient mode of Production:

According to Marx, every part of history has its end point. So
primitive communism was to go and slavery came into being.
People who had physical, political and material strength had
authority over others. So two classes were found and this is where
the concept of private property emerged. There were two classes—
the owning class, they are the masters, and non-owning class, they
were the slaves.

Marx has tried to suggest that in course of time different people

grabbed certain plots of land as a result of which there was grabbing
and as a result of which a large number were left wretched. So they
had to depend on these owners in order to make a living and it went
on rising and so when they would not pay their debts they were sold
and engaged under the so called masters.

Slaves were mere chattels. They had no right and were used like
commodities and they could be bought and sold. So individuals
were slaves and it went on resulting in a family of slaves and
masters were masters. So it became very heinous of people worked
without any voice, even if the torture was unbearable. Slaves were
made to work under stringent physical conditions. They were
engaged in agricultural, menial and physical labour.

If the society has experienced heinous system at any point of time, it

is slavery. So it was to go and another stage was to come. So,
towards its end, a sort of internal struggle was found so that the
slaves, peasants started a revolution against the masters so as to
release certain slaves from the clutches of the masters. Slavery is
called the stage of initial agriculture.

So agricultural capitalism was to come. Agricultural innovations

would take place. Technology was applied to agriculture. People
started to understand the dignity of labour and the stage came, i.e.
Feudalism or Agricultural capitalism.

3. Feudal Mode of Production:

At this stage as Marx said throughout the pages of history we find
two classes. They were feudal lords and serfs. Lords owned the land
in their favour and their job was to lease land and employ
agricultural labour in their lands. The owners who were leased had
to pay certain taxes and the labourers were given wages.

This is even a heinous system and the lords exploited by not paying
the labour its due. So Marx said that this stage was also exploitative
in character. Heavy taxes were imposed on serfs. This stage could
not grow much as industries were growing and people sought their
job in industries and in cities. So the serfs fought against the lords.
With the spreading of industries, urbanization grew, so emphasis
was on industries and came the next stage, i.e. Industrial capitalism.
4. Capitalistic mode of production:
Marx was very much bothered about this stage because this
represented the most heinous and migration was found from rural
to urban areas. Those who worked in agricultural lands shifted to
industries. There were two classes— the working classes, the
proletariats and the bourgeoisie.

Marx wanted to champion the cause of proletariat and he wanted

that the exploitative character must go and equality be established.
So Marx was Futuristic. Socialism is the stage where the society is
classless and it is based on the principle of equality. Marx had
experienced socialism and there was spread of socialism based on
his ideas.

Communism is the ultimate final stage where there is prevalence of

equality among all. Everybody works according to his capacity and
gets according to his due, when capitalism goes and communism
comes into being there are some elements found in some form or
other of capitalism in socialism.

As per Marx, socialism is the initial communism and communism is

the later socialism because everybody is equal and can stand in the
same queue and communist society is thoroughly equal and no
concept of private property ownership.

In socialism, there are two ownership structures:

1. State ownership

2. Ownership by co-operatives.
But under communism there is single ownership; i.e. State
/Community ownership. Everybody gets as per his due and works
as per his capacity. This stage was difficult to find. So we find that
with spread of Marx’s ideas we find communism in Russia and
China. But socialism is the gap that still remains.

Marx-Theory of Alienation
 Alienation is a feeling of estrangement and disenchantment from a group, a
situation society and even with oneself.
 It refers to a situation of powerlessness isolation and meaninglessness
experienced by the people when they confront social institutions which they
cannot control and consider oppressive.
 Karl Marx's theory of alienation describes the social alienation (of people from aspects
of their human nature as a consequence of living in a society of stratified social classes. The
alienation from the self is a consequence of being a mechanistic part of a social class, the
condition of which estranges a person from their humanity

BASIC DEFINITION: Alienation as a concept was developed by several classical and

contemporary theorists, it is “a condition in social relationships reflected by a low degree of
integration or common values and a high degree of distance or isolation between individuals, or
between an individual and a group of people in a community or work environment”.
BACKGROUND:
The development of the notion of alienation may be traced to Hegelian idealism. But it was Marx
who first made use of the concept as a powerful diagnostic tool for sociological inquiry. For Marx,
the history of mankind is not only a history of class struggle but also of the increasing alienation of
man. 
The introduction of modern manufacturing technology results in the accumulation of
surplus/profit by the capitalist through exploitation of labour. Though they produce the surplus,
yet they do not benefit from it. Accumulation means increase in demand of labour, therefore one
may think that increase in demand of labour may result in the increase of wages. But the
contradiction is that wages go down due to high unemployment created by technology.
This is where Marx talks about the unemployed reserved army. And when there is so much
unemployment it creates a condition called pauperization. Till the time there is chronic
pauperization in society it leads to polarization i.e. convergence of wealth on one end of the pole
an accumulation of poverty on the other.
In his early works Marx called the distortions of human nature that are caused by the domination
of the worker by the “alien will” of the capitalist alienation. Although it is the worker who feels
alienated in capitalist society, Marx’s basic analytical concern was with the structures of
capitalism that cause alienation. Marx offers a theory of alienation rooted in social structure.

COMPONENTS OF ALIENATION:
While alienation is commonplace in capitalistic society and dominates every institutional sphere
such as religion, economy and polity, its predominance in the work place assumes an overriding
importance for Marx. The estranged or alienated labour involves four aspects;
Alienation from the ACT OF PRODUCTION: Such that the work becomes a meaningless activity,
offering little or no intrinsic satisfaction. The workers do not work for themselves in order to satisfy their
own needs. Instead they work for capitalists, who pay them a subsistence wage in return for the right to
use the workers in any way they see fit.

Alienation from the PRODUCT ITSELF: The product of their labour does not belong to the workers, to
be used by them in order to satisfy basic needs. Instead, the product, like the process that resulted in its
production, belongs to the capitalists, who may use it in any way they wish. Thus the workers are alienated
not only from the productive activities but also from the objects of those activities.

Alienation from their FELLOW WORKERS: Since capitalism reduces labour to a commodity to be

traded on the market rather than a social relationship, workers, often strangers are forced to work side by
side. Even if workers on the assembly line a close friends, the nature of the technology makes for a great
deal of isolation. The workers are often forced into outright competition with each other in order to extract
maximum profit and to prevent development of any social relationship.

Alienation from their own  HUMAN POTENTIAL: Individuals perform less and less like human beings as
they are reduced in their work to animals, beasts of burden, or inhuman machines.
 

DISTORTIONS RESULTING FROM ALIENATION:

1. Structure of manufacturing turns workers into crippled monstrosities by forcing them to work on
minute details rather than allowing them to use all their capabilities.
2. Natural relationship with head and hand broken in capitalism so that only few do headwork most
do handwork.
3. The monotony of doing the same specialized task over and over again.
4. Human beings no longer creative but are oriented solely toward owning and possessing objects.
According to Marx alienation can be seen as the opposite of what people can potentially be.
Marx argued that capitalism is an inverted world, in which those who should be on the top are
relegated to the bottom. The reality of life in capitalism is hidden while illusion is seen as a fact.
 As a result of alienation;
 Work is reduced to mere labour
 Individual does not affirm himself but denies himself
 Worker doesn’t feel content, but unhappy
 Does not develop his mental and physical energy
 Mortifies his body and ruins his mind
Thus, labour in capitalism is very different from genuine human activity.

Therefore, we can say that the worker is the victim of exploitation at the hands of the bourgeois.
The works sinks to the level of a commodity and becomes indeed the most wretched of
commodities. The more the works spends himself, the less he has of himself. The worker puts
his life into the object he creates but the very object becomes an instrument of alien purpose and
strengthens the hand of his exploiters. In short the worker spends his life and produces everything
not for himself but for the powers that manipulate him. While labour may produce beauty, luxury
and intelligence, for the worker it produces only the opposite-deformity, misery and uncertaint

The four basic components of alienation are

1.Workers involved in capitalist society are isolated from their productive activity.

2.Capitalist society workers are isolated from productive activities and from the activity, which is the

product. They are isolated from the product because it does not belong to them.

3.This is where people in a capitalist society are alienated from their co-workers. They work

constantly and maybe only have a short break and don’thave time to communicate with their co-

workers. They are busy doing their job and can’t stop to make a friendship with the people next to

them.

4.The fourth component of alienation is where the workers are alientated fromtheir full potential. This

is where they are being controlled and told what to do during their job, they are treated like machines

instead of humans.

Marx described modern society in terms of alienation. Alienation refers to the

condition in which the individual is isolated and divorced from his or her society,
work, or the sense of self. Marx defined four specific types of alienation.

1. Alienation from the product of one’s labor. An industrial worker does not have
the opportunity to relate to the product he labors on. Instead of training for
years as a watchmaker, an unskilled worker can get a job at a watch factory
pressing buttons to seal pieces together. The worker does not care if he is
making watches or cars, simply that the job exists. In the same way, a worker
 may not even know or care what product to which he is contributing. A worker
on a Ford assembly line may spend all day installing windows on car doors
without ever seeing the rest of the car. A cannery worker can spend a lifetime
cleaning fish without ever knowing what product they are used for.
2. Alienation from the process of one’s labor. A worker does not control the
conditions of her job because she does not own the means of production. If a
person is hired to work in a fast food restaurant, she is expected to make the
food the way she is taught. All ingredients must be combined in a particular
order and in a particular quantity; there is no room for creativity or change. An
employee at Burger King cannot decide to change the spices used on the fries
in the same way that an employee on a Ford assembly line cannot decide to
place a car’s headlights in a different position. Everything is decided by the
bourgeoisie who then dictate orders to the laborers.
3. Alienation from others. Workers compete, rather than cooperate. Employees
vie for time slots, bonuses, and job security. Even when a worker clocks out at
night and goes home, the competition does not end. As Marx commented
in The Communist Manifesto (1848), “No sooner is the exploitation of the
laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in
cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord,
the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker.”
4. Alienation from one’s self. A final outcome of industrialization is a loss of
connectivity between a worker and her occupation. Because there is nothing
that ties a worker to her labor, there is no longer a sense of self. Instead of
being able to take pride in an identity such as being a watchmaker, automobile
builder, or chef, a person is simply a cog in the machine.

Taken as a whole, then, alienation in modern society means that an individual has
no control over his life. Even in feudal societies, a person controlled the manner of
his labor as to when and how it was carried out. But why, then, does the modern
working class not rise up and rebel? (Indeed, Marx predicted that this would be the
ultimate outcome and collapse of capitalism.)

Class Structure,

 Class is central concept in Marx’s writing to understand society as a whole.

 Class results from the relations of production which creates different positions.
 “A group of people sharing the same position in the process of production” –
Definition

TWO BROAD CLASSES

 Haves
They are the owners of forces of production and are dominant in society.
 Have Nots
They are the class who are exploited and does not own any forces of production.

FORMATION OF CLASS

 As mankind progressed from Primitive Communism, surplus started to

emerge and some men started to control the forces of production.
 Now unequal relations of production emerged.
 This lead to first class formation.
 Polarization will occur with increasing exploitation and will also be
accompanied by class antagonism or class struggle.

CLASS IN ITSELF AND CLASS FOR ITSELF

 Class in itself
It is only an analytical construct to Marx inorder to stratify position.
It is by virtue of people having a common relationship to the means of production.
For example, proletariats are class in itself because they have some common
attributes like lack of ownership of production and being deprived of fruits of
production.
 Class for itself
A class in itself becomes a class for itself when the contradiction between the
consciousness of its members and the reality of their situation ends.
Members become aware of the exploitative situation.
It is only when workers become class for itself that they will be in a position to
unite against the capitalist.
It is a phase which is a precondition for the change of mode of production to
Socialism.
Final translation of class in itself to class for itself occurs only in Communism.
 

CLASS STRUGGLE

Conflict theory is a sociological theory associated with Karl Marx. It seeks

to explain political and economic events in terms of an ongoing struggle
over finite resources. In this struggle, Marx emphasizes the antagonistic
relationship between social classes, in particular the relationship between
the owners of capital—which Marx calls the “bourgeoisie”—and the
working class, which he calls the “proletariat”. Conflict theory had a
profound influence on 19th and 20th-century thought and continues to
influence political debates to this day.

 Marx see classes in society in terms of antagonistic cooperation.

 Class struggle is also inherent in Marxian conception of class.
 ‘History of hitherto existing societies is history of class struggle’.
 Conflict between the two classes in every mode of production is the force
behind historical developments.
 New things and new modes of production emerge as a result of class
struggle.
Example or Application for Class struggle

 In ancient and feudal mode of production, the have notes was supported by
the emerging class which is a representative of the new forces of production.
 This emerging class of people is from the relations of new mode of
production.
 Thus, ironically the have nots in their own struggle are actually fulfilling the
interest of the emerging class resulting in a situation of farce.
 The have nots fall into another exploitative relation.
 In feudal system also, the serfs were aided by some enterprising feudal lords
who pioneered the factory system of production.
 It is only in capitalist mode of production that workers gained a critical mass in
terms of true consciousness, leadership, ideology and change the structure itself.
 The ensuing revolution is for emancipation of all.
 Workers’ Revolution will result into a state of transition and they will take over
the state and abolish all the private property.
 Marx refers to this as the stage of Socialism.
 Later workers will renounce the rule leading to a state of communism.

CRITICISM

 The collapse of capitalism did not happen as predicted.

 Communism is still a utopian concept.
 Classes exist even in socialist countries.
 Contrary to Marxist prediction, class struggle has moderated even in
European countries which are epitome of capitalism.
 Apart from economic bases, there are other bases of stratification in society.
 The manual working class has become increasingly heterogenous or
dissimilar and there is only a little chance of uniting them for  a revolution.
 it fails to capture the way in which economic interactions can be
mutually beneficial to the different classes involved. 

Classes are hence the groups of people identified and distinguished

from each other on the basis of their relations to the economic
means of production. Economic means of production refers to the
economic infrastructure that few people own as against many. Few
people are capitalists and many are labourers. Economic
infrastructure refers to all those land, machinery, tools, technology
and the skills that assist the process of production.

The Class Structure:

The word “class” originated from the Latin term “Classis” a group
called to arms, a division of the people. In the rule of legendary
Roman king, Servius Tullius (678-534 B.C), the Roman society was
divided into five classes or orders according to their wealth.
Subsequently the word ‘class’ was applied to large groups of people
into which human society came to be divided.

Marx recognized class as a unique feature of capitalist societies.

Marx has used the term Social class throughout his works but
explained it only in a fragmented form. The clearest passages on the
concept of class structure can be found in the third volume of his
famous work Capital (1894). Under the title of “Social classes”,
Marx distinguished three classes related to the three sources of
income.

(i) Owners of simple labour power or labourers whose main source

of income is labour.

(ii) Owners of capital or capitalists whose main source of income is

profit or surplus value.

(iii) Landowners whose main source of income is ground rent.

In this way the class structure of modern capitalist society is
composed of three major classes’ i.e. salaried labourers of workers,
capitalists and landowners. At a broader level, society could be
divided into two major classes—Haves and Have-not’s. Haves are
the owners of land/or capital often called as Bourgeoisie and the
Have-not’s are those who own nothing but their own labour power,
often called as Proletariates. According to Marx, “a social class
occupies a fixed place in the process of production.”

Criteria for Determination of Class:

(a) Objective Criteria:

People sharing the same relationship to the means of production
comprise a class. For example, all labourers have a similar
relationship with the land owners. On the other hand all the
landowners as a class have a similar relationship with the land and
labourers. In this way, labourers on one hand and land owners on
the other hand could be seen as classes.

However, for Marx, this relationship is not sufficient to determine

the class. Because according to him it is not sufficient for class to be
“Class in itself’ but it should also be “Class for itself’. Marx means by
“Class in itself’ the objective criteria of any social class. He is not
satisfied with the objective criteria. Hence, he equally emphasizes
upon the other major criteria i.e. “class for itself’ or the subjective
criteria.

(b) Subjective Criteria:

Any collectivity of human grouping with a similar relationship
would make a category not a class, if subjective criteria are not
included. The members of any one class not only have similar
consciousness but they also share a similar consciousness of the fact
that they belong to the same class.

This similar consciousness of a class serves as the basis for uniting

its members for organising social action. Here this similar
consciousness towards acting together for their common interest is
what Marx class-“Class for itself.” In this way these two criteria
together determine a class and class structure in any given society.

Classification of Societies in History and Emergence of

Classes:
Marx differentiated stages of human history on the basis of their
economic regime or modes of production.

He distinguished four major modes of production:

1. The Asiatic

2. The Ancient

3. The Feudal

4. The Capitalistic

He predicted that all social development will culminate into a stage

called Communism.
He simplified this classification of societies or various
stages of human history into:
1. Primitive-Communal

2. Slave-owning

3. Feudal

4. Capitalist

5. Communist stage.

1. The Primitive:
Communal system was the first and the lowest form of organization
of people. It existed for thousands of years. Man started using
primitive tools like sticks and stones for hunting and food
gathering. Gradually man improved these tools. He learned to make
fire, cultivation and animal husbandry.

In this system of very low level of forces of production, the relations

of production were based on common ownership of the means of
production. Therefore, these relations were based on mutual
assistance and co-operation. These relations were conditioned by
the fact that people with their primitive implements could only
withstand the mighty forces of nature together, collectively.

In such a situation, exploitation of man by man did not exist

because of two reasons. Firstly, the tools used (means of
production) were so simple that they could be reproduced by any
one. These were implements like spear, stick, bow and arrow etc.
Hence no person or group of people had the monopoly of ownership
over the tools.

Secondly, production was at a low scale. The people existed more or

less on a subsistence lord. Their production was just sufficient to
meet the needs of the people provided everybody worked. Therefore
it was a situation of no master and no servant. All were equal.
Gradually, with time man started perfecting his tools, his craft of
producing and surplus production started taking place.

This led to private property and primitive equality gave way to

social inequality. Thus, the first antagonistic classes, slaves and
slave owners appeared. This is how the development of the forces of
production led to the replacement of primitive communal system by
slavery.

2. Slave-owning:
In the slave-owning society, primitive tools were perfected and
bronze and iron tools replaced the stone and wooden implements.
Large scale agriculture, live stock raising, mining and handicrafts
developed. The development of this type of forces of production also
changed the relations of production.

These relations were based on the slave owners absolute ownership

of both the means of production and the slave himself and
everything he produced. The owner left the slave only with the bare
minimum necessities to keep him from dying of starvation. In this
system, the history of exploitation of man by man and the history of
class struggle began.

The development of productive forces went on and slavery became

an impediment to the expansion of social production. Production
demanded the constant improvement of implements, higher labour
productivity but the slave had no interest in this as it would not
improve his position.

With the passage of time the class conflict between the classes of
slave owners and the slaves became acute and it was manifested in
slave revolts. These revolts together with the raids from
neighbouring tribes undermined the foundations of slavery leading
to a new stage, i.e. Feudal system.

3. Feudal:
The Progressive development of the productive forces continued
under feudalism. Man started using inanimate sources of energy,
i.e. water and wind, besides human labour. The crafts advanced
further, new implements and machines were invented and old ones
are improved.

The labour of craftsmen was specialized raising productivity

considerably. The development of forces of production led to
emergence of feudal relations of production. These relations were
based on the feudal lord’s ownership of the serfs or landless
peasants. The production relations were relations of dominations
and subjection, exploitation of the serfs by the feudal lords.
Nevertheless, these relations were more progressive than in slavery
system, because they made the labourers interested to some extent,
in their labour. The peasants and the artisans could own the
implements or small parts of land. These forces of production
underwent changes due to new discoveries, increasing demands for
consumption caused by population increase and discovery of new
markets through colonialism.

All this led to the need and growth of mass scale manufacture. This
became possible due to advances in technology. This brought the
unorganized labourers at one place, i.e. the factory. This sparked off
already sharpened class conflict leading to peasant revolution
against landowners.

The new system of production demanded free labourer whereas the

serf was tied to the land; therefore the new forces of production also
changed the relations of production culminating into a change in
the mode of production from feudalism to capitalism.

Intensification of Class Conflict under Capitalism:

Large-scale machine production is the specific feature of the
productive forces of capitalism. Huge factories, plants and mines
took place of artisan workshops and manufactures. In a century or
two, capitalism accomplished much more in developing the
productive forces than had been done in all the proceeding eras of
human history. The vigorous growth of the forces of production was
helped by the capitalist relations of production based on private
capitalist ownership.
Under capitalism, the producer, the proletariat, is legally free, being
attached neither to the land nor to any particular factory. They are
free in the sense that they can go to work for any capitalist, but they
are not free from the bourgeois class as a whole. Possessing no
means of production, they are compelled to sell their labour power
and thereby came under the yoke of exploitation.

Due to this exploitation the relatively free labourers became

conscious of their class interest and organize themselves into a
working class movement. This working class movement intensified
its struggle against the bourgeois class.

It begins with bargaining for better wages and working conditions

and cultivates into an intensified class conflict which is aimed at
over throwing the capitalist system. Marx said that the capitalist
system symbolises the most acute form of inequality, exploitation
and class antagonism. This paves the way for a socialist revolution
which would lead to a new stage of society i.e. Communism.

Class Struggle:
The theory of class struggle is central to Marxian thought. The first
line of Communist Manifesto (1848) reads: “The history of all
hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.” “Freeman
and, slave, patricians and plebian, lord and serf, guild master and
journey man, in a word, oppressor and the oppressed stood in
constant opposition to one another, carried on uninterrupted now
hidden and now open fight, a fight that each time ended in a
revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in common ruin
of the contending classes.”
The perpetual tension, conflict or the antagonism between the
owning and the non-owning class is called Class struggle. Not only
the classes but also the class struggle is economically conditioned.
Therefore Marx says that economic relationship is the very basis of
all other types of relationships. i.e., social, political and legal and
these are called the super structures. Economic relationship
decides, defines and determines all other forms of relationships; i.e.
social, political and legal. This is what is called the concept of
economic determinism by Marx.

Criticisms:
Marxian theory of class struggle has been put to various criticisms.
This theory is having propaganda value. The theory of revolution
that Marx presents on the basis of the conflict of interest between
the social classes is not convincing. There may be revolution due to
causes other than these; and the same may not involve force or
violence.

The technological revolution of 18th and 19th century, the

constitutional changes in the 19th century England, Arya Samaj
movement of Dayanand Saraswati are illustrations of the
revolutionary changes brought about in the respective areas,
without the use of force. The abolition of caste system by the
legislative measures is no less revolutionary.

Marx has made many predictions in regard to the development of

the future capitalistic society especially in regard to its relations
with the proletariat and about the inevitable struggle between the
capitalist and the proletariat has not come off. Marx has ignored
social conditions. He has failed to distinguish between the social
and economic classes. It has been said that it is not correct to
believe that all struggle is always a class struggle. He has not
followed the nature of struggle.

The concept of alienation of individual from his social system is a

complete ambiguity. Marx sociology reduces him to mere zero.
There is however, no change in his position. Karl Marx leaves him
as much hand and foot bound in his system, as he found him under
the established one. The hope of achieving the total man is thus
completely lost.

Max Weber considered the philosophy of Marx as “false”; “because

it is incompatible with both the nature of science and nature of
human existence.” Max Weber does not support that only economic
factor can influence the course of history.

Marxian concept of classless society remains only as a political

instrument in the hands of the communists. This concept is being
misused for gaining political benefits. It is thus reduced to the level
of a tool of political propoganda. Marxian theory of classless society
is a kind of Utopian dream. Bogardus says, “Marxian communism is
the result of the Plato’s communism and Moore’s Utopianism.” In
spite of the above criticisms, shortcomings, the theory of the
classless society, class & class struggle has, had a tremendous
appeal to the people with a sense of social justice.

TWO BROAD CLASSES

 Haves
They are the owners of forces of production and are dominant in society.
 Have Nots
They are the class who are exploited and does not own any forces of production.

FORMATION OF CLASS

 As mankind progressed from Primitive Communism, surplus started to

emerge and some men started to control the forces of production.
 Now unequal relations of production emerged.
 This lead to first class formation.
 Polarization will occur with increasing exploitation and will also be
accompanied by class antagonism or class struggle.

CLASS IN ITSELF AND CLASS FOR ITSELF

 Class in itself
It is only an analytical construct to Marx inorder to stratify position.
It is by virtue of people having a common relationship to the means of production.
For example, proletariats are class in itself because they have some common
attributes like lack of ownership of production and being deprived of fruits of
production.
 Class for itself
A class in itself becomes a class for itself when the contradiction between the
consciousness of its members and the reality of their situation ends.
Members become aware of the exploitative situation.
It is only when workers become class for itself that they will be in a position to
unite against the capitalist.
It is a phase which is a precondition for the change of mode of production to
Socialism.
Final translation of class in itself to class for itself occurs only in Communism.
 

CLASS STRUGGLE

 Marx see classes in society in terms of antagonistic cooperation.

 Class struggle is also inherent in Marxian conception of class.
 ‘History of hitherto existing societies is history of class struggle’.
 Conflict between the two classes in every mode of production is the force
behind historical developments.
 New things and new modes of production emerge as a result of class
struggle.

Example or Application for Class struggle

 In ancient and feudal mode of production, the have notes was supported by
the emerging class which is a representative of the new forces of production.
 This emerging class of people is from the relations of new mode of
production.
 Thus, ironically the have nots in their own struggle are actually fulfilling the
interest of the emerging class resulting in a situation of farce.
 The have nots fall into another exploitative relation.
 In feudal system also, the serfs were aided by some enterprising feudal lords
who pioneered the factory system of production.
 It is only in capitalist mode of production that workers gained a critical mass in
terms of true consciousness, leadership, ideology and change the structure itself.
 The ensuing revolution is for emancipation of all.
 Workers’ Revolution will result into a state of transition and they will take over
the state and abolish all the private property.
 Marx refers to this as the stage of Socialism.
 Later workers will renounce the rule leading to a state of communism.

CRITICISM

 The collapse of capitalism did not happen as predicted.

 Communism is still a utopian concept.
 Classes exist even in socialist countries.
 Contrary to Marxist prediction, class struggle has moderated even in
European countries which are epitome of capitalism.
 Apart from economic bases, there are other bases of stratification in society.
 The manual working class has become increasingly heterogenous or
dissimilar and there is only a little chance of uniting them for  a revolution.

4.2 Emile Durkheim : Division of labour, social fact, religion and society, suicide

4.3 Max Weber : Social action, ideal types, authority, bureaucracy, protestant ethic
and the spirit of capitalism.

4.4 Talcott Parsons : Social system, pattern variables

4.5 Robert K. Merton: Latent and manifest functions, anomie, conformity and
deviance, reference groups.