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 capitalist. 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.