Introduction

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.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

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:

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.

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.

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.

Communist mode of production

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.

Criticism

1. Baselessness
The first objection is that this view is not more than a mere `theory' without any proofs. A
philosophical theory of history ought to be based upon observation of contemporary
events and historical facts, and should be applicable to other times also. Either it should
be formulated on the basis of historical evidence, being in addition applicable to events
of the present and the future, or it should have been deduced and inferred from a priori
premises based upon a series of scientific, philosophical, and logical principles.

2. Revision of Views by Its Founders

I have repeatedly mentioned that Marx terms economic foundation of society the
`infrastructure; and other of its constituents as the `superstructure.' This interpretation is
evidently enough to show one-sided dependence of all the other structures on the
economic base.
Moreover, Marx explains in many of his writings quoted earlier, that the influence in this
relationship is unilateral; i.e. the economic factors are always the influencing factors,
while all other social modes are passively influenced. The economic factors act
independently and other factors are dependent on them.

3. Contradiction of Necessary Correspondence

between Base and Superstructure:
According to the theory of historical materialism there is always a sort of
correspondence between superstructure and base in societies, to the extent that one
can identify the base by means of the superstructure and one can know the
superstructure by knowing the base.
Whenever the base is changed, the correspondence between the base and the
superstructure is affected, disturbing the social equilibrium and giving rise to crisis,
followed sooner or later by a necessary deterioration of the superstructure. And if the
base remains in its original state, the superstructure also necessarily remains
permanent and unchanged.

4. Nonconformity of Ideological and Class Bases

As stated earlier, according to the theory of historical materialism, the superstructure
cannot precede the base at any point of history. On the basis of this doctrine the
consciousness of every epoch is necessarily associated with that age. With the lapse of
every particular period, the corresponding consciousness also expires. Ideas,
philosophies, plans, predictions, religions-all are by-products of needs of a certain
period and cannot be applicable to those of other periods.
But practical evidence goes against this hypothesis. There are a number of
philosophies, personalities, ideas and outlooks-leave alone religions and religious
ideologies-which are ahead of their times and their own class interest. There are many
ideas that were the products of the material needs of a specific period which still remain
alive even after the passage of a considerable time, and shine as stars over the
horizons of human history.

5. Independence of Cultural Developments

According to the theory of historical materialism, cultural and scientific temperament of a
society like all the other aspects, viz. political, legal, and religious, is related to its
economic mode. It cannot develop in independence from economic development. The
development of science follows the development in the means of production and the
economic base of society.
First. of all, it should be noted that the means of production are not capable of
developing automatically without human intervention. The means of production develop
in the context of man's relationship with nature and his curiosity, inventiveness, and
endeavor.

6. Historical Materialism Contradicts Itself

According to historical materialism, all thought, all philosophical and scientific theories,
and all ethical systems represent certain material and economic conditions, and are
inseparably connected with their own specific objective conditions. Hence their value
and validity are not absolute, but dependent upon a specific period.
With the lapse of a particular period and changes in the material, economic, and social
conditions, which are necessary and inevitable, every idea or thought, every
philosophical or scientific theory or ethical system is invalidated and is ultimately bound
to be replaced by a different idea, thought or theory.