Historical Materialism : Marxist Materialism

When the revolution came in pockets of Europe, the uprisings were spontaneous, aimless and inconclusive. Though the ruling class was threatened, policies largely remained the same. Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto made the radical claim that the proletariat had to win. The chapter then compares Marx and Engels. They came from widely different backgrounds, yet while Engels provided breadth and momentum, Marx provided depth. Marx often noted the obvious inequality in Manchester – where certain parts seemed well off, but certain parts had rampant poverty. Marx was largely influenced by the philosopher, Hegel. Though Marx is known for his radicalism, it was his philosophical outlook that was radical, not political beliefs. The chapter describes the notion of dialectical materialism. Every society is built on an economic base, but has a super-structure based on non economic activity and thought. Capitalism as a system, Marx argues, would sooner or later destroy

The theory of Marxism generates a method for the analysis of society, which focuses on class relations and conflict amongst humanity. Inspired by Karl Marx (a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, historian and journalist), the theory influences contemporary understanding of labour and its connection to capital. Marx’s most notable publications ‘The Communist Manifesto’ and ‘Das Kapital’ showcase his analytical work and well-know themes related to Marxism.

Karl Marx is considered to be one of the most influential thinkers of our age. Born in Germany in 1818, he was greatly influenced by philosophers such as Hegel, Feuerbach & St. Simon. He made an immense contribution to the different areas of sociology- definition of the field of study, analysis of the economic structure and its relations with other parts of the social structure, theory of social classes, study of religion, theory of ideology, analysis of the capitalist system etc. In this essay, we will deal with his contribution to the study of social development or the materialist conception of history.

Karl Marx’s critique of political economy provides a scientific understanding of the history of capitalism. Through Marx’s critique, the history of society is revealed. Capitalism is not just an economic system in Marx’s analysis. It’s a “specific social form of labor” that is strongly related to society. Marx’s critique of capitalism provides us a deep

The Marxist theory of historical materialism understands society to be determined by the relationships which people enter into with one another to fulfill their basic needs, for instance to feed and clothe themselves and their families. In general Marx identified five successive stages of the development of these material conditions in Western Europe.

This class struggle itself became an engine for social change in his understanding of history. History for Marx was a dialectical materialist process: dialectical because it consisted of opposing forces, materialist in its emphasis on economics and politics. Through his conception of history, he believed one could then understand the nature of social change and how to effect it. Although his belief was only partially and unsuccessfully realised, this conception of production and its role in creating haves and have-nots was to have a lasting impact on economics and development studies. Many branches have drawn upon aspects of his ideas (and later Marxists) while rejecting some aspects. Clearly the formulation of class may have had applicability in the 19th century, but is a much more complicated matter today. At the same time, the identification of exploiter and exploited has helped to understand aspects of inequality that we find today.

Karl Marx was a communist researcher and coordinator, a key character in the historical locale of economic and hypothetical idea, and an awesome societal prophet. But it is as a sociological theorist that he commands our interest. Society, according to Marx, involved a moving equalization of contradictory powers that create social change by their strain and battle. Marx's vision depended on a transformative purpose of flight. For him, battle instead of quiet development was the motor of advance; strife was the father of all things, and social conflict the principal of historic process. This reasoning was in opposition with the greater part of the teachings of his eighteenth century antecedents, however tweaked in to much nineteenth century thought. To Marx the propelling power in history was the way in which men classify each other in their consistent battle to seize their work from nature. "The first historical act is . . . the production of material life itself. This is indeed a historical act, a fundamental condition of all history" (Bancroft and Rogers, 2010). A communist state would have the laborers possess the methods for generation and all would share the benefits similarly. The laborers would be working for themselves, not for the advantage of the business people. All types of government would gradually vanish, as the laborers comprehended the advantage of working for the benefit of each other. When this model situation happened, his optimal society that he called

Marx's ideas on labor value are very much alive for many organizations working for social change. In addition, it is apparent that the gap between the rich and poor is widening on a consistent basis. According to Marx, the course of human history takes a very specific form which is class struggle. The engine of change in history is class opposition. Historical epochs are defined by the relationship between different classes at different points in time. It is this model that Marx fleshes out in his account of feudalism's passing in favor of bourgeois capitalism and his prognostication of bourgeois capitalism's passing in favor of proletarian rule. These changes are not the reliant results of random social, economic, and political events; each follows the other in predictable succession. Marx responds to a lot of criticism from an imagined bourgeois interlocutor. He considers the charge that by wishing to abolish private property, the communist is destroying the "ground work of all personal freedom, activity, and independence". Marx responds by saying that wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism. Having linked private property to class hostility, Marx

During the late 1800s, the eminent German philosopher, Karl Marx sought to create an equilibrium between the social strata by abolishing social classes. His doctrine, Marxism, is based on the idea that the means of production is the foundation of society, and ownership of this dictates the fate of the civilization. Marx attempted to place the means of production, including factories, into control of the people who operated the means of production(proletariat), and not just the owners of it (bourgeois). In Marx’s vision, society is driven not by spirituality, but by material objects. The proletariat and bourgeois may have ambivalent views on the division of wealth, but ultimately, the owners of the means of production make the decision. The

Marx and Engles believed that everyone is a product of the historical period in which they existed. These two authors believed that a revolution or overturning of the status quo was necessary. We learn in the book that these two men aimed to change the world and succeeded in doing so. Their theory was called historical materialism which means that material circumstances shape who people are. It was called historical because it was recognized that material circumstances change over time. Two major examples are the invention of the steam engine, and today’s furthering expansion of technology. There are different usages of the word materialism, but their sense of this word referred to people’s relationship with materials of production. These two

In their materialist reading of history, Marx and Engels proclaim that with the necessity for survival driving history/ and man to the development of social interaction and thus the establishment of the economy, staged progressions will come forth as a result. To Marx the economy will ultimately be responsible for all aspects of society. It will be from the development, and circumstance stemming forth from such development of the economy, that the stages of history will progress. And as such to Marx and Engels Capitalism will be a stopping point upon this staged progression route of history. In this way it is concluded that Capitalism is a mode of production stemming from the economy [means and relations of production], which in itself is a result of the history of materialism [the innate struggle for survival and the social relations built upon this struggle].

Marx’s (1987) “materialist conception of history” (p. 146) provides an outline through which he presents the intimate connection between society and the provision of material need through the ages. His theory begins with the pre-modern individual, whose existence consists only of productive actions vital to only his own survival, such as gathering food and building shelter. Marx considers this

Karl Marx, in writing the Communist Manifesto, argued that human history unfolds in a teleological manner; therefore it unfolds according to a distinct series of historical stages, each necessarily following the other. These stages ultimately lead to a given Utopian

Marx conceived the base and superstructure approach that defines capitalist society. The base relates to all that is a function of production in society and conversely, the superstructure, which can be said to be derived from the base, relates to the values, culture, ideology and the governing bodies of society. The former creates and supports the latter by a process of legitimisation of the economic activities, and in turn, the superstructure ensures the processes remain in place. Class domination plays a large part in this process of organisation; for example, private education providing better opportunities for advancement and primary socialisation into the higher echelons of society. However, a counter argument claims that the state is just as involved in the stresses and “struggles of civil society’’ as opposed to being a mere extension of it for the pure benefit of a particular class interest (Held 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001, p 113).

freedom. Offering an opposing analysis to Hegel’s pure thoughts, Marx a materialist, saw ideas and perceptions as the result of material social, economical and historical conditions. Marx analyzed the basis of all history to understand civil society. Property was at the basis of Marx’s argument and how the state developed. In critiquing Hegel, Marx thought reality created the mind. People’s ideas and ideologies were conditioned by the historical formation of powers or production and relations to production (Notes, PE 100: 3/17/15). This is the formation of his distinction between the relationship of the economy and politics. He believed the economy consisted of the forces of production; relations of production, and division of labor are the dominating forces in the state. He thought the material base, which is the economy, determined the “superstructure”, which included culture, ideology, and religion. He placed an importance on the relationship between the base (modes of production) and superstructure because the ruling class controls society’s material power as well as “its ruling intellectual power” (Marx, 163). The role of consciousness played a different angle in Marx’s view as he stated, “it is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness” (Marx, 36-37). The formation of consciousness is strongly determined by the class structure of society. In further, the ruling class in society dominates consciousness, who are the bourgeoisie.