Karl Marx 's Class Theory

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.

Designed over two hundred years ago, Karl Marx’s philosophy defines specific characteristics known today as the Marxist approach. In this critical approach, whomever holds the power and controls the factories or means of production, consequently controls the whole society. Marx’s opinion states that the laborers running the factories and thus holding the means of production should be the ones holding the power. However, this idea rarely holds true in practical society. Frequently, Marx notes, powerful people hire others to carry out the labor. This division of power reflects current culture. Two main classes or categories of people exist, the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisie is the powerful, or those who are in charge of

Why does Marx 's social theory place so much emphasis on class conflict and the economic aspects of society?

Marx’s primarily aims to explain how communism will free men, end the class struggle. The work argues that class struggles, and the exploitation of one class by another is the source of all inequality. Marx’s theories become one the motivating force behind all historical developments. The work strongly advocates the freedom of the proletariats which Marx’s claims can only be achieved when property and other goods cease to be privately owned. He see’s that private property has been a problem through out history, capital that aids the ruling class to maintain control. Marx argues that the lower class come together in a revolution and gain power and eventually take the power away from the upper class.

In this essay I will discuss three of the main ideas from Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”. I have chosen to look at class struggles, the abolishment of private property and the idea that states look after the dominant classes in societies. I chose these as I found them to be the three main ideas that stood out to me most after reading the book. I have delved into each one and shown why I think they are the three main ideas. I found them to be very interesting ideas which Marx has communicated very well.

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

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Mark 344). This is the famous sentence with which Karl Marx begins the first chapter of Manifesto of the Communist Party, by using the word class this would imply ordering people into societal groups. Karl Marx was referring to economic class, however, society can be grouped into many different classes, such as, economic standing, gender, or race. Each provides an interesting view on how different values have shaped history as is currently viewed. If viewed through the struggles of economic oppression, similar to how Karl Marx did, the major conflict is centralized within the relationship of each class to the means of production. However, Kate Millett and Charles Mills would argue that economic class is meaningless in political society, as Mills would argue that race is the most important, while Millett would say that gender is important. Regardless of the viewpoint that history is taken through Marx, Mills, and Millett would concur that the various classes need to be broken down in order to create a peaceful society. While divisions amongst the various societal classes creates oppression, it is in this oppression that society through the introduction of laws or the evolution of a society’s values, and these changes can be witnessed from where society was when Marx wrote in the mid-nineteenth century, and Mills and Millett’s writings towards the end of the twentieth century.

The first section explains the class struggles in society between the Bourgeoisie and Proletariats. Marx explains how the bourgeois society has developed and “not done away with class antagonisms,” therefore resulting in the splitting of two classes the Bourgeoisie,

Marx’s political theory is based on the idea that social history has been defined by a series of class struggles. When a new class overtakes the prior ruling class, a new order emerges. Ideally, this new order would be an improvement on the past system. But in reality, misery still exists in tiers of society because the new systems typically embody a similar model of the oppressed-oppressor relationship, where lower classes are exploited in a similar way. The modern bourgeois society “has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (14). In this way, new systems are part of a natural progression of society, but they continue to exhibit

Karl Marx, also a philosopher was popularly known for his theories that best explained society, its social structure, as well as the social relationships. Karl Marx placed so much emphasis on the economic structure and how it influenced the rest of the social structure from a materialistic point of view. Human societies progress through a dialectic of class struggle, this means that the three aspects that make up the dialectic come into play, which are the thesis, antithesis and the synthesis (Avineri, 1980: 66-69). As a result of these, Marx suggests that in order for change to come about, a class struggle has to first take place. That is, the struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist class, the class that controls

Though Marx views the communist revolution as an unavoidable outcome of capitalism, his theory stipulates that the proletariat must first develop class consciousness, or an understanding of its place within the economic superstructure. If this universal character of the proletariat does not take shape, then the revolution cannot be accomplished (1846: 192). This necessary condition does not pose a problem within Marx’s theoretical framework, as the formation of class consciousness is inevitable in Marx’s model of society. His writings focus on the idea that economic production determines the social and political structure (1846, 1859). For Marx, social class represents a person’s relation to the means of production, a relation that he believes is independent of

To start of my essay I will compare and contrast between the two theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber on the topic of social class that will be discussed widely. The inequality between people is the basis of the democratic system, which is “a political system”. It is said that “those who have the skills and abilities to perform and produce will succeed in life.” But this belief is the assumption that all people are given equal opportunities and advantages. During the 19th century Karl Marx and Max Weber were two of the most influential sociologists who developed their own theories about why inequality is maintained with social class in society. Many might argue that there are many similarities and differences between these sociologists theories, however although Marx’s and Weber’s both examined similar ideas. This essay will compare the differences and similarities between Marx and Weber’s theories of class within society, which are based on economic inequality and capitalism. And lastly this essay will demonstrate that Max Weber comes across as the greater theorist as he can relate his concept more towards today’s society. Anthony Giddens (2nd edition) quoted that “You need greater equality to achieve more social mobility.” Therefore social class is referred to a group of people with similar levels of wealth, influences, behaviours and status. Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887) American Politician states that the “ignorant classes are the dangerous classes.”

Human societies have been class based in some way and the class factor has been the most basic dividing or differentiating factor between broad social groups. In the economic sphere that Marx’s theory focuses on, there is a class that own and control means of economic production which could be referred to as the upper class, and there is the class that maybe own nothing, but their ability to sell their labor power in return for wages which could be referred to as the middle or low class. From that understanding, and based on the conflict theory, one might argue that unequal distribution of resources and access