Social Facts, Social Actions and Historical Materialism: a Theoretical Comparison

Division of labour is also credited with the rise of trade between different areas, the rise of capitalism, and increasingly complex manufacturing and industrialization. For Karl Marx, the production portion of Capitalism signalled great trouble. He believed production in Capitalist society worked in a way that the rich factory owner benefited and the poor factory workers lost. In his manner of reasoning, the Capitalist system was inherently meant to benefit the rich and exploit the poor: “All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on better under the modern police than on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, and that the right of the stronger prevails in their ‘constitutional republics’ as well, only in another form.”[ii] Marx’s view of society and the world lead him to believe that humans create change in their lives and in their environment through practical activity in the practical world.

Marx begins his analysis of social order with the historical development of materialism that results in the industrial capitalist society. For him, the history of society depends on the understanding of “real process of

Two names that are repeatedly mentioned in sociological theory are Karl Marx and Max Weber. In some ways these two intellectuals were similar in the way they looked at society. There are also some striking differences. In order to compare and contrast these two individuals it is necessary to look at each of their ideas. Then a comparison of their views can be illustrated followed by examples of how their perspectives differ from each other.

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.

Marx’s conception of society has its grounds in a theory of action: as he put it, human beings make their own history. But Marx goes on to argue that they do this is circumstances which are not of their own choosing, and he develops an analysis of how action is organized by these circumstances as material conditions of production which structure and determine the social relationship that are primarily generated by the particular material forces of production utilized, which include not only raw materials but also the technology which is used to extract and work them into products (Jenks 15).

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

In his discussions of capitalism in The German Ideology he frequently accuses existing social structures for alienating man from his production. “Each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape” (Marx, Page 160) as a result of the division of labour in capitalist societies. This division of labour exists because there is higher priority placed in communal interest than individual interest. As such, there is an inequality here – communal interest is taken to be of greater importance than individual

Central to Marx’s economic model is the contraction of the capitalist class through the function of competition and the corresponding increase in the proletariat. This immizeration, coupled with the increasing degradation of the working classes, was to set the stage for the revolution. What Marx didn’t foresee was the pragmatic decision on the part of capital to allow the standard of living to rise among the workers, thereby easing tension and providing a market for their wares.1 Capitalism also became more complex structurally than the Marxist model. Public ownership of corporations via the stock market and the rise of a new class, the technician (brought about by an explosion in manufacturing technology), blurred the lines of societal stratification. To further complicate matters, liberal democracies began to manage national economies, thereby stabilizing the marketplace and apparently ending the old bust-or-boom business cycle. The oppressive nature of industrial capitalism seemed to be giving way before a more egalitarian consumer society, fueled by an ever rising standard of living. Put simply: capitalism was giving the people what they wanted. Or was it?

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].

The philosophy of Karl Marx begins with the belief that humans are inherently cooperative with common characteristics and shared ends. To human beings, life is considered an object and therefore, humans make their “life-activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness” (Tucker 76). In other words, humans are able to think, imagine, and “produce even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom” (p. 76). It exemplifies that idea that humans not only have the capability to create things for survival but express themselves in what they produce, within the standards of the human race or universally. When capitalist wage-labor enters the picture, it forces these shared ends and the freedom of expression in human production to cease, causing a rise of competitiveness among

history” (Roskin, Cord, Medeiros & Jones, 2014, pg. 2, para. 2). Marx believed that the

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

Human action and social structure are extremely prevalent in the works of Marx. In terms of the workers and capitalist classes, he postulates that they are not free but rather actors of the capitalist system. The workers are forced into labour to make a living, the force of circumstance (Elster, 1986:29) while the capitalist is forced to keep themselves in business. Elster (1986:29) argues that this is

From Marx’s money and commodities, people think that they have mystical powers, but the powers come from us from own creative labor. If we take a look inside a workplace it could be any place of work a capitalist factory, a peasant commune, or a family farm, the relations between different workers are direct, you make a widget and hand it directly to the next person. If something needs to change by the labor process, someone brings workers together and says now we will organize things differently. The organization happened directly between people. Now if we take a look at the market outside the workplace, things were different. The relations are not direct between individual. In the market, these interactions happen between things because to change their work, to produced more or less, and go out of business or expand the business. Farmers, electricians and auto workers do not directly relate to each other as workers instead the products of their labor beat in the market and are exchanged with one another. The material relations between people become social relations between things. For example, When we look at car, corn, tv, and peanut butter we do not see the worker created them. We just see commodities standing in relation one to

Marx is credited as being one of the founding fathers of sociology and the social sciences (along with Durkheim and Weber). Marx lived through the majority of the 19th century (1818-1883), when the Industrial Revolution and capitalism were at their peak, and his work was a critical analysis of this relatively new form of society. The aim of this essay is to explore the social origins of Marx’s theories with a look to assess how useful these social origins are when it comes to understanding the strengths and weaknesses of his theories. I will first briefly describe some of Marx’s most well known theories of Human Nature, the Proletariat and