Marx’s Historical MaterialismEssay title: Marx’s Historical MaterialismKarl 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 put forward his conception of historical materialism for the first time in German Ideology in 1845-6. He believed that it was the material world or the mode of production which determines the consciousness of men & the ‘social, political, and spiritual processes of life’. According to him, the mode of production, which refers to the productive forces of society as well as the relations of production; is not simply the reproduction of physical existence, but a definite mode of life. What individuals are, ‘coincides with their production, with what they produce and with how they produce it.’ The economic structure is the real foundation on which the ideological superstructures of law, politics, religion & philosophy arise. Marx argued that changes in the mode of production correspond to the different stages of history. According to him, “History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends”, and labour forms the basis of human society. Thus, he held that the foundations of reality lay in the material base of economics rather than in the abstract thought of idealistic philosophy. While Durkheim praised the ‘idea that social life should be explained, not by the notions of those who participate in it, but by more profound causes’, he noted the inadequacy of this conception was evident in the study of the family.
This materialistic interpretation of history is an application of dialectical materialism. Dialectics comes from the Greek dialego which means to discourse or to debate. Marx took from the Hegelian dialectics only its “rational kernel,” casting aside its idealistic shell, and developed dialectics further so as to lend it a modern scientific form. The dialectical method regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement, and the development of nature as the result of the contradictions in it & the interaction of opposite forces.
Marx has given a general scheme of the stages of social development in his materialist conception of history. This scheme is a progressive one and each mode of production emerges from a previous type. The old order is negated by the new one but there is continuity between the two. Every stage is a pure type. Marx provided a general scheme but believed each society has to be studied empirically. Each stage represents unity and conflict of opposites. Wherever there is private property, there exist 2 decisive classes and there is conflict and contradiction between them. According to Marx, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” He recognizes man’s conscious role in bringing about social transformation and asserts that ‘circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.’
Marx outlines the following epochs in the development of human society- primitive, Asiatic, ancient, feudal, capitalist and socialist society.Marx states that primitive society is characterised by the minimal division of labour based only on age and sex. It is a pre-class system in that property is communally owned. The simplest form of tribal society consisted of hunter-gatherers and pastoralists. The division of labour developed through an increase in population, conflict and subjugation of one tribe by another- producing an ethnically-based slavery system. As exchange relations between different communities developed, they expanded and became more and more interdependent.
Marx distinguishes another line of development out of tribalism- the Asiatic mode of production found in oriental societies like India and China. Due to the need for centralized irrigation, there existed a strong central government. He commented on the fact that oriental societies were highly resistant to change because of the self-sufficient nature of the village community, while the political scenario was relatively unstable. This hindered the growth of cities, and therefore the division of labour. Inspite of the well-developed state administration, Marx considered it to be a pre-class system because the village had communal ownership of property. The only link with the ruler was through the payment of taxes, and the subjects’ relationship with him was largely symbolic and religious. However, Marx’s data in this
n3 have proven to be incomplete.
4.1 Marx’s early work on tribalism led to Marx’s belief that the political system was a system of tribal structure. In other words, Marx believed that the “democratic” tribal form of government could only be extended to a number of provinces and states with the same administrative structure, but also an absolute subordination to the supreme king. At the same time he believed that there was a class system under which people could live in their own societies without a hierarchical hierarchy. Thus, if the majority should agree to certain tasks for which there is majority support, then then it is the people’s rights and autonomy which should be respected in the democratic form of government. But even if so, Marx believed that the “rule of the proletariat” had to “unify” the people’s state affairs, since this was not the same in all cases. Similarly, in his conception of the democratic state, a “dictatorship of man”, a ruling class could only be called upon “in order to form and regulate a national army” and, under these conditions, to fight “against manly forms of tyranny.”
Marx’s theory of the “democratic state” was not a scientific one. Instead it was an economic one, based wholly upon social relations between different parts of the society, which Marx called state systems. In this way, state economies were, in Marx’s view, the basis of universal human rights. In other words, Marx conceived of a class dictatorship for various social and political actors in the world, based solely on those relations.
Of course, Marx is not alone in thinking that state relations in the early period were not fundamentally social and physical like our own, and so it may be useful in discussing this. However, in his later writings the idea was taken to be a political one. He considered the ruling class’s ruling class to be the “rule of the proletariat”, i.e. a “democratic group of people”, who were collectively responsible for organizing, maintaining, and managing the capitalist system. But, according to Marx, “the proletariat” did not have political control over economic conditions but relied on it. It was only when the workers “conceived and implemented” the law as a social and economic norm, so to speak, and had this new law in place to enforce its new rules that “the proletariat” could legitimately act in political terms. In other words, when the workers “conceived, implemented and administered” a law, their responsibility for it became all the more “political” because they came of a collective class. So, during the early periods, the worker’s responsibility to uphold the law became that for her own political needs. The proletarian state was not simply a form of dictatorship, but rather a state that ensured the social and physical basis for the proletarian revolution. Thus, by the turn of the 19th century, the concept of an authoritarian social system emerged. In fact, Marx said that the form of the authoritarian social system was “the same in all cases but in different respects”. In such cases, the “rule of the proletariat” should always be the “rule of nature” as Marx termed “the rule, as such, of people- the rule of the individual, of people alone” (Marx, Capital 5