Like Hegel, Marx believed that the dialectic was the driving force of historical change, the dialectic is a process of interaction between competing forces, a thesis contains its own antithesis that eventually rises up and leads to a higher stage of development, synthesis. Marx also agreed with Hegel in his theory of ‘alienation’. Hegel condemns capitalism for its destruction of human creativity and the dissolution of ‘organic ties and loyalties’. Workers under capitalism forfeit their essential nature to be in control of their activity, and they forfeit this to ‘external forces of their own making’, the bourgeoisie. Man having alienated himself from his creative essence, loses all sense of what it is to be human. What Marx did is combine Hegel’s dialectic with his own historical materialism. Thus he ‘turned Hegel on his head’, in Engels words, explaining historical change by reference to internal contradictions within each mode of production arising from the existence of private property. He regarded the conflicts in interest of the major social classes as being rooted in the basic economic structure and was the motor force of history.
In Marx’ theory he divided history into a series of stages, each characterised by its own economic structure, means of production and class system; firstly, the primitive and tribal society where material scarcity created conflict, secondly, slavery where conflict existed between the master and the slave, thirdly, feudalism where conflict existed between landowners and the peasants, and fourthly, capitalism where conflict existed between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. For Marx, all societies where the means of production was owned by a minority, the relations of production are exploitive, as the majority will be forced to work for subsistence pay, while the parasitic minority uses its economic power to appropriate the surplus. Classes are therefore defined with reference to ownership or non-ownership of the means of production. Marx believed that the development of capitalist society was simplifying society and dividing people into two opposing forces, the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat. Marx’ attitude to capitalism was that in many ways it was the worst form of society in that people were exploited by it more systematically than in previous systems. Capitalism is doomed because as Marx put it in the Communist Manifesto, ‘the development of modern industry cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable’. Capitalism therefore contains its own antithesis- the proletariat, ‘the grave diggers of capitalism’. The proletariat, who have become alienated by their means of production, would eventually realise their power and the extent of their exploitation and take over society by a revolution of the working classes and a few intellectuals from the upper classes. Marx claims that this revolution would be unlike any other because the proletarian movement would be the ‘independent movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority’. The inevitable final stage of history for Marx would be the socialist turning into the communist state, where all were equal and because private property would be removed there would be no need for conflict. The communist state would essentially become the synthesis of history. The transcendence of alienation is brought about by communism, the goal of history and recovery by man of his ‘natural essence’. People living under a system of communal property, would no longer feel estranged from their fellow citizens or sources of power. Communism would do away with private property in the means of production, as well as all the evils that it creates; class conflicts, inequality, religion, crime, and state repression.
In conclusion, with Marx’ theory of history nothing is permanent until the communist establishment. As societies productive forces develop, they clash with existing production, or property, which restrict their growth. This ‘contradiction’ provokes a ‘class war’ between those who want to maintain the old relations and those who seek a new order. This conflict is resolved in favour of progress, as new means of production emerge which better suit the development of society’s material capacity. Suitable legal and political relationships then grow in response to the altered material situation.
