Marx claims that the pattern of social organisation in any society is linked to, indeed depends on, productive forces. This is the idea that both the institutions and culture of a society take their form from the underlying economic processes. These material productive forces range from the limited technology of static agricultural economy in feudal society, to automation and communication in capitalist society. For Marx, it is these means of production that are the critical link between humans and the natural environment; as technology changes so too do the forms of society (an extension of his concept of dialectical materialism.)
In Marx’s view humans are essentially social begins. He writes that, “society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of inter-relationships, the relationships within which these individuals stand.” An understanding of historical materialism, therefore, involves an examination of theses relations, the most important of which are the relations of production.
Apart from the societies based on primitive communism at the dawn if history, the organisation of every social structure has been into classes (or orders.) In feudal society this consisted of the lord and serf, and the bourgeoisie and proletariat in capitalist society. These being, respectively, the owners of the means of production and the workers defined by their need to sell its labour power in order to survive. The relationship between these classes is one of antagonism and conflict. Hence, historical materialism looks at social change as the consequence of the history of the class struggle.
Throughout history opposing classes have stood in, “constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large, or in the common ruin of contending classes.” Hence, class conflict forms the basis of the dialect of social change.
Marx suggested that, over time, contradictions gradually developed within each form of society - feudal and capitalist - because of the constraints imposed upon the development of the productive forces, by the ruling ideology of property. These contradictions resulted in struggles over the distribution of any surplus value between classes (except communist ones.) Hence, it is these changes in the material productive forces that create a pressure for wider social change.
These increasing tensions between the forces and relations of production is experienced as a conflict between social classes - between those who produce wealth and those who live off the surplus the producers generate. The idea of class conflict is, thus , at the heart of Marx’s conception of historical materialism, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.”
For Marx, social change occurs as a result of this growing tension between dominant and subordinate class. Just as the increasing contradictions within feudalism lead to its collapse, to allow way for capitalism, so will capitalism sow the seeds of its own destruction. Consequently, social change is, arguably, merely a result of the replacement of an old set of contradictions by a new. However, social change is a normal condition of human society - with the proletarian revolution leading to the ultimate transformation from capitalism to communism (Marx’s classless utopia.)
Consequently, historical materialism as a source of social change sees Marx moving away from a concern with the fundamental organisation of societies, to consider how social change occurs - how one social organisation replaces another. The fundamental of which is the contradiction of the structural relationships between classes, which are mutually dependent yet antagonistic. Ultimately, so severe does this contradiction become that the alienation of the proletariat is raised to consciousness; and workers do not merely struggle against the bourgeoisie, but actively seek to depose of it. In so doing the proletariat undermines the basis of its own existence, through the abolition of private ownership. Thus, heralding the rise of a classless society - the proletariat dictatorship. From, “ each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Evaluation
Marx’s theory of contradiction as a means of social change is pro-active, focusing on the ability of human beings to influence their own fate through political action. However, since, “the economic structure of society [is] the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure;” considerable debate took place within Marxism as to how far the other areas of social activity - the superstructure - could influence the economic base, and how far they enjoyed an autonomy.
Engels remarked that the economic sphere was determinant, ”in the last instance,” summing up this ambiguity; and initiating an unresolved debate about the relative autonomy of the political, ideological and legal realms. However, the one undoubted benefit arising from the economically deterministic nature of Marx’s systematisation of social change, was a political one. Namely, nothing could prevent the replacement of feudalism by capitalism; and likewise capitalism with socialism (and ultimately communism); so there was no need to challenge the fundamental rules of the democratic system. However, in this context, historical materialism as an analysis of social change is deterministic.
While sociologists explain social change in terms of what went before, Marx’s concept of historical materialism explains social change in terms of what will come next. Hence, Marxism is a form of teleology. If the future communist utopia is known in advance of its existence - it is seen as inevitable, it is a part of capitalism itself - the very economic system Marx was opposed too, and wanted society to progress beyond.
The economism in Marx’s theory lies in the key concept of the economic base conditioning the super-structure. The effect of this is to make highly problematic the role of legal, ideological and political for future revolution. Hence, the class struggle becomes meaningless. However, the charge of economic determinism is more applicable to Marx’s followers than to Marx himself.
Judging from the constant reinterpretations, impassioned defences and vehement criticisms of Marx’s work, his ideas are as alive and ‘relevant’ today as they ever were. While history has failed to substantiate Marx’s views on the direction of social change, class conflict, far from growing in intensity, has become instutionalised in advanced capitalist society. Consequently, there is little indication of the proletariat becoming a class for itself. Rather than a polarisation of classes, the class structure of capitalist society has become increasingly complex and differentiated. In particular, a steadily growing middle class has emerged between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
In turning to communist society, history has not borne out of the promise of communism contained in Marx’s writing. Significant social inequalities are present in communist regimes and there are few, if any, signs of a movement towards equality. Events in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, suggest that the promise of communism has been replaced by the desire for western style democracies. Here, however, it is the practice not the principles of communism that is seen as the issue.
Particular criticism has been directed towards the priority that Marx assigns to economic factors in the explanation of social structure and social change. Conversely, Weber, maintains that, at certain times and places, aspects of the superstructure can play a primary role in directing change. This economic priority has also been criticised by elite theorists, who have argued that control of the machinery of government, rather than ownership of the means of production, provides that basis of power. They point to the example of communist societies where, despite the fact that the means of production are communally owned, power is largely monopolised by a political or bureaucratic elite. However, Marxism is sufficiently flexible to counter these criticisms, and to provide explanations for historical change, which have occurred since Marx’s death.
The writings of Marx between 1844 and 1848 developed major ideas which have come to be regarded as the foundation of Marxist thought. However, as much of that work was not published during his lifetime, later generations of scholars were acquainted with only a fragmentary version of Marx’s view of society. As Engles remarked, “ I would…ask you to study this theory from its original source and not second-hand.” Thus, issues of interpretation became more pronounced and, ultimately, became responsible for many of the criticisms levelled at Marx.
On closer examination, however, Marx’s writings appear to be more subtle and less dogmatic than many critics have suggested. Marx rejected the simplistic, one-directional view of causation. Although his concept of historical materialism gives priority to economic factors, they form only one aspect of the dialectic of social change. From this perspective the economy is the primary, but not the sole determinant of social change. Marx, also, constantly argued that, “man makes his own history.” Thus, if people make society, they can also change society. Radical change results from a combination of consciousness of reality and direct action. Thus, members of the proletariat must be fully aware of their situation and take active steps in order to change it. Although a successful revolution depends ultimately on the economic situation, it requires human initiative. Hence, people must make their own utopia and, ”if somebody twists this…he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract and senseless phrase.”
Conclusion
While there never was, and arguably never will be, a true classless, communist utopia, Marx’s theory of historical materialism has provided the sociologist with a coherent perspective, and a powerful method of analysis for future social change. Hence, Marxism has formulated some of the ideas which have become fundamental to a sociological understanding of the dynamics of modern societies, which still, even today, continue to have an important influence over contemporary theory.
Word Count:1999
(This word count does not include essay title, sub headings or reference list.)
Reference List
- Marx, Karl (1954) Capital, London, Lawrence and Wishart. Cited in Waters, Malcolm (1994) Modern Sociological Theory, London, Sage.
- Marx, Karl (1964) The economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, International Publishers, New York. Cited in Craib, Ian (1992) Modern Sociological Theory: From Parsons to Habermas, London, Harvester Wheatsheaf..
- Marx, Karl (1977) Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cited in Hughes, John, Martin, Peter, Sharrock, W. (1995) Understanding Classical Sociology, London, Sage.
