Karl Marx: Summary of Ideas and Theory
Karl Marx is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers of modern times. Though receiving some terrible PR from the (misguided) attempts to implement Marx's ideas, his philosophy is not only powerful and inspiring but also relevant to our times. Marx is typically portrayed as an economic thinker but he is actually a thinker of time, history and nature of human progress and his ideas touch on the very essence of human nature. His ideas about communism were not something to be implemented but rather something that has to eventually happen since history orders so. Marx's analysis of the way society function on the role terms such as class conflict, ideology and alienation within it are still relevant when we come to understand contemporary societies (largely due to the fact that capitalism, despite Marx's prophecy, is also still contemporary).
Marx's theory and ideas are extended and elaborated. Here are a few summaries to help you understand some of his most important texts, such as The German Ideology and the famous Communist Manifesto alongside some summaries that explain important ideas in Marx's theory.
Table of Contents
Class Consciousness explained (short definition)
Definition of Class consciousness: The literal meaning of class consciousness is the awareness of the class or economic status of the individual in society. From a Marxist point of view, it refers to the awareness, or lack of self-awareness, of the individual - to the particular class to which he belongs, as well as to the desire to act for the interests of his class and the awareness of their class history. Marx explains the acceptance of class consciousness as a transition from a static class in itself, to a working class for itself. The meaning of the difference: a group of people who have a common opinion regarding the production of their products, as opposed to creating a social layer that will take care of the acquisition of its interests and products itself. For the most part, the lower classes have a greater social awareness than the upper classes. However, this does not obligate the societies in which the social hierarchy is rigid and traditional. Sometimes, in multiracial societies or countries such as the United States, the matter of classes and consciousness are mixed with the matter of race, since people of a certain skin color will often belong to the poorer classes.
Marx's False Consciousness explained
Definition: False consciousness is a term that refers - especially in Marxist thought - to the mismatch between perceptions, values, views and ideology of human beings and their position in the class social system . False consciousness is expressed when an ideology controls the consciousness of an oppressed person or oppressed group, in a way that justifies or preserves the oppression.
The consciousness and experience according to Karl Marx derivatives being. Although Marx himself probably never used the phrase, and it first appears in the writings of Friedrich Engels, according to the Marxist conception, the upper class has personal interests which create a false consciousness in the lower class and in the proletariat, the so-called " opium for the masses ". This consciousness is created by the interests of the upper class - the bourgeoisie - to preserve its place.
Marx believed that true consciousness is Class Consciousness. The state of the individual in the social structure determines his consciousness, and in the structure there are two classes - upper and lower. The determination of consciousness is made through the production relationship between the work of the individual and the ownership of capital. Marx argued that this consciousness would inevitably change and lead to a change in structure. The revolution stems from the workers and their consciousness that stems from materialism and from the historical conflict that underlies society.
For example, views on the importance of cultivating a free economy among people who have no control over means of production or production processes (such as a junior bank clerk, seamstresses in a textile factory or construction workers) are views of false consciousness, according to Marx. These views supposedly contribute to the continued exploitation of people in their position and are much more appropriate for their superiors and managers.
The false consciousness can explain why human beings living in a modern capitalist system are acting contrary to their seemingly true interests.
Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat explained simply
A dictatorship of the proletariat is a concept coined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their book The Communist Manifesto.
The meaning of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", which appears in Marxist and Communist thought, is the exclusive control of the working class over the means of government and the means of production. Marx argued that in the bourgeois countries there is a " dictatorship of the bourgeoisie": even if there is democracy in them it serves only the capitalists, Because the whole political system takes care of the empowerment of the rich: for example, due to electoral laws and meansless advertising costs can not deal equally with the capitalists, and due to liberal property laws, the structure of ownership of the means of production can not be changed. In contrast to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the proletariat, which, according to Marx, was to arise after a socialist revolution, would be a working democracy. For example, factory workers will elect their managers. Also, in the dictatorship of the proletariat the workers will be determined by the institutions of government. According to Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the last step on the road to communism, which is "the democracy of the proletariat," in which there is no longer a central government.
Alienation (Marx) - short definition
Alienation is a mental or social state, of an individual or of a social group, who feel themselves as "not belonging", detached and indifferent.
Some argue that the Industrial Revolution, for example, has led to the replacement of various artists by workers in the production line who, unlike their predecessors, did not enjoy the sense of satisfaction involved in being responsible for the end result - the finished product. A worker who performs monotonous routine work and is not a partner in all stages of production will suffer, according to Karl Marx from frustration and alienation.
Marx was not the first to use the term, it is a technical term in German philosophy that came up in Hegel's writing. In German philosophy, the alienation is between humanity and human existence. The meaning of "humanity" in this context is similar to the meaning of "welfare". The implication in the sentence is that the social situation brings people to live a life that does not realize itself, since they do not live according to what makes a life for the good.
Fetishization of Commodities explained (Marx)
Commodity fetishization (German: Warenfetischismus) is the conception of social relations which are involved in production not as social relations between people, but as economic relations between money and the goods bought in the market. Most often, it refers to attributing qualities that are achieved through human action, to natural or spiritual forces. In this sense, the fetishization of commodities turns the economic value, which is subjective and intangible from the ground up, into something that is perceived as objective and real, that people believe has intrinsic value in itself.
The theory of the fetishization of commodities is presented in the first chapter of Karl Marx 's book, "Capital,"with the aim of explaining that the social organization of labor is mediated by exchanges in the market, that is, the sale and purchase of commodities. Thus, in a capitalist society, the social relations between people, who produces the product, who works for whom, the production time of the goods, etc., are perceived as economic relations between objects, that is, how much a certain commodity is worth in relation to another commodity. Therefore, the trade in goods in the market obscures the true economic essence of the human relationship of the creature, those between the worker and the capitalist.
Marx's Means of Production explained simply
Means of production (German: Produktionsmittel) is a term coined by Karl Marx to denote the same part of the production forces that includes physical, non-human means, used in production.
These factors include factories, machinery, tools and raw materials, as well as infrastructure capital and natural capital, the classic factors of production less financial capital and human capital. When used outside the Marxist concept, the term usually refers to raw materials and infrastructure capital or, at times, as a general definition of property.
According to Marx, the bourgeois capitalist has ownership of the means of production, but not of the power of production (i.e., labor) while in practice ownership of the power of production, but not of the means of production. In his view, the capitalist turns the laborer into an object, as an additional factor of production, and uses his labor power, combined with the means of production, to produce goods. Hence, within the goods, a part that originates from the infrastructural capital and natural capital and a part that originates from labor is assimilated.
According to Marx's analysis, in order to achieve true communism, the capitalist must be deprived of the means of production - that is, to bring about a positive abolition of private ownership of property. In the absence of private property, Marx predicted, the class struggle would disappear and the future, communist society would be created, in which true equality would prevail.
The German Ideology / Marx – summary, review and analysis
Karl Marx's famous "The German Ideology" opens with a full-front offensive on the Hegelian tradition on 19th century idealist German philosophers. The Hegelian philosophers focused on consciousness and abstract ideas, holding that they have independent existence which shapes social reality (hence the term "idealist philosophy"). According to this view, a change in social reality can be brought about through a change in the manner this reality is perceived.
In "The German Ideology" Marx offers an opposite analysis, manifested in his materialist approach that sees different ideas and perceptions as the result of material social, economical and historical conditions. In other words, for Marx in "The German Ideology" it is reality which creates the mind, and not the other way around.
According to Marks, various positions and beliefs held by people, be it religious, moral and so on, are created and conditioned by their material circumstances. This is true, as Marx points elsewhere, to both historical circumstances and class, social and economical circumstances (and here we can see why "class consciousness" is such an important term in Marx's philosophy).
The argument that consciousness in socially constructed was raised before Marx, but it was Marx in The German Ideology who made it the foundation of his social philosophy. Marx draws heavily (and criticizes just as heavily) on the work of Feuerbach who claimed that religious faith is rooted in man's actual and material conditions, in man's perception of himself and in that god is but a projection of his earthly creators (Emile Durkheim argued something similar in his notion of the "totemic principle"). However, this is not material enough for Marx who thinks that Feuerbach failed to bring into account specific social, economical and historical conditions which shape religious belief.
For Marx it is not enough to claim that people create their own images, ideologies and so forth, as suggested by Feuerbach and others. For Marx in "The German Ideology" people's ideas and ideologies are conditioned by the historical formation of powers of production and relations of production (these ideas by Marx are elaborated later in "The German Ideology"). This is the ground for Marx's famous distinction between economical base (which includes the forces of production, relations of production and division of labor) and the "superstructure" which includes culture, ideology, religion etc. for Marx, the superstructure is determined by the material base, and not as the Idealist philosophers would have it.
Marx's German Ideology Explained Simply
In their German Ideology Marx and Engels argue that humans are distinguished from animals from the moment they start producing their livelihoods. Individuals are the product of the way they make their livelihoods and what those livelihoods are. Thus, according to Marx and Engels, the nature of individuals depends on material conditions that determine their production.
The extent to which a nation's productive forces have developed can be judged by the degree to which a nation has implemented the principle of division of labour. In addition, there is a direct link between the social division of labor and forms of ownership.
The ruling class, which governs the material dimension of society, is thus at the same time the class which governs the intellectual dimension. It regulates the production and dissemination of ideas of its era. As the ruling class changes over the years, the ideals it produces and disseminate change, it is therefore incumbent upon the ruling class to make society believe that its ideals are universal in nature. This system persists as long as a society is organized around the need for a ruling class.
To clarify this theoretical framework, Marx and Engels introduce the image of the substructure and superstructure. Historical developments, which are part of the superstructure, are only the reflections of changes of the substructure, which consists of the economic and material relations of a society. When there is a change in those proportions, the superstructure follows automatically. Here the work of Marx and Engels leads to a form of ideology critique: ideas and thus ideologies are not the cause of historical changes, but the consequence thereof. This view of ideology enables Marx and Engels to dismiss views of the proletariat that are clearly against its own interests as forms of false consciousness., that is, as ideas emanating from the ruling class.
During revolutions, changes in the substructure lead to eruptions of the superstructure. The ideas that are central during a revolution are nothing but the reflection of tensions that were already present in the less visible substructure.
The core of The German Ideology can be summarized as follows. Morality, religion, metaphysics and all other forms of ideology and their attendant forms of consciousness lose any form of independence. They are only a reflection of the way people generate and distribute their livelihoods, and only by focusing on the production of their livelihoods is it possible for them to change their ideas and daily lives.
A Short Summary of The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels
The Communist Manifesto is a short document composed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848 in an attempt to popularize and clarify in practical means the philosophy of communism (such as that presented in Marx's "The German Ideology"). The Manifesto is written with a lot a pathos and large parts of it relate to the politics of the 19th century, but it is also a very clear and refined articulation of the basic ideas of Marxism.
The Manifesto opens chapter 1 with the proclamation that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". This the approach known as dialectical materialism which holds that history is driven through the division of society into competing parts and their fight over the means of production (see Dialectical materialism - short definition). The Manifesto moves from describing feudalism to discussing capitalism as a mode in which the bourgeois exploit the proletariat.
Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto discusses the relationship of communists to the proletariat, arguing that it is the true representation of their interests. This part is aimed at clarifying the intention of communism to abolish private property and hired work which are the basic principles of the capitalist system. This part also includes some practical demands such as free public education, progressive tax, abolishing of inheritance and more. One important point here to note is the relation to the nation state which for Marx is closely tied to capitalism and therefore need to go away with it.
The last section of the Communist Manifesto (chapters 3 and 4) discuss the communists' relationship with other opposition movements and parties of the time, setting it apart from socialism. The important thing about these parts of the text is the assertion the communism is not about making the system better but about changing it altogether and overthrowing capitalism in order to usher in the new era of a classless society.
Communist Manifesto: detailed summary by chapter
The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and published in 1848, sets forth in a popular manner the main ideas and goals of the communist party and ideology. The Manifesto is divided into four chapters outlining the basic philosophical premise of dialectical materialism and class conflict and the forces driving history (chapter 1). It then continues to analyze capitalist mode of production and its final destiny of being turned over and replaced by communism (chapter 2). The last parts of the manifesto (chapters 3 and 4) set the political orientation of communism.
The Communist Manifesto - Chapter 1 Summary: Bourgeois and Proletarian
Chapter 1 of The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels sets forth the theoretical paradigm of dialectical materialism, the thought the history progresses through class struggle over the means of production (see also Marx's materialist theory of history or our definition of dialectical materialism). The Manifesto proclaims and demonstrates that societies were always divided into ruling and ruled classes. After an historical account of the feudalist system of production the text moves on to discuss capitalism and the relationship between the Bourgeois and proletariat. The chapter analyses the way the bourgeois came to rule over the means of production and exploit the proletarian and how capitalism came to be the dominant mode of production. Marx and Engels argue that capitalism relies on the accumulation of capital in private hands through the concept of hired labor that allows for the exploitation of workers. Marx and Engels confess in their Communist Manifesto that this mode of class division brought about the greatest period of growth in human history but it is not everlasting and will come to its historic end.
The important function of chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto is that the stage is set for the next historical revolution, the next stage of the dialectics. Marx and Engels hold that the Proletariat will eventually overthrow the bourgeois and lead European society into the next phase of history which will also be the last one since it would be a classless society in which there is not conflict. Despite being a Manifesto, a call for action of sorts, Marx and Engels do not intend that their analysis be understood a something which should happen but rather as something that will inevitably happen since that is the direction in which the mechanisms of history are directed at: communism. This is why the famous opening of the Communist Manifesto reads: "A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism", and although all the old powers join hands in fending it off, they will not succeed.
The Communist Manifesto - Chapter 2 Summary: Proletarians and Communists
Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto discusses the relationship between the communists and the proletariat. The initial argument presented in the beginning of the chapter is the communists are the purest representation of the proletariat. The communists, argue Marx and Engels, differ from other parties in that they tap into the material course of history and represent in their ideas not some made up ideology (Marx is highly suspicions of ideology) but rather the manifestation of the working of historical direction and its inevitable, rather than just desires, direction.
An important distinction made by Marx and Engels in chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto is that communism is an international movement rather than national (hence "Workers of the world - unite!). For Marx (and others) capitalism is closely associated with the nation state and the abolition of the former will also include the abolition of the latter.
Chapter 2, picking up from the chapter 1, analyzes capitalism as dependent on private property (see Marx on the structure of capitalism society). The core goal of communism is therefore set at canceling private property, thus bringing about a classless society. Marx and Engels also discuss hired labor and show it exploitative nature, connecting it as well to capitalism and its eventual demise. They even go as far as calling for the abolition of the family since it is also a mechanism of exploitation and a means to capitalism's ends.
The purpose of communism as presented in the chapter to create a society without any divisions, not social, not national and not even between parents and children. Since these goals are highly ambitious Marx and Engels conclude part 2 of the Communist Manifesto with a list of short term means and actions that can serve to move history in the right direction.
The Communist Manifesto - Chapter 3 and 4 Summary: Socialist and Communist Literature
Chapter 3 of The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels tries to define communism not thorough it capitalist opposition (chapter 1 and mainly chapter 2 did that) but rather as distinguished from the closer socialist movement. The basic point is that socialism, unlike communism, is essentially counter-revolutionary since they just want progressive change that will only serve to perpetuate capitalism and its exploitative practices. What Marx and Engels are after in their Communist Manifesto and not a bandage but rather a deep and total change of the very structure of society the mode of production. The point and goal for communism is the root, the core, and that means to turn the table completely as bring down the whole system instead of just trying to improve on it. This sets communism apart from other socialist movements that might be preaching a seemingly similar gospel and demanding similar demands. Chapter 3 of the Manifesto also claims that while socialism in fact serves the interests of the bourgeois, it is communism that is really tuned in to the needs of the actual working class and that it is the instrument to bring about the end of the conflict between bourgeois and proletariat (see chapter 2 of the Manifesto)
Chapter 4 is the last short chapter closing the Communist Manifesto. Titled "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties" it discusses the relationship between the communist party and other parties and movements and Europe of the time. The rule of thumb is that the party supports anyone who wants to overthrow the existing ruling order, preferably by force.
The Communist Manifesto ends with the famous call: "Workers of the world - unite!"
Summary: Ideology according to Marx – definition and explanation
Ideology according to Marx – definition and explanation
Karl Marx's philosophy should be understood against the background of the philosophy of the Enlightenment that believed that the world can be objectively understood through the medium of the naturally observing mind that is the gateway for liberating the human spirit.
Marx wrote "The German Ideology" two years before he published his famous "Communist Manifesto" and already here he presents a well formulated, and revolutionary, understanding of ideology. Unlike the young Hegelians, led by Feuerbach, Marx claimed that ideas and ideology are no independent, as Idealism would have, but rather a product which is dependent on material matters, namely social and economic structures. According to Marx, ideas, perceptions and consciousness are always the result of specific historic material circumstances.
What differentiates humans from animals according to Marx is that man is the only species that manufactures in order to survive; this is his basic function while every other aspect of human life is derived from this one central feature. According to Marx every society in history organized its production according to its available means of production that determine relations of production (i.e. feudalism, capitalism, communism…) and its own concept of property.
This is what Marx calls the economic base. On top of the economic base Marx poses the "superstructure", all cultural structures that are the result of the economic base. An important part of the superstructure is, according to Marx, ideology. Ideology according to Marx is a veil pulled over the economic base in order to prevent people from seeing its inherit injustice (that is, until communism comes). Ideology convinces people that the current state of production is justified, warranted, "natural" or anything else which gets them to comply to it. Ideology has been famously referred to my Marx as "False Consciousness". Revolutions come about when the fallacy of this consciousness is recognized.
When Hegel and his followers saw a shift in human consciousness Marx saw a shift in human economical structures that results in changes to the ideology.
Marx's Materialist Theory of History - Summary and Explanation
Marx’s future-oriented perspective has its basis in his materialist conception of history. He suggests that the ways societies provide for their material well-being affects the type of relations that people will have with one another, their social institutions, and the prevailing ideas of the day. Marx uses the term “the forces of production” to refer to the ways in which people provide for their needs. Marx uses the term“relations of production” to describe social relationships that dominate the productive capacities of a society. Under capitalism, the forces of production lead to a set of relations of production which pit the capitalist and the proletariat against one another. To change the relations of production, Marx felt revolution was necessary. Revolution arises from exploited classes agitating for change in the relations of production that favor transformations in the forces of production.
Marx on Class Conflict - short summary and definition
According to Marx, class conflict is created by the contradictory positions of two groups, the proletariat and the capitalists, is at the heart of capitalism. Because these represent groups in conflict, Marx called them classes. For Marx, every period of history contained fault lines upon which potential conflict could result, and, thus, every historical period had its own class formations. Because capitalists are continually accumulating capital while also competing with other capitalists, Marx believed that more and more members of society would eventually become proletarians in a process he called proletarianization. Society would then be characterized by a very small number of capitalists exploiting a large number of poor proletarians subsisting on low wages. Marx called this group of proletarians the industrial reserve army. Thus, the normal operation of the capitalist system, through competition and exploitation, produces an ever greater number of workers who will eventually rise up to overthrow the system.
Marx on Capitalism and Exploitation - Summary
Marx on Capital, Capitalists, and Proletariat
According to Karl Marx, under capitalism, there are two main groups: the proletariat, who are wage-laborers (working class), and the capitalists, who own the means of production (such a factories). Whereas workers are wholly dependent upon wages, capitalists are dependent upon money invested to create more money . Capital is unique to the circulation of commodities under capitalism, being the most important means of production in a capitalist society. Under non-capitalist forms of exchange, commodities are traded for money, which is then traded for another commodity. The primary reason for exchange is to obtain a commodity for use. Under capitalism, on the other hand, money is used to purchase a commodity, which is then sold to create a greater amount of money. The purpose of this form of exchange according to Marx is to create greater and greater sums of money.
Marx on Exploitation
Exploitation is a set of social relations on which capitalism is built. Marx argues that capitalists exploit workers by paying them less in wages than the value they produce. While a worker may earn eight dollars a day in wages, s/he may produce ten dollars a day worth of value, creating what Marx called surplus value which is key for the accumulation of capital. Capital grows by exploiting workers to generate ever greater amounts of surplus value, usually by lowering workers’ wages. In addition, capitalists constantly compete with one another over capital by finding new ways to generate profit and surplus value in order to maintain an edge. Marx calls this drive the general law of capitalist accumulation. Capitalism is not the only historical epoch in which individuals are exploited, but it is the only one in which the mechanisms of exploitation are hidden behind independent, objectified, and reified structures, such as the market.
Marx on Commodity - Summary and Explanation
Marx’s understanding of commodity (product of labor intended for exchange) is central to understanding his ideas about the nature of capitalism. For Marx commodities produced to subsist and to satisfy their needs have use value. Under capitalism and the capitalist mode of production, where workers produce for others and exchange commodities for money, products have exchange value. Because it is often unclear where a commodity’s value comes from, it takes on an independent, external reality. Marx called this the fetishism of commodities, when the value of an object or commodity is believed to be tied to something “natural” or independent of human action, such as markets. Thus, the reality that value originates from labor and the satisfaction of needs is obscured. Marx used the term reification to describe the process whereby social structures become naturalized, absolute, independent of human action, and unchangeable. Just as the fetishism of commodities obscures the relationship between commodities, value, and human labor, reification obscures the underlying relationships within the capitalist system and allows supposedly natural and objective social structures to dominate people. The nature of commodity under the capitalist mode of production is closely related to what Marx described as the alienation of the workers from their product of labor.
Marx on Human Nature, Alienation and The Structures of Capitalist Society - summary
Human Nature
Marx’s insights into actors and structures must be understood in the context of his views on human nature, which is the basis for his critical analysis of the contradictions of capitalism. Marx viewed human nature as historically contingent, shaped by many of the same relations that affect society. In his view, a contradiction exists between our human nature and work in the capitalist system. Though we have powers that identify us as unique animals, our species being, the possibilities for realizing human potential within the capitalist system are frustrated by the structures of capitalism itself. Unlike most social theories that have implicit assumptions about human nature, Marx elaborates a concept of human nature that also informed his view of how society should look. An important factor in this is Marx’s ideas about labor. By objectifying our ideas and satisfying our needs, labor both expresses our human nature and changes it. Through this process, individuals develop their human powers and potentials.
Alienation
Under capitalism, the relationship between labor and human expression changes: rather than laboring to fulfill their needs or express ideas, workers do so at the demands of capitalists. Workers are alienated from their labor because it no longer belongs to the worker, but rather to the capitalist. This alienates workers in four ways:
1. Workers are alienated from their productive activity, in that they no longer labor to satisfy their own needs.
2. Workers are alienated from the product of their labor, which now belongs to the capitalist. Instead of finding expression in producing, workers turn to consuming to express themselves.
3. The cooperative nature of work is destroyed through the organization of the labor process, alienating workers from their fellow workers. Additionally, workers often must compete against one another for work and pay.
4. Workers are alienated from their human potential, as the transformative potential of labor is lost under capitalism.
The Structures of Capitalist Society
Marx wrote in response to the rapid changes taking place in Europe in response to industrialization, particularly in Germany. This period of dislocation and poverty is the context for Marx’s notion of alienation, and his critiques were designed to show that capitalism was the basis for alienation and to develop a plan for action for overcoming the structures of capitalism. Marx understood that inherent within capitalism was also a system of power: it is both economic and political; it both coerces and exploits workers. Actions undertaken in the name of economic necessity disguise political decisions For example, although it is an accepted economic method for dealing with inflation, raising interest rates protects the wealthy, while causing unemployment among the poor. The political decision to privilege the wealthy at the expense of workers is hidden behind economics.
Karl Marx - The Dialectic and the Dialectical Method - Summary
Marx’s powerful critique has as it basis a unique approach to reality — the dialectic. Taking from G.W.F. Hegel. Marx believed that any study of reality must be attuned to the contradictions within society and, indeed, he sees contradiction as the motor of historical change. Unlike Hegel, Marx believed that these contradictions existed not simply in our minds (i.e., in the way we understand the world), but that they had a concrete material existence, hence dialectical materialism. According to Marx at the heart of capitalism was the contradiction between the demands of the capitalist to earn a profit and the demands of the worker, who wants to retain some profit to subsist. Over time, the workings of the capitalist system would exacerbate this contradiction, and its resolution can be had only through social change.
The dialectical approach suggested by Marx does not recognize the division between social values and social facts. To do so leads away from any real understanding of the problems people face. Additionally, the dialectical method does not envision the social world as being dominated by a cause-and-effect relationship; instead, it looks at the reciprocal relations among social factors within the totality of social life. These relations include not only contemporary phenomena but also the effects of history, as dialecticians are concerned with how the past shapes the present and how the present lays the seeds for the future. Because of this complex set of relations, which often fold back in on themselves, the future is both indeterminate and contingent on individual action. Indeed, this relationship between actors and structures is at the heart of Marx’s theory. Structures both constrain and enable individuals, having the potential of both helping them to fulfill themselves and contributing to their exploitation.
Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: praxis, property & division of labor
Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology stresses the material aspect of human existence. Marx argues that humans must be able to live in order to make history. For Marx, the basis of all human activities, be it politics, art or religion, is material survival. The way mankind has been meeting it survival needs for the past thousands years is according to Marx production. According to Marx, the first ever historical act, which initiated history, was an act of production that what designed to meet survival needs.
Man does not only produce food, but also the means to produce it. This is what for Marx distinguishes man from animal – the ability to engage in production. This is the basis for Marx's concept of "praxis". Praxis according to Marx is conscious, thoughtful and meaning ascribing act of production. Marx denies the traditional distinction between manual and mental labor as a capitalist lie, and he argues that the two are inevitably entangled with each other in the praxis.
Marx also concluded that man's productive activity necessitates "negotiation" between individuals, which are the social-order surrounding production. The first ever division of labor is according to Marx that which exists between a man and a woman, first in the act of making children and consequently is the process of rearing them. This is the division of labor of human reproduction. This makes to family the first social unit and thus, for Marx, the first economical production unit which is based on a division of labor, inequality and private property (of the man over to woman and children).
In "The German Ideology" Marx describes how increasing production has led to the formation of larger social units (the clan, tribe, polis, city, kingdom and state), while in the process more advanced concepts of ownership and division of labor were developed. According to Marx, property is the ownership over the means of production and their produce. Division of labor according to Marx is describes that different positions assumed by individuals in the process of production.
In The German Ideology Marx describes history as an increasing process of division of labor with different relations of production appearing at different stages of history. The division of labor according to Marx is bound with the means of production. Primitive societies that have little and simple means of production have accordingly a very simple and minimal division of labor. But in the course of history society is continually being divided into more and more specific practices.
According to Marx, the division of labor is belligerent one which relays on the formation of property over the means of production. Thus society is divided into different classes according to whoever has ownership (property) over the means of production. The class who has property subordinates the ones who don't which depend on them for their existence.
Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: relation of & means of production
In his "The German Ideology" Carl Marx discusses two of the most central concepts of his theory of history and society: the means of production and the relations of production.
According to Marx in The German Ideology each historical stage holds a class conflict. Changing property patterns over the means of production creates different classes who are in a constant state of conflict with each other. This struggle is most of the time covert and is manifested sometimes in class clashes, social wars and revolutions which bring about a reformation of the social order. According to Marx, the revolution is always the result of the contradiction between the means of production and the relations of production. Means of production according to Marx are labor as well as the technical, technological and economical means at a society's disposal. The relations of production according to Marx include property and the division of produce and profits within society.
In The German Ideology Marx argues that at some historical point in the life of every society it reaches a point in which means of production cease to correspond well with the relations of production (for example due to the invention of a new technology). The ruling class, which has property over the means of production and thus enjoys a favorable position within the relations of production, sticks to the old relations of production. But these old relations of production become an obstacle in the path of development of new means of production. The subordinate class demands new relations of production which correspond with the new means of production. Tension erupts in the form of a revolution which brings about a change in the relations of production and a change in social hierarchies and division of power (in The German Ideology Marx uses the example of the French Revolution to illustrate his idea)
Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: dialectics and capitalism
Karl Marx conceives history as a dialectical progression. This is not a new idea even in Marx's times and it was preceded especially by Hegel who saw history as a course where a thesis meets it antithesis to create a synthesis. But Marx's "The German Ideology" is to a large extent a rebellion against Hegel and his followers. Where Hegel thought that the historical dialectics takes place in human consciousness and in the realm of ideas, Marx thought that shifts in the manner in which people perceive their existence is the result of material, not mental, changes.
According to Marx in The German Ideology, material historical dialectics takes on the form of constant class conflict. Marx argues that human history is the history of the development of means of production and the relations of production subsequently formed. History progresses according to Marx through class conflict, contradictions and clashes which have a dialectical shape. This dialectics dictates human progression to the present time of capitalism.
According to Marx in The German Ideology capitalism is different from any epoch that preceded it in that that it is the final conflicted phase of the historical dialectics. In capitalism, for the first time in history, salaried employs are the central form of relation of production and the worker is no longer the property of the ruling class. Capitalism according to Marx is also new in being global, a fact that will aid it in constantly developing new means of production which will intensify the contradictions that are at the base of capitalism. These contradictions between the new means of production and the old relations of production will eventually bring about a revolution which will abolish classes and private property.
It should be noted that although Marx's philosophy in The German Ideology is highly "social", what in fact he is talking about is individual liberation which according to Marx is only possible is a classless society.
Marx's The German Ideology: Alienation and Ideology – summary and analysis
In The German Ideology Marx argued that the division of labor turns a man's own action to a foreign power (he sells his manual and intellectual capacities to someone else) which enslaves him. Marx argues that certain social-economical conditions, such as those brought about by capitalism; project this alienation to society itself. When the products of production are cut off from workers, they sense that these products have a power over them which are not in their control. In other words, alienation brings about fetishism of products and production which are conceived as being both of independent and separate existence and as of having power over the alienated worker. Alienation can be aborted, Marx holds, when the proletariat take over the means of production.
One of the key concepts in Marxist thought and in Marx's The German Ideology is ideology. Marx says that ideology is a "camera obscura" which turns the image on reality on its head. In other words, Marx holds that ideology reflects an inverted image of social reality, which is distorted and false (see False Consciousness). Marx, plainly speaking, says that the truth of reality and reality as it is conceived through ideology are opposed.
Marx ties the function of ideology to material reality and the course of human material development (dialectics of historical class conflict over relations ofproduction and property which is driven by development in the means of production). In other words, according to Marx, ideology is the product of material reality and the distorted image of this reality portrayed by ideology is due to social economical conditions.
According to Marx in The German Ideology all thoughts and ideas are socially constructed and depend on society's material conditions - existence determines consciousness. But what distinguishes ideology from other cultural forms is its function of distorting and inverting the image of reality as it is conceived in society. Ideology presents itself as objective and universal, but when Marx refuted Hegel conception of the idealist historical dialectics in favor of a material one, he set the ground for rejecting any idea such as ideology as detached for actual social and economical reality. Things like nationality and even family values are all signed off by Marx as ideology which is designed to conserve the existing social order and relations of production by presenting the existing state as warranted, natural and justified.
For Marx ideology is always the result of material class conflict and he therefore argues in The German Ideology that the ideas of the ruling class have always been the dominant ideas. For Marx ideology works at the service of the existing social order and in beneficiaries. According to Marx, whoever controls the means of material production also controls the means of ideological production which sustains the existing relations of production. Ideology, in other words, is the interests of the ruling class. Every revolution according to Marx has to introduce a new ideology to support the new social order which is, once again, presented as universal.
The Sociology of Karl Marx
Marx's sociology is always a critical sociology. He intends to produce not only an understanding but also a critique of modern western society (i.e., capitalism). However, according to Marx, this criticism can't be based solely on abstract, timeless, or utopian moral ideals. It has to be based as well on a thorough, concrete analysis of capitalist society, which will reveal its inner dynamics and the way in which it creates the objective possibilities for its own transcendence (through revolution). Marx is always scornful of mere moralizing, and of socialists who, as he says somewhere, know nothing about capitalism except that it is bad. He sees capitalism as a stage in a process of historical development, one whose emergence had a certain inner logic, even necessity, but which will just as necessarily give way to a different (and higher) kind of society.
Marx's criticism of capitalist (and pre-capitalist) societies is rooted in a powerful conception of human nature, even though Marx would never admit this. This conception involves not a fixed set of drives or instincts, but a set of capacities or possibilities, the realization of which makes people fully human. Human beings have the capacity to freely, consciously, and actively shape their lives in cooperation with others; this is precisely what makes them human. As long as they are not able to do so, as long as they are the pawns of other persons or of impersonal natural or social forces beyond their control, they are not fully human.
For Marx, then, freedom, community, and human fulfillment all go together, and he expresses this unity in the idea of communism. History is the conflict-ridden and often contradictory process through which human beings develop and fully realize their nature. Marx thus means his vision of human possibility not simply as an ahistorical abstraction, but as the goal toward which history is actually moving, albeit in indirect, unintended ways.
All hitherto existing societies, in contrast, are characterized in different ways by unfreedom, isolation, and the lack of fulfillment (or outright denial) of human possibilities. This condition is captured in the term alienation or estrangement. Although Marx rarely uses the term after writing The German Ideology in the mid-1840s, the concept remains crucial throughout his work. Central to this concept is the idea that in all societies up to and including the present, human beings come to be dominated by their own creations--including their system of social relationships. Much of Marx's work analyzes the specific ways in which human beings are dominated by social forces that confront them as irresistible alien powers. Alienation, however, is not inherent in the human condition; it is the product of certain forms of social organization and can be overcome.
Marx integrated his moral vision into a complex analysis of how history works and how societies fit together, which he and Engels sometimes called historical materialism, and into a detailed critique of capitalism.
Marx's writing can be divided into two periods. From 1843 to 1848, he developed the basic outline of his thought, including his vision of human nature, a general conception of societies and how they change, and an ambitious agenda for a total analysis of modern societies. From 1848 to nearly the end of his life (in 1883), he labored to complete one important part of this agenda, the critique of "political economy." At the same time, he poured immense effort into political writing of various kinds.
Marx's Dialectical Approach and Materialist Interpretation of History
The dialectical approach was borrowed by Karl Marx from the German philosopher Hegel. It is based on the idea that the ultimate nature of all reality is change. All reality, in this approach, is based on the coexistence of incompatible forces. (In Marxian language, these incompatible forces are called “contradictions”.) Every aspect of reality generates its opposite. The aspect of reality is called the “thesis”; the opposite is called the “antithesis”. The thesis and the antithesis are incompatible. This leads to conflict. The conflict is finally somehow resolved. This resolution is called the “synthesis”. (Neither Marx nor Hegel ever used these exact terms.) The synthesis becomes a new thesis, which then generates its own antithesis, and so on in a process of continual change. Marx adapted this thinking to the study of history and to the focus on social classes.
Marx's Dialectical Approach
The dialectical approach was borrowed by Karl Marx from the German philosopher Hegel. It is based on the idea that the ultimate nature of all reality is change. All reality, in this approach, is based on the coexistence of incompatible forces. (In Marxian language, these incompatible forces are called “contradictions”.) Every aspect of reality generates its opposite. The aspect of reality is called the “thesis”; the opposite is called the “antithesis”. The thesis and the antithesis are incompatible. This leads to conflict. The conflict is finally somehow resolved. This resolution is called the “synthesis”. (Neither Marx or Hegel ever used these exact terms.) The synthesis becomes a new thesis, which then generates its own antithesis, and so on in a process of continual change. Marx adapted this thinking to the study of history and to the focus on social classes.
Marx's Materialist Interpretation of History
In general, there are three approaches to the interpretation of history. The “Great Person Approach” focuses on the activities of certain leaders --- monarchs, Presidents, criminals, and so forth. The idealist approach interprets historical change as resulting from changes in people’s ideas. In this approach, changes in ideas (religious, political, or economic) cause changes in behaviors, institutions, and so forth. Marx rejected both of these approaches. To Marx’s materialist approach, history evolves according to changes in the mode of production.
“In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitute the economic structure of society, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” (A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)
In Chapter 2, the individual person was seen as most important. Both liberal market capitalism and parliamentary democracy are based on the notion of the primacy of the individual. But to Marx, the individual was nothing more than the “ensemble of social relations”. There is no basic person. What one becomes is the product of one’s society. So, for Marx, the society is the focus of analysis. Most particularly, the focus of analysis is one’s social class. To Marx, social class is not to be defined according to one’s income. So there was no lower class, middle class, and upper class. Instead, one’s social class is determined by one’s relation to capital goods. Those who own capital are called “capitalists”. Those who do not own capital, and therefore must sell their labor to others who do, are called “workers”. Marx used the French words: the capitalists are called the “bourgeoisie” and the workers are called the “proletariat” (see for example in The Communist Manifesto).
Marx's dialectical approach and his materialist interpretation of history come together in what is called (by Marx's interpreters) dialectical materialism.
Marx's Class Struggle explained simply
If we combine Karl Marx's dialectical approach with his materialist interpretation of history (see previous summary), we get “dialectical materialism” (a term that Marx never used himself and that was offered by later followers of Marx). Class struggle for Marx is a condition which is dialectical on the struggle side of it and material on the class side of it. Within Dialectical materialism, each social class generates its opposite with which it is in continual conflict. Thus, the bourgeoisie requires the existence of the proletariat (this is very reminiscent of Hegel's Slave-Master Dialectic, only on the material and ideal side) Yet they are in conflict over wages and working conditions. “The history of all heretofore existing societies is the history of class struggles”; this is the famous opening line of the Communist Manifesto and it tries to give the gist of Marx's dialectical materialism and his perception of how history functions, and most important, where it is headed (hint: communism). But while two social classes are in conflict, production requires that they cooperate with each other until capitalism is no longer fruitful and its exploitation is revealed, and this will bring the communist revolution. This, to Marx, was one of the contradictions of capitalism. Marx's thought that as long as there is class struggle history progresses. Eventually the process of dialectical materialism will bring an end to class struggle with the unavoidable establishment of a society without classes and therefore without struggle or conflict. Marx's popular text, the Communist Manifesto, indeed called the proletariat to rebel, but for his this only expediting the inevitable process of history as dictated by the notions of class struggle or conflict and dialectical materialism.
Marx on alienation and freedom - summary
To Marx, the pursuit of profit under capitalism became associated with specialization (a result of the division of labor) . As a result, workers lose the satisfaction from work that used to exist when most workers were craftspeople. Since the worker does not see the result of his or her own labor, he or she loses connection with it. This loss of psychological satisfaction from work is one meaning of what Marx called “alienation”. A worker becomes alienated from his or her own labor.
In addition, under capitalism, workers are totally dependent on capitalists in order to make a living. It is much easier for the capitalist to withdraw the capital from the worker than it is for the worker to withdraw the labor from the capitalist. This means that the balance of power in the relation between the capitalist and the worker is always with the capitalist. Workers are treated as mere commodities. Companies are totally authoritarian. This feeling of having one’s life totally under the control of others is another meaning of “alienation”.
To Marx, capitalism increased the alienation of workers. But rather than show their anger in revolt, workers repressed their anger and shifted into other activities. One is the drinking of large amounts of alcohol. Another, to Marx, was religious practice and ritual. This is the origin of Marx’s famous line: “religion is the opiate of the masses”. Today, he might substitute the word television! Leadership would be needed to mobilize the alienated workers and channel their energies into political action in order to change the conditions of their lives.
Freedom, to Marx, was also defined differently from the view propounded in Chapter 2. That view of freedom is “freedom from government action”. I am free as long as government does not restrict me from doing as I wish. Marx accepted this but add to it that freedom also requires empowerment.
Let us take an example. An American woman of Mexican descent works in a sweatshop in the garment district of downtown Los Angeles. The pay is low, the work is long and hard, and the working conditions are terrible. The woman works there because, with her personal background and with discrimination against women and against people of Mexican ancestry, she can find nothing better and she needs the money. Is this woman free? Traditional American thinking would answer yes; she is free because no government policy is preventing her from leaving this bad job. She is there by her own choice. Marx would answer no; she is not free because she is involuntarily restricted from being able to act in the world so as to meet her personal needs. She is not empowered.
Marx's Value and Surplus Value theory
One of the major questions for 19th century economists was “what determines the value of a product?”. Karl Marx followed most other economists of his day in accepting the labor theory of value. In this theory, the value of a product was determined by the socially necessary labor time to produce it. This was to include both current labor and past labor (that is, the labor that went into building the machines that made the product). Only “socially necessary” labor time would determine value; one could not increase the value of one’s product by adding unnecessary labor. Skilled labor was counted as a multiple of unskilled labor in determining value.
Marx then applied this theory to the question: “what determines the value of the labor power?”. His answer followed logically from the labor theory of value: the value of the labor power was determined by the socially necessary labor time to produce it. This, to Marx, meant subsistence. Marx never defined exactly what he meant by subsistence. It would seem that he viewed subsistence as determined in relation to the society of the time. Subsistence could mean more than basic physical subsistence. (Thus, subsistence living would be higher in the modern United States than in Ethiopia.) Yet, it certainly seems that Marx intended subsistence to involve quite a low standard of living.
Marx followed other economists of the day in viewing population growth as the force that would keep workers’ wages at the subsistence level. If the demand for workers increased, wages would rise. Workers were expected to respond to the higher wages by having more children (or at least having more children survive). This increased number of workers would drive the wages back down to subsistence. This idea was first stated by David Ricardo and is known as the “iron law of wages”.
According to Marx, under capitalism, workers were forced to sell their labor power to capitalists in order to be able to earn a living. This put them in a weak bargaining position. Capitalists only had to pay workers subsistence wages. But in a days’ work, workers would produce a value greater than their subsistence. This extra value was then taken by the capitalist.
Marx called this extra value “surplus value”. The amount of surplus value as a percent of the wage paid to the workers Marx called the rate of exploitation. So if a worker is paid $8 per hour but produces goods worth $16 per hour, the extra $8 is surplus value and is taken from the worker. The rate of exploitation is $8 divided by $8, or 100%. The profits of the capitalists are produced by the workers and then taken from them by the capitalists as exploitation of their position of power! The implication is that the capitalists have done nothing to earn the profits! Today, in Europe and even in the United States, it is not uncommon to see profits (dividends, capital gains) labeled as “unearned income”!
Marx on The Reserve Army of Labor / Unemployed
For wages to stay at the subsistence level, Karl Marx held that workers must be in a weak bargaining position in relation to their employers. A worker’s source of bargaining power is his or her ability to leave the employer and to go get a new job with someone else. To Marx, under capitalism, the weak bargaining position of the workers would be maintained by a large supply of unemployed workers. Workers would have to “obey” their employers because they would know that there were many other workers willing to take their jobs. And they could not quit their jobs because their chances of getting other jobs would be low. This supply of unemployed workers was called “the reserve army of the unemployed”.
Three forces, according to Marx, would maintain this reserve army of the unemployed. One was the high rate of population growth of the working classes, as noted above. Another was what has been called “technological unemployment”. When times are good and demand is increasing, companies desire to hire more workers. This desire would tend to bid up wages. In response to the higher wages, companies develop machines to replace people. Those who are displaced by the machines become part of the reserve army. (See Part 7 below.) A third force to maintain the reserve army was that, under capitalism, there is a persistent tendency for large companies to out-compete small companies. The owners of the small companies (called the petit bourgeoisie) are then forced to become workers, swelling the numbers of people seeking employment.
While Marx did not mention it, modern Marxists consider another factor that reduced the bargaining power of the workers. This is called “deskilling”. Capitalists reduced the need for the skills of the craftsperson. Instead, they created machines and job processes that required a low level of skill on the part of the workers. One worker becomes interchangeable with another, losing any power that could be achieved by withdrawing labor from the employer.
In Marx’s analysis of capitalism, this point may be the most relevant. In the United States since the end of World War II, there have been only a dozen or so years of “full employment”. When unemployment rates fall, the stock market typically declines! Does capitalism indeed require a significant number of unemployed people?
Marx's Law of Increasing Concentration of Capital
To Marx, capitalism involved a large number of highly competitive companies, each with a desire to expand. Profits would not be spent on luxury consumption; instead, profits would be ploughed-back into the company as investment (called accumulation). For Marx the drive for accumulation would cause companies to wish to hire more workers. This would then drive up wages. Both the existence of profits and the higher wages would lead capitalists to increase the amount of machinery used in production. This process leads to what economists of today call “economies of scale”. Since the costs of the machines are fixed, a company that produces a larger quantity of goods has an advantage over a smaller company. (As an example, the cost of your classroom is fixed --- that is, the cost is the same regardless of the number of students. If the classroom is full, the cost per student would be less than if the classroom were half-empty.) Since larger companies can produce at a lower cost than smaller companies, they can charge a lower price and still make a profit. With the lower price, the smaller companies cannot make a profit and therefore go out of existence. Their owners (the petit bourgeoisie) become part of the proletariat. Ownership of capital becomes concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.
It may seem as though this statement of Marx was fulfilled. A steel industry that once had hundreds of companies became dominated by six. An automobile company that once had hundreds of companies became dominated by three. The department store replaced the small store. The grocery chain replaced the “mom-and-pop” store. After World War II, this concentration of capital occurred as Marx predicted; the proportion of total assets owned by the 50 largest companies grew significantly. However, this was reversed beginning in the 1970s. New technologies allowed smaller companies to be able to compete effectively with the larger ones. In addition, the opening to foreign trade enhanced competition greatly. This reversal was not predicted by Marx. Marxists often refer to capitalism as “monopoly capitalism”. But since the 1970s, the amount of competition has been increasing, not diminishing.
Marx on Contradictions of Capitalism - summary
In the Marxian view, all reality is based on contradictions (see dialectical materialism or Class Conflict). Capitalism is no exception. In the Marxian view, the capitalist class becomes the “thesis”. It creates the proletariat as its “antithesis”. The two have opposing interests and therefore are in struggle. Capitalism simplifies the class struggle by reducing the number of classes to two. Two of the contradictions of capitalism can be noted at this point.
First, the inherent capitalist drive for expansion leads to an increased demand for labor. This raises wages causing capitalists to substitute machinery for labor, as noted earlier. However, surplus value (profit) is drawn from labor. Surplus value can never be drawn from machinery in this view. Therefore, the base from which profit can be drawn narrows and the rate of profit falls. The contradiction is that each capitalist is acting in the only way that will maintain profits; however, by these actions, the rate of profit actually falls. In reality, there is no evidence of a falling rate of profit in capitalist countries.
Second, the drive for expansion and the use of more machinery lead to larger and larger workplaces. Workers, whose pay is held at subsistence, are brought-together where they can interact. The use of machinery leads to increased specialization and division of labor, generating more alienation. The falling rate of profit requires that capitalists intensify their exploitation of labor (such as by running the assembly line faster and faster). This requires more supervision and a more authoritarian factory. The workers become more and more miserable. Karl Marx called this the law of increasing immiseration of the proletariat. By bringing workers together in a situation in which they are more and more miserable, it is much easier for someone to channel their anger and organize them into a strong political force. (Remember that the proletariat is becoming larger and larger.) Capitalism has created the seeds of its own destruction!
Marx on the Crises of Capitalism
Marx saw capitalism as being subject to swings of prosperity followed by recessions or even depressions. He was one of the first people to try to explain the business cycle, as it is now called. There were two different explanations given by Marx.
One of Marx’s explanations involved the uncoordinated nature of the market (Marxists call this the anarchy of the market.) Company A sees a profitable opportunity. To take advantage of it, Company A buys some new machinery or builds a new factory in order to be able to increase production. What it does not realize is that many other companies are doing the same thing. When they all increase production, there is now too much production! This causes the period of recession. Some companies go out of business. Others decrease their production. When production falls enough, the recession is over. The periodic recessions and depressions (Marx called them “crises”) that result under capitalism are one reason that Marxists have so strongly supported government planning.
The second of Marx’s explanations involves under-consumption. To Marx, capitalism acts to keep wages at the socially-determined subsistence level so that profits can expand. But wage earners usually spend all of their incomes while profit earners can afford to save a portion of their incomes. By transferring income from spenders to savers, capitalism sets up a process by which companies produce goods but consumers do not have enough income to buy them. Goods that are produced go unsold; this is the recession (crisis). Eventually, companies are able to eliminate their surplus inventories and the recession is over.
One of Marx’s important predictions was that these crises would become increasingly severe. This was a result of the increasing concentration of capital. Early crises may cause the failure of small companies; this would have only minor overall effects. Later crises would cause the financial ruin of giant companies. The repercussions of this would be much more severe. To Marxists, the Great Depression of the 1930s seemed to prove this part of the theory.
Keep in mind that Marx’s description was contrary to the general view of the day. In that view, recessions could not occur for long. If recessions did occur, there were built in forces to eliminate them quickly. (These were falling prices, falling wages, and falling real interest rates) Everything that could be produced would be bought! (This statement is usually stated as “supply creates its own demand” and is called “Say’s Law”.)
Since World War II, there have indeed been periodic recessions in the United States. The country went ten years without a recession (March 1991 to March 2001) but then experienced a recession in 2001 and then a most severe recession beginning in 2008. But these recessions have been much less severe than the Great Depression or than the “crises” described by Marx. That they have been less severe is partially the result of increased government intervention in the economy, a point that was not predicted by Marx.
Marx on the state - summary
To Karl Marx, the “state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”. Marxists usually refer to the capitalists as the “ruling class”. Even in a democracy, those with access to the financial support of the rich capitalists and corporations will have the only chance of being elected. The newspapers are television networks are owned by large corporations. Therefore, the “news” will reflect their corporate perspectives. Those placed in appointive positions in government will have gone to the “best schools” (such as Harvard and Yale). These best schools are expensive and out of the reach of ordinary people who have neither the funds nor the connections to gain entrance to them.
In the 1930s, it became apparent that the government of the United States (and also of all Western European countries) acted in the interest of the workers. Unions were legitimated and even helped. Many social welfare programs were enacted. At that time, the Marxist interpretation changed slightly. The government was now seen as acting in the long-run interests of the capitalist class, but not necessarily in its short-run interest. The long-run interest of the capitalist class involved preserving the system of capitalism and the dominant role of the capitalists in that system. By allowing workers more income (through their unions) and more economic security, the workers became part of the capitalist system. Today, most American workers support the institutions of capitalism very strongly. Unions have been allowed to push for better wages and benefits but were not allowed to threaten the authority of management over corporate decisions.
Marx saw the state as hostile to the proletariat. As he stated, “workingmen have no country”! Workers have common interests only with other workers, not with their country. Therefore, the approach of Marxists has always been international --- to unite workers of many countries according to their common class interest. (One still sees this in the names of many unions, which start with the word “International”.) Marx and Engels conclude their Communist Manifesto with the cry "Workers of the world, unite!".
Marx on Imperialism
While Karl Marx wrote a bit on imperialism, it was Lenin who contributed most to this argument. In this interpretation, capitalists would respond to the falling rate of profit by domination over foreign countries. These foreign countries would provide them cheap labor (to maintain the reserve army) and cheap raw materials. The foreign countries would also provide markets to offset the problem of inadequate consumer spending in the home country (caused by the low wages). It is true that until the end of World War II, much of the Third World was divided into formal colonies of the capitalist countries. To Marxists, the domination by the capitalists is the major reason why these former colonies are still poor. We will consider the influence of these Marxist ideas when we consider China and Mexico later in the course.
Since there were many capitalist countries, Marxists believed that there would be conflict as to which country’s capitalists would dominate a specific foreign country. This would lead to imperialist wars. For example, Marxists saw the war between the United States and Japan (World War II) as an imperialist war to determine which country’s capitalists would have domination over the countries of the Pacific! Marxists also saw World War I as an imperialist war; many Marxists refused to participate in it. They saw it as a war in which the capitalists of the victorious countries would benefit but the workers would get nothing. Because of this, they believed that the workers would refuse to fight. This belief, of course, did not come true. Marxists have often overstated the class consciousness of workers and understated their feelings of nationalism.
But while Marx himself wrote very little about imperialism, he did write about the global expansion of the capitalist economy. In this, he was very prescient. The following long paragraph from the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848. It could have been written today in talking about the global economy.
“All fixed, fast, frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, the man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relation with his kind. The need for a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow mindedness become more and more impossible, and from numerous national and local literatures there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.”
Marx on the Proletarian Revolution
Karl Marx did not believe that change could come without revolution. This was one of the points of considerable dispute amongst Marxists. Those Marxists who followed Lenin believed that the revolution had to be violent and complete, with the power of the capitalist class destroyed. Capitalism would create the conditions for the revolution (the “seeds of its own destruction”). It would make workers increasingly miserable. It would bring large numbers of these unhappy, alienated workers under one roof. It would make the working classes larger and larger, while the capitalist class became smaller and smaller. It would generate continual wars that would only benefit the capitalists. However, the revolution would not happen all by itself. Mobilizing the workers and instilling revolutionary consciousness in them was the function of the Communist Party – the vanguard of the proletariat!
“The communists … openly declare that their ends can be attained by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite.” From the Communist Manifesto
It should be noted that there have been no proletarian revolutions in history. The revolutions in the Soviet Union and China were undertaken primarily by peasants and resulted from the chaos in each country following a world war. Most of the other “communist countries” became communist due to the force of the Soviet army after World War II.
Marx on the dictatorship of the Proletariat -
Karl Marx wrote very little on what was to occur after the success of the Proletarian revolution. One thing is clear: the revolution was expected to occur in a fully developed capitalist country with a high standard of living. The state was to be taken-over by the proletariat (or the Party acting as the vanguard of the proletariat). The capitalist class would be expropriated; all industry would become state-owned and state-operated (exactly how is not specified). People would begin new forms of communal activity (exactly what kinds are not specified). Social distinctions between people would disappear. People would merge into one class. Since the state was only an agency of one class to control another class, there would be nothing left for it to do. The state would wither away! Marx called this period the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat. To many Western Marxist scholars, Marx was using the word “dictatorship” rhetorically. To them, he meant that since the capitalists had dominated the workers through the institutions of parliamentary democracy, the workers would now come to dominate these institutions. On the other hand, Marx’s use of the word “dictatorship” has been used to justify the totalitarian dictatorships that existed in “communist” countries. (Most Americans are unaware of the vitriolic disputes that took place between American Marxists over the issue of democracy vs. dictatorship – especially over the brutal policies of Stalin in the former Soviet Union.)
After the transition is complete, there would be only one class --- the proletariat. They would own all natural resources and all capital goods in common. Since there would be no more need for imperialist wars, all feelings of nationalism would disappear. Production would have increased to the point that people could have all of the goods they wanted (all goods would be like air is – everyone can breathe as much as they want without taking anything away from anyone else). Alienation would be eliminated with the end of capitalism; people would produce because it brought joy and purpose to their lives. This is the period of communism, in which each person would “produce according to his abilities and take according to his needs”. To Marx, this was the final stage of history – a stage that was certain to be reached at some time. In that stage, there would be a new consciousness. People would cease to be materialistic and individualistic and would become primarily concerned with the well- being of society as a whole.
Summaries of Marx's writings and ideas:
Class Consciousness
False Consciousness
Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Alienation
fetishization of commodities
Means of Production
Karl Marx – The German Ideology – summary, review and analysis
A Short Summary of The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels
An Extended Summary of The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels (chapter 1, chapter 2, chapters 3 and 4)
Ideology according to Marx – definition and explanation
Marx's Materialist Theory of History - Summary and Explanation
Marx on Class Conflict - short summary and definition
Marx on Capitalism and Exploitation - Summary
Marx on Commodity - Summary and Explanation
Marx on Human Nature, Alienation and The Structures of Capitalist Society - summary
Karl Marx - The Dialectic and the Dialectical Method - Summary
Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: praxis, property and the division of labor
Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: relation of production, means of production
Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: dialectics and capitalism
Marx's The German Ideology: Alienation and Ideology – summary and analysis
The Sociology of Karl Marx
Marx's Dialectical Approach and Materialist Interpretation of History
Marx's Class Struggle
Marx on alienation and freedom
Marx's Value and Surplus Value theory
Marx on The Reserve Army of Labor / Unemployed
Marx's Law of Increasing Concentration of Capital
Marx on Contradictions of Capitalism
Marx on the Crises of Capitalism
Marx on the state
Marx on Imperialism
Marx on the Proletarian Revolution
Marx on the dictatorship of the Proletariat
Karl Marx: Summary of Ideas and Theory
https://culturalstudiesnow.blogspot.com/2017/03/karl-marx-summary-of-ideas-and-theory.html
