PS-II (BLLB-202) Unit-III (A)
KARL MAX
DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM & MODE OF PRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Karl Marx (1818‐1883) was a famous German economist and social philosopher of the 19th century who is the chief exponent of Marxism.
Marx was also an outstanding social scientist, historian and revolutionary who undertook a critical analysis of capitalist society, propounded materialist interpretation of history, and showed the way for the transition to communism.
Marx was born into a professional middle‐class family. His father was an enlightened lawyer with a rational outlook.
Marx studied philosophy and history at several German
universities including the University of Berlin where he took a keen interest in G.W.F Hegel’s (1770‐1831) political philosophy.
Marx developed his radical outlook in his early days which prevented him from securing an academic position– his favourite job. So he turned to journalism.
Because of his extremely radical views, he not only lost his job but was also expelled from the country. Then he moved to France– the home of socialist thought where he became an ardent communist.
In 1842 Marx met Engels in Paris. Engels was a brilliant intellectual who agreed with Marx on most of the social and economic issues. This marked the beginning of their lifelong friendship and collaboration.
He moved to Paris first [1843] and then to Brussels [1845] and
finally England [1849] where he lived rest of his life and
produced most of his prominent works until he died at the age
of 65 [1883].
KARL MARX WAS INFLUENCED BY FOLLOWING FACTORS
HEGEL’S IMPACT: When he was studying philosophy at Berlin University, he came under the influence of Hegelian philosophy. He became a member of ‘Young Hegelians’.
IMPACT OF SOCIALIST: After his education, he worked as a journalist and turned to the study of economics and politics. Due to his radical and revolutionary writings, his newspaper was suppressed by the Prussian government; hence, he had to flee to Paris. There he came in contact with French socialist. He was influenced by the Socialist. Marx has taken the central idea of socialism from the early socialists.
ACTIVIST: Karl Marx was not only ‘a man of words but also a man of action.’ He had taken an active part in the Revolution of 1848 in France and Prussia. He was expelled from Prussia for his radical views. He went to London and lived the rest of his life among the workers in their slums and suffered the hardships that workers suffered. In 1864, Marx was active in organizing the International workingmen’s Association in London.
MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY: Marx was influenced by Ludwig Fearbach for his materialist philosophy. The central idea of his materialism is his refusal to accept God and Religion. Marx condemned religion as the opium of the masses.
BRITISH POLITICAL ECONOMY: Marx was inspired by the classical school of the British political economy. Classical economists like Ricardo developed the theory of value. Marx used that theory in his theory of surplus‐value. In this way, most of the ideas of Marx were anticipated by his predecessors in Germany, France and England.
INFLUENCE OF CONTEMPORARY SITUATION: In the 17th and 18th century, the bourgeois revolution destroyed the feudal system. It was replaced by capitalism, and the bourgeoisie conquered political power and established their domination.
Result of this system was inequality, impoverishment of the workers. It created large scale dissatisfied in the working class. They tried to rebel.
But their rebel was unorganized, Marx felt that first of all political structure is to be changed. In a bourgeois set up, workers cannot improve their economy. The state is the instrument of exploitation in the hands of the bourgeois.
Marxism, in its proper sense, first appeared in the middle of the 19th century in response to the oppressive conditions created by the capitalist system.
With its doctrine laissez‐faire and free‐market economy liberalism had achieved the goal establishing capitalism under which a tiny class of capitalists enjoyed special power and privileges at the expense of the large majority of the working class, it made tremendous economic inequalities and injustice.
Response to this horrible condition came in the form of socialist movement by early socialists like Saint‐Simon, Louis Blanc, Robert Owen, Chals, P.J. Proudhon, etc. These thinkers arrived at a correct diagnosis of the ills of the capitalist system but had no clear conception of the remedy. They are, therefore, called ‘utopian socialist.’
Marx and Engels sought to replace utopian socialism by scientific socialism for the analysis of social problems and finding their solution. The solution came in the form of an elaborate philosophy which is now recognised as Marxism.
Marxism can be defined as a set of political and economic principles founded by Karl Marx and Fredric Engels in order to lay the scientific foundations of socialism.
It seeks to understand the problems of human society through historical analysis and treats history as a process of conflict between antagonistic forces and classes.
This conflict arises from the faults in the mode of production in which one class comes to gain ownership and control of the means of social production (land, building, mines, forests, machinery and capital, etc.) and compels the other class to work on terms and conditions dictated by itself.
This conflict can be resolved only by overthrowing capitalism, placing all means of social production under social ownership and control, enforcing universal labour and ensuring the full development of the forces of production.
Marx & Engels made an immense contributions to political philosophy, sociology, economics, philosophy, so on. Their major contribution to political philosophy are Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism, Theory of Revolution, Doctrine of Class Conflict, Concept of Surplus Value, Theory of Freedom and Role of Private Property.
DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
Dialectical materialism represents the philosophical basis (philosophical speculation) of Marxism. Historical materialism represents its empirical basis (the subject of social and historical investigation).
Dialectics is a theory of development. It is the soul of Marxism.
Dialectics is the method of arriving at the truth by discussion after presenting contradictory propositions.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel had tried to explain the mechanism of social change through the dialectical method.
Marx was influenced by Hegel and his concept of dialectics.
Hegel used this method to explain the process of History and the origin of the state.
Marx applied dialectics to show the process of the development of communism.
In fact, Marx borrowed his dialectical method from German philosopher G.W.F Hegel and sought to combine it with his materialism.
Hegel considered ‘idea’ or ‘consciousness’ was the essence of the universe, and the human idea is the ultimate reality. It was the force behind all historical development.
The term dialectical originally referred to the process whereby ideas are formed and clarified in the course of intellectual debate.
A proposition, or thesis, is first advanced, and then challenged by a counter‐proposition or anti‐thesis.
Since both are apt to be partly true, the normal outcome of their encounter is a revised proposition, or synthesis, that combines the valid elements of the two.
In other terms, the idea evolved into new forms because of its inherent tension, exemplified in the clash between a thesis (a proposition/ partially truth) and anti‐thesis (a counter‐proposition/
opposite of thesis, again partially truth) resulting in synthesis (a revised‐proposition/ which is nearer the truth).
As long as synthesis itself contains partial truth, it takes the role of thesis and undergoes the same process until this process reaches absolute truth, exemplified in ‘absolute idea’
or ‘absolute consciousness.’
Hegel believed that social institutions only reflect the ideas behind them and that it is the movement of ideas, through the dialectical process, which is responsible for the development of social institutions.
He further said nation‐state is the highest stage of social
evolution, as the embodiment of truth– the perfect form of
social institutions.
However, Marx believed that ‘matter’ (not idea) was the essence of the universe and ultimate reality.
According to Marxism, material conditions of human life which paves the way for social progress.
Class conflict is also a manifestation of this process. He emphasized that it is the material factors which are responsible for the development of history.
Hegel believed that idea or consciousness as the real force behind social evolution and historical development, but Marx refused to recognize that.
Instead, Marx argued that social institutions are shaped by the material conditions of human life, which are determined by the mode of economic production in society.
Thus Marx sought to replace Hegel’s ‘dialectical idealism’ by his own
‘dialectical materialism.’
For Marx, each stage of social development represented the corresponding stage of development of the material conditions of society.
The dialectical process determined social development throughout history.
Historical progress is achieved through a series of contradictions.
Every stage of social development contains the seeds of its own decay is followed by a higher stage of development until a perfect society is evolved.
The driving force of social change is the struggle between the opposites. The struggle is between the economic classes. Thus Marx held that materialism was realistic and scientific.
This philosophy is based on the materialist conception of history, the belief that economic factors are the ultimately determining force in human history.
The opening sentence of the Communist Manifesto (1848) reads;
The history of all hitherto society is the history of class struggle.
According to Marx, the struggle is between social classes rather than nations, and the power is economic rather than political, political power being in Marx’s theory a consequence of economic position.
HISTORICAL MATERIALISM & MODE OF PRODUCTION
While dialectical materialism represents the philosophical basis of Marxism, Historical Materialism represents its empirical basis. That means historical materialism is a subject of social and historical investigation like an empirical science.
All types of social relations prevailing at any stage of historical development are determined by the economic conditions.
According to Marx, the survival of man depends upon his efficiency in the production of material things. Production is the most important of all human activity.
Society comes into existence primarily for the purpose of economic production. A perfect society will secure all the necessities of life to the satisfaction of all its members.
According to the dialectic concept, perfection comes through a very long process of conflict between antagonistic elements.
Society, since its inception, has always been subject to internal stresses and strains. Unsatisfied needs are, therefore, the result of the defective modes of production.
Man’s knowledge of truth is also imperfect, and he has always imagined another world where all his needs would be met. Thus religion comes into existence.
Marx dubbed religion ‘the opium of the people,’ because when no one’s needs are fully met in society, religion is the resort of all.
As the process of material production holds the key to man’s social life, changes in this process are responsible for all historical development.
The economic mode of production of any society constitutes its base.
In other terms, the mode of production in a given society constitutes its ‘base’ (economic structure); legal and political institutions, religion and morals, etc., constitutes its ‘superstructure’
which are shaped according to the changing character of the ‘base (economic structure).’
During the course of social development, the changes in the base led to corresponding changes in the superstructure.
Mode of production (economic structure of society) means the prevalent method by which goods and services are produced for the larger society, such as slave‐labour, agriculture or mechanised industry.
Mode of production in a given society depends on the nature of tools and equipment as well as the level of human knowledge and skills applied during the process of production.
Forces of poduction and relations of production collectively known as mode of production.
Forces of production comprise two elements (a) means of production (tools, machines, factories, so on), (b) labour‐power (the skills, knowledge, experience and other human faculties used in work).
Relations of production are constituted by the pattern of economic ownership of means of production.
At every stage of historical development, owners of means of production constitute the dominant class, and those left with labour‐power only constitute the dependent class.
AN OUTLINE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM (Process of Historical Development) Society
Base Superstructure
(Legal & Political Structure, Religion, Morals, Social Practices,
Literature, Art, Culture, etc.)
Mode of Production
Forces of Production Relations of Production
Social Formation
Means of Production (Tools & Equipment)
Labour Power (Human knowledge &
Skills)
Contending Classes Slave‐Owing Society Master & Slave
Feudal Society Lord & Serf Capitalist Society Capitalist & Worker
Man’s constant search for improvement of production (due to scarcity) leads to the development of forces of production.
Means of production are improved by the scientific discoveries and invention of new techniques and implements while labour‐power is developed by the acquisition of new knowledge, education and training.
The development of the forces of production leads to the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production.
The intensification of this contradiction ushers in a stage when the existing relations of production are no longer compatible with the level of development of forces of production.
It results in the breakdown of the existing mode of production along with its superstructure.
Eg‐with the rise of industrialisation in the sphere of forces of production, the pre‐existing feudal system in the sphere of relations of production (that is the division of society into lords and serf) is bound to collapse which is now replaced by a new capitalist mode of production.
In other words, as a result of some new invention or discovery, the productive forces come into conflict with the existing relations of production, particularly with the prevailing property system.
With the development of the forces of production one mode of production is replaced by another, but class conflict (between the new social classes) reappears under the new social formation.
Thus ancient slave‐owning society was characterised by the class conflict between masters and slave; medieval feudal society by the class conflict between lord and serf; and the modern capitalist society by the class conflict between the bourgeoisie (capitalists) and proletariat (workers).
According to the dialectical logic, every stage of social development which falls short of perfection contains the seeds of its own decay.
As a result of the clash between the existing social relations and the new productive forces, a new revolutionary class emerges which overthrows the existing order in a violent revolution.
Changes in mode of production give rise to different social formations which are associated with different historical age.
Marx said the system of household‐based small‐scale production gives rise to slave‐owning society; the medieval system of agriculture‐based large‐scale production gives rise to feudal society; the modern system of machine‐based large scale production with private ownership of major means of production gives rise to capitalist society.
Slave‐Owing Society‐Master and Slave
Feudal‐Society‐Lord and Serf
Capitalist Society‐Capitalist and Worker
MARXIAN ACCOUNT OF THE HISTORY OF CONFLICT
Sl.
No.
Historical Epoch Prevailing Mode of Production
Cause of Class Division
Social Formation
Contending Classes
1. Ancient Times Household-based small- scale production
Emergence of private
property
Slave-Owning Society
Master and Slave
2. Medieval Times Large-scale agriculture- based production
Rise of Feudalism
Feudal Society Lord and Serf
3. Modern Times Large-scale machine- based production
Rise of Capitalism
Capitalist Society
Capitalist and Worker
4. Future-I -do- Socialist
Revolution
Socialist Society
Workers in Power and the Former Capitalists
5. Future-II -do- No Class
Division Communist
Society No Contending Classes
All types of social relations prevailing at any stage of historical development are determined by the economic conditions.
As the process of material production holds the key to man’s social life, changes in this process are responsible for all historical development.
According to Marx history is driven forward through a dialectical process in which internal contradictions within each ‘mode of production’ reflected in class conflict, lead to social revolution and the construction of a new and higher mode of production.
The class which owns the forces of production is always the ruling class. With the change in the nature of productive forces, relations also undergo changes creating a space for violent revolution and overthrow of the existing order. This is known as historical materialism in Marxist theory.
The conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production is the economic basis of social revolution. The basis of the relations of production is ownership of the means of production.
The old order gives way to the new‐‐‐slave society is replaced by feudal society; feudal society is replaced by capitalist society;
capitalist society is replaced by a socialist society.
Karl Marx & Engels identified four main stages of past historical development:
1. The primitive communism in which forms of production are slight and communally owned;
2. Ancient slave‐owning society in which the means of production are owned by masters and labour for production is done by the slaves;
3. Medieval feudal society in which the means of production are owned by feudal lords and labour for production is done by the serfs;
4. Modern capitalist society in which the means of production are owned by capitalist and labour is done by the proletariat– the property less workers.
At each stage society is divided into antagonistic classes; the class which owns the means of production and controls the forces of production, dominates the rest, thus perpetuating tension and conflict.
At each stage of historical development, the forms or conditions of production determine the structure of society.
Therefore all the social, political and intellectual relations, all religious and legal systems, all the theoretical outlooks which emerge in the course of history are derived from the material conditions of life.
Marx believed that the socialist revolution would pave the way for the termination of the era of exploitation.
The outcome of this class‐struggle will be the establishment of a society where there shall be no class and, therefore, no class struggle.
ANTONIO GRAMSCI
Antonio Gramsci (1891‐1937) was a talented Italian Marxist who tried to reinterpret marxism.
His philosophy regarded as an important link between the classical Marxism and Neo‐Marxism.
In 1921 he helped to found the Italian Communist Party and became its General Secretary in 1924.
Italy’s fascist dictator Benito Mussolini (1883‐1945) saw Gramsci as a threat to his authority.
So Gramsci was imprisoned in 1926, and he remained a prisoner until his death in 1937.
During his confinement, he wrote miscellaneous notes and essays which embody his views on politics, philosophy, socio‐linguistics and literary criticism.
These were published posthumously as Prison Notebooks (1929‐35). This work is treated as the main source of his political thought.
As per the conventional Marxist theory, the economic mode of production of any society constituted its base while its legal and political structure and various expressions of its social consciousness including religion, morals, social custom and practices constituted its superstructure.
It believed that the character of the superstructure was determined by the prevailing character of its base.
During the course of social development, the changes in the base led to corresponding changes in the superstructure.
So it focused on changes in the base; the superstructure was not regarded to deserve independent analysis.
But, Gramsci did not accept this position rather suggested that the superstructure of contemporary Western society had attained some degree of autonomy, so its analysis also necessary.
Gramsci particularly focused on the structures of domination in the culture of capitalist society.
He identified two levels of superstructure:
Political Society or State: which applies coercion to maintain its domination. The whole organization of government, including police, judiciary, prisons, etc. comes within its purview. The structures associated with this part of the superstructure are called ‘structures of coercion’.
Civil Society: which seeks to obtain consent of the citizens to maintain its domination. This part of the superstructure is closer to the base, and it is relatively autonomous. The structures associated with this part are called
‘structures of legitimation’. Gramsci pays special focus to this part of the superstructure.
GRAMSCI’S ANALYSIS OF CAPITALIST SOCIETY
Capital Society
Base Superstructure
Capitalist Mode of Production
Legal & Political Structure, Religion, Morals, Social Practices, etc.
Structure of Domination
Civil Society Political Society
Family, School, Church, etc. Governmental Organization Structure of Legitimation Structure of Coercion
Gramsci said the real sources of strength of the ruling classes in the West is manifested in their spiritual and cultural supremacy.
The capitalists manage to inculcate their value system in the mind of their people through the institutions of the civil society.
According to Gramsci, the institutions of civil society—family, school and church familiarize (impart) the citizens with the rules of behaviour and teach them to show natural respect to the authority of the ruling classes.
These structures lend/give legitimacy to the rule of capitalist class so that even injustice involved in this rule would carry the impression of justice.
That is why these called ‘structures of legitimation’. They enable the capitalist society to function in such a manner that the ruling classes seem to be ruling with the consent of the people.
When the power is apparently exercised with the consent of its subject, it is called ‘hegemony.”
Gramsci pointed out that the ‘structures of legitimation’ within the capitalist society tend to prevent any challenge to its authority.
Capitalist society largely depends on the efficiency of these structures for its stability.
It is only when civil society fails to prevent dissent that political society is required to make use of its structures of coercion, including police, courts, and prisons.
Therefore he said that the strategy of communist movement should not be confined to the overthrow of the capitalist class, but it should make a dent in the value system that sustains the capitalist rule.
This value system is likely to persist through the institutions of civil society even under the socialist mode of production.
Fresh efforts will have to be made to transform the culture of that society by inculcating socialist values in the minds of the people.
