Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.

5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883,

Historical Materialism

(Relevant for Sociology Optional Paper 1 (Unit 4))

Marxism, encompassing Karl Marx’s theories on society, economics, and politics, asserts that social progress occurs through the dialectical process of class struggle. Marx strongly criticized the prevailing socio-economic structure of his time, capitalism, which he referred to as the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” He believed that capitalism was controlled by the affluent middle and upper classes solely for their own benefit. According to Marx, this system would inevitably generate internal conflicts that would lead to its own downfall, paving the way for a new order: socialism. In socialism, the working class would govern society in what he termed the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Marx envisioned socialism as a transitional phase that would eventually give rise to a stateless and classless society known as pure communism.

During his lifetime, Marx remained relatively unknown, but his ideas and the ideology of Marxism gained significant influence in socialist movements shortly after his death. Marx is widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in human history. In a 1999 BBC poll, people from around the world voted him the “thinker of the millennium.”

In the late 1830s, a radical critique of the prevailing socio-political conditions emerged from a group known as the young Hegelians, who followed the philosophy of Hegel. It was during his studies in law and philosophy at the University of Berlin that Marx became formally associated with this group.

Hegel’s philosophy embraced humanism, placing humanity at the forefront of the entire historical process and emphasizing the purpose of history as the advancement and ful fillment of the human spirit. His ideas had a profound impact, dominating intellectual discourse in Germany and influencing the majority of young German philosophers at the time. Marx, being one of these philosophers, assimilated much of Hegel’s framework, particularly in his early writings.

Hegel: The Dialectic of History

Hegel emerged as the preeminent intellectual figure in Germany and, arguably, in all of Europe during the first half of the nineteenth century. His philosophy aimed to provide a comprehensive account of history as a whole. According to Hegel, the entirety of human history can be understood as a unified, organized, and rational progression. While history may initially appear as a haphazard succession of events, Hegel argues that this is merely a superficial view. When examined from the right perspective, history reveals itself as a coherent narrative of development and progress. This progress, however, is not smooth or continuous; rather, it unfolds through struggle, conflict, and discontinuity, which nonetheless follow a fundamentally logical pattern.

A pivotal idea in Hegel’s philosophy is that conflict itself is an orderly process, involving the creation and resolution of opposing forces. To illustrate this, one can draw a parallel between the history of humanity and the growth of a plant from a seed. The seed contains within it the potential to become a plant, and as the plant grows, it destroys the seed. Thus, the life of the plant is the actualization of the potential that existed within the seed from the beginning: first the shoot, and eventually the fully matured plant. Similarly, history can be understood as the unfolding of the potential that was present in humanity from its earliest stage. History is the natural expression of the essential nature of human beings, just as the plant is the natural expression of the essential nature of the seed. Humanity must undergo its own development to realize its full potential. It is important to note that Hegel considers history as a collective phenomenon, encompassing the progress of humanity as a whole or large groups of people, rather than focusing on individual lives. According to Hegel, human beings are destined to evolve towards complete freedom, which constitutes their true essence.

However, Hegel acknowledges that the true nature of human beings can never be fully realized if their development is hindered or restricted by external circumstances. The full potential of humanity can only be fully actualized in a state of true freedom, free from any inhibitions imposed by circumstances. Throughout history, human beings represent a partial manifestation of the true nature of humanity, as the complete potential of the seed is only realized when the plant reaches full maturity. Therefore, the complete actualization of human potential will only occur after the period of growth—history—has concluded. The attainment of complete freedom will mark the culmination of human development. As a result, history will reach its end. Since history is the process through which humanity unfolds its full potential, once that potential has been realized, further development and history itself will cease to exist.

In what sense does humanity develop?

According to Hegel, the primary form of development lies in the intellectual life, the mind or spirit. Hegel uses the German term “Zeitgeist,” which translates to “spirit of the age.” He firmly believed that when studying the history of a specific group of people, their art, religion, and philosophy would exhibit a certain unity, a shared mindset, and a collective perspective. This concept reinforces Hegel’s emphasis on collectivism, as he argued that the similarities among different thinkers were not mere coincidences. Rather, individuals were influenced by broader, pervasive forces that impacted them in similar ways. In essence, it is the collective mind or spirit of humanity that drives the historical process, manifested through specific peoples and eras, rather than the minds of individual thinkers.

Idealism

Hegel’s exploration of the mind revolved around the examination of idea progression. Consequently, he focused his attention on the domains of society that were instrumental in generating and expressing ideas: art, abstract thinking (especially philosophy), and religion. It is for this reason that Hegel is often referred to as an idealist, as he believed that the essence of history and human existence could only be comprehended through the lens of thought development and the evolution of ideas.

Dialectical logic

Traditionally, the pursuit of truth has often been intertwined with the art of discussion—a dynamic interplay of ideas, encapsulated by the dialectic process. Drawing inspiration from the dialectical engagements exemplified by Socrates in ancient times, Hegel constructs his logic upon this model. The foundation of discussion lies in the realm of disagreement, where opposing viewpoints collide and ignite fervent debate. Rather than stubbornly adhering to one’s own stance, the quest for truth involves a genuine attempt to find common ground with one’s adversary, striving towards a conclusion that both parties can embrace. This quest entails integrating elements from the initial opposing positions, synthesizing them into a novel and elevated perspective.
In simplified terms, Hegel’s dialectical logic unfolds as a revelation of how apparent contradictions can be harmonized and fused into a fresh unity. While reaching a mutually agreed-upon position might bring a particular discussion to a close, it does not signal the cessation of all discourse. Instead, this newly forged consensus becomes the catalyst for another conversation, provoking counterstatements, initiating fresh debates, and embarking on a quest for an even more inclusive and mutually acceptable resolution. This perpetual progression of logic and dialogue lies at the core of history itself.
Hegel boldly asserts that history emerges from conflict, challenging the prevailing notion that conflict is an undesirable stain upon human existence. On the contrary, he proclaims that conflict serves as the propeller of history, the indispensable driving force behind progress. Conflict gives birth to novel and superior ideas, propelling humanity towards a deeper and more comprehensive understanding. Far from being a mere necessity, conflict is profoundly productive, as it ultimately finds resolution and generates improved outcomes before giving rise to new conflicts once again

Marx’s reformation of Hegel

Although he was the youngest member among the young Hegelians, Karl Marx captivated their confidence, earned their respect, and even garnered their admiration. They viewed him as a “new Hegel,” a fresh and invigorating voice in their intellectual circle.
However, Marx approached Hegel’s political insights with skepticism. He could not reconcile himself with Hegel’s belief that human liberation hinged on the advancement of philosophy, leading individuals to a complete understanding of their own nature and ultimate freedom. Marx found it incongruous that amidst this purported final enlightenment and the pinnacle of humanity’s progress, prisons remained brimming with political prisoners. The freedom confined within the realm of philosophy, limited to the realm of the mind, clearly diverged from the realm of genuine political freedom. Hegel’s conception of history, therefore, fell short in providing a comprehensive account of the progression towards practical, real-world political freedom if it merely culminated in theoretical freedom. For Marx, the authentic history of human development could not solely revolve around thought and ideas; it had to encompass the lived experiences of human beings in the tangible world, encompassing economic and political realities.
Notwithstanding this significant reservation, Marx initially adopted much of the framework present in Hegel’s argument. He embraced the notion of a comprehensive schema for history-as-a-whole, perceiving history as an evolutionary process unfolding the true essence of human nature, which could only be fully realized when history reached its ultimate stage. These concepts became part of his intellectual repertoire. He also embraced the idea that conflict served as the driving force behind historical change. Change followed a dialectical pattern of conflict, resolution, further conflict, and higher, more advanced resolutions. It traversed a succession of increasingly elevated stages of development, progressively attaining higher degrees of freedom, ultimately culminating in a final, complete enlightenment and emancipation of all humanity.

Production and human essence

Naturally, Marx’s reservation stemmed from the glaring inequality present in society at the time. At that juncture, only a privileged few had actively participated in the development of human thought and intellectual expression, while the vast majority remained excluded from this process that purportedly defined human essence. This majority, however, had contributed to human history not through intellectual creation and discourse, but through physical labor—shaping the material conditions of human existence and laying the groundwork for intellectual pursuits such as philosophy. Marx refuted Hegel’s belief that the essence of humanity resided in thinking and instead embraced the notion that the essence of humanity lies in labor.
Labor, with its transformative power over the physical world, holds the capacity to bring about tangible changes, while thinking alone lacks the ability to make a physical impact. Moreover, labor provides the fundamental means to attain freedom, liberating individuals from the constraints of necessity. Through labor, we obtain sustenance, shelter, and clothing, gaining a measure of independence from the challenges imposed by nature. Progress in labor also grants us freedom from the compulsion of continuous labor itself, as it affords us the time and resources to engage in other pursuits, including intellectual contemplation.
However, this does not imply that thinking holds no importance. Thinking, in the context of labor, forms an integral part of what Marx terms “practical consciousness”—the thinking process employed in the execution of labor. Indeed, for Marx, as with Aristotle and Hegel before him, the capacity for thought distinguishes human beings. The ability to contemplate and envision alternative possibilities enables humans to conceive new and improved methods of meeting their needs and effecting changes in the physical world. This capacity sets humans apart from animals, whose ability to shape the physical world is restricted to instinctual patterns without reflection or foresight.
Marx’s epoch emerged against the backdrop of the French Revolution, aligning with the historical context of industrial and social revolutions that extended into the modern era. This historical alignment contributes to the enduring allure of Marxian Thought, a body of ideas intricately intertwined with history.
In his early years, before turning thirty, Marx produced a series of works that collectively outline his “materialist conception of history.” Although he never explicitly wrote on historical materialism, his writings allude to it in fragments. For Marx, historical materialism was not a new philosophical system, but rather a practical method for socio-historical analysis and the foundation for political action.
This theoretical framework was undeniably influenced by Hegel. Like Hegel, Marx recognized that the history of humanity was a singular and non-repetitive process—an evolutionary progression. He also shared the belief that the laws governing the historical process could be uncovered.
However, Marx deviated from Hegelian philosophy, as did many other Young Hegelians who identified flaws in Hegel’s ideas and sought to construct a new system of thought. Nevertheless, it was Marx alone who consistently developed a fresh set of ideas that surpassed Hegelian theories on society.
While Hegel embraced a liberal perspective, prioritizing the rule of law over individual authority, his philosophy belonged to the idealist tradition. According to this tradition, reason or the idea forms the essence of reality, and the spirit of reason manifests itself throughout history. Hegel argued that history represented the advancement of reason’s self-awareness. He viewed the constitutional state as the pinnacle or apex of history, perceiving history as progress in the consciousness of freedom, best expressed through philosophy and religion. Hegel asserted that the development of religious concepts and ideas reflected the extent of consciousness of freedom within specific forms of social organization. In other words, advancements in religious and philosophical ideas paralleled socio-political progress. Hegel believed that human history progressed toward Christianity, the Reformation, the French Revolution, and constitutional monarchy.

What is materialism?

Materialism seeks to provide scientific explanations for phenomena, including religion, and stands in opposition to idealism. Idealism posits that ultimate reality lies in a realm of transcendent phenomena known as “ideas,” while materialism asserts that everything that exists depends on matter. Historical Materialism, in particular, emphasizes the fundamental and causal role of material production in shaping human history.
The act of production, beyond mere material greed or wealth accumulation, engages individuals in social relationships. According to Marx, these social relations transcend the realm of individual preferences. The production of basic necessities of life compels individuals to enter into specific social relations that exist independently of their will. This notion forms the foundation of Marx’s theory of society.
Marx emphasizes that certain social relations impact individuals regardless of their choices. Understanding the historical process depends on recognizing these objective social relations. Throughout much of human history, Marx argues, these relationships manifest as class relations, giving rise to class struggle. He contends that socio-political and intellectual developments are conditioned by the mode of material production, forming the basis for his comprehensive view of history.
Marx states that the growth of new productive forces clashes with existing relations of production. When people become aware of this conflict, they seek to resolve it. This period of history, according to Marx, is known as the period of social revolution. Revolutions bring about the resolution of conflicts. Therefore, Marx posits that the growth of new productive forces shapes the course of human history. These productive forces represent the capacities society employs to produce the material conditions of life. Thus, Marx views human history as an account of the development and consequences of new forces of material production, giving rise to the concept of historical materialism.
Marx introduces the concepts of infrastructure and superstructure to analyze societies. Social relations are defined by material conditions, which Marx refers to as the infrastructure. The economic base of a society forms its infrastructure. Any changes in material conditions entail corresponding changes in social relations. Forces and relations of production fall within the domain of infrastructure. The superstructure encompasses legal, educational, and political institutions, as well as values, cultural norms, religion, ideologies, and philosophies.
According to Marx, forces of production consist of two elements: means of production (tools, machines, factories, etc.) and labor power (the skills, knowledge, experience, and other human faculties utilized in work). Relations of production are formed by the pattern of economic ownership of the means of production. At each stage of historical development, the owners of the means of production constitute the dominant class, while those left with only labor power form the dependent class.
Marx speaks of the transformation of society from one stage to another, attributing it to internal conflicts and the theory of class struggle. He constructs a historical sequence of society types, ranging from simple undifferentiated societies of “primitive communism” to the complex class societies of “modern capitalism.” Marx explains the great historical transformations that dismantle old societal forms and create new ones in terms of infrastructural changes, which he considers to operate universally and consistently. Each period of contradiction between the forces and relations of production is seen by Marx as a revolutionary period.
The dialectical relationship between the forces and relations of production provides the basis for a theory of revolution. In Marx’s perspective, revolutions are not accidental political events but rather the social expressions of historical movement. Revolutions occur when the conditions for change reach maturity. Marx asserts that no social order disappears until all the productive forces it can accommodate have been developed, and new higher relations of production do not emerge until the material conditions for their existence have matured within the old society.
Marx distinguishes between social reality and consciousness, stating that reality is not determined by human consciousness. Instead, he argues that social reality shapes human consciousness. This leads to a comprehensive conception where human

The essence of humanity lies in its ability to engage in labor, to actively transform and shape the world in accordance with human needs, ultimately enriching human existence and potential. In essence, labor is not only an activity but also the very core of human nature. The capacity for labor possesses a progressive quality, as humans have the capability to devise novel and enhanced methods of engaging with the world, thanks to their practical thinking abilities. For instance, the invention of tools amplifies human capabilities, enabling them to accomplish tasks with greater efficacy.

Change: quantity and quality.

The nature of labor’s cumulative character, however, is not a smooth and uninterrupted progression. Marx draws inspiration from Hegelian philosophy, particularly the concept of “quantity into quality.” Hegel observed that many changes exhibit a continuous pattern until a certain point, after which a drastic and discontinuous transformation occurs. Consider the example of heating or cooling water: initially, there is a continuous accumulation of temperature, but at a specific threshold, a qualitative change takes place. The water starts boiling and transforming into a gas, or freezing and solidifying into ice. This transition from quantity to quality is a defining characteristic of historical processes, where societies undergo cumulative changes. For instance, an agricultural society may expand the cultivated land area, but there comes a point where further progress is only possible through a complete transformation of the society’s nature, transitioning from an agricultural society to an industrial one.

Human beings develop tools and technology to augment their labor power, and during a particular historical period, a certain level of technology prevails, open to ongoing improvement. However, at a certain juncture, a new and superior form of technology emerges. While this emphasis on technological development might suggest that Marx is a technological determinist, asserting that new production technologies alone drive historical change, he explicitly aimed to refute the notion of technology as an independent force. Marx recognized that technology, in essence, is nothing more than a collection of practical and technical knowledge, devoid of agency. It is the social relations among individuals that give rise to conceivable and practical technologies. Economic and productive activities are inherently social and collective endeavors. While the prevailing form of technology is an element within the forces of production, it is the social relations of production that hold the utmost significance.

The social relations of production:

A technology inherently implies specific types of relationships among people. While a horse-drawn plough can be operated by a single individual, the functioning of an industrial plant necessitates the intricate coordination of a team of individuals, involving a complex division of labor with specialized tasks.

Economic change goes beyond a mere shift in technology; it encompasses a comprehensive transformation of social relations, extending beyond the realms of production itself. For instance, an isolated individual, living far away from any neighbors, can operate a horse-drawn plough. However, an industrial plant cannot be operated by individuals scattered sparsely across a vast landscape, such as prairie farmers. To work at the plant, people need to reside in proximity to it. This example illustrates the compelling notion that economic relations require specific social relations. Of course, this idea encompasses much more depth and complexity, but it highlights the profound significance of the interplay between economic and social dynamic

Productive activity is inherent to the essence of humanity. Productive activity holds a fundamental position in the logical order of activities, as we must first fulfill the requirements of our physical existence before engaging in other pursuits such as theorizing, creating art, or participating in sports. This means that securing food, protection from the environment, and similar necessities must precede these activities.
The structure of productive activity has profound causal implications for the nature of other social endeavors. A clear distinction can be observed between the lifestyles of an aristocrat and a peasant, as they live vastly contrasting lives. The aristocrat enjoys a leisurely existence, while the vast majority of the peasant’s time is dedicated to producing what is necessary for their own survival and, ultimately, the well-being of the aristocrat.

Ownership of the means of production

Within the realm of production, a notable distinction often emerged between those who performed the physical labor and those who provided them with the necessary resources to carry out that labor—be it access to land, raw materials, or technology—without engaging in the work themselves. The aristocrat, for instance, held control over the land and granted permission to the peasant to toil upon it. Similarly, the industrial employer possessed authority over the physical facilities and machinery, while compensating workers with wages for their utilization. In essence, the possessor of the “means of production” wielded power over those who made use of these means.
Consequently, Marx identified the critical division within society as not merely between those who engaged in physical production and those who did not, but specifically as one predicated on the existence of private property. This division materialized between those who owned and controlled the means of production and those who did not. In the realm of production, the latter group exerted control (and exploitation) over the former. This exploitation manifested in the crudest terms as those who did not engage in the laborious process still claimed a portion of the physical product created through labor, despite making no direct contribution to its actual production. The power dynamics and control present in economic relations rooted in private property were replicated throughout broader society. Those who held dominance within the economic production process also assumed positions of authority within the larger social order. For instance, the aristocrats who controlled the land concurrently constituted the ruling elite in pre-industrial societies. The pivotal positions and relationships in society revolved around class

Class

Within a specific mode of production, there exist numerous individuals who share the same fundamental relationship with one another. As we have previously discussed, people in the productive process are either engaged in labor or possess ownership of the means of production. Those individuals occupying similar positions on one side of this divide belong to the same class.
The division of classes extends beyond the economic realm and permeates all aspects of life within society. Even in domains far removed from physical production, societal life remains marked by class divisions and is fundamentally shaped by them. Thus, the concept of class extends beyond the analysis of economic relations alone; it encompasses the examination of the overall structure of society. This further underscores the significance of economic structures in Marx’s perspective, as it is through the relationships established within a particular form of economic production that social classes emerge. Subsequently, these classes become the fundamental framework around which all other social activities are organized.