Socialism
89
effect, progress is the consequence of internal conflict. For Hegel, this explained the movement of the ‘world spirit’ towards self-realization through conflict between a thesis and its opposing force, an antithesis, producing a higher level, a synthesis, which in turn constitutes a new thesis. Marx, as Engels put it, ‘turned Hegel on his head’, by investing this Hegelian dialectic with a materialistic interpretation. Marx thus explained historical change by reference to internal contradictions within each mode of production, arising from the existence of private property. Capitalism is thus doomed because it embodies its own antithesis, the proletariat, seen by Marx as the ‘grave digger of capitalism’. Conflict between capitalism and the proletariat will therefore lead to a higher stage of development in the establishment of a socialist, and eventually a communist, society. Marx’s theory of history is therefore teleological, in the sense that it invests history with meaning or a purpose, reflected in its goal: classless communism. This goal would nevertheless only be achieved once history had developed through a series of stages or epochs, each characterized by its own economic structure and class system. In The German Ideology ([1846] 1970) Marx identified four such stages: z z primitive communism or tribal society, in which material scarcity provided the principal source of conflict z z slavery, covering classical or ancient societies and characterized by conflict between masters and slaves z z feudalism, marked by antagonism between land owners and serfs z z capitalism, dominated by the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Human history has therefore been a long struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor, the exploited and the exploiter. However, following Hegel, Marx envisaged an end of history, which would occur when a society was constructed that embodied no internal contradictions or antagonisms. This, for Marx, meant communism, a classless society based on the common ownership of productive wealth. With the establishment of communism, what Marx called the ‘pre-history of mankind’ would come to an end. Economics In Marx’s early writings much of his critique of capitalism rests on the notion of alienation , which applies in four senses. Since capitalism is a system of production for exchange, it alienates humans from the product of their labour: they work to produce not what they need or what is useful, but ‘commodities’ to be sold for profit. They are also alienated from the process of labour, because most are forced to work under the supervision of foremen or managers. In addition, work is not social: individuals are encouraged to be self-interested and are therefore alienated from fellow workers . Finally, workers are alienated from themselves . Labour itself is reduced to a mere commodity and work becomes a depersonalized activity instead of a creative and fulfilling one. However, in his later work, Marx analysed capitalismmore in terms of class conflict and exploitation. Marx defined class in terms of economic power, specifically where people stand in relation to the ownership of the ‘means of production’, or productive wealth. He believed that capitalist society was being divided increasingly into ‘two great classes facing one another: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat’. For Marx and later Marxists, the analysis of the class system provides the key to historical understanding and enables
Alienation: To be separated from one’s genuine or essential nature; used by Marxists to describe the process whereby, under capitalism, labour is reduced to being a mere commodity.
Powered by FlippingBook