Marxism aims to explain social phenomena within a society by analyzing the material conditions and economic activities necessary to meet human needs. It posits that the economic structure, or mode of production, shapes all other aspects of society, including social relations, political institutions, legal frameworks, cultural norms, aesthetics, and ideologies. Together, these economic and social relations form what is known as the base and superstructure. As the forces of production, such as technology, advance, existing systems of production become outdated and start to impede further progress. Karl Marx described this process, stating: “At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or, in legal terms, with the property relations under which they have operated. From being a form that promotes development, these relations become obstacles. This marks the beginning of a period of social revolution.”
Table of Contents
Concept of Marxism
Vincent (2009) identifies Marxism as a strand within the broader doctrine of socialism, characterizing it as a distinct form of ‘revolutionary socialism.’ In contrast, Jon Elster (1985) highlights a unique ‘Marxist method’ for studying social phenomena, suggesting that Marxism offers a different approach to understanding society and politics. Gamble et al. (1999) further argue that Marxism establishes a direct link between theory and practice, making crises and reassessments inherent to its framework. Gamble notes that Marxism was never a singular paradigm, but rather composed of various intellectual currents, emphasizing its interdisciplinary nature. Throughout history, different disciplines have influenced Marxist thought—state theory dominated in the 1970s, while earlier approaches were more focused on political economy (Gamble 1999: 6). Twentieth-century Marxism, however, is often associated with economism, determinism, and structuralism, all of which are interrelated (Mars 1999).
A key trend in Marxism is its view of society as an interconnected whole, or totality, a concept introduced by Marx in Grundrisse (Singer 2001: 53). This interconnectedness is most evident in the concepts of historical materialism and base-superstructure analysis, which are central to mainstream Marxist thought. According to Gamble (1999), 19th-century Marxism focused on critiquing political economy and liberalism through the lens of historical materialism and class struggle, with Marx arguing that liberalism had failed to fulfill its promises.
Historical materialism is a fundamental aspect of the traditional Marxist approach. While Marx did not formally establish the theory, it was developed by Engels after Marx’s death. Engels describes historical materialism as a perspective that seeks to explain the driving forces behind major historical events through the lens of economic development, changes in modes of production and exchange, the resulting division of society into classes, and the struggles between these classes (Marx and Engels, in Wood 2005: 13).
Will Kymlicka provides a concise summary of historical materialism:
According to this theory, the evolution of human societies is shaped by class struggle, which, in turn, is determined by the development of economic production. This process ultimately leads to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat. Capitalism would first be replaced by socialism, and eventually, once abundance is achieved, by full communism (Kymlicka 2001: 167).
Historical materialism posits that society progresses through successive stages, each determined by the relations of production. Marx’s model of historical development includes the stages of primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and ultimately communism. This linear progression has led critics to label Marxism as a teleological theory, suggesting it envisions history as having a predetermined end—communism (Popper 1966). Will Kymlicka similarly argues that Marxism’s lack of engagement with normative concepts like rights, justice, and liberty stems from its belief in the inevitable transition to communism (Kymlicka 2001: 175).
However, G.A. Cohen offers a different interpretation of Marx’s historical materialism. He contends that it is not teleological but aligns with modern scientific theories of causality. According to Cohen, Marx was not making a prophecy but discussing the possibility of transitions in the absence of opposing forces (Levine 2004). Other defenders argue that Marx’s theory of history was an explanation of historical processes, not a scientific roadmap of inevitable stages (Singer 2001: 57).
A key to understanding economic determinism and historical materialism in the Marxist tradition lies in the base-superstructure framework, as developed by Marx in the Preface to a Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy. Marx writes:
“The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, upon which arises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond specific forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life” (Marx, in Mars 1999: 321).
The aforementioned statement clearly reflects the principle of economic determinism, a structuralist interpretation where the mode of production—the economy—shapes all aspects of society, including human consciousness. In the base-superstructure model, individuals are given little agency, contrasting sharply with liberalism, where the autonomous individual is central to its philosophy. Marxism’s historical materialism and base-superstructure framework emphasize certain inevitable developments in history, over which individuals have limited control. In this view, the relations of production drive the course of history, and individuals are largely defined by their class position. This version of Marxism, often referred to as “scientific Marxism,” posits that the laws governing society objectively determine historical outcomes. Marx and Engels’ work exemplifies this “orthodox” historical materialism, which is essentially a form of economic determinism. Human nature, within this framework, is seen as malleable, shaped by changes in material relations of production (Vincent 2009; Singer 2001).
In Western Marxism, this structuralist approach is best exemplified by Louis Althusser’s Marxism, where structures overdetermine historical events, with the economy ultimately determining outcomes “in the last instance.” This strand is often termed Marxist anti-humanism, as individuals are seen merely as functionaries within the structure, their roles dictated by their position in the economic system (Hindess 2007). The economy, in this perspective, is one part of the structure but also determines the relationships within the structure.
With the collapse of communist regimes in the early 1990s, some declared Marxism to be “dead” (Fukuyama 1991). However, many scholars have refuted this, pointing to the continued relevance of Marxist thought in new forms. The resurgence of Marxism after the Cold War can be seen in the works of Western Marxists, particularly in the school known as “Analytical Marxism,” which seeks to reformulate Marx’s ideas using contemporary analytic philosophy (Levine 2004; Kymlicka 2001). Unlike traditional Marxism, which focused primarily on class politics and historical materialism while downplaying moral argument, Analytical Marxism engages in normative discussions to defend Marxist principles. As Kymlicka notes, when Marxism originally upheld the inevitability of a proletarian revolution, it did not need to justify the desirability of socialism or communism (Kymlicka 2001: 167).
The normative aspect of Marxism gained prominence as the idea of an inevitable revolution was questioned. Marxism now had to justify why its alternative is preferable or superior (Kymlicka 2001: 168). Kymlicka captures this shift: “The death of ‘scientific’ Marxism as a theory of historical inevitability has helped give birth to Marxism as a normative political theory” (Kymlicka 2001: 168). This shift is evident in the more humanist interpretations of Marxism, such as those of Lukacs and Gramsci, which emphasize human agency and autonomy. Many scholars note the methodological individualism that appears in Analytical Marxism (Hindess 2007). In this humanistic version of Marxism, human beings are not solely determined by material relations of production, and Marxism must now engage with liberal theories of justice and offer an alternative (Kymlicka 2001: 168).
However, Andrew Levine (2004: 76) argues that the moral argument inherent in Analytical Marxism risks collapsing Marxism into liberalism, a sentiment echoed by Roemer. Roemer points out that the lines between Analytical Marxism and left-liberal philosophy are blurred, retaining only the concept of exploitation as uniquely Marxist, while other ideas align with liberalism (Lebowitz 2009: 41).
The new Marxism rejects economism, determinism, and structuralism (Mars 1999: 321). David Mars cautions against labeling all Marxists as economic determinists, highlighting figures like Kautsky, Lukacs, and Gramsci, who emphasized ideology and hegemony over economic determinism to explain capitalism’s persistence and the obstacles to revolution. Colin Hay also references Poulantzas’ theory of ‘relative autonomy,’ which offers a non-economic explanation of state theory within Marxism (Hay 1999). Interestingly, non-economic factors such as intentions, desires, and beliefs play a role in Marxist analysis (Elster 1985; Singer 2001).
Singer argues that alienation and historical materialism are not distinct stages but part of the same theory. For instance, The Eighteenth Brumaire demonstrates the influence of ideas and personalities, not just productive forces, in shaping history (Singer 2001: 50). Similarly, the Communist Manifesto speaks of the history of societies as the history of class struggle, not merely economic forces. Singer concludes that alienation and historical materialism are interconnected, both reflecting how productive forces alienate human beings from one another.
Wood (2005) supports this view by citing ‘practical-critical activity’ in the Theses on Feuerbach and the role of class consciousness in the Communist Manifesto as departures from the rigid base-superstructure model. Robert Brennan, another Analytical Marxist, contends that class struggle, not the mode of production, drives historical change (Hindess 2007: 398).
Mars describes Marxism as a realist epistemology, arguing that Marxism is not relativist because it assumes the existence of social knowledge independent of individual awareness. While this is a positivist stance, Marxism departs from positivism by recognizing that not all relationships between social phenomena are directly observable. Nonetheless, like positivists, Marxists believe in the necessity and causality of social laws, making Marxism almost scientific (Mars 1999). Yet, Marxism’s true contribution lies not just in interpreting and explaining social phenomena but in actively seeking to change them. Mars thus describes Marxism as “a humanity-centred and activist philosophy” (Mars 1999: 332).
Marxism’s nuanced position on structure and agency, or class relations and individualism, is a key feature. Elster (1985) highlights ‘methodological collectivism’ as a core aspect of Marxist thought, where supra-individual entities precede the individual in the explanatory order. At the same time, ethical individualism is evident in Marx’s German Ideology and his theory of alienation, where communism is viewed as superior for its potential to fully realize human potential. In the 1990s, a more autonomy-based Marxism merged with postmodernism, leading to post-Marxism, where class and similar concepts are seen as “social imaginaries” rather than concrete empirical realities (Vincent 2009: 98).
Main Ideas of Marx’s Philosophy
Marx‘s main contribution to political philosophy may be studied under the following heads:
Dialectical Materialism
Dialectical materialism serves as the cornerstone of Marxian thought and represents one of the earliest significant concepts in Marx’s philosophy. It functions as the philosophical foundation of Marxism, though it was not an original creation of Marx. He borrowed the dialectical approach from the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, who believed that ideas, or consciousness, were at the core of the universe. Hegel viewed the development of ideas through the process of dialectics as the driving force behind historical growth. However, Marx rejected this idealistic notion and argued that matter—the material conditions of life—was the true essence of the universe. For Marx, material conditions were the foundation of all societal changes, and he advocated for materialism in opposition to Hegel’s idealism.
Hegel sought to explain social change through a dialectical process, advancing history through a series of stages: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. According to Hegel, each stage of history presents a thesis, which is then challenged by its opposite, or antithesis. The conflict between the two results in a synthesis, which, in turn, becomes the thesis for the next stage. This process continues until reaching the final stage, which for Marx would culminate in a classless society. Marx borrowed Hegel’s dialectical method but applied it to his economic theory to demonstrate the necessity of class struggle and the inevitability of revolutionary progress.
While Marx adopted Hegel’s dialectical framework of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, he rejected Hegel’s focus on ideas and consciousness as the starting point of historical change. Instead, Marx argued that material conditions, not ideas, drive societal transformation. Marx sought to vindicate Hegel’s dialectic through historical and empirical analysis, showing that contradictions within material conditions—not consciousness—propel social development (Launza, 2016). Both Hegel and Marx viewed contradiction as the fundamental principle of motion, but their conceptions diverged on the nature of the substance: for Hegel, it was spirit, while for Marx, it was matter.
To Hegel, the ultimate goal was for the idea to become fully conscious of itself, with social institutions reflecting this consciousness. He believed that ideas were the real force behind social development. In contrast, Marx argued that social institutions are shaped by the material conditions of human existence, which are determined by the mode of economic production in a society. Marx sought to replace Hegel’s dialectical idealism with his own theory of dialectical materialism, emphasizing that material reality, not abstract ideas, drives historical progress.
Historical Materialism
Historical materialism represents Marx’s materialistic interpretation of history. While dialectical materialism serves as the philosophical foundation of Marxism, historical materialism provides the scientific and empirical basis for understanding societal evolution. In simple terms, historical materialism refers to the economic interpretation of historical events and social change. According to Marx, it offers a scientific explanation of history by outlining how human societies evolve from one stage to another based on material or economic factors. Marx’s theory is “historical” because it traces the development of societies over time and “materialistic” because it explains this evolution through changes in the economic base of society. His most concise articulation of historical materialism, particularly in relation to the transitions between different modes of production, is found in Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy (1859) (Jha, 2018). This framework of ideas forms the core of Marx’s theory of historical materialism.
Marx starts with a simple premise: humans must meet their material needs to survive, and they can produce more efficiently when they collaborate rather than work in isolation. For Marx, the survival and progress of humanity depend on its ability to produce material goods, making production the most crucial aspect of human activity. The organization of society, he argues, is primarily determined by the mode of economic production.
Marx identified four main stages in the evolution of human history, each characterized by a specific mode of production: Primitive Communism, Ancient, Feudal, and Capitalist. In Primitive Communism, communal ownership of resources prevailed. The Ancient mode of production was defined by slavery, where slaves were the primary labor force. During the Feudal era, production was controlled by feudal lords, while in the Capitalist system, the bourgeoisie, or capitalists, owned the means of production, exploiting wage earners. Throughout these stages, society has been divided into hostile classes—those who control the means of production and the working class. The dominant class uses its control over production to exert power over the rest of society (Gauba, 2016).
This class domination inevitably leads to tension and conflict, which have persisted throughout history. At every stage of development, the mode of production shapes the structure of society. As Marx famously put it, “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist,” highlighting how technological and economic changes influence social organization.
According to Marx, societal progress from one stage to another is not a matter of chance but governed by the laws of history. In each stage, the dominant class inevitably creates its own opposition, and through the conflict between these opposing forces, a new ruling class emerges. In the final stage of capitalist society, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat confront each other directly. This clash, according to Marx, will ultimately lead to the emergence of a classless society. However, before reaching that stage, Marx posits a transitional phase known as the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Marx observes that, in the process of social production, individuals enter into relationships—what he calls “relations of production”—which are independent of their will but correspond to the material productive forces at a specific stage of development (Cohen, 2000). These relations of production form the economic base, or “substructure,” of society, upon which the legal and political systems (the “superstructure”) are built. This superstructure, including elements like morals, religion, and politics, reflects and changes according to the evolving nature of the economic base (Harman, 1986).
At a certain point in history, the material forces of production—such as technology and labor—come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or the property relations within which they had previously functioned. As a result, these relations, once enabling the development of productive forces, become restrictive. This conflict triggers a period of social revolution. To understand this process, it is crucial to distinguish between the forces of production (the physical means and capabilities for production) and the relations of production (the ownership and control dynamics within a society). Together, they form the “mode of production.”
Every society has an economic system composed of two main elements: the forces of production, which include resources like land, machinery, capital, and labor; and the relations of production, which define how individuals relate to the means of production and who controls or owns them (Jha, 2018). These relations are based on patterns of economic ownership and distribution of production. However, Marx’s materialistic interpretation of history has been criticized for downplaying the role of non-economic factors in shaping historical events.
Theory of Revolution
Marx’s theory of revolution is a key component of his broader concept of dialectical materialism. Through the dialectical process, the development of opposing forces—thesis and antithesis—occurs gradually and steadily. Eventually, the conflict between these forces leads to the emergence of a synthesis in a transformative moment.
Both Marx and Engels emphasized that revolution is essential because the ruling class cannot be overthrown through any other means. Only through revolution can the oppressed class rid itself of the ruling class and create a new societal order (Singh, 1989). According to Marx, the fundamental cause of revolution is the conflict between the relations of production and the means of production. Over time, the relations of production become a constraint on further development, creating the need for a new mode of production. This pattern is evident in the transitions from slave societies to feudalism, and then to capitalism. Each revolution is carried out by a new property-owning class, which rises to power by transforming the mode of production, ultimately exploiting the propertyless class.
For Marx, the proletariat differs from previous revolutionary classes because it aims to abolish all private property and, in doing so, eliminate class divisions altogether (Jha, 2018). To bring about this revolution, the proletariat must seize state power. Through rapid and radical changes, the structure of society is completely altered until the old order is overthrown and a new one takes shape. According to Marx, revolution is the only means of achieving significant change, and through it, capitalism will be destroyed, paving the way for communism and a classless society.
Marx viewed the state as an institution that serves the interests of the dominant class. He described it as the organized political power of one class to oppress another. In Marx’s words, the modern bourgeois state is “nothing more than the form of organization that the bourgeoisie necessarily adopts, both for the internal purpose of guaranteeing their property and interests”
The doctrine of class Conflict
The concept of class struggle or class conflict is a fundamental aspect of Karl Marx’s sociological theories. It is central to his theory of historical materialism, which posits that the dialectical nature of history is manifested through class struggle. In The Communist Manifesto (1848), Marx and Engels famously declared that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Rashid, 2017). They argued that class conflict is the driving force behind human history. Marx wrote that throughout history, “freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another” (Mukherjee and Ramaswamy). These are the opening lines of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, reflecting the idea that irreconcilable hostility existed between these opposing classes. Marx further contended that this class antagonism persists in modern bourgeois society, where society is split into two rival classes, with the conflict between them destined to end in the victory of the workers.
Marx believed that the evolution of the forces of production leads to the replacement of one mode of production by another, with class conflict remaining central to each new social development. In ancient slave-owning societies, the conflict was between masters and slaves. In medieval feudal society, it arose between lords and serfs, while in modern capitalist society, it is between the bourgeoisie (who own the means of production such as machinery and factories) and the proletariat (who own only their labor and sell it for wages). Marx argued that socialist states should aim to abolish private property, thereby eliminating classes and ending conflict. Once people become aware of their exploitation, they can undertake a revolutionary transformation of their situation. Marx and Engels asserted that this revolution would lead to the final liberation of humanity, as there would be no class below the working class to exploit once it comes to power. This upheaval would pave the way for the establishment of communism, where there would be no class divisions and all means of production would be collectively owned. Ultimately, the deepening division between classes would culminate in the development of a classless society, marking the end of class conflict. Marx emphasized that class conflict drives social change, with the ultimate goal being the end of class struggle through the abolition of class property, leading to a stateless and classless society (Rummel, 1977).
Theory of Surplus Value
The doctrine of surplus value, which is closely tied to the capitalist system, is one of Karl Marx’s most significant theoretical contributions. This theory extends his labor theory of value, which he elaborated on in his seminal work Das Kapital (Shi, 2019). According to Marx, the capitalist mode of production is fundamentally based on the exploitation of the proletariat, and his theory of surplus value explains the mechanics of this exploitation. Marx was heavily influenced by Ricardo’s Iron Law of Wages, which posits that the value of a commodity is proportional to the amount of labor invested in it, assuming the labor meets the prevailing standard of production efficiency. Labor power, in Marx’s view, encompasses the worker’s brain, muscles, and nerves.
Marx argued that because the value of a commodity is produced by labor, the full price of that commodity should rightfully be paid to the laborer. However, in practice, capitalists pay workers significantly less than the value they produce and keep the remainder for themselves. The difference between the exchange value of a manufactured commodity and the wages paid to the laborer, who produces it, is what Marx termed surplus value.
For Marx, labor is the sole creator of value in production, while other factors such as land, capital, and organization are merely reproductive, capable only of returning what has been invested in them. Labor, therefore, is the critical element that generates value in society. For instance, if a laborer produces a value equivalent to his wages in ten hours, but is required by his employer to work for twenty hours, the value produced during the additional ten hours constitutes surplus value. In Marx’s words, this surplus is nothing more than the exploitation of the laborer by the employer.
Theory of Alienation
Alienation, in its simplest form, means separation. Karl Marx’s theory of alienation, which is rooted in Hegelian philosophy, takes the concept of alienation beyond Hegel’s focus on the separation of man from God. Marx used the term to describe the dehumanization that occurs within a capitalist system, dedicating significant intellectual effort in his early works to exploring the nature of this alienation. In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Marx discusses alienation as a central aspect of his humanist approach to Marxism. For Marx, alienation refers to the separation of individuals from their inherent human capacities. He believed that the most profound form of alienation is when a person is estranged from their ability to fully realize their humanity (Young, 1975). The dire condition of workers in a capitalist society is most evident in their experience of alienation. The theory of alienation primarily concerns how individuals lose their identity within the complex web of social relations in a capitalist system. Marx elaborated on this theory in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (Petrović, 1963).
According to Marx, alienation in a capitalist mode of production manifests in four ways (Mukhopadhyay, 2020). First, there is alienation from the product of labor. The worker is alienated because the product of their labor does not belong to them; they create it not out of personal desire but at the command of their employer. Consequently, the product exists outside of and is foreign to the worker. Their labor is not voluntary but coerced. Second, the worker is alienated not only from the product but also from the process of production. In a highly specialized and mechanized system, the worker’s role is reduced to that of a mere cog in the machine. Third, the worker is alienated from society. Capitalism prevents the worker from realizing their social nature, as the wage system forces them to work under conditions that leave no room for social fulfillment. Finally, the worker is alienated from themselves. They are unable to live according to their own desires and choices. Marx noted, “The object produced by labor, its product, now stands opposed to it as an alien being, as a power independent of the producer. The more the worker expends himself in work, the more powerful the world of objects he creates becomes against him, and the poorer he becomes in his inner life, the less he belongs to himself” (Bottomore, 1964).
Marx argued that the worker can never view the product of their labor as their own. It is produced at the expense of their self-realization, against their will, and under the control of alien, hostile forces. The product becomes a tool of oppression, wielded by another individual who controls it. In essence, alienation leads to the estrangement and dehumanization of the worker. Marx contended that this alienation is a direct consequence of the capitalist mode of production and can only be overcome by transitioning to a communist mode of production.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is another major contribution of Karl Marx, though he did not provide a systematic explanation of it. This theory is closely tied to Marx’s ideas about the nature of a communist society and the role of the working class within the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a situation in which the working class, or proletariat, has seized political power. In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, Marx introduced this concept, stating that “the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.” The proletariat, having achieved supremacy, will gradually wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie and centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, which is effectively the proletariat organized as the ruling class (Johnstone, 1971).
In The Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx referred to a transition period during which “the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” (Tebak, 2000). This interpretation suggests that Marx viewed the proletarian dictatorship as a temporary political tool, essential for the revolutionary transformation of society. Marx described this period as an epoch of revolutionary change, marking the transition from capitalism to socialism, and ultimately to communism. The dictatorship of the proletariat represents a form of state organization that emerges when the organized working class overthrows capitalism and assumes complete political control. It serves as an intermediate or transitional phase from capitalism to socialism and communism, during which the state transforms the ownership of the means of production from private hands to collective ownership. Under this system, all means of social production are centralized under state ownership and control.
A Critical Appraisal of Marxism
Karl Marx is undoubtedly one of the most significant philosophers of modern times. While his ideas have inspired many, they have also faced considerable criticism, particularly for promoting what some view as utopian ideals that encourage societal violence. Critics argue that Marx is a dogmatic philosopher who sacrifices logical rigor for ideological commitment, with many of his propositions lacking both logical support and historical evidence.
Marx’s theory of economic determinism holds that any economic system, especially under a laissez-faire policy, exerts a profound influence on the nature and development of social and legal institutions. While it is true that economic factors play a significant role in shaping society, this does not mean that human beings are powerless to counteract negative outcomes, such as those arising from technological advancements or financial systems.
Marx is criticized for overstating the independence of economic forces from human will and for portraying the economic factor as the sole driver of historical change. Although the economic factor is indeed important, other social and political factors also significantly shape the course of history. Abraham and Morgan have noted that Marx overemphasized the economic basis of political power while overlooking other crucial sources of power (Abraham and Morgan, 1985).
Marx’s concept of class struggle is also seen as overly simplistic and artificial, as there have been numerous instances of cooperation between private enterprises and the working class, who often rely on each other. His vision of a stateless and classless society is often dismissed as a utopian dream. The collapse of the USSR as a communist state and China’s continued focus on protecting and promoting its capitalist interests are cited as evidence that Marx’s ideas about the state are flawed.
Marx asserted that in a capitalist society, there are only two primary classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. However, this has not been the case in reality. Contrary to his theory, new classes such as managers and skilled technical advisors have emerged. His prediction that capitalism would become concentrated in fewer hands and that the conditions of workers would progressively deteriorate, leading them to overthrow the capitalist system, has also not materialized. In fact, capitalism is more widespread today than ever before, and the condition of the working class has not worsened. In the modern world, capitalists have introduced various social welfare schemes to benefit workers, reducing the level of hostility between the capitalist and the proletariat that Marx had anticipated.
Marx also believed that the state would eventually wither away. This prediction has not come true; instead, the state has increasingly assumed more power over time. He argued that social change could only be achieved through revolution, but in reality, many changes have been brought about through non-violent means.
Marx was also mistaken in attributing alienation solely to economic exploitation, arguing that workers are alienated because they feel the product of their labor does not belong to them. Additionally, he completely overlooked the psychological aspects of politics and did not adequately address the concept of power. Despite these criticisms, Marx remains a profoundly influential social thinker who has significantly shaped our understanding of history.
Conclusion
The aforementioned shortcomings in Karl Marx’s political thought do not diminish his profound contributions to political theory. Marx made numerous valuable contributions that have significantly influenced the world. While he borrowed concepts like dialectical materialism and the theory of alienation from Hegel, he adapted them in his unique way. Hegel applied dialectics to the realm of ideas, whereas Marx applied it to the material world. Marx strongly asserted that historical materialism is the economic interpretation of history, identifying four stages of historical evolution based on economic production: primitive communism, ancient society, feudalism, and capitalism. In each stage, society is divided into two antagonistic classes engaged in a struggle over control of the means and forces of production.
According to T.B. Bottomore, Marxism is not merely a theory of social stratification but a comprehensive theory of social change. Marx’s view of societies as inherently mutable systems, where changes are largely driven by internal contradictions and conflicts, is a significant contribution to sociological analysis. Bottomore further notes that Marx’s theory of social conflict offers a valuable contrast to functionalist theory, which emphasizes social harmony, equilibrium, and stability while overlooking the role of conflict in society. Marx’s focus on social conflict as a driver of social change has been recognized as a progressive alternative in sociology.
While many of Marx’s predictions have not materialized, there is no denying the transformative impact of his work on those who have studied it. As Wayper aptly concludes, the power of Marx’s message, the inspiration of his teachings, and his influence on future developments secure his place among the great masters of political thought.
References
- Bedacht, M., Don S., Browder E., Karl Marx, Life and Work of Karl Marx by Bedacht Max, (Workers Library Publishers, 1993).
- Francis Abraham and John Henry Morgan, Sociological Thought from Comte to Sorokin (Macmillan India Limited, Delhi, 1985.
- Gauba, O.P, Western Political Thought(Mayur Paperbacks, 2016).
- Harman, Chris, Base and Superstructure,‖ International Socialism, 1986
