You are on page 1of 20

Workers Of The World, Unite!

Class
Struggle and Marxist Theory
Sreelakshmi S
1214256
P.S.Eng II
Sociology CIA 3
2

Index
Introduction
Definition of class, concept of class according to Marx; types of societies;
development of class through the development of society; false consciousness and
alienation in Capitalist society
Karl Marx A Biography
Workers of the world, unite! The Communist Manifesto
Background and description of the text
Surplus Value
Asiatic Mode of Production
Dialectic and Historical Materialism
Analysis of the Statement
Conclusion
Critique of Marxist theory; modern-day Capitalism; evolution of classes; diffusion of
capital; counter-criticisms; modern Marxists and imperialism; Marxism as a
theoretical, analytical framework
Karl Marx Quotes
Bibliography

3

Introduction
"Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a
historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed
and formulated by law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation
of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they
dispose and their mode of acquiring it". (Vladimir I. Lenin: 'A Great Beginning: Heroism of
the Workers in the Rear: 'Communist Subbotniks' in: 'Collected Works', Volume 29;
Moscow; 1965; p. 421).
Marxist-Leninists believe that the concept of social class is one that is determined not by the
amount of an individuals wealth, but by the source of his income which is determined by
his relation to labour and means of production. Ownership or non-ownership of the means
of production, for example, is a way of determining social class. Thus, the class to which a
person belongs is not determined by a subjective opinion, but by objective reality.
According to Marx, then, "There are three great social groups, whose members... live on
wages, profit and ground rent respectively". (Karl Marx: 'Capital: A Critique of Political
Economy', Volume 3; Moscow; 1971; p. 886). These three basis classes are 1) the proletariat
or working class, 2) the bourgeoisie or capitalist class and 3) the landlord class, respectively.
The development of class, according to Marx, is seen through the gradual transition of
society through the four stages of society that he propounded. He believed that human
civilization manifested itself in a series of organizational structures, and each was
determined by a primary mode of production. Through the observation of these modes of
production, it is possible to trace the development of a class society. Tribal society, which
practiced primitive communism, had no social classes, but was structured around kinship
relations. It simply expressed, according to Marx and Engels, an extension of the natural
division of labour that existed within the family into society, where men hunted and women
took care of the domestic need. However, as population increased and there developed a
growth of relations with outside civilizations, there was an increase in wants and a gradual
development of slave culture, thus containing the seeds of a class society.
Slave society, the succeeding stage, saw the beginning of the concept of private property.
Here, there developed a slave-owning class which owned the land and slaves, which served
4

as the means for producing wealth. The idea of class developed, with the slave-owning class
as one, and the slaves themselves as another. The state emerged as a tool for the slave-
owners to justify their exploitation, and private property, more than just the ownership of
personal property, extended to agricultural land which was used for cultivation for both
sustenance, as well as profit.
The feudal stage was based not on a community of slaves and owners like the preceding
stage, but on an en-serfed peasantry who were bonded in labour to the feudal lords. The
feudal lords had to hand over a certain amount of produce to the state or ruling authority,
while the remaining produce was theirs to use. Thus, the exploitation of the serfs in order to
generate more surplus and profit for the landlords was widespread. Here, one sees the clear
development of Marxs proposed three classes the proletariat (serfs), the bourgeoisie
(ruling authority or State) and the landlord class (feudal lords).
Because of the growth in trade, commerce and human population, the feudal society began
to accumulate capital which, along with the fall of the aristocracy owing to the English
Revolution of 1640 and the French Revolution of 1789, paved the way for the establishment
of an economy based on commodities and profit, i.e. Capitalism. False consciousness is at its
peak in such a society, for the proletariat believes that he is free as he is being paid for his
labour. However, as demonstrated with Marxs theory of surplus value, the emergence of
labour as an abstract quantity as well as its transformation into a commodity that can be
bought and sold on the market, leads to the exploitation of the proletariat, leads to the
benefit of a small percentage of the total population, the ones in control of the capital, who
form the Capitalist bourgeoisie. There is a widespread feeling of alienation as the members
of the working class feel a lack of control over the forces that drive them into a job. Once
again, the means of production is not owned by the ones who work them (the working
class), and is treated like private property by the bourgeoisie.
Class conflict thus intensifies and reaches its peak at the Capitalist stage of society
propounded by Marx. There is a clear distinction between the ruling and working classes,
the haves and the have-nots, and through the transition of society through its various
stages, class polarization has increased and false consciousness has settled in. Marx was
born and lived at a time when industrialization and workers revolutions were rampant. A
5

life dedicated to political economy, he wrote and propagated a great deal about the evils of
Capitalism, and the means that must be undertaken to overcome the exploitation that the
proletariat continued to perpetuate by their silence. Marxs works and theories are better
understood in the light of his personal journey into the education that fuelled his
philosophy.
Karl Marx A Biography
Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818 in Trier, where he received a classical education. He
studied jurisprudence at Bonn and later in Berlin, where, however, his preoccupation with
philosophy soon turned him away from law, and he took up studying questions of material
interest. While studying Hegelian philosophy, Marx came to the conclusion that it was not
the state, which Hegel claimed to be the edifice of society, but the civil society or
common people upon whom Hegel had looked with disdain, which should be looked at to
gain an understanding of the historical development of society.
Marx studied and worked in France and Belgium, from which places he was expelled at least
once at some point of time. He studied political economy and the French revolution, worked
as a journalist, and founded the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, in his efforts to become involved
with the revolution and workers movements that were developing around this time. He had
also, by this time, authored The Poverty of Philosophy and the Communist Manifesto, the
latter of which he co-authored with Freidrich Engels. Eventually expelled from Cologne
where he had begun the paper, and then France once again, he finally moved to England
where he lived until his death. Here, he continued to produce his Neue Rheinische Zeitung in
the form of a monthly review for a while, after which he worked through the British
Museum collection on all it had to offer on political economy, as well as acted as the editor
for European politics for the New York Tribune until the outbreak of the American Civil War.
During his stay in London, Marxs extensive study of political economy finally bore fruit, with
him producing A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Part One. This piece
contained only the theory of money presented from completely new aspects. The
continuation took a while to produce, since in the meanwhile Marx discovered so much
more material that he decided to undertake further studies on the subject.
6

In 1867 appeared the culmination of Marxs lifes work Das Kapital, or rather the first
volume (the second and third were published posthumously by Engels). It contained the
results of studies to which Marx had dedicated his whole life. It contained the political
economy of the working class reduced to scientific formulation. It was concerned with
strictly scientific deduction, and it presented, for the first time, socialism in a scientific
manner. However, this book holds interest for yet another point it is the first work in
which the relations between capital and labour have been described in entirety, in such a
clear and graphic fashion.
Although Marxs health rapidly declined during the last decade of his life and he was unable
to work with the same gusto that he had so far, he still paid close attention to contemporary
politics, especially concerning Germany and Russia, and often offered his comments. In his
Critique of the Goth, he critiqued the actions of his admirers Liebknecht and Bebel,
disagreeing with their compromises with state socialism in the interest of a united socialist
party. He indicated, in letters to Vera Zasulich, that he imagined it possible for Russia to
bypass a capitalist stage of development and move on directly to communism, by basing its
economy on common ownership of land, typified by the village.
Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history.
Revolutionary socialist governments adopting Marxist concepts took power in a host of
countries in the 20th century, leading to the formation of socialist states such as the Soviet
Union (1922), as well as the Peoples Republic of China (1949). Many labour unions and
workers' parties worldwide are influenced by Marxism, the Naxalite movement as in India
being one such example, while various theoretical variants, such as Leninism, Stalinism,
Trotskyism, and Maoism, were developed from the same. Marx is often acclaimed to be,
with mile Durkheim and Max Weber, one of the three principal architects of modern social
science
Workers of the world, Unite! The Communist Manifesto
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose, but your chains.
Taken from the Communist Manifesto which was co-authored by Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels, this line became a popular political slogan of the time, one of the most famous
7

rallying cries of communism. In actuality a popularization of the last few lines of the
Communist Manifesto, the English translation was later approved by Engels, giving rise to
this well-known slogan.
The Communist Manifesto itself, the text from which the line is taken, is a short publication
released in the year 1848. Though at the time it coincided with the German revolution and
merely echoed the revolutionary feelings that had been already rampant, causing it to go
largely unnoticed and to not have any significant impact on the already-boiling revolution, it
was later recognized as one of the worlds most influential political manuscripts. It presents
and analytical approach to the class struggles, as well as the problems with capitalism. The
Manifesto is broken down into four sections: the first speaks of the history of society as
class society since the Middle Ages, ending with a prophecy of victory of the proletariat over
the bourgeoisie; the second describes the position of the communists within the proletariat
class, rejects bourgeois objections to communism, and then characterizes the communist
revolution; the third contains extended criticism of other types of socialism, i.e. reactionary,
bourgeois and utopian; and the fourth and final part contains a short description of the
communist tactics towards other opposition parties, ending with an appeal for proletariat
unity (which culminated in the world-famous slogan).
Marx made the proletariat central to his understanding of social change. In the Communist
Manifesto, this theme is further developed, where he attempts to combine a historical
materialist analysis society with an outline of the necessary tasks that the working class and
its organizations face in order to bring about change. The Manifesto was intended to be an
agitational work aimed at that section of society who Marx believed would be key in
overthrowing the old order. With this aim in mind, the Manifesto is seen to stress the
polarity of classes the proletariat and bourgeoisie, the former being the modern wage-
labourers who were forced to sell their labour power, and the latter being the owners of the
means of production, thus being the ones in power. In a short chapter in Das Capital, Marx
makes a distinction between these two classes on the basis of ownership or non-ownership
of the means of production; however, a deeper understanding of class in a social context as
theorized by Marx is better developed through Marxs political writings, such as the
Manifesto.
8

When reading Marxs writings, the Communist Manifesto is the place to begin. It provides
the best introduction to Marx and Engels revolutionary politics, greatly influenced by the
historical context as they might have been. Although in modern times the Manifesto has
come under heavy criticism for a variety of reasons one being that the massive,
homogenous working class that Marx claimed in the Manifesto, did not actually exist, for,
contrary to the claims of the writing, the middle class was growing and thriving in capitalist
times, instead of being submerged it is still, undoubtedly, one of the most stellar literary
pieces in the history of economics, politics and sociology. The Communist Manifesto builds
its claims on an economic basis of class distinction, moves on the describe the social
problems and consequences of this distinction and polarity, and finally lays out in a logical
manner the political action required to overthrow this social order that aimed at uplifting
the few that were already uplifted though the economic and social exploitation and
suppression of the unaware masses. Though in entirety it cannot be seen as infallible, the
theory in the Manifesto still continues to hold relevance in some contexts of modern-day
polity, economy and social order.
Surplus Value
Marxs call for a proletariat unity and breaking of false consciousness for a movement
towards equality in social and economic life was first propounded in the Communist
Manifesto. However, his later work on the theory of surplus value must not be ignored,
when speaking of the evils of Capitalism and the oppressive hold that it retains over the
proletariat. Cited as Marxs greatest achievement by Engels at Marxs graveside, the theory
of surplus value proposed by Marx lays light on the simple economic concept that gives the
capitalist bourgeoisie the economic power that allows them to maintain and perpetuate the
inequality of classes.
To begin with, one must break down the manufacturing process that yields economic profit,
i.e. surplus value, into three components the raw materials, the machinery, and the labour
power of the labourers. Marx illustrates these three by a frequently used example of a shirt-
making industry, in Das Kapital.
In the shirt-making process, the raw material would be the cloth, the machinery would be
the sewing machine and the labour power is attributed to the sewing. The product would be
9

the shirt itself. The sum of all the values of the elements must be calculated place the
value of the raw material at $1, and place a value of $1 for depreciation on each shirt, which
can be added up to purchase new machinery once the old sewing machine is worn out. Each
labourer is further paid $2 for each shirt they make. Thus, the total sum of expenditure on
the contributing elements is $4.
However, the same shirt is sold at a sum of $7, which represents the real value of the article.
There is a difference of $3 that is obtained by the industrialist between manufacturing and
selling the shirt, which he claims as profit and keeps for himself. The question posed by
Marx is whether this profit indeed belongs to the capitalist, and if it does not, to whom does
it then belong. To answer this question, Marx examines the concept of variable capital
which amount of capital is increased in the manufacturing of the shirt.
According to Marx, neither the capital on raw materials, nor the capital on machinery is
variable. The value of cloth does not increase during the process of manufacturing; hence it
remains constant capital. Similarly, if the cost of the sewing machine is divided by the
number of shirts that it is able to manufacture, it will yield a fixed number, one that the
capitalist is aware of and accounts for when setting aside revenue in order to purchase a
new machine as and when necessary. This, too, then become constant capital.
Since neither of these elements happens to be the variable capital influencing the increase
in actual value of the product, the only logical conclusion is that labour power constitutes
the variable capital. The capital invested in purchasing labour power becomes the variable
capital, and it is this capital alone that gives rise to profit; it is generated solely from the
labour power of the labourer.
In elaboration of the theory of surplus value, Marx argues that there are two time periods
within each working day. The first few hours of the day are the necessary working hours,
during which the labour performed by the labourer is enough to generate exchange value
sufficient to feed, clothe and house himself, which is the exact amount which he will also be
paid by the capitalist. The remaining hours of the day, i.e. night-time, are the surplus labour
hours, where the worker, while working through these hours, generates a surplus, which
the capitalist seizes from him. In the example, the worker on the sewing machine generates
10

an exchange value of $2 during the day, and that constitutes his pay. During the surplus
labour hours, he generates another $3 of surplus value for the capitalist.
Thus, Marx claimed that with the $2, the capitalist in the example could purchase a day of
labour for its exchange value. However, exchange value is equal to the amount of labour
necessary to produce the commodity, and in this case it expands to $5, when adding the
surplus labour hours invested by the worker. This value, however, is transferred to the
commodity by the capitalist (i.e. the shirt) which the capitalist claims to be his property. He
then sells the commodity with this transferred value and pockets the surplus profit, which in
actuality belonged to the labour power.
In conclusion, according to Marxs theory of surplus value, the surplus belongs to the
labourers for their labour power, but is unjustly seized by the capitalist. The two are caught
in a cycle of exploitation, where the former is locked in a position where he is continually
exploited, and the latter is driven to continually exploit the former. If the capitalist ceases to
exploit the worker, he will be submerged by other capitalists in competition; similarly, if a
single worker refuses to allow himself to be exploited, he will be replaced by another that is
willing to do so in order to earn sustenance. The only way to break this cycle, as proposed
by Marx, is a mass revolution leading to the destruction of capitalism, for when capitalism
falls, exploitation will end. The same is propounded by him in the famous ending lines of the
Communist Manifesto: Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your
chains.
Asiatic Mode of Production
The Asiatic Mode of Production was formulated by Marx along with the notion of capitalism
and the Capitalist Mode of Production in the 1850s, as he was developing the theoretical
system of the Critique of Political Economy. His main aim was to understand the specific
characteristics that distinguish capital from other forms of wealth, as well as to understand
the modes in which production developed. This led him to specifically approach forms which
preceded capitalist production.
The Asiatic Mode of Production thus referred to a specific type of pre-Capitalist society,
where there is an absence of private property of the means of production, there is
11

economic, political and ideological collective organization of the ruling class into an
autarchic and despotic state, and there exists the collective organization of the working
class into separate communities, i.e. villages.
As is with all pre-Capitalist modes of production, the ruling class had economic ownership of
the means of production, which was the land. It appropriated surplus labour, and the
working class had not been freed from this means of production, but had direct possession
of them in that they had the power to put them to work (cultivate them). In societies
where the Asiatic Mode of Production was dominant, surplus labour was collectively seized
by the ruling class. The working class or the labourers directly possessed the land only under
the condition that they belonged to a larger collective, i.e. the village community. The
surplus labour was thus collected by the ruling class through a tribute tax paid to the state
by these collectives in the form of agrarian or town communities.
The state officials that appropriated the surplus and executed orders from the state were
merely appointed and discharged by this higher state-authority. The highest level state-
authority was the ruler, who was regarded as the direct representative of divine order and
right. This tag allowed the state to exploit the working class with the justification of religious
and moral backing, and since questioning the divine was a blasphemous act, the peasants
continue to allow themselves to be exploited for fear of excommunication or other such
consequences. Each community, allocated according to the joint surplus tax they paid,
enjoyed, however, a certain amount of autonomy from the central state conditional to the
tribute they paid. Asian empires like Chins, Russia and the Ottoman until the late 18
th

century, as well as India under the Mughal rule, were social formations in which the Asiatic
Mode of Production was dominant.
Marx distinguished the Asiatic production from other pre-Capitalist production forms. He
stated that amidst the legally ordered property-less-ness and despotism demonstrated by
the state, the communal property exists in actuality as the foundation, created by a
combination of manufactures and agriculture within the small collective. Here, the surplus
labour belonged to the higher community which is personified by the almighty ruler. This
surplus takes the form of both tribute tax as well as of common labour for the acclamation
of the unity of partly the real despot, partly the imagined clan-being of divine powers.
12

Marx referred to the Asiatic Mode of Production and its surviving forms in his later works.
He argued that the Asiatic community demonstrated the reason for the unchanging nature
of Asiatic societies despite the constant dissolution and re-founding of Asiatic states as well
as the constant changes in ruling dynasties. The structure of the fundamental economic
elements of society remained untouched by the unstable political clime, for they allowed
the ruling class to exploit and extort from the working class, i.e. the peasants, in a manner
that both protected the ruling class from revolution, as well as justified their actions,
through the claim of divine representation.
Dialectic and Historical Materialism
Dialectic Materialism can be simply stated as a way of understanding reality, whether it be
thought, words, or the material world. The methodology combines both dialectics and
materialism, and forms the theoretical foundation of Marxism. The application of the
principles of dialectics to society and its change and evolution constitutes Historical
Materialism.
Although the roots of dialectics are practically antique, it was Johann Fichte who
constructed the general scheme of what came to be known as Hegelian dialectic. Hegel
envisioned the dialectic as the general law that pervaded the entire world. He formulated it
as the law of the development of thinking, and applied the same to the development of
nature and society as well, viewing the synthesis of opposites as the culmination of history.
This mechanism was what interested Marx. When separated from its idealistic framework,
the dialectic demonstrated a process through which the simple proceeded to the complex
without a need for a higher cause. Thus, although Marx severly criticized Hegels philosophy
in general, he utilized the dialectic itself. He took the Hegelian dialectic and transferred it to
his own materialistic framework.
The Marxist dialectic proposes three laws. The first law concerns relationship, and is the law
of the interpretation of opposites. This is believed to be the most fundamental of the laws
of Marxist dialectic, and it is stated to be, by Lenin, the kernel of dialectics.
According to this law, every entity is said to be composed of a pair of sub0entities which are
in fundamental contradiction with eavh other. According to the Marxist dialectic,
13

contradiction is the fundamental and essential, whereas cooperation is merely transitory.
Hence, every entity in the universe is formed through a temporary union of fundamentally
oppossite and contradictory elements. The main source of the development of matter and
consciousness, according to Marx, lay in the conflict of opposites.
The second law is concerned with the process of development. This is the law that refers to
the transformation of quantity into quality, and vice versa. This law states that every kind of
change that takes place in the universe, every process of development, is first and foremost
a transformation in quantity. At some point, this change transforms istelf into a change in
quality. Thus, there is first a change in amount of degree, followed by an abruot
transformation of shape or form.
The third law of Marxist dialectic is the negation of negation. According to this law, every
entity exists first as an affirmation, then is negated, and the negation is negated once again,
re-affirming the original affirmation multipled many-fold on a higheer plane of
development.
The dialectic laws as proposed by Marx did not just remain theory; he applied them
vigorously and continually to his theories and studies regarding political economy. When he
called for the unity of the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and reform the social
order, he did so on the basis of the application of these three laws of dialectics.
The first law, which proposes the unity of opposites, is applicable to the existence of the two
classes in conflict. Society is, thus, comprised of two distinct classes in fundamental
opposition with each other, and this is what constituted the haves and have-nots proposed
by Marx.
The second law of quantitative and quaititative change supported Marxs fervour for
revolutionary change. While quantitative change is slow and gradual, as in the case of the
persistent expolitation of the working class by the ruling class and the subsequent
accumulatio of wealth and surplus by the latter, if a qualitative change in the existing socio-
economic order has to take place, i.e. a difference in organization and form of polity,
economy and society, then the change has to be sudden and abrupt. Such an incident is
14

characterized by the revolutionary struggle that Marx firmly propagated to the proletariat,
when he urged them to unite and lose their chains.
The third law of the negation of negation is what Marx used to justify his statem ent that
where the world society began with primitive communism and then moved through
different stages of class conflict, it will once again return to an advanced, utopian
communism, where inequality will be abolished and private gain will be traded in for
societal progress and profit. Thus, the affirmation of the initial entity (primitive communism)
is done through a series of negations (passing through different stages ofsociety and finally
overthrowing capitalism) and arrives at a re-affirmation at a level more advanced and
developed than the original identity (developed communism).
Analysis of the Statement
Bringing into unity Marxs theory of surplus value, the Asiatic Mode of Production and the
law of Dialectics, one can analyze the closing statement of the Communist Manifesto in
great detail.
Marxs law of dialectics state with great clarity the theoretical foundation of the class and
class struggle. He argued that there existed conflict in every entity, society not being
excluded. Thus, the class conflict was justified as they represented sub-entities within the
larger entity of society which were in fundamental contradiction. The opressive nature of
this class conflict, wherein the bourgeoius exploited the proletariat for their own personal
gain, could only be changed, according to Marx, by revolutionary change, supported by the
second law of dialectics. Marx believed that a sudden, abrupt change was the only kind that
would be able to bring about a substantial and qualitative change in the form and
organization of entities, and he accordingly propagated revolution for the overthrow of
Capitalism and the consequent abolition of the existing opressive social order. The third law
of dialectic supported Marxs claim that society was fated to return to its original communist
form, though aggreably more developed, through the negation of negation, for society
began with primitive communism. Hence, he justified the existence of class conflict and
class struggle, foresaw the ultimate return to communism for society, and presented and
propagated the means for acheieving this change, i.e. revolution.
15

Marxist dialectic formed the theoretical basis for the class struggle, and he used the theory
of surplus value to demonstrate the exploitation suffered by the working class with great
clarity. With the use of logic and mathematical reasoning, Marx deduced that the surplus
value generated during the manufacture of products that was pocketed by the industrialist
and Capitalist, belonged, in fact, to the labourers. Labour power being the variable capital
that was used in the equation of production (the other two elements being raw material
and machinery), surplus value was generated by this means of production. Hence, the actual
value at which the product was sold, the difference between which and the cost of
production constituted the surplus, was increased solely due to labour power. This surplus
was unjustly being seized by the Capitalist by transferring the added value to the products
and commodities, which he claimed to be his own property. Thus, he continued to expolit
the workers by appropriating surplus value, which rightly belonged to them, for his own
personal profit. This, Marx claimed, was the Capitalist secret to expolitation the chains
that the workers were bound in was this vicious cycle of exploitation. The industrialist
depended on the labourers to generate surplus for him. The labourers depended on the
salary of the industrialist to provide themselves sustenance. The refusal on the part of a
single labourer to be exploited would simple deem him replaceable, owing to the sheer
mass of the working class. Hence, to break this opressive cycle of expolitation, it proved
necessary for the workers to rise up against the industrialists as one, deeming the former
helpless and deprived of a means to produce surplus. He loses economic power, and
consequently, he loses the power to exploit. This is characterized in Marxs call for the
workers of the world to unite.
Finally, the Asiatic Mode of Production demonstrates yet another manner in which the
ruling class exerts dominance over the working class. Though meant as a study of pre-
Capitalist societies, Marx points out that the socio-economic structure of Asiatic societies
remain the same, with the emphasis on the ruling head as a divine representation, thus
justifying his expoitative actions and giving him the right to opression. This sort of
hegemony allows the continued domination and despotism of the ruling classes over the
working classes, in any society. According to Marx, the seeds of the succeeding stage of
society is present in the stage that precedes it, and this is demonstrated through the pre-
Capitalist, Asiatic Mode of Production. Though private property did not exist as a concept,
16

exploitation and class differences still prevailed, and the only difference that a lack of
private property brought about was the collective exploitation of peasants categorized into
their communes. The ruling class domination still prevailed, and the extortion of surplus
from the peasants for the profit of the ruling class was still just as Capitalist in nature as any
indutrialist society. The chains still existed, and though the workers had some form of unity
in that they ere organized into their collectives, they remained in a state of false
consciousness, accepting the justification of their own exploitation as fed to them by the
ruling class.
Marx believed strongly in the existence of the two classes of the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie which existed in fundamental conflct of needs. He believed that this conflict,
which led to a hierarchy of social relations where one opressed another and generated a
relationship of overlord and servant, master and slave, the opressor and the opressed, could
only be overcome by the unified proletariat, once they overcame the spell of false
consciousness and developed from a class in itself to a class for itself. Though he did not
oppose evolutionary progess of society, as deomstrated by the different types of society
that evolved from primitive communism uptil Capitalismm, he believed that the Capitalist
evil could only finally be overthrown by a revolutionary change. The development of society
until Capitalism was a quantitative, gradual change; the shift to equality as would be gained
through Communism would qualify for a qualitative one, requiring revolution. Thus, his
famous statement in the Communist Manifesto sums up, in a single statement calling for
action, his philosophy of class struggle and his theory as to how it must be overcome:
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.
Conclusion
In the light of the modern-day scenario, it is possible to critique Marxist philosophy for its
errors in judgement regarding the fate of Capitalism. The conflict approach itself, which
speaks of the existence of two, distinct, polarized classes contained within themselves with
the same needs and aspirations, can be seen as faulty in the very deterministic quality that
it attributes both to economic power, as well as the class itself. While it is possible to view
stratification based on class in todays Capitalist society, to concretely state that there exist
merely the two classes of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie would be erroneous. The
17

break up of classes into that of the upper class, upper middle class, lower middle class,
lower class and so on clearly demonstrate the existence of a number of classes with
differing needs.
Furthermore, Marxs claim that the middle class would be submerged under the Capitalist
spectre also seems to have been disclaimed; rather, the middle class has not just survived
but thrived under Capitalist economies, reinventing a whole new set of occupations as a
reveneu-generating means the service sector.
Yet another fallacy in Marxs theory regarding class is viewed in the separation entailed by
modern corporations between ownership and control. The ones who hold capital are not
necessarily the actual decision makers regarding policies and so on. The public investment
of capital in the stock market yet again diffuses the concept of the bourgeoisie, for now the
common man, too, holds ownership of capital. The expansion of the role of governments in
the regulation of big businesses, the redistribution of wealth and the social welfare
organizations and functions that are the modern-day emergent trend were all unforeseen
by Marx while devising his theory.
Todays Capitalist society does not justify Marx belief that class conflict is essentially
revolutionary in nature, and that changes can only be brought about through revolution.
Structural changes have been made to corporation brought about on the strength of
organized labour. Similarly, Marxs theory of labour which accounted for the pauperization
of the masses, too proved wrong if surplus alone was the sole means of accumulating
profit, then there exists no way to eliminate expolitation and proft accumulation. In fact, a
large number of socialist states seem to display a higher percentage of profit-accumulation
than Capitalist ones.
Marx also seems to have misjudged the extent of alienation experienced by the average
worker. Todays Capitalist workers tend to identify with an increasing number of
meaningful groups, including religious, ethnic, occupational and local. While the existence
of alienation istelf cannot be denied, it must be attributed more to the structure of
bureaucracy and mass society rather than to economic exploitation. The over-emphasis of
Marxist theory on the economic base of political power led to other important sources of
power being ignored.
18

Marxs predictions regarding the downfall of Capitalism do not seem to have come true.
Contrary to what was believed, socialist economies have thrived in peasant states, and
there appears to be no signs of destructive class warfare in todays Capitalist societies. The
classless, stateless society proposed by Marx remains a utopian model; there can exist no
form of society devoid of an authority structure or a regulatory mechanism, which will
inevitably lead to a demarcation and solidification of social relations between the rulers and
the ruled, with consequent internal contradiction and conflict.
While there are equally vehement counter-criticisms for these points as raised by modern
Marxists claims that imperialism and colonization are responsible for the failure of Marxs
prophecy owing to the global hegemony that industrial nations practiced over the colonized
nations, thus furthering their own capitalist interests by exploiting the rest of the world it
cannot be denied that Marxs predictions for the fate of Capitalism did, indeed fall short.
However, it must not be denied that although this be the case, Marxian theory continues to
provide an excellent framework for the analysis of conflict and change in modern society.
Furthermore, the dialectic model proposed by him and the historical materialistic
application of these principles must be acknowledged for their contributions to a
philosophical understanding of society. In summation, although practically Marxs
predictions may not have panned out, the thought behind is philosophy was undoubtedly
genius, and his theories provided a strong analytical base for the study of the socio-political-
economic aspects, and their interdependency, of and on society.

19

Karl Marx Quotes
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.
Religion is the opiate of the masses.
The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people.
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.
The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs.
Religion has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form.
Necessity is blind until it becomes conscious. Freedom is the consciousness of necessity.
Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex.
Revolutions are the locomotives of history.
Nothing can have value without being an object of utility.
Mens ideas are the most direct emanations of their material states.
If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist.



20

Bibliography
(1985). Marxist Economic Theories. In CAUSA Lecture Manual (pp. 109-117). New York: CAUSA
Institute.
Abraham, F. M., & Morgan, J. H. (1989). Sociological Thought. Wyndham Hall Press.
Abraham, M. (1982). Modern Sociological Theory.
Bell, P., & Cleaver, H. (2002). Marx's Theory of Crisis As A Theory of Class Struggle. The Commoner.
Bottomore, T., & Nisbet, R. (1979). A History of Sociological Analysis.
Coser, L. A. (n.d.). Masters of Sociological Thought. Rawat Publications.
Joseph, J. (2006). Marxism and Social Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Karl, R. E. (2005). The Asiatic Mode of Production: National and Imperial Formations. Historein.
Lenin, V. I. (1965). A Great Beginning: Heroism of Workers in the Rear: 'Communist Subbotniks'. In
Collected Works, Vol. 29 (p. 421). Moscow.
Marx, K. (1971). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 3. Moscow.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1969). Manifesto of the Communist Party. In S. Moore, Marx/Engels Selected
Works, Vol. One (pp. 98-137). Moscow: Progress Publishers.

You might also like