Apurba Goswami

Tutorial Group C
M.A Previous, First Semester, July-December 2016.
Course: SOC 101 (Sociological Theories)

Thus, it is not just in India, but in different parts of the world, particularly in. in the rich
countries of Europe and the U.S., that the workers movement are gaining momentum. And it
is Karl Marxs clarion call at the end of the 19th century, Workers of the world unite, you
have nothing to lose but your chains, that is indeed showing the way for the ushering in of a
new dawn for the working mass everywhere, when the reign of the MNCs and the imperialist
countries will be brought to an end, and the working masses will be architects of their
liberation and of a new world order.
- Anuradha Ghandy
Scripting the Change

Whoever has been beaten down must rise up!

Whoever is lost must fight back!
Whoever has recognized his condition how can anyone
stop him?
Because the vanquished of today are tomorrows victors
And never will become: Already today!

-Bertolt Brecht

In Praise of
Dialectics.

Topic: Outline the elements of the Marxist method for doing social science. In your view
what are the strengths and weaknesses of this method?

Economic determinism can never be the ultimate theme of Marxist doctrine. Marx and
Engels had written extensively on determinism, put much emphasis and based the entire
epistemological rupture on it. Though, the popular axiom that economic element is the only
determining one is completely misleading. As we can see Engels deliberately clarified this in
his letter to Joseph Bloch: According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately
determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life (Friedrich
Engels 1890). Thus in 1981, A.R. Desai, in his presidential address at the 15th All India
Sociological Conference, expressed his utter disgust to the prejudices of understanding
Marxist approaches as merely a form of economic determinism. His point of emphasis was
to place the axis of discourses around the historical level of means of production and the
nature of property relations which shapes multiple institutions of society and history. Desai
quoted the economist Paul Sweezy for his argument Historical Materialism is above all a
method of approaching social questions not as a set of formulas. The kernel of this approach
is examination of the contradiction between the forces of production and relations of
production (Sweezy, as cited in Desai 2013 [1981]). So, the materialist conception of
history, as it is the central plane of Marxist epistemology, demands contradictions of

multiple historical forces. Therefore, contradictions leads to dialectics, on which I would

like to place my answer.
Its evident that any theoretical work cant be universal with respect to time and
space. But, it is the unavoidable prestige given to theory for tending essentially to be global.
The question of method itself is very ambiguous. Marx, in his Poverty of Philosophy went
back to Hegel, Method is the absolute, unique, supreme, infinite force, which no object can
resist; it is the tendency of reason to find itself again, to recognize itself in very object.
(Hegel, Logic, Volume III. Marx 1847). But from where did this urge to look for an
absolute method come from? Marx was not the sole proponent of economic historiography
in 19th century Europe. As for example M. Proudhon and other economists categorized
relations of bourgeois production or division of labour as determining forces of production
and continuation of history. But, according to Marx what they failed to do is to provide
metanarratives of these logical symbioses. Hence, to explain the historical movement which
gave them birth (Marx 1847). Marx had this burden of history on his shoulder, thus he had to
go back again to Hegelian concept of reason. For Marx history was no longer a monolithic
narrative in order of time, but the sequence of ideas in the understanding(Marx 1847).
And there could possibly never be any rigid answer to explanations of historical
metanarratives. As Marx himself, observed everything as being abstraction of movement.
And the logical sequencing of these abstract historical movements, in continuation and
rupture, demands Hegelian dialectics of affirming itself, negating itself and negating its
negations (ibid).
Hence, I believe while constituting their idea of historical materialism, Marx never
really denied Hegel. But, he over-determined Hegel.
To discuss this, we need to go back to another text, Theses on Feuerbach. Since we
like to consider Feuerbach as the philosophical bridge between Hegel and Marx. Feuerbach

criticised Hegelian idealism as being too abstract. But the sarcasm of history shows us that
his own materialism was idealist too. Especially, when we tend to read him though Marx. The
simple reason could be Feuerbach was not a Marxist. Whatever, the scientific materialist
criticism started with Marx, which we attribute as historical materialism. In the very first
thesis Marx expressed his affliction that the previously existing materialisms understood
reality through human sensuous activity, practice, not subjectively (Marx 1845). Thus this
certain idealism gave Marx the open space to put forward the proposition of accumulating
theory and practice, altogether. Marx went on saying that the Feuerbachian materialism
though not satisfied with abstract thinking, appeals to sensuous contemplation (Marx.
Theses on Feuerbach. V. 1845), ultimately lacked practicality. In this particular text if we
sequentially go through the V, VI, VII and VIII theses, we can see that Marx emphasised the
fact that every ideological thrust is essentially is a social product, thus what human life needs
to rationalise history is the praxis to nurture theory. As the very famous last(XI) thesis says :
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to
change it (Marx. 1845).
Here, Marx made the epistemological break (Althusser 1962) from Feuerbach and
unavoidably from Hegel. The Marxist praxis of social science demands a special attention
here, as Marx not only was chalking out ways of reading the history but to change it. This I
believe is the fuel of Marxist epistemology, and the most scientific characteristics of his
philosophy. But throughout his criticism in Theses on Feuerbach, Marx never really could
deny the Hegelian notion of theses, antitheses and syntheses. His main argument and its
narrative format took Hegelian dialectical form. As to understand reality and truth what is
needed is the scientific dynamics of the praxis, which lies in the contradictions inherited and
reproduced in the social world. Historicising contradictions of knowledge and suffering
unavoidably needs negation and negation of negation.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle said
Marx in the very first sentence of The Communist Manifesto. Class antagonism being one of
the essential components of historical forces which lead to contradictions of human social
history, moves as a key in Marxist idea of social sciences. Marx put his major emphasis on
property relations and mode of productions to understand the changing epochs of history. In
his comparative study of the feudal and the bourgeois society, Marx elaborately showed how
the division of labour changed its form to accompany with the changing modes of
productions. Thus creating new forms of class antagonism (ibid.) Although, historical
changes are not mere economic changes which are mechanically reproduced, but political
transformation as well. As, Marx drew the example of French revolution which overthrew the
feudal society and established bourgeois modes of productions. The French revolution was
undoubtedly a political struggle, if nothing else. Earlier in The Communist Manifesto, Marx
wrote Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding
political advance of the class (Marx. 1848). The bourgeoisie hegemonise its power and
violently oppress the proletariat with certain ideological tools which are political. And thus
sustain the stability of class differences which produce and reproduces the economic
circumstances of capitalism.
In the Marxist idea of social science, we can see the unavoidable interdependency
of the economic and the polity, which is not separable from society, in any case. In the
second chapter of The Communist Manifesto Marx asked its readers a question and answered
it himself: Does wage labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates
capital, (Marx 1848). There, he went on saying that Property, in its present form, is based on
the antagonism of capital and wage labour (ibid.). In Marxist idea, capital is therefore a
collective product, which depends on the dynamic action of each individual of the society. It
is the social privilege of the capitalist, which is purely based on political and economic

harmony, that the capitalist holds the property and exploits the workers. Again he said
Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power (Marx 1848). Thus the task of the
communist revolution is to abolish bourgeois private property, which will inevitably lead to
transform the social nature of division of labour. And the major destination of a proletarian
revolution should be annihilation of class antagonism as a whole (Marx 1848). But these
ideas for a better future may seem utopian too. As the present history suggests capitalism has
successfully sustained itself and transformed its political nature through time in almost all
over the world. But, as Marx said In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the
present: in Communist society, the present dominates the past. It is the essential reactionary
nature of capitalism that sustain its conservative homogenous prejudices. But as we may see
the Marxist method of seeing social science is not merely concerned with the reactionary
historicising of human history, but to change it. We may again refer to the XI theses of
Theses on Feuerbach. Along with that we may refer to the call of nationwide strike by
multiple trade unions on 2nd September 2016, in India. The history which comprises the
present is the history of resistance, well according to Marx.
Here, we should look into another major theme of Marxism, the concept of
alienation. The idea of alienation is nothing new in Marxism as it was there in the works of
earlier philosophers. But the Marxist idea of alienation is majorly the alienation of labour
itself. That is why the wage labourer in contradiction to the development of the industry,
descend into more and more suffering. As Marx pointed out in The Communist Manifesto that
wage labour extensively rests on competition between the labourers among themselves. That
is why the workers fail to spontaneously unite together. This creates the space for the
exploiters to exploit in a bourgeois society. And, thus leads estrangement of individual from
nature itself. I think the idea of nature, alienation from it and going back to nature is very
much embedded into the Marxist conception of reality. To discuss that we need to consider

another text: The German Ideology.

Keeping in Mind his words from The German Ideology : The reality, which
communism is creating, is precisely the true basis for rendering it impossible that anything
should exist independently of individuals, insofar as reality is only a product of the preceding
intercourse of individuals themselves (Marx 1845-46). The concept of bourgeois reality is so
far interwoven in the relations of means of productions and reproductions, and the
individuals bounded contribution to it. The objective reality which is on the shoulder of
human beings who are subject to it, is illusionary and repressive. As it is entirely dependent
on the present division of labour, which is exploitive to the majority. The reality thus
creates an environment of false consciousness leading to estrangement where an individual
is resisted from flourishing her absolute possibility of expansion and true freedom. As
freedom is nothing but an hollow word in bourgeois society. I believe Raga Tilak Kamod can
never be loved with every sensuous possibility, until and unless those socially reproduced
senses are freed to be subject to bourgeois hyperreality.
Thus, Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto: The individuality, abolition of
bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly
aimed at (Marx 1848). I want to quote Marx again as he precisely said there in 1848: By
freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions, free trade, free selling and buying
(ibid.). And, nothing else. Hence, the main focus is not only to objectively create
historiography of dynamic narratives of abstracted movements, but to revolutionise it.
I started writing this essay considering the prejudices regarding emphasis on
economic determinism. I need to go back to that topic again. In 1923, Leon Trotsky in his

What Is Proletarian Culture, and Is It Possible?1, talked about the phenomenological

differences of bourgeois and proletariat culture. There he stated that:

The formless talk about proletarian culture, in antithesis to bourgeois culture, feeds
on the extremely uncritical identification of the historic destinies of the proletariat with those
of the bourgeoisie. A shallow and purely liberal method of making analogies of historic forms
has nothing in common with Marxism. There is no real analogy between the historic
development of the bourgeoisie and of the working class. (Trotsky 1923)

Now, culture as being a larger part of the superstructure, is never independent of

its base, that is the economic conditions. Thus the historical context of bourgeois and
proletariat culture differs in analogy at a particular moment. The forms of expressions are
historically different. The intersection of synchronic and diachronic movement of history,
which contains the social reality, is clearly dependent of economic determinism over time.
But as it is evident that the inter-movements of base superstructure dichotomy, do not
necessarily contribute equally in history. There emerges a tension.
How can we overlook the famous sentence by Marx in his Preface to A
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: It is not the consciousness of men that
determine their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their
1 https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1923/art/tia23c.htm, accessed
September,2016.

consciousness (Marx 1859). Now this social being rests on the economic which includes
division of labour along with means of production and reproduction. But this emphasis
doesnt mean the sole determinism of the economic over everything. As Marx continued his
argument saying that the material productive forces of society clashes into conflict with the
existing relations of production at a certain point (ibid.). From forms of development of the
productive forces these relations turn into their fetter (ibid.). That inevitably leads towards a
condition for social revolution.
With the changes of economic conditions therere unavoidable changes in the
domain of superstructure, according to Marx. But at the same time, it is the ideological
struggle of the repressed to change those determining economic conditions. As Marx clearly
said in The German Ideology, that the prevalent and dominated ideas are of the ruling class,
as they hold the determining, ruling material forces of society. Though, the whole point of
reshaping human history from the Marxist approach is, at the same time to change it. Thus
the essential struggle of the oppressed individuals to get hold of their true essence is also an
ideological struggle. This works on the same determining economic conditions, a thousand
kisses deep and moving on the dream of changing it.
Let us now once again go back to the Marxist conception of theory and its praxis.
In the II thesis of Theses on Feuerbach, the young Marx wrote: The question whether
objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a
practical question. Man must prove the truth, that is, the reality and power, (Marx 1845). The
urge and methods of finding objective truth is purely scientific ones. As we have already
discussed the Marxist criticism of bourgeois reality. In The German Ideology, Marx once
again, taking human individuals in the form of their actual, empirically perceptible process
of development under definite conditions, talks about the break from bourgeois, idealist
historiography, where the dialectical materialist history will neither of dead facts of

empiricists nor any imagined activity of imagined subjects of the idealists ( Marx 1845-46).
And this is where all imagined speculations will come to an end in real life, from there
begins the real, positive science (ibid.) When the real forms of reality are reproduced, then
according to Marx, philosophy (I want to emphasise, bourgeois, idealist philosophy) will
cease to be relevant as an independent branch of knowledge (ibid.).
On the other hand, Marx in his introduction to A Critique of Hegels Philosophy
of Right2, wrote: Just as philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the
proletariat finds its intellectual weapons in Philosophy
Philosophy cannot be realized without the transcendence of the proletariat; the proletariat
cannot be transcended without the realization of philosophy (Marx 1844, cited in Bloch
1971)
2 In this particular context Im using Ernst Blochs book On Karl Marx,
published in 1971, translated by John Maxwell. In his book, Bloch quoted
Marx from his introduction to A Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right ,
Page: 117. Which Im using as my reference text.
For the rest of the Marxs works, throughout my essay I have considered
The Marx-Engels Reader, Second Edition, Edited by Robert C. Tucker.
The reason why I decided to take reference from Blochs book here, is the
reproduction of the original German word Aufhebung as Transcendence,
in Maxwells translation.
Whereas, in Tuckers edition, the word Aufhebung had been translated as
abolition.
I think, this reproduction of a particular word shows the changing
relevance of Marxist epistemology over historical times and its different
adaptations and influences.

I dont see this as merely opposing thoughts over time. But this is the development of Marxist
ideas which was shaped on affirmation, then negation and then negation of the negation
throughout his works.
Thus the theory or knowledge as a whole demands its practical implications on
the material movements of real life. Without the praxis, the Marxist methods itself could
ferment into oblivion. May be as a utopian, idealist philosophy also, if nothing else.
I shall end my discussion with the Marxist conception of state, as prescribed in
The German Ideology. Throughout the epochs of history, especially in the bourgeois society
individuals own labour and deeds have created an alien reality opposed to her essential
natural development of the consciousness. Thus the conflict of interests of an individual
social being had been hitherto separated from the collective interests of a community, that is,
an institution of exploitation and a machinery of capitalism, the state. To assert the true
freedom of individuals, the point however is to overthrow it.

REFERENCES

Althusser, Louis, eds. 1969 For Marx. Translated by Ben Brewster. Verso Books

Bloch, Ernst. 1971. In Marx and The Dialectics of Idealism in On Karl Marx. Translated by
John Mawell. New york: Herder and Herder.

Desai, A.R. 2013. Relevance of the Marxist Approach to the Study of Indian Society in
Contributions to Sociological Theory. Edited by Vinay Kumar Srivastava, 37-54: SAGE.

Marx, Karl. 1847. The Poverty of Philosophy.

Marx, Karl. and Friedrich, Engels. 2002(1848), The Communist Manifesto. Translated by
Samuel Moore. Introduced by Gareth Stedman Jones, 218-244. London: Penguin Classics.

Tucker, Robert, C., ed. Second Edition. The Marx-Engels Reader: 3-7, 143-145, 146-200,
760-768. New york: W.W Norton & Company.