Marxism and Class
This paper begins by introducing Marxism, and briefly explains how the writing of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, was influenced, it further elucidates how they cultivated the social philosophy of Marxism. This paper discusses how Marx and Engels to achieve their aims relied on a concept of class as an instrument. This paper further examines to what extent their theory is consistent with contemporary conditions.
The theoretical depiction of Marxism on paper shows to be the alternative of liberal rationalization, which has dominated western ideological thinking. Politically observed, Marx stands opposed to a system of capitalism.[1] Further illustrated, Marxism derived on the theory of Dialectical materialist change and functions on communist practice.
For Marx, the theory of Dialectic came from Hegel who précis this picture of a world which contains the seeds of it own destruction, when these forces struggle, a synthesis occurs, giving birth to a new and higher developed form.[2] There was an idealist trend in German philosophy in the 1830s and 1840s known as the Young Hegelians, these young men tried to draw radical conclusions from the method of Hegel's philosophy to prove the need for a bourgeois reform of the German state.[3] For a time, Feuerbach and also Marx and Engels in their youth were a part of the Young Hegelians. Marx and Engels soon broke with them and criticized the idealist trend. For Feuerbach, ideas were a reflection of the material world and he declared himself a materialist.[4]
Through this influence, Marx and Engels restored the Hegelian dialectic theory and placed it within a method of materialist foundation.[5] Through the materialist version of dialectic, Marx believed that historical change was a consequence of its own internal contradictions within a state of technological development, which was reflected through class antagonism.[6]
‘The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of
class struggle’[7]
In the era ‘primitive communism’ there may have been a highly developed social division of labour and even social inequality, many dismiss the presence of a class conflict, however Engels provided that class conflict arose in gender within monogamous families where wives were reduced to serve their husbands:
‘…the women was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.’[8]
Transition, occurred into a ancient state where a Slave Society emerged, where the productivity of labour was such, that a slave-owning class was able to hold slaves in oppression where they, were deemed the property of the slave-owners.
This shifted into the Feudal Society where although the peasantry owned their own land, and were recognised as citizens with rights, they were not free to change their status in life. The producers in feudal society owned the product of their own labour, but specific requirements were attached, for example obligations, such as having to work the Duke's estate every second Saturday, giving one-tenth of their crop to the priest or fighting in the army when there's war.
The synthesis increases the accumulation of profit by the lords. This led to large trade and the emergence of merchants who eventually created the main means of production and became the ruling class in a new capitalist society. It is this continual change of hands as to the owning of the means of production, which constitutes your class and role in society. Inconsequentiality unlike conventional historians who see history built up by wars and great figures, Marx regards class as the key.
In the era of the capitalism those that own the means of production Marx labelled the Bourgeoisie while those who own no productive private property, and who sell their labour-power, Marx called the Proletariat. The bourgeoisie intention in a capitalist society was maximisation of profit,[9] hence, they seek to lower, or to keep constant, the wages at the expense of the proletariat. While the proletariat, seek to improve their living conditions by seeking higher wages. The two interests of these two classes are conflicting and cannot be resolved within the boundaries of capitalism.
Through Marx’s interpretation of classes, we begin to see a relationship in this social formation. Marx sees one of ‘Dependency and Conflict’ especially apparent in a capitalist society. This is where the bourgeoisie and proletariat are reliant on each other. The wage labourers sell their labour power to survive but do not own the means of production. Hence, they are dependent on capitalists for their subsistence and wages. The equivalent applies to the capitalist who needs the labour to generate more productivity and increase surplus. Finally the antagonisms among classes’ stems from the proletariat being the majority, placed in exploitation and oppression by the minority ruling class. We can see this even today, through cheap labour employed in factories, transport systems, and retail services.
Marx also saw in relevance to the capitalist era a number of intermediary classes. Understandably, every wage-labourers ambition is to become a part of the bourgeoisie, such classes emerged in the shape of small business owners, or shopkeepers[10] they were known as the ‘petty bourgeoisie’. The other type of class that emerged was the ‘lumpen proletariat’’ which consisted of ‘the social scum of society’[11], criminals and beggars. These other classes Marx believed that with capitalist development these classes would dissolve into either of his original two-class structure. Marx relied on this two-class structure to show how the mêlée of these groups would consequence in his desired Communist Society.
‘ Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.’[12]
Marx was opposed to capitalism, he believed it to be a socio-economic system, and through his two-class structure showed how social relations was reduced to a bond mediated by money.[13] The free market envisioned by Adam Smith lead the state into absorption by the market and took the shape of a capitalist system, based on possessive individualism, which encouraged, a thriving economy in an age of industrial growth.
Labour, was considered property of the worker and seen as a commodity,[14] which they could exchange for money. Marx believed the commodification of labour was treating humans like objects and further pointed out Adam smith portrayal of a commercial society had overlooked imperative aspects of human interests.[15]
The labourer suffered alienation through the process of wage labour, because they are detached with what they create or serve, for they have no ownership over what they produce, only their own invested labour power. Marx uses alienation in the context of the labour process to refer to products of labour becoming ‘foreign’ and depersonalised to the labourer. Thus, the worker finds himself estranged not only from the product of his labour, but from the practice of labour, from his colleague, and from his identity as a productive social being.
‘…the activity of the worker is not his own spontaneous activity.
It belongs to another and is the loss of himself.’[16]
Subsequently, Marx held the labourer exists in a state of absolute poverty, he engages in wage labour because of an absence of wealth, he can only exist through money he earns for his survival, and he has no choice but to sell his labour.
‘His labour is therefore not voluntary but compulsory, forced labour.’[17]
The foremost critic of a capitalist society is the existence of possessive individualism or private property, which induced the division of ownership and non-ownership of a means to produce, this class was important to Marx because it was the type of society in which he lived and hoped to change. Marx’s ideals was to establish a Communist Society which proposed private property will be non-existent and would facilitate a collective system by the producing class, marking the dissolution of all classes. However, conflicts or division of labour in Communist society would not be the result of private property, and consequently, the conflicts between different people and groups of people would not be antagonistic.
For Marx to achieve his Communist State it was imperative to employ the concept of class, drawing on the antagonisms within the two-class structure, Marx hope to arise some sort of class consciousness within the majority of society, the proletariat. Thus, Marx believed only through class-consciousness can they be mobilised to revolt against their oppressor. A proletariat revolution to overthrow their oppressor was the only way in which they could achieve their true place in history by attaining a Communist state. [18]
Marxists are internationalist; the doctrine of Marxism is an International Communist system on a global scale, where its application is plausible in any society, where the working classes from different nations unite, Marx and Engels in The communist manifesto declare.
‘The working men have no country…’[19]‘
The working classes of all countries should unite.’[20]
Therefore, if one state employed a collective system, it would collapse due to the conflict with the capitalists around it, because capitalism is also international:
‘ The need of a constantly expanding market…chases the bourgeoisie over the surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.’[21]
Hence, the breakdown of Russian Communism seen through the vestiges of Leninism and Stalinism, who, for the benefit of this paper are a clear by-product of Marxism. Marx believed in a Communist system, that a collective interest is the most natural structure of society, and highlighted that capitalists had manipulated an environment, which subdued the working class consciousness and economically created the illusion that the capitalist system was the norm of society. Consequently, the controllers of the economy had control over the ideologies that conditioned society, it’s superstructure[22], and through this, they maintained their hierarchal standing. Through The communist manifesto, Marx and Engels explained how all thing of government had the sole interest of the bourgeoisie:
‘ The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.’[23]
Conclusively capitalist society has advanced, only through reforms, it is recognised by capitalists that it must satisfy the working classes. These reforms are evident, through today’s welfare state – the National Health Service, benefits, sick pay, and instruments such as the tax system and the minimum wage policy, although, these latter two are comparable to what Marx thought was manipulation and clouding of class conciseness.
A contemporary idea to indicate class, its division, and capitalist control, is Rupert Murdoch and his ownership of means of production in the form of the monopolized media. The ownership of various newspapers and broadcasting enables him to bring a distorted depiction into the homes of millions. The media giant can use his capitalist power to maintain bureaucracy. Murdoch owns two major newspapers The Sun and The Times. Transparently, the recent support from The Sun, newspaper to the Labour party campaign seriously influenced to pull in the majority vote of the working class.
Where as the Times is aimed at an attentive public, people who utilize their vote and observe politics, law and current affairs. These newspapers have established a serious influence on people’s perception of events in society. Thus, it has also been used to control working class unrest, such as the recent fuel crisis in which the newspaper, by creating a view of fuel crisis being immoral, were in effect able to diffuse its support, making the second of the blockades less successful.
Capitalist contradictions were more apparent in Thatcherism, in the abolishment of trade unions, and abuse of power, to maintain a capital norm. Our present Government of the day, have materialized from trade union representatives and still aims are to conserve a capitalist norm, capitalism has been imprinted as a natural way of societal life, but government find themselves having to appeal to the working class for the majority vote, for this purpose they have formulated themselves with a socialist label. Would Marx have regarded these policy reforms as a remedy, for capitalism’s internal contradictions? Are these reforms giving us the best possible state of society?
Marx used the concept of class and turned it on its head, he applied the Dialectical materialist theory to society, on which, he was able to suggest a solution. The synthesis of both classes, into a society of socialist structure, which would be ‘the best possible plan for the best possible state of society.’[24]
Bibliography
Cohen, G., A., History Labour and Freedom: Themes from Marx, 1998, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Freedman, Robert, The Marxist System: Economic, political and Social Perspectives, 1990, New Jersey: Chatnam House Publishers, Inc.
Goodwin, Barbara, Using Political ideas, 4th edn., 1997, Chinchester: John Wiley & Sons
Heywood, Andrew, Politics, 1997,London: Macmillan Press
Lichtheim, George, Marxism, 2nd edn., 1964, London: Routledge.
McLellan, David, Karl Marx Selected writings, 2nd edn., 2000, Oxford: OUP.
Necleous, Mark, Lecture 6: Class: Introducing Marxism.
Necleous, Mark, Lecture 15: The nation II: race and nation
Resis, Edward, Marx: A Clear Guide, 1998, London: Pluto Press
Rosen, Michael, & Wolff, Jonathan, Political Thought, 1999, Oxford: OUP.
Footnotes
[1] Heywood, Andrew, Politics, 1997,London: Macmillan Press, p. 50
[2] Freedman, Robert, The Marxist System: Economic, political and Social Perspectives, 1990, New Jersey: Chatnam House Publishers, Inc., p. 5
[3] Ibid. p. 11
[4] Ibid. p. 13
[5] Freedman, Robert, The Marxist System: Economic, political and Social Perspectives, 1990, New Jersey: Chatnam House Publishers, Inc.,. p. 16-17
[6] Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, The communist manifesto, 1848, cited in McLellan, David, Karl Marx Selected writings, 2nd edn., 2000, Oxford: OUP, p. 254
[7] Ibid. p.246
[8] Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Lawrence and Wishart, London:1972, p. 137 cited in Resis, Edward, Marx: A Clear Guide, 1998, London: Pluto Press, p. 113-114
[9] Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, The communist manifesto, 1848, cited in McLellan, David, Karl Marx Selected writings, 2nd edn., 2000, Oxford: OUP, p. 251
[10] Ibid. p.251-252
[11] Ibid. p. 254
[12] Ibid. p. 246
[13] Necleous, Mark, cited in Lecture 6: Class: Introducing Marxism.
[14] Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, The communist manifesto, 1848, cited in McLellan, David, Karl Marx Selected writings, 2nd edn., 2000, Oxford: OUP, p. 251
[15] Necleous, Mark, cited in Lecture 6: Class: Introducing Marxism.
[16] Karl, Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Alienated Labour, cited in McLellan, David, Karl Marx Selected writings, 2nd edn., 2000, Oxford: OUP, p. 89
[17]Ibid. p. 88
[18] Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, The communist manifesto, 1848, cited in McLellan, David, Karl Marx Selected writings, 2nd edn., 2000, Oxford: OUP, p. 256
[19] Ibid. p. 260
[20] Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, The communist manifesto, 1848, cited in Necleous, Mark, Lecture 15:
The nation II: race and nation
[21] Ibid. p. 248
[22] Resis, Edward, Marx: A Clear Guide, 1998, London: Pluto Press, p. 35
[23] Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, The communist manifesto, 1848, cited in McLellan, David, Karl Marx Selected writings, 2nd edn., 2000, Oxford: OUP, p. 247
[24] Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, The communist manifesto, part III: Socialist and Communist Literature, 1848, cited in McLellan, David, Karl Marx Selected writings, 2nd edn., 2000, Oxford: OUP, p. 269
