Essay: The works of Marx

To comprehend the works of Marx, we first must note his affinity with Hegel, an early German philosopher. Hegel, the proponent of philosophical idealism, maintained that humanity’s development was only visible through analysing abstract philosophical categories. He was amongst the first to address the individual experience in a philosophical sense; a factor of which Marx finitely explored in his later works. In letters to his father Marx “dived into the ocean of Hegel” (Halewood, 2014, p.1). Marx was immediately drawn into Hegelianism, believing Hegel had succeeded in “closing the gap between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ bequeathed to German philosophy by Kant” (Avineri, 1973, p.2). However, the rapid industrialisation occurring across France and Germany, caused Marx to economically question the exploitation of the individual in a working environment. Also, moving to London and experiencing the rural economy’s collapse and the horrific reality of factory labour “formed his lifelong interests in the social conditions of the industrial worker” (Morrison, 2006, p.36). This fuelled Marx’s desire to break with the philosophical constricts of Hegelianism in order to pursue theory in relation to economics. Despite growing to detest the idealistic perspective of Hegelianism, this does not dismiss its vitality in understanding Marx’s work, as from Hegelianism stemmed Marx’s pivotal theory of historical materialism, the basis for his world renown ideas surrounding of communism.

 

Strongly rejecting the conservative framework of Hegel, Marx begins to detach history from its realms, replacing the “conceptual framework with a new network of categories” (Mepham, J. and Ruben, D-H, 1979, p.5) such as ‘means of production’, ‘relations of production’ and so forth. Beginning with the concept of the state as “a theological embodiment of the spirit of human beings” (Morrison, 2006, p.40) or the ‘absolute spirit’ in Hegel’s theory. For Marx it was only viable to interpret reality with reality; he vigorously urges the relation of criticism to our material surroundings instead. This is evident through his key premise of human history- our existence; of which becomes modified and advanced primarily through the ‘means of production’ according to Marx. The ‘means of production’ is how through consciousness, we interact with the physical world to satisfy our needs, immediately setting us apart from all other life forms on earth. Marx insists this ‘mode of production’ is not external to the individual, but is an “indirect producing of their actual life” (Marx, 1970, p.42). Thus here originates Marx’s fixation upon how we produce and the eventual use of our productions against us.

After establishing the ‘means of production’, Marx proceeds by forming its link with history; forming the idea societal development is fuelled by economic activity. Therefore, he begins summarising periods of history and how it coincides with the development of economy. Living in a society of which “economy (is) devoted to the quest for private profit” (Hook, 1955, p.21) becomes more apparent through the social stages configured by Marx. Each stage is characterised by its division of labour, property ownership and an emergent set of class relations, from which a ruling class holding the ‘means of production’ develops. From ‘tribal’, ‘ancient’, ‘feudal’ and ‘capitalist’ forms of ownership; Marx depicts how society and the state are constantly evolving as a result of the advancement of our individual life processes. More so, these states also are driven to protect private property, as “every state, once established, embodies the authority and interest of the ruling class” (Mayo, 1960, p.157). Interestingly, Marx spends significantly less time depicting earlier states, focusing his “law” upon the “case of capitalism” (Mayo, 1960, p.157) as from capitalism stems the majority of Marx’s line of thought in regard to the exploitation of production.

Separating materialism from idealism, Marx insists his perspective is set in the material world, and consciousness is a product of our life processes in which we develop and produce, “life is not determined by conscious but conscious is determined by life” (Marx, 1970, p.47). Rooting his argument in the material, prevents the deadening of history as an abstract set of activities, a poignant belief concerned with Hegelian philosophy. For Marx this eradicates the need for philosophy, as theory is brought into the realms of substance and reality.

Towards the end of the extract Marx reveals essentially his blueprint in order to attain economic- and thus social equality. He condemns the need for exchange in society, deeming it the spiralling factor in societies downfall, of which is vividly evident through the decaying of class relations inducing a “citizens and slaves” mentality (Marx, 1970, p.44). Marx argues societal alienation is a direct product of these transactions, supported by Swingewood whom writes that the “proletariat exists on the basis of private property” (1984, p.33). With its abolishment and “communist regulation of production” (Marx, 1970, p.55) control can be restored to the proletariat, also known as “universal class… whose particular interest is the general interest in society” (Avineri, 1973, p.8). Production endues “exploitive work relations” (Aarons, 2009, p.83) of which were rife during the 1800’s due to the industrial revolution. In London, Marx would have witnessed first-hand the gross exploitation of workers; in which the average work day was 16 hours long (Morrison, 2006, p.36). Thus we may see Marx thought process, as the workers ‘means of production’ is used as a weapon to further their own exploitation. This will only cease as a result of deteriorating class relations to an extensive degree. The proletariat; gaining awareness, will initiate the overthrow of capitalist society, beginning the “communist revolution and the abolition of private property which is identical with it” (Marx, 1970, p.55).

One of Marx’s key themes; the alienation of labour arguably evolved from the Hegelian philosophy of the ‘absolute spirit’, also known as the ‘motor of history’ a force which gains knowledge of its own existence through mediums such as art and religion. It “progressively unfolds throughout history…eventuating in the expansion of human consciousness and increased self-knowledge” (Swingewood, 1984, p.31). Marx argues this high level of abstraction and idealism blatantly ignores tangible reality and human exploitation, outlining how its’ proponents “lived on the exploitation of the absolute spirit” (Marx, 1970, p.1). Furthermore, this line of thought proposes that limitations such as poverty and hardship are merely a product of the consciousness, of which Marx strongly combats. Marx believes it is more logical to “inquire the connection of German philosophy with German reality” (Marx, 1970, p.41).

It could be argued Marx’s fixation upon economic and class related factors renders his theory as economically deterministic. Jessops argues there are a variety of contexts to be explored in relation to class and equality such as those of ‘gender’ and ‘ethnic’. This arguably leaves a “rich research agenda to be explored” (Halewood, 2014, p.62). This popular argument against Marxism; is rejected by Edgley, arguing Marx’s use of materialism does encompass the “practical, social and historical reality of thought and theory” (Mepham, J. and Ruben, D-H., 1979, p.23).

Furthermore, within Marx’s attempts to reinvigorate the working class; there remains issues of a disconnect, as its arguable this “science cannot be recognised except from a working class political position” (Mepham, J. and Ruben, D-H., 1979, p.15). Essentially meaning, revealing class exploitation is mainly relevant to those of whom belong to the non-ruling class. Arguably lacking accessibility, Marxism will not grasp some as it will grasp others. Because Marxist science cannot be seen from any view apart from the proletariat, its attempts to “produce theoretical knowledge of history will inevitably prove barren” (Mepham, J. and Ruben, D-H., 1979, p.5).

Marxism’s value as a science evokes many different opinions, as it may be viewed only as a “theoretical practice (that) produces knowledge which can then figure as means that will serve the ends of a technical practice” (Mepham, J. and Ruben, D-H, 1979., p.17) Edgley describes Marxism as holding a valuable place in the formulation of a theory, however he argues as it is only ‘theoretical practice’ it is not a viable stand-alone theory in itself. Lenin also holds this view, advocating the “importation” of Marxism into politics of the working class; to be used in conjunction with other theory. This coincides with Haldine’s view that Marxism is simply insufficient, as he proposes that given the circumstances Marxism is an excellent product of the 19th century, however it is it is merely and “abstraction of one of the tendencies at work” in the capitalist era at the time, essentially meaning its relevancy is confined to its time period (Mayo, 1960, p.186).

Marx argues humanities outstanding quality is the ability of producing the ‘means of life. He insists within thi
s activity “lies the entire character of a species, its species character” (Aarons, 2009, p.80), essentially meaning markets constitute for every aspect of society. This absolutist approach is deemed by Aarons as exposing all “revolutionaries… lacked even rudimentary knowledge of economic processes” (Aarons, 2009, p.88). Production and exchange surely cannot hold such a vital role in the creation of social ideas. Understandably, the inexplicable link between production and the individual suggests the mode of production should be more human orientated and essentially treat labour forces better, however as reiterated by Aarons, markets “should not and cannot” dominate all aspects of social life. However, in contrast to Aarons claims of Marx’s reckless views of economics, he did foresee the development and growth of capitalism, and its tendency to ‘adopt monopolistic practices” (Hook, 1955, p.41). He was amongst the first to understand the relationship between the social and industrial. He also was the first to recognise how the accumulation of wealth would present new difficulties (Hook, 1955, p.41) a key aspect explored by many today.

Furthermore, Marxism has arguably filled a gaping hole in the realms of theory, regarding industrial capitalism. Pre Marxist socialism arguably was devoid of a theory, propelling social change through redefining economic class relations. Early socialist writers of whom focused on the view of a post-communist world led “Engels to characterise Owen, Fourier and others as ‘Utopian’ writers, not scientific socialists” (Swingewood, 1984, p.29). However, Marx himself spends very little time describing the features and characteristics of his communist utopia. He “refuses to write recipes for the kitchens of the future” (Ritzer, 2000, p.47) alongside Engels he also criticizes the aforementioned writers, of whom adequately describe their idea of socialist utopia. Marx believed an exhaustive analysis of society would prove to be more effective, and help “create the conditions for the rise of a new socialist world”. He continues, noting communism’s configuration would take place post revolution (Ritzer, 2000, p.47).

With Marx’s presentation of class struggle, the distinctive stages he analyses, “illuminate some crucial periods in modern history” (Hook, 1955, p.39). Hook continues, noting how widely used these concepts are used today, having been adapted into everyday discourse. However, Hook also notes it is a significant leap to assume these classes are always connected to an “overriding significance in relation to other classes” (Hook, 1955, p.39). It cannot be said that every discrepancy in history was caused by class struggle, nor that every class struggle is related to economic factors (Hook, 1955, p.39). Looking at historical traumas such as Crusades or “nationalist movements such as Hitlerism” (Hook, 1955, p.40). a very minor degree of these horrific events may be economically accounted for.

Conclusively, Marx’s passion for eradicating inequality is strongly portrayed throughout his work. We see Marx’s regard for social justice through his intents to abolish alienation in society, and his desire to “create conditions in which all individuals could develop their capacities and talents to the full” (Aarons, 2009, p.100). This essentially achieves what he sets out to prove against Hegelian philosophy in producing a theory of change; void of abstraction. Refreshingly, Marx’s work primarily focuses on human nature regarding man as “a naturally inventive animal” (Hook, 1955, p.21) placed within a restrictive capitalist setting. Humanity is suffocated by its social exterior, whereas within communism the allowance of self-expression, access to consciousness and creativity (Ritzer, 2000, p.71) allows it to thrive. Despite this strong avocation for humanity, the anti-utopianism of Marx’s work further strengthens his theory as he denied the creation of “an imaginary state” (Webb, 2000, p.2), rooting his theory in “real tendencies” (Webb, 2000, p.8). Therefore, avoiding the lack of a “genuine connection between means and ends” (Webb, 2000, p.8). I accept Marxism as the theory it was intended to be and not merely ‘theoretical practice’ or a ‘utopian dream’. I believe Marx adequately facilitated the shift from philosophical idealism to historical materialism on grounds of empirical evaluation and reality, providing a theory of which actively engages with history, and remains increasingly relevant in today’s society, as it was during the 1800’s.