Marxian Interpretation of History

In this article we will discuss about the Marxian interpretation of history

Marx was perturbed about the various ill effects of capitalism which had progressed throughout Europe. At the same time he was a philosopher deeply trained in Hegelian philosophy.

The Hagelian philosophy was one which was generally admitted to be true. Marx, however, found himself dissatisfied with that philosophy and accordingly took to the study of a criticism of it and an improvement upon it.

In terms of Hegelian philosophy, history moves on the basic of ideas. It is based upon what is called the dialecticism. Everything has its opposite side. If there is something which we think is true then there must be something which is false to us. Similarly, if there is something good then there must be something bad also.

People act on the basis of their ideas and accordingly whatever be the current flow of ideas that would determine the course of action of the people and hence the movement of history. However, the process of dialecticism does not let anything stand still. As has been stated, according to this approach of dialecticism, thing has its opposite—this also referred to as every thesis having its antithesis.

There is always conflict between the thesis and the antithesis and in due course of time the two get merged into one new idea called synthesis. But the moment this synthesis takes place, it becomes a thesis and therefore we get a new antithesis of this new thesis. People then start acting on the basis of the conflict between these new thesis and antithesis.

Further, according to Hegel, this mixture of thesis and antithesis into synthesis can be in terms of various proportions of the two elements and accordingly history can take many possible courses. What exact course history will take will depend upon the exact combination of synthesis and antithesis in each case.

This combination is in the hands of God, since it is, He who will let the people think along some lines and not the others. Thus history is nothing but the march of God on earth—the unfolding of His will in this world.

Marx maintained that Hegelian interpretation of history was upside down. Ideas did not move on their own, or according to the predetermined will of God; they were also mould on the basis of some deeper elements in the economy.

All our ideas, philosophy, actions, political and religious institutions were founded upon the materialistic forces which were at the root of all these things. The dialecticism that moved the history was materialistic dialecticism. Ideas followed the materialistic advantages and conflicts and not the vice versa. Hence his approach is called that of the materialistic dialecticism.

Marx, in order to be thorough in his analysis, starts with what he calls the mode of production in the economy. In an economy, there is always the need to produce and for this the society organises itself into various institutions, methods of work, systems of distribution and exchange etc.

All these things put together are called by him the mode of production and this mode of production includes for him all kinds of productive relationships. Within this productive relationship, there may be a system of slavery, here may be a system of workers and capitalists, feudal lords and serfs and so on.

Next plank in Marxian interpretation of history is the concept of surplus value. It is assumed by Marx that whenever labour works it impacts that labour to the raw materials it works upon and in this manner the produced good acquire value. This acquired value, however, is more than the value required for the maintenance of labour itself.

When labour works, it spends its labour power the replacement of which needs the use of a certain quantity of goods and services. The labour required to produce these necessary goods and services is the labour cost of producing the labour power. This necessary labour, or the labour cost of labour, is less than then the actual amount of labour power which the consumption of these goods and services can replace. Thus, there is a surplus value over and above the replacement cost.

Throughout history, according to Marx, here has been a fight for the appropriation of this surplus value which the labour is capable of producing. In an economy we might come across various kinds of institutions, rules and regulations, political and religious institutions, theories and philosophies etc., but all these are hovering around one thing only, the surplus value.

To Marx, the State plays a decisive role in this sphere. The State is always a class-State—it is always controlled by a particular class in whose economic interest it is to keep on ruling so that the appropriation of surplus value goes on. In other words, that class which rules and that class which appropriates are always the same.

The ruling class sees to it that it does appropriate the surplus value. Otherwise what is the use in having the power in the society? All other classes are subject to its exploitation and in this manner the appropriation of the surplus value goes on till this class is ousted and replaced by another class which in its own turn starts exploiting the workers and appropriating the surplus values.

In the beginning, the ruling class is not very cohesive. Nor are, for that matter, the exploited classes of the society either. But as the time passes, the ruling class starts realising more fully the value of keeping its forces joined against the slowly but steadily increasing notes of dissatisfaction from the exploited classes. It must be noted that in the beginning the ruling class, while coming to power had given the exploited classes various concessions, especially in the form of increased productive powers of the economy.

Out of these increased productivity, the new ruling class was able to give a larger share to the newly subjected classes and still appropriate a larger share than the ruling class which it replaced. The newly subjected classes, for the sake of these gains had sided with the new ruling class. Thus, when slavery was replaced by the system of feudalism, the slaves were given the chance of improving their lot by becoming serfs instead of slaves.

On the other hand, the new system was economically more productive than the old system of slavery. Thus the new nobility classes appeared to be the saviors of the society and were welcomed as such. In due course, however, as Marx says, the ruling class started getting clearer ideas of the fact that their interests were opposed to those of the serfs and similarly the serfs got the ideas that the landlords were exploiting them. In this way, Marx says that to begin with the class idea is hazy but in due course, various classes become more clear about their respective interests and the conflict of their interests with those of the others.

At this stage, the ruling classes start putting forth various philosophies which suit their interest. They try to perpetuate the status quo so that the exploitation in their favour can continue unabated. They might believe in the good of those theories themselves so much so that vehemence with which they are presented to the exploited classes is able to convince the exploited classes also for some time. But in due course of time, the class interests prevail upon those philosophies and the exploited classes start realising that there is something wrong about those ideas and philosophies as far as they are concerned. In other words, they come to form the antithesis of the thesis which was being put forth by the ruling classes.

Further, even though the ruling classes may be in conflict with one another, and the exploited classes may be in conflict with one another, and the exploited classes may be opposed to each other, but when it comes to facing the other category of class, they become united. In due course, the society is divided into the camps of two clearly divided classes, which are poised for a conflict and an actual conflict ensures.

In this conflict a group of people comes up offering better facilities to the exploited classes and organising them against the ruling classes. When the existing society is thrown over and a new one comes into being the leader class becomes the ruling class and starts exploiting the remaining classes, even though compared with the older society the exploited classes are better off.

Marx was able to explain the transition of the society from one type to another with clarity but there were two gaps in his explanation. One was the gap concerning the transformation of what Marx called the Asiatic solicitor communistic societies into slavery and the second one was the course of history which would be taken after the overthrow of capitalism.

The first gap was filled by Engels in his book, “The Origin of Family, Private Property and State”. He explains that in an Asiatic society, the production is distributed on the basis of needs. But very soon, the physically strong ones become the rulers of such tribes and they by virtue of their physical strength start appropriating a share of the produce of others.

In their wake follow those two may not be physically as strong, but who are able to bring forth some other kinds of force such as the religious fear. Thus a ruling class develops. Then as Stratchy explains in his “The Great Awakening”, (Lectures) these societies get converted into those of slave societies. This is because earlier it was the custom to kill the members of the vanquished tribe but now it was realised that it was better to keep them alive and make them slaves. They were able to produce more than what was necessary to maintain them.

On the other hand, this proposition was a concession to the slaves also. Instead of getting killed now they had a chance to live with a possible escape. Similarly, when slavery gives place to serfdom, the slaves now get more freedom since the owners will not be able to kill them if they so desired. Also the serfs could have some private property which earlier they were not allowed to. Further this system was better from production point of view.

The serfs would work more happily as compared with the situation when they were slaves. In the same manner when serfdom gives place to capitalism, the reading classes which are emerging in the last days of feudalism hold out a promise to the serfs of full personal freedom of profession and place of work. With the help of the serfs they are able to throw out the feudal lords and establish their own rule.

At this stage, the division of the society is between the workers, the capitalists and the middle class. The middle class gradually gets evaporated while the ranks of the working classes keep on swelling. In due course capitalism also gives way to socialism.

Marx does not explain what would happen once the system of capitalism is ousted. However, according to Marxian materialistic dialecticism, history must move on and therefore to Marx, class conflict will emerge in some form even after the overthrow of capitalism, though Marx admits that he does not know what form it will take.

Lenin adds one amplification to this analysis by pointing out that capitalism will make one final bid for survival by resorting to imperialism. However, imperialism will only spread the system of capitalism to hitherto feudal economies and this will not stop the process of history. At the most it can only postpone the downfall of capitalism. That is why Lenin calls imperialism the highest stage of capitalism.

1. Class Struggle:

“The Communist Manifesto” written by Marx and Engels throws light on class struggle. In this Marx wrote that, “The history of all existing society is the history of class struggle.” Marx made the class conflict the dominant feature of social life.

In ancient times, there was conflict between the master and the slaves. Under feudalism, there was the struggle between the Lord and the serf. Now under modern capitalism, the struggle is between the capitalists (bourgeoisie) and the workers (proletariat).

Capitalist production created a system under which workers are enslaved to capitalists, to the machines, to the supervisor and to the master. Exploitation of labourers is inherent in the capitalist system. As exploitation increases, there will be two divisions in the society the capitalists and the workers.

Communist Manifesto gave a call to the workers to unite and organise and liberate themselves from the capitalists. It believed that a revolution was inevitable and ultimately socialism would be established. In fact, capitalism itself creates conditions for its destruction. Being influenced by the Communist Manifesto, a revolution broke in France in 1848, but was not successful. It was only “the small scale dress rehearsal of a gigantic production,” which was scheduled for the future.

2. Method of Approach:

Karl Marx first analysed the four broad divisions of economic activity, namely production, consumption, exchange and distribution. He believed that these four divisions are inter-related. Production brought those goods which were needed for the satisfaction of human wants; distribution shared them in accordance with the social laws; exchange distributed and in consumption, the product directly became the servant of individual want.

Further, Marx said that production was subjected to natural laws and distribution to social laws. In order to explain the connection between production and consumption he gave the example of productive consumption and consumptive production the former shows the use of the product in a new process of production and the later the reproduction of human life. In addition, he emphasised that production, supplied the material for consumption and consumption supplied wants. Thus production and consumption are complementary.

3. Money:

Marx in his theory of money mentioned three important functions of money, namely, measure of value, standard of price and means of payment. When money functioned as a measure of value, it was considered as an ideal money. If two commodities-gold and silver served as measure of value, then all goods had two prices – a gold price and a silver price. If the ratio of exchange between these two remained the same, there would be no disturbance.

Marx believed that the total quantity of money during a given period was determined by two factors:

(a) The sum of prices of commodities in circulation and

(b) The rapidity with which goods changed their forms.

Marx considered gold and silver as universal money. He said that just as a reserve money was needed for home circulation, a reserve money of gold and silver were required for external circulation in the international markets.

4. Division of Labour:

Marx explained in detail the concept of division of labour in manufacture and pointed out that how in manufacture, a commodity from being a product of an independent workman became a social product, which was the result of the co-operation of so many workers.

Then Marx distinguished between division of labour in manufacture and the division of labour in society or social division of labour. The division of labour in society was created by the sale and purchase of products of different kinds of industry. In the case of division of labour in manufacture, several workers sold their purchasing power to a single capitalist.

So the means of production were concentrated in one individual whereas in the case of social division of labour, the means of production were dispersed among many producers. Further in social division of labour, there was a systematic division of labour.

Both the organisation and mode of production were simple. Social division of labour was regulated by the law of nature. But in the case of division of labour in manufacture, the production was complex and was carried on according to the capitalist mode.