Mankind, especially in the past two centuries, has striven for a science of history that is capable of fathoming the laws governing man’s collective activities. A science of history, as obvious by the outpouring of historical theories in the past two centuries, is a relatively recent acquisition purely developed through the presence of an historical sense. The development of an historical sense can be attributed to the dismissal of the notion that supernatural beings, ideal agencies, or invariant courses are recourses for the formation, reformation and transformation of the superstructures of societies[]. With the loss of a dominating religious there came a need for an answer to an increasingly important question of the fundamental causes of …show more content…
A corrupt ‘Communist’ regime, the Soviet Unions’ collapse does not show the fault of Historical Materialism, as the stepping stone of Capitalism to Communism was not fully developed before Communism was imposed. As Historical Materialism described the necessity of the completion of one epoch to another, Marxism cannot be faulted for Joseph Stalin 's overambitious belief that the Soviet Union was prepared for a workers’ state. Nonetheless, a barrage of criticism soon ensued continuing to modern times, with Feminist historians critiquing Historical Materialism. Under a feminist critique historical materialism, concerned economics and class structure, and often appeared inadequate; with this newly-consolidated hostile group arguing that discourses of sexuality are central in understanding power in Western society. Limitations imposed by mundane, material reality evident in Historical Materialism also surfaced in Marx’s belief of lack of sacrifice of individuality in Communism despite collective contribution to a collective freedom, the thought that there would be no tension between one’s own desires and the community’s needs, and the consideration that mankind’s expression of creative natures would typically always align with work as ones optimal contribution to production. Broadly, Marxism lost much credibility due to the assumptions on which Marx based the …show more content…
Re-emergence of interest in social history owes much to the work of a specific generation of British Marxist historians, amongst them E.P. Thompson and Christopher Hill. The Making of the English Working Class, by E.P. Thompson, was one of the most widely influential historical texts of the second half of the 20th century[][]. Published in 1963, this book was an influential, pivotal and enriching text which enlarged the conception of working class history. With reference to popular culture such as religion, festivals, and beggars, along with inclusion of traditional elements such as trade unions and real wages, Thompson was able to escape the old Marxist assumptions of Historical Materialism which propelled him into modern relevance. His rejection of components of Marx’s Historical Materialism were forged in his break from Stalinism and his exit from the Communist Party of Great Britain. Thompson claimed his turn away from orthodox Historical Materialism was due to its malleability, making it ‘a bad and dangerous model, since Stalin used it not as an image of men changing in society but as a mechanical model’. His histories, with a broad outline of the deficiencies of the orthodox Marxist theory, rejected three basic Marxists concepts: the primacy of economic
The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a short publication that contains Marx’s and Engel’s theories on the nature of society and politics, as well as class struggle, problems with capitalism, and how to slowly change the government from capitalist to socialist and finally communist. The start of the first chapter in the essay, "Bourgeois and Proletarians", states ‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles’ (...
The end of 19th century, Western Society was changing physically, philosophically, economically, and politically. It was an influential and critical time in that the Industrial Revolution created a new class. Many contemporary observers realized the dramatic changes in society. Among these were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who observed the conditions of the working man, or the proletariat, and saw a change in how goods and wealth were distributed. In their Communist Manifesto, they described their observations of the inequalities between the emerging wealthy middle class and the proletariat as well as the condition of the proletariat. They argued that the proletariat was at the mercy of the new emerging middle class, or bourgeoisie, and could only be rescued by Communism: a new economic form.
Karl Marx 's writing of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ in 1848 has been documented by a vast number of academics as one of the most influential pieces of political texts written in the modern era. Its ideologically driven ideas formed the solid foundation of the Communist movement throughout the 20th century, offering a greater alternative for those who were rapidly becoming disillusioned and frustrated with the growing wealth and social divisions created by capitalism. A feeling not just felt in by a couple of individuals in one society, but a feeling that was spreading throughout various societies worldwide. As Toma highlights in his work, Marx felt that ‘capitalism would produce a crisis-ridden, polarized society destined to be taken over by
In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx, with the help of Friedrich Engel, advocated for the violent overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a socialist society. According to Marx, “The history of hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (184). Notably, Marx and Engel were the main proponents of communism. Marx’s main argument was that the society is the product of class conflict that results in different social classes with opposing economic interests. Importantly, Marx believed that the society comprised the oppressor and the oppressed, and the two are in constant conflict with each other. The ensuing conflict results in the revolutionary reorganization of the society, or the ruin of the opposing classes. Therefore, Marx, like Kant, saw the institutions of a given society as influential in determining its future. However, Marx argued that traditional institutions were unsuitable for a free and just society that respected human dignity. For example, he saw the modern bourgeoisie society as a product of the “ruins of feudal society,” meaning that the modern society is yet to resolve class antagonisms (184). Indeed, he sees the modern-day social classes as the products of the serfs and burgesses of the middle ages. In this regard, he claimed that the modern social structures are the products of a sequence of revolutions in the systems of production, as well as exchange. However, modern social structures are yet to enhance equity in the society. Therefore, Marx advocated for a revolution that would change the existing social structures and prepare the society to adopt communism. Unlike Kant’s idea of freedom of speech, which is a mind influencing process, Marx seemed more violent by the stating that “let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution”
The word “communism” is generally linked with “Marxism”. Since Marx along with Friedrich Engels published the cutting-edge thesis, The Communist Manifesto in the middle of the 19th century, it conceived the new dimension for both politics and economics. Before turning to the principles of the Manifesto, it is useful to present the brief historical background of the era, and understand why it affected the ideology. Predominantly the Industrial Revolution (IR) and the Great Revolution in France (FR) transformed the society as follows; creation of conditions for capitalism by destroying feudalism. Period between 1820 -1840 marks the beginning of the IR, which altered the whole meantime s...
At the time of Marx, communism stiff fell under the category of socialism. During the last twenty-five years of the nineteenth century, there was a split in the Socialist Party, and communism began to be recognized as a movement of its own. The original Communists were small extremist grou...
From looking at The making of the English Working Class it seems quite obvious that E.P Thompson’s main arguments throughout his book are about the notion of ‘class’, in particular the ‘making of the working class’ ; and in order to evaluate his theories we must attempt to look at other historians opinions about his book, and his suggested theories, in order to come to an impartial evaluation.
According to most historians, “history is told by the victors”, which would explain why most people equate communism with Vladimir Lenin. He was the backbone of Russia’s communist revolution, and the first leader of history’s largest communist government. It is not known, or discussed by most, that Lenin made many reforms to the original ideals possessed by many communists during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He revised Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles’ theories to fit the so-called ‘backwardness’ of the Russian Empire. Lenin’s reforms were necessary to carry out a socialist revolution in Russia, and the contributions he made drastically changed the course of history. It can be assumed that, the Soviet Union would not have been as powerful if it was not for Lenin’s initial advocacy of violence and tight organization.
Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, but in which all individuals shared in the benefits of collective labor (Marx #11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship between the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical mode of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individual’s relationship to the mode of production (Marx #11, p. 256).
In 1848, Karl Marx became renowned for his work, The Communist Manifesto, which was considered one “of the most eloquent and undoubtedly the most influential political pamphlet ever published…” (Waugh 140). Marxism, as it later became known as, explored “the intellectual rationale of the numerous Communist and Socialist parties” (Waugh 140). The foundation of Marxist views relied on that of class struggle: “Marxist criticism must always insist upon the issue of class relations, and class struggle, in unlikely contexts no less than likely ones” (Waugh 143). Works dealing with Marxism must, then, show the difference in classes, and the struggle and plight that the lower class faces at the hand of the upper class. It was also the Marxist belief that in order to exact social change, the masses would need to come together and cause a social upheaval.
One of the greatest debates of all time has been regarding the issue of the freedom of mankind. The one determining factor, for Marx, it that freedom is linked with class conflict. As a historian, Karl Marx traced the history of mankind by the ways in which the economy operated and the role of classes within the economy. For Marx, the biggest question that needed to be answered was “Who owns freedom?” With this in mind, Marx gives us a solution to both the issues of freedom and class conflict in his critique of capitalism and theory of communism, which is the ideal society for Marx. His theory of communism is based on the “ultimate end of human history” because there will be freedom for all humankind. Marx saw communism as the ideal society because it is "the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and man- the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence...between freedom and necessity" that capitalism fosters. Marx was also committed to the notion that theory and action go hand in hand. Marx dismissed earlier thinkers because they (philosophers) "have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it." He also stated "Ideas cannot carry out anything at all. In order to carry out ideas men are needed who can exert practical force". However, Marx would have been appalled by the way his theory of communism was misused. It can be said, though, that Marx's theory of communism was clearly open for interpretation because he failed to offer "principles or guidelines of even the most general kind" for how the system of communism was to be fully established. It was this opportunity for interpretation that made Marx's theory of communism doomed for failure when it was used in practice.
Marx, in his theory of historical materialism, advocates that political and historical events result from the conflict of social forces. His theory focuses on the class struggles and the human attempts to control and dominate the natural environment. Profits obtained by the capitalists are a result of the workers being exploited. This conflict will lead to a revolution in which the workers control the state. Thus, capitalism will be replaced by socialism. The result is freedom for all. In the Soviet Union, the lower class overthrew the ruling class and created a new mode of production. This new economic base then determined political, social and ideological changes in its society. The failure of the Soviet Union impacts the validity of Marxian historical materialism because it discredits materialistic
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in order to give a voice to the struggling classes in Europe. In the document he expressed the frustrations of the lower class. As Marx began his document with "the history of all hitherto societies has been the history of class struggles" he gave power to the lower classes and sparked a destruction of their opressors.1 He argued that during the nineteenth century Europe was divided into two main classes: the wealthy upper class, the bourgeoisie, and the lower working class, the proletariat. After years of suffering oppression the proletariats decided to use their autonomy and make a choice to gain power. During the eighteenth and nineteenth century the proletariats were controlled and oppressed by the bourgeoisie until they took on the responsibility of acquiring equality through the Communist Manifesto.
Comparing with Idealism, which stressed the human ideas’ capabilities in shaping societies, I felt historical materialism was more realistic and applicable. Despite the communism’s unclear future, the equation between mode of production and consciousness (or ideas and values) was very understandable and logical. I was convinced by the theme of historical materialism, which was “life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.” (Marx 155)
Before the rise in modern science, majority of people believed that gods or spirits were the cause of natural events such as earthquakes. That is why, we, human beings, always have been curious about the sources of our own behavior, but for centuries our attempts to understand ourselves relied on ways of thinking passed down from generation to generation, often expressed in religious terms. Despite that, writers from earlier periods provided insights towards human behavior and society, the systematic study of society is a relatively new elaboration, beginning back to the late 1700s and early 1800s. A key development was the use of science instead of religion to understand the world. (Giddens: 2006)