Submitted by: Peter

KARL MARX
Karl Marx believed that human civilization has manifested itself in a series of organisational
structures. That society develops, evolves in different stages, each determined by its primary mode
of production, particularly the division of labor that dominates in each stage.1 First stage is the
Tribal society, where it is structured around kinship relations, where everybody shares common
property. Second stage is Feudal society, where two or three people own a big estate snd ninety nine
percent are working in the land, for the two or three people. Third stage is Industrial society, where
those few people who owns the the industry starts controlling. Fourth stage is the Capitalist society,
where whoever has money controls.2 Karl Marx said that each stage sows its seed of destruction,
which gives rise to the next stage. It gives birth to conflict theory, however the conflict will come
for further evolution or development. Tribal turn into Feudal, and in Feudal, Marx introduced two
societies; The bourgeoisie and proletariat, the ruling class and the class that is ruled by. As a result
of that comes the Oligarchy, which is the Industrial stage and after that Capitalism. After Capital-
ism, Marx aimed for a classless society.3
CONTEXT
Karl Marx a philosopher, social scientist, historian and revolutionary is without a doubt the
most influential social thinker to emerge in the 19th century. The social and historical context of
Marx was on a foundation of encounter with the emerging proletarian movement. That the Western
proletariat would become a revolutionary class that would act politically to establish a socialist so-
ciety. It was during the time of idealism of German philosophy and the ahistorical empiricism of
British political economy.4 It was during a capitalist form of government, where there was the role
of class domination in the society. Even the role of class interests in political conflicts. There was
class struggles, involving the exfoliation of labour by capital within the capitalist mode of produc-
tion. Under capitalist conditions, labour is not only exploited but also faces alienation. This means
the wage labourers are not the directors of their own work. During that time, one of Marx’s most
important intellectual influences was the philosophy of George Friedrich Hegel.5

CLASS STRUGGLE

1
Vidya Bhushan and DR. Sachdeva, An Introduction to Sociology (Allahabad: Kitab Mahal Agencies, 2009),
913.
2
Kenneth Thompson, Sociological Perspective (Australia: Penguin Education, 1971), 44.
3
H.R. Mukhi, Political Thought (Delhi: SBD Publishers Distributors,2008), 173.
4
Dr. Hans Raj, General Sociology (Delhi: SBD Publishers Distributors, 1999), 100.
5
G.R. Madan, Western Thinkers on Indian Society (Delhi: Anamika Publishers & Distributors, 2000), 1.
 Marx believed that class struggle is tension or antagonism in society. It exist because differ-
ent groups of people have different interests. According to Marxism, there are two main classes of
people: The bourgeoisie, who controls the capital and means of production, and the proletariat pro-
vide the labour.6 Therefore it is the struggle between these two which is known as class struggle.
Marx’s theory of class struggle is closely inter-linked with his theory of historical and dialectical
materialism.7 To Marx, a class is a group with instinct tendencies and interest that differ from those
of other groups within society, the basis of a fundamental antagonism between such groups. Marx’
basis on bringing this view of class struggle is that since the demands of the working class go
against the interest of the capitalist class there can never be reconciliation.8 In a class divided soci-
ety, all other sections of the people take sides, based on their economic interest. Such cleavages not
only undermine the social harmony, but in fact accelerate the process of polarisation further. That is
how Marx visualised and same the capitalist society. Marx assumes that in the class struggle there
was always a tendency on the part of bourgeoisie to expand. He observed that the class conflicts in
the capitalist system did not occur on their own. It is only through the conscious involvement of the
working class that the class struggle would take the shape of revolution.9
ROLE OF PROPERTY IN SOCIETY
This task is important because the concept of property for Marx is central to his social and
political philosophy as well as his theory of history. For Marx, the most distinctive feature of any
society is its form of property and the crucial determinant of an individual’s behaviour is his reac-
tion to property.10 Property divisions are the crucial breaking lines in the class structure. Marx
looked at the issue of distribution of property in the society. Private property has been the main con-
cerned to Marx since it is causing alienation of the majority and the generation of capital for a mi-
nority, and these are two connected issues. For Marx private property causes alienation to freedom
of the proletariat.11 He asserts that every form of property be it tribal, feudal, industrial or capitalist
is essential a social relation. Property is a social relation because of its triadic character.
It is a relation between an objet, its owner, and a group of society that is willing to recognise a more
or less exclusive relation. This mediation by society is extremely important, for without its recogni-
tion that a certain object belongs to someone, it can only properly be said in its possession.12

6
Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset, Class Status and Power (New York: Free Press, 1966), 7.
7
ibid., 8.
8
Randolf Dahrendorf, Towards a Theory of Social Conflict, Social Change (New York: Basic Books, 1973),
102.
9
Irving Louis Horowitz, Consensus, Conflict and Cooperation, System Change and Conflict (New York: Basic
Books, 1973), 102.
10
Dr. Hans Raj, General Sociology, 101.
11
R.N. Sharma, Contemporary Sociological Theories (Bombay: Meida Promoters & Publishers LTD., 1988),
137.
12
ibid., 138.
 FORMATION OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS
For Marx, this process is an economic one, between those with money and power and those
deprived of it. This economic determinism defines history, struggle and human consciousness. For
him, individual consciousness is something that cannot be divorced from one’s class or social eco-
nomic group. Where a person is in the social economical distinction defines how they see them-
selves, their nature of consciousness of self.13 According to Marx, human beings enter into certain
productive, or economic, relations and these relations lead to a form of social consciousness. Marx
said it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary the social be-
ing that determines their consciousness. 14For example, a person who is born in the lowest of clas-
ses, according to Marx, will experience a consciousness that is closer to those of similar class dis-
tinction to them, as opposed to someone of a different, presumably higher, class. It is not an individ-
ualised and isolated consciousness of men that determines their existence and sense of self, but a
social existence based on socio-economic reality that defines their consciousness or sense of self.15
SURPLUS VALUE
Is a transition of the German word “Mehrwert”, which simply means value added, more
worth. According to Marx’s theory surplus values is equal to the new value crated by workers in
excess of their own labor-labor-costs, which is appropriated by the capitalist as profit when prod-
ucts are sold. Surplus value concept that professed to explain the instability go the capitalist sys-
tem.16Karl Marx held that human labour was the source of economic value. The capitalist pays his
workers less than the value their labour has added to the goods, usually only enough to maintain the
worker at a subsistence level. Of total worth of the worker’s labour, however, this compensation, in
Marxian theory accounts for only a mere portion, equivalent to the worker’s mans of subsistence.
17
The remainder is “surplus labour” and the value it produces is “surplus value”. To make a profit,
Marx argued, the capitalist appropriates this surplus value, thereby exploiting the labourer. Surplus
value is a central concept in Marx’s critique of political economy. Marx himself considered his the-
ory of surplus value his most important contribution to the progress of economic analysis.18
ALIENATION
Alienation is a theoretical concept developed by Karl Marx that describes the isolating, de
humanising, and disenchanting effects of working within a capitalist system of production. Its cause

13
Erich Fromm, Marx’s Concept of Man (New York: Ungar Publishing, 1961), 1
14
H.R. Mukhi, 185.
15
Kenneth Thompson, 46.
16
Dr. Hans Raj, General Sociology (Delhi: SBD Publishers Distributors, 1999), 105.
17
Dr. Hans Raj, General Sociology, 106
18
R.N. Sharma, Contemporary Sociological Theories, 140.
is the economic system itself. His theory of alienation was central to his critique of industrial capi-
talism and the class-stratified social system that both resulted from it and supported it.19 The the-
ory of alienation argues that workers are disenchanted with their work because it is controlled and
supervised by hierarchies of managers and supervisors. The individual creativity and freedom has
been stifled in the name of efficiency and effectiveness. Marx argued that alienation was a natural
consequence of capitalism because of several reasons. This is because the workers are manipulated
by the forces of capitalism in order to increase productivity and output.20 The results are that the
workers will ultimately lose hope and determination. The theoretical basis of alienation within the
capitalist mode of production is that the worker invariably loses the ability to determine life and
destiny when deprived of the right to think of themselves as the director of their own actions; to de-
termine the character of said actions; to define relationship with other people; and to own those
items of value from goods and services, produced by their labour.21
CRITICISM OF MARX THEORY
Classic Marxist theory has been criticised for being economically deterministic. Marx ar-
gues that ‘economic laws’ determined not only the shape of society but also the direction of history
itself. On reflection, however, it is clearly the case that other factors shape history too. Different so-
cieties have responded differently to the global spread of Capitalism. The relationship of infrastruc-
ture in Marxist analysis of society is ambiguous. The forces determine class conflict are not neces-
sarily economic.22 In the present Russian society, for example, political power is the most vital
source of conflict among leaders. Again, Marxist analysis of capitalist society in the two sections.,
the Bourgeoisie and the proletariat is not seen everywhere. Marxist theory of social classes is ami-
gos and debatable. His analysis of he rise of social classes may be applicable to western societies
but not to Asia societies as the Indian society.23 In addition, if the value of surplus value of surplus
labour is the only basis of profit, there is no way to eliminate exploitation and profit accumulation.
In fact, most socialist countries have a higher percentage of accumulation than do capitalist coun-
ties.24
EVALUATION
Marx believed that our society was in a state of continual conflict between the working class
and upper class. The analysis of class divisions and struggles are especially important in developing
an understanding of he nature of social structure. If find that Marx’s standpoints recognised the sig-

19
Karl Marx, Early Writings (New York: McGraw Hill, 1964), 124.
20
Dr. Hans Raj, General Sociology, 109.
21
Karl Marx, 140.
22
Kenneth Thompson, Sociological Perspective, 150.
23
H.R. Mukhi, Political Thought, 182.
24
ibid., 183.
nificance of conflict between social groupings and successfully distinguished social classes stratifi-
cation rooted from different ownerships of the means of production under capitalism. His contribu-
tion to social class therefore provided a good start and gave a general guide to contemporary sociol-
ogists. It is useful to look at Marx’s analysis of class and class structure as representing as a sort of
a skeletal structure, and that he makes a very good case that we should see capitalist society as in-
herently. The whole idea of Karl Marx is that one day society will be a classless society, the ques-
tion arises that, will we ever come to a point of stage where this will really happen? If we ever come
to a point where classless society is possible, will it not be like the beginning of the society, like the
tribals, where it was classless at first. Therefore, everyone will share their common goods again,
now sense of ownership, then it seems to be just like a cycle, a circular rotation. In every society
there will always be conflicts, wether for good or bad, it is like a coin with two sides. It results to
struggles and conflicts, on the other hand, it brings development. In the end the we live in a diverse
world and within that diverse world it is impossible to have no class. The greater question can be
wether we can live in unity despite the diversity, despite the class difference, if we can all work to-
gether in harmony. Instead of dreaming of a classless society.