How Did Karl Marx Explain Change in Human Society - Essay Example

MARX PERSPECTIVE OF SOCIAL CHANGE Karl Marx is one of the greatest social thinkers and philosophers, who has influenced the future generations through his remarkable works and magnificent theoretical structure on class conflict. “Marxism has brought into existence in many of the socialist countries, whether fortunately or not, conditions of political oppressions and cultural impoverishments which represent in the eyes of many observers, a notable decline from a level of civilisation previously attained.” (Bottomore, 1975: p 38) The concept Marxism has been derived after the theories of Marx and Frederick Engels, where both the socialist thinkers consider class struggle as an inevitable social phenomenon in order to erase inequalities from human societies that are the outcome of Capitalistic economic system, which has widened the gulf between the haves and haves-not. Marx’s wonderful publication “The Communist Manifesto” is the most celebrated pamphlet in the history of the Socialist Movement that aims to define causes and consequences of social change in societies. Several social theories that emphasise social conflict, according to Ryanzanskaya, (1971) have roots in the ideas of Karl Marx. There is nothing permanent except change; it is an essential law of nature, not an exception or uneven thing. The same is the case with social and cultural changes. Since Marx has himself witnessed industrialisation process and its effects on life of divergent social classes of Europe, he predicts inevitable social changes in its aftermath. He declares means of production as the fundamental reason of social change. Modes of production and division of labour create gulf between classes, leading towards social conflict. Further, Marx did not know that the concept of ownership of the means of production might suspend in the joint stock company. It has not only ended the concept of confrontation between the classes, but also gave the individuals from different social classes the right of ownership. Many times, Marx is found to insist how the class defines itself, or is a class only as it acts in opposition to other classes. “Stating the emergence of the bourgeoisie as a class in early capitalist Europe, Marx notes how the separate individuals form a class only insofar as they have to carry on a common battle against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms with each other as competitors.” (Giddens and Held, 1982: p 20) The most critical element among the methods of Marxist Perspective is to find classes prevailing in societies all over the world, and study the techniques through which classes bring change in their prevailing environment. “Unlike other sociological systems that treat society as an autonomous subject and take its existence in the natural world as something given, Marx’s theory is based firmly upon the idea of a relationship between society and nature. Its fundamental concept is ‘human labour’, viewed in a historical perspective; it is the developing interchange between man and nature, which at the same time creates, and progressively transforms, social relationships among men.” (Bottomore, 1973: 38-39) Looking into the world history, it becomes evident that human societies have always been socially stratified from the most primitive Palaeolithic and Neolithic Ages to the most modern technological era. “The division of society into classes or strata, which are ranged in a hierarchy of wealth, prestige and power, is a prominent and almost universal feature of social structure.” (Bottomore, 1965: p 1) This social stratification is based on class, community, race, religion, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. “According to historical and archaeological records, stratification was present even in the small wandering bands that characterized society in the earliest days of man.” (Tumin, 1978: p 16) But the class difference observed its growth during the initial years of industrialisation that brought significant changes in social structure, widening the gulf between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat classes. Marx estimates the future exploitation of the labour classes by the upper class, where the labour classes seem to be protesting against the scarcity of resources and deprivation. Marxism lays stress upon economic instabilities and inequalities as the most significant factor in bringing social change. “Marx has been successful in considering the development of the economic structure of society as a ‘natural historical process’ whilst also considering the realms of personal interest and relations embodied within capitalist production. However Marx opens himself up to criticism with his failure to maintain a grounded frame of understanding upon which to build his thesis.” (Bottomore, 1956: p 18). Marxist conflict theory does not declare capitalism the only reason of class conflict. Rather, it is inherent in every differential society. Capitalism, according to the Marxist perspective, only provides potential to this class conflict. “Marx notes that unequal access need not at all times and under all conditions lead to active class struggle. But he considered it axiomatic that the potential for class conflict is inherent in every differentiated society, since such a society systematically generates conflicts of interest between persons and groups differentially located within the social structure, and, more particularly, in relation to the means of production.” (Coser, 1977) Marx always lays stress upon availability of equal opportunities of growth, work and leisure consumption to bring positive change on the foundations of social justice and equality. “The individual with abundant leisure would have the opportunity to devote himself to more than one activity, to express himself to diverse fields of endeavour, both physical and intellectual; and as an economic producer he would find more occasion to develop all round abilities by participating in the work of management and by learning something of the science and technology upon which the operations of industry are based.” (Bottomore, 1964: p 143) Marx considers capitalism a serious threat to the interests of the labour classes or proletariat, and beneficial only for the upper class or bourgeois. He proposes a model of history in which economic and political conditions determine social conditions. Marx and Engels were to counter the social hardships stemming from the rise of capitalism. Appropriately, their theories are formulated specifically to analyze how society functions in a state of upheaval and constant change. He is yet not afraid of the existence of the clash of interests between the classes. Instead, he welcomes change taking place in some specific society. Social change is the rule, not revolution in his point of view. It is the way of development that is to be faced, not a thing to be avoided. Conflict is, Marx insists, the major source of change in social systems. The existence of conflict in each and every society is inevitable and every group finds its challenger class since its own birth and creation. Lockwood insists on the “presence of some mechanism in all societies resulting in inexorable conflict among its individuals.” (1956: p 134) The mechanism of such kind serves as natural check and is responsible for the survival and solidarity of societies and cultures. “The distinction was laid out in the conscious behavioural differences between humans and animals; humans having the capacity to produce for others in their recognition as a member of a species, whilst animals remain confined to the object of there own existence” (Bottomore; 1956: p 23). Marx has linked the social stratification to the means of production. “The major modern classes are”, according to him, “the owners merely of labour-power, owners of capital, and landowners, whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground-rent.” Different individuals make up the production of an organization, but the major profit goes to the upper class or bourgeoisie only, which works far less than the labour classes. The deprivation of rights arise the sentiments of revenge in labour class and conflict arises in society. Marxism perspective shows that Karl Marx lists a number of classes and (antagonistic) social relationship such as freeman and slave, lord and serf, oppressor and oppressed in describing different classes in a society that characterize different historical stages or modes of production. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bottomore, Thomas B. (1961) Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Society and Social Philosophy. Second Edition Middlesex Penguin Books pp 1-29 Bottomore, Thomas B. (1965) Classes in Modern Society: George Allen & Unwin Limited, London p 1-2. Bottomore, Thomas B. & Rubel, M eds.1956 Marx Selected Writings in Sociology and Philosophy (Watts) http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/ss/MARXAZ.HTM Coser, Lewis Alferd. (1977): “Masters of Sociological Thought: Dahrendorf, Ralf. (1957): Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. University Press. Giddens, Anthony and David Held. (1982) Classes, Power, and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates (Berkeley, University of California Press,. HT675 C55 Marx, Karl. (1971). Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Tr. S. W. Ryanzanskaya, edited by M. Dobb. London: Lawrence & Whishart. Ritzer, George and Douglas J Goodman. (2003): Classical Sociological Theory. 4th Edition. Skocpol, Theda. (1980). States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tumin, Melvin M. (1978). Social Stratification: The forms and functions of inequality. Prentice Hall p 16 Turner, Jonathan H. (1978). The Structure of Sociological Theory. The Dorsey Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel M. (1974). The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press. http://www.6sociologists.20m.com/marx.html Read More