Historical Materialism: Marx’s Analysis of Class Struggle
**The Materialist Conception of History in Marx**
Critique of Hegel’s Idealism
The idealist conception of history, as presented by Hegel, held a dominant position in Germany during the early nineteenth century. Although it faced criticism from his followers, known as the “Young Left Hegelians” (including Bruno Bauer, Max Stirner, and Ludwig Feuerbach), they still shared with their teacher an emphasis on abstract ideas. Marx and Engels, in The German Ideology, criticized this neglect of “material” (economic) factors that influence or determine social and political relations.
Marxism as Historical Materialism
Marxism, understood as historical materialism, is not merely a psychological doctrine, an ethical or moral system, or even a sociological theory. It transcends generic psychological-historical processes (such as the “greed” of the exploiters or the “suffering” of the exploited). Above all, it is an analysis of the space (separation) that constitutes the “traffic” of humans with Nature (radial axis) and humans with each other (circular axis). In particular, it examines commercial traffic and the gaps between individuals and groups. This analysis follows objective paths “beyond their will” and investigates how laws historically channeled gender in the form of a class struggle. This struggle is defined by the relationship of individuals to the ownership of the means of production.
Class Struggle as the Engine of History
The class struggle is the engine of history. Through it, the dialectical “contradictions” between the productive forces (labor force, production facilities, territory, techniques, machinery, etc.) and the relations of production (between groups) gain significance. These economic factors form the basis of a specific structural-Production Mode. This mode determines other components or superstructure elements, such as state institutions. These institutions are often sustained by a particular ideology, religious beliefs, and other elements tied to a specific group against others, “justifying” such institutions.
Historical Development According to Marx
According to Marx, historical development depends more on the change in modes of production (caused by the struggle of classes) than on “heroic” events or the succession of dynasties. This perspective assumes that Mankind was originally a homogeneous unit (not a plurality of scattered bands of hominids, as we know today). This original mankind lived in a Mode of Production called “primitive communism,” in which divisions had not yet developed. This era was characterized by cooperative and communal relations of production (without a “division of labor,” private ownership of the means of production, or “alienation” of any party).
The Loss of “Primitive Communism”
This “communism” was lost with the ancient mode of production (alien to Western Asia). In this mode, humanity became divided (alienated) between those who “own the means of production” (the operators) and the “owners,” who became “private property” (slaves) of the dominating masters (endorsed by the legal superstructure).
The Feudal Mode of Production
The feudal mode of production was similar in many respects to the ancient mode. While serfs were not the private property of the lords, they were bound to them, obligated to provide taxes (surplus). This arrangement tied them to the land for life in exchange for protection.
The Capitalist Mode of Production
With the capitalist mode of production, following the discovery of America and the development of new productive forces, serfs became legally free (achieving formal political equality) after revolutionary processes (such as the French Revolution). They transformed into proletarians but remained “alienated” because they did not fully own their labor. Their work was controlled by the owners of the means of production, who purchased the proletarian labor force. This is fundamental to Marx’s idea of surplus value, which David Ricardo did not fully address in his Theory of Value. According to Marx, the value of goods depends primarily on the socially necessary labor time used in their production. The capitalist hires the worker’s labor force in exchange for a salary. However, the capitalist sells their products at a price that (net of other costs) hides a surplus in unpaid wages. This surplus is obtained from the worker’s surplus labor and contributes to the accumulation of more capital for the entrepreneur. The worker is treated contractually (for their labor) like a commodity, which Marx considers “alienating.”
The Communist Mode of Production
With the development of productive forces (machinery and the proletariat) and the global capitalist exchange system, the birth of the Communist mode of production would occur. Through the triumph of the proletarian class, this mode would recover the unity of humanity (the economic class of private owners of the means of production would disappear). It would abolish exploitation and the state, establishing new relations of production based on “free association.” This would end alienation and mark the true beginning of the history of humanity, the realization of all individuals (previous phases being considered Prehistory by Marx). However, while Marx believed that capitalism would inevitably lead to Communism, he also thought that the proletariat needed to become consciously revolutionary and appropriate the state to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Conception of Humanity, Knowledge, and Ideology
Attached to this conception of historical development (historical materialism) is a conception of humanity (the problem of humanity). This conception recognizes the “division” of humanity into antagonistic classes that “alienate” their nature. Only with the revolutionary victory of the proletariat can humanity recover its integrity (in fact, the true history of humanity only begins with this “liberation”). It also contains, linked to the above, a materialist conception of knowledge and practice (praxis). This conception assumes the transformative role of humans in relation to reality through work (true knowledge is not purely “representative” but involves the operations used by humans to transform reality, going beyond idealism). In this regard, Marx denounces the role attributed to ideologies “dominant” in this alienation. He expresses this, for instance, through his critique of religions, which he considers the “opium” of the people (in both the subjective and objective genitive sense: a deception and a “drug” used by the operators to keep the proletariat dominated or used by the proletariat to endure their position – “false consciousness” -). The universal proletariat must break such barriers (through the Dictatorship of the Proletariat), destroying the relations of production and the ideological weapons used by the operators to justify their position legally (through the state). This would lead to the introduction of universal communism.