KARL MARX THEORIES OF DIALECTICS, HISTORICAL MATERIALISM,

CLASS WAR & SURPLUS VALUE

INTRODUCTON
In the entire history of political thought, both in influence and in criticism, few political theorists can
match Karl Heinrich Marx. Reflecting on the contemporary world from the background of Victoria
options in England, Marx was confident of human liberation by transcending the realm of necessity to
a real of freedom. Along with Friedrich Engels (1820- 95), with whom he shared an unparalleled
partnership, Marx dissected 19th Century capitalism as 'scientific socialism' mainly to distance
themselves from the early socialism of Owen, ' Fourier and Saint-Simon whom they dubbed as
'utopian socialists'.
Like Hegel, for Marx, the study of history was of crucial significance. Rejecting Hegelian dialectical
idealism, Marx offered dialectical materialism emphasising that the primacy of the mode of
production of the material means of life essentially conditions the overall existence of human beings
as manifested in human relationships. Understanding reality in terms of base that included mode and
relationships of production and the superstructure that included political, cultural and intellectual
dimensions, Marx observed that individual consciousness was determined by societal process.
Emphasising all history as the history of class 'struggle, Marx's stages of social evolution had five
different stages: (i) primitive communist, (ii) slavery, (iii) feudalism, (iv) capitalism and (v)
communism. Marx's major concentration- was on analysing contemporary capitalist as in the first
three he had little interest and desisted from making a blueprint for the future communist society
except providing a sketchy outline. He analysed capitalism dialectically praising its role in
revolutionist the means of production while condemning it for its inequities, wastage and exploitation.
However he was mistakenly confident that the days of capitalism would be over soon. Many
commentators believe that the best way to understand ' Marx is to see him as a critic of 19th Century
capitalism.
DIALECTICS
Marx borrowed his dialectical method from Hegel but modified it in a fundamental way. While Hegel
had applied his dialectical method in the domain of ideas, Marx applied the Dialectics to explain the
material conditions of life. In the process of doing so Ile denounced the Hegelian philosophy of
dialectical idealism, on the one hand, and the theory of mechanistic materialism, on the other. Hence,
the Marxian theory of society and history may be called Dialectical Materialism. (In fact, Engels in
his Anti-Durhing applied the dialectics even to physical nature. This has become a subject of intense
debate among post-Marx Marxists). Marxian dialectical material ism, developed by Engels has three
dimensions:
1. The law of transformation of quantity into quality. It means that quantitative changes lead to
qualitative revolutionary situation.
 2. The law of unity of opposes (contradiction), and
3. The law of negation of negation (thesis-antithesis and synthesis).
Marx 11olds that the material and the ideal are not only different but opposite and constitute a unity in
which the material is primary and the mind (idea) secondary. This is so because matter can exist
without mind but mind cannot exist without matter because historically it (mind) has developed out of
matter: In this way Marx completely inverted the Hegelian position. You would recall that for Hegel
mind was primary and matter secondary. Marx pointed out that with Hegel "dialectics is standing on
its head. It must be turned right side up." This he did by making matter primary and mind secondary.
THEORY OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
The most seminal contribution of Marx is his theory of historical materialism. In his Socialism:
Utopian and Scientific Engels defined historical materialism as a theory which holds that the ultimate
cause which determines the whole course of human history is the economic development of society.
The whole course of human history is exploited in terms of changes occurring in the modes of
production and exchange. Starting with primitive communism the mode of production has passed
through three stages: slavery, feudalism and capitalism and tile consequent division of society into
distinct slaves (slave-master, serf-baron and proletariat-capitalist) and the struggle of these classes
against one another. The most profound statement of Marx which explains his theory of historical
materialism is contained in his Preface or a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. In this
work Marx contends that:
The economic structure of society, constituted by its relations of production is the real foundation of
society. It is the basis on which rises a legal and political super-structure and to which correspond
definite forms of social consciousness. Along with it, the society's revolutions of production
themselves correspond to a definite stage of development of its material productive forces. Thus, the
mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in
general.
The general relations as well as forms of state are to be grasped neither from themselves nor from the
so-called general development of human kind, but rather they have their roots in the material
conditions of life. As the society's productive forces develop (animate energy getting replaced by
inanimate energy-for example oxen ploughing getting replaced by ploughing with tractor) they class
with the existing relations of production which become a fetter on their further growth. Thus, begins
the epocli of social revolution. This contradiction between forces of production and relations of
production divides the society into classes. As people become conscious of this conflict they fight it
out. The conflict is resolved in favour of the productive forces and new, higher relations of
production, whose material conditions have matured in the womb of the old society emerge. The
bourgeois mode of production not only represents the most recent of several progressive epochs, but it
is the last antagonistic form of production.
Marx's materialist interpretation of history thus explains the general course of human history in terms
of growth of productive forces. The productive forces, as already pointed out, consist of means of
production (tetchiness, tools and factories) .and labour power. The relations of production correspond
to society's productive level. In addition to ancient, feudal and bourgeois modes of production Marx
also talked of the Asiatic mode of production. On the one hand, Marx distinguished between forces of
production and relations of production on the other lie distinguished between the base and the super-
structure. For Marx, the productive forces are not objective economic forces which do not require the
mediation of human consciousness for their emergence or existence, Likewise, the distinction
between the material base and the ideological super-structure is not the distribution between matter
and spirit but between conscious human activity aimed at the creation and preservation of conditions
of human life, and human consciousness which provide rationalisation and legitimisation of specific
form that human activity takes.
Like his dialectics, Marx constructed his materialist conception of history out of the Hegelian system
itself which had sought to bridge tile gap between the rational and the actual. Marx, in fact, borrowed
such concepts as civil society and property from the Hegelian system and set them in a revolutionary
relationship to the concept of the state. Hegel confronts civil society as a sphere of materialism and
counter-poses it to the state as sphere of idealism. In sharp contrast to this, Marx holds that relations
as well as forms of state are to be grasped neither from themselves, nor from the so-called general
development of human mind but rather they have their roots in the material conditions of life. You
must also understand the way in which Marx differentiates between his materialist conception of
history and Hegelian idealist conception of history. To Hegel, it is the life process of the human mind,
i.e., the process of thinking which under the name of the idea gives momentum to history. Thus, for
Hegel, the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of the idea, while for Marx the ideal is
nothing else than the material world reflected by human mind and translated into forms of thought. To
put it differently, while the Hegelian scheme consciousness determines existence; in the Marxian
scheme it is the solid being (conditions of existence) that determine their consciousness. Thus, the
relationship between economic and the political in Marx is such that the political structure reflects the
socio-economic conditions. It is the economic fact of life, which produce or determine the nature of
ideas. Thus, Marx reduced all thought and action to the material conditions of life. Consciousness is
nothing but the reflection of material conditions of men's existence. However, this relationship
between material conditions and ideas is not necessarily direct and automatic. It is rather complex.
Marx expressed his position in a very technical language. He argued that the doctrine that men are
products of circumstances and up-bringing and that, therefore, changed men are products of other
circumstances and changed up-bringing forgets that it is men that change circumstances and that
educator himself needs education.
The above statement of Marx will help you to understand that in Marx epistemology ceases to be
merely a reflective theory of cognition but becomes a vehicle for shaping and moulding reality. Thus,
Marx's epistemology occupies a middle position between classical (mechanical) materialism and
classical idealism. Since, it synthesises the two traditions, it transcends the classical dichotomy
between subject and object. In short, Marx denies the validity of traditional mechanistic materialist
modes of consciousness. To Marx, reality is always human reality, not in the sense that man shapes
nature because this act of shaping nature & also shapes man and his relation to other human beings. It
is a total process, implying a constant interaction between subject and object "My relationship to my
surroundings is my consciousness".
In a subtle sense, the Marxian philosophy of historical materialism is different not only from Hegelian
philosophy; it is also different from that of Feuerbach. While Feuerbach saw the unity of man and
nature expressed by man's being a part of nature, Marx sees man as shaping nature and his being, in
turn, shaped by it. To put it in simple words, whereas Feuerbach naturalises man, Marx humanises
nature. Marx argued that man not only satisfies his needs through his contact with nature but also
creates new needs as well as possibilities of their satisfaction. Thus, according to Marx, man’s needs
are historical not naturalistic. -The never-ending dialectical pursuit of their creation and satisfaction
constitutes the main course historical development. Here again, the Marxist position is different from
pragmatists. While pragmatism starts with the premise that man adopts himself to a given pre-existing
environment, Marx views man not adopting himself to the environment but shaping his world. To put
it differently, reality is viewed by classical materialism and pragmatism as if it were merely a passive
object perception; while, for Marx, reality is not only shaped by man but it also reacts on man himself
and shapes him. Thus, it is a two-way interaction: man shaping nature and getting shaped by nature.
THEORY OF CLASS WAR
The understanding of the concept of "class" is central to the understanding of Marxian philosophy.
The sole criterion on the basis of which the class of a person is determined is his ownership (or
control) of means of production (land, capital, machines & technology). Those who own ' or control
the means of production constitute the bourgeoisie (exploiters), and. those who own only labour
power constitute the proletariat (exploited). Thus, classes are defined by Marx on the basis of twin
criteria of a person's place in the mode of production and his consequent position in terms of relations
of production. The lack of ownership (or control) of means of production and lack of property and the
immediate need to get work i.e. the class of concrete labour are some of the characteristic features of
the proletariat class. Since class is based on ownership (or control) of means of production and
ownership of property; the disappearance of class difference depends on the disappearance of property
as the determining factor of status.
In Communist Manifesto Marx- Engels said: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history
of class struggles". They argued that class conflict is the real driving force of human history. In the
capitalist societies class differentiation is most clear, class consciousness is more developed and class
conflict is most acute. Thus, capitalism is the culminating point in the historical evolution of classes
and class conflict. The distinctive feature of bourgeois epoch is that society as a whole is more and
more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other-
bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Marx also made a distinction between the objective fact of existence of a class and its subjective
awareness about its being a class-class consciousness. Division of labour is the main source of
historical emergence of classes and class antagonisms. Each new class which puts itself in place of the
one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aims, to represent its interest as
the common interest of all the members of society. The class making i - a revolution appears from the
very beginning not as a class but as the representative' of the whole society.
Through a detailed historical analysis Marx showed that no major antagonism disappears unless there
emerges a new antagonism. Thus, general antagonism between the rich and the poor has always bee11
there but in capitalism it has bee11 sharply polarised into antagonism between the capitalist and the
proletariat. Thus, in capitalism the emergence of proletariat has a special significance. It is not just a
historical phenomenon because its suffering, its exploitation and its dehumanisation is a paradigm' for
the human condition at large. This is so because in proletariat class Marx sees the contemporary and
the filial realisation of universality. He endows this class with a historical significance and mission. It
can redeem itself only by a total redemption of humanity. When the proletariat announces the
dissolution of the existing class- based social order it only declares the secret of its own existence,
because it is the effective dissolution of this order that will lead not only to the emancipation of the
proletariat but to the emancipation of humanity. For such emancipation of humanity it is essential to
abolish the institution of private property. Private property as private property, as wealth is compelled
to maintain itself, and thereby it’s opposite-the proletariat, in existence. The proletariat is compelled
as proletariat to abolish itself and thereby it’s opposite, the condition for its existence, what makes it
proletariat, i.e. private property. Emancipation of society from private property, In Communist
Manifesto Marx- Engels said: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles". They argued that class conflict is the real driving force of human history. In the capitalist
society’s class differentiation is 'most clear, class consciousness is more developed and class conflict
is most acute. Thus, capitalism is the culminating point in the historical evolution of classes and class
conflict. The distinctive feature of bourgeois epoch is that society as a whole is more and more
splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other-bourgeoisie
and proletariat.
Marx also made a distinction between the objective fact of existence of a class and its subjective
awareness about its being a class-class consciousness. Division of labour is the main source of
historical emergence of classes and class antagonisms. Each new class which puts itself in place of the
one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aims, to represent its interest as
the common interest of all the members of society. The class making - a revolution appears from the
very beginning not as a class but as the representative' of the whole society.
Through a detailed historical analysis Marx showed that no major antagonism disappears unless there
emerges a new antagonism. Thus, general antagonism between the rich and the poor has always been
there but in capitalism it has been sharply polarised into antagonism between the capitalist and the
proletariat. Thus, in capitalism the emergence of proletariat has a special significance. It is not just a
historical phenomenon because its suffering, its exploitation and its dehumanisation is a paradigm' for
the human condition at large. This is so because in proletariat class Marx sees the contemporary and
the filial realisation of universality. He endows this class with a historical significance and mission. It
can redeem itself only by a total redemption of humanity. When the proletariat announces the
dissolution of the existing class- based social order it only declares the secret of its own existence,
because it is the effective dissolution of this order that will lead not only to the emancipation of the
proletariat but to the emancipation of humanity. For such emancipation of humanity it is essential to
abolish the institution of private property. Private property as private property, as wealth is compelled
to maintain itself, and thereby it’s opposite-the proletariat, in existence. The proletariat is compelled
as proletariat to abolish itself and thereby it’s opposite, the condition for its existence, what makes it
proletariat, i.e., private property. Emancipation of society from private property, from servitude takes
the political form of emancipation of humanity as a whole. All human servitude is involved in the
relation of the worker to production and all types of servitude are only modification or consequence of
this relation. Hence, the proletariat can abolish all classes and all class antagonisms by abolishing
itself as a separate class. In final analysis Marx visualised the emergence of a classless society. Such
class-less society will also be a stateless society because with the disappearance of classes the very
rationale for the existence of state will disappear. According to him the rationale for the existence of
state is to defend the interest of the bourgeoisie.
THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE
Another key feature of class relations in capitalism, according to Marx, is the expropriation of surplus
value by the bourgeoisie from the labour of the proletariat. The theory of surplus value is discussed by
Marx in great detail in his Capital. The theory of surplus value is rooted in the labour theory of value
propounded by Ricardo and classical economists. The labour theory of value holds that labour spent
by the labourer in the production of a commodity is the sole criterion for determining its value. Of
course, it will also depend on the "use-value" of that commodity. Marx admits that human labour
cannot create value by itself alone. It uses instruments of production which are owned by the
capitalist. The capitalist buys the "labour power" of the labourer and applies it to the raw material to
produce commodities which have an exchange value. The difference between the exchange value of
the commodity and the wages paid to the worker by the capitalist in producing that commodity is
surplus value.
In fact, Marx explains the whole process of exploitation wit11 the help of his theory of surplus value.
It is a distinct feature of capitalist mode of production. To put it in simple words, surplus value occurs
because the commodity produced by the worker is sold by the capitalist for more than what he (the
worker) receives as wages. In his Capital Marx elaborated it in a very technical language. He argued
that the worker produces a commodity which belongs to the capitalist and whose value is realised by
the capitalist in the form of price. The value of the commodity depends on the capital involved in its
production. This capital has two parts- constant capital and variable capital. Constant capital relates to
means of production like raw material, machinery, tools etc. used for commodity production. The
variable capital refers to the wages paid to the worker. It is the value of what the labourer sells (his
labour power). Surplus value is the difference between the value produced by the worker and what he
gets in exchange for this value of his labour,. This is called variable capital' because it varies from
beginning to the end. It begins as value of the labour power and ends as the value produced by that
labour power in the form of a commodity. Labour power has thus a unique quality of its ability to
create value.
Marx argued that the capitalist appropriates part of the labour of the worker for which he (the worker)
does not get paid, thus, surplus value is unpaid labours of the labourer. It call be variously measured
in terms of time as well as in terms of money. Suppose a worker works for ten hours in producing a
commodity. He may get paid for only what is equivalent to his eight hours labour. Thus, his two hours
labour has been appropriated by the capitalist: Marx also argued that gradually the proportion of
surplus value becomes more and more. In the example cited above the worker was not paid for his
two hours labour out of ten hours that he had spent in producing a commodity because he was paid
only for his eight hours labour. By and by, the proportion of unpaid labour will increase from two to
three, four or five hours. Finally, a stage comes when the worker gets paid only the minimum that is
necessary for his survival. (His survival does not mean only his personal survival but also the survival
of his family so that when this worker is not able to work (due to old age or death or illness) his
children may take his place). As pointed out above, the working class consists of those who own
nothing but their own labour power which they are forced to sell in order to live. According to Marx,
the history of capitalist production is a history of struggles by the capitalist to increase his surplus
value and resistance by the workers against this increase.
There is a difference in the way in which surplus value was created in the slave society and under
feudalism and the way it is created in the capitalist society. In the former the slave or the serf who
created surplus value was tied to his master or the feudal lord but in capitalism there is a 'free contract'
into which the worker 'voluntarily' enters with the capitalist. Of course, this freedom is a myth
because the worker has no option but to sell his labour power. He must enter into contract with some
capitalist. The only option that he has is to choose the capitalist to whom he wants to sell his labour
power. Thus this freedom is freedom to choose his exploiter. The slave and the serf did not have this
freedom.
CONCLUSION
Karl Marx is known for his radical socialist convictions and anti-state views. He borrowed the
concept of alienation and the dialectical method from Hegel but modified them in a fundamental way.
He attacked Hegel for identifying existence of objects with alienation which makes the objective
world a mere fantasy. Marx even applied Dialectics used by Hegel in the domain of ideas to explain
the material conditions of life. Marx holds that the material and the ideal are not only different but
opposite and constitute a unity in which the material is primary and the mind (idea) secondary. Thus
according to him, the ultimate cause which determines the whole course of human history is the
economic development of society. This was explained by the theory of historical materialism. Classes
are defined by Marx on the basis of twin criteria of a person's place in the mode of production. Class
is based on ownership (or control) of means of production and ownership of property, Surplus value
accrues to the capitalist, because the commodity produced by the worker is sold by the capitalist for
more than what he (the worker) receives as wages and this is the distinct feature of the capitalist mode
of production. The disappearance of class difference and the disappearance of property is the
determining factor of status. In final analysis Marx visualised the emergence of a classless society and
this can be achieved according to him, through revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat. This will
lead to the establishment of a Communist society and this is the final solution to the riddle of history.