The Philosophy of Marxism

Materialist Understanding of History

In his "Theses on Feuerbach" (1845) and the collaboratively penned works with Engels, "The Holy Family" (1845) and "The German Ideology" (1845-1846), Marx departs from the abstract Enlightenment approach to humanity and society. In the "Theses on Feuerbach," he articulates key principles that signify his shift to a materialist perspective on social life. Firstly, Marx asserts that “social life is, in essence, practical,” and thus the analysis of societal functioning and development must commence with the examination of real human existence rather than abstract consciousness, seeing it as the ultimate cause of social phenomena.

Secondly, Marx rejects the notion of humanity as a species being with an immutable essence. He states, “...the essence of man is not an abstract, inherent quality of an individual. In reality, it is the sum of all social relations.” Therefore, understanding humanity necessitates consideration of the conditions in which individuals exist; one cannot contemplate human essence in isolation from the society of which they are a part. This reframes the problem of alienation. While in the "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844," Marx posits that the labor process engenders private property and, consequently, human alienation, he now connects the process of alienation with specific historical forms of labor.

In his subsequent writings, Marx develops these ideas into a coherent materialist concept of the historical process. Society can be envisioned as a system, a unity of relatively independent and interdependent spheres of social life, four of which are primary: spiritual, political, social, and economic.

Prior to Marxism, philosophy was dominated by an idealist approach to society. Philosophers identified the foundation and driving force of social development in the evolution and transformation of ideas and spiritual life, believing that the ultimate cause of societal change in the political, social, and economic realms must be sought in the changes of spiritual life. As Engels notes, philosophers began with the empirical fact that humans are conscious beings who act only when they comprehend the purpose of their actions; hence, to alter humanity and the society that arises from human activity, one must first change human consciousness and the ideas guiding their actions.

Marx’s contribution, according to Engels, lies in his rephrasing of the question: “Why do certain ideas dominate society, serving as the driving force behind human activity?” When posed this way, it becomes evident that the dominance of ideas influencing consciousness—and thus actions—stems from the interests of the people. Among these interests, economic factors exert a decisive influence on the activities of large masses. Thus, Marx concludes that it is not human consciousness that shapes existence; rather, social existence defines social consciousness, and the ultimate cause of societal transformations must be sought in the economic sphere of social life and in the mode of production.

The mode of production of material life determines the social, political, and spiritual processes of societal existence, shaping the specific type and form of society and the socio-economic formation. Marx introduces the concept of socio-economic formation to characterize the specific type of society across its various manifestations. He posits that the history of society is governed by the same objective laws as the history of nature, and the fact that conscious human beings are active agents does not negate this assertion. The history of humanity reflects the emergence, development, and demise of socio-economic formations, from primitive communal systems to capitalist society, within which the preconditions for a new communist formation are maturing.

The fundamental sociological law governing the emergence and development of a formation, as well as its transition to another formation, is the law of correspondence between the relations of production and the character and level of development of the productive forces. The mode of production comprises two aspects or components: productive forces and relations of production.

Productive forces reflect the degree of human influence over nature and the extent of dominance over it. People sustain themselves through nature, transforming it via their activity into the inorganic body of society, creating use-values. The elements of productive forces are primarily people themselves—the main productive force of society, generating all its wealth—alongside the objects of labor to the extent that they have absorbed human labor. In a broad sense, the objects of labor encompass all of nature, including fertile land, mineral resources, and energy sources, becoming significant indicators of the development of productive forces when integrated into human productive activity rather than merely existing as natural phenomena.

A crucial indicator of the development of productive forces is the tools of labor. Humans employ these tools to mediate their interaction with the objects of labor; the development of tools decisively determines the extent of human influence over nature, productivity of labor, which, according to Marx, serves as the principal measure of societal development. Elements of productive forces also include means of labor: production facilities, railways, and transportation in general—all aspects we identify today as the material infrastructure of production. Together, tools of labor, means of labor, and objects of labor constitute the means of production—accumulated, objectified labor that, alongside living human labor, forms the productive forces of society.

However, when characterizing productive forces today, it is essential to mention another element—science. By the mid-20th century, science became a direct productive force of society. This transformation resulted from the scientific and technological revolution, wherein science became inextricably linked with production techniques and technology. Modern production embodies materialized, objectified science. One might ask, what relevance does this have for Marxist philosophy? The answer is direct: Marx was the first philosopher to fully recognize the role and significance of science and technology in societal life and their impact on human ways of living.

Relations of production represent the other side of the mode of production, its alternative element. Production is inherently social. According to Marx, people “cannot produce without coming together in a known manner for joint activity and mutual exchange of their labor.” Structurally, relations of production are complex, encompassing exchange relations, distribution and consumption relations, and most importantly, property relations. Property relations dictate the type and form of production relations. Ownership of the means of production can be either private or collective, and the nature of production relations may reflect private ownership or communal ownership.

The relationships associated with private property have historically manifested in three forms: the slave-owning, the feudal, and the capitalist. Each of these forms of private ownership presents distinct production relations, primarily differing in the status of the worker within the material production system. In the slave-owning system, the slave owner wields unlimited ownership, not only of the means of production but also of living tools of labor—slaves themselves, who are perceived as speaking instruments of labor. Under feudalism, the feudal lord possesses land and the serfs tied to it, yet he lacks absolute authority over them. In capitalism, the bourgeois and the proletarian are ostensibly equal in rights; however, as the worker is free from ownership concentrated in the hands of the capitalist, he is compelled to sell himself as labor power to the latter, ensuring his own and his family's survival.

Social ownership of the means of production exists in the form of primitive communal ownership and communist ownership. In the former case, the communal form of ownership and the cooperative relations stemming from it are dictated by a low level of productive forces and, essentially, the absence of division of labor. In contrast, communist ownership arises from a high level of productive forces and a well-defined division of labor.

The interplay between productive forces and production relations shapes the existence and development of society. According to Marx, this interaction unfolds under the overarching dialectical principle of the interplay between content and form, where the content comprises productive forces, while the form pertains to the mode of production—production relations. Here, the specific type and form of the latter are determined not by the consciousness and will of individuals or their desires, but rather by the level of development of productive forces. In the preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," Marx articulates this interaction and its significance in society: “In the social production of their existence, people enter into certain necessary relations that are independent of their will—production relations that correspond to a specific level of development of their material productive forces. The sum of these production relations constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation upon which arises the legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond certain forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life determines the social, political, and spiritual processes of life in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness.” As the material productive forces of society reach a certain level of development, they come into conflict with existing production relations, or, merely legally expressed, with property relations, within which they had previously evolved. These relations transform from being forms of development of productive forces into their shackles, heralding the era of social revolution. With the alteration of the economic foundation, a transformation swiftly occurs across the entire vast superstructure.

However, the contradictions between productive forces and production relations do not resolve themselves automatically through social revolution; they unfold through class struggle. The social revolution is the highest form of class struggle. Marxism posits that the entirety of modern history is the history of class struggle, which serves as the principal driving force of social development both within formations themselves and, particularly, during transitions from one formation to another.

According to the founders of the materialist conception of history, classes arise as a consequence of the division of labor and the refinement of tools, leading to the emergence of private ownership. "The division of labor and private property," wrote Marx and Engels in "The German Ideology," "are identical expressions: in one case, the reference is to activity, while in the other, it concerns the product of that activity." Thus, Marx and Engels approach the issue of alienation from a renewed perspective. Private property now represents not merely a byproduct of labor in general, as might be inferred from the "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844," but rather as a product of labor under specific conditions, particularly those characterized by a division of labor at a relatively low level of development of productive forces, where the surplus product is modest. Only by concentrating this surplus in the hands of a select few as ownership of the means of production can they secure a comfortable existence, liberating themselves from material productive activity to engage in science, art, politics, and more. Consequently, classes emerge as the historical form of social structure. Their struggle, since inception, constitutes the core of societal development, driven primarily by economic interests and the quest for economic emancipation, although it may adopt various ideological forms.

Yet, within the frameworks of slave-owning and feudal systems, the liberation of oppressed classes and the overcoming of alienation cannot be realized due to the low level of economic development and the political and ideological overlays that obscure the genuine relationships among people. Only capitalism creates the economic preconditions necessary for dismantling private property relations, developing productive forces to a level where social production can adequately meet the essential (rational) needs of all individuals. The sole impediment to this is the very relations of private ownership; thus, their abolition becomes an urgent historical necessity, paving the way for the boundless development of productive forces and the fulfillment of human needs. The elimination of private ownership facilitates the dissolution of rigid divisions of labor, fostering the development of individuals’ diverse abilities and, thereby, overcoming alienation. For this reason, the founders of Marxism assert that communism represents not a utopian ideal but the inevitable outcome of the real historical development of society in general, and of the capitalist formation in particular. The establishment of communism signifies the conclusion of the prehistory of human society and the commencement of its genuine history, opening vast horizons for the development of human abilities and comprehensive self-improvement.