KARL MARX

1. Karl Marx and Critical Sociology

Karl Marx (1818–1883) offered one of the most comprehensive theories of the
development of human societies from the earliest hunter-gatherers to the modern
industrial age. For Marx, the underlying structure of societies and of the forces of
historical change was predicated on the idea of “base and superstructure.” In this
model, a society’s economic structure forms its base, on which the culture and social
institutions rest, forming its superstructure. For Marx, it is the base—the
economic mode of production—that determines what a society’s culture, law, political
system, family form, and, most importantly, its typical form of struggle or conflict
will be like. Each type of society—hunter-gatherer, pastoral, agrarian, feudal,
capitalist—could be characterized as the total way of life that forms around different
economic bases.

Marx saw economic conflict in society as the primary means of change. The base of
each type of society in history—its economic mode of production—had its own
characteristic form of economic struggle. This was because a mode of production was
essentially two things: the means of production of a society—anything that is used in
production to satisfy needs and maintain existence (e.g., land, animals, tools,
machinery, factories, etc.)—and the relations of production of a society—the division
of society into economic classes (the social roles allotted to individuals in production).
Marx observed historically that in each epoch or type of society, only one class of
persons has owned or monopolized the means of production. Different epochs are
characterized by different forms of ownership and different class structures: hunter-
gatherer (classless/common ownership), agricultural (citizens/slaves), feudal
(lords/peasants), and capitalism (capitalists/“free” labourers). As a result, the relations
of production have been characterized by relations of domination since the emergence
of private property. Throughout history, classes have had opposed or contradictory
interests. These “class antagonisms,” as he called them, periodically lead to periods of
social revolution in which it becomes possible for one type of society to replace
another.
The most recent revolutionary transformation resulted in the end of feudalism. A new
revolutionary class emerged from among the freemen, small property owners, and
middle-class burghers of the medieval period to challenge and overthrow the privilege
and power of the feudal aristocracy. The members of the bourgeoisie or capitalist
class were revolutionary in the sense that they represented a radical change and
redistribution of power in European society. Their power was based in the private
ownership of industrial property, which they sought to protect through the struggle for
property rights, notably in the English Civil War (1642–1651) and the French
Revolution (1789—1799). The development of capitalism inaugurated a period of
world transformation and incessant change through the destruction of the previous
class structure, the ruthless competition for markets, the introduction of new
technologies, and the globalization of economic activity. As Marx and Engels put it
in The Communist Manifesto:

However, the rise of the bourgeoisie and the development of capitalism also brought
into existence the class of “free” wage labourers, or the proletariat. The proletariat
were made up largely of guild workers and serfs who were freed or expelled from
their indentured labour in feudal guild and agricultural production and migrated to the
emerging cities where industrial production was centred. They were “free” labour in
the sense that they were no longer bound to feudal lords or guildmasters. The new
labour relationship was based on a contract. However, as Marx pointed out, this meant
in effect that workers could sell their labour as a commodity to whomever they
wanted, but if they did not sell their labour they would starve. The capitalist had no
obligations to provide them with security, livelihood, or a place to live as the feudal
lords had done for their serfs. The source of a new class antagonism developed based
on the contradiction of fundamental interests between the bourgeois owners and the
wage labourers: where the owners sought to reduce the wages of labourers as far as
possible to reduce the costs of production and remain competitive, the workers sought
to retain a living wage that could provide for a family and secure living conditions.
The outcome, in Marx and Engel’s words, was 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” (1848).
In the mid-19th century, as industrialization was booming, the conditions of labour
became more and more exploitative. The large manufacturers of steel were
particularly ruthless, and their facilities became popularly dubbed “satanic mills”
based on a poem by William Blake. Marx’s colleague and friend, Frederick Engels,
wrote The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844, which described in
detail the horrid conditions.

Add to that the long hours, the use of child labour, and exposure to extreme conditions
of heat, cold, and toxic chemicals, and it is no wonder that Marx referred to capital as
“dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the
more, the more labour it sucks” (Marx 1867).

For Marx, what we do defines who we are. What it is to be “human” is defined by the
capacity we have as a species to creatively transform the world in which we live in to
meet our needs for survival. Humanity at its core is Homo faber (“Man the Creator”).
In historical terms, in spite of the persistent nature of one class dominating another,
the element of humanity as creator existed. There was at least some connection
between the worker and the product, augmented by the natural conditions of seasons
and the rising and setting of the sun, such as we see in an agricultural society. But
with the bourgeois revolution and the rise of industry and capitalism, workers now
worked for wages alone. The essential elements of creativity and self-affirmation in
the free disposition of their labour was replaced by compulsion. The relationship of
workers to their efforts was no longer of a human nature, but based on purely animal
needs. As Marx put it, the worker “only feels himself freely active in his animal
functions of eating, drinking and procreating, at most also in his dwelling and dress,
and feels himself an animal in his human functions” (1932).
Marx described the economic conditions of production under capitalism in terms of
alienation.Alienation refers to the condition in which the individual is isolated and
divorced from his or her society, work, or the sense of self and common humanity.
Marx defined four specific types of alienation that arose with the development of
wage labour under capitalism.
Alienation from the product of one’s labour. An industrial worker does not have the
opportunity to relate to the product he or she is labouring on. The worker produces
commodities, but at the end of the day the commodities not only belong to the
capitalist, but serve to enrich the capitalist at the worker’s expense. In Marx’s
language, the worker relates to the product of his or her labour “as an alien object that
has power over him [or her]” (1932). Workers do not care if they are making watches
or cars; they care only that their jobs exist. In the same way, workers may not even
know or care what products they are contributing to. A worker on a Ford assembly
line may spend all day installing windows on car doors without ever seeing the rest of
the car. A cannery worker can spend a lifetime cleaning fish without ever knowing
what product they are used for.
Alienation from the process of one’s labour. Workers do not control the conditions of
their jobs because they do not own the means of production. If someone is hired to
work in a fast food restaurant, that person is expected to make the food the way as
taught. All ingredients must be combined in a particular order and in a particular
quantity; there is no room for creativity or change. An employee at Burger King
cannot decide to change the spices used on the fries in the same way that an employee
on a Ford assembly line cannot decide to place a car’s headlights in a different
position. Everything is decided by the owners who then dictate orders to the workers.
The workers relate to their own labour as an activity that does not belong to them.
Alienation from others. Workers compete, rather than cooperate. Employees vie for
time slots, bonuses, and job security. Different industries and different geographical
regions compete for investment. Even when a worker clocks out at night and goes
home, the competition does not end. As Marx commented in The Communist
Manifesto, “No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far at
an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of
the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker” (1848).
Alienation from one’s humanity. A final outcome of industrialization is a loss of
connectivity between a worker and what makes him or her truly human. Humanity is
defined for Marx by “conscious life-activity” but under conditions of wage labour this
is taken not as an end in itself but only as a means of satisfying the most base animal-
like needs. The “species being” (i.e., conscious activity) is only confirmed when
individuals can create and produce freely, not simply when they work to reproduce
their existence and satisfy immediate needs like animals.
Taken as a whole, then, alienation in modern society means that individuals have no

control over their lives. There is nothing that ties workers to their occupations. Instead
of being able to take pride in an identity such as being a watchmaker, automobile
builder, or chef, a person is simply a cog in the machine. Even in feudal societies,
people controlled the manner of their labour as to when and how it was carried out.
But why, then, does the modern working class not rise up and rebel?

In response to this problem, Marx developed the concept of false consciousness. False
consciousness is a condition in which the beliefs, ideals, or ideology of a person are
not in the person’s own best interest. In fact, it is the ideology of the dominant class
(here, the bourgeoisie capitalists) that is imposed upon the proletariat. Ideas such as
the emphasis of competition over cooperation, of hard work being its own reward, of
individuals as being the isolated masters of their own fortunes and ruins, etc. clearly
benefit the owners of industry. Therefore, to the degree that workers live in a state of
false consciousness, they are less likely to question their place in society and assume
individual responsibility for existing conditions.
As “consciousness,” like other elements of the superstructure, are products of the
underlying economic Marx proposed that the workers’ false consciousness would
eventually be replaced with class consciousness, the awareness of
their actual material and political interests as members of a unified class. In The
Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote,
As capitalism developed the industrial means by which the problems of economic
scarcity could be resolved, while at the same time intensifying the conditions of
exploitation due to competition for markets and profits, the conditions for a successful
working class revolution would emerge. Instead of existing as an unconscious “class
in itself,” the proletariat would become a “class for itself” and act collectively to
produce social change (Marx and Engels 1848). Instead of just being an inert strata of
society, the class could become an advocate for social improvements. Only once
society entered this state of political consciousness would it be ready for a social
revolution. Indeed, Marx predicted that this would be the ultimate outcome and
collapse of capitalism.