SECOND SEMESTER

COURSE CODE: SOC 106

COURSE TITLE: INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY II

LECTURER: DR ABEL A. AKINTUNDE

GROUP: GROUP 4

GROUP LEADER: MATTHEW ILERIAYOOLUWA JESUTOWO

ASSISTANT GROUP LEADER: ADELOWO ABIMIFOLUWA

PROJECT: DISCUSS THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF KARL MARX

TO SOCIOLOGY

1
TABLE OF CONTENT PAGE

• GROUP MEMBERS’ INFORMATION --------------------------------- 3

• INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------- 4
• DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGY ------------------------------------- 4
• DEFINITION OF SOCIOLOGY ------------------------------------------ 5
• ABOUT KARL MARX ----------------------------------------------------- 7
• POSITIVISM AND STRUCTURAL SOCIOLOGY ------------------- 9
• KARL MARX’S HISTORICAL MATERIALISM --------------------- 9
• CONFLICT PARADIGM AND CONFLICT THEORY -------------- 12
• THE SOCIAL HISTORIC STAGES ------------------------------------- 15
• KARL MARX’S CRITIQUE ON CAPITALISM ---------------------- 17
• CRITICISMS OF KARL MARX’S THEORIES------------------------ 18
• THE CONCEPT OF ALIENATION ------------------------------------- 20
• CONCLUSION -------------------------------------------------------------- 22
• REFERENCES -------------------------------------------------------------- 23

2
GROUP MEMBERS’ INFORMATION (FULL NAME, MATRIC
NUMBERS AND PROGRAMS)

S/N NAME PROGRAM MATRIC NUMBER

1 MATTHEW ILERIAYOOLUWA LAW BU23LAW1028

JESUTOWO
2 ADELOWO ABIMIFOLUWA POLITICS AND LAW BU23PAL1006
ADEOLUWA
3 LAWAL BERNICE ADEDOYIN INTERNATIONAL BU23IRD1059
RELATIONS
4 OKENIYI BOLUWATIFE MIRACLE INTERNATIONAL BU23IRD1024
RELATIONS
5 ODUOLA VICTOR OLABANJI POLITICS AND LAW BU23PAL1009
6 OYEKAN OBALOLUWA POLITICS AND LAW BU23PAL1011
7 ALAGBE ALEXANDER AYANGOKE INTERNATIONAL BU23IRD1050
RELATIONS
8 ADEMUWAGUN IKEOLUWA INTERNATIONAL BU23IRD1030
ADENIKE RELATIONS

9 ADEDEJI OBITOLA OLUSOLA SOCIOLOGY BU22ACC1049

10 FANIMOKUN DEBORAH LAW BU23LAW1002
OPELOYEOLUWA
11 ALAKA OLUWATUMININU LAW BU23LAW1038
12 OLUKOYA AYOMIKUN INTERNATIONAL BU23IRD1070
ANUOLUWAPO RELATIONS
13 OFUYA ELOHOR STACY INTERNATIONAL BU23IRD1006
RELATIONS
14 AMAGWULA CHIDUMEBI INTERNATIONAL BU23IRD1031
MARYANN
RELATIONS

3
INTRODUCTION

Karl Marx (1818-1883), a versatile thinker, a prolific writer, and a critique, was a product
of German idealism. His writings carry deep imprints of philosopher Hegel, Immanuel Kant,
Ludwig Feuerbach and Adam Smith. However, his writings are highly original and polemical
and are not in complete conformity with these scholars. His work focused on understanding the
social and economic structures of society, particularly addressing issues of class struggle and
inequality. He wrote extensively on class, class formation, struggle, exploitation, poverty,
alienation, and social change. The issue of class and class struggle is central to Marx’s thoughts
and he focused on the role of class conflict in society. In his words, “the history of all hitherto
existing societies is the history of class struggle”. Marx’s theories on capitalism, alienation, and
the exploitation of the working class have had a profound impact on sociological thought and
continue to influence the field of sociology today. For example, his concept of the economic base
or substructure and superstructure has been influential in understanding how economic relations
shape social institutions and ideologies. Also, his ideas are instrumental in contemporary society
in the ongoing debate about income inequality and the concentration of wealth among a small
portion of the population. His works include Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, The
Communist Manifesto, The Holy Family, the Poverty of Philosophy, Das Kapital, among others.

DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

Sociology emerged about the mid-1800s when social observers began using scientific
methods to test their ideas. Sociology grew out of social upheaval. The Industrial Revolution had
just begun, and masses of people were moving to cities in search of work. Their ties to a land and
to a culture that had provided them with ready answers to life’s difficult questions were broken.
The cities greeted them with horrible working conditions: low pay; long, exhausting hours;
dangerous work; and so on. Life no longer looked the same, and tradition, which had provided
the answers to social life, could no longer be counted on.

Tradition suffered further blows with the success of the American and French revolutions
which encouraged people to re-think social life. New ideas rose, including the conviction that
individuals possess inalienable rights. As this new idea caught fire, many monarchies gave way

4
to more democratic forms of government and people found the ready answers of tradition
inadequate.

About this time, the scientific method – using objective, systematic observations to test
theories – was being tried out in Chemistry and Physics. Many secrets that had been concealed in
nature were being uncovered. With tradition no longer providing answers to questions about
social life, the logical step was to apply scientific method to these questions. The result was the
birth of Sociology. So, Sociology came as an answer to the questions being raised in society
about change in social behaviour during that period.

The first social scientist to use the term ‘sociology’ was a French philosopher by the name
August Comte who lived from 1798-1857 and is generally referred to as the father of sociology.

DEFINITION OF SOCIOLOGY

As coined by Comte, the term Sociology is a combination of two words. The first part of
the term is the Latin word, socios, that may variously mean society, association, togetherness
or companionship. The other word, logos, is of Greek origin. It literally means to speak about
a word. However, the term is generally understood as the study of science, society and culture
(Indrani. 1998). Comte believed that a science of society was possible, and that this science
should be based on systematic observation of classification of facts rather than casual off-hand
observation or tradition, speculation, authority or common sense.

As the case may be with other sciences, sociology is often misconceived among the
populace. Though many rightly and grossly summarize that sociology is about people, some
think that it is all about “helping the unfortunate and doing welfare work while others think that
sociology is the same as socialism and is a means of bringing revolution to our schools and
colleges” (Nobbs, Hine and Flemming, 1978:1).

However, Sociology is the scientific study of human behavior, action and interaction and
how the network between these three shape the social system or structure called the society. It is
important to note that, a society is an organized group of people who are joined together by

5
relationships and patterns of behavior that distinguish them from other groups who do not share
these relationships or who have different patterns of behavior.

Sociology is a broad and dynamic social science discipline that systematically studies
human society, social interactions, and the structures that shape them. It explores the patterns of
behaviour, beliefs, norms, and institutions that characterize different social groups and societies.
At its core, sociology seeks to understand the complexities of social life and how they impact
individuals and communities.

August Comte defined sociology as “the science of social phenomena subject to natural
and invariable laws, the discovery of which is the object of investigation.”

Max Weber defined sociology as “a science which attempts interpretive understanding of

social action in order to thereby arrive at a casual explanation of its cause and effects”

In Karl Marx’s view, he sees sociology as the study of conflicting forces in any society
which struggle for the scarce available resources in that society. In his words, “the history of all
hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle.”

Simply put, sociology is the scientific study of the society. Sociology provides
explanations and insights into social reality through empirical research. That is, employing
various methods such as surveys, interviews, experiments, and statistical analysis to collect and
analyze data about social patterns and trends. This empirical approach, combined with theoretical
frameworks, helps sociologists develop theories, test hypotheses, and generate evidence-based
insights into social phenomena, contributing to informed policy making and social interventions.

In summary, sociology is a comprehensive discipline that investigates the complexities of

human social life, encompassing theoretical perspectives, empirical research, and critical
analysis to understand, explain, and address social issues and dynamics in diverse societies.

6
ABOUT KARL MARX

Karl Heinrich Marx was born May 5, 1818 at Trier, Rhine province, Prussia, Germany
and died March 14, 1883 in London, England. He was the oldest surviving boy of nine children.
His father, a successful lawyer, was a man of the Enlightenment who took part in agitations for a
constitution in Prussia. His mother, born Henrietta Pressburg, was from Holland. Both parents
were Jewish and were descended from a long line of rabbis. Karl studied law and philosophy at
the Universities of Bonn and Berlin, where he was exposed to the work of Hegel, Feuerbach, and
other prominent thinkers of his time. Karl married Jenny von Westphalen in June 1843 and the
union produced seven children, four of whom died before reaching adolescence. Although as a
youth Karl was less influenced by religion than by the critical, sometimes radical social policies
of the Enlightenment, his Jewish background exposed him to prejudice and discrimination that
may have led him to question the role of religion in society and contributed to his desire for
social change. During his last years, Karl Marx spent much time at health resorts and even
travelled to Algiers. He was broken by the death of his wife on December 2, 1881, and of his
eldest daughter, Jenny Longuet, on January 11, 1883. He died in London, evidently of a lung
abscess.

Karl Marx was a revolutionary, sociologist, historian, and economist whose intellectual
journey led him to critique the prevailing social, economic, and political structures of his time.
Collaborating with Friedrich Engels, Marx developed his theory of historical materialism, which
posited that the driving force of human
history is the struggle between social classes
over control of the means of production. He
published (with Friedrich Engels) Manifest
der Kommunistischen Partei (1848),
commonly known as The Communist
Manifesto, the most celebrated pamphlet in
the history of the socialist movement. He
also was the author of the movement’s most
important book, Das Kapital which is also

7
referred to as the “Bible of the working class”, published in 1867 in Berlin.

Marx’s analysis of capitalism as a system based on exploitation and alienation laid the
foundation for the sociological study of class relations, inequality and labour. The economic
categories he employed were those of classical British economics of David Ricardo but Marx
used them in accordance with his dialectical method to argue that bourgeois society, like every
social organism, must follow the inevitable part of development. Through the working of such
immanent tendencies as the declining rate of profit, capitalism would die and be replaced by
another higher society. He argued that the inherent contradictions within capitalism would
inevitably lead to its downfall, as exploited workers would revolt against their oppressors.

Marx never claimed to have discovered the existence of classes and class struggles in
modern society. “Bourgeois” historians, he acknowledged, had described them long before he
had. He did claim, however, to have proved that each phase in the development of production
was associated with a corresponding class structure and that the classes led necessarily to the
dictatorship of the proletariat, ushering in the advent of a classless society. Marx took up the very
different versions of socialism current in the 19th century and welded them together into a
doctrine that continued to be the dominant version of socialism for half a century after his death.
His emphasis on the influence of economic structure on historical development has proved to be
of lasting significance.

Marx’s most important contribution to sociological theory was his general mode of
analysis, the dialectical model, which regards every social system as having within it immanent
forces that give rise to ‘contradictions’ (disequilibria) that can be resolved only by a new social
system. Neo-Marxists, who no longer accept the economic reasoning in Das Kapital, are still
guided by this model in their approach to capitalist society.

Karl Marx’s ideas revolutionized the way we understand society, economics, and politics,
and laid the groundwork for critical analysis and social change,
shaping the discipline of sociology and influencing countless scholars
and activists worldwide. Despite facing criticism and marginalization
during his lifetime, Marx’s ideas gained traction in the latter half of
the 19th century and continue to resonate today.

8
POSITIVISM AND STRUCTURAL SOCIOLOGY

Positivism is used to describe an approach to the study of society that relies specifically on
science. Positivism asserts that social phenomenon can be studied and understood through the
application of scientific methods, similar to those of the natural sciences. Positivism aims to
study society objectively, using quantitative data and statistical analysis to identify patterns,
correlations, and casual relationships. It is based on the belief that knowledge should be derived
from empirical evidence and that only observable facts should be considered valid. Also, the
mode of reasoning under positivism is deduction or deductive reasoning. This means drawing
specific conclusions and explanations of social reality from general premises, principles or
observations.

In the positivist tradition, the emphasis on empiricism and the need to observe and detect
patterns, laws, and the workings of phenomenon mathematically and systematically has
produced an approach called structural sociology. It focuses on how large- scale structures, that
is, cultural elements such as values, norms, beliefs, roles, and so on shape the behaviour,
attitudes and personalities of members of society.

It refers to a group of theories that emphasize the role of social structures and their
influence on individual behaviour and societal outcomes. These ‘structures’ are the relatively
stable patterns or aspects of social behaviour that make up a society. They include social
institutions (family, religion, law, politics, education, and economy), social class, gender roles,
and racial/ethnic relations. Karl Marx’s conflict theory falls under this category because it
emphasizes how the economic institution influences all other institutions of society and
invariably, human behaviour.

KARL MARX’S HISTORICAL MATERIALISM

Historical materialism postulates that all institutions of human society are products of the
society’s economic activities. Consequently, social and political changes occur when those
institutions cease to reflect the ‘mode of production’, that is, how the economy functions.
Historical materialism is rooted in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ philosophy of dialectical
materialism which posits that all things develop through material contradictions. Animals and

9
plants, for example, evolve biologically when their methods of survival contradict their
environment. Because the world is material in nature, these contradictions cannot be harmonized
through reason or divine power; incompatible elements must oppose each other until adaptation
or destruction takes place. This process is a continuous process.

Historical materialism applies the logic of dialectical materialism to human civilization.

All human beings must engage in economic activity for the necessities of life. In the aggregate,
this requirement means that every society relies on its mode of production. All institutions of
society must therefore follow from that mode, adapt to it, or be eliminated. This condition is
called ‘motor of history’ and the reason why societies disappear overtime as modes of production
evolve is because they face new contradictions that lead to their replacement by other, more
advanced economic systems which in turn develop new societies. In the case of feudalism, for
instance, monarchs and their vassals needed to trade to increase their wealth, but trade resulted in
the emergence of a merchant class, which proceeded to demand political rights, thereby ushering
in mercantilism, an early stage of capitalism.

Marx’s historical materialism is an example of how structural sociology works under

positivism. It explains human history and development on the basis of the material conditions
underlying all human existence. For Marx and his lifetime collaborator, Friedrich Engels,
historical materialism is the “view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the
great moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of society, in
the changes in the mode of production and exchange, in the consequent division of society into
distinct classes, and in the struggles of these classes against one another”. Marx argues that it is
possible to provide a materialistic explanation of how human beings not only transform the
world by applying the “forces of production”, but also transform themselves in transforming the
world by entering into “relations of production” with one another. For Marx, the productive
labour of human beings – and the resulting interplay between the forces and relations of
production – function together as the engine which drives all historical change and development.
Historical materialism promotes the idea that society must be studied in terms of the changing
material conditions of human beings across societies of the world. What this means is that the
starting point of analysis or explanation of any given social reality is not the individual but the
material and economic differences between humans in societies and societies that host humans.

10
 Marx had both an empirical theory of history and a speculative theory of history. The
former, which has come to be known as historical materialism, is a set of macro-sociological
generalizations about the causes of stability and change in societies. The latter, largely of
Hegelian inspiration, offers a scheme for interpreting all historical events in terms of their
contribution to realizing the end of history – in both senses of that term. Communism is both the
goal of history and the point where it comes to rest. Although there may be development and
change in communism, it will not involve qualitative transformations of the social structure. The
speculative conception involves a division of history into three stages: pre-class society, class
society, and post-class society. In a different terminology, the stages are referred to as primitive
unity, alienation, ad unity-with-differentiation. Historical materialism is an invention of the
middle stage, the historical class societies. Not surprisingly, the speculative thinking impinges on
the empirical part of the theory, and especially on the view that the successive sets of property
relations are nothing but instruments for promoting technical change and thus, ultimately, for
preparing communism. A major gap or flaw, in Marx’s theory of history is that he does not
provide a plausible mechanism to connect the thirst for surplus with the development of
productive forces.

The principles of historical materialism were laid out in Engels’ book written in 1878, tited
‘Herrn Eugen Duhrings Umwalzung der Wissenschaft’, also called ‘Anti-Duhring’. The book
was written under the supervision of Karl Marx and approved by him so, it may be inferred that
Marx agreed with its contents. However, it is worth nothing that Marx himself never explicitly
described his theory of history. As a component of communist doctrine and thus one of the
dominant theories of history for most of the 20th century, historical materialism had gone on to
be further studied, developed and interpreted by a multitude of thinkers. Well known theorists
who have contributed to its development include Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Rosa
Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong. In the English-speaking world,
most philosophers remained sceptical of the idea that Marx held a consistent theory of history
until the publication in 1978 of Marx’s Theory of History.

Karl Marx’s historical materialism approach to the study of structural sociology under
positivism, in its emphasis on the changing material conditions of humans within and across
societies gave rise to Karl Marx’s conflict theory, also known as theory of class systems.

11
CONFLICT PARADIGM AND CONFLICT THEORY

A paradigm is a fundamental framework by which specific understandings are modeled

into explanations of reality or phenomenon. It is a description of the world of human behaviour;
a description of the interactions of human beings within any society. Paradigms are broad
viewpoints or perspectives that permit social scientists to have a wide range of tools to describe
society, and then to build hypotheses and theories. People and social events are not based on
paradigms but a paradigm is a viewpoint, perspective, guiding principle, and belief system.
Paradigms cannot be proven or disproven, but they lead to the development of theories which are
provable. Theories are the subsets of paradigms. There are three fundamental paradigms in
sociology: Conflict, Consensus, and Action. Karl Marx was instrumental in the development of
the conflict theory under the Conflict perspective or paradigm.

The conflict paradigm describes the inequalities that exist in all societies around the globe.
It is an approach that believes that every phenomenon should be explained in terms of opposing
forces at work in the phenomenon. Conflict paradigm is particularly interested in the inequalities
that exist based on all of the various aspects of master status – race or ethnicity, sex or gender,
age, religion, ability or disability, and SES (SES is an abbreviation of socioeconomic status and
is comprised of the combined effects of income, education, and occupation). According to the
conflict paradigm, every society is plagued by inequality based on social differences among the
dominant group and all of the other groups in society. When we are analyzing any element of
society from this perspective, we need to look at the structures of wealth, power, and status and
the ways in which those structures maintain the social, economic, political, and coercive power
of one group at the expense of all other groups. The conflict paradigm does a very good job of
explaining racism, sexism, ageism, socioeconomic inequality (wealth and poverty), and so on.

The conflict paradigm is used by sociologists to make sense of the social world in terms of
the forces at war in every society. All sociology that studies the processes by which social groups
compete with each other for scarce resources such as power, wealth and status, or the inequalities
that result from these competitions, falls within the conflict paradigm. The conflict paradigm was
originally formulated by Marx in his analysis of capitalism, and in his dialectical theory of major
structural transformations in society.

12
 Under the conflict paradigm is the conflict
theory which was majorly propounded by Karl
Marx. Other proponents of this theory include
Lewis Coser, Ralph Dahrendorf, George
Simmel, Charles Wright Mills, and so on. The
conflict theory views society as being stratified
into two unequal groups: the bourgeoisie (the
owners of the means of production) and the
proletariat (the workers). One group, the
bourgeoisie, benefits from the social order by
trying to maintain the status quo through
exploitation, power relation and coercion while
the oppressed group, the proletariat, struggle for change in the social system. According to
conflict theory, members of society are in continuous struggle over scarce resources. In his own
words published in the Communist Manifesto in 1848, “the history of all hitherto existing
societies is the history of class struggle”. The basis of exploitation according to conflict theory is
the economic mode of production; those who own the means of economic production in society
exploit those who do not. For conflict theorists, rather than society being held together by
consensus and order as emphasized by the functionalist theory, society is being held together by
conflict or struggle of the different conflicting groups.

One of Marx’s most profound contributions to sociology was his general mode of analysis,
the ‘dialectical model’, which regards every social system as having within it immanent forces
that give rise to ‘contradictions’ (disequilibria) that can be resolved only by a new social system.
Under the conflict theory, dialectics is the approach used to study the relationship between
conflicting forces in a society. According to Elwell’s Glossary of Sociology, dialectics refers to
an interpretation of change emphasizing the clash of opposing interests and the resulting struggle
as the engine of social reformation. The word ‘dialectics’ is not a coinage of Karl Marx’s own
but a word he borrowed from philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Dialectics is
understood in terms of a model called the mode of production which can only be studied when
society is seen in terms of the economic substructure or economic base and the
superstructure. According to Karl Marx, the economic base, which is made up of only the

13
economic institution, controls all other aspects and institutions of society. Marx identified two
mutually interdependent structures of human interaction with nature and the process of
producing their subsistence within the economic substructure which are the relations of
production and forces of production.

Economic base and Superstructure

Marx identified society’s relations of production (arising on the basis of given productive
forces) as the economic base of society. He also explained that on the foundation of the
economic base, there arise the other
institutions of society (politics, law,
religion, education, and family).
These constitute the superstructure of
society. This superstructure not only
has its origin in the economic base,
but its features also ultimately
correspond to the character and
development of that economic base.
G. A. Cohen argues in Karl Marx’s
Theory of History: A Defence that a
society’s superstructure stabilizes or
entrenches its economic structure, but
that the economic base is primary and
the superstructure is secondary. Charles Taylor wrote: “These two directions of influence are so
far from being rivals that they are actually complementary. The functional explanation requires
that the secondary factor tend to have a casual effect on the primary, for this dispositional fact is
the key feature of the explanation”. Therefore, the superstructure – the cultural and institutional
features of society, its ideological materials – is ultimately an expression of the economic
substructure on which it is founded.

14
Forces of Production

The forces of production refer to tools of survival employed by humans in the process of
production, that is, everything humans use to make the things society needs, most especially
technology. They include human labour and the raw materials, land, tools, instruments, and
knowledge required for production. The flint sharpened spears and harpoons developed by early
humans in the late Paleolithic period are all forces of production. Overtime, the forces of
production tend to expand as new skills, knowledge and technology are put to use to meet human
needs.

Relations of Production

Marx extended this premise by asserting the importance of the fact that, in order to carry
out production and exchange, people have to enter into very definite social relations, or more
specifically, “relations of production”. However, production does not get carried out in the
abstract, or by entering into arbitrary or random relations chosen at will, but instead are
determined by the development of the existing forces of production. In simple terms, relations of
production refers to how individuals enter the process of production either as equals or unequals.
The relations of production are determined by the level and character of these productive forces
present at any given time in history. In all societies, human beings collectively work on nature
but, especially in class societies, do not do the same work. In such societies, there is a division of
labour in which people not only occupy different social positions on the basis of those
differences. The most important of such division is that between manual and intellectual labour
whereby one class produces a given society’s wealth while another is able to monopolize control
of the means of production. In this way, both govern that society and live off of the wealth
generated by the labouring classes.

THE SOCIAL HISTORIC STAGES

Karl Marx’s theory of the social historic stages explains human history and development
on the basis of material conditions underlying all human existence. As for Karl Marx, the most
important of all human activities is the activity of production by means of labour. For Karl Marx,
the productive labour of human beings and the resulting interplay between the forces of

15
production and relations of production function together as the engine which drives all historical
change and development. Karl Marx identified five main stages of society also known as
historical development stages which every society must go through. These stages are:

(1) Agrarian/Slave Society: This is the first stage of Karl Marx’s theory of social historic
stages. Some scholars have referred to it as the primitive communism stage. This stage is
characterized by pre-agricultural societies where humans lived in small groups, such as
tribes or bands. In these societies, there was little or no private property and resources
were equally shared among all members. Karl Marx described the primitive communism
stage as a society in which people’s labour was primarily directed towards hunting,
gathering, and fishing, with no division of labour and no social classes.
(2) Feudalism: It is also known as the feudal stage or feudal mode of production. This stage
emerged in Europe during the Middle Ages, lasting from about the 9th century to the 15th
century. In feudal societies, the main form of economic activity was agriculture. The
majority of the population were peasants or vassals/serfs who worked on land owned by
lords or nobles. Therefore, feudalism is a political and economic system of production in
which land ownership are controlled by feudal lords. It is based on the acquisition and
ownership of land. Karl Marx also argues that the feudal society created the conditions
for the emergence of a new class, the bourgeoisie, which eventually overturned barriers
to production, produced the capitalist economic system and established universal
inequality.
(3) Capitalism: According to Karl Marx, capitalism is an economic system based on the
private ownership of means of production, such as factories, mines and farms. It was born
when society moved from agriculture to industrialization. Therefore, capitalism and
industrialization are related and capitalism is often regarded as the most valid or realistic
stage of all social historic stages because it is most feasible. Both socialism and
communism oppose capitalism. In a capitalist economy, the production and distribution
of goods and services are organized for profit and is usually characterized by worker
exploitation, inequalities between classes, and outright poverty. Karl Marx argued that in
capitalist societies, a class of wealthy capitalists who own the means of production,
exploit the working class and sell their labour for wages. This class conflict, Marx

16
 believed, would eventually lead to the downfall of capitalism and its replacement by
socialism and the communism.
(4) Socialism: Socialism predates communism by several decades. Its early adherents called
for a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, solidarity among workers, better working
conditions, and common ownership of land and manufacturing equipment. Socialism is
based on the concept of public ownership and regulation of the means of production, but
individuals may still own property. Socialism, for Marx, is a society which serves the
needs of man. For Marx, socialism meant the social order which permits the return of
man to himself, the identity between existence and essence, the overcoming of the
separateness and antagonism between subject and object, the humanization of nature; it
meant a world in which man is no longer a stranger among strangers, but is in his world,
where he is at home.
(5) Communism: Communism is a classless, stateless society in which all property is
communally owned and all people work together for the common good. It is often
regarded to as a more developed form of socialism and the highest stage of society. Karl
Marx believed that communism would emerge naturally from the contradictions and
inequalities inherent in capitalism. He saw communism as a more equitable and just
system in which the interests of all people are taken into account rather than just those of
a wealthy elite. Communism is often described as “class-wither-away”. It is characterized
by ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, an idea coined by early socialist revolutionary, Joseph
Weydemeyer and adopted by Marx and Engels. It refers to the goal of the working class
gaining control of political power. It is the stage of transition from capitalism to
communism where the means of production pass from private to collective ownership
while the state still exists.

KARL MARX’S CRITIQUE ON CAPITALISM

Marx’s critique of capitalism represents a foundational pillar of his socio-economic

analysis, offering a comprehensive examination of the inherent contradictions and exploitative
dynamics of capitalist production.

17
 At the core of Marx’s critique is his analysis of the capitalist mode of production. He
argued that capitalism is characterized by the private ownership of the means of production (such
as factories, land, and machinery) and the exploitation of wage labour. In capitalist economies,
the pursuit of profit drives the production process, leading to the commodification of goods and
the relentless accumulation of capital by the bourgeoisie.

One of Marx’s key insights is the theory of surplus value, which explains how capitalists
extract profit from the labour of workers. Marx argued that the values of commodities is
determined by the amount of socially necessary labour time required for their production.
However, workers are only paid a fraction of the value they produce in the form of wages, while
capitalists appropriate the surplus value generated by labour as profit. This process of surplus
extraction lies at the heart of capitalist exploitation, perpetuating the unequal distribution of
wealth and power within society.

Moreover, Marx highlighted the tendency of capitalism to produce inherent contractions

and crises. He identified several internal contradictions within the capitalist mode of production,
including the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time due to the increasing mechanization
and exploitation of labour, as well as the inherent conflict between the socialized nature of
production and the private appropriation of wealth. These contradictions give rise to periodic
economic crises, characterized by unemployment, and financial instability, overproduction, and
so on.

Marx’s critique of the capitalist mode of production extends beyond the economic
dimensions to encompass its social and cultural implications. He examined how capitalist
relations of production shape social institutions, ideologies, and cultural practices, serving to
reproduce and legitimize the dominance of the capitalist class. Marx’s analysis of ideology as a
tool of social control elucidates the ways in which dominant ideas and beliefs serve to maintain
the status quo and obscure the underlying power relations of capitalist society.

THE CONCEPT OF ALIENATION

Although, Marx had made little use of this term in his earlier writings, the fundamental
idea is that an entity or agent gives rise to a product or expression that is distinct from but at the

18
same time essential to itself. This secondary product comes to be cut off from its origin. In
consequence, the agent suffers a loss of identity in some sense. Thus, for the agent to realize
itself fully, it must remove the separation that has come between itself and its own product. In
the central discussion of the Paris Manuscripts, Marx sets out to apply the concept of alienation
to the labour process. Alienation, Marx argues, is characteristic of a situation in which labour is
directed towards the production of commodities (that is, goods exchangeable in the market) and
labour itself is such a commodity. Marx divides the alienation involved in labour into three
different main forms:

There is first, the separation of the worker from the product of labour. It is in the nature of
the labour process that it involves ‘appropriating’ the external world. But, then the labour is
alienated, the sensible, external world, becomes an object to which the worker is bound. In other
words, the things the workers produce do not belong to them, instead, they are owned and
controlled by capitalist employers. This lack of ownership and control over the fruits of their
labour leads to a sense of detachment and disconnection from the work itself. Rather than seeing
their work as a fulfilling and meaningful activity, workers perceive it as a means to earn a wage,
often devoid of personal satisfaction or creative fulfillment.

At the same time, the labour process itself becomes alien to the worker. Because the
imperatives according to which labour takes place come to the worker from outside (that is, from
the market either directly or indirectly), labour is no longer an act of self-realization. In many
capitalist workplaces, the division of labour and the mechanization of production reduce workers
to mere appendages of the machinery, performing repetitive and monotonous tasks with little
autonomy or creativity. This alienating experience of work contributes to feelings of boredom,
powerlessness, and disengagement among workers, exacerbating their sense of estrangement
from the labour process. Labour becomes, from the worker’s point of view, “an activity directed
against himself, which is independent to him and does not belong to him”.

Finally, Marx says that the consequence of the two forms of alienation is to alienate man
from what he calls his ‘species-being’, that is, fellow human beings. In capitalist societies,
humans are pitted against one another in competition for jobs, wages, and resources, fostering a
sense of social isolation and atomization. The commodification of labour and the prevalence of

19
market relations erode solidarity and empathy among workers, reinforcing divisions along class
lines, race, gender, and other social categories.

In addition to these three main categories of alienation, Marx also argues that under
capitalism, individuals are alienated from their own human potential. By reducing human beings
to mere instruments of production and consumption, capitalism stifles the development of
indivduals’ creative capacities and prevents them from realizing their full potential as
autonomous and self-determined beings.

Marx’s concept of alienation provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the

dehumanizing effects of capitalism on individuals and society. By illuminating the ways
capitalist production alienates workers from the products of their labour, from the labour process
itself, from their fellow human beings, and from their own human potential, Marx highlights the
social and economic structures that perpetuate exploitation and oppression.

CRITICISMS OF KARL MARX’S THEORIES

As popular as Karl Marx’s theory is and as widely acclaimed as it is, it has still been
criticized for various reasons, some of which are:

(1) Economic determinism: Some critics argue that Marx placed too much emphasis on
economic factors, ignoring other social and cultural factors that influence human
behaviour.
(2) Class conflict: Critics also argue that Marx’s focus on class conflict was too simplistic
and failed to account for other sources of social conflict such as gender, race, and
religion.
(3) Historical materialism: Some scholars argue that Marx’s historical materialism, which
posits that changes in the mode of production drive historical development was overly
deterministic. Its teleological view of history and neglect of contingent, non-economic
factors did not account for the role of human agency and individual choice in shaping
history. According to critics, historical change is multifaceted and shaped by a complex
interplay of economic, political, cultural, and ideological factors.

20
 (4) Neglect of individual liberties: Marx’s emphasis on collective ownership and control of
means of production has been criticized for neglecting the importance of individual
liberties and freedoms. Critics argue that Marxist systems tend to prioritize the interests
of the collective over those of the individual, leading to restrictions on personal autonomy
and creativity.
(5) Utopianism: Other critics argue that Marx’s vision of a classless society is utopian and
unrealistic, overlooking the inherent complexities and contradictions of human nature and
social organization. They contend that the pursuit of such utopian society risks ignoring
the practical concerns and necessitates authoritarian measures to enforce compliance.
(6) The role of the state: Marx’s prediction that the state would wither away after a
successful communist revolution has not been borne out in practice, leading some to
argue that Marx underestimated the importance of the state in shaping social and
economic outcomes.
(7) The nature of capitalism: Marx’s prediction that capitalism would lead to ever increasing
levels of exploitation and inequality has not been fully realized in practice, as many
capitalist economies have developed social welfare programs and regulations to mitigate
these effects.
(8) Revolutionary strategy: Marx’s advocacy for revolutionary overthrow of capitalist
systems has been criticized for its potential for violence, instability, and authoritarianism.
Critics argue that historical attempts to implement Marxist principles have often resulted
in repressive regimes and human rights abuses, undermining the moral and practical
viability of revolutionary socialism.

John Stuart Mill, in his book Principles of Political Economy, also offered some criticisms
of Karl Marx’s theory on capitalism and development of society, some of which are:

(1) Role of capitalism in human progress: Mill identified its flaws but also emphasized its
role in promoting human progress and improving living standards. He argued that
capitalism, through its competitive nature and encouragement of innovation, has the
potential to raise the general welfare of society
(2) Gradual reform versus revolution: Mill advocated for gradual reforms within capitalism
rather than the revolutionary overthrow Karl Marx advocated for. He believed that

21
 reforms such as worker’s rights, education, and democratic participation could address
the inequalities and injustices of capitalism without resorting to violent revolution.
(3) Individual liberty: Mill stressed that the importance of individual liberty and autonomy,
which he believed could be safeguarded within a regulated capitalist system. He
criticized Marx’s emphasis on collective ownership, arguing that it could lead to the
suppression of individual freedoms by a centralized state.
(4) Market mechanisms and incentives: Mill recognized the role of market mechanisms in
promoting efficiency and productivity within capitalism. He argued that the profit motive
could be harnessed to incentivize innovation and entrepreneurship, leading to overall
economic growth and prosperity.
(5) Class collaboration: Mill believed in the possibility of class collaboration within
capitalism, where employers and workers could cooperate to improve working conditions
and share the benefits of economic progress. He saw this collaboration as a more viable
path to social harmony than Marx’s class struggle.
(6) Social utilitarianism: Mill argued that capitalism despite its flaws, served a social utility
by efficiently allocating resources and satisfying human needs and desires. He believed
that attempts to replace capitalism with a socialist system could lead to unintended
consequences and economic inefficiencies.

Overall, Mill’s critiques of Marx’s theory of capitalism centers on the belief that
capitalism, with proper regulation and reforms, could be a system that promotes individual
liberty, economic growth, and social progress.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the contributions of Karl Marx to Sociology are multifaceted and far-
reaching, encapsulating a profound and enduring impact on the discipline. Marx’s analytical
framework grounded in historical materialism, revolutionized sociological thought by providing
a systematic analysis of society, economics, and politics. By unveiling the inherent
contradictions and exploitative nature of capitalism, Marx shed light on the alienation of labour,
the commodification of goods, and the unequal distribution of wealth and power. His analysis of
the capitalist mode of production laid the groundwork for understanding the structural

22
inequalities that permeate modern society. While Marx’s ideas have been subject to critique and
revision over time, his enduring legacy as a towering figure in the history of sociology cannot be
overstated.

REFERENCES

• David, M., Lewis, F. (2024). Karl Marx, German Philosopher. Encyclopaedia Britannica.
• David, M. (2006). Karl Marx: His Life and Thought. HarperCollins
• Elster, J. (1986). An Introduction to Karl Marx. Cmbridge University Press
• Jonathan, W. (2002). Why Read Marx Today? Oxford University Press
• Derek, S. (1999). Marx’s Method: Ideology, Science and Critique in Capital. Pluto Press
• Giddens, A., Duneier, M., Appelbaum R., and Carr, D. (2021). Introduction to
Sociology. W.W Norton and Company
• Macionis, J., Plummer, K. (2017). Sociology: A Global Introduction. Pearson Education
Ltd.
• Mills, C. W. (2000). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press.
• Michael, B. (1967). MARX ON HISTORCAL MATERIALISM. Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
• Jayapalan, N. (2001). Comprehensive History of Political Thought. Atlantic Publisher &
Distributors.
• Callinicos, A. (2011). The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx. Chicago: Haymarket
Books.
• Marx, K. (1999). Capital: Critique of Political Economy. Vol 3.
• Lin, J. (1995). The Needham Puzzle: Why The Industrial Revolution Did Not Originate
In China. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 43(2). 262-292.
• Simon, R. (2016). The Conflict Paradigm in Sociology and the Study of Social
Inequality: Paradox and Possibility. Theory in Action. 9(1). 1-31.

23
• Collins, R. (1990). Conflict theory and the advance of macro-historical sociology.
Frontiers of Social Theory: The New Syntheses. New York: Columbia University Press.
pp. 68-87.
• Marx, K., Engels, F. (1978). The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton
and Company.
• Blackledge, P. (2006). Reflections on the Marxist Theory of History. Manchester, UK:
Manchester University Press.
• Wolff, R. (1984). Understanding Marx. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Wood, A. (1981). Karl Marx. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Enrich, F. (1961). Marx’s Concept of Man. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing.
• Cohen, J. (1982). Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence by G. A. Cohen. Journal of
Philosophy. 79(5). 252-273.
• Elster, J. (1986). An Introduction to Karl Marx’s Historical Materialism. Cambridge
University Press
• Popper, K. (1957). The Poverty of Historicism. Oxfordshire: Routledge
• Stuart, J. (1848). Principles of Political Economy. London: John W. Parker, West Strand.

24