KARL MARX

Marxism is a social, political, and economic theory proposed by Karl Marx in the 19th century,
and Marxists are those who ascribe to the ideas of Marxism. Karl Marx was a German
philosopher interested in exploring the relationship between the economy and the people
working within the economic system. Marx’s theory was strongly based on the struggles of the
working class during the Industrial Revolution in Europe. He explained how there are power
relationships between the capitalists and the workers, which are exploitative and would
eventually cause class conflict.

According to Marx, the workers are those from a low social class, which he termed the
proletariat, whereas those few in charge, the wealthy bosses, owners, and managers, are what
he termed the bourgeoisie. The proletariat are the individuals who perform labor that is then
taken and sold by the bourgeoisie so that they themselves receive profit while the workers
receive minimal wages.

Production:

People need food, clothing, shelter and other necessities of life in order to survive. They cannot
get all these things ready-made from nature. To survive, they produce material goods from
objects found in nature. Material production has always been and still is the basis of human
existence. For Karl Marx, the history of human societies is the story of how people relate to one
another in their efforts to make a living. He said, “The first historical act is…the production of
material life. This is indeed a historical act, a fundamental condition of all history”.

According to Marx, economic production or production of material life is the starting point from
which society as an inter-related whole is structured. He speaks of a reciprocity between
economic factors and other aspects of historical development of mankind. The factor of
economic production is all the same a key concept in explaining the changes that occur in

1
society. He considers that forces of production along with relations of production form the basis
of economic and social history of every society. In his Introduction to the Grundrisse (1857-58),
Marx says that although the three processes of production, distribution and consumption are
not one and the same, they represent a totality. It is so because after completion, each of the
three processes creates the other process. In this way, one mediates the other. For example,
production, once complete, becomes an object of consumption. Similarly, distribution and
production are closely related processes. In this way, these economic categories carry definite
relations between them.

For Marx, a certain type of production creates a certain type of distribution, exchange and
consumption. On the basis of all these economic categories are formed certain types of
relations of production. Marx argues that production itself is based on other economic
categories Karl Marx and clear-cut relation between production and other economic processes.
What is evident is that material production is basic to human societies. For Marx, production is
at once both a general and a historical category.

In Capital (1861-1879) Marx has made use of the term ‘production’ as a general category to
highlight specific forms of production in capitalist societies. On the other hand, speaking about
production with definite social and historical characteristics, Marx discusses the concept of
mode of production. About this you will read in the last section of this unit. Here, we need to
remember that the role of production in human history became a guiding thread in Marx’s
writings.

Relations of Production:

The forces of production are not the only factors in material production. People are able to
produce jointly by organising in a society. In this sense, labour is and always has been social in
character. According to Marx, in order to produce, people enter into definite relations with one
another. Only within these social relations does production take place. You can easily say that
the relations of production are the social relations found among the people involved in the

2
process of production. These social relations are determined by the level and character of the
development of productive forces.

‘Forces’ and ‘relations’ of production are strongly interrelated. The development of one lead to
a growing incompatibility or contradiction with the other. In fact, the contradictions between
the two aspects of production ‘act as the motor of history’. The chain of causation in historical
development runs like this. The forces of production determine the superstructure. There is,
however, quite a good deal of controversy regarding the primacy of the forces of production
over the relations of production. As we said earlier we shall not go into the detail of these
interpretations of Marxism. In Marx’s own writings, you may like to remember, there is
ambiguity on this matter. In places, he gives primacy to the relations of production while in
other places he describes forces of production as the prime mover of social change.

The relations of production, which are said to correspond to society’s productive level, link the
productive forces and human beings in the process of production. These relations are of two
broad types. The first refers to those technical relations that are necessary for the actual
production process of products. The second refers to the relations of economic control, which
are legally manifested as property ownership. They govern access to the forces of production
and products.

Relations of production are the social relations of production. As such they include both the
relations between the direct producers or workers and their employers or those who control
their labour, and the relations between the direct producers themselves.

Relation of production is not merely the ownership of means of production. The employer’s
relation to the worker is one of domination and the worker’s relation with co-workers is one of
cooperation. The relations of production are relations between people and people whereas
means of production are relations between people and things. The relations of production can
influence the momentum and direction of the development of the productive forces.

3
Relations of production are reflection in the economic ownership of productive forces. For
example, under capitalism the most fundamental of these relations is the bourgeoisie’s
ownership of means of production while the proletariat owns only its labour power.

The relationships of production can also dominate and generate changes in the forces. For
example, capitalist relations of production often do revolutionise the instruments of production
and the labour process.

At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into
conflict with the existing relations of production. The contradiction between forces and
relations of production accounts for history existing as a succession of modes of production.
The contradiction leads to the necessary decline of one mode and its replacement by another.
Forces and relations of production, in any mode of production underline not just the economic
progress, but a movement of the whole of society from one stage to another.

Mode of Production:

In Marx’s writing, stages of social history are differentiated not by what human beings produce
but by how, or by what means, they produce the material goods for subsistence. In this way, we
can say that historical periods are founded and differentiated on the basis of the modes of
material production. In other words, at the basis of history are successive modes of material
production. You can also say that the forces and relations of production are two aspects of
mode of production. The productive forces of society reflect the degree to which human beings
control nature. The more advanced the productive forces, the greater is their control over
nature. In order to produce, people enter into definite relations with one another. This is the
relations of production aspect of how material goods are produced. Production takes place
within these social relations. You can say that any historical mode of production is an integral
unity between the forces of production and the relations of production. You can also say that
the forces of production shape the relations of production and the two together define the
mode of production. That is the general economic frame or particular manner in which people

4
produce and distribute the means to sustain life. In this sense, the successive modes of
production are the basic element of a systematic description of history.

Keeping aside the debate among the Marxist scholars concerning the definition of ‘mode of
production’, we can say that crucial element in defining mode of production is ‘the way in
which the surplus is produced and its use controlled” (Bottomore 1983: 337). Surplus means
the amount that remains when use or need is satisfied. According to Marx, under capitalist
mode of production, the surplus takes the form of profit. Surplus is produced by exploiting the
working class and is sold for more than the wages given to the workers. Because production of
surplus enables societies to grow and change, this factor is taken to be most important in
defining mode of production.

Each mode of production has its specific relations of production. These are not developed by
chance or by accident. They are deliberately ordered because they help the property owning
class extract the surplus from the working people. Take an example. The relations of production
under feudalism, in which the serf is dominated in all respects by the feudal lord, are necessary
to enable the feudal lord to appropriate the surplus from the serf. If such a relationship is
continued under capitalism it will fail. Therefore, a new set of production relations develops
under capitalism that enables the capitalist appropriate surplus value from the workers.

It should also be noted that neither the forces of production nor the relations of production are
fixed and static. Even within a given mode of production the forces of production may change.
In any society, we may find that over the years greater production follows improvements in
technology. The capitalist nations are very different from what they were two to three hundred
years ago, when capitalism was born. This change in the productive forces has resulted in
changes in the relations of production. The workers in the twenty first century, may not be as
exploited as the factory workers in the nineteen centuries. Marxists would, however, argue that
exploitation still remains, because the modern workers, with modern technology, produce
more surplus value than their predecessors, and they do not proportionately earn that much
more.

5
More than one mode of production may exist within any particular society at a given point in
time. But in all forms of society there is one determinate kind of production which assigns rank
and influence to all the others. Here we shall discuss each of the four modes of production,
identified by Marx during his studies of human societies: -

I. Asiatic Mode of Production

The concept of Asiatic mode of production refers to a specific original mode of production. This
is distinct from the ancient slave mode of production or the feudal mode of production. The
Asiatic mode of production is characteristic of primitive communities in which ownership of
land is communal. These communities are still partly organised on the basis of kinship relations.
State power, which expresses the real or imaginary unity of these communities, controls the
use of essential economic resources, and directly appropriates part of the labour and
production of the community. This mode of production constitutes one of the possible forms of
transition from classless to class societies; it is also perhaps the most ancient form of this
transition. It contains the contradiction of this transition, i.e. the combination of communal
relations of production with emerging forms of the exploiting classes and of the State. Marx did
not leave behind any systematic presentation of the history of India. He set down his
observations on certain current Indian questions which attracted public attention, or drew
materials from India’s past and present conditions to illustrate parts of his more general
arguments. The concept of Asiatic mode of production is therefore inadequate for an
understanding of Indian history and society.

II. Ancient Mode of Production:

This refers to the forms which precede capitalist production. In some of these terms slavery is
seen as the foundation of the productive system. The relation of masters to slaves is considered
as the very essence of slavery. In this system of production, the master has the right of
ownership over the slave and appropriates the products of the slave’s labour. The slave is not
allowed to reproduce. If we restrict ourselves to agricultural exploitation operates according to

6
the following modalities: the slaves work the master’s land and receive their subsistence in
return. The master’s profit is constituted by the difference between what the slaves produce
and what they consume. But what is usually forgotten is that beyond this, the slaves are
deprived of their own means of reproduction. The reproduction of slavery depends on the
capacity of the society to acquire new slaves, that is, on an apparatus which is not directly
linked to the capacities of demographic reproduction of the enslaving population. The rate of
accumulation depends on the number of slaves acquired, and not directly on their productivity.

Slaves are different from the other members of the community in that they are rightfully
deprived of offspring. Their status as ‘foreigners’ is permanent. A profit is made out of the
‘foreigner’.

Hence, if one wants the system to have a certain continuity and to become organic, then one
must not allow the slave to have dependents. In each generation one must provide the means
of introducing foreigners as replacements for worn-out slaves. We find an intimate and
necessary liaison between these two levels of exploitation: a relation through pilfering between
one population and another, and a relation of exploitation between the class of slaves and the
class of masters.

In slavery, the growth of the labour force is independent of effective demographic forces. It
rests not on the demographic growth which is due to natural increase, but on the means
devoted to the capture (as in war) of foreign individuals. The possibility of accumulation comes
about through the multiplication of slaves independently of growth in the productivity of
labour.

This mode of exploitation permits a demographic manipulation of society. It permits the

modification of the birth rate, the manipulation of the ‘age’ at birth, and the manipulation of
the duration of life, especially active life.

7
The test of the dominance of slave mode of production lies not in the numbers of the slaves but
in their location, that is, in the extent to which the elite depend on them for their wealth.

III. Feudal Mode of Production:

Marx and Engels were primarily interested in the definition of the capitalist mode of
production. Their writing about feudalism tended to mirror that interest, as well as focusing on
the transition between the feudal and the capitalist modes of production. They were concerned
with the ‘existence form’ of labour and the manner in which the products of labour were
appropriated by ruling classes. Just as capitalists exploited the workers or the ‘proletariat’, so
did the feudal lords exploit their tenants or ‘serfs’. Capitalists grabbed surplus value and feudal
lords appropriated land rent from their serfs.

Serfs, being legally unfree, were deprived of property rights, though they could use the lord’s
property. They were obliged to surrender their labour, or the product of their labour, over and
above what was needed for family subsistence and the simple reproduction of the peasant
household economy. Serfs or the producers were forced to fulfil the economic demands of an
overlord. These demands could be in the form of services to be performed. These could also be
in the form of dues to be paid in money or kind. The dues or taxes were levied on the family
holdings of the peasants. Thus feudal rent whether in the form of services or taxes was an
important component of the feudal mode of production. The feudal lord was able to force serfs
on the basis of military strength. This power was also backed by the force of law. In this mode
of production, serfdom implied a direct relation between rulers and servants. In feudal
serfdom, the instruments of production were simple and inexpensive.

The evolution of the feudal system brought about the development of exchange of agricultural
and manufactured products in regional markets. Special needs of the ruling class and high
ranking Church officials gave an impetus to the growth of commodity production, including
consumption goods such as silks, spices, fruits and wines. Around this activity developed
international trade routes and mercantile centers. It laid the foundation for capitalist relations

8
of production, which were to become the main contradiction of the system and cause its
downfall. In the course of this transformation, many peasants were expropriated from their
lands and forced to become wage-labourers.

IV. Capitalist Mode of Production:

Capitalism refers to a mode of production in which capital is the dominant means of

production. Capital can be in various forms. It can take the form of money or credit for the
purchase of labour power and materials of production. It can be money or credit for buying
physical machinery. In capitalist mode of production, the private ownership of capital in its
various forms is in the hands of a class of capitalists. The ownership by capitalists is to the
exclusion of the mass of the population. You can take this to be a central feature of capitalism
as a mode of production.

As a mode of production, capitalism has the following characteristics:

 Goods are produced for sale rather than own use.

 The capacity to do useful work or labour power is bought and sold in a market. For a
period of time (time rate) or for a specified task (piece rate) labour power is exchanged
for money wages. In ancient mode of production labourers were obliged or forced to
surrender their labour. Contrarily, in capitalist mode of production labourers enter into
a contract with employers.
 The use of money as a medium of exchange. This gives an important role to banks and
financial intermediaries.
 The production process is controlled by the capitalists or their managers.
 Financial decisions are controlled by the capitalist entrepreneur.
 Individual capitalists compete for control over the labour and finance.

Base and Superstructure:

9
Base and superstructure are two linked theoretical concepts developed by Karl Marx, one of
sociology's founders. Base refers to the production forces, or the materials and resources, that
generate the goods society needs. Superstructure describes all other aspects of society.
Marxian theory of history largely speaks about how the economy offers a foundation to social
life. He considers that economy is defined by modes of productions. Modes of productions are
characterized by factors of production that include land, industry, technology, labour, and
capital. The factors of production necessarily define production relations. Therefore, Marx
considers that production relation is an economic relation that offers a foundation to human
society. Production relationship offers a foundation to human history because the conditions
present in the economic base will impact the conditions present in the superstructure of society
where politics, religion, education, law, and culture are placed. Therefore, Karl Marx advocates
that the economic base is a foundation for social life. The superstructural institutions will
always respond, cater and gratify the needs of the class that dominates in the economic base
will be influencing the super-structure and resulting in social change. His theory of historical
materialism is grounded on his base and super-structure analysis.
The basis according to Marxism is the totality of the relations of production, that is, the
relations of property exchange and distribution. These are included in the basis because all
these constitute the economic structure. It is nevertheless connected with the dominating
mode of production. Only the dominant mode of production determines the character and
essence of the basis. In Marx’s famous writing Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,
he says “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations,
which are independent of their will, namely, relations of production appropriate to a given
stage in the development of material forces of production. The totality of these relations of
production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a
legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social
consciousness.”
SOME FEATURES OF BASIS AND SUPERSTRUCTURE:

10
● Marx argued that the superstructure grows out of the base and reflects the ruling class'
interests. As such, the superstructure justifies how the base operates and defends the power of
the elite.
● Neither the base nor the superstructure is naturally occurring or static. They are both social
creations or the accumulation of constantly evolving social interactions between people.
● The economic structure is not conceived as a given set of institutions, productive units, or
material conditions, it is rather the sum total of production relations entered into by men, or, in
other words, class relations between them Marx says – “it is always the direct relation of the
owners of the conditions of production to the direct producer.”
● The most important feature of the economic basis is that its existence is represented by
material relations. That is, the economic basis is the result of material relations. On the other
hand, the superstructure is not based on material relations. The elements of superstructure are
ideology, culture, art, literature, history, etc.
● The base or basis has a general character. All the members of the society in one way or other
are connected with the basis. The source of sustenance of the superstructure is the basis. This
is due to the fact that the basis is economic and no one, small or big, is away from the economic
influence of the basis. Thus, all are participants in the activities of the basis. It is true that there
is anomaly and inequality in the distribution of material benefits produced by the economic
basis. But this is a different issue. The mere fact is that the economic basis is all-embracing.
● One of the most important features of the basis is it has a class character in an antagonistic
society. The totality of the production relations is based on private ownership of the means of
production. So, the capitalists or the owners of the means of production are the controlling
elements of the economic base. In an antagonistic society, the basis is bound to be controlled
by the bourgeoisie.
● A. P. Sheptulin has pointed out another aspect of basis. He says “the basis represents a kind
of intermediate link between productive forces and superstructure. Neither the productive
forces nor changes in them have a direct influence on the superstructure or political, juridical,
and other social ideas and corresponding institutions. This influence is indirect, through the
basis.”

11
INTERACTION OF BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE:
In the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy Marx writes “The mode of production of
material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the
consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that
determines their consciousness.” This observation of Marx clarifies the relationship between
base and superstructure or the interaction between the two. The interaction between base and
superstructure implies that one influences the other. It is said that the base has a dominant and
determining role. On the other hand, in some cases, the superstructure exerts its influence
upon the base. Whatever the nature of the basis, such will be the nature and hallmarks of the
superstructure. If one basis is replaced by another, the old superstructure will be replaced more
or less rapidly by a new superstructure. Generally, the superstructure is the reflection of the
basis. In the feudal society the basis was feudal, that is, the production relations were feudal.
The superstructure was also feudal. When the feudal basis was replaced by a capitalist basis the
feudal superstructure also lost its relevance and, hence, was replaced by a capitalist
superstructure. Analyzing the interaction between base and superstructure Engels writes “po-
litical, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc. development is based on economic
development. But all these react upon one another and also upon the economic basis. It is not
that the economic situation is the cause, solely active, while everything else is only a passive
effect. There is rather an interaction on the basis of economic necessity, which ultimately
always asserts itself.” The relationship between basis and superstructure is never one-way
traffic. In a class society, the superstructure has a class character and becomes a battleground
for a fierce class struggle reflecting the opposite interests that are determined and consolidated
by the antagonistic basis. The struggle at the superstructure level is the struggle between ideas
and ideologies. The capitalists utilize the various modes of expression for the propagation of
ideas and ideologies. Particularly the audio-visual methods are under their control. The
proletarians use their own methods. But they are in an inferior position. However, that does
not discourage them.
ROLE OF SUPERSTRUCTURE:

12
Though the change of the economic foundation immensely transforms the super-structure, it is
wrong to assume that the superstructure is a passive and completely dependent force. It is an
active force. As far as the development of society is concerned we witness an active and
sometimes independent role of the superstructure. The bourgeois superstructure, by utilizing
the various propaganda machines, severely criticizes the various aspects of socialism in order to
resist the downfall of the capitalist system. But all the elements of the bourgeois superstructure
are not under the control of the bourgeoisie. The working class also utilizes a part, thought it
might be a microscopic fraction, of the vast superstructure for the propagation of the socialist
ideology, for the exposition of bourgeois exploitation and finally to make working men
conscious. Part of the literature, history, and law is used by the proletarians. The literature of
every country and of every epoch exposes the real character of the bourgeoisie. It has been
argued by Marxists that superstructure, though dependent on the basis, has its own laws of
development and operation. Moreover, several of its elements interact and influence each
other. All the changes in the superstructure are not due to the changes in the economic basis of
society. Many changes in the superstruc-ture are caused by the class struggle. There are a
number of contra-dictions on the basis which are created by private capitalist property in the
means of production. These contradictions “In effect split the political and ideological
superstructure into two antagonistic parts the ruling and the non-ruling”. The ruling parts
consist of the bourgeois state, bourgeois party, bourgeois law and bourgeois theoreticians, and
the proletarian parties, proletarian organizations and Marxist-Leninist ideologies are the non-
ruling parts.

Theory of Capitalism:

Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals have the means of control over
their own property, with the motivation to make as much profit as possible. Marx describes
capitalists as those who exploit the hard work of the laborers and pay them as little as possible
to ensure the highest profits. The capitalists believe they are entitled to the profits made from
their workers’ labor which Marx viewed as theft.

13
Marx described the capitalists as the bourgeoisie business owners who organize the means of
production, such as any tools or machinery used, and are entitled to any profit made.

Marxists believe that most societies are capitalist. That such a system is accepted without the
need for violence or coercion is said to reflect the fact that the capitalists have a strong
influence over ideas in society (Rose, 2005).

Marx saw profit as theft since the capitalists are stealing the hard work of the laborers, selling
goods and services for an enormous profit while paying the laborers as little as possible.
Workers’ labor is bought and sold like any other commodity.

That such a system is accepted without the need for violence or coercion reflects the fact that
the capitalists have a strong influence over ideas in society (Rosen, 2005).

Marx viewed capitalism as an unstable system that would eventually result in a series of crises.
The means of exploitation built into a capitalist economic system will be the source of social
revolt and ultimately lead to capitalism’s dismantling.

Theory of Alienation:

Alienation means the lack of power, control and fulfillment experienced by workers in capitalist
societies which the means of producing goods are privately owned and controlled.

Marx described a division of labor, meaning that the production workers increasingly feel
separated from their work. Workers have moved away from an artisanal approach to work
when one person works on one product.

With the increase in machinery, technological advancements, and assembly lines where many
people work on one product, there is a loss of meaning to individual workers.

As this division of labor increases along with the extent of production required for the market,
the workers become more dependent on their labor for mere survival. As capitalist production

14
becomes more technical, the workers’ productivity increases, but the final product of their
labor is not for the worker to enjoy – it is the property of the capitalist.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels suggest that under capitalism, the proletariat
lose all individual character, becoming ‘an appendage of the machine’, thus, their work
becomes alien.

The proletariat loses agency over their work lives, instead, this is determined by the
bourgeoisie, including when and how long to work. Thus, the workers view their labor as
something alien to them.

Marx describes alienated labor as forced and involuntary labor in which the worker finds no
purpose, pleasure, contentment, or power. The worker feels isolated and insignificant, seeing
their labor as purely for wages.

As the division of labor increases along with the extent of production required for the market,
the workers become more dependent on their labor for mere survival. Their productivity
increases as capitalist production become more technical, but as a result, the final product is
not for them to enjoy, rather, it is the property of the capitalist.

Thus, the workers view their labor as something alien. Not only the object but the process of
production is alien, for it is no longer a creative activity.

Marx describes alienated labor in his writings as forced and involuntary labor in which the
worker finds no purpose, pleasure, contentment, or power. The worker feels isolated and
insignificant, seeing their labor as purely for wages.

Conflict Theory

Karl Marx is known as the developer of conflict theory. This is the idea that society is in a state
of perpetual conflict because of two or more groups with competing and incompatible
interests. It is the theory that power struggles and dynamics drive societal change.

15
Marx concentrated on the conflict between the social classes: those of the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat. The power the bourgeoisie hold can be found in their material resources,
accumulated wealth, and social status.

As capitalism develops, there are fewer but more powerful individuals in the upper class, which
creates conflict with a majority oppressed class. The two groups are in a struggle, and resources
are unjustly distributed to the few.

Marx reasoned that as the social conditions worsened for the workers (e.g., through lower pay),
they would develop a class consciousness that revealed that their exploitation was at the hands
of the capitalist. The workers can make demands to ease the conflict, but conditions would
eventually get worse again.

According to Marx, the only way to end the cycle of conflict is to bring about communism.

KEYWORDS:

Ancient Mode of Production: Refers to a production system where the master has the right of
ownership over the slave and appropriates the products of his labour through servitude,
without allowing the slave to reproduce.

Asiatic Mode of Production: Refers to community-based production system where ownership

of land is communal and the existence of is expressed through the real or imaginary unity of
these communities.

Bourgeoisie: The class of capitalists who, in all developed countries, are now almost exclusively
in possession of all the means of consumption and of all the raw materials and instruments,
machines, factories necessary for their production.

Capitalist Mode of Production: Refers to a production system where the owners of means of
production, capitalists, extract surplus labour from the proletariats in the form of profits.

16
Capitalists: The ruling class in capitalism who control the means of production.

Feudal Mode of Production: Refers to a production system where the lords appropriate surplus
labour from the serfs in the form of rent.

Forces of Production: Refers to the material technical aspect of production as well as the
corresponding labour power and its competencies required in the production process.

Lords: The ruling class in feudalism, who exercise indirect control over serfs.

Masters: The ruling class in slavery who exercise control over slaves.

Mode of Production: A mode of production is the relationship between the relations of

production and the forces of production. Modes of production can be distinguished from one
another by different relationships between the forces and relations of production.

Relations of Production: Refer to social relationships that arise directly out of the process of
production. These social relationships include the relationships between the owners and non-
owners of the means of production. These relationships decide and even determine the control
and the capacity to possess the product.

Slaves: Class of producers in the ancient mode of production, who are directly controlled by the
masters as their private ‘property’.

Serfs: Class of producers in the feudal mode of production whose surplus labour is appropriated
through rent.

17