|
Question 2 : Critically discuss what you see as the hallmarks of a Marxist analysis of society. Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a German philosopher, economist, journalist, sociologists and revolutionary who, through his writings, had an enormous influence on the development of sociology as a discipline in the nineteenth century. He was the founder of revolutionary communism and in sociology of his theory of “Hsitorical Materialism”. Yet, it appears as though it was the influence in his earlier life of Hegal’s philosophy, together with the economics of Adam Smith and Ricardo and the French Revolution which aided in contributing to Marx’s development of his analysis of society. Marx’s theory of society is depicted in what is considered to be his finest masterpiece, “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy” (Das Kapital). Therefore, it is with “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy” (1867) in mind that we will explore what we see as the hallmarks of Marxists analysis of society, historical materialism, social class, class conflict and communism (as cited in Jordan,1971, pp.1-54). “Historical materialism is a theory of the transition from one “mode of production” to another”(as cited in Fulcher and Scott, 2003, p.30). These modes of production are tributary, Feudal and Capitalism. Marx’s materialist approach was based on a series of assumptions that suggest why these modes of production occur. In order for humans to survive they need to provide certain material necessities such as food, clothing and shelter. The activity of producing these commodities involves the use of technology, tools, knowledge, skills, land, raw materials and factories. Marx referred to these as “productive forces” also known as the “infrastructure” or foundations of society’s economy. A further part of society, the “superstructure”, consisting of the institutions of the family, law, politics, education, media and religion, maintains and legitimates the foundations, and so “assigns causal priority to the forces of production in bringing about change” (as cited in Zeitlin, 1994, p.127). Marx also implies “that the “mode of production” determines the general character of the social, political, and spiritual processes of life” (as cited in Zeitlin, 1994, p.126). On the other hand, Marx’s Critics have criticised Marx for “advocating a form of economic determinism in which the “foundation is the cause and the “superstructure” the effect” of social changes (as cited in Zeitlin, 1994, p.127). “If therefore, “productive forces” describes how a society produces its means of livelihood and goods, “relations of production” addresses the question of who owns and controls a society’s resources” (as cited in Zeitlin, 1994, p.128). In tributary societies the most under developed form of society the “mode of production” has been liken to primitive communism. Here property is owned by the community and organised around bonds of kinship. The “forces of production” were hunting and gathering. From these primitive communistic tribes of Western Europe evolved “the slave- owning systems of Feudal “mode of production” (as cited in Fulcher and Scott, 2003, p.30). In feudal society the “forces of production” were agricultural land, peasant labour, simple technology and livestock. The “relations of production” were “the division between landowners and unfree labours, who worked for the landowner as well as for themselves” (as cited in Fulcher and Scott, 2003, p.30). Historically, Feudalism has been associated with simple instruments of production, with production for the immediate needs of the household or village community and with a politically decentralised system.
Approximate Word count = 2139
Approximate Pages = 8.6
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
