Marx's Stages of Social Change: A Critical Analysis

Introduction to Marx and Historical Materialism

Karl Marx is highly regarded as one of the foremost authorities in economics and social structure. It is through his beliefs that the intellectual tradition of Marxism was created. Although very controversial in his thoughts and beliefs, Marx outlined what he believed to be a social framework for society. According to Marx, society often begins a series of transformations directly related to the primary flow of labor and production (Singer, 2000). Through the division of labor, each organizational structure contains a central conflict. Marx characterized each organizational structure by conflict among different parts of society, with particular emphasis on economic status. He focused a disproportionate amount of his research on the social relationships between the economic classes prevailing in society (Marx, 1990), and tended to focus on the relationships between entry-level workers and their immediate supervisors.

Marx identified historical epochs from the beginning of human existence. These "stages" were characterized into four distinct categories: tribal, industrial, feudal, and capitalist. Marx believed that it was neither technology nor the overall factory that defined capitalism. Instead, he believed that the emergence of social relations defined capitalism. Marx often defined capitalism by reference to the ruling class and the subordinate class (David, 1973). Consequently, all stages have an oppressor and an oppressed group—the latter being those who provide the labor. He defined his structure using the following quote: "The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of their dominance."

Marx predicted that his stages had a sequential order and that once the working class realized their plight, they would revolt and opt to form a more socialist society. However, Marx believed that society goes through a natural progression, ultimately manifesting itself with the ruling class taking over both authority and power over the production of labor. These stages are detailed below.

The Four Stages of Social Development

The tribal form of society has no social classes but is structured around kinship relations. These relationships are fostered through a separation of roles and responsibilities within the overall framework of society. For instance, men primarily did the hunting and manual labor, while women performed much of the domestic work. The tribal form, according to Marx, was very elementary and emphasized the strengths of each component of the social structure.

However, as tribal society progresses, the tendency to use others for production increases exponentially. Those within the tribal society will elect to enslave others in order to produce more goods and services. Initially, this tendency is restrained by the necessities of life. The need for basic amounts of food, clothing, and shelter creates a society in which all members are producing goods and services, and the production of labor is relatively equal because society is based on kinship relationships. However, through societal progression, a slave culture is likely to emerge, particularly as the population increases. This cycle begins to feed on itself, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy as "the growth of wants" steadily erodes kinship relations. Subsequently, the growth of relations with outside civilizations through war and barter establishes an imbalance between the production of labor and those who control it. As Marx indicated, with slave culture, we see the beginning of class society (Curtis, 1976).

The second stage is that of feudal communism. Marx explains this concept as "the ancient communal and state ownership which proceeds especially from the union of several tribes into a city by agreement or by conquest" (Marx, 2001). During this stage, the concept of private property begins to develop: "With the development of private property, we find here for the first time the same conditions which we shall find again, only on a more extensive scale, with modern private property. On the one hand, the concentration of private property…; on the other hand, coupled with this, the transformation of the plebeian small peasantry into a proletariat" (Marx, 2001).

This stage is particularly significant because it introduces the underlying notion of capitalism as it relates to assets. Society progresses from a civilization based on kinship to one based on property ownership. Civilization under this stage also becomes more fragmented. Instead of societal kinship, this stage is characterized by kinship to the immediate family, and in some instances the benefit of the family trumps that of the city, state, or country. As such, protectionism emerges. Individuals begin to own their own property in order to provide for their own needs, with little regard for society overall. A sense of individualism manifests itself as individuals tend to look out for their own needs, irrespective of the needs of others. This dynamic also creates the concept of classes, as more individuals own more property with little regard for how much they are taking from others (Engels, 1976).

The next stage is called the industrial stage. Much like the tribal and communal stages, it is again based on community, though to a lesser extent. Those directly producing labor are now emerging as their own distinct class—the peasantry. In society, the feudal structure manifested itself in what were called trade guilds. During this stage, production and labor were both very limited, with very little division of labor.

Exploitation functioned differently during this stage than during the height of capitalism, because each feudal peasant knew exactly what proportion of his labor had to be handed over to the aristocracy and the church; the remainder was his to use as he saw fit. This is, to some extent, similar to capitalism. In large part, all those who labor must pay taxes to the government, with the remainder being used as the individual wishes. In American society, this concept is termed discretionary income (Enrique, 2001).

The final stage of social change is that of capitalism. Due primarily to the inevitable growth of commerce and human populations, feudal society begins to accumulate capital. Marx believed that the higher classes would also accumulate large amounts of debt to fund a lavish and oppressive lifestyle. This, he argued, eventually contributed to the English Revolution of 1640 and the French Revolution of 1789—both struggles for a society structured around commodities and profit, with the justification that all men are free.

Marx disagreed with the capitalistic version of freedom. He argued that in such a society, the laboring class is fooled into believing they are free because they are paid for their labor. Marx contended that the transformation of labor into an abstract quantity that can be bought and sold on the market leads to the exploitation of that labor—benefiting only a small percentage of the population who have the financial strength to control the flow of labor capital in society. The working class, Marx believed, would thus experience alienation, since its members feel they are not in control of the forces driving them into a given job. The reason is that someone else owns the means of production, which are treated as private property—a concept similar to that of the feudal and industrial stages (Felluga, 2002).

A Critical View of Class Warfare

To a certain extent, I disagree with Marx's distinction of class warfare as it relates to social change. Class warfare, to a limited degree, is a necessary aspect of societal evolution. The lower class will always aspire to reach the higher class, and it is through this dynamic that civilization as a whole can flourish. The desire to reach the upper class encourages innovation, new processes, new goods, and new services that ultimately benefit society. The profit motive that encourages both the lower and middle classes is a benefit to society. As such, there will undoubtedly be class tension as individuals become frustrated with their personal circumstances—and in isolation, I believe this to be justifiable. The net good done to society in the form of new goods and services far outweighs the negatives of a few individuals engaging in conflict with the upper class.

However, class warfare taken to extremes can be extremely detrimental to society at large and to the individuals initiating it. To this extent, I agree with Marx. The 2008 financial crisis offered a timely example of Marx's principles as they relate to real-world implications. During 2010 through 2012, in response to the economic crisis, the Occupy Wall Street movement emerged as a direct challenge to class distinctions and the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor. In this instance, the movement arguably harmed society, as participants were not working or being productive. Both the unions and the Occupy Wall Street movement serve as a check and balance against the loss of labor control. In many industries—including education, law enforcement, firefighting, automobile manufacturing, and aviation—workers collectively control the productive labor in their fields, and can balance the interests of the productive class with those of the upper class to a certain extent.

To be fair, the upper class can simply outsource and take labor abroad. However, this propensity to outsource will eventually diminish. As the economies of low-wage countries prosper, their workers too will demand higher wages, thus balancing out the power of those who control labor. I believe Marx did not take this phenomenon into account. Globalization has, to a large extent, diminished the power of those who control labor.

Conclusion

Societies do change and alter as circumstances dictate. In many instances, conflicts between those who produce the labor and those who control it arise—this is to be expected, as society must have both components to function properly. However, this disparate relationship between the lower and upper classes is precisely what gives rise to many of the innovations that benefit society as a whole. As such, Marx was only partially correct. Over time, civilization will prosper not at the expense of one class over another, but as a whole. A rising tide lifts all boats, and this instance is no different.

References

Curtis, Michael (1997). Marxism: The Inner Dialogues. Transaction Publishers. pp. 201–291. ISBN 978-1-56000-945-0.

David McLellan (1973). Karl Marx: His Life and Thought. New York: Harper and Row. pp. 189–190.

Engels, Frederick. "Principles of Communism." In Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Volume 6. New York: International Publishers, 1976. pp. 341–357.

Enrique D. Dussel and Fred Moseley (2001). Towards an Unknown Marx: A Commentary on the Manuscripts of 1861–63. Psychology Press. pp. 33–67. ISBN 978-0-415-21545-9.

Felluga, Dino. "Modules on Marx: On the Stages of Economic Development." Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. July 7, 2002.

Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. "The Communist Manifesto." In Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Volume 6. pp. 450–519.

Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. The German Ideology Part One, with Selections from Parts Two and Three, together with Marx's "Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy." New York: International Publishers, 2001.

Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1. Trans. Ben Fowkes. New York: Penguin, 1990.

Singer, Peter (2000). Marx: A Very Short Introduction. pp. 5–45. ISBN 0-19-285405-4.