Introduction
Marxian theorizing represented a significant growth of the postulations of some the greatest representatives of beliefs, economic idea, and socialism. Those positions are the essence, a fusion of German philosophy, English economic thought, and the best of French socialism (Rob Sewell, 1994). As such, it was that Marx matured under an atmosphere of Hegelianism and its unavoidable influence – through radical Hegelianism and the Young Hegelians (Jim Blaut, Hegelian and Marxist Dialects, 2002). That influence became apparent in Marx’s dialectical approach to understanding the fundamental sociological question: “How is society Possible?”
The theoretical intercourse that occurs within Marxian thought is made apparent through the many manifestations of the dialectics within society. For distinguished sociologist, Karl Marx, the role of the dialectic is in analyzing the antagonistic and contradicting forces within society. So, conflict then becomes one of, if not the most important concept used in Marxian thought to explain or show the existence of the dialectical nature of society. It should be noted that, a dialectical relationship also exists in Marxian theorizing, between the structures or infrastructure and the superstructure, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (that is, the oppressor and the oppressed, the exploiter and the exploited), ‘class consciousness’ and ‘false consciousness’, and even between conflict and equilibrium.
Therefore it becomes essential in examining and distinguishing ‘the roles of dialectics and conflict in Marx’s sociology on a whole’, to define the key concepts of Marxian thought, important in understanding the question being asked. According to the Dictionary.com, 2003, dialectics is the “contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their continuing interaction.” As such, by extension therefore, conflict or class struggle may be defined as the “struggle between capital and labour” (Bob Jessop, Karl Marx, Key Sociological Thinkers, 1998). Therefore, it is the resulting contradiction caused by antagonism within the dialectical relationship. This suggests that social change, broadly defined, is the post facto occurrence of class conflict.
The role of dialectic, therefore, is in analyzing the relationship between two opposite forces. So, conflict then becomes the central theme of the dialectical relationship, and social class conflict that leads to social change. This, now, is the basis of Marxian theorizing: but, “it is more complicated than this simple and faceless explanation?” Which call for more in depth analytical exploration of the matter?
The Genesis and Development of the Marxian Dialectical Approach
The origin of dialectical thought did not begin a few years ago but came about over some two (2) thousand years ago. This, then, new phenomenon was systemicatically developed by Hegel, and was further advanced by Marx and Engel. Karl Marx’s notion of the dialectic is traceable to Hegel, and characterizes every single element of his theory (Key Sociological Thinkers, 1998).
Due to Marx contribution to politics, economic and sociology, it may be, easily, accepted and misconstrued that he is the only contributor to the development of the dialectical approach to some theories. As such, Hegel’s work can be said to be significant in at least three (3) respects to the core of Marxian theorizing (Any Austin, Hegelian and Marxist Dialectics, 2002). These include the Hegelian theory of change (that the transformative overcoming of natural and socially inherent limitations); Hegel’s theory of the “objectification of the material work through human labour” (Andy Austin, 2002); and Hegel’s attack on the liberal conception of the individual. Therefore it is Hegel, more than any one else, who can be seen as the “genesis of the anthropological hardcore of Marxian materialism’ – (Andy Austin, 2002).
Where as Hegel postulated materialism’ the idea that “the intellectual world of reason and views ultimately determines history” Marx on the other hand, argued that it was the “economic world that provided the key to understanding and transforming historical development” (Key Sociological Thinkers, 1998). Such an intellectual discourse is unambiguously expressed in the philosophical dispute between idealism and realism (mind and matter debate).
Therefore, while Marxian methodology is rooted in Hegelian dialectics, Hegel can be considered to be a ‘philosophical idealist’. Furthermore, Marx accepted Hegel’s vague understanding of the historical dialectic. He, however, unequivocal rejected and criticized Hegel’s ‘idealism’ and ‘false positivism’, which implicitly justifies the status quo (Michelson, 1994). According to Marx, because of this idealism in his notion of the dialectic, Hegel “has only found the abstract, logical, speculative expression for the movement of history” (Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 …). Similarly, in his Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (1867), Marx bluntly stated that the dialectic suffered a “mystification …in Hegel’s hands” and “it must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell” (pp. 45).
Concurrently, Marx attempted to turn Hegel’s notion of the dialectic “right side up”, by transforming it from a dialectic of idealism to a dialectic of human development, where “history is demystified and understood as humanity’s own creation and development of itself through labour” (B. Ollman, 1971). As such, Marxian methodology is a materialist dialect where it views social reality as a historical process (Mickelson, 1994).
Manifestations of Marxian Materialist Dialectics
In answering the fundamental sociological question (as to the origin or existence of society), Marx employed a materialism approach. He began by analyzing human activity, and argued that consciousness is a product of that (economic) activity (Key Sociological Thinkers, 1998). Thus, in the Preface to (A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859), he argued that “it is not the consciousness of man that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness”.
In his (Marx) views, society is the relationship acted out by individuals in coming to terms with the material conditions of their subsistence (Haralambos and Holborn, 2002). For him, there needed to be a material makeover of society, rather than a change in consciousness, for the achievement of human freedom. In using the economic world or ‘historical materialism’ to analyze this transformation and development, Marx purported the very social institutions originated from or exists in economic behaviour (Classical Sociological Theory, 1997). This may explain why Marx is credited with the position of ‘historical materialism’ or ‘economic determinism’.
Furthermore, Marxian notion of the dialectic becomes even more recognizable in his discourse concerning the components of the mode of production or the economy, which are: the means of production (ideological elements), and the relations of production (material elements), otherwise called the ‘structure’ or ‘infrastructure’ and the ‘superstructure’, respectively (Macionis and Plummer, 1998, pp. 62).
In recognizing that there is a dialectical interplay at all times between the structure and the superstructure, Marx purported that the economic system was the foundation of the institutional order and everything else was (religion, government, arts and marriage) was seen as a derivative superstructure built upon the base of economics (Masters of Sociological Thought, 1971).
The clear dichotomy in the mode of production or economy is actually a manifestation of his use of the dialectic. Thus, this manifestation of dialectical intercourse is also apparent as Marx goes on to discuss class, thus analyzing social conflict and social change.
In the Communist Manifesto, it is argued that ‘the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle’. Thus, concurrent with his ‘historical determinism’ or historical materialism’ dialectics approach, Marx went on to look at class conflict as being the driving force of social change from one historical epoch to the next.
In distinguishing the five (5) different historical epochs or stage of societies to which every society exist or existed belong: Primitive communism, ancient slavery, feudal society, capitalism and ultimately communism societies. Marx forwarded a position that class society began when the structure and-or superstructure was no longer communally owned, and thereby moved to privatization of resources (Classical Sociological Theory). As such, class emerges and along with it, class conflict (due to the separation of wealth in the mode of production), there also emerged a dialectical struggle that characterized the relationship between the rulers and the ruled, the oppressor and the oppressed (Master of Sociological Thought, 1971, pp. ).
It is this dialectical struggle that leads to social change, which occurs either when the oppressors are overthrown by the oppressed, or there is the “mutual ruination” of both (Macionis and Plummer, 1998 pp. ). Similarly, as there appears to be a distinct manifestation of dialectic between structure and superstructure, Marx pays much attention to the concept of a dominant ideology, in analyzing class-consciousness.
This dialectical struggle is made manifest in the superstructure where the dominant prevailing “false consciousness” (as seen by Marx) of the bourgeoisie, either suppress or impede the true class consciousness of the proletariat. As such, the value system of each class strive for hegemony there emerges a two (2) sided struggle at the superstructure level, that also drives social change. This explains the dialectical interplay when conflict seeks to threaten the equilibrium in society.
Further analyses of the dialectics of history within Marxian sociology reveal a certain dialectical relationship between and within the two (2) [alternative (end) stages] of society: capitalism and communism. The focus on this realization as well as one’s criticisms of Marxian thought concerning them will be explained in the two (2) concepts of “dialectical capitalism” and “classless consciousness”.
Dialectical Capitalism: New Analytical Currents
The concept of “dialectical capitalism” is critical realization of the notion of capitalism, being a presupposition of conflict within society. Therefore, capitalism is a support of the fact that dialectics exist this stage of society. For there to be value consensus, a collective conscience, or class consciousness, then concurrently there is recognition of the existence of conflicting values, conflict, and false consciousness. As one cannot exist without the other, then the realization of one is the recognition of the other. The fact is, even where integration or collaboration exist, individuals will always strive for self-preservation, irrespective of the needs of others. It is that causes conflict.
However, even with the existence of conflict, a disgruntled proletarian class and the increasing socio-economic lacunae between classes, it appears that such a conflict has become institutionalized and engrafted in advanced capitalist societies (Haralamlos and Holborn, 2002, pp. ). Thus, there may not be any threat to the present social order. The result is that, it appears that the proletarian class, far from being a class of itself, is dissolving in the “class consciousness” of the ruling class, which has created an emerging middle class, making the class structure of capitalist societies even more complex.
While the abovementioned arguments may explain to an extent a number of situations in societies, it can be asserted that even with the “false consciousness” of the proletarian class and the super complex structure of the capitalist societies, there will be a group within the groups, that will not be contented with what they have, will also want to overthrow the others. Similarly, even if this does not occur, and all classes fall to the fallacy of the “collective conscience”, then the mutual ruination of the classes thereby within itself will be a cause for social change.
Another criticism of Marxian dialectical thought came from Max Weber himself, another founding intelligentsia within the discipline. In his (Max Weber) study ‘Of ascetic Protestantism’, he argued that beliefs, values, ethics and attitudes also drive the development of capitalism, and not the economic factors (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000, pp. ). Such a criticism appears rather baseless, as Marx in Capital and Communist Manifesto, did make it clear that change also occur at the super-structural level also. Although he (Marx) prioritized the economic factors (after all he was an economist), they from only on aspect of the dialectic of history. Therefore the economy is primary, but not sole determinant of change, as those who own the mode of production also control the thought processes of society (and even that is still economic in its origin).
Communism: Classless Consciousness
Considering (hypothetically) that capitalism came to an end, Marxian thought would assert that it is the final stage of societal evolution. Here lies, what may seem to be a colossal pool of foolishness, cascading down from an active volcano with fierce less in mild stupidity, in Marxian theorizing? It appears that the postulations as purported by Marx is dialectical and contradictory in nature.
The concept of “classless consciousness” is an abstract criticism of Karl Marx’s predictions on how society will change. This is abstract in pure philosophical construct. The fact is history has yet to substantiate Marx’s view of communism and how society would transcend and eventually radical transform to communism. Though one is sure that the historical materialist and economic determinist he (Marx) was, he would way that “these things take time, just wait on another evolution or revolutionary epoch.” To day marks in excess of one hundred years since his (Marx) theories were first purported to the world. Is this time, and is it sufficient time given the World Trade Organization (WTO) position that the gap between the rich and poor economies has significantly widened? The WTO in 2000 forwarded an argument in a position paper that poverty has increased in the world. Then, what has happened to Marx’s position that society would change to collectivism?
The concept also assumes that Marx’s notion of communism is no different from “valued consensus” or the “collective conscience”. In proposing a classless society, Karl Marx is in fact supporting Functionalist claims – in that there is a consensus in values of the proletarian class upon their realization of their “false consciousness” that will cause him to utilize a collective will and action to overthrow, subdue and dissolve the bourgeoisie into usurping ‘proletariat consciousness’, thus forming a classless society. Hence, a ‘classless consciousness’ will take over and allow for the sustaining and maintaining a communist society – but is this really feasible and probable given the structures in our society?
Perhaps, perhaps not – in his postulations, Marx forgot the individualistic, possessive, territorial, materialistic values and attitudes of man that drove him form a classless society (Primitive Communalism) to a class society (Ancient Slave Owning). It may make for fascinated readings and information truths for a position paper to be written on the psychological state of man in his/her pursuit of happiness, the role that materialism plays in that cognitive state. This, therefore, may add an intellectual answer as to the importance of materialistic values in how man organizes him/herself in society.
The notion of religion that Karl criticized as it relates to the ‘pie in the sky’ is arguably the same he offered through a philosophic, economic determinist guise. I must hasten to add that this author has no religious idealism or religious epistemology. Although an abstract thought, it is arguable as to whether or not communism’s last hope and Marx’s avenue of solace and theoretical redemption is in religion, where the notion of a ‘here after’ may be the ideal communist society. Or, is this just an abstract theoretical academic construct that has no bearing on realism. However, even such postulations seem to be punch-drunk, and well out of the realm of sociological theorizing. This, now, lends itself for further research as needed answer must be sought that will explain the probable ness of Marx’s idealism.
Conclusion
In retrospect, although Marxism theorizing on the whole was influenced by Hegelian idealism and dialectical thoughts, it was by rejecting and criticizing Hegelian dialectical idealism that Marx postulated a notion of dialectical materialism in explaining how society exist over time.
Difficulties, however, arise in accepting the Marxian view of the origin of society from a material economic basis. Juxtaposed against this view is the Functionalist view that societies exist when there is working out of ideas and plans to get or even know that you have material needs – some form of social contract. This is, however, still debatable.
Furthermore, Marx did not adequately forward reasons for the emergence of private ownership within (Primitive communism) classless societies. What drove men to seek the private acquisition of wealth as opposed to still looking out for others? In the same way there was a change from classless to class society, how then can Marx expect to maintain a classless society such as communism? Marx must have forgotten the unpredictable behaviour of man even without class conflict. Even within the Soviet Union up to the 1989, and this nation represented socialism and to some communism, some men were more equal than other. Within that nation many of the organisms that are evident in capitalist countries like the United States, Great Britain, France, and Italy to name a few were evident in that society. Thus to support Communism, Marx supported “value consensus” or the existence of a pre-capitalist dominant consciousness that will unite society. Given the materialistic values and idealism of man today, is Marx’s consensus assumption possible?
It is, however, unambiguously clear that dialectic and conflict goes hand in hand in Marx’s sociology on the whole and their role clear and fundamental essential to Marxism theorizing. Therefore, dialectics in context is the Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given contradiction is characterized by a primary and secondary aspect; the secondary aspect succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction (Dictionary.com).
Similarly at the foundation of dialectics is the theory of change and conflict which fuels progression through mounting antagonism between what Marx calls the mean and relations to the mean production. It is the relation of these social productions, which” constitute the economic structure of society” (Preface, 1973, pp. )
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Collins, Randal. 1994. Four Sociological traditions: selected readings, New York: Oxford University Press, London
Corder-Bolz, Judy, et al. 1978. Sociology: women, men and society. West Publishing Company, 50 West Kellogg Boulevard. P.O. Box 3526. St. Paul, Minnesota 55165
Coser, Lewis. 1971. Masters of Sociological Thought
Coser, Lewis and Rosenberg, Bernard. 1957. Sociological Theory: A Book of Readings. Second Edition. The McMillan Company, New York
Giddens, Anthony. 1982. Contemporary Social Theory. The Macmillan Press Limited. London and Basingstoke
Haralambus, M and Holborn, M (2002), Sociology: Themes and Perspective; London; University Tutorial Press
Jessop, Williams et al. 1998. Key Sociological Thinkers. R. Stones ed. New York, New York University Press
McCarney, Joseph. 1990. Social Theory and the crisis of Marxism. United Kingdom. 6 Meard St. London WIV 3HR
Macionis, John, J. and Plummer, Kenneth. 1998. Sociology. New York: Prentice Hall, New York
McIntosh, Ian. 1997. Classical Sociological Theory. Section 1, Washington Square, New York, New York University Press
Post, Ken. 1996. Regaining Marxism. The Macmillan Press Limited. Great Britain
Ritzer, George. 1992. Contemporary Sociological Theory. New York, McGraw-Hill, USA
Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. 1867. Karl Marx.Http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/archive/1848-cm/1872.txt. View date; October 23, 2003.
Communist Manifesto. Marx, Karl and Engel, F. Http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/archive/1848-cm/1888.txt. View date; October 23, 2003
Http://Dictionary.com. View date; October 23, 2003