MARXISM AND SOCIAL CHANGE
Introduction
Social
change, in sociology, is the alteration of mechanisms within the social
structure, characterized by changes in cultural symbols, rules of behaviour,
social organizations, or value systems.
Throughout
the historical development of their discipline, sociologists have borrowed
models of social change from other academic fields. In the late 19th century,
when evolution became the predominant model for understanding biological
change, ideas of social change took on an evolutionary cast, and, though other
models have refined modern notions of social change, evolution persists as an
underlying principle.
Other
sociological models created analogies between social change and the West’s
technological progress. In the mid-20th century, anthropologists borrowed from
the linguistic theory of structuralism to elaborate an approach to social
change called structural functionalism. This theory postulated the existence of
certain basic institutions (including kinship relations and division of labour)
that determine social behaviour. Because of their interrelated nature, a change
in one institution will affect other institutions.
Various
theoretical schools have emphasized different aspects of change. Marxist theory
suggests that changes in modes of production can lead to changes in class
systems, which can prompt other new forms of change or incite class conflict. A
different view is conflict theory, which operates on a broad base that includes
all institutions. The focus is not only on the purely divisive aspects of
conflict, because conflict, while inevitable, also brings about changes that
promote social integration. Taking yet another approach, structural-functional
theory emphasizes the integrating forces in society that ultimately minimize
instability
Social
change can evolve from a number of different sources, including contact with
other societies (diffusion), changes in the ecosystem (which can cause the loss
of natural resources or widespread disease), technological change (epitomized
by the Industrial Revolution, which created a new social group, the urban
proletariat), and population growth and other demographic variables. Social
change is also spurred by ideological, economic, and political movements.
The changing social order
Social
change in the broadest sense is any change in social relations. Viewed this
way, social change is an ever-present phenomenon in any society. A distinction
is sometimes made then between processes of change within the social structure,
which serve in part to maintain the structure, and processes that modify the
structure (societal change).
The
specific meaning of social change depends first on the social entity
considered. Changes in a small group may be important on the level of that
group itself but negligible on the level of the larger society. Similarly, the
observation of social change depends on the time span studied; most short-term
changes are negligible when examined in the long run. Small-scale and
short-term changes are characteristic of human societies, because customs and
norms change, new techniques and technologies are invented, environmental
changes spur new adaptations, and conflicts result in redistributions of power.
This
universal human potential for social change has a biological basis. It is
rooted in the flexibility and adaptability of the human species—the near
absence of biologically fixed action patterns (instincts) on the one hand and
the enormous capacity for learning, symbolizing, and creating on the other
hand. The human constitution makes possible changes that are not biologically
(that is to say, genetically) determined. Social change, in other words, is
possible only by virtue of biological characteristics of the human species, but
the nature of the actual changes cannot be reduced to these species traits.
The
paper at this points shall discuss the historical epoch of Social Change, with
an intent of discovering the beginning of Marxist thought and the its central
thought for Social change
Historical Background
Several
ideas of social change have been developed in various cultures and historical
periods. Three may be distinguished as the most basic: (1) the idea of decline
or degeneration, or, in religious terms, the fall from an original state of
grace, (2) the idea of cyclic change, a pattern of subsequent and recurring
phases of growth and decline, and (3) the idea of continuous progress. These
three ideas were already prominent in Greek and Roman antiquity and have
characterized Western social thought since that time. The concept of progress,
however, has become the most influential idea, especially since the
Enlightenment movement of the 17th and 18th centuries. Social thinkers such as
Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot and the marquis de Condorcet in France and Adam
Smith and John Millar in Scotland advanced theories on the progress of human
knowledge and technology
Progress
was also the key idea in 19th-century theories of social evolution, and
evolutionism was the common core shared by the most influential social theories
of that century. Evolutionism implied that humans progressed along one line of
development, that this development was predetermined and inevitable, since it
corresponded to definite laws, that some societies were more advanced in this
development than were others, and that Western society was the most advanced of
these and therefore indicated the future of the rest of the world’s population.
This line of thought has since been disputed and disproved.
Following
a different approach, French philosopher and social theorist Auguste Comte
advanced a “law of three stages,” according to which human societies progress
from a theological stage, which is dominated by religion, through a
metaphysical stage, in which abstract speculative thinking is most prominent,
and onward toward a positivist stage, in which empirically based scientific
theories prevail.
The
most encompassing theory of social evolution was developed by Herbert Spencer,
who, unlike Comte, linked social evolution to biological evolution. According
to Spencer, biological organisms and human societies follow the same universal,
natural evolutionary law: “a change from a state of relatively indefinite,
incoherent, homogeneity to a state of relatively definite, coherent,
heterogeneity.” In other words, as societies grow in size, they become more
complex; their parts differentiate, specialize into different functions, and
become, consequently, more interdependent.
Evolutionary
thought also dominated the new field of social and cultural anthropology in the
second half of the 19th century. Anthropologists such as Sir Edward Burnett
Tylor and Lewis Henry Morgan classified contemporary societies on an
evolutionary scale. Tylor postulated an evolution of religious ideas from
animism through polytheism to monotheism. Morgan ranked societies from “savage”
through “barbarian” to “civilized” and classified them according to their
levels of technology or sources of subsistence, which he connected with the
kinship system. He assumed that monogamy was preceded by polygamy and
patrilineal descent by matrilineal descent.
Karl
Marx and Friedrich Engels too were highly influenced by evolutionary ideas. The
Marxian distinctions between primitive communism, the Asiatic mode of
production, ancient slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and future socialism may be
interpreted as a list of stages in one evolutionary development (although the
Asiatic mode does not fit well in this scheme). Marx and Engels were impressed
by Morgan’s anthropological theory of evolution, which became evident in
Engels’s book The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884).
The
originality of the Marxian theory of social development lay in its combination
of dialectics and gradualism. In Marx’s
view social development was a dialectical process: the transition from one
stage to another took place through a revolutionary transformation, which was preceded by increased
deterioration of society and intensified class struggle. Underlying this
discontinuous development was the more gradual development of the forces of
production (technology and organization of labour). Revolution as seen above,
seem to be one of the major tools (concept) suggested by Marx for change
(Social Change). Therefore, this study shall deliberate majorly on Marxist view
of societal change and evolution from the standpoint of his Revolutionary
ideas/ideals (Class struggles, Conflict theory etc). however, this study shall
first attempt to give a brief overview about the life, times and general
philosophical views of Karl Marx (Founder or Proponent of Marxism).
Marx: Philosopher, Political
Scientist, and Revolutionary
Karl
Marx was born on 5th May 1818 in Trier - one of the oldest cities in Germany.
His parents, Heinrich and Henrietta, were Jewish but Marx remained an atheist
through his entire adult life. Before Marx’s birth, his father converted to
Protestantism in order to keep his job as a lawyer. Heinrich Marx was a
well-respected member of Trier’s professional class. He and Henrietta provided
their son with a solid middle-class upbringing. While the politics of Henrietta
is unclear, Heinrich is known to have been a prominent liberal in Trier. This
must have influenced the early thinking of his son. Furthermore, according to
David McLellan, it was also the political events that surrounded Marx’s
childhood days that shaped his future radicalism: … during the Napoleonic wars,
together with the rest of the Rhineland, [Trier] had been annexed by France and
governed long enough in accordance with the principles of the French Revolution
to be imbued by a taste for freedom of speech and constitutional liberty
uncharacteristic of the rest of Germany. There was considerable discontent
following incorporation of the Rhineland into Prussia in 1814. Trier had little
industry … [and the] consequent unemployment and high process caused increases
in beggary, prostitution and emigration; more than a quarter of the city’s
population subsisted entirely on public charity. … Thus it is not surprising
that Trier was one of the first cities in Germany where French doctrines of
utopian socialism appeared. (1987: 2). At the age of seventeen, Marx left home
for university. He studied law and philosophy at Bonn and Berlin. His thesis,
and the culmination of his university studies, was an exploration of the
thinking of the Greek philosophers Democritus and Epicurus.
Against the assumption of bourgeois
economists that capitalism represented the end-point of history, Marx was able
to point to its transient and social nature. As Marx put it, ‘classical
economists’ like Smith and Ricardo have no interest in explaining something
like poverty as more than “merely the pang which accompanies every childbirth,
in nature as in industry” (Marx 1977 / 1847: 211). Importantly, Marx’s
experiences in the French Revolution of 1848 stand in contrast to the
assumptions of British political economists that construct people as
self-seeking individuals and that naturalise capitalist social relations. In
the ‘June Days Uprising’, Marx witnessed, first hand, that class struggle was
not simply an egoistic response to exploitation. Rather, it represented the
historical unfolding of real dialectical contradictions. Just like the Paris
Commune of 1871, class struggle could provide the embryo of socialist
revolution (Marx 1966 / 1850, 1969 / 1871). Importantly, it was through Hegel
that Marx came to understand human history dialectically. They both wrote from
a backdrop of the French Revolution and shared the revolutionary idea that
freedom was essential to being human. However, Marx was to eventually reject
Hegel’s political reformism and defence of bourgeois society. For example,
Hegel argued that freedom always took a specific historical form, and that the
progression of history brought the development of concrete possibilities to
undermine old forms. But Hegel posited that the expression of ultimate freedom
had already arrived in the form of the Prussian state.
In
providing an explanatory basis for fundamental societal change, mode of
production is understood to consist in a combination of what Marx refers to as
the forces of production and the relations of production. The famous passage
from the Preface presents this with clarity: 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 their material forces of production. The totality of these
relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, their
real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to
which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production
of material life conditions the general process of social, political and
intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their
existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a
certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come
into conflict with the existing relations of production. […] From forms of
development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.
Then begins an era of social revolution (Marx 1970 / 1859: 20 - 21).
Marxist Theories of Revolution
We
may begin our examination of the nature of revolution. With the question of
whether or not such an inquiry is relevant to our era. We say this for some
have insisted that revolution is outmoded in the present time. Professor Arthur
M. Schleainger, Jr., for example, in his book, The Vital Centre-published in
1949 expressed the opinion that "modern science has given the ruling class
power which renders mass revolutions obsolete." That Mr. Schleainger chose
to write this at the very moment when the revolution of the Chinese people had
achieved success reflects more than bad timing; it indicates a fundamental
misjudgment of the nature of our time and the nature of social revolution.
Surely, the years since 1949-one need only think of the revolution in Egypt,
Vietnam, Iraq, Venezuela, and Cuba-have demonstrated the absurdity of the idea
that because of the developments of technique, or for any other reason, mass
revolutions have been rendered obsolete. On the contrary, we are living in an
era when the obsolescence of a social order-capitalism, in its imperialist
stage-has put revolution on the agenda. We are living, in fact, in the century
that is characterized by the transformation of the world from an imperialist-dominated
one to a socialist one; this is just as certain as it is certain that, some
five hundred years ago, the peoples of Western civilization were living in a
time characterized by the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The
developments of improved techniques of destruction and propaganda in the hands
of the ruIing classes have made new some alterations in the tactic of revolution;
but, as the event of every passing day confirm, they have not eliminated the
process of revolution.
Indeed,
our era is the era of revolution par excellence, without precedent in history
for the substantive nature of its transforming force, for the quantitative sweep
which encompasses whole continents rather than single nations, and far the
speed with which it unfolds.
Definition of Revolution
How
shall: we define this term, "revolution"? The dictionary offers this:
"A sudden and violent change in government or in the political
constitution of a country, mainly brought about by internal causes." In
this definition the researcher find very little with which to agree, though the
emphasis upon internal causes as being of prime consequence is valid, I
believe. I would rather define revolution - as an historical process leading to
and culminating in social transformation, wherein one ruling class is displaced
by another, with the new class representing, as compared to the old, enhanced
productive capacities and socialIy progressive potentialities. This '
definition is to be preferred to the other, it seems to me, on many grounds;
one is that with the dictionary definition there in no distinction between
revolution and counter-revolution. But in my I view these are two quite
distinct, indeed, opposite phenomena, and any definition that would describe
both the victory of George Washington and the victory of Franc Franco by the
same name is bound to confuse more than define. Having redefined the edges and
boundaries of Revolution, we shall now conceptualise it within the field of
Marxism and its potentials for Social Change.
Whatever
else might be said about the adequacies or otherwise of Marxism, it is
virtually the only school of revolutionary thought to produce serious theories
about the sociology of revolution. Other traditions — especially the anarchist
one — have written about techniques of revolution (e.g. Blanqui) and have
speculated, often very perceptively, on what a post-revolutionary society might
be like, but have not produced the detailed analyses of social dynamics and the
conditions for revolution which were the forte of the great Marxist thinkers.
It is impossible here to examine in detail the various theories and debates of Marxist
revolutionaries. Rather, I will briefly sketch the contributions of the main
figures, with reference to a recurring and all important theme: the determinist
versus voluntarist (or spontaneist versus hegemonist) argument. Marx and
Engels, the founders of the Marxist school of thought, developed a whole
theoretical system which was the product of, yet went far beyond, western
European thought up to their time. On the basis of Hegelian philosophy, bourgeois
political economy and French Socialism, and taking into account developing
technology, the structure of capitalist society and the growing struggles
between workers and capitalists, they worked out their system. The principle
elements of this were:
1.
A philosophical view of the world which has since been called dialectical
materialism (although Marx himself never used the term). For our purposes, the
main points of this are:
*
Matter exists independently of man, and sets man the external conditions under
which he must live and work.
*
Man makes his own history as a part of nature.
*
Social processes (and, according to Engels, natural processes) proceed via
“contradictions” and their resolution.
(Already
in his philosophical view there are the elements of the great debates which
were to take place amongst Marxist revolutionaries. For the first two points
raise an inevitable question: To what extent are man’s actions determined by
his natural and social environment and to what extent is he free to make
choices — to create a world of his own making and in so doing “make himself”?
It is very easy to reply that both things happen, but the problems really arise
when one attempts to examine any concrete historical situation and make a
choice on a particular course of action.)
2.
An economic analysis, especially but not only of capitalism, which attempted to
lay bare the inherent contradictions in class societies, and thus show the
necessity (many were to later argue, the inevitability) of struggle and
eventual revolution and change.
Marx
and Engels never wrote a specific work on the theory of revolution as such, but
their writings are studded with references to the problems of a new society
developing out of an old one.
What
Marx and Engels did contribute to a sociology of revolution was a theory about
the “motor of history”. They saw the main social contradiction which impelled
society on as being that between the forces of production and the relations of
production. As technology, social classes and economic organisation (productive
forces) developed, they outgrow the class structure of society (production
relations) and the resulting tension leads to revolution and the institution of
a set of production relations which are more in accord with social needs.
After
their deaths, a period of differentiation in European Marxism set in. In the
main, this centered around the reform or revolution argument: Was the labor
movement to seek reforms within capitalism, which would eventually lead to
socialism (this gradualist reformism was, and still is, essentially a variant
of determinism) or should it see a total revolution as the only solution to
society’s problems? It was to be the tragedy of European Marxism that it could
not find a satisfactory answer to this problem. Bernstein’s "revisionism”
and the subsequent victory of reformist ideas in the main workers’ parties of
Western Europe were not adequately countered by revolutionary Marxists, most of
whom retreated into sterile slogans or a variant of spontaneism. None of them
succeeded in building a large revolutionary organisation before the end of
World War 1. It was in the “backward” countries of eastern Europe and Asia that
revolutionary theorists adequate to the tasks confronting them were to lead
successful revolutions. The reason for this is not easy to find, but it may
have something to do with the fact that for these less developed societies, Marxism
was something of a revelation — a pre figuration of their future; whereas in
western Europe, which had developed, Marxism was tending to become a set of
dogma whose understanding lagged behind the real and developing social
situation. Whether this is the case or not, the essential features which characterized
the four main Marxist theorists (Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, Mao — three of whom
were leaders of successful revolutions) of the first half of the century were:
a)
They all believed in the actuality of the revolution — its existence as a here
and now phenomenon, and the possibility, given the right conditions plus
correct theory, strategy and tactics, of overthrowing the ruling class.
b)
Each took Marxism not as a dogma, but as a framework to be creatively applied
and updated in the given conditions. Each in fact made significant
contributions to theory, especially in the analysis of the social conditions of
their particular country. In doing so, they all took into account not only Marxist
writings, but those of other social, political, economic and cultural writers.
c)
Each placed great emphasis on two aspects of revolution which at first sight
seem contradictory:
i)
The spontaneous upsurge and creativity of the masses and their urge to take
power into their own hands. All saw the importance, and encouraged the development,
of autonomous organs of people’s power which could form the embryo of the
future egalitarian socialist society,
ii)
The need for an organization which can bring consciousness by injecting new
ideas, trigger off and lead action, and where necessary act on behalf of the
masses. The unity of these two aspects distinguishes Lenin, Gramsci, Mao (also
Ho Chi Minh) and (with qualifications) Trotsky, from both those who eschew
organisation and idolise spontaneous mass actions (the anarchists etc.) and
bureaucratic, reformist and Stalinist leaders who idolise organisation and in
practice fear independent activity of the people.
d)
Perhaps the most important common feature is an emphasis on the human will as
an important element in the social process. Not only did there have to be a
consciousness of the need for revolution, but there had to exist, in large
numbers of people, the will to carry it out. This voluntarist element was seen
as a sine qua non for revolution which could, under certain circumstances, take
over from other factors and direct the social process.
Here
briefly are some of the main contributions of these four theorists:
Lenin:
Without doubt, Lenin’s most important contributions were his sociological
analyses of the dynamics of revolution and his fight against vulgar
determinism. Lenin opposed the determinist conception (in both its reformist
and anarchist variants) that the workers through their own struggles would
“spontaneously” achieve a revolutionary, socialist consciousness. He stressed
the need for an organization which would continually inject socialist ideas
into the day to day struggles of the people, providing them with an alternative
to the existing structure and ideology of society. At the same time, and as a
necessary part of this role, the revolutionary organisation served as a milieu
for the development and dissemination of a revolutionary culture and politics,
and as a “guardian” of revolutionary theory during non-revolutionary periods of
general apathy or reaction. Although he never wrote a work on political theory
which set forth his ideas as a coherent whole, Lenin also emerged as probably
the ablest Marxist political theorist and politician yet seen. In particular
Lenin’s grasp of the vital importance of political struggle against all aspects
of class society, and his actual conduct of such a struggle via the written
word and brilliant organizational work, are perhaps his outstanding
achievements. The necessity for the development and training of revolutionaries
fit to overthrow the ruling classes and then to direct the rule of the working
class was also a question which divided Lenin from many of his contemporaries
and opponents. This too was a point of divergence from vulgar determinism, for
it implies a recognition of the role of conscious effort in the revolutionary
process — a recognition that the inner dynamic of capitalist society does not
“inevitably” produce a working class (or even a section of the working class)
which can consciously take power and direct society in its own interests.
Rather, the conscious work and effort of revolutionaries (who themselves go
through a long process of developing their capabilities) is needed before even
a section of such a class is produced. Lenin was, and this view still is,
accused of elitism. Now there are undeniably elitist, inhuman and undemocratic
versions of “Leninism”, but Lenin’s views were, and still are, an incomparably
more accurate empirical statement of the realities of class society than those
of either his reformist or anarchist opponents, or most of their modem
analogues.
Trotsky:
A brilliant analyst in many fields (e.g. literature, military strategy),
Trotsky made a major contribution to revolutionary thought with his theory of
“Permanent Revolution”. This theory, which seems simple enough, was actually an
important blow against economic determinism. The latter held that in Russia a
bourgeois revolution (to overthrow the Tsar and establish the rule of the
industrial capitalists) would have to occur before the conditions for a
socialist revolution would set in, and that many decades might pass between the
two. Trotsky countered that, in certain conditions, a bourgeois revolution in
Russia could lead straight to a socialist revolution because of the weaknesses
of the Russian bourgeoisie. In the event he was proved right, for the February
revolution in 1917 was followed in October by the bolshevik one. Unfortunately,
many of Trotsky’s “followers” since then have raised his theory to the status
of a dogma which applies in all backward countries — a fate which so many such
theories seem to suffer. Because of the history of his split with Stalin,
Trotsky is a little understood figure, both as revolutionary theorist and
political activist. It is hard to make an assessment of his theory as a whole,
but alongside his voluntarism there is also a determinism, of a kind which
differs from orthodox economic determinism. This is a sociological determinism,
which has been criticized by Krasso
(n.d) as Trotsky’s basic failing. While the researcher would not
agree with the degree to which Krasso takes his critique, it seems to one that
there is a deal of truth in it. Basically, he accuses Trotsky of having had,
and acted upon, an abstract conception of “social forces” which clash on the historical
arena to produce a resultant which depends on the relative strengths of these
forces. This conception ignores the relative autonomy of ideas, politics and
culture, and ac cording to Krasso, led Trotsky to make certain characteristic
mistakes throughout his lifetime. Whatever the case about Trotsky, the
important point is that any theory which tries to explain all and sundry social
events (even major events) purely in terms of a clash of class interests, and
which sees individual historical actors as purely representative of various
“social forces” is incorrect, and revolutionaries who act on such a theory are
doomed to failure, at least in the long term.
Gramsci:
For many years this Italian Marxist, who wrote most of his books in Mussolini’s
prisons between 1926 and 1933, was ignored and forgotten. His rediscovery has
established him as perhaps the most significant and relevant Marxist for
advanced capitalist societies. His main work centered around analyses of the
social “superstructure” (culture, politics and ideas), which most Marxists have
ignored to their own cost. He developed a theory about ideas, stressing their
importance, and hit out at determinism. In this he was very much like Lenin,
but he took his analyses of society and culture much further. What makes
Gramsci of a special importance for us today is that he worked and wrote in a
society whose structure and culture were far closer to ours than those of
Tsarist Russia. Lenin’s theories and political practice took place in a certain
specific set of conditions, and even the most widely applicable of his writings
bear that stamp. Despite Lenin’s own warnings that what he wrote applied to
autocratic Russia, too many western revolutionaries interpreted the Bolshevik
success as proof of the universal validity of Bolshevik attitudes and practices.
Gramsci, while developing many viewpoints similar to Lenin’s, reflected in his
work the more advanced and complicated situation in western industrial
capitalism. Firstly, there was the stress on ideas, and on combatting rule by
consensus and the hegemony of ruling class ideas. In a society advanced beyond
the level of elemental material survival, mass consciousness becomes an
important, indeed decisive, element. Hence the battle on the cultural front,
and therefore the role of intellectuals (in a broad sense of the word — a
worker revolutionary can become an intellectual one in this sense) becomes
extremely important.
Flowing
directly from this is an emphasis on the human will as a revolutionary factor.
(It is perhaps significant that the concern with conscious revolutionary
activity came early in the evolution of both Lenin’s and Gramsci’s ideas on
socialist strategy — 1902 for Lenin, 1919 for Gramsci). As with Lenin, this
voluntarism never took the extreme forms which it did in Mao — Gramsci always
stressed the need for careful analysis and scientific understanding. Indeed,
his famous maxim that revolutionaries should possess both “pessimism of the
intellect” and “optimism of the will” is an excellent summary of a dialectical
revolutionary method. This maxim combats both the pessimistic and optimistic
variants of determinism: revolutionaries should not be romantic idealists
playing out their own fantasies in a social vacuum, nor should they succumb to
defeatism and apathy. An interesting sidelight on Gramsci’s voluntarism was his
polemic against the philosophical and theoretical bases of determinism in
certain aspects of Marxist thought. He thought Bukharin’s work “suffered from
determinism, mechanicalism and ‘vulgar’ materialism” — a criticism which is
probably related to Lenin’s judgment in his testament that Bukharin did not
“understand dialectics”. Further, Gramsci “doubted the wisdom of ‘mechanically’
asserting the objective reality of the external world — as though the world
could be understood apart from human history. Gramsci is raising here an
extremely important point. The relation between “objective” and “subjective” is
clearly bound up with that between determinism and voluntarism, and a theory about
one necessarily entails a theory about the other. There can be little doubt
that “objectivism” was part and parcel of vulgar Marxist determinism and
Gramsci’s formulation is a healthy corrective which restores man (as opposed to
“iron laws of history” outside of man’s control) to his rightful place in the
social process. Thirdly, Gramsci developed an extremely important model of the
revolutionary party and its relation to other organizations and movements of
the workers. The party he saw as merely the agent of the revolution, while the
workers must be its embodiment. The official workers’ organizations (the trade
unions) he saw as organs of capitalist society, with a specific function within
that society. The socialist party ran the risk of ending up similarly. Both
problems could be combatted by developing independent organs of the working
class — the factory councils.
The
workers’ councils would be important transitional organizations for the
revolution, and were “the model of the proletarian state.” This stress on
people’s organizations rooted in the social structure and independent of both
traditional institutions and revolutionary parties, is of immense importance,
and perhaps the single most important strategic proposition in Gramsci’s work.
Finally, Gramsci (as implied by his emphasis on workers’ councils) developed
some affinity and friendship with certain anarchists. While not agreeing with
the total anarchist view, Gramsci incorporated some of the better features of
anarchist ideas into his theory, features which some versions of Marxism
(particularly Stalinism) excluded at their own cost. The rapprochement of Marxism
and anarchism (in an honest and rigorous manner, not an eclectic one) is an
event long overdue. Gramsci’s contribution in this respect bears examination.
Mao:
Although the dogmatic adherents of Mao like to present him as the “great
Marxist of our time” it was by challenging many of the basic tenets of European
Marxism that Mao achieved success in China. Essentially, he developed a theory
of revolution in a peasant society, and a method for carrying it out (guerrilla
warfare). Although he has this difference, many of his ideas are strikingly
similar, given their different context, to those of the preceding three. In
particular, his emphasis on democratic, autonomous institutions of the people
(the peasant soviets), strong organization (the party and the army) and the
potential of the human will, all have their counterparts in Lenin, Trotsky and
Gramsci. in the determinist-voluntarist argument, Mao probably stands on a more
extreme voluntarist position than the other three. Schram, in his introduction
to The Political Thought of Mao-Tse Tung brings this out very well. As he
points out, Mao possessed a “natural Leninism” which led him to a firm grasp of
the principle that political struggle is the key to economic struggle. This was
a necessary counter to the various other trends within Chinese communism, but
after 1949 Mao raised the human will to an exaggerated place in the scheme of
things, so that he sometimes appears to act as if objective reality is a mere
extension of human subjectivity, rather than something which interacts with
subjectivity.
Mao
tends to exalt the revolutionary will of human beings until it becomes not
merely an important factor in history but an all-powerful force capable of
reshaping the material environment in a completely arbitrary fashion.
Contemporary Marxism
With
the ascendancy of Stalin in the Soviet Union after 1924, and his domination of
the Comintern, Marxist theory and practice entered a long period of deformation
and degeneration, from which it is only beginning to recover. As in so many
other fields, the theory of revolution often suffered from unimaginative and
pedestrian analyses. The pronouncements of the Comintern reflected this, and
also the effects of pragmatic considerations of what Stalin perceived as being
in Soviet interests. The main characteristics of Stalinist theory were a vulgar
economic determinism, which overemphasized the “objective” conditions and
played down the essential role of the human will in the political arena,
combined with periods of wild and ill-conceived “adventurism” which ignored
social reality. Only with the failure of Stalinism and the rise of new social
forces (the anti-war, anti-imperialist and youth movements of the west and the
liberation movements in the third world) did a revival of Marxist theory begin.
This renewal still has a long way to go. In the third world, new guerrilla war
theorists have made significant contributions (Ho Chi Minh and Giap in Vietnam,
Castro and Guevara in Latin America). In particular, the successful
practitioners of revolution by guerrilla war fare in the third world have
evolved a political and social practice in working amongst the oppressed
peasantry from which we could all (especially some misguided emulators of Mao,
Ho and Castro) learn much.
Strict
attention to organisational detail, daring and imagination in activity, and a
genuine concern for involving the people in their own emancipation, are the key
factors in the success of guerrilla warfare in Vietnam, Cuba, Algeria and
Angola. But it is in the advanced industrial west, where a new and rapidly
changing technological capitalism has arisen that the real theoretical problems
lie. These societies are far more complex, and therefore more difficult to
understand, than any hitherto existing. There are two reactions amongst “Marxists”
to this problem: One is to reaffirm the old Marxist propositions in new, revamped
forms (“Back to Marx”). Although many of these are still valuable, the attempt
to fit a totally new social situation into a theoretical framework one hundred
years old has semi-religious overtones, and in any case does not solve the
problems. (The whole thing smacks of a “reification” of Karl Marx and his
writings — an irony for the very person who did so much to expose and analyse
that phenomenon.) In particular, this attempt has led to a new determinism,
which sees the future evolution of neo-capitalism as almost “inevitably”
leading to socialist revolution. For a very sophisticated example, with many
merits besides its basic faults, we can take Ernest Mandel’s The Worker Under Neo Capitalism. Mandel
makes a penetrating and persuasive analysis of the various structural features
of neo-capitalism.
This
particular paper, as with his work as a whole, concentrates on a “classical” Marxist
analysis of the capitalist economy, attempting to bring out “objective”
contradictions which impel the workers into a fundamental clash with the
system. As a necessary corrective to the other extreme position (that of a
purely cultural and ideological critique often associated with disillusion,
pessimism and withdrawal from struggle), Mandel’s thesis is welcome,
particularly in its stress on the signs of hope in the present situation. But
as an accurate theory or a guide to action it is sadly deficient. The whole
tenor of Mandel’s argument is too simplistic and romantically optimistic.
Problems of ideological hegemony and the struggle for consciousness are glossed
over, with the suggestion that the rupture of “social continuity” during a
revolutionary crisis virtually solves the problem. Even granting that a social
crisis makes the masses more open and receptive to new ideas, it should be emphasized
that what ensues then is a titanic struggle for correct ideas, for the
dissemination of socialist ideas, culture and values — in short, for the conscious
mind of the masses. The outcome of this struggle cannot be determined in
advance, and will depend very much on the readiness and prior training of
revolutionary movements and organisations. Moreover, Mandel’s conclusion smacks
of the “triumphalism” so prevalent in many communist parties: . . . revolution
is inevitable because there is such a tremendous gap between what man could
make of our world . . . and what he is making of it within the frame work of a
decaying, irrational social system. This revolution is imperative in order to
dose that gap . . . That the revolution is imperative (in the sense of being
urgently necessary) we can all agree, but that it is inevitable is precisely
the bone of contention. Mandel seems to come down on the determinist side of
this bone, and to have therefore ignored the essential feature of Lenin’s
theory, despite his reference to What Is To Be Done?
The
point is that simply because there exists a tremendous gap between possibility
and actuality is no proof of the inevitability of revolution — in fact there is
the opposite possibility of a return to social barbarism as a rejection (even
if unconscious) of the latest possibilities. The whole experience of fascism,
and the long centuries of stagnation during the Middle Ages is surely proof
that human society does not inevitably solve its problems and contradictions by
taking a forward step. Inevitabilist theories have a certain appeal, and
movements based on them (e.g., many communist parties during the Stalin era) a
certain strength. But they have led to tragic mistakes in the past, and are
unlikely to provide the theoretical basis for a successful revolutionary
movement now or in the future. The other reaction is to take the Marxist
“classics” in a much more reasonable way: as significant contributions to a
revolutionary sociology, but not the only ones. Some (although surprisingly
few) of the new and Neo-Marxian left have avoided the first reaction and made
important analyses of society and culture (Wright-Mills, Baran and Sweezy,
Marcuse, the New Left Review group in Britain etc.), yet the main task still
lies ahead: to understand the dynamics and evolution of western society (and
for that matter, of the bureaucratic socialist states of eastern Europe) and to
evolve a political practice on the basis of that understanding. In doing this,
the contributions of the earlier Marxists are useful as a starting point, but
those who take them as a set of scriptures and ignore the very real
contributions, of others outside the Marxist tradition, do both the “greats”
and themselves a grave disservice. The paper shall now try to summarize the
theory of revolution also known as Conflict theory.
Marx Conflict Theory
For
Marxists, as stated before, there is fundamental conflict between different
groups in society. This conflict is ongoing and persistent and not temporary as
claimed by Functionalists. Marxism became particularly popular during the
1970’s as the realization that Functionalism was flawed became apparent. It
takes its name from its founder Karl Marx (1818-83). There are many accounts of
Marxism, the researcher will attempt to give you a simplified approach in the
notes that follow.
Basic Ideas Behind Marxist Conflict
Theory (Revolutionary thoughts)
1. How is Society Constructed?
Marx
noted that in order to survive we enter relationships in order to ensure
production. The forces of production and the social relationship to this form
the economic basis or infrastructure of society. The other aspects of society,
known as the superstructure is shaped by the infrastructure. So for example,
The Education system is shaped by economic factors according to Marx. Any
change in the infrastructure will thus lead to changes in the superstructure.
Marx
claims that all societies today contain contradictions. Another exploits what
he means by this is that one social group. This creates conflict of interests,
as one social group, the owners of the factors of production benefits on the
back of the others (the workers). He believed that such a position could not
continue.
According
to Marx, society is constructed from classes. In all societies, except the
simplest, there are two major classes. It is people’s relationship to the means
of production that determines which class they belong to. The most powerful
class is that which owns the means of production, (land, labour, factories) and
the least powerful is that which has to sell its labour to make a living.
How does society operate or function?
Explaining the Contradictions
1.
The First Contradiction: Wages versus Profit Achieved by the Bourgeoisie In
Marx’s view, society operates mainly through class conflict. In particular he
argues that capitalistic society the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are
fundamentally opposed. Marx believes that real wealth was only created by the
labour power of the workers. Yet the wages that are paid to them is well below
that taken in profit by the people who own the factors of production. This is a
major contradiction.
2.
The Second Contradiction: Organization versus the Nature of Ownership In
capitalism large numbers of workers, acting collectively achieves production.
In contrast, just one individual owns the factors of production and the profits
do not flow to the workers who have organized themselves collectively.
2.
What Causes Social Change?
Major
changes according to Marx are a result of new forces of production. He used the
change from Feudal society run by the noblemen, clergy, and commoners and based
upon heredity. So there was little movement within the system. Feudalism was
based upon ownership of the land. The commoners who worked the land have to
give part of their produce to the landowners; in return, the landowners
protected them to rival noblemen. Therefore, the change between this system and
capitalism resulted in contradictions. For example, capitalism is based upon
wage labour, whereas feudalism was based upon mutual obligations. The new
order, capitalism took over, it swept out the old social relationships of feudalism
and replaced them with the new. Marx called this a new Epoch.
Eventually
Marx believed there would be a final Epoch where a communistic or socialist
society would take over from capitalism. This will not be the result of a new
force of production, but will get rid of the contradictions that so far
characterized change between Epochs. Collective production would remain but
ownership would change dramatically. Instead of the Bourgeoisie, owning the
factors of production ownership will be by all. Members would share wealth that
their labour produces. This new infrastructure would not be based upon
exploitation and contradictions, instead a new final epoch would be born, one,
which would have no need to change. It would thus result in the end of history.
3.
Why has Capitalism Survived given These Massive Contradictions? Capitalism has
remained durable, in the West it has survived for 200 years. Marx claimed this
is the result of the role of the superstructure, which is shaped by the
infrastructure. So for example, the ruling elite has monopolized political
power, laws, and other institutions to maintain their control. They have thus
managed to legitimate their power and hide from the people the true nature of
their exploitation. Propagating the ideas of equality and freedom has done
this. For example, the relationship between the worker and the owner of the
factors of production is seen as equal exchange. However, in reality it is not,
although there is a degree of choice of who to work for, in reality we must
work to survive. In Marx’s words, all we can do is exchange one form of wage
slavery for another. More importantly, the ruling elite is able to dominate the
ideology of the time. They are able to produce a false picture of the world as
it is. Moreover, to stop us seeing the contradictions. We see our exploitation
as just, natural, and proper. Marx calls this a false consciousness of reality.
Marx believes this false consciousness will only work so long. Eventually
people will see behind it.
Some Critics of Social Conflict
Theory
Dahrendorf
suggests the following changes of the social structure have been sufficient to
produce post-capitalist society.
1. The decomposition of Capital.
With
the growth in the scale of business companies due to technological advances and
the development of joint stock limited companies, the link between ownership
and control of industry has been weakened. People can effectively own the
factors of production via the share issues they own.
2.
The decomposition of Labour
The
workers have become more differentiated. Far from becoming homogenized in terms
of class-consciousness, the workers have become increasingly aware of
differences between themselves. The class groups have thus become split and
disunited.
3. The development of a New
middle-class
The
new middle class is a category rather than a class in terms of Marx’s use of
this concept and is made up of white-collar workers, such as teachers,
accountants, surveyors, nurses, and clerks. A middle group has emerged to
further complicate the class system.
4. The Growth of Social Mobility
Mobility
is much more inter-generational between occupations. The class system does
appear to have some form of meritocracy. People can move between classes.
Although in reality, this movement is rare.
The Growth of Equality Social and
economic inequalities have been reduced. Although, in the 1990’s,
these inequalities have been increasing rather than decreasing. Dahrendorf
concludes that society can be characterized correctly in terms of conflict
between competing interest groups. In the light of these arguments Dahrendorf
point out what he considers the weaknesses of Marx’s theories. For him, the
basic weakness of Marx’s approach is that the way ties power - economic and
social, political to the ownership of the means of production. Dahrendorf
argues that most people in society are unlikely to be engaged in one mighty
political-economic-socialindustrial conflict, which is generated from one
structural source, property relationships. Instead, changes in social
structures create the social structural basis for a plurality of interest
groups and hence a plurality of bases for conflict.
Real-Life Examples of Conflict Theory
The
19th-century philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx saw society broken into
two classes: the proletariat (working class) and bourgeoisie (owners of the
means of production).
To
Marx, societal conflicts arise due to competition for limited resources in an
economy, leading to an eventual revolution and/or war. Ruling classes kept
working classes in states of oppression with hegemony, which imposed dominance
with social rules that all obeyed.
Political
economist Max Weber extended this definition to include multidimensional class
levels, such as those based on race, gender, and religion. He believed that in
addition to political revolution, social conflict and change can result from
discourse and the exchange of ideas.
Patterns
of class conflict theory occur when one class of people is systemically
empowered over another. The less empowered class demands a share of resources
that the more fortunate class has in abundance, leading to social conflict.
Here are some real-life examples of conflict theory in both economic and
societal situations.
ASUU actions (Academic Trade Union
Actions)
The
academic staff union of universities seem to have carried out a lot of strike
actions just to drive home their demands (Which they believed are being
deliberately seized by government official). They make several demands and all
seem to have been met by the government. They have continuously tried to see
how possible to bring the political bourgeoisies of the Nigerian state down to
their level at least.
Trade Union Strike actions
In
recent times, especially in Nigeria, one will notice the clamor for several
rights. Road transportation has a union, pensioners have a union, Teachers have
a union etc. Through their unions they are able to demands from the government
of the day. This is another clear show of resistance by the people in spite of the
political bourgeoisie present in the country
Occupy Wall Street
Part
of the backlash following the 2008 economic crisis, Occupy Wall Street was a
two-month political protest on Wall Street, New York. Its slogan, “We Are the
99%,” referred to the increasing wealth and income discrepancy between the
wealthiest 1% of the population and the rest of the country. Time Magazine
named “The Protester,” both international protesters and those involved with
Occupy Wall Street, as its 2011 Person of the Year.
#EndSars: This
was one protest that carried out nationwide, demanding for the regularization
of certain laws. Later it started chanting the songs of impeachment of the
current president of the (which was revolutionist)
The
Education System
Inherent
tracking systems in the public education system create their own class
stratification. Gifted and advanced students (who are more likely to be from
families with time and financial resources that aid educational success)
receive skills that prepare them for college and future careers.
Average-performing
students and struggling students do not receive these same opportunities in
their classes, which are often more focused on remediation and learning trades.
If these students are able to make it to college, they will be economically
disadvantaged due to student loans. This conflict has led to a national
conversation about the affordability of college and the feasibility of
canceling student loan debt.
The
Criminal Justice System
Crimes
committed by members of wealthier classes, such as powerful CEOs or
celebrities, often receive less punishment than crimes committed by people of
minority races or lower socioeconomic status. Marx maintained that because the
definition of crime and criminality is dictated by those with societal power,
the criminal justice system is another way to subjugate the working class while
elevating the higher class.
#MeToo
Movement
Another
way for ruling classes to oppress others is to abuse the power they hold over
women and men in subordinate careers. The MeToo movement, which began in 2006
and had a social media resurgence in 2017 as #metoo, identified how widespread
the issue of workplace sexual abuse and harassment had become. This type of
social revolution reflects the inevitability that both Marx and Weber predicted
when writing about conflict theory.
Race
and Black Lives Matter
Sociologist
W.E.B. Dubois explored double-consciousness, which is the sensation of having
two identities (in his case, an American and a black American) that are treated
differently. Through his formation of Racial Formation Theory, Dubois
maintained that racism in America was systemic – and that an individual racist
was not needed to maintain the discriminatory system.
Black
Lives Matter is a social movement that protests violence against black people.
It began in 2013 after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting death of
Trayvon Martin. The movement’s supporters continue to demonstrate when black
people are killed in situations that are perceived to be non-threatening.
Like
the civil rights movement that came more than 60 years before, Black Lives
Matter is another example of a social revolution after years of unequal
treatment.
Proposition
8
The
fight for gay rights culminated in American politics in 2008 when Proposition 8
passed in California. It defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The
proposition gained international attention as its passage seemed to indicate
that the gap between gay and straight marriage rights would remain. But,
proponents of gay marriage protested political donors and boycotted businesses,
indicating that the conflict between the two classes was too strong.
The
California Supreme Court later overturned the proposition, and the U.S. Supreme
Court followed suit in 2015, making same-sex marriage legal in the United
States. The conflict redefined the status quo in American politics.
Criticism of Conflict Theory
Though
conflict theory is the basis of several subsequent theories in sociology,
including race conflict theory and critical theory, it has its share of
criticism. Modern criticisms of conflict theory include:
• It focuses on conflict to the
exclusion of stable economies and societies.
• Scientific research on interpersonal
conflict is lacking.
• There is a limited ability to extend
conflict theory into a microeconomic scale, including family systems.
• It often excludes intersectionality,
which describes the network of attributes that make up a person’s identity.
• Conflict theory discounts positive
societal trends, such as humanitarianism and acts of peace.
• It does not include individuals who
move into upper social classes through means of merit or skill (e.g.,
educational advancement, sports careers, career promotion, etc.).
References
Aarons E. (1970) ‘Revolutionary Situations’ in Lenin’s
Theories on Revolution pp. 68-71. Young, Sydney
Australian left review (1972) Retrieved from http://ucf.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/ucf%3A5533
11th May 2021
Australian left review—1972. Retrieved from http://ucf.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/ucf%3A5533
11th May 2021
Bhaskar, R. 1986. Scientific Realism and Human
Emancipation. London: Verso
Brian A. Marxist Revolution theories Retrieved from http://ucf.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/ucf%3A5533
11th of May 2021
John M. Cammett (1969), Antonio Gramsci and the Origins
of Italian Communism. Stanford University Press, Stanford p. 191. Ibid. p. 192.
G Ibid. p. 82. 20
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels - Selected Works in
Three Volumes: Volume One. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Lessons of the Soviet Experience Retrieved from http://ucf.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/ucf%3A5533
11th May 2021
Marx, K. (1975 / 1844). "Economic and
Philosophical Manuscripts." pp. 279 - 400 In Karl Marx - Early Writings. London:
Penguin.
Marx, K. (1976 / 1867). Capital - A Critique of
Political Economy Volume 1. London: Penguin.
Marx, K. (1976 / 1873). Postface to the Second Edition
of Capital - A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1. London: Penguin.
Marx, K. (1977 / 1847). "The Poverty of
Philosophy." pp. 195 - 215 In Karl Marx - Selected
Marx, K. (1978 / 1843). "For a Ruthless Criticism
of Everything Existing (Letter from Marx to Ruge)." pp. 12 - 15 In The
Marx - Engels Reader, ed. R. C. Tucker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Marx, K. (1978 / 1884). Capital - A Critique of
Political Economy Volume 2. London: Penguin.
Marx, K. (1995 / 1847). The Poverty of Philosophy. New
York: Prometheus Books.
Marx, K. 1978 / 1871. "The Civil War in
France." pp. 618 - 652 In The Marx - Engels Reader, ed. R. C. Tucker. New
York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Marx, K. and F. Engels. (1966 / 1848). "Manifesto
of the Communist Party." pp. 98 - 137 In
Marx, K. and F. Engels. (1976 / 1845 – 6). The German
Ideology. 3rd Edition. Moscow: Progress Publisher
New Left Review No. 44, also the A I R reprint
pamphlet Trotsky’s Marxism. Retrieved from http://ucf.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/ucf%3A5533
11th May 2021
Preface to the new edition of History (1967) and Class
Consciousness (1971) Merlin Press, London p. xxxii.
Social change (Definition and historical development)
Retrieved https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-change/Conclusion
on 11th May 2021
Stuart R. S. (1969). The Political Thought of Mao Tse
Tung, Pelican, London.
Writings, ed. D. McLellan. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Comments
Post a Comment