Karl Marx · Economics
Marx’s claim that history is driven not by ideas or great men but by economics - by how a society produces the material things it needs to live.
Most thinkers before Marx explained history through ideas: the spread of Christianity, the genius of great leaders, the march of reason or freedom. Marx turned this on its head. The driving force of history, he argued, is material - the way human beings organise themselves to produce the necessities of life: food, shelter, clothing, goods. Change how a society produces (from farming by hand to factories with machines), and everything else - its laws, politics, religion, art, and ideas - will eventually change to match.
From this follows one of Marx’s sharpest claims: the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of its ruling class. The class that controls the means of production also controls, broadly, the means of producing ideas - schools, churches, newspapers, courts. So the beliefs a society treats as natural, obvious, and just tend to be precisely those that justify the existing economic order and the dominance of those who benefit from it. What looks like timeless truth or common sense is often, Marx insists, ideology - ideas that serve power while disguising that they do.
To understand historical materialism precisely, you have to grasp the two components that make up Marx’s economic ‘base,’ because the engine of historical change lies in the relationship between them. The first is the forces of production: everything a society uses to produce - its tools, machines, technology, raw materials, scientific knowledge, and the skills and labour of its workers. These represent a society’s productive power, its capacity to wring goods from nature, and they tend, over time, to develop and grow as human knowledge and technique advance. The second is the relations of production: the social and economic arrangements through which production is carried on - above all, the property relations that determine who owns the means of production, who works, who commands, and how the product is divided. Lord and serf, master and slave, capitalist and wage-worker: these are relations of production. Together, the forces and the relations of production constitute the economic base on which the whole superstructure rests.
The crucial insight - the actual mechanism of historical materialism - is that these two components can fall into contradiction. The forces of production develop and grow (technology advances, new ways of producing emerge), but the relations of production - the property system, the legal arrangements, the class structure - tend to be fixed and rigid, defended by those who benefit from them. For a time, a given set of relations fits and fosters the forces of production: feudal relations suited an agrarian economy of hand-tools and local markets. But as the forces keep developing, they eventually outgrow the old relations, which now constrain rather than enable them - the static property system becomes a ‘fetter’ on the dynamic productive powers straining against it. (The rising industrial technology of early-modern Europe could not flourish within feudal guild restrictions and serfdom.) This growing mismatch between what a society could produce and what its property relations allow builds tension until it is resolved by an ‘epoch of social revolution’ that bursts the old relations and installs new ones fitted to the new forces - feudal relations giving way to capitalist ones. This contradiction between developing forces and rigid relations is the precise engine that, in Marx’s theory, drives history from one mode of production to the next.
This is the opening of the lesson. The rest — the dialogue, the primary source, and the recall — is in the app.
You learned that Marx puts the economic ‘base’ beneath the cultural ‘superstructure.’ Explain the relationship between them, and one objection to it, in your own words.
Leads to Max Weber.
Begin this lesson →epoché — a humanities education that remembers you.