Marx’s Historical Materialism: Understanding the Economic Forces Behind Social Change

Philosophers have thus far only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it — Karl Marx

Karl Marx is probably the most influential and controversial philosopher in the modern world. Although he got many things wrong, he developed work with distinct originality and can be considered as the last great partisan philosopher of the Enlightenment movement, bringing back a scientific temperament to the analysis of social problems. In that sense, he took an anti-Hegelian stance, but he continued to use Hegel’s Dialectical Triad for his theoretical development (checkout our post on Hegel). In this post, we will discuss Marx’s most central concept, Historical Materialism, as presented in his book Das Kapital

Historical Materialism is a theoretical framework that explains societal development and historical change solely through the lens of material conditions and economic factors. It is a central element of Marx’s philosophy, his criticism of capitalism and vision for social change. According to this framework, the primary force driving historical evolution is the mode of production, which includes:
1) Productive forces (such as technology, tools, and labor), and,
2) Relations of production (the social and economic relationships that define how production is organized and controlled).

Marx argued that human societies progress through a series of stages, each defined by its dominant mode of production. These stages include (1) primitive communism (2) slavery (3) feudalism (4) capitalism. In primitive communism, people lived in hunter-gatherer settings where property belonged to the tribe. This was followed by ancient agriculture, marked by a master-slave economic relationship, then the feudal mode of production (after the fall of the Roman Empire), and later the Industrial Revolution, characterized by a capitalist-worker economic relationship. Marx predicted that human society would eventually reach the fifth and final stage: socialism and communism.

Each stage has distinct social classes and power dynamics that shape its structure and function. For instance, Feudalism was characterized by a rigid class hierarchy with lords and serfs, while capitalism features the exploitative relationships between the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (working class).

A fundamental concept within historical materialism is the idea that the material base of society (the economic foundation) determines the superstructure. The Superstructure includes political institutions, laws, culture, and ideology. This implies that the way people produce their means of subsistence directly influences the organization and beliefs of their society. For example, under capitalism, the economic system’s focus on profit and private property shapes political systems that promote market-based policies and ideologies emphasizing individualism and competition.

Historical materialism also states that each stage in history contains inherent contradictions between the developing (i.e. upcoming) productive forces and the existing Relations of Production. These contradictions lead to conflicts and tensions, which manifest as class struggles. For example, as industrial production expanded, it created conditions that contradicted the feudal social order, leading to its eventual collapse and replacement by capitalism. The class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, according to Marx, would similarly drive capitalism toward crisis and revolution, ultimately leading to socialism and then communism.

Class struggle is thus central to historical materialism. Marx believed that all major social transformations are the result of these struggles. The exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class would eventually lead to the proletariat’s awakening and organized efforts to overthrow the bourgeoisie. This revolutionary shift would mark a new stage in history where the means of production would be collectively owned, and a more egalitarian society would be established.

Moreover, Marx’s theory emphasizes that history is not driven by abstract ideas or the will of individual leaders alone but by the material conditions and economic realities faced by societies. Ideologies and political movements, therefore, are seen as reflections or justifications of the underlying economic base. This challenges the notion of history as a series of events shaped purely by political or intellectual forces and instead places material economic factors at the forefront.

In summary, Marx’s historical materialism provides a framework for understanding history as a process driven by economic forces and class relations. By focusing on how people organize themselves to meet their material needs, it reveals that economic structures underpin the political and cultural institutions that arise in any given society. The theory attempts to explains past societal changes and also predicted future transformations, emphasizing that significant social change emerges from the material conditions and conflicts within a society.

Historical materialism further suggests that the superstructure — comprising laws, politics, and culture — is deeply interconnected with the economic base. This connection implies that changes in the mode of production inevitably result in shifts within the superstructure. For example, the transition from feudalism to capitalism did not only alter economic practices but also led to changes in governance, legal systems, and social values, reflecting the priorities of the new dominant class: the bourgeoisie.

The development of capitalism brought about significant technological and industrial advancements, which in turn heightened the contradictions within society. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the bourgeoisie and the increasing impoverishment and alienation of the proletariat created conditions ripe for revolutionary change. Marx believed that capitalism’s inherent flaws — such as overproduction, cyclical economic crises, and the exploitation of labor — would eventually lead to its downfall as the working class became conscious of their oppression and united to challenge the status quo.

In Marx’s view, the transition to socialism would be marked by the collective control of the means of production, eliminating private ownership that enabled the capitalist class to exploit labor. This new mode of production would prioritize social welfare over profit, reshaping the superstructure to reflect collective interests and equality. Over time, this stage would evolve into full communism, a classless society where economic output is distributed based on need and the state apparatus ceases to exist.

Thus, Historical materialism is not just an analysis of history but a method of understanding how material conditions drive social structures and conflicts, ultimately leading to transformative change.

The theory also reflects the eloquence and genius of Karl Marx, which is what made communism and socialism so popular in the 20th century. With all its convincing characteristics, Marx’s historical materialism suffers from fundamental flaws, including its overemphasis on materialistic realities while neglecting political, cultural, and moral dimensions of human life. By reducing history to a struggle between economic classes, the theory overlooks the influence of ideas, religion, and ethical values in shaping societies. This economic determinism fails to account for the complex interplay of material and non-material factors in historical change, leading to an incomplete understanding of human progress.

If you liked this article, please share it with friends and family and subscribe us on substack @ https://mineglobal.org

Also, read our stories on medium: mineglobal.medium.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61562130750360
and on X: https://x.com/MINEGlobalLearn