Karl Marx and followers of Marx (including Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, and Du Bois) developed important sociological approaches – both historically and for contemporary sociology. While Marxism as sociological approach was generally absent from North American sociology until the 1970s, it was more common in Europe. But in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a resurgence of interest in the theories of Marx and other writers in the Marxian tradition. From this, Marxist approaches developed as a central aspect of sociological theory. Today there are a number of schools of social thought such as conflict and critical theory, theories of socialism, and some contemporary schools of social analysis (Marxist feminism, Canadian political economy) that developed positively out of the Marxian tradition. In contrast, some approaches to sociology developed negatively out of Marxian thought, by attempting to negate or counter Marx, or to complement Marx and show the incompleteness of his analysis. Further, Marxist thought has been important on a global scale, constituting a theoretical basis for the political and economic systems of the Soviet Union, China and several other countries for many years.

1. Enlightenment – See Notes on Enlightenment and Liberalism

Marx, writing before Weber and Durkheim, was one of the first social analysts to fully appreciate and incorporate the implications of Enlightenment writers, combining the philosophic and empirical tradition into a overall structure of thought that is theoretically sound and empirically rooted (Zeitlin and Seidman). Marx's theoretical approach combines observation and reason, has implications for understanding and intervening in the social world, and many conclusions can be tested empirically. The theoretical frameworks model from the September 13 class illustrates the Marxian approach. It has an internally consistent formal structure, which can stand on its own – one economist, Michio Morishima, has mathematized the Marxian theory of capitalism. At the same time, the thoery connections to the social world, in the way in which it was developed, can be tested, and has implications for social action.

The Marxian theoretical system has some weaknesses in its formal structure and is not as univeral in application as sometimes claimed. But compared with other social theory it is among the most impressive in the history of western thought – it has a relatively sound and complete formal structure, it is applicable in many settings across time and place, and can be tested and revised, so that it has a flexible theoretical structure. Marx's system combines a philosophical approach (Hegel’s dialectical approach) with an analysis of history (materialism) and politics (socialism) and integrates these into an overall system of political economy, rooted in the contributions of Smith and Ricardo. This theoretical structure provides an explanation for the economic, social and political structures of modern society and for changes in those structures. Many of its predictions have come true, while others have not.

The broad scope of Marx's model makes it useful for investigating and analyzing a wide variety of problems, over many periods of time, and in many countries. There are many questions and hypotheses raised by Marx's scheme, and a wide variety of testable propositions, including falsifiable ones. While the scope of Marxian theory may not be as universal as some have claimed, this theory is an example of a model that attempts to be universal. Judged by the standards of a rigorous model that is empirically based, internally logical and having wide scope, Marx's theoretical structure stands as one of the major, if not the major, sociological approach. Among the shortcomings in scope is Marx's limited or incomplete analysis of patriarchal structures and the role of women, societies outside Europe and North America, issues of race and ethnicity, and interaction among individuals and small groups. However, even on these issues, the Marxian approach provides many insights and methodological insights.

The methods of social analysis developed by Marx set high standards for social research. Even though Marx did not have access to modern techniques such as survey research, mathematical or statistical analysis, or other techniques that are regarded as providing the basis for sound research, he made extensive use of empirical data wherever possible. His social analysis was constructed by employing the use of reason following close examination of issues and problems in the social world.

One of Marx's first articles showed the injustice faced by Prussian peasants who were prosecuted for "stealing" fallen wood – combining political, historical, and social analysis. Marx's major work, Capital, contains detailed examinations of British industry and working conditions. The empirical findings are turned into theoretical understandings through a process of abstraction – drawing out what Marx considered to be the essential features of exchange and exploitation into concepts and propositions that form a logical whole. This theoretical analysis is set in an historical framework, and the quantitative approaches of Marx are developed with an understanding of broad historical developments. From the quantitative and qualitative observations Marx made himself, or which he took from others, he abstracted various concepts which were combined into a massive theoretical analysis. Marx's analysis may appear to be primarily theoretical, but at each stage of this analysis, Marx refers to the social world, never losing sight of his goal of attempting to understand, explain, and change this world. Marx's method involves beginning from general aspects of society that are observed, abstracting from these and building a theoretical structure, and then moving back to examine society using this structure. This may go through several stages, back and forth between the empirical and the theoretical. Many Marxists consider this analysis scientific in nature, identifying underlying structures in a realist approach. Whether or not Marxian models and structures are real portrayals of the social world, this methodology has much to recommend it, and is a good model to follow when constructing social analysis.

In Paris, Marx began to modify his early philosophical position, laying out much of his early analysis in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844) – see, in particular the section of the Manuscripts on "Estranged Labor." The Manuscripts are often regarded as most important for showing a humanistic side of Marx (the early Marx), as opposed to the harder and more scientific political economic analysis of his later years (the late Marx of Capital). Although these manuscripts did not have all the details of Marx's theory worked out, they contain important outlines and discussions of Marx's model. Much of the rest of his writings can be regarded as a development of the ideas in the Manuscripts. In particular, Marx's writings on alienation (see Hadden, pp. 76-78) are primarily drawn from the Manuscripts. Unfortunately, the Manuscripts were not published in English until the 1930s, and were not integrated into sociology until the 1950s and 1960s. In collaboration with Engels, Marx wrote a short pamphlet outlining the doctrines of communism. This was published as The Communist Manifesto in 1848, a decisive year in Europe, with revolts in many parts of Europe. With the publication of this manifesto, Marx became a major figure and active participant in socialist and left-wing politics in Europe. The Manifesto ends with "The workers have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of all lands, unite." (Berlin, p. 168).

The third phase of Marx's life began in 1849, when at age 31 he moved to London, England. Marx remained in England for the rest of his life, there working mainly as a scholar. Tucker (p. 86) notes that during this period in London, Marx was also active in political matters, debating with the anarchist followers of Proudhon and Bakunin, in the International Working Men’s Association, better known as the First International. While he did take part in some political activities, the rest of Marx's life was primarily devoted to study and writing, with Marx working out an analysis of capitalism. This was first accomplished in outline form in the Grundrisse (1859) or the Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy, and then in much fuller form in Capital or, in the original German, Das Kapital. Only the first volume of Capital was published in Marx's lifetime (1867), with the other volumes edited and later published by Engels (Vol. II in 1885 and Vol. III in 1894). Many of the other writings of Marx and Engels also derive from this period, and they contain extensive discussions of political economic theory and the analysis of capitalism.

Some of Marx's initial ideas concerning the importance of egalitarian society and individual freedom came from discussions with family and friends of the Enlightenment writers and political developments resulting from the French Revolution. Marx learned that people are both good and rational, and of the possibility of development of a more perfect society. (Grabb, p. 15). Marx could well have missed some of these ideas if he had grown up in a different type of family. It is important to recognize this influence because Marx was growing up in Germany, where the level of economic and political development lagged well behind that in France and Britain. Culturally German society was regarded as among the leaders in Europe, if not the leader, but German society lagged far behind Britain in terms of economic and political development at the time Marx was in his youth.

For Marx, ideas from the Enlightenment helped shape his vision of the nature of a future society. In Marx's view, societies in the past had sometimes been egalitarian and just, and in the future there would also be the possibility of a communist society where injustice would be eliminated and people would govern themselves. While Marx did not initially connect these ideas with his analysis of private property, Marx would later argue that an egalitarian and just society could come about only with the abolition of private property. Historically, Marx would argue that the emergence of an economic surplus and property created class societies and only if private property is abolished would the conditions to create a communist society exist. The great productive power of capitalism, the increasing wealth of society, and the development of the proletariat (working class) created this possibility. Hadden (pp. 42-3) notes that the idea that humans could create a better world, may come from Comte, since such an idea was not present in the writings of Hegel.

2. Hegel

In Germany, Hegel’s ideas were dominant in the academic sphere at the time when Marx attended university (Hadden, p. 41), and Marx became part of a group called the Young Hegelians. Marx later rejected Hegelian views because they were idealist, with "the theory that mind and ideas govern the material world" (Tucker, p. 57) and were less concerned with the real, material world than with the mind and spirit. For example, Hegel looked on class struggles (between lord and bondsman) "in a very abstract manner, while Marx sees classes struggling in the material world" (Tucker, p. 89). From Hegel, Marx took the view that (a) society is subject to continual change, (b) history is a "progressive, rational process" (Tucker, p. 57) and the study of history is necessary for an understanding of change and the position of people in society, (c) humans transform the world through their labour (Tucker, p. 88) and human labour constitutes the essence of humanity, and (d) the dialectical process of history (Tucker, p. 57) and the dialectical method in the social sciences. Marx applied the dialectical method not just to ideas but to politics and the study of other conflicting forces. This involved the study of contradictions, how these resolve themselves, and how this is a mutual interaction between humans and the world around them, "in a continual progression toward a more rational existence" (Tucker, p. 58)

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (German, 1770-1831) was an important German writer and philosopher at the time when Marx was attending university. Hegel's analysis is important within the study of philosophy itself. (Marx: 1818-1883. Engels: 1820-1895). While Hegel was influenced by Enlightenment thought, emphasizing reason, his approach was more conservative, looking on tradition and culture as important aspects of society (Hadden, p. 41) and considering German society and government of his day to have achieved a "unity of individual and society." (Tucker, p. 59)

In the following notes, I discuss Hegel’s approach in light of Marx’s use of this approach.

a. Idealism and materialism. One of the main aspects of Marx's struggle with Hegel's approach concerns the debate between idealism and materialism. While this debate may seem irrelevant today, it was a highly contentious one in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In its philosophic approach, idealism sees reality as consisting in, or depending upon minds or ideas. As an historical explanation, idealism locates the primary or sole motor of historical change in ideas or consciousness. As an ethical system, idealism projects a higher or better set of ideas or forces as a way of judging or rationalizing action. Tucker notes that idealism is "the theory that mind and ideas govern the materal world. The evolution of ideas is the key to history." (p. 57)

In contrast, materialism is a system of thought that views the social world as constructed and develping from human social relationships in the biological and physical world – on how individuals, groups, and institutions act and interact with each other. Society, social organization, and changes in these, are constructed and caused by what happens in the physical and material world, in social relationships in this world, and more specifically, in the labour process. Hadden (middle of p. 48) explains this as follows:

While not all sociology can be considered materialist, the view that ideas are a human product, and are not natural, nor are they the result of revelation or some other force, would appear to be common to most sociology.

Idealist ways of thinking are, in some ways, very similar to religious ones, with the supernatural taken out. Hegel used the term Spirit (without the religious connotations) and argued that "our history is the story of the gradual historical realization or manifestation of reason or spirit in the world." (Hadden, p. 42). While the result of Marx's struggle with Hegel was to lead Marx to adopt a materialist approach, Marx did not "deny the existence and/or the causal efficacy of ideas ... but the autonomy and/or explanatory primacy attributed to them." (Bottomore, Dictionary, p. 219 and 324).

For Hegel, there are various epochs in history and it is the dominant set of ideas of the period that characterize the epoch – the "‘spirit’ of an age." (Tucker, p. 57). Ideas themselves develop, through a dialectical process, and new ideas characterize the next stage of the historical process. Hegel's philosophy can be considered to be idealism, with "reality as consisting in, or depending upon ... minds or (particular or transcendent) ideas." (Bottomore, Dictionary, p. 218). Historical idealism "locates the primary or sole motor of historical change in agency, ideas or consciousness." (Bottomore, Dictionary, p. 218).

For Hegel, it was important for individuals to be in tune with these ideas. "The Spirit approaches its perfection by gradually attaining to greater self-consciousness with every generation: and the highest point of its development is reached by those who at any time see themselves most clearly in their relation to their universe, that is, in the profoundest thinkers of every epoch." (Berlin, p. 59). This could be aconservative philosophy, in that divisions were to be overcome, with freedom being agreement among all with the ideas of the era. People must come into tune with the ideas, rather than the reverse. Hegel's views can be looked on as a reaction to the enlightenment and the French Revolution. Hegel was concerned with the disorganization, and "fragmentation of personal and social life produced by the division of labour and social differentiation, and [was concerned] to recreate a coherent personal experience by the formation of an integrated community." (Rattansi, p. 27).

While Hegel's ideas could be interpreted in a more progressive way, Hegel himself supported the Prussian monarchy and establishment. He argued that it was only "philosophically educated officials that possessed a developed insight into the unity of subjective spirit (the individual human being) and objective spirit (the state). In contrast, the young Hegelians held that all citizens could acquire this, a much more radical view. It was these young Hegelians who influenced Marx, claiming that the "rational was real." This meant that the "actual" is full of inconsistencies and unreason, and a radical transformation would be necessary in order to create institutions that are in accord with reason. In opposition to this, the conservative wing of Hegelians, argued that actual institutions were ideal and "only the real was rational." (Berlin, p. 64)

One of the major influences on Marx was this idealism of Hegel, but it was an influence in a negative way. Marx developed a materialist view, in an attempt to counter the Hegelian view. For Marx, Hegel incorrectly regarded ideas as the motivating force of history, and the means by which society changed. Marx wrote many critiques of Hegel, and in the process developed the opposite view, that it is ideas which result from the material reality, and ideas change as this material reality changes.

b. History. The second element of Hegel's thought that was important was emphasis on history. This formed part of the Hegelian method and became an essential feature of the Marxian method. For Hegel, each historical era is distinctive (Tucker, p. 57) and human society does progress – one must have an historical view in order to see how human and social progress occur. While people make their history, the "true history of humankind is the history of .. conscisousness, spirit, or philosophy" (Tucker, p. 57)

Berlin notes that Hegel considered Germanic culture a higher and perhaps ultimate synthesis of its predecessors, especially the cultures of Greece and Rome, and "the most perfect political framework yet attained by men consisted in the highest incarnation to date of western values – the modern i.e. the Prussian State." (Berlin, p. 64). This demonstrates part of the romantic-conservative aspect of Hegel's view, with an emphasis on the importance of state and nation.

While Marx again disagreed with the notion that such historical development occurs through the development of ideas, and he did not consider the state as it was composed in Prussia as the best form, Hegel’s view of stages in history and historical progress became an essential aspect of the Marxian view of history. For Marx, society does progress, and the progress can continue until a more perfect society, communism, is reached. Unlike Hegel that progress comes primarily from reason and self-awareness (Tucker, p. 57), for Marx progress comes from material and social factors – class struggles, technological change, and human labour.

c. Change and the dialectical approach. The manner in which change occurs is another important methodological contribution of Hegel to Marx's thought. This is the notion of the dialectic, or the contradictory aspect of change. For Hegel "Reason is not, as the Philosophes had regarded it, a mere abstraction from the real; it is an immanent force which determines the structure and development of the universe. ... The Idea is not an unchanging essence, but is continually developing and becoming." (Zeitlin, p. 50). That is, for Hegel, change is always occurring, and perfection is never reached. Tucker notes that "philosophical, social, and individual change and development emerge from struggle" (pp. 57-58) Further, we develop understanding only through opposites, and knowledge develops through negation and contradiction. The self struggles to understand history and knowledge develops as people attempt to comprehend and change their world.

One side of change is quantitative change "slow, organic growth determined by immanent rational laws. Between phases, however, as in the transition from the acorn to the oak tree, there is a kind of ‘dialectical leap’ from one quality (acorn) to another (oak tree). This takes place when the quantitative accumulation of slow organic change reaches a nodal point at which an increment produces a qualitative change." This is Hegel's "negation of the negation" where "a particular thing is ‘negated,’ it is superseded by a new force, which continues to develop until it, too, engenders its own negation." (Zeitlin, pp. 50-51)

Hegel developed the notion of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with another cycle of thesis and antithesis following that. But the result is progress in history and thought.

For Hegel, society progresses through historical struggles. The consciousness of people in any epoch is best expressed in their religion, and early human religions limited human freedom. With the notion of a human god, or a spirit, greater freedom becomes possible. However, a particular religion can encounter opposition from ideas, ideas that may arise out of the religion itself. Religion and cultures, and whole societies may decline, there may be wars and death, but out of these historical struggles will come a new and higher principle of freedom, a closer approximation of the truth, a higher degree of insight into the nature of freedom. (Bottomore, Dictionary, p. 198).

For Hegel, the dialectic in history was the "history of thought." (Berlin, p. 59). Marx took the dialectic and contradiction and used these to explain the material and social worlds and changes in these – developments that Hegel discussed in ideas and thought. For Marx, the history of thought, ideas, and ideology became a reflection of the developments in the material world, rather than the reverse. Thus some talk of Marx taking Hegel's dialectic and standing it on its head of, for Marx, turning it right side up.

d. Human labour. Marx notes that "Hegel's standpoint is that of modern political economy. He conceives labour as the essence, the self-confirming essence of man." (Giddens and Held, p. 12) For Hegel, labour is a "central feature of human existence; it is the instrument through which man comes to know and understand his world; it is the form in which he acquires self-consciousness as well as transform his environment. ... labour becomes in his doctrine the middle term between subject and object. Work ... is seen as a liberating activity." (Rattansi, pp. 28-29).

Marx notes that Hegel views only the positive side of labour, and Marx shows both sides (as in Quote 2). Much of the Marxian analysis is concerned with the role of human labour, first in defining humanity (as opposed to non-human animals), and in developing society. In looking at class relationships, the use of labour and the products of labour become key. Marx showed both the positive and negative aspects of labour in the Manuscripts and much of Capital. For Marx, human potential and human nature is defined by human labour as purposeful and creative human activity that transforms nature into useful objects. This purposeful and creative activity is the essence of humanity, and the means by which humanity can achieve freedom. The problem in capitalism is that much of this potential is denied to workers and turned against them.

In summary, Marx is strongly indebted to Hegel, partly as an impetus to developing his own ideas, and partly in reaction to Hegel. In addition, some of Marx's ideas are taken more or less straightforwardly from Hegel.

3. Feuerbach

After Marx came into contact with Hegel's philosophy, he began to study other approaches. The writings of Ludwig Feuerbach (Bavaria, 1804-1872) became influential on Marx and the other young Hegelians in 1841 when The Essence of Christianity was published. Giddens (p. 3) notes that Hegel "sees the ‘real’ as emanating from the ‘divine.’" In contrast, Feuerbach "argues that the divine is an illusory product of the real. ... ‘thought proceeds from being, not being from thought.’" This means that ‘God’ is a projection of the inward nature of humans. For Feuerbach, God exists as humans are alienated from themselves, and the God of Christianity is an illusion. Feuerbach said he was not an atheist, but said that religion must be "replaced by humanism, whereby the love formerly directed towards God will become focused on man, leading to a recovery of the unity of mankind, man for himself." (Giddens, p. 3). "Religion is a projection of human wishes and a form of alienation." (Bottomore, Dictionary, p. 171).

While Marx rejected Feuerbach's views as inadequate, Marx's view of materialism may have come partially from Feuerbach. One of the problems of the views of Feuerbach was that they were not historical or dialectical. Another was that they tended to be somewhat mechanically materialist, ignoring the active and creative side of people. Marx comments that materialist philosophers treat humans as if they were no more than passive, determined objects, whereas Marx viewed the world as created by humans through their theoretical-practical activity. (Zeitlin, p. 97). Marx used the materialism of Feuerbach along with the historical, dialectical and political approach of Hegel, to begin to analyze the state and politics.

4. Saint-Simon and Proudhon

Another influence on Marx came through the writings of French 'socialists' such as Saint-Simon and Proudhon. Claude Henri Saint-Simon (French, 1760-1825) had some objections to the conservative reaction against the Enlightenment, and "had great faith in the power of reason to change the world." (Zeitlin, p. 75). At the same time, he did not want conflicting principles within society, viewing conflict as a destructive force. He wanted to preserve a social order that was "international, organic, hierarchical, and stable, ruled by a spiritual and temporal elite and unified by an international religion." (Zeitlin, pp. 75-6). He believed that "the study of social phenomena should employ the same scientific techniques as were used in the natural sciences." (Ritzer, p. 14) so adopted the new, more scientific and empiricist approach to knowledge, believing that it could be applied by an educated elite. He thought that social reforms were necessary, and these could be carried out by this elite, producing a better society. Among the "socialist" reforms he called for was central planning of the economic system. His followers called for the emancipation of women and the abolition of individual rights to inherit property.

Marx called Saint-Simon an utopian socialist, in that he did not see the progressive role of the proletariat, and did not look for class conflict. Rather, he thought that superior, rational ideas would improve society. Saint-Simon expresses some of the ideas of the emergent bourgeoisie, who thought that they carried the key to a better society, and have the power to achieve this.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (French, 1809-1865) was a French anarchist who attacked private property and believed that abolition of exploitation and abolition of government are the same. He proposed that workers create a better society by organizing exchange equitably among themselves. Marx was also critical of Proudhon for being utopian, but at the same time used some of Proudhon's ideas.

5. British Political Economy

The writings of Adam Smith and David Ricardo will be examined later, in connection with Marx's labour theory of value. Note though that human labour has an especially important role in the analysis of both Hegel and these political economists. In fact, Hegel may have obtained some of his ideas by reading the early Scottish political economists. In any case, Marx's views with respect to the role of labour are very Hegelian, while the analysis of the labour-capital relationship within capitalism is very much an analysis based on or derived from the views of British political economists.

Last edited September 22, 2002

Return to Sociology 318