Log in

View Full Version : What did Marx consider "revolutionary change"



loveme4whoiam
25th October 2006, 16:30
Well, not really a comprehensive answer, but an answer nonetheless. For my Uni course we've been studying the Marxist view of history, and one of the questions is:

‘The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself’ (p. 41 of the Communist Manifesto). How and why does Marx think that revolutionary change occurs?

My answer had to be within 500 words (although this draft is over that) and succinct. What do you fine people think of it? :)

"Marx chose to begin the Communist Manifesto by detailing the rise of the bourgeois class out of the ashes of feudal society, as this is key to the theory of historical inevitability. Just as feudal society was out-stripped by evolution in the modes of production, and the advancement of a world market, so too will the bourgeois class lose control of the proletariat, which they have subjugated to their will. It is this process that Marx views as revolutionary change.

Capitalist, bourgeois society is, in the words of Marx, a self-fulfilling prophecy – through the creation and subsequent exploitation of the proletariat “the bourgeoisie… produces, above all, its own grave-diggers”1. Marx bases his theory of revolution entirely in relation to the means of production. The process of colonisation and inter-nation trade paved the way for the early elements of a bourgeois class to emerge: wealthy merchants and controllers of trade. As industrial production began to grow beyond the feudal system “under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds”2, the bourgeoisie moved into this field and assumed control of the division of labour.

The introduction of a competitive market drove technological advancements forward with a sense of urgency that had been lacking in the centuries before, and with it grew the influence of the owners of production, the bourgeoisie: “this development [of the world market] has… reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion to industry… the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages”3. It must be noted that Marx refers to “every class” of the Middle Ages, not simply the labourers. The bourgeois pushed out the feudal ruling class through use of capital – by concentrating in their hands the means of production, they were able to dictate policy to those who were now in name only the ruling class: “Each step of the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class”4.

In this way, the bourgeoisie manoeuvred themselves into the position of power, in Marx’s view. They achieved revolutionary change through the exploitation of labourers in order to generate capital, with which they suborned the ruling processes to their own preferences. This change was inseparably linked to the means of production; by controlling them, the bourgeoisie’s power and influence increased at the same rate as production. Once in power, the bourgeoisie consolidated their position by “constantly revolutionising the instruments of production… and with them the whole relations of society”5.

Marx theorised that this constant modernising of industry would eventually lead to more and more of the proletariat becoming surplus to the process of production, and sink into poverty once the self-interested capitalist employers removed them from employment. In this fashion, increasing numbers of people would become a burden on the state, in a position where “[the state] has to feed him, rather than it being fed by him”6. At a certain point, this majority of proletariats would take steps to seize control of the means of production, separating the bourgeoisie from the means of their power.

Marx believed that the means of production were the essence of all society; whichever class controlled them, was able to dictate how society would function. Revolutionary change, in Marx’s view, was achieved through changing whoever controlled them. He sited the transfer from feudal to bourgeois society as proof of this theory, and used this view of history to predict the next, eventual change in society."

Marks out of ten :P

KC
25th October 2006, 17:52
"Marx chose to begin the Communist Manifesto by detailing the rise of the bourgeois class out of the ashes of feudal society, as this is key to the theory of historical inevitability.

Historical inevitability shouldn't be in there. Marx didn't believe anything to be "historically inevitable".


Just as feudal society was out-stripped by evolution in the modes of production, and the advancement of a world market

Feudal society was damned because the method in which they extracted surplus labour from the exploited was getting outdated, and resulted in a class struggle between the feudal aristocracy and the emerging bourgeoisie. Since the aristocracy was no longer able to maintain itself as a result of economic stagnation from its policies of extraction of surplus labour, the bourgeoisie was victorious.

It's always a bad idea to discuss the development of the mode of production without discussing the class struggle which caused it to develop (unless, of course, the audience to which you are writing are already aware of the relationship between the evolution of the mode of production and the class struggle).


so too will the bourgeois class lose control of the proletariat, which they have subjugated to their will.

Generally, perhaps, but it will take on a completely different form than the struggle between the feudal aristocracy and the capitalist bourgeoisie.


Capitalist, bourgeois society is, in the words of Marx, a self-fulfilling prophecy – through the creation and subsequent exploitation of the proletariat “the bourgeoisie… produces, above all, its own grave-diggers”

This is one of the most fundamental contradictions found within capitalism, and one of the most interesting. I'd suggest expanding on it a little more.


Marx bases his theory of revolution entirely in relation to the means of production.

This is false.

Marx bases his theory of revolution entirely on the class struggle. The means of production are also based on the class struggle. Saying that Marx bases his theory of revolution on the means of production sounds like you are implying that the development of the means of production is independent of the class struggle, when in reality its development comes out of the class struggle.


The process of colonisation and inter-nation trade paved the way for the early elements of a bourgeois class to emerge: wealthy merchants and controllers of trade. As industrial production began to grow beyond the feudal system “under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds”2, the bourgeoisie moved into this field and assumed control of the division of labour.

And here you have somewhat explained the relation of the development of the means of production to class. It could be explained better, but then again you only have limited space. I would more explicitly state this relationship instead of just implying it, as it is the foundation of the materialist conception of history.


The introduction of a competitive market drove technological advancements forward with a sense of urgency that had been lacking in the centuries before, and with it grew the influence of the owners of production, the bourgeoisie

I would change that to "owners of the means of production".


It must be noted that Marx refers to “every class” of the Middle Ages, not simply the labourers. The bourgeois pushed out the feudal ruling class through use of capital – by concentrating in their hands the means of production, they were able to dictate policy to those who were now in name only the ruling class: “Each step of the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class”

Note that when he says "every class" he is not only talking about the feudal aristocracy and the serfs; there were many classes present in feudal society, as well as countless divisions within those classes.


They achieved revolutionary change through the exploitation of labourers in order to generate capital, with which they suborned the ruling processes to their own preferences.

They achieved revolutionary change through the victory of their social system over that of feudalism. They elevated themselves to the status of ruling class, and in turn society changed to fit their preferences.


This change was inseparably linked to the means of production; by controlling them, the bourgeoisie’s power and influence increased at the same rate as production.

Not sure what you mean by this.


Marx theorised that this constant modernising of industry would eventually lead to more and more of the proletariat becoming surplus to the process of production, and sink into poverty once the self-interested capitalist employers removed them from employment.

Surplus to the process of production?

Marx theorized that this constant modernizing of industry would lead to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and the increase in economic crises as capitalism develops. It is in this sense that the bourgeoisie, by maintaining their position as ruling class, are not only developing capitalism, but sowing the seeds that will lead to its eventual downfall.


Overall, this essay is okay. It could be better, but it would be difficult to improve it because of the really lame length limit.

loveme4whoiam
25th October 2006, 20:26
Historical inevitability shouldn't be in there. Marx didn't believe anything to be "historically inevitable".
Damn, where did I pick that up from then? :blink:


It's always a bad idea to discuss the development of the mode of production without discussing the class struggle which caused it to develop (unless, of course, the audience to which you are writing are already aware of the relationship between the evolution of the mode of production and the class struggle).
That's a good point - I haven't actually explicitly mentioned class struggle anywhere in the answer, which I guess I have to do really. I will also tie this into the point you made about the means of production being linked to class struggle, not independent of it.


They achieved revolutionary change through the victory of their social system over that of feudalism. They elevated themselves to the status of ruling class, and in turn society changed to fit their preferences.
Right - rather than saying suborned the existing system, say something along the lines of what you said :)



This change was inseparably linked to the means of production; by controlling them, the bourgeoisie’s power and influence increased at the same rate as production.
Not sure what you mean by this.
I was trying to make the point that as the means of production grew in scale, so too did the bourgeoisie's capital, hence their ability to manipulate society. Hmm, perhaps cut that as its unclear :D


Surplus to the process of production?
I mean that workers get laid off because of new machinery, budget-cutting, out-sourcing of labour (which seems to be in vogue at the moment, but hardly relevant to the question) they become surplus to the process of production - guess I should change the wording.

Cheers for the detailed evalutation, very much appreciated :D I shall definitely take your points into account before I hand this in - thanks.

LoneRed
26th October 2006, 08:12
thats just foolishness, nothing in the question shows that they want to debunk it, although a lot of colleges teach anti-marx things, and grade down for signs of his support, this assignment seems pretty straightforward. A project about communist theory, and you'd rather fail it, hm

loveme4whoiam
26th October 2006, 10:34
Waste of time? Tell me, have you actually been through the University system? Do you know what they do if you fail to hand in a piece of work by the deadline, with no decent reason? They fail you - you get 0% for the course. Besides which, if they did mark me down for showing support for Marx in my answer, I could rightly (and would) appeal the grade on the grounds of biased marking. So really, theres no reason why I shouldn't answer the question.

More importantly than that (perhaps), how the hell am I going to be able to adequately explain and support Marx's ideas without a proper understanding of them, and understanding that is helped by answering this question. Debunking doesn't come into it - this assignment was designed to test and expand student's explanatory skills, regardless of political belief. I don't actually think my answer is very pro- or anti-Marx - it is simply explaining what I think he, Marx, was talking about.

Amusing Scrotum
26th October 2006, 13:20
Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+--> (Khayembii Communique)It's always a bad idea to discuss the development of the mode of production without discussing the class struggle which caused it to develop[/b]


Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected]
The means of production are also based on the class struggle.

Those statements express two different ideas....and one theoretical view is generally right, the other isn't.

The mode of production in place at a given time, is, generally speaking, based on previous class struggle and the results of said class struggle. That is, the ascendant bourgeoisie defeated the aristocracy, so we have a capitalist mode of production. (That's a simplified view, of course, that doesn't take into account how they were able to defeat the aristocracy -- but it will do for here, anyway.)

The second statement -- "The means of production are also based on the class struggle" -- is kinda' strange. The internet, for example, didn't come about because of a great victory of the working class -- it came about because a few thousand humans developed it.

It's implementation served class interests, no doubt about that. And, to an extent, one could argue that its development was caused by factional conflicts within the bourgeoisie. But that just reflects the fact that it was developed in a form human society that utilises a class system.

So, whilst the development of the means of production is marked by class society, it isn't "based on the class struggle" -- in any direct way, anyway. Though, in some cases, you could argue that the reason X or Y came about was because of the intense class struggle taking place -- but that would probably only apply to military technology, in the main anyway.

However, the means of production, in general, are "based on" the ability of humans to innovate and develop. They do that within the class system in operation, but they rarely do so because of "the class struggle".

After all, the early modern scientists -- Galileo and company -- didn't invent the things they did to aid the rise of the bourgeoisie. Rather, it was what their inventions showed -- the bankruptcy of the Christian paradigm -- that served to undermine the class system in place -- particularly the Roman Catholic Churches legitimacy as a section of the ruling class.

If anything, class struggle is based on the means of production and the human relations to production. After all, before modern Industrial capitalism made people into wage-labourers and created a thriving capitalist class, there was no modern class struggle -- in the way we think of it, that is.

If it were the other way round, the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat would have led to the creation of a society where there was a bourgeoisie and a proletariat. Something so obviously wrong, that one shouldn't need to point it out.

So, to sum it all up, the relations to production and mode of production a society has, is based on class struggle. The means of production, however, are not dependent on class struggle in the same way -- though, indirectly, class struggle obviously has an impact.

But, generally speaking, cordless drills weren't developed because 4,000 Chippies had a definitely victory against the bosses. Though the implementation and development of cordless drills is, obviously, marked by the class system -- namely, the need to cut costs.


Khayembii Communique
Marx bases his theory of revolution entirely on the class struggle.

That's an awfully myopic view to take. Marx, after all, saw the working class as "the gravediggers of capitalism" precisely because of their relationship to the production process -- in other words, the fact that they worked as a collective unit with collective power, something previous lower classes had lacked.

If it was based "entirely on the class struggle", then the struggle for a communist society wouldn't have been seen as the historic task of the working class because of their specific historical situation. Rather, any lower class throughout history could have had this task -- and completed it, presumably.

KC
26th October 2006, 13:38
I'm going to warn you right now that I hardly ever read any of your posts, much less reply to them. I'll have this debate with you if your posts don't get too long, but I don't feel like wasting my time reading through a huge post just for you to get one or two points across that you could have presented in a paragraph or two.



The mode of production in place at a given time, is, generally speaking, based on previous class struggle and the results of said class struggle. That is, the ascendant bourgeoisie defeated the aristocracy, so we have a capitalist mode of production. (That's a simplified view, of course, that doesn't take into account how they were able to defeat the aristocracy -- but it will do for here, anyway.)

The second statement -- "The means of production are also based on the class struggle" -- is kinda' strange. The internet, for example, didn't come about because of a great victory of the working class -- it came about because a few thousand humans developed it.


I'd hardly consider the internet a "means of production". The means of production have developed because the bourgeoisie needs to do it to maintain itself as a ruling class. We can also say, more generally, that the reason the means of production develop is because the ruling class must develop it to maintain an extraction of surplus labour which helps maintain the ruling class as the ruling class.


So, whilst the development of the means of production is marked by class society, it isn't "based on the class struggle" -- in any direct way, anyway. Though, in some cases, you could argue that the reason X or Y came about was because of the intense class struggle taking place -- but that would probably only apply to military technology, in the main anyway.

Of course it's based on class struggle. It's based on struggle between both bourgeois and proletarian and different strata within the bourgeoisie. Of course, I'm not talking solely about market competition.


However, the means of production, in general, are "based on" the ability of humans to innovate and develop. They do that within the class system in operation, but they rarely do so because of "the class struggle".

Ah, so the means of production are developed because the bourgeoisie feels philanthropic and wishes to develop and improve society? How nice of them&#33; <_<


After all, the early modern scientists -- Galileo and company -- didn&#39;t invent the things they did to aid the rise of the bourgeoisie. Rather, it was what their inventions showed -- the bankruptcy of the Christian paradigm -- that served to undermine the class system in place -- particularly the Roman Catholic Churches legitimacy as a section of the ruling class.

A few inventors didn&#39;t develop the means of production, and believing so is completely unmarxist and frankly just stupid. "Galileo and company" might have invented the things they did, but those didn&#39;t develop the means of production until the bourgeoisie implemented those inventions.


If anything, class struggle is based on the means of production and the human relations to production.

And class presupposes class struggle, right? :rolleyes:


After all, before modern Industrial capitalism made people into wage-labourers and created a thriving capitalist class, there was no modern class struggle -- in the way we think of it, that is.

Of course there was&#33; Are you saying that there was absolutely no class struggle in feudal society (or any precapitalist society for that matter)?


If it were the other way round, the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat would have led to the creation of a society where there was a bourgeoisie and a proletariat. Something so obviously wrong, that one shouldn&#39;t need to point it out.

Actually, the competition between the bourgeoisie and the feudal aristocracy created capitalism. You know, the class struggle changed the mode of production.



So, to sum it all up, the relations to production and mode of production a society has, is based on class struggle.

You are still wrong, no matter how many times you say it.



But, generally speaking, cordless drills weren&#39;t developed because 4,000 Chippies had a definitely victory against the bosses. Though the implementation and development of cordless drills is, obviously, marked by the class system -- namely, the need to cut costs.

Here you admit that you&#39;re wrong. Cordless drills aren&#39;t de facto part of the means of production. Just because an invention could improve upon the means of production doesn&#39;t make that invention part of those means until it is implemented as part of them.



That&#39;s an awfully myopic view to take. Marx, after all, saw the working class as "the gravediggers of capitalism" precisely because of their relationship to the production process -- in other words, the fact that they worked as a collective unit with collective power, something previous lower classes had lacked.

If it was based "entirely on the class struggle", then the struggle for a communist society wouldn&#39;t have been seen as the historic task of the working class because of their specific historical situation. Rather, any lower class throughout history could have had this task -- and completed it, presumably.


Why was the working class created? Was it because the mode of production changed, or was it because the new ruling class needed a class from which they could extract surplus labour?

Marx Lenin Stalin
26th October 2006, 15:38
Short answer: the dictatorship of the proletariat and the destruction of capitalism, democracy and all its manifestations. That is Marx and revolution in a nutshell.

Amusing Scrotum
26th October 2006, 15:45
Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+--> (Khayembii Communique)I&#39;d hardly consider the internet a "means of production".[/b]


Originally posted by MIA+--> (MIA)Means of Production

The tools (instruments) and the raw material (subject) you use to create something are the means of production.

If we examine the whole process from the point of view of its result, the product, it is plain that both the instruments and the subject of labour, are means of production, and that the labour itself is productive labour. [Marx.][/b]

Do you think the internet, and more generally computers, have no role in the production of commodities for sale? What do you imagine "techies" are using to produce the commodities their companies sell? Hammers and saws? :unsure:

Quite simply, the internet is used as an arena where commodities are produced by human labourers, and then sold by various companies. Making, of course, the internet a means by which a product is produced -- in other words, the "means of production". Is that short and simple enough for you? Or do you want me to expand upon what I&#39;ve said?


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
The means of production have developed because the bourgeoisie needs to do it to maintain itself as a ruling class. We can also say, more generally, that the reason the means of production develop is because the ruling class must develop it to maintain an extraction of surplus labour which helps maintain the ruling class as the ruling class.

Yes, we can say all that; no doubt about it. Though saying, "the reason the means of production develop is because the ruling class must develop it to maintain an extraction of surplus labour which helps maintain the ruling class as the ruling class", is probably projecting a Marxist method onto the bourgeoisie. When, in reality, the ruling class likely doesn&#39;t think of technological development in such succinct and accurate terms.

However, all of that doesn&#39;t qualify your original statement. The statement that asserted that "The means of production are also based on the class struggle."

Why? Well, because class struggle is the struggle between one class and another. The struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; between labour and capital. It&#39;s a battle between two contending forces, each of which aim to implement their conflicting interests.

And whilst it is in the class interests of the bourgeoisie to develop the means of production, it&#39;s also in the proletariats&#33; That is, only in specific circumstances is the development of technology something that objectively harms the working class -- when machines replace workers, for instance.

Yet, even in that case, the advancement of technology serves to benefit the working class in the long run. That is, it benefits the working class in the sense that it serves to further enable the creation of a communist society -- a society where people are free to be people and not workers.

So, without the conflicting interests present, class struggle ceases to be a factor; despite the fact that the implementation of said technology serves a defined set of class interests. That is, just because it serves certain class interests, doesn&#39;t mean it necessarily reflects the struggle between two contending classes.


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
It&#39;s based on struggle between both bourgeois and proletarian and different strata within the bourgeoisie.

Factional conflicts between sections of the ruling class is not class struggle -- the struggle between two contending classes with distinct and conflicting interests. It is, as I said, just a factional conflict within a class.

Secondly, and this goes to the crux of the debate, how is it "based on the struggle between both bourgeois and proletarian"? That is, how is the development and implementation of, say, the cordless drill comparable with the economic and political struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie?


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
Ah, so the means of production are developed because the bourgeoisie feels philanthropic and wishes to develop and improve society? How nice of them&#33; <_<

You&#39;re really no good at comedy....

Aside from that, the means of production are developed because it serves the economic interest of the bourgeoisie, I&#39;ve not denied that. However, just because it serves their economic interest, doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s "class struggle". Unless you&#39;re contending that when a new piece of technology is developed that helps the production of commodities the working class suffers a blow? :unsure:

And, what&#39;s more, you&#39;ve said that "The means of production are also based on the class struggle." So, the question is, in what way does the struggle between labour and capital [create, produce, develop ... take your pick] the means of production?

I can&#39;t see how you could make this case without arguing that the bourgeoisie takes a step forward every time they produce something new. Which would be a strange think to say, for sure.


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
"Galileo and company" might have invented the things they did, but those didn&#39;t develop the means of production until the bourgeoisie implemented those inventions.

Uh, no. The people who developed the things, developed the things; the people who implemented them, implemented them.

A hammer is a means to produce something, whether it is found in someone&#39;s shed or a companies infantry. That is, the manner in which something is used, is different from the entity itself.


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
And class presupposes class struggle, right? :rolleyes:

Well, yes. You can&#39;t have class struggle until you have the component parts that make it happen -- namely, a human process of production which creates distinct and conflicting classes.

Or maybe class struggle came first? That is, maybe, just maybe, before there was a single human being, never mind an actual productive process that divided humans into separate classes, there was "class struggle". :wacko:

You seem to view class struggle in a rather strange manner. Not as something which is undertaken by specific humans divided by their relationship to the production process -- but as some kind of abstract entity that just, well, "happens"&#33; Sort of like saying we can play a game of football without a pitch or a ball. Curious...


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
Of course there was&#33; Are you saying that there was absolutely no class struggle in feudal society (or any precapitalist society for that matter)?

No. Read what I wrote again:

If anything, class struggle is based on the means of production and the human relations to production. After all, before modern Industrial capitalism made people into wage-labourers and created a thriving capitalist class, there was no modern class struggle -- in the way we think of it, that is.

What I said was that until the situation was in place where we had wage-labourers and capitalists -- in other words, until we had a pitch and a ball -- we didn&#39;t see modern class struggle, the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie -- the game of football.

Do you get it now? Or would you like me to explain it further?


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
You know, the class struggle changed the mode of production.

The mode of production, yes; but we&#39;re talking about the means of production. I made the distinction in my first post, so you can re-read that if you&#39;re are confused.


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
You are still wrong, no matter how many times you say it.

Are you just disagreeing for the fun of it?

I mean, in what sense, is the mode of production (capitalism) and the relations of production (worker-capitalist) not based on previous class struggle (the victory of the ascendant bourgeoisie)?

Can&#39;t wait for your explanation here...


Khayembii [email protected]
Just because an invention could improve upon the means of production doesn&#39;t make that invention part of those means until it is implemented as part of them.

It becomes part of the means of production when it can be used as a means to produce something. But that doesn&#39;t necessarily mean it has to be implemented into capitalist production before it can be considered part of the means of production.

My cordless drill, for instance, is not part of the capitalist productive process -- that is, I&#39;ve not used it to produce something which a capitalist has profited from through the extraction of surplus value. But, I have used it to put up shelves -- in other words, as a means to produce something.

My corkscrew, on the other hand, is very much part of the capitalist productive process. That is, it has been implemented into the capitalist productive process. Do you see the difference?


Khayembii Communique
Why was the working class created? Was it because the mode of production changed, or was it because the new ruling class needed a class from which they could extract surplus labour?

Both; but I don&#39;t see how anything you wrote relates to anything I wrote.