History is the history of class struggles

Class struggle

Karl Marx 1818 · 1883History is the history of class struggles.

What it claims

History has a direction: from societies divided into classes toward an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Why

In every society classes oppose one another and their struggle transforms it; capitalism creates the class that will overthrow it.

The same idea through history

Karl Marx1859In the 1859 Preface, Marx gives the theoretical basis of this view: relations of production form the base of society, and their conflict with the productive forces opens epochs of social revolution. See his argument on social being.

In short

"History is the history of class struggles" is an argument by Karl Marx (Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marx and Engels, 1848), chapters I and II, 1859) on the question "Does history have a direction?" (answer: progress). Its claim: History has a direction: from societies divided into classes toward an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P4). AskPhilosophy presents 3 objections, 3 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marx and Engels, 1848), chapters I and II

Valid with an implicit premise

The Manifesto is a fighting text written by two men, Marx and Engels, for a workers' league, in 1848. Its first sentence sums up a view of history: until now every society has been divided into classes (free men and slaves, lords and serfs, bosses and workers) whose struggle drives things forward. Capitalism, by gathering workers in factories, would itself create the force that will overthrow it and open a classless society. Note: the text is a political manifesto, not a treatise; Marx and Engels later spelled out their conception of history (see also the argument on social being).

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.

Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Without the implicit premise: Without P4, the computer finds a world where class struggles transformed past societies, capitalism produces its opponents, and the outcome is a new class society, or a common ruin, rather than a classless society.

Valid with P4. P4 moves from a description (struggles have transformed societies) to a direction (they lead to a classless society). Without it, one can accept the first three premises without believing capitalism will be the last class-divided system, or that its outcome will be a classless society rather than the common ruin the text itself envisages in P2.

Analogy. A boiler whose pressure rises. The stoker thinks he is holding it, but the steam ends up bursting the vessel or turning a new machine. For Marx, a society's tensions are that pressure: they end by breaking it and giving birth to another.

Objections

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

Karl Popper 1957 · attacks premise 3

There can be no scientific theory of historical development serving as a basis for historical prediction: the course of history depends on the growth of our knowledge, which we cannot predict. Announcing that the fall of the bourgeoisie is "inevitable" is therefore prophecy, not science.

a defender replies

see the argument

No reply possible: objection raised in 1957, after the author's death (1883).

G. A. Cohen defender of the argument · 1978

Summary: Cohen reconstructs historical materialism as a precise theory: the development of productive forces explains the succession of economic structures. He defends it as a theory that explains the past, open to discussion like any theory in the social sciences.

Jon Elster 1982

Summary: Elster challenges Cohen's method. Explaining the existence of an economic structure by its function (it helps productive forces develop) requires showing the mechanism that produces it, which Cohen does not provide. Elster asks for explanations through the choices of individuals.

See the rest of the debate (1)

G. A. Cohen 1982

Summary: Cohen answers Elster that one can hold a structure to be explained by its function without knowing the mechanism, if a wide enough range of cases shows it appearing where it would be functional.

The debate goes on (our summary) Popper targets the prediction of the historical future; Cohen defends the explanation of the past. It remains to be decided whether the Manifesto's formulas ("equally inevitable") belong to one or the other. Marx himself speaks of "tendencies" that work "with iron necessity" (Capital, preface of 1867), a phrase each camp cites. (Our summary.)

Where the debate stands (our summary)Core disagreement: is Marx's theory an explanation of the past or a forecast of the future? Popper judges it prophetic; Cohen defends it as an explanatory theory; Elster disputes that this defence explains through a mechanism; Cohen answers that a known mechanism is not indispensable to a functional explanation. Open point.

Eduard Bernstein 1899 · attacks premise 3

The facts do not confirm the announced polarisation: the middle classes are not disappearing, the concentration of firms is uneven, crises do not lead to a collapse. Socialism will come through gradual reforms and not through an inevitable fall of capitalism.

a defender replies

No reply possible: objection raised in 1899, after the author's death (1883).

Rosa Luxemburg defender of the argument · 1899

Summary: Luxemburg answers that credit reproduces all the fundamental antagonisms of the capitalist world and that cartels fail to attenuate its contradictions. She adds that work for reform has no force of its own independent of revolution.

The debate goes on (our summary) The "revisionism dispute" (1898-1903) divided German social democracy. Bernstein and Luxemburg agree on the goal (a society without exploitation) and differ on the path and on what the facts show. Both camps cite the twentieth century. (Our summary.)

Where the debate stands (our summary)Core disagreement: do capitalism's contradictions lead to a rupture or to lasting adaptations? Are reforms a stage or an alternative to revolution? Open point.

Max Weber 1922 · attacks premise 1

The struggle for power cannot be reduced to economic classes. Beside classes there are status groups, based on honour and way of life, and parties, which seek to win power. The engine of history is therefore more varied than the sole conflict between owners and non-owners.

Marx replies

No reply possible: objection raised in 1922, after the author's death (1883).

Marx What Engels wrote in 1890, before Weber

In a letter to Joseph Bloch, Engels writes that the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. He adds that neither Marx nor he ever asserted more than this: the political and legal forms of the struggles, ideas and traditions also act on their course, and all these elements interact.

The debate goes on (our summary) This letter predates Weber and does not answer him. Weber does not deny the role of classes; he refuses to make them the only key. Engels admits a reciprocal action of non-economic forms, but maintains the primacy of the economy "in the last instance". Later Marxists (Gramsci) developed the role of culture and politics (see his argument on hegemony). (Our summary.)

Where the debate stands (our summary)Core disagreement: is the economy the engine "in the last instance" or one factor among others? Engels's formula is itself debated among Marxists. Open point.