Why did Marx argue that class struggle was inevitable?

DISCLAIMER: This article was taken from an essay I wrote for a university module hence the academic style.

Marx positioned class struggle as an inevitable process through an analysis of history through dialectical materialism. This conflict emerged from the inherent exploitation of the proletariat alongside tensions and contradictions in capitalism which would yield revolution. This exploitation is demonstrated by the labour theory of value, alienation and commodity fetishism engrained within capitalism and the contradictions of globalisation, technological change, division of labour, the history of social conflicts in dialectical materialism and bourgeois democracy. Marx’s views of the role of the proletariat in revolution, philosophical acceptance of dialectical materialism and the nature of alienation in particular evolved throughout his life as events such as the 1848 revolutions may have led to him redressing his views. However, Marx unwaveringly viewed class struggle as inevitable with the contradictions and exploitation of the systems before capitalism and capitalism in particular. This struggle is only reconciled upon the abolition of private property and the formation of a communist society through popular revolution in which the sociability of human nature is realised.

One way in which Marx argued for the inevitability of class struggle was through the exploitation of the proletariat vocalised in his labour theory of value. This was fundamentally premised around Marx’s distinction between use and exchange value with industrial capitalism extracting surplus value from the workers. In Das Kapital, Marx defines use value as the inherent utility of a commodity whereas exchange value is dependent upon both utility and the ‘socially necessary labour time’ involved in creating a commodity[1]. Elaborating on this further, Marx distinguishes between the ‘two-fold character’ of the physical individual concrete labour with the abstract labour of common human effort[2]. The combination of the worker’s labour and the value they produce allows the bourgeois capitalists to derive surplus value as the exchange value outweighs the use value that the worker is paid for and is appropriated as profit. This contrasted with views that value was instead based on production costs and demand as argued by neo-classical economists such as Adam Smith. Moreover, Marx argued that even as Labour time decreases with increasing productivity and technology, workers will not benefit as the working day will be extended[3] and labour intensified through the division of labour [4] (fuelling alienation from these commodities) whilst wages remain at the subsistence value[5]. In Marx’s ideal communist society, after a conflict between the exploited proletariat and the bourgeoisie, a society would emerge in which value and private property become defunct and resources are instead allocated ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’[6]. This contrasting idea of surplus value exploitation was central to Marx’s perception of the tensions of class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, with the interests of the worker irreconcilable with the profits of the capitalist. On the one hand, as Michael Lebowitz argues, Marx’s elucidation of these concepts of capital and the relation between labour power and value was intended to inspire class consciousness by challenging the acceptance of capital as necessary[7]. Although Marx was aware of the need to inspire the proletariat famously arguing that philosophers must change rather than interpret the world in The Theses on Feuerbach[8], he also perceived class struggle as a largely natural process due to the materialist view of history with capitalism’s contradictions failing to provide for the demands of the many. Therefore, although Marx’s labour theory of value may have demystified the acceptance of capitalism as Lebowitz argues, Marx ultimately saw class struggle as an inevitable process of dialectical materialism.

Marx’s theory of alienation also justified the inevitability of class struggle as the dehumanising effects of capitalism were exploitative. In Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Marx argues that workers become estranged from the product of their labour[9] as the contradictory nature of capitalism ensures that increasing productivity and intensity of labour is not rewarded with wage increases but instead acts against the worker through increased demands (as explained in Das Kapital). As a consequence, for Marx, estranged labour alienates workers from their products, own physical body, mental energy and even other workers due to the routine inhumanity of manufacturing in industrial capitalism. This dissociates the workers to the extent that they become commodified. This is amplified by the division of labour and technology which increases the intensity of this dehumanising and frequent labour. Moreover, Marx argues that private property is the consequence of alienated labour[10] by which the worker is bound contractually to the capitalist with the worker’s labour objectified and therefore viewed dispassionately as ‘someone else is master of this object’[11]. Using Marx’s concept of "species-being" (Gattungswesen)[12] in which he views human nature as essentially sociable, the way capitalism estranges workers from each other and their labour (as the market, conception of class division and economic incentives manage interactions) suggests that capitalism is contradictory with human nature through this process of alienation. Contextually, Marx rebutted Ludwig Feuerbach’s view of human nature arguing he transferred religious values onto human essence whereas existing social parameters instead shape human behaviour[13]. Resultingly, Marx’s views of sociability, with alienation a central tenet in understanding socio-economic relations, infer that class struggle will arise. As Zacharias Zoubir convincingly argues, this conception of alienation evolves through Marx’s work with alienation reclarified by Marx in Grundrisse as not affecting individuals directly but instead a universal characteristic of social relations[14]. However, as Zoubir argues, Marx still presents the workers as partially individually responsible for this in Grundrisse with the idea that alienation ‘realises itself in objective conditions’[15], reflecting the more individualistic view of alienation in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. Moreover, as Zoubir continues, alienation justifies the view that capitalism is a stage suppressing the forces of sociability and the productive potential of individuals. Therefore this suggests that whilst this view of alienation shifts in its conception, it still is used to suggest the inevitability of class struggle.

Marx also connected alienation with a later associated idea of commodity fetishism which contributed to the argument that capitalism undermined sociability to the extent that a class struggle was inevitable. In Das Kapital, Marx outlines this view of commodity fetishism arguing that in a capitalist society, the value we attribute to commodities obscures social relations as we instead fetishise commodities giving them value and power divorced from the social relations and labour of their origin. Marx confirms this in Das Kapital by arguing they become a ‘social hieroglyphic’[16] in the sense that their origins are obfuscated. As a result, Marx argues this fetishism of commodities disguises the social division that they are dependent upon and therefore convinces people of autonomy under capitalism. These commodities are a manifestation of bourgeois power with property or ‘capital’ frequently used to extract surplus value. In Marx’s discussion of the ‘European middle ages’[17], he argues however that under the previous feudal arrangement, the social nature of commodities was more honest as there was a more personal social relationship in exchange. This leads to the related concept later labelled ‘reification’ by Georg Lukács and implied in Das Kapital, in which abstract concepts appear tangible. Marx’s analysis of value reflects this as consumers wrongly assume price differences emerge from higher intrinsic quality when they are in reality dependent upon a multitude of factors, stating ‘no chemist has ever discovered exchange-value either in a pearl or a diamond’[18]. Commodity fetishism and implied reification conceptually both contribute to the alienation created by capitalism through the depersonalisation of social relations and the indoctrination of people within this framework. For Marx, this facilitates exploitation through masked social division. His assurances of such a view were likely inspired by his experiences living among the working-class poverty of industrial Paris between 1843-45, before the publication of Das Kapital. As Michael Lavalette and Iain Ferguson argue, ‘fetishism’ is an objective social process where labour reemerges as an estranged commodity as it is in the very ‘fabric of capitalism’ [19] which makes this concept hard to break from even when people are consciously aware. They argue that despite workers experiencing such exploitation, many feel there is no alternative. On the one hand, this could suggest that revolution may not occur due to the systemic shackles. However, Marx’s overall view of dialectical materialism (which varied throughout his works as will be discussed) suggests that eventually when people are educated through class consciousness and as capitalism intensifies, revolution will come. Resultingly, reified concepts, the fetishism of commodities and overall alienation are central to the exploitation that triggers class struggle.

Marx notably argued for the inevitability of class struggle through his theory of dialectical materialism, which was only coined later by Engels, with Marx ideologically influenced by Georg Hegel. Having joined a group named the ‘Young Hegelians’ during his time at the University of Berlin from 1836-41, Marx admired Hegel’s progressive view of history as embodying stages. As a result, Marx was ideologically certain of class struggle due to his conviction that historical change was driven by social change. However, Marx was ultimately at odds with Hegel’s idealistic approach with dialectics wrapped in the abstractions of thesis and antithesis. Marx honed down on the role of material conditions in these dialectical changes in his Critique on The Philosophy of Right 1843 stating ‘he does not allow society to become the determining thing’[20] which suggests that Hegel’s approach of understanding the state as the manifestation of the moral spirit, in Marx’s view, understates the role of society to collectively drive change in response to changing social and political issues. Moreover, Marx is critical of Hegel’s failure to discriminate over the importance of class in determining and driving change[21] with Marx seeing power structures as emerging through the class dominance of the bourgeoisie rather than a rational realisation of ideas.  Themes of dialectical materialism run deep in Marx’s work such as in The Communist Manifesto where he prophetically states ‘Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps’[22]. However, although Marx consistently linked the contradictions of capitalism to a class struggle that would yield change, his view of dialectical materialism changed over time. As Stanley Moore argued[23], in the Economic Philosophical Manuscripts (1844) and the Theses on Feuerbach (1845), Marx attempted to synthesise both idealism and old materialism. In a historiographical analysis of Marx’s life, Gareth Steadmen Jones also agreed that Marx in his early years wanted to ‘reconcile materialism and idealism’[24] reflecting the overall ‘volatility’ of early Marx’s positions[25]. This is evidenced by Marx’s criticism of old materialism, such as Feuerbach’s, for the lack of contemplation of praxis in the first thesis and the role of action in the second, suggesting that ideas should be translated into practice. Moore argues convincingly that Marx, although consistent over the ‘process thesis’ in which he viewed processes as dynamic, vehemently rejected the role of practical activity (the practice thesis) in understanding truth and that theory and reality can be divorced from each other (constitutive thesis). Moore evidences this with passages in the Introduction to the Critique of Political  Economy (1857) in which Marx argues the process thesis is proven by the fact that reality is an aggregate of many characteristics, rebuts the constitutive thesis by arguing theory is ‘by no means the process that produces the concrete’[26] and rejects the practice thesis arguing that ‘as long as we occupy our brains with it only speculatively’, theory will not alter reality and therefore reality can be understood without changing it through praxis. Contextually, following the failed 1848-49 revolutions this shift in thought by Marx could reflect a reticence to allow ideas to be misrepresented in reality through disorganised revolutions. Moreover, in this view of dialectical materialism, Marx also argued for the frequency of recurring events with the comparison between Louis Bonaparte and his uncle’s revolutions with ‘first as tragedy, then as farce’[27] suggesting that once an event or revolution has occurred it is more likely to be imitated by political actors which feeds into the argument that class struggle was inevitable.  Although Marx’s engagement with dialectical materialism changed, fundamentally he believed class struggle was inevitable as through the contradictions of capitalism and view of history as a dialectical process (as inspired by Hegel), the proletariat will act in their material interests.

Moreover, Marx also perceived class struggle as inevitable due to the role of bourgeois democracy in driving revolution both through perpetuating class antagonisms in capitalism and also through inadequate reform in bourgeois democracy. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx embodied this view stating: ‘the bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part’[28]. This links to the earlier analysis of how the exploitation of labour and the inherently alienating, corrupting nature of capitalism provoke revolution. Marx’s main implication is that the bourgeoisie was revolutionary during feudalism, in which through capitalistic innovation they overthrew the old feudal arrangement. This is argued in the overthrow of ‘feudal lords and the lower middle class’ in the Critique of the Gotha Programme[29]. However, his teleological predictions of the end of capitalism in the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are also strongly pivoted around the exploitation and contradictions created by the bourgeoisie. Crucially, the tendency of the bourgeoisie to reform may lead to short-term improvements but Marx argues reforms are ultimately incompatible as capitalism is inherently exploitative. Resultingly, ‘bourgeois socialism’[30] fails as the exploitation of the working class cannot be reconciled with reform to working conditions so long as the ‘bourgeois relations of production’[31] remain to extract surplus value from the proletariat due to the profit motive. Moreover, from Marx’s perspective, although many would argue that he underestimated the potential for collectivist reforms to resolve contradictions, these continuing tensions will lead to the provocation of the proletariat and thus revolution. Although Marx consistently advocated for the role of the proletariat in agitating and changing, in his later works he arguably demonstrated a desire for a more active role through the ‘revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’[32] of a proletariat-dominated state. This advocacy for class consciousness and more active involvement may reflect a renewed approach following the revolutions of 1848 in which popular revolutions failed with Marx frustrated by their bourgeois nature[33]. However, despite historical misinterpretation of the word ‘dictatorship’ seen in Leninism for example, Marx maintained that rather than intervene, proletarian revolutions will naturally emerge when the proletariat ‘win the battle of democracy’[34] thus initiating the transfer of power. This suggests that the antagonism perpetuated through the exploitative nature of capitalism and the failure of reforms to reconcile the inherent contradictions between the bourgeoisie and proletariat will lead to an inevitable class struggle. Therefore, although largely perceived as their own ‘gravediggers’[35], Marx emphasises the role of the bourgeoisie in maintaining political dominance thus allowing class struggle to reach the climax of revolution.

The global nature of capitalism driven by the bourgeoisie further drove class struggle in Marx’s view. He believed the continuing desire for capital accumulation explored in Das Kapital with the ‘historical tendency’ of ‘primitive accumulation’[36] will lead to ever-expanding exploits as ‘it must nestle everywhere’[37], leading to global exploitation. Marx continues in the Communist Manifesto that this global approach through improvements in production, communication and cheaper prices ‘forces the barbarians’[38] into a global economy that accepts capitalism. Therefore this idea of a world market explored by Marx also engrains class struggle globally through the proliferation of capitalism, which is reflected by the 19th century shift towards globalised industrial capitalism from commercial society. However, it is important to caveat that Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism sees class struggle as inherent in every epoch before arriving at communism as the global advent of capitalism merely accentuates the divide between proletariat and bourgeoisie. As Gareth Steadman Jones argued, Marx was the first to identify the ‘limitless powers of the modern economy and its truly global reach’[39]. Although this exaggerates his contribution with Adam Smith notably identifying the role of global capitalism with the Wealth of Nations in 1776, Marx led a pioneering role in criticising the effects of global industrial capitalism. For Marx, for class struggle the implications were for a global revolution. As each country becomes industrialised enough with a ‘developed proletariat’ and ‘advanced conditions’[40] as Marx ascribed to Germany, each country will engage in national revolutions. However, for Marx, the global spread of capitalism ensured that an internationalist global revolution would occur in time in which ‘working men of all countries, unite!’[41]. This suggests that the global character of capitalism also ensured that class struggle was inevitable as a global phenomenon.

 In conclusion, Marx fundamentally saw class struggle as inevitable within capitalism due to the exploitation epitomised by the labour theory of value, alienation and commodity fetishism alongside the contradictions between the interests of the proletariat and bourgeoisie seen with dialectical materialism and bourgeois democracy. Although Marx viewed class struggle as inevitable in all systems outside of communism, the intense global scale of industrial capitalism alongside the level of technological change and division of labour made it a crucial final stage before the transition to socialism occurred. Whilst Marx’s views regarding the extent of dialectical materialism, alienation and proletariat involvement evolved throughout his works, he was consistently fundamentally convinced that the exploitative and contradictory nature of systems such as capitalism made class struggle inevitable.

[1] Karl Marx, Das Kapital: Volume 1, ed. Dave Allinson, (Moscow, 1887), 29.

[2] Ibid, 30.

[3] Ibid, 179.

[4] Ibid, 237.

[5] Ibid, 367.

[6]  Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, (London, 2000), 20.

[7] Michael Lebowitz, From Political Economy to Class Struggle In: Beyond Capital, (London, 2003), 178-179.

[8] Theses on Feuerbach, Thesis XI (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/) accessed 24/04/24.

[9] Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, (New York, 2007), 89-91.

[10] Ibid, 94.

[11] Ibid, 93.

[12] Ibid, 88.

[13] Feuerbach Thesis VI

[14] Zacharias Zoubir, Alienation and critique in Marx’s manuscripts of 1857–58, (Cambridge, 2018), 733.

[15] Karl Marx, Grundrisse, ed. by Martin Nicolaus (London, 1973), 734.

[16] Marx, Kapital, 49.

[17] Ibid, 50.

[18] Ibid, 53.

[19] Michael Lavalette and Iain Ferguson. ‘Marx: Alienation, Commodity Fetishism and the World of Contemporary Social Work’ (Bristol, 2018), 203.

[20] Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, ed. Joseph O'Malley, (Oxford, 1970), 100.

[21] Ibid, 100-101.

[22] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, (Minneapolis, 2015), 7.

[23] Stanley Moore, Marx and the Origin of Dialectical Materialism, (California, 1971), 421-23.

[24] G. Stedman Jones, Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion. (Cambridge, 2016), 193.

[25] Ibid, 297.

[26] Moore, Dialectical Materialism, 422.

[27] Karl Marx The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, ed. Saul K. Padover, (Moscow, 1937), Chapter 1.

[28] Marx, Manifesto, 9.

[29] Marx, Gotha, 22.

[30] Marx, Manifesto, 38.

[31] Ibid, 39.

[32] Marx, Gotha, 32.

[33] Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire, Chapter 1.

[34] Marx, Manifesto, 28.

[35] Ibid, 19.

[36] Marx, Kapital, 539.

[37] Marx, Manifesto, 10.

[38] Ibid, 11.

[39] Jones, Karl Marx, 241.

[40] Marx, Manifesto, 44.

[41] Ibid, 44.