KARL HEINRICH MARX

In the whole history of political thought, both in power and in criticism, few political theorists can match Karl Heinrich Marx. Reflecting on the modern world from the background of Victorian optimism in England, Marx was confident of human liberation through transcending the realm of necessity to a realm of freedom. Beside with Friedrich Engels (1820- 95), with whom he shared an unparalleled partnership, Marx dissected 19th Century capitalism as 'scientific socialism''' mainly to aloofness themselves from the early socialism of Owen, ‗ Fourier and Saint-Simon whom they dubbed as 'utopian socialists'.

Like Hegel, for Marx, the revise of history was of crucial significance. Rejecting Hegelian dialectical idealism, Marx offered dialectical materialism emphasizing that the primacy of the mode of manufacture of the material means of life essentially circumstances the overall subsistence of human beings as manifested in human relationships. Understanding reality in conditions of base that incorporated mode and relationships of manufacture and the superstructure that incorporated political, cultural and intellectual dimensions, Marx observed that individual consciousness was determined through societal procedure. Emphasizing all history as the history of class 'thrash about, Marx‘s stages of social development had five dissimilar stages:

(a) primitive communism, (b) slavery, (c) feudalism, (d) capitalism and (e) communism. Marx‘s major concentration was on analyzing modern capitalism as in the first three he had little interest and desisted from creation a blueprint for the future communist society except providing a sketchy outline. He analyzed capitalism dialectically praising its role in revolutionizing the means of manufacture while condemning it for its inequities, wastage and use. Though he was mistakenly confident that the days of capitalism would be in excess of soon. Several commentators consider that the best method to understand Marx is to see him as a critic of 19th Century capitalism.

LIFE AND TIMES

Marx was born at Trier in Rhineland (Prussia) in a Jewish family. He embraced Christianity throughout his childhood. He studied History, Law and Philosophy at Bonn, Berlin and Jena. He received his doctorate (Ph.D. Degree) in Philosophy from the University of Jena. It was throughout his student days that he was attracted to socialism—a doctrine, which was measured quite dangerous through the rulers of those times. Because of his socialistic convictions and his radical anti-state views he was expelled from Prussia and was forced to take shelter in France and Belgium. While he was in France he sustained organizing the German workers working in that country. Consequently the French Government under the pressure of the Prussian Government expelled him from France. In 1849 he migrated to England and stayed there till his death in 1883.

Beginning of an Intellectual Journey

Marx has written so extensively on several issues of Philosophy, Economics, Politics and Society that it is hard to talk about all his intricate thoughts in a few pages. Because of a wide range of issues on which he wrote it is equally hard to put him in a straight jacket of any one discipline. Throughout his student days Marx was attracted to Hegelian Idealism but he soon shifted his interest to Humanism and ultimately to Scientific Socialism. He was also influenced through some of the major movements of his times. Throughout his formative years the thought of development, in one form or the other, was extremely much in the air. While one version of development was articulated through Hegel (Development of Absolute Thought or Spirit), the other version was propounded through Darwin (in his Origin of Species). Although Marx accepted a few of the modern themes, he rejected some others. His mainly seminal contribution lies in offering an alternative theory of historical development — the theory of Dialectical Historical Materialism. Through this theory he rejected the Hegelian and Darwinian theories and propounded his own theory to explain the course of human history. Marx also entered in polemical argument with several of his contemporaries, particularly Proudhon and Bakunin and several socialist groups of Europe, 

THEORY OF ALIENATION

One of the mainly original contributions of Marx is his Theory of Alienation. This is contained in his early work—Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts—which were written in 1843 but were exposed almost fifty years after his death. These Manuscripts illustrate that ‗early Marx‘ was mainly interested in the problem of alienation,

In order to understand Marxian Theory of Alienation it is significant to understand Hegel‘s views on alienation. This is so because Marx borrowed his thought of alienation from Hegel. And Feuerbach's, particularly from Hegel. He did so while dealing with the Hegelian notion of Phenomenology. For Hegel, alienation is the state of consciousness as it acquaints itself with the external world in which objects appear to man external or alien. Nature is a self-alienated form of Spirit/Absolute mind. Man is self-alienated Spirit/God in the procedure of de-alienating itself. Feuerbach's location is presently the opposite, i.e. that man is not self-alienated God; rather God is self-alienated man. Just as to Hegel, consciousness emancipates itself from this alienation through recognizing that the objects that appear to consciousness to exist outside it are only a phenomenal expression of consciousness. In other languages, it is recognition through consciousness that objects are merely alienated or reified consciousness. Marx vehemently attacks Hegel for identifying the subsistence of objects with alienation, which creates the objective world a mere phantasm. Marx does so through distinguishing flanked by objectification and alietiation, Objectification is based on the premise of material subsistence of the objects; while alienation is a state of consciousness resulting from specific kind of connection flanked by men and objects. Such relationships cannot be a fantasy because objects are real.

Since Marx recognizes the autonomous subsistence of objects, alienation can be got in excess of only through 'substance-creating praxis', i.e. through changing the extremely circumstances in which the objects are created. In short, whereas for Hegel alienation is a state of consciousness subject to elimination through another state of consciousness, for Marx alienation is related to the real existing objects and can be overcome in the real sphere of substance-related action.

In Marx‘s view one consequence of Hegelian location is that the whole history is reduced to an act of thinking because Hegel sees all concrete events only as manifestation of Thought or Spirit. Since in Hegel the abolition of alienation is merely at the stage of consciousness it becomes 'impossible to abolish real alienation. Hence, men are forced to legitimize their chains. Secondly, for Marx alienation is rooted in the historical situation and its consequences. In the capitalist society the creation of objects (manufacture) does not help man to realize himself, i.e. to realize his potential. This inability of man to realize his potential while being occupied in the creation of objects causes alienation. Hence, alienation will be overcome when the manufacture of objects will lead to unfolding of the human potentialities.

In capitalism manufacture takes lay in alienating circumstances and this creates objectification (creation of objects) into dehumanization. The substance produced through the laborer through his labour, its product, now stands opposed to him as an alien being as a power self-governing of him. In essence, labour itself becomes an substance. What is embodied in the product of his labour does not belong to the laborer, it is no longer his own. It belongs to some one else: the capitalist. The greater this product is, the more he is diminished and de-humanized. Therefore , you can say that, for Marx, labour becomes a dehumanizing act when it is not a voluntary but a coercive action. But what creates the labour coercive is not the nature of labour (nature of laborer‘s work)per se but the historical circumstances in which this labour is performed. Hence, the society that will abolish alienation will not abolish labour, it will only abolish the alienating circumstances in which labour is performed. In other languages, labour will exist even in a socialist and a communist society but it will not be a coercive action. The crucial question is whether the work serves 'as a means for subsistence for the laborer or becomes the extremely content of his life. This amounts to saying that objectification (producing objects through one's labour) will continue even under communism but alienation will not.

From the above explanation you necessity have noticed that alienation as it exists in a capitalist society has several dimensions. Though, three dimensions are fundamental: i) Man's alienation from nature; ii) alienation from humanity or fellow workers; and iii) alienation from himself. Alienation from nature implies that the laborer is alienated from his faculty and capability of shaping the world because the world appears to him as his master. Secondly, alienation occurs because of the worker's inability to ‗own‘ the product of his work, which belongs to someone else, Not only this, even his labour is not his own because he has sold it to another. Moreover, what is embodied in the product of his labour is no longer his own. Hence, he gets alienated from the substance of his labour. This substance which he has produced assumes an external subsistence. It exists independently outside him and appears alien to him. It stands opposed to him as an autonomous power, as a hostile force. Thirdly, alienation occurs because work for the laborer is not voluntary but it is imposed on him. It is forced labour that he has to perform. It is not for the satisfaction of his needs but for the satisfaction of others‘ needs. Hence, work for him becomes drudgery, a monotonous and boring action. For twelve hours the worker weaves, spins, drills, turns, builds, shovels, breaks stones, carries loads without knowing why he is doing all this. Another aspect of alienation is the power of dead, objectified labour (machinery) in excess of the livelihood labour (the worker). In this procedure the worker becomes an appendage of the machine. His product and his machines become his real masters. Me feels alienated from himself. It is because of this that man feels himself to be freely active only in animal functions—eating, drinking and procreating— while in his human functions he is reduced to an animal. The animal in him becomes human and the human in him becomes animal, Marx further explains it through saying that:

The less you eat, drink, buy books, go to theatre or to ball or to the public home, and the less you think, love, theories, sing, paint, fence etc, the more you will be able to save and the greater will become your treasure which neither moth nor rust will corrupt-scour capital. The less you are, the less you express your life, the more you have, the greater in your alienated life and the greater is the saving of your alienated being.

The quotation shows that property for Marx is not the realization or fulfillment of personality but its negation. Hence, it is not only the property-less (the workers) who are alienated, but so are those who have property (the capitalists). The possession of property through one person necessarily entails its non-possession through another. Though, in Marx‘s view the problem of alienation cannot be solved through assuring property to all (which is in any case impossible) but through abolishing all property dealings. Hence, the abolition of capitalism is a necessary pre-requisite for the abolition of alienation.

Communism for Marx is not only the positive abolition of private property but also the abolition of human self-alienation. So, it is the return of man to himself as a social, i.e. really human being. Secondly, Marx argued in his The German Ideology that the main cause of alienation is fixation of action due to which what we ourselves produce becomes objective power us, going out of our manage, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations. Man will be redeemed from alienation in the communist society because nobody will have any exclusive sphere of action and each one can become accomplished in any branch he wishes. There it will be possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, doing presently that which provides me pleasure without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic. This will be the real state of freedom for man from alienation and use.

DIALECTICS

Marx borrowed his dialectical method from Hegel but customized it in a fundamental method. While Hegel had applied his dialectical method in the domain of thoughts, Marx applied the Dialectics to explain the material circumstances of life. In the procedure of doing so he denounced the Hegelian philosophy of dialectical idealism, on the one hand, and the theory of mechanistic materialism, on the other. Hence, the Marxian theory of society and history may be described Dialectical Materialism. (In information, Engels in his Anti-Durhing applied the dialectics even to physical nature. This has become a subject of intense debate in the middle of post-Marx Marxists). Marxian dialectical materialism, urbanized through Engels has three dimensions:

The law of:

Transformation of quantity into excellence. It means that quantitative changes lead to qualitative revolutionary situation.

The law of unity of opposites (contradiction), and

The law of negation of negation (thesis-antithesis and synthesis).

Marx holds that the material and the ideal are not only dissimilar but opposite and constitute a unity in which the material is primary and the mind (thought ) secondary. This is so because matter can exist without mind but mind cannot exist without matter because historically it (mind) has urbanized out of matter: In this method Marx totally inverted the Hegelian location. You would recall that for Hegel mind was primary and matter secondary. Marx pointed out that with Hegel "dialectics is standing on its head. It necessity be turned right face up." This he did through creation matter primary and mind secondary.

THEORY OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM

The mainly seminal contribution of Marx is his theory of historical materialism. In his Socialism: Utopian and Scientific Engels defined historical materialism as a theory which holds that the ultimate cause which determines the whole course of human history is the economic development of society. The whole course of human history is explained in conditions of changes occurring in the manners of manufacture and exchange. Starting with primitive communism the mode of manufacture has passed through three stages: slavery, feudalism and capitalism and the consequent division of society into separate classes (slave-master, serf-baron and proletariat-capitalist) and the thrash about of these classes against one another. The mainly profound statement of Marx which explains his theory of historical materialism is contained in his Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. In this work Marx contends that:

The economic structure of society, constituted through its dealings of manufacture is the real base of society. It is the foundation on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite shapes of social consciousness.

Beside with it, the society's dealings of manufacture themselves correspond to a definite stage of development of its material productive forces. Therefore , the mode of manufacture of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life procedure in common.

The common dealings as well as shapes of state are to be grasped neither from themselves nor from the so-described common development of human mind, but rather they have their roots in the material circumstances of life. As the society's productive forces develop (animate power getting replaced through inanimate power —for instance oxen ploughing getting replaced through ploughing with tractor) they conflict with the existing dealings of manufacture which become a fetter on their further growth. Therefore , begins the epoch of social revolution. This contradiction flanked by forces of manufacture and dealings of manufacture divides the society into classes. As people become conscious of this disagreement they fight it out. The disagreement is resolved in favour of the productive forces and new, higher dealings of manufacture, whose material circumstances have matured in the womb of the old society emerge. The bourgeois mode of manufacture not only symbolizes the mainly recent of many progressive epochs, but it is the last antagonistic form of manufacture.

Marx‘s materialist interpretation of history therefore explains the common course of human history in conditions of growth of productive forces. The productive forces, as already pointed out, consist of means of manufacture (machines, apparatus and factories) and labour power. The dealings of manufacture correspond to society's productive stage. In addition to ancient, feudal and bourgeois manners of manufacture Marx also talked of the Asiatic mode of manufacture. On the one hand, Marx distinguished flanked by forces of manufacture and dealings of manufacture on the other lie distinguished flanked by the base and the super-structure. For Marx, the productive forces are not objective economic forces which do not require the mediation of human consciousness for their emergence or subsistence, Likewise, the distinction flanked by the material base and the ideological super-structure is not the distinction flanked by matter and spirit but flanked by conscious human action aimed at the creation and preservation of circumstances of human life, and human consciousness which give rationalization and legitimization of specific form that human action takes.

Like his dialectics, Marx constructed his materialist conception of history out of the Hegelian system itself which had sought to bridge the gap flanked by the rational and the actual. Marx, in information, borrowed such concepts as civil society and property from the Hegelian system and set them in a revolutionary connection to the concept of the state. Hegel confronts civil society as a sphere of materialism and counter-poses it to the state as sphere of idealism. In sharp contrast to this, Marx holds that dealings as well as shapes of state are to be grasped neither from themselves, nor from the so-described common development of human mind but rather they have their roots in the material circumstances of life. You necessity also understand the method in which Marx differentiates flanked by his materialist conception of history and Hegelian idealist conception of history. To Hegel, it is the life procedure of the human mind, i.e. the procedure of thinking which under the name of the thought provides momentum to history. Therefore , for Hegel, the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of the thought , while for Marx the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected through human mind and translated into shapes of thought. To put it differently, while in the Hegelian scheme consciousness determines subsistence; in the Marxian scheme it is the social being (circumstances of subsistence) that determine their consciousness. Therefore , the connection flanked by economic and the political in Marx is such that the political structure reflects the socio-economic circumstances. It is the economic information of life, which produce or determine the nature of thoughts. Therefore , Marx reduced all thought and action to the material circumstances of life. Consciousness is nothing but the reflection of material circumstances of men's subsistence. Though, this connection flanked by material circumstances and thoughts is not necessarily direct and automatic. It is rather intricate. Marx expressed his location in a extremely technological language. He argued that the doctrine that men are products of circumstances and up-bringing and that, so, changed men are products of other circumstances and changed up-bringing forgets that it is men that change circumstances and that educator himself needs education.

The statement of Marx will help you to understand that in Marx epistemology ceases to be merely a reflective theory of cognition but becomes a vehicle for shaping and molding reality. Therefore , Marx‘s epistemology occupies a middle location flanked by classical (mechanical) materialism and classical idealism. Since, it synthesizes the two traditions, it transcends the classical dichotomy flanked by subject and substance. In short, Marx denies the validity of traditional mechanistic materialist manners of consciousness. To Marx, reality is always human reality, not in the sense that man forms nature because this act of shaping nature also forms man and his relation to other human beings. It is a total procedure, implying a constant interaction flanked by subject and substance "My connection to my surroundings is my consciousness.

In a subtle sense, the Marxian philosophy of Historical materialism is dissimilar not only from Hegelian philosophy; it is also dissimilar from that of Feuerbach. While Feuerbach saw the unity of man and nature expressed through man's being a part of nature, Marx sees man as shaping nature and his being, in turn, shaped through it. To put it in easy languages, whereas Feuerbach naturalizes man, Marx humanizes nature. Marx argued that man not only satisfies his needs through his get in touch with nature but also creates new needs as well as possibilities of their satisfaction. Therefore , just as to Marx, man‘s needs are historical not naturalistic. The never-ending dialectical pursuit of their creation and satisfaction constitutes the main course Historical development. Here again, the Marxist location is dissimilar from pragmatists. While pragmatism starts with the premise that man adopts himself to a given pre-existing environment, Marx views man not adopting himself to the environment but shaping his world. To put it differently, reality is viewed through classical materialism and pragmatism as if it were merely a passive substance of perception; while, for Marx, reality is not only shaped through man but it also reacts on man himself and forms him. Therefore , it is a two-method interaction: man shaping nature and getting shaped through nature.

THEORY OF CLASS WAR

The understanding of the concept of "class" is central to the understanding of Marxian philosophy. The sole criterion on the foundation of which the class of a person is determined is his ownership (or manage) of means of manufacture (land, capital, machines & technology). Those who own or manage the means of manufacture constitute the bourgeoisie (exploiters), and. those who own only labour power constitute the proletariat (exploited). Therefore , classes are defined through Marx on the foundation of twin criteria of a person's lay in the mode of manufacture and his consequent location in conditions of dealings of manufacture. The lack of ownership (or manage) of means of manufacture and lack of property and the immediate require to get work i.e. the class of concrete labour are some of the feature characteristics of the proletariat class. Since class is based on ownership (or manage) of means of manufacture and ownership of property; the disappearance of class variation depends on the disappearance of property as the determining factor of status.

In Communist Manifesto Marx- Engels said: ―The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". They argued that class disagreement is the real driving force of human history. In the capitalist societies class differentiation is mainly clear, class consciousness is more urbanized and class disagreement is mainly acute. Therefore , capitalism is the culminating point in the historical development of classes and class disagreement. The distinctive characteristic of bourgeois epoch is that society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other—bourgeoisie and proletariat.

Marx also made a distinction flanked by the objective information of subsistence of a class and its subjective awareness in relation to the its being a class —class consciousness. Division of labour is the main source of historical emergence of classes and class antagonisms. Each new class which puts itself in lay of the one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aims, to symbolize its interest as the general interest of all the members of society. The class creation a revolution appears from the extremely beginning not as a class but as the representative of the whole society.

Through a detailed historical analysis Marx showed that no major antagonism disappears unless there emerges a new antagonism. Therefore , common antagonism flanked by the rich, and the poor has always been there but in capitalism it has been sharply polarized into antagonism flanked by the capitalist and the proletariat. Therefore , in capitalism the emergence of proletariat has a special significance. It is not presently a historical phenomenon because its suffering, its use and its dehumanization is a paradigm' for the human condition at big. This is so because in proletariat class Marx sees the modern and the final realization of universality. He endows this class with a historical significance and mission. It can redeem itself only through a total redemption of humanity. When the proletariat announces the dissolution of the existing class- based social order it only declares the secret of its own subsistence, because it is the effective dissolution of this order that will lead not only to the emancipation of the proletariat but to the emancipation of humanity. For such emancipation of humanity it is essential to abolish the institution of private property. Private property as private property, as wealth is compelled to uphold itself, and thereby its opposite—the proletariat, in subsistence. The proletariat is compelled as proletariat to abolish itself and thereby its opposite, the condition for its subsistence, what creates it proletariat, i.e. private property. Emancipation of society from private property, from servitude takes the political form of emancipation of humanity as a whole. All human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to manufacture and all kinds of servitude are only modification or consequence of this relation. Hence, the proletariat can abolish all classes and all class antagonisms through abolishing itself as a separate class. In final analysis Marx visualized the emergence of a classless society. Such class-less society will also be a stateless society because with the disappearance of classes the extremely rationale for the subsistence of state will disappear. Just as to him the rationale for the subsistence of state is to defend the interest of the bourgeoisie.

THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE

Another key characteristic of class dealings in capitalism, just as to Marx, is the expropriation of surplus value through the bourgeoisie from the labour of the proletariat. The theory of surplus value is discussed through Marx in great detail in his Capital. The theory of surplus value is rooted in the labour theory of value propounded through Ricardo and classical economists. The labour theory of value holds that labour spent through the laborer in the manufacture of a commodity is the sole criterion for determining its value. Of course, it will also depend on the "use-value " of that commodity. Marx admits that human labour cannot make value through itself alone. It uses instruments of manufacture which are owned through the capitalist. The capitalist buys the ―labour power" of the laborer and applies it to the raw material to produce commodities which have an exchange value. The variation flanked by the exchange value of the commodity and the wages paid to the worker through the capitalist in producing that commodity is surplus value.

In information, Marx explains the whole procedure of use with the help of his theory of surplus value. It is a separate characteristic of capitalist mode of manufacture. To put it in easy languages, surplus value accrues because the commodity produced through the worker is sold through the capitalist for more than what he (the worker) receives as wages. In his Capital Marx elaborated it in a extremely technological language. He argued that the worker produces a commodity which belongs to the capitalist and whose value is realized through the capitalist in the form of price. The value of the commodity depends on the capital involved in its manufacture. This capital has two parts— constant capital and variable capital. Constant capita! relates to means of manufacture like raw material, machinery, apparatus etc used for commodity manufacture. The variable capital refers to the wages paid to the worker. It is the Value of what the laborer sells (his labour power). Surplus value is the variation flanked by the value produced through the worker what he gets in exchange for this value of his labour,. This is described variable capital' because it varies from beginning to the end. It begins as value of the labour power and ends as the value produced through that labour power in the form of a commodity. Labour power has therefore a unique excellence of its skill to make value.

Marx argued that the capitalist appropriates part of the labour of the worker for which he (the worker) does not get paid, Therefore , surplus value is unpaid labors of the laborer. It can be variously measured in conditions of time as well as in conditions of money. Suppose a worker works for ten hours in producing a commodity. He may get paid for only what is equivalent to his eight hours labour. Therefore , his two hours labour has been appropriated through the capitalist: Marx also argued that slowly the proportion of surplus value becomes more and more. The worker was not paid for his two hours labour out of ten hours that he had spent in producing a commodity because he was paid only for his eight hours labour. Through and through, the proportion of unpaid labour will augment from two to three, four or five hours. Finally, a stage comes when the worker gets paid only the minimum that is necessary for his survival. (His survival does not mean only his personal survival but also the survival of his family so that when this worker is not able to work (due to old age or death or illness) his children may take his lay). The working class consists of those who own nothing but their own labour power which they are forced to sell in order to live. Just as to Marx, the history of capitalist manufacture is a history of struggles through the capitalist to augment his surplus value and resistance through the workers against this augment.

There is a variation in the method in which surplus value was created in the slave society and under feudalism and the method it is created in the capitalist society. In the former the slave or the serf who created surplus value was tied to his master or the feudal lord but in capitalism there is a 'free contract' into which the worker 'voluntarily' enters with the capitalist. Of course, this freedom is a myth because the worker has no option but to sell his labour power. He necessity enter into contract with some capitalist. The only option that he has is to choose the capitalist to whom he wants to sell his labour power. Therefore this freedom is freedom to choose his exploiter. The slave and the serf did not have this freedom.

THEORY OF REVOLUTION

The vital cause of revolution, just as to Marx, is the disjunction that arises flanked by dealings of manufacture and the means of manufacture. As means of manufacture (technology etc.) grow with growth of scientific knowledge, they go out of step with the existing dealings of manufacture. A stage is reached where the dealings of manufacture become a fetter on the manufacture procedure itself. This provides rise to immanent demand for a transition to a new mode of manufacture. The capitalist mode of manufacture appeared from the womb of feudal order in the similar method as feudal mode of manufacture appeared from the womb of the slave society. Likewise, socialism will emerge from the womb of bourgeois society itself. This is so because capitalism constantly revolutionizes its own means of manufacture and therefore undermines its own circumstances of subsistence. In information, the bourgeoisie produces its own grave diggers. Marx asserted that the bourgeois dealings of manufacture are the last antagonistic form of social procedure of manufacture— antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but class antagonism arising from the social circumstances of life of the individuals. Therefore , the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society make material circumstances for the resolution of that antagonism.

Marx‘s assertion that the bourgeois dealings of manufacture are the last antagonistic form of social procedure of manufacture is rooted in the assumption that all the previous historical movements (revolutions) were movements of minorities in the interest of minorities. The proletarian revolution will be dissimilar from them. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of capitalist society cannot stir, cannot raise itself to the location of ruling class without the whole superincumbent strata of officials being sprung into the air. Beside with it, Marx also spelled out the method, which will be followed through the proletariat class to achieve its objective. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels declared that communists scorn to hide their views and aims. They openly declare that their purpose (revolution) can only be achieved through the forcible overthrow of the whole capitalist order. Therefore , the emancipation of the proletariat is predicated through Marx on the emancipation of humanity.

Here it is significant for you to bear in mind that in the history of revolutions there is a debate in relation to the role of subjective (human) and objective (material) factors in creation a revolution. Whether it is the mere subsistence of a proletariat class which will bring in relation to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism or is it the consciousness of- this proletariat which is necessary for doing so? Marx‘s location in this regard is extremely important. He sees a dialectical connection flanked by philosophy's comprehension of the world and its skill to change it. Theory necessity evolve a proper interpretation of the world before it is able to change it. The ultimate task of philosophy is not merely to comprehend reality but also to change it. Praxis revolutionizes the existing reality through human action. Revolutionary praxis has, so, a dialectical aspect. Objectively, it is the organisation of the circumstances leading to ultimate human emancipation and subjectively, it is the self-change that proletariat achieves through its self detection through organisation.

Therefore , the dilemma of determinism vs. voluntarism is transcended through Marx through the dialectical nature of revolutionary consciousness. Objective circumstances themselves will not bring in relation to the revolution until and unless the proletariat grasps the information that through shaping its own view of the world it also changes it. If revolutionary consciousness exists then revolution is bound to happen. When the worker comprehends that under capitalist manufacture lie is degraded to the status of a mere substance, a commodity; lie ceases to be a commodity, an substance and becomes a subject (active agent). This is revolutionary consciousness. The understanding of the existing reality through the proletariat is, so, necessary condition for the possibility of revolutionizing it. In other languages, it is only an understanding of the internal dynamics of capitalism through the proletariat that will enable it to create revolution which will signal the transition from capitalism to socialism.

DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT

Dictatorship of the proletariat is another significant concept in Marx‘s writings. Marx did not write extremely clearly and systematically in relation to the dictatorship of the proletariat and in relation to the exact nature and form of post-revolutionary communist society. At best his treatment is sketchy. In a letter to Wedemeyer (March 5, 1852) Marx said that he had not exposed the concept of classes and class struggles.

What I did that was new was to prove: (a) that the subsistence of classes is only bound up with scrupulous phases in the development of manufacture; (b), that the class thrash about necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; (c) that this dictatorship (of the proletariat) itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes leading to the establishment of a classless society.

Therefore , the dictatorship of the proletariat is a necessary intermediate point or a middle stage on the path, from capitalism to socialism and communism. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme he further clarified that flanked by capitalism and communist society lies a era of revolutionary transformation from one (i.e. capitalism) to the other (i.e. socialism). In political sphere this transformation will take the form of dictatorship of the proletariat. It is the first step in the revolution of the working class which will raise the proletariat to the location of a ruling class. In Marx‘s view throughout the dictatorship of the proletariat there will be a regime in which the proletariat will manage the state power. Such a middle stage of dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary because the destruction of whole capitalist social and political order cannot be fully achieved without capturing the state power and without by it as an instrument to make circumstances for the ushering in of a communist social order.

VISION OF A COMMUNIST SOCIETY

Communism is explained through Marx as a form of society which the proletariat will bring into subsistence through its t-evolutionary thrash about. In Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels argued that the communists have no interests separate and separately from the interests of the proletariat as a whole. In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts Marx defined communism as the positive abolition of private property. It also entailed the abolition of classes and abolition of division of labour. In economic conditions the communist society will be a "society of associated producers". In political conditions communism will be the first state in the history of mankind to use political power for universal interests instead of partisan interests. Therefore , it will be dissimilar from the state in capitalism which is no more than the Managing Committee of the Bourgeoisie. For Marx the state in capitalism is serving the extensive-term interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole. It promotes and legitimizes the use of the proletariat through the bourgeoisie.

'In Critique of the Gotha Programme Marx talked of two stages of communist society. In the first state communism will bring in relation to the socialization of means of manufacture. It means that the means of manufacture will not be in the hands of any one class but in the hands of society as a whole. At this state wage labour will continue to exist and the organizing principle of the economy will be: ‗from each just as to his capability to each just as to his work'. It means that every one will work just as to one's skill and get just as to the amount of work done. At the second and the final stage the communist society will ensure the end of man's power through the objective forces. As already stated communism for Marx is not only the positive abolition of private property but also the abolition of state and abolition of human self-alienation. It will be a class less and stateless society in which government of men will be replaced through administration of things. It will be return of man to himself as a social, i.e., really human being. Communism is viewed through Marx as the true final solution of the disagreement flanked by subsistence and essence; objectification and self affirmation; freedom and necessity; individual and the species.

Marx also claimed that communism is the final solution to the riddle of history and knows itself to be this solution. Man in communism will become conscious of himself as the prime mover of history as well as its product. As stated earlier, since communism will ensure the disappearance of social division of labour; it will become possible for man to do one thing to day, another tomorrow "to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening and criticize after dinner without ever becoming a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd or a critic' (German Ideology). Moreover, it will be a state of plenty where every one will work just as to capability (skill) and get just as to require. The creation of new needs will also ensure the creation of means for their satisfaction. History will not come to an end; it will continue' in conditions of creation of new needs and creation of methods of their fulfillment.

It should be noted that under communism alienation will come to an end but labour will continue to remain a vital require. The sphere of material manufacture will remain' in the realm of necessity. The realm of freedom will begin only in the leisure time. Therefore , work will continue to be an obligation even in a communist society.

COMMON ASSESSMENT

Marx is undoubtedly one of the mainly influential philosophers of contemporary times. His thoughts have acquired the status of a powerful ideology. His thoughts on Alienation, Historical Materialism, Class War, Surplus Value and his vision of a Proletarian Revolution, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Socialism and Communism have been extensively discussed, debated, customized and sometimes even rejected through his followers and adversaries. His writings are so voluminous and his themes are so wide-ranging that Marx has come to mean dissimilar things to dissimilar people. For instance, there are studies which seek to distinguish flanked by 'early' and 'later' Marx. While 'early' Marx is projected as a humanist philosopher interested in redemption of mankind from alienation; the later' Marx is viewed as an economist and a revolutionary interested in abolishing use. ‗Early‘ Marx is Marx of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts; while the 'later' Marx is Marx of the Communist Manifesto, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and Capital. There are also studies which see an underlying unity flanked by the 'early' and the 'later' Marx. Some studies have even tried to assess the power that Engels exercised on Marx and power that Marx exercised on Engels. Such studies have a valid point to create because initially Marx was basically a philosopher, while Engels was basically an economist. Due to power that they exercised on one another Marx moved from Philosophy to Economics; while Engels moved from Economics to Philosophy. So much so that it is approximately impossible to provide a universally acceptable and a non-partisan assessment of Marx.

Marx‘s vision of a new social order in which there will be neither alienation nor use, no classes, no class antagonism, no power, no state is highly fascinating and because of this attraction, Sabine described Marxism a utopia but a generous and a humane one. Though, though he admitted that historical growths are always open to many possibilities yet he did not agree that such possibilities were open to his own theory. Though, not putting his own theory to the possibility of dialectical critique as Avineri said, was a grave mistake. Berlin commenting on his tremendous popularity for generations establish that to be a negation of Marx‘s rigid framework of determinism. Plamenatz distinguished flanked by a German Marxism and Russian Communism. Harrington portrayed the modern radical view of Marx as being an excellent critic of capitalism but unable to give a detailed alternative to it. This failure of Marx is mainly because of the information that he was writing at a time when democracy was only one of the possibilities and not a universal reality as it is today. Because of this lacuna he could not grasp the dynamics of democracy and the importance of civil and political liberties for any civilized society.