Historical Materialist Approach To Marxism

1463 Words 6 Pages
The historical dialectic materialist approach represents a key feature of Marxist thought. It is so vital to his explanations of history that it has often been seen as being synonymous with Marx himself. If one wants to understand history as a dynamic, and historical process, it is essential to look at it materially. Ultimately, the historical dialectic materialist approach allows us to make sense of why things are the way they are in a certain era. Three concepts go into explaining the historical dialectic materialist approach. The historical aspect, refers to history, and the explanation of humankind. The dialectic that Marx is referring to is a way to see how real things being and end and how it is all about the clashing, or dialectic, or …show more content…
Marx, in Capital, describes it very succinctly by explaining that it is the way in which men produce their means of subsistence is dependent on the nature of the actual means they find in existence and have to reproduce. Human society in this sense consists of two parts: a base and a superstructure. The base is comprised of the forces of production, and the relations of production. This includes the employer, employee relationship, and technical divisions of labour. Upon this rests the superstructure. This includes politics, religion, art, ideology, subjectivity and so on. There is nothing more foundational or determinative in history than how one makes a living and where this all comes from. In a sense, the Superstructure are the things that come to determine the rest of society. These connect together as a particular mode of production will produce a certain superstructure, and will be there because they will serve a particular support based on the economic base to which it is founded. Relations of production are produced from the forces of production; the superstructure therefore comes out of the economic base. This is determinative to the historical dialectic materialist approach, that will be explained in further detail, as the forces of production are always going to be going through change, and if the base changes, then change …show more content…
Marxism, as state before, lies heavily on the belief of an elite class to which covets a large majority of the power which inevitably leads to their breakdown. Panitch denies the existence of an elite class that holds any power in society. He instead, see that power is a relationship, and that everyone who is in the relationship (no matter how low), has some sort of power in society. He uses the example of the masses binding together in action such as full scale strikes and their ability therefore to influence society towards the goal they want. This leads the capitalists and the workers to stand in a logically opposed power relationship. From this relationship comes the profit of the capitalists, but conversely the power of the masses. If they walk off the job, there is no more profit for the capitalists. This exemplifies that both poles of the relationship can intervene and influence the fate of the

Related Documents