Write an essay on Marx's concept of economic
determinism. X 22 Ans. Marx contrasted his materialism with Hegel's idealistic interpretation of history. The signficiant element in his historical materialism is the doctrine of economic determinism. The economic factors alone are responsible for changes in history. They constitute the dynamic factors in history in the light of which every other structure of society, religion, law etc. must find its implementation. In the preface to his Critique of Political Economy', Marx starts by asking what is the principle that governs all human relationships and his answer is the common end, which all men puruse, i.e., securing the means of production to support life, and next to production, the exchange of things produced. The theory begins with the simple truth which is due to the meaning of history that "Men must eat to live." Hence the ultimate determinant of social change is not to be found in the ideas of an eternal truth and social justice, but in changes in the mode of production and exchange. Marx writes that men enter into definite relations that are independent of their will and these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material force of production. The sum total of these relations of production makes the economic structure of society-the real foundation on which arises a legal and political super-structure to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production in material life determines the general and spiritual process of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence but on the countrary it is their social existence that determines their consciousness.
Thus everything for Marx is ultimately determined by economic factors that is, the method of production used at a particular time in history. Thus the hand mill gives you a society with a feudal lord, the steam mill a society with an industrial capitalist. The structure of society in its turn changes creeds, attitudes and civilisation. It is on the substratum of modes of production that the super-structure of religion, morality and political and intellectual institutions is raised.
The substratum is never stable. It is in continuous Dux, always developing in consonance with necessities inherent in it. So as to produce their successors merely by their own working, Marx maintained no stage in history will endure. It has become a halter rather than a spur in the forces of production. Take for an example an agricultural country. The productive forces will be primarily those implements and tools which are required for its development. They will bring into existence a type of production in relation appropriate to them and their production relation will in turn be reflected in the laws and institutions of the community. If it is found that a country possesses a certain quantity of coal and oil and if it is decided to explore and exploit these resources, a new concept of productive forces will come into being with corresponding changes in the production relations. The land owners will give place to manufactures and the cultivators will give. place to industrial workers.
And with this, there would be a corresponding change in the laws and institutions of the society. This transition, however, will not take place without a struggle.
Since a new and more productive economy will be restricted by all those who have an interest in maintaining the older and less productive order, there would definitely emerge a class struggle between the two sides and according to Marx, only revolution will finally decide the issue.
To understand social evolution we have, therefore, to distinguish between changes in productive forces and various ideological forms in which man becomes conscious of the conflict and finds it out. Man as an individual is insignificant, but what he is, he is due to the economic position of his group. Marx found the most important manifestation of economic determinism in the constant presence of economic classes. His Communist Manifesto opens with the sentence "A history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class-struggle." Every system of production has given rise to two principal mutually hostile classes for example: freeman and slaves, feudal lords and serfs, capitalists and labourers. Class struggle as the clue to the interpretation of history was not new to Marx. But bis contribution lies in the fact that the class antagonism centred round the prevailing mode of production with its economic system.
Conclusion: If the doctrine is interpreted to mean that economic causes are the most important causes of social changes, it contains a great deal of truth. It is certainly true that the economic condition prevailing in a country exercises a determining influence on political and legal institutions. It is true that changes in our ideas and attitudes towards social institutions are largely determined by the concrete necessity of our material environment and not by abstract ideas. But to hold that the economic factors are the only factors that cause changes in law, morality and religion is an exaggeration. In short, all things that go to make up the cultural life of the community and shape its institutions are the by-product of its fundamental economic structure. It definitely is a real version. Human activities are not so simple as to admit of an explanation in terms of a single motive. They are often complicated by the inter-play of bare emotions, noble sentiments and social environment. Russell is of the opinion that "the inter-material necessities definitely determine a large amount of our relationships but it is wrong to say that economic conditions are the sole determining factors. Society is not merely a society of two economic classes engaged in class-struggle, society is a web of social relationships influenced to a great extent by economic conditions but not determined only by economic conditions." No one can deny the importance of economic factors of social changes but no one also accepts that these are the only determinants of social change. Social change, one may call it social evolution, is always determined by not one but several types of social, economic, political, cultural, technological and other factors.
