Critical Review Of Karl Marx And Friedrich Engels' The German Ideology

In this essay, I will be critically reviewing the joint works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels “The German Ideology”, focusing on Part A of the chapter “Feuerbach; opposition of the materialistic and idealistic outlook”. In this book, they critique the work of philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s work, along with explaining new concepts such as “alienation” and “historical materialism” in regards to the impact the division of labour has among the proletariat, otherwise known as the working class. The writer’s joint work has been proven very influential among followers such as Marxists, socialists and social democrats.

In this chapter, Marx and Engels begin by criticising Hegelian philosophy for their focus on religious conceptions, they believe that religion is one of the most important and powerful concepts when we talk about the idea of ‘conscious unification’. However, Marx and Engels believe that capitalism and its effects is far more important when addressing such topics. They also state that material life and people’s experiences of such circumstances should also be addressed. Marx and Engels describe what makes us human as we “distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of substance” Marx(1846,pg 42). This refers to the way humans are able to create and use their labour as a means of substance, this may seem like a great ability however, the bourgeoisie are able to buy this ability from the proletariat for a wage in the division of labour. This refers to how society is divided in the economic system it is in, Marx and Engels describe capitalism as a system in which there are two classes; the bourgeoisie who own the means of production and the proletariat who sell their labour for a wage. This generates great profit for the bourgeoise while keeping the proletariat, who make up most of society, in control. As in a capitalist society, we need money to survive, the proletariat has no choice other than to conform to this oppression.

The division of labour has been around since the beginning of humanity as we know it, it is a relevant system as society has gone through different ‘epochs’ or developments. The first known development of such ownership is the ‘Stammeigentum’ otherwise known as the tribal ownership. When we think of this stage we think of the early stages of humanity where people would hunt and fish for food and work the land. The second epoch is the ‘ancient communal and State ownership’ This is a bigger development of the first stage in which several tribes became one in a larger area or city. . Lastly, the third development of the division of labour is the feudal property. When we think of this epoch we tend to think of the Middle Ages when the King and Queen were at the top of the hierarchy followed by their noblemen such as Lords and Ladies, the common public and peasants at the bottom ranks of society.

Although Marx and Engels state that society has a history by transitioning and developing through different types of ownership, they believe that men, who make up society, do not have a history. They state;

“They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter along with their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking”. (Marx, Engels, pg 47)

Their view of consciousness describes men as being the producers of their own thoughts however, there is an influence of their productive forces that have such thoughts conditioned to an extent. Consciousness is not real, but it is man’s perception, the only real factor is man’s life processes, and this can shape man’s consciousness. This explains how the division of labour impacts workers in Marx and Engel’s theory of ‘alienation’ discussed later on in this essay.

To follow this theory of human consciousness, Marx and Engels describe that there are 5 premises that make up our human existence; the first being that we have the ability to make history through our position in the world. We also have the ability to produce the means to satisfy our material lives, this helps us sustain human life by providing food and shelter for ourselves, even selling our labour in order to survive in society. The second premise is our satisfaction of the first need, and by doing this it brings us new needs to produce and contributes to the first act. Moving on, the third premise affects our historical development as humans as it is in which our ability to make a family structure. (Marx and Engels, pg 49) describe this as “men, who daily remake their own life, begin to make other men, to propagate their kind”. The fourth aspect is similar to the third, as it is the production of life. However, there is a double relationship in this; it is natural, but also a social relationship. Doing this creates new social relations by increasing the population and creating a new ‘productive force’ of people and contributes to the ‘history of humanity’ (Marx and Engels, pg50) The fifth aspect of humanity is that we humans are able to possess ‘consciousness’. This ability is only found in humans as it causes a ‘relation’ to each other. For example, language is one of the first products of humans, we all have relations through this, something animals do not.

The final concept that Marx and Engels draw upon in this chapter is ‘alienation’, this occurs when in the division of labour, when a foreign power e.g the workplace, has such an effect on a worker’s own actions it enslaves him. This causes a disorientating sense of exclusion for the individual, he no longer possesses his work, but it is alienated from him for a wage. This alienation also causes us to be foreign from each other as it will cause us to withdraw from our environment and reject society. When this power becomes too intolerable, Marx and Engels reckon it will cause a revolution in which the people will demand a “propertyless state”. This will cause a communist revolution and bring about the final epoch, communism is an economic state that is classless and equal.

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality (will) have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence”. (Marx and Engels, pg 56-57)

Marx and Engels have written a very influential piece of work however there are some criticisms to it. They began this chapter by criticising Hegel and his followers, the Heligan philosophy is very influential and Marx himself has even been a follower of Hegel. It is also not wrong to believe Hegel’s claims that the establishment gains its power by using religious conceptions as “among the different forms of conscious unification, religion stands at the pinnacle” (Hegel, 1988, p. 52). This idea of religion being of the most importance is not a naive thought as other sociologists have thought the same. For example, Weber claims in ‘The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism’ that the Calvinists are united by their religion in the fact they think hard work will get them into heaven. Therefore, they tend to all have a good work ethic and succeed in a capitalist society and breed this view onto their younger generations. Therefore, it was not these people’s belief in capitalism that unites them but their religious beliefs that have an effect on their place in a capitalist society.

Marx and Engels is also correct in saying that humans can be differentiated from animals because of our ability to produce subsistence and material life. However, this view can be seen as being too materialistic, as not all humans are united in producing such things or in creative labour. (Bratton et al 2019, pg 114-115) They also claim that this view is too “utopian” as it assumes that the total human population identifies with this and contributes to this labour that keeps our never-ending human needs satisfied. This can also be applied to their five premises that make up human existence, as not everyone has the same view of what it means to be human, overall, Marx and Engels can be seen as having a very deterministic and simplistic view. The assumption that human’s belief in religion also distinguishes us from animals can also be seen as false, as some have no faith such as humans, alike animals, can subscribe and not identify with a religion. This is seen through Feuerbach’s views on Hegel’s philosophy, which influenced Marx, as he claims religion is a sort of mythical thinking that humans use for self-protection, humans who are anxious “set God before him as the antithesis of himself… God and man are extremes.” (Bratton et al, 2019 pg 83). Therefore, Marx and Engel’s view can be seen as too deterministic as not every human has the same beliefs that makes them human, however, we do have our consciousness and ability for deep thinking in common as shown through these various thinkers.

Marx and Engel’s division of society also has some critique of its own, although it is interesting to look at history through an economic perspective and as developments, it is not an entirely new idea. This is where Marx contradicts his criticisms of Hegel as he took Hegel’s concept of ‘dialectical history’ and made it is own.The philosopher was the first to propose this concept as, Hegel claims history moves forward in a dialectical way, and there are three parts to such; thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The clash of the thesis and antithesis results in the synthesis. This is similar to Marx as he states societies go through developments towards the Utopia of communism. Whereas, Hegal claims that the synthesis changes in order to fit the society and the people’s needs and is not one utopian ideal. Marx also fails to consider the women’s role in the division of labour throughout history and the further oppression women would experience under each epoch. For example, in this current capitalist state, in the UK it has been reported that the gender pay gap is at 9.6% (The Office for National Statistics’ Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2012). In most epochs, women are almost entirely invisible with their traditional role being in the home doing unpaid work. Therefore, Marx and Engel’s argument of the working-class being oppressed in the workplace does not consider women’s oppression not only from society but also their oppressed husbands and fathers.

Marx and Engels claim that material activity and consciousness is linked as we are the creators of our own thoughts but we are influenced by our productive forces, however, this view can be seen as deterministic as it could be seen that we are not able to control our own thoughts and filter the impact of productive forces and thinking for ourselves. (Bratton et al 2019, pg108) explains this as Marx claims that the productive forces of society is the only factor that makes the change in society,by overthrowing and changing the social structures, not the people as if it was to have its own life and rationale. Therefore, this idea could portray humans as being totally unaware of the impact social structures have on us and that people are thoughtless workers that are unaware of our surroundings and work in the division of labour like mere machines. Not as people who will bring about the socialist/ communist revolution that Marx predicts in the next epoch of society,

The final concept described in this chapter “alienation” has described the effects an oppressive workplace can cause, but has been criticised by the very influential sociologist, Talcott Parsons. He believes that everyone has a different position in the workplace that contributes to the smooth running of society. In Parson’s case, he argues that the Marxian concept of alienation is a normative concept rather than an economic one. (Sciulli 1984, pg518) This is because it is not analytically economic but involves normative aspects. Also, Parson’s rejects most of Marx and Engel’s views of the division of labour as he believes, “the Marxian categories distort our understanding of what is functionally immutable in any possible modern society.”(Sciulli, 1984 pg519). In addition to this criticism, as labour is free under communism, this means that one can choose a variety of different roles and jobs in society as they are free to do so. However, (Bratton et al 2019,pg 115) asks the questions who would do the less-favourable jobs such as garbage collection. Marx was asked this once, and he simply replied with “You Should”. This response can be seen as the theory not being fully throughout. Therefore, Marx’s theory of communism, from the outset, seems great and fair in theory but can have its problems in reality.

In conclusion, “The German Ideology” has been considered an influential piece of sociological literature due to its impact on sociology at the time with the introduction of concepts such as “alienation” and “historical materialism”. However, many have critiqued Marx and Engels on being very deterministic when it comes to concepts such as these. Overall, it is hard to criticise their impact on society with theories such as communism which has played a massive part of history, even after the writers died, for better or for worse, it is safe to say their legacy and this book lives on even until today.