There can be no doubt about the wide-ranging influence of Karl Marx's theories on sociology and political thought. His concept of communism overcoming the socioeconomic trappings of capitalism was not a theory that saw the light of day in the way he might have assumed. There have been many throughout history who have misrepresented Marx's writings, which begs the question of whether pure communism in the original Marxist sense is truly possible, given that humanity appears to have an innate "need" for hierarchy and a thirst for power. Capitalism appears to satisfy the “need” for power and acquisition above all else, and the proof is seen in the growth of global wealth, which certainly does not equate to equal wealth. The gap between rich and poor is constantly widening, leading to inequalities in life opportunities and participation in mainstream society. However, hard evidence does not appear to change or transform capitalism, so Marx's concept of economic class struggle remains a controversial issue. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay This essay will explain and explore the concept of capitalism and how Marx believed the origins and dynamics of capitalism were entangled in the fabric of class struggles throughout history. Indeed, this notion opens the first part of the Communist Manifesto with the now famous quote: “The history of every hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx and Engels, p 79). Capitalism is essential as Marx based his work on the concept of historical materialism, originally derived from the development of Feuerbach's “Hegelian inversion”. Historical materialism is a concept that explains the vital function of human production for the sole purpose of basic subsistence. Without the means of subsistence, humanity would fail in all other activities and functions. Marx rejected Hegel's dialectics based on a movement of human thought and ideas and argued that dialectics involved contradictions based on an economic system, otherwise known as dialectical materialism. Therefore, the dynamics of change possibly created by a dialectical process resides in the conflict between two opposing factors (Lee and Newby 2000, pp. 114 - 119). Marx conceived the base and superstructure approach that defines capitalist society. The base refers to everything that is a function of production in society and, vice versa, the superstructure, which can be said to be derived from the base, refers to the values, culture, ideology and governing bodies of the society. The former creates and supports the latter through a process of legitimation of economic activities and, in turn, the superstructure ensures that the processes remain in place. Class dominance plays an important role in this organizing process; for example, private education offers better opportunities for advancement and primary socialization at higher levels of society. However, a counterargument holds that the state is equally involved in the tensions and “struggles of civil society” rather than being a mere extension of it for the pure benefit of a particular class interest (Held 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001, p 113). According to Marx, the act of production and the means of organizing it, including the relationship between members of opposing classes, are fundamental to society and social development and this can be supported with the analysis of pre-industrial societies. Feudal societies organized production on the basis of the relationship between the ruling class, the nobility, and the subject class, the serfs. Monarchy governed by divine right and a rigid system of traditionswhich command complete loyalty and honor. Church involvement supported and emphasized this early form of social organization and any deviation from accepted behavior would have been tantamount to blasphemy. Social hierarchies were as fixed and generally immovable as the lands owned by the nobility. The society was made up of small groups who lived in small agricultural communities. In the absence of an organized economy and bureaucracy, excess production was regarded by landowners as rightfully theirs. Serfs depended on the grace of landowners for their livelihood, which created a relationship of domination and dependence. As such, Marx asserted that conflict is inevitable in any class-based society (Bradley 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001, pp. 188-189). The change in modes of production was gradual and evolved over hundreds of years of activity, which saw the creation of the East India Stock Company (around 1600) and the British colonization of the Americas in the late 16th century. Subsequently, Adam Smith (1723-1790), in his work The Wealth of Nations, developed a theory in favor of the free market in direct opposition to mercantilism and the monopoly of land ownership. Unlike “bonded” labor, free labor would benefit all members of society. Smith believed that all individuals “seek profit,” but this creates “harmony” in the interests of society as a whole. A free market and free trade would require a division of labor, which would ultimately mean a more economically efficient mode of production in a competitive market (Brown 2001, in Hall and Gieben 2001 pp. 145-149). As such, mercantilism saw the accumulation of capital that gave rise to capitalism. Industrialization was not solely responsible for capitalism but it certainly provided the impetus for it to become more widespread (Lee and Newby 2000, pp. 79 - 80). The Industrial Revolution saw the emergence of a new ruling class, the bourgeoisie, and following the hierarchical traditions built by previous societies, the proletariat found its place at the lower end of the social ladder. For Marx, the idea of ​​class struggle is based on the antagonisms present in the differences between classes and he considered the emergence of the new ruling class, with its "new conditions of oppression" as the catalyst for a greater divide in society. than had happened in the past. gone before (Marx and Engels, p 80). The industrial revolution changed the reasons for work and the meaning of the act of work, which required the sale of time and personal effort in exchange for wages, otherwise known as the commodification of labor power. Unlike the feudal era, which existed on an agricultural form of “economy”, the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat was based on the intensity of production for profit, which led to the ultimate exploitation of workers. Production shifted from feudal ownership of land to private industrial ownership of capital. Given the proletariat's exclusion from ownership of the means of production, it had no choice but to sell its ability to produce in exchange for tightly controlled wage labor to survive. The conflict created by such an antagonistic system could only be resolved through the transformation brought about by the revolution. The conflict must also be understood in the context of social relations, which have been based on the wage/work dichotomy. During the Victorian era, the term "class" created social realities that ensured that members of society "knew their place" based on their economic health. For Marx, the term "class" definesindividuals and groups based on objective principles. Marx believed that consciousness, rather than being a determinant of social being, was actually determined by social being. “The mode of production of material life conditions the processes of social, political and intellectual life” (Marx 1975 in Lee and Newby 2000, p.115). According to Marx, a revolution to transform capitalism into socialism could only take place once class consciousness replaced false consciousness. Class consciousness is defined as understanding and awareness of the individual's real situation inequality caused by exploitation, which ultimately leads to the solidarity of the proletariat. An alternative view, based on consensus rather than conflict, would argue that achieving solidarity requires a collective conscience derived from shared moral and ethical values. Durkheim's (1858-1917) functionalist perspective argues that different levels of society operating in the name of shared interests can satisfy the needs of the social system (Giddens 1971). However, poverty does not contribute to functional unity due to the existence of inequalities. This is certainly evident in contemporary society, even if we consider the buffer put in place by the welfare state; the poor are far from being integrated into the rest of society. The bourgeoisie, in the name of profit, required a high intensity of production, possible through the division of labor. This in turn created boring and repetitive work, which amounted to oppression and exploitation of workers. The working class was “free” to sell its labor to the highest bidder, but the ruling class benefited from economic supremacy. It would have been impossible for the working class to transcend its humble position on the social economic ladder as long as the ruling class owned the modes of production. In contrast to Adam Smith's idea that competition and profit would benefit all of society, the capitalist dream is to own a monopoly that leads to ever-increasing profits and personal wealth. Workers become totally dependent on the smallest unfair “share” through wages that do not compensate for the reality of their efforts. Furthermore, Marx emphasized that, rather than being “free” to sell their labor, workers are a “commodity exposed to the vicissitudes of competition and, as such, to the ups and downs expected from an economic market” (Marx and Engels, p 87 ). However, Max Weber (1864-1920) conceived another dimension of the ruthless accumulation of wealth, which he called “rationalization.” Rationalization supported the spirit of capitalism. Weber theorized that greed and profit were closely intertwined in a deep sense of “disciplined obligation of work as duty.” This “irrational” duty is the goal of the rational organization of capitalist activity. It is worth noting that Weber wrote about this dimension as only one of many possible components that contributed to capitalism in industrial Europe (Giddens 1971, pp.125-127). Surplus value, a result of surplus labour, makes the surplus of products a requirement", particularly in terms of basic subsistence needs. The high intensity of production leads to the inevitable alienation of the worker. Alienation can be defined as a state of detachment that concerns two production areas. The first is the worker's alienation from the actual product created through his labor. The second refers to alienation from the task of production itself; a complex division of labor creates standardized processes and the simplification of work activities with the ultimate aim of increasing production. The presence of alienation suppresses. 85 - 86 ).