The Frankfurt School: Enlightenment, Marxism, and the Question of Praxis

The Disenchanted Promise of the Enlightenment

The Frankfurt School's critical project cannot be understood without grappling with its complex relationship to the Enlightenment. Born out of the eighteenth century’s dream of reason and human autonomy, the Enlightenment promised liberation through knowledge, progress through science, and freedom through the dismantling of myth. Yet, for the first generation of Frankfurt thinkers, the Enlightenment’s legacy was not merely one of fulfillment but also of profound betrayal.

In Dialectic of Enlightenment, Adorno and Horkheimer argued that the very tools that were meant to liberate humanity—reason, science, technology—had been turned into instruments of domination. Instrumental rationality, detached from ends and obsessed with control, now served the maintenance of oppressive social systems rather than their transformation. Enlightenment, in its historical unfolding, had not eradicated myth but had rather become entangled with it, producing new forms of superstition, alienation, and barbarism under modern conditions.

Thus, the Frankfurt School approached the Enlightenment neither as something to be simply celebrated nor as something to be simply rejected. It was, instead, an unfinished project—one that demanded a critical self-reflection if its emancipatory potential was ever to be realized.

Revisiting Marxism: Beyond Dogma

In their encounter with Marxism, the Frankfurt School demonstrated a similarly nuanced stance. Marx’s critique of political economy, his concept of historical materialism, and his vision of human emancipation remained vital sources of inspiration. Yet, by the 1920s and 30s, orthodox Marxism—particularly in its Soviet incarnation—had ossified into a deterministic doctrine. Economic forces were assumed to march inevitably toward socialism; revolution was treated as an inevitable outcome rather than a fragile historical possibility.

The Frankfurt School rejected this mechanical materialism. Influenced by thinkers such as Georg Lukács, they insisted that the superstructures of society—culture, psychology, ideology—were not mere reflections of economic base but active arenas of struggle. Consciousness itself had to be analyzed, not presumed. The forms of domination embedded in culture, law, family life, and even dreams needed to be unraveled if any genuine emancipation was to occur.

Marxism, for the Frankfurt thinkers, could not survive without becoming more philosophical, more self-critical, and more attuned to the subtle mechanisms through which oppression persisted even in formally democratic or technologically advanced societies.

The Question of Praxis

At the heart of this entire rethinking lay the urgent question of praxis. In classical Marxist theory, praxis referred to the unity of theory and revolutionary action: thought realized in transformative practice. But after the failed revolutions of the early twentieth century, and in the shadow of fascism, the idea of straightforward revolutionary praxis seemed increasingly untenable.

The Frankfurt School wrestled with this impasse. If mass movements could so easily turn authoritarian, if culture itself had become a vehicle of conformity, where could transformative agency still be found? Could theory, stripped of immediate political action, still contribute to change—or was it condemned to a contemplative, impotent distance?

Their response was paradoxical but profound. Critical Theory would abandon the illusion of an immediate pathway from thought to revolution, but it would not abandon the demand for emancipation. Instead, it would keep alive the negative, utopian impulse—the refusal to accept the existing order as inevitable. Praxis, under these conditions, became an act of intellectual resistance: the preservation of critical consciousness against the pressures of normalization, commodification, and despair.

In this way, the Frankfurt School reconceived praxis as something broader and deeper than direct action. It became the patient work of critique, the nurturing of historical memory, the refusal to let suffering be forgotten or rationalized. Praxis, in this sense, was itself a form of fidelity: fidelity to the promise of a world that might still be otherwise.

The Enduring Tension

Enlightenment, Marxism, and praxis—three great inheritances of modern thought—were never simply accepted by the Frankfurt School. They were interrogated, unraveled, and mourned even as they were defended. In doing so, these thinkers created a form of critical theory uniquely suited to a world where hope must coexist with skepticism, and where the path to liberation is neither linear nor guaranteed.

To study the Frankfurt School, then, is not merely to study a tradition of critique. It is to enter into a continuing dialogue with the paradoxes of modernity itself—a dialogue that demands from us, still today, the courage to think without guarantees, and the patience to resist without illusions.

Next article: Western Marxism, the Failure of Revolution, and the Critique of Ideology

Back to: The Complete Introduction to the Frankfurt School

Revolutionary Praxis: Marx From Theory to Action

Karl Marx was not just a philosopher who theorized about the world; he was a revolutionary who believed that understanding the world was only the first step—changing it was the ultimate goal. For Marx, the purpose of philosophy was not merely to interpret reality but to transform it. This conviction is encapsulated in his concept of praxis, the idea that theory must be realized through action.

Marx’s call for revolutionary praxis stems from his critique of previous philosophers, whom he accused of merely interpreting the world without aiming to change it. His famous statement, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it,” reflects his belief that intellectual work must be directly linked to practical efforts to reshape society. This intertwining of theory and action is what distinguishes Marx’s approach from that of his predecessors.

At the heart of Marx’s revolutionary praxis is the idea that true understanding of the world emerges only through the struggle to change it. For Marx, theory is not an abstract exercise; it is a guide to action. This is evident in his analysis of capitalism, where his critique of the system is always accompanied by a call for its overthrow. Marx saw the working class as the key agent of this change, the class whose historical role is to bring about the transition from capitalism to communism.

Marx’s focus on praxis was rooted in his belief that capitalism’s contradictions would inevitably lead to its downfall. However, he did not see this process as automatic. The transition to a new society required conscious and organized action by the working class. This is where revolutionary praxis comes into play—Marx argued that workers must be aware of their historical role and actively work to achieve it. In this sense, praxis is both a product of and a response to the material conditions created by capitalism.

Marx’s commitment to praxis also meant that he rejected purely theoretical or utopian visions of socialism. He was critical of those who believed that socialism could be achieved through moral persuasion or isolated experiments. For Marx, the revolution had to be grounded in the real conditions of society, and it had to involve the mass mobilization of the working class. This is why Marx devoted so much of his life to organizing and participating in revolutionary movements, such as the Communist League and the First International.

One of the most significant aspects of Marx’s revolutionary praxis is his emphasis on the unity of theory and practice. He argued that theory without action is meaningless, just as action without theory is blind. This unity is what gives revolutionary movements their direction and purpose. Marx believed that only through this dialectical relationship between theory and practice could a genuine revolutionary movement succeed.

Moreover, Marx’s concept of praxis extends beyond just the act of revolution; it encompasses the entire process of building a new society. After the overthrow of capitalism, the working class must continue to apply praxis in constructing a socialist society. This involves not only the creation of new economic and political structures but also the transformation of social relations and human consciousness. For Marx, the revolution is not a one-time event but an ongoing process of human emancipation.

Capitalism's Inherent Contradictions: Why Marx Believed It Would Collapse

Karl Marx held a deep conviction that capitalism, despite its appearance of invincibility, was inherently destined to collapse. This belief was not a mere wish but stemmed from his detailed analysis of economic crises, rooted in the concept of contradiction within the capitalist system.

At the core of Marx's theory is the idea that capitalism is driven by the relentless pursuit of profit. Capitalists, in their quest to maximize returns, often increase productivity by investing in new technologies and cutting labor costs. While these strategies may boost profits temporarily, they also create a paradox: as fewer workers are needed to produce goods, the purchasing power of the masses—the very consumers of those goods—diminishes. This leads to what Marx termed overproduction: a scenario where more goods are produced than can be profitably sold.

Overproduction is not just a rare mishap; it is a fundamental flaw of the capitalist system. It’s what you might call a “feature, not a bug.” Marx argued that capitalist economies are inherently prone to cycles of boom and bust. Periods of rapid growth inevitably lead to severe recessions. During these downturns, unsold goods accumulate, businesses fail, and workers are laid off, deepening the crisis that caused the downturn in the first place. In its relentless pursuit of profit, the capitalist system sows the seeds of its own destruction.

But Marx's theory extends beyond mere economics. He believed that these cyclical crises revealed deeper social contradictions. As wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, while the working class grows poorer, the gap between classes widens. This, Marx argued, would eventually reach a tipping point—a revolutionary crisis where the working class would rise up, overthrow the capitalist system, and establish a classless society.

Marx’s prediction of capitalism’s eventual collapse has been a subject of intense debate and criticism over the years. Some argue that capitalism’s adaptability—through innovations, government interventions, and the development of welfare states—has prevented the kind of systemic collapse Marx foresaw. Others see the recurring financial crises, growing inequality, and environmental degradation as evidence that Marx’s analysis remains relevant. There are, of course, those who believe Marx was simply wrong, arguing that these cycles of crises are just the natural way a market economy evolves.

Know more:

Marx on Capitalism and Exploitation 

Marx on Human Nature, Alienation and The Structures of Capitalist Society

Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: dialectics and capitalism

Marx's Law of Increasing Concentration of Capital

Marx on Contradictions of Capitalism

Marx on the Crises of Capitalism 

Walter Benjamin's Refiguration of Dialectical Materialism

Walter Benjamin's philosophy of history offers a distinctive rethinking of dialectical materialism. Although his work has often been associated with the Marxist tradition, particularly through his associations with the Frankfurt School and thinkers like Theodor Adorno, Benjamin’s approach to dialectical materialism departs significantly from orthodox Marxist views. 

Dialectical Materialism and Benjamin's Theses on the Philosphy of History

Dialectical materialism, rooted in the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, posits that material conditions (the economic base) largely determine societal structures and ideas (the superstructure). At its core, it is the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society, and thought.

In his "Theses on the Philosophy of History", Benjamin presents a form of historical materialism influenced by Jewish mysticism. He posits that each moment in history has a "weak messianic power" – a potential for redemption. For Benjamin, revolutionary change isn't merely a future promise; every moment contains the possibility for radical transformation.

History and the Concept of Time

Orthodox dialectical materialism tends to view time linearly, seeing history as a progression of modes of production leading to the eventual triumph of socialism. Benjamin disrupts this continuity with his distinction between "homogeneous, empty time" and "messianic time". The latter is full of interruptions and revolutionary possibilities, radically different from the continuous flow of the former.

Aura, Art, and Mechanical Reproduction:

In "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", Benjamin argues that the 'aura' of unique artworks diminishes in the age of mass reproduction. While this might seem to align with the Marxist notion of commodification, Benjamin sees a revolutionary potential in this loss: by stripping art of its aura, it becomes more democratically accessible and potentially more politically mobilizing.

In summary, Walter Benjamin's refiguration of dialectical materialism is emblematic of his broader intellectual project: a fusion of the revolutionary and the mystical, the material and the theological. By intertwining Marxist dialectics with messianic redemption, Benjamin presents a complex, multifaceted view of history and material conditions, one that challenges deterministic readings of Marx and invites constant reinterpretation and engagement. 

More by and about Walter Benjamin:

Walter Benjamin on the Aestheticization of Politics

The Author as Producer

Adorno's Theory of Aesthetics Explained

Theodor Adorno's work on aesthetics is an essential component of his larger philosophical project and a central part of his theory. In his view, artworks are not mere representations of reality, but rather, they provide a critical reflection on reality itself. Adorno believed that art could serve as a means of resistance against the oppressive forces of modern society. 

Adorno's Understanding of Art as a Dialectical Object

One of the key features of Adorno's aesthetics is his understanding of the artwork as a dialectical object. Like reality itself, artworks contain contradictions and tensions that cannot be easily resolved. This means that the meaning of an artwork is never fixed or stable, but rather, it is constantly in flux. Adorno argues that the best artworks are those that embrace this openness and ambiguity, and that refuse to offer easy answers or solutions. This part of Adorno's theory of aesthetics is closely related to his concept of Negative Dialectics. 

For Adorno, the dialectical nature of art  and aesthetics means that it cannot be reduced to a mere commodity or object of consumption. Instead, it demands active engagement from the viewer, who must grapple with the contradictions and tensions within the artwork and reflect on their implications for the world at large. In other words, if art does not ask you hard questions it is no art at all.

Adorno's Critique of the Culture Industry

Another important aspect of Adorno's aesthetics is his critique of the culture industry. Adorno believed that mass-produced art and entertainment, such as Hollywood films and pop music, were part of a larger system of domination and control. These types of entertainment are not critical art, but rather a numbing mass deception. According to Adorno (and his buddy Horkheimer), these forms of culture perpetuate a false consciousness that reinforces the status quo and prevents meaningful social change.

For Adorno, the culture industry produces standardized, formulaic works that cater to the lowest common denominator of taste. These works are designed to lull the viewer into a false sense of comfort and distract them from the realities of social and political oppression. Adorno argues that the culture industry is not simply a reflection of society, but rather, it actively shapes and reinforces dominant ideologies and power structures.

Adorno's Theory of Aesthetics in Perspective

Adorno's theory of aesthetics remains today a staple of critical thought and art criticism (together with classic works like Benjamine's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction) Adorno's dialectical understanding of art has influenced a wide range of contemporary artists, from conceptual artists who embrace ambiguity and open-endedness to political artists who use their work as a means of resistance and critique. Adorno's legacy continues to inspire new generations of artists and thinkers, who seek to use art as a means of engaging with and transforming the world around us.

See also: Adorno, the Culture Industry and Art as Resistance

One Dimensional Man Explained Simply

In his book The One Dimensional Man Herbert Marcuse argues that the "advanced industrial society" creates false needs that allow individuals to be integrated into the system of production and consumption through mass media, advertising and morality. The consequence is a "one-dimensional" universe of thought and behavior, within which critical thinking or anti-systemic behaviors are gradually pushed aside. 

In short, the one dimensional man is a result of capitalism commodifying every aspect of our lives. Modern society is giving us comfort and entertainment but taking away our ability to think for ourselves.

Against this prevailing climate, Marcuse championed a "great refusal", the only opposition considered by him adequate to the current methods of thought control. Much of the work consists of a defense of this "negative thinking" as a force of fracture against the positivist system.

Marcuse also reports on the integration of the industrial working class into capitalist society and the new forms of the stabilization of capitalism, reinterpreting the Marxist postulates of a necessary crisis of capitalism and proletarian revolution. In contrast to orthodox Marxist doctrine, Marcuse further emphasizes the unintegrated strength of minorities, outsiders, and radical intelligentsias, in the hope of nurturing critical thinkin which will oppose capitalism.

The book concludes with the pessimistic quote from Walter Benjamin:"It is only because of those who are hopeless that hope is given to us".

See here an extended Summary of Marcuse's One Dimensional man and some more to read about the Frankfurt School and on Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance and Eros and Civilization.

Notable quotes from the Communist Manifesto

Some important quotes from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto

“By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists who own the social means of production and employ wage labor. By proletarians we mean the class of modern salaried workers who, possessing no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to be able to live. "(Engels note from 1888)

“It is high time that the Communists openly expose their way of seeing, their goals and their tendencies to the whole world and oppose the legends of the Communist specter with a manifesto of the party itself. "

"Modern governments are only a committee managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie as a whole."

“Bourgeois relations of production and exchange, bourgeois property relations, modern bourgeois society which has given birth as if by magic to such powerful means of production and exchange resembles the sorcerer who can no longer control the infernal powers that 'he mentioned "

“The middle class […] fight against the bourgeoisie because it compromises their existence as a middle class. […] If they act revolutionary, it is out of the ever-present fear of falling into the proletariat; they therefore defend their future interests, and not their current interests; they give up their own point of view to place themselves at that of the proletariat "

“A specter haunts Europe - the specter of communism. "

“The history of any society up to the present day is the history of the class struggle. "

“The proletarians have nothing to lose except their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of all countries, unite! "

The Cummunist Manifesto Explained Simply

The Manifesto of the Communist Party or Cummunist Manifesto can be seen as a summary of “Marxist” thought. By qualifying itself as communist, the Cummunist Manifesto seeks to differentiate itself from the rest of the socialism of the time, considered as utopian . 

The text begins by expressing the importance of the class struggle, which opposes “oppressors and oppressed” . According to Marx, “Modern bourgeois society, raised on the ruins of feudal society, has not abolished class antagonisms. It only substituted new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle for those of the past”. But the modern class struggle is specific in the sense that it boils down to a simplified antagonism : bourgeois against proletarians .

The Cummunist Manifesto then notes the formation of a world market  : “Driven by the need for ever new outlets, the bourgeoisie is invading the entire globe. It needs to establish itself everywhere, to exploit everywhere, to establish relationships everywhere. By exploiting the world market, the bourgeoisie gives a cosmopolitan character to the production and consumption of all countries. Much to the despair of the reactionaries, it has deprived industry of its national base ” . The existence of capitalism is an improvement over the previous period, but it must end when the proletariat ends the rule of the bourgeoisie.“All historical movements have so far been carried out by minorities or for the benefit of minorities. The proletarian movement is the spontaneous movement of the immense majority for the benefit of the immense majority ” .

Marx writes that “The essential condition for the existence and domination of the bourgeois class is the accumulation of wealth in the hands of individuals, the formation and growth of capital  ; the condition for the existence of capital is wage labor . " Believing that " The workers have no country " , it is to end the reign of capital around the world.

The Cummunist Manifesto states that "The Communists do not form a distinct party opposed to the other workers' parties" . This can be explained as follows: “The theoretical conceptions of the Communists are not at all based on ideas, principles invented or discovered by this or that reformer of the world. They are only the general expression of the real conditions of an existing class struggle, of a historical movement which is taking place before our eyes ” .

In the text, Marx addresses the bourgeois directly, refuting each of their possible objections against communism: on the abolition of private property , of inheritance and of child labor , on liberty, on the family, on the progressive tax and free public education for all children, etc. Regime change requires a break with bourgeois ideology and an international union of proletarians.

Communist society is characterized in the Cummunist Manifesto as follows: "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, an association arises where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" .

The third chapter of the Cummunist Manifesto examines and critiques the various “socialist” currents of the time. Marx strives to criticize them with vigor and accumulates sarcasm towards them. For example, he qualifies Proudhon as a “bourgeois socialist” who “only attains his adequate expression when he becomes a mere figure of rhetoric: Free trade, in the interest of the working class! Protective rights, in the interest of the working class! Cellular prisons, in the interests of the working class! "

Finally, the last chapter of the Cummunist Manifesto attempts to identify immediate prospects for the Communists in Europe before the revolutions of 1848 . Communists “fight for the immediate interests and goals of the working class  ; but in the present movement, they defend and represent at the same time the future of the movement”, and “work for the union and the understanding of the democratic parties of all the countries”. The text ends with the famous slogan: “ Workers of all countries, unite!  "

See also: The Communist Manifesto - detailed summary by chapter

Notable quotes from the Communist Manifesto

Gramsci on Intellectuals, society and education - short summary

Neo-Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci took a keen interest in the role of intellectuals in society. He said in particular that all men are intellectuals, but that not all have the social function of intellectuals. He put forward the idea that modern intellectuals were not content to produce discourse, but were involved in the organization of social practices and take part in the formation of cultural hegemony. They would produce common sense, that is to say, what goes without saying. Thus the intellectuals engaged alongside the working class would play a major role in producing evidence that would destroy the common sense produced, according to him, by the bourgeoisie.

He further distinguished between a “traditional intelligentsia” which (wrongly) thinks of itself as a distinct class of society, and the groups of intellectuals that each class generates “organically”. These organic intellectuals do not simply describe social life according to scientific rules, but rather express the experiences and feelings that the masses could not express on their own. The organic intellectual would understand by theory but also feel by experience the life of the people.

The need to create a culture specific to workers is linked to Gramsci's call for a type of education that allows the emergence of intellectuals who share the passions of the masses of workers. Supporters of adult and popular education consider Gramsci to be a benchmark in this regard.

Meaning of Gramsci's Cultural Hegemony Explained (definition and summary)

Cultural Hegemony is a concept developed by Marxist Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci. It starts from the postulate that the conquest of power presupposes the conquest of public opinion.  Hegemony describes the cultural domination of the ruling class, as well as the role that daily practices and collective beliefs play in establishing systems of domination.

The analysis of hegemony was first formulated by Antonio Gramsci to explain why the communist revolutions predicted by Marxin industrialized countries had not happened. Marx and his successors had indeed claimed that the growth of industrial capitalism would produce a gigantic working class and cyclical economic recessions. Added to the other contradictions of capitalism, these recessions would lead an overwhelming majority of the population, the workers, to develop, in order to defend their interests, organizations, in particular unions and political parties. The succession of economic crises would finally lead the working class to overthrow capitalism in a revolution, to restructure the economic, political and social institutions, on the basis of scientific socialism, and to begin the transition to a communist society . Although Marx and Engels predicted this scenario in the famous Communist Party Manifesto ( 1848 ), workers in industrialized countries still had not completed this "mission" decades later.

Gramsci believed that the failure of the workers to make the socialist revolution was due to the hold of the bourgeois hegemonic culture on the ideology and the organizations of the workers.

In other words, the cultural representations of the ruling class, that is, the ruling ideology, had rubbed off more than Marx could have thought on the masses of workers. In "advanced" industrial societies, hegemonic cultural tools such as compulsory schooling, mass media and popular culture had instilled a "false conscience" in workers. Instead of bringing about a revolution that would truly serve their collective needs (according to Marxists), workers in "advanced" societies gave in to the sirens of nationalism, consumerism and social advancement, embracing an individualistic ethos of competition and personal success or even lining up behind bourgeois religious leaders.

Noting the relative failure of economic determinism in the face of the strength of the dominant ideology, Gramsci proposed a distinction between “war of position” and “war of movement”. The "war of position" is a cultural war against bourgeois values ​​which present themselves as "natural" or "normal". The socialist elements must therefore seek to break into the news media, mass organizations and educational institutions in order to propagate revolutionary analysis and theory, to increase class consciousness.and to push for revolutionary engagement. This cultural struggle must allow the proletariat to attract all the oppressed classes in its struggle for the seizure of political power. For Gramsci, any class that aims at the conquest of political power must indeed go beyond its simple "economic" interests, take moral and intellectual leadership, and make alliances and compromises with a number of social forces. Gramsci calls this union of social forces a “historical bloc” (term borrowed from trade unionist Georges Sorel ).

Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks - summary of main ideas

Antonio Gramsci ( 1891 - 1937 ) was an Italian thinker , leader and socialist-communist theorist who opposed fascism  during the Benito Mussolini era . Today Gramsci's "Prison Notebooks" are considered to be one of the main contributions to socialist political thought, although they defer from classical Marxism.

Gramsci was prisonned by the Fascists, during his time in prison he wrote over thirty of notebooks that include political and historical analysis. These writings, known as the "Prison Notebooks," include Gramsci's reflections on the history of Italy and nationalism , as well as ideas in the study of Marxism , critical theory, and the educational theory associated with his name. The notebooks were written in a conscious attempt to leave an intellectual will with an overall worldview, and even in the hope that if he could get out of jail he would have a real plan of action.

Only after the defeat of fascism in Italy, and after World War II could Gramsci's notebooks be published. The main ideas Gramsci developed in these notebooks are:

• Cultural hegemony as the main means of preserving the capitalist state .
• The need for education for the working masses in order to encourage the creation of working class intellectuals.
• The distinction between political society (police, military, legal system, etc.), which directly controls, and civil society (family, education system, trade unions), where leadership is voluntary and non-coercive.
• The historicist absolute.
• The critique of economic determinism .
• The critique of philosophical materialism . .

Although Gramsci's thought originated with the organized left, he became an important figure in academic analyzes of the cultural sciences and critical theory. Members of the Political Science from the center and the right have adopted that ideas about hegemony, for example,= and these ideas are quoted and analyzed in the writings. His influence was great in the field of political science, and in the study of popular culture. The concept of " political correctness " seems to echo a cultural struggle in the spirit of Gramsci's thought.

However, most of Gramsci's influence is on left-wing thinking, especially among thinkers belonging to the school of neo-Marxism .

see also: Gramsci on Intellectuals, society and education

Meaning of Dialectical Materialism Explained Simply

Dialectical Materialism is a method that examines the tension ( dialectic ) between the recognition of the human and the nature and reality of the social surrounding. Dialectical materialism was first developed by Karl Marx and Marxist theory , and serves as a very common element in the field of social critique, even among the deniers of this Torah.

 

Marxist theory assumes that human behavior and way of thinking always exist in a social space. Every human activity refers to what is done by humans, and affects them. This has two meanings:

Each activity affects three factors: nature (= matter, the object ), the active person (the subject ), and society. Of course, the person does not understand the full range of influence that his activity has, but he is able to grasp large parts of it, or not understand it at all.

The activity depends on the society, its laws, and its social structure. Only a person who is without other human beings in his vicinity and without influence over humans and of humans on him, is not a social creature. It is not relevant to engage in such a person as he is almost non-existent. This claim also exists on the surface, in the form of the person's behavior, and also in his consciousness and perception of the activity and its goals.

social being determines consciousness

"social being determines consciousness" losly based on The German Ideology expresses the principles of dialectical materialism, argues that the praxis in which man lives determines his perceptions and understanding of the world, and in fact its meaning. This sentence holds even if the person does not recognize it or understand it.

The meaning of this sentence can be begun and understood by the division that Marx maintains between the two components of society:

The company base which includes the production methods, means of production and method of resource allocation. The basis is in fact the material status of the company, and is influenced both by the existing technology and the wealth of the company, and by historical processes that it has undergone. The basis is also called the production ratio .

The superstructure of society contains the laws , institutions , culture and norms . The superstructure expresses a person 's consciousness and way of thinking.

Dialectical materialism proceeds from the premise that the superstructure is shaped by the base and is inseparable from it. Dialectical materialism is a change of consciousness from the social theories that preceded it, in that it measures society primarily through the base, rather than through the superstructure.

The action of praxis on man has several stages of consciousness

First, man perceives in his senses the various impressions from the reality in which he operates. When these impressions are split and illegal.

Man casts from his subjective world on the experience of reality in a primitive way, by a set of emotions and feelings created in him following the encounter with reality. These stages constitute the sensory consciousness of man.

Man then recognizes legality and order in the sensory perception, which lead to the creation of a mental paradigm . This paradigm is the praxis in which man lives.

The last stage is the stage in which man reacts to paradigms created in his consciousness, and creates a subjective reference to them by determining opinion and a world of values. These two stages are called rational consciousness .

In this process, the rule is expressed according to which being determines consciousness (cognition). It is a two-way process, as human consciousness reshapes its being, by man acting and changing reality according to his consciousness.

Dialectical materialism seeks to study the mutual influence of external reality, measured by ordinary fields of science (natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences), and of human consciousness, examined from a sociological-philosophical point of view.

Dialectical materialism is subject to its own laws, since it is itself a thought paradigm.

Stichia 

Dialectical materialism holds that even when a person performs a purposeful activity, he is not directed to all the results of his actions (both on the personal level and on the historical level). Also, man is shaped by factors in reality that he does not actively address. The unintentional design of a person or reality is called in the Marxist language Stichia . For example: A person works in a field to grow food . Another product of this activity (besides food) is the development of its muscles. This is not his intention, so it is a static result of growing food.

Awareness of the design of the world is not enough: only when a process is directed and becomes the object of activity does it cease to be static. In the previous example: a person may know that his muscles will develop, but not because of this he grows food.

See also: Cultural Materisalism

See also: Marx's German Ideology Explained Simply

Read more on Marx and Marxism concepts and terms.

The German Ideology: Main ideas and themes explained

The German Ideology is a series of manuscripts written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels around 1845 .

The German ideology is today considered one of the most important philosophical works

The German Ideology is shaped as a critique of young Hegelians such as Ludwig Feuerbach , Max Stirner and Bruno Bauer , and provides the first interpretation of Marx and Engels' theory of history, which has later been called historical materialism .

Centeal themes and ideas in The German Ideology

The materialist conception 

The first part of The German Ideology is entitled "Feuerbach materialist conception against idealist conception". It exposes the bases of materialism as well as the criticism of the young Hegelians. German thought is most fruitful. The decomposition of Hegelian thought has become universal fermentation (Hegel appears to be at the center of German thought and of Marx himself, who constantly positions himself in relation to him).

What individuals are depends on material conditions so much so that it is by producing their means of existence [that] men indirectly produce their material life itself. But the production intervenes with the increase of the population which supposes a trade between the individuals. “It is not consciousness that determines life but life that determines consciousness. The idealistic philosophers did not advance the deliverance of man because their methodology is not adequate. See Dialectical Materialism.

Division of labor 

The first act in history according to Marx is the creation of means to meet the needs of material life. And this leads in a second step to a repetition. We are therefore witnessing a multiplication of needs due to new social relations and the constant growth of the population. So cooperation is a productive force. Language arises from the natural necessity of commerce between men. Consciousness is therefore a social product (which is why animals have no language). The first stage of the division of labor is a division between the sexes, but it acquires its true value from the moment when intellectual and manual labor are separated. And that's when consciousness emancipates itself from the world and becomes capable of theorizing. The division of laborwithin a nation first of all separates industry / commerce from agricultural labor. Hence the opposition between town and country and antagonism of interests.

The division of labor leads to conflict because production and consumption fall to different people. It also involves property whose seeds are found in the family where wife and children are the slaves of the father. This is how the division of labor leads to the establishment of antagonisms between the interests of each other. Thus division of labor and private property are identical expressions, the first expressing in relation to the activity what the second expresses in relation to the product of this activity.

It follows that all the struggles within the state (democracy for example) are only illusory forms in which the struggles of the different classes between them are carried out. So any class that aspires to domination must first seize the state.

“Communism is for us neither a state which must be created, nor an ideal on which reality will have to be regulated. We call communism the real movement that abolishes the current state. The conditions of this movement result from the currently existing premises. "

“The conditions for this movement result from the prior data as it currently exists. The consequence of the world market is that these individuals [the proletariat] lead an existence which is directly linked to universal history. Therefore the proletariat can only exist as a historical and world force. " See Means of Production, relation of production, means of production

or praxis, property and the division of labor

History and Conscience 

History is the succession of generations which come after and exploit the materials, the capital as well as the productive forces bequeathed by all the preceding generations. So a new generation takes over the activity of the old one on the one hand and modifies it on the other hand.

The risk with history is to think that the history to come is the goal of the past history, whereby history is assigned particular ends. However, the course of history leads to a world history (like the production). The liberation of each individual will only come about then. The engine of history, religion and philosophy is not criticism but revolution. However, Marx goes beyond materialist theory because he admits that men make circumstances. see dialectics and capitalism in the German Ideology. 

Classes and dominant ideas 

The ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas. The dominant material power is therefore also the dominant spiritual power. Dominant thoughts are nothing more than the expression in ideas of the dominant material conditions. The proletariat has no history, which has the consequence that it has not been able to develop as the particular interest of a particular class. see Class Consciousness.

Genesis of capital and the modern state 

Capital results from the principle of the division of labor and the state of local particularity. The revolts of the Middle Ages started from the countryside but their failure was total because of their dispersion. The difficulty of communication and the small population prevented a strong division of labor. A real relationship of dependence is therefore established between the craftsman and his work. He does not have the indifference to his labor that the modern worker has. But the conditions change, competition is established between the nations and the manufacture arrives. From then on, trade took on political significance. The expansion of this trade accelerated the accumulation of mobile, modern (as opposed to primitive) capital. Then came big industry, monopolies within nations, the completion of capital.

"It was she who finally created universal history, insofar as she placed every civilized nation and every individual of this nation under the dependence of the whole world for the satisfaction of their needs, thus abolishing the primitive and traditional isolation of many nations. It took away from the division of labor the air of spontaneity and naturalness that it still had […]. It consecrated the city's victory over the countryside. "

Genesis of the bourgeoisie 

In the Middle Ages, the townspeople were forced to unite against the nobility of the countryside in order to defend their existence. The expansion of commerce and communications led each city to become acquainted with other cities which had the same interests in the struggle against the same adversary (a class becomes aware of itself through antagonism).

See also: Marx's German Ideology Explained Simply

Read more on Marx and Marxism concepts and terms.

Marx's German Ideology Explained Simply

In their German Ideology Marx and Engels argue that humans are distinguished from animals from the moment they start producing their livelihoods. Individuals are the product of the way they make their livelihoods and what those livelihoods are. Thus, according to Marx and Engels, the nature of individuals depends on material conditions that determine their production.

The extent to which a nation's productive forces have developed can be judged by the degree to which a nation has implemented the principle of division of labour. In addition, there is a direct link between the social division of labor and forms of ownership.

The ruling class, which governs the material dimension of society, is thus at the same time the class which governs the intellectual dimension. It regulates the production and dissemination of ideas of its era. As the ruling class changes over the years, the ideals it produces and disseminate change, it is therefore incumbent upon the ruling class to make society believe that its ideals are universal in nature. This system persists as long as a society is organized around the need for a ruling class.

To clarify this theoretical framework, Marx and Engels introduce the image of the substructure and superstructure. Historical developments, which are part of the superstructure, are only the reflections of changes of the substructure, which consists of the economic and material relations of a society. When there is a change in those proportions, the superstructure follows automatically. Here the work of Marx and Engels leads to a form of ideology critique: ideas and thus ideologies are not the cause of historical changes, but the consequence thereof. This view of ideology enables Marx and Engels to dismiss views of the proletariat that are clearly against its own interests as forms of false consciousness., that is, as ideas emanating from the ruling class.

During revolutions, changes in the substructure lead to eruptions of the superstructure. The ideas that are central during a revolution are nothing but the reflection of tensions that were already present in the less visible substructure.

The core of The German Ideology can be summarized as follows. Morality, religion, metaphysics and all other forms of ideology and their attendant forms of consciousness lose any form of independence. They are only a reflection of the way people generate and distribute their livelihoods, and only by focusing on the production of their livelihoods is it possible for them to change their ideas and daily lives.

See also: The German Ideology: Main ideas and themes explained

Further reading on Marx's The German Ideology

Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: praxis, property and the division of labor

Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: relation of production, means of production

Marx's Perception of History in The German Ideology: dialectics and capitalism

Marx's The German Ideology: Alienation and Ideology – summary and analysis

Ideology according to Marx – definition and explanation

 

Best Books by and on Karl Marx- a reading list

Meaning of Hegemony Explained and Defined

Definition: Hegemony is a state of total rule of one state over those around it geographically in a political, economic or military way. The absolute power which is in the hands of this society has been achieved while successfully promoting geopolitical interests beyond any other group in its vicinity so that they can not compete. Hegemony is the ability to dictate the laws and arrangements under which relations between states or groups exist in a defined geopolitical area. Today the term is used to describe the sociological arrangements under which the relations between the various groups exist within one society. The word is more in the context of "cultural hegemony" than of hegemony between countries. The term comes from ancient Greece where it was used to describe the dominance of one city-state over all the city-states around it.

According to the Italian neo-Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci (on Hegemony), the power of the bourgeoisie is that control rests not only on its economic foundation (infrastructure), but mainly on its superstructure ( intellectuals , senior figures in the world of culture , law , religion and politics ) - the value and ideological foundations desired by it. When the bourgeoisie is able to assimilate its values ​​and turn them into a model of imitation and admiration among the lower classes, it no longer has to impose its rule by force of arms.

Hegemony is a state of absolute (or almost absolute) rule in a society, concentrated in the hands of a defined social group, and manifested in the sharing of the rulers in the material resources that society with its ideological and ideological rulers. The hegemony describes a state of control over social arrangements, norms and rules, and it shapes the face of society according to hegemonic values ​​that serve the interests and needs of the ruling group.

Hegemony also weakens the cultural system as a whole, and it permeates all the intellectual aspects of daily life. It is an unconscious system of control, in which the hegemonic components and values ​​are not at all perceived as part of a dominant culture or ideology, but are seen as an integral part of society and its values, regardless of the control group. In this way, minorities also identify with these values, which take on an extra-political garnet, and intensify into apparent facts, myths or absolute statements that are true of the same society.

back to: Marx and Marxism concepts and terms explained

Marx's False Consciousness explained

Definition: False consciousness is a term that refers - especially in Marxist thought - to the mismatch between perceptions , values , views and ideology of human beings and their position in the class social system . False consciousness is expressed when an ideology controls the consciousness of an oppressed person or oppressed group, in a way that justifies or preserves the oppression.

The consciousness and experience according to Karl Marx derivatives being. Although Marx himself probably never used the phrase, and it first appears in the writings of Friedrich Engels , according to the Marxist conception, the upper class has personal interests which create a false consciousness in the lower class and in the proletariat , the so-called " opium for the masses ". This consciousness is created by the interests of the upper class - the bourgeoisie - to preserve its place.

Marx believed that true consciousness is Class Consciousness. The state of the individual in the social structure determines his consciousness, and in the structure there are two classes - upper and lower. The determination of consciousness is made through the production relationship between the work of the individual and the ownership of capital . Marx argued that this consciousness would inevitably change and lead to a change in structure. The revolution stems from the workers and their consciousness that stems from materialism and from the historical conflict that underlies society .

For example, views on the importance of cultivating a free economy among people who have no control over means of production or production processes (such as a junior bank clerk , seamstresses in a textile factory or construction workers) are views of false consciousness, according to Marx. These views supposedly contribute to the continued exploitation of people in their position and are much more appropriate for their superiors and managers.

The false consciousness can explain why human beings living in a modern capitalist system are acting contrary to their seemingly true interests.

back to: Marx and Marxism concepts and terms explained

Alienation (Marx) - short definition

Alienation is a mental or social state , of an individual or of a social group , who feel themselves as "not belonging", detached and indifferent .

Some argue that the Industrial Revolution , for example, has led to the replacement of various artists by workers in the production line who, unlike their predecessors, did not enjoy the sense of satisfaction involved in being responsible for the end result - the finished product. A worker who performs monotonous routine work and is not a partner in all stages of production will suffer, according to Karl Marx , from frustration and alienation.

Marx was not the first to use the term, it is a technical term in German philosophy that came up in Hegel's writing. In German philosophy, the alienation is between humanity and human existence. The meaning of "humanity" in this context is similar to the meaning of "welfare". The implication in the sentence is that the social situation brings people to live a life that does not realize itself, since they do not live according to what makes a life for the good.

back to: Marx and Marxism concepts and terms explained

fetishization of commodities explained (Marx)

Commodity fetishization (German: Warenfetischismus) is the conception of social relations which are involved in production not as social relations between people, but as economic relations between money and the goods bought in the market . Most often, it refers to attributing qualities that are achieved through human action, to natural or spiritual forces. In this sense, the fetishization of commodities turns the economic value, which is subjective and intangible from the ground up, into something that is perceived as objective and real, that people believe has intrinsic value in itself.

The theory of the fetishization of commodities is presented in the first chapter of Karl Marx 's book , " Capital ," with the aim of explaining that the social organization of labor is mediated by exchanges in the market, that is, the sale and purchase of commodities. Thus, in a capitalist society, the social relations between people, who produces the product, who works for whom, the production time of the goods, etc., are perceived as economic relations between objects, that is, how much a certain commodity is worth in relation to another commodity. Therefore, the trade in goods in the market obscures the true economic essence of the human relationship of the creature, those between the worker and the capitalist 

back to: Marx and Marxism concepts and terms explained

Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat explained simply

A dictatorship of the proletariat is a concept coined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their book The Communist Manifesto .

The meaning of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", which appears in Marxist and Communist thought , is the exclusive control of the working class over the means of government and the means of production . Marx argued that in the bourgeois countries there is a " dictatorship of the bourgeoisie": even if there is democracy in them it serves only the capitalists, Because the whole political system takes care of the empowerment of the rich: for example, due to electoral laws and meansless advertising costs can not deal equally with the capitalists, and due to liberal property laws, the structure of ownership of the means of production can not be changed. In contrast to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the proletariat, which, according to Marx, was to arise after a socialist revolution, would be a working democracy. For example, factory workers will elect their managers. Also, in the dictatorship of the proletariat the workers will be determined by the institutions of government. According to Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the last step on the road to communism, which is "the democracy of the proletariat," in which there is no longer a central government.

see also:

Dialectical Materialism

Class Consciousness

back to: Marx and Marxism concepts and terms explained

Marx's Means of Production explained simply

Means of production ( German : Produktionsmittel) is a term coined by Karl Marx to denote the same part of the production forces that includes physical, non-human means, used in production.

These factors include factories, machinery, tools and raw materials, as well as infrastructure capital and natural capital , the classic factors of production less financial capital and human capital . When used outside the Marxist concept, the term usually refers to raw materials and infrastructure capital or, at times, as a general definition of property.

According to Marx, the bourgeois capitalist has ownership of the means of production, but not of the power of production (i.e., labor) while in practice ownership of the power of production, but not of the means of production. In his view, the capitalist turns the laborer into an object, as an additional factor of production, and uses his labor power, combined with the means of production, to produce goods. Hence, within the goods, a part that originates from the infrastructural capital and natural capital and a part that originates from labor is assimilated.

According to Marx's analysis, in order to achieve true communism , the capitalist must be deprived of the means of production - that is, to bring about a positive abolition of private ownership of property. In the absence of private property, Marx predicted, the class struggle would disappear and the future, communist society would be created, in which true equality would prevail.

back to: Marx and Marxism concepts and terms explained