Ques: “It is not the consciousness of people that determines their existence, but their

social existence that determines their consciousness.” Evaluate the statement. Does this
imply that human consciousness does not play a significant role in transformation and
progress of societies?

Ans. According to Marx, people in a society, at any given time, have a certain level of
productive ability. This depends on their knowledge and skills, on the technology
(machines, tools, draft animals, and so on) available to them, and on the bountifulness of
the natural environment in which they live. These together are called “the material forces
of production” or in short, the productive forces. Marx alleged that the productive forces
determine the way people make their living (for example, in hunting and gathering,
agriculture or industry) and at the same time, the way they relate to one another in the
process of production (for example as lord and serf, master and slave, or capitalist and
worker). These production and exchange relationships are what Marx called “the [social]
relations of production”. The productive forces plus the relations of production, which
Marx referred to as “the economic structure of society”, shape the superstructure of
people’s religious, political, and legal systems and their modes of thought and views of
life. That is, people’s material lives determine their ideas and their supporting
institutions. [FOP+ROP is Mode of Production. The economic base in Marx is ROP.
Some have called the entire structure economic, but it is not correct to ascribe that to
Marx]

Human beings differ from animals in that they engage in purposeful productive activity-
they produce their means of subsistence, consciously and not instinctively. At any one
time, this purposive labour is performed with a certain technology, in a given
environment, and within a particular class society- that is, it is performed with a certain
mode of production. Human nature, according to Marx and Engels, is determined by the
mode of production that people work in order to maintain human life, and since the mode
of production changes, so does human nature. It may thus be argued that the change from
the feudal to the capitalist mode of production was made by human beings themselves, as
they fashioned better tools, altered and controlled their environment, and in this very
process, changed themselves. Thus, capitalism could succeed feudalism not only because
people designed superior technology, but also because in the process of doing this, they
changed their values and skills, their outlook on what is important and so on.

The development of human society consists of three dialectical processes. The first is to
be found in the continual emergence of contradictions in the interaction between man and
nature, in that “exchange of matter between man and nature” in the social process of
labour. By the creation of an artificial material environment contradictions are set up
between his previous activity and the stimuli to which this new environment gives rise.
These contradictions are eliminated by a change in activity, that is by a change in
productive forces which, however, produce new stimuli and consequently, new
contradictions, and so the whole process goes on continually. The second dialectical
process starts with the appearance of a contradiction between the new productive forces
and the old production relations. This contradiction, which at first hampers the productive
forces, disappears when the production relations have been adjusted to the new
productive forces. The third dialectical process starts with the emergence of a
contradiction between the new production relations, that is the new economic base, and
the old superstructure. The contradiction, which at first hinders the birth and the growth
of the new economic base, is eliminated when the superstructure has been adjusted to it.
These three dialectical processes taken together form the social development of mankind.

Marx’s view of social development, referred to as “the materialist conception of history”,

reverses the idealist approach of viewing abstract ideas, concepts and consciousness as
divorced from real people and their activities. According to Marx, materialism begins
with “real, active man, and on the basis of their real life- process demonstrates the
development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life- process.” The ideas in
the human brain (morality, religion and all the rest of ideology) do not live
completely independent lives. A person, in trying to understand social history, should
not start with these phantoms- with say, the concept of “freedom”- for they are all
sublimates of the real material life process.

To understand the world, a person must begin with what is basic-with real human
beings and their activities in the world. Marx and Engels felt that work was one of
the most basic and most important of all human activities. Most of people’s lives are
spent working and much of the rest is spent in an environment which is shaped by the
kind of productive technology available to them. For example, American Indians lived in
huts or tents near the rivers they fished, while early industrial workers lived in the
company towns built around the factories. In both cases, the work process exerted an all
pervading influence on their lives, shaping the conditions of their existence and therefore
of their thoughts. Marxian materialism maintains that ideas, philosophies, religions and
so forth all take form within the influence of real material conditions and are therefore
determined by them.

Inasmuch as human beings change themselves by labour, it is clear that they alter, at the
same time, at least some of their mental conceptions. They produce both material
goods and their ideas. Since productive activity and attending class struggles change
both the economic base and the superstructure, interactions between the two are
inevitable, and in fact, both numerous and intricate. That is, the way people make a
living determines their ideas, but these ideas in turn affect the way they make their
living. However, modes of thought are shaped and limited, in the first place by the mode
of production. Accordingly, the ideas that become influential in a society cover only the
narrow range reflecting the material activites and interests of the dominant class. Many
ideas do not gain prestige because they conflict with real positions of class domination
which themselves rest on a certain attained level of the productive forces.

This does not mean, however, that at any given time, there is only a single set of ideas
which serve the ruling class. If changes in the economic form, determined by the
development of productive forces cause corresponding changes in the world of ideas,
this world, in its own acquires, within certain limits, an independent existence and a
possibility of reacting in its own way on the functioning of the economic base.
The class structure of a society is often complex and the ideas of each class are likely to
be expressed in complex ways in the superstructure. Therefore, revolutionary ideas may
exist side by side with conventional ones because of the existence of a revolutionary class
(Marxism thus explains itself by the rise of an industrial proletariat in the first half of the
19th century). But these revolutionary ideas can at best displace some other ideas; they
cannot by themselves overthrow the prevailing class structure, which gave rise to the
ruling ideas. It is in the interest of the dominant class, to which the established production
relations ensure the privilege of owning the means of production, to maintain the social
status quo.

Because of the resistance to change by the dominant class, the class or classes interested
in the new mode of production produce its or their own social ideas and socio-
psychological attitudes, and under favourable circumstances also its or their own political
organizations. A split in social consciousness takes place. Alongside the superstructure of
the existing economic base, and the remnants of the superstructures of earlier social
formations, a nucleus of the superstructure of the future social formation appears in the
social consciousness. The class struggle becomes a struggle between ideas and social
ideologies, a struggle between different socio-psychological attitudes, and under
favourable circumstances, a struggle waged by new political organizations against
existing state authority. This struggle is guided by new social ideas and new socio-
psychological attitudes, resulting often in overthrow of the dominant class and a
transformation of the existing class structure. Historical examples of such
transformations include the English Revolution with its beheading of King Charles in
1649 (in large part, a capitalist rebellion against the absolutist monarchy and feudalism);
French Revolution in 1789 (a revolt against the feudal nobility and clergy); the American
Civil War in 1861-65 (the destruction of slavery allowed the full development of
capitalist relations of production); and the Russian Revolution in 1917 (destroyed the
Tsarist autocracy, and led to the formation of the Soviet Union).

Social consciousness is a secondary manifestation of changes in the material conditions

of existence. However, the role of consciousness in the transformation and progress of
societies cannot be undermined. Social consciousness can play a very crucial role in two
major contexts. The first one, as discussed above is in the case of social revolutions,
where class struggles guided by new social attitudes can result in transformations in the
class structure of society.

The second one is that of the migration of ideas in space and in time, a concept mooted
by Polish sociologist Krzywicki. When already formulated, ideas migrate to other
countries, they travel in space and in time. Such a migratory idea, the product of a certain
mode of production in a certain country, can become in another country, a factor
preceding and stimulating social development. Similarly, an idea born as a result of
material conditions at a certain period of time, may revive itself in a new epoch.
Appearing in a new epoch, as an expression of newly emerging conditions, the migratory
idea may become a factor preceding and stimulating social development. A classic
example of such a migration of idea is the reception of Roman law in medieval cities,
against the background of the emergence of a market economy within the framework of a
feudal economy. Roman civil law, suited as it was to commodity production, became
obsolete under the feudal mode of production, but recovered its force under the capitalist
mode of production.

To conclude, it is not that man’s material existence is the cause and alone active, while
everything else has a passive effect. Ideas play a very significant role in transformation
and progress of societies, however, it is important to understand that “Ideas do not fall
from heaven, nor do we receive them as gift of God while we sleep” (Antonio
Labriola). Social ideas and consciousness are a reflection of the needs created by the
material conditions of social existence. They arise as a result of existing material
conditions, but at the time of their appearance, exercise tremendous influence on further
social development. This is not to say that every idea plays a socially transforming role.
For an idea to be socially relevant, it is equally important that material conditions must
mature for it to gain acceptance and validity.

References:

1. J.Gurley (1978): “The Materialist Conception of History”, Ch 2.1 in R. Edwards,

M.Reich and T.Weisskopf (ed.), The Capitalist System (2nd Edition), Prentice
Hall.
2. O.Lange, Political Economy, vol 1, Chapters 1 and 2.
3. Adam Schaff, “The Marxist Theory of Social Development”, pp. 7-10, UNESCO
Symposium on social development, UNESCO/SS/SD/2/Rev.

Comments: Good. But you can incorporate how backward social ideology can impede
social transformation. This is a two way process and as much one can strengthen the
other, it can do the opposite too.
Further, ideas may often appear independently ‘ahead of its time’. They are not
necessarily created by the requirement of the base. However, such ideas generally lie
dormant or isolated; they can’t generate social articulation and force. When material
conditions show signs of change it is often such ideas come out of their dormant isolated
state and become powerful social ideas or disruptive forces challenging the old
formation. The import of ideas from other geographical/cultural spaces, that you have
discussed, is particularly relevant in such a case.