ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD

Faculty of Social Sciences

(Department of Pakistan Studies)

WARNING
1. PLAGIARISM OR HIRING OF GHOST WRITER(S) FOR SOLVING THE
ASSIGNMENT(S) WILL DEBAR THE STUDENT FROM AWARD OF
DEGREE/CERTIFICATE, IF FOUND AT ANY STAGE.
2. SUBMITTING ASSIGNMENT(S) BORROWED OR STOLEN FROM
OTHER(S) AS ONE’S OWN WILL BE PENALIZED AS DEFINED IN
“AIOU PLAGIARISM POLICY”.
Course: Social Theory II (4670) Semester: Spring, 2019
Level: M. Sc. Total Marks: 100
Pass Marks: 40

Note: Answer should preferably be in English and based upon the prescribed reading
material. Consult study guide/outline for guidance. Attempt all questions.

ASSIGNMENT No. 1
(Units: 1–4)

Blocks One & Two

Q.1 What are the distinctions between moderate and non-moderate government?
Elaborate the differences in the light of the writings of Montesquieu. (20)

Q.2 Although Montesquieu had condemned despotism yet he explained that despotism
is more or less inevitable. Why despotism had been inevitable according to
Montesquieu? Explain with cogent reasons. (20)

Q.3 Mill called his philosophy as philosophy of experience. What were the reasons that
Mill termed his philosophy as philosophy of experience? Discuss in detail. (20)

Q.4 The essay on ‘Nature’ represents Mill’s mature and considered opinion on nature.
Critically analyze Mill’s views propounded in the essay on ‘Nature’. (20)

Q.5 What are the errors which the historians are liable to indulge in according to Ibn
Khaldun? Why those errors occur? Explain in the light of the reasons mentioned in
the Muqaddimah. (20)

1
 ASSIGNMENT No. 2
(Units 5–9)
Total Marks: 100 Pass Marks: 40

Blocks Three & Four

Q.1 Discuss in detail the importance of group feeling by Ibn Khaldun as

propounded in the Muqaddimah. To what extent the proposition of group
feeling of Ibn Khaldun has semblance of idea of nationalism. Elaborate with
convincing arguments. (20)

Q.2 Why had Hegel considered monarchy as the mode to extinguish feudalism and
produce national state? Critically analyze Hegel’s views regarding monarchy with
special reference to German State. (20)

Q.3 Why had Hegel identified individualism with provincialism, violence, fanaticism,
terrorism and atheism? Discuss in detail the critique of individualism of Hegel. (20)

Q.4 Marx was less interested in perfecting dialectical materialism as a philosophy of

history than in applying it to concrete situations especially with the purpose of
finding a program of action for a consciously revolutionary proletariat. To what
extent Marx’s dialectical materialism succeeded in achieving the said object?
Explain with cogent arguments. (20)

Q.5 ‘The value of a commodity is roughly proportionate to the quantity of average

human labour power crystallized in it’. Make a critical analysis of the justifications
of Marx in favor of this statement. (20)

2
 COURSE OUTLINE Semester: Spring 2019

SOCIAL THEORY–II
Code: 4670

Course Coordinator Akhtar Hussain Jakhar

1. Structure of the Course

Under the title of Social Theory, you will study two courses Social Theory–I (Code:
4669) and Social Theory–II (Code: 4670). Each course contains nine units and carries
weight-age of three credit hours.
This is Social Theory–II (Code: 4670). In this course you will study nine units which are
arranged in four study blocks, but of unequal length. Ideally one unit is a student work of
12–16 hours. Since the course-work of one unit will be included studying the prescribed
reading material and working on your Assignment, you have to calculate how much time
you are required to spend on each unit and make your own timetable. We expect you to
finish the work within the allocated time.
For this course, ‘Fortnightly Tutorials’ are arranged in University’s Regional Study Centres.
The provide facilities to meet with one another for mutual help and individual discussion with
the ‘tutor’. These tutorials are not formal ‘lectures’ given in any formal university, rather these
are meant for groups and individual discussion with the tutor to facilitate you to undertake
part of your learning together. So, before going to attend a tutorial prepare your-self to discuss
course material with your colleagues and the tutor. We recommend that you should regularly
attend these tutorials for achieving good results.
For this course, like other course, you will have to do Two Assignments, a set of these
assignments is being sent to you in this mailing package. At the end of the semester and
before the final written examination, your will have to attend the Course Workshop for
3 days which will be organized at the notified regional office. It is compulsory to attend
the workshop. You will not be declared pass if you fail to attend the course workshop.

1.1 Assessment
For each course the registered student will be assessed as following:
(a) Assignments (continuous assessment). See details as given below.
(b) Final Examination (a three-hour written examination will take place at the end of
the semester.
The conditions to qualify each component are given below:
 A minimum of 40% in each assignment. (Total number of assignments for this
course is 2)

3
 A minimum of 40% of the final written examination.
 An aggregate of 40% of both the components i.e. assignments and final examination.
 To take final examination the students has to pass the assignment component.
The grade will be determined as following:
40% - 49% D
50% - 59% C
60% - 69% B
70% - 79% A
Above 80% A+

Assignments
 Assignments are those written exercises, which you are required to complete at
your own home or place of work after having studied different parts of the
prescribed reading material within the scheduled period of study. (Please see the
schedule.) For this course you will receive 2 assignments, which we expect you to
complete within the scheduled period.
 This is a compulsory course work and its successful completion will make you
eligible to take final examination at the end of the semester.
 To complete your work successfully, you are provided with tutorial support, so that
you can discuss your academic problems in tutorial meetings.
 After completing the assignment you will send it to the tutor/course guide, whose name
is notified to you for assessment and necessary guidance. Your tutor/course guide will
return it after marking and providing academic guidance and supervision.
Note: The students are informed about the names of tutors and study centres in
the beginning of the semester. If you do not receive such information, Please
contact your Regional Office.
1.2 Course Workshops
 The workshop of every course will be held at the end of each semester at Regional
Campuses notified to you by your regional office.
 It is compulsory to attend the workshop. You will not be declared pass if you fail to
attend the workshop. A student who does not obtain more than 75% attendance in
the workshop will be considered “Fail”.
 The duration of the workshop for a three credit course is 3 days.
 We expect you to fully participate in the workshop to gain the maximum
benefit. Please come prepared for an interactive workshop.

2. Course Description
2.1 Objectives of the Course
 This is the second part of the course on Social Theory. In the first part of this
course, we have endeavoured to answer what is social theory? And in the
4
 process, we have introduced you to some of these ideas which have been the
interest of philosophers since the Greek City State. Our aim is not only to
trace the origin and evolution of these ideas but also to assess some of the
most familiar theories which contain them.
 In this course we will familiarize you with some of the most leading thinkers who
have influenced the progress of social theory and in turn had an impact over
the growth of the society-from a feudal society to today’s nation state.
2.2 Course Outline
Block One–New Approach to Social Theory
(Unit 1 & 2) Montesquieu (1689–1755)
Block Two–Liberalism
(Unit 3) John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)
Block Three–Philosophy of History
(Units 4 & 5) Ibn-e-Khaldun (1332–1405)
(Units 6 & 7) G. W. Hegal (1770–1831)
Block Four–Historical Materialism
(Units 8 & 9) Karl Marx (1818–1883)

2.3 Course Introduction

There are nine units in this course which are arranged in four study blocks. The aim is to
trace the development of social theory in relation to the advancement of modern human
society focusing on the theorists of 18th and 19th centuries. In this course we will focus on
New Approach to Social Theory, Philosophy of History and Historical Materialism. The
18th century began with a growing passion for science. By the end of the century, this
passion for science was crystallised into a belief, that science was the key to understand
not only the physical nature but man and society as well.
Under the theme of new approach to social theory, Block One deals with the theory of Baron
De Montesquieu (1689-1755). Montesquieu is the Ideological Co-Founder of the American
Constitution along with John Locke. Charles Louis de Secondat was born in Bordeaux,
France and was placed under the care of his uncle Baron De Montesquieu after his father’s
death in 1713. The Baron died in 1716 and left de Secondat his fortune, his office as president
of the Bordeaux Parliament, and his title of Baron De Montesquieu. Montesquieu became the
member of French Academies of Science and studied science, history, laws and customs and
governments of the countries of Europe. He gained fame in 1721 when he published his first
work Persian Letters. In this work, through the device of letters written to and by two
aristocratic Persian travellers in Europe, Montesquieu satirized contemporary French politics,
social conditions, ecclesiastical matters, and literature. The book won immediate and wide
popularity; it was one of the earliest works of the movement known as the Enlightenment,

5
which, by its criticism of French institutions under the Bourbon monarchy, helped bring about
the French Revolution. Montesquieu’s major work, the Spirit of Laws appeared in 1748 and it
outlined his ideas on how government would best work. This book enormously influenced the
political theorists and intellectuals all over the Europe.
In the Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu argued that all things were made up of rules or laws
that never changed. He set out to study these laws scientifically with the hope that
knowledge of the laws of government would reduce that problems of society and improve
human life. According to Montesquieu, there were three types of government: a
monarchy (ruled by a king or queen), a republic (ruled by an elected leader), and a
despotism (ruled by a dictator). Montesquieu proposed that a government that was
elected by the people was the best form of government. He however, argued that the
success of a democracy-a government in which the people have the power-depended
upon maintaining the right balance of power.
Montesquieu suggested that the best government would be one in which power was
balanced among three groups of officials. He thought England-which divided power
between the king (who interpreted laws) – was a good model of this. Montesquieu called
the idea of dividing government power into three branches the “separation of powers.”
He thought it most important to create separate branches of government with equal but
different powers. That way, the government would avoid placing too much power with
one individual or group of individuals. He wrote, “When the [law enforcement] powers
are united in the same person... there can be no liberty.” According to Montesquieu, each
branch of government could limit the power of the other two branches. Therefore, no
branch of the government could threaten the freedom of the people. His ideas about
separation of powers became the basis for the United States Constitution.
Despite Montesquieu’s belief in the principles of a democracy, he did not feel that all
people were equal. Montesquieu approved of slavery. He also thought that women were
weaker than men and that they had to obey the commands of their husbands. However, he
also felt that women did have the ability to govern. ‘It is against reason and against nature
for women to be mistresses in the house... but not for them to govern an empire. In the
first case, their weak state does not permit them to be preeminent; in the second, their
very weakness gives them more gentleness and moderation, which, rather than the harsh
and ferocious virtues, can make for a good environment.’ In this way, Montesquieu
argued that women were too weak to be in control at home, but that there calmness and
gentleness would be helpful qualities in making decisions in government.
According to Raymond Aron, ‘On a higher level, histories of ideas rank Montesquieu in
turn among the men of letters, among political theorists, among legal historians or among
the eighteenth century ideologists’ who probed the foundations of French institutions and
who prepared the way for the revolution’. 1 Montesquieu is important for his influence
over intellectual thought and on the development of social sciences. The eighteenth
century is considered as a turning point as well as a climax in the history of social
science, since it produced a science of human behaviour and set such standards in
methodology which profoundly influenced the succeeding generations. Movement of
1
Raymond Aron, Main Currents in Sociological Thought, 1965, Penguin Books Ltd., p. 17.
6
thought which flew throughout the 18th century culminated in the establishment of social
sciences round about the time of French Revolution of 1848. The emerging national
states produced new kinds of social theory; side by side with these kinds of national
social theory qualitative kind of approach to the study of man and society emerged. The
major characteristic of this new approach was a clear distinction between a scientific and
moral theory. Rossides considered Montesquieu’s thought as a landmark in the history of
social sciences. Ronald Fletcher writes that ‘the central and most distinguishing feature of
Montesquies’s treatment was that he now used the idea of ‘natural law’ not in the old
philosophical sense in which it had been used throughout European history, but in the
new sense of a scientific law of nature.’ He now brought to the fore the idea that each
society, each social system as an entirety has its own ‘natural law of development’ and
that it should be the objective of the student of society to uncover and to establish
satisfactory knowledge of this law’. 2
Raymond Aron observes the Montesquieu’s aim was to make history intelligible like Max
Webber. Montesquies’s goal was to proceed from the meaningless fact to an intelligible
order. Raymond raised certain questions like: How does one go about discovering an
intelligible order? What will be the nature of this intelligible order? On what level and by
what means does one discover the intelligible order? What are the instruments of this
intelligibility? Raymond found two answers to these questions in Montesquieu’s works,
which were not contradictory in Raymond’s opinion. The first answer is Montesquieu’s
declaration that it is not chance which rules the world rather the underlying causes which
account for the accidental cause of events needs to be considered and the second answer,
Raymond says that ‘it is not that apparent accidents may be explained by underlying
cause, but that one can organise the diversity of manners, customs and ideas into a small
number of types between the infinite variety of customs and the absolute unity of an
indeed society’. Therefore, ‘we must discover an intermediate term namely, a small
number of social type... the diversity of laws may be explained, with the laws peculiar to
each society being determined by certain causes which sometimes operate without our
being aware of them’3.
Ronald Fletcher argues that Montesquieu’s theory of society explained the development
of social systems within their ecological settings and involved an entire psychological
institutional and developmental analysis of the nature of these societies. Commenting on
Montesquieu’s major works Rossides says that ‘his thought contained a matter of fact
scepticism and relativism that separates him sharply from the main current of
Enlightenment. His most important innovation was the rejection of the normative
tradition of European social theory. Montesquieu not only raised the problem of human
identity, but also strongly suggested that its solution was to be found in the actual
expressions of him an nature. Implicit in his general approach was a fairly conscious
separation of questions of truth, value, and fact’. Rossides observes that though
Montesquieu never formulated this separation as a philosophical maxim that was left to
his contemporary David Hume, it influenced his thought throughout his life. The method
that affected his release from normative social theory, and from ethnocentrism in general,
2
Ronald Fletcher, The Making of Sociology-Beginning and Foundations, p. 117.
3
Raymond Aron, Main Currents in Sociological Thought, pp. 19-20.
7
was the comparative or historical method, a tool of analysis that was to have far-reaching
implications for western social theory’4.
As discussed above, the 18th and 19th centuries are marked with a systematic effort to apply to
the study of man those methods which Newton had applied to nature. The main concern of
the theorist of the 18th and 19th centuries was the spiritual, intellectual and social freedom of
individual men. In this post-French revolution era, thinkers were confronted with the major
problems of the disruption of the old social order and their main pre-occupation was to find
an adequate order for solving the new problems created by complex industrial ‘development’
and replacing the ‘traditional authority’ of religion and government by a new body of
knowledge about man and society employing scientific method.
In Block Two, you will study John Stuart Mill, (1806–1873), philosopher, economist,
moral and political theorist, and administrator, who is regarded as ‘the saint of liberalism’
and one of the greatest thinkers of nineteenth century. John Stuart Mill was the most
influential English-speaking philosopher and is notable for his contributions to ethics,
political philosophy, economics and logic. His views are of continuing significance, and
are generally recognized to be among the deepest and certainly the most effective
defences of empiricism and of a liberal political view of society and culture. The overall
aim of his philosophy is to develop a positive view of the universe and the place of
humans in it, one which contributes to the progress of human knowledge, individual
freedom and human well-being. His views are not entirely original, having their roots in
the British empiricism of John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume, and in the
utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham. But he gave them a new depth, and his formulations
were sufficiently articulate to gain for them a continuing influence among a broad public.
John Stuart Mill, the eldest son of the philosopher, James Mill, was born in London on
20th May, 1806. He was tutored at home by his father and by the time he had reached the
age of twelve, John Stuart was familiar with the works of Aristotle, Hobbes, Plato, Jerry
Bentham, Ricardo and Adam Smith. Mill was especially impressed by the work of Jerry
Bentham. He agreed with Bentham when he argued in Introduction to the Principles of
Morals and Legislation (1789), that the proper objective of all conduct and legislation is
“the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. Mill was only seventeen when he formed
a discussion group called the Utilitarian Society. Mill’s articles published in the
Westminster Review, a journal founded by Jerry Bentham and James Mil to propagate
Radical view. John Stuart Mill also wrote for other newspapers and journals including the
Morning Chronicle and Parliamentary History and Review. Jeremy took an active role in
the campaign for parliamentary reform, and was one of the firs to suggest that women
should have the same political rights as men. In 1834 Mill founded the Radical journal,
the London Review. Two proprietor of the Westminster Review, Mill used the journal to
support those politicians, who were advocating further reform of the House of Commons.
Mill and Harried Taylor were close friends and the two worked closely together for
parliamentary reforms especially for women’s rights. They got married in 1849, after
Harriet’s first husband’s death. A few months after the wedding the Westminster Review
published The Enfranchisement of Women. The original writer of the article was Taylor,
4
Daniel W. Rossides, The History and Nature of Sociological Theory, pp. 85-86.
8
but is appeared under John Stuart Mill’s name. Many other works appeared under John
Stuart Mill’s name were in fact written by Taylor who was reluctant to be described as
joint author of Mill’s books and articles.
Mill was the younger contemporary of Auguste Comte (the father of positivism) and the first
English philosopher who appreciated Auguste Comte’s philosophy and made him popular in
Britain. Like Comte, Mill’s major problem was the disruption of the ‘social order’. Fletcher
writes that ‘unlike Comte, Mill did not even attempt a substantive theory of man in society.
He was conscious of the fact that the human sciences were too little advanced, in his own
time, for any complete statesmen. Instead, he undertook a logical clarification of the methods
most properly to be employed in these sciences and the kinds of generalization and the degree
of exactitude which it was reasonable to expect them to attains’.5
Illustrating this commonality between Comte and Mill, Aiken says that ‘despite the fact
that he was subsequently disillusioned and repelled by the megalomania and religiosity of
Comte’s later writings, Mill well understood how many philosophical commitments they
shared in common. Comte construed Mill’s favourable notices of his ideas as coming
from an English disciple who would help to carry the good news of the positive
philosophy to the gentiles’. Aiken argues that ‘this was wholly Comte’s idea. Both by
temperament and by conviction, Mill was not cut out to be the disciple of any man or the
mere propagandist for any dispensation. He had not worked himself free, at great
personal cost, from the rigid dogmas of the Benthamite utilitarianism into which he had
been indoctrinated as a youth by his father, James Mill, in order to become a convert to
Comte’s religion of humanity’. 6
In the introduction to Jermy Bentham, J S Mill says that ‘there are two men, recently
deceased, to whom their country is indebted not only for the greater part of the important
ideas which have been thrown into circulation among its thinking men in their time, but
for a revolution in its general modes of thought and investigation’. Bentham was friend of
James Mill, and took great interest in his son John Stuart’s education. J S Mill’s early life
was spent in Bentham’s influence and guidance. Mill reacted against this rigid ‘utilitarian
doctrine’ of Bentham and introduced new features. In M Wanock’s words, ‘Bentham’s
life work, as he conceived it, was twofold; first he had to provide a secure foundation of
theory for a any possible legal system; and secondly he had at the same time to criticise
existing legal systems in the light of this theoretical foundation’.
In Block Three, we will discuss philosophy of history focusing on two theorists, Ibn-e-
Khaldun (1332–1406) and G. W. Hegel (1770–1831). Philosophy of history is an important
field of philosophical enquiry, which differ from moral and political philosophy in the sense
that philosophy of history gives ‘total account’ of the relationship of man and society in the

5
Fletcher, The Making of Sociology-Beginning and Foundations, p.197.
6
Henry D. Aiken, The Age of Ideology, p. 138.
9
context of the development of historical society. We will concentrate on the ideals of Ibn-e-
Khaldun in Units 4 & 5. Hegel will be discussed in Units 6 & 7.
Ibn-e-Khaldun is significant for three main reasons; first, he is regarded as a precursor of
the science of society, second, like any other thinker, Khaldun is a child of his time, and
his social theory is a product of a long series of the Islamic movements of thought, and
third, Khaldun is taken as unchallenged sociological and cultural interpreter of medieval
North Africa adn much of medieval and modern Arab Islamic Culture. According to Bali
and Wardi7, there is a striking similarity between Khaldun’s ideas and of Machiavelli,
Vico, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Auguste Comte, Durkheim and even Marx. Aziz Al-
Azmeh observes that Ibn-e-Khaldun is not only considered the true historical source of
his time, he is also the unchallenged sociological and cultural interpreter of medieval
north Africa and much of medieval and modern Arab Islamic culture as well. Aziz writes
that ‘the validity of his discourse is considered to be so universal as to confer upon his
ideas the status of progenitor-of, at the very best, anticipator-of a great variety of modern
ideas’. Aziz asserts that ‘so unassailable this position has been occupied by Ibn-e-
Khaldun’s thought that the general accepted description of his thought has gone
unchallenged even by scholars who took the under modernization of his writings’. Even
these scholars have accepted what is in fact an historical description of Ibn-e-Khaldun’s
historical and sociological methods and conception... what has hitherto been considered
axial to the study of Ibn-e-Khaldun-his supposed sociology, the ‘incompatibility,’
between reason and belief as the animating centre of the Muaqddimah, the scientificity of
his historiography, and cognate topics of his imagination’.
Analyzing Ibn-e-Khaldun’s social theory, our main objective is to find out: (i) Whether the
evident similarities between many of the conclusions of Ibn-e-Khaldun’s investigation of
history and society and those of modern social science and cultural history reflect a deeper
similarity of view concerning the nature and function of science or philosophy. (ii) to
investigate the important aces on which Ibn-e-Khaldun’s thought revolves. Baali and Wardi
identify four topics which they believe are the most important axes. According to them these
four topics have caused ‘existing controversies.’ These are:
(i) Idelism vs Realism;
(ii) Right vs Might.
(iii) Reason vs Religion
(iv) Islam vs Nomadism
We have prescribed Ibn-e-Khaldun’s ‘THE MUQADDIMAH’ as basic reading of this
block. The Muqaddimah is the introduction to history, in fact which is known as Ibn-e-
Khaldun’s original preface and book-I of his most famous comprehensive history of the
7
Faud Baali and Ali Wardi, Ibn-e-Khaldun and Islamic Thought-Styles; A Social Perspective,
1981, G. K. Hall & Co, ppxii.
10
world, written in 1377, entitled kitabal-Ibar. Kitabal Ibar is considered as the earliest
attempt to investigate a pattern in the changes that occur in man’s political and social
organisation. In his intorudction to the English translated abridged edition of the
Muqaddimah, N J DAWOOED has said: “Rational in its approach, analytical in its
method, encyuclopaedc in detail, it represents and almost complete departure from
traditional historiography, discarding conventional concepts and clichés and seeking,
beyond the mere chronicle of events, an explanation and hence a philosophy of history”
(PIX). Commenting on the Muqaddimah, Hugh Trevar Roper, in Sunday Times,
observed: “This Muqaddimah is only part of Khaldun’s great work: it is the introduction
to his history of the world. But it is by far the feature of his works for it contains his new
science, his philosophy of history.” Arnold Toynbee, comments: ‘Ibn-e-Khaldun has
succeeded in drawing conclusions which are of living elms, practical and theoretical. It
would, indeed, be no exaggeration to say that his is the most comprehensive and
illuminating analysis of how human affairs work that has been made anywhere
(Observer).” The great period of rediscovery of Ibn-e-Khaldun started as early as the 16 th
century and gained momentum in the seventeenth century.
The second theorist of this block is Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) who
presents the most exiting account of a systematic ‘philosophy of history’. Along with J.
G. Fichte and F. W. J. von Schelling, Hegel belongs to the period of “German idealism”
in the decades following Kant. The most systematic of the post-Kantian idealists, Hegel
attempted, throughout his published writings as well as in his lectures, to elaborate a
comprehensive and systematic ontology from a “logical” starting point. He is perhaps
most well-known for his teleological account of history, an account which was later taken
over by Marx and “inverted” into a materialist theory of an historical development
culminating in communism. For most of the twentieth century, the “logical” side of
Hegel's thought had been largely forgotten, but his political and social philosophy
continued to find interest and support. However, since the 1970s, a degree of more
general philosophical interest in Hegel's systematic thought has also been revived.
The main concern of Hegel’s philosophy is complete reconstruction of modern thought.
He is considered as an idealist-philosopher who believes in the ‘primary of spirit or mind’
in the universe. According to Sabine, ‘Hegel’s problem was one that had been perennial
in the modern thought from the beginning and that had grown steadily more acute with
the progress of modern science, viz. the opposition between the order of nature as it must
be conceived for scientific purposes and the conception of its implicit in the ethical and
religious tradition of Christianity’.8
Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world
itself, often called a "dialectic"- a progression in which each successive movement
emerges as a solution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement. To

8
George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, p. 620.
11
specifically apply this model of Hegel's view of world history, it represents the manner in
which the Spirit - for Hegel a total reality that is an inherent unity of a mental or spiritual
nature - develops gradually into its purest form, ultimately attaining unto its own
essential freedom. To Hegel, "world history is thus the unfolding of Spirit in time, as
nature is the unfolding of the Idea in space."
Hegel writes in his Introduction to the Philosophy of History that ‘Spirit does not toss
itself about in the external play of chance occurrences; on the contrary, it is that which
determines history absolutely, and it stands firm against the chance occurrences which it
dominates and exploits for its own purpose.’ Although Hegel's dialectic often appears
broken up for convenience into three moments called thesis, antithesis, and synthesis,
these terms were not original to or much used by Hegel himself. This classification was
in fact developed earlier by Fichte in his loosely analogous account of the relation
between the individual subject and the world.
Without the active opposition of an antithesis working through the dialectic, Hegel
asserts, existence is simply an empty task. "Periods of happiness are empty pages in
history, for they are the periods of harmony, times when the antithesis is missing." What
is left to life is simply habit, "activity without opposition." This then raises a crucial
question: how can it be possible to have an end to history? If history ends in the ultimate
realization of the Spirit, then all opposition apparently has been negated. Not only has the
past already been completed, but the future is foreclosed to any further developments.
What is left to life when the final synthesis has been achieved and nothing stands in
opposition of the immediate present?
Schools of thought influenced by Hegel tend see history as progressive, but also as a
possibly painfully arrived at outcome of a dialectic in which factors working in opposite
directions are over time reconciled. History was best seen as directed by a zeitgeist, or
Spirit of the Age, and traces of the zeitgest could be seen by looking backward.
Hegel has a rather notable disciple in Karl Marx who adapted Hegel’s Dialectic away
from being related to the unfolding of Spirit and towards Marx's own Materialist
Conception of History where the economic factors of human society and the associated
social relations would critically determine the unfolding of human history and could only,
for Marx, (Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and their millions of sometime ideological followers)
result in the establishment of Socialism.
In Block Four, we will explore Marx and Historical Materialism. Karl Marx (1818-1883)
is best known not as a philosopher but as a revolutionary communist, whose works
inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth century. It is hard to
think of many who have had as much influence in the creation of the modern world.
Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818 and died on March 14, 1883. He was a German
economist, philosopher, and revolutionist whose writings form the basis of the body of
ideas known as Marxism. With the aid of Friedrich Engels he produced much of the
12
theory of modern socialism and communism. Marx's father, Heinrich, was a Jewish
lawyer who had converted his family to Christianity partly in order to preserve his job in
the Prussian state. Karl himself was baptized in the Evangelical church. As a student at
the University of Berlin, young Marx was strongly influenced by the philosophy of Georg
Hegel and by a radical group called Young Hegelians, who attempted to apply Hegelian
ideas to the movement against organized religion and the Prussian autocracy. In 1841,
Marx received a doctorate in philosophy.
In 1842, Marx became editor of the Rheinische Zeitung in Cologne, a liberal democratic
newspaper for which he wrote increasingly radical editorials on social and economic
issues. The newspaper was banned by the Prussian government in 1843, and Marx left for
Paris with his bride, Jenny von Westphalen. There he went further in his criticism of
society, building on the Young Hegelian criticism of religion. Ludwig Feuerbach had
written a book called The Essence of Christianity, arguing that God had been invented by
humans as a projection of their own ideals.
Feuerbach wrote that man, however, in creating God in his own image, had "alienated
himself from himself." He had created another being in contrast to himself, reducing
himself to a lowly, evil creature who needed both church and government to guide and
control him. If religion were abolished, Feuerbach claimed, human beings would
overcome their alienation.
Marx applied this idea of alienation to private property, which he said caused humans to
work only for themselves, not for the good of their species. In his papers of this period,
published as Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, he elaborated on the idea
that alienation had an economic base. He called for a communist society to overcome the
dehumanizing effect of private property.
In 1845, Marx moved to Brussels, and in 1847 he went to London. He had previously
made friends with Friedrich Engels, the son of a wealthy textile manufacturer who, like
himself, had been a Young Hegelian. They collaborated on a book which was a criticism
of some of their Young Hegelian friends for their stress on alienation.
In 1845, Marx jotted down some notes, Theses on Feuerbach, which he and Engels
enlarged into a book, The German Ideology, in which they developed their materialistic
conception of history. They argued that human thought was determined by social and
economic forces, particularly those related to the means of production. They developed a
method of analysis they called dialectical materialism, in which the clash of historical
forces leads to changes in society.
In 1847 a London organization of workers invited Marx and Engels to prepare a program
for them. It appeared in 1848 as The Communist Manifesto. In it they declared that all
history was the history of class struggles. Under capitalism, the struggle between the
working class and the business class would end in a new society, a communist one.

13
The outbreak of the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe led Marx to return to Cologne, where
he began publication of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, but with the failure of the German
liberal democratic movement he moved permanently, in 1849, to London. For many years
he and his family lived in poverty, aided by small subventions from Engels and by
bequests from the relatives of Marx's wife. From 1851 to 1862 he contributed articles and
editorials to The New York Tribune, then edited by Horace Greeley. Most of his time,
however, was spent in the British Museum, studying economic and social history and
developing his theories.
Marx's ideas began to influence a group of workers and German emigres in London, who
established the International Workingmen's Association in 1864, later known as the First
International. By the time of the brief Commune of Paris in 1871, Marx's name had
begun to be well known in European political circles. A struggle developed within the
International between Marx and the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, whom Marx
eventually defeated and expelled, at the cost of destroying the International.
In 1867, Marx published the first volume of Das Kapital. The next two volumes, edited by
Engels, were published after Marx's death. The fourth volume was edited by Karl Kautsky.
Marx's last years were marked by illness and depression. Marx continued to write treatises on
socialism, urging that his followers disdain soft hearted bourgeois tendencies. At Marx's
funeral in Highgate Cemetery in London, Engels spoke of him as "the best-hated and most-
calumniated man of his time." The importance of Marx's thought, however, extends far
beyond the revolutionary movements whose prophet he became. His writings on economics
and sociology are still influential in academic circles and among many who do not share his
political views. The main philosophical works of Karl Marx that are of interest to most
students are the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital.
Trained as a philosopher, Marx turned away from philosophy in his mid-twenties,
towards economics and politics. However, in addition to his overtly philosophical early
work, his later writings have many points of contact with contemporary philosophical
debates, especially in the philosophy of history and the social sciences, and in moral and
political philosophy. Historical materialism — Marx's theory of history — is centered
around the idea that forms of society rise and fall as they further and then impede the
development of human productive power. Marx sees the historical process as proceeding
through a necessary series of modes of production, culminating in communism. Marx's
economic analysis of capitalism is based on his version of the labour theory of value, and
includes the analysis of capitalist profit as the extraction of surplus value from the
exploited proletariat. The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx's
prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by
communism. However Marx refused to speculate in detail about the nature of
communism, arguing that it would arise through historical processes, and was not the
realisation of a pre-determined moral ideal.

14
Marx is symbol of revolutionary ideology. Marx was not a mere dialectician like Hegel,
spinning out theses and antitheses a priori which prescribe how the course of human
society must proceed rather his historical materialism was to provide a framework for a
verifiable theory of the executive causes of social change-the ultimate destiny of mankind
as a whole- the proletarian revolution and the eventual class-less society.
Dialectical materialism occupies a place all its own in European philosophy. First of all it had
very few exponents in academic circles outside the former Soviet Union and Communist
China, where, by contrast, it was (Russia) and is (China) established as the official philosophy
and consequently had privileges such as are enjoyed by no other contemporary school of
philosophy. Besides, it is unique as the philosophy of a political party -- the Communists; on
this account it is closely linked to the economic and political theories as well as to the
practical activity of that party, for which it is the "general theory."
In Russia where the Communist party was in control, no one was permitted to teach any
other philosophy than dialectical materialism, and even the exposition of its own classical
philosophical texts was strictly supervised. This supervision -- in combination, it is true,
with the Russian national character -- explains some of the odd features of dialectical-
materialist publications; the latter are strikingly different from all others through their
complete uniformity. All of their authors say exactly the same thing and make
innumerable quotations from the classical authors, who are made to yield arguments for
current theses at every turn. Perhaps this supervision is to be blamed also for the
mediocrity of the philosophers in this school of philosophy; it is in any case responsible
for the extreme dogmatism, chauvinism, and aggressiveness of the followers of Karl
Marx and dialectical materialism.
Even more significant, however, than these peculiarities, which could be accidental, is the
reactionary character of the philosophy of Marx and its dialectical materialism, for this
philosophy leads straight back to the mid-19th century and seeks to restore the
intellectual situation of that time without the slightest alteration.
The Russians regarded Karl Marx, with whom Friedrich Engels worked in close
cooperation, as the founder of dialectical materialism. Marx belonged to the Hegelian
school, which had split into a "left" and a "right" by the time Marx was studying at the
University of Berlin. A prominent representative of the "left" was Ludwig Feuerbach who
interpreted the Hegelian system in a materialistic sense and treated world history as the
unfolding of matter and not of spirit.
Marx firmly supported Feurerbach but simultaneously came under the influence of
scientific materialism which was spreading at the time; this explains his enthusiasm for
science, his profound and ingenious belief in progress, and his prejudice in favor of
Darwinian evolutionism. In founding dialectical materialism, Marx linked the Hegelian
dialectic to the materialism of his day.

15
Marx himself was chiefly a political economist, sociologist, and social philosopher. He is the
founder of historical materialism while the general philosophical foundation of the system,
which is dialectical materialism, is essentially the work of Engels. Dialectical materialism
constitutes a link between the Hegelian dialectic and 19th-century materialism.
Source: The Radical Academy-Classic Philosophers Series

Prescribed Readings:
1. A History of Political Theory by George H. Sabine
2. Main Currents in Sociological Thought by Raymond Aron
3. The History and Nature of Sociological Theory by Daniel W. Rossides
4. Ibne- Khaldun’s Muqadama.

16