FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF KASHERE, GOMBE STATE

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
COURSE CODE: POL 3216
COURSE TITLE: THEORIES AND PRACTICE OF MARXISM
GROUP 8
QUESTIONS: MARXIST CRITIQUE OF CAPITALISM

COURSE LECTURER:

MR. SUFIAN

5 June 5, 2025

1
MATRICNUMBER ATTEN GROUP INDIVIDUA TEST TOT
D. MARK L MARK AL

FUKU/FSS/21/POL/0008

FUKU/FSS/21/POL/0018

FUKU/FSS/21/POL/0038

FUKU/FSS/21/POL/0048

FUKU/FSS/21/POL/0058

FUKU/FSS/21/POL/0068

FUKU/FSS/21/POL/0098

FUKU/FSS/21/POL/0088

FUKU/FSS/21/POL/0108

FUKU/FSS/21/POL/0118

FUKU/FSS/21B/POL/0008

FUKU/FSS/21B/POL/0018

FUKU/FSS/21B/POL/0068

FUKU/FSS/21B/POL/0078

FUKU/FSS/21B/POL/0088

FUKU/FSS/21B/POL/0118

FUKU/FSS/21B/POL/0128

FUKU/FSS/21B/POL/0138

FUKU/FSS/21B/POL/0148
FUKU/FSS/21B/POL/0158

2
1. Introduction

The rise of capitalism as the dominant global economic system has

fundamentally transformed human societies, shaping not only economic production
but also social relations, political structures, and cultural life. Since its
consolidation during the Industrial Revolution, capitalism has been praised for its
unparalleled capacity to generate wealth, foster innovation, and promote individual
freedom. However, it has also been the subject of sustained critique, particularly
from the Marxist tradition, which sees capitalism not as a triumph of human
progress but as a system riddled with contradictions, exploitation, and inequality.

The most profound and systematic critique of capitalism emerged in the 19th
century with the work of Karl Marx (1818–1883), a German philosopher,
economist, and revolutionary theorist. Marx’s critique is not merely an ethical
condemnation of poverty or injustice; rather, it is a structural and scientific analysis
of capitalism as a historically specific mode of production based on class
antagonisms. Drawing on German philosophy, British political economy, and
French socialism, Marx developed a comprehensive theory of social change—
historical materialism—which views economic structures as the foundation upon
which legal, political, and ideological superstructures are built.

At the heart of Marx’s critique lies the notion that capitalism, despite its
dynamic and transformative power, is inherently exploitative and unsustainable.
Capitalism relies on the extraction of surplus value from wage labor, leading to the
accumulation of capital in the hands of a minority—the bourgeoisie—while the
majority—the proletariat—remain alienated from the products of their labor, from
the labor process itself, and from their own human potential. This alienation,
according to Marx, is not accidental but constitutive of the capitalist system.
Furthermore, capitalism is marked by internal contradictions—such as the tension
between the social nature of production and the private appropriation of profit—
that generate recurring crises, economic instability, and ultimately its own
historical negation.

This paper aims to provide a critical overview of the Marxist critique of

capitalism by systematically examining its core theoretical components: historical
materialism, the labor theory of value, class struggle, alienation, and the theory of

3
capitalist crisis. In doing so, it situates Marxist theory within its historical context
and explores its enduring relevance in analyzing contemporary global capitalism.
By engaging with both classical texts and modern interpretations, the paper seeks
to demonstrate that Marxism remains a powerful analytical framework for
understanding not only the past and present of capitalism but also the possibilities
for its transcendence.

Historical Materialism: The Foundation of Marxist Critique

Historical materialism is the philosophical and methodological cornerstone

of Marxist theory. Developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it offers a
scientific framework for understanding the development of human societies
through the lens of material conditions, especially the mode of production and
class relations. Unlike idealist philosophies that explain historical change through
the evolution of ideas, religion, or morality, historical materialism posits that the
material base of society—its economic structure—is the primary determinant of
historical development.

2.1. From Idealism to Materialism

Marx’s philosophical breakthrough arose in response to the prevailing

German idealist tradition, especially the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
who viewed history as the unfolding of the "World Spirit" through dialectical
stages. While Marx admired Hegel’s dialectical method, he rejected its idealism. In
Theses on Feuerbach (1845), Marx famously wrote: “The philosophers have only
interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” This
signaled a radical departure from abstract theorizing to a materialist analysis of
concrete social relations.

For Marx, material conditions—how human beings produce their means of

subsistence—form the real foundation upon which all social, political, and
intellectual life is built. Changes in these material conditions—such as the
introduction of new technologies, shifts in labor organization, or the emergence of
new classes—are what drive historical change, not merely the evolution of ideas.

2.2. The Base and Superstructure

4
 Central to historical materialism is the conceptual distinction between the
economic base and the superstructure. The base consists of the forces of production
(tools, labor, raw materials) and the relations of production (the class relations and
property forms that organize production). The superstructure, in turn, includes the
legal, political, ideological, and cultural institutions that arise from and serve to
stabilize the base.

This model implies a causal, though dialectical, relationship: the base

conditions the superstructure, and the superstructure in turn reinforces the existing
base. For instance, the legal recognition of private property, the capitalist state, and
dominant ideologies like individualism or meritocracy are seen as reflections of,
and supports for, the capitalist mode of production.

2.3. Historical Development through Contradiction and Class Struggle

Marx viewed history as progressing through a series of contradictory social

formations, each marked by a dominant class exploiting a subordinate one. These
contradictions inevitably lead to class conflict, which serves as the motor of
historical change. In ‘The Communist Manifesto (1848)’, Marx and Engels
declare: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles.”

This dialectical process has taken different forms in different historical epochs:

 In slave societies, the struggle was between slaveholders and slaves.

 In feudalism, it was between lords and serfs.

 In capitalism, it is between the bourgeoisie (owners of capital) and the

proletariat (wage laborers).

Each mode of production, according to Marx, contains internal contradictions

that lead to its transformation. For example, in capitalism, the contradiction
between the social nature of production (collective labor) and the private
appropriation of profits leads to crises and class struggle, potentially culminating in
the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.

Thank you for the clarification! Since you want Section 3: The Capitalist Mode of
Production to be centered specifically on surplus value, exploitation, alienation,

5
and class struggle, here is a restructured and elaborated version of that section with
these concepts as the central analytical focus:

3. The Capitalist Mode of Production

At the heart of Marx’s critique of capitalism lies the analysis of the capitalist mode
of production—a system defined not just by markets and trade, but by specific
class relations, forms of exploitation, and a deep alienation of human labor. This
system operates through the pursuit of surplus value, and it perpetuates itself
through class struggle, a recurring conflict between those who own the means of
production and those who must sell their labor to survive.

---

3.1. Surplus Value: The Core of Capitalist Profit

In Marxist economics, surplus value (Mehrwert) is the cornerstone of capitalism. It

is the value produced by workers that exceeds the value of their wages, and it is
appropriated by the capitalist class as profit.

Workers sell their labor power to capitalists for a wage. However, during the
working day, the value a worker produces surpasses what they are paid. For
example, a worker might be paid the equivalent of four hours' labor in wages but
produces eight hours' worth of value. The extra four hours constitute surplus labor,
and the value generated in this period is surplus value, which is retained by the
capitalist.

6
 This process of surplus extraction is systematic and structural, not incidental
or accidental. It is built into the very logic of capitalism. Capitalists compete by
maximizing surplus value through:

 Lengthening the working day (absolute surplus value).

 Increasing productivity through technology (relative surplus value).

 Reducing wages or moving production to low-wage regions.

Thus, surplus value is the unpaid labor of the working class—the hidden source of
wealth in capitalist societies.

3.2. Exploitation: The Basis of Class Inequality

Exploitation in Marxist theory is not defined by poor working conditions or

low pay alone, but by the structural relationship between labor and capital. It is
rooted in the unequal exchange that occurs when workers sell their labor power.

Unlike in earlier systems such as slavery or feudalism—where exploitation

was overt—capitalist exploitation is disguised by the appearance of equal
exchange. The worker voluntarily enters into a wage contract, and the employer
pays for labor. Yet the worker receives only a portion of the value they produce,
with the rest appropriated as profit.

This economic exploitation leads to social and political inequality, as the

accumulation of wealth by capitalists enables them to control not only the
economy but also the state, media, education, and legal systems. Exploitation is
thus:

 Economic (through surplus value),

 Political (through control of state institutions),

 Ideological (through normalization of capitalist values).

Capitalism depends on this exploitation to survive and expand, constantly creating

and reproducing a proletariat whose labor is the source of all capital.

7
3.3. Alienation: The Human Cost of Capitalism

Alienation (Entfremdung) is a key philosophical concept in Marx’s early

writings, particularly in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.
Alienation refers to the estrangement of workers from themselves, their work, and
society as a whole under capitalist production.

Marx identifies four main dimensions of alienation:

1. Alienation from the product of labor: Workers do not own what they produce;
the product belongs to the capitalist and often confronts the worker as an alien
force.

2. Alienation from the act of production: Work becomes repetitive, mechanical,

and devoid of creativity, reducing human labor to mere survival.

3. Alienation from other people: Competitive labor relations isolate individuals

from each other, undermining social solidarity.

4. Alienation from species-being (Gattungswesen): Human beings are alienated

from their own essence and creative potential; labor, which should be life-
affirming, becomes a burden.

Alienation under capitalism is not only a psychological experience but a

material condition produced by the system's exploitative structure. It dehumanizes
workers, treating them as instruments of capital accumulation rather than as
autonomous human beings.

3.4. Class Struggle: The Engine of Historical Change

Marx famously stated, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the
history of class struggles.” In capitalist society, the primary classes are:

 The bourgeoisie: the owners of the means of production (capitalists).

 The proletariat: the wage laborers who must sell their labor power to
survive.

8
 Class struggle emerges from the conflict of interest between these two classes.
The capitalist class seeks to maximize surplus value and reduce costs, while the
working class seeks higher wages, better conditions, and more control over their
labor. This antagonism plays out in:

 Labor strikes and union movements.

 Demands for labor rights, welfare, and state intervention.

 Political revolutions and socialist movements.

For Marx, class struggle is not a peripheral aspect of capitalism—it is its core
contradiction. The system itself fosters the conditions for its own transformation by
creating a class (the proletariat) that has both the interest and the capacity to
overthrow it.

In time, as exploitation intensifies and crises deepen, the proletariat may

develop class consciousness—an awareness of their collective power—and move
to abolish the capitalist system altogether. This revolutionary transformation would
lead to the establishment of socialism, a society without exploitation, where
production is collectively owned and democratically managed.

4. Ideology and the Superstructure

Marx argued that capitalism is upheld not only by economic structures but
also by an ideological superstructure—a system of beliefs, institutions, and norms
that masks exploitation and legitimizes class rule. This includes the state, law,
religion, education, and the media, all of which serve to naturalize capitalist
relations.

Ideology operates by presenting capitalism as rational, fair, and eternal. It

promotes individualism, meritocracy, and private property as universal values,
thereby obscuring the exploitative foundation of wage labor. The ruling ideas in
any society, Marx and Engels noted, are "the ideas of the ruling class." In this way,
false consciousness is created, preventing the working class from recognizing its
real interests and resisting domination.

9
5. The Contradictions of Capitalism

Marx posited that capitalism is not a stable or harmonious system, but one
rife with contradictions that inevitably lead to crises. These contradictions are
structural and systemic, arising from the internal logic of capitalist production.

Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall: As capitalist enterprises invest more

in machinery and technology to increase productivity, the proportion of investment
in human labor—the sole source of surplus value—diminishes. Over time, this
causes the average rate of profit to decline, creating economic stagnation and
crisis. Though technological advancement increases output, it paradoxically
undermines the profit system that drives capitalism.

Overproduction and Underconsumption: Capitalism tends to produce

commodities in excess of what the market can absorb. Since workers are paid less
than the value of what they produce, they cannot afford to buy back all the goods
they help create. This leads to gluts in the market, falling prices, and economic
downturns—a contradiction between the drive for profit and the limits of consumer
purchasing power.

Concentration and Centralization of Capital: Competition among capitalists

leads to monopolies and oligopolies, as smaller firms are absorbed or destroyed by
larger ones. This intensifies inequality, with wealth and power increasingly
concentrated in the hands of a few corporations and individuals, while the majority
face economic insecurity.

Crisis as a Feature, Not a Bug: Unlike classical economists who viewed crises as
external shocks, Marx saw them as endogenous features of capitalism. The
system’s own drive for accumulation and expansion inevitably leads to periodic
breakdowns—manifesting as recessions, depressions, or financial crashes—
followed by temporary recoveries.

These contradictions, according to Marx, make capitalism inherently

unsustainable in the long run, planting the seeds of its own demise.

10
6. Class Struggle and the Revolutionary Potential

For Marx, the struggle between classes—primarily between the bourgeoisie

and the proletariat—is the driving force of historical change. The capitalist system,
by its very design, pits the interests of these two classes against one another. While
the bourgeoisie seeks to maximize profit, the proletariat seeks better wages,
working conditions, and dignity.

Over time, Marx believed, this antagonism would sharpen:

 Workers would become increasingly aware of their shared exploitation—

developing what Marx termed class consciousness.

 Once united, the working class would organize politically and economically
to challenge the capitalist system.

This would lead to a revolution, overthrowing the capitalist state and replacing
it with a proletarian dictatorship—a transitional phase where the working class
holds power and begins to dismantle capitalist institutions.

Eventually, this transition would give rise to communism—a classless, stateless

society where production is organized for human need rather than private profit.

Marx did not prescribe a detailed blueprint for this future society, but he
envisioned it as one grounded in collective ownership, democratic control, and the
abolition of exploitation.

7. Contemporary Relevance of the Marxist Critique

While developed in the 19th century, Marx’s critique has proven remarkably
resilient and relevant in the 21st century. Several dynamics of modern capitalism
appear to echo Marx’s analysis:

Global inequality has reached unprecedented levels. According to Oxfam

and other research bodies, a tiny percentage of people now own more wealth than
the rest of humanity combined.

Precarious labor conditions, especially under the rise of gig economies (e.g.,
Uber, DoorDash), reflect a shift toward more unstable, low-benefit employment.

11
This aligns with Marx’s view of the "reserve army of labor," used to discipline
wages and keep workers insecure.

Economic crises, such as the 2008 global financial crash or the COVID-19
recession, illustrate how speculative investment, overproduction, and debt can
destabilize entire economies.

Environmental degradation and climate change can also be seen through a

Marxist lens—as consequences of a system that values profit above ecological
sustainability.

Moreover, Marxist theory has been adapted and expanded by thinkers like
Antonio Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg, and more recently, David Harvey and Nancy
Fraser, who have applied Marx’s ideas to issues like culture, gender, imperialism,
and ecological collapse.

However, the critique is not without its limitations. Many argue that Marx
underestimated capitalism’s adaptability—its capacity to reform through welfare
policies, regulatory frameworks, and technological innovation. Additionally, the
historical failures of 20th-century communism (e.g., the USSR) have complicated
efforts to build Marxist alternatives.

8. Conclusion

The Marxist critique of capitalism remains a powerful framework for

analyzing the systemic nature of exploitation, inequality, and crisis in modern
economies. Far from being a relic of the past, it offers tools for understanding
contemporary global dynamics, from the concentration of wealth to the
commodification of labor and nature.

While the revolutionary outcomes Marx predicted have not materialized as

he envisioned, the core insight—that capitalism is inherently contradictory and that
these contradictions generate both suffering and the potential for change—remains
as urgent as ever. Whether as a call to action or as a lens of critique, Marxism
continues to challenge us to imagine economic and social alternatives beyond the
confines of market logic and private ownership.

12
REFERENCE

1. Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. I. Penguin

Classics, 1990.

2. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. International

Publishers, 1948.

3. Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press,

2005.

4. Eagleton, Terry. Why Marx Was Right. Yale University Press, 2011.

5. Wright, Erik Olin. Envisioning Real Utopias. Verso, 2010.

13