Marxism is a worldview and method of societal analysis that focuses

on class relations and societal conflict, that uses amaterialist interpretation

of historical development, and a dialectical view of social transformation.
Marxist methodology uses economic and sociopolitical inquiry and applies
that to the critique and analysis of the development of capitalismand the
role of class struggle in systemic economic change.
In the mid-to-late 19th century, the intellectual tenets of Marxism were
inspired by two German philosophers: Karl Marxand Friedrich Engels.
Marxist analyses and methodologies have influenced multiple political
ideologies and social movements. Marxism encompasses an economic
theory, a sociological theory, a philosophical method, and
arevolutionary view of social change.[1]
There is no single definitive Marxist theory; Marxist analysis has been
applied to diverse subjects and has been misconceived and modified
during the course of its development, resulting in numerous and sometimes
contradictory theories that fall under the rubric of Marxism or Marxian
analysis.[2]
Marxism builds on a materialist understanding of societal development,
taking as its starting point the necessary economic activities required by
human society to provide for its material needs. The form of economic
organization ormode of production is understood to be the basis from which
the majority of other social phenomena including social relations, political
and legal systems, morality and ideology arise (or at the least by which
they are directly influenced). These social relations form the superstructure,
for which the economic system forms the base. As theforces of
production (most notably technology) improve, existing forms of social
organization become inefficient and stifle further progress. These
inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in the form
of class struggle.[3]
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to
intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized
and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private
ownership and private appropriation of the surplus product in the form
of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called
thebourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat,
social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating

in a social revolution. The eventual long-term outcome of this revolution

would be the establishment of socialism a socioeconomic system based
on cooperative ownership of the means of production,distribution based on
one's contribution, and production organized directly for use. Karl Marx
hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to
advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of
social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, humane
society erected on common ownership and the principle of "From each
according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Marxism has developed into different branches and schools of thought.
Different schools place a greater emphasis on certain aspects of classical
Marxism while de-emphasizing or rejecting other aspects of Marxism,
sometimes combining Marxist analysis with non-Marxian concepts. Some
variants of Marxism primarily focus on one aspect of Marxism as the
determining force in social development such as the mode of production,
class, power-relationships or property ownership while arguing other
aspects are less important or current research makes them irrelevant.
Despite sharing similar premises, different schools of Marxism might reach
contradictory conclusions from each other.[4] For instance, different Marxian
economists have contradictory explanations of economic crisis and
different predictions for the outcome of such crises. Furthermore, different
variants of Marxism apply Marxist analysis to study different aspects of
society (e.g. mass culture, economic crises, or feminism).[5]
These theoretical differences have led various socialist and communist
parties and political movements to embrace different political strategies for
attaining socialism and advocate different programs and policies from each
other. One example of this is the division between revolutionary socialists
and reformists that emerged in the German Social Democratic Party (SPD)
during the early 20th century.
Marxist understandings of history and of society have been adopted by
academics in the disciplines of archaeology andanthropology,[6] media
studies,[7] political science, theater, history, sociology, art history and art
theory, cultural studies,education, economics, geography, literary
criticism, aesthetics, critical psychology, and philosophy.[8]

Overview

Karl Marx

The Marxian analysis begins with an analysis of material conditions, taking

at its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human
society to provide for its material needs. The form of economic
organization, or mode of production, is understood to be the basis from
which the majority of other social phenomena including social relations,
political and legal systems, morality and ideology arise (or at the least by
which they are directly influenced). These social relations base the
economic system and the economic system forms the superstructure. As
the forces of production, most notably technology, improve, existing forms
of social organization become inefficient and stifle further progress. As Karl
Marx observed: "At a certain stage of development, the material productive
forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production
or_ this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms with the property
relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From
forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their
fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution."[9]
These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society
in the form of class struggle. Under thecapitalist mode of production, this
struggle materializes between the minority (the bourgeoisie) who own
the means of production, and the vast majority of the population
(the proletariat) who produce goods and services. Taking the idea
that social change occurs because of the struggle between
different classes within society who are under contradiction against each
other, leads the Marxist analysis to the conclusion that capitalism exploits
and oppresses the proletariat, which leads to a proletarian revolution.
Capitalism (according to Marxist theory) can no longer sustain the living
standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates
of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military
aggression. Thesocialist system would succeed capitalism as humanity's
mode of production through workers' revolution. According to Marxism,
especially arising from Crisis theory, Socialism is a historical necessity (but
not an inevitability).[10]
In a socialist society private property in the means of production would be
superseded by co-operative ownership. A socialist economy would not

base production on the creation of private profits, but would instead base
production and economic activity on the criteria of satisfying human needs
that is, production would be carried out directly for use. As Engels
observed: "Then the capitalist mode of appropriation in which the product
enslaves first the producer, and then appropriator, is replaced by the mode
of appropriation of the product that is based upon the nature of the modern
means of production; upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, as
means to the maintenance and extension of production_ on the other,
direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and of
enjoyment."'[11]

THEORY OF ALIENATION
Karl Marx's theory of alienation describes the social
alienation (German: Entfremdung, 'estrangement') of people from aspects
of their human nature (Gattungswesen, species-essence) as a
consequence of living in a society stratified into social classes; Marx had
earlier expressed the Entfremdung theory in the Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts of 1844 (1927). Philosophically, the Entfremdung theory relies
upon The Essence of Christianity(1841), by Ludwig Feuerbach, which
argues that the supernatural idea of God has alienated the natural
characteristics of the human being. Moreover, in The Ego and its
Own (1845), Max Stirner extends the Feuerbach analysis by arguing that
even the idea of humanity is an alienating concept for the individual man
and woman to intellectually consider; Marx and Engels responded to these
philosophic propositions in The German Ideology(1845).
Alienation is the systemic result of living in a socially stratified society,
because being a mechanistic part of a social class alienates a person from
his and her humanity. The theoretic basis of alienation within the capitalist
mode of production is that the worker invariably loses the ability to
determine his or her life and destiny, when deprived of the right to think
(conceive) of himself as the director of his actions; to determine the
character of said actions; to define their relationship with other people; and
to own the things and use the value of the goods and services, produced
with their labour. Although the worker is an autonomous, self-realised
human being, as an economic entity, he or she is directed to goals and
diverted to activities that are dictated by the bourgeoisie, who own
the means of production, in order to extract from the worker the maximum

amount of surplus value, in the course of business competition among

industrialists.
Contents
[hide]

1 Type of alienation

2 Philosophic significance

3 See also

4 References

5 Further reading

6 External links

Type of alienation[edit]
In a capitalist society, the workers alienation from his and her humanity
occurs because the worker can only expresslabour a fundamental
social aspect of personal individuality through a privately owned system
of industrial production in which each worker is an instrument, a thing, not a
person; Marx explained alienation thus:
Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each
of us would have, in two ways, affirmed himself, and the other person. (1)
In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific
character, and, therefore, enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of
my life during the activity, but also, when looking at the object, I would have
the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to
the senses, and, hence, a power beyond all doubt. (2) In your enjoyment,
or use, of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being
conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having
objectified mans essential nature, and of having thus created an object
corresponding to the need of another mans essential nature... Our
products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential
nature.[1]

In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (1927), Marx

identified four types of alienation (Entfremdung) that occur to the worker
labouring under a capitalist system of industrial production.[2]
The four types of Entfremdung are
(I) Alienation of the worker from the work from the product of his
labour
The design of the product and how it is produced are determined not by the
producers who make it (the workers), nor by the consumers of the product
(the buyers), but by the Capitalist class, who, besides appropriating the
workers manual labour, also appropriate the intellectual labour of
the engineer and the industrial designerwho create the product, in order to
shape the taste of the consumer to buy the goods and services at a price
that yields a maximal profit. Aside from the workers having no control over
the design-and-production protocol, alienation (Entfremdung) broadly
describes the conversion of labour (work as an activity), which is performed
to generate a use value (the product) into a commodity, which like
products can be assigned an exchange value. That is, the Capitalist
gains control of the manual and intellectual workers, and the benefits of
their labour, with a system of industrial production that converts said labour
into concrete products (goods and services) that benefit the consumer.
Moreover, the capitalist production system also reifies labour into the
concrete concept of work (a job), for which the worker is paid wages
at the lowest possible rate that maintain a maximum rate of return on the
Capitalists investment capital; this is an aspect ofexploitation. Furthermore,
with such a reified system of industrial production, the profit (exchange
value) generated by the sale of the goods and services (products) that
could be paid to the workers, instead is paid to the capitalist classes:
the functional capitalist, who manages the means of production, and
the rentier capitalist, who owns the means of production.
(II) Alienation of the worker from working from the act of producing
In the Capitalist Mode of Production, the generation of products (goods and
services) is accomplished with an endless sequence of discrete, repetitive
motions that offer the worker little psychological satisfaction for a job well
done. By means of commodification, the labour power of the worker is
reduced to wages (an exchange value); the psychological estrangement
(Entfremdung) of the worker results from the unmediated relation between
his productive labour and the wages paid him for the labour. That division

of labour, within the capitalist mode of production, further exploits the

worker by limiting his or her Gattungswesen (species-essence) the
human beings power to determine the purpose to which the product
(goods and services) shall be applied; the human nature (species-essence)
of the worker is fulfilled when he or she controls the subject of labour.
Hence does capitalism remove from the worker the right to exercise control
upon the value and the effects of his and her labour, which, in turn, robs the
worker of the ability to either buy (consume) the goods and services, or to
receive the full value from the sale of the product. The alienation of the
worker from the act of producing renders the worker unable to specialize in
a type of productive labour, which is a psychologically satisfying condition;
within an industrial system of production, social alienation reduces the
worker to an instrument, to an object, and thus cannot productively apply
every aspect of his or her human nature.
(III) Alienation of the worker from himself, as a producer from
his Gattungswesen (species-essence)
The Gattungswesen (species-essence), the nature of a person is not
detached from their activity as a worker; as such, species-essence also
comprises all of their innate human potential as a person. Conceptually, in
the term species-essence, the word species describes the uniquely
human traits that are characterized by a plurality of interests and
psychological dynamism, whereby every person has the desire and the
tendency to engage in the varied activities that are practically and
emotionally benevolent, by means of social connections with other people.
The cognitive value of a person consists in being able to conceive of the
ends of his actions as purposeful ideas, which are distinct from the actions
required to realize a given idea. That is, man is able to objectify his
intentions, by means of an idea of himself, as the subject, and an idea of
the thing that he produces, the object. Conversely, unlike a human being,
an animal does not objectify itself, as the subject, nor its products as
ideas, the object, because an animal engages in directly self-sustaining
actions that have neither a future intention, nor a consciousintention. While
a persons Gattungswesen, their nature, does not exist independent of
specific, historically conditioned activities, the essential nature of a human
being is actualized when a person within their given historical
circumstance is free to subordinate his will to the external demands he

has imposed upon himself, by his imagination, and not the external
demands imposed upon him by other people.
Relations of production
Whatever the character of a persons consciousness (will and imagination),
the workers existence in society is conditioned by his or her relationships
with the people and things that facilitate survival, which is fundamentally
dependent upon co-operation with others, thus, a persons consciousness
is determined inter-subjectively (collectively), not subjectively (individually),
because Man is a social animal. In the course of history, to ensure human
survival, societies have organised themselves into groups who have
different, basic relationships to the means of production. One societal
group (class) owned and controlled the means of production, while another
societal class worked the means of production; in the relations of
production of that status quo, the goal of the owner-class was to
economically benefit as much as possible from the labour of the working
class. Moreover, in the course of economic development, when a new type
of economy displaced an old type of economy
agrarian feudalism superseded by mercantilism, in turn superseded by
the Industrial revolution the rearranged economic order of the social
classes favoured the social class who controlled the technologies (the
means of production) that made possible the change in the relations of
production. Likewise, there occurred a corresponding rearrangement of the
human nature (Gattungswesen) and the system of values of the ownerclass and of the working-class, which allowed each group of people to
accept and to function in the rearranged status quo of production-relations.
Exploitation and revolution
Despite the ideologic promise of industrialisation that the mechanisation
of industrial production would raise the mass of the workers, from a brutish
life of subsistence existence, to the self-respect of honourable work the
division of labour inherent to the capitalist mode of production, thwarted the
human nature (Gattungswesen) of the worker, and so rendered each man
and woman into a mechanistic part of an industrialised system of
production, from being a person capable of defining his and her value
through direct, purposeful activity. Moreover, the near-total mechanisation
and automation of the industrial production system would allow the (newly)
dominant bourgeois capitalist social class to exploit the working class to the
degree that the value obtained from their labour would diminish the ability

of the workers to materially survive. Hence, when the proletarian workingclass become a sufficiently developed political force, they will effect a
revolution and re-orient the relations of production to the means of
production from a capitalist mode of production to a communist mode of
production. In the resultant Communist society, the fundamental relation of
the workers to the means of production would be equal and non-conflictual,
because there would be no artificial (class) distinctions about the value of a
workers labour; the workers humanity (species-essence) thus respected,
men and women would not become alienated, from themselves and their
society.
Communism
In the Communist socio-economic organisation, the relations of production
would operate the mode of production and employ each worker according
to his abilities, and benefit each worker according to his needs. Hence,
each worker could direct his and her labour to productive work suitable to
his and her innate abilities rather than be forced into a narrowly
defined, minimal-wage job meant to extract maximal profit from the labour
of the individual worker, as determined by and dictated under the capitalist
mode of production. In the classless, collectively managed Communist
society, the exchange of value between the objectified productive labour of
one worker, and the consumption benefit derived from that production, will
not be determined by or directed to the narrow business interests of a
bourgeois capitalist class, but, instead, will be directed to meet the needs of
each producer and consumer, of each member of society. Although
production will be differentiated, by the degree of each workers abilities (by
what work he and she can do) the purpose of the communist system of
industrial production will be determined by the collective requirements of
society, not by the profit-oriented demands of an
individualistic bourgeois social class who live at the expense of the greater
society. Under the collective ownership of the means of production, the
relation of each worker to the mode of production will be identical, and will
have the social character that corresponds to the universal interests of the
communist society. Therefore, the direct distribution of the profits generated
by the labour of each worker to fulfil the interests of the working class,
and so to his and her own interest and benefit will constitute an unalienated state of labour conditions, which restores to the worker the fullest
exercise and determination of his and her human nature.

(IV) Alienation of the worker from other workers

Capitalism reduces the labour of the worker to a
commercial commodity that can be traded in the competitive labour-market,
rather than as a constructive socio-economic activity that is part of the
collective common effort performed for personal survival and the
betterment of society. In a capitalist economy, the businessmen who own
the means of production establish a competitive labour-market meant to
extract from the worker as much labour (value) as possible, in the form
of capital. The capitalist economys arrangement of the relations of
production provokes social conflict by pitting worker against worker, in a
competition for higher wages, thereby alienating them from their mutual
economic interests; the effect is a false consciousness, which is a form of
ideologic control exercised by the capitalist bourgeoisie. (See: Cultural
hegemony.) Furthermore, in the capitalist mode of production, the
philosophic collusion of religion in justifying the relations of production
facilitates the realisation, and then worsens, the alienation (Entfremdung) of
the worker from his and her humanity; it is a socio-economic role
independent of religion being the opiate of the masses

Mode of production
In the writings of Karl Marx and the Marxist theory of historical materialism,
a mode of production (in German:Produktionsweise, meaning 'the way of
producing') is a specific combination of:

productive forces: these include human labour power and means of

production (e.g. tools, equipment, buildings and technologies &
knowledge, materials, and improved land).

social and technical relations of production: these include the

property, power, and control relations governing society's productive
assets (often codified in law), cooperative work relations and forms of
association, relations between people and the objects of their work, and
the relations between social classes.

Marx regarded productive ability and participation in social relations as two

essential characteristics of human beings and that the particular modality of
these relations in capitalist production are inherently in conflict with the
increasing development of human productive capacities. [1]
A precursor to this concept was Adam Smith's concept of mode of
subsistence, which delineated a progression of society types based on the
way in which society's members provided for their basic needs. [2]
Contents
[hide]

1 Significance of concept
1.1 The process of socioeconomic change

2 Main modes of production in history

o

2.1 Primitive communism

2.2 Asiatic mode of production

2.3 Antique or Ancient mode of production

2.4 Feudalism

2.5 Capitalism

2.5.1 Early Capitalism

2.5.2 Late Capitalism

2.6 Socialism

2.6.1 Socialism (Lower-stage communism)

2.6.2 Communism (Upper-stage communism)

3 Articulation of modes of production

4 See also

5 Notes

6 References

Significance of concept[edit]
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please
help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October
2010)

According to Marx, the combination of forces and relations of production

means that the way people relate to the physical world and the way people
relate to each other socially are bound up together in specific and
necessary ways. People must consume to survive, but to consume they
must produce, and in producing they necessarily enter into relations which
exist independently of their will.
For Marx, the whole 'secret' of why/how a social order exists and the
causes of social change must be discovered in the specific mode of
production that a society has. He further argued that the mode of
production substantively shaped the nature of the mode of distribution, the
mode of circulation and the mode of consumption, all of
which together constitute the economic sphere. To understand the way
wealth was distributed and consumed, it was necessary to understand the
conditions under which it was produced.
A mode of production is historically distinctive for Marx, because it
constitutes part of an 'organic totality' (or self-reproducing whole) which is
capable of constantly re-creating its own initial conditions, and thus
perpetuate itself in a more or less stable ways for centuries, or even
millennia. By performing social surplus labour in a specific system of
property relations, the labouring classes constantly reproduce the
foundations of the social order. Normally a mode of production shapes the

mode of distribution, circulation and consumption, and is regulated by

the state.
New productive forces will cause conflict in the current mode of production.
When conflict arises the modes of production can evolve within the current
structure or cause a complete breakdown.

The process of socioeconomic change[edit]

The process by which social and economic systems evolve is based on the
premise of improving technology. Specifically, as the level of technology
improves, existing forms of social relations become increasingly insufficient
for fully exploiting technology. This generates internal inefficiencies within
the broader socioeconomic system, most notably in the form of class
conflict. The obsolete social arrangements prevent further social progress
while generating increasingly severe contradictions between the level of
technology (forces of production) and social structure (social relations,
conventions and organization of production) which develop to a point where
the system can no longer sustain itself, and is overthrown through internal
social revolution that allows for the emergence of new forms of social
relations that are compatible with the current level of technology
(productive forces).[3]
The fundamental driving force behind structural changes in the
socioeconomic organization of civilization are underlying material concerns
- specifically, the level of technology and extent of human knowledge and
the forms of social organization they make possible. This comprises what
Marx termed the materialist conception of history (see also: materialism),
and is in contrast to an idealist analysis, which states that the fundamental
driving force behind socioeconomic change are the ideas of enlightened
individuals.

Main modes of production in history[edit]

In a broad outline, Marxist theory recognizes several distinctive modes of
production characteristic of different epochs in human history:

Primitive communism[edit]
Human society is seen as organized in traditional tribe structures, typified
by shared values and consumption of the entire social product. As no
permanent surplus product is produced, there is also no possibility of
a ruling class coming into existence. As this mode of production lacks
differentiation into classes, it is said to be classless. Palaeolithic and
Neolithic tools, pre- and early-agricultural production, and rigorous
ritualized social control have often been said to be the typifying productive
forces of this mode of production. However, the foraging mode of
production still exists, and often typified in contemporary huntergatherer societies. Past theories of the foraging mode of production have
focused on lack of control over food production. [4] More recent scholarship
has argued that hunter-gatherers use the foraging mode of production to
maintain a specific set of social relations that, perhaps controversially, are
said to emphasize egalitarianism and the collective appropriation of
resources.[5]

Asiatic mode of production[edit]

This is a controversial contribution to Marxist theory, initially used to explain
pre-slave and pre-feudal large earthwork constructions in China, India, the
Euphrates and Nile river valleys (and named on this basis of the primary
evidence coming from greater "Asia"). The Asiatic mode of production is
said to be the initial form of class society, where a small group extracts
social surplus through violence aimed at settled or unsettled band
communities within a domain. Exploited labour is extracted as
forced corvee labour during a slack period of the year (allowing for
monumental construction such as the pyramids, ziggurats, ancient Indian
communal baths or the Chinese Great Wall). Exploited labour is also
extracted in the form of goods directly seized from the exploited
communities. The primary property form of this mode is the direct religious
possession of communities (villages, bands, hamlets) and all those within
them. The ruling class of this society is generally a semi-theocratic
aristocracy which claims to be the incarnation of gods on earth. The forces
of production associated with this society include basic agricultural

techniques, massive construction and storage of goods for social benefit

(granaries).

Antique or Ancient mode of production[edit]

Similar to the Asiatic mode, but differentiated in that the form of property is
the direct possession of individual human beings. Additionally, the ruling
class usually avoids the more outlandish claims of being the direct
incarnation of a god, and prefers to be the descendants of gods, or seeks
other justifications for its rule. Ancient Greek and Roman societies are the
most typical examples of this mode. The forces of production associated
with this mode include advanced (two field) agriculture, the extensive use
of animals in agriculture, and advanced trade networks.

Feudalism[edit]
The feudal mode of production is usually typified by the systems of the
West between the fall of the classical European culture and the rise of
capitalism, though similar systems existed in most of the world. The
primary form of property is the possession of land in reciprocal contract
relations: the possession of human beings as peasants or serfs is
dependent upon their being entailed upon the land. Exploitation occurs
through reciprocated contract (though ultimately resting on the threat of
forced extractions). The ruling class is usually a nobility or aristocracy. The
primary forces of production include highly complex agriculture (two, three
field, lucerne fallowing and manuring) with the addition of non-human and
non-animal power devices (clockwork, wind-mills) and the intensification of
specialisation in the craftscraftsmen exclusively producing one
specialised class of product.

Capitalism[edit]
Main article: Capitalist mode of production
Early Capitalism[edit]
The introduction of the capitalist mode of production spans the period
from Mercantilism to Imperialism and is usually associated with the
emergence of modern industrial society. The primary form of property is the

possession of objects and services through state guaranteed contract. The

primary form of exploitation iswage labour (see Das Kapital, wage
slavery and exploitation). The ruling class is the bourgeoisie, which exploits
the proletariat. Capitalism may produce one class (bourgeoisie) who
possess the means of production for the whole of society and another class
who possess only their own labour power, which they must sell in order to
survive. The key forces of production include the overall system of modern
production with its supporting structures of bureaucracy, and the modern
state, and above all finance capital.
Late Capitalism[edit]
State capitalism and Corporate capitalism (also known as Monopoly
capitalism), is a universal form encompassing all recent actually existing
economic forms based on the nation state and global process of capital
accumulation, whether avowedly capitalist or socialist, which was known
only in its more or less pure capitalist forms in the time of Marx and Engels.
Today this form predominates in the so-called modern mixed
economy based largely on oligarchial multinational corporations with its
highly socialized and globalized system of production. In particular, the
failed centrally-planned economic systems of the defunct communist
bloc nation states are not to be confused with communism as an actually
existing mode of production in spite of, or more to the point as a result of,
their (failed[6]) realization ofcentral planning. Fredrick Engels hypothesized
that state capitalism would emerge as the final form of capitalism before the
contradictions reach a point where capitalism cannot sustain itself and
socialism emerges as its successor.
The hallmark of late capitalism is consumerism and financialization, a
process whereby "making money", literally, becomes the dominant industry
- both of these practices are a means to sustain the flow and accumulation
of capital.[7]

Socialism[edit]
Socialism (Lower-stage communism)[edit]
The socialist mode of production is the post-capitalist economic system that
emerges when the accumulation of capital is no longer sustainable due to

falling rates of profit in (real) production, and social conflict arising from the
contradictions between the level of technology and automation in the
economy with the capitalist form of social organization. A socialist society
would consist of production being carried out, organized in a manner to
directly satisfy human needs, with the working-class cooperatively or
publicly owning the means of production.
Communism (Upper-stage communism)[edit]
The ideal of communism did and does refer to a hypothetical future state of
affairs where the good of all is obtained by scientific management (whence
the name "scientific socialism") to obtain democratically determined social
goals. Karl Marx made a distinction between "lower stage communism" and
"upper-stage communism", with the former usually being called socialism.
Prefiguring forms of communism can be seen in communes and other
collective living experiments. Communism is meant to be
a classless society, with the management of things replacing the
management of people. Particular productive forces are not described, but
are assumed to be more or less within the reach of any contemporary
capitalist society. Despite the imminent potential for communism,
some[8] economic theorists have hypothesized that communism is more
than a thousand years away from full implementation and of course it is the
position of anti-communists and those who have "buried" socialism that it
will never be realized at all, that the capitalist mode is the end to which
historical development drives and halts having reached its "perfect and
eternal" form or that the whole concept of mode of production is a falacy all
together. Engels[9] and Marxist doctrine identify the emergence of
communism as the reciprocal process to the "withering away" of the nationstate and the class system it supports