Marx views society as inherently mutable, in which changes are produced largely by internal contradictions and conflicts. Such changes, if observed in a large number of instances, according to Marx, show a sufficient degree of regularity to allow the formulation of general statements about their causes and consequences. Both these assumptions relate to the nature of human society.

Marx elaborates the significance of the infrastructure of society by tracing the formation of the principle social classes. He develops the idea of social change resulting from internal conflicts in a theory of class struggles. For Marx, social change displays a regular pattern. Marx constructs, in broad terms, a historical sequence of the main types of society, proceeding from the simple, undifferentiated society of ‘primitive communism’ to the complex class society of modern capitalism. He provides an explanation of the great historical transformations, which demolish old forms of society and create new ones in terms of infrastructural changes, which he regards as general and constant in their operation. Each period of contradiction between the forces and the relations of production is seen by Marx as a period of revolution. In revolutionary periods, one class is attached to the old relations of production. These relations hinder the development of the forces of production. Another class, on the other hand, is forward looking. It strives for new relations of production. The new relations of production do not create obstacles in the way of the development of the forces of production. They encourage the maximum growth of those forces. This is the abstract formulation of Marx’s ideas of class struggle.

According to Marx revolutionary change comes as a result of the contradictions in the concretely existing modes of production rather than by supernatural or mystical reasons. The idea of ‘telos’ or fate is pushed aside as well. Natural stage theory, historical cycles and metaphysical causes are rejected in favor of human action and activity in changing the nature of a society. For Marx, each economic system may have ‘tendencies’ which can be seen but they should not be taken to be inevitable.

The dialectical relationship between the forces of production and relations of production also provides a theory of revolution. In Marx’s reading of history, revolutions are not political accidents. They are treated as social expression of the historical movement. Revolutions are necessary manifestations of the historical progress of societies. Revolutions occur when the conditions for them mature. Marx wrote,

‘No social order ever disappears before all he productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and the new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society’.

Let us take an example. Feudal society developed capitalist relations of production. When these relations of production reached a degree of maturity in Europe, came the French Revolution. Marx here spoke of another process of transformation from capitalism to socialism. Now capitalist societies became the arena for development of socialist relations of production. This is how Marx interpreted historical movement of societies.

Let us now discuss ideas of Marx on social change and revolution. In the German Ideology (1845-6), both Marx and Engels outlined their scheme of history. Here, the main idea was that based on a mode of production where there was a succession of historical phases. Change from one phase to the next was viewed by them as a state of revolution brought about by conflicts between old institutions and new productive forces. It was only later on that both Marx and Engels devoted more time and studied English, French and American revolutions. These were designated as bourgeois revolutions. Marx’s, hypothesis of bourgeois revolution has given us a perspective to look at social changes in Europe and America. But more than this, it has stimulated research by scholars on this subject. Secondly, Marx spoke of another kind of revolution. It pertained to communism. Marx viewed communism as a sequel to capitalism. Communism, according to Marx, would wipe out all class divisions and therefore would allow for a fresh start with moral and social transformation. This was the vision both Marx and Engels carried in their minds for future society.

Marx’s concept of socialist revolution presupposes an era of shift from capitalism to socialism. He explained bourgeois revolution as a defeat of the aristocracy. This defeat came at the end of a long period of growth of capitalism. The overthrow of the bourgeoisie is, on the other hand, only the first phase of the revolutionary change from capitalism to socialism. According to Marx the socialistic phase of revolution would not be without classes, occupational division of labour and market economy, etc. It is only in the higher phase of revolution there would be distribution of goods to each according to his needs. This would be the phase of communism. Thus, change to communism was perceived by Marx as a series of steps to completely revolutionize the entire mode of production.

In fact, Marx conceived of intensification of class antagonism in capitalism, because the new forces of production do not correspond to the relations of production. There will be increasing gap between the levels of distribution of gains between the two classes. This shall leave the have-nots extremely alienated and conscious of their class interests. The new forces of production in capitalism are capable of mass production and will dump heaps of prosperity at the feet of bourgeoisie without helping the lot of proletariat, who would continue to suffer from misery and poverty. This shall accentuate the class-consciousness and hasten the maturation of the conditions for socialist revolution. The socialist revolution according to Marx would be qualitatively different from all the revolutions of the past as it would for the first time, after the beginning of history of inequality and exploitation, usher in a stage of classless society with a hope for all members of society.

Critical analysis

Marx believed that the only way to bring about a change was through revolution. But he forgets that there are peaceful methods also for bringing about changes. Gandhiji brought change in Indian political and social life without any revolution in the Marxian sense of the term only by non-violent means and methods. In the words of Ebensten “ If Marx had accorded the political factor its due weight, if he had fully grasped the importance of the Reform Act in England and of the Jacksonian revolution in the United States, he might have realized that socialism, too, might be accomplished without violence in countries that possessed democratic traditions strong enough to absorb far reaching social and economic changes without resorting to civil war. A recognition of the cultural and political factors in the equation of social change would have amounted, however, to a virtual abandonment of the central position of Marx; that history is the history of class wars and that ruling classes defend their position to the bitter end.”

Marx has based his theory of social change on economic order, but he has forgotten that it is complicated process and not as simple as it would appear to be. Only one factor cannot explain the whole social change. Religious and cultural activities play a leading role in bringing a social change. Then it is also said that this theory is defective because it does not say anything about factors that bring about changes in social forces.

Then another point of criticism against Marx is that he started with the presumption that a particular type of means of production give birth to a type of economic situation, which is not always correct.