To what extent does Karl Marx’s “German Ideology” reflect earlier approaches to the writing of history? How does it differ?

Introduction

The German ideology and Michelet’s approach to history are similar and yet different. Same in the sense that history is based on the people and concentrates on the transition of power. They are different in the sense that the change in control brings different effects to ordinary people.

The German Ideology

The German ideology states that humans can be differentiated from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence. It argues that the natural state of the individual is dependent on the material conditions which determine their production.  It identifies the ruling class as the intellectual force that rules the society regulating the production and distribution of ideas. How different nations relate amongst themselves is dependent on how much each country has developed its productive forces, internal intercourse, and labor division. It defines history as the succession of separate generations, each of which has a plan of exploiting the capital fund, materials, and productive forces handed to it by previous generations. The same activities of the previous generation continue in changed circumstances. They achieve this with the modification of old events with a new and altered activity (Dilaney and Schwartz 2000).

The German ideology emphasizes three types of ownership evident through history. These are; tribal ownership, ancient communal or state ownership, and feudal or estate property (Dilaney and Schwartz 2000).

• Tribal ownership- it is characterized by an undeveloped stage of production, people engage in activities such as fishing, hunting, and agriculture. Division of labor exists in the family with a limited social structure of chieftains, members of the family, and lastly, slaves.
• Ancient communal/ state ownership- This type of ownership comes from the union of several tribes, either through agreement or conquest. There was slavery, but citizens have authority over slaves only in their communities. Communal ownership is, therefore, the structure of society. The class relation between slaves and citizens became developed, and so did the labor division.
• Feudal/ estate property ownership- this type of ownership was developed under the Germanic military constitution and extended over a more extensive territory than previous types of ownership. It used the community as its basis, just like tribal and communal ownership, but instead of slaves as the directly producing class, there is the enserfed small peasantry. Through the hierarchical structure, the nobility gained power over the ordinary people leaving the people no options but to migrate to the towns so that they could survive by earning a living. There existed a differentiation in princes, nobility, clergy, apprentices, journeymen peasants, and masters, and later on, there were casual laborers in the towns.

As earlier stated, according to the German ideology, the ruling individuals dominate over other individuals claiming to do this for the general good. Their will becomes the law; the state always needs money and therefore depends on the bourgeoisie. The country has to beg money from such individuals (bourgeoisie) so that it can appear to be independent. Thus the state is compelled to do their bidding, and in this way, the state takes the form of a dominant will (Dilaney and Schwartz 2000).

The ideology also states that even if a new ruling class replaces the existing ruling class, the new ruling class will start representing its interests as the common interest of all. The class making the revolution appears to be representing the interests of society. When the revolution becomes successful, they immediately become the ruling class and will start representing their interests, just like the previous ruling class. It, therefore, becomes a cycle with the ruling class always dominating the ordinary people. The ideology suggests that the rule of a particular category will come to an end when class rule ceases to be the form that organizes a society (Dilaney and Schwartz 2000).

Michelet’s Approach to the Writing of History

Michelet, in his writings in history, shifted the emphasis of history from the leaders and institutions to the ordinary people. Before Michelet’s writings, French history composed of the chronicles of royal dynasties, great men, treaties, and armies. Histoire de France (by Michelet) had the characteristic of an oral narrative later; efforts were made to support the narrative with evidence (Gossman n.d.).

Michelet compares the change from the aristocratic rule in France to the Christian coming of Christ. He sees the power of revolt as the son who frees himself from his mother to become her guide, master, educator, father, or husband but not her violator or tyrant. Just as the coming of Christ marks the end of the sinful, corruptible flesh, the revolution would bring about law and justice and not violence or oppression. He sees the change from an aristocratic system to a government system as the death of a previous order and the birth of a new system (Gossman n.d.).

How German ideology reflects Michelet’s approach

• They both put historical emphasis on the people
• They both acknowledge dynamism in the transition of power from one ruling class to the next.
• Each power transition due to a revolting class opposing the ruling class
• Each power transition gives the ordinary people the hope of a better future.

How German ideology differs from Michelet’s approach

• German ideology state that the ruling class will always oppress the non-ruling class by pushing its interests as the general interest while in Michelet’s approach, the new ruling class promotes law and order and completely detaches itself from the oppressive methods of the previous ruling class
• Michelet’s writings take the form of an oral narrative, while the German ideology uses clear and precise language.

Conclusion

Both the German ideology and Michelet’s writings predict the actions of a new ruling class. The German ideology opposes the class rule seeing it as oppression. while Michelet sees it as redemption and the beginning of law and justice.

Bibliography

Dilaney, T., and B. Schwartz. 2000. “A Critique of the German Ideology.” Marxsist.org (Progress Publishers). http://www.marxist.org/archive/marx/works/1845-gi/index.htm (1 of 2) [23/08/2000 16:33:47].

Gossman, L. n.d. Jules Michelet: National History, Biography, Autobiography. Open book publishers. https://www.openbookpublishers.com/shopimages/resourses/4-Gossman_Michellet_National%20History-Biography-Autobiography.pdf.