Marxist historiography is a theory developed by Karl Marx that views history through an economic lens. It argues that political and social change is driven by class struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat over control of the means of production. The theory aims to use this analysis to empower the working class and bring about a classless society. While it provided important insights, critics argue it oversimplifies human nature and that perfect utopias are unrealistic.

1. Click to edit
Master subtitle style
CLICK TO EDIT
MASTER TITLE STYLE

4. LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• 1. Understand the theory of Marxist
Historiography
• 2. To know the significance of this theory
• 3. How this theory explains political history and
history as a whole in our society

5. CONTENT
• I. Background of Marxist Historiography
a. Short biography of Karl Marx
b. Definition of Marxist Historiography
• II. Significance of Marxist Historiography
a. Reason to why this concept became a theory
b. Objective of this theory
• III. How this Theory Apply to our Modern Society
a. Relating this Theory in Our Society
b. Criticism of this Theory

6. I. BACKGROUND OF MARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
A.SHORT BIOGRAPHY OF KARL MARX
Karl Marx (May 5, 1818- March 14, 1883) was a
well known 19th century German philosopher,
revolutionary socialist and economist.
• After graduating from Berlin University, he
became increasingly focused on capitalism
and economic theory and in 1867, he
published the first volume of ‘Das Kapital’.
He later joined a movement known as the
Young Hegalians who strongly criticized the
political and cultural establishments of the
day.
• He became a journalist, and the radical
nature of his writings would eventually get
him expelled by the governments of
Germany, France and Belgium. He further
became an intellectual outsider in London. A
man of thought and not action.

7. I. BACKGROUND OF MARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY.
B. DEFINITION OF MARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
Marxist Historiography is a philosophy of history.
• Accounts for the history of the working class, oppressed
nationalities and the methodology of history from the lower
class.
• He centralizes economy and politics in order to yield historical
outcomes.
• In order to understand this theory, he
uses his view of labor to explain it.
• “historical reality is none other than
objectified labor, and all conditions of
labor given by nature, including the
organic bodies of people, are merely
preconditions and ‘disappearing
moments’ of the labor process.”
(Maidansky, pp. 45)

8. B. DEFINITION OF MARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
• This emphasis on the physical as the determining factor in history
was some sort of divine agency. In Marx’s view of religion, “God
became a mere projection of human agency…” furthermore, “a tool
of oppression.” (Breisach, pp. 320 ) Basically, there were no more
sense of divine direction to be seen.
• "The first historical act is...
the production of material
life itself. This is indeed a
historical act, a fundamental
condition of all history.“
(Stern, pp. 150)

9. II. SIGNIFICANCE OF MARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY
A. REASON TO WHY THIS CONCEPT BECAME A THEORY
B. THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS THEORY
• This theory made its first appearance in 1848 Communist
Manifesto. Most important political document of the 19th
century.
• The fundamental importance of the theory is that it aims to
give history a pattern and to have a conclusion of history
as classless human society.
• Its aim is to bring those oppressed by history to self-
consciousness, and to arm them with tactics and
strategies from history: it is both a historical and a
liberal project.

10. III. HOW THIS THEORY APPLY TO OUR MODERN SOCIETY
A. RELATING THIS THEORY IN OUR SOCIETY
• Marxist Theory held that since the dawn of
time, economic conditions and institutions
of private property have been the main
fuel of history. In this case, greed has
driven people to do what they have done).
This have gave rise to the modern concept
of the ‘Conflict Theory.” It advocated for
full political and social equality.
• The Manifesto held capitalism divided
people into 2 main classes:
• 1. Bourgeoisie
• 2. Proletariats

11. 1. Bourguoisi- Owned the industrial machinery and factories. They
were regarded as “the means of production.”
2. Poletariat- Are the wageworkers, who only had their labor to sell
the capitalistic owning class in order to stay alive.
• The Manifesto was intended for the workers (proletariat) to rise
up against those awful conditions and those who oppress them.

12. • As the industrial system grows, so does
competition. Marx predicted that
proletariat will further increase where as
the bourgeoisie will deplete.
• The theory states that eventually the
proletariat will rise up and overthrow the
few bourgeoisie that are left.
• In modern society the ideas which Karl
Marx pointed out are more relevant in the
21st Century.
• Our society is undergoing a World
Capitalist Crisis in which only few have
social and political benefits.

13. III. HOW THIS THEORY APPLY TO OUR MODERN SOCIETY
B. CRITICISM OF THIS THEORY
• 1. He did not truly understand human nature. He predicted that the lower class will
over throw the rich and form a new world that will be egalitarian… a society without
religion, no government and no private property. This is not practical because some
government have tried taking out religion but failed.
• 2. Once you start to be sedentary, things will have value.
• 3. If you want someone to work for you, they will not benefit from it. Thus,
contributing to society will be difficult.
• 4. The theory is theological. But history cannot just end, the main focus is not just
trying to achieve a perfect utopia.

14. CONCLUSION
• The theory of Marxist Historiography accounts mainly on
political and economic history. It is against Democracy and
rather go for Communism.
• Its primary focus is on the working class and how they will go
about to achieve a society where everyone can access
everything for the betterment of their world.
• The good thing about this theory is that it accounts for any
change.
• However, historians must be very careful with historical
interpretations that limit our ability to reason or explain. Marxist
Historiography acts like a tool to enhance what we do in order to
get us closer to our objective.

16. REFERENCES
• Andrey, Maidansky. “The Logic of Marx’s History,” Russian Studies in Philosophy, vol. 51,
no. 2 (Fall 2012): pp. 45.
• Cohen, Gerald. "Material and Social Properties of Society." Karl Marx's Theory of History:
A Defence. London: Oxford UP, 1978. 88-111. Print.
• Croce, Benedetto. "Concerning the Interpretation and Criticism of Some Concepts of
Marxism." Historical Materialism and the Economics of Karl Marx. New York: Russell &
Russell, 1966. 46-57. Print.
• Enotes Primary Source. "Karl Marx EText - Primary Source - ENotes.com." Enotes.com.
Enotes.com, 2013. Web. 28 Nov. 2016. <https://www.enotes.com/topics/karl-marx-
131376>
• Ernst, Breisach. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, 3rd Ed. (Chicago, Il:
University of Chicago Press, 2007), pp. 320.
• Joseph Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism (New York, NY: International
Publishers, 1977), 29.

17. REFERENCES
• Elster, Jon. "Life and Writings." An Introduction to Karl Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
1986. 5-12. Print.
• Fritz Stern. The Varieties of History: From Voltaire to the Present. Vintage Books Edition
(New York, NY: Random House: 1973), pp. 150.
• Marx, Karl. "The Material Based Society." Karl Marx on Society and Social Change: With
Selections by Friedrich Engels. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1973. 3-9. Print.
• Marx Karl, Frederick Engels, and V.I. Lenin, On Historical Materialism (New York, NY:
International Publishers, 1974),
• Marx, Karl. "What Are Wages?" Wage-labour and Capital. New York: International, 1933.
17-26. Print. 120.
• Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (New York, NY: International
Publishers, 1904.