In sociological terms, society refers to a group of people who live in a

definable community and share the same cultural components. On a

broader scale, society consists of the people and institutions around
us, our shared beliefs, and our cultural ideas. Typically, many
societies also share a political authority.
In sociological terms, society refers to a group of people who live in a
definable community and share the same cultural components. On a broader
scale, society consists of the people and institutions around us, our shared
beliefs, and our cultural ideas. Typically, many societies also share a
political authority.

A society is a group of people participating in continuous social connection, or a broad

social group occupying the same social or spatial territory, normally exposed to the
same political power and cultural standards that are dominant.
Society is a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions,
institutions, and collective activities and interests.

There are three main types of society: early, developing, and advanced societies. Early
societies included hunter-gatherer and pastoral societies. Developing societies are horticultural
and agricultural societies. Advanced societies are industrial and post-industrial.

HISTORICAL FORMATION OF SOCIETY

Historical materialism is Karl Marx's theory of history. Marx locates historical change in the rise of
class societies and the way humans labor together to make their livelihoods.[1] For Marx and his
lifetime collaborator, Friedrich Engels, the ultimate cause and moving power of historical events are
to be found in the economic development of society and the social and political upheavals wrought
by changes to the mode of production.[2] Historical materialism provides a challenge to the view that
historical processes have come to a close and that capitalism is the end of history.[3] Although Marx
never brought together a formal or comprehensive description of historical materialism in one
published work, his key ideas are woven into a variety of works from the 1840s onward. [4] Since
Marx's time, the theory has been modified and expanded. It now has many Marxist and non-Marxist
variants.

Enlightenment views of history[edit]

Marx's view of history is shaped by his engagement with the intellectual and philosophical movement
known as the Age of Enlightenment and the profound scientific, political, economic and social
transformations that took place in Britain and other parts of Europe in the 16th, 17th and 18th
centuries.[5][6][7]

The 'spirit of liberty'[edit]

Enlightenment thinkers responded to the worldly transformations by promoting individual liberty and
attacking religious dogmas and the divine right of kings.[8] A swathe of thinkers
including Hobbes (1588–1679), Montesquieu (1689–1755), Voltaire (1694–1778), Smith (1723–
1790), Turgot (1727–1781) and Condorcet (1743–1794) detached from the ecclesiastical
interpretation of the world and offered new scientific studies of human nature, history, economics
and society. Some philosophers, for example, Vico (1668–1744), Herder (1744–1803)
and Hegel (1770–1831), sought to discover an organizing theme, meaning, or direction in human
history.[9] For many Enlightenment philosophers, the power of ideas became the mainspring for
understanding historical change and the rise and fall of civilizations. History was the gradual
advance of the 'spirit of liberty' or the growth of nationalism or democracy, rationality and law. [10] This
view of history remains popular to this day.[11][12][13][14]

'Great man' history[edit]

Marx rejected the enlightenment view that ideas alone were the driving force in society or that the
underlying cause for the rise and fall of kingdoms, empires and states, was due to the actions of
people at the top of society: kings, queens, emperors, generals, or religious leaders. The 'great man'
and occasionally 'great woman' view of historical change was popularized by the 19th century
Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881) who wrote 'the history of the world is nothing but
the biography of great men'.[15] According to Marx, this conception of history amounted to nothing
more than a collection of 'high-sounding dramas of princes and states'. [16]

Materialist conception of history[edit]

Inspired by Enlightenment thinkers, especially Condorcet, the Utopian socialist Henri de Saint-
Simon (1760–1825) formulated his own materialist interpretation of history, similar to those later
used in Marxism, analyzing historical epochs based on their level of technology and organization
and dividing them between eras of slavery, serfdom, and finally wage labor. [17][18] According to the
socialist leader Jean Jaurès, the French writer Antoine Barnave was the first to develop the theory
that economic forces were the driving factors in history.[19]

Hegel's contribution to Marx's theory of history[edit]

While studying at the University of Berlin, Marx encountered the philosophy of Hegel (1770–1831)
which had a profound and lasting influence on his thinking. One of Hegel's key critiques of
enlightenment philosophy was that while thinkers were often able to describe what made societies
from one epoch to the next different, they struggled to account for why they changed. [20]

Hegel and historicism[edit]

Classical economists presented a model of civil society based on a universal and unchanging
human nature.[21] Hegel challenged this view and argued that human nature as well as the
formulations of art, science and the institutions of the state and its codes, laws and norms were all
defined by their history and could only be understood by examining their historical development. [22]
[23]
Hegel historicised philosophical thought and saw it as an expression of a specific culture rather
than an eternal truth. Thus: 'Philosophy is its own age comprehended in thought'. [24]

World spirit[edit]
In each society, humans were 'free by nature' but constrained by their 'brutal recklessness of
passion' and 'untamed natural impulses' which led to injustice and violence. [25] It was only through
wider society and the state, which was expressed in each historical epoch, by a 'spirit of the age',
collective consciousness or Geist, that 'Freedom' could be realized.[26] For Hegel, history was the
working through of a process where humans become ever more conscious of the rational principles
that govern social development.

Dialectics of change[edit]
Main article: Hegelian Dialectic
Hegel's dialectical method presents the world as a complex totality. This means that all parts of
society, for example, science, art, law, labor and the economy, the state and the family etc., are all
interconnected and mutually influential and therefore cannot be properly understood or analysed in
isolation.[27] Institutions and bodies are never static – they undergo a constant process of modification
and development over time. According to Hegel, at any particular point in time, society is an
amalgam of contesting forces – some promoting stability and others striving for change. It is not just
external factors that bring about transformation but internal contradictions. The unceasing drive of
this dynamic is played out by real people struggling to achieve their aims. The outcome is that ideas,
institutions and bodies of society are reconfigured into new forms expressing new characteristics. At
certain decisive moments in history, during periods of great conflict, the actions of 'great historical
men' can align with the 'spirit of the age' to bring about a fundamental advance in freedom. [28]

Algebra of revolution[edit]

A caricature drawn by Engels of Max Stirner, whose 1844 work The Unique and its Property prompted Marx
and Engels to theorize a scientific approach to the study of history which they first laid out in The German
Ideology (1845) along with a lengthy rebuttal of Stirner

The implication of Hegel's philosophy was incendiary – every social order, no matter how powerful
and secure will eventually wither away. These ideas were inspirational to Marx and the Young
Hegelians who sought to develop a radical critique of the Prussian authorities and lambasted the
failure to introduce constitutional change or reform social institutions. [29] However, Hegel's contention,
in Marx's view, that ideas or the 'spirit of the age' drive history was mistaken. 'Hegel', wrote Marx, 'fell
into the illusion of conceiving the real as the product of thought …' [30] On the contrary, Marx
contended, the engine of history was to be found in a materialist understanding of society - the
productive process and the way humans labored to meet their needs. Marx and Engels first set out
their materialist conception of history in The German Ideology, written in 1845. The book is a lengthy
polemic against Marx and Engels' fellow Young Hegelians and contemporaries Ludwig
Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, and Max Stirner.

Historical materialism[edit]
In the Marxian view, human history is like a river. From any given vantage point, a river looks much the same day after day. But
actually it is constantly flowing and changing, crumbling its banks, widening and deepening its channel. The water seen one day
is never the same as that seen the next. Some of it is constantly being evaporated and drawn up, to return as rain. From year to
year these changes may be scarcely perceptible. But one day, when the banks are thoroughly weakened and the rains long and
heavy, the river floods, bursts its banks, and may take a new course. This represents the dialectical part of Marx's famous theory
of dialectical (or historical) materialism.
— Hubert Kay, Life, 1948[31]

The production of life[edit]

Marx underpins his theory of history by drawing attention to a fundamental reality of human
existence – the necessity to labor to ensure our physical survival. Only once this is guaranteed may
mankind pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.[32] Human labor, therefore, forms the materialist
basis for society and is at the heart of Marx's account of history. Thus, throughout history, in all
societies and in all modes of production, from the earliest paleolithic hunter gatherers, through to
feudal societies and to modern capitalist economies, there is an 'everlasting Nature-imposed
condition of human existence' which compels humans to join together socially to produce their
means of subsistence.[33] The first historical act, Marx writes in the German Ideology, is the
production of means to satisfy our material needs: This is a: 'fundamental condition of all history,
which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain
human life'.[34]

Forces and relations of production[edit]

Marx identified two mutually interdependent structures to describe how humans interacted with
nature, and in the process of producing their subsistence, created ever more complex rules and
institutions to manage their interaction between each other and with the environment. These are
the forces and relations of production.
Forces of production[edit]
The forces of production are everything that humans use to make the things that society needs.
They include human labor and the raw materials, land, tools, instruments and knowledge required
for production. The flint sharpened spears and harpoons developed by early humans in the late
Palaeolithic Age are all forces of production. Over time, the forces of production tend to develop and
expand as new skills, knowledge and technology (for example wooden scratch plows then heavier
iron plows) are put to use to meet human needs.[35] From one generation to the next, technical skills,
evolving traditions of practice and mechanical innovations are reproduced and disseminated. Today,
the productive forces available to humanity are vast and continue to develop and expand.
Relations of production[edit]
Marx then extended this premise by asserting the importance of the fact that, in order to carry out
production and exchange, people have to enter into very definite social relations, or more
specifically, "relations of production". However, production does not get carried out in the abstract, or
by entering into arbitrary or random relations chosen at will, but instead are determined by the
development of the existing forces of production.[36]
The relations of production are determined by the level and character of these productive forces
present at any given time in history. In all societies, human beings collectively work on nature but,
especially in class societies, do not do the same work. In such societies, there is a division of
labor in which people not only carry out different kinds of labor but occupy different social positions
on the basis of those differences. The most important such division is that between manual and
intellectual labor whereby one class produces a given society's wealth while another is able to
monopolize control of the means of production. In this way, both govern that society and live off of
the wealth generated by the laboring classes.[37]

Base and superstructure[edit]

Marx identified society's relations of production (arising on the basis of given productive forces) as
the economic base of society. He also explained that on the foundation of the economic base, there
arise certain political institutions, laws, customs, culture, etc., and ideas, ways of thinking, morality,
etc. These constitute the political/ideological "superstructure" of society. This superstructure not only
has its origin in the economic base, but its features also ultimately correspond to the character and
development of that economic base, i.e. the way people organize society, its relations of production,
and its mode of production.[38] G.A. Cohen argues in Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence that a
society's superstructure stabilizes or entrenches its economic structure, but that the economic base
is primary and the superstructure secondary. That said, it is precisely because the superstructure
strongly affects the base that the base selects that superstructure. As Charles Taylor puts it, "These
two directions of influence are so far from being rivals that they are actually complementary. The
functional explanation requires that the secondary factor tend to have a causal effect on the primary,
for this dispositional fact is the key feature of the explanation." [39] It is because the influences in the
two directions are not symmetrical that it makes sense to speak of primary and secondary factors,
even where one is giving a non-reductionist, "holistic" account of social interaction.
To summarize, history develops in accordance with the following observations:

Scenes from the tomb of Nakht depicting an agricultural division of labour in Ancient Egypt, painted in the 15th
century BC

1. Social progress is driven by progress in the material, productive forces a society has at its
disposal (technology, labour, capital goods and so on).
2. Humans are inevitably involved in productive relations (roughly speaking, economic
relationships or institutions), which constitute our most decisive social relations. These
relations progress with the development of the productive forces. They are largely
determined by the division of labor, which in turn tends to determine social class.
3. Relations of production are both determined by the means and forces of production and set
the conditions of their development. For example, capitalism tends to increase the rate at
which the forces develop and stresses the accumulation of capital.
4. The relations of production define the mode of production, e.g. the capitalist mode of
production is characterized by the polarization of society into capitalists and workers.
5. The superstructure—the cultural and institutional features of a society, its ideological
materials—is ultimately an expression of the mode of production on which the society is
founded.
6. Every type of state is a powerful institution of the ruling class; the state is an instrument
which one class uses to secure its rule and enforce its preferred relations of production and
its exploitation onto society.[citation needed]
7. State power is usually only transferred from one class to another by social and political
upheaval.[citation needed]
8. When a given relation of production no longer supports further progress in the productive
forces, either further progress is strangled, or 'revolution' must occur. [citation needed]
9. The actual historical process is not predetermined but depends on class struggle, especially
the elevation of class consciousness and organization of the working class.[citation needed]

Key implications in the study and understanding of

history[edit]
Many writers note that historical materialism represented a revolution in human thought, and a break
from previous ways of understanding the underlying basis of change within various human societies.
As Marx puts it, "a coherence arises in human history"[40] because each generation inherits the
productive forces developed previously and in turn further develops them before passing them on to
the next generation. Further, this coherence increasingly involves more of humanity the more the
productive forces develop and expand to bind people together in production and exchange.
This understanding counters the notion that human history is simply a series of accidents, either
without any underlying cause or caused by supernatural beings or forces exerting their will on
society. Historical materialism posits that history is made as a result of struggle between different
social classes rooted in the underlying economic base. According to G.A. Cohen, author of Karl
Marx's Theory of History: A Defence, the level of development of society's productive forces (i.e.,
society's technological powers, including tools, machinery, raw materials, and labour power)
determines society's economic structure, in the sense that it selects a structure of economic relations
that tends best to facilitate further technological growth. In historical explanation, the overall primacy
of the productive forces can be understood in terms of two key theses:
(a) The productive forces tend to develop throughout history (the Development Thesis).
(b) The nature of the production relations of a society is explained by the level of development of its
productive forces (the Primacy Thesis proper).[41]

In saying that productive forces have a universal tendency to develop, Cohen's reading of Marx is
not claiming that productive forces always develop or that they never decline. Their development
may be temporarily blocked, but because human beings have a rational interest in developing their
capacities to control their interactions with external nature in order to satisfy their wants, the
historical tendency is strongly toward further development of these capacities.
Broadly, the importance of the study of history lies in the ability of history to explain the
present. John Bellamy Foster asserts that historical materialism is important in explaining history
from a scientific perspective, by following the scientific method, as opposed to belief-system theories
like creationism and intelligent design, which do not base their beliefs on verifiable facts and
hypotheses.[42]

Modes of Production[edit]
The main modes of production that Marx identified include primitive communism, slave
society, feudalism, capitalism and communism. In each of these stages of production, people
interact with nature and production in different ways. Any surplus from that production was
distributed differently. Marx propounded that humanity first began living in primitive
communist societies, then came the ancient societies such as Rome and Greece which were based
on a ruling class of citizens and a class of slaves, then feudalism which was based
on nobles and serfs, and then capitalism which is based on the capitalist class (bourgeoisie) and
the working class (proletariat). In his idea of a future communist society, Marx explains that classes
would no longer exist, and therefore the exploitation of one class of another is abolished.

Ancient cave painting showing the primitive communist mode of production

Primitive communism[edit]
To historical materialists, hunter-gatherer societies, also known as primitive communist societies,
were structured so that economic forces and political forces were one and the same. Societies
generally did not have a state, property, money, nor social classes. Due to their limited means of
production (hunting and gathering) each individual was only able to produce enough to sustain
themselves, thus without any surplus there is nothing to exploit. A slave at this point would only be
an extra mouth to feed. This inherently makes them communist in social relations although primitive
in productive forces.

Ancient mode of production[edit]

Ancient Egyptian art depicting the ancient mode of production

Slave societies, the ancient mode of production, were formed as productive forces advanced,
namely due to agriculture and its ensuing abundance which led to the abandonment of nomadic
society. Slave societies were marked by their use of slavery and minor private property; production
for use was the primary form of production. Slave society is considered by historical materialists to
be the first-class society formed of citizens and slaves. Surplus from agriculture was distributed to
the citizens, which exploited the slaves who worked the fields.[43]

Medieval art depicting the fuedal mode of production

Feudal mode of production[edit]

The feudal mode of production emerged from slave society (e.g. in Europe after the collapse of the
Roman Empire), coinciding with the further advance of productive forces. Feudal society's class
relations were marked by an entrenched nobility and serfdom. Simple commodity production existed
in the form of artisans and merchants. This merchant class would grow in size and eventually form
the bourgeoisie. However, production was still largely for use.

Capitalist mode of production[edit]

The capitalist mode of production materialized when the rising bourgeois class grew large enough to
institute a shift in the productive forces. The bourgeoisie's primary form of production was in the form
of commodities, i.e. they produced with the purpose of exchanging their products. As this commodity
production grew, the old feudal systems came into conflict with the new capitalist ones; feudalism
was then eschewed as capitalism emerged. The bourgeoisie's influence expanded until commodity
production became fully generalized:

Factory workers in the capitalist mode of production

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now
no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its
place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of
labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single
workshop.[44]

With the rise of the bourgeoisie came the concepts of nation-states and nationalism. Marx argued
that capitalism completely separated the economic and political forces. Marx took the state to be a
sign of this separation—it existed to manage the massive conflicts of interest which arose between
the proletariat and bourgeoisie in capitalist society. Marx observed that nations arose at the time of
the appearance of capitalism on the basis of community of economic life, territory, language, certain
features of psychology, and traditions of everyday life and culture. In The Communist
Manifesto Marx and Engels explained that the coming into existence of nation-states was the result
of class struggle, specifically of the capitalist class's attempts to overthrow the institutions of the
former ruling class. Prior to capitalism, nations were not the primary political form. [45] Vladimir
Lenin shared a similar view on nation-states.[46] There were two opposite tendencies in the
development of nations under capitalism. One of them was expressed in the activation of national
life and national movements against the oppressors. The other was expressed in the expansion of
links among nations, the breaking down of barriers between them, the establishment of a unified
economy and of a world market (globalization); the first is a characteristic of lower-stage capitalism
and the second a more advanced form, furthering the unity of the international proletariat.
[47]
Alongside this development was the forced removal of the serfdom from the countryside to the
city, forming a new proletarian class. This caused the countryside to become reliant on large cities.
Subsequently, the new capitalist mode of production also began expanding into other societies that
had not yet developed a capitalist system (e.g. the scramble for Africa). The Communist
Manifesto stated:
National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to
the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in
the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading
civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the
exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism
between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an
end.[48]
Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie and proletariat become the two primary classes. Class
struggle between these two classes was now prevalent. With the emergence of capitalism,
productive forces were now able to flourish, causing the industrial revolution in Europe. Despite this,
however, the productive forces eventually reach a point where they can no longer expand, causing
the same collapse that occurred at the end of feudalism:
Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society
that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is
no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. [...]
The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the
conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these
conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring
disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. [44]

Communist mode of production[edit]

Lower-stage of communism[edit]
The bourgeoisie, as Marx stated in The Communist Manifesto, has "forged the weapons that bring
death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons—the
modern working class—the proletarians."[44] Historical materialists henceforth believe that the
modern proletariat are the new revolutionary class in relation to the bourgeoisie, in the same way
that the bourgeoisie was the revolutionary class in relation to the nobility under feudalism. [49] The
proletariat, then, must seize power as the new revolutionary class in a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of
the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can
be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.[49]

Marx also describes a communist society developed alongside the proletarian dictatorship:
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the
producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products
appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in
contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a
component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account
of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning. What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not
as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist
society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with
the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer
receives back from society—after the deductions have been made—exactly what he gives to it.
What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day
consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual
producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a
certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his
labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of
consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has
given to society in one form, he receives back in another.[50]

This lower-stage of communist society is, according to Marx, analogous to the lower-stage of
capitalist society, i.e. the transition from feudalism to capitalism, in that both societies are "stamped
with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." The emphasis on the idea that
modes of production do not exist in isolation but rather are materialized from the previous existence
is a core idea in historical materialism.
There is considerable debate among communists regarding the nature of this society. Some such
as Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, and other Marxist-Leninists believe that the lower-stage of
communism constitutes its own mode of production, which they call socialist rather than communist.
Marxist-Leninists believe that this society may still maintain the concepts of property, money, and
commodity production.[51] Other communists argue that the lower-stage of communism is just that; a
communist mode of production, without commodities or money, stamped with the birthmarks of
capitalism.[citation needed]
Higher-stage of communism[edit]
To Marx, the higher-stage of communist society is a free association of producers which has
successfully negated all remnants of capitalism, notably the concepts
of states, nationality, sexism, families, alienation, social classes, money, property, commodities,
the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, division of labor, cities and countryside, class
struggle, religion, ideology, and markets. It is the negation of capitalism.[3][52]
Marx made the following comments on the higher-phase of communist society:
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to
the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has
vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive
forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of
co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be
crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs![50]

Warnings against misuse[edit]

See also: Economic determinism
In the 1872 Preface to the French edition of Das Kapital Vol. 1, Marx emphasized that "[t]here is no
royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a
chance of gaining its luminous summits."[53] Reaching a scientific understanding required
conscientious, painstaking research, instead of philosophical speculation and unwarranted,
sweeping generalizations. Having abandoned abstract philosophical speculation in his youth, Marx
himself showed great reluctance during the rest of his life about offering any generalities or universal
truths about human existence or human history.
Marx took care to indicate that he was only proposing a guideline to historical research
(Leitfaden or Auffassung), and was not providing any substantive "theory of history" or "grand
philosophy of history", let alone a "master-key to history". Engels expressed irritation with dilettante
academics who sought to knock up their skimpy historical knowledge as quickly as possible into
some grand theoretical system that would explain "everything" about history. He opined that
historical materialism and the theory of modes of production were being used as an excuse for not
studying history.[54]
The first explicit and systematic summary of the materialist interpretation of history to be published
was Engels's book Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science, written with Marx's approval and
guidance, and often referred to as the Anti-Dühring. One of the polemics was to ridicule the easy
"world schematism" of philosophers, who invented the latest wisdom from behind their writing desks.
Towards the end of his life, in 1877, Marx wrote a letter to the editor of the Russian
paper Otetchestvennye Zapisky, which significantly contained the following disclaimer:
Russia... will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into
proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its
pitiless laws like other profane peoples. That is all. But that is not enough for my critic. He feels
obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an
historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale imposed by fate upon every people, whatever
the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of
economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social
labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and
shaming me too much.)[55]

Marx goes on to illustrate how the same factors can in different historical contexts produce very
different results so that quick and easy generalizations are not really possible. To indicate how
seriously Marx took research when he died, his estate contained several cubic metres of Russian
statistical publications (it was, as the old Marx observed, in Russia that his ideas gained the most
influence).
Insofar as Marx and Engels regarded historical processes as law-governed processes, the possible
future directions of historical development were to a great extent limited and conditioned by what
happened before. Retrospectively, historical processes could be understood to have happened
by necessity in certain ways and not others, and to some extent at least, the most likely variants of
the future could be specified on the basis of careful study of the known facts.
Towards the end of his life, Engels commented several times about the abuse of historical
materialism.
In a letter to Conrad Schmidt dated 5 August 1890, he stated:
And if this man [i.e., Paul Barth] has not yet discovered that while the material mode of existence is
the primum agens [first agent] this does not preclude the ideological spheres from reacting upon it in
their turn, though with a secondary effect, he cannot possibly have understood the subject he is
writing about. [...] The materialist conception of history has a lot of [dangerous friends] nowadays, to
whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the
French "Marxists" of the late 70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist." [...] In general, the word
"materialistic" serves many of the younger writers in Germany as a mere phrase with which anything
and everything is labelled without further study, that is, they stick to this label and then consider the
question disposed of. But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for
construction after the manner of the Hegelian. All history must be studied afresh, and the conditions
of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is
made to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views
corresponding to them. Up to now but little has been done here because only a few people have got
down to it seriously. In this field we can utilize heaps of help, it is immensely big, and anyone who
will work seriously can achieve much and distinguish himself. But instead of this too many of the
younger Germans simply make use of the phrase historical materialism (and everything can be
turned into a phrase) only in order to get their own relatively scanty historical knowledge—for
economic history is still in its swaddling clothes!—constructed into a neat system as quickly as
possible, and they then deem themselves something very tremendous. And after that, a Barth can
come along and attack the thing itself, which in his circle has indeed been degraded to a mere
phrase.[56]

Finally, in a letter to Franz Mehring dated 14 July 1893, Engels stated:

[T]here is only one other point lacking, which, however, Marx and I always failed to stress enough in
our writings and in regard to which we are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and were
bound to lay, the main emphasis, in the first place, on the derivation of political, juridical and other
ideological notions, and of actions arising through the medium of these notions, from basic economic
facts. But in so doing we neglected the formal side—the ways and means by which these notions,
etc., come about—for the sake of the content. This has given our adversaries a welcome opportunity
for misunderstandings, of which Paul Barth is a striking example.[57]
Criticism[edit]
Philosopher of science Karl Popper, in The Poverty of Historicism and Conjectures and Refutations,
critiqued such claims of the explanatory power or valid application of historical materialism by
arguing that it could explain or explain away any fact brought before it, making it unfalsifiable and
thus pseudoscientific. Similar arguments were brought by Leszek Kołakowski in Main Currents of
Marxism.[58]
In his 1940 essay Theses on the Philosophy of History, scholar Walter Benjamin compares historical
materialism to the Turk, an 18th-century device which was promoted as a mechanized automaton
which could defeat skilled chess players but actually concealed a human who controlled the
machine. Benjamin suggested that, despite Marx's claims to scientific objectivity, historical
materialism was actually quasi-religious. Like the Turk, wrote Benjamin, "[t]he puppet called
'historical materialism' is always supposed to win. It can do this with no further ado against any
opponent, so long as it employs the services of theology, which as everyone knows is small and ugly
and must be kept out of sight." Benjamin's friend and colleague Gershom Scholem would argue that
Benjamin's critique of historical materialism was so definitive that, as Mark Lilla would write, "nothing
remains of historical materialism [...] but the term itself".[59]
Neven Sesardic argues that historical materialism is a highly exaggerated claim. Sesardic observes
that it was clear to many Marxists that the social, cultural and ideological superstructure of society
was not under the control of the base but had at least some degree of autonomy. It was also clear
that phenomena of the superstructure could determine part of the economic base. Thus, Sesardic
argues that Marxists moved from a claim of the dominance of the economic base to a scenario in
which the base sometimes determines the superstructure and the superstructure sometimes
determines the base, which Sesardic argues destroys their whole position. This is because this new
claim, according to Sesardic, is so innocuous that no-one would deny it, whereas the old claim was
very radical, as it posited the dominance of economics. Sesardic argues that Marxists should have
abandoned historical materialism when its strong version became untenable, but instead they chose
to water it down until it became a trivial claim.[60]

Continued development[edit]
In a foreword to his essay Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886),
three years after Marx's death, Engels claimed confidently that "the Marxist world outlook has found
representatives far beyond the boundaries of Germany and Europe and in all the literary languages
of the world."[61] Indeed, in the years after Marx and Engels' deaths, "historical materialism" was
identified as a distinct philosophical doctrine and was subsequently elaborated upon and
systematized by Orthodox Marxist and Marxist–Leninist thinkers such as Eduard Bernstein, Karl
Kautsky, Georgi Plekhanov and Nikolai Bukharin. This occurred despite the fact that many of Marx's
earlier works on historical materialism, including The German Ideology, remained unpublished until
the 1930s.
The substantivist ethnographic approach of economic anthropologist and sociologist Karl
Polanyi bears similarities to historical materialism. Polanyi distinguishes between
the formal definition of economics as the logic of rational choice between limited resources and
a substantive definition of economics as the way humans make their living from their natural and
social environment.[62] In The Great Transformation (1944), Polanyi asserts that both the formal and
substantive definitions of economics hold true under capitalism, but that the formal definition falls
short when analyzing the economic behavior of pre-industrial societies, whose behavior was more
often governed by redistribution and reciprocity.[63] While Polanyi was influenced by Marx, he rejected
the primacy of economic determinism in shaping the course of history, arguing that rather than being
a realm unto itself, an economy is embedded within its contemporary social institutions, such as
the state in the case of the market economy.[64]
Perhaps the most notable recent exploration of historical materialism is G. A. Cohen's Karl Marx's
Theory of History: A Defence,[65] which inaugurated the school of Analytical Marxism. Cohen
advances a sophisticated technological-determinist interpretation of Marx "in which history is,
fundamentally, the growth of human productive power, and forms of society rise and fall according
as they enable or impede that growth."[66]
Jürgen Habermas believes historical materialism "needs revision in many respects", especially
because it has ignored the significance of communicative action.[67]
Göran Therborn has argued that the method of historical materialism should be applied to historical
materialism as an intellectual tradition, and to the history of Marxism itself. [68]
In the early 1980s, Paul Hirst and Barry Hindess elaborated a structural Marxist interpretation of
historical materialism.[69]
Regulation theory, especially in the work of Michel Aglietta draws extensively on historical
materialism.[70]
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, much of Marxist thought was seen as
anachronistic. A major effort to "renew" historical materialism comes from historian Ellen Meiksins
Wood, who wrote in 1995 that, "There is something off about the assumption that the collapse of
Communism represents a terminal crisis for Marxism. One might think, among other things, that in a
period of capitalist triumphalism there is more scope than ever for the pursuit of Marxism's principal
project, the critique of capitalism."[71]
[T]he kernel of historical materialism was an insistence on the historicity and specificity of capitalism,
and denial that its laws were the universal laws of history...this focus on the specificity of capitalism,
as a moment with historical origins as well as an end, with a systemic logic specific to it, encourages
a truly historical sense lacking in classical political economy and conventional ideas of progress, and
this had potentially fruitful implications for the historical study of other modes of production too. [71]

Referencing Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, Wood argued for historical materialism to be understood
as "a theoretical foundation for interpreting the world in order to change it."

What are 4 types of settlement?

Rural settlements in India can broadly be put into four types: • Clustered, agglomerated
or nucleated, • Semi-clustered or fragmented, • Hamleted, and • Dispersed or isolated.

What are settlements examples?

An example of a settlement can be a town, city, village, outpost, or metropolis. These
settlements are usually located near natural resources or close together for security

What are the 5 elements of settlement?

Human settlements consist of the five elements nature, man, society, shells and
networks, which form a system conditioning the type and quality of our life.

What is settlement and its types?

There are generally three types of settlements: compact, semi-compact, and dispersed.
Each is based on its population density. Compact settlements have the highest density
of population. They have homes stacked together, often touching at the sides or
stacked in multi-family buildings

When was the formation of settlements?

History. The earliest geographical evidence of a human settlement was Jebel Irhoud,
where early modern human remains of eight individuals date back to the Middle
Paleolithic around 300,000 years ago.

CLASS FORMATION

What are the three main patterns of settlement?

Settlements take on a range of shapes when they form. Dispersed, linear and
nucleated are the most common.

 0

 +Plus

 Shop

 Wider

 iGCSE

o


 AQA Geography




o
 Topics

 Skills

 Teachers




 Media




 Revision

 Quizzes

 Case Studies

 Homework

 Blog

 Contact

 Patterns of settlement
Patterns of settlement
Settlements take on a range of shapes when they form. Dispersed, linear and nucleated
are the most common.
Patterns of settlement

A dispersed pattern is where isolated buildings are spread out across an area, usually
separated by a few hundred metres with no central focus. It is typically an area
containing buildings rather than a single settlement. The population is sparsely
distributed in a dispersed settlement. There are usually no services in a dispersed
settlement.
Dispersed settlements usually occur in:

 remote or mountainous regions

 areas where the land is predominantly used for agriculture
 areas with limited job opportunities
 locations with few, if any, job opportunities

A linear settlement pattern occurs in a line or arc shape. They typically follow a road,
valley or water body. This allows the settlement to utilise transport routes. They can
also occur along valley floors where the sides are very steep.

A nucleated settlement occurs in a circular shape with buildings mainly concentrated

around a common centre such as a road junction, park or service area. Most large
cities are nucleated indicating they are well planned. Nucleation occurs due to:

 flat relief which is easy to build on

 the site has a bridging point
 the site is a good defensive position
 a good water supply
 no restrictions to development in any direction
 good job opportunities
 effective public services
 good transport links
?
PREMIUM RESOURCES
Select a category
Select a category

PLEASE SUPPORT INTERNET GEOGRAPHY

If you've found the resources on this page useful please consider making a secure donation via
PayPal to support the development of the site. The site is self-funded and your support is really
appreciated.
Support Internet Geog on Ko-fi

RELATED TOPICS
Use the images below to explore related GeoTopics.
What is a settlement?
Topic Home
What is the site and situation of a settlement?
iGCSE Units
POPULATION AND SETTLEMENT

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Share this:

 Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)

 Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
 Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
 Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
 Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
 Click to print (Opens in new window)


PLEASE SUPPORT INTERNET GEOGRAPHY

If you've found the resources on this site useful please consider making a secure donation via
PayPal to support the development of the site. The site is self-funded and your support is really
appreciated.

SEARCH INTERNET GEOGRAPHY

?

Support Internet Geog on Ko-fi

TOP POSTS AND PAGES


Geography Case Studies


Home


Kerala flood case study


Haiti Earthquake 2010


The Holderness Coast Case Study


Typhoon Haiyan Case Study


Nepal Earthquake 2015

LATEST BLOG ENTRIES

 AQA GCSE Geography Interactive Revision Resources25 April 2023 - 3:20 pm

 India is close to passing China to become the world’s most populous nation23 April 2023 - 6:39

pm

 Untreated Sewage and Our Rivers and Seas16 April 2023 - 5:08 pm
 Case Studies and Examples with Web Links27 March 2023 - 1:06 pm

 AQA GCSE Geography Pre-release 202324 March 2023 - 10:43 am

 Internet Geography Plus AQA GCSE Geography Pre-Release 2023 Survey19 March 2023 - 6:46

pm

 Coastal Erosion at Hemsby: A Battle Against Nature19 March 2023 - 4:07 pm

© Internet Geography 2022 | By cre8tiveit.solutions




 About
 Topics
 Privacy Policy
 Cancellation Policy
 Internet Geography Plus Terms and Conditions









Definitions of Clan and Tribe

Clan is a group of people who have actual or perceived ancestry.
They are also called sub-groups of tribes. Tribe is a group of people
who share almost the same ancestry and mostly self-sufficient.

Clan vs Tribe

Clan and Tribe both sound similar, but they have some specific differences between them.
The clan is a group of people who have gathered together as a result of kinship or descent
relationships. Members of a clan may not really or specifically know about their ancestral
history, but the main feature is that they are united around a leader. Tribe, on the other
hand , is a group o f people, who are generally self- sufficient and usually is not integrated
with the mainstream culture of a particular nation. Let us look at the terms, clan and tribe,
and the differences between them in more detail here.

What is a Clan?
Clan can be identified as a group of people who have united together due to kinship
relationships. It should be noted that these kinship relations are not always actual but
could be recognized via certain facts too. However,clan members reside together. If the
common ancestry is unknown in a clan, it is their usual custom to keep or have a symbolic
kinship bond, and this is done by sharing a stipulated common ancestor. Another significant
aspect is that this common ancestor may not be a human always. It could be a non-human
representation. These non-human ancestors are known as a “totem” in the particular clan.

Moreover, it is said that most clans are exogamous. The members are not allowed to marry
from the same clan. That could be another reason for not having a common ancestry in a
clan. However, clans are a part of the mainstream nation and more or less similar to tribes.
They are also known as sub-tribal groups.

NATION AND NATIONALITY

A nation is a territory where all the people are led by the same government. The word “nation”
can also refer to a group of people who share a history, traditions, culture and, often, language
—even if the group does not have a country of its own.
When a group of people have some kind of identity with regard to any
of race, language, mannerism, etc. or even a sentimental or emotional
affinity, that group constitutes a nationality. When that group aspires
for or actually attains a political status like independence that
nationality becomes a nation.
There is a subtle point of distinction between nation and nationality. When a group
of people have some kind of identity with regard to any of race, language,
mannerism, etc. or even a sentimental or emotional affinity, that group constitutes a
nationality. When that group aspires for or actually attains a political status like
independence that nationality becomes a nation. The moment a nationality gets a
separate state of its own, it becomes a nation.

social inequality and mobility

There can be many factors which can lead to social inequality like
societal factors, custom, or poverty. Another term that is often related
to social inequality is social mobility. Social mobility is the extent to
which people are able to move between socio-economic strata during
their lifetime and between generations.

THE OROMOO NATION

Historical linguistics and comparative ethnology studies suggest that the Oromo people
probably originated around the lakes Lake Chew Bahir and Lake Chamo. They are a Cushitic
people who have inhabited the East and Northeast Africa since at least the early 1st millennium.

Oromo, the largest ethnolinguistic group of Ethiopia, constituting more than one-third of the
population and speaking a language of the Cushitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic family. Originally
confined to the southeast of the country, the Oromo migrated in waves of invasions in the 16th
century ce

The Oromo people constitute the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, or about 30 million people out
of a total population of 60 million. Their original homeland, Oromia, included most of what is now
Ethiopia and stretched into northern Kenya, where some Oromos still live.

It was the location of the former Oromo and Sidama kingdoms of Gera, Gomma, Garo, Gumma,
Jimma, and Limmu-Ennarea.

There are four main groups: western Oromo, mainly in 'Wollegha', many of whom have been
Christianized by missionary churches; northern Oromo, of Mecha-Tulam, modern Shoa and the
area to the south, who are more integrated into Amhara culture than other Oromo groups, are
mostly Christians of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church .

The Oromo community constitutes the largest ethnic group in the country, with some
estimates suggesting they comprise between 25 and 40 per cent of the population. Though
socially, economically and religiously diverse, Oromo are united by a shared language, also
widely spoken in northern Kenya and parts of Somalia. Despite their large numbers, Oromo
have suffered a long history of exclusion and forced assimilation by the Ethiopian
government, leading to the decline of their pastoralist lifestyle.
Population: 25.4 million (2007 National Census)

Historical context
Historically Oromo have never formed a single state but were organized in small societies of
clans and villages. There are four main groups: western Oromo, mainly in ‘Wollegha’, many
of whom have been Christianized by missionary churches; northern Oromo, of Mecha-
Tulam, modern Shoa and the area to the south, who are more integrated into Amhara
culture than other Oromo groups, are mostly Christians of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church
and speak Amharic; southern Oromo, who often have semi-nomadic lifestyles and are not
incorporated into any larger regional or religious unit; and Borana, believed by some to be
the seminal branch of the Oromo because of their rigid observance of the gada social
system, and who live in an arid area of Ethiopia along the border with Kenya. Eastern
Oromo of Haraghe include the Muslim population of Harar and Dire Dawa, among others.
This group has strong links to the Arab world and its local leaders have a strong Muslim
orientation. The term Oromia, signifying an independent Oromo state, is important to the
Oromo allowing them to consolidate their various regional and related groups into one
Oromo nation.
Oromo have a long history of oppression, land loss, and marginalization by the central
government in Ethiopia, dating back more than a century. In the 1970s, this long discontent
gave birth to the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), initially a student organization that evolved
into an armed resistance and political advocacy group dedicated to the promotion of Oromo
self-determination. The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), the
current ruling party in Ethiopia, was formed in January 1989 and an Oromo journal claims it
set out to gain new recruits from captured Oromo conscripts who had been forced into the
Derg’s army, to create the Oromo People’s Democratic Organization (OPDO). Most of the
Oromo abroad and the intellectual leadership, in contrast, were pro-OLF. The extension of
EPRDF control over Oromo territory during operations by the Ethiopian army in spring 1991
induced a negative response from the OLF, who feared a new colonization of Oromo land.
Following the harassment and intimidation of its supporters ahead of 1992 parliamentary
elections, the OLF took up arms. The rebellion was quickly subdued, but has continued to
smoulder ever since. During the 1998-2000 border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea the
OLF was allied with Asmara.
The OLF has competed with other militant organizations for popular support, including the
Oromo People’s Liberation Front and the Islamic Front for the Liberation of the Oromo,
sometimes generating intra-group violence.
The government has frequently pointed to OLF actions, or its mere existence, as reason
enough to suppress the broader Oromo population. Accusations of terrorism have provided
cover for the government to stifle political dissent. For example, in January 2004,
government forces arrested 349 Oromo students in Addis Ababa during a protest for their
right to stage an Oromo cultural event at the university. The Ethiopian Human Rights
Council reported that the detainees were forced to march over gravel for hours, barefoot or
on their knees. In the run-up to May 2005 parliamentary elections, government repression
was especially harsh in Oromia, one of the opposition strongholds, including torture,
arbitrary detentions, beatings and harassment by security forces.
Since then, the wider crackdown on political activists and journalists in Ethiopia has
particularly affected those accused of supporting the Ogaden National Liberation Front
(ONLF) or the OLF. In March 2011, for example, over 200 members of the Oromo Federal
Democratic Movement (OFDM) and the Oromo People’s Congress (OPC) were arbitrarily
arrested, and at least 89 were charged with various offences. Recent protests against
government repression have similarly been met with violence.

Current issues
An ongoing source of anger is the government’s proposed expansion of the capital city of
Addis Ababa into the politically autonomous Oromia Region, which could lead to the
displacement of thousands of Oromo farmers and remove the annexed territory from Oromo
control. Reminiscent of earlier displacements of Oromo communities by the government, as
well as forced resettlement of other communities into Oromo territory, the plan has
provoked a series of protests by Oromo demonstrators, culminating in a student protest in
December 2015 in which 10 people were killed and several hundred injured.
Oromo student protests over development plans for the capital city, Addis Ababa, have
grown consistently since then. The protestors objected to plans by the government to annex
lands held by Oromo farmers to expand the urban areas of the capital. In January 2016, in
an apparent victory for protestors, the government announced it would cancel the
controversial expansion plans. Despite this concession, the protests have continued and
intensified. Ethiopian Oromo marathoner Feyisa Lilesa gained worldwide media coverage
when he expressed solidarity with the Oromo protesters at the Rio Olympics after winning a
silver medal. The government crackdown has led to ongoing human rights violations against
the protesters and dozens of deaths.