What is Marxism?

What is Permanent Revolution?

What is the Base-Superstructure Model?

What is the Labor Theory of Value?

What is Primitive Accumulation?

What is Capitalism?

What is Cultural Hegemony?

Who are the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie? | Definitions, Examples & Analysis

Central concepts in Marxian theory, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie refer to the working and ruling classes under capitalism, respectively. Despite common notions of working-class culture, or the slang term “bougie” that often gets applied to those with luxurious lifestyles, whether one belongs to the proletariat or bourgeoisie is derived from something more concrete and specific: a person’s relation to the means of production (i.e., those structures that regulate the production and distribution of goods). Karl Marx argued that capitalist society is divided into the bourgeoisie who own the means of production and the proletarian masses must sell their labor for a wage. In practice, if you need to work at a job in order to pay for your life’s necessities, then you are a member of the proletariat. On the other hand, if your wealth comes from owning a corporation that hires employees, you are a member of the bourgeoisie.

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Friedrich Engels encapsulate the exploitative dynamic that manifests between the two classes in the following:

The Communist Manifesto,

Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. (1847, [1914])

In this study guide, we will explore how society became divided into this oppressive dynamic in the first place, and examine the conflicts that persist between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. We will conclude with some reflections on the significance of understanding these terms today when surveying our current social, political, and economic landscape. 

The emergence of the proletariat and bourgeoisie

The terms proletariat and bourgeoisie have existed for centuries, if not longer. The term "bourgeoisie" is derived from the word “borgeis,” which in Old French refers to a person who dwells in a city — alluding to this new class as being one distinct from both serfs and lords starting in the Late Middle Ages. The word "proletariat" dates back to the Roman Empire wherein the “proletarii” referred to propertyless citizens. Marx and Engels drew upon these historical concepts to arrive at their theory of class struggle under capitalism. 

Based on their method of historical materialism, Marx and Engels closely analyzed the dynamics that propelled societies forward throughout the ages. From this work, they concluded that societies are fundamentally organized — and stratified — around their relations of production. In their own words,

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations. (Marx and Engels, 1847, [1914])

Crucially, it is the tensions and antagonisms between these dominant and subordinate classes that serve as the engines of history. In the case of the capitalist society under which they were living, Marx and Engels argue that,

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

Today, it may seem like a given that most of us must work for wages, while an increasingly concentrated and very rich class of CEOs make billions, but how did our modern bourgeois society emerge in the first place? In Marxian fashion, we must understand the dynamics of history — and conflict — that produced our current state of affairs. 

The story of the modern bourgeoisie and proletariat begins in 16th and 17th-century Europe. This period saw the rise of a territorially fluid mercantilist class that gained vast quantities of wealth through imperialist conquest in the so-called New World. This class was becoming increasingly powerful and threatening to the sovereignty of the feudal lords — a landowning aristocracy who hitherto derived their wealth from tributes paid by serfs who lived on and farmed their lands. The wealth of the mercantilist class — and the landed gentry’s need to compete with it — had a major impact on the power structures and economy of Europe. 

This helped give rise to modern statehood and governance practices, as feudal powers sought to legitimate their sovereignty beyond territory or divine right to rule. Not to mention, with so much wealth arriving on European shores through mercantilist exploits in places like South America, which brought in vast amounts of gold and silver, the old order was thrown into inflation and crisis — ultimately giving rise to early capitalism. 

As Majia Holmer Nadesan argues in Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life, the landed gentry was not able to fully subordinate this new class of wealthy merchants:

Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life

[…] sovereign control over the disposition of economic flows was far from complete as financial markets grew in complexity and importance, particularly through the formation of new institutional forms such as the joint-stock company. (2010) 

In addition to stimulating the development of the private sector and market system, these new “economic flows” also gave rise to early industrial endeavors such as the construction of factories and the development of new technological innovations that would boost industrial production. 

Moreover, the landed gentry began to sell off their landholdings to gain liquid assets in the form of government bonds. Thus, a new class of merchants, bankers, and entrepreneurs emerged which was increasingly rich in capital and known as the bourgeoisie. Largely residing in cities — as opposed to feudal estates — the bourgeoisie owned factories, had access to finance capital to invest, and amassed political power and influence within this new capitalist order that was beginning to solidify in the age of industrialization. 

Of course, there’s still one big missing piece of the puzzle in this story: The factories needed workers. In a process known as primitive accumulation, the proletariat was brought about by force, as peasants were violently dispossessed from their lands — and thus, their means of subsistence. As Marx describes it in Das Kapital, 

Collected Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

[…] capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt. [...] Thus were the agricultural people, first forcibly expropriated from the soil, driven from their homes, turned into vagabonds, and then whipped, branded, tortured by laws grotesquely terrible, into the discipline necessary for the wage system. (in Collected Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1867, [2021])

Despite a period of vehement peasant revolts, common lands were enclosed into private property. Vagabondage and other ways of refusing to work under this new system were also criminalized. As a result, these peasants were corralled into cities in search of wage labor jobs. As such, they became the proletariat who, in the absence of owning capital, had only their labor to sell in order to survive. 

Thus, out of these complex social, political, and economic transitions, the bourgeoisie and proletariat were born. Yet, Marx and Engels weren't content just to offer a descriptive account of history. In fact, they had something else in mind entirely. In the following sections, we’ll cover the implications — and call to action — associated with the development of these concepts. 

As you might imagine from the above account, the dynamic between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is not one of cooperation or mutual benefit. Rather, these classes are in conflict and their interests are at odds. Such is made evident when we examine another core element of Marxism: the labor theory of value. According to this theory, "the value of commodities was determined by the labor-time necessary for their production" (Michael Heinrich, An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital, 2012).

This may seem rather innocuous at first glance, but its implications form the crux of the conflict between classes. Marx asserts that it is through workers’ labor that commodities are valued at more than the sum of their parts. He would ask, for instance, why a chair composed of wood ($50) and nails ($30) is valued on the market for $100, which is more than the cost of the wood and the nails. He argues that it is the labor that goes into the chair that accounts for the markup on price. Yet, this is not the main thrust or implication of the labor theory of value. Marx points out that even though the workers’ labor accounts for the additional valuation of the chair, much of that money doesn’t end up in their pockets. Instead, it makes their employers — the bourgeoisie — richer. 

For Marx, this constitutes an exploitative relationship, where workers are not paid in full for the value they produce. Instead, the bourgeoisie who own and control the means of production, profit directly through the proletariat’s exploitation. Marx argues that this constitutes a conflict between classes because their interests are opposed. It’s in the workers’ interests to receive the highest proportion of compensation for the value they create, but it’s in the capitalists’ interests to keep as much of that profit for themselves. When one class achieves its objectives, the other loses and vice versa. As David Harvey describes it in The Limits to Capital, 

The Limits to Capital

The justification of the labour theory of value [...]lies in Marx’s discovery that ‘all history is the history of class struggle’, and that the labour theory of value must hold because it is the expression of the class relations of capitalism. (2018)

And under capitalism, it’s the bourgeoisie that are winning in the class conflict by profiting off the exploitation of the proletariat. If you look around, you can see that it is the wealthy who not only own corporations and factories but also news outlets, the apartments where we live, and hold the majority of political offices. In fact, it isn’t even just the Marxists who hold this view, as the billionaire Warren Buffett famously said himself, "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning" (Quoted in Andrew Sayer, Why We Can’t Afford the Rich, 2014). 

While the bourgeoisie has much in common with capitalists, who own the means of production and directly employ workers, these groups are not entirely coterminous. The bourgeoisie can be understood as a broad group of capitalists. This includes factory owners and CEOs, but also other wealthy and powerful members of society that help to uphold the power of the capitalists in the realms of politics and culture. Examples include politicians, diplomats, media moguls, celebrities, socialites, real estate developers, big landlords, financiers, and so on. Together, the bourgeois class maintains dominance through cultural hegemony. 

Cultural hegemony refers to how the ruling class exerts dominance over the masses through norms, values, media, culture, and institutions. As Kate Crehen describes it,

Gramsci's Common Sense

The narratives that become hegemonic are those that reﬂect the world as seen from the vantage point of the rulers rather than the ruled. Those that emerge from less privileged locations are forced to exist within the interstices of the dominant explanations; an ability to impose commonsense truths, which as-sume that existing power relations are the only ones possible, is a crucial dimension of any power regime. (Gramsci’s Common Sense, 2016)

There are countless examples of how the bourgeoisie influence culture in their image and in accordance with narratives that suit their interests. This can be seen in how news outlets shape narratives around economic inequality in ways that mystify the class exploitation we discussed in the previous section. 

(For more on how the bourgeoisie maintains cultural and ideological dominance over the proletariat, check out our study guide on Antonio Gramsci’s base-superstructure model.)

Proletarian struggle: socialist perspectives

Of course, despite the dominance of the bourgeoisie in economics, politics, and culture there have been many instances of proletariat class consciousness pushing back and even overriding the powers of the ruling classes under capitalism. Marx and Engels saw their analysis of classed society under capitalism as more than a mere intellectual exercise — it was meant to serve as an impetus for the working classes to overthrow the social order that exploited them. This is most famously exemplified in The Communist Manifesto, which contained this exact call to action for a revolution under the banner of communism:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! (1847, [1914])

The Communist Manifesto, in turn, has inspired socialist revolutions around the world, perhaps most notably in the Russian Revolution of 1917, which overthrew the Czarist class and ushered in the Soviet Union. (See our study guide on permanent revolution for more examples of how Marxist thought inspired socialist transformations around the world.) 

Yet, even in cases where full-blown revolutions didn’t take place, socialism — drawing from the class consciousness propagated in Marxist theory — has helped workers to tap into their powers for collective bargaining, striking, boycotting, and more. These tools have been pivotal in ending child labor, instating the 8-hour working day, bringing about weekends, and much more. In fact, these strategies — stemming from worker unity through class consciousness — continue to be successful today. In fact, according to Pew Research Center, 2023 saw some of the most significant strike actions in recent decades — from the Screen Actors Guild in Hollywood to the United Auto Workers For Marxists. Therefore, understanding the class relations between the bourgeois ruling class and the proletariat serves as the basis for collective organization toward a more egalitarian future.

The concepts of bourgeoisie and proletariat, originating from Marxian theory of class struggle, remain relevant in contemporary society — even in light of significant social and economic transformations. Today, we live in a globalized world characterized by widening income inequality, political crisis, and ongoing struggles for social justice. The bourgeoisie — comprising the capitalist class who own and control the means of production — continue to wield formidable influence in shaping our economic and political realities, while accumulating wealth and power at the expense of the proletariat.

In addition, dynamics of outright class conflict persist in various forms across different sectors and regions worldwide. While traditional industrial settings may have evolved, new forms of exploitation and alienation have emerged through outsourcing and the gig economy, where precarious labor conditions and lack of job security disproportionately affect the working class. On a global scale, there has also been a mounting roster of successful strikes and other actions in healthcare, agriculture, transportation, and more. 

What’s more, younger generations consistently report holding sympathies for socialist views in polls in countries like the United States — despite being at the helm of free market capitalism. Thus, the proletariat and bourgeoisie still serve as useful analytical tools for those seeking economic and social justice.

Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2017) by Thomas Piketty

Marx's Proletariat: The Making of a Myth (2015) by David Lovell

The Petite Bourgeoisie in Europe 1780-1914 (2021) by Geoffrey Crossick and Heinz-Gerhard Haupt

Why Marx Was Right (2011) by Terry Eagleton 

Workers' Inquiry and Global Class Struggle (2020) by Robert Ovetz

Crehan, K. (2016) Gramsci's Common Sense: Inequality and Its Narratives. Duke University Press Books. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1466844/gramscis-common-sense-inequality-and-its-narratives  

Desilver, D. (2024) “2023 saw some of the biggest, hardest-fought labor disputes in recent decades.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/01/04/2023-saw-some-of-the-biggest-hardest-fought-labor-disputes-in-recent-decades/ 

Harvey, D. (2018) The Limits to Capital. Verso. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/827855/the-limits-to-capital 

Heinrich, M. (2012) An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital. Monthly Review Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/719795/an-introduction-to-the-three-volumes-of-karl-marxs-capital 

Marx, K. (2021) Collected Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Illustrated. Available at: 

https://www.perlego.com/book/2982724/collected-works-of-karl-marx-and-friedrich-engels-illustrated-the-communist-manifesto-the-capital-the-eighteenth-brumaire-of-louis-bonaparte-socialism-utopian-and-scientific-pdf 

Marx, K. and Engels F. (2014) The Communist Manifesto. HarperTorch. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/602671/the-communist-manifesto-pdf 

Nadesan, M.H. (2010) Governmentality, Biopower, and Everyday Life. Routledge. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/714588/governmentality-biopower-and-everyday-life 

Sayer, A. (2014) Why We Can’t Afford the Rich. Policy Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3532973/why-we-cant-afford-the-rich  

Who are the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie?

What is Commodity Fetishism?

What is the Culture Industry?

Microeconomics vs Macroeconomics - What's the Difference?

What is Fordism?

What is Socialism?

What is Communism?

What is World-Systems Theory?

What is Guy Debord's Theory of the Spectacle?

What is The Frankfurt School?

What is Marxist Feminism?

What is Cultural Materialism?

What is Marxism? | Definitions, History, Examples & Analysis

Marxism is a social, political and economic philosophy named after German philosopher Karl Marx (1818-83). At its core, Marxism is understood as a critique of capitalism. It examines capitalism’s impact on the worker, suggesting they are exploited and alienated from their own labour. This theory was first outlined by Marx and Friedrich Engels (1820-95) in The Communist Manifesto (1848), which predicted that the struggle between the social classes would inevitably result in a revolution, and the emergence of communism. The ideas espoused in Marx & Engels’ work has formed the basis of communism in countries like Russia since Marx’s death. 

Though the theory is named after Marx himself, we cannot understate Engels’ contribution to Marxist political economy. Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England (1844) can be seen as the foundation of Marxist theories of labour. For further reference to Engels’ contribution, see Stavros Mavroudeas’ article ‘Friedrich Engels and his Contribution to Marxism’ (2020). 

Central to Marxism is the theory of historical materialism. Historical materialism argues that understanding systems like capitalism requires an investigation into the history of humans, their social institutions and their labour. In Karl Marx (2017), William Dennison writes that, for Marx, 

Karl Marx

the truth of history begins with the concrete activity of human beings living in the material world. In short, humanity makes history. What is truly there every day is human beings living in the process of development. Furthermore, this formulation and understanding of history replaces the illusions of religion, taking its place as the authentic revealer of truth. (2017)

This approach was used by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto, which examined how capitalism is a social development of history. It states that: 

the modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat’ (1848 [2014]).

These two social classes Marx and Engels refer to, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, can also be conceptualised as the property-holding capitalists and the workers. 

The unequal power dynamic of the capitalist and the worker goes beyond the economic; it influences all aspects of the proletariat’s lives. Historical materialism posits that a society’s economic organisation determines its social institutions, such as arts, culture, education and religion. The way a society economically organises itself is known as the mode of production. The mode of production consists of: 

Means of production e.g. tools, machines, factories and resources and labour power. 

Relations of production – who owns the means of production and who works for them. 

The Communist Manifesto analysed how the mode of production was configured throughout human history. In feudal societies, for example, the means of production consisted of rudimentary farming tools and livestock; the relations were between serfs and lords who owned the land. In each stage of production throughout history it is evident that there is an exploiter/exploited dynamic. Marx and Engels suggest that this will eventually be overturned, writing that, 

The Communist Manifesto

the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (Trades Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there the contest breaks out into riots’ (1848, [2014]). 

The overturning of this exploiter/exploited dynamic will result, according to Marx and Engels, in a powerful majority i.e. communism. 

As with The Communist Manifesto, Marx’s later, and arguably most notable work, Das Kapital or Capital (1867) assesses how the means of production result in class disparity and exploitation. While The Communist Manifesto is primarily concerned with delineating the trajectory towards socialism, Capital provides a detailed critique of the political economy. In this economic critique, Marx demonstrates exactly how the worker is exploited through his labour theory of value. Below we have detailed out some of the core principles behind this theory, such as labour value itself, as well as the concepts of surplus and alienation.

The labour theory of value means that a product’s economic value is determined by the amount of labour needed to produce that product. Though labour theory of value is often associated with the work of Karl Marx, it had previously been referenced in the work of economists such as Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) and David Ricardo in Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817). Marx’s labour theory of value furthers the theories of Smith and Ricardo by explaining how the labourer is exploited under capitalism. This exploitation occurs through the capitalist’s desire to create surplus value. 

Surplus value is the difference between what it costs the manufacturer to make the commodity versus how much it is sold for. As the capitalist owns the means of production (and the worker through a paid wage), the capitalist owns the product and reaps all the surplus value (i.e. profits). This surplus value is created through the unpaid time of the labourer.

Engels had previously written of surplus labour power in The Condition of the Working Classes in England (1844). In Capital, Marx uses the example of the spinner to demonstrate how surplus value is created by extension of the working day and exploitation of the labourer. Marx argues that a spinner must daily produce a value to cover their wages (e.g. three shillings); this is achievable with six hours’ work. The worker in this time adds value to the cotton as ‘during the spinning process, the cotton absorbs six hours’ labor. The same quantity of labor is also embodied in a piece of gold of the value of three shillings. Consequently by the mere labor of spinning, a value of three shillings is added to the cotton.’ (2012 [1867]). The labourer, through the hours spent working and their skills, has added value to the raw materials. However, as previously mentioned, the capitalist desires profits and therefore, must derive this from unpaid labour. Though the labourer after six hours has worked enough to cover their wages (the amount to feed, clothe and shelter him for that day) and has added value to the raw materials, the capitalist extends the working day in order to obtain surplus value. Marx writes that ‘[t]he fact that half a day’s labor is necessary to keep the laborer alive during 24 hours does not in any way prevent him from working a whole day’ (2012 [1867]). This is how the worker is exploited under capitalism: the worker has already covered their wages and yet must continue to work unpaid for the capitalist.

Central to the impact of capitalism on the worker is the feeling of alienation due to estranged labour. This alienation is part of the oppression faced by the worker under capitalism. In The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), Marx outlines four types of alienation for the worker under capitalism: 

The labourer does not own their own product; it is the capitalist who owns and profits from the result of the worker’s labour. Marx writes that the product, therefore, exists as ‘something alien’ to the worker and that ‘the life which he has conferred on the object confronts him as something hostile and alien’ (2012, [1844]) As the worker puts part of their life (energy, effort, time) into the object, when the object ceases to be theirs it creates feelings of alienation.  

Not only does the product not belong to the worker, but the worker’s own life is determined by the activity of labour. Marx writes that ‘the worker’s own physical and mental energy, his personal life’ is ‘turned against him [and] neither depends on nor belongs to him’ (2012, [1844]). Labour thus turns the worker into a machine, forcing them to carry out repetitive and mechanical labour which provides no psychological or creative satisfaction. 

This type of alienation relates closely to alienation from the activity of production. Marx further explains how the alienation experienced under capitalist production estranges the worker from their own humanity and their sense of identity. Marx argues that estranged labour makes the predominant activity in the worker’s life ‘a mere means to his existence’ (2012, [1844]). The labourer’s life is determined by the need to work for survival. 

Alienated from their product, activity of labour and himself, the worker now becomes alienated from other workers. The nature of industrial capitalism creates a competitive environment in which workers are pitted against one another. 

Though written in the nineteenth-century, the criticisms of Alfred Marshall in Principles of Economics still resonate with some Marxist critics today. Marshall wrote that: 

It is not true that the spinning of yarn in a factory […] is the product of the labour of the operatives. It is the product of their labour, together with that of the employer and subordinate managers, and of the capital employed’ (1890, [2021]).

Marshall’s argument is that the other means of production such as the tools the labourer uses, the materials and the space, also contribute to the product. The capitalist, he suggests, invests in the business which produces the commodity. Marshall further condemns the theory of value by arguing that Marx neglects to address the demand of the customer which inflates the cost of the item, resulting in profits. 

Criticisms of Marx’s inconsistencies include those of prominent theorist Paul Sweezy who wrote in The Theory of Capitalist Development that ‘the Marxian method of transformation [of commodity values into prices of production] is logically unsatisfactory’. (115, 1968 [1942]). This ‘transformation problem’ addresses specifically Marx’s argument, in volume 3 of Capital, that the rate of profit tends to fall in capitalism. To give a very basic overview, Marx argues this fall is due to the need of capitalism to expand and become more productive. The capitalist continues to invest and improve the means of production through the use of equipment or more labourers. However, there is only so much demand. As such, the capitalist will, at a point, have decreased profits. 

These consistencies, however, have been challenged by the temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI) of Marx’s value theory. As Nick Potts writes in ‘Marx and the crisis’: 

The TSSI of Marx has clearly demonstrated that a consistent interpretation of Marx’s value theory exists. Marx’s consistent value theory explains why the profit rate has a tendency to fall in boom, ensuring that booms must end in crises, and helping us to understand how distortion of this process leads to stagnation, with surplus capital taking adventurous paths. (2011)

However, this debate still continues with some arguing that TSSI is an outdated theory and exists to ‘assert that Marx’s formulations, in both the theory of value and the analysis of capitalist accumulation and crisis, are literally and completely correct; that Marx made no errors’ (David Laibman, 2004). 

Many aforementioned criticisms hinge primarily on Marx as an economist. A further but related criticism of Marx is that he has been seen as reducing the complex nature of society, politics and culture to economics. However, Randy Martin in ‘Rereading Marx: A Critique of Recent Criticisms’ (1998/99) disputes this, writing that claiming Marx is an economic reductionist is based upon scholars who have ‘pared down his texts to a handful of aphorisms and citations so that they do little more than confirm his own reductionism.’ Martin goes on to state that Marx’s work is: 

an account of society’s expansionary dynamic, that provides the basis for (but does not guarantee) political transformation. The critique of capital aims to show how the “ism” or process of expansion (here of profit-taking), rests upon another “ism” that capitalism battles to negate, namely that of the social (1998/1999). 

Marxism has continued to persevere into the twenty-first century, despite capitalism’s radical evolution since Marx and Engels’ writing in the nineteenth-century. As Terry Eagleton writes in Why Marx was Right: 

Why Marx Was Right

Marxism is a critique of capitalism—the most searching, rigorous, comprehensive critique of its kind ever to be launched. It is also the only such critique that has transformed large sectors of the globe. It follows, then, that as long as capitalism is still in business, Marxism must be as well. Only by superannuating its opponent can it superannuate itself. And on the last sighting, capitalism appeared as feisty as ever. (2011)

In their introduction to Raya Dunayevskaya’s Intersectional Marxism (2020) Kevin B. Anderson, Kieran Durkin and Heather A. Brown identify a coincidence with the resurgence of Marxism and that of grassroots radical activism with ‘the Yellow Vests and the pension strikes in France, and most dramatically with the outbreak of what is being called the Second Arab Spring in Sudan, Algeria, Iraq, and Lebanon’. The book explores the work of Marxist-feminist Raya Dunayevskaya and shows the relevance of Marxism in studying contemporary issues. 

More recently, Transgender Marxism (2021) recognised the role of sex and gender in relation to capitalism, thus demonstrating the application of Marx’s work outside its original scope. In addition to this, Ashley J. Bohrer’s Marx and Intersectionality (2019) demonstrates that Marxist thinking is still relevant in examining issues of intersectionality and marginalisation, writing that ‘capitalism is a necessary element to an analysis of race, gender, sexuality, and class, just as an analysis of these latter is crucial to understanding the ideology, historical practice, and logical structure of capitalism’. 

The work of these critics develops the original tenets of Marxism, making them applicable to a modern world in which late-stage capitalism has taken on a form unimaginable to Marx and his contemporaries. Despite the changing nature of capitalism, however, the core ideas of Marxism (e.g. the production of surplus value, the exploitation of the labourer) persist, demonstrating the versatility of Marx and Engels’ teachings. 

Callinicos, A, S. Kouvelakis and L.Pradella. 2020. Routledge Handbook of Marxism and Post-Marxism. Routledge. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2029163/routledge-handbook-of-marxism-and-postmarxism-pdf

Kirk, N. 2017. Social Class and Marxism: Defences and Challenges. Routledge. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1488756/social-class-and-marxism-defences-and-challenges-pdf 

Mojab, S. 2015. Marxism and Feminism. Zed Books. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2014330/marxism-and-feminism-pdf

Anderson, K. B., K. Durkin and H. A. Brown..2020. Raya Dunayevskaya’s Intersectional Marxism: Race, Class, Gender, and the Dialectics of Liberation. Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3480617/raya-dunayevskayas-intersectional-marxism-race-class-gender-and-the-dialectics-of-liberation-pdf

Bohrer, A. J. (2019) Marxism and Intersectionality: Race, Gender, Class and Sexuality under Contemporary Capitalism. Verlag. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1461300/marxism-and-intersectionality-race-gender-class-and-sexuality-under-contemporary-capitalism-pdf 

Dennison, W. D. 2017. Karl Marx. P Publishing.  Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2527056/karl-marx-pdf 

Eagleton, T. 2011. Why Marx was Right. Yale University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1089799/why-marx-was-right-pdf 

Engels, F. 2005 [1844]. The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. Perlego. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1820319/the-condition-of-the-workingclass-in-england-in-1844-with-a-preface-written-in-1892-pdf 

Gleeson, J. J and E. O’Rourke.2021. Transgender Marxism. Pluto Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2646534/transgender-marxism-pdf

Laibman, D. 2004.‘Rhetoric and Substance in Value Theory: An appraisal of the new orthodox Marxism’, in Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman and Julian Wells, The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics. Edward Elgar. 

Martin, R. (1998). ‘Rereading Marx: A critique of recent criticisms’. Science & Society, 513-536. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40403745#metadata_info_tab_contents 

Marx, K. 2012 [1844]. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Dover Publications. 

Marx, K. 2012 [1867]. Das Kapital: A Critique of Political Economy. Gateway Editions. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/784600/das-kapital-a-critique-of-political-economy-pdf 

Marx, K and F. Engels. 2014 [1848]. The Communist Manifesto. Harper Torch. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/602671/the-communist-manifesto-pdf 

Mavroudeas, S.. 2020. Friedrich Engels and his Contribution to Marxism. Human Geography, 13.2, 187–190. Avalable at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1942778620937123?casa_token=qjE5Rw3qH28AAAAA:7qjFs4tglqHVURMPS9ywGtGloQcX3inCxEwyCyp9eeYXSIW7AQM7liulWILStVEsKyvh9rrKKDpgSw 

Potts, N. 2011. Marx and the Crisis. Capital & Class, 35.3, 455-473. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0309816811419483 

Sweezy, P. M. 1968 [1942], The Theory of Capitalist Development. Monthly Review Press. 

What is Dialectical Materialism?

What is Structural Inequality?

Permanent Revolution  | Definition, Analysis & Examples | Perlego

A concept most closely associated with Leon Trotsky, permanent revolution refers to his theory that “economically backward” societies can achieve democratic and socialist objectives in a single, continuous, and uninterrupted revolutionary process led by the proletariat. This idea runs contrary to traditional Marxism, which argues that the revolution must take place in two stages: first, a bourgeois-democratic revolution, representing a break from feudalism and second, a proletarian revolution, which would overthrow the capitalist ruling classes and bring about socialism. Rather, Trotsky argues in The Permanent Revolution that

The democratic revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution and thereby becomes a permanent revolution. […] Therein lies the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such, regardless of whether it is a backward country that is involved, which only yesterday accomplished its democratic revolution, or an old capitalist country which already has behind it a long epoch of democracy and parliamentarism. (1931) 

In other words, Trotsky believed that the only way for a socialist revolution to be successful was to bypass an intermediate phase of capitalism and bourgeois rule. This was significant because many other socialist and communist figures of the day – namely, in Bolshevik Russia – held a more determinist and orthodox view of Marxism.

In addition, Trotsky believed that the proletarian revolution must be international, as no single socialist state could withstand the external pressures of a capitalist global economy. 

To understand the importance of this theory, we must first explore the foundational ideas of Marxism to which he was responding. As we will explore in this study guide, Trotsky’s break from orthodoxy through his theory of permanent revolution was quite controversial. It put him at odds with the leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin who advocated for state-sponsored industrialization as part of the transition towards socialism, a dispute that would have grave consequences for Trotsky. In addition, we will expand on the main tenets of his theory and reflect on some of the revolutionary socialist movements that lend credence to his ideas. 

Before we can move on to discuss Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, we must first begin with the works of Marx and Engels, which serve as the foundations on which his ideas were built. Marx and Engels were historical materialists, which meant that they believed societies were defined by their relations of production and that conflicts between classes were the engines that drove historical progress. As they put it in The Communist Manifesto, 

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. (Marx and Engels, 1847, [2014])

As societies began to industrialize, they observed a shift away from feudal relations of production. The emergent ruling class — which they called the bourgeoisie — served an important historical function for Marx and Engels: 

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions. The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property. The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. (1847, [2014])

Largely inspired by what they witnessed happen in the French Revolution, they believed that the bourgeois would actually carry out an important step on the way to socialism by facilitating a transition from feudalism and bringing and helping develop a democratic political system. They also theorized that achieving socialism must come through the antagonisms that would play out between the bourgeoisie and the emergent proletariat under capitalism.

It is also important to note that Marx and Engels were the ones who first coined the term “permanent revolution.” Most famously, they included it in their 1850 “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League.” Here, Marx and Engels offer some hint into where Trotsky would take the term, by reflecting on the challenge of pushing the revolutionary process further past that stage of bourgeois democratic rule, 

The Political Writings

While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, [...] it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far (Marx and Engels, in The Political Writings, 1850, [2019]) 

These ideas were foundational to the work of Leon Trotsky and his development of permanent revolution, but to understand them fully we have to turn to the context in which he was writing: the Russian Revolution at the beginning of the 20th century.

To fully contextualize Trotsky’s ideas and where they came from, it’s also useful to start with a brief overview of who he was. Leon Trotsky was born in 1879 in feudal, Czarist Russia. He was a key military commander of the Bolshevik Red Army and a leading figure in the Russian Revolution. As with most other Bolshevik revolutionaries, he was very much inspired in his thinking by the works of Marx and Engels, so it follows that he would engage with and further expand upon some of their ideas. 

Yet, unlike Marx and Engels, Trotsky believed that any “democracy” that was developed by the ruling classes would ultimately only suit their interests. Instead, he called upon the working classes themselves to form alliances with the peasants — who made up the majority of the Russian population — to carry out democratic tasks and socialist struggle simultaneously. For him, this was the only way to ensure a successful revolution that wouldn’t be corrupted by the interests of the elites. Let’s take a closer look at the specific tenets of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. 

Tenets of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution 

As articulated by Kunal Chattopadhyay and Paul Le Blanc in their introduction to Leon Trotsky: Writings in Exile, the components of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution can be summarized as follows:

Leon Trotsky: Writings in Exile

Three elements can be found in Trotsky's theory: (a) the possibility and necessity under the right circumstances, of democratic and immediate struggles spilling over into the struggle for working-class political power, (b) culminating in a transitional period going in the direction of socialism, (c) which can be realised only through the advance of similar struggles around the world. (2012)

To make these elements of theory into reality, Trotsky argued that revolutionaries must acknowledge the limits of the bourgeoisie to bring about democracy. Rather, it is only through alliances between the organized working class and peasants that democracy and socialism can be realized. Furthermore, he believed it to be imperative that democracy and socialism are fought for in tandem rather than as two separate goals — and these revolutionary struggles must take place on an international scale. Below, we’ll delve deeper into his reasoning.

In contrast to the two-stage theory, Trotsky challenged the idea that socialist revolution is an imminent conclusion of capitalism. He did not feel that the phase of bourgeois democratic rule under capitalism would do the working classes any favors. If we look at the crises facing liberal democracies of today — from democratic deficits to corporate lobbies and businesses being too big to fail — we can get a sense of what he meant. One can easily see that socialism is far from an inevitable consequence of bourgeois rule.

In Trotsky’s mind, therefore, the proletariat must bypass the phase of bourgeois democratic rule and instead pursue democratic and socialist objectives simultaneously. As recounted in his work 1905 (published in 1907), Trotsky wrote of “those views which came to be called the theory of ‘permanent revolution’”:

1905

This rather high-flown expression defines the thought that the Russian revolution, although directly concerned with bourgeois aims, could not stop short at those aims; the revolution could not solve its immediate bourgeois tasks except by putting the proletariat into power. And the proletariat, once having power in its hands, would not be able to remain confined within the bourgeois framework of the revolution. On the contrary, precisely in order to guarantee its victory, the proletarian vanguard in the very earliest stages of its rule would have to make extremely deep inroads not only into feudal but also into bourgeois property relations. (1907, [2017])

He argued that bourgeois democracy was ultimately only set up to serve the interests of the ruling classes and its institutions would not translate into any useful foundation for socialist democracy that centered on the interests of the proletariat. Instead, he emphasized that the democratic struggle must be carried out through alliances between the organized working class and the peasant masses, and must ultimately be anti-imperialist and international in scope. 

Trotsky looked to the proletariat as the only agent who could truly bring about both direct-democratic structures and a socialist revolution — thus bypassing the need for an intermediary phase of bourgeois capitalist rule. Drawing inspiration for his theory from the semi-feudal Russian context, he observed that the industrial working class was only a small fraction of the population, with the vast majority still consisting of peasant farmers and artisans. He believed that in “economically backward countries” where industrialization had yet to take place, the proletariat must consist of alliances between this emergent working class and the peasants. As Trotsky asserts in his speech “In Defense of October” (1932, referencing comments made in the year 1905), 

The destiny of the most elementary revolutionary interest of the peasantry … is bound up with the destiny of the whole revolution, that is, with the destiny of the proletariat. The proletariat, once arrived at power, will appear before the peasantry as the liberating class. (Trotsky, in Leon Trotsky: Writings in Exile, 2012)

This theorization was significant because it challenged the Marxian determinism that all countries must follow the same trajectory as the West in order to reach socialism. This not only excluded many countries in the global South that had not yet undergone industrialization and were in many cases plagued by imperialism. Trotsky’s theory created the space of possibility for socialist revolution to become attainable at a more international scale. 

Trotsky also believed that socialism must be international in scope and that a single state cannot succeed or maintain itself under a predominantly capitalist world system. A budding socialist state would simply be under too much external pressure to succeed in the long term, and it would lack access to global networks of trade. Therefore, he believed that multiple socialist revolutions must take place in tandem across international borders. In turn, the proletariat should not conceive of itself within the confines of the nation-state but strive for global solidarity as a central pillar to achieving its revolutionary objectives. In his work 1905 Trotsky states, 

The contradictions between a workers’ government and an overwhelming majority of peasants in a backward country could be resolved only on an international scale in the arena of a world proletarian revolution. Having, by virtue of historical necessity, burst the narrow bourgeois-democratic confines of the Russian revolution, the victorious proletariat would be compelled also to burst its national and state confines, that is to say, it would have to strive consciously for the Russian revolution to become the prologue to a world revolution. (1907, [2017])

This very much ran contrary to Stalin’s idea of “socialism in one country,” defined by planned, industrialization projects and centralized state-oriented socialism. Rather, Trotsky championed the concept of “uneven and combined development,” which maintained that the trajectories of different nation-states were deeply intertwined (1907, [2017]). This had significance for countries outside of Europe and Russia who were struggling under colonialism within the global capitalist system.

Permanent revolution: three key examples  

Trotsky developed his theory about the permanent revolution based on his own experiences fighting for socialism in his Russian homeland. It is also the case, however, that his ideas of the permanent revolution were very much at odds with his contemporaries, such as Joseph Stalin — all of which came to a head after the death of Vladimir Lenin and the power struggle that followed. In Leon Trotsky, Joshua Rubenstein explains how Trotsky’s ideas were received, 

Leon Trotsky: A Revolutionary's Life

It was Trotsky who advocated permanent revolution, as if the Soviet Union could not stand on its own feet without the assistance of outside forces. By denying the possibility of building socialism in one country, Trotsky appeared to question the capacity of the Soviet proletariat. ‘Socialism in one country’ became a patriotic rallying cry, while the call for ‘permanent revolution’ was turned into a radical and irresponsible act of adventurism. In the eyes of the party, Trotsky appeared trapped by a hopelessly optimistic belief in revolution. The country wanted peace; Trotsky offered glory. (2011) 

In addition to his strong stance that any successful socialist project must be international in scope, he also did not trust the idea of placating or allying with the more reformist Mensheviks who wanted to take a softer approach with the Russian aristocracy in alignment with Marx’s two-stage revolution theory. These differences in outlook and strategy led to a schism with Stalin following Lenin’s death in 1924. Shortly thereafter, Trotsky was expelled from the party, exiled in 1928, and later assassinated under Stalin’s orders in 1940. 

The rise of communism in China was an important case for the development of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution. In its early stages, Trotsky observed certain dimensions of his theory in action, namely because China was a feudal society composed largely of peasants with a relatively small industrialized working class. He theorized that it did not make much sense to follow a two-stage revolutionary process over mobilizing a proletariat based on alliances between the peasant masses and the working class. As Chinese communism progressed, however, it began to split from the path of permanent revolution. Mao Zedong, leader of the Chinese Communist Party, was initially intent on overthrowing the Japanese imperialist rule first and foremost — attempting to build uneasy alliances with the nationalist bourgeoisie — thus, favoring a phase of democratic struggle before socialism. 

These alliances ultimately found the Chinese Communist Party in bitter disputes with the nationalists. Specifically, what followed was the violent suppression of the Chinese Communist Party through the Shanghai massacre in 1927 and the outbreak of civil war with Chinese Nationalists, which would last for more than two more decades. As Trotsky writes in “The Chinese Revolution” (1938),  

The politics of the Communist International in China showed convincingly what the Russian Revolution would have been converted into if the Mensheviks and the Social Revolutionaries had not been thrust aside in time by the Bolsheviks. In China the conception of the permanent revolution was confirmed once more, this time not in the form of a victory, but of a catastrophe. (Trotsky, in Leon Trotsky: Writings in Exile, 2012) 

This context was still instructive for Trotsky because he was able to take a critical stance on the example of China in terms of the disastrous consequences it faced for attempting to implement a two-stage revolutionary process. In many ways, it proved not only the possibility of permanent revolution — but the necessity of it.

Another pertinent example of Trotsky’s theory in practice in the case of Cuba. In 1959, the petty-bourgeois (albeit Marxist) movement — led by a group of intellectuals known as the July 26th Movement (M26) — overthrew the Batista regime,  a puppet for US imperialism. Initially, this was their sole objective, but the masses pushed the revolutionary initiative further than toppling the government. As Michael Löwy recounts it in Revolutions,

Revolutions

In the revolutionary atmosphere of these first months, there were strikes in foreign businesses, especially those with tight links to the dictatorship, during which the workers sometimes demanded their expropriation. The same occurred in the countryside, where agrarian conflicts broke out on the large sugar plantations. [...] Soon, cane fields were burned. In Havana, these tensions prompted the first ministerial crisis and, in July, the exit of the moderate Cuban president Manuel Urrutia Lléo. [...] The country was now checkered with familiar silhouettes, both masculine and feminine, dressed in blue shirts and drab olive pants, berets fitted squarely, rifles slung over shoulders, guarding workplaces and neighborhoods. (2020)

Thus, the revolution was not only anti-imperial in nature. The case of the Cuban Revolution represents the continuous and uninterrupted character of permanent revolution, withstanding immense external pressure through sanctions, and making significant accomplishments in the realms of education and healthcare for its citizens. Still, Cuba is one isolated island rather than an international social movement, meaning it has not completely fulfilled the objectives of the permanent revolution.

To recap the significance of the theory of permanent revolution, let’s conclude with the following passage, written by Kunal Chattopadhyay and Paul Le Blanc: 

In the theory of permanent revolution, we see the dynamic interplay of democracy and class struggle, the self-activity of the masses of labouring and oppressed people reaching for their own liberation within, while at the same time straining beyond, the context of global capitalism. (Leon Trotsky: Writings in Exile, 2012)  

In sum, the theory of permanent revolution came in contrast to the Marxian idea of a two-stage revolution. Although they led to his expulsion from Stalinist Russia and eventual assassination, Trotsky’s ideas proved prolific. 

Trotsky’s ideas were proven in the negative in the case of Chinese communism, which fell into calamity when it failed to take the direction of a continual and uninterrupted revolution led by a united proletariat. The Cuban revolution was closer to achieving Trotsky’s ideal, as the masses pushed for the realization of socialist objectives following the democratic struggles, which manifested in the overthrow of the Bautista regime. It, too, ultimately fell short as it never galvanized a wider, international socialist revolution. 

From Russia to China to Cuba, no society has yet to reach the full expression of permanent revolution. Still, the concept has opened up the field of possibility for striving toward a socialist horizon, and it continues to inspire activists and scholars the world over. Today, his work remains salient, and historians like Michael Löwy use it to evaluate and reflect on revolutionary socialist projects. In this way and more, Trotskyism still represents a significant current in revolutionary socialist theory and activism around the world.    

A People's History of the Russian Revolution (2017) by Neil Faulkner 

The Marxism of Che Guevara: Philosophy, Economics, Revolutionary Warfare (2023) by Michael Löwy
Introduction to Marxist Theory (2021) by Ernest Mandel 

Trotsky, Trotskyism and the Transition to Socialism (2005) by Ian D. Thatcher
The Essential Trotsky (Routledge Revivals)(2014) by Leon Trotsky

Chattopadhyay, K., and Le Blanc, P. (eds.) (2012) Leon Trotsky: Writings in Exile. Pluto Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/665111/leon-trotsky-writings-in-exile-pdf 

Löwy, M. (2020) Revolutions. Haymarket Books. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1377416/revolutions-pdf  

Marx, K., and Engels, F. (2014) The Communist Manifesto. HarperTorch. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/602671/the-communist-manifesto-pdf 

Marx, K., and Engels, F. (2019) “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League,” in Political Writings: Karl Marx. Verso. Available at: 

https://www.perlego.com/book/1097543/the-political-writings 

Rubenstein, J. (2011) Leon Trotsky: A Revolutionary’s Life. Yale University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1089849/leon-trotsky-a-revolutionarys-life-pdf 

Trotsky, L. (2012) “The Chinese Revolution,” in Chattopadhyay, K., and Le Blanc, P. (eds.) Leon Trotsky: Writings in Exile. Pluto Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/665111/leon-trotsky-writings-in-exile-pdf 

Trotsky, L. (2012) “In Defense of October,” in Chattopadhyay, K., and Le Blanc, P. (eds.) Leon Trotsky: Writings in Exile. Pluto Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/665111/leon-trotsky-writings-in-exile-pdf 

Trotsky, L. (1931) The Permanent Revolution. Progress Publishers.

Trotsky, L. (2017) 1905. Haymarket Books. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/566590/1905-pdf 

Marxist Theory Articles