In his article, Aung revisits Marx’s grand theory of social development and asks a direct question: Can historical materialism still function as a viable framework after the collapse of Soviet-style regimes, the persistence of global capitalism, and the rise of new social theories? His answer is yes—but only in a revised, non-dogmatic form.
The study argues that historical materialism remains analytically fruitful when stripped of rigid determinism and teleological claims about the inevitable triumph of communism. Instead of treating Marxism as a failed prophecy, Aung reframes it as a mechanism-based theory capable of explaining structural transformations in today’s digital and globalized economy.
Why Marx’s Theory Was Challenged
Historical materialism describes history as a structured process driven by tensions between “forces of production” (technology, labor, knowledge) and “relations of production” (property systems, class structures, control over surplus). In classical Marxism, these tensions propel societies from one “mode of production” to another primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and ultimately communism.
However, twentieth-century history complicated this narrative.
Proletarian revolutions did not occur in advanced capitalist welfare states as Marx anticipated. Instead, revolutions took place in relatively agrarian societies. Meanwhile, capitalist economies adapted, expanded, and integrated labor movements through reforms. State-socialist economies often struggled with inefficiency and eventually shifted toward market mechanisms.
Critics also emerged from within social theory. Sociologist Anthony Giddens emphasized the reciprocal relationship between structure and agency, challenging one-way economic determination. Michael Mann proposed that social power derives not only from economic structures but also from political, military, and ideological sources. Economist Friedrich Hayek questioned the feasibility of centralized planning, arguing that dispersed knowledge in society cannot be efficiently coordinated without market price signals.
These critiques weakened deterministic and reductionist interpretations of Marxism. Yet, according to Aung, they do not invalidate the core insight that economic structures and class relations play a strategic role in shaping long-term social development.
How the Theory Is Reconstructed
Aung proposes a careful reconstruction of historical materialism that preserves its explanatory core while integrating insights from contemporary social theory.
1. Removing Strong Teleology
The revised framework abandons the claim that history necessarily culminates in communism. Instead, it recognizes that capitalism generates recurring crises—economic instability, inequality, ecological strain that create pressure for structural adjustment. The outcome of these crises is open-ended.
2. Reframing Base and Superstructure
Rather than viewing the economy as unilaterally determining politics and ideology, Aung treats the relationship as a feedback system. Economic structures constrain political and legal forms, but state policies, institutions, and cultural norms also shape economic development.
3. Focusing on Mechanisms, Not Fixed Stages
Instead of rigid historical stages, the reconstructed theory highlights mechanisms such as productivity growth, surplus extraction, institutional change, state formation, and core–periphery dynamics in the global economy.
4. Integrating Multi-Causal Perspectives
Historical materialism is placed in dialogue with structural functionalism, conflict theory, interpretive sociology, rational-choice theory, and biosocial approaches. Social development is understood as the result of interacting economic, political, cultural, strategic, and even biological factors.
In this form, Marxism becomes neither a dogma nor a deterministic forecast but a macro-historical research program.
Relevance in the Era of Digital Capitalism
The study gains urgency in the context of twenty-first-century capitalism. Today’s economy is shaped by digital platforms, artificial intelligence, global value chains, and financialization. These developments transform both productive forces and class relations.
According to Aung’s reconstructed framework:
- Platform corporations represent new dominant fractions of capital.
- Gig workers and precarious labor form emerging class segments.
- Data and attention become commodified alongside labor.
- States face tensions between regulating technology firms and relying on them for innovation and revenue.
Historical materialism helps explain how these structural shifts generate new forms of inequality and conflict. Contemporary social theory complements this analysis by examining identity, culture, networks, and strategic interaction.
The study also considers “socialist-oriented market economies” such as Vietnam and China. These hybrid systems combine market mechanisms with centralized political leadership. Rather than dismissing them as anomalies, Aung interprets them as experimental formations shaped by specific global and domestic class configurations.
Implications for Policy and Society
The reconstructed theory carries important implications:
- For scholars, it offers a flexible macro-historical framework grounded in mechanisms rather than rigid ideology.
- For policymakers, it highlights how productive structures and surplus distribution shape inequality and institutional stability.
- For developing countries, it underscores the importance of position within global production networks and the role of domestic class alliances.
- For the broader public, it clarifies why economic crises, inequality, and structural transformation remain recurring features of capitalism.
Aung concludes that historical materialism should not be judged solely by its failed predictions. Its enduring value lies in explaining how economic organization, class dynamics, and institutional structures interact over the long run.
Author Profile
Ye Si Thu Aung is a scholar at Vietnam National University, Hanoi. His research focuses on social theory, historical materialism, and global capitalist transformation. He specializes in reconstructing classical Marxist theory in dialogue with contemporary social thought.
Research Source
Ye Si Thu Aung. 2026. Historical Materialism and Social Development: Reconstructing a Marxist Theory in the Age of Contemporary Social Theory. Indonesian Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR), Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 241–254.
0 Komentar