Letters from Tomis

An ongoing series of reflections of my thoughts on historical materialism after reading What is Marxism: An Introduction into Marxist Theory by Rob Sewell and Alan Woods. The thoughts, opinions, and any errors are mine alone.

Human consciousness, that most intriguing of phenomena, has long fascinated philosophers, theologians, and scientists alike. But it was Karl Marx who provided perhaps the most incisive and grounded framework for understanding it. From a historical materialist perspective, consciousness is not some ethereal, autonomous entity floating above the material world. It is, rather, shaped, reshaped, and constrained by the concrete, earthly conditions of existence—economic, social, and technological. To borrow Marx’s own words from The German Ideology,

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”

This deceptively simple observation unravels centuries of idealist philosophy that saw human thought as the driver of history, rather than as its product. Far from the lofty abstractions of Hegel or the transcendent certainties of religion, Marx offers a vision of human consciousness as dynamic, mutable, and ultimately bound to the forces of production and material existence.

Consciousness as a Product of Material Conditions

At the heart of Marx’s historical materialism lies the idea that human beings are, first and foremost, material creatures. Before we think, we must eat; before we philosophize, we must survive. As Marx succinctly put it: “Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.” What he means here is that our thoughts, beliefs, and cultural frameworks emerge from the structures of production that sustain us.

Consider the feudal consciousness of medieval Europe. This was not an arbitrary or eternal mindset but a reflection of the agrarian economy, the rigid hierarchy of lords and serfs, and the dominant role of the Church as a feudal ideological apparatus. The idea of the “divine right of kings,” for instance, flourished because it fit seamlessly into an economic system that required strict obedience and immobility. In such a society, one’s consciousness was shaped by a limited horizon, where the notion of revolution was as alien as the concept of a smartphone.

Now contrast this with the consciousness fostered by capitalism, with its ceaseless drive for innovation, mobility, and individualism. As the feudal system gave way to industrial production, human consciousness began to change dramatically. Ideas like liberalism, democracy, and the rights of the individual did not spring forth spontaneously; they were the ideological superstructure of a burgeoning bourgeois economy that needed free markets and free laborers to function.

Marx’s brilliance lies in showing that these shifts in consciousness are not merely intellectual trends but deeply tied to the material realities of their time. Our ideas, in other words, are not independent of the world we inhabit—they are shaped by it and, in turn, help sustain it.

Class Struggle and the Transformation of Consciousness

The historical materialist perspective also recognizes that human consciousness is not static. As material conditions change, so too does the way people understand themselves and their world. Class struggle—the engine of history, as Marx famously described it—is central to this process.

Take, for example, the emergence of working-class consciousness during the Industrial Revolution. The capitalist mode of production brought workers together in factories, creating a collective experience of exploitation. Over time, this shared material reality gave rise to the idea of the proletariat as a unified class with common interests. As Marx and Engels noted in The Communist Manifesto,

“The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie.”

This struggle is not just economic but deeply ideological. Workers come to see their exploitation not as a natural or eternal condition but as a product of a specific historical system—capitalism. In this sense, the development of class consciousness is both a realization and a rebellion: a recognition that the material conditions of life are not fixed but can be overturned.

Yet here, we must acknowledge a certain tension, even irony, in Marx’s formulation. While he viewed the proletariat as the agents of revolutionary change, he also recognized that ideology—rooted in material conditions—often serves to obscure this potential. The ruling ideas of any age, he famously declared, “are the ideas of the ruling class.” Capitalism, with its capacity to generate not only commodities but also consent, has proven especially adept at sustaining itself through cultural and ideological means.

The Dialectic of Progress

What makes historical materialism so compelling is its dialectical nature: the recognition that human consciousness evolves not in a straight line but through contradictions and struggles. Each epoch creates the conditions for its own transcendence. Feudalism bred the bourgeoisie, who overthrew the aristocracy; capitalism, in turn, creates the proletariat, who hold the potential to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

This dialectical process extends to consciousness itself. The advent of capitalism, for instance, brought with it the Enlightenment ideals of reason, liberty, and equality—principles that were radical in their time but have since been co-opted by the system they helped create. Similarly, the current era of global capitalism has produced its own contradictions. On the one hand, it fosters an unprecedented interconnectedness and technological advancement; on the other, it perpetuates staggering inequality and ecological devastation.

These contradictions are not just material but ideological. The same system that touts individual freedom and self-determination traps millions in cycles of debt and exploitation. The consciousness of the modern worker, caught between the promise of opportunity and the reality of precarity, reflects this tension. And yet, as Marx reminds us, such contradictions are also the seeds of change.

Beyond Idealism

The historical materialist perspective does not deny the importance of ideas, but it insists that they cannot be divorced from the material world. Consciousness is not a thing apart; it is a reflection of and a response to the conditions of life. This view is both humbling and empowering. It challenges the notion that history is shaped by great men or transcendent ideals, reminding us instead that human beings—acting within the constraints of their material circumstances—are the true authors of history.

In the end, what historical materialism offers is a framework for understanding not only the past but also the present. If consciousness changes with material conditions, then the task before us is clear: to change the conditions that keep us locked in systems of exploitation and alienation. As Marx famously declared, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”

And change it we must, for the dialectic of history waits for no one. Consciousness may begin as a product of material conditions, but it is also the means by which those conditions can be transformed. The question, as always, is whether we will rise to the occasion.