Self and Society: Karl Marx
![]() |
| Illustration by ChatGPT |
We like to believe that we are independent
individuals. We have our own clear identities (proved by umpteen cards like
Aadhar, PAN, Licenses…], our opinions, ambitions… We are constantly reminded to
Be yourself, Follow your passion, Live your truth… The idea of a
sovereign self is quite seductive.
But
How much of what we call the self is
actually our own?
I would like to look at that question
with the eyes of Karl Marx, especially because good ol’ Marx Uncle is being
dumped as an antique anachronism in many countries including mine.
Before we move on to Marx, let me
tell you that this topic can be looked at in many ways and all the answers
could be equally illuminating. For example, Ralph Waldo Emerson would set us
contemplating the moral courage of the individual in a tyrannical society.
George Orwell would show us how society or the state invades and reshapes the
self. We could explore the tension between natural self and social self with
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Our very own Mahatma Gandhi would ask us to transform
the society through personal moral discipline. And so on. But let us accompany
Karl Marx today.
Marx does not begin with the
individual. He begins with conditions like labour, class, and the material
arrangements of life. For him, the self is not an isolated centre of freedom,
but something shaped – subtly, persistently – by the structures in which it is
embedded.
We do not simply live in society. We
are, in part, made by it.
Our desires are not entirely
spontaneous. They are cultivated.
Our choices are not entirely free.
They are framed.
Even our sense of what is possible –
what counts as success, dignity, or failure – is quietly negotiated by forces
we rarely see.
What we experience as inner life may
already be social.
Consider how early we begin to
internalise the world around us. The language we speak, the aspirations we
inherit, the fears we absorb: they all arrive before we have the capacity to
question them. By the time we begin to assert a “self,” much of its vocabulary
has already been written.
We call it personality. Marx might
call it history speaking through us. Raj, for example, is ambitious,
disciplined, and success-driven. He works long hours, dreams of financial
independence, follows market trends, invests wisely, and measures his progress
through promotions, salary hikes, and lifestyle upgrades. “This is who I
am,” he will assert proudly.
Wait a moment.
Where does Ram’s definition of
success come from? Why does stability mean a corporate job and not, say,
farming? Why does self-worth align so closely with income and consumption?
Marx would posit history as the
answer to the above questions. A post-liberalisation economy that glorifies
upward mobility is part of history rather than Raj’s individual self. So is a
culture that equates dignity with financial success. Also the system that
rewards certain forms of labour while rendering others invisible.
Raj is not merely choosing ambition;
he is inheriting a world where ambition has already been defined for him. Of
course, Raj has the freedom to choose. He is both the author of his life and a
character shaped by a script written long before he arrived.
Now
Let us relocate Raj to a socialist
framework that follows Marx’s ideals as far as that’s humanly possible.
He would still be ambitious. But he
would be asking different questions. The question ‘How far can I rise above
others?’ has no relevance in a socialist system. So Raj would be asking: How
well can I contribute within the system I am part of? Raj wouldn’t have to
worry about his material needs since the system would take care of them. Basic
needs such as education, healthcare, and housing are not prizes to be won in a
socialist system but guarantees. Wealth accumulation is not a measure of
success here, and so Raj can focus on other things.
Where capitalism says Distinguish
yourself, a socialist system would say: Align yourself.
The self is shaped largely by your
society, in other words.
We need to become conscious of that
shaping. Not to transcend it, but to see how little of us was ever entirely our
own.
PS. This post is a part
of Blogchatter A2Z Challenge 2026
Previous Posts in this series
Tomorrow: Tolerance –
Sree Narayana Guru


Greatly appreciated piece on Marx, made palletable to today's generation of the globalized consumeristic society. That good old Uncle Marx is still relevant is borne out by the ecological degradation and the merchandise of war, rampant today. He envisioned an unalienated Earth, where each could be his own architect, where we would not be living in an Administered World (Adorno) and where Capitalism would not make us pay for the role with which, it is going to hang you. ( Lenin). Let us, with Marx, hope and work for a society, where the ruling ideas of every epoch would not be of the Ruling Class. (Marx) .
ReplyDeleteRope. Hang us
ReplyDeleteEach generation is like a Pater Familias, which has to hand over to the next, the patrimony, in fact, or even better. (The Prescient Marx on an Ecologically Conscious note)
ReplyDeleteGood point. Our perceptions are influenced by the world we live in.
ReplyDelete