The German Ideology by Marx and Engels

“ The German Ideology” is a book that was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx and Engels through their script claim that human beings distinguish themselves from animals immediately they begin to produce their means of subsistence. The book illustrates that both what and how individuals produce concurs with what individuals are. According to the book, there is a direct tie between the division of labor and forms of ownership. The degree, to which division of labor has been carried, shows how far the productive forces of a nation are developed. 

They argue that the ruling class regulates production and distribution of ideas their age and as the ruling class changes with time, so do the principles as the new ruling class emerges. The new ruling class introduces upon its society its ideas which eventually become universal. In an attempt to explain this theoretical framework, Marx formulates a base and a superstructure whereby historical development is the reflection of changes in the economic and material associations of the base. As soon as the base changes, a revolutionary class becomes the new ruling class that formulates the base and the superstructure. During the process of revolution, the revolutionary class ensures that its ideas appeal to all and after that, the ideas appear natural and universal. 

"The German Ideology" focuses on Idealism and Materialism. Germany had undergone an incomparable revolution in the past few years in which all the past powers had been swept away. Mighty powers that rose during revolution period met immediate trouble and heroes that emerged during the revolution were thrown back into obscurity by more braver and stronger rivals. During this revolution period, principles outdid one another, and heroes of the mind overthrew each other with unheard of rapidity. All these eventually rose to competition which at the beginning was carried moderately, but later the German market became flooded and the commodity in spite of all determination, found no response in the global market. The business was spoilt in German manner through fabricated and fictitious production. Deterioration in quality, adulteration of the raw materials, and falsification of labels, false purchases, bill-jobbing and a credit system devoid of any real basis all resulted into the spoilt business. The competition ceased from being moderate to bitter struggle which could only be defined in the present as the revolution of world significance, the begetter of the most remarkable results and achievements (Max, 1845). 

"German Ideology" is restricted to criticisms of religious conceptions which started from real religion and actual theology. Religious understanding and consciousness went along as their improvement consisted in subsuming the allegedly leading philosophic, political, juridical, moral and other conceptions under the class of religious or theological notions. The power of religion was initially taken for granted, but gradually, every dominant relationship was pronounced as spiritual relationship and later on converted into a cult. In the "German Ideology," "The Old Hegelians had comprehended everything as soon as it was reduced to a Hegelian logical category. The Young Hegelians criticized everything by attributing to it religious conceptions or by pronouncing it a theological matter. The Young Hegelians are in agreement with the Old Hegelians in their belief in the rule of religion, of concepts, of a universal principle in the actual world"(Max, 1845). This, therefore, shows that only one party attacked this dominion as usurpation, while the other commended it as genuine. Ever since the Young Hegelians considered conceptions of thoughts, ideas, and in totality the products of consciousness, to which they pointed an independent existence, as the real chains of men, it is very clear that the Young Hegelians had to fight only against those illusions of consciousness. According to Young Hegelians fantasy, the relationships of men, their deeds, chains, and limitations are yields of their consciousness; the Young Hegelians reasonably put to men the moral claim of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or self-centered consciousness, and hence removing their limitations. 

Through the "The German Ideology," Marx offers an analysis that is exhibited in his materialistic approach that views diverse ideas and opinions as the result of material social, historical and economic conditions. According to Marx, only reality creates the mind and not the mind that creates reality. People’s material circumstances create and conditions various positions and beliefs they held, be it moral, religion among others. Marx, in The German Ideology, makes the foundation of his social philosophy that consciousness in socially which was initially raised by his predecessors.Marx base his argument and idea heavily on the previous work of Feuerbach who had claimed that religious belief was deeply rooted in man's material and actual condition, in man's insight of himself and in that God is, however, an outcrop of his earthly creators. Marx strongly believes that Feuerbach failed in his attempt to explain specific, economic, historical and social settings which shape religious belief although; there is no enough evidence for Marx to prove this. He argues that it is not adequate to claim that people generate their ideologies, images as suggested by his predecessors but people's ideologies and ideas are conditioned by past formation of powers of production and relations of production. This argument gives Marx a solid base for the distinction between economical base and superstructure which includes religion, ideology, and culture. 

The book also discusses the premises of materialistic methods. Premises from which men allude to begin are not arbitrary but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the thoughts. The premises can be verified in a purely empirical way. The first premise is the existence of living human individuals. Max and Engels distinguish men from animals by consciousness, religion among others. How productive a nation is, is also depend on the division of labor in that nation. They define the division of labor as separation of industrial and commercial from the agricultural labor thus leading to separation of a town and a country. Developmental stages of division of labor had gone different ownership forms such as tribal ownership (tribal ownership corresponds with the initial stage of production, at which individuals’ lived by hunting, gathering, and fishing, through rearing of beasts or wild fruits in agriculture), ancient communal and state ownership ( these proceeded particularly from the merger of several tribes into a city by treaty or by invasion, and which was still supplemented by slavery), feudal or state property ownership ( this explains how the Middle Ages began from the country when the antiquity originated out from the town and its petite territory) , and private ownership(properties were owned individually). 

It describes individuals, who are productively active in a certain way, as usually entering into a certain social and political relation. It is evident that production of ideas, concepts, and consciousness is directly interlinked with the language of real life and that applied to the mental production as stated in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion and metaphysics of people. Concepts and ideas are seen to be produced by active men as they are conditioned by productive forces of development. Through producing their means of subsistence, men are indirectly producing their main material life. Production of means of subsistence by men highly depends on the nature of the real means of subsistence men find in existence and have to reproduce. The mode of production is a definite form of activity of men, a certain form of expressing their life, and a mode of life on their part and must not be considered as being the production of the physical existence of the men. What men are coincided with their production, as in what they produce and how they produce it. 

The book regards history as continuous process. According to Max and Engels, the satisfaction of human needs leads to new requirements. The production of these new requirements is an actual act since it recognizes the spiritual ancestry of the ancient wisdom of the Germans. Men, who daily remake their life, begin to make other people propagate their kind. The relationship between man and woman, parents and children, and the whole family develops, and the connection of men with one another can be determined by their needs and mode of production. These connections which keep on changing hence present a history of political and religious existence which has a possibility of holding men together. In considering four aspects of the primary historical relationship, it is realized that man also possesses consciousness although it is not pure consciousness. The global historical existence of individuals illustrates the existence of individuals which is directly connected with world history. In summary, history is said to be the succession of separate generations of which each exploits the materials, funds, and productive forces handed over to it by the preceding generations, but carries on the traditional activity in completely changed circumstances and adjusts the old circumstances with a completely changed activity. The nature of men depends on the material condition determining production and production can only be realized with an increase in population. 

Marx’s perception of history in the book focuses most on the material aspect of human presence. He argues that humans must be able to live and survive to make history. The basis for all human activities, for example, religion, art, politics, for Marx is a material of survival. Production, as described by Marx and Engels, is the only way in which mankind has been meeting his survival needs for the past some years. He views production designed to meet survival needs as the first historical act that initiated history. Marx does not assent to the traditional difference between manual and mental labor as a capitalist propaganda, but he reasons that the two are unavoidably entangled in one another in the praxis. The first division of labor according to him is the one that exists between a woman and a man in the context of the act of making children and how these children are raised, and this is described as the division of labor of the human reproduction. The first economical production unit is based on the division of labor, private property, and inequality which is as a result of the family which is the first social unit. Marx and Engels argue that increase in production has led to increasing in social units, however, in the process more advanced notions of ownership and division of labor have emerged. Diverse positions assumed by people in the process of production are the division of labor according to Marx. According to them, the division of labor is aggressive one which transmits on the formation of property over the ways of production and hence leading to split into various classes rendering to whoever has ownership over the means of production. The class that has possession aids the one who doesn't have possession and depends on it for its existence and survival. Marx then concludes that man’s productive activity oblige negotiations between individuals, which are the social order surrounding production. 

The whole material intercourse of individuals within a given stage of productive forces of development has been embraced by the civil society in an attempt to explain the illusion of the epoch. Civil society holds on to the whole commercial and industrial of life at a given point, and it surpasses the state and the nation. Also, it must affirm itself in its foreign relations as nationality, and interiorly it must organize itself as State. The word “civil society” is claimed to have emerged in the eighteenth century when property associations had already extracted themselves from the early and medieval communal society. 

According to Feuerbach's “Philosophic, and Real, Liberation ”argument, it is very clear how grossly he deceives himself through declaring himself a communist and thinks it is possible to change the word communist which in reality meant the follower of a definite revolutionary party. His whole judgment about the relation of men to each other only proves that men have always needed each other and still need each other. By trying to establish consciousness of this fact, Feuerbach simply produces a correct knowledge of an existing fact. This was met with a mixed reaction as real communists argued that it was only meant for overthrowing the current state of things while others appreciated Feuerbach for endeavoring to produce consciousness of these facts. But in reality, it was a question of revolutionizing the world and changing the existing things as constantly explained by Feuerbach. He sees only factories and machines, where a hundred years ago only spinning wheels and weaving rooms were seen. He speaks particularly of the perception of the natural science whereby he mentions secrets disclosed only to the eye of physicist and chemist. Feuerbach not only found an enormous in the natural world but also found the whole world of men. 

The illusion of epoch discussed in the book can also be seen in the ruling class and the ruling idea. The ruling ideas are the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships Thus the relationship which makes one class the ruling class. Those composing the ruling class possess consciousness among other things and therefore make decisions and think. The ruling class determines the extent and compass of an epoch. This is done in its whole range as they rule as thinkers, producers of ideas, and regulators of production and distribution of ideas of their age. For example, in an era and in a state where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are competing for mastery and where the master is shared; the principle of separation of power displays the dominant idea and is viewed as an endless law. Division of labor also manifests itself in the ruling class as there is a division of mental and material labor. This ideology brings out the difference within a ruling class as one part act as the thinkers of the class as the other part acts as active members hence have less time to make up illusions and ideas. The composition of a ruling class into different parts can lead to opposition and hostility between the two parts. 

After having only considered four moments, which are four aspects of the primary historical relationships, we discover that man also holds “consciousness,” nonetheless, not natural or not “pure” consciousness. At the beginning, the "spirit" is troubled with the expletive of being “burdened” with matter, which only makes its presence in the form of nervous layers of sounds, air, in short, of language. Language is described as old as consciousness; language is a concrete consciousness that also exists for other men, and for that cause alone it exists for every person; language, like consciousness, only ascends from the need, the requirement, of interaction with other men. The relationship only exists between man and man. He regards animals as not entering into relationships among themselves or with anything else. For the animals, its association to others does not exist as a relation but as symbiotic. Consciousness can, therefore, from the very start a social product, and not changes as long as men exist. At first, it is merely consciousness regarding the instant splendid environment and consciousness of the restricted connection with other individuals and things outside the individual who is growing self-conscious. The consciousness of man receives its further development and extension through enhanced productivity, the rise of needs, and, what is essential to both of these, the increase of population. With all these, there improves the division of labor, which was initially nothing but the division of labor in the sexual act, then that division of labor which develops suddenly or by natural tendency. 

In considering the course of the history, the ideas of the ruling class are detached from the ruling class itself. The class making a revolution appears from the very beginning, only if it distinct to a class, and not as a class but as a representative of a society as a whole. The class making a revolution should, therefore, appear as the whole society confronting the one ruling class. This is usually possible where the interests are more connected with the common interests of all other non-ruling class to make this revolution possible. Each new class achieves his hegemony on a broader basis than the previously displaced ruling class. The rule of a certain ruling class naturally comes to an end immediately a class that is ruling ceases to represent a particular interest in general of the no- ruling class. The ruling ideas can be abstracted only if the ruling ideas have been separated from the ruling individuals and relationships. 

The historical stage holds a class conflict according to Marx in "The German Ideology." Varying property patterns over the means of production generates diverse classes who are in an endless state of conflict with one another. This fight was usually secret and was demonstrated mostly in social wars, class clashes and revolutions which later led to the reformation of the social order. The result of the contradiction between the means of production and the associations of production was described as revolution according to Marx description of revolution. He describes means of production as labor as well as the technical, technological and economical means at humanity’s disposal. According to him, the relations of production include property and the division of yield and benefits within the society. Marx argues that at some historical point every society reaches a point that means of production cease to respond properly with the relations of production. He gives an illustration with a ruling class that has property over the means of production and hence enjoys a favorable position within the affiliations of production, and sticks to the old associations of production. Though this past association, production becomes a hurdle in the development of the new means of production. The subservient class asks for new relations of production which corresponds with new ways of production. Tension arises which is usually in the form of revolution and leads to change in regards to production and alterations in social ranking and division of power as Marx uses French revolution to explain this properly. 

In “The German Ideology” Marx claims that the division of labor turns a man’s own actions to an external authority that enslaves him. He is sure that certain social-economic conditions, for example, those brought through capitalism; shows this isolation to society itself. When the products of production are stopped from the workers, they feel that these products have authority over them of which they are not able to control. In short alienation brings about fetishism of production and products which are received as being both of separate and independent existence and as of having authority over the isolated employee. Marx insists that alienation can be terminated when the employees take over the means of production. 

A key concept in “The German Ideology” is the ideology. The book holds that ideology reflects a reversed image of social reality which is inaccurate and not true. They plainly see the truth of reality and reality as it is received through ideology is not accepted. Marx links the function of ideology to material actuality and the way of human material development. In short, ideology is the result of material reality, and the inaccurate image of this reality depicted by this ideology is as a result of social, economic conditions. They believe that all ideas and thoughts are socially made and depend on society's material state, and its existence defines consciousness. But what differentiates ideology from other cultural forms is its ability to misrepresent and inverting the image of reality as it is received in society. Ideology presents itself as universal and objective, though when Marx contested Hegel conception of the idealist historical languages in approval of a material one, he established the floor for denying any idea such as the ideology as disconnected for actual social and economic reality. Nationality and even family values were all brushed off by Marx as an ideology which was intended to preserve the existing social order and relations of production through presenting the current state as warranted, justified and natural. He argues that ideology is as a result of material class conflict hence ideas of the ruling class are always the dominant ideas. He views ideology as always functioning at the service of the prevailing social order and in beneficiaries. Marx sees every revolution as introducing a new ideology in supporting social order which is presented as universal. 

The real basis of Ideology can be identified through the division of labor. The dissimilarity between the natural instruments of production and those that are created by civilization stands out. The natural instruments of production include things like water. Individuals of natural production are subservient to nature, and therefore property landed appears as direct natural domination while those created by civilization individuals are subservient to a product of labor and the property landed appears as the domination of labor, particularly of accumulated labor and capital. Individuals of natural instruments are also believed to be united by some bond such as family, tribe, and the land itself while the individuals of those created by civilization are independent of one another and are only held together through the exchange. What is involved mainly in the natural instruments of production is mainly exchange between men and nature of which the former is exchanged for the products of the latter while those created by civilization it is mainly an exchange of men among themselves. In the natural instruments of production, lesser industry exists and is determined by the utilization of the natural instrument of production and therefore without the distribution of labor among various individual while in those created by civilization, industry exists only in and through the division of labor. 

The separation of a town and a country is the greatest division of material and mental labor. “The antagonism between town and country begins with the transition from barbarism to civilization, from tribe to State, from locality to nation, and runs through the whole history of civilization to the present day” (Marx 1845).The existence of a town necessitates administration, police and therefore creates municipality which eventually leads to politics. The ill feeling between a town and a country exists only within the framework of private property. The separation of a town from a country is also defined as the separation of capital and landed property. This is because the beginning of the existence and development of capital independent of landed property has its basis only in labor and exchange. With the existence of a town, there is a guarantee that there is a concentration of population, instrument of production, pleasures, and need while the country just depicts isolation and separation. The eradication of the hatred between town and country is one of the conditions of communal life, a condition which depends on a mass of material premises and it cannot be fulfilled by just a will, as anyone can see at the first look. The competition of serfs escaping into the town, the persistent war of the country against the towns, necessitated an organized municipal military force, the unity of common ownership in a particular kind of labor, the necessity of shared buildings for the sale of their goods at a time when craftsmen were also described as traders, and the resultant exclusion of the unapproved from these buildings, the engagement among the interests of the various crafts, the necessity of protecting their painfully acquired skill, and the feudal association of the entire the country. 

The limited trade and scanty communication between the individual towns, inadequate population, and limited needs did not allow division of labor to thrive hence everyone who wanted to become a master had to be proficient in the whole of his craft. “ Everyone believes his craft to be the true one. Illusions regarding the connection between their craft and reality are the more likely to be cherished by them because of the very nature of the craft" (Marx 1845). The next division of labor emerged when there was a separation of production and commerce. This led to the formation of a particular class of merchants and a possibility of commercial communication within the immediate neighborhood. This highly depended on the existing means of laying information and, public security which was determined by political conditions. The towns after that entered into relation with one another as commerce expanded through merchants who traveled beyond their immediate surroundings. As new tools were brought from one town to the other, separation between production and commerce lead to the new division of production between individual towns of which each town exploited its predominant branch of industry.So long as there exist no trade transcending the nearby neighborhood. Each invention was made separately in each locality. 

The immediate result of the division of labor between various towns was the rise of manufacturers. Manufacturers first succeeded in Italy and then Flanders. Manufacturers highly depended on an already existing concentration of population, especially in the countryside, and capital. Clothing industry was the first industry to receive development as a result of the extension of trade. This was because weaving was the first main manufacturing activity and the increase in the demand for clothing products promoted the rise of clothing industry tremendously. Weaving mostly found its ways in the villages and market centers without organizations which eventually developed into flourishing towns in each land. With the introduction of the manufacturer, different nations engaged in a competitive relationship, the relationship between worker and employer changed. Movement and manufacture of production grew tremendously, and extension of commerce after that leads to discovering of America and sea-route to East –Indies. 

For each country to protect its manufacturers, after being compelled by the stiff competition, they enacted customs regulations and shortly after introduced big industries and protective duties. Competition destroyed all natural growth and resolved all natural relationships into money relationships. Where the naturally grown towns existed, a competition created modern large industrial cities which sprung so quickly and destroyed crafts and other earlier stages of industrialization. Property relations quickly changed with guild manufacturers’. The rise of merchants, whose capital was movable at the beginning, provided the first naturally advanced derived estate capital. And the second advance that followed was made mobile a mass natural capital and all these amplified the quantity of movable capital as against that of natural capital. During that period manufacturers grew into a refuge of the peasants from the associations which left them out or those that paid them poorly. The period is also characterized by posting several bans on the export of gold and silver and marked the beginning of money usage and trade in money through banks, national debts, and paper money, speculation in stocks and shares and stock-jobbing. It marked the development of finance as a whole. England had already existing concentration of trade and manufacturers hence leading to a high demand of its products which could not be met by the then industrial productive force. This led to the creation of big manufacturers industries, usage of more sophisticated machines and complex division of labor to ensure that the demand which had grown highly was met. In spite of the protective measures, big industries had already universalized. Competition forced individual companies to strain their energy to the utmost and also destroyed ideology, religion and morality and where this destruction was not possible; it forced them into a substantial lie. Competition made all civilized nations and every citizen of these nations to depend only for the satisfaction of their wants of the whole world hence destroying the previous exclusiveness of different nations. Natural science became subservient to capital hence taking it away from the division of labor which was the last impression of the natural character. 

Citizens in every town were forced to unite against the landed nobility to save their skins. The expansion of trade, establishment of communication led different towns to get to know each other. "Out of the many local corporations of burghers there arose only gradually the burgher class" (Schwartz, 1968). He describes the condition of life of the individual burghers as becoming common conditions to all of them and independent of each. The citizens themselves had created the conditions because they had torn themselves free from the feudal ties. When individual town started entering into associations, these same conditions developed into class conditions. Same interests, conditions, and contradictions attracted similar customs in all places. Bourgeoisie with its condition also split according to the division of labor into several portions and absorbed all propertied classes it found into existence and transformed them into industrial or commercial capital. Abolishment of considering of individuals under definite classes was only possible where a class had taken shape and had no longer any specific class interest to assert against the ruling class. The changing of own powers into material powers, could not be dismissed by dismissing the general idea of it from one's mind, but could only be eradicated by the individuals again through subjecting the material powers to themselves and abolishing the division of labor. From the philosophical point of view, it is considered that evolution of individuals from the point of the existence of estates and classes, additional general conceptions forced upon them, it is definitely very easy to envision that in these individuals the species, or "Man," had evolved. People have always built on themselves. Individuals have always built on themselves, but naturally on themselves inside their given past conditions and relationships, but not on the "pure" individual in the sense of the ideologists. Nevertheless, in the way of historic evolution, and to be more exact, through the unavoidable fact that within the division of labor social relationships take on a sovereign existence, there appears a division within the life of each individual, insofar as it seems personal, and it is determined by a branch of labor and the conditions relating to it. The division between d the class individual and the personal appeared with the emergence of the class only and of which it is itself a product of bourgeoisie. This accidental character is only possible where there are struggle and competition among the individuals themselves. 

Interpretation of history became contradicted by conquest. Until presently, violence, war, pillage, murder, and robbery, have been recognized as the driving force of history. Conquering in the olden days exhibited regular intercourse since the only crude production gave rise to new demands for sophisticated weapons. In Italy for example, the concentration of landed property and its conversion to grazing lands led to the almost total disappearance of the free population. Slavery remained constant during those periods as it was the main basis of the whole production system. Slaves died but were constantly replaced. 

Personal freedom can only be achieved by only individuals who develop the relationship of the ruling class and are the individuals of that class. Individuals build themselves always naturally and not on the sense of the ideologists but in the course of historical evolution. The division between class and the individual only appears with the emergence of a class which is usually a product of the bourgeoisie. This unintended character is mainly caused and developed by competition and the struggle of individuals among themselves. Individuals are usually freer previously under the governance of the bourgeoisie in imagination while in reality, they are less free due to increased subjection of violence. The communal relationship into which the individual class of a class enters that is determined by their common interest against a third party is always a community to which these individuals belong as average individuals. 

Communism varies from all past movements in that it reverses the previous relations of production and intercourse and consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of the previously existing men for the first time. Communism is precisely the true basis for rendering it impossible that anything should exist independently of individuals. Those who practice communism treat the conditions created through production and intercourse as inorganic conditions. The circumstances under which individuals had interaction with each other are circumstance relating to their individuality. The close relation of the productive forces to the form of communication is the relation of the form of interaction to the profession or activity of the individuals. The different shaping of material life is, of course, in every case reliant on the needs which are already acquired, and the production and satisfaction of these requirements is a historical process, which was not initiated in the event of a sheep or a dog. He describes man as not seeing how the sensuous world around him is, not a thing given straight from all infinity, lasting ever the same, but as the creation of industry and of the state of society; and, certainly, in the sense that it is a past product, the outcome of the action of a whole series of generations, each upended on top of the previous one, developing its industry and its interaction, adjusting its social system rendering to the new needs. 

It gives the distinction between the individual as a person and what is unintentional to him as not a theoretical difference but a historical fact. The difference has different significance at different times. Evolution is seen as a natural process that takes place slowly hence leading to the gradual relationship of localities, tribes nations and eventually branches of labor. This is not usually the case with countries which begin at already advanced historical epoch, development is usually rapid, and such countries have no other natural premises but individuals who settled there because the forms of intercourse the previous countries had was not corresponding to their wants. These countries begin with the best-advanced individuals of the old countries and so with the correspondingly most advanced form of interaction because, before this form of interaction had been able to establish it in the old countries. This is described to be the case with all colonies since they were not just military or trading stations. The contradiction between the productive forces and the forms of interaction, which had occurred several times in the history, resulted in revolution, taking on some different subsidiary forms for instance collisions of various classes, the contradiction of various consciousness, political conflicts, ideas that are divergent and accepting collisions. According to the contradiction between productive forces and the forms of interaction, collisions in history had their origins. For one to lead collisions in one country, the contradiction did not necessarily have reached its extreme limit in that specific country. The expansion of international interaction was sufficient to produce a similar contradiction in countries with a backward industry, and that was brought about by competition with industrially advanced countries. 

It illustrates that from the conception of history, it can be concluded that there comes a stage when productive forces and means of interaction are brought into existence in the development of the productive forces, of which, under the existing relations, can cause malice and destructive forces instead of the productive forces. The conditions under which certain productive forces are applied are the very conditions of the rule of a certain class of society, whose shared power, arose from its property, had its real idealistic expression in every case in the form of the state hence every revolutionary struggle was directed against a class, which during that period was in power in power. All revolutions that took place had no changed mode of activity as all remained untouched and only a question of different distribution of activities and fresh distribution of labor to other individuals arose. Change of men on a mass scale is necessary for both the production on a mass scale of the communist consciousness and for the success of the cause itself. 

In conclusion, the book The German Ideology has mainly been used to describe the whole process of revolution in the early years. The book mainly focuses on the emergence of religion, a division of labor, industrialization, and commerce which eventually developed into towns and countries due to the interaction of people, towns, and countries. The interaction of towns is seen as a result of merchants who moved beyond their immediate surroundings. Over the years The German Ideology has created criticism with different scholars having divergent opinions about the book. 

References 

Delaney, T.(1968).A critique of the german ideology. Marx the german ideology, 1(1)p27,30,31 

Marx, K.(1845).The german ideology, Marxists internet archive. 1(1) p6,8.https:www.marxists.org