The arrival of Marxism reflected the industrial transformation of northern Europe and the rise in the size and power of the working class. By the 1840s when the publications of Marx and Engels began to appear, the industrialisation of England had been well and truly established – a historical fact so important that, in Engels’ view, it had ‘no counterpart in the annals of humanity’ (Engels, 1845, p 50). Advancing capitalist industrialisation had ‘a centralising effect’ on many other aspects of life: capital began to be concentrated in fewer hands; the workforce started being amassed in factories rather than in the myriad of workshops that dotted the villages; the rural exodus to the towns gained momentum so that by the 1851 census half the population in England lived in towns; the heart of the nation's economy shifted from agriculture to industrial production; and the industrial working class was beginning to flex its political muscle (Engels, 1845, pp 54–5).

Marx and Engels consistently considered capitalist industrialisation as having both positive and negative effects on human welfare. On one hand, it facilitated technical innovation, it encouraged productivity, it opened new markets, it created new products and, with these, the general standard of living rose. On the other hand, working conditions deteriorated in the factories, workers became alienated from their workplace, inequality widened, housing standards in the urban working-class ghettos became utterly inhuman, community spirit declined and the class antagonism between workers and employers sharpened, with the fear of revolution always in the air.

Marxism sought, first, to interpret these changes within a materialist theoretical framework; and, second, to use the same conceptual framework to explain the emergence of the good society – communism – that would put an end to the evils of capitalism, while retaining the technology that fuelled productivity and economic growth. Marx and Engels tried to distinguish themselves from other socialists by claiming that their theories on capitalism, socialism and communism were ‘scientific’, objective and practical rather than ‘ideological’, subjective and, hence, utopian. It is an assertion that does not stand up to any serious examination not only because their proposals have not been implemented anywhere but also because we have come to realise that the writers’ views on human nature, on what is desirable in life and what is not, always influence their ‘theoretical’ edifices.