What Is Historical Materialism - Essay Example

? Strengths and Weaknesses Theory of History Historical Materialism When the common person thinks of history, images of struggle and adversity, triumph and conquest are called to the mind. The average person believes that the story of humanity is one of good versus evil, right against wrong. This was the perspective on history held by many people throughout many generations. However, Karl Marx, the controversial commentator on the world, sought to change that idea. The Marx Theory of history is driven by one key word: Productivity. That idea, although seemingly simple, when examined creates a whole new idea of the world and the way it works. This created an idea which precluded the relevance of morality, created an inherent contradiction in history, and failed to answer the lasting question of humanity: Why does the world operate in the manner in which it does? However, this theory also holds an underlying hope for a utopian, egalitarian society which allows all to live in comfort and safety. The exploration of this theory has lasted throughout decades as the human search for the order of the universe continues. What is Historical Materialism? The basic premise is that we as human beings must labor in order to obtain daily necessities, food, shelter, and clothing. These are undeniable facts of life, Marx proclaims, and when the admission is made that this is true the entire idea of the way we live is turned around. G.A. Cohen in his book, “Karl Marx’s Theory of History”, maintained that the heart of historical materialism is the notion that through the process of history there is “a tendency towards growth of human productive power.” (Cohen, 1978, p 364). Societies and economic structures, said Cohen of the theories premise, rise and fall depending upon their promotion or impediment of that growth (1978). Marx believed, as evidenced in the infamous 1859 Preface to his book A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy that man’s consciousness is dependent upon “societal productions”. These “societal productions” are dependent upon the “modes of production” said Marx. The “modes of production” form the societal structures which are the ways in which all structures, political and economic, are formed. From the arising of these societal and class structures comes dissatisfaction and “the era of social revolution,” according to G.A. Cohen in his book Karl Marx’s Theory of History (1978, p. 364-365). Marx followers, in this manner, seek to disrupt the way in which the common man views change. Change, according to the theory does not arise because of a new “consciousness” but instead societal structures and the natural shift or, change, over time causes the new “consciousness”, and thus, societal upheaval—a revolution. In Cohen’s interpretation of the Marx Theory of History a picture is painted of the image of a cyclical pattern which governs the process of history. In the first stage, production is not powerful enough to produce a surplus, thus there is no basis by which a class system could be formed. There is a classless society, not, according to the theory, because there is some underlying vision of social justice, but because the present circumstances dictate primitive egalitarianism (Cohen, 1978, 364-65). In the second stage, productive power becomes such that there is enough surplus to create an exploiting class, but not enough for “capitalist accumulation”. Producers are not in contractual relationships but instead are submitted to slavery. In the third stage of the cycle, a large surplus occurs and a society turns to capitalism. However, the surplus will continue, according to the theory, until capitalism becomes unsustainable and a “non-primitive communism” emerges, “the modern classless society”. “This” said Cohen “is the story of humankind in my reading of the doctrine…” (Cohen, 1978, p. 364-365) Weaknesses of Historical Materialism This theory, and the implications which it bears, has certain weakness when examined. First, if humanity as a whole is subject to the changes of technology and production than is the relevance of morality as a foundation for society precluded. The Marx idea creates the problem that humanity is without any Higher Being to guide its path. This is where one of the weaknesses lies. As written by G. Tassone in his article “Amoral Adorno Negative Dialects Outside Ethics”, “In this perspective, no space is left to the moral subject.”(2005, p.254) Tassone goes on to argue that if morality and justice become a simple product of circumstance than human freewill is denied and this determinism supports the status quo as the rule of law (2005, p. 254). If the status quo became the rule of law, mankind would not seek to heighten production and thus would not progress to the state of “non-primitive communism”. Thus, the very idea that productivity is the basis for societal change and growth denies itself. Franz Mehring defended Historical Materialism in this respect in his 1893 Pamphlet, “On Historical Materialism”. In this pamphlet, Mehring makes the argument that Historical Materialism does indeed preclude morality in any model framing a study of history. However, Mehring argues, any scientific study must preclude morality (1893). This line of defense is troubling to say the least, because is scientific study precludes morality than what boundaries are there for research? In defending this troublesome aspect of Marx’s theory, Mehring has in fact solidified the concern. Another problem is a contradiction within this theory. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Marx is quoted from the “Communist Manifesto” thusly, “‘The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production.’”(Stanford 2003) This statement by Marx gives the economic structure primacy when formerly Marx maintained that the production forces themselves were the primary factors in the cycle of history. Cohen attempts to solve this quandary by explaining that the economic structure does grow the productive forces; however, this is why we maintain capitalism as much as possible (Stanford 2003). This provides a manner in which the model still works, for if the economic structure fails to produce productive forces revolution will occur (Stanford 2003). Another pestering knock at Historical Materialism is the ever-present “Why?” The theory spells out the process but not why these things work the way they do. Even with the previous example the Marx Theory still fails to fully explain. As argued in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, if the argument was that there was an “agent”, who had the purpose of making sure productive forces thrived, then it would follow that this agent would act within history to ensure that the economic structures in place were the best to perform that purpose. However, Marx does not make that metaphysical argument (Stanford 2003). In defense of this problem, Cohen takes shelter by pointing to similar arguments within evolutionary study. As biologists often explain appearance and structure of an animal by explaining its function and adding in details of the supposed story of how they believe evolution occurred, so Cohen explains the Marx problem. In contrast, Historical Idealism answers these quandaries with ease. In the concept of Historical Idealism, as told by George Hegel, subjective matter is subject to the consciousness of God, and not just existing on a whim and a chance. This answers the queries caused by Historical Materialism (Stanford 1997). When examining this concept it is found that the idea of morality is clearly answered as it is dependent upon the decisions of God. The question of why is also dropped since there is an “agent” acting within history; it is God. This idea also gives rise to the idea that since we are under the power of God we must help each other. This makes way for the socialist view of the world. The idea that this world is a under the care of God helps people to be more receptive to giving of themselves. Strengths of Historical Materialism However, although there are certain weaknesses to the theory the reason it has held out for so long is its captivating ability to be applied in some respects to the way things work. People still look towards this theory because it has been shown to be accurate in some respects. There are several examples of ways in which the model holds some elements of truth. One example of this model’s success is America. In the beginning, with the Pilgrims’ quest for freedom to worship as they chose, there was meagre production and they had no slaves (Pilgrim Hall). However, as time progressed and the nation became more established, slavery developed. Then came the industrial revolution which sparked an inconceivable increase in productivity. Not long after this slavery was abolished (Historic Overview). However, although America enjoys a capitalist, non-slavery nation, the “non-primitive” communist society has yet to emerge. However, it is a strength of this argument that this is not problematic, that will be addressed shortly. The main strength of Historical Materialism is its flexibility and its interpretability. Many arguments can be made against it, but its rubbery nature allows for this complex, inordinate theory to return, un-bruised from attacks on its nature. Marx theorists such as E.H. Carr were able to apply concepts like “productive power” to “political power”. Carr believed that our lives are determined and we cannot affect world politics in significant ways (Mearsheimer 2004). In this way he translated the theory into a modern model. The major strength of Marx’s Theory of History lies within its initial premise, the premise that we must labor to receive our necessities. The simplicity of this statement is what allows the audience to access the idea and claim it within themselves. This is a fact which is nearly indisputable in the modern world, according to the way in which the western world lives. When human beings are faced with an unfamiliar idea, any link to the present idea is generally acceptable and makes the new idea more palatable. By using the basic necessities of living as the basis for this volatile concept Marx helps the exploratory search of this theory run more smoothly. This is major strength of this concept which elevated Marx from simply a man with a radical idea to a man with a probable idea. The next strength is that western culture is dominated by capitalism and if capitalism is a step toward an egalitarian utopia, then that enables capitalist westerners to believe that this is the correct path. By gaining the favor of the mass audience to whom it is mainly addressed, by speaking to the present circumstances, Marx circumvents a potential adversity in the promotion of his theory. This is a strength which is not inherent to the concept itself, but a strength of Marx’s ability to reach his target audience and avoid problematic statements concerning the society upon which he depended for “production”. Another strength of this argument is that the stages cannot be proven wrong so long as the first three progress appropriately. The capitalist society in which the western world exists matches well with the Marxist idea of stage three. However, stage four cannot be proven or disproven since there is no time line. The fact that the cycle is not time bound gives way to the thought that it will happen eventually, this loophole allows people to maintain belief in this concept. Marx has certainly made an argument which has an airtight bottom. Conclusion Karl Marx’s Theory of History was one which addressed many concepts and issues in society and formed a new framework with which to understand the story of humanity. The idea he formed was volatile and held many problems and caused many concerns. There are certain concerns which have yet to be answered. Namely, the Marxist affect on morality, the inherent contradiction, and its failure to answer the question of why the world in which the human race resides operates in the ways in which it does. The Darwinian explanations are simply not satisfactory. Some are unsatisfied with the idea that these things work that way because they work best that way (Stanford 2003). However, there were also strengths found within this concept. The first strength was that Marx based this idea on a basic premise that most can agree to, in this way, he establishes a relationship with the audience. Also, with his use of the concept of capitalism as a stepping stone to a better society, Marx was able to maintain the interest of an industrialized, capitalistic society, even into the present day. His final strength is that the model’s final stage is unable to be disproven. He makes the claim that the final stage will be “non-primitive communism” (Cohen, 1978, p. 365); however, no one can say “It didn’t happen” because it isn’t a time bound argument. The Marx theory was one which will continue to bring many questions and controversy. The idea created over one hundred and fifty years ago still causes a dilemma for many. However, the Marx argument is one for which many will call him genius. Bibliography Cohen, G.A. 1978. Karl Marx’s Theory of History. Princeton Univeristy Press. Marx, K., 1859. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. [online] London, England: Archives of Marxism. Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/index.htm Mearsheimer, J. 2004. E.H. Carr vs. Idealism: The Battle Rages On, 14 October, Aberystwyth, available: mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0035.pdf [3 June 2011] Mehring, F., 1893. On Historical Materialism. [Online] : Archives of Marxism. Available at: Pilgrim Hall Museum, 2005. Pilgrims’ Landing in America. [online] Available at: Slavery in America. Historic Overview. [online] Available at: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1997. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. [online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/#NatIdeGerTra Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1997. Karl Marx. [online] Available at: Tassone, G. , 2005. Amoral Adorno Negative Dialects Outside Ethics, European Journal of Social Theory, [online] Available at: Read More