Is Marx's Theory of Historical Materialism a Problem or Solution - Literature review Example

Marx’s Theory of Historical Materialism. Problem or Solution? Student Name: Instructor name: Institution: Date: Introduction The following essay provides a critique of Marx’s theory of historical materialism with an eye to dissecting his view that capitalism was both the cause of the problem and the source of the solution. We shall seek to define what exactly the problem is, as well as what the solution may be in light of this theory and whether it is a matter of contradiction to state that capitalism is both. We shall begin by attempting to define historical materialism, and then articulating what the problem could be, as well as what solutions present themselves. Finally, we shall analyse the premise that capitalism is both these things and possibly come to a conclusion. The history of materialism as set out by Marx is a chronicle of the impact of fiscal forces on social change down the ages; and an observation that these forces will continue to influence the course of society to culminate inevitably in communism. Friedrich Engels stated that Marx: “Discovered the law of development of human history” in a manner similar to Darwin’s discovery of the law of development of organic nature (Marx & Engels, 1983, 69). The Dialectical Method Marx was hugely influenced in his writing by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), a prominent German philosopher, who pioneered the Dialectical Method of thinking. This dialectical method forms the basis of Marxism and is evident throughout Marx’s writing (Shimp, 2009). The dialectical method is a concept that states that humankind is separated or alienated from the ‘Absolute’, and history is a progression toward reunification with this ‘Absolute’, or God according to Hegel. According to Wolff (2003,29), this alienation is as a result of two beings that belong together being torn asunder, and the dialectical method is the means by which they find their way back to each other. Marx, on the other hand, espoused an experiential approach to the examination of human existence, and by this scientific approach set out to overturn the idealistic influence on the mindset that pervaded 19th century German society; represented by Hegel and Plato. The problem that Marx had with Hegel’s view is that instead of starting out with questions, for which one seeks answers and then formulates a theory, Hegel began with a predetermined theory i.e. a series of theological precepts about the Absolute and the function of the natural world in the celestial plan, and then allegedly sought facts to support said theory. Marx felt that if one took a practical look at actual human societies then a different picture emerges. A detailed examination of socio-economic and political historical events from the ancient to the feudal and eventually capitalism, formed a pattern that can be used to predict future social order (Kamenka, 2005). Historical materialism according to Marx brings forth a completely deterministic representation of the unfolding of history, in which the situations are altered as a consequence of modification in means of production. This scenario is inclusive even of advancement of ideas; and the resultant development and diversification of ideologies are: “The forms in which men become conscious of (material conflict) and fight it out” (Marx-Engels Reader 5) Ironically, application of historical materialism to Marx’s own theory is a self-defeating exercise due to the inherent contradiction. According to Hegel’s state of reality, when God and man are reunited, history will come to an end (Ibid, 1990, 12). A modified and more realistic view is that man is led to the end of history through interaction of thesis and antithesis – a contradiction in terms. The dialectical contradiction is complex to understand because it diverges markedly from the rational meaning of the term (Heilbroner, 1981, 41). In dialectics, contradictions denote oppositions that are essential to but also destructive of the other; in the same way that a master and servant are opposites of each other yet one cannot exist without the other (Ibid, 1981, 36, 39). Thus contradiction is a relational concept. In Marx’s theory, the thesis and the antithesis are stages depicted respectively by the bourgeois and the proletariat. The point at which these two collide and intermingle is known as the synthesis. Historical materialism therefore declares that it is economic forces that drive humanity through history as these social classes converge. Economic transactions are how man relates to his material environment and he converts this environment, not by thoughts or ideas but by physical means with industrial implements such as spades, ploughs, looms and lathes (Wolff, 2003, 28). To survive, man has to work. As he labours in the field, he changes the surroundings and by so doing, gains advantage economically. This dynamic movement causes disturbance to the status quo, and class wars result. The class wars are the source of the contradiction as outlined in the Marx’s theory. Thus the bourgeois and the proletariat struggle with each other, until a new ruling class emerges from which, a new lower class will emerge. The Problem with Capitalism The stages of history are distinguished by specific types of production, viz feudalism, then capitalism, followed by socialism. Each stage is born of that before and represents advancement in historical form. So each stage is a necessary step, that defines its era is justified by it, in relation to the situation from which it takes over. However, the stages are considered to be transient, likely to be replaced as better systems are developed (Cohen, 2000). Once the new system is in inception, the present situation becomes superfluous and can transform into an impediment to progress (Hegel, 1988). This concept is the foundation of Marx’s criticism of capitalism, and recommendation of socialism. This concept provides the foundation of Marx’s criticism of capitalism and recommendation of socialism. He views them in terms of history and does not censure them in the present based on general principle or attempt to predict an enduring utopia for the future. His analysis is not designed to inspire but simply to be comparative to prevailing conditions. Capitalism is relatively progressive as compared to the feudal system it replaced. However, with the evolution of socialism from within it, then capitalism transforms into the impediment to social progress, and especially, to human development. This perspective is the foundation of Marx’s appraisal of capitalism. There are two conflicting views on contemporary versions of Marx’s critique. One attempts to affix him in the traditions of utilitarianism and naturalism. This group argues that Marx’s censure of capitalism stems from his concept of collective human nature and his belief that socialism is more suited to the facilitation of the flowering and good of humanity (Lukes, 1985; Wood, 1980). The other argues that Marx’s opposition is due to the exploitative and inequitable characteristics of capitalism that are incompatible with natural right and justice (Geras, 1985; 1992; 1995, Cohen, 1988, Elster, 1985). While the general opinion maintains that these two premises are mutually exclusive, both Marx and Hegel espoused both in their concepts. The happiness and excellence of humanity is clearly a foremost thought in Marx’s philosophies and he points out that capitalism has institutionalised the impoverishment of the proletariat, even as it propagates increased power of production. “Machinery, gifted with the wonderful power of shortening and fructifying human labour, we behold starving and overworking it; The newfangled sources of wealth, by some strange weird spell, are turned into sources of want” (Marx, 1958). Socialism, on the other hand, is viewed as a tool that will enhance development of all levels of humanity, although economy and materialism play a large part in his conceptualisations. The development of industrial forces is not seen by him as just some shallow means to an end but as a means of self-development for the human consciousness as well (Marx, 1961p. 177). Marx’s depiction of human nature is realised in his concept of alienation and the surmounting of it as found in his initial works. Herein, there is clarity of his vision of the individual being not just a connoisseur of materialism but a being both prolific and social (Sayers, 2007). According to Marx (1961), a commodity can be defined as a functional external item manufactured to be bartered at a market. Therefore, the factors that need to be constant for the production of commodities are the presence of a market in which the goods can be exchanged, and a communal diversification of industry where different groups manufacture different goods for sale; hence creating a demand. Marx goes on to reiterate that these items have both a use- and exchange- value. While the use value is clear, the exchange value is slightly more involving. The criterion by which one item is bartered for a quantity of another is broken down into the amount of work that was put into its production; where work is defined as mean level of force exerted in communally essential labour. This is known as the labour theory of value. Capitalism distinguishes itself in that it not only involves barter trade, but also the dissemination of capital, through cash. The purpose of which is to create revenue by acquisition of commodities which can undergo value addition processes in order to be further traded at a higher price, returning a profit to the seller. The process by which this profit is made has not been previously adequately explained according to Marx, who claimed that it is done simply through exploitative means. Solution Capitalism was nowhere near fully developed at the genesis of the communist state in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Essentially, Russian was still very much a feudal culture pre-revolution. According to Laibman (2005, 297-308), capitalism has only undergone three of the four stages necessary for evolution to occur. The proletariat is not wholly developed, neither is capitalistic accretion comprehensively done – yet these are two fundamentals for the advent of socialism. The first traces of the development of capitalism in society were identified by Gramsci as being the ‘Ford revolution’ in America. In Europe, this concept was clarified only after fascism disintegrated. Advanced capitalism brings with it a distinctive social physiognomy of the lower classes. The borders of these ranks broaden extensively and they tend to embody the vast majority of the population. Simultaneously, the differentiations within the class gain prominence personified by standard of living yet the collective consciousness dominates over individual thought. This is due to the system of production, the specialisation of labour and the subsuming of the individual in the whole. In contemporary western society though, a more sophisticated capitalism has altered this situation. There has been a successful unification of society, while facilitating development of productive forces as well as gratifying the requirements of the hoi polloi. While the proletariat has neither changed nor exploitation abolished, they manifest in more innovative ways. The contradictions between use and exchange value are for the first time out in the open, as well as manufacture as the ultimate goal and reification of humanity, work and consumption. To spark these contradictions into action requires conciliation of awareness, tangible existence of a substitute philosophy, and opportunity to overthrow the ruling apparatus. In short, what is required is an organised ruling class willing to drive revolution. Now that the elementary contradictions are exposed, the denial of human needs and liberty as well as the reduction of the individual to a mindless amassing automaton that it espouses are more easily observed. Thus the strain between the present ideology and the ideal, customs and morality disseminated through the ages creates a pressure that can precipitate radical upheaval that was previously unfeasible. No sooner has this happened than spontaneous autonomous activities begin to occur at different hierarchies, adding their own individual spark and increasing the tension on the system that precipitates revolution. This is important in that there is no longer a monolith but an assemblage of interests that produce a society that is self- governing with a political class composed of a synthesis of civil society (Magri, 1970). Conclusion Historical Materialism is a means of clarifying the past, by dividing it into four stages of production; Asiatic, ancient, feudal and capitalist. The stages flow from one to the next in a logical fashion that maps the gradual progress of civilization. In line with this progress is a movement in the outline of society that tracks this improvement as human evolutionary development. Whether or not this flow will culminate in communism is yet to be seen and in fact, is beside the point. The clearly tangible progression that historical materialism has tracked through history is the only validation necessary for it (Shimp, 2009). Although it is not clear whether Marx regarded capitalism as unjust, he most definitely did not recommend it as the ideal way for humanity to exist. It is depicted quite clearly in both his earlier and later works that the labourer finds the work a hardship, endures impoverishment, overwork, and a deficiency of accomplishment and liberty. Furthermore, human relationships are impaired. This seems to indicate that Marx’s analysis found capitalism morally lacking, by its impediment of human prosperity. Marx was however, not overt in his criticism and this may have been because while there may be disadvantages to it, capitalism had its strong points too. Historically, communism could not flourish without it. It is necessary to transcend not do away with it. Furthermore, Marx was a believer in empirical methods thus advocated for the advancement of human liberation through evaluation of history and social drivers, not by morality. He would have considered a theory based on the morality or otherwise of capitalism as a step back (Wolff, 2003). References Cohen, G.A. (1988). History, Labour and Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press Cohen, G.A. (2000). If you’re an Egalitarian, How Come you’re so Rich? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Elster, J. (1985). Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Gramsci, A. (1977). Quaderni del carcere, Einaudi, Torino. Geras, N. (1985). The Controversy about Marx and Justice. New Left Review Vol 150: 47- 85. Geras, N. (1992). Bringing Marx to Justice: An Addendum and a Rejoinder. New Left Review, 195: 37-69. Geras, N. (1995). Human Nature and Progress. New Left Review, Vol 213: 151-60. Hegel, G.W.F. (1988). Introduction to the Philosophy of History. Trans. Leo Rauch, Indianapolis: Hackett. Kamenka, E. (2005). Historical Materialism: Karl Marx. The Portable Karl Marx. 561f Laibman, D. (2005). Theory and Necessity: The Stadial Foundations of the Present. Science And Society. 69 No. 3 July: 285-315. Lukes, S. (1985). Marxism and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Magri, L. (1970). Problems of the Marxist Theory of the Revolutionary Party. Hét Nap. Marx, K. (1958a). Critique of the Gotha Programme. In Marx-Engels Selected Works (2 Volumes), II, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House: 13-37. Marx, K. (1958b). Speech at the Anniversary of the People's Paper. In Marx-Engels Selected Works (2 volumes), I, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House: 359-60. Marx, K. (1961). Capital. I, trans. S. Moore and E. Aveling, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1983). The Portable Karl Marx. Ed. Eugene Kamenka. New York. Penguin Books. Sayers, S. (2007). Individual and Society in Marx and Hegel. Science & Society, 71, 1: 84- 102. Shimp, K. (2009). The Validity of Karl Marx’s Theory of Historical Materialism. Major Themes in Economics. Spring, Wolff, J. (2003). Karl Marx. Metaphysics Research Lab. CSLI. Stanford University. Wood, A.W. (1980). The Marxian Critique of Justice. In Marx, Justice and History, edited by M. Cohen T. Nagel and T. Scanlon, Princeton: Princeton University Press: 3-41. Read More