The Seven Postulates of Historical Materialism [Archive]

View Full Version : The Seven Postulates of Historical Materialism

Invariance

26th April 2009, 18:24

Towards a summary of historical materialism:

Thought this might be a useful summary of the paradigm.
1. For there to be history, men and women must transform nature into means of their survival, that is they must produce the means of their existence. "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of the development of the productive forces" (p. 4).

2. The "economic base" or mode of production defines the limits of variation of the superstructure. "The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general" (p. 4).

3. A mode of production develops through the interaction between the forces of production (how we produce the means of existence) and the relations of production (how the product of labour is appropriated and distributed). "At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production.... From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution" (pp. 4-5)

4. Class struggle is the motor of transition from one mode of production to another. "With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations distinctions should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic - in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out" (p. 5).

5. A successful transition can only take place when the material conditions are present. "No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself" (p. 5).

6. History is progressive insofar as it follows the expansion of the forces of production. "In broad outlines Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modem bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society"

7. Communism spells the end of social antagonisms and the beginning of the emancipation of individuals. We no longer make history behind our backs but consciously and collectively. "The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production - antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formations brings, therefore, the prehistory of human society to a close" (p. 5).

Karl Marx, [1859], 1978, Preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" p. 4-5
---

Any other items which people would include or exclude?

mikelepore

26th April 2009, 19:06

BobKKKindle$

26th April 2009, 19:07

This is a good overview, but something that needs to be made clearer is the role of the state as a component of class societies. Marx was aware that, with the exception of primitive communities that existed prior to the emergence of class antagonisms, as well as the future prospect of a communist society in which class divisions have been abolished, all historic modes of production were based on class division, i.e. they contained groups of individuals, defined by their relationship to the means of production, whose interests were irreconcilably opposed, and who engaged in class conflict with each other. The consequence of this is that the ruling class of each society needs something to stop society from being torn apart by the working population, and that "something" exists in the form of the state, whose function it is to enforce the existing relations of production. This raises the question of why the state should be seen as an organ of class rule, and not, as political theorists have traditionally argued, an independent body that sits above the conflicts of civil society and provides a means by which classes can come together and resolve their disputes. This is a question that is central to Marxism, especially in an era of parliamentary democracy, when the links between the ruling class and the state are not immediately obvious, and the state can frequently seem to have a certain degree of independence from the interests of any particular class. The task of developing a coherent Marxist theory of the state is further complicated by the fact that Marx gave different views on the class orientation of the state in each of his texts, suggesting that even Marx may have changed his opinion during the course of his life, based on what was happening in Europe - whereas in The Communist Manifesto he gives what is commonly described as the "instrumentalist" account of the state, according to which the state is directly controlled by the bourgeoisie, and used to further the interests of that class, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon contains an account that presents the state as having "qualified independence", because as the state grows in power the individuals who make up the bureaucracy come to have interests of their own which they frequently pursue at the expense of the bourgeoisie, and yet at the same time they are still forced to adopt policies that are broadly supportive of bourgeois rule because the state is dependent on the ability of the bourgeoisie to accumulate capital and the willingness of that same class to accept the state as legitimate for its own survival, such that the state cannot go against bourgeois interests for any extended period of time without undermining its own interests as a state. We can perhaps see the issue of the state as a small component of a much broader issue - the relationship between base and superstructure. It's also worth pointing out, in connection with this issue, that the relationship between economic and political power is very different under different modes of production. Feudalism and other pre-capitalist modes are characterized by the direct convergence of these two forms of power because surplus value was extracted from a population that was legally obligated to work for a particular member of the ruling class, and in the case of feudalism, to hand over a set portion of each harvest in exchange for protection from the local lord. Capitalism, on the other hand, is very different, in that wage-labour is not imposed by a law - a worker is theoretically able to work for anyone they like, demand any wage they like, or even not to work at all, and so there is - formally, at least - a separation of economic and political power, which opens up the possibility of political power being wielded by a class that is not the economically-dominant class.

mikelepore

26th April 2009, 19:30

2. The "economic base" or mode of production defines the limits of variation of the superstructure. "The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general" (p. 4).

To cite examples to make something specific of this, I would use the point, perhaps made more clearly by Lewis Henry Morgan than by Marx or Engels, that there tends to be particular hunter-gatherer forms of religion and philosophy, morality and law, beauty and art, and family relationships, particular herder-agricultural forms of these things, and particular industrial forms of these things. I would look for a few examples from 20th-21st century historians and anthropologists who maybe able to substantiate this.

Contrary to popular belief, this is a more fundamental principle than the class struggle. The class struggle predominates in a class system, especially in the transition from one class social system to another, but the above generality operated also during the first 99 percent of our history when there was no class struggle, and affects all thinking every day.

BobKKKindle$

26th April 2009, 19:47

there tends to be particular hunter-gatherer forms of religion and philosophy, morality and law, beauty and art, and family relationships

An interesting perspective - I've always thought that the conditioning relationship between base and superstructure was based on the imperatives of class rule, i.e. the ruling class propagates certain ideas with the aim of justifying its domination of the working population and obscuring the inadequacies of the existing mode of production. Are you saying that the superstructure may actually be "neutral", in the sense that it arises entirely from the nature of the base, and does not reflect the interests of a particular class? If this is the case, then does that mean that we should not see ideology as being part of the superstructure, given that, for Marx, the function of ideology is to create a "false consciousness" and thereby induce consent for the status quo on the part of the working population?

mikelepore

26th April 2009, 19:48

the state, whose function it is to enforce the existing relations of production. This raises the question of why the state should be seen as an organ of class rule, and not, as political theorists have traditionally argued, an independent body that sits above the conflicts of civil society and provides a means by which classes can come together and resolve their disputes

An area of debate within Marxism is whether the political-legal system automatically and by definition "is" an organ of class rule, or whether, since its already a given that class division exists, the political-legal system that was originally intended for other purposes therefore get remolded and turned into an organ of class rule.

Some statements in the literature imply that human beings have a genuine need for such an administrative structure, but then the ruling class, if there is one, immediately jumps on it and takes it over, whereas, if there were not already a ruling class, clearly it couldn't do so.

"The state presents itself to us as the first ideological power over man. Society creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its common interests against internal and external attacks. This organ is the state power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself independent vis-a-vis society; and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ of a particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class. The fight of the oppressed class against the ruling class becomes necessarily a political fight, a fight first of all against the political dominance of this class." -- F. Engels, from _Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy_ (1886)

JazzRemington

26th April 2009, 19:52

An interesting perspective - I've always thought that the conditioning relationship between base and superstructure was based on the imperatives of class rule, i.e. the ruling class propagates certain ideas with the aim of justifying its domination of the working population and obscuring the inadequacies of the existing mode of production. Are you saying that the superstructure may actually be "neutral", in the sense that it arises entirely from the nature of the base, and does not reflect the interests of a particular class? If this is the case, then does that mean that we should not see ideology as being part of the superstructure, given that, for Marx, the function of ideology is to create a "false consciousness" and thereby induce consent for the status quo on the part of the working population?

Such things may have existed before agriculture (when class divisions first took hold), but because there was no class structure it was impossible for them to become standardized, better developed, and something beyond the control of the people who created them (probably for some ad hoc reason).

Basically, the ideas of the ruling class had to be based on something.

JazzRemington

26th April 2009, 20:03

3. A mode of production develops through the interaction between the forces of production (how we produce the means of existence) and the relations of production (how the product of labour is appropriated and distributed). "At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production.... From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution" (pp. 4-5)
Any other items which people would include or exclude?

This might be semantics, but I've always conceptualized forces of production as the raw labor, skill, and knowledge involved in production, and relations of productions those relationships that facilitate production and distribution of goods and services (whether commodity or not). But, why not have forces of distribution? If production relations include how goods and services are distributed, why not include those factors involved in distribution in a definition of "forces of production"?

As for including, I would like to add that it is important to understand that humans reproduce themselves and with that the then-existing social and material conditions. Thus, humans enter into a world already made for them and can only build their new world with what already exists.

mikelepore

26th April 2009, 20:12

Are you saying that the superstructure may actually be "neutral", in the sense that it arises entirely from the nature of the base, and does not reflect the interests of a particular class?

Both the "means" and the "mode" of production, which are the two layers of what is often called the "material base", have input into the ideological superstructure.

The nature of the tools themselves, which tools we use to interact with nature to squeeze out an existence, the whole area summarized by the phrase "means of production", affects our thinking.

Also, whether the production process is class ruled, and, if it is, whether the form of that domination is chattel slavery, feudalism, or capitalism, the area called the "mode of production" or alternative called by its synonym, the "relations of production", also affects our thinking.

***

"Is the conception of nature and of social relations which underlies Greek imagination and therefore Greek art possible when there are self-acting mules, railways, locomotives and electric telegraphs? ... Is Achilles possible when powder and shot have been invented? And is the Iliad possible at all when the printing press and even printing machine exist?" ---Karl Marx, unpublished draft for the introduction to _Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy_, 1857

Oneironaut

27th April 2009, 05:27

Niccolò Rossi

29th April 2009, 01:27

Hi Vinnie.

You've made a good summary here. What are you doing it for exactly?

With regard to your original question, I think there are some area that you didn't cover as well as you could have, namely on the question of agency (given the critics of Marx often reproach him for being an "economic determinist") and the matter of decadence of modes of production (something at the very heart of historical materialism). I also think you could have set it out a little more structured and methodically. I've made my own editting to the original, hope you don't mind. Here it is, If you think any of what i've changed is an improvement, please fell free to take and use it!

Towards a summary of historical materialism:

1. Humans possess agency, however, this agency is not unlimited, it is constrained by material - that is, social, economic and historical - reality.

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." (Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte)

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” (Marx, Preface to the Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy)

2. For there to be history, men and women must transform nature into means of their survival, that is they must produce the means of their existence. To do this they inevitably enter into certain given relations of production.

"In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of the development of the productive forces" (ibid)

3. These productive relations form an economic ‘base’ which defines the limits of variation of the ‘superstructure’ which is built upon it.

"The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general" (ibid).

“Mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion” (Frederick Engels’ Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx, March 17, 1883)

4. Modes of production throughout the history of human society can be identified and defined by the interaction between the forces of production (with what instruments the means of existence are produced) and the relations of production (how the product of labour is produced, appropriated and distributed).

(You may need a quote here, the one you had previously I don’t think was appropriate)

5. History is progressive insofar as it follows the expansion of the forces of production. Individual modes of production can also be identified as progressive social formations in this same manner, that ism insofar as it continues to ensure the unrestrained development of the forces of production.

"In broad outlines Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modem bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society" (Marx, Preface to the Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy)

(Another quote would probably be good here)

6. A mode of production enters its period of decadence and hence revolution, when the relations of production which characterise that mode of production come into conflict with the development of the means of production hitherto permitted. The success of any revolutionary movement for the replacement of a mode of production depends upon certain material conditions.

"At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production.... From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution" (Marx, Preface to the Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy)

"No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself" (ibid).

(This point could maybe be broken in two for each of the sentences and quotes above)

7. Class struggle is the motor of history and the force of transition from one mode of production to another when the conditions of decadence of a mode of production arrive. Without this revolutionary movement prevailing, society descends into barbarism and results in the mutual destruction of the entire society.

“All hitherto existing history is the history of class struggles.

“Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.” (Marx, Communist Manifesto)

8. Communism spells the end of social antagonisms and the emancipation of the working class, individuals and humanity as a whole. We no longer make history behind our backs but consciously and collectively. Communism is the beginning of humanity’s real history.

"The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production - antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formations brings, therefore, the prehistory of human society to a close" (Marx, Preface to the Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy).

ckaihatsu

30th April 2009, 07:17

Karl Marx said, "No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed."

Does anyone really believe that there is limit where the productive forces are unable to be developed further without first changing the social system? If there had been a sufficient amount of time to experiment, couldn't people under feudalism, or even the Roman empire, eventually have invented the electric generator, etc.? Likewise, humans in the future could go on to colonize the galaxy while capitalism goes on existing -- it would be miserable, but it would be possible, in the sense that the invention process doesn't bang against a wall that's impassable until the social system gets changed.

I agree with you. However, I think it is important to note that when relations of production no longer serve a progressive role in society, revolution becomes no longer an option but a necessity.

Mike, we can't just conveniently pick and choose which aspects of these axioms we *happen to believe* are valid, and which we *believe* are invalid.

Marx's point about the existing productive forces should be considered to be as solid as concrete. This is because a certain era of productive forces contains a built-in ceiling, so to speak, that *can't* be superseded, even by inventiveness.

Avant-Guardian de Ideas acknowledges that revolution is a matter of material *necessity*, not a matter of option. People under feudalism in the ancient world *could not* have brought about an industrial revolution because *** there was no need for it ***. The feudal order "got by" "just fine" with serf-based labor, and there was a certain equilibrium to it, though repressive, of course. It wasn't until the 1200s that major technological improvements in agricultural technique were developed -- these led to local crop surpluses, spurring ground-level trading, empowering the new merchant class, and enabling the exodus to the towns and cities.

There are two classic examples of inventions developed by traditional societies that went absolutely nowhere:

An aeolipile (or aeolipyle, or eolipile), a rocket style[1] jet engine[2] described in the first century by Hero of Alexandria, is considered to be the first recorded steam engine or reaction steam turbine.[3]

[...]

The device was thought of as little more than a diversion during Hero's lifetime.

Although they did not develop the wheel proper, the Olmec and certain other western hemisphere cultures seem to have approached it, as wheel-like worked stones have been found on objects identified as children's toys dating to about 1500 BC.

In both cases we can easily ask *why* these early inventions, the steam engine and the wheel, *didn't* get developed further, to propel the respective ancient-world societies into the modern age. The answer comes from Marx -- there was no sufficient *social organization* or material basis -- capacity and / or revolutionary need, in other words -- to make it happen. Both societies carried along just fine with their traditional methods until *material* developments occurred centuries later.

In our present day we can ask why we're still wedded to the internal combustion engine and the use of hydrocarbon-based fuels -- certainly a little bit of web research will reveal better methods for locomotion and energy sourcing than what we're conventionally used to using -- why the hold-up? The answer, again, is that capitalism imposes its own limits since we are stuck with its limitations of declining profits, inter-imperialist warfare, cronyist politics, hyper-leveraged financing, wage-based revenue generation, and mercantilist-like distribution networks.

Until we can open up the topology to something far more dynamic than capitalism's entrenched elitism the productive forces will stagnate in their current configuration for eternity, potentially -- look at how long feudalism stayed around -- roughly 11,000 years -- ?!

Chris

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

mikelepore

1st May 2009, 06:30

Led Zeppelin

1st May 2009, 07:39

That need to learn science by small gradations, and not the means or relations of production, is the limiting factor.

I think you miss an important point though. Yes, of course it is possible that some of the devices and machines we have today could have been invented centuries ago, but you have to realize that if that were the case, we'd see a similar change in the means of production as we saw when people eventually did invent them.

"Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist." - Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm#s2)

When Marx is talking about people changing their mode of production, he is referring not simple to the mode of production as a general phrase, but to everything that is related and bound up with it. Mode of production is the way things are produced. Is that not inherently regulated by the advance of science and technology?

For example, when Marx says:

"Finally, at a given stage of development of technology and of the means of communication, the discovery of new territories containing gold or silver plays an important role."

Or:

"Just as the investigation of the use values of commodities as such belongs in commercial knowledge, so the investigation of the labour process in its reality belongs in technology."

Is he not ascribing an important role to the development of technology?

I think that shouldn't be the issue of contention here. I think you are wrong though when you say that a mode of production, if it had just gotten enough time, would have been able to come up with, say, the computer or the car. There's a good reason that the mode of production changed before we were even half-way there. Sure, there were some early blueprints for it, just as Leonardo Da Vinci had blueprints for flying-machines, but that doesn't mean that the end-product could have been accomplished without all the science required in between.

It just so happens that when that science developed more and more, gradually, the mode of production changed with it. This is of course logical because as the nature of the productive forces changes, the mode of production changes, and with that change all the social relations change. he hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist.

What are you saying seems to be that a steam-mill, if invented several centuries ago in ancient Rome, would not have changed the productive forces at the time, and therefore would not have changed the mode of production, and therefore also not the social relations...but I don't think that makes sense, for society is based on its material conditions, on its productive forces, on its mode of production. Social relations are based on it.

ckaihatsu

1st May 2009, 19:07

Chris, I don't see any evidence that "need for it" and "no need for it" refer to anything real. For example, about 22 centuries ago Archimedes used a mechanical water pump with a rotating screw, and soon after after that the Romans used aqueducts to allow gravity to transport water. If those ancient people had a few more individuals with with the right combination of curiosity and good luck, it's possible that they might have discovered what Faraday discovered in 1820, and then they might have started using electric water pumps instead. Human need operates uniformly throughout. The only thing that stops people from getting all possible technology at once is the fact that scientific discovery occurs in many small incremental steps. That need to learn science by small gradations, and not the means or relations of production, is the limiting factor.

I hear ya, Mike -- it's a point that comes naturally to make, because it feels intuitive and natural. If there's an outstanding need then human ingenuity would set upon it and eventually come up with something that works, right?

But let *me* ask you to consider the *effort* required, both individually, and en masse, to *solve* certain problems, and then to *implement* real-world solutions.

As we know from our own experiences, there is a dynamic called the diminishing rate of return -- for some problems / challenges we would *not* want to see them through to the end, because we don't have enough years in our lives to feasibly carry out the effort needed. There are special mathematical problems that require exhaustive amounts of research and computation to be solved to a adequate degree of scientific satisfaction. Likewise, many cryptography algorithms exist that would defeat even today's best computers if they were to attempt to crack them.

So what I'm trying to say here is that the term *human need* has to first be clearly defined out of the generalized, gray-area space that it inhabits. And the existing power structure has *everything* to do with what is generally accepted as "human need" and what is not. Today, on May Day, there are numerous demonstrations around the world that are positing a much more humane definition of 'human need' for the workers of the world to fight for, versus the brutal and genocidal destruction of human life that is currently enforced by the capitalist governments of the world.

*Any* imperialist power structure will be able to mobilize far greater amounts of material and human resources, but also with a corresponding disregard for treating the human resources as human persons.

The Roman Empire had an incredible level of social organization, building on the legacy of rational thought that the ancient Greeks developed, to effect massive public works projects like the aqueducts. I hope you'll agree that these kinds of projects require far more than just someone to think them up and draw blueprints.

Your comment about a "built-in ceiling" is a restatement of Marx's idea, but not a demonstration that it's true.

Your comment that I can't disagree with something, I don't know what that's about. Did Karl Marx receive a divine revelation, like the archangel dictating text to Muhammed?

The "ceiling" is a real thing -- it *is* the means / relations of production, based on the overall social (political / economic) organization of a society. If Marx didn't think it up and author it then someone else would have, because it's simply pointing out the material limitations of a given sophistication of societal development -- for *any* society, in *any* era.

The reason the Hero's aeolipile didn't lead to the modern steam engine is because there's almost no similarity between the two. The steam engine, or any heat engine, uses the fact that an expanding gas does work on a piston. The aeolipile only had torque.

An expanding piston *produces* torque on a wheel, right? I'm sure both devices *could* be harnessed to turn wheels for locomotion....

But consider the degree of *social organization* and *material motivation* needed to *mass produce* the aeolipile back in the days of the Romans. In their state of development it was much easier to use horses for transportation for their soldiers than to attempt to implement ingenuity * on a society-wide basis *. In a wartime economy, especially, a dominating social order is bound to be fairly conservative and to stick to practices that are time-tested and have worked well. Too much attention and resources put into "new-fangled" explorations might be gambles that don't pay off and distract from the basics of maintaining the empire.

Rosa Lichtenstein

6th May 2009, 07:31

Mike:

To cite examples to make something specific of this, I would use the point, perhaps made more clearly by Lewis Henry Morgan than by Marx or Engels, that there tends to be particular hunter-gatherer forms of religion and philosophy,

I'd be interested to see any evidence that philosophy existed in such societies.

As far as I can see things, it requires a ruling-class before philosophy can get off the ground.