Is History Progressive?

[trivas7]

Re Vinnie's Seven Postulates of Historical Materialism posted in Theory (I can't go there) I am most leery of the validity of the sixth, viz. "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".

Perhaps my conservatism is showing, but this is schematism of the grossest sort. Who can say that economic systems don't progress cyclically, as, I am inclined to believe, time itself? If the levels of violence are any indication, the history of the twentieth century was anything but "progressive". Do you believe that history is progressive? Whatever does that mean?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'd suggest presuming your ability to influence the future for the betterment of yourself and mankind is what individuals should assume, perhaps. Maybe we shouldn't because political action is a waste of time. I'd rather not hold that view, but some people believe that. In fact, many people believe certain political "avenues" are unproductive so why not the entire political system itself? I have some sympathy towards not holding yourself accountable for social progression. You can only do "so much" if your an activist. I know I don't do enough, but that's a different point.

I'd have to think about my stance on the idea of progression. I sympathize with it, but we know societies can lose knowledge or establish faulty premises. But is there something about humans, how they pass on knowledge, etc, that facilitates progression? Not sure.

If society is cyclical, in the Platonic sense, I'd suggest something to you. What does cyclical actually entail? If cycles progress, fascism improves itself, democracy improves, et cetera, why do cycles continue?

In other words, we'd suspect the ideal society of "type A" would never collapse. What makes societies necessarily collapse, regardless of efforts? We see democracies and other governments progress. What makes point A through point B, the progression, suddenly stop at B?

People have the ability to realize, sometimes, that things aren't working. I think this facilitates change, however slow, in societies. Recorded history provides a useful mechanism for change. We need not assume our ancestors are identical to us, but the evidence suggests many similarities. Putting history in context (removing the bias the best we can) is a useful device. That's why I'd suggest the conservative understanding of history, Burke, is rather terrible. He assumes:

1. Our ancestors are identical to us.
2. Society worked that way for a good reason.
3. If a change was beneficial, they would've implemented it.

Changes only occur when circumstances alter, and the interests of our ancestors "may" be biologically similar to ours, but they may have prioritized them in different (perhaps illogical) ways. We need to evaluate the conditions of previous societies, based on records, and ask ourselves if we'd like to live in such societies over our own. What made them able to have a strong judicial system? If the record does not follow from the description, perhaps, of how the judiciary works, we will be skeptical.

The failure of the Soviet Union was either a failure of ideology and/or a failure of the conditions at the time. To establish a failure of ideology, we need an analytic analysis. Once we establish this failure, we need to reevaluate history through time. In the future, we may decide that communism failed because of say, a reliance on X, while X is no longer a problem.

Establishing moral premises and building on them is incredibly useful. We just need to constantly reevaluate our foundations. It think this progress leads to some degree of progression in society.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If the levels of violence are any indication, the history of the twentieth century was anything but "progressive".Compared to what? Prior to and even after the High Feudal Period, conquerers were expected to take their spoils by raping women, slaughtering all potential threats, and subverting the conquered land into a slave territory. I think when people try to assert the 20th century is a damning indication of cultural decline, they're failing to see two things:

1.) "Progressive history" does not mean that every year, or even every decade, is better than the last.

2.) A smaller percentage of people (probably) died from warfare in the twentieth century than compared to previous centuries. We have a "romantic" view of warfare prior to the American Civil War, but in reality, life wasn't all that pleasant, and many "romantic" aspects of war actually contributed to unnecessary deaths. There seems to be a Euro-centric view that the millions who died from colonialism aren't comparable to the victims of the Holocaust. The brutal destruction of the aborigines in South-East Asia and the "Indians" in America (not counting all those who died in Africa, India, and China) outshines anything that happened in the twentieth century.

[trivas7]

If society is cyclical, in the Platonic sense, I'd suggest something to you. What does cyclical actually entail? If cycles progress, fascism improves itself, democracy improves, et cetera, why do cycles continue?

In all traditional cultures there exists a mythology re a golden age in the past that fades w/ time. Most cultures that have a cyclical understanding of time believe that the past is the touchstone to the future, and that in some sense what was will occur again in some fashion. Modernity does away w/ this notion.


In other words, we'd suspect the ideal society of "type A" would never collapse. What makes societies necessarily collapse, regardless of efforts? We see democracies and other governments progress. What makes point A through point B, the progression, suddenly stop at B?
Jared Diamond in 'Collapse' opines that geography is key to social collapse.


People have the ability to realize, sometimes, that things aren't working. I think this facilitates change, however slow, in societies. Recorded history provides a useful mechanism for change. We need not assume our ancestors are identical to us, but the evidence suggests many similarities. Putting history in context (removing the bias the best we can) is a useful device. That's why I'd suggest the conservative understanding of history, Burke, is rather terrible. He assumes:

1. Our ancestors are identical to us.
2. Society worked that way for a good reason.
3. If a change was beneficial, they would've implemented it.
I frankly don't see the historical evidence for this. IMO every generation seems to repeat the failures of the past generation in its specific historical conditions. E.g., no one learned anything from WWI.

Burke's understanding of history is better the devil that you know than the one that you don't: he approved of the bourgeois American revolution, not so the French. Reasons Burke didn't see as the glue of society, as much those irrational practices called traditions; and one had better have a damned good reason why those should change whether you understood them or no.

[trivas7]

Compared to what? Prior to and even after the High Feudal Period, conquerers were expected to take their spoils by raping women, slaughtering all potential threats, and subverting the conquered land into a slave territory. I think when people try to assert the 20th century is a damning indication of cultural decline, they're failing to see two things:

1.) "Progressive history" does not mean that every year, or even every decade, is better than the last.

2.) A smaller percentage of people (probably) died from warfare in the twentieth century than compared to previous centuries. We have a "romantic" view of warfare prior to the American Civil War, but in reality, life wasn't all that pleasant, and many "romantic" aspects of war actually contributed to unnecessary deaths. There seems to be a Euro-centric view that the millions who died from colonialism aren't comparable to the victims of the Holocaust. The brutal destruction of the aborigines in South-East Asia and the "Indians" in America (not counting all those who died in Africa, India, and China) outshines anything that happened in the twentieth century.

Compared to the levels of violence previous to WWI. These shocked historians of WWI. The twentieth century wasn't called the bloodiest in recorded history for nothing. Your second point is nonsense.

It was mainly syphilis that killed off indigenous American populations, not warfare instigated by Europeans.

[Dimentio]

Compared to the levels of violence previous to WWI. These shocked historians of WWI. The twentieth century wasn't called the bloodiest in recorded history for nothing.

Medieval and renaissance era warfare was probably, on a proportional account, much more devastating. Firstly, the armies fed off the land they marched through, leaving the civilian population starving. Often, civilians could begin to fight their neighbours after an army had marched through their lands, resulting in scenes similar to modern Bosnia.

Also, most deaths occurred due to sanitary reasons, meaning that armies generally looked more like mobile hospitals than actual fighting units.

[danyboy27]

Medieval and renaissance era warfare was probably, on a proportional account, much more devastating. Firstly, the armies fed off the land they marched through, leaving the civilian population starving. Often, civilians could begin to fight their neighbours after an army had marched through their lands, resulting in scenes similar to modern Bosnia.

Also, most deaths occurred due to sanitary reasons, meaning that armies generally looked more like mobile hospitals than actual fighting units.


i am sad every time i realize it took us a fews thousand year to discover that something obvious like a frontal attack of well stacked troops was prehaps not a good idea after all.
even after we had rifle it took us a while to realize it.

i imagine that in 1000 year, when people will kill each other with railgun they will remember their past has terribly backward:
meh, those projectile weapon where soo vulgar!

[trivas7]

Medieval and renaissance era warfare was probably, on a proportional account, much more devastating. Firstly, the armies fed off the land they marched through, leaving the civilian population starving. Often, civilians could begin to fight their neighbours after an army had marched through their lands, resulting in scenes similar to modern Bosnia.
.
I deny it. Millions did not die daily as in WWI. Medieval and renaissance era army just didn't have this destructive power.

[trivas7]

Medieval and renaissance era warfare was probably, on a proportional account, much more devastating. Firstly, the armies fed off the land they marched through, leaving the civilian population starving. Often, civilians could begin to fight their neighbours after an army had marched through their lands, resulting in scenes similar to modern Bosnia.
.
I deny it. Tens of thousands did not die daily as in WWI. Medieval and renaissance era armies just didn't have this destructive power.

[danyboy27]

I deny it. Tens of thousands did not die daily as in WWI. Medieval and renaissance era armies just didn't have this destructive power.

well, they where massives battle during the napoleonic war that caused thousand of casualities each, and same happened during the roman time.

the only thing that is different was the understanding of chemical weapon i guess.

but we learned from that, otherwise the us would have use vx over bagdag long time ago.

[IcarusAngel]

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html


In that argument Steven Pinker - who obviously is an intelligent guy - claims that you are FAR less likely to die from warfare than you were centuries ago, even in primitive societies.

He uses the example that if there is a group of 50 people fighting some other group, and 25 die, that's half the population that died. That would mean there would be FAR more people who died during world war II if we continued these percentages.

However, I think he's being a bit disingenous here. They were likely fighting over minor disputes, and they were fighting as a collective unit, not at the whims of some dictators. Furthermore, I fail to see that if there were millions of more people, these primative societies would have kept up the same levels of violence.

After all, the Indians had been around for tens of thousands of years and they did not wipe themselves out by warfare, in fact, their population numbers INCREASED. The book 1491 argues that there were hundreds of millions of indians in the Americas, yet their tribal wars mimiced the wars of earlier humans - without massive population decreases. There was massive slaughter of Indians by Europeans though - the figure who died from syphilis is around 80%, which means 20% probably died from dissemation and violence, which amounts to millions of people - which is further evidence that modern civilization is more violence.

Also, capitalism is a brutal, horrible system. Perhaps even worse in some ways than feudalism, despite the brutal death sentences they used.

But here again - Pinker is disengenous - blacks also suffered brutal death sentences here in America that were equally as bad as what was practiced in feudalism, the torture methods as practiced in "Operation Condor" against leftists were also far, far worse.

What about the death squads as well supported by Ronald Reagan, who cut off women's breasts and hung women upside down to bleed to death, etc. etc.?

And finally, if global warming is as bad as some scientists claim it will be, obviously capitalism is the worst system in history.

[IcarusAngel]

According to Steven hawking, as long as humans are on planet earth they pose a greater and greater threat to themselves:

Dr5MCbIPPsA

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

i am sad every time i realize it took us a fews thousand year to discover that something obvious like a frontal attack of well stacked troops was prehaps not a good idea after all.
even after we had rifle it took us a while to realize it.

Yeah no shit, and WWI was the worst by far.

Fucking stupid really, especially at the begining. Horsemen marching into battle with lances? Are you serious? Running strait at machine gun nests.....so tragic.

The Japanese had showed in their trouncing of Russia what modern war would look like, but the Euro's were too arrogant to realize that their ways of war were completely obsolete.

"Le pantalon rouge c'est le france!" :rolleyes:


i imagine that in 1000 year, when people will kill each other with railgun they will remember their past has terribly backward:
meh, those projectile weapon where soo vulgar!Perhaps. But I imagine that process will start in something much closer to 100 years.

i1q_rRicAwI

[trivas7]

And finally, if global warming is as bad as some scientists claim it will be, obviously capitalism is the worst system in history.
Well, this is a far cry from how Marx characterizes capitalism in the Communist Manifesto.

Perhaps all that is meant by progressive is "...it follows the expansion of the forces of production", which is banal IMO.

[RGacky3]

You can't say history is progressive, hisotry is'nt a math formula, the Europeans did'nt "progress" native American life. Also progressive for who? There were different positive things that happpend in hisotry and negative. Marxist historical view is too close minded and over general. History and social relations are NOT a science, and even if they were, we can't even understand the individual human mind.

[MikeSC]

Well, we define history by how it got us to where we're at now- looking back from the point we're at. I think that's why we see history as progressive- because it is the story of how people got from point A some time in the past, to point B in the present. I don't think it's that history is progressive, just that we define and judge history by what we think is "progress" in the present.

I'm doing a really bad job of explaining what I'm trying to say here!

[Bud Struggle]

Human nature is cyclical. Gun manufacturing ability is linear.

[trivas7]

I'm doing a really bad job of explaining what I'm trying to say here!
Are you saying progressive means in sequence, ordinal?

[trivas7]

Human nature is cyclical. Gun manufacturing ability is linear.
Why, b/c humans roll around like Plato's round beings and guns shoot in a straight line? :)

(Just kidding...)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Re Vinnie's Seven Postulates of Historical Materialism posted in Theory (I can't go there) I am most leery of the validity of the sixth, viz. "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".

Perhaps my conservatism is showing, but this is schematism of the grossest sort. Who can say that economic systems don't progress cyclically, as, I am inclined to believe, time itself? If the levels of violence are any indication, the history of the twentieth century was anything but "progressive". Do you believe that history is progressive? Whatever does that mean?


Compared to what? Prior to and even after the High Feudal Period, conquerers were expected to take their spoils by raping women, slaughtering all potential threats, and subverting the conquered land into a slave territory. I think when people try to assert the 20th century is a damning indication of cultural decline, they're failing to see two things:

1.) "Progressive history" does not mean that every year, or even every decade, is better than the last.

2.) A smaller percentage of people (probably) died from warfare in the twentieth century than compared to previous centuries. We have a "romantic" view of warfare prior to the American Civil War, but in reality, life wasn't all that pleasant, and many "romantic" aspects of war actually contributed to unnecessary deaths. There seems to be a Euro-centric view that the millions who died from colonialism aren't comparable to the victims of the Holocaust. The brutal destruction of the aborigines in South-East Asia and the "Indians" in America (not counting all those who died in Africa, India, and China) outshines anything that happened in the twentieth century.


I gotta agree with RGacky above. The big bumps in the "history is progressive" argument are: the longevity of slave and feudal modes of production, the longevity of even primitive communism, and the increased prominence of classical economic rent (ground, financial, patent, intellectual, monopoly, etc.) in the current mode of production.

[Tower of Bebel]

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle". Primitive communism does not belong to history; it's prehistorical. There was no class struggle in a primitiv communist society. And I believe hisotry is pro-gressive. I don't care about the moral significance given to the word. Just look at the development of technology, a product of human labour, and the exploitation of our means of (re)production. Even the European dark ages gradually freed the enslaved from the land. Relations of production can be very consevative, yes. And the Roman empire was a striking example. But as we have seen from that same empire they cannot simply stay the same forever.

[RGacky3]

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle". Primitive communism does not belong to history; it's prehistorical. There was no class struggle in a primitiv communist society.

What the hell are you talking about!!! YOur just defining what your htink the definition of History is, which is rediuclous considering history means things that happend in the past. What is it with marxists redefining definitions of basic things.


And I believe hisotry is pro-gressive. I don't care about the moral significance given to the word. Just look at the development of technology, a product of human labour, and the exploitation of our means of (re)production. Even the European dark ages gradually freed the enslaved from the land. Relations of production can be very consevative, yes. And the Roman empire was a striking example. But as we have seen from that same empire they cannot simply stay the same forever.

Yes you DO care about the moral significance. You consider freeing slaves as positive, which means your attaching moral significance to it. You also consider technology to be positive, which is a moral judgement.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

What the hell are you talking about!!! YOur just defining what your htink the definition of History is, which is rediuclous considering history means things that happend in the past. What is it with marxists redefining definitions of basic things.


This isnt jacob richter style weirdness , as somone who is awsome enough to have a subscription to the BBC history magazine and who also does GCSE history I can quite safely say that prehistory is quite a common phrase and it means "before written records".

[Invariance]

Perhaps my conservatism is showing, but this is schematism of the grossest sort. Who can say that economic systems don't progress cyclically as, I am inclined to believe, time itself? If the levels of violence are any indication, the history of the twentieth century was anything but "progressive". 1. Economic systems do not progress cyclically; we don't, every hundred years, go from slavery, to feudalism, to capitalism and then back to slavery again to repeat the process anew. It is not a cyclical process. But nor must it follow a linear path; it is as dynamic as the many relations that it is comprised of.

2. How is time cyclical? Perhaps this is my anti-metaphysics showing, but this is mysticism of the grossest sort.

3. Sure, you could defined progressive by such a definition of violence and then you would be right to say that the twentieth century was not progressive. But then that would be your definition and your definition alone. Look at the context at which I said it - the economic systems progress insofar as they allow a greater expansion of the productive forces, of the greatest production of use values. This was what was meant and nothing more. Now, if you can prove that with every revolution in the productive forces there has not been such a progress, then you may have a point, but I doubt you can. There was no 'moral' claim about capitalism or any other productive system.


You can't say history is progressive History is progressive.


hisotry is'nt a math formula No one claimed it was.


the Europeans did'nt "progress" native American life Just because you happen to find something morally questionable, doesn't mean it is not an economic advance. Marxists look for explanations, not for making moral judgements.

'While the cotton industry introduced child-slavery in England, in the United States it gave the impulse for the transformation of the earlier, more or less patriarchal slavery into a system of commercial exploitation. In fact, the veiled slavery of the wage-labourers in Europe needed the unqualified slavery of the New World as its pedestal. Capital comes dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt.'


Also progressive for who? Typically for the ruling class, but generally with a revolution in productive forces it has been a progressive step for the worker, be it slave, peasant (and as we claim in the case of a social revolution, proletarian).


There were different positive things that happpend in hisotry and negative. Marxists aren't concerned with passing moral judgement on what is good and what is bad. Capitalism 'freed' slaves and destroyed serfdom, creating a class of 'free' labourers (in the sense of being free of property and free to choose an employer to be exploited by). It didn't do this of its own good conscience, but for a greater expansion of the productive forces, for the greater production of surplus value. Slicing up history into 'positive' and 'negative' ignores totally ignores why the events happen.


Marxist historical view is too close minded and over general. You have a poor understanding of the Marxist concept of history. A theory of history is necessarily general. If it were otherwise it would be useless.


History and social relations are NOT a science Economics isn't a science? Anthropology isn't a science? Science isn't just physics and biology.


and even if they were, we can't even understand the individual human mind. No one claimed to, but nor have Marxists ever reduced history to the working of the individual mind.

[RGacky3]

as somone who is awsome enough to have a subscription to the BBC history magazine and who also does GCSE history I can quite safely say that prehistory is quite a common phrase and it means "before written records".

Thats fine, but why try and rearange the argument by defining definitions. Like, "before class isn't history" or whatever, then your skipping the argument and trying to argue about something pointless.


Just because you happen to find something morally questionable, doesn't mean it is not an economic advance. Marxists look for explanations, not for making moral judgements.

'While the cotton industry introduced child-slavery in England, in the United States it gave the impulse for the transformation of the earlier, more or less patriarchal slavery into a system of commercial exploitation. In fact, the veiled slavery of the wage-labourers in Europe needed the unqualified slavery of the New World as its pedestal. Capital comes dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt.'

What is the purpose of economics? That will answer whether or not it has advanced, what do you consider an advancement? Whatever answer you give to that is a moral judgement. Also who is benefiting? who should benefit? Those are all questoins you have to answer before answering is history progressive, and they are all moral questions.


Typically for the ruling class, but generally with a revolution in productive forces it has been a progressive step for the worker, be it slave, peasant (and as we claim in the case of a social revolution, proletarian).

Some poeple win, some people may loose, sometimes a lot of peopel win, sometimes everyone looses. Listen, the world is'nt so simple that you can say, "history is progressive", its a lot more complicated than that.


Marxists aren't concerned with passing moral judgement on what is good and what is bad. Capitalism 'freed' slaves and destroyed serfdom, creating a class of 'free' labourers (in the sense of being free of property and free to choose an employer to be exploited by). It didn't do this of its own good conscience, but for a greater expansion of the productive forces, for the greater production of surplus value. Slicing up history into 'positive' and 'negative' ignores totally ignores why the events happen.

OF COARSE Marxists are concerned with passing moral judgements. The fact that you consider freeing slaves and destroying serfdom something good, is a moral judgement. Without moral judgement you could say that going back to slavery is progressive and there is nothing one could say to counter that. Why events happen and whether or not they are positive or not are 2 different issues.


You have a poor understanding of the Marxist concept of history. A theory of history is necessarily general. If it were otherwise it would be useless.

Of coarse it has to be general, but understanding there are many many other factors and the theory is limited is very important, otherwise you only see things through a small small little hole.


Economics isn't a science? Anthropology isn't a science? Science isn't just physics and biology.

Economics is only a science as far as explaining how Capitalism wors. When you make social relations a science, and treat them as moral judgements (as marxists do) you run into huge amounts of trouble.


No one claimed to, but nor have Marxists ever reduced history to the working of the individual mind.

No, but history is the made up of many minds interacting withone another, my point is that society is very very complicated. More complicated than just marxist theory.

[danyboy27]

if history is progressive, that mean, somehow, we learn from our errors right?
if that would be the case we wouldnt let omar al bashir displace and kill thousand of civilian, or allow some people to practice slavery in africa in order to collect diamond, or lets the LRA kill thousand of civilian in rwanda.

and if history is progressive, then why the middle age happened? if history was progressive then the whole roman empire would have mutated into something better.
look at the technology, the roman had perfected both military and civilian science, and then BAM all that dropped.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle". Primitive communism does not belong to history; it's prehistorical. There was no class struggle in a primitive communist society. And I believe history is pro-gressive. I don't care about the moral significance given to the word. Just look at the development of technology, a product of human labour, and the exploitation of our means of (re)production. Even the European dark ages gradually freed the enslaved from the land. Relations of production can be very conservative, yes. And the Roman empire was a striking example. But as we have seen from that same empire they cannot simply stay the same forever.

Good points there. :(

[trivas7]

And I believe hisotry is pro-gressive.

I thought historical materialism posited something more than a mere belief.



Sure, you could defined progressive by such a definition of violence and then you would be right to say that the twentieth century was not progressive. But then that would be your definition and your definition alone. Look at the context at which I said it - the economic systems progress insofar as they allow a greater expansion of the productive forces, of the greatest production of use values. This was what was meant and nothing more. Now, if you can prove that with every revolution in the productive forces there has not been such a progress, then you may have a point, but I doubt you can. There was no 'moral' claim about capitalism or any other productive system.

Point taken that 'progressive' isn't a moral claim. Then progressive means nothing more in this context than the fact that economic systems expand productive forces, which is a banal insight at best (use values aren't produced). This tells us nothing re history or its relation to economic systems: e.g., why cattle-herding still is the basis of the economy in Mongolia or why China chose capitalism over socialism.

If economic systems progress neither cyclically nor linearly, what is added by calling them progressive?

[Bud Struggle]

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle".

That's of course totally subjective. History is God showing himself to the world. History is the evolution of mass culture. History is the biography of a few spectacular individuals over a backdrop nobodies. Etc.

The list what "history is" is endless. :)

[trivas7]

That's of course totally subjective. History is God showing himself to the world. History is the evolution of mass culture. History is the biography of a few spectacular individuals over a backdrop nobodies. Etc.

The list what "history is" is endless. :)
I disagree. History might be one damn thing after another, but surely it isn't any damn thing you please.

[Bud Struggle]

I disagree. History might be one damn thing after another, but surely it isn't any damn thing you please.

You are being silly.

I could make a case that the entire meaning of history was to produce the birth and life of TomK. Everything else in history is mearly preliminary or post script.

The entire meaning of all creation is TomK. Don't agree? Fine--now you rell me your meaning of history--it's equally arbitrary and vaquid.

[Tower of Bebel]

The "definitions" of history I would support are as follows:



"History" has been there since written texts (as Comrade Joe already said - though I don't like the idea that Western europa was prehistorical untill Caesar took it from the Celts)
"History" exists since agriculture
"(All hitherto) History" is on of class struggles


All three of them concider "primitive communism" to be prehistorical. The others are probably either vague or silly:



History is defined by God and starts with the creation of life (as Tom K pointed out).
...
And then there are those who say history cannot be defined.


I thought historical materialism posited something more than a mere belief.
That's correct, but my name's not historical materialism ;).

Yes you DO care about the moral significance. You consider freeing slaves as positive, which means your attaching moral significance to it. You also consider technology to be positive, which is a moral judgement.I never wrote that technological development is something positive. I would say our technology has advanced just like history has progressed. Humanity never stood still, not even a minute.

And if I said that wage labour is free (compared to serfdom), would that also be a moral judgement?

[trivas7]

That's correct, but my name's not historical materialism ;).

I'll take that as admission that you have no grounds for your belief.

[Tower of Bebel]

I'll take that as admission that you have no grounds for your belief.
I noticed.

Seriously, what's fundamentally wrong with calling history progressive even when there's still cattle-herding in mongolia or Somalia? Cattle-herding itself can be interpreted as a sign of progression.

[trivas7]

Seriously, what's fundamentally wrong with calling history progressive even when there's still cattle-herdng in mongolia or Somalia? Cattle-herding itself can be interpreted as a sign of progression.
Nothing, I guess, if by progress you mean technological and scientific advancement. OTOH what's fundamentally wrong w/ calling history cyclical, à la the law of social cycle touted by Ravi Batra (http://www.ru.org/economics/a-new-concept-of-progress.html)?

The myth of progress (http://www.primitivism.com/facets-myth.htm) just doesn't float my boat.

[RGacky3]

The "definitions" of history I would support are as follows:



"History" has been there since written texts (as Comrade Joe already said - though I don't like the idea that Western europa was prehistorical untill Caesar took it from the Celts)
"History" exists since agriculture
"(All hitherto) History" is on of class struggles

All three of them concider "primitive communism" to be prehistorical. The others are probably either vague or silly:



History is defined by God and starts with the creation of life (as Tom K pointed out).
...
And then there are those who say history cannot be defined.
The definition of history depends of the context of the conversation.


And if I said that wage labour is free (compared to serfdom), would that also be a moral judgement?

No, but saying that freedom is better than non freedom is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Vinnie:


Economics isn't a science? Anthropology isn't a science? Science isn't just physics and biology.

Check out this thread, where I was able to show history is a science, too:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/historical-materialism-scientifici-t92796/index.html

[trivas7]

Vinnie:
Check out this thread, where I was able to show history is a science, too:

History as narrative isn't a science. If historical materialism isn't the application of dialectics to the study of history, it's a pseudo-science. I disagree w/ mikelepore that Marxism is science in JS Mills's sense.

[KC]

It seems to me to be pretty absolutist to make the claim that "history is progressive". First, one would have to define what one means by progressive; second, based on what I think the definition is, there are countless instances where history was not progressive but reactionary. What I think we can say, though, is that there are broad historical trends that occur which lead us to a higher quality of life which could be progressive depending on how you define it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


History as narrative isn't a science. If historical materialism isn't the application of dialectics to the study of history, it's a pseudo-science. I disagree w/ mikelepore that Marxism is science in JS Mills's sense.

Well, as usual, you just ignore what you can't cope with, since at the link I posted above, I was able to show that history 'as a narrative' is a science.

If you disagree, you will need to address my arguments (ha! some hope!), and resist merely rehearsing your latest opinions.

[trivas7]

If you disagree, you will need to address my arguments (ha! some hope!), and resist merely rehearsing your latest opinions.
If you can't substantiate your claims here you're not worth engaging AFAIC, Rosa.

[Hit The North]

It seems to me to be pretty absolutist to make the claim that "history is progressive". First, one would have to define what one means by progressive; second, based on what I think the definition is, there are countless instances where history was not progressive but reactionary. What I think we can say, though, is that there are broad historical trends that occur which lead us to a higher quality of life which could be progressive depending on how you define it.

To be fair to Vinnie, he does define and set a limit on the claim:


Originally posted by Vinnie
"History is progressive insofar as it follows the expansion of the forces of production. [emphasis added]


As for claims as to whether this means society becomes more humane or more equal they are obviously false. However, there is evidence that Marx believed that capitalism, as a higher mode of production was a step towards an increase in civilization - see The Communist Manifesto.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


If you can't substantiate your claims here you're not worth engaging AFAIC, Rosa.

As I predicted, you can't engage with my arguments.:lol:


Well, as usual, you just ignore what you can't cope with, since at the link I posted above, I was able to show that history 'as a narrative' is a science.

If you disagree, you will need to address my arguments (ha! some hope!), and resist merely rehearsing your latest opinions.

[trivas7]

To be fair to Vinnie, he does define and set a limit on the claim:


Originally posted by Vinnie
"History is progressive insofar as it follows the expansion of the forces of production. [emphasis added]

But in his next post Vinnie acknowledges that history is progresses neither cyclically nor linearly, but rather dynamically. So what -- if anything -- does the claim that history is progressive amount to?

[Hit The North]

But in his next post Vinnie acknowledges that history is progresses neither cyclically nor linearly, but rather dynamically. So what -- if anything -- does the claim that history is progressive amount to?
It's not clear to me how arguing that history progresses 'dynamically' relates to the directionality (whether linear or cyclical) of history. As you probably know, historical materialism favours the metaphor of the spiral which is the reconciliation of cyclical and linear movement.

I've already indicated that Vinnie's formulation sets limits on what progressive means from the point of view of historical materialism. Anyway, it is somewhat reified to argue that history moves at all. History is a narrative which is always retrospective. It would be more accurate to say that history, at a general level, is a narrative which discloses the progressive mastery over nature by humanity.