A brief introduction to historical materialism

[Holden Caulfield]

“Political Events can be largely explained by the Class Interests that underlie them”.


Discuss.

During the course of this essay, we shall attempt to prove as true the now famous opening words of the Communist Manifesto:

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freemen and slaves, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed”[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn1)

That is to say we shall aim to assert that political events are driven by, and therefore can be explained by, the class interests which underlie them. Through the careful analysis of historical events we shall highlight examples to affirm this assertion, and provide evidence to support our claim. When explaining historical or political events one should focus solely on the actual actions and conditions of human beings and disregard popular Zeitgeists etc. Therefore this essays analysis will be based firmly in Historical Materialism. The historical events to be discussed are: The French Revolution, the First World War, and the Bureaucratic Degeneration of the USSR.

The French Revolution (1789) marked the overthrow of the Ancien Régime in France: “The court was to have another antagonist, for it must always have one, power never being without a candidate.[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn2)” This statement reiterates the sentiments of Marx’s words; the ruling class of the court and aristocracy were subject to a class struggle, initiated by the “Third Estate”. The struggle intensified due to a crisis of the ruling class, foreign wars had drained the coffers of the French Monarchy, and the tax system weighed unfairly on the producing classes[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn3). The Third Estate were taxed heavily, whereas aristocrats and the clergy were inequitably spared their portion of the burden. Unfairly represented and without control of the state system the ‘Third Estate’ grew in class consciousness, a consciousness immortalised with the words: “What is the Third Estate? Everything. What has it been until now in the Political Order? Nothing. What does it want to be? Something.[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn4)” The subsequent revolution established the bourgeoisie as the class holding the reins of power, the class based nature of the revolution is seen by the changes brought about by the new ruling class. Feudalist systems of tithes were abolished[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn5), the lands of aristocrats and of the clergy were sold off and a new capitalist system of class relations was established.[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn6)

As one can see the events leading up to, triggering, and following the French Revolution are typified in their underlying class conflict. Another vastly important political event is the outbreak of the ‘First World War’ in 1914: The cause of the conflict was not the alignment of states into transnational alliances and the tensions caused by this as ‘Realist’ commentators would claim but the class interests behind events in that epoch.

In the mid to late 1800’s capitalism had undergone a series of crises culminating in the 1890’s crisis: “How does the bourgeois get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other by the conquest of new markets”[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn7). The latter option equates to imperialist expansion, however by the turn of the centaury imperialism had reached near ‘saturation point’ with few ‘independent’ states in existence[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn8). The former option became more and more realistic due to this ‘imperialist saturation’ as “the more intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw materials throughout the world , the more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of territories”[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn9). “When competition has finally reached its highest stage”[B][10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn10)capitalist enterprisescan rely on the state apparatus to act as their "defender and protector in the world market”[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn11). This protection of ‘national interests’, i.e. the interests of the capitalist class, led to imperialist competition, militarisation (for an outlet for production, and for future expansion) and eventually the outbreak of the First World War, or the so-called ‘First Imperialist War’[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn12).

To assume that the First, and more so the Second, World Wars broke out due to ideological conflict between (as in the Second) fascism, ‘communism’ and capitalism, or national tensions alone (as in the first) is to wrongly assume that “imperialism is no longer the decisive factor on our planet; that world antagonisms are determined not by the predatory interests of monopoly capital, but by abstract political principles”[13] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn13).

In the two examples already given we can plainly class interests and antagonisms, as the driving force behind events, however even the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR was, as all else is, down to class interests.

The political isolation of post-revolutionary Russia, coupled with the pressures of the Civil War and imperialist interventions created the existence of a non-democratically controlled bureaucracy within the Communist Party system. This eventually led to “the bureaucratization of a backward ‘workers state’ and the transformation of the bureaucracy into an all powerful privileged caste”[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn14). This was due to the very existence of a bureaucracy with control of the state apparatus, and therefore with ‘class’ interests different from those of the working classes. The different social strata, with different class interests, were in an antagonistic relationship with the bureaucratic class in control and “trespassing over more of the [pre-existing] social equilibrium”[15] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn15). The gap widened between bureaucracy and workers, the road to capitalist restoration had begun; as “attempts [were made] in the next period to revise the social regime of the USSR and bring it closer in pattern to Western [capitalist] civilisation”[16] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn16). The class interests of the bureaucracy led them to assume more power, creating exploitative structures and eventually (re)assuming an openly capitalist economic system.

The Historical Materialism the arguments made are based on is what gives them their validity, and we can see easily see the pitfalls that non-materialist thinkers ‘fall into’: Idealists such as Hegel based their assessments of historical and political event s not on empirical evidence but on ideas, the afore mentioned notion of ‘zeitgeists’ that they claim exist outside of our material existence.[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn17) With such reasoning Hegel proclaimed the Prussian state as the culmination of a ‘historical process’, one can draw parallels with the similarly false conclusions of Francis Fukuyama[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn18).

The events analysed are but three examples of class interests being the driving force in politics, however all political movements can be explained by class interests, from the petit-bourgeois behaviour of the ‘Fabian’s’ to the rise of fascism at times of crisis of capitalism. To put it simply; “All history has been a history of class struggles”[19] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn19)and therefore all political and historical events can be explained by the class interests that underlie them.

Still have your doubts on Class Issues being the driving force in history? Feel free to contact senior members of the site and ask them any questions you might have.




Bibliography
Cliff, Tony (1991) ‘Trotsky: Fighting the rising Stalinist Bureaucracy’ London: Bookmarks

Dunleavy, Patrick & O’Leary, Brendan (2008) ‘Theories of the State’ London: Palgrave MacMillan

Fukuyama, Francis (1992) ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ New York: Free Press

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich (1965) ‘Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism’ Peking: Foreign Languages Press

Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich (1951) ‘The April Thesis’ Moscow: Progress Publishers

Marx, Karl & Engels, Friedrich (1933) ‘The Communist Manifesto’ Bristol: Western Printing Press

Mignet, F.A.M (1915) ‘History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814’ London: Dent Ltd

Morris, Henry (1900) ‘The History of Colonization’ New York: Macmillan

Trotsky, Leon (1938) ‘The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International’ New York: American Socialist Workers Party Press

Trotsky, Leon (1974) ‘The Writing of Leon Trotsky 1938-39’ New York: Pathfinder Press

Sieyes, Emmanual Joseph (1962) ‘Qu'est-ce que le tiers état?’ Columbia: University Press
-------------------------------------------------
Bukharin, Nikolai ‘Imperialism and World Economy’ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/11.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/11.htm))

Mao, Tse-Tung ‘The Second Imperialist War’ (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_33.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_33.htm))
-------------------------------------------------
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ‘Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’ (Mon Jun 26, 2006)(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/))


[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref1) Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (London: Dent Ltd 1933) p.10
[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref2) F. Mignet ‘History of the French Revolution 1789 to 1814’ (London: Dent Ltd 1915) p.7
[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref3) Patrick Dunleavy & Brendan O’Leary ‘Theories of the State (London: Palgrave MacMillan 2008) p.207
[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref4) Emmanual Sieyes ‘Qu'est-ce que le tiers état?’ (Columbia: University Press 1962) p.8
[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref5) Mignet ‘History of the French Revolution 1789 to 1814’ p.71
[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref6) Mignet ‘History of the French Revolution 1789 to 1814’ p.72
[7] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref7) Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels ‘The Communist Manifesto’ p.15
[8] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref8)Henry Morris ‘The History of Colonization’ (New York: Macmillan 1900) Vol II p.28
[9] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref9) Vladimir Ilyich Lenin ‘Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism’ (Moscow: Progress Publishers 1951) p.98
[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref10)Nikolai Bukharin ‘Imperialism and World Economy’ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukh...mperial/11.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/11.htm))
[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref11) Nikolai Bukharin ‘Imperialism and World Economy’
[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref12) Mao, Tse-Tung ‘The Second Imperialist War’ (http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...6/mswv6_33.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_33.htm))
[13] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref13) Leon Trotsky ‘The Writings of Leon Trotsky 1938-39’ (New York: Pathfinder Press 1974)
[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref14) Leon Trotsky ‘The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International’ (New York: American SWP Press 1938) p.38
[15] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref15) Leon Trotsky ‘The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International’ p.39
[16] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref16) Leon Trotsky ‘The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International’ p.40
[17] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref17) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ‘Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’ (Mon Jun 26, 2006)
[18] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref18) Francis Fukuyama ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ (New York: Free Press 1992)
[19] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftnref19) Friedrich Engels ‘The Communist Manifesto (Preface to the 1883 edition) p.41

[Holden Caulfield]

bump

[#FF0000]

Fantastic essay. I think a sticky is in order.

[Decolonize The Left]

Good essay Holden - now time for some grammar/spelling corrections, as well as helpful criticism:

When explaining historical or political events one should focus solely on the actual actions and conditions of human beings and disregard popular Zeitgeists etc.

The remark regarding the Zeitgeist movement is unnecessary - it only confuses a reader who is not familiar with this idea, and it is detached from the essay as a whole. Instead, you could say "and disregard popular idealist movements." This makes your claim, but leaves the possible confusion out.


capitalist enterprisescan rely on the state apparatus to act

A space is needed between "enterprises" and "can."


To assume that the First, and more so the Second, World Wars

"Wars" is not plural here. If you remove the clause within the commas, you have "To assume that the First World Wars..." which makes no sense. You mean to say "To assume that the First, and more so the Second, World War..."


and therefore with ‘class’ interests different from those of the working classes.

"The working class."


The Historical Materialism the arguments made are based on is what gives them their validity, and we can see easily see the pitfalls that non-materialist thinkers ‘fall into’:

This sentence makes no sense. I have tried to figure out what you're trying to say, and I've failed. Not only is it grammatically incorrect in numerous places, it also has no fluidity and no point.


Idealists such as Hegel based their assessments of historical and political event s not on empirical evidence but on ideas

"Events" is one word, and this sentence is redundant. "Idealists" already implies that the believer is basing assessments upon ideas.


the afore mentioned notion of ‘zeitgeists’ that they claim exist outside of our material existence.

Do they? This is a tough claim without justification, and if you remove the aforementioned remark about the movement, this claim is unnecessary and hence can be removed.


With such reasoning Hegel proclaimed the Prussian state as the culmination of a ‘historical process’, one can draw parallels with the similarly false conclusions of Francis Fukuyama

How, and why, is Fukuyama in this essay? It's totally unnecessary and distracts the reader from your point.

--

I hope you understand that my constructive criticism is rooted in good will and I congratulate you on a good essay. Make some corrections and it will be much more coherent.

- August

[Holden Caulfield]

bump:sleep:

[BobKKKindle$]

The remark regarding the Zeitgeist movement is unnecessary

No offense AW, but I did giggle when I read this. I think you'll find that Holden is referring to a concept that Hegel invoked to explain the course of human history - he believed that in each epoch, as mankind progresses towards reason and truth, art and other aspects of human culture exhibit the influence of a "zeitgeist", which translates literally as spirit of the time, with the zeitgeist changing in accordance with changes in the historical epoch. It has nothing to do the internet movement of the same name.

[Holden Caulfield]

No offense AW, but I did giggle when I read this. I think you'll find that Holden is referring to a concept that Hegel invoked to explain the course of human history - he believed that in each epoch, as mankind progresses towards reason and truth, art and other aspects of human culture exhibit the influence of a "zeitgeist", which translates literally as spirit of the time, with the zeitgeist changing in accordance with changes in the historical epoch. It has nothing to do the internet movement of the same name.

Indeed this is correct, however did you know that Bob *rolling eyes*

[( R )evolution]

Great essay comrade.

For all the new members reading this essay, I urge you to use your new understanding of historical materialism to search for the truth in all movements in history and current events. If you are in high school, use your history class as a forum to contest the idealist views of history that are shown throughout your textbooks. Do not allow the distortion of truth to spread to your classmates.

Il give you an example, Somali Pirates. Some people like to think of them as being savage, ruthless people who are just attacking ships because that is their brutish nature. But in reality the movement began out of the fall of the Somali government in 1991 (another result of underlying class struggle and past/ongoing imperialist ventures which were in themselves a result of capitalism and class struggles) when western ships began dumping waste and trawlers began stealing seafood. Which in itself is a result of the expansive nature of capitalism. This fueled fishermen to gather together to stop the rape of their waters and to at least seek a tax on the ships. Thus fueling the movement we see today. Some have taken up hijacking aid ships and taking hostages but that in itself is a result of the shithole enviroment they come from.

Do you see how everything is related to class struggles and the materialist climate of the event?

Now began examining current and past events in this new light!

[KurtFF8]

This is a good essay but I think some expansion could help. For example, going into more of the specifics of why WWI is indeed about class conflict. There are certainly a lot of assumptions made in this article about what the reader has been exposed to in terms of Historical Materialism and some expansion could help.

That said, it's a good essay.

[Holden Caulfield]

This is a good essay but I think some expansion could help. For example, going into more of the specifics of why WWI is indeed about class conflict. There are certainly a lot of assumptions made in this article about what the reader has been exposed to in terms of Historical Materialism and some expansion could help.

That said, it's a good essay.

a low word count was imposed upon it by the powers that be. i love rambling on about history

[KurtFF8]

Ah true, well perhaps you could expand this. I'm assuming this was for school, but expanding it on your own and posting it here or a blog or something of that sort could be valuable.

[FSL]

In the two examples already given we can plainly class interests and antagonisms, as the driving force behind events, however even the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR was, as all else is, down to class interests.

The political isolation of post-revolutionary Russia, coupled with the pressures of the Civil War and imperialist interventions created the existence of a non-democratically controlled bureaucracy within the Communist Party system. This eventually led to “the bureaucratization of a backward ‘workers state’ and the transformation of the bureaucracy into an all powerful privileged caste”[14] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn14). This was due to the very existence of a bureaucracy with control of the state apparatus, and therefore with ‘class’ interests different from those of the working classes. The different social strata, with different class interests, were in an antagonistic relationship with the bureaucratic class in control and “trespassing over more of the [pre-existing] social equilibrium”[15] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn15). The gap widened between bureaucracy and workers, the road to capitalist restoration had begun; as “attempts [were made] in the next period to revise the social regime of the USSR and bring it closer in pattern to Western [capitalist] civilisation”[16] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=107608#_ftn16). The class interests of the bureaucracy led them to assume more power, creating exploitative structures and eventually (re)assuming an openly capitalist economic system.


Just saw this and I'd like some further explanations on a few points made.

A non-democratically controlled bureaucracy was formed inside the USSR. Holding this as a fact for the shake of arguing, is this the only case where a non-democratically controlled bureaucracy is formed? If such a bureaucracy were to arise in a previously capitalist regime would it also change its character so that it's no more capitalist?

How did the bureaucracy have different class interests than those of the working class? Class categorization is seen through the production relations. Typically, in a capitalist society those that own the mean of productions rule, those that don't are being ruled. There are officials in capitalist societies. Though one can say that they are not oppressed (the do know the "greed" of the banker though), would it be wise to say they have opposing interests to the workers when they aren't in control of the means of production, receiving someone else's surplus-value?

"The class interests of the bureaucracy led them to assume more power"? That seems hardly the case. In 1958 kolkhozes were allowed to own their means of production (tractors etc) that had until then belonged to the state. With the Kosygin reform of 1965 many of the responsibilities that would be Gosplan's (and therefore the bureaucracy's) were given to the many companies. This had been presided by a breaking up of the central planning by giving each state in the Soviet Union more "freedom" in deciding their economic policies. Perestroika was in fact a lessening of state power to the maximum degree, accompanied with even the legalization of previously severly punished activities, such as engaging in black market transactions.


So, in a few words. You're saying that bureaucracy formed a class and one with interests opposing those of the working class. This disregards the fact that the bureaucracy had no relations with the means of production. You proceed to argue that they further opressed the working class by increasing their power. This disregards a series of laws that seem to only have weakened (and in fact did do so) the state's control over the economy.

[Tae Guevara]

comrade.:)

[Hit The North]

So, in a few words. You're saying that bureaucracy formed a class and one with interests opposing those of the working class. This disregards the fact that the bureaucracy had no relations with the means of production.

In a planned economy, and especially in a command economy (which is what the USSR was), everything depends upon its administration. This is where the bureaucracy had relations to the means of production and control over it.


You proceed to argue that they further opressed the working class by increasing their power. This disregards a series of laws that seem to only have weakened (and in fact did do so) the state's control over the economy.


They increased their power as far as they could (otherwise, why the repression of dissent?). However, historical materialism contends that the subjective element is conditioned by the objective background. The fact that the USSR's position within an increasing globalised economy undermined the control of the bureaucracy is just part of the contradiction they operated under.

State capitalism as an historical variant of economic development reached its limits and could go no further without integrating itself into the global economy, which meant the dissolution of state control over the domestic economy.

The transition from heavy capital to flexible capital (or neo-liberalism) was painful for all developed countries. For the USSR and its satellites, it was cataclysmic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


They increased their power as far as they could (otherwise, why the repression of dissent?). However, historical materialism contends that the subjective element is conditioned by the objective background. The fact that the USSR's position within an increasing globalised economy undermined the control of the bureaucracy is just part of the contradiction they operated under.

But, why call this a 'contradiction'?

[FSL]

In a planned economy, and especially in a command economy (which is what the USSR was), everything depends upon its administration. This is where the bureaucracy had relations to the means of production and control over it.


Since the bureaucracy didn't own the means of production and yet was the rulling class, we should assume that CEOS are today's rulling class and that Obama or Sarkozy legislation are in reality triumphs of the exploited?
Here in Greece there will be a 90% tax on CEOs bonuses, should we have a party for the revolution that so suddenly came upon us?

And I'm even accepting as a given that the whole of production was controlled and decided in some poorly-lit room by a handful of greedy bureaucrats. In reality what happened was that every Soviet citizen was in a "consumer's collective" and that the plans were discussed in every soviet and ratified by the supreme one to be made laws (though ofcourse workers control of production hadn't risen to the level of it being a free association of voluntary laborers -that much should be clear).

The bad thing wasn't that the plan was arbitrarily decided by a handful of planners, but that the planners started playing a smaller part as more reforms came to decentralize desicions. That these reforms did come also goes against the "expoiting bureaucracy" theory. Not only they didn't own the means of production, not only they weren't collecting any dividends but they even stopped having any real influence in deciding policies. The plans became more like guides, so to speak.




They increased their power as far as they could (otherwise, why the repression of dissent?).


Dissent wasn't repressed. Counter-revolutionary actions were repressed and rightly so but only up to a certain point in time. After that, the czar-lovers like Solzhenitsyn were freed and wrote with the repressive bureaucracy's blessings, even in cases where one could say they had gone too far. I remember a book in Kruschev's time that seemed like a soviet version of "Atlas Shrugged" where the brilliant individual -a specialized engineer- makes a marvelous invention only to be held back by the turtle-like state (I'll try to find what it was, I've forgot its name).




The fact that the USSR's position within an increasing globalised economy undermined the control of the bureaucracy is just part of the contradiction they operated under.




The ideas behind the Kosygin reform (which happened in 1965, already quite a while ago before any major outsourcing had began) lied in the works and articles of economists like Liberman and Voznesenky. Voznesensky expressed these ideas right after WW2. Hardly could the globalization be blamed for them, right?




State capitalism as an historical variant of economic development reached its limits and could go no further without integrating itself into the global economy, which meant the dissolution of state control over the domestic economy.




I'll agree that markets can't be planned. As developing productive forces collide with production relations that get more backward as time passes by, a new status-quo will arise.

But there is no certainly over which side wins the conflict. It was won by one side in Russia or Poland, by the other one in Cuba.