Historical materialism and moving backwards

[CartCollector]

From what I've read, historical materialism posits that improvements in the way goods are produced lead to improvements in the form of government. If this is true, does this also mean that if the way goods are produced becomes more inefficient then government will become worse? You might say "well why would people produce goods more inefficiently?" The thing is, it's possible. What happens when the oil runs dry? If a sustainable substitute isn't found, would government revert back to the way it was in the 19th century?

I think this historical regression is possible. There's a fictional example of it in Lord of the Flies. If you view it from a historical materialist perspective, what happens is the boys try to export liberal democracy to a setting where the means of production aren't developed enough to support it. What happens is that they regress to a sort of despotism, with Jack (the despot) controlling the surplus product (pork). The despot is necessary because he is required to coordinate labor (hunting) efficiently. The despotism has to destroy the other class (Ralph, Piggy, and Simon) on the island so that it can move society forward.

[A.R.Amistad]

From what I've read, historical materialism posits that improvements in the way goods are produced lead to improvements in the form of government. If this is true, does this also mean that if the way goods are produced becomes more inefficient then government will become worse? You might say "well why would people produce goods more inefficiently?" The thing is, it's possible. What happens when the oil runs dry? If a sustainable substitute isn't found, would government revert back to the way it was in the 19th century?

I think this historical regression is possible. There's a fictional example of it in Lord of the Flies. If you view it from a historical materialist perspective, what happens is the boys try to export liberal democracy to a setting where the means of production aren't developed enough to support it. What happens is that they regress to a sort of despotism, with Jack (the despot) controlling the surplus product (pork). The despot is necessary because he is required to coordinate labor (hunting) efficiently. The despotism has to destroy the other class (Ralph, Piggy, and Simon) on the island so that it can move society forward.

I think its wrong from a dialectical materialist standpoint to ever believe that democracy in one form or another needs to be "despotic" under certain economic circumstances. What we do posit is that a more beuraucratic form of government is necessary in response to a more dire economic crisis. For example, with the LOTF reference, democracy in the sense of popular vote could be necessary, but it would have to resemble a very top down and authoritative form. We realise that demanding the same level of political progress in all situations, regardless of their material status, is utopian. For example,it would be unrealistic to expect Afghanistan to resemble a Western government, let alone a proletarian republic since they are still largely a nomadic society.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cart Collector:


From what I've read, historical materialism posits that improvements in the way goods are produced lead to improvements in the form of government. If this is true, does this also mean that if the way goods are produced becomes more inefficient then government will become worse? You might say "well why would people produce goods more inefficiently?" The thing is, it's possible. What happens when the oil runs dry? If a sustainable substitute isn't found, would government revert back to the way it was in the 19th century?

I think this historical regression is possible. There's a fictional example of it in Lord of the Flies. If you view it from a historical materialist perspective, what happens is the boys try to export liberal democracy to a setting where the means of production aren't developed enough to support it. What happens is that they regress to a sort of despotism, with Jack (the despot) controlling the surplus product (pork). The despot is necessary because he is required to coordinate labor (hunting) efficiently. The despotism has to destroy the other class (Ralph, Piggy, and Simon) on the island so that it can move society forward.

According to Marx, the class war can lead to the common ruination of the contending classes:


"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." [Communist Manifesto.]

So, Historical Materialism contains no guarantee of everlasting 'forward progress'.

It is also worth recalling that LOTF is set on an island with no (obvious) human history behind it, no classes, no state and very low material productivity/development.

Hence, it is a very poor guide to what human beings are about. It's not even an accurate picture of how our ancestors behaved before class society developed.

[S.Artesian]

Wow. A post by Rosa with which I have no disagreement.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And that's because we agree over historical materialism -- that is, when the Hegelian gobbledygook has been removed.

[A.R.Amistad]

I agree, historical materialism is abused so much by economic determinists who think that history is moving in some sort of single direction according to HM. For example, the whole "stagist" theory is a misuse. History does not necessarily move in stages, it moves according to material production. Our analysis of aboriginal American socieities have shown how false the Kautskyian view of HM is.