Property relations and historical materialism

[Lyev]

The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. (Chpt. 1: Idealism and Materialism, the German Ideology)So, very basically, historical materialism is the concept that each historical epoch (e.g., feudalism, capitalism, communism) is defined and reflected in humans trying to survive, in trying to find food, clothing themselves, but also in "forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc.". My question is, how and/or why is private property and the current mode of production (i.e. capitalism) a reflection of this? I could have my definition of historical materialism wrong though. Also, what are the other ways of analyzing the driving force behind change and development of history? Why are people against historical materialism (anarchists or anti-Marxist opinions definitely welcome here), and what, if anything, is posited as an alternative or antithesis to the concept? The theory that certain characteristics of an epoch are dictated first by human ideas seems quite ridiculous. How would someone (I'm guessing Hegel, being an idealist, upheld this) defend such an assertion? Thanks comrades.

[Rjevan]

So, very basically, historical materialism is the concept that each historical epoch (e.g., feudalism, capitalism, communism) is defined and reflected in humans trying to survive, in trying to find food, clothing themselves, but also in "forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc.".
Even more basically, historical materialism is "the materialist conception of history". ;)
This is the beginning of Chapter III of Engels' "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm)":

The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch.


My question is, how and/or why is private property and the current mode of production (i.e. capitalism) a reflection of this?
Private property has not always existed and is by no means "the natural form" of property, it arose from changed economic conditions. Same goes for capitalism; it isn't a system which could have existed at any time in history, it only became possible with changed production relations which came in conflict with the feudal mode of production (and the resulting way of distribution, the classes, the state and the feudal society). This is mirrored in liberal ideas, philosophy and finally in the French Revolution which was a essentially bourgeois-democratic revolution against the aristocracy. For some time capitalism brought great progress and developement but soon the capitalist/bourgeois method of production came into conflict with the giant productive forces it created. The socialized production (thousands of workers produce a good by means of production which don't belong to them, thus none of them owns the product) is in blatant contradiction with the individual appropriation by the capitalists who do nothing but providing the means of production and investing some capital. The production relations are outgrown of and revolt against the capitalist method of production. And this conflict and the resulting problems led to the birth of scientific socialism, which could - like capitalism - not have been existing in this form and could not succeed at any time before.


Also, what are the other ways of analyzing the driving force behind change and development of history? Why are people against historical materialism (anarchists or anti-Marxist opinions definitely welcome here), and what, if anything, is posited as an alternative or antithesis to the concept?
There are metaphysical and idealist ways of analysing history (like "All of this happens according to God's materplan/in accordance with the providence"), you could argue that politics were the driving force of history (but where do these politics come from? Out of nowhere or from class struggle? And class struggle comes from...) or philosophy (see Engel's statement above) or "the will to power" or that there are no driving forces and everything just happens coincidentally and whatnot.

Most people who are against historical materialism claim that it reduces whole human history to a solely economic point of view, disregards "important aspects" like the infamous "human nature", makes it sound as if everything is predetermined (which is nonsense, it enables you to analyse the reasons for and see the necessity of change at certain of historical stages but nowhere it is claimed that e.g. "socialism is the ultimate goal of humanity from the very beginning", on the contrary) and so on.


The theory that certain characteristics of an epoch are dictated first by human ideas seems quite ridiculous.
It is. How would one get these ideas? From God? From insight to an universal thruth? Newly created in the depths of your brain, completely isolated and free from all existing ideas and real conditions? From the society and the circumstances he/she lives in makes much more sense.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I support historical materialism as a method of viewing history. However, I do think that it takes on a rather mechanistic nature in the hands of some Marxists, who disregard the often complex nature that the superstructure plays in determining historical events* (this piece (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/cosi/cosiicebie.html) would be a good example of that). Marx and Engels themselves were not crude "economic determinists", and Marxism as an ideology (IMO) merely emphasizes an aspect of history and historical change that coventional histories and economic philosophies miss**.

*See Rudolf Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Rudolf_Rocker__Anarchosyndicalism.html) for a further anarchist critique of this phenomenon, in which he talks about how economic progress in Spain was devastated by Church authorities.

**See, for example, Economics: Marxian Vs. Neoclassical by Richard Wolff.

[Lyev]

So then, I think the historical materialism that most people are in opposition to is "vulgar economism", where everything is subordinated to the economic, and there's a letter I read from Engels to Bebel or someone where he actually warns against this. Of course, there are other forces other than economic ones that can play a decisive role in moving history fowards, or sometimes backwards. In what context is the theory then used wrongly, by those who over-emphasize the role of economic conditions? Are there any examples? And what is the benefit of using the theory, rather than just examining history "normally", per se? Thanks.

[Zanthorus]

In my honest opinion the best text to read to get a grip on the materialist conception of history is this:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/cyril_01.htm

Although I'm guessing my view isn't going to be too popular...