Materialism, and understanding history

[JustMovement]

So while reading this forum I often see people claiming that "that is not a materialist understanding of history." So my question is what does a materialist understanding of history mean?
I get it generally, that the shape of society is determined by its mode of production. We live in a society based on production for exchange, capitalism, and that determines what society looks like right now, OK clear enough. But sometimes it seems that materialism means ignoring everything that is not tangible.
Where do ideas (political, philosophical) fit into this? Ideas come from the material situation of society, as in they reside in the minds of people who live in society, and so advance the interests of a certain class. But then these ideas can in turn affect society.
Sorry if I am being unclear but I guess what my question boils down to is where do abstractions: such as ideas, power, laws, information, fit into a materialist understanding of the world? Or am I misunderstanding the whole concept altogether?

[Rjevan]

But sometimes it seems that materialism means ignoring everything that is not tangible.
That's only what idealists would like you to believe. Materialists argue that ideas cannot exist apart from reality. Reality is material. Ideas therefore arise from concrete material conditions. Every idea, view, concept that you hold has a material origin.


Where do ideas (political, philosophical) fit into this?
You just answered the question yourself ;):


Ideas come from the material situation of society, as in they reside in the minds of people who live in society, and so advance the interests of a certain class. But then these ideas can in turn affect society.

In other words: "the material situation of society" is the base and "abstractions such as ideas, power, laws, information" are the superstructure. For example: if the economic base is a slavery we'll see a slave society with the ruling ideas, laws, religion, etc. (to different degrees) centered around the issue of slavery. And of course you'll have dissenting views concerned with the abolition of slavery.

Does that mean the base is the only thing important, that we should abandon communist theory, politics, debates and instead completely focus on economism? Of course not:

New social ideas and theories arise precisely because they are necessary to society, because it is impossible to carry out the urgent tasks of development of the material life of society without their organizing, mobilizing and transforming action. Arising out of the new tasks set by the development of the material life of society, the new social ideas and theories force their way through, become the possession of the masses, mobilize and organize them against the moribund forces of society, and thus facilitate the overthrow of these forces, which hamper the development of the material life of society.

Thus social ideas, theories and political institutions, having arisen on the basis of the urgent tasks of the development of the material life of society, the development of social being, themselves then react upon social being, upon the material life of society, creating the conditions necessary for completely carrying out the urgent tasks of the material life of society, and for rendering its further development possible.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

[graymouser]

Historical materialism means looking at social class as the primary driver of society, and at large events in history as they reflect these class divisions. To get a solid grasp of it, you should read Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/). It will give you a very good understanding of how class conflict works.

As far as ideas, well, I think we can start with the second paragraph of the Eighteenth Brumaire:


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. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.
More generally, Marxists look at ideas as taking part in what we think of as the subjective factor in history. While the broad outlines of history are driven by objective class forces, and the laws of the underlying process of production, its specific contours are open to determination by subjective factors such as ideas and self-organization of classes. There is an interplay (what we can call a dialectic) between these two objective and subjective factors, each of them changing the other.

To turn once more to Marx, in an unpublished collaboration with Engels called The German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/), he tells us about the ruling ideas of every period:


The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”
So the ruling class has the ruling ideas. "Common sense" and the overall discourse of the period are determined by this class. Now, of course, dissident ideas contend for mastery, as Marx indicated. If you think about the deep taboo which has been put on communist ideas, it's fairly clear that this in itself is an act of class warfare (the objective changing the subjective). This is where the whole idea of the Leninist party comes from: the working class needs a strong organization in order to combat the ideas that come from the ruling class. It lacks their tremendous material resources and must find other ways of winning hegemony.

[JustMovement]

So the existing class antagonisms (the objective element if I understood correctly) that are present in society are not the whole story. Ideas become the way through which class antagonisms can be overcome (I got this from the Stalin quote, maybe I misunderstood) as they are the galvinising force. However there is the problem that the spread of ideas is controlled by the ruling class. This does not seem too controversial: school curriculums are set by the government, newspapers, even the slightly left-leaning ones, are run for-profit (obviously) and controlled by corporations.

Does the internet represent a possible way to by-pass the bourgeois control of ideas (at least in the first world)? Anyone can access it provided you have an internet connection, its a fairly democratic medium, you dont need capital to start a blog for example. Social media provides a way to reach and organise many people.

Also another non-"material" element which seems to me to be an important factor in influencing peoples actions is the historical memory of previous class conflicts (example the 80s in the UK) or revolutions (the Russian one, from start to dissolution). Is this something to be taken into account?

[graymouser]

So the existing class antagonisms (the objective element if I understood correctly) that are present in society are not the whole story. Ideas become the way through which class antagonisms can be overcome (I got this from the Stalin quote, maybe I misunderstood) as they are the galvinising force. However there is the problem that the spread of ideas is controlled by the ruling class. This does not seem too controversial: school curriculums are set by the government, newspapers, even the slightly left-leaning ones, are run for-profit (obviously) and controlled by corporations.

Does the internet represent a possible way to by-pass the bourgeois control of ideas (at least in the first world)? Anyone can access it provided you have an internet connection, its a fairly democratic medium, you dont need capital to start a blog for example. Social media provides a way to reach and organise many people.

Also another non-"material" element which seems to me to be an important factor in influencing peoples actions is the historical memory of previous class conflicts (example the 80s in the UK) or revolutions (the Russian one, from start to dissolution). Is this something to be taken into account?
The Internet is useful but has sharp limitations; you do need the ability to access it. And "free" blogs are hosted on corporate owned web servers. This forum, for instance, is not free. Having a url that doesn't have blogspot.com or wordpress.com in it also isn't free. Also, we have to remember that the Internet is also a tool for organizing from the other side. I don't think you can beat face to face organizing for real impact on people - the Internet tends to make abstract things that need to be experienced in the concrete, like protests, strikes and other struggles.

Revolutionary memory matters. Indeed, I think one of the main tasks of a Marxist is a close study of history and the lessons that can be gained from it. We need to understand what worked in successes and what didn't in failures, and vice versa, what failed in our successes and what succeeded in our failures in the past. Without studying this we can't really understand how best to move forward. I really again must suggest you start with the Eighteenth Brumaire, a fascinating study of the failed French revolution of 1848. Four other books I'd suggest are The History of the Russian Revolution by Trotsky, The Black Jacobins (the Haitian revolution) by C.L.R. James, History of American Trotskyism by James P. Cannon, and Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain by Felix Morrow. Now, these books have a very Trotskyist lean but are IMO very important for understanding a lot of these questions.

[Rjevan]

So the existing class antagonisms (the objective element if I understood correctly) that are present in society are not the whole story. Ideas become the way through which class antagonisms can be overcome (I got this from the Stalin quote, maybe I misunderstood) as they are the galvinising force.
Yes, ideas can contribute to changing material reality. But those ideas arise from said class antagonisms, thus a material base. I recommend reading Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism", not as a counterstrike to graymouser's Trotsky reading list but because it's a good summary and introduction, fairly short and easy to understand.


Does the internet represent a possible way to by-pass the bourgeois control of ideas (at least in the first world)?
To a certain degree. But additionally to what was already said: how many people would really read a site like this or a communist blog? You already have to be interested and looking for them to discover them. Watching the news or reading your local paper on the other hand...


Also another non-"material" element which seems to me to be an important factor in influencing peoples actions is the historical memory of previous class conflicts (example the 80s in the UK) or revolutions (the Russian one, from start to dissolution). Is this something to be taken into account?
Sure, I agree with graymouser that historical experience is indeed very important. But obviously it has a very material root again. ;)

[Zanthorus]

graymouser and Rjevan are on the right track, but to add my own two cents: A materialist understanding of history means precisely what it says on the tin - an interpretation of history which uses the conceptual tools of materialist philosophy. More accurately, since Marx and Engels came up with the idea it is usually used to refer to an interpretation of history carried out in the terms of Marx's own peculiar brand of practical, social (And in a certain sense we could also say dialectical) materialism. Even more specifically than that, a materialist understanding of history is usually understood as referring to an interpretation of history which relies on the conceptual tools of Marxist analysis, primarily the theory and understanding of class conflict.

In terms of how it compares with other historical approaches, Marxism is opposed to narrative historians such as Leopold Ranke (Marx called him and his school the 'so-called objective historians') who view the role of history as simply giving a description or narrative of events. It contrasts with this by emphasising the importance of analysis and understanding of events. This is also opposed to certain historians who we might describe as 'post-modernist' who oppose the idea that any 'grand narrative' explanations can be given for historical events. For example, Michael Braddick's seminal work on the English Civil War 'God's Fire, England's Fury' ends with the unfortunate conclusion that multiple narratives from varying perspectives can be drawn from the events which happened. This is linked in with the theory that historical events have to be understood in terms of the ideas which people had about them at the time, which produces things like the whig/liberal interpretation of the English Civil War where it is seen as a struggle for the rights of man, no taxation without representation and other such ideas, or the interpretation which sees it primarily as a struggle between opposing religious outlooks - anglicanism/catholicism, presbytarianism and puritanism. Marxist historians emphasise the primacy of social and class relations and understand the ideas people had about events at the time as being a theoretical reflection of these relations. Thus, the English Civil War (To continue with the example I'm most familiar with) is not seen as being primarily about presbytarianism/puritanism vs anglicanism/catholicism, or as being about the rights of man vs the divine right of kings, rather the growth of such ideas is seen as the result of the growth in capitalist social relations pressing up against the feudal regulations and forms which held them back.

In addition to graymouser's reading list I would reccomend Christopher Hill's The Century of Revolution which analyses the whole period from 1604-1714 in Britain primarily in terms of the transition from feudal to capitalist society, and which I have drawn some of the above from.

[JustMovement]

graymouser and Rjevan are on the right track, but to add my own two cents: A materialist understanding of history means precisely what it says on the tin - an interpretation of history which uses the conceptual tools of materialist philosophy. More accurately, since Marx and Engels came up with the idea it is usually used to refer to an interpretation of history carried out in the terms of Marx's own peculiar brand of practical, social (And in a certain sense we could also say dialectical) materialism. Even more specifically than that, a materialist understanding of history is usually understood as referring to an interpretation of history which relies on the conceptual tools of Marxist analysis, primarily the theory and understanding of class conflict.

In terms of how it compares with other historical approaches, Marxism is opposed to narrative historians such as Leopold Ranke (Marx called him and his school the 'so-called objective historians') who view the role of history as simply giving a description or narrative of events. It contrasts with this by emphasising the importance of analysis and understanding of events. This is also opposed to certain historians who we might describe as 'post-modernist' who oppose the idea that any 'grand narrative' explanations can be given for historical events. For example, Michael Braddick's seminal work on the English Civil War 'God's Fire, England's Fury' ends with the unfortunate conclusion that multiple narratives from varying perspectives can be drawn from the events which happened. This is linked in with the theory that historical events have to be understood in terms of the ideas which people had about them at the time, which produces things like the whig/liberal interpretation of the English Civil War where it is seen as a struggle for the rights of man, no taxation without representation and other such ideas, or the interpretation which sees it primarily as a struggle between opposing religious outlooks - anglicanism/catholicism, presbytarianism and puritanism. Marxist historians emphasise the primacy of social and class relations and understand the ideas people had about events at the time as being a theoretical reflection of these relations. Thus, the English Civil War (To continue with the example I'm most familiar with) is not seen as being primarily about presbytarianism/puritanism vs anglicanism/catholicism, or as being about the rights of man vs the divine right of kings, rather the growth of such ideas is seen as the result of the growth in capitalist social relations pressing up against the feudal regulations and forms which held them back.

In addition to graymouser's reading list I would reccomend Christopher Hill's The Century of Revolution which analyses the whole period from 1604-1714 in Britain primarily in terms of the transition from feudal to capitalist society, and which I have drawn some of the above from.

OK a couple of points and questions: take the English Civil War- so Marxist analysis would look at the class antagonisms inherent in the conflict, which makes perfect sense. The root of the war resides in a series of conflicting economic interests; however the participants certainly would not have viewed it that way, they would have said that it was about religion, or rights, or whatever. And these ideas, although they spring from the material, economic reality of England at that time, did shape the conflict, and influence history. These ideas also have a validity that is seperate from those historical circumstances. What Im driving at is that it seems to me that its not merely about material factors (class) coming into conflict, and the ideas around this conflict are merely symptoms, but that these ideas themselves also shape the conflict. To use another example, Webber famously said that protestantism allowed the growth of capitalism, and then compared protestant countries to catholic ones. Of course one could say that protestantism was a symptom of the shift from feudalism to capitalism and then it becomes a chicken or the egg question. So my question becomes: can ideas (or the superstructure to use a term that Rjevan used) affect the material base, or are they merely symptoms of the base?

My second point is that you say "Michael Braddick's seminal work on the English Civil War 'God's Fire, England's Fury' ends with the unfortunate conclusion that multiple narratives from varying perspectives can be drawn from the events which happened. " But it seems to me that that is the only possible conclusion to draw. History is shrouded in darkness, and we can only access it through the sources that are available to us. Even if we accept a Marxist analysis, how do we measure how developed the classes in the conflict were, how aware of their objective interests they were, how do we weigh the myriad of factors that come into play against each other?

Finally, thank you to everyoe that suggested reading to me, I will look into them when I have the time to!

[Armchair War Criminal]

My second point is that you say "Michael Braddick's seminal work on the English Civil War 'God's Fire, England's Fury' ends with the unfortunate conclusion that multiple narratives from varying perspectives can be drawn from the events which happened. " But it seems to me that that is the only possible conclusion to draw.I suspect that mouser left out an "only" in that sentence: "Michael Braddick's seminal work on the English Civil War 'God's Fire, England's Fury' ends with the unfortunate conclusion that all we can draw from what happened is multiple narratives from different perspectives." The drive to reduce the study of the past to the production of narratives is an old one, whether in Ranke in Marx's day or postmodernists in our own; we're a species that remembers things more easily when they're in narrative form. And spinning out these narratives is a legitimate activity. But just as we oughn't try to impose narratives on the behavior of atoms if we're to understand and predict their behavior, we oughtn't impose narratives on other, more complex entities like human civilization. Just because the human brain is predisposed to think in narratives doesn't mean the reality outside it is inclined to act that way.