Economic Determinism.

[Art Vandelay]

To what extent were Marx & Engels economic determanists?

[Rafiq]

What do you mean by Economic determinism?

There is the bourgeois rationalist sense of: "Income makes individuals" which they opposed.

And then the Dialectical Materialist approach, i.e. That relations to the mode of production are the sole base of all human behavior, culture, thought and Ideology, which is correct.

[Os Cangaceiros]

And then the Dialectical Materialist approach, i.e. That relations to the mode of production are the sole base of all human behavior, culture, thought and Ideology, which is correct.

I do not think that is correct.

Furthermore I know of no possible way for that statement to be proven conclusively true. We can look back at history and recognize broad patterns, that is true; but the sole base of all human behavior?

That's a steep mountain to climb.

[Koba Junior]

I do believe that relation to the mode of society's production does determine the way a person sees the world.

[Art Vandelay]

What do you mean by Economic determinism?

There is the bourgeois rationalist sense of: "Income makes individuals" which they opposed.

And then the Dialectical Materialist approach, i.e. That relations to the mode of production are the sole base of all human behavior, culture, thought and Ideology, which is correct.

I guess what I was asking was to what extent the relation between the economic base and the superstructure a uni-casual one? I feel like after I read some work by Mr. Dupont, I began to become too much of an economic determinist (capitalist collapse is inevitable), I have read that some marxists are split on the notion of to what extent the relationship is a uni-casual one.

[Os Cangaceiros]

According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining factor in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Neither Marx nor I have ever asserted more than this. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic factor is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, absurd phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure – political forms of the class struggle and its results such as constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., judicial forms, and especially the reflections of all these real struggles in the brains of the participants, political, legal, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogma – also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases determine their form in particular.

^I pretty much agree with that, actually.

Rudolf Rocker had some good thoughts on the subject of economic determinism in Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice, as well.

[citizen of industry]

I do believe that relation to the mode of society's production does determine the way a person sees the world.

So it would be correct to state that human behavior, culture, thought and ideology stem from the mode of production, the economic base. The contradiction between the mode of production and the civil society can lead to a change in the mode of production, i.e; revolution.


Originally Posted by Marx
Once the ruling ideas have been separated from the ruling individuals and, above all, from the relationships which result from a given stage of the mode of production, and in this way the conclusion has been reached that history is always under the sway of ideas, it is very easy to abstract from these various ideas “the idea,” the notion, etc. as the dominant force in history, and thus to understand all these separate ideas and concepts as “forms of self-determination” on the part of the concept developing in history. It follows then naturally, too, that all the relationships of men can be derived from the concept of man, man as conceived, the essence of man, Man. This has been done by the speculative philosophers. Hegel himself confesses at the end of the Geschichtsphilosophie that he “has considered the progress of the concept only” and has represented in history the “true theodicy.” (p.446.) Now one can go back again to the producers of the “concept,” to the theorists, ideologists and philosophers, and one comes then to the conclusion that the philosophers, the thinkers as such, have at all times been dominant in history:


Originally Posted by Marx
This contradiction between the productive forces and the form of intercourse, which, as we saw, has occurred several times in past history, without, however, endangering the basis, necessarily on each occasion burst out in a revolution, taking on at the same time various subsidiary forms, such as all-embracing collisions, collisions of various classes, contradiction of consciousness, battle of ideas, etc., political conflict, etc. From a narrow point of view one may isolate one of these subsidiary forms and consider it as the basis of these revolutions; and this is all the more easy as the individuals who started the revolutions had illusions about their own activity according to their degree of culture and the stage of historical development.
Thus all collisions in history have their origin, according to our view, in the contradiction between the productive forces and the form of intercourse. Incidentally, to lead to collisions in a country, this contradiction need not necessarily have reached its extreme limit in this particular country. The competition with industrially more advanced countries, brought about by the expansion of international intercourse, is sufficient to produce a similar contradiction in countries with a backward industry (e.g. the latent proletariat in Germany brought into view by view by the competition of English industry).

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm

[Bronco]

Rocker also wrote this (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/rocker/nc-1.htm) essay on "the insufficiency of economic materialism" where he criticised taking a too deterministic view on historical events.


No thinking man in this day can fail to recognise that one cannot properly evaluate an historical period without considering economic conditions. But much more onesided is the view which maintains that all history is merely the result of economic conditions, under whose influence all other life phenomena have received form and imprint.

There are thousands of events in history which cannot be explained by purely economic reasons, or by them alone. It is quite possible to bring everything within the terms of a definite scheme, but the result is usually not worth the effort. There is scarcely an historical event to whose shaping economic causes have not contributed, but economic forces are not the only motive powers which have set everything else in motion

I'd say it's well worth a read and would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on it, and while some of it might be seen as idealist when he talks of the will to power etc. I think he also makes some strong arguments and provides some interesting examples which'd go against an economically determinist viewpoint which makes economic factors and the means of production to be the sole cause and base for all actions, considering this to be an oversimplification of historical events and their causes

[Rooster]

So it would be correct to state that human behavior, culture, thought and ideology stem from the mode of production, the economic base. The contradiction between the mode of production and the civil society can lead to a change in the mode of production, i.e; revolution.





http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm

That second quote is really more about production and distribution.

[ForgedConscience]

Well people like to accuse Orthodox Marxism of being economic determinism because it apparently sees the relation between the base and superstructure of society as a one-way relationship, though the quote from Engels above seems to refute this :confused:

Regardless, I think it is safe to say that as rational beings we are capable of using the means of production in different ways so that in this way the superstructure can affect the base. But I do think that the means of production do ultimately have more of an effect, for example the revolutions of the 20th century happening in underdeveloped countries: The fact that those revolutions took place indicates that the economic basis is not all powerful, but ultimately those states turned into corrupt bureaucracies due to their underdeveloped economies as well as other factors such as the absence of world revolution.

PS I'm not trying to tendency bait here, this is just the first example that came to my head because of my viewpoint.

[Rooster]

Well people like to accuse Orthodox Marxism of being economic determinism because it apparently sees the relation between the base and superstructure of society as a one-way relationship, though the quote from Engels above seems to refute this :confused:

Regardless, I think it is safe to say that as rational beings we are capable of using the means of production in different ways so that in this way the superstructure can affect the base. But I do think that the means of production do ultimately have more of an effect, for example the revolutions of the 20th century happening in underdeveloped countries: The fact that those revolutions took place indicates that the economic basis is not all powerful, but ultimately those states turned into corrupt bureaucracies due to their underdeveloped economies as well as other factors such as the absence of world revolution.

I think the case is more that the base can out grow the superstructure, which can remain static or change in it's own way. This means that you can have different forms of superstructure and still have a capitalist mode of production, for instance.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Marx and Engels were economic determinists, yes.

[Rafiq]

I do not think that is correct.

Furthermore I know of no possible way for that statement to be proven conclusively true. We can look back at history and recognize broad patterns, that is true; but the sole base of all human behavior?

That's a steep mountain to climb.

Can you name some examples, which incline you to come to such a position? I understand genetics to a certain extent do have a lot of influence, i.e. That some things we do exist regardless of the mode of production in place. But the point is the way in which they are done.

[Rafiq]

^I pretty much agree with that, actually.


Which doesn't contradcit what I say. Engels is talking about the reinforcing potential of products of relations to the mode of production, which are quite obvious. I.e. Bourgeois society, from the mode of production, creates a law as a reflection, and as a result this law influences other things, and so on.

[Rafiq]

So it would be correct to state that human behavior, culture, thought and ideology stem from the mode of production, the economic base. The contradiction between the mode of production and the civil society can lead to a change in the mode of production, i.e; revolution.





http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm

No, the "Civil Society" is a direct result of the mode of production and the relations to it. Class struggle, for example is a direct reflection of the capitalist mode of production, and is even a part of it. Not all of the products of capitalism necessarily benefit it's existence.

[Rafiq]

Well people like to accuse Orthodox Marxism of being economic determinism because it apparently sees the relation between the base and superstructure of society as a one-way relationship, though the quote from Engels above seems to refute this :confused:


Those are baseless accusations. I'd like to see some examples by these Orthodox Marxists that validate so called accusations of "Economic Determinism". Orthodox Marxists refused to morally criticize the likes of Rockefeller and Carnegie, as they noted they were simply products of the capitalist mode of production, and that the latter must be targetted, if anything. A lot of sensitive socialist humanists found this repulsive and vulgar, i.e. They could not see through to the fact that we could be reduced to mere entities of the production process, Automata, if you will.

So came such blatantly ridiculous accusations.

[Art Vandelay]

Those are baseless accusations. I'd like to see some examples by these Orthodox Marxists that validate so called accusations of "Economic Determinism". Orthodox Marxists refused to morally criticize the likes of Rockefeller and Carnegie, as they noted they were simply products of the capitalist mode of production, and that the latter must be targetted, if anything. A lot of sensitive socialist humanists found this repulsive and vulgar, i.e. They could not see through to the fact that we could be reduced to mere entities of the production process, Automata, if you will.

So came such blatantly ridiculous accusations.

I have read that orthodox marxists, in particular, hold the view that the relationship between the base and superstructure is a uni-casual one, ie: the base characterizes the superstructure, but not vice versa. I also read that other marxists, for example Gramsci, considered this to be vulgar materialism and that the relationship between the base and superstructure was much more reciprocal.

[citizen of industry]

No, the "Civil Society" is a direct result of the mode of production and the relations to it. Class struggle, for example is a direct reflection of the capitalist mode of production, and is even a part of it. Not all of the products of capitalism necessarily benefit it's existence.

What do you mean, "No"? You are just rephrasing exactly what I said.


Originally Posted by Marx
The form of intercourse determined by the existing productive forces at all previous historical stages, and in its turn determining these, is civil society. The latter, as is clear from what we have said above, has as its premises and basis the simple family and the multiple, the so-called tribe, the more precise determinants of this society are enumerated in our remarks above. Already here we see how this civil society is the true source and theatre of all history, and how absurd is the conception of history held hitherto, which neglects the real relationships and confines itself to high-sounding dramas of princes and states.
Civil society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of the development of productive forces. It embraces the whole commercial and industrial life of a given stage and, insofar, transcends the State and the nation, though, on the other hand again, it must assert itself in its foreign relations as nationality, and inwardly must organise itself as State. The word “civil society” [bürgerliche Gesellschaft] emerged in the eighteenth century, when property relationships had already extricated themselves from the ancient and medieval communal society. Civil society as such only develops with the bourgeoisie; the social organisation evolving directly out of production and commerce, which in all ages forms the basis of the State and of the rest of the idealistic superstructure, has, however, always been designated by the same name.

Hence why I posted the original quote:


Originally Posted by Marx
This contradiction between the productive forces and the form of intercourse, which, as we saw, has occurred several times in past history, without, however, endangering the basis, necessarily on each occasion burst out in a revolution, taking on at the same time various subsidiary forms, such as all-embracing collisions, collisions of various classes, contradiction of consciousness, battle of ideas, etc., political conflict, etc. From a narrow point of view one may isolate one of these subsidiary forms and consider it as the basis of these revolutions

[Rafiq]

I have read that orthodox marxists, in particular, hold the view that the relationship between the base and superstructure is a uni-casual one, ie: the base characterizes the superstructure, but not vice versa. I also read that other marxists, for example Gramsci, considered this to be vulgar materialism and that the relationship between the base and superstructure was much more reciprocal.

There are no Orthodox Marxists who would suggest anything simliar. It just so happens Gramsci used this as an excuse to break with Marxian materialism in favor of colorful Idealism.