Historical necessity

[prezsky]

Hey whats up everyone,
So I am reading up on some historical materialism right now and I am stuck at a point where the author brings up the concept of historical necessity
he writes,

"Historical necessity is that which naturally follows from the internal connection of social phenomenon and therefore, is bound to take place. Material production, for example , necessarily determines all aspects of social life. Social revolutions or the succession of one social order by another also take place of necessity. Today capitalism is necessarily being replaced by communism."
- Historical Materialism by V.G Afanasyev

Yeah maybe its just me, but can someone explain what historical necessity or inevitably means?

Thanks for the help.

[blake 3:17]

Many Marxists, and some anarchists, believe the world unfolds in stages. There are a number of stages of class society -- slave society, feudalism, capitalism -- and then communism or socialism is the only, or one of the few possible historic outcomes.

I disagree with this perspective so will stop there.

[ckaihatsu]

There's a strong case to be made for a new mode of production -- socialism, communism -- becoming obviously and overwhelmingly appropriate as the contradictions in the older, conventional mode of production -- capitalism -- pile up to the point of being a fetter on society and social material production.

For example, the free and open-source software movement could be termed a nascent, limited new mode of production since the production and distribution of free software takes on unique characteristics specific to the digital domain -- qualities that aren't found in conventional materials. The ease in making *unlimited* *perfect* copies of any software or media product dramatically cuts against any potential commodification of the product since potential consumers can validly ask what it is exactly that they're paying for -- is it more for a *copy* of a tangible material good, or is it more for the *service* of the programmer -- ? (If it's for the material *copy*, then the consumer is automatically overcharged since the actual *cost* of making any additional copy/ies is negligible -- almost nothing. And if it's for the *labor* of the programmers then how should that be calculated exactly, among those within a large pool of identical recipient consumers -- ?)

Releasing software into the public domain is a decent way of "resolving" this contradiction, then, though at the expense of the programmers -- not really a resolution, then, since it still exploits labor, though in this case to *directly* benefit the consumer, with no middleman (profit).

We could use the unique example of free and open-source software to examine the inputs and outputs of conventional *industrial* processes as well, to consider where all resources are drawn from -- the natural environment -- and by what claims are used to procure them -- private ownership. The contradiction here, obviously, is that all people enter the world the same way, yet there is no commonality to the way these natural resources are controlled and used. Additionally, all societal implements necessarily result from human labor, yet the legacy of labor is *not* the social group that retains control over these results -- infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities.

Simply borrowing from systems theory could bring us to conclude that there is an *incongruity* between the reality of the world of materials that exists, and of our understanding / consciousness of it, and of humanity's whole use of that world of material implements. (Also see graphic at the following link.)


'Universal Pattern of Organization of Living Systems and Viable Human Social Systems'

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2548017&postcount=167





In sociology, a system is said to be social equilibrium when there is a dynamic working balance among its interdependent parts (Davis & Newstrom[clarification needed], 1985). Each subsystem will adjust to any change in the other subsystems and will continue to do so until an equilibrium is retained. The process of achieving equilibrium will only work if the changes happen slowly, but for rapid changes it would throw the social system into chaos, unless and until a new equilibrium can be reached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equilibrium

[cyu]

If someone is coming at you with a knife, is it inevitable that you will pick up the nearest barstool and clobber him over the head with it? No, not really. However, in order for you to survive, that action may be a necessity.

The same applies to capitalism. If the current economic system is about to lead you into starvation, homelessness, or untreated illness, is it inevitable that you overthrow capitalism? No, perhaps you may simply allow yourself to die - this is the slave mentality that slave masters try to instill in their slaves. However, in order for you to survive, it may be a necessity to overthrow capitalism.

Capitalists would love to paint revolutionaries with the image of a bloodthirsty murderer. While that may be true of some revolutionaries, capitalists do not like to mention any instances of people simply seizing the means of production and not murdering anyone. Why not? Because that makes revolutionaries seem too reasonable and "unscary" - thus possibly leading to more people following their example.

[3dward]

The historical necessity is related to the philosophical category of necessity. The necessity comes from the essence of the things and under determinate circumstances may or may not occur. In dialectical materialism, that essence is contradictory, so the necessity is given by its contradictions. In the same way, the historical necessity is given by the contradictory essence of an historical process.
Afanasyev says "Historical necessity is that which naturally follows from the internal connection of social phenomenon and therefore, is bound to take place". U should be careful here because this definition is troublesome. He is right when he says "that is what naturally follows from the internal connection of social phenomenon", meaning that comes from the essence of social phenomenon but he is assuming its inevitability when he says "and therefore, is bound to take place". Necessity doesn´t implies inevitability, but inevitability does implies necessity.
The inevitably comes from the necessity when all the other possibilities are closed. Not everything appears in the world as a product of inevitability, but also as a product of fortuity. Necessity also comes under the form of chance.
This said, the historical necessity is a possibility that can be a certainty under some circumstances but doesn´t implies inevitability. That´s why although the inherent contradictions of the capitalism create the historical necessity of an evolution to another stage, it doesn´t means that the evolution is inevitable. Only time, circumstances and action make that historical necessity an historical certainty.
I recommend u to go further in the topic of the categories of the dialectical materialism if u really want to understand this. These are individual-universal; cause-effect; necessity-fortuity; possibility-reality; content-form; essence-phenomenon. Once u study this, u will easily understand the problem of the historical necessity and the inevitability.
I hope this helps

[ckaihatsu]

If someone is coming at you with a knife, is it inevitable that you will pick up the nearest barstool and clobber him over the head with it? No, not really. However, in order for you to survive, that action may be a necessity.

The same applies to capitalism. If the current economic system is about to lead you into starvation, homelessness, or untreated illness, is it inevitable that you overthrow capitalism? No, perhaps you may simply allow yourself to die - this is the slave mentality that slave masters try to instill in their slaves. However, in order for you to survive, it may be a necessity to overthrow capitalism.

Capitalists would love to paint revolutionaries with the image of a bloodthirsty murderer. While that may be true of some revolutionaries, capitalists do not like to mention any instances of people simply seizing the means of production and not murdering anyone. Why not? Because that makes revolutionaries seem too reasonable and "unscary" - thus possibly leading to more people following their example.


Agreed, and I'll add that people often forget that politics is outside and above any one of us as individual persons -- in that way it's like any other discrete subject, like mathematics or science. Since the (political) world transcends any one of us it's wholly inappropriate to stereotype or villify "the messenger" -- any revolutionary who happens to discuss and/or take an active role in politics and revolutionary struggle.