Historical materialism as a unilineal theory

[cantwealljustgetalong]

It is well known that the typologies of historical materialism are of dated origin and have obvious colonialist roots. But I'm not convinced it has the sins of a properly unilineal theory: that all societies obey the same laws of motion universally. It leaves room for development in different directions, towards progress or collapse, the absence of 'history' as class struggle in natural abundance, and economic configurations toward stagnation that will only start growing once invaded.

Are the colonialist notions embedded in the theoretical apparatus fatal to the theory, or does historical materialism resist the unilineal problem? What do you think?

[Queen Mab]

I don't think there are necessarily colonialist notions embedded in historical materialism. Marx himself theorised that in Russia the peasant communes could transition directly to socialism without passing through capitalism. And I think he also said that the same thing could have happened in Asia before European imperialism.

But yeah, history obviously shows us that there is no linear path to socialism. The collapse of the Roman Empire, different modes of production in Asia etc. shows us that history isn't a railroad and can double back on itself in certain circumstances.

[Thirsty Crow]

It is well known that the typologies of historical materialism are of dated origin and have obvious colonialist roots. But I'm not convinced it has the sins of a properly unilineal theory: that all societies obey the same laws of motion universally.
I think that one of the key postulates of historical materialism is that differekd kinds of social-economic formation develop according to specific dynamics, or tendencies which cannot be generalized and applied as concepts to other formations of this kind.


the absence of 'history' as class struggle in natural abundance, and economic configurations toward stagnation that will only start growing once invaded.
When talking about the earliest work in historical materialism, I think Marx specifically did in fact entertain the notion of the asiatic mode of production where the apparent lack of class struggle was connected to the lack of development in those societies (and thus the Engels' infamous "non-historic peoples" blurb). I think the concept is not beyond salvation for fruitful use in historical inquiry, though.

Now, as for contemporary society, I think it's a common place and a fact that capital has "occupied" all of Earth, and brought with it class struggle as one of the most significant dynamic elements "creating" history.


Are the colonialist notions embedded in the theoretical apparatus fatal to the theory, or does historical materialism resist the unilineal problem? What do you think?
I'm not that sure which colonialism-induced notions you're referring to. It might be best if you produced examples and tried to explain how these assumptions become fatal to the theory.

It seems to me that you're talking about the schemata of necessary stages, and yes I think that was wrong on at least two levels: theoretically and empirically (here is where the notion of other modes of surplus extraction, also based on the state, play a role), and in serving to justify a flawed set of political positions.

[Queen Mab]

I think the charge of colonialism is that capitalism is a mode of production that was developed in Europe and exported across the world incredibly violently. If you follow a stagist approach of slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> communism, then it leads to the conclusion that European imperialism was a necessary prerequisite for communism. But as I said I don't think Marx had this simplistic a view.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think the charge of colonialism is that capitalism is a mode of production that was developed in Europe and exported across the world incredibly violently. If you follow a stagist approach of slavery -> feudalism -> capitalism -> communism, then it leads to the conclusion that European imperialism was a necessary prerequisite for communism. But as I said I don't think Marx had this simplistic a view.
This idea about the necessary prerequisite can only be put forward if one regards the transition to communism on a purely national basis - and by that mean, not internationally, not through international revolution (thus as you correctly point out Marx wondered about the Russian obschina as a social form which could be conducive to this transition in conjunction with revolution in advanced capitalist regions).

In yet another way, the expansion of the productive powers of mankind is a condition for communism so it would make no sense to actively try to turn back the wheel of history, but that of course doesn't mean that it is superfluous to criticize the immense brutality and human cost this project has had.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

yes, it is the typologies I was worried about. I think some of the teleology is justified considering the inherently expansionary nature of capitalism, since at least capitalist domination and penetration throughout the world is an empirical fact, globally almost completely ubiquitous.

I used to think the Asiatic mode of production was a horribly colonialist idea, especially because of how it gels well with the orientalist assumption that the east is 'static', and that it could never grow without imperialist intervention. but from what I understand, postmodern cultural anthropology fetishizes sustainable traditional cultures, and claims essentially that all or most non-western cultures did not build their productive forces in the way historical materialism assumes. now, strangely, the Asiatic mode of production seems to refer to a kind of 'sustainable' traditional economy. not sure how to handle that. I don't know enough empirically, and my theoretical worry is that postmodern anthropologists are helping to strengthen a colonial prejudice that the east was 'static'.

[CyM]

The east was static. The asiatic mode of production is a very interesting one. Here, the state develops on a large scale far before it develops locally. So instead of rival feudal gangsters, or slave city states, you end up with central powers ruling over vast territories. This strong state develops before an economic ruling class has developed the ability to rule politically. So you end up with a very strong centralized state. Generally, where this happened, a contributing factor was the need to build vast irrigation projects spanning thd whole territory. This necessitated central planning to a certain degree. This produces a very stable system that lasted thousands of years in the areas where it was practiced. Generally, china and india both were still in the same mode of production when imperialism bloodily overthrew it.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Thirsty Crow]

The east was static.
I'm not so sure about that. Though, I don't know enough, so it would be silly to dispute this.


This strong state develops before an economic ruling class has developed the ability to rule politically. So you end up with a very strong centralized state.
I don't think it makes sense to talk about a distinct economic ruling class in relation to either European feudalism or to the asiatic mode of production, much less I'd say in relation to the latter since class exploitation was in fact centered on the state with its specific mechanisms of extracting the surplus product.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not so sure about that. Though, I don't know enough, so it would be silly to dispute this.

I don't think it makes sense to talk about a distinct economic ruling class in relation to either European feudalism or to the asiatic mode of production, much less I'd say in relation to the latter since class exploitation was in fact centered on the state with its specific mechanisms of extracting the surplus product.

I've been reading more recent accounts (from a historical materialist view) that argue these kinds of societies were actually more dynamic and connected to a world system of trade to a greater extent than either mainstream or Marxist historians previously held. It's interesting and the author makes the case that this all can be accounted for within a Marxist understanding of history and the development of kinds of societies. It's an academic book and I'm not an academic so some of the specific jargon is over my head and I don't have the authority to tell if one account or another is more aligned with actual anthropological and historical data, but she makes a strong case IMO and it seems to make a lot of sense.

I think Marx can be forgiven for some of the specific ways that his writing took for granted colonialist accounts of other societies (it was all he had to go on at that point and it's remarkable the amount of useful insights he was able to pull from these obviously bias and often openly xenophobic accounts). The theories should always be tested against new information coming out (and new info should be looked at critically itself too) and in broad strokes I think most of the problems with hist. mat. understandings in the past have been more due to dogmatism/bad application and other theoretical missteps. Social Darwinism used some basic features of Darwinism in a crude way; people trying to justify certain policies by so-called communist states have also used materialism and Marxist theory in crude ways to apologize for political issues. That's a different situation than a problem of theory itself - though sometimes it can point to problems with the theory (if people always have to stretch logic to make data fit the framework for example, then maybe there is an underlying theory problem).