Anarchism and historical materialism

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

Could someone more versed in these things explained whether anarchists do not agree with marxist theories such as historical materialism and if so, in what way?

It's just that usually when the anarchist/marxist split is described to me it tends to be more in terms of the revolutionary process (DOTP, statism etc.) rather than the analysis of capitalism although I'm assured that some strands of anarchism also disgree with that.

Anyone care to elaborate?

[Bala Perdida]

From what I understand, I think Bakunin agreed with the historical materialist view. I haven't read his works yet, mostly Kropotkin. I haven't found anything in Kropotkins works supporting or opposing historical materialism from my understanding of it.

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

From what I understand, I think Bakunin agreed with the historical materialist view. I haven't read his works yet, mostly Kropotkin. I haven't found anything in Kropotkins works supporting or opposing historical materialism from my understanding of it.

Yeah, Bakunin does say something along the lines of "Kapital is the best thing since sliced bread" in one of his essays and I always gathered that he pretty much supported Marx's economic analysis. He does refer to himself as a materialist upfront and I always figured that their joint membership of the IWA meant they were pretty much on the same level on a lot of points...

I was thinking more about Proudhon, Rocker and Kropotkin, the first obviously predating Marx...

[PhoenixAsh]

Are you sure you don't want to know the anarchist position on dialectical materialism? This is much more clear cut.

Except for Ladauer I don't really know much Anarchists who would argue against historical materialism...except when they say that socialism is not something that would ultimately develop from capitalism or is depended on the development of capitalism but is rather the conclusion of changing social (rather than material) factors and which is something that needs to be build towards.

There is also Bookchin.

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

Are you sure you don't want to know the anarchist position on dialectical materialism? This is much more clear cut.
There is also Bookchin.

Yeah, that would be good - I didn't want to mention it because apparently mixing up dialectical and historical materialism on RevLeft is heresy and I'm a sensitive soul...

[Dodo]

You should be more careful with what historical materialism is though as it is used in various ways by different groups

[G4b3n]

You should be more careful with what historical materialism is though as it is used in various ways by different groups

There is no question about what it is; what people and groups use it for is a different question.

I believe historical materialism to be not only essential for the worker's movement, but also essential for understanding how the existing social system has come into existence, which is of value to anyone if you ask me.

Anarchists who reject the materialist conception of history are generally more concerned with the ideological purging of Marxist principles, at least that has been my personal experience.

[BIXX]

Ok, so, I just wanted to make sure, historical materialism (and materialism in general) is the belief that the material (which generally means economic) influences ideas, events, people, etc...? I wonder this because so many people have contradictory conceptions of this or that (think dialectical materialism) so what something actually is can be very unclear.

If the definition I gave is correct, then I see no issue with historical materialism. HOWEVER, I fail to see how social conditions also don't influence those same things (even though society is no more than a phantom, it still heavily influences our lives). Can someone explain this to me?

[Thirsty Crow]

If the definition I gave is correct, then I see no issue with historical materialism. HOWEVER, I fail to see how social conditions also don't influence those same things (even though society is no more than a phantom, it still heavily influences our lives). Can someone explain this to me?
They do, and they're generally understood as part of the "material" you mentioned as influencing ideas and so on. I can't see how it would not be so, as for instance, gender relations (not completely autonomous from class relations of course; but their formative power in precisely this way is also something different)

Another point is which kind of a historical materialism we're talking about, and that is also possible to glimpse from the way people conceptualize the economic.
To remain very brief, there's at least the divide between a naturalist conception (based on the technical aspects of the production process and the production of things) and the one based on both this prior necessary factor and the production of social relations - implying communication and formation of ideas and beliefs as part of the overall practice, with both elements going hand in hand.

[ckaihatsu]

Ok, so, I just wanted to make sure, historical materialism (and materialism in general) is the belief that the material (which generally means economic) influences ideas, events, people, etc...? I wonder this because so many people have contradictory conceptions of this or that (think dialectical materialism) so what something actually is can be very unclear.

If the definition I gave is correct, then I see no issue with historical materialism.




HOWEVER, I fail to see how social conditions also don't influence those same things (even though society is no more than a phantom, it still heavily influences our lives). Can someone explain this to me?


Here are a couple of structural (visual) depictions that may be relevant here....


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimage.org/zbpxjshkd/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zbpxjshkd/)


Universal Pattern of Organization of Living Systems and Viable Human Social Systems
(a cooperative project from Dec. 2012)

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

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-diagrams-revleft

[red_devil]

Scientifical Socialism (and historical materialism as its part) is entirely authoritarian in its base, because "the truth" can be only one and you are suppose to admit it. Anarchists because of their individualistic views organically refuse to do so.

[AnaRchic]

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_of_production) appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_consciousness). The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic — in short, ideological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological) forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual) by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production."

Here Marx gives his best explanation of historical materialism. I do think that most class-struggle anarchists would agree with this methodological approach to understanding history. Indeed it is the only approach that makes sense and gives us a consistent, coherent way of understanding the past, the present situation, and gives us a glimpse into future possibilities.

The problem arises when certain Marxists make this approach a dogma, or an historical "theory of everything", turning this method of historical analysis into a reductionist ideology. Marx himself hated how certain people would take these insights and use them to make broad sweeping generalizations, rather than using them as a frame of reference with which to actually study history.

I wouldn't call myself an anarchist or a marxist, just a libertarian socialist, since I try to synthesize the two perspectives in a way that works, taking the best elements from both. Historical Materialism, as Marx described it, is in my view one of the immensely important contributions Marx made to the revolutionary working class movement.

[Dagoth Ur]

HistoMat and DiaMat will keep Marx relevant for eons. That said I don't understand any criticism of histomat I've ever heard. Someone please explain the counter-argument.

[reb]

Anarchists generally say straight faced that they're historical materialists and agree with Marx, but when you start pushing them then they quickly fall apart and revert to out right idealism. Many anarchists would disagree with the Marxist conception of history based around class. Well, they would say that if they understood it. Glancing over many of their blogs they seem embarrassed to admit the economic base of many of today's problems and try to construct whole other theories as a way around it, such as privilege theory. You just need to look at the language they use, where they use the word oppression it's usually in a vague and meaningless way. One group has to oppress another, but they never say how or why that arises, or they use the definition of exploitation in an entirely moralistic way. Anarchists like to pay lip service to Marx and several communist currents, but they rarely shy away from their petty bourgeois ideology and often resort to it when you press them hard enough.