Theses on the Philosophy of History

[Redistribute the Rep]

The following is a critique of historical materialism. I'm having a hard time understanding it though, would someone mind explaining this to me?

http://seansturm.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/benjamin-theses-on-the-philosophy-of-history.pdf

[Red Economist]

it might be because it's late, but after getting half way through, I give up. it's incomprehensible. a really bizarre mixture of references and metaphors, which borders on the psychotic. it reads like a nervous breakdown and a person's disintegration of logical thought patterns. :confused:

The only time I've been this stumped by anything like this is when I tried to read Nietzsche'sBeyond Good and Evil. It has a similarly unreadable style.

here's wikipedia's take on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theses_on_the_Philosophy_of_History

this section kind of suggests it's intent:


Scholem,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theses_on_the_Philosophy_of_History#cite_note-Beiner-3) who is quoted in Theses, suggested that the cryptic essay's seemingly definitive rejection of Marxist historical materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism) in favor of a return to the theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology) and metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) of Benjamin's earlier writings came after Benjamin recovered from the deep shock he felt following the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact) when the Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union and Fascist, anti-Semitic Germany, previously bitter rivals, announced a non-aggression pact.
Scholar Mark Lilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lilla)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theses_on_the_Philosophy_of_History#cite_note-Lilla-1) wrote that Benjamin "had remained stubbornly, irresponsibly silent" during Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin)'s atrocities and show trials of the 1930s, even when millions were dying and his erstwhile lover Asja Lacis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asja_Lacis) was imprisoned. In Theses, Lilla argues that Benjamin's disillusionment with the consequences of revolutionary violence is apparent after having previously celebrated "the destructive character," a single-minded persona who smashes bourgeois tradition.


In any case, that is a really scrambled mind, even by dialectical standards. But at a guess, the reference to 'the historicist' is a self-portrait and this is some kind of confession of confronting Marxism as a painful messianic delusion.

[Redistribute the Rep]

it might be because it's late, but after getting half way through, I give up. it's incomprehensible. a really bizarre mixture of references and metaphors, which borders on the psychotic. it reads like a nervous breakdown and a person's disintegration of logical thought patterns. :confused:

Haha, that's what I was thinking but since I'm pretty illiterate in philosophy I wasn't sure if it was just because I didn't understand it.

[Red Economist]

I have a decent 'working knowledge' of dialectical materialism; enough to have a stab at most topics of interest. But stuff like this is so abstract I just find it meaningless. It doesn't even read in a logical way-it's darting around from one topic to another. There's a point where philosophy heads off into such a high level of abstraction that it's just 'insane' and I would say this is a fair example unless I'm very much mistaken. It could be the use of philosophy and theology which I'm just not familiar with, but as someone with a history of mental problems my intuition is just saying this guy is in serious trouble.

[motion denied]

Just as a heads up, in these Thesis, Benjamin is not attacking the materialist conception of History per se, but what was perceived as "historical materialism" (note the quotes in the first thesis), progressivism and fatalism ('the puppet called 'historical materialism' is always supposed to win'). Also, darwinist evolutionism and technical development as necessarily an achievement (see Thesis XI).

In general, it's a jab against a crude evolutionist notion of historical development. He writes in Thesis X "The consideration starts from the assumption that the stubborn faith in progress of these politicians , their trust in their “mass basis” and finally their servile subordination into an uncontrollable apparatus have been three sides of the same thing. It seeks to give an idea of how [I]dearly it will cost our accustomed concept of history, to avoid any complicity with that which these politicians continue to hold fast to." That is, the faith in progress, in the 'mass basis' and in the party "have been three sides of the same thing" (barbarism, the rise of Fascism). A new (as opposed to that faithful in progress, that has nothing to do with Marx according to Benjamin) conception of history is needed.

He saw this crude conception of unstoppable, unending progress contrary to Marx's "dialectical one." Because if humanity is progressing (and not only its 'abilities and knowledge'), how come fascism has happened? "History is the object of a construction whose place is formed not in homogenous and empty time, but in that which is fulfilled by the here-and-now" (Thesis XIV), that's why. Revolution would be the explosion of this continuous course of history (see Thesis XV, XVI, XVII).

Benjamin also attacks German Historicism and its "[e]mpathy with the victors thus comes to benefit the current rulers every time" (Thesis VII). Evidently, the author has empathy towards the exploited.

EDIT: But hey, I'm no expert in philosophy and these are quite dense...

[Rafiq]

If that is the bulk of his theory it is a straw man. Marxists since Lenin rejected teleology and the notion that history is linear. Two steps forward, one step back said Lenin. Lenin also claims history progresses in zigzags.

[motion denied]

Yes, but it was written against the predominant conceptions of historical materialism at the time (1940s in Germany).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If that is the bulk of his theory it is a straw man. Marxists since Lenin rejected teleology and the notion that history is linear. Two steps forward, one step back said Lenin. Lenin also claims history progresses in zigzags.

There have always been vulgar Marxists who, unfortunately, do as much to define "Marxism" (amongst Marxists and non-Marxists alike) as the works of folks like Lenin.

[blake 3:17]

@FUAE -- they're amongst the most profound meditations within the entirety of Marxist thought. I've been reading them, taken seminars, discussed them in socialist and radical circles for around 20 years and feel I can say what a few mean with some certainty.

You should look at the work of Michael Lowy on Benjamin. I've come to disagree with Lowy on some questions.

I think it also important to note that Benjamin, while very very different from Lenin or Trotsky, may have had some things more in common with them than some of the philosophers with whom he is associated with.

I'd love a good discussion on Benjamin but am stretched thin these days. Feel free to PM if you're looking for more resources or have particular questions that don't fit this format.

[LeftEngels]

Herr beat me to it. There's always more to say about this piece, but putting it together would take me a while. It's absolutely gorgeous. I don't think it requires that much background to get at its essence - maybe just more familiarity with Benjamin's work. He was a literary, poetry, and art critic as well, so that explains in part his style.

The "Angelus Novis" thesis is one of my favorite pieces of writing. Laurie Anderson has a great rendition - I can't post links yet since I forgot my other account name :/. Just youtube search "Laurie Anderson Progress."

(As a side note, it's not written against historical-materialists of the 1940s, since he died in '40 under mysterious circumstances near the French-Spanish border while fleeing the Nazis).