Linearity in history

[Redistribute the Rep]

Most on here would agree that history does not move in a linear fashion, I'd like some elaboration on that concept. Can it be said that history has a direction?

[The Disillusionist]

No, I wouldn't say so. History is primarily just humanity's response to changing environmental and material conditions. Ultimately there is no end goal or outside force driving us toward anything, humans will just keep trying to survive until someday we fail. As with any other animal, the only real driver of human adaptation, and thus of our existence and our history, is our will to survive. The only icing on this cake of meaningless is the human connection, the relationships we humans have with each other that allow us to feel love, hate, passion, and disgust, and essentially to be human. When the sun burns out and the earth is just another cold rock in a timeless expanse of nothing, the universe will not care one bit for what humanity may or may not have achieved, the only thing we have is each other, there is no other purpose.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I haven't read this yet, its been highly recommended by friends

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/thousand-years-nonlinear-history

http://www.amazon.com/A-Thousand-Years-Nonlinear-History/dp/0942299329

[Tim Redd]

Most on here would agree that history does not move in a linear fashion, I'd like some elaboration on that concept. Can it be said that history has a direction?

There seems to be some kind of historical movement where at least in words the rights of the average person seem to increase. There is some kind of movement where the average person gains leverage, and groups that where excluded are now included and gains rights themselves.

Martin Luther King speaks of the arc of history bending toward justice. I think in the whole movement of materialist history, there is some kind of progression for the individual from being a slave in ancient times, to a serf in feudal times, to being a worker in capitalism and taking control as collective average individuals with socialism/communism.

[Scheveningen]

Can it be said that history has a direction?I feel that saying history has a 'direction' or an 'end' would imply it has a consciousness of its own, or is moving on its own towards a goal, or that there is some sort of transhistorical design that shapes the actions of people throughout the centuries. Which sounds a little too mystical.


There seems to be some kind of historical movement where at least in words the rights of the average person seem to increase. If there is a trend it must be a relatively recent one: before the emergence of capitalism 'rights' and 'liberties' belonged to social groups or to people as members of a specific social groups, and not to individuals/'average people' as such.

There have been important gains since then, but I am skeptic of the idea of a general movement of history towards justice (or, even more, the empowerment of people as individuals).

[Tim Redd]

I feel that saying history has a 'direction' or an 'end' would imply it has a consciousness of its own, or is moving on its own towards a goal, or that there is some sort of transhistorical design that shapes the actions of people throughout the centuries. Which sounds a little too mystical.

If there is a trend it must be a relatively recent one: before the emergence of capitalism 'rights' and 'liberties' belonged to social groups or to people as members of a specific social groups, and not to individuals/'average people' as such.

Whether or not the increased rights hewed to individuals vs groups I kinda thought might raise some mindfulness about whether it was one or the other. I guess I see it as a combo of both.


There have been important gains since then, but I am skeptic of the idea of a general movement of history towards justice (or, even more, the empowerment of people as individuals).

The numbers enslaved were probably very many if not most of the population in most technologically advanced iron age societies. To me being a worker is a better position than that of being a slave.

Further ideas about how a notion of an individual has rights and liberties seems to me in my observation of medieval society to have an ever increasing notion in those and the superseding society of capitalism.

[Artiom]

History is mostly a concept for us to deal with what happend in the past. Just like evolution it doesn't have a "goal", just a process that go's on.

[Monkeyboy]

No, I wouldn't say so. History is primarily just humanity's response to changing environmental and material conditions. Ultimately there is no end goal or outside force driving us toward anything, humans will just keep trying to survive until someday we fail. As with any other animal, the only real driver of human adaptation, and thus of our existence and our history, is our will to survive. The only icing on this cake of meaningless is the human connection, the relationships we humans have with each other that allow us to feel love, hate, passion, and disgust, and essentially to be human. When the sun burns out and the earth is just another cold rock in a timeless expanse of nothing, the universe will not care one bit for what humanity may or may not have achieved, the only thing we have is each other, there is no other purpose.

I agree with you that history is primarily humanity's response to changing environmental and material conditions. Besides that I think that culture and thinking spontaneously shapes history, in the older times these were mythological, replaced by religion, than philosophy, especially humanism, and nowadays more by science. But something alongside this is what you mean with the icing on the cake?

I want to add, there have been past societies that were "progressive for their time". Not all have been intolerant.

[Tim Redd]

History is mostly a concept for us to deal with what happend in the past. Just like evolution it doesn't have a "goal", just a process that go's on.

Fundamental to the theory of historical materialism is that the organization and technical prowess of human society as a whole evolves and "revolutes" through progressively higher forms.

Of course this is not a straight line process. It zigs and zags. And also the theory does not assert that this process is "ironly" pre-ordained to achieve certain outcomes. It simply asserts that there is a general tendency toward certain progressively higher outcomes with respect to the condition of the masses and the conceptual evolution ideas, morals and overall thinking in the superstructure of society. These things altho', more in word than actual fact, bend and arc in the favor of the interests of the working class, poor, lower middle class and middle middle class folk.

[Misanthrope]

There seems to be some kind of historical movement where at least in words the rights of the average person seem to increase. There is some kind of movement where the average person gains leverage, and groups that where excluded are now included and gains rights themselves.

Martin Luther King speaks of the arc of history bending toward justice. I think in the whole movement of materialist history, there is some kind of progression for the individual from being a slave in ancient times, to a serf in feudal times, to being a worker in capitalism and taking control as collective average individuals with socialism/communism.

It is absolutely ridiculous to claim a materialist stance and then speak of the so-called average person. The progression of people as a species is much complex and diverse than what you are making it out to be.

The whole notion of rights throughout history are nothing more than a mere validation of the white property owning mans dominance of society globally. The liberal so-called revolutions maintained the subjugation of lower classes and women, racial minorities, youth etc.

That MLK paraphrase is just liberal nonsense and implies an existence of destiny. In the Marxian sense, there is a socio-economic progression similar to as you described, however the transition from capitalism to communism must be done by force, by will, by action etc. not by some fantastical idea that what one perceives to be good will prevail. Revolution must be a material reaction against the ruling class.

[Tim Redd]

In the Marxian sense, there is a socio-economic progression similar to as you described, however the transition from capitalism to communism must be done by force, by will, by action etc. not by some fantastical idea that what one perceives to be good will prevail. Revolution must be a material reaction against the ruling class.

Because progress for the masses mostly comes through violence doesn't deny there is progress. It doesn't deny that there is an arc of progress for the masses in the nature of society long term.

[Hit The North]

Tim is correct in stating that Marx saw human historical development as a progressive mastery over nature (that we become more fully human the more we control those objective forces which seek to destroy us). This material progress also has implications for our mental development: it is only through escaping necessity, transcending a hand-to-mouth existence, that human culture can flourish. The immense spur to the development of our productive forces that capitalism provides, "making connections everywhere", as Marx puts it, provides the promise for the attainment of a universal humanity, lifting us out of our partial and limited views. History could be seen as a series of increasingly high peaks, where our perspective becomes ever more transcendent and our understanding of nature and ourselves attains greater clarity.

..........

[Redistribute the Rep]

I remember lenin saying something about how history moves like a zigzag. Any clarification on this ?

[Tim Redd]

I remember lenin saying something about how history moves like a zigzag. Any clarification on this ?

Really no heavy analysis is required. The idea can be understood in a straightforward manner. At times events are moving along how we want it to advance toward communism. However at other times events occur that run counter to the previous progress we have made.

It's also summed up in a title Lenin used: "Two Steps Forward One Step Back".

[Stirnerian]

Economic development is a mouse, and politics its maze.

If the question being asked is about 'stageism', let me pose one in turn: can anyone identify a feudal revolution, in which a latently aristocratic society overthrew their slaver overlords?

Seriously. I don't know. Can any Roman history buffs here tell me if the deposition of Romulus Augustus in 476, say , might be an outwardly visible manifestation of or mile-market for a revolution in the means of production? Does the fall of the Western Roman Empire work for a transition from a slave to a feudal society, in an Old Marxist/stageist sense?

[Tim Redd]

Economic development is a mouse, and politics its maze.

If the question being asked is about 'stageism', let me pose one in turn: can anyone identify a feudal revolution, in which a latently aristocratic society overthrew their slaver overlords?

Seriously. I don't know. Can any Roman history buffs here tell me if the deposition of Romulus Augustus in 476, say , might be an outwardly visible manifestation of or mile-market for a revolution in the means of production? Does the fall of the Western Roman Empire work for a transition from a slave to a feudal society, in an Old Marxist/stageist sense?

Whether or not there has been an overall progression (linear or non-linear) of the means of production over time is a separate question from whether or not the change occurs in a revolutionary, evolutionary, or mixed manner.

And it's important to note once more that the development of human society, economics, politics and morals do not for the most part progress in a linear way. There are innumerable zigs and zags in the history of development that occurs in human society.