the Historical Process

[Rawthentic]

I wanted to discuss the issue that socialism cannot be built in 3rd world, underdeveloped nations because there is little or no proletariat, and hence there is no proletarian class consciousness. All these Leninist revolutions did is accelerate the process to capitalism, not skip it. Words from a comrade:

You might think that I'm playing the "appeal to authority" card by quoting other people, but let's not forget who they were. They were major contributors to Marxist theory, and even though we may not agree with all their works we can agree that they did know a lot about Marxist theory.

So let's look at the quotes provided and consider logically if they are correct or not. I believe both Trotsky and Lenin were right on this subject, not based on who they were, but based on the quotes in question. Lenin asks the question which has yet to be answered by any "Marxist", and Lenin reinforces Lenin's question by use of historical examples.

Trotsky however went further and said that other industrial nations had to be drawn in the process, that's a step further that I'm not willing to take. My point of view is that if the bourgeoisie can industrialize a society so can the proletariat, and in a far more effective manner. There is no reason whatsoever to believe they can't.

Basically the only reason to oppose the skipping of historical stages theory is sticking to Marx's words dogmatically, but even that is false! Marx himself supported any revolution at any time, and in every case considered it possible for them to become proletarian in nature. See the German revolution, where Marx supported the proletarian and majority peasant movement.

He also provided this Trotskyist article on the skipping of historical phases: HERE (http://gfdl.marxists.org.uk/archive/trotsky/works/1931-tpv/pr06.htm)

I stand my ground, but he had some good arguments.

[bcbm]

I think the entire idea of historical "stages" is pretty stupid and outdated to begin with, as it comes from 19th century European chauvanism and has been pretty much rejected in the relveant fields- anthropology for one. All societies have advanced for an equal period of time, and the idea that, just because some have not had the same access to resources and have thus developed different, they are "stuck in the past" is absurd. Therefore, I don't really see any reason why it will neccessarily be one pissed off bunch of individuals who overthrow this mess versus another, when all are getting fucked.

[KC]

I wanted to discuss the issue that socialism cannot be built in 3rd world, underdeveloped nations because there is little or no proletariat

This is completely irrelevant to contemporary society since all nations are capitalist and have a proletariat to an extent.


All these Leninist revolutions did is accelerate the process to capitalism, not skip it

The only "Leninist" revolution was the Bolshevik one, and I'd hardly call it "Leninist".


I think the entire idea of historical "stages" is pretty stupid and outdated to begin with, as it comes from 19th century European chauvanism and has been pretty much rejected in the relveant fields- anthropology for one.

I would just like to say that the strict adherence to any theory of historical stages is completely unmarxist, as Marx himself only discussed history in terms of stages when he was talking in the abstract, or rather when he was talking about the history of class society as a whole. He never meant for these terms to be used strictly, and realized that not only do these different stages take different forms in different regions of the world, but also that the development of these stages is based entirely on class struggle.

[bcbm]

I would just like to say that the strict adherence to any theory of historical stages is completely unmarxist, as Marx himself only discussed history in terms of stages when he was talking in the abstract, or rather when he was talking about the history of class society as a whole. He never meant for these terms to be used strictly, and realized that not only do these different stages take different forms in different regions of the world, but also that the development of these stages is based entirely on class struggle.

Which doesn't seem to avoid the central issue: the idea of linear stages all together.

[KC]

Which doesn't seem to avoid the central issue: the idea of linear stages all together.

I don't know what you mean by this.

You disagree that every country will go linearly through each historical stage? I don't see how that's relevant to contemporary society at all.

[bcbm]

I don't believe history is divided into "stages," nor do I find one "stage" to be more advanced (ie, part of a linear process) than another.

[KC]

Well, certainly when we use the term "stage" we aren't describing a structured, specific thing. We are merely discussing something in the abstract. In a similar way we use classes; for example, serfs have taken on many different forms throughout the world at different times, and many times these forms interacted differently with other classes. It is obvious that we're not discussing a specific, detailed thing here, but merely an abstract concept that lumps all of these different forms into one term based on similar interests and a similar place in society.

We can apply the same method to feudalism, for example. Feudalism has taken on many different forms throughout the world, and to try to describe exactly what feudalism is would be a waste of time, since it's many different things depending on what part of the world you are looking at.

In terms of linear development, I don't see what's wrong with saying that capitalism is more advanced now than it was 50 years ago. This is an obvious fact.

[bcbm]

Well, certainly when we use the term "stage" we aren't describing a structured, specific thing. . . since it's many different things depending on what part of the world you are looking at.

I'm not saying it isn't specific enough, or tries to make things too specific. I am saying I do not think history moves in stages, ie from feudalism, to capitalism, to communism.


In terms of linear development, I don't see what's wrong with saying that capitalism is more advanced now than it was 50 years ago. This is an obvious fact.

I'm talking in a more broad sense, the idea of history as "progress," usually marked by structural and technological advancement.

[KC]

I'm not saying it isn't specific enough, or tries to make things too specific. I am saying I do not think history moves in stages, ie from feudalism, to capitalism, to communism.

Generally, it has. Of course, we also have to remember that the materialist conception of history is merely "a guide from which to study" and isn't a set of irrefutable laws.



I'm talking in a more broad sense, the idea of history as "progress," usually marked by structural and technological advancement.


You mean the idea that we're "better" than we were 50 years ago/

[bcbm]

Generally, it has.

In some areas- mostly European. Of course, when you can stretch your definitions to mean just about anything, it probably becomes easier. In any case, even if some places have gone that route (though not nearly as clear-cut as some seem to make it), that does not make them "the" route, nor inevitable.


You mean the idea that we're "better" than we were 50 years ago/

No- the entire idea of human history as a linear progression, with technology, society and everything else getting more advanced and "better" with each passing generation.

I suppose even the idea you mention would fall in to that- and would be an equally incorrect view of things without some serious refinement.

[chimx]

So that we are all on the same page, Marxist periodization became associated with Historical Materialism in his 1959 A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/index.htm), specifically in the preface:


In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely 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 social 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 forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an 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. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.

Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation. In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation.

[BreadBros]

Basically the only reason to oppose the skipping of historical stages theory is sticking to Marx's words dogmatically, but even that is false! Marx himself supported any revolution at any time, and in every case considered it possible for them to become proletarian in nature. See the German revolution, where Marx supported the proletarian and majority peasant movement.

Thats an extremely bizarre assertion. Marx certainly did support any progressive revolution at any time. That does not by any stretch of the imagination imply that he believed every revolution was proletarian or communist. For example, Marx considered bourgeois revolutions such as the French to be historically progressive and supported them, however if you think this implies that he thought these revolutions could overthrow capitalism and lead to socialism or communism then I suggest you go back to square one because there is no indication of that. Certainly proletarian revolts can arise within bourgeois revolutions, but these are in part defined by their distinction from the ideals of the main bourgeois revolutionary class.


http://gfdl.marxists.org.uk/archive/trotsky/works/1931-tpv/pr06.htm

If people wish to waste their time hoping that society can skip stages, go ahead, the historical record is not in their favor however.


I think the entire idea of historical "stages" is pretty stupid and outdated to begin with, as it comes from 19th century European chauvanism and has been pretty much rejected in the relveant fields- anthropology for one.

In what ways has anthropology "disproved" stages?


All societies have advanced for an equal period of time, and the idea that, just because some have not had the same access to resources and have thus developed different, they are "stuck in the past" is absurd.

All societies have not advanced for an equal period of time. Due to differences in geography and attainable resources certain societies are more socially complex and technologically advanced than others. When Marx talks about historical stages hes not talking about technology necessarily. He is talking about how the dominant means of production has shifted over time to become increasingly efficient and self-perpetuating. How is it in any way "abusrd" to say that if Europe had a feudal economy in the 1600s but another continent didn't progress into feudal-based property rights/production until later, that they are in fact lagging behind in terms of their prodution methods.


I would just like to say that the strict adherence to any theory of historical stages is completely unmarxist

To the contrary, it is completely central to Marxism, to quote my sig:


"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past."
-Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852)

"When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express the fact that within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created."
-Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

The entire precept of class society and a materialist conception of history is that historical developments dont happen spontaneously or based on human wills, but are rather the development from one form of class society to another in which the previous societal schema is the foundation for the new. This is why Marx talks about the contradictions inherent in capitalism, because socialism is not something that can be built spontaneously based on ideas but rather is a direct historical development out of capitalism.


, as Marx himself only discussed history in terms of stages when he was talking in the abstract, or rather when he was talking about the history of class society as a whole. He never meant for these terms to be used strictly, and realized that not only do these different stages take different forms in different regions of the world, but also that the development of these stages is based entirely on class struggle.

Only when he was talking about the history of class society as a whole? Marx's entire body of work is devoted to understanding the progression of class society and how it may end, so it certainly is relevant. It is neither "abstract" nor distant from class struggle at all, in fact progression is based on class struggle and it is possible to see the hard economics of historical progression when Marx talks about the industrialization of the English economy and the development of the wage system. I don't recall him ever talking about different stages taking different forms in different regions at all.



In some areas- mostly European.

what non-European exceptions are you referring to?


No- the entire idea of human history as a linear progression, with technology, society and everything else getting more advanced and "better" with each passing generation.

Things dont always get better. Society is heavily effected by external factors. If a disease evolves and ravages society, obviously society will be stunted or technologically depleted. Massive encounters between groups with disparate technological and production levels can also change the trajectory of development. Read Karen Spalding's Huarochiri: An Andean Society Under Inca and Spanish Rule to understand, for example, how Andean societies were affected by the ties in their economy established with the Spanish economy during the 1600-1800s. It mostly deals with the development of a proto-capitalist economy in Spain and the need to revolutionize feudal economic structures in the Andes on the part of the Spanish due to the political and property ownership crises. It will also give you a clear example of non-European feudal development (pre-Spanish Andean feudal economies were not much different than Spanish feudal economies) and how such a huge shift in developmental trajectories occurs on the bottom level.

[KC]

The entire precept of class society and a materialist conception of history is that historical developments dont happen spontaneously or based on human wills, but are rather the development from one form of class society to another in which the previous societal schema is the foundation for the new. This is why Marx talks about the contradictions inherent in capitalism, because socialism is not something that can be built spontaneously based on ideas but rather is a direct historical development out of capitalism.

And in saying this you also have to recognize the possibility of historical circumstances bringing about the potential for "stages" to be skipped.


I don't recall him ever talking about different stages taking different forms in different regions at all.

If you think that "feudalism" in Eastern Europe was completely identical to "feudalism" in Western Europe, then you're a complete fucking moron. Moreover, if you think that every single society passes through completely identical stages to develop capitalism, then you're an even bigger one. It's this anti-materialist point of view that's distorted Marx's theories on the development of society to the point where its development is merely homogeneous stages developed through struggle between homogeneous classes. It's completely devoid of any semblance of reality and is bullshit. People are different.

[chimx]

All Marx intended to say was that contradictions in production relations guide the historical process. He noted that in western history, certain historical epochs existed given the longevity of certain production relationships.

Now, I am not personally agreeing or disagree with either of you, cause I'm not positive how I feel about historical periodization as a hard-and-fast rule. My question is how can one "skip over" a historical epoch sans the contradictions within production relationships?

I would also ask those that reject Marxist periodization to cite historical examples antithetical to such a concept. The irony of most backwards feudal states that tried to "skip over" a capitalist stage to socialism, is that they inevitably deterioriated to capitalism, ie. china, russia, vietnam. Can you cite success stories in which contradictions in production relations did not guide historical progress? Obviously this would be impossible for something such as fedualism to socialism, but what of classical/ancient to bourgeois?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 02:58 am
In what ways has anthropology "disproved" stages?
Anthropology didn't "disprove" them (I don't know why you put quotes around something I never said), it rejected them as antiquated. Early anthropologists believed that "primitive" societies represented a "window in to the past," and more or less showed how European society was at one point. This was tied in to the idea of history as a linear process, with different societies progressing along the same trajectory at different rates, with Europeans obviously representing the pinacle. This has been rejected, as it is obvious that "primitive" societies are not a window in to the past- they are just as old as European societies and have as much history behind them, not to mention that they are all vastly different- just as most pre-modern societies are. It really isn't until the modern era of capitalist globalization that we've seen such homogenity, and even then there are minor discrepencies getting in the way.


All societies have not advanced for an equal period of time.

Unless you believe that different human populations evolved seperately in different places and at different times, I don't see how this view is plausible. Human society began at the same time, and all the variations have therefore progressed the same amount of time.


Due to differences in geography and attainable resources certain societies are more socially complex and technologically advanced than others.

Obviously- but that doesn't mean one society has had longer to advance, or that one is somehow above another in terms of linear progression- societies advance as they need to, fluidly, not through a rigid cycle.


How is it in any way "abusrd" to say that if Europe had a feudal economy in the 1600s but another continent didn't progress into feudal-based property rights/production until later, that they are in fact lagging behind in terms of their prodution methods.

Because it assumes that history is intended to go from one set of property relations, to another, to another in a specific order and that all societies will trace that same trajectory and eventually have the same endpoint.

I think the characterizations of certain ages are also extremely over-simplified- Europe was rarely entirely "feudal."


what non-European exceptions are you referring to?

I could probably come up with a few, but not off the top of my head. Suffice to say, Marx was dealing mostly with European history and I think the history of non-European areas is more complex. Many Native American societies come to mind, I suppose.


Things dont always get better.

Well no shit- that is what I am saying. But the idea of "progress" often supposes that they do.

[Rawthentic]

Then why did all the socialist attempts in underdeveloped nations degenerate back to capitalism? Im trying to learn here. I just dont find it dogmatic of me to believe that socialism can only be built in capitalist countries, which is most of the world now like someone said, because there needs to be a working class and a ruling class. Im not saying that they are all to be the same. No shit, thats obvious so stop saying that crap.

[BreadBros]

Early anthropologists believed that "primitive" societies represented a "window in to the past," and more or less showed how European society was at one point. This was tied in to the idea of history as a linear process, with different societies progressing along the same trajectory at different rates, with Europeans obviously representing the pinacle. This has been rejected, as it is obvious that "primitive" societies are not a window in to the past- they are just as old as European societies and have as much history behind them, not to mention that they are all vastly different- just as most pre-modern societies are.

Could you give some examples of this anthropological literature? Everything I've read still considers primitive societies a useful base of analysis in terms of analyzing the technological methods of past societies. Of course it would useless if you didn't consider how modern soceities have effected them helped define them through displacement. The example of pygmies in Africa and how they've shifted to working as agricultural laborers is the best example. So of course utilizing existing primitive societies as a pure "window" is futile, however I don't see how this in any way dismisses production stages of history.


It really isn't until the modern era of capitalist globalization that we've seen such homogenity, and even then there are minor discrepencies getting in the way.

Different how? If you're referring to superficial pointless matters such as a difference in the gods they worship, or the way they dress, etc. etc. of course, however such differences are more or less historically pointless. If you are talking about actual property relations and production methods of society, then I challenge you to come up with examples because after years of historical study I don't see how such an allegation can be made.


Unless you believe that different human populations evolved seperately in different places and at different times, I don't see how this view is plausible. Human society began at the same time, and all the variations have therefore progressed the same amount of time.

You're not being particularly clear. The fact that all human populations emerged out of the same place at the same time means that yes, our genetic history is completely shared. In terms of population groups, no, they've existed as distinct groups for different amounts of time. When the Asiatic population that eventually became indigeneous Americans migrated to the Americas they were divorced of their environment and were forced to create new technological and societal innovations to deal with the new environment, in other words they're society/culture was completely new. The same is likely true to one degree or another for groups that underwent such massive migrations.

In terms of advancement (which was what I was referring to in the quote of me you used), technological progression has been extremely uneven. Agriculture (the point in time when societal hierarchies developed) was established in different parts of the world at vastly different times, in the Middle East it happened ~10,000 BC, in Australia it arrived there with European settlement, etc.

But you're continual point you make is that all societies have existed for a certain amount of time, even if they didn't technologically develop as much as others. My question is quite simply: okay, what exactly does that prove? How does it matter at all? How does it disprove historical stage development? How does it show that communism can be established by anyone anywhere? Your allegation seems to be that one society is as good as another when it comes to technology. This can be proven to be a historically wrong claim. When agriculture was introduced into central Africa by Ethiopians and Mesopotamians it was welcomed and adopted completely. This is also true if you look at the spread of agriculture all over the world. According to you however, all societies have been evolving for the same amount of time and have developed "differently". So why exactly would every society on earth welcome technological innovations that are progressive in a linear manner instead of just keeping their own innovations that according to you they developed differently from the linear model in the intervening time?

The problem with your viewpoint is that its inherently idealist. Societies dont develop technology just because they want to. It happens because the resources to do so are present and it presents a clear technological advancement for society. Because of this societies develop in the same manner. You should read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel for an example of the historical development of the centralized government and how that development was exactly the same all over the world and can be verified through archeological records.


Obviously- but that doesn't mean one society has had longer to advance, or that one is somehow above another in terms of linear progression- societies advance as they need to, fluidly, not through a rigid cycle.

No they don't, they develop in a linear progression, sometimes thats stunted by lack of access to natural resources. Can you present one example of a society that did not progress through a linear progression?


Because it assumes that history is intended to go from one set of property relations, to another, to another in a specific order and that all societies will trace that same trajectory and eventually have the same endpoint.

It doesn't assume history is "intended" to go from one set to another, it states that human societies are sufficiently similar in that they develop towards the same ends of collective progress and efficiency so that they do develop in the same progression. History can't "intend" to do anything, it is not an entity and has no will.


I think the characterizations of certain ages are also extremely over-simplified- Europe was rarely entirely "feudal."


What do you mean? If you are just referring to technology, its true agricultural production was not 100% of production. What is meant by a "feudal stage" is that the property relations of feudalism became the dominant property relations of society and penetrated all aspects of society. In the same manner, in the capitalist stage, not all production is industrial, considerable agricultural production exists, however even this has adopted the dominant industrial property relations. Agriculture has been "industrialized" in that it has adopted wage systems, ownership through capital, mechanization, etc. If on the other hand you are just referring to the fact that not the entire continent of Europe was feudal, I hope you realize that "Europe" is a rather abritrary man-made designation, there is nothing that would force the entire continent to develop at the same rate.


I could probably come up with a few, but not off the top of my head. Suffice to say, Marx was dealing mostly with European history and I think the history of non-European areas is more complex. Many Native American societies come to mind, I suppose.

I would be extremely interested in some examples. I've studied pre-European Native American societies (mostly in the Latin American sphere, but I've read a bit on North American indigenous societies) in a bit of detail and I would contest your allegation quite a bit. As I said in my previous post, I strongly suggest you read Karen Spalding's Huarochiri; I would also recommend you read Peru's Indian Peoples and the Challenges of Spanish Conquest by Steve Stern, The Nahuas by James Lockhart and of course the previously mentioned Diamond book, for a look into the property relations and production of indigenous American societies. Most of them focus on the societies and their transitions/changes as they were tied to European economic systems. Some of them can get a bit dry, they are very detailed economic histories of the societies, but they should give you an exampleof how native American societies were no different than European ones (or any others in the world) in their progression of development and it would also show you how this was transformed by the tying of these economies to the European feudal system and eventually the proto-capitalist transition if you're interested in that.


Well no shit- that is what I am saying. But the idea of "progress" often supposes that they do.

Read the whole paragraph you quoted me from. I said external factors can cause societies to go "backwards" and that lack of resource access can cause them to remain more or less static, but assuming progressive development is possible, left to their own devices, yes, human societies will always "progress" forward and things do in fact get better.

[Hit The North]

There's no question that Marx sketched a historical process which was peculiar to Western Europe and didn't intend for that sketch to be imposed on other continental experiences.

For instance, he mentions the Asiatic Mode of Production as something distinct from Feudal property relations, although sharing a similar level of technology. Capitalism emerges from feudalism partly because of the emphasis the earlier mode placed on private property. The Asiatic mode, on the other hand, tended to be characterised by state monopolies of ownership and bureaucratic methods of control over the land.

However, Marx also points out that once capitalism emerges it becomes a process which takes on a globalizing form and all civilizations are drawn into orbit around it and forced to adapt to it.

[Rawthentic]

Thanks to these responses and some more research I have done, I think that I have expanded my scope a little more. I believe that it is as simplistic as simply skipping stages, but there is more to it. I still think it as logical that its not possible to skip such stages. But, in the event of an uprising in a feudal or semi-feudal state, I dont believe that it necessary must degenerate to capitalism. I believe that such a transition can be overseen by the class of workers and peasants to vastly industrialize and hence build socialism. But the important question is which class dominates. The petty-bourgeois, bourgeois elements, or the formerly oppressed classes. I have much to learn but I am starting to pave a path.