History, Science and Inevitability

[Invader Zim]

I have taken this from a post I made in philosophy to deal with the claim that 'communism' is a science. It is an idea I wish to investigate, as I think that the idea is derived from an under-estimation of the complexities of historical study.

The claim that Communism is a science is derived from the inaccurate claim that history can be, or is a 'science'; and that like in the sciences you can adopt 'laws' which propose that a phenomenon has inevitability. For example, the laws of gravity dictate that we can predict what will occur if you drop a penny from a tall building. To expand further it is the idea that you can know exactly, and be entirely sure of what happened in the past, and then use that knowledge to draw a stable pattern (a law if you will) with which to concoct an image of what will occur in the future. Sorry, but its simply wrong and for the life of me I can't understand why some historians, who must know deep down its bullshit, repeat it.

It assumes that you can know enough about the past to form a coherent pattern, and that strikes me as far too complicated a task than is possible. Personal experience in the archives sifting through hundreds of manuscripts tells me that it is pretty much impossible to read everything of relevance, and form such a pattern.

Indeed this problem is inherent in any historical study, even on a tiny esoteric topic. Say you are writing a biography of just one man, and he was a prolific letter writer, you would have to locate every single one of his letters.

Firstly, the nature of archival research makes that inordinately difficult. Even if the letters are stored in high quality well maintained and structured archives, they are typically dotted about in multiple locations. This can mean that your project can suddenly become an international affair. Obviously that creates a huge logistical difficulty, and often it is simply not possible to repeatedly travel between countries, reading documents in different languages, etc.

Secondly, you have no guarantee that all the documents have survived, or even if most have, so you quite simply cannot read them all.

Thirdly, of the letters you have found how can you be sure that your reading of the document has uncovered all the nuances and information it contains correctly? Different terms have different meanings in different languages and different ages. You also have the issue of not actually understanding what the author is talking about. If they are discussing highly arcane, highly nuanced, and very dated, theological or legal (for example) issues then you will often find that you have little idea what they are talking about.

Fourthly, not everything of relevence to understanding the past was put to paper. the archival evidence which survives can only tell you so much.

Fifthly, if you are reading the letters of one person, then it makes sense to know and understand to whom they are writing to. As a result your project suddenly starts to become infinitely more complicated. If you are truly attempting to understand everything, then you must read everything. The task very swiftly would become utterly unmanageable and impossible.

So in reality the idea that you can know enough to adopt historical laws is false. Yet many historians think they can and have, and they are pretty much always mistaken. Historian Richard J. Evans, in his work In Defence of History, pointed this out with a rather amusing and self deprecating example where he noted that he himself had claimed that the Soviet Union wouldn't collapse, and was proven wrong just a few years later.

This of course is only the practical difficulties arising from the task of attempting to know enough to concoct 'laws'. There are also the issues of perception and a historians ability to actually objectively look at a document, both consciously and subconsciously. It is, after all, easy to see what you want to see rather than that which is there. This problem doubles when you consider that the author of the manuscript had their own reasons for writing it, their own biases, their own misconceptions, etc.

Imagine all these issues, and then multiply it by the scale of the project necessary to formulate a coherent pattern which will allow you to predict the course of history for the future.

As for historical materialism, I am a fan when it is used as a tool for the study of history and understanding the past; and I have made many posts criticising those on this board who do not use it in their analysis of the past. But the idea of historical inevitability, which is attached to it simply doesn’t add up. One can quite rightly argue that it is likely, and desirable, that a socialist revolution should occur; but the way history is dictates that it is not and cannot be inevitable.

[apathy maybe]

I can't give you rep points, and you hid them anyway. But I would just like to say, this is a wonderful post.

Of course, physical scientists don't examine every single hydrogen atom to know what a random hydrogen atom will do in a specific (known) case. So in that sense, you don't need to examine everything to be able to form general "laws". (Psychologists don't need to examine every person to be able to predict how a specific random person will react to a specific (known) case.)

[trivas7]

As I read your post you bring up three points 1) the status of Marxism as a science, the status of history as a science and 3)historic determinism. These are all very important points and need amplification, let me share the following simplifications:

The doctrine of Communism as a science AFAIK goes back to Marx and Engel's distinguishing their understanding of socialism as scientific as distinguished from the socialism of the utopians: Saint-Simon, Owen, and Fourier. But for Marx in my reading of Capital is using science in the sense that Hegel uses the term Wissen, which is a broader term that means holistic knowledge rather than the experimental methodology we call science. What Marx does in Capital is a critical analysis that lifts the veil of obfuscation that takes place under the capitalist mode of production to reveal its essence, its "laws of motion". This is an entirely negative definition of science that has nothing to do with experimentation or prediction.

For the Marxist materialist what is important re history is that it is objectively factual, and that it shares the materialist's understanding that it is known independent of the mind that reflects it. History becomes a science in the above meaning of science when it is understood as it objectively is ("materialist"), in its actual interconnection and movement ("dialectics").

Marx was not an historical determinist. By any account by the third volume of Capital he makes it clear that capitalism either becomes socialism or sinks into barbarism. The idea that capitalism is predetermined to become socialism comes, I believe, from Kautsky and Plekhanov who interpret Marx's voluminous writings as: 1) a philosophy ("materialism") 2) an economic doctrine ("historical materialism", and 3) socialism, a doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat, the class struggle. These are Lenin's "three components of Marxism" that Stalin promulgated as state ideology. The "inevitability" of socialism was part of this ideology.

[Lynx]

If science and technology continue to progress, communism will be inevitable. That is my prediction.
Part of science involves accumulating test results, therefore the only way to 'know' would be after the fact.

[Hit The North]

So in reality the idea that you can know enough to adopt historical laws is false. Yet many historians think they can and have, and they are pretty much always mistaken. Historian Richard J. Evans, in his work In Defence of History, pointed this out with a rather amusing and self deprecating example where he noted that he himself had claimed that the Soviet Union wouldn't collapse, and was proven wrong just a few years later.The question as to whether history can be approached scientifically is separate from the question of whether it can be used to predict the future.

Also I don't think that knowing the full minutia of a historical subject (such as a man) is necessary for scientific knowledge of that subject. As Trivas7 points out, understanding the essential connections between historical phenomena (from the biography of individuals to the fate of societies) is more important. In addition, logic dictates that not all events, actions, beliefs in an individual's life have the same import. I don't need to know the state of the carbuncles on Marx's arse in order to understand his position in history.

[Invader Zim]

goes back to Marx and Engel's distinguishing their understanding of socialism as scientific as distinguished from the socialism of the utopians: Saint-Simon, Owen, and Fourier.Indeed, and an interesting read, which I would advice people look at: -

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm


But for Marx in my reading of Capital is using science in the sense that Hegel uses the term Wissen, which is a broader term that means holistic knowledge rather than the experimental methodology we call science. Indeed, 'wissen' as i am aware, some of our German friends can correct me if I am mistaken, translates to 'knowledge' and 'wissenschaft' translates closer to 'scholarship'. 'Science' on the otherhand, as it would have been considered in Marx's (at least younger) day would be 'naturwissenschaft', which is perhaps akin to natural philosophy, which is the term 'science' came to largely replace in the mid-19th century. But as I say, we would have to consult one of our German speaking members.


For the Marxist materialist what is important re history is that it is objectively factual, and that it shares the materialist's understanding that it is known independent of the mind that reflects it. History becomes a science in the above meaning of science when it is understood as it objectively is ("materialist"), in its actual interconnection and movement ("dialectics").And therein lies the problem, and one I hope to have outlined by pointing out some of the practical issues, achieving 'objective' history at anything but the most basic of level is an increasingly difficult task to the point that it eventually becomes impossible. For example we know, and can say with objectivity that the evidence pointing to the occurence of the battle of Waterloo is utterly overwhelming. We can also say with complete certainy that the evidence that the holocaust occured is again overwhelming. But if you investigate the holocaust in more depth you suddenly find tht historians who have read the same documents come out with all kinds of different views and arguments. A rather obvious one is the 'the Twisted Road to Auschwitz' debate, which has divided those who study the topic at all ages from under-16 school chldren studing history to seasoned professonal historians at the worlds leading universities, sinse Schleunes book was first published, along with its contemporaries back in 1970 and the late 60s.


The question as to whether history can be approached scientifically is separate from the question of whether it can be used to predict the future.It depends on how you approach it. The idea of historical 'laws', with which we can outline the path events will follow in the coming years, is entirely based upon the premise that history can be approached scientifically. In that instance, and the one I have attempted to address in the OP, history must be considered as a science. The two are mutually inclusive, but it is of course true that there are those who believe that history is a science, but reject the notion that it can be used to divine the future. Of course they are, at least in my opinion, both utterly wrong.


In addition, logic dictates that not all events, actions, beliefs in an individual's life have the same import.And there you, perhaps inadertently, uncover another problem facing historians, investigating from the present and looking back at the past without being there, it can be very challenging to derive the importance that an individual(s) placed upon an event. A historian, must to the best of his/her ability categorise the importance of such events, and in testiment to a historians subjectivity, that is not always going to be the same as deduced by another historian. You also have the issue that many events that affected individuals did not appear to them, at the time, to have a vast impact upon them, so it isn't reflected in their letters.


I don't need to know the state of the carbuncles on Marx's arse in order to understand his position in history.Well according to Marx, a persons social consciousness is derived from his/her relation to their surroundings, if Marx couldn't even sit on a chair... well who knows what that did to his social consciousness.

But in seriousness, the position you outline here strikes me as edging a little to close to the realm of history being nothing more than the study of 'high politics' of the past. After all, the outbreak of wars, etc, would appear to be the most important events in an individuals life. But as soon as you start being dismissive of the little things you suddenly fail to understand your subject an anything but the most superficial of depth; hardly a 'scientific' approach.

[Hit The North]

But in seriousness, the position you outline here strikes me as edging a little to close to the realm of history being nothing more than the study of 'high politics' of the past. After all, the outbreak of wars, etc, would appear to be the most important events in an individuals life. But as soon as you start being dismissive of the little things you suddenly fail to understand your subject an anything but the most superficial of depth; hardly a 'scientific' approach. If you're merely dealing in autobiography you have a point. However, aren't you in danger of superficiality if you emphasise the importance too much of the superficial aspects of a man's life?

Isn't science also about clearing the picture, stripping things to their essentials, distinguishing the essential from the ephemeral?

Perhaps there's a problem with the autobiography example you're using as it presents quite an atomistic version of historical inquiry?

[Invader Zim]

If you're merely dealing in autobiography you have a point.

I disagree, any historical investigation requires one to delve into the archives and to understand your subject as well as the individuals involved in your subject. I chose the example of a single individual because that a small scale project. You are dealing with just one person and one person's views and how they relate to your topic. You are not faced with the complications of multiple different people, or an entire organisation or country of people. It also isn't an 'auto-biographical' study necessarily. You maybe studying the Russian Revolution through the perspective of a single worker. That isn't an autobiographical study per-say, but rather a case study.


However, aren't you in danger of superficiality if you emphasise the importance too much of the superficial aspects of a man's life?

Perhaps, but then again, as noted, as we weren't there it is difficult to guage the importance an individual sets various aspects of their life.


Isn't science also about clearing the picture, stripping things to their essentials, distinguishing the essential from the ephemeral?

But by the same token, a good scientist attempting to conduct an experiment takes everything, which concievably may impact upon their results, into account; including the little things. If you are to argue that historian is a scientist creating a scientific model of the past, then surely your historian would be negligent if s/he didn't address those details that can impact upon how people viewed the world. Macro-studies are all very well, in that they create debate, but they are rarely lasting as other historians, performing micro-studies of events, soon point out that their findings contradict the general work. Take for example the Atlantic School, which states that the four continents of the Atlantic provide a self-contained historical unit from which various economic and social observations can be made. However historians who investigate, at a micro-level, the famous Spanish Gold shipped from the New World back to the old, would soon point out that much of it would eventually find its way to China, pointing to an obvious flaw in the Atlantic thesis.



Perhaps there's a problem with the autobiography example you're using as it presents quite an atomistic version of historical inquiry?

No more so than any other microstudy of events or individuals, and such studies make up the bulk of historical investigation; and necessarily so.