Historical materialism?

[Presty7]

Could someone explain to me, or link me somewhere that can explain to me, dialectics and the idea of historical materialism?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

There are several dialectics threads here; but not all of us Marxists agree with this theory.

Here is a short article that explains it for you:

http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide1.html

And here is my demolition of it:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

If you find that a bit too long, here is a shorter version:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/disclaimer.htm

Historical materialism is explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

http://www.marxist.com/History/historicalMaterialism.htm

Incidentally, here is a list of the threads where dialectical materialism has been debated at RevLeft over the last three years:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/RevLeft.htm

[Junius]

Well the classic summary of historical materialism, in Marx's own words, is to be found in his Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy:


Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm)
Although I studied jurisprudence, I pursued it as a subject subordinated to philosophy and history. In the year 1842-43, as editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, I first found myself in the embarrassing position of having to discuss what is known as material interests. The deliberations of the Rhenish Landtag on forest thefts and the division of landed property; the officials polemic started by Herr von Schaper, then Oberprasident of the Rhine Province, against the Rheinische Zeitung about the condition of the Moselle peasantry, and finally the debates on free trade and protective tariffs caused me in the first instance to turn my attention to economic questions. On the other hand, at that time when good intentions "to push forward" often took the place of factual knowledge, an echo of French socialism and communism, slightly tinged by philosophy, was noticeable in the Rheinische Zeitung. I objected to this dilettantism, but at the same time frankly admitted in a controversy with the Allgemeine Augsburger Zeitung that my previous studies did not allow me to express any opinion on the content of the French theories. When the publishers of the Rheinische Zeitung conceived the illusion that by a more compliant policy on the part of the paper it might be possible to secure the abrogation of the death sentence passed upon it, I eagerly grasped the opportunity to withdraw from the public stage to my study.

The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law; the introduction to this work being published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher issued in Paris in 1844. My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term "civil society"; that the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy. The study of this, which I began in Paris, I continued in Brussels, where I moved owing to an expulsion order issued by M. Guizot. The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guiding principle of my studies can be summarised as follows.

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,[A] 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.The best work to understand historical materialism, in my view, is the German Ideology (only the first chapter of the volume...unless you're sadistic). Found here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm).

[Hit The North]

Historical Materialism, or the materialist conception of history, is the central doctrine of Marxism, comprising its social scientific core. It is best seen as a cluster of empirical theses which are capable of being tested empirically. You can find the clearest expressions of these, plus attempts to use the approach here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/index.htm

The dialectic is considered to be an ontological theory of material reality (this is what reality is like) and as part of the methodological approach of historical materialism (because reality is dialectic (i.e. in motion), the modelling of it in our thinking must attempt to capture this quality).

You can find resources for understanding dialectics here: http://www.marxists.org/subject/dialectics/index.htm

It should be noted that the role and the definition of dialectics is more problematic and whilst historical materialism is agreed upon by all Marxists, a minority current in the history of Marxism has rejected and opposed dialectics; whilst other Marxist thinkers have disagreed over the scope of dialectics (can it be applied to nature, for instance, or just human history?) and the content of its "laws" (leading some thinkers to return to the work of Hegel, whilst others have taken the materialist part of dialectical materialism, to move away from Hegel).

[Tower of Bebel]

Also Capital has some beautiful examples of materialist analyses of history.

[Junius]

What do people mean when they explain that reality is always in motion?

[black magick hustla]

also prolly most of the folks here who have a background in the natural sciences think dialectics are a bunch of bollocks. there is a schizm between art and science students! :D:D

[black magick hustla]

What do people mean when they explain that reality is always in motion?

yeah, like i could make an entirely opposite and vague claim, like reality is always static, and i bet i could substantiate it, just because of the vagueness.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LC:


What do people mean when they explain that reality is always in motion?

Even better: ask a dialectician what he/she means by 'reality' -- and if they have read their Lenin, they will answer: a set of 'images'! If they have read Engels: 'an abstraction'!

[Hit The North]

What do people mean when they explain that reality is always in motion? You could say it is in motion in that both nature and society have a history; are in a process of development and change.


Originally posted by Marmot
yeah, like i could make an entirely opposite and vague claim, like reality is always static, and i bet i could substantiate it, just because of the vagueness.
Sure you could, but then you'd be denying the empirical evidence that nature and society are in a process of change. In the process, you'd have to reject evolution and historical materialism. But be my guest...

[Junius]

You could say it is in motion in that both nature and society have a history; are in a process of development and change.

Okay, assuming this is true, why are 'dialectics' needed to understand that 'things' change? Don't all sorts of social sciences account for change which do not resort to philosophy? Doesn't historical materialism account for change - we read Marx's own words, that society changes when the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production result in the restructuring of society. What can dialectics do which historical materialism cannot?

[Hit The North]

Okay, assuming this is true, why are 'dialectics' needed to understand that 'things' change? I think this has been proved beyond an assumption.


Don't all sorts of social sciences account for change which do not resort to philosophy? Yes, and I think this is what Marx and Engels were doing. Of course, not all social science accounts are the same or as successful. The Functionalist view of social change is based in a particular view of evolution where the social system adapts to changes in a balanced and integrated manner. In fact, it can't explain change at all, whilst its descriptive power is trivial and trite.


Doesn't historical materialism account for change - we read Marx's own words, that society changes when the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production result in the restructuring of society.
Yes, the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production is the driving force of the dialectic of human history.


What can dialectics do which historical materialism cannot? Nothing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


I think this has been proved beyond an assumption

Where?


Yes, the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production is the driving force of the dialectic of human history.

The word 'dialectic' adds nothing here. So why use it?

[Hit The North]

Where? In scientific observation of the natural and social worlds.

[black magick hustla]

Sure you could, but then you'd be denying the empirical evidence that nature and society are in a process of change. In the process, you'd have to reject evolution and historical materialism. But be my guest...

Actually, I could say that in evolution nothing really changes fundamentally because it is still governed by "laws" that fundamentally do not change. It is a shit argument, because what natural scientists deem as "laws" is metaphorical and those things are not really laws, and because the word "change" entirely depends on the semantic field where it is used. Change in relation to chemical phenomena is entirely different to change in relation to "change of mode of production" and the word means different in those context. The problem with dialecticians is that they are platonists and think change always means the same thing.

[Hit The North]

Marmot:
Actually, I could say that in evolution nothing really changes fundamentally because it is still governed by "laws" that fundamentally do not change. Say what you like but you're confusing levels. Laws of development or motion may very well underlie the sequences of observed changes - in fact to say otherwise leaves you with the options of either denying the reality of observed change (as illusion, perhaps) or, obversely, accepting the observed reality of change but arguing that the processes are random, accidental, unpredictable.


It is a shit argumentThat's uncharacteristically perceptive of you.


Change in relation to chemical phenomena is entirely different to change in relation to "change of mode of production" Who said it wasn't?


and the word means different in those context.
Is that true? Then I need you to explain the difference in meaning.

And I need help with this, too:


The problem with dialecticians is that they are platonists and think change always means the same thing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I posted ths a minute ago -- what happend to it?


BTB:


In scientific observation of the natural and social worlds.

How does any of this confirm 'dialectics'?

[Hit The North]

I posted ths a minute ago -- what happend to it?
I don't know. :confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


I don't know.

Does that mean you also do not know the answer to this:

BTB:


In scientific observation of the natural and social worlds.

How does any of this confirm 'dialectics'?

[Hit The North]

BTB:

Does that mean you also do not know the answer to this:


No.


How does any of this confirm 'dialectics'? It confirms the proposition that both nature and society are in a process of development.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


It confirms the proposition that both nature and society are in a process of development.

We can both agree on that; it is the importation of the mystical terminology/theory from Hegel where we part company.

[Anyway, I thought you were one of the 'sensible' DM-fans who only sees the dialectic in social, not natural, development. Or have I credited you with too much good sense?]

But, you originally claimed that the evidence from nature etc confirms dialectics. Unless you go into details this is no more believable than the Christian claim that design in nature is proof of God.

So, what is this 'evidence'?

[Hit The North]

But, you originally claimed that the evidence from nature etc confirms dialectics. Where did I do that?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB before he was rumbled:


In scientific observation of the natural and social worlds.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1293352&postcount=14

BTB after:


Where did I do that?

[Hit The North]

Rosa, please read more carefully.

I asserted that nature and society were in motion.

LC replied with "assuming" it is in motion.

I countered that the assertion that nature and society are in motion is more than an assumption.

Rosa asks how I know that.

I reply that scientific observation of nature and society indicates it.

Rosa asks how this proves dialectics

I reply that nowhere do I claim it does.

Rosa insists I did and quotes me out of context.

:rolleyes:

What a tedious game. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LeftCommunist to BTB:


Okay, assuming this is true, why are 'dialectics' needed to understand that 'things' change?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1293311&postcount=11

BTB in reply:



Okay, assuming this is true, why are 'dialectics' needed to understand that 'things' change?

I think this has been proved beyond an assumption.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1293322&postcount=12

So, BTB, your reply was about 'dialectics', not 'motion'.

Me:



I think this has been proved beyond an assumption

Where?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1293326&postcount=13

From this, it is quite clear that you do not read your own posts too carefully.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/_paperbag_125.gif

So, and once more, how does all this evidence/observation support 'dialectics'?

[Hit The North]

No, you're misreading me.

LC wrote "assuming it is true". I reply, obviously in reference to the assumption of truth (that reality is in motion) that "it is beyond an assumption" (that reality is in motion). I don't comment on why dialectics are needed.

Now you can disagree about what I actually meant if you like, but don't expect me waste any more time on this.

Bored much?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


No, you're misreading me.

LC wrote "assuming it is true". I reply, obviously in reference to the assumption of truth (that reality is in motion) that "it is beyond an assumption" (that reality is in motion). I don't comment on why dialectics are needed.

You are in fact misreading yourself.

As I noted, LC asked this question:


Okay, assuming this is true, why are 'dialectics' needed to understand that 'things' change?

You even quoted it:



Okay, assuming this is true, why are 'dialectics' needed to understand that 'things' change?

I think this has been proved beyond an assumption.

Now you say this:


I reply, obviously in reference to the assumption of truth (that reality is in motion) that "it is beyond an assumption" (that reality is in motion). I don't comment on why dialectics are needed.

In that case, you either ignored her question (and it still needs answering), or you did not read her words too carefully.

In contrast to you, I have read both her and your words carefully. If you have been misunderstood, you only have yourself to blame.

[Junius]

Yes, and I think this is what Marx and Engels were doing.

I agree.


Of course, not all social science accounts are the same or as successful.

Undoubtedly - then the problem is with the social science.


The Functionalist view of social change is based in a particular view of evolution where the social system adapts to changes in a balanced and integrated manner. In fact, it can't explain change at all, whilst its descriptive power is trivial and trite.

Sounds familiar. ;)


Nothing.

Which begs the question: why resort to an unclear philosophy (to say the least) when we have something so concrete and agreed upon by all comrades? Which one do you think is more useful in examining social phenomena?

And yes, my original question still wants an answer: why are dialectics needed to understand change - when we have numerous other methods which can - social sciences, mathematics...and historical materialism?

Rosa:

I remember coming across a book, I have forgotten the title, on ebrary - essentially arguing that Marx was anti-philosophy. You haven't happened to have read it? Is it worth the read?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Is it this:

Brudney, D. Marx's Attempt To Leave Philosophy (Harvard University Press, 1998).

If so, the title is a little misleading, and the book meanders about a lot. More seriously Brudney just ignores the class interpretation of Philosophy Marx began to explore in the German Ideology, and elsewhere. I hope to address this issue in detail myself in my Essays over the next five or ten years.

Anyway, I struggled through this book, but I did learn a few things from it.

The only other book I can think of that argues this is:

Labica, G. Marxism And The Status Of Philosophy (Harvester Press, 1980)

which is a little better I think.

However, the best Marxist author on the class nature of Philosophy is Christopher Caudwell.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/caudwell/index.htm

But, his best work is not on-line yet.

[Junius]

Yeah, that was it. ;) I'll give it a browse then.

I did happen to come across an anti-dialectics book at the library the other day - from memory it wasn't particularly impressive - but I'll note down the title and pass it on to you; I'm sure you've probably read it before.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, thanks!