Historical Materialism

[JimmyJazz]

Here is my attempt at a brief summary of Marx's HM, and I am wondering if comrades see any glaring omissions/inaccuracies. Particularly, what you would consider important intermediate steps that I skipped.

I am not attention-whoring for my creation, I just really want to make sure this thing is accurate and--although brief--somewhat comprehensive, before I go using it for education purposes. I feel like I could make a good defense of any of the individual statements on there, so I am pretty excited to have them all organized like this, and hope I'm not missing any major elements. Thanks in advance for constructive criticisms.

[Pogue]

Working class revolution not rebellion. Also, not just collective conciousness leading to class cncoiousness from personal feeling - the workig class see their common relation to the bourgeoisie and means of production and also, by living and working close together, form communities which reinforces the idea of collective struggle. Thus capitalism ahs at its base its gravediggers and contradiction, the working class, who will be the ones who overthrow capitalism, yes.

[Pogue]

If it was unclear those are my proposed amendments to your otherwise good diagram.

[Invader Zim]

I'm not sure that the issue of consciousness is simply operates on an individual level, on that issue both society level and individual level are mutually inclusive and joined at the hip. Would there be a way of making the diagram show that?

[Hit The North]

Zim, are you suggesting a dialectical relationship here?

Certainly the diagram needs to show the interconnections between the different levels.

Personally I find the base-superstructure model serves as a good diagrammatic illustration of the the basic propositions of HM.

[Invader Zim]

An enviroment moulds the consciousness of the individual. However the enviroment is a society, and a society is made up of individuals.

[KC]

Personally I find the base-superstructure model serves as a good diagrammatic illustration of the the basic propositions of HM.If, of course, you understand the presumptions behind it. Namely, how base and superstructure interrelate and how they are basically one and the same. Generally people don't understand the presumptions behind the model and draw mechanistic conclusions, which leads to vulgar materialism.

As for the chart:


All history is the history of class strugglesNot entirely true; the history of class society is the history of class struggles. Of course, this doesn't mean that the history of class struggle itself is the history of class society; it is just the most prominent.


A man's consciousness does not determine his being; but vice versaThis is half true. Consciousness is formed by man's social being. However, consciousness is part of and is representative of man's social being. This goes back to my statements earlier regarding base-superstructure analysis.

[Hit The North]

If, of course, you understand the presumptions behind it. Namely, how base and superstructure interrelate and how they are basically one and the same. Generally people don't understand the presumptions behind the model and draw mechanistic conclusions, which leads to vulgar materialism.



Yes, you have to explain the presumptions as you draw it out either as board work or power point or on a sheet of paper.

[JimmyJazz]

Slightly revised (second step on both left and right).

[KC]

Yes, you have to explain the presumptions as you draw it out either as board work or power point or on a sheet of paper.

Huh?

[Hit The North]

Huh? Um, when you teach it to people. You build it up as a model, explaining every move and the assumptions underlying them as you do so.

[Kassad]

I think I've always struggled with historical materialism and Marx's theories on dialectics. I'm an atheist, an anti-theist and everything anti-religion. Still, I don't believe that only what we can see, hear, taste, smell and feel is real. When you are with someone and you realize the many ways that you are one and the same, not different, you are experiencing a transcendental phase of life that is not describable by the mere comprehension of matter and the five senses.

A collective sense of connection with another human being is not just a physical feeling. The feeling of love is not just a chemical imbalance in your mind. It is a feeling of collective consciousness.

The class consciousness and awakening that we feel doesn’t just come from being physically deprived. It comes from an awakening of the body and the mind as a whole and a comprehension of a more just society. You don’t get that feeling from money or from the physical aspects of the world.

[JimmyJazz]

The class consciousness and awakening that we feel doesn’t just come from being physically deprived.

Well, that's immiseration, and it's much more specific than historical materialism, which is extremely broad in scope.

And I'm not even 100% sure what role immiseration plays in Marx's ideas about a working class revolution. It's something I'd have started a thread on by now, if I didn't already start too many threads.

I certainly agree that a sense of dignity, freedom and justice is even more important than physical deprivation. However, people don't just up and decide that their dignity/freedom/justice is infringed upon by the current social order. They have to see it--for instance, when riot police tear gas them for peacefully protesting, or the courts order them back to work as they try peacefully striking, or the boss fires them for organizing. Those are still examples of material conditions creating consciousness.

[Rawthentic]

Edit out the teleological aspect of it (ie saying that socialism is an inevitability - when it clearly isn't).

And in fact this error allows bourgeois ideologists to "prove" that Marxism is a rigid, dogmatic way of viewing the world, rather than a scientific and dynamic one.

[TC]

It should be noted that, what 'historical materialism' (is it teleological, is it not, does it have specific conclusions? does it not? is it evolutionary? is it not? is class struggle primary or is technological development primary? etc) is an extremely difficult question that is among the most hotly disputed topics in academic Marx scholarship. Its not something you're going to get a definitive answer for on a website and its not something you can glean from quoting marx tid bits because different marx tid bits support different interpretations.

[KC]

It should be noted that, what 'historical materialism' (is it teleological, is it not, does it have specific conclusions? does it not? is it evolutionary? is it not? is class struggle primary or is technological development primary? etc) is an extremely difficult question that is among the most hotly disputed topics in academic Marx scholarship.

What isn't disputed about Marx's work?


Its not something you're going to get a definitive answer for on a website and its not something you can glean from quoting marx tid bits because different marx tid bits support different interpretations.

Well of course if you don't understand Marx's method you will conclude numerous different interpretations, many of which could be seen as contradictory. However, if you realize that Marx approaches problems from many different angles and from many different perspectives (which results in using different terms and coming to different conclusions), then you can study his many different approaches and come to a reasonable conclusion.

Of course, it is harder to do that with Marx's materialist conception because it is part of Marx's methodology itself.

[Kassad]

Sorry about the small font in my last post. Something is screwed up on my computer.

Anyway, I call myself a Marxist-Leninist. Would my objections to dialectic materialism contradict that title?

[KC]

Anyway, I call myself a Marxist-Leninist. Would my objections to dialectic materialism contradict that title?

You'd have to define "dialectical materialism". Most "Marxists" implement dialectics in an incredibly mechanistic and vulgar way, so I can identify with that sentiment somewhat.

[Rawthentic]

I do think there is value in studying Marx's methods and delving into the topics that TC points out.

But, rather than engage in some sort of "back to Marx" agenda that denies the historical development marxism has gone through (as revolutions, movements, and time have changed it), we need an appraisal of new conditions as well as summations of the past that can help us in the future.

[Kassad]

You'd have to define "dialectical materialism". Most "Marxists" implement dialectics in an incredibly mechanistic and vulgar way, so I can identify with that sentiment somewhat.

Well, when I think dialectics and materialism, I think of the ideology that the only things that exist in the world are the things you can observe with your five senses. Meaning, if you can't see it, feel it, smell it, taste it or hear it, it is not real. Well, I can identify with that, but I believe humanity's selflessness at times and its potential for unconditional love goes beyond our five senses. Our sense of consciousness cannot be defined through mere human descriptions. Now, I am an atheist and don't believe in any type of external being or deity, but I see many human feelings and emotions as above our comprehension. It seems that dialectics and materialism contradict this kind of statement.

[JimmyJazz]

Edit out the teleological aspect of it (ie saying that socialism is an inevitability - when it clearly isn't).

And in fact this error allows bourgeois ideologists to "prove" that Marxism is a rigid, dogmatic way of viewing the world, rather than a scientific and dynamic one.


It should be noted that, what 'historical materialism' (is it teleological, is it not, does it have specific conclusions? does it not? is it evolutionary? is it not? is class struggle primary or is technological development primary? etc) is an extremely difficult question that is among the most hotly disputed topics in academic Marx scholarship. Its not something you're going to get a definitive answer for on a website and its not something you can glean from quoting marx tid bits because different marx tid bits support different interpretations.

Can one of you link to something that attempts to prove Marx didn't think a socialist working class revolution was inevitable? I'm pretty skeptical that anyone could make a good case--sounds like a case of saving face.

I don't have to believe Marx was completely on target about things far in the future in order to meaningfully identify as a Marxist. It isn't like being a follower of Nostradamus.

And I agree with KC that a variety of interpretations is no justification for a relativist approach. It is possible to determine what the man believed, no matter how contradictory or mutable these beliefs might have been. You just might need to add a lot of qualifying statements.

[Rawthentic]

jimmy:

you are saying the same thing I was.

We don't have to be marxist to know that socialism is not inevitable. In fact, it is un-marxist to make such statement, because they are based on an undialectical approach to history.

It denies how history is a very dynamic process and does not account for human beings as subjects, accident, etc.

Socialism is very possible. But that depends on us - the main responsibility lies on communists in these times.

And I also agree with KC that is possible to make conclusions based on what he said, but they cannot be divorced from the vast time gap between then and now and the changes that have occurred.

[JimmyJazz]

jimmy:

you are saying the same thing I was.

We don't have to be marxist to know that socialism is not inevitable. In fact, it is un-marxist to make such statement, because they are based on an undialectical approach to history.

It denies how history is a very dynamic process and does not account for human beings as subjects, accident, etc.

Socialism is very possible. But that depends on us - the main responsibility lies on communists in these times.

And I also agree with KC that is possible to make conclusions based on what he said, but they cannot be divorced from the vast time gap between then and now and the changes that have occurred.

Oh, gotcha. When you said to edit out the bit about socialism being inevitable, I thought you were saying I should edit it out because Marx didn't believe it, and then citing history as a proof. But of course history is no proof of what Marx believed, unless you take it as a given that Marx always must be right (or wrong).

So you do believe Marx himself thought that socialist revolution was inevitable in the advanced industrialized countries? Or at the very least, that he said he thought this (perhaps for rhetorical impact)?

Because when I made the chart, I was not attempting to chart up "Marxist" historical materialism (there are probably 100 versions of that, all attempting to account for subsequent historical developments in a different way), but Marx's historical materialism. As far as I can tell from what I have read, Marx himself consistently claimed that he thought socialism was an inevitable result of working class militancy.

[Hit The North]

As far as I can tell from what I have read, Marx himself consistently claimed that he thought socialism was an inevitable result of working class militancy.

The ambiguity can be found even in the first section of the Communist Manifesto, Bourgeois and Proletarians, which begins:


Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

Class struggle is inevitable but its success in revolutionising society certainly isn't.

However, the section ends with:


What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

[KC]

And I agree with KC that a variety of interpretations is no justification for a relativist approach. It is possible to determine what the man believed, no matter how contradictory or mutable these beliefs might have been. You just might need to add a lot of qualifying statements.

Marx's beliefs weren't contradictory, nor mutable, and I never claimed as much.

[Rawthentic]

jimmy:

marx was not always right or wrong. I don't think things are that simple, although we can draw conclusions on where certain lines and politics lead (but that is a different matter).

I think it would be good to study why marx thought (if he deeply did) that revolution and communism were an inevitability in human history. And if he did, then there is nothing wrong, and in fact, is our duty, to explain why it was an incorrect position in this respect.

I think marx was making broad assumptions from his overall correct line on the class struggle. I agree with what Bob said. Class struggle is inevitable, but the DoP is not, and certainly communism isn't either.

I applaud what your efforts to make this.

[Philosophical Materialist]

I like the diagram, it's an effective understanding of Marx's dialectical method. You've used different levels of abstraction: the individual worker's interaction with the capitalist system, the contemporaneous capitalist system, and the capitalist mode of production's historical setting.

It is true like others have pointed out that Marx did not believe a socialist epoch to be 100% certain, although he understood that if humanity didn't progress to socialism, it would be destroyed by barbarism when the contradictions of capitalism rips itself (and humanity) apart.


Anyway, I call myself a Marxist-Leninist. Would my objections to dialectic materialism contradict that title?

Marxist-Leninists usually consider dialectical materialism to be inseparable from Marxism-Leninism. It may depend on your objections to dialectical materialism, whether you reject the whole method or just parts of it. If you rejected the whole method then you aren't really in the Marxist-Leninist tradition. But you can be certainly a socialist and a communist, without accepting the dialectical materialist method. There are some Marxists called "Analytical Marxists" who reject the dialectical method altogether.

[peaccenicked]

Dialectics is so controversial. It is full of precepts of what it actually is.
I have found something in it personally useful. It seems to me that if you dont grasp what it is then it is useless to you.
The most fundamental way is seeing it as a mystical world view turned into a scientific method.
All processes can be broken down into opposites that pertain to the process in order to tease out what is really happening within the process.
Thinking about something involves this anyway. It is no big deal.

Love too has quantities and qualities. sometimes oppositional, sometimes tangental.
As a poet I find it particularly useful to think about love in this way. So as to an overview on my feelings and give them the context of the world I live in.

Dialectics is not about proof in the immediate. It is about expressing where a line of enquire is taking you, and only after that does the issue of verification become an issue.

One must have something to verify.
The expression of love does not always need to be verified but that does not stop wonder if it is true or false. Trust is sometimes not earned but given freely but this process is full of different types of judgement, often very concrete and based on previous experience.
Science is not always necessarily conclusive, it sometimes leaves things in abeyance till something changes.
The original sin with dialectics was dogma and eternal truth. Dialectics is really about free thinking in science, and beyond.
Watching an entity unfold in all its richness rather than assume narrow definitions that rob things of their actual life.