Marx's Theory of History

[Michael]

Marx, Material Determinism and History

Being a long-time student of history, politics and economics, the one aspect of Marx's considerable contribution to the world of ideas that has always interested and fascinated me most is Marx's theory of history. I shall endeavour here to give a basic explication of this topic. My reason for so doing is to establish the groundwork for explorations and speculations upon what really is meant by the term 'communism', as conceptualized by Marx.

* * *

Material Determinism:

Marx begins his analysis with the assertion that 'man is a productive animal'. This builds on Aristotle's famous assertion that 'man is a social animal'. A full explication of what this means and how and why Marx (or Aristotle) developed this argument is beyond the scope of this essay. For simplicity, I propose to just accept this 'as given' without further discussion - taking the phrase as self-explanatory.

From the basic premise that 'man is a productive animal', Marx asserts that it logically follows that production itself is central to the human enterprise (which is social by our definition). Humans 'consume' food, clothing and other articles - and humans need these things to survive. Thus, it naturally follows that the system used to produce these things is of central importance to our human existence. This establishes the centrality of the production of consumable material as a necessary and critically important element of human existence. This is one aspect of what is meant by the 'material character' of our human existence.

As Aristotle asserts, 'man is a social animal', this means that the necessary and central character of the system of production that is used by any given society will ultimately determine the nature and character of all social relationships within that given human society. That is to say, human social relationships are determined by economic production relationships. This is another aspect of what is meant by the 'material character' of our human existence.

Marx asserts that this 'material character' of our human existence thus naturally 'determines' all of our human material existence. This is material determinism. There is no role here for any supernatural agent. Human character is ultimately determined by material relationships, not supernatural ones, or idealistic ones, or mythical ones, or any other kind of relationship. The only thing that really counts here, is pure material existence (the fact that we as humans need to produce and consume 'stuff' to survive). This is one way of understanding what Marx means by material determinism. The material facts of human production determine the material facts of human social relationships. That's material determinism.

Marx's Theory of History:

Given that Marx holds that the system of production determines all social relationships, it naturally follows that Marx views human history entirely through the lens of the dominant mode of production in any given society (at any given time period).

According to this view of history, the most ancient times are characterized as dependent on 'the body' as the dominant mode of material production. The next phase of history is characterized as dependent upon using 'land' as the dominant mode of production. Marx uses the term 'feudalism' to describe the social relationships that naturally follow from using 'land' as the dominant mode of production. This type of system is far more productive (and sophisticated) than the earlier mode of production. The next phase of history is characterized as dependent upon 'capitalism' as the dominant mode of production. Marx use the term 'bourgeois' to describe the social relationships that naturally follow from using 'capital' as the dominant mode of production. This type of system is by far the most productive and sophisticated.

There are a few key elements of Marx's theory of history here that I'd like to draw attention to. First and foremost, there is a progression from 'crude and unsophisticated' upwards to more refined, more efficient and more sophisticated forms of production. The lesser moving towards the higher. Thus, Marx's view of history is essentially 'progressive'.

A second element of Marx's theory is the fact that each system of production ultimately fails due to their own success. In the most ancient times, the determined application of 'the body' as a our primary mode of production ultimately produced sufficient surplus to enable experimentation using 'land' for production. The success of this experimentation and the greater productive capacity of using 'land' for production meant that 'land' became the dominant mode of production and production entirely dependent upon 'the body' became less so. Similarly, the 'land' mode of production eventually became so successful that it enabled the experimentation and development of 'capitalism' as a more efficient mode of production. That is to say, the success of each system of production produces the material conditions for the next new mode of production to become dominant.

That is Marx's theory of history (in a nutshell). To recap, 'man is a productive animal' and thus, the system of production determines the form of social relations in any given society. And in human history, our primary system of production has 'progressed' from a crude dependence upon the human body itself, 'upward' towards a more productive dependence upon 'land' and now dependent upon 'capitalism' as our primary method of production. And lastly, each system of production has produced the material conditions for the development of the next system of production.

What is Communism?

Communism is the name Marx gave to the system of relations that follows from the 'new' system of production that will naturally follow after 'capitalism'. That's it, that's all. Marx does not actually define 'communism' as a social system, or the new dominant mode of production that will enable/cause/support it. Marx does offer a few clues and hints upon the topic, but that is all. Ultimately, it is a matter of speculation.

Marx does describe a 'community of associated producers' as the key characteristic of the system of relations under this future communist society. But again, this does not describe a mode of production. This new society requires a new mode of production to create it. Given that capitalism is still dominant, that means that this new mode of production has not yet become dominant.

Whatever this new mode of production is, Marx argued that it would be 'classless' given that it would be a community of associated producers. That describes an egalitarian society (only one group). And since the State is understood to be a function of class interest, it logically follows that a 'classless' (or single-class) society would have no need for a state apparatus. Thus, it logically follows that under this future communist society, in a community of associated producers, the 'state would whither away to nothing'. And that's all Marx has to say upon the topic of the future communist society.

My Speculation:

It is my speculation that this new mode of production just might be our modern self-employed knowledge-based 'subcontract' worker. This model of 'production' appears to be significantly different than 'capitalism' given that it employs no labor other than its own. It is also to be noted that 'self-employed' has been the fastest growing category of employment in most western countries (most notably in the USA) for the last decade or two.

It is a fundamental condition of Marx's theory that the new dominant mode of production will be enabled or created by the previously dominant mode. This new self-employed knowledge-worker is entirely been created and enabled by our extensively well developed capitalist system (indeed, depends upon it, just like all the previous dominant modes of production). And such a mode of production is inherently egalitarian and entirely suited to supporting a 'community of associated producers'.

It is important perhaps to note here that all 'modes' of production, even our old previously dominant ones are still in use today. The human body, in its most basic and crudest aspects, still provides production. Likewise with 'land' - it is still necessary for growing food. The key idea here is that these forms of production are still quite common, just not 'dominant' as our primary method of producing stuff. And according to Marx's theory of history, 'capitalism' will eventually lose its premier status as our dominant mode of production (as it is now). It will of course remain. It will not disappear. It will just become much less dominant while some other 'new' form of production will become more dominant. There is no reason or need for any sudden or revolutionary switchover - or act of human volition to bring it about. The process is ultimately an evolutionary one. It all naturally follows from 'man is a social animal' and 'man is a productive animal'.

And that is my speculation upon Marx's theory of history. That is to say, we are (perhaps) in the very process of witnessing a 'new' mode of production coming into being. It is not yet dominant and probably will not be for many years to come - but it does appear to exist here and now. Marx's prediction of a future communist society may not be entirely that far off.

Note#1: The primary source for the material stated here is Marx's 1844 Manuscripts and other earlier essays by Marx.

Note#2: I just found this essay lying around on my hard drive. I believe it was posted at USPO, but I'm not certain. Anyway, I just figured to repost it here for the heck of it. :)

Reasoned comments, critiques and questions are always welcome. :)

[partofme]

The thing about Marx that does resonate with me is the idea of an evolution of society or moving forward. I always thought that Marx envisioned something much more like what society looks like in the Star Trek universe (people looking to better themselves rather than seeking material gain) than what is called communism. I must say that it does resonate with me for some reason although I would never call myself a Marxist. I have always thought it is weird that a Marxist would really want capitalism to be as successful as possible to reach the next level.

[Michael]

The thing about Marx that does resonate with me is the idea of an evolution of society or moving forward. I always thought that Marx envisioned something much more like what society looks like in the Star Trek universe (people looking to better themselves rather than seeking material gain) than what is called communism. I must say that it does resonate with me for some reason although I would never call myself a Marxist. I have always thought it is weird that a Marxist would really want capitalism to be as successful as possible to reach the next level.
Most people who self-identify as "Marxist" are married to the "Communist Manifesto" which completely contradicts all of what I wrote in the OP. The Manifesto asserts that 'communism' can be 'created' by destroying capitalism. According to Marx's theory of history, that's absurd.

I'm one of those rare Marxist intellectuals that considers the maximum development of capitalism to be absolutely necessary. Capitalism MUST create communism and the process from one to the other MUST be evolutionary. Most 'so-called' Marxists freak out over that.

Bottom line is that 'true' communism is NOT socialism. Socialism is a 'sub-set' of capitalism. Socialism seeks to control capitalism with political authority - substituting the state authority for the capitalist initiative.

[partofme]

Most people who self-identify as "Marxist" are married to the "Communist Manifesto" which completely contradicts all of what I wrote in the OP. The Manifesto asserts that 'communism' can be 'created' by destroying capitalism. According to Marx's theory of history, that's absurd.

I'm one of those rare Marxist intellectuals that considers the maximum development of capitalism to be absolutely necessary. Capitalism MUST create communism and the process from one to the other MUST be evolutionary. Most 'so-called' Marxists freak out over that.

Bottom line is that 'true' communism is NOT socialism. Socialism is a 'sub-set' of capitalism. Socialism seeks to control capitalism with political authority - substituting the state authority for the capitalist initiative.

I wonder why Marx suggested that in the manifesto yet contradicted it in his theory of history. Which came first and did he change his mind about one idea or the other?

[Michael]

I wonder why Marx suggested that in the manifesto yet contradicted it in his theory of history. Which came first and did he change his mind about one idea or the other?
Marx's theory of history predates the Manifesto.

There is very little academic treatment of the issue primarily because there is very little academic treatment of Marx's work period. One reason for this is that the Communist Manifesto is the first work by Marx that was widely available in translation. Most of the more important works by Marx were very slow to be translated and available for non-German academics (1920's at the earliest to arrive in North America, many not till the 1940's). By that time, the "Manifesto" version of Marx had been carved in stone - as the defining dogma of the USSR.

My own pet theory about this is that Marx himself was too passionate of a socialist in his own inclinations. Marx wanted to see capitalism destroyed and let his passions overwhelm his theory - Marx sought to 'speedup' the process (which has been a failure everywhere it has been tried). The Manifesto was in fact nothing more than a speech given by Marx at the opening of a Socialist International conference. That audience wanted socialism so Marx gave it to them.

[partofme]

Marx's theory of history predates the Manifesto.

There is very little academic treatment of the issue primarily because there is very little academic treatment of Marx's work period. One reason for this is that the Communist Manifesto is the first work by Marx that was widely available in translation. Most of the more important works by Marx were very slow to be translated and available for non-German academics (1920's at the earliest to arrive in North America, many not till the 1940's). By that time, the "Manifesto" version of Marx had been carved in stone - as the defining dogma of the USSR.

My own pet theory about this is that Marx himself was too passionate of a socialist in his own inclinations. Marx wanted to see capitalism destroyed and let his passions overwhelm his theory - Marx sought to 'speedup' the process (which has been a failure everywhere it has been tried). The Manifesto was in fact nothing more than a speech given by Marx at the opening of a Socialist International conference. That audience wanted socialism so Marx gave it to them.

That makes sense. He wanted to see it in his lifetime. He probably didn't count on that impulse giving his ideas a bad name.

[Michael]

That makes sense. He wanted to see it in his lifetime. He probably didn't count on that impulse giving his ideas a bad name.
Yes, I do believe Marx expected the whole thing to occur within his lifetime. That's perhaps why Marx penned the Manifesto - he might have thought he was just 'priming the pump' a bit in preparation for it.

Indeed, Marx thought he was observing capitalism at its most advanced stages (mid-1800's) when in fact, capital had several more tricks to turn (and more than a century of further development) that Marx never saw coming.

I've always taken a long view from Marx's theory of history. From my study of the long history of capitalism - and my study of medieval society - I know that it took many centuries for capitalism to supplant feudalism as the primary 'mode of production' - and even centuries after that occured in 'the west', feudalism is still alive and well in various parts of the world. Even elements of the feudalistic system still remain in the west.

That's why I see the rise of 'communism' as a slow process. It must supplant capitalism - by an evolutionary process that proves it is better. It hasn't done that yet - not even close. But Marx's overall theory seems sound - this is the direction things are going. Capitalism is indeed running out of steam now - the average rate of return on capital is well into single digits now (in Western countries). Marx predicted that this will eventually head towards zero and that will be the end of capitalism as a 'mode of production'.

[dilettante]

I tend to see Marx's theories (and some of their derivatives) as being quite useful as one way of explaining broad historical trends. It always seems less useful in explaining individual actions and events.

The greatest weakness of Marx (in my very humble and quite inexperienced opinion) is that his view of the "endpoints" of history was profoundly ahistorical. The mechanism of constant social (r)evolution based on changing means of production, and even the theories of dialectic materialism that followed, seems brilliant. But as I understand it, Marxist history envisions both a class-less utopian past and a class-less utopian future, the latter of which is somehow stable and immune from the mechanism of change that brought it about.

Indeed, a professor of history at my university has described some strands of Marxism as a sort of secular counterpart to Christian eschatology, in that it posits an Edenic past before class exploitation, followed by a "fall" which changed humanity and the world. But, one day the world will be restored to its former, classless, glory. And if we're all good Marxist revolutionaries, and convert our friends, we can bring that day about even sooner.

[Michael]

I tend to see Marx's theories (and some of their derivatives) as being quite useful as one way of explaining broad historical trends. It always seems less useful in explaining individual actions and events.

The greatest weakness of Marx (in my very humble and quite inexperienced opinion) is that his view of the "endpoints" of history was profoundly ahistorical. The mechanism of constant social (r)evolution based on changing means of production, and even the theories of dialectic materialism that followed, seems brilliant. But as I understand it, Marxist history envisions both a class-less utopian past and a class-less utopian future, the latter of which is somehow stable and immune from the mechanism of change that brought it about.
Yes, that's an excellent point - a clear flaw in Marx's theory of history. If the general theory is sound, there is no reason to posit that any given stage is the ultimate or last one. That betrays a bias of result.

Indeed, a professor of history at my university has described some strands of Marxism as a sort of secular counterpart to Christian eschatology, in that it posits an Edenic past before class exploitation, followed by a "fall" which changed humanity and the world. But, one day the world will be restored to its former, classless, glory. And if we're all good Marxist revolutionaries, and convert our friends, we can bring that day about even sooner.
I'd quibble this point with your professor. Marx doesn't posit any 'Edenic past' at all. For Marx, humans have ALWAYS been oppressed and ruled by class distinctions based on property. Marx identifies no 'fall'.

While I agree that the Christian eschatology is circular, I'd assert that Marx's is linear - with an endpoint (which as you noted above, is an irrational supposition).