Marx’s Historical Materialism: Phases of Historical development
Historical
materialism is based on the economic interpretation of history –
the major changes in political, social legal etc. institutions and
ideas are being explained from the changes in the nature of the
economic system. The economy is considered to be ‘the bases of the
society. The political, legal, social, etc. institutions and ideas
are then considered to be ‘the superstructure’ above the economic
basis. The evolution of the economic basis is the ‘driving’ force
of the history.
The
economic basis consists of two opposites that are in the continuous
struggle, namely ‘the forces of production’ and ‘the relations
of production’. The term ‘forces of production’ means all what
determines productivity and its growth. It is the Marxist way of
referring to innovations and technical progress. The term ‘relations
of production’ is the Marxist way of referring to economic
institutions such as private or public property, market etc.
Contradictions
between forces and relations of productions are the essence of the
social system and the inherent driving force of the economic and
social progress. Forces of production are in continuous process of
quantitative evolutionary change, while relations of production tend
to be conservative. When the contradiction between the new forces of
production and the outdated relations of production becomes
unendurable revolution brings qualitative change: it destroys the old
relations and creates new ones. The new and more progressive economic
basis with different essence is created. In contemporary terminology
this says that the incessant technical progress triggers adjustments
in economic institutions. Each revolutionary change in the economic
basis is then followed by a transformation of the superstructure.
That is political, legal and other social institutions and ideas
adjust with a time-lag to the changed economic institutions.
An
example of historical materialism is in “Socialism: Utopian and
Scientific” by Engels.
STAGES OF
EVOLUTION:
Communism
|
|||||
Socialism
|
Communism
Proper
|
||||
Synthesis
classless
society
|
|||||
Slavery
|
Feudalism
|
Capitalism
|
|||
Antithesis
class
societies
|
|||||
Primitive
Communism
|
|||||
Thesis
classless
society
|
|||||
Marxists believe
that during its history the human society evolves in predetermined
stages. There are three basic steps (a triad); another triad within
the middle step a two substages of the final stage of Communism.
Combined, there
are five stages of evolution:
1.
Primitive
Communism- these
are tribal societies before the advent of civilization. Technology
(forces of production) is so primitive that people produce barely
enough for their survival. Everybody goes to work; no “surplus”
product to be appropriated by anybody exists; common property; there
are no classes.
2.
Slavery-
as in ancient Greece and Rome. New technology leads to increased
productivity. Slaves are able to produce more that they need for own
survival; this ‘surplus product’ is appropriated by slave
masters; private ownership emerges; society splits into the class of
exploiters and exploited; exploiters do not need to work; they may
devote their time to arts, science and administration; emergence of
state and law; exploiters become ‘ruling class’/ this is an
enormous progress against the primitive communism. But slaves gave an
incentive to use improved technology. The ‘relations of production’
are in conflict with new progressive ‘forces of production’.
Class war develops, revolution destroys the system.
3.
Feudalism-
as
in European states in middle ages. New class configuration: feudal
lords (exploiter- ruling class) vs. serfs (exploited class).
Feudalism leads to technological progress because serfs have better
incentives to work. Further development of arts and sciences.
Feudalism is a higher state then slavery but it has its own limits.
New scientific and technological discoveries require free workers to
be employed in large scale production. Bourgeois revolutions, like
the French or American Revolution destroy feudalism. They liberate
serfs from dependence on lords and thus prepare the ground for new
class structure of the society.
4.
Capitalism-
in Marxist interpretation is just another stage of socio-economic
development. It is the last class society. The essence of capitalism
is exploitation of workers (proletariat) by capitalists (bourgeoisie)
with resulting class struggle. The ‘relations of production’ are
characterized by private ownership and the prevalence of ‘commodity
production’ (market). The ‘forces of production’ are
characterized by the fast growth of productivity due to the ‘division
of labor’ (specialization) and mechanization. The industrial
revolution resulted in mass production with intricate inter-industry
relations. In the capitalist market economy goods are not produced by
an individual produces for a small number of local consumers as in
the past, but by the huge collectives of workers-sometimes spread
over the whole country or even over many countries- for thousands of
millions of consumers. The ‘forces of production acquired the
‘social character’ but the ‘relations of production’ are
still based on private ownership and ‘anarchy‘ of the market.
This is the main contradiction of capitalism which-according to
Marxist analysis= lead to revolution, abolition of private property
and capitalist relations of production.
5.
Communism-
that
emerges from revolutionary destruction of capitalism is again a
classless society. It removes exploitation and unequal income
distribution. It also unleashes the fetters by which the capitalist
relations of production shackled the forces of production. The
advanced technology would lead to such a high productivity, that
everybody would able to share equally in the economic output. There
will be no need for private appropriation and exploitation. Public
ownership and the rational central control (planning) of the economy
would allow even faster growth of productivity than under capitalism.
Communism would defeat capitalism not only by being more just in
distribution of income, but also by being more productive, more
technologically advanced. This was the prediction of Marx. Also
communism was expected to have to phases: the first one called
socialism would be still limited in its productivity and, therefore,
the income distribution would have to be based on each person’s
contribution to the common output of the society. In the second stage
of productivity would also be high that all the needs of each person
could be fully satiated.
The Workers' Union
"THE WORKER ONLY FEELS HIMSELF OUTSIDE HIS WORK AND IN HIS WORK, FEELS OUTSIDE HIMSELF... AS A RESULT, HE NO LONGER FEELS TO BE FREELY ACTIVE IN ANY BUT HIS ANIMAL FUNCTIONS- EATING, DRINKING, PROCREATING, OR AT MOST IN HIS DWELLING OR DRESSING UP"
Thus, this is
according to Marx, an alienation from productive activity, through
which the worker’s life becomes animalistic in its look and feel.
As the workers start engaging freely only in animalistic functions,
there develops a hiatus between them and their species being. What
distinguishes humans from animals, Marx believes, is their ability to
think of themselves as conscious beings. And in capitalistic society,
the worker, he says, ends up blurring this distinction. This is the
alienation from species being. As the people are ‘compelled’
under capitalism to be isolated and pursue their private interests
for personal gain, they enter into competition with each other,
remaining no more ‘collective beings’. Also, the fact, that they
make another class the beneficiary of the product of their labor, Marx, as earlier
noted, found problematic the production/labor aspects of Capitalism.
It was his belief that under the Capitalist economic system, laborers
were dehumanized and exploited. He believed that as people labored
for multiple hours every day, they became alienated. The idea of
alienation is an important part of Marx’s economic theory. As a
person labors, he or she becomes alienated from society, the human
race, and the object they produced. Author Jonathan Wolff points out
five central ideas that Marx disliked in Capitalism:
1. Under
Capitalism, the wages of the workers are literally minimal. This is a
consequence of the fact that the capitalist is in, by far, the
better bargaining position and to avoid starving the worker must be
prepared to accept the very low wage that will be on offer: a wage
just sufficient to keep the worker and family alive.
2. Work is
punishing. For the same reason the worker must accept appalling
conditions, leading to overwork and early death.
3. Labor is
degraded and one-sided. As the division of labor becomes more
advanced, labor becomes more machine-like.
4. Labor has
become a commodity. It is bought and sold on the market like any
other commodity.
5. Labor is
degraded and one-sided. As the division of labor becomes more
advanced, labor becomes more machine-like.
The simplest
definition of the labor theory of value states that “the value of
an exchangeable good or service lies in the amount of labor required
to produce it; the source of profits under capitalism, then, is value
added by workers not paid out in wages.” This theory dictates that
a particular commodity possesses value because of the labor that went
into creating it.
The Dictatorship of Proletariat
The dictatorship of proletariat is defined by Marxist theory as the forceful use of state power by the working class against its enemies during the passage from capitalism to communism, entailing control of the state apparatus and the means of production. Though under Stalin the phrase came to be understood as a dictatorship in the name of the proletariat, the original meaning was a workers' democracy where the working class would dictate rather than the capitalist class.
This doctrine was used in Communist countries, which claimed to implement a dictatorship of the proletariat, to justify the state exercise of its power, ostensibly on behalf of the workers, to suppress all opposition (see totalitarianism). Critics, particularly anti-communists and non-Marxist communists, contend that this principle is little better than a justification for granting sweeping powers to a new ruling elite. These critics maintain that it is not the working class which uses state power in Communist countries but new elite more cruel and corrupt than the old ruling class it replaces.Prior to 1871, Karl Marx said little about what in practice would characterize such a regime, believing that planning in advance the details of a future socialist regime constituted the fallacy of "utopian socialism." Marx used the term "dictatorship" to describe absolute control by an entire class (rather than a single sovereign individual) over another class (compare political absolutism). Thus Marx called capitalism the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which he believed would be superseded by socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat), which in turn would be superseded by a classless and stateless society known as communism. He viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as only an intermediate stage, believing that governments, that is to say the use of state power of one class over another, would disappear once the classes themselves had disappeared.
However, although Marx did not plan out the details of how such a dictatorship would be implemented, he did point to the Paris Commune of 1871 as an example of a society in his own lifetime that put his ideas into practice. In his work "The Civil War in France," Marx praised the government of the Paris Commune. Frederick Engels, in his 1891 postscript to the work, summarized this position, and praised the democratic features of this government, when he wrote: "In this first place, it filled all posts -- administrative, judicial, and educational -- by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers." Engels argued that the working class, once in power, had to "do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself," and that it must "safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment." In praising the Paris Commune, and at the same time defending his concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat, Engels said: "Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat."
The Paris Commune, however, was short lived, and no other serious attempt at implementing Marx's ideas was made during his lifetime. After Marx, the concept of a dictatorship of the proletariat was later altered and defined by many Marxist groups who adopted Lenin's theory documented in his brochure State and Revolution. Lenin believed that the political form of the Paris Commune was revived in the councils of workers and soldiers appeared after the 1905 Russian revolution and called soviets. These included the Bolsheviks, who used the concept to justify crushing dissent and defining the boundaries of acceptable discourse, and later the Maoists.
Marxists disagree among themselves on whether any of the "Marxist" regimes that came to power actually implemented in practice what Marx considered to be such a dictatorship. In practice, critics have argued that twentieth century regimes which claimed to institute a dictatorship of the entire working class in fact did not do so. In general, such regimes have utilized state power in ways which, critics argue, oppress workers just as much as the old regime, thus becoming not a government which serves the proletariat but rather oppresses it.
Communism: The Abolition of Private Property
Marx begins this
topic by declaring that communists have no interests apart from the
interests of the working class as a whole. Communists are
distinguished from other socialist parties by focusing solely on the
common interests of all workers and not the interests of any single
national movement. They appreciate the historical forces that compel
the progress of their class and help lead the proletariat to fulfill
their destiny. As Marx says, "The immediate aim of the
Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties:
formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois
supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat".
Marx then responds to a number of criticisms from an imagined bourgeois interlocutor. He considers the charge that by wishing to abolish private property, the communist is destroying the "ground work of all personal freedom, activity, and independence". Marx responds by saying that wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism. Having linked private property to class antagonism, Marx proceeds to investigate both antagonists with respect to their independence.
Marx first notes
that capital is a social product, that is, capital only exists within
some social system. The result of this is that capital is not a
personal but a social power. Making property public then, as the
communist wants to do, is not changing the private to the social; it
is only modifying its already inherent social character.
Returning to the
condition of the wage laborer, Marx argues that "the average
price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e. the quantum of the
means of subsistence which is the absolutely requisite to keep the
laborer in bare existence as a laborer". The proletariat, then,
is absolutely dependent on the capitalist for his very survival. He
does not acquire any property because his wage must be given
immediately to his own subsistence. Communists want to ensure that
the laborer exists for more than merely the increase of bourgeois
capital. Labor should not be directed towards the accumulation of
wealth on the part of the capitalist. Rather, capital, or property in
general, should be directed toward the enrichment of the laborer's
life.
Abolition of
private property means, then, only the abolition of bourgeoisie
property. The freedom which the bourgeois believe is underwritten by
private property is a very narrow freedom, one available only to a
very small subset of the population. Moreover, this form of property
depends on its radically unequal distribution. The ultimate point, as
Marx says, is that "communism deprives no man of the power to
appropriate the products of society; all that is does is to deprive
him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such
appropriation"
Marx also
considers the criticism that a communist society would promote
general idleness. This strikes Marx as laughable considering that in
bourgeois society those who work do not acquire anything while those
who acquire things do not work. In the end, the force of this charge,
as with the force of all these other charges, presupposes the
bourgeois system of property. As Marx says, "Don't wrangle with
us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois
property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture,
law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of
your bourgeois production and bourgeois property...". He accuses
the bourgeoisie of elevating to the status of immutable truths values
which are only local and contingent. It is selfish conceit that
blinds the bourgeoisie to the reality of the historical progress
which Marx here seeks to elucidate.
As
for the suggestion that communists wish to abolish countries, Marx
responds that this process is already occurring due
to bourgeois efforts to expand free trade. Such globalization will
continue as class consciousness develops across the proletariat of
all nations. Marx even goes so far as to predict that antagonism
between nations will vanish as class antagonisms fade away. Class
defines one far more than nationality.
While Marx
acknowledges that the revolution will be different in different
countries, he includes an outline of its likely course in advanced
capitalistic nations: (in Marx's words, 104)
1. Abolition of
private property in land and application of all rents of land to
public purposes.
2. A heavy
progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of
the rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation
of the property of emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization
of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with
State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization
of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the
State.
7.
Extension
of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the
bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the
soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal
liability of all labor. Establishment of industrial armies;
especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of
agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the
distinction between town and country, by a more equitable
distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free
education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's
factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with
industrial production, etc.
Marx concludes by
repeating his claim that once the proletariats achieve political
power, the eventual result will be a classless society. Abolishing
bourgeois modes of production undermines the continued existence of
class antagonisms, and without class antagonism, the proletariat will
lose their own class character. As Marx famously closes the chapter,
"in place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and
class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free
development of each is the condition for the free development of
all.”
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
1830: Revolution in France
In
1830, the government of France was composed of four parties of
different ideals: the Republicans, Constitutionalist, Royalists and
the Bonapartists. King Charles X, who was last of the Bourbon
monarchy, with his fellow Ultra Royalists attempted to return the
government to the ancient regime which provoked the Chamber of
Deputies led by middle-class liberals who wanted a voice in the
government. Charles
along with his government, attempted to dissolve the Chamber of
Deputies who rejected his proposal through censorship of the press
when the liberals pronounced their refusal in the famous newspaper Le
Constitutionnel,
but the Chamber objected violently and Charles withdrew the attempt
of dispersion.
Preceding
the new elections was the
July
Revolution that took place 26-19 July between the liberalists and
Charles' government. In the July 1830 elections, the middle-class
liberals were helped by influential French diplomat Talleyrand and
aristocrat and miliary officer Lafayette in enthroning Louis-Philippe
who appealed in the bourgeois constituency which made him King .
Louis-Phillipe was called the Bourgeois King.
1830 – 1831: Uprisings in Poland
The
Polish uprising began on 29th
November of 1830 wherein a secret military society appeared in
Warsaw. Tradesmen and workers took the weaponries, along the Polish
military units backed the insurgents and seized Warsaw on the 30th.
The Russian troops left the city and the whole of Kingdom of Poland
in early December. On December 5, arictocrat noble General Chlopicki
took over as dictator and negotiated with Tsar Nicholas I and
sabotaged military plans in hopes of ending the uprising – however
all of his attempts were rejected which caused his fall on January
18, 1831. On December 1830, The Patriotic Society was established and
represented radical-democratic camp and on January 25, 1831 – seven
days after the fall of Chlopicki – they dethroned Polish Tsar
Nicholas I.
The insurgents
barricaded the tsarist army on February 25 1831. By March to April
the Polish troops complicated the position of the tsarist troops. The
Polish Army's commander narrowed the chances of the insurgents, but
lost complete command after a defeat on May 26. In vain of help, the
national government even offered the vacant throne to neighboring
countries. On 1831 June 29 and August 15, antirevolutionary policies
evoked popular movement in Warsaw and even after excution of many
traitors, the uprising remained even without leadership. On September
6, the government gave up Warsaw when tsarist troops took over;
surrender was signed the next night. The uprising was cruelly
suppressed and the Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland of 1815.
1831, 1834: Uprising in Lyons Weavers in France
The 1831 uprising
began on November when the manufacturers objected against the
high-rate imposition for the silk-weaving workers, despite these
changes being agreed upon by the owners and weavers. The weaving
workers who rebelled cried, “Live working, or die fighting!” On
December 1 – 3, the uprising was overpowered by the stronger
military units that enetered Lyon.
On February 1834,
it was agreed by the owners of manufactures that the workers wages
were too high after it was pointed out by the Interior Minster the
previous year; the workers went on a strike. April 9 of the same
year began the uprising of Lyon proletariats, for the second time,
because the Chamber of Deputies (lower house) proposed and approved
a bill wherein associations of workers and retaliating authorities
against the February strike. The United Committee, headed by
Lagrange, led the rebellion aiming to achieve democratic freedoms and
implementing rights for workers. After six days, the uprising was
cruelly suppressed because the rebels lacked organization and were
still inferior to the forces of the government military.
1844: Silesian Weavers Uprising
The first major
workers' uprising in Germany was on 1844 June 4 to 6 wherein there
was a sharp cut on the Silesian weavers' wages – quite similar to
the case of the 1834 Silk-weavers uprising in Lyon. In this case, the
weavers' were under two exploiters: the capitalists and landlords,
and prior to the uprising was the suffering of the weavers for bad
condition especially in competition with British machineries which
made them more desperate. The rebels began with the destruction of
manufacturer Zwanziger's properties who was hated by the workers, and
moved on to neighborhood settlements.
Even though the
rebellion attack was unplanned, the uprising showed that they had
finally understood their class and that they were against capitalism
which was one of those who exploited them. The revolt greatly
influenced the awareness on the working-class or the proletariats.
The young Karl Marx held fascination on this uprising because it was one of the earliest open warfare between the proletariat and the bourgeois. As well, Friedrich Engels pointed out that the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie was significant among the histories of Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment