It is important to note, as J.B. Bury points out in his Introduction to ‘The Idea of Progress’, that progress involves a ‘synthesis of the past and a prophecy of the future’ which is based on an ‘interpretation of history’. We must therefore look at these philosophers interpretations of history to understand how their view of past events has shaped their theory of the future and future progression in society.
Engels called his and Marx philosophy of history ‘the law of development of human history’. View of world history: The first premise of world history is the existence of human beings. The second is the distinguishing factor of human beings from animals which, in Marx and Engels opinion, is subsistence. Unlike Hegel who believed that is the single ‘Mind’, from which all humans are manifestations of, that differentiates humans from animals, or “species being” as Marx describes it, and unlike Feurbach who believes that it is the fact that we are conscious of our species, Marx and Engels believe that “productive life…..is species life”. They believe that whilst animals produce to satisfy immediate needs, human beings produce free of any immediate needs and to Universal standards. And therefore thirdly by producing these means of subsistence we produce our material lives.
The three divisions: In Marx and Engels’ view there are three main divisions of society that change in accordance with social and economic progress; productive forces, relations of production and determination of superstructure. For Marx and Engels the social relations and ‘intercourse’ between people is determined by the productive forces. For example the technology, machinery and general empirical advances of a certain time in history determine the division of labour and social relations. These social relations then are the foundations on which a superstructure is established. This superstructure refers to the religion, beliefs, politics and morality of that certain period of time. In their ‘German Ideology’ Marx and Engels set out examples taken from history to illustrate and use as evidence for this theory that productive forces are the initial starting point on which a whole epoch and era of history builds itself. The authors explain that during the Feudal era the productive forces where developed to a stage of manual power. The relations built upon these forces were therefore Lords and Serfs (which make up the economic structure). The superstructure influenced by these relations were the more authoritarian religion with a morality based on loyalty, obedience and sense of duty. Then the productive forces changed when the steam mill was invented. With current social relations the production of the steam mill was not sufficient; large factories and labourers were needed to produce the most sufficient outcome. The previous relation of Lord and Serf breaks down and becomes the relation of the Capitalist and employee. The superstructure therefore also changes into freedom of religious conscience, a right to disposable property, egoism and competitiveness.
When looking at Mill’s philosophy of history it is obvious that it is very unlike to that of Marx and Engels. The materialist’s philosophy of history seems to be tracing the different eras with view to material and economic factors (such as machinery and technology) whereas Mill traces history in terms of democracy and freedom as he is interested in ‘the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual’. Mill lays out, in Chapter 1 of On Liberty, what he believes were the four stages of social development. The earliest stage is that when ‘Liberty meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers’; therefore the era of history when society had to fight against despotism in order to gain some freedom over their lives. During this stage society was allowed to obtain certain ‘political liberties or rights’, which, if infringed by the rulers, was acceptable to a justified ‘general rebellion’. Later ‘constitutional checks’ were used where political power was divided so groups of rulers were set against one another to enforce justice. This secures the community from political oppression but does not, as J.S Mill wishes to gain, have any regard for individual spontaneity. The second stage was the struggle between different political parties in their abilities to gain power. This created a new demand for elective and temporary power which meant that ‘the rulers should be identified with the people; that their interest and will should be the interest and will of the nation’. However once again there is no individual spontaneity. The third stage is that of the government being controlled by the popular majority where ‘the will of the people…means the will of the most numerous or most active part of the people; the majority.’ This doctrine still does not recognise the rightful freedom of the individual, as although limitations are placed on the legal authority of government, so as to not infringe certain liberties, there is no limit to the majority interference on certain issues and opinion which should be a matter of choice but are sometimes stigmatized by the majority view. The fourth stage is the most problematic for Mill. He is concerned with the way in which technological improvements and communication means that the popular majority has gained power and therefore, by ways other than legal punishment, wishes to make everyone conform to its opinions and way of life. Mill is therefore concerned that this forced opinion of the majority, and as he expresses it the ‘tyranny of the majority’, will produce a lack of progress as people will conform to certain views and ideas that are not necessarily true. To understand further about Mill’s philosophy of economic and social progress it is fundamental to acknowledge his understanding of what human nature is so we are thus relating his theory of progress directly to those whom progress is vital; the people.
Mill was a logician, logic being a theory invented by Aristotle to understand what follows what and whether one must accept the conclusion if he does not accept the premises. This is important as in his book titles ‘Of the Logic of the Moral Sciences’ he clearly uses logic and reason to define his view of human nature. Before Mill wrote this work he was strongly influenced by his father, James Mill, who believed that self-interest was the basic motive of human nature and therefore only democracy can protect people from the selfish behaviour of rulers. However, when his father died Mill began to believe that human nature was not permanent and unchanging but was extremely modifiable. Therefore to understand about progress we can look into history and make objective views about how human nature shapes the world but we must also be aware that human nature is constantly changing and therefore no one epoch or country has the same behavioural patterns as another. In a review the critic Macaulay objected to this theory he believed that ‘it is utterly impossible to deduce the science of government from the principles of human nature’ we must instead ‘observe the present state of the world – by assiduously studying the history of past ages… by generalising with judgement and diffidence’. This view clearly echoes the Marxist and Engelian philosophy of history where by studying the different epochs of society generalisations about the material world have been made and they have therefore established from this past information their teleological views and pre-determinist ideas.
Mill believes that although there are underlying principles of human nature they are then overlaid by acquired characteristics. There are therefore principles about these original characteristics followed by principles about the acquired characteristics which lead to an understanding of the principles about how someone with certain characteristics will behave. Mill believes that instead of generalising from experience of dictators we should analyse the characteristic of the people that played an active part in history and analyse the changes that their characters underwent in the process. By doing this we will develop our understanding of human nature. Although we can understand a certain amount about progress and human nature through generalisations that we have, occurring through our understanding of human history, we must also be aware that we should apply what we know about circumstance and character and therefore not take for granted a dictator’s characteristics as each leader of despotism is different. The historical generalisations that we make are historically relative – they hold only in relation to one specific time period. He calls these generalisations ‘empirical laws’ as we know they are generally true but must be prepared at all times to accept that they will not be in some circumstances. Economists ‘draw conclusions from the elements of our state of society, and apply them to other states in which many of the elements are not the same’ and in doing so the economy suffers as we have not taking into account this modifiable human nature. For example the failure of socialism in Eastern Europe is relative to that specific time and culture, this form of equality may not fail in the future and we must understand why it failed for humanity to develop towards betterment; ‘unless two societies could be alike in all the circumastances…..no cause will produce exactly the same effects in both’.
J.S. Mill clearly states that original human nature is buried under layers of historically acquired characteristics: ‘’The influence exercised over each generation by the generations preceding it becomes…more and more preponderant over all other influences….what we now are and do is in very small degree the result of universal circumstances of the human race…but mainly of the qualities produced in us by the whole previous history of humanity’. Therefore political science depends on human nature as modifiable, as modified by human history. In conclusion to studying progress, through generalisations of history when assessing human nature, it is important to understand that it is not possible to draw conclusions from history directly but we can use it to test and reform social science.
For Mill, human nature is a very important element of progress. In his autobiography he explains that On Liberty is the declaration of ‘the importance, to man and society, of a large variety in types of character, and in giving full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions’. He believes that freedom of conscience is ‘a natural and absolute right’ and that once human nature is free from the tyranny of the majority society will be able to progress towards a utilitarian world of perfectibility. He states in Liberty that ‘desires and impulses are as much a part of a perfect human being, as beliefs and restraints’. We therefore should not deny our true natural impulses as desires but understand that there is dialectic of well-being thus we need not only our inclinations but also restraint so that we are ‘properly balanced’. If we don’t allow are impulses to show then we cannot restrain them as desire is the immediate expression of personal will and true self control is the relationship between this desire and personal restraint.
Our human nature can only express itself in certain liberal environments and this is why Mill sees humanity as having a ‘proper condition’ that is defined by liberty and will help us to progress as individuals. Humanity as a whole will benefit if individuals are free to experiment with their lives. Each person makes choices where there is competition between alternatives – these alternatives serve as a purpose in the development of humanity. For Mill experiments of human life are ‘useful’. Here he is applying utility to the question of individual choice as he believes that the ‘Perfect human being’ is the fullest possible expression of every side of our nature, within the limits of harm to others.
Like Mill, Marx and Engels rejected the idea that there was a fixed human nature which exists independently on society that human beings live in. They did not reject idea of human nature itself but believed that the need to labour on nature to satisfy human needs was the only consistent feature of all human societies it is the ‘everlasting nature-imposed condition of human existence’. Fundamental human nature can be defined by distinguishing the labour of animal and man. Marx and Engels believe that this labour of humans is distinguished to that of animals because we have consciousness. In ‘Capitol’ there is a famous description of this distinction; ‘what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement’. From this theory of human nature we can conclude that we have history whereas animals do not, we act on nature and build on successes to develop new ways of producing things we need. Ernst Fisher in ‘How to read Karl Marx’ expands on this point by writing ‘The species nature of animal is an eternal repetition, that of man is transformation, development and change’. Marx explains in Capitol that ‘By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature’. This can be relates to Mill’s relativist view of human nature that modifies itself in the different eras of society and is constantly changing. For Marx and Engel the labourer creates and moulds the world that he lives in and stimulates himself to create, this want to create is his fundamental human nature and can be universalised and seen in all areas of human existence. Mans capacity for conscious labour is called his ‘species-being’. It is explained that our species-being is also a social being. We enter into relations, even if we deem them unsatisfactory, as we have to work together; ‘Society does not consist of individuals; it expresses the sum connections and relationships in which individuals find themselves’. Humanity relates to the physical labour and through this labour humanity develops. Theit philosophy of human nature clearly states that labour is the source of human beings. This view, once again, puts a clear emphasis on progress as a material force, which we, humans, instigate and drive forward because of our natural ability and want to create.
It is explained in ‘The German Ideology’ that this development of productive forces gave rise to class society from which a class emerged where it was possible for people to live from control of labour over others. Therefore the majority of society lost control of their labour and this loss of control leads onto an essential element in Marx and Engels view of progress; the rise of alienation. Ernst Fischer explains the chief notions and ideas behind alienation ‘Every achievement opens the door to unconquered territory…..But when labour is destructive…undertaken under coercion…..when it means the withering, not the flowering, of man’s physical and intellectual potential, then labour is a denial of its own principle of man.’
According to Marx and Engels alienation is stunting our progress as the economics of society prohibits social relations. The idea of alienation was not new. Hegel’s believed that the problems of alienation were rooted in the single mind, people not understanding that they are united by this single entity. Feurbach took a religious approach stating that the more man attributes to God the less he retains in himself and for him alienation is rooted in religion. Marx and Engels believed that alienation is rooted in economics and money. They explain that the history of human action has shaped the modern world and therefore we will shape the future and can shape it free from Capitalism and therefore without alienation. In an essay that Marx wrote, titled ‘On the Jewish Question’ he explains that ‘Money is the alienated essence of man’s labour and life, and this alien essence dominates him as he worships it’. Therefore economic life, not religion as Feurbach suggested, is the chief form of human alienation as ‘Money is the barrier to human freedom’. What is wrong with the present condition of humanity is that economics is the chief form of alienation and material force is needed to liberate humanity from this domination.
The alienation that has occurred means that the worker has become a commodity, an article of commerce, profit and convenience. If the supply of workers is greater than demand of the produce then wages drop, people starve so the wages are always kept low. Capitalists build wealth through the labour of their workers. This wealth is put into creating bigger factories that increase the division of labour as the self-employed who run smaller businesses are forced to become labourers under capitalist rule as they cannot compete; they sell themselves which results in competition being greater and therefore wages are lowered further. Marx believes that there has been a reduction of the greater part of mankind to ‘abstract labour’ where we earn a wage instead of working to gain objects for our own personal use. In Marx’s ‘Alienated labour’ manuscripts he states that ‘The more the worker exerts himself, the more powerful becomes the alien objective world which he fashions himself’. This therefore means that ‘the less there is that belongs to him’ and ‘his work becomes an object of external existence’.
Conditions of alienation are found in private property, competition, greed and greed. Marx and Engels see alienation as a necessary but temporary stage in the evolution of mankind. It is important to note here that both of these materialist philosophers were pre-determinist and therefore saw epochs of history as necessary as it was leading towards a communist revolution. Their theory of alienation reveals the human activity that lies behind impersonal forces and domination of society. In Feudal society humans had not developed means to control the natural world, to abolish famine and fight disease there were ‘limited relations between man and labour’ (9). Land was the key source of production and men saw themselves not as individuals but in relation to land which was dependent on inheritance and blood lines. Feudal Lords and church officials took what they want from peasants by force and thus Alienation arose from three factors; the low level of productive forces, human subordination to land and the domination of the ruling class. However the one positive side to this alienation is that they remained in possession of about 50-70% of their output of labour. There were social relationships of subordination and domination which created a type of alienation but these relations were still between individuals, unlike the bourgeoisie society. Marx says, in ‘Capitol’, that in the Feudal times ‘mutual personal relations…[were]…not disguised under the shape of social relations between the products of labour’.
However in the bourgeoisie society everything is sold and bought for money; ‘selling is the practice of alienation’ (14). The majority are denied complete access to means of production and subsistence and therefore there was a class of landless labourers who had to submit to a new form of exploitation; wage labour ‘which was a ‘fundamental change in the relations between men, instruments of production and the materials of production’ (15). Men became separated from the product of their labour. They could no longer enjoy the right to dispose of what they produced how they chose. There is also a further division in labour as men have to specialise in one aspect of work which does not fill potential or realise aspects of human power. Harry Braverman, writes about the consequences of this division of labour: 'While the social division of labour subdivides society, the detailed division of labour subdivides humans’ Workers become dependent on capitalists who own means of production. It is impossible for workers to escape as they would their jobs and then their lives. Labour has therefore become forced labour. As Marx puts it ‘labour is external to the worker, does not belong to his essential being…… he feels miserable and not happy, does not develop free mental and physical energy, but mortifies his flesh and ruins his mind….. the worker feels himself only when he is not working’ (23)
