How useful is Marx's theory of historical materialism to the understanding of the development of capitalism?

Lisa Flavell Sociology

How useful is Marx’s theory of historical materialism to the understanding of the development of capitalism.

The Marxist movement begins by considering the formerly accepted idealistic perception of history and world development. Hegelianism, which follows from its principal the belief in the rule of concepts, dominance of religion and of a universal principle within the existing world, achieves only, as Marx would say, thoroughly one-sided ‘elucidations of Christianity from the point of view of religious history’ and entirely fails to explain the actual empirical reality of history and human development. Rather history itself can only be understood when examining, analogously, the historical development of material production and reciprocally that the development of society can only be understood within the context of history. This follows from the very basic conception that the writings of history begin with the existence of man, the pre-conditions for mans existence depend upon his material activities in relation to his natural surroundings. In order for human survival, man must first produce his own physical means of subsistence, it follows therefore that human history originates from mans material production. Mans means of subsistence is dependant upon the natural conditions of his environment, of which he must interact with and reproduce. This definite and essential form of activity, known as the mode of production, is ‘a definite mode of life. As individuals…what they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends upon the material conditions determining their production.’. Concepts, such as language and religion (of which idealism has given most emphasis), are only the consequence of productive activity. Relations between individuals are determined by this production. The progress of productive activity therefore signifies the progress of human history as the level of development of the productive forces therefore determines the progress of society. ‘The multitude of productive forces accessible to men determines the nature of society, hence the “history of humanity” must always be studied in relation to the history of industry and exchange’.

The progress of human society then, begins with the study of economics. Marx’s theory of historical materialism examines history as developing through a number of definite stages of economic progress or modes of production. To understand these various stages of development, it is central to first consider the materialist methodology used to develop historical materialism. As already established, the first historical act is the production of the means to satisfy mans needs, the second leads to man acquiring new needs, and the third act is mans entrance into relations of procreation, hence; the family. These were originally the only social relations, with production of life creating a mode of co-operation (between members of family) and a division of labour. These social relations change as increased needs create new relations and increased population, new needs. Determined by their needs and their mode of production, exists from the very start purely materialistic relations between men according to their relationship to nature and the means of production. From the necessity of these material relations arise all other forms of intercourse between men, beginning with language. Even consciousness is from the very beginning a social product, as according to Marx all conceptual thought only arises from mans relation to nature and the absolute necessity to form social relations with others. ‘It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness’ Mans consciousness of the necessity of associating with other individuals is the beginnings of social life. This consciousness further develops through increased productivity, the increase of needs and fundamentally the increase of population, and soon is able to ‘emancipate itself from the world, proceeding to the formation of “pure” theory, theology, philosophy, ethics, etc’ All of which are based upon the material economic relations of production. The mode of production within society conditions all the social, political and intellectual life processes. This is a central aspect the Marxist theory; the mode of production determines the general character of all other social institutions and processes. It is the economic system that is the chief determinant of all other aspects of society. Whenever social change occurs it is the result of a change in the productive forces. The relations of production have changed because a more efficient development of productive forces has been discovered, a new mode of production.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The first significant mode of production within historical materialism began with the Neolithic revolution. For the first time people began to intervene in the process of nature in order to satisfy their needs; seeds were planted, farms were built, tools were created, etc. For a while, social relations largely remained within the family however with the creation of private property, class distinction and subsequently of the legitimising State, social relations now arose from personal dependence. Surplus labour was forced from slaves, to produce for others. People now no longer shared the means of production and subsistence, which resulted in a class system consisting of slaves, a poor peasantry and a powerful aristocracy. This slave-based economic system meant however that slaves had to be captured and produced continually, especially considering such a high death rate. This was not a simple task and as the rate of conquest of newfound lands slowed, so did the flow of new slaves. This caused the price of slaves to rise, and made this economic system increasingly obsolete. A new mode of production emerged as more economically efficient, a feudal system. Under feudalism, former slaves were made peasants or serfs and given a plot of land by the landlord. Serfs produced enough to satisfy their own survival needs and then were required to pay a surplus portion to the ruling class (notably barely indistinguishable from the previous slavery stage). There remained essentially three classes; the nobility, the clergy and the peasants. Primitive agricultural communities divided as slavery and then feudalism dominated this ‘natural economy’ . However as with all stages of development, feudalism eventually gave way to a superior economic system. Capitalism.

This second stage (or mode of production) begins as artisanal production which evolves into a much more developed form of capitalism. With large demographic movement from country to town the volume of trade expanded, this extended the range of occupations outside agriculture. Urbanisation created the need for an expansion in crafts; this increased the number of merchants and business transactions, while generating a need for more bankers, lawyers, brokers, etc. There began a long and gradual process of transition where social relations based on personal exchange where replaced by impersonal capitalist relations based on the market. Relations of exchange became dependant upon a monetary system. Increase in the division of labour meant people no longer had direct access to the means of production and subsistence. The modern peasant, now a ‘capital-less’ wage earner, is formally ‘free’ to change employers being no longer tied to the land and a feudal lord, however by necessity must sell his labour in order to survive, he relies on earning capital to buy from others. Labour becomes a commodity dependant on the market, the only commodity a wage earner has to sell. The owners of the means of production, the capitalist class, also control the means of distribution and exchange. It can retain its labour no longer through a captive labour force, but by dependency upon the means of wages it is willing to pay. This property-less ‘free’ labour force forms a class, the proletariat. As demand grew, manufacture grew and with manufacture, competition and so on, capitalism greatly expanded and evolved at a global level. This epoch of historical development is epitomised by the industrial revolution, a process that varied in length and style across the nations of Europe. The industrial revolution saw the means of production concentrated around a central source of power. Technological innovations coupled with the rapid expansion in manufacture had promoted the centralisation of production in a number of industries. In England (late 17th century) this originally took the form of textile manufacturing. Demand of manufactured products began to outgrow the productive forces, thus motivating development of big industry. The level of investment needed for such expensive factory-style means of production saw the emergence of the big bourgeoisie; the industrial bourgeoisie class of wealthy capitalists who could afford to invest in such means of production. The industrial revolution saw a further increase in the division of labour and relations to the means of production to the extent in which nobody is self-sufficient. Universal competition and the development of machinery meant that individuals could be forced to strain excessively; their speed becomes determined by a central source of power, rather than personal discretion. All natural relationships resolve into monetary relationships, crafts are destroyed replaced by an automatic system where labour consists of a repetitive menial task reducing any independence gained through a learned skill or craft. In Britain by the end of the 19th century, institutions had been reformed in accordance to the accepted supremacy of the market forces, political and social environments were constructed to promote the interests of the bourgeoisie. The institutions of the state had come to represent the interests of trade, industry and private capital. The rise of capitalism and the process of modernisation significantly varied across Europe, yet Marx maintains that these outlined stages or epochs of historical development form an inevitable process, of which all societies will progress.

As part of this inevitable process of historical development follows a final epoch through which society will progress. Marx’ final stage was a transitional period of socialism to the final condition of communism. Throughout each epoch of social change the ruling class has extracted a surplus value from an exploited working class of which it appropriated wealth and where possible made profit through the accumulation of private capital (whether that be through landed property or mobile capital). Marx believed that people would become demystified by the illusions perpetuated by the institutions of the state, that is in dominant ideologies, religion, politics, legal systems, education, media and all other counterparts of the superstructure. The proletariat would become conscious of its exploitation, a class ‘for itself’, aware of its economic relations to a ruling class that maintains its increasing wealth and profit form the surplus value extracted from themselves, the workers. Class-consciousness or enlightenment allows the bourgeoisie to be overthrown and the means of production to be returned from the hands of the rich few to the many.

Historical materialism and the development of industrial capitalist societies is a very lengthy and complex process. Not all features expressed are mutually exclusive across nations, only typical, emphasising the fundamental changes that are involved in the transition from one society to another. It is agreed however that in industrialist capitalist societies, market transactions play the predominant economic role. It is also important to emphasise that the industrialisation process entails not only simple changes in the economy and the division of labour, but much broader transformations such as urbanisation, secularisation, the emergence of democracy and a generally more mobile society, etc. This process of modernisation and industrialisation express an extremely complex process of interrelations, between a fundamental economic change and these wider social processes. Marx cites lengthy historical analysis and statistics to reinforce his theory and to emphasis that the superstructure of any society is shaped by the economic base and mode of production at that time. Marx stresses that any social change is only the result of a fundamental economic change, as a new mode of production is introduced to society, so follows new ideologies, institutions, politics, etc which all serve to strengthen, support and legitimise the new mode and relations of production.

For example, the emergence of capitalism saw too the emergence of a new religion, a new ideological ethic of Protestantism. Protestantism taught for the first time of ascetic accumulation of wealth. Prior to this modern era, accumulation of wealth had characteristically manifested itself in lavish projects, ostentatious buildings and monuments etc, in other words landed property or capital. Bourgeoisie accumulation on the other hand insists on the frugality of consumption, instead wealth should be ploughed back into the means of production as to maximise personal profit. Capitalist activity is reformed by an ethos of restraint, diligence and prudence, continual accumulation of profit becomes an end in itself. Luxury items, extravagance, idleness, time-wasting etc, were attributed to the machinations of Satan. The protestant church preached of salvation only through systematic self-control and intense worldly capitalist activities. Wealth was to become the new basis of interpreting ones relationship with God. The protestant businessman acquired a ‘calling’ to accumulate profit through business, while restrictions on his ability to spend it allowed for little option but to reinvest it to further and continually accumulate profit. Religious success and salvation now relied directly upon economic success. This argument is evident in the writings of bourgeoisie sociologist Max Weber in the controversial ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’, where Weber cites statistical evidence emphasising the disproportional representation of Protestants in the ownership of capital, higher management and the upper grades of skilled labour. Capitalist activity increased around Europe at the same time Protestantism began to dominant commercial cities. These beliefs and values that helped promote such industrial capitalism were encouraged by the bourgeoisie who economically stood to gain from the increase of business. This meritocracy work ethic that is so common in our modern society, was completely absent from previous stages of history. In feudal society for example, the peasantry who were continually forced to work hard would be completely alien to the conception that hard work could bring success in life. As social positions were ascribed, no notion of individual effort could be justified. Instead the clergy preached that peasants had to endure a life of servitude in hope for salvation after death, an ideology that best suited the reinforcement of the present mode of production and sustained the power and wealth of the ruling class, the aristocracy. Similarly today we see the dominant religious ideologies are ideologies that reiterate a capitalist value ethic, these values have come to dominant all social and economic life.

Another more current example of economic supremacy in our modern society is the current and enduring persecution of Middle Eastern countries in the West’s ‘War on Terror’. America and it allies have promoted such a war as necessary in the fight to spread freedom and democracy throughout the globe. Apparently the American President has a mandate to overthrow any dictatorships that repress its people and promote ‘evil ideologies’, these being ideologies of anti-capitalism. In reality however there is a more fundamental economic nature for the war in Iraq. In 2003, just before the bombing of Baghdad, the US was facing its most chronic shortages in oil stocks for 27 years. Overthrowing its oil-rich opponents of war (having the worlds second largest reserves supply) would secure control over such a vast source of oil at comparatively cheap prices, boosting economy and giving the U.S and Britain enormous control over the oil market (previously controlled by the Iraqi ruler; Sadaam). Saddam Hussein (who despised America and its capitalist values) had offered lucrative oil contracts to companies from France, China, India, Indonesia and Russia. Only the oil majors based in Britain and America did not have access to Iraqi contracts. This displays the unspoken economic aim of military action in Iraq. The political advocates of the war in America, the Bush administration, also displayed personal objectives for such a war, as many were, and are, evidently linked to major oil companies looking to hugely profit from Middle-Eastern contracts. The Under Secretary at the US Department of Commerce openly declared that war ‘would open up the spigot of Iraqi oil which certainly would have a profound effect in terms of the performance of the world economy for those countries that are manufacturers and oil consumers’. The present Bush administration is a great advocate of big business, with many of its members, including the President, the Vice-President (Dick Cheney), the Secretary of State (Condeleezza Rice) and many others, being directly linked to the oil giants of America. Big Business in America is now promoted with tax breaks for companies, business grants and initiatives, all covered at the expense of the environment, foreign aid, health care and the working class.

This materialist conception of historical development has not gone with out considerable criticism. One of the arguments that many of his critics are quick to deliver is that history has failed to substantiate Marx’s views on the direction of social change. There has been no proletariat revolution as Marx predicted, it seems in fact that class conflict is far from growing in intensity, but instead becoming increasingly institutionalised into an advancing capitalist society. Societies have shown no indication of capitalism ever slowing, instead quite the contrary, with big business and globalised commercialism expanding at an insistent rate. Marx’s theory has also been heavily criticised as ideal-typical in its mono-causal nature, Marx has been accused (particularly by Weber and Popper) of illuminating particular specific sequences of historical development. Marxists would completely contend this argument as a misconception, Marx and his followers spent much time discussing and accounting for the many other factors in society that affect social change, considered within the superstructure, these are however shaped and conditioned by the economic base. It is also apparent that all sociologists and historians can be accused of generalising in terms of selecting and highlighting specific evidence that corresponds with their theoretical approach. Marx’s theory has been criticised as deterministic and over-simplified in his attributing an overall direction to the movement of history, but again this has been argued as a misinterpretation of Marxism, which consists of a complex and detailed account of the process of the natural tendency to develop the means of production and social life. Although Marx gave priority to economic factors, they form only one aspect of the dialect of history. Marx was strongly adamant of rejecting a simplistic, one directional view of causation of which many of his most cynical critics liked to suggest.

It is clear that Marx provides a strong theory concerning the origins and historical development of capitalism. However, when considering such an issue from a Marxist point of view, it is important to emphasise another distinction concerning the differing ways of interpreting Marx’s theory of historical materialism. Within the movement of Marxism exist economic Marxists who wholly believe in the fundamentality of the economic system in determining social life and social change within a society. This in its most extreme form can be interpreted as quite a crude perception of history that sees causality solely in terms of economic forces. On the other hand there are neo-Marxism movements consisting of dialectal or humanist Marxists, who give more consideration to factors within the superstructure, emphasising human agency in the process social change. In my view it is important that Marx’s theory is not interpreted in a mechanical form, perhaps a more humanistic approach offers a more pragmatic perspective of human involvement in social change. After all society only exists following the relations of men and social change cannot occur without the activities of men. “History does nothing, it ‘possesses no immense wealth’, it ‘wages no battles’. It is man, real living man, that does all that, that possesses and fights; ‘history’ is not a person apart, using man for means of its own particular aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims.” It is important to get beyond the misconception of Marxism that only economic factors produce social change, as both he and Engels fought vigorously against such allegations. Marx believed that people made their own history but in the context of definite circumstances that are independent of they’re choosing. I would agree with the humanist J Harrison (1978) that the great value of historical materialism is its ‘ability to explain those circumstance and thereby to allow people to shape the historical process in a conscious and effective manner.’ I believe that Marx offers a most credible and detailed account of the origins of capitalism and its development, it is important however to give consideration to the criticisms and the differing interpretations of Marx’s work in response, which when integrated provide a more well-rounded understanding of our modern capitalistic society and its historical development.

Bibliography

Marx, K., Engels, F (1846) The German Ideology, Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook Progress Publishers: Germany.

Marx, K., Engels, F (1859) Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy: The Materialist Conception of History Progress Publishers: Moscow.

Marx, K., Engels, F (????) The Holy Formity (Letters??) Reference 8

Waddington, K (1974) Outlines of a Marxist Philosophy Laurence & Wishart: London.

Harrison, J (1978) Marxist Economics for Socialists: Historical Materialism London.

Hobsbawm, E, J (1998) On History Marx and History: Chapter 11.

Giddens, A (1970) Marx, Weber, and the Development of Capitalism. Sociology: Vol 4

Theobald, R (1994) Understanding Industrial Society: Capitalism and Industrialism, Chapter 3 MacMillan: London.

Websites: http://observer.guardian.co.uk

www.sociologyonline.co.uk

K, Marx., F, Engels (1846) The German Ideology Feuerbach pg41 Progress Publishers: Germany

K, Marx., F, Engels (1846) The German Ideology, Feuerbach pg42 Progress Publishers: Germany

K, Marx., F, Engels (1846) The German Ideology, Part 1: Feuerbach pg50 Progress Publishers: Germany

K, Marx., F, Engels (1859) Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy: The Materialistic Conception of History

K, Marx., F, Engels (1846) The German Ideology,Feuerbach pg52 Progress Publishers: Germany

Marx referred to the epoch of ‘natural economy’ as including Ancient slave societies of Roman dominion (4000BC-500AD) and Feudal societies (500-1500) Harrison, J (1978)

Islam, F., Paton, Walsh, N. (Sun Jan 26, 2003) ‘US Buys up Iraqi Oil to Stave Crisis’ The Observer: Special Reports http://observer.guardian.co.uk

Marx and Engels: The Holy Formity (quote 4) reference:????

Harrison, J. (1978) Marxist Economics for Socialists: Historical Materialism pg: 19-20