Historical materialism
Socialist Outlook magazine1980sPhil HearseScanned print read by OCR, and not yet proofread: expect run-together words, dropped letters and, where a piece began partway down a page, a few lines of its neighbour. The printed page is the authority.
THEORY
AS I CS
What is
Karl Word
MARX AND ENGELS never left a syste- ment. matic account of their 'materialist view of history'. Scattered throughout their writings however, are dozens of partial explanations. Above all, Marx and En- gels used historical materialism as the basis of their analysis of society, indeed it is the bedrock of their theory. How does historical materialism differ from other views of history and human socie- ty?
For some, non-marxist, historians hi- story is just a random series of events. For others it is the doings of 'great men'. For Marx, however, history can be un- derstood: by analysing the basic struc- ture of society; the contending forces in society; and looking at the dynamics of change. History is not random or acci- dental, but has discernable causes and definite laws determining its develop-
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK noó March/April 1988
ment.
Which basic concepts did Marx use to analyse historical development and show how society 'works'? The first concept is that of production, as the basis of all human society. This is common sense. Unlike animals, humanity has to pro- duce, to labour, to ensure its continued survival. Basic needs like clothes and often even food cannot just be found lying about in the open air. They have to be made or farmed. Humanity has to produce to stay alive.
Furthermore, in order to produce its livelihood, says Marx, the human race has to labour not as individuals but collectively. We have to organise a system of production, and the way society does that determines what type of society it is. In one of the most famous passages in Marx's writing he explains it like this:
Karl Marx: he and Frederick Engels
never left a systematic account of
their 'materialist view of history'
'In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations which are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which raises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social conscious- ness'.
Here Marx is saying that the produc- tion process, and the social relations of production — those between lord and serf, boss and worker and so on - are the 'real foundation' of society which determine what kind of society it is and how it works.
Apologists for capitalism pretend that 'society' has always been more or less the same, and always will be - it just 37
38
gets more complex and wealthier. They argue that the same 'human nature' with its movitations of acquisitiveness, private property and greed always pre- dominates. Marx refuted this by show- ing that many different types of society had existed, capitalism was just one of them, a distinct, but transitory, phase in human development.
Capitalism is one of a series of human societies divided into social classes. But in earlier societies a form of 'primitive communism' existed where society was not divided between ruler and ruled, exploiter and exploited.
The emergence of classes in society coincides with a change in human socie- ty about 6,000 years ago — the so-called 'neolithic revolution'. This revolution involved the abandonment of wandering and hunting tribes, and the transition to settled communities based on stable agriculture and the domestication of animals.
Under these conditions, for the first time society created a surplus of what was needed just to survive and re- produce itself. A privileged class deve- loped which consumed the surplus. Exactly how, however, is still a subject of controversy. Since then, however, most societies have been divided into classes, with a wealthy class which consumes or at least controls the economic surplus, and is usually therefore the ruling class.
The emergence of class society shows something quite fundamental to Marx'si theory: 'social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring nero pro- ductive forces men change their mode of produc- tion; and in changing their mode of production, in changing their way of earning a living, they change all their social relations. The handmill gives you a society with the feudal lord; the steam mill society with the industrial capital- ist'
What Marx is saying here (in perhaps an over-simplified way) is that the level of production techniques, and the wealth of society, has an important bearing on the social relations. For example, it is impossible to have capitalism in a society which is so poor that nobody can accu- mulate personal capital. The transition to a capitalist mode of production from the sixteenth century onwards depended on a certain stage of human wealth and production technique.
In the quotes from Marx, there are two concepts vital to historical material- ism. These are the forces of production, the materials of labour like tools, raw ma- terials, factories and the workers them- selves, and secondly the relations of pro- duction, that is the relations between producers and between classes.
The two concepts lead to a third: mode
THEORY
of production. This is the combination of the forces of production and relations of production, which gives a definite and distinct type of society.
The concept of mode of production enables us to categorise and examine different societies. For example contem- porary Britain is quite like contempor- ary France in its basic technique and production relations. But it is quite un- like ancient Rome or medieval Italy. The mode of production in Britain and France today is the same: capitalism. But ancient Rome and medieval Italy were different.
Engels
Marx analysed three main types of class society, each with their own mode of production: slave society (like ancient Rome and Greece); feudalism, the main type of society in the European middle ages; and capitalism, the society based on private ownership of capital and gen- eralised commodity production.
Each of these societies had a different dynamic, a different 'general social ar- rangement'. The arrangement in slave society was compulsory labour by slaves owned by their masters. In capitalism, obviously the basic arrangement is wage labour. Because the 'general social ar- rangement' is different, so is the mode of production.
Marx developed another idea which is central to historical materialism: the dis- tinction between base and superstructure. Simply summed up, for society to work, the political and legal system, and ideo- logy generally has to 'fit' the economic structure of society. The economic 'base' created a 'superstructure' to fit. For example, a capitalist economic system would produce a capitalist legal system. Who can imagine judges who were against private property? It's a ridi- culous proposition. Marx also said 'the ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class'. You just have to open
most newspapers or watch television to realise the dominant ideas are those of the bosses — except in times of acute crisis.
According to Marx then, history has to be understood in terms of the underly- ing forces of historical development. In class-divided society the main social for- ces are social classes. The conflict be- tween these classes is the motor force of history.
But behind the conflict between classes stands a deeper and more pro- found contradiction: between the devel- opment of the forces of production and the relations of production. As Marx says: 'At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or — what is but a legal expression of the same thing — with the property relations ...From forms of development of the productive forces these forms turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution'.
As the wealth and productive techni- que of society develops, the antagonism between the classes intensifies. This struggle ends, according to Marx, in either the victory of one side or 'the mutual ruin of both contending classes'.
Historical materialism is a theory which explains historical development by examining how change occurs through the conflict between the funda- mental forces of production and of social classes. Historical materialism is not a magic tool which avoids the necessity to examine the detail of what happens in history, but it shows the actions of indi- viduals are an expression of a wider background.
As Marx said: 'Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not do it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances ... transmitted from the past'.
Historical materialism shows that capitalism is the product of a specific historical period. It is important to re- member that like other modes of produc- tion it too is not a timeless reality o PHIL HEARSE
Further reading The Communist Manifesto (available in pamphlet form, Moscow or Beijing edi- tion). 'Preface' to the Critique of Political Econ- omy (1858). Available in the Marx and Engels selected works in one volume, Lawrence and Wishart. This collection is really useful for many of the best known works of Marx and Engels and
includes the Communist Manifesto.
The German Ideology, Part I, Lawrence and Wishart. Get the paperback edited and introduced by Chris Arthur.
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK noó March/April 1988
REVIEWS
Inside British
KEN BLACK
spent wit
Ray Hill and Andrew Bell The other face of terror — inside Europe's neo-nazi network, a Grafton paperback original, £3.50.
FOUR YEARS AGO I was amazed to see the face of a leading British fascist appear on the tv screen to announce that for five years he had been working with the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight on a campaign of information gathering and disruption of fascist organisations.
The tv programme, based on secretly recorded interviews with a variety of European fascists, was the culmination of that work, of which this new book is a record.
Ray Hill records his conversion to fascism in the 1960s, his emigration to South Africa in 1969, his break with fascism and the five years he
fascisn
spent with some of the most vicious thugs in Europe.
The most substantial part of the book is an account of the development of British fascism, the relationship between the more 'upfront' nazis and those who seek to hide behind "respectable' racism, the "votes versus boots' debates, the re-emergence of "Strasserite' radicalism - and, last but not least, the commitment of the far right to violence and terrorism.
One of Hill's most amazing revelations is the plot by fascists to attack the 1981 Notting Hill carnival, with the intention of provoking a response from the black community and a massive racial conflict. Hill was able to alert Searchlight and thwart this plot.
Ray Hill was a leading figure in the British Movement, which he helped
destroy through a carefully planned disruption programme. He was later a leading figure in John Tyndall's British National Party. It is a feature of far right groups that membership is fluid and often overlapping. Hill was able to operate in a variety of groupings.
He paints vivid pen pictures of many leading fascists — especially their grossly inflated self-esteem, their back biting, their petty rivalries and faction fighting which helped so much the task of disrupting their organisations.
Many anecdotes reveal a world which is both horrifying and amusing a paranoid world of endless conspiracy and violence.
Hill built up a solid fascist reputation — especially with the young street thugs. He was always ready to make the most rabble rousing speech,
Tyndall's attempt to launch his British National Party as a party of the 'respectable racist right' was sabotaged by Hill making an openly nazi speech at its founding conference — much to Führer Tyndall's discomfort, but to the approval of the British Movement skinheads Hill had brought along
Ray Hill's book gives a unique insight into the workings of the twilight world of British fascism. If you want to know which nazi leader was known as 'the milkman'. which devotes most of his time to looking after his aged mother, what Column 88 is, which nazi martyr was helped through his hunger strikes by Complan — or just why 'an ordinary working man' became a fascist, then this is the book for you
This book makes a valuable contribution to our knowledge
The 'master race' in action: Hill built up his reputation with the young thugs
Carlos Guarita/Reflex
and understanding of