The Materialist Conception of History

international | worker & community struggles and protests | opinion/analysis

Friday September 24, 2010 12:58

by Paddy Hackett

maxanger at live dot ie

The forces of production determine the character of the relations of production.

The Materialist Conception of History
Paddy Hackett

The forces of production determine the character of the ¬relations of production. These social relations of production are the forms by which the forces of production are developed. Under a given mode of production these forms of production change from forms of development to fetters on production. A conflict thereby emerges between the production forces and the production relations. This expresses itself, under capitalism, in the form of economic crises and class struggle. The instability generated by these contradictions can lead to intense class struggle resulting in social revolution. Under capitalism social revolution means communist relations of production replacing capitalist relations of production. Change in the forces of production is the dynamic that drives relations of production and ultimately all other aspects of society. It is this process that gives social being its historical character.
This conflict involves class consciousness. Class consciousness involves a worker’s being conscious that s/he is a member of the class of workers as opposed to the capitalist class. A worker is or is not class conscious. There can be no intermediary position whereby one is partly or quasi class conscious. A worker that is class conscious seeks class struggle and social revolution. Similarly there can no semi class struggle. There is either class struggle or there is not. Class struggle means that the working class is engaged in a struggle with the capitalist class for control and ownership of the forces of production. It is a life and death struggle. It is not a struggle for isolated reforms such as bet-ter medical care etc. The class struggle also takes the form of a theoretical struggle by the working class movement against bourgeois ideology in its many variants. This theoretical struggle between workers and capitalists is inseparable from the more concrete aspects of the struggle. The class struggle assumes an institutional character involving organised forms of the struggle against capital. The communist party or parties and workers’ councils are forms of this anti-capitalist struggle by the working class. There cannot be class struggle in the absence of proletarian forms of organisation.
However the realisation of communist society cannot be utopian. Given the core nature of humans there will be problems even under communist society. Given the Stone Age nature of the human body and brain there will be aspects of human behaviour that will still leave a lot to be desired. There will still be psychopaths and individuals capable of serial killing. Communists don’t accept the Rousseauesque principal that man is born equal and is unequal or corrupt due to the existence of society. For commuinists there are no noble savages.
Much of liberal ideology suggests that men are born equal. By this they mean that each of us is capable of the same achievements given that we are nurtured under identical environments. This means that given identical environments humanity can produce endless Einstein and Newtons. Environment is all and nature is nothing. Even much of the radical left adhere to such an Enlightenment ideology.
However because of the universal benefits of communism behavioural problems will be significantly less than they are now. On the whole the quality of human life will be enormously better.

save preference

Comments (3 of 3)

Engels : The Force Theory of Herr Eugen Dühring

by pat c

Tue Sep 28, 2010 18:08

While searching for anti-war material I found this piece. I think it fits in here. Full text at link.

Engels : The Force Theory of Herr Eugen Dühring

By Thomas Riggins

Chapters two, three and four of Part Two of Anti-Dühring "Political Economy" deal with Dühring's theory that political systems and power are PRIMARY and economic relations are SECONDARY-- both historically and in the present day. Engels says Dühring gives no evidence or arguments in favor of this theory (which he claims is ORIGINAL) but simply asserts it as a given. Engels says this is old hash and has been the way history has been seen since the beginning. The true history of mankind has actually taken place behind the scenes and is the real basis for the pompous doings of the kings and presidents, popes and generals that strut the stage and are memorialized in the history books.

Dühring's idea that all the previous history of mankind is based on man's enslavement of man-- i.e., on force-- and that this is the only way we can explain it is exemplified by his example of Robinson Crusoe and Friday. Crusoe enslaves Friday. But why does he do this? Engels says "only in order that Friday should work for Crusoe's benefit." That is for an ECONOMIC MOTIVE. Dühring has reversed the true relation between political order and economic order and does not see "that force is only the means and that the aim is economic advantage."

@ mike

by V for vendetta

Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:21

Well regarding the basics of having a roof over your head and food and water on the table, I think capitalism is a spectacular failure. It clearly benefits a highly privileged minority at the expense of the majority, generates endless duplication, waste and built in obsolescence in everything it produces for consumption and rapes the earths resources ruthlessly in doing so. Long term it's clearly a losing strategy for humanity.

Whatever your value system, we all need to eat and drink and have shelter. Making us compete for even those basic things instead of cooperating for a common good has created or magnified (or both?) numerous self destructive psychoses and given full reign to inappropriate vestigial behaviours in humanity.

I think it goes far beyond current corrupt top down political systems.

We really need something better before it's too late. I'm not very hopeful personally. I think we are all doomed to be a small side note on the history of this planet sadly along with all the other blameless species who survived and evolved perfectly well alongside our ancestors for millennia only to be made extinct by our insane destructive behaviour.

if we don't have the sense to collectively put the brakes on and reach some sort of equilibrium then we truly deserve to perish in this new planetary easter island scenario we are in the process of creating.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?It...id=50

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful

( as I've said before, why can't pie in the sky be food for thought )

Corrections?

by Mike Novack

Tue Sep 28, 2010 01:26

"Much of liberal ideology suggests that men are born equal. By this they mean that each of us is capable of the same achievements given that we are nurtured under identical environments. This means that given identical environments humanity can produce endless Einstein and Newtons"

Nonsense --- the liberals of the Enlightenment (we are talking about late 18th/early 19th centuries) meant no such thing by "All men are created equal". I suggest instead of your fantasy version you might instead LOOK at their writings. For example, in one of the more famous documents from that time it is made pretty explicit in what regard the "liberals" thought "all me were equal" (the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

"However because of the universal benefits of communism behavioural problems will be significantly less than they are now. On the whole the quality of human life will be enormously better"

I'm not saying that you are wrong, comrade. But that's a matter of faith not unlike a religion. Some behavioral problems will probably be less but others perhaps more severe. The quality of life might be better in some regards but worse in others. Whether the quality of life would be better as a whole would depend on which aspects are most to be valued. It is precisely upon what aspects of life SHOULD be most valued that the "capitalists" and "communists" disagree.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Voltaire Network

The Materialist Conception of History

Comments (3 of 3)