Marx and the meaning of history

Introduction

Marx's conception of history; Marx and Hegel; dialectical materialism and historical inevitability.

Historical laws and laws of history

Historical laws; Marx's originality; Marx's suggestions as explanation

sketches.

Types of society/modes of production

Primitive communism: possible paths of social development starting from the priority of the community
over the individual; forms of distributing the surplus; Marx's theoretical ordering of levels of
development in terms of the development of individuality. The Asiatic mode of production: dominance
of communal property and the despot; important role of the state and religion. The Germanic mode of
production: the inevitable production of traditional relations. The ancient mode of production:
dominated by the city: develop ment of individual proprietorship; the einergence of the state;
transforma tion brought about by the reproduction of the system. Feudalism and the development of
capitalism: the ancient and the feudal modes; the town/country division and the division of labour; the
development of the towns-the craft guilds-the nierchant class-the bourgeoisie; machinc production: the
money economy: international markets. Evolution from feudalism to capitalism: a theoretical
understanding of the development; comparison with Durkheim. The complexities of class analysis of
history: the English Civil War as an example.

Theory and history

Theoretical and empirical distinctions: modern elaborations of the concept of mode of production.
Contemporary notions of evolution: the nature of historical progress: open-ended conceptions of
evolution.

The dynamics of capi

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall: living and dead labour and the

increasing importance of the latter; countervailing tendencies; the increas ing rate of technological
change; the expansionist dynamic of capitalism. Changes at other levels: transformations of the crisis:
Habermas on the evolution of modern capitalism; economic crisis-rationality crisis legitimation crisis-
motivation crisis.

Communism

The importance of the French Revolution, the proletariat as a revolutionary class; violence and
revolution; the concept of overdetermination; the state and revolution; earlier and later phases of
communism; the importance of utopian ideas; comparison with reality.

Conclusion

Introduction

If Durkheim's conception of history amounts to a smooth evolutionary process from mechanical to

organic solidarity, then Marx's conception, whilst evolu tionary in the sense of movement from one
stage to another, also involves a con ception of conflict and revolutionary transformation, at least at the
later stages. Perhaps the most useful interpretation of Marx is as offering a conception of his tory
moving on a number of different levels, not necessarily in conjunction with each other. This is not the
case if one starts and ends with Marx the economic determinist, but if we allow his theory to open up a
little, a number of interest ing possibilities arise.
The term 'history' has a particular importance for Marxism both analyti cally it is an important concept
and motivationally-several generations of Marxists aave seen themselves as on the side of history, even
as agents of a history which, in the none-too-pleasant jargon of some Marxist groups, pos sesses a
dustbin into which their opponents will be thrown. Some forms of Marxisri have worked with an
overarching theory of history developing accord ing to a particular logic-an inheritance from Hegel. The
Marxist science of history dialectical materialism, is Marx's inversion of Hegel's conception of history,
which he sees as a moving force not of ideas but of material practices the production of goods.

Engels 1940) attempted to formulate universal laws of the dialectic, arguing that everything in society
and nature develops in the same way, through a process of conflicting opposites. As Ted Benton (1977)
points out in an intelli gent discussion, this claim is rather too vast for comfort. It is not as if natural
scientists have themselves developed the idea of the dialectic or its laws out of their work; rather Engels
has reinterpreted their results and theories and imposed a dialectical logic upon them. There are two
classic examples of emi nent men making fools of themselves by insisting that there is a dialectic of
nature: the first is Hegel himself, who used the dialectic to predict that there would be a star in a certain
place where none was ever found; the second was more serious: in the 1930s the Russian biologist
Lysenko developed a 'dialecti cal method' of growing wheat which led to disastrous crop failures.

However, when we come to human thought and human action, it is perhaps a different matter and we
can talk about a dialectical logic. But human action, at least when we think about history, is caught up
with the natural world in a com plex way, so again even when we talk about history, things are not so
simple as we would like them to be. Just how complex they are can be discovered through a brief
perusal of Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason-perhaps the major attempt to establish a foundation for
a non-determinist dialectical thought and a dialectical philosophy of history.

The simplified version of the dialectic of history-that history progresses through the conflict between
opposing forces-works best for capitalism. The growth of the capitalist system itself produces the
proletariat, the opposing force which will eventually destroy it and establish a socialist system. But the
problem of how capitalism, for example, grows out of the feudal system that preceded it is another
matter-it is not the case that it emerges through some central con tradiction, nor is it the case that the
class conflict between peasants and land lords somehow produces capitalism. I don't think that there is
anybody who would propose such an overarching theory of history these days-certainly not a Marxist
theory, although occasionally people will play about with Hegelian ideas: Francis Fukuyama (1992), for
example, goes back to Hegel to argue that history has come to an end with modern liberalism.
Before outlining a more modest version of Marxist evolutionary theory, I want to look in a little more
detail, first, at the notion of historical laws and laws of history, and, secondly, at the variety of modes of
production that we can find discussed in the work of Marx and Engels and the work of later Marxists. I
will answer negatively the question of whether we can really find a tenable overal! theory of history in
them. However, I shall argue that, when we get to the mod ern world, it is another matter-we can find a
number of complex but none the less clear ideas about the way in which modern society is developing. I
will then go on to talk about Marx's conception of socialism and communisin.

Historical laws and laws of history

Nicholas Lobkowicz (1978) draws a numb of very useful distinctions around the ideas that are often
found in Marx or Marxist writings about 'historical laws or laws of history. Whilst we might think of laws
of nature as eternal, unchang ing or at least lasting for very long periods-so that, for example, it is likely
to be a long time before the laws of gravity cease to apply-this is not quite the way in which we can
think of laws which might apply to social life. Lobkowicz comes to the following conclusions about
historical laws. I have broken down the quotation into separate propositions. My explanatory comments
are in square brackets. By 'historical laws' Marxists mean:

. first of all that specific empirical social laws are historically limited. [For example, a law might apply to
capitalist societies only during certain periods of its development.] .secondly that general social laws
which constitute the framework of social science are historically varying. li.e. general laws vary in the
way in which they work from histor ical period to historical period-so that, if the law is that the
economic level of society s determinant in the last instance, the way it is determinant varies from type
of soci ety to type of society-see below, for example, for the difference between feudalism and
capitalism.

.thirdly that some historically limited social laws are tendential. [Under capitalist con ditions, the law of
the falling rate of profit describes a tendency which can, in certain circumstances, be reversed.]

• fourthly that laws that are neither historically limited nor historically varying nor ten dential are of no
use in social science. [This has resonances of Weber's argument that general laws are not much use-the
only sort of laws that would fall into this fourth category would be along the lines of] 'All societies are
made up of people, animals and objects. (Lobkowicz 1978: 120)
Lobkowicz points out that various thinkers have suggested that there are laws of history, but only in
Marxism do we find the idea of historical laws of history. He makes the important point that Marx made
very limited claims for his laws-that, for example, when he talked about historical inevitability' he is only
talking about western Europe. At another time:

in a letter to a Russian newspaper, written in 1877 and first published in Russia in 1886, he explicitly says
that he did not intend to advance historic-philosophic theory of the general course of development
every people is fated to tread' but only the 'inexorable laws of the capitalist system. And he adds:
'Events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historical surroundings lead to totally different
results. By studying each of these developments by itself and then comparing them one can find the clue
to the phe nomenon, but one will never arrive there by using as one's master key a general his torico-
philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being supra-historical'. (ibid. 122)

These reservations should be borne in mind whenever you come across claims about Marxist
determinism and historical inevitability. As Lobkowicz goes on to argue, there is a sense here in which
Marx's claims can be empirically tested and the fact that his predictions have not come true is not so
much because the notion of a historical law is misguided per se but because this aspect of Marxism
produces what the positivist philosopher Carl Hempel calls 'explana tion sketches outlines of
explanations which require filling in. Lobkowicz continues:

Hempel puts great emphasis upon the distinction between explanation sketches, on the one hand, and
what he calls psuedo-explanations, on the other. While a scientifically acceptable explanation sketch is
incomplete in that it needs to be filled out by more spe cific statements but at the same time clearly
points in the direction where these state ments are to be found, a psuedo-explanation subsumes the
phenomena under some general idea which in principle is not amenable to empirical test and therefore
cannot indicate in which direction concrete research should turn. It has often been suggested that the
Marxist-historicist theory of society is such a psuedo-explanation rather than an explanation proper. I do
not believe that this is the case. Concrete research may not, and in fact did not, corroborate many of the
laws by which Marx was trying to explain capi talist development; but the fact that research is at all
relevant to the Marxist theory indi cates that the latter in not a psuedo-question. (ibid. 230)

Lobkowicz goes on to suggest that the reason for maintaining Marx's develop mental theory, despite the
fact that his predictions have not come true, is that there is no serious alternative; and I have pointed
out elsewhere (Craib 1992a) that attempts such as Giddens's to suggest a non-evolutionary theory of the
development of capitalism is remarkably similar to Marx's own account.
Lobkowicz's argument is a more conventional orthodox philosophical version of Lukacs's Hegelian
argument that the fact that Marx's predictions were wrong does not disprove his method-in the same
way, perhaps, that a wrong weather forecast does not undermine either the attempt to forecast the
weather or necessarily the means used to produce that particular forecast; rather like weather
forecasting, social prediction is a matter of informed hit and-miss.

Types of society/modes of production

Marx refers to a number of different types of society. A type of society is not quite a mode of
production: the latter refers to relationships of ownership and control of productive goods, whereas a
society includes the various classes and institutional forms which develop on the basis of these
relationships. The rela tionships to the means of production form the base, the society includes both
base and superstructure.

Primitive communism

It would be wrong to see the pre-capitalist formations as a chain in which each develops out of the
other; rather Marx suggests a number of different ways in which societies can change from primitive
communism, and it is clear that he does not think that all changes constitute progress. Rather like
Durkheim, Marx sees history as beginning with the horde, or the tribal group, the stage of prim itive
communism. The individual is only an individual and only possesses property by virtue of his or her
membership of the community-the community is the precondition of everything. We have already seen
Engels's account of the development from primitive

communism. One of the problems with his account is that there are always non labourers, young
children, the old, and the sick, so it would be wrong to say that there is no surplus produced. In a book
which in many ways represents the worst type of Marxist a priori argument (i.e. forcing the world into a
general schema), but which nevertheless does make some useful points, Barry Hindess and Paul Hirst
(1975) suggest that primitive communism can be seen as a mode of pro duction with only two levels: the
economic and the ideological (where decisions about distribution are made). Drawing on the work of
the Marxist anthrop ologist Claude Meillasoux (1972), they suggest a distinction between those soci
eties-mainly hunting societies-which employ a process of simple redistribution through a network of
relations which are temporary, which might last only long enough for the immediate distribution of the
kill, and soci eties with a more complex redistribution system. Complex redistribution involves a
permanent network of relationships and this tends to happen in agri cultural societies. Kinship units
become more important here, and, with the importance of kinship units, so marriage rules have to be
developed. It is very dubious whether there is a direct line from this sort of development to capital ism;
rather it is a description after the event of a process of social change which might lead to the
development of class societies.

We can find in Marx mention of other modes of production which do not seem to follow each other
either theoretically or in reality. The ancient mode of production and the Asiatic mode of production are
the best known, although he also talks about a Germanic mode of production (which is not confined to
Germanic people) and he mentions in passing a Slavic mode. Then we come to feudalism and the
transition to capitalism. But perhaps here, before we move on from primitive communism, it is worth
raising the possibility that we are not talking about one world history but about several histories,
perhaps as many his tories as there are different modes of production or types of society. The analysis I
am following here is broadly similar to that suggested by Eric

Hobsbawm 1964) in his introduction to Marx's Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations. In the first place he
points out that the different modes of produc tion do not follow each other in chronological order, nor,
with the exception of feudalism and capitalism, do they develop out of each other. On the other hand,
Marx does talk about historical stages in the evolution of individuality-the division of labour in
Durkheim's framework-which, for Marx, are stages in the evolution of private property. But again these
are not chronological stages, they are analytic: by this he means that Marx did not see these stages as
necessarily following each other in time. Rather there is a logical order to them which per haps allows us
to arrange societies separated, possibly radically separated, by time and space, in relation to each other.

After the general communal ownership of primitive communism we move to a more developed form of
direct communal property (the oriental and perhaps Slavic mode of production) where there is still no
development of class societies; at the second level there is communal property coexisting with class
societies (the ancient and Germanic modes of production). The third level involves the growth of craft
manufacture-the independent craftsman (it was at this stage usually men) who exercised personal
control over the means of production: the spinner, for example, would own the loom; the blacksmith
would own and con trol his anvil and hammer. Then finally there is class society proper, where we move
from the appropriation of people-slaves-to the appropriation of labour as I described earlier. We can
regard these as four paths from primitive commu nism, not all of which lead to capitalism, but all of
which involve some change from simple communal property.

The Asiatic mode of production-oriental despotism

In the Asiatic mode of production, communal property is still dominant; there would be a number of
small groups, family based, within the society, and Marx suggests that the inhabitants of these societies
feel the power of the collective, which gives them their rights over their land, and they project this
power into a single source the despot from whom the land seems held in trust:

The despot here appears as the father of all the numerous lesser communities thus real ising the
common unity of all. It therefore follows that the surplus product... belongs to this highest unity.
Oriental despotism, therefore, appears to lead to a legal absence of property. in fact, however, its
foundation is tribal or common property... (Marx 1964: 69-70)

Property is created through agriculture and manufacturing, both of which are carried on in small self-
sufficient communities, containing within them. selves all conditions of production and surplus
production-the surplus being handed over to the despot as a form of tribute and a form of celebration
of the group's unity. Where large-scale irrigation systems are required for the contin uation of
agriculture, together with communication networks over long dis tances particularly important in Asian
societies-these are provided by the higher unity, the despotic government. There is, as yet, no clear
division between town and country. There is little or no 'push' towards change in such systems. They
remain the same until they are broken down from the outside by the expansion of capitalism.

There have been many debates about the existence of oriental despotism, both on empirical and
theoretical grounds. Hindess and Hirst (1975) argue that the concept is incoherent, but that is a negative
version of Hegel's claim about a star: instead of theoretically deriving a type of society which does not
exist, they are arguing that theoretically such a society cannot exist when in fact it might do so. In either
case the argument is not very helpful. More interesting is Karl Wittfogel's (1963) development of the
notion. He offers a functional ana lysis of such societies where the despotism arises less from an
alienating projec tion of communal power, the way that Marx describes it, than from the necessity of
large-scale irrigation which only the state is able to undertake. This occurs only in very specific
conditions it is not simply a matter of too little water plus state water control. The society must be
above the simpler forms of subsis tence economy-there must be a surplus, outside the geographical
areas where there is heavy rainfall, but without any significant development of private property.

Under these circumstances, only a bureaucratically organized state system can provide water and
maintain the means by which it is provided-it is a man agerial enterprise. The state maintains order
through its control of the irrigation system-it can bring dissident communities into line by threatening
not to maintain water supplies as well as through a large standing army and a highly organized
intelligence network. The ideological cement for such a system tends to be religious. Wittfogel set up a
gradation of hydraulic societies according to the density of the population, and he was able to include in
the category ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, Rome and Byzantium, the Ottoman Empire, India and
China, Muslim Spain, and others. Wittfogel was an early member of the Frankfurt School of Social
Research-the group that in the late 1920s and early 1930s began to develop a Marxism which was
critical of the Soviet Union. His contribution to this was to suggest that the Stalinist regime grew out of a
pre ceding 'semi-Asiatic regime--and there are certainly similarities between the pre-revolutionary
Tsarist regime and aspects of oriental despotism. Anne Bailey (1981) suggests that post-Wittfogel
research has tended towards the argument that the Asiatic mode of production and tribal societies are
not as classless as once thought and they are also systems in which exploitation takes place again, the
general drift has been away from unilinear, fixed conceptions of evo lution.

The Germanic mode of production

Marx does not say a lot about the Germanic mode of production, and even less about the Slavic mode.
The former represents a slightly more developed form of property than, although of course it does not
emerge from, the Asiatic mode. According to Hobsbawm, the "Germanic system" as such does not form
a spe cial socio-economic formation. It forms the socio-economic formation of feu dalism in conjunction
with the mediaeval town (the locus of the emergence of the autonomous craft production)' (Hobsbawm
1964: 38). Marx says of these earlier modes:

In all these forms the basis of evolution is the reproduction of relations between individ ual and
community assumed as given they may be more or less primitive, more or less the result of history, but
fixed into tradition-and a definite, predetermined objective existence, both as regards the relation to the
condition of labour, and the relation between one man and his co-workers, fellow tribesmen, etc. Such
evolution is therefore from the outset limited, but once the limits are transcended, decay and
disintegration sets in. (Marx 1964: 83)

In other words, these societies are comparatively static, and if for some reason change does set in, they
can disintegrate.