MARX’S THEORY OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM

Historical materialism or materialistic interpretation of history constitutes the social-scientific

core of Marxist theory. In the introduction of the book ‘Socialism: Utopia and Scientific’ (1892),
Engels wrote that historical materialism ‘designates the view of the course of history which seeks
the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic
development of the society, in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, in the
consequent division of society into distinct classes and in the struggle of these classes against
one another’.

To Hegel, the driving force of history was a self-developing spiritual principle that embodied
itself successively in historic nations. But, to Marx, it was a self-developing system of productive
forces that embodied itself in basic patterns of economic distribution and social classes
consequent thereto.

Having rejected Hegel’s idealism and accepted a view of the world according to which mind and
spirit are only products of the matter, Marx applied that doctrine in the interpretation of the
history. This is known as Historical Materialism or Materialistic Interpretation of History. It is
simply Dialectical Materialism applied to particular field of human relation within the society.
PRIME FACTOR: MODE OF PRODUCTION:

As Dialectical Materialism urges to treat things of the world as inter-dependent and as it further
assures that these things can be identified and related, Marx naturally cannot accept history
simply as a jumble of discrete facts and events. He understands history as a changing yet a
continuous process. It has different phases so related to each other that it reveals a clear pattern
of development in accordance with a number of definite discoverable laws. In finding out the
laws that determine the course of history, Marx laid emphasis upon the material life of society
and interpreted history in terms of material condition. He, at the same time, holds that human
history was nothing but that of mode of production and distribution of goods. In his ‘Preface to
the Critique of Political Economy’, Marx stands by asking what is the principle that governs
human relations and his answer is that the production of the means to support life and next to
production, the exchange of things so produced. Man has to live before he can start to think.
Hence, the ultimate determinant of social change is to be found not in the ideas of man but in the
mode of production and exchange.
FACTORS OF PRODUCTION:

Now, two factors enter into production --- forces of production and relations of production. To
say in other words, the relation between man and things leads to a second relation between man
and man and as such, when the first changes, the second changes too. Hence, in the ‘Preface to
the Critique of Political Economy’ (p-181), Marx wrote, “In changing the modes of production,
mankind changes its social relation. The hand mill creates a society with feudal lord; the steam
mill, a society with the industrial capitalists”.
STRUCTURE & SUB-STRUCTURE:

Marx goes on to argue that the forces of production and relations of production combine to form
the economic foundation of every society. The economic foundation which he calls the
‘structure’ always provides the real basis of ‘super-structure’ which includes laws, religion, art,
culture, government etc. Thus, for understanding human history, one must understand the mode
of production and distribution, i.e. the structure that determines the shape and nature of the
super-structure.
SOCIAL CHANGE AFFECTED BY A CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE:

Hence, transition from one phase of social development to another is affected not by the changes
in super-structure, but by the changes in the structure i.e. the foundation of the society. What in
fact happens is that a point is reached when as a result of some new inventions or discoveries, the
productive forces come into conflict with existing productive relations and ultimately results in a
social revolution. Owing to the upheaval of the structure with social revolution, the super-
structure will be gradually or violently subverted. And it was on the basis of this analysis Marx
distinguishes four economic forms or modes of production--- the primitive or Asiatic, the
ancient, the feudal and the modern capitalism, each of which represents an advance upon its
predecessors.

Marx’s theory of Historical Materialism thus presents four principal propositions. First, it is a
succession of stages each of which is dominated by a typical system of production and exchange
of goods. Second, the whole process is dialectical. Its moving force is generated by internal
tension created by contradictions between a newly evolving system of production and the
persisting ideology appropriate to an older system. Third, the forces of production are always
primary as compared with their secondary ideological consequences. The material forces are real
or substantial while the ideological relations are apparent or phenomenal. Fourth, productive
forces inherent in any society develop completely before the dialectical transformation takes
place. And an understanding of the social revolution calls for an understanding of the changes in
productive forces. This is because the ultimate cause of all change and political revolution are to
be sought not in the minds of men, but in the change in the modes of production and exchange.
CRITICAL APPRECIATION:

But the doctrine of Historical Materialism is not infallible; it is not gospel’s truth. The most
fundamental criticism against this theory is that of Karl Popper. He says that there is an
interaction between economic condition and ideas and not simply a unilateral dependence of the
later on the former.

The claim that dialectic provides the clue to history cannot be upheld. According to Karl Federn,
“History proceeds as an unending stream of which no one knows the beginning or the end”.
Hence, it is difficult to determine the stages of history which correspond to thesis, anti-thesis and
synthesis.
Further, the doctrine of Historical Materialism ignores the part played by the non-economic
factors like human sentiments, emotions and passions, religion and personality in shaping
history.

Again, Marx holds that every stage is a stage of progress to its predecessors. But this is untrue.
There are many examples of dissolution and decay in the course of human history.

Moreover, Marx does not make any allowance for contingent elements that enter into history.
These elements are apparently accidental, but these are of decisive importance. For example, if
Lenin had not been pressurized by German government to leave Germany where he was in exile,
perhaps Russian Revolution would not have taken the course it did. Again, if Henry VIII had not
fallen in love with Annie Boleyn, the USA perhaps would not have come into existence.

However, in spite of several criticisms, it must be said that Marx’s doctrine of Historical
Materialism is of much significance. Marx was not fully wrong when he said that man acts as a
materialist. Further, Renaissance, rise of modern State, the American Revolution and many other
historical events were mainly due to economic factors. In spite of various defects, the theory is
regarded even by his critics with great respect. As Father Schmidt said, “No responsible man will
deny to scientific socialism, the merit of having more emphatically demanded the consideration
of economic condition”.