The theory and practice of communism; Marxism as a Theory of History

The Theory and Practice of communism a series of 13 lectures taken from the 1967 Wisconsin Alumni seminar held at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. The speaker Michael B Petrovich is a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin and a specialist in Russian and Balkan history is the author of several books and articles including the emergence of Russian pan slob ism 1856 1878 in the last lecture of the series. Professor Petrovitch discussed Marxism as a philosophy. Today he offers the first of a two part discussion of Marxism as a theory of history professor. PETROVICH the subject for my talk today is historical materialism of Marx's theory of history. And this as a whole already been pointed out there are several different names that one can give to Marxist theory of history. It is sometimes called economic

determinism. It is also sometimes called the materialist conception of history. These are all valid titles. There is also one other way of calling it which I do not like. That is the economic interpretation of history. I do not like the title of the economic interpretation of history when we're talking specifically about Marxist theories because that assumes that Karl Marx invented the idea that economics plays a dominant role in history whereas any child I think that this soon as he's learned the difference between a nickel and a dime realizes the importance of economic factors in human life and indeed in human history. So no point would I like to intimate even that Karl Marx invented the idea that economics has a great influence in history.

The Marxist scheme of history is a. Far more all encompassing than that. What then is historical materialism. And I have brought with me today two statements by way of definition. The first one attributed to Stalin in the book on Leninism historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life. We spent a good deal of time here talking about Marx in philosophy in what must have seemed like very abstract terms but now we are going into that realm of Marxist thought which attempts to bring these ideas of philosophy to bear in a practical way on the processes of human life through history. I have placed on the board what I consider in a far better more encompassing statement by Friedrich

Engels historical materialism is that 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 society in the changes in the modes of production and exchange in the consequent division of society into distinct classes and in the struggles of these classes against one another and of quote. But I would like to do for the moment is take this statement of angles this and look at each part separately. Historical materialism is that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause. Here I would like to underscore the word ultimate. There is sometimes propagated the myth that the

Marxian theory of economic determinism means that anything that happens in history has an economic cause to it. At least that this is what Marx purports to say. And I think this is simply foolish. It would never if occurred to Karl Marx or Friedman angles to say that that anything that ever happened in history is the result of economic causes nor would it have occurred to Marx to say that the only cause of anything important is an economic cause. Let us be clear on the point now. You know it's so easy to to turn Marx into a straw man and then kick him down. But if we are looking at Marxism on his own terms then we owe it to him and to us to see the full sophistication of his ideas even where he might be wrong. Karl Marx never thought that

economics was the only cause of anything that happens in history but that it was the ultimate cause. Or perhaps if I might put a word in Marxism out the fundamental the basic cause. Let us go on. And the great moving power of all important historic events. I would like to underscore there the word in part. Because again not everything in history can be explained through economics nor did Marx wish to do so. But he is thinking in terms of the large processes of history rather than particular events at any one time. You know even to the ordinary historian not everything is of equal importance in history. For example one of the definitions of history that I'm rather fond of for a particular reason is that history is the record of all that was said or done or thought or sung in the

past. But and the reason I like that definition is I like to throw it at freshman particularly because freshmen get the idea that history means only political events and kings and queens and battles and presidents and things of this art. And so I like to get across the idea that history is all encompassing that there is literally nothing that man has ever done or said or thought about in the past that isn't a part of history. But on the other hand if we really try to write history like that it would be absurd. It's not this morning's breakfast history certainly it is but it is not historic. I don't think anybody has breakfast this morning was particularly historic Napoleons breakfast at what was at the Battle of Leipsic was historic in the sense that some historian tell tells us that he had a green apple for breakfast and it upset him physically very very much and he didn't have much time to think about the battle and the battle

was lost. And this might be the gastro nomic deterministic theory of history perhaps. But all I meant to point out was that one breakfast may be of no historical import whatever and the other breakfast might indeed be of great historic import. I can think of other meals like this after all one of the great bases of the Christian religion is a meal. And the Last Supper which is constantly which is constantly commemorated by Christian sects of all kinds. Not to speak of the Seder in the Jewish tradition. So Mark's here is talking about not so simple events of no particular historical import but lard a butt of large processes in history. And I think it is unfair to for any student of history who wants to to attack

Marx to take any particular event in Sanaa. You can't prove that the economics was the dominant factor of this single event. That is not the way that Marx approached history. So we're talking about important historic events. He finds underlying the whole process of history changes in the modes of production and exchange. Now this is basic to him that the way you really tell one kind of civilization from another. One way of life from another one society from another is not just their science and their government and their long their art and their religion and ethics etc. etc. yes these things are different from one society to another one age to another. But all of these things emanate for marks from the modes of production and exchange in a given society and this is what is

the basic fundamental difference between one society and the other this is the the basis the foundation the structure and everything else is the superstructure of the Baath. History progresses then according to the structures as set up by economic forces. But the dynamics the dynamics of the progression lies in the struggle of classes against one another. You remember when we were talking about the Marxian philosophy of and talking about thesis antithesis and synthesis we raise the question. Does one have to think of it as antithesis. Can't one think enough opposites struggling but differences cooperating. And the answer is that Marx

gives is no he's not talking about the cooperation of different things he's talking about the struggle of opposite things classes social classes. I should get back to what social classes soon. In other words historical materialism is nothing less than an attempt to explain all of human history past present and future in terms of a single theory that economic forces determine. The course of history. Please note that Marx does not say simply that economic forces have a great and sometimes the syce of influence on the course of history. In one aspect of that or that another what Marx says is that economic forces determine all of human history. But given the limitations which I have expressed in Angus's definition let us also always keep in mind

something that we have been repeating over and over again and that Marx's desire was not simply to explain the course of history as a scientific scholar would. Marx wanted to change the course of history. He was a revolutionary and what he wished to do was to show that the whole process of history was but a logical and inevitable Pragya to the final step of human history or pre-history communism. The whole theory of historical materialism is based on Marxist philosophical theory dialectical materialism and on his economic theories you have had time to think about these and to hear about them to read about them and in so far as Marxist philosophy and economic ideas are faulty. Then one may reasonably suppose that Marxist theory of history will also be faulty. But let us not condemn in advance the Marxian historical

materialism is best explained by him in two documents. The first is the Communist Manifesto and the second is the preface to the critique of political economy. Both of these works come early in his life. And again one can emphasize the fact that Marx had these theories in his mind ready made long before he started the elaboration and quote unquote proof of them for the next 30 or so years of his life. However in both of these documents that I've mentioned. The whole theory of historical materialism is given in summary in outline in sketches. There is no single work of Marx that gives you the whole theory of his history. In one fell swoop one must look forward to details throughout the works of Marx and Engels and piece them together.

Let us do them some piecing together right now. First this is the economic basis of history. Marx confronts us with the question What is the basic common purpose of man. And the answer that he gives is a materialist one as one would suspect. And a very necessary one. He says the common basic purpose of man is to sustain life. Note what an echo this is of Darwinism and preservation of the species. How does man sustain life. Not simply by predatory means. As the animals do man unlike the animals produces his own necessities of life. Man does not just graze our hunter of whatever and take whatever he finds man produces means of his livelihood.

Man has to live before he can think and hence the ultimate determinant of social change is to be found says Marx not in man's ideas of eternal truth and social justice but in changes in the mode of production and exchange. The most succinct statement that Marx ever gave of this theory is in his critique of political economy. He gives us 15 points here and I feel it my duty to go through them. If for no other reason than the fact that Marx so succinctly summarizes what he is talking about here. The first point. And please forgive his prose. In the social production which men carry on they enter into definite

relations that are indispensable and independent of their will. These relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material powers of production. On I might put in a few footnotes here Note the phrase indispensable and independent of their will that men enter into definite relations that are independent of their will. One of the great problems for Marxists is the problem expressed by the terms voluntourism and determinism. If you have a deterministic view of history that things work themselves out in processes according to certain laws independent of men's will. Then the question arises from a practical standpoint. Then why organize. Why push Why propagandized why try to do this that and the other history's

going to do this of itself. Why do you need and independently of men's wills. Why do you need this. This other element. And so the if the opposite of that is of course the volunteer is the guy and that is that men's wills are after all important in determining the right relationships. Though men do not establish the basis the foundation and they are not independent of the first and ultimate cause of all of this. Nevertheless men very much unlike animals do have consciousness and can either speed up the process. They can even that turn it back. Man is not to Mark's just a helpless puppet. In history but even with this explanation one always has to wear tussle with the question of how much do we leave up to the immutable laws and how much must men themselves do. The reason I bring

up this problem right now is that when we should be discussing Len and I will have to bring up the point that many socialists including Russian socialists including Russian Communists known as Mensheviks especially believe that Lenin was being to volunteer a stake that he wasn't giving enough time for the historic laws to work themselves out. That Lenin wanted revolution much too prematurely. Well let us go on to the next point. The sum total of these relations of production says Marks constitutes the economic structure of society. The real foundation. On which rise legal and political superstructures and to which correspond. Definite forms of social consciousness. This is the scheme that science government law religion ethics all of these things come out of the basic structure the basic economic

structure involving modes of production production relations and exchange. The third point says the mode of production in material life determines and the word is be dinked in German the mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social political and spiritual Geist again processes of life. For it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence but on the contrary their social existence determines their consciousness. 5. At a certain stage of their development the material forces of production in society come in conflict with the existing relations of production or what is but a legal expression of the same thing with the property relations within which they had been at work

before. If I might put a kind of historical footnote to this what Marx is saying here is that at any given time in history there comes a point in the development of modes of production. New inventions new techniques new materials are discovered new lands are discovered. And that is so that the modes of production become far more sophisticated and complex and of a different nature and outstrip the social relations that have come out of them. For example what accounts for the translation from feudal times into modern capitalism.