David Griffin wrote:
>
> just a reference point here:  the definition of "historical materialism" from
> the marxists archive. Note in particular the place of the term "religious"
> vis-a-vis the state.    -- david
>

That "definition" of historical materialism is better than I would have
expected, and as a provisional and tentative beginning one could do a
lot worse. One could also do better, and I would strongly urge that no
one decide either to accept or to reject historical materialism on its
basis. There are a number of what, from recommendations I have seen, are
excellent contemporary accounts of the materialist view of history but
which I myself have not read. Of those I have read, perhaps the most
powerful are Ellen Meiksins Wood's _Democracy against Capitalism:
Renewing Historical Materialism_ and Bertell Ollman's _Dialectical
Investigations_. One thing missing from the definition from the marxist
archives is an emphasis on what constitutes an explanation -- and in
particular, the difference between merely _naming_ that which is to be
explained and an actual explanation. (Marx's commentary on "Providence"
in _Poverty of Philosophy_ is an excellent place to begin to grasp this
distinction.)

In fact, rereading the definition more carefully, the first long clause
appears increasingly incoherent:

"This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real
process of production, starting out from the material production of life
itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this
and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its
various stages), as the basis of all history.

The "this" of "created by this" has no antecedent that makes sense. And
I cannot for the life of me decipher "this mode of production"? What
mode of production? None is mentioned. "Mode of production" in the
abstract is a bit difficult to define. Capitalism is one mode of
production. Feudalism is another. The Palace Economies of the ancient
world are another. All pre-capitalist modes of production can be
grouped, as Samir Amin suggested long ago, as "tributary modes."
Probably the simplest way to grasp a mode of production is to focus on
the social relations through which the surplus is pumped out of the
direct producers. But as far as I can see from the syntax of the quoted
sentence, the writer is saying that "the material production of life
itself" is a mode of production, which is simply meaningless.

All in all I think you should look elsewhere for a satisfactory point of
departure in getting a grasp on historical materialism.

Carrol Cox




David Griffin wrote:
>
> just a reference point here:  the definition of "historical materialism" from
> the marxists archive. Note in particular the place of the term "religious"
> vis-a-vis the state.    -- david
>
> Historical Materialism
>
> "This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real
> process of production, starting out from the material production of life
> itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and
> created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various
> stages), as the basis of all history; describing it in its action as the
> state, and to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of
> consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. arise from it, and
> trace their origins and growth from that basis. Thus the whole thing can, of
> course, be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal
> action of these various sides on one another).
>
> "It has not, like the idealistic view of history, in every period to look for
> a category [eg. measuring periods of history in accordance to certain ideas],
> but remains constantly on the real ground of history; it does not explain
> practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material
> practice. Accordingly it comes to the conclusion that all forms and products
> of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into
> "self-consciousness" or transformation into "apparitions", "spectres",
> "whims", etc. but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social
> relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug; that not criticism but
> revolution is the driving force of history, also of religion, of philosophy
> and all other types of theory.
>
> "It shows that history does not end by being resolved into
> "self-consciousness as spirit of the spirit", but that in it at each stage
> there is found a material result: a sum of productive forces, an historically
> created relation of individuals to nature and to one another, which is handed
> down to each generation from its predecessor; a mass of productive forces,
> capital funds and conditions, which, on the one hand, is indeed modified by
> the new generation, but also on the other prescribes for it its conditions of
> life and gives it a definite development, a special character. It shows that
> circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances.