J. V. Stalin
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Dialectical materialism is the
world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party. It is called
dialectical materialism because its approach to the
phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending
them, is dialectical, while its interpretation of the
phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena, its
theory, is materialistic.
Historical materialism is the extension of the
principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social
life, an application of the principles of dialectical
materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the
study of society and of its history.
When describing their dialectical method, Marx and
Engels usually refer to Hegel as the philosopher who
formulated the main features of dialectics. This, however,
does not mean that the dialectics of Marx and Engels is
identical with the dialectics of Hegel. As a matter of fact,
Marx and Engels took from the Hegelian dialectics only its
"rational kernel," casting aside its Hegelian idealistic
shell, and developed dialectics further so as to lend it a
modern scientific form.
"My dialectic method," says Marx, "is not only different
from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel,
... the process of thinking which, under the name of 'the
Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is
the demiurgos (creator) of the real world, and the real
world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the
Idea.' With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing
else than the material world reflected by the human mind
and translated into forms of thought." (Marx, Afterword
to the Second German Edition of Volume I of
Capital.)
When describing their materialism, Marx and Engels
usually refer to Feuerbach as the philosopher who restored
materialism to its rights. This, however, does not mean that
the materialism of Marx and Engels is identical with
Feuerbach's materialism. As a matter of fact, Marx and
Engels took from Feuerbach's materialism its "inner kernel,"
developed it into a scientific-philosophical theory of
materialism and cast aside its idealistic and
religious-ethical encumbrances. We know that Feuerbach,
although he was fundamentally a materialist, objected to the
name materialism. Engels more than once declared that "in
spite of" the materialist "foundation," Feuerbach
"remained... bound by the traditional idealist fetters," and
that "the real idealism of Feuerbach becomes evident as soon
as we come to his philosophy of religion and ethics." (Marx
and Engels, Vol. XIV, pp. 652-54.)
Dialectics comes from the Greek dialego, to
discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics was the
art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the
contradictions in the argument of an opponent and overcoming
these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient
times who believed that the disclosure of contradictions in
thought and the clash of opposite opinions was the best
method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of
thought, later extended to the phenomena of nature,
developed into the dialectical method of apprehending
nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in
constant movement and undergoing constant change, and the
development of nature as the result of the development of
the contradictions in nature, as the result of the
interaction of opposed forces in nature.
In its essence, dialectics is the direct opposite
of metaphysics.
1) Marxist Dialectical Method
The principal features of the
Marxist dialectical method are as follows:
a) Nature Connected and Determined
Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard
nature as an accidental agglomeration of things, of
phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent
of, each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in
which things, phenomena are organically connected with,
dependent on, and determined by, each other.
The dialectical method therefore holds that no
phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken by itself,
isolated from surrounding phenomena, inasmuch as any
phenomenon in any realm of nature may become meaningless to
us if it is not considered in connection with the
surrounding conditions, but divorced from them; and that,
vice versa, any phenomenon can be understood and explained
if considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding
phenomena, as one conditioned by surrounding phenomena.
b) Nature is a State of Continuous Motion and
Change
Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is
not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and
immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change,
of continuous renewal and development, where something is
always arising and developing, and something always
disintegrating and dying away.
The dialectical method therefore requires that
phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint
of their interconnection and interdependence, but also from
the standpoint of their movement, their change, their
development, their coming into being and going out of being.
The dialectical method regards as important
primarily not that which at the given moment seems to be
durable and yet is already beginning to die away, but that
which is arising and developing, even though at the given
moment it may appear to be not durable, for the dialectical
method considers invincible only that which is arising and
developing.
"All nature," says Engels, "from the smallest thing to
the biggest. from grains of sand to suns, from protista
(the primary living cells – J. St.) to man, has its
existence in eternal coming into being and going out of
being, in a ceaseless flux, in unresting motion and
change (Ibid., p. 484.)
Therefore, dialectics, Engels says, "takes things and
their perceptual images essentially in their
interconnection, in their concatenation, in their movement,
in their rise and disappearance." (Marx and Engels, Vol.
XIV,' p. 23.)
c) Natural Quantitative Change Leads to
Qualitative Change
Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard the
process of development as a simple process of growth, where
quantitative changes do not lead to qualitative changes, but
as a development which passes from insignificant and
imperceptible quantitative changes to open' fundamental
changes' to qualitative changes; a development in which the
qualitative changes occur not gradually, but rapidly and
abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to
another; they occur not accidentally but as the natural
result of an accumulation of imperceptible and gradual
quantitative changes.
The dialectical method therefore holds that the
process of development should be understood not as movement
in a circle, not as a simple repetition of what has already
occurred, but as an onward and upward movement, as a
transition from an old qualitative state to a new
qualitative state, as a development from the simple to the
complex, from the lower to the higher:
"Nature," says Engels, "is the test of dialectics. and it
must be said for modern natural science that it has
furnished extremely rich and daily increasing materials
for this test, and has thus proved that in the last
analysis nature's process is dialectical and not
metaphysical, that it does not move in an eternally
uniform and constantly repeated circle. but passes
through a real history. Here prime mention should be made
of Darwin, who dealt a severe blow to the metaphysical
conception of nature by proving that the organic world of
today, plants and animals, and consequently man too, is
all a product of a process of development that has been
in progress for millions of years." (Ibid., p. 23.)
Describing dialectical development as a transition from
quantitative changes to qualitative changes, Engels says:
"In physics ... every change is a passing of quantity
into quality, as a result of a quantitative change of
some form of movement either inherent in a body or
imparted to it. For example, the temperature of water has
at first no effect on its liquid state; but as the
temperature of liquid water rises or falls, a moment
arrives when this state of cohesion changes and the water
is converted in one case into steam and in the other into
ice.... A definite minimum current is required to make a
platinum wire glow; every metal has its melting
temperature; every liquid has a definite freezing point
and boiling point at a given pressure, as far as we are
able with the means at our disposal to attain the
required temperatures; finally, every gas has its
critical point at which, by proper pressure and cooling,
it can be converted into a liquid state.... What are
known as the constants of physics (the point at which one
state passes into another – J. St.) are in most cases
nothing but designations for the nodal points at which a
quantitative (change) increase or decrease of movement
causes a qualitative change in the state of the given
body, and at which, consequently, quantity is transformed
into quality." (Ibid., pp. 527-28.)
Passing to chemistry, Engels continues:
"Chemistry may be called the science of the qualitative
changes which take place in bodies as the effect of
changes of quantitative composition. his was already
known to Hegel.... Take oxygen: if the molecule contains
three atoms instead of the customary two, we get ozone, a
body definitely distinct in odor and reaction from
ordinary oxygen. And what shall we say of the different
proportions in which oxygen combines with nitrogen or
sulphur, and each of which produces a body qualitatively
different from all other bodies !" (Ibid., p. 528.)
Finally, criticizing Dühring, who scolded Hegel for
all he was worth, but surreptitiously borrowed from him the
well-known thesis that the transition from the insentient
world to the sentient world, from the kingdom of inorganic
matter to the kingdom of organic life, is a leap to a new
state, Engels says:
"This is precisely the Hegelian nodal line of measure
relations in which at certain definite nodal points, the
purely quantitative increase or decrease gives rise to a
qualitative leap, for example, in the case of water which
is heated or cooled, where boiling point and freezing
point are the nodes at which – under normal pressure –
the leap to a new aggregate state takes place, and where
consequently quantity is transformed into quality."
(Ibid., pp. 45-46.)
d) Contradictions Inherent in Nature
Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal
contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of
nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides,
a past and a future, something dying away and something
developing; and that the struggle between these opposites,
the struggle between the old and the new, between that which
is dying away and that which is being born, between that
which is disappearing and that which is developing,
constitutes the internal content of the process of
development, the internal content of the transformation of
quantitative changes into qualitative changes.
The dialectical method therefore holds that the
process of development from the lower to the higher takes
place not as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a
disclosure of the contradictions inherent in things and
phenomena, as a "struggle" of opposite tendencies which
operate on the basis of these contradictions.
"In its proper meaning," Lenin says, "dialectics is the
study of the contradiction within the very essence of
things." (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p.
265.)
And further:
"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." (Lenin,
Vol. XIII, p. 301.)
Such, in brief, are the principal features of the Marxist
dialectical method.
It is easy to understand how immensely important is
the extension of the principles of the dialectical method to
the study of social life and the history of society, and how
immensely important is the application of these principles
to the history of society and to the practical activities of
the party of the proletariat.
If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if
all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it
is clear that every social system and every social movement
in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of
"eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not
infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of
the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social
movement and with which they are connected.
The slave system would be senseless, stupid and
unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions
of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave
system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon,
since it represents an advance on the primitive communal
system
The demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic when
tsardom and bourgeois society existed, as, let us say, in
Russia in 1905, was a quite understandable, proper and
revolutionary demand; for at that time a bourgeois republic
would have meant a step forward. But now, under the
conditions of the U.S.S.R., the demand for a
bourgeois-democratic republic would be a senseless and
counterrevolutionary demand; for a bourgeois republic would
be a retrograde step compared with the Soviet republic.
Everything depends on the conditions, time and
place.
It is clear that without such a historical
approach to social phenomena, the existence and development
of the science of history is impossible; for only such an
approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble
of accidents and an agglomeration of most absurd mistakes.
Further, if the world is in a state of constant
movement and development, if the dying away of the old and
the upgrowth of the new is a law of development, then it is
clear that there can be no "immutable" social systems, no
"eternal principles" of private property and exploitation,
no "eternal ideas" of the subjugation of the peasant to the
landlord, of the worker to the capitalist.
Hence, the capitalist system can be replaced by the
socialist system, just as at one time the feudal system was
replaced by the capitalist system.
Hence, we must not base our orientation on the
strata of society which are no longer developing, even
though they at present constitute the predominant force, but
on those strata which are developing and have a future
before them, even though they at present do not constitute
the predominant force.
In the eighties of the past century, in the period
of the struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks, the
proletariat in Russia constituted an insignificant minority
of the population, whereas the individual peasants
constituted the vast majority of the population. But the
proletariat was developing as a class, whereas the peasantry
as a class was disintegrating. And just because the
proletariat was developing as a class the Marxists based
their orientation on the proletariat. And they were not
mistaken; for, as we know, the proletariat subsequently grew
from an insignificant force into a first-rate historical and
political force.
Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must look
forward, not backward.
Further, if the passing of slow quantitative
changes into rapid and abrupt qualitative changes is a law
of development, then it is clear that revolutions made by
oppressed classes are a quite natural and inevitable
phenomenon.
Hence, the transition from capitalism to socialism
and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of
capitalism cannot be effected by slow changes, by reforms,
but only by a qualitative change of the capitalist system,
by revolution.
Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a
revolutionary, not a reformist.
Further, if development proceeds by way of the
disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions
between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions
and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear
that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite
natural and inevitable phenomenon.
Hence, we must not cover up the contradictions of
the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we
must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its
conclusion.
Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must
pursue an uncompromising proletarian class policy, not a
reformist policy of harmony of the interests of the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not a compromisers' policy
of the "growing" of capitalism into socialism.
Such is the Marxist dialectical method when applied
to social life, to the history of society.
As to Marxist philosophical materialism, it is
fundamentally the direct opposite of philosophical idealism.
2) Marxist Philosophical Materialism
The principal features of
Marxist philosophical materialism are as follows:
a) Materialist
Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the
embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit,"
"consciousness," Marx's philosophical materialism holds that
the world is by its very nature material, that the
multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms
of matter in motion, that interconnection and
interdependence of phenomena as established by the
dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving
matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the
laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a
"universal spirit."
"The materialistic outlook on nature," says Engels,
"means no more than simply conceiving nature just as it
exists, without any foreign admixture." (Marx and Engels,
Vol. XIV, p. 651.)
Speaking of the materialist views of the ancient
philosopher Heraclitus, who held that "the world, the all in
one, was not created by any god or any man, but was, is and
ever will be a living flame, systematically flaring up and
systematically dying down"' Lenin comments: "A very good
exposition of the rudiments of dialectical materialism."
(Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 318.)
b) Objective Reality
Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our
consciousness really exists, and that the material world,
being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in our
sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist philosophical
materialism holds that matter, nature, being, is an
objective reality existing outside and independent of our
consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the
source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that
consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a
reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is
a product of matter which in its development has reached a
high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the
brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot
separate thought from matter without committing a grave
error. Engels says:
"The question of the relation of thinking to being, the
relation of spirit to nature is the paramount question of
the whole of philosophy.... The answers which the
philosophers gave to this question split them into two
great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to
nature ... comprised the camp of idealism. The others,
who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various
schools of materialism." (Marx, Selected Works,
Vol. I, p. 329.)
And further:
"The material, sensuously perceptible world to which we
ourselves belong is the only reality.... Our
consciousness and thinking, however supra-sensuous they
may seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ,
the brain. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind
itself is merely the highest product of matter." (Ibid.,
p. 332.)
Concerning the question of matter and thought, Marx says:
"It is impossible to separate thought from matter that
thinks. Matter is the subject of all changes."
(Ibid., p. 302.)
Describing Marxist philosophical materialism, Lenin says:
"Materialism in general recognizes objectively real being
(matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation,
experience.... Consciousness is only the reflection of
being, at best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly
exact) reflection of it." (Lenin, Vol. XIII, pp. 266-67.)
And further:
– "Matter is that which, acting upon our sense-organs,
produces sensation; matter is the objective reality given
to us in sensation.... Matter, nature, being, the
physical-is primary, and spirit, consciousness,
sensation, the psychical-is secondary." (Ibid., pp.
119-20.)
– "The world picture is a picture of how matter
moves and of how 'matter thinks.'" (Ibid., p.
288.)
– "The brain is the organ of thought." (Ibid.,
p. 125.)
c) The World and Its Laws Are Knowable
Contrary to idealism, which denies the possibility of
knowing the world and its laws, which does not believe in
the authenticity of our knowledge, does not recognize
objective truth, and holds that the world is full of
"things-in-themselves" that can never be known to science,
Marxist philosophical materialism holds that the world and
its laws are fully knowable, that our knowledge of the laws
of nature, tested by experiment and practice, is authentic
knowledge having the validity of objective truth, and that
there are no things in the world which are unknowable, but
only things which are as yet not known, but which will be
disclosed and made known by the efforts of science and
practice.
Criticizing the thesis of Kant and other idealists
that the world is unknowable and that there are
"things-in-themselves" which are unknowable, and defending
the well-known materialist thesis that our knowledge is
authentic knowledge, Engels writes:
"The most telling refutation of this as of all other
philosophical crotchets is practice, namely, experiment
and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of
our conception of a natural process by making it
ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions
and making it serve our own purposes into the bargain,
then there is an end to the Kantian ungraspable
'thing-in-itself.' The chemical substances produced in
the bodies of plants and animals remained such
'things-in-themselves' until organic chemistry began to
produce them one after another, whereupon the
'thing-in-itself' became a thing for us, as, for
instance, alizarin, the coloring matter of the madder,
which we no longer trouble to grow ill the madder roots
in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply
from coal tar. For 300 years the Copernican solar system
was a hypothesis with a hundred, a thousand or ten
thousand chances to one in its favor, but still always a
hypothesis. But when Leverrier, by means of the data
provided by this system, not only deduced the necessity
of the existence of an unknown planet, but also
calculated the position in the heavens which this planet
must necessarily occupy, and when Galle really found this
planet, the Copernican system was proved." (Marx,
Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 330.)
Accusing Bogdanov, Bazarov, Yushkevich and the other
followers of Mach of fideism (a reactionary theory, which
prefers faith to science) and defending the well-known
materialist thesis that our scientific knowledge of the laws
of nature is authentic knowledge, and that the laws of
science represent objective truth, Lenin says:
"Contemporary fideism does not at all reject science; all
it rejects is the 'exaggerated claims' of science, to
wit, its claim to objective truth. If objective truth
exists (as the materialists think), if natural science,
reflecting the outer world in human 'experience,' is
alone capable of giving us objective truth, then all
fideism is absolutely refuted." (Lenin, Vol. XIII, p.
102.)
Such, in brief, are the characteristic features of the
Marxist philosophical materialism.
It is easy to understand how immensely important is
the extension of the principles of philosophical materialism
to the study of social life, of the history of society, and
how immensely important is the application of these
principles to the history of society and to the practical
activities of the party of the proletariat.
If the connection between the phenomena of nature
and their interdependence are laws of the development of
nature, it follows, too, that the connection and
interdependence of the phenomena of social life are laws of
the development of society, and not something accidental.
Hence, social life, the history of society, ceases
to be an agglomeration of "accidents", for the history of
society becomes a development of society according to
regular laws, and the study of the history of society
becomes a science.
Hence, the practical activity of the party of the
proletariat must not be based on the good wishes of
"outstanding individuals." not on the dictates of "reason,"
"universal morals," etc., but on the laws of development of
society and on the study of these laws.
Further, if the world is knowable and our knowledge
of the laws of development of nature is authentic knowledge,
having the validity of objective truth, it follows that
social life, the development of society, is also knowable,
and that the data of science regarding the laws of
development of society are authentic data having the
validity of objective truths.
Hence, the science of the history of society,
despite all the complexity of the phenomena of social life,
can become as precise a science as, let us say, biology, and
capable of making use of the laws of development of society
for practical purposes.
Hence, the party of the proletariat should not
guide itself in its practical activity by casual motives,
but by the laws of development of society, and by practical
deductions from these laws.
Hence, socialism is converted from a dream of a
better future for humanity into a science.
Hence, the bond between science and practical
activity, between theory and practice, their unity, should
be the guiding star of the party of the proletariat.
Further, if nature, being, the material world, is
primary, and consciousness, thought, is secondary,
derivative; if the material world represents objective
reality existing independently of the consciousness of men,
while consciousness is a reflection of this objective
reality, it follows that the material life of society, its
being, is also primary, and its spiritual life secondary,
derivative, and that the material life of society is an
objective reality existing independently of the will of men,
while the spiritual life of society is a reflection of this
objective reality, a reflection of being.
Hence, the source of formation of the spiritual
life of society, the origin of social ideas, social
theories, political views and political institutions, should
not be sought for in the ideas, theories, views and
political institutions themselves, but in the conditions of
the material life of society, in social being, of which
these ideas, theories, views, etc., are the reflection.
Hence, if in different periods of the history of
society different social ideas, theories, views and
political institutions are to be observed; if under the
slave system we encounter certain social ideas, theories,
views and political institutions, under feudalism others,
and under capitalism others still, this is not to be
explained by the "nature", the "properties" of the ideas,
theories, views and political institutions themselves but by
the different conditions of the material life of society at
different periods of social development.
Whatever is the being of a society, whatever are
the conditions of material life of a society, such are the
ideas, theories political views and political institutions
of that society.
In this connection, Marx says:
"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their
being, but, on the contrary, their social being that
determines their consciousness." (Marx Selected
Works, Vol. I, p. 269.)
Hence, in order not to err in policy, in order not to
find itself in the position of idle dreamers, the party of
the proletariat must not base its activities on abstract
"principles of human reason", but on the concrete conditions
of the material life of society, as the determining force of
social development; not on the good wishes of "great men,"
but on the real needs of development of the material life of
society.
The fall of the utopians, including the Narodniks,
anarchists and Socialist-Revolutionaries, was due, among
other things to the fact that they did not recognize the
primary role which the conditions of the material life of
society play in the development of society, and, sinking to
idealism, did not base their practical activities on the
needs of the development of the material life of society,
but, independently of and in spite of these needs, on "ideal
plans" and "all-embracing projects", divorced from the real
life of society.
The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism lies
in the fact that it does base its practical activity on the
needs of the development of the material life of society and
never divorces itself from the real life of society.
It does not follow from Marx's words, however, that
social ideas, theories, political views and political
institutions are of no significance in the life of society,
that they do not reciprocally affect social being, the
development of the material conditions of the life of
society. We have been speaking so far of the origin of
social ideas, theories, views and political institutions, of
the way they arise, of the fact that the spiritual life of
society is a reflection of the conditions of its material
life. As regards the significance of social ideas, theories,
views and political institutions, as regards their role in
history, historical materialism, far from denying them,
stresses the important role and significance of these
factors in the life of society, in its history.
There are different kinds of social ideas and
theories. There are old ideas and theories which have
outlived their day and which serve the interests of the
moribund forces of society. Their significance lies in the
fact that they hamper the development, the progress of
society. Then there are new and advanced ideas and theories
which serve the interests of the advanced forces of society.
Their significance lies in the fact that they facilitate the
development, the progress of society; and their significance
is the greater the more accurately they reflect the needs of
development of the material life of society.
New social ideas and theories arise only after the
development of the material life of society has set new
tasks before society. But once they have arisen they become
a most potent force which facilitates the carrying out of
the new tasks set by the development of the material life of
society, a force which facilitates the progress of society.
It is precisely here that the tremendous organizing,
mobilizing and transforming value of new ideas, new
theories, new political views and new political institutions
manifests itself. New social ideas and theories arise
precisely because they are necessary to society, because it
is impossible to carry out the urgent tasks of development
of the material life of society without their organizing,
mobilizing and transforming action. Arising out of the new
tasks set by the development of the material life of
society, the new social ideas and theories force their way
through, become the possession of the masses, mobilize and
organize them against the moribund forces of society, and
thus facilitate the overthrow of these forces, which hamper
the development of the material life of society.
Thus social ideas, theories and political
institutions, having arisen on the basis of the urgent tasks
of the development of the material life of society, the
development of social being, themselves then react upon
social being, upon the material life of society, creating
the conditions necessary for completely carrying out the
urgent tasks of the material life of society, and for
rendering its further development possible.
In this connection, Marx says:
"Theory becomes a material force as soon as it has
gripped the masses." (Marx and Engels, Vol. I, p. 406.)
Hence, in order to be able to influence the conditions of
material life of society and to accelerate their development
and their improvement, the party of the proletariat must
rely upon such a social theory, such a social idea as
correctly reflects the needs of development of the material
life of society, and which is therefore capable of setting
into motion broad masses of the people and of mobilizing
them and organizing them into a great army of the
proletarian party, prepared to smash the reactionary forces
and to clear the way for the advanced forces of society.
The fall of the "Economists" and the Mensheviks was
due, among other things, to the fact that they did not
recognize the mobilizing, organizing and transforming role
of advanced theory, of advanced ideas and, sinking to vulgar
materialism, reduced the role of these factors almost to
nothing, thus condemning the Party to passivity and
inanition.
The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism is
derived from the fact that it relies upon an advanced theory
which correctly reflects the needs of development of the
material life of society, that it elevates theory to a
proper level, and that it deems it its duty to utilize every
ounce of the mobilizing, organizing and transforming power
of this theory.
That is the answer historical materialism gives to
the question of the relation between social being and social
consciousness, between the conditions of development of
material life and the development of the spiritual life of
society.
3) Historical Materialism.
It now remains to elucidate the
following question: What, from the viewpoint of historical
materialism, is meant by the "conditions of material life of
society" which in the final analysis determine the
physiognomy of society, its ideas, views, political
institutions, etc.?
What, after all, are these "conditions of material
life of society," what are their distinguishing features?
There can be no doubt that the concept "conditions
of material life of society" includes, first of all, nature
which surrounds society, geographical environment, which is
one of the indispensable and constant conditions of material
life of society and which, of course, influences the
development of society. What role does geographical
environment play in the development of society? Is
geographical environment the chief force determining the
physiognomy of society, the character of the social system
of man, the transition from one system to another, or isn't
it?
Historical materialism answers this question in the
negative.
Geographical environment is unquestionably one of
the constant and indispensable conditions of development of
society and, of course, influences the development of
society, accelerates or retards its development. But its
influence is not the determining influence, inasmuch
as the changes and development of society proceed at an
incomparably faster rate than the changes and development of
geographical environment. in the space of 3000 years three
different social systems have been successively superseded
in Europe: the primitive communal system, the slave system
and the feudal system. In the eastern part of Europe, in the
U.S.S.R., even four social systems have been superseded. Yet
during this period geographical conditions in Europe have
either not changed at all, or have changed so slightly that
geography takes no note of them. And that is quite natural.
Changes in geographical environment of any importance
require millions of years, whereas a few hundred or a couple
of thousand years are enough for even very important changes
in the system of human society.
It follows from this that geographical environment
cannot be the chief cause, the determining cause of
social development; for that which remains almost unchanged
in the course of tens of thousands of years cannot be the
chief cause of development of that which undergoes
fundamental changes in the course of a few hundred years
Further, there can be no doubt that the concept
"conditions of material life of society" also includes
growth of population, density of population of one degree or
another; for people are an essential element of the
conditions of material life of society, and without a
definite minimum number of people there can be no material
life of society. Is growth of population the chief force
that determines the character of the social system of man,
or isn't it?
Historical materialism answers this question too in
the negative.
Of course, growth of population does influence the
development of society, does facilitate or retard the
development of society, but it cannot be the chief force of
development of society, and its influence on the development
of society cannot be the determining influence
because, by itself, growth of population does not furnish
the clue to the question why a given social system is
replaced precisely by such and such a new system and not by
another, why the primitive communal system is succeeded
precisely by the slave system, the slave system by the
feudal system, and the feudal system by the bourgeois
system, and not by some other.
If growth of population were the determining force
of social development, then a higher density of population
would be bound to give rise to a correspondingly higher type
of social system. But we do not find this to be the case.
The density of population in China is four times as great as
in the U.S.A., yet the U.S.A. stands higher than China in
the scale of social development; for in China a semi-feudal
system still prevails, whereas the U.S.A. has long ago
reached the highest stage of development of capitalism. The
density of population in Belgium is I9 times as great as in
the U.S.A., and 26 times as great as in the U.S.S.R. Yet the
U.S.A. stands higher than Belgium in the scale of social
development; and as for the U.S.S.R., Belgium lags a whole
historical epoch behind this country, for in Belgium the
capitalist system prevails, whereas the U.S.S.R. has already
done away with capitalism and has set up a socialist system.
It follows from this that growth of population is
not, and cannot be, the chief force of development of
society, the force which determines the character of
the social system, the physiognomy of society.
a) What Is the Chief Determinant
Force?
What, then, is the chief force in the complex of
conditions of material life of society which determines the
physiognomy of society, the character of the social system,
the development of society from one system to another?
This force, historical materialism holds, is the
method of procuring the means of life necessary for
human existence, the mode of production of material
values – food, clothing, footwear, houses, fuel,
instruments of production, etc. – which are indispensable
for the life and development of society.
In order to live, people must have food, clothing,
footwear, shelter, fuel, etc.; in order to have these
material values, people must produce them; and in order to
produce them, people must have the instruments of production
with which food, clothing, footwear, shelter, fuel, etc.,
are produced, they must be able to produce these instruments
and to use them.
The instruments of production wherewith
material values are produced, the people who operate
the instruments of production and carry on the production of
material values thanks to a certain production
experience and labor skill – all these elements
jointly constitute the productive forces of society.
But the productive forces are only one aspect of
production, only one aspect of the mode of production, an
aspect that expresses the relation of men to the objects and
forces of nature which they make use of for the production
of material values. Another aspect of production, another
aspect of the mode of production, is the relation of men to
each other in the process of production, men's relations
of production. Men carry on a struggle against nature
and utilize nature for the production of material values not
in isolation from each other, not as separate individuals,
but in common, in groups, in societies. Production,
therefore, is at all times and under all conditions social
production. In the production of material values men enter
into mutual relations of one kind or another within
production, into relations of production of one kind or
another. These may be relations of co-operation and mutual
help between people who are free from exploitation; they may
be relations of domination and subordination; and, lastly,
they may be transitional from one form of relations of
production to another. But whatever the character of the
relations of production may be, always and in every system
they constitute just as essential an element of production
as the productive forces of society.
"In production," Marx says, "men not only act on nature
but also on one another. They produce only by
co-operating in a certain way and mutually exchanging
their activities. In order to produce, they enter into
definite connections and relations with one another and
only within these social connections and relations does
their action on nature, does production, take place."
(Marx and Engels, Vol. V, p. 429.)
Consequently, production, the mode of production,
embraces both the productive forces of society and men's
relations of production, and is thus the embodiment of their
unity in the process of production of material values.
b) The First Feature of Production
The first feature of production is that it never
stays at one point for a long time and is always in a state
of change and development, and that, furthermore, changes in
the mode of production inevitably call forth changes in the
whole social system, social ideas, political views and
political institutions – they call forth a reconstruction
of the whole social and political order. At different stages
of development people make use of different modes of
production, or, to put it more crudely, lead different
manners of life. In the primitive commune there is one mode
of production, under slavery there is another mode of
production, under feudalism a third mode of production and
so on. And, correspondingly, men's social system, the
spiritual life of men, their views and political
institutions also vary.
Whatever is the mode of production of a society,
such in the main is the society itself, its ideas and
theories, its political views and institutions.
Or, to put it more crudely, whatever is man's
manner of life such is his manner of thought.
This means that the history of development of
society is above all the history of the development of
production, the history of the modes of production which
succeed each other in the course of centuries, the history
of the development of productive forces and of people's
relations of production.
Hence, the history of social development is at the
same time the history of the producers of material values
themselves, the history of the laboring masses, who are the
chief force in the process of production and who carry on
the production of material values necessary for the
existence of society.
Hence, if historical science is to be a real
science, it can no longer reduce the history of social
development to the actions of kings and generals, to the
actions of "conquerors" and "subjugators" of states, but
must above all devote itself to the history of the producers
of material values, the history of the laboring masses, the
history of peoples.
Hence, the clue to the study of the laws of history
of society must not be sought in men's minds, in the views
and ideas of society, but in the mode of production
practiced by society in any given historical period; it must
be sought in the economic life of society.
Hence, the prime task of historical science is to
study and disclose the laws of production, the laws of
development of the productive forces and of the relations of
production, the laws of economic development of society.
Hence, if the party of the proletariat is to be a
real party, it must above all acquire a knowledge of the
laws of development of production, of the laws of economic
development of society.
Hence, if it is not to err in policy, the party of
the proletariat must both in drafting its program and in its
practical activities proceed primarily from the laws of
development of production from the laws of economic
development of society.
c) The Second Feature of Production
The second feature of production is that its
changes and development always begin with changes and
development of the productive forces, and in the first
place, with changes and development of the instruments of
production. Productive forces are therefore the most mobile
and revolutionary element of productions First the
productive forces of society change and develop, and then,
depending on these changes and in conformity with
them, men's relations of production, their economic
relations, change. This, however, does not mean that the
relations of production do not influence the development of
the productive forces and that the latter are not dependent
on the former. While their development is dependent on the
development of the productive forces, the relations of
production in their turn react upon the development of the
productive forces, accelerating or retarding it. In this
connection it should be noted that the relations of
production cannot for too long a time lag behind and be in a
state of contradiction to the growth of the productive
forces, inasmuch as the productive forces can develop in
full measure only when the relations of production
correspond to the character, the state of the productive
forces and allow full scope for their development.
Therefore, however much the relations of production may lag
behind the development of the productive forces, they must,
sooner or later, come into correspondence with – and
actually do come into correspondence with – the level of
development of the productive forces, the character of the
productive forces. Otherwise we would have a fundamental
violation of the unity of the productive forces and the
relations of production within the system of production, a
disruption of production as a whole, a crisis of production,
a destruction of productive forces.
An instance in which the relations of production do
not correspond to the character of the productive forces,
conflict with them, is the economic crises in capitalist
countries, where private capitalist ownership of the means
of production is in glaring incongruity with the social
character of the process of production, with the character
of the productive forces. This results in economic crises,
which lead to the destruction of productive forces.
Furthermore, this incongruity itself constitutes the
economic basis of social revolution, the purpose of which IS
to destroy the existing relations of production and to
create new relations of production corresponding to the
character of the productive forces.
In contrast, an instance in which the relations of
production completely correspond to the character of the
productive forces is the socialist national economy of the
U.S.S.R., where the social ownership of the means of
production fully corresponds to the social character of the
process of production, and where, because of this, economic
crises and the destruction of productive forces are unknown.
Consequently, the productive forces are not only
the most mobile and revolutionary element in production, but
are also the determining element in the development of
production.
Whatever are the productive forces such must be the
relations of production.
While the state of the productive forces furnishes
the answer to the question – with what instruments of
production do men produce the material values they need? –
the state of the relations of production furnishes the
answer to another question – who owns the means of
production (the land, forests, waters, mineral
resources, raw materials, instruments of production,
production premises, means of transportation and
communication, etc.), who commands the means of production,
whether the whole of society, or individual persons, groups,
or classes which utilize them for the exploitation of other
persons, groups or classes?
Here is a rough picture of the development of
productive forces from ancient times to our day. The
transition from crude stone tools to the bow and arrow, and
the accompanying transition from the life of hunters to the
domestication of animals and primitive pasturage; the
transition from stone tools to metal tools (the iron axe,
the wooden plow fitted with an iron coulter, etc.), with a
corresponding transition to tillage and agriculture; a
further improvement in metal tools for the working up of
materials, the introduction of the blacksmith's bellows, the
introduction of pottery, with a corresponding development of
handicrafts, the separation of handicrafts from agriculture,
the development of an independent handicraft industry and,
subsequently, of manufacture; the transition from handicraft
tools to machines and the transformation of handicraft and
manufacture into machine industry; the transition to the
machine system and the rise of modern large-scale machine
industry – such is a general and far from complete picture
of the development of the productive forces of society in
the course of man's history. It will be clear that the
development and improvement of the instruments of production
was effected by men who were related to production, and not
independently of men; and, consequently, the change and
development of the instruments of production was accompanied
by a change and development of men, as the most important
element of the productive forces, by a change and
development of their production experience, their labor
skill, their ability to handle the instruments of
production.
In conformity with the change and development of
the productive forces of society in the course of history,
men's relations of production, their economic relations also
changed and developed.
Main types of Relations of Production
Five main types of relations of production are
known to history: primitive communal, slave, feudal,
capitalist and socialist.
The basis of the relations of production under the
primitive communal system is that the means of production
are socially owned. This in the main corresponds to the
character of the productive forces of that period. Stone
tools, and, later, the bow and arrow, precluded the
possibility of men individually combating the forces of
nature and beasts of prey. In order to gather the fruits of
the forest, to catch fish, to build some sort of habitation,
men were obliged to work in common if they did not want to
die of starvation, or fall victim to beasts of prey or to
neighboring societies. Labor in common led to the common
ownership of the means of production, as well as of the
fruits of production. Here the conception of private
ownership of the means of production did not yet exist,
except for the personal ownership of certain implements of
production which were at the same time means of defense
against beasts of prey. Here there was no exploitation, no
classes.
The basis of the relations of production under the
slave system is that the slave-owner owns the means of
production, he also owns the worker in production – the
slave, whom he can sell, purchase, or kill as though he were
an animal. Such relations of production in the main
correspond to the state of the productive forces of that
period. Instead of stone tools, men now have metal tools at
their command; instead of the wretched and primitive
husbandry of the hunter, who knew neither pasturage nor
tillage, there now appear pasturage tillage, handicrafts,
and a division of labor between these branches of
production. There appears the possibility of the exchange of
products between individuals and between societies, of the
accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, the actual
accumulation of the means of production in the hands of a
minority, and the possibility of subjugation of the majority
by a minority and the conversion of the majority into
slaves. Here we no longer find the common and free labor of
all members of society in the production process – here
there prevails the forced labor of slaves, who are exploited
by the non-laboring slave-owners. Here, therefore, there is
no common ownership of the means of production or of the
fruits of production. It is replaced by private ownership.
Here the slaveowner appears as the prime and principal
property owner in the full sense of the term.
Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, people
with full rights and people with no rights, and a fierce
class struggle between them – such is the picture of the
slave system.
The basis of the relations of production under the
feudal system is that the feudal lord owns the means of
production and does not fully own the worker in production
– the serf, whom the feudal lord can no longer kill, but
whom he can buy and sell. Alongside of feudal ownership
there exists individual ownership by the peasant and the
handicraftsman of his implements of production and his
private enterprise based on his personal labor. Such
relations of production in the main correspond to the state
of the productive forces of that period. Further
improvements in the smelting and working of iron; the spread
of the iron plow and the loom; the further development of
agriculture, horticulture, viniculture and dairying; the
appearance of manufactories alongside of the handicraft
workshops – such are the characteristic features of the
state of the productive forces.
The new productive forces demand that the laborer
shall display some kind of initiative in production and an
inclination for work, an interest in work. The feudal lord
therefore discards the slave, as a laborer who has no
interest in work and is entirely without initiative, and
prefers to deal with the serf, who has his own husbandry,
implements of production, and a certain interest in work
essential for the cultivation of the land and for the
payment in kind of a part of his harvest to the feudal lord.
Here private ownership is further developed.
Exploitation is nearly as severe as it was under slavery –
it is only slightly mitigated. A class struggle between
exploiters and exploited is the principal feature of the
feudal system.
The basis of the relations of production under the
capitalist system is that the capitalist owns the means of
production, but not the workers in production – the wage
laborers, whom the capitalist can neither kill nor sell
because they are personally free, but who are deprived of
means of production and) in order not to die of hunger, are
obliged to sell their labor power to the capitalist and to
bear the yoke of exploitation. Alongside of capitalist
property in the means of production, we find, at first on a
wide scale, private property of the peasants and
handicraftsmen in the means of production, these peasants
and handicraftsmen no longer being serfs, and their private
property being based on personal labor. In place of the
handicraft workshops and manufactories there appear huge
mills and factories equipped with machinery. In place of the
manorial estates tilled by the primitive implements of
production of the peasant, there now appear large capitalist
farms run on scientific lines and supplied with agricultural
machinery
The new productive forces require that the workers
in production shall be better educated and more intelligent
than the downtrodden and ignorant serfs, that they be able
to understand machinery and operate it properly. Therefore,
the capitalists prefer to deal with wage-workers, who are
free from the bonds of serfdom and who are educated enough
to be able properly to operate machinery.
But having developed productive forces to a
tremendous extent, capitalism has become enmeshed in
contradictions which it is unable to solve. By producing
larger and larger quantities of commodities, and reducing
their prices, capitalism intensifies competition, ruins the
mass of small and medium private owners, converts them into
proletarians and reduces their purchasing power, with the
result that it becomes impossible to dispose of the
commodities produced. On the other hand, by expanding
production and concentrating millions of workers in huge
mills and factories, capitalism lends the process of
production a social character and thus undermines its own
foundation, inasmuch as the social character of the process
of production demands the social ownership of the means of
production; yet the means of production remain private
capitalist property, which is incompatible with the social
character of the process of production.
These irreconcilable contradictions between the
character of the productive forces and the relations of
production make themselves felt in periodical crises of
over-production, when the capitalists, finding no effective
demand for their goods owing to the ruin of the mass of the
population which they themselves have brought about, are
compelled to burn products, destroy manufactured goods,
suspend production, and destroy productive forces at a time
when millions of people are forced to suffer unemployment
and starvation, not because there are not enough goods, but
because there is an overproduction of goods.
This means that the capitalist relations of
production have ceased to correspond to the state of
productive forces of society and have come into
irreconcilable contradiction with them.
This means that capitalism is pregnant with
revolution, whose mission it is to replace the existing
capitalist ownership of the means of production by socialist
ownership.
This means that the main feature of the capitalist
system is a most acute class struggle between the exploiters
and the exploited.
The basis of the relations of production under the
socialist system, which so far has been established only in
the U.S.S.R., is the social ownership of the means of
production. Here there are no longer exploiters and
exploited. The goods produced are distributed according to
labor performed, on the principle: "He who does not work,
neither shall he eat." Here the mutual relations of people
in the process of production are marked by comradely
cooperation and the socialist mutual assistance of workers
who are free from exploitation. Here the relations of
production fully correspond to the state of productive
forces; for the social character of the process of
production is reinforced by the social ownership of the
means of production.
For this reason socialist production in the
U.S.S.R. knows no periodical crises of over-production and
their accompanying absurdities.
For this reason, the productive forces here develop
at an accelerated pace; for the relations of production that
correspond to them offer full scope for such development.
Such is the picture of the development of men's
relations of production in the course of human history.
Such is the dependence of the development of the
relations of production on the development of the productive
forces of society, and primarily, on the development of the
instruments of production, the dependence by virtue of which
the changes and development of the productive forces sooner
or later lead to corresponding changes and development of
the relations of production.
"The use and fabrication of instruments of labor," says
Marx, "although existing in the germ among certain
species of animals, is specifically characteristic of the
human labor-process, and Franklin therefore defines man
as a tool-making animal. Relics of bygone instruments of
labor possess the same importance for the investigation
of extinct economical forms of society, as do fossil
bones for the determination of extinct species of
animals. It is not the articles made, but how they are
made that enables us to distinguish different economical
epochs. Instruments of labor not only supply a standard
of the degree of development to which human labor has
attained, but they are also indicators of the social
conditions under which that labor is carried on." (Marx,
Capital, Vol. I, 1935, p. 121.)
And further:
– "Social relations are closely bound up with productive
forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change
their mode of production; and in changing their mode of
production, in changing the way of earning their living,
they change all their social relations. The hand-mill
gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill,
society with the industrial capitalist." (Marx and
Engels, Vol. V, p. 564.)
– "There is a continual movement of growth in
productive forces, of destruction in social relations, of
formation in ideas; the only immutable thing is the
abstraction of movement." (Ibid., p. 364.)
Speaking of historical materialism as formulated in The
Communist Manifesto, Engels says:
"Economic production and the structure of society of
every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom
constitute the foundation for the political and
intellectual history of that epoch; ... consequently
(ever since the dissolution of the primeval communal
ownership of land) all history has been a history of
class struggles, of struggles between exploited and
exploiting, between dominated and dominating classes at
various stages of social development; ... this struggle,
however, has now reached a stage where the exploited and
oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer
emancipate itself from the class which exploits and
oppresses it (the bourgeoisie), without at the same time
for ever freeing the whole of society from exploitation,
oppression and class struggles...." (Engels' Preface to
the German Edition of the Manifesto.)
d) The Third Feature of Production
The third feature of production is that the rise
of new productive forces and of the relations of production
corresponding to them does not take place separately from
the old system, after the disappearance of the old system,
but within the old system; it takes place not as a result of
the deliberate and conscious activity of man, but
spontaneously, unconsciously, independently of the will of
man It takes place spontaneously and independently of the
will of man for two reasons.
Firstly, because men are not free to choose one
mode of production or another, because as every new
generation enters life it finds productive forces and
relations of production already existing as the result of
the work of former generations, owing to which it is obliged
at first to accept and adapt itself to everything it finds
ready-made in the sphere of production in order to be able
to produce material values.
Secondly, because, when improving one instrument of
production or another, one clement of the productive forces
or another, men do not realize, do not understand or stop to
reflect what social results these improvements will lead to,
but only think of their everyday interests, of lightening
their labor and of securing some direct and tangible
advantage for themselves.
When, gradually and gropingly, certain members of
primitive communal society passed from the use of stone
tools to the use of iron tools, they, of course, did not
know and did not stop to reflect what social results this
innovation would lead to; they did not understand or realize
that the change to metal tools meant a revolution in
production, that it would in the long run lead to the slave
system. They simply wanted to lighten their labor and secure
an immediate and tangible advantage; their conscious
activity was confined within the narrow bounds of this
everyday personal interest.
When, in the period of the feudal system, the young
bourgeoisie of Europe began to erect, alongside of the small
guild workshops, large manufactories, and thus advanced the
productive forces of society, it, of course, did not know
and did not stop to reflect what social consequences
this innovation would lead to; it did not realize or
understand that this "small" innovation would lead to a
regrouping of social forces which was to end in a revolution
both against the power of kings, whose favors it so highly
valued, and against the nobility, to whose ranks its
foremost representatives not infrequently aspired. It simply
wanted to lower the cost of producing goods, to throw larger
quantities of goods on the markets of Asia and of recently
discovered America, and to make bigger profits. Its
conscious activity was confined within the narrow bounds of
this commonplace practical aim.
When the Russian capitalists, in conjunction with
foreign capitalists, energetically implanted modern
large-scale machine industry in Russia, while leaving
tsardom intact and turning the peasants over to the tender
mercies of the landlords, they, of course, did not know and
did not stop to reflect what social consequences this
extensive growth of productive forces would lead to; they
did not realize or understand that this big leap in the
realm of the productive forces of society would lead to a
regrouping of social forces that would enable the
proletariat to effect a union with the peasantry and to
bring about a victorious socialist revolution. They simply
wanted to expand industrial production to the limit, to gain
control of the huge home market, to become monopolists, and
to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the national
economy.
Their conscious activity did not extend beyond
their commonplace, strictly practical interests.
Accordingly, Marx says:
"In the social production of their life (that is. in the
production of the material values necessary to the life
of men – J. St.), men enter into definite relations that
are indispensable and independent of their will,
relations of production which correspond to a definite
stage of development of their material productive
forces." (Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, p 269).
This, however, does not mean that changes in the
relations of production, and the transition from old
relations of production to new relations of production
proceed smoothly, without conflicts, without upheavals. On
the contrary such a transition usually takes place by means
of the revolutionary overthrow of the old relations of
production and the establishment of new relations of
production. Up to a certain period the development of the
productive forces and the changes in the realm of the
relations of production proceed spontaneously independently
of the will of men. But that is so only up to a certain
moment, until the new and developing productive forces have
reached a proper state of maturity After the new productive
forces have matured, the existing relations of production
and their upholders – the ruling classes – become that
"insuperable" obstacle which can only be removed by the
conscious action of the new classes, by the forcible acts of
these classes, by revolution. Here there stands out in bold
relief the tremendous role of new social ideas, of
new political institutions, of a new political power, whose
mission it is to abolish by force the old relations of
production. Out of the conflict between the new productive
forces and the old relations of production, out of the new
economic demands of society, there arise new social ideas;
the new ideas organize and mobilize the masses; the masses
become welded into a new political army, create a new
revolutionary power, and make use of it to abolish by force
the old system of relations of production, and to firmly
establish the new system. The spontaneous process of
development yields place to the conscious actions of men,
peaceful development to violent upheaval, evolution to
revolution.
"The proletariat," says Marx, "during its contest with
the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of
circumstances, to organize itself as a class...by means
of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and,
as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of
production...." (Manifesto of the Communist Party,
1938, p. 52.)
And further:
– "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to
wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to
centralize all instruments of production in the hands of
the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the
ruling class; and to increase the total of productive
forces as rapidly as possible." (Ibid., p. 50 )
– "Force is the midwife of every old society
pregnant with a new one." (Marx, Capital, Vol. I,
1955, p. 603.)
Here is the formulation – a formulation of genius – of
the essence of historical materialism given by Marx in 1859
in his historic Preface to his famous book, A
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:
"In the social production of their life, men enter into
definite relations that are indispensable and independent
of their will, relations of production which correspond
to a definite stage of development of their material
productive forces. The sum total of these relations of
production constitutes the economic structure of society,
the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political
superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of
social consciousness. The mode of production of material
life conditions the social, political and intellectual
life process in general. It is not the consciousness of
men that determines their being, but, on the contrary,
their social being that determines their consciousness.
At a certain stage of their development, the material
productive forces of society come in conflict with the
existing relations of production, or – what is but a
legal expression for the same thing – with the property
relations within which they have been at work hitherto.
From forms of development of the productive forces these
relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch
of social revolution. With the change of the economic
foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or
less rapidly transformed. In considering such
transformations a distinction should always be made
between the material transformation of the economic
conditions of production, which can be determined with
the precision of natural science, and the legal,
political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic – in
short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of
this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an
individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so
can we not judge of such a period of transformation by
its own consciousness; on the contrary this consciousness
must be explained rather from the contradictions of
material life, from the existing conflict between the
social productive forces and the relations of production.
No social order ever perishes before all the productive
forces for which there is room in it have developed; and
new, higher relations of production never appear before
the material conditions of their existence have matured
in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind
always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since
looking at the matter more closely, it will always be
found that the task itself arises only when the material
conditions for its solution already exist or are at least
in the process of formation." (Marx, Selected
Works, Vol. I, pp. 269-70.)
Such is Marxist materialism as applied to social life, to
the history of society.
Such are the principal features of dialectical and
historical materialism.