Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels applied dialectical method in studying history and analysed man’s social life with materialist outlook, thereby giving birth to historical materialism. We will now discuss some of the salient features of historical materialism.
1. Contrary to idealism, historical materialism searches the cause of social development not in any “Universal Soul” or in any “supernatural force”, but in the material life of human beings. To live, men need food, clothes, dwellings, energy, etc.; and to acquire these things men must provide them. Production is the first historical act which separates human beings from the rest of animal world. To produce, they need means of production (ploughshare, machines etc). Means of production, human labour, skill and experience of labour (with which men produce)—all these things are called productive forces. But this is only one aspect of production. For production, for acquiring means of subsistence from nature, only productive forces are not enough. Only by establishing certain relationship among themselves, men can acquire means of livelihood from nature. This relationship among themselves may be of mutual co-operation or it may be of subordination of a section of population by the other. In the process of production, the relationship men establish among themselves is called production relations. For facilitating production, production relations must correspond with the productive forces. Productive forces and relations of production, together constitute the mode of production. Society changes due to change in the mode of production.
2. Contrary to metaphysics, historical materialism views this mode of production not as something static, immovable and permanent, but as something always changing and trans forming. In any mode of production, productive forces change first of all, and in the productive forces, at first means of production change. Hence, means of production are the most mobile factor in any mode of production. Organisation of labour is determined by the means of production. New productive forces demand change in production relations—they collide with the existing, old relations of production. And subsequently old relations of production are destroyed, and new relations of production are established to facilitate the growth of new productive forces. In world history, we find uptil now five modes of production, hence five social systems – primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and socialism.
3. Contrary to metaphysics, historical materialism holds that productive forces also develop from quantity to quality, from lower to higher, and from simple to complex. In primitive age, men had only stone implements, so only as a collective unit (based on mutual co-operation) they would have been able to face the adverse conditions of nature and to make possible their bare subsistence. But in search of finer variety of stones (to make their stone implements more polished and pointed) they, in a process, discovered copper and other metals. Introduction of metals completely revolutionised their means of production and gradually their whole social life. Quantitative changes in their stone implements gradually led towards a qualitative leap. Quantitative changes in their means of production did not influence their existing relations of production to a great extent. But this qualitative leap in the means of production demanded completely new relations of production, if production was to be continued. This new means of production opened up new avenues for earning livelihood—some took to cultivation, some to metal works and handicrafts, some continued hunting etc. Division of labour stepped in, barter system of exchange began, and gradually private property developed. So, introduction of metals in the life of tribals completely disintegrated the old primitive communal life of these tribals. Production increased, some surplus production achieved and some means of production became surplus. Hence, to utilise these means of production to the fullest extent, it was necessary to establish new relations of production. It was done. So instead of being killed, the prisoners of inter-tribal wars were now employed in productive labour as slaves. Old production relation based on mutual cooperation was shattered and new production relation based on slavery was established.
4. In the process of developing means of production men do not invent new means of production consciously with an understanding of the forthcoming social changes that it may bring. They do so to solve their immediate necessities. Hence, means of production develop to an extent spontaneously, unknowingly. But only to an extent. When new productive forces fully develop under old relation of production new classes representing new productive forces emerge and with them emerge new ideas, new politics, new laws etc; in short new theories representing new productive forces. Then this new theory mobilises new classes and through conscious effort they overthrow old classes representing old relations of production. Herein lies the role of theory. Therefore, Lenin said, “without a revolutionary theory, there cannot be a revolutionary movement.”
In the words of Marx, “the sum total of production relations, the economic structure of society is the real base on which the whole legal and political superstructure rests and social consciousness conforms to them. The mode of production of material life generally determines social, political and intellectual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of man that determines his social being, but on the contrary, it is hrs social being that determines his consciousness. At a certain stage of development, material productive forces of society begin to collide with the existing relations of production—or to use legal terms—property relations under which the productive forces have so far developed. These relations become barrier in the development of productive forces. Then begins the era of social revolution. With change in economic base the whole superstructure more or less transforms after some time.” It is apparent that even after change in mode of production, economic base, old superstructure (old ideas, culture, habits) exists, upto a time and it obstructs the development of new mode of production. Hence, mode cf production determines superstructure and in turn this superstructure also influences mode of production.
In the present world, big bourgeoisie are owners of factories, means of production and they control production in pursuit of profit. When they begin to loose profit, they lock factories out; consequently thousands upon thousands of workers become unemployed, colossal destruction of productive forces occurs. Productive forces are colliding with the old relation of production i.e. the relation between capital and wage labour. As a result, it is the era of social revolution. Representative of new productive forces, the international proletariat is getting organised against world imperialism. Only new type of production relation, i.e. socialist production relation of common ownership over means of production can unleash the development of new productive forces.
Peasants want development of productive forces—to till larger tracts of land (rendered unproductive or under productive by landlords) by bringing them under their hold and to develop agriculture. But this attempt to develop productive forces collides with existing production relations. Only by abolishing landlords and the state protecting their interests can they be able to develop productive forces.
So, new means of production do not automatically change relations of production. Though these new means of production certainly erode the basis of old production relations, but without a social revolution they do not change qualitatively. Suppose, the old production relations are maintained and some new means of production are introduced from above to some extent, what will happen? Certainly, it will not unleash the development of productive forces. Instead, it will give birth to some new social formations—a new type of old classes will be observed. “Green Revolution” in India is its glaring proof.
Metaphysics refuses to study any production system as something inter-related to other production systems. So it is unable to explain some phenomenon occurring in that production system (such as, why India lacked infrastructural facilities for sustained agricultural growth, why imperialist agencies financed rural development or “green revolution” programme, why despite surplus production wheat is imported, etc.). Metaphysics is totally ignorant of these laws of motion governing a mode of production and of how under different historical conditions means of production react differently upon production relations, and due to this how changes occur in classes or social formations. They view classes or social formations in an ossified, stereotyped manner. These superficial metaphysical pundits see some factors in some parts of rural India and exclaim : “capitalism is flourishing in rural India.”
To further illustrate how in different historical conditions development takes different forms, let us take the example of the growth of capital :
First Historical Stage (17th Century to 18th Century):
Discovery of India and America, birth of world market, increasing demand of commodities and as a result of it, rapid development of commodity production in Britain and France, journeymen and guild-masters in gradual process develop into capitalists. In the words of Marx, this is the true revolutionary path of the development of capitalism.
Second Historical Stage (19th Century)—
Capitalism developed in Britain and France, a large number of countries were colonised by them, the cycle of capitalist crisis (overproduction) had already begun in these countries and there began the proletarian movement on a broad scale. Under these conditions the capital that developed in Germany and in Russia was allied with autocratic monarchies and was frightened with proletarian movement, hence it eroded feudalism very slowly and cautiously and was dependent on Britain and France in many respects. Under these circumstances, it was very difficult for a direct producer to turn into a capitalist. The character of this capital is conservative and for a long time it developed under the protection of autocratic monarchies.
Third Historical Stage (Latter half of 19th Century and 20th Century, Development of Capital in Colonies : In the eve of imperialism and later era of imperialism, the whole world had been divided among a few monopoly bourgeoisie. These monopoly bourgeoisie amassed immense capital, had virtual monopoly over the most sophisticated technology and managerial skills. They had marketing agencies worldwide and had control over sources of raw materials, and by that time export of capital was more important for them than export of commodities. Under these conditions capital was born in colonies. For capital, technical know-how, management, marketing and raw materials, these capitalists were dependent on imperialists. Growth in foreign capital was the primary condition for its own development. So, it was one more medium through which foreign capital grabbed surplus wealth of colonies. The same condition continues uptill now. The character of this type of capital emerged in colonies is essentially comprador.
Metaphysics sees the development of capital without taking into account the concrete historical conditions. So people suffering from this disease sometimes characterise the capital rising in colonies as revolutionary similar to British and French capital. Some others suffering from the same disease compare it with Russian and German capital, etc.
Here we have described the character of dominant (principal) section of capital under the three historical conditions. According to dialectics, along with this dominant, principal section there exists a secondary section in the process of development of capital too. In England, Tories and Whigs; in France, Giraundons and Jacobians; in Germany and Russia, conservatives and liberals; and in colonies, compradors and national bourgeoisie represented the two sections – the principal and secondary sections. Metaphysics notices only one aspect of the process of growth and development of capital, therefore it commits blunders in formulating line, policies and slogans.
In class society, every production system remains linked with a colonial system. For example, in ancient world, the Roman empire of slave-owners, the feudal empire of Greece, the various empires of Iran, India and China, and in the present world, the world imperialism of capital. Each colonial system has its own particularity which is determined by the mode of production prevalent in colonising countries. The source of colonial system is the mode of production based on exploitation, which has an inherent tendency of grabbing more and more surplus of one’s own society as well as, in the process, of other nations. The colonial system has attained its highest form in imperialism, the highest form of capitalism. Neo-colonialism of now a days is the most sophisticated form of colonialism; a handful of international monopolists, without any direct rule, due to merely their unparalleled supremacy in capital, technology, managerial skills, marketing facilities etc. etc. siphon off almost the whole bulk of surplus of the backward and weaker nations throughout the world in an unprecedented manner. The tremendous productive forces of the entire world are utilised to create massive profits for the handful of monopolies, who in turn, whenever their enormous capital faces a crisis, throw the whole world in colossal destruction of labour power and wealth and even in the flames of world wars. Hence, imperialism has become the greatest barrier before the development of productive forces on the worldwide scale. In order to grab the surplus of the entire world, of all the countries, imperialism has kept alive semi-feudal production relations, the most backward and the most outdated ones. But parallelly it has brought along with it, its own opposite—the unity of international proletariat, the oppressed peoples and nations too.
6. Since historical materialism reveals the laws of motion of society, therefore, it inspires us to build society on the basis of these laws. If society develops due to the contradiction between new productive force and the old relations of production, between mutually warring classes and between old and new, then which production relation has become the barrier before the development of productive forces? This is the method of historical materialism for determining the principal contradiction in the society. On international scale, it is the imperialist production relation that has become the barrier before the development of new productive forces, hence the contradiction between imperialism and people of the world is the principal contradiction. But according to the dialectical method, in a given historical period, we must study the relative positions of various imperialist powers and should not regard them as a single entity. Hence, under concrete international situation, the contradiction between aggressive imperialist power and people of the world becomes the principal contradiction.
This method is also the method of determining the principal contradiction on national scale. If internationally, the principal contradiction is between imperialism and the people, it does not imply that in each and every country the same thing will hold good. Such a formulation betrays metaphysical method. When we say that the contradiction between imperialism and masses is the principal contradiction internationally, it is only the generalised form of various contradictions existing in different countries. So, the principal contradiction may vary from country to country. In any country, the principal contradiction is determined on the basis of the contradiction between relations of production and productive forces. In a country, where there is a direct military intervention, the intervening imperialist power is the main barrier to the development of productive forces. Hence, there the contradiction between that imperialist power and broad masses becomes the principal contradiction. But in those countries where there is no direct military intervention, some internal production relation exists as the direct barrier to the development of productive forces. Hence the contradiction between that production relation and broad masses becomes the principal contradiction. If more than one old production relations are direct barriers, then with the help of this dialectical method, we should find out the principal barrier. By solving this principal contradiction can only social development take a leap.
7. Uptill now in history, given the stage of production, labour for bare existence has claimed all or almost all the time of the great majority of the members of the society. Therefore, the entire humanity does not come in a position of transforming and becoming master of nature by studing its laws. But modern industry, with its unprecedented productive capacity, has opened the new vistas of new possibilities before us. If modern industry is freed from the shackles of capitalist production relations and its tremendous productive capacity is released, then mankind will acquire its means of livelihood on a very short period of time, will become free from the troubles of daily life and will advance quite rapidly towards becoming the masters of nature. Modern industry has provided the material conditions for fulfilling this task. We have with us a history of complete process of development (from primitive communist mode of production to the creation of objective basis of a future higher form of communist mode of production). Not only that, the class that can free modern industry from the fetters of capitalist relations of production has already stepped on the stage also, i.e. the proletariat who emerged as an independent force in the middle of the last century. And since then proletariat has advanced much towards its cherished goal through October Revolution and Great Chinese Revolution. Although its course of advance is zig-zag one and it may well face certain setbacks, its advance from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom will continue unabated. “Necessity is blind only insofar as it is not understood. Freedom does not consist in an imaginary independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the possibility which is thus given of systematically making them work towards definite ends. Freedom, therefore, consists in command over ourselves and over external nature, a command founded on knowledge of natural necessity. It is, therefore, necessarily a product of historical development.” With the dialectical and historical materialism as guiding philosophy, the proletariat is sure to realise the great mission of building a communist society, at which point, in the words of Engels : “It is only at this point that man finally separates in a certain sense from the animal kingdom and that he passes from animal conditions of existence to really human ones. … The objective extraneous forces which have hitherto dominated history would pass under the control of man himself. It is only from this point that man will himself make his own history fully consciously. … … It is humanity’s leap from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom.”
Here we have presented some of the salient features of historical materialism. The main thing it teaches us is that economy is the basis on which the whole social edifice is built. So in our next book, we will discuss political economy.
