the claims made by Marx's 'historical materialism'

[ezmc]

Hey, i'd like more information on this. I know the essence of the materialist conception of history is that history can be understood via understanding the modes of production through which man makes his subsidence - and these modes of production generally determine the political structure of the day. For example, the bourgeoisie was developed from the ruins of the feudal system, and the modern capitalists came to 'dominate' and this changed the political structure of society etc.

Marx also claims that history hitherto is that of a 'class struggle'; feudalism was replaced by capitalism, and eventually the proletarian will be successful in dominating and spreading communism. Also being a materialist, although not doubting the power of ideas, he believes material conditioning plays the leading role in determining 'history' right?

if anyone could give me more information to me on this, and hit me up with some more 'claims' of this conception of history, and of course any criticisms or defences of it, i'd be grateful. And yeah i've been to the Marxists site, and wikipedia, but i'd like further input on this. I'm a newbie to this, so if you can, please try and put some clarity into the reply.

[P.O.U.M]

Introduction to Historical Materialism
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html#historicalmaterialism

Historical Materialism: A Study Guide
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide2.html

You seem like you've got the basic concepts down. You might want to get familarized with dialectical materialism as well. It plays a big role in historical materialism. Each mode of production "is pregnant with its condradiction" as Marx pointed out. Capitalism for instance, arose from feudalism and created a working class. With the centralization of capital, of the means of production, which brought more people to the city in effect creating the proletariat. This new class which capitalism created will one day be the ones to overthrow capitalism. Yet, capitalism still needs the working class to survive. So capitalism has created its own grave diggers.

There have also been 4 generalized modes of production.

1) Primitive Communism
2) Slave driven economy
3) Fuedalism
4) Capitalism

Also be aware of that not every society's economy was the same. The basic mode of production was there, but a society may carry it out differently than another. Lenin's short speech on the state illustrates how each mode of the production, though the same, may be carried out differently.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jul/11.htm

[turnoviseous]

Also being a materialist, although not doubting the power of ideas, he believes material conditioning plays the leading role in determining 'history' right?

Well, the thing is not to become economic-determinist here. Thats very important, Check the "economic determinism" thread where there is link to the engels´ letter on the matter.

[ezmc]

Yeah, i'm somewhat aware of the danger of slipping into thinking Marx adhered to 'economic-determinism', thanks for dropping the info, turn.

And thanks a lot for the valuable information provided, P.O.U.M. However, i'm finding it hard to digest the proper meaning of dialectical materialism, could you maybe provide me with the basic outline of what it is? The problem is i'm not entirely sure in what context the term "contradiction" is used in relation to dialectical materialism.

thanks.

[P.O.U.M]

Dialetical materialism is a tricky concept. I myself have nothing more than a basic understanding of dialectics. Dont be disillusioned if you dont get it at first, just keep trying to tackle it. Most people who dont understand dialectics just completly renounce it and claim dialectics is useless and simple logic could replace it. Though dialectics is one of the most powerful tools Marxism has.

Dialectics is the science of Marxism, though not an exact science. Its much like medical science, you diagnose the patient (be it a human or society) and prescribe a remedy for it.

A basic summary of dialectics:

1) Everything (every object and process) is made up of opposing forces/opposing sides

2) Gradual changes lead to turning points (such as revolutions), where one opposite overcomes another.

3) Change moves in spirals, not circles.

For more, check out http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/ Its "Dialectics For Kids" But its very well done and very helpful to understanding dialetics. It can be alittle childish at times, but I suggest going through the whole site.

What is Dialectical Materialism by Rob Sewell
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide1.html

ABC of Materialist Dialectics by Leon Trotsky
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/ABC.html

Reason in Revolt by Ted Grant & Alan Woods
http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp

The last link is a book on dialectics in modern science. Its longer but worth checking out sometime.

[Volkov]

Dialetical materialism is a tricky concept. I myself have nothing more than a basic understanding of dialectics. Dont be disillusioned if you dont get it at first, just keep trying to tackle it. Most people who dont understand dialectics just completly renounce it and claim dialectics is useless and simple logic could replace it. Though dialectics is one of the most powerful tools Marxism has.

Dialectics is the science of Marxism, though not an exact science. Its much like medical science, you diagnose the patient (be it a human or society) and prescribe a remedy for it.

A basic summary of dialectics:

1) Everything (every object and process) is made up of opposing forces/opposing sides

2) Gradual changes lead to turning points (such as revolutions), where one opposite overcomes another.

3) Change moves in spirals, not circles.

For more, check out http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/ Its "Dialectics For Kids" But its very well done and very helpful to understanding dialetics. It can be alittle childish at times, but I suggest going through the whole site.

What is Dialectical Materialism by Rob Sewell
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide1.html

ABC of Materialist Dialectics by Leon Trotsky
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/ABC.html

Reason in Revolt by Ted Grant & Alan Woods
http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp

The last link is a book on dialectics in modern science. Its longer but worth checking out sometime.

I agree with this.  Dialectical Materialism is not easy at first, given how it strongly contradicts "common sense."  I was extremely confused when I read that contradictions and such existed when I was going through parts of Reason in Revolt way back in late 2003 to early 2004.  It took many months of intense thinking to start to understand it.

I don't know where my understanding of dialectics stands compared to other members.  I have read some other works besides the ones comrade P.O.U.M listed, such as Hegel's Shorter Logic, Engels's Anti-Dühring and The Dialectics of Nature, and I have some other works I have not read on the subject, such as volume 38 of the Lenin Collected Works (his philosophical notebooks) and Ilyenkov's rare, out-of-print Dialectical Logic[/i[, but I have not gotten to reading them yet, due to a busy schedule.  I hope to expand my knowledge once my schedule starts clearing up and helping to meet contacts and build a local WIL branch.

[P.O.U.M]

There's a "Shorter Logic" by Hegel?

Closest thing Ive read to Hegel was "Hegel in 90 Minutes." It helped me understand the basic Hegel.

[ezmc]

thanks for the help once again.

Also, i'd like to ask if i'm on the right path here:

I know Marx wasn't an economic determinist, but he did give primary to the 'base' in relation to the 'superstructure', and that an ideology or state in most cases does not initiate powerful change, but the productive relations in some respects 'determine' superstructure. Could the example of the difficulty of the Labour party in the UK in enacting socialist laws and spreading socialist ideology while still in Capitalist productive relations be given as an example of the dependency and secondary nature of the Superstructure on the 'base'? Because due to this difficulty, the Labour party had to reform and embrace liberal economics.

I'm wondering if this is a sound example?