Elster chapter 6: Historical Materialism [103]
Introduction [103]
Four modes of production:
Problem for Marx – we are told three different stories about historical development:
· “All history is the history of class struggle”
· [Historical Materialism:] what history is all about is the development of the productive forces
·
The Development of the Productive Forces [105]
Summary:
Within each mode of production, there initially obtains a
correspondence between the relations of production and the productive
forces. Later the correspondence turns
into a contradiction, which causes
“an epoch of social revolution” and the setting up of new relations of
production, which, for a while, reestablish the correspondence. [106]
The Productive forces:
everything that promotes the mastery of man over nature for the purpose of want satisfaction – especially technology, science and human skills.
Development of the productive forces is measured by the degree to which the same goods can be produced with less human labor.
The Relations of Production:
Property rights in productive forces. (Or, as Cohen puts it, “relations of economic power, of the economic power people enjoy or lack over labour power and the means of production.”
For example:
|
|
Amount of economic power over |
|
|
|
His labour power |
The means of production he uses |
|
Slave |
none |
none |
|
Serf |
Some |
Some |
|
Proletarian |
All |
None |
|
Independent |
All |
All |
Sum total of relations of production = economic basis of society, and are what distinguishes modes of production from each other.
A set of relations of production corresponds to the productive forces when it is optimally suited to develop the latter.
A contradiction between forces and relations of production is simply the absence of correspondence. This happens when the rate of technical change is smaller than it counterfactually could have been. Any mode of production stimulates a development of the productive forces that will lead to its own obsolescence.
(This is the first
functional explanation:
Base and Superstructure [112]
The Stages of Historical Development [117]
Chapter 5: Historical Materialism [52]
This view prompts several questions:
· What are these structures like?
· How do they maintain themselves?
· How do they change?
In The Poverty of Philosophy Marx wrote:
In acquiring new productive forces, men change their mode of production and in changing their mode of production, in changing their way of earning their living, they change all their social relations.
What is a mode of production?
They are social structures. They differ from each other by having different forces and relations of production.
What are forces of production?
In agriculture, forces of production are land and cattle, tools like ploughs, farm buildings, et. al. In factory production, they would be factories, machines, trucks, roads/railroads. Also in both cases, human labor is a force of production.
What are relations of production?
The ownership of land and machines, the control of work, and who profits.
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.
Two kinds of relations of production: technical (the way the work process is organized) and relations of ownership.
“Social structures remain stable and can maintain themselves in the face of serious opposition as long as the relations of production are in some sort of harmony with the forces of production...so that the forces of production can continue to develop... As long as the relations of production...do not get in the way of the improvement of the forces of production, a social structure will tend to be stable.” Revolution occurs only when the relations of production are holding back improvements in the forces:
At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production... Then begins an epoch of social revolution.
Forces and Relations of Production [55]
The way in which the production process is organized changes in response to the means by which production is carried out – new technologies require new work organizations. Example from war: armies changed totally when firearms replaces swords and spears.
In capitalism the relations of ownership have remained the same, while the technical relations have changed.
BUT does this mean that change in the forces of production causes change in the relations of production? (e.g., the technical advances of the industrial revolution ending slavery)
There are problems with this deterministic view:
1. It doesn’t fit with Marx and Engels’ other claim that history is the history of class struggle. If technological change drove all history, what role is there for human struggle?
2. Similarly, why bother to organize politically? If all change is brought about through technological change, wouldn’t it be better to be an inventor?
3. In
his actual case studies, Marx also stresses the role of brute force to bring about change.
Also, it seems that division of labour (a relation
of production) was more important to change than invention of new machinery (a force).
So, Historical Materialism (the claim that history is moved by material economic forces) cannot be taken literally as a causal claim. The relationship is more complicated. But in that case, what use is it?
Why Take Historical Materialism Seriously? [61]
“Historical Materialism does not assert the causal primacy of economics, but it insists that the causal role of religion or other beliefs can best be explained by reference to peoples’ economic lives, that is, but reference to the ways in which they meet their daily needs and the changes to which those economic conditions are subject”
(Here economic is used broadly to refer to whatever is involved when people meet their needs. This will change in different times and cultures.)