Political theory: foundational concepts and major traditions

¶ … Materialism: What does it mean in Marx?

Marx's writings and philosophies extend through various disciplines of history, economics, political science, literature, philosophy, political economy, sociology and even - arguably - mathematics. There are several common strings throughout his writings, many of which we have explored this semester, but a constant beacon, a constant guideline, is Marx's concept of historical materialism.

In historical materialism, economics is key. Economics has always motivated people through history, and can be isolated as an independent force, separate from the religious or ideological.

For Marx, social necessity is uniform: What differs among men is economic power, ability and desire. One gets what one deserves, and in the ideological or religious, this is not necessarily the case, but in the economic, it certainly is, or at least should be.

In "Historical Materialism and the Economics of Karl Marx" by Benedetto Croce, Croce writes, "Historical materialism is what is called a fashionable subject. The theory came into being fifty years ago, and for a time remained obscure and limited; but during the last six or seven years it has rapidly attained great fame and an extensive literature, which is daily increasing, has grown up around it." The reason it has increased in popularity has been increased attention to its relevance to economic theory. Interestingly, historical materialism's popularity has grown in inverse proportion to the worldwide success of Marxism in general: "From the moment Marx and Engels penned this theory, it proved false on every front. Over the course of the second half of the 19th century, the standard of living of workers in Europe, far from falling, roughly doubled -- a trend that continued apace until the outbreak of World War I. Concomitantly, the middle classes did not disappear but grew many times larger, and the wealth of the capitalists, although it certainly multiplied, became more dispersed, not more concentrated. A still more deadly blow struck the doctrine in 1914, as the outbreak of war put to test Marx and Engels' claim that "the working men have no country." At once, working men displayed their patriotism on all sides. Moreover, most of the socialist leaders, either as a result of similar stirrings within their own breasts or in response to the mood of their constituents, also rallied to their respective fatherlands." (Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, Marxism) Moreover, in Engels' speech at Marx's burial, he stated, "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case."

In a nutshell, Engels here unwittingly described historical materialism: Man must feed himself before he can pursue any other goals or objectives. That is why economics can be isolated as a motivating force for man. In a historical perspective, man's achievements and political decisions, for Marx, have been motivated by economics.

Croce continues, "I think then that better homage would be rendered to the materialistic view of history, not by calling it the final and definite philosophy of history but rather by declaring that properly speaking it is not a philosophy of history. This intrinsic nature which is evident to those who understand it properly, explains the difficulty which exists in finding for it a satisfactory theoretical statement; and why to Labriola it appears to be only in its beginnings and yet to need much development. It explains too why Engels said (and Labriola accepts the remark), that it is nothing more than a new method; which means a denial that it is a new theory. But is it indeed a new method? I must acknowledge that this name method does not seem to me altogether accurate. When the philosophical idealists tried to arrive at the facts of history by inference, this was truly a new method; and there may still exist some fossil of those blessed times, who makes such attempts at history. But the historians of the materialistic school employ the same intellectual weapons and follow the same paths as, let us say, the philological historians. They only introduce into their work some new data, some new experiences. The content is different, not the nature of the method."

This view implies that Marx's historical materialism is more fact-based than theory-based. It does not so much matter whether writers at a certain time viewed their age as encompassing certain socio-economic ideals; It matters more what men and women actually did during that age. And as far as determining the facts, economics is the only way to successfully do so.