Lenin's “Own Words”(Part Three: Philosophy and Worldview)

10. The Materialist Conception of History

Significance of the Materialist Conception of History

“The discovery of the materialist conception of history, or rather, the consistent continuation and extension of materialism into the domain of social phenomena, removed the two chief defects of earlier historical theories. In the first place, they at best examined only the ideological motives of the historical activity of human beings, without investigating what produced these motives, without grasping the objective laws governing the development of the system of social relations, and without discerning the roots of these relations in the degree of development of material production; in the second place, the earlier theories did not cover the activities of the masses of the population, whereas historical materialism made it possible for the first time to study with the accuracy of the natural sciences the social conditions of the life of the masses and the changes in these conditions. Pre-Marxist “sociology” and historiography at best provided an accumulation of raw facts collected sporadically, and a depiction of individual aspects of the historical process. By examining the sum total of all opposing tendencies, by reducing them to precisely definable conditions of life and production of the various classes of society, by discarding subjectivism and arbitrariness in the choice of a particular “dominant” idea or in its interpretation, and by disclosing the roots of all ideas and all the various tendencies, without exception in the condition of the material forces of production, Marxism pointed the way to an all-embracing and comprehensive study of the process of the rise, development and decline of social-economic formations.” (Karl Marx, Foreign Language Press, p. 16)

The materialist conception of history is the application of materialism to human history and social phenomenon. It is precisely in this field that bourgeois ideologues have rejected, and continued to reject materialism. Consider, for example, the pretentious claim concerning the difference between natural sciences and social sciences. According to this view, social phenomena are above all connected to human actions, and therefore one cannot ignore the human mind -- will, purpose, desires, “value ideals,” etc. It is said that unlike natural processes, the social phenomenon of human action is thought to have subjectivity meaning, so that an experiential, individualistic, and subjectivistic method is appropriate, whereas the “objectivistic” materialist method is rejected or only said to be effective within a very limited scope.

Needless to say, this view is the reappearance, in a new form, of the old theory of social idealism. But the significance of the materialist conception of history is precisely that by negating (sublating) this view, it indicated the path for the scientific study and analysis of society and history. If history is only explained from the “ideals” of human will and objectives, this could lead to any sort of explanation, and it would not be possible to raise the question of objective historical laws and social relations, meaning science would have to be rejected. The materialist conception of history identifies the foundation for the elucidation of history, not in ideological relations, but in the material social relations, and in the developmental stage of the productive forces that condition these social relations. In this way, for the first time, historical ideology (and all the superstructure) could be rationally explained. Lenin emphasized that the materialist conception of history seeks the comprehensive study of an object, not the arbitrary explanation of individual facts. This is an extremely important point. Simply throwing out a bunch of examples, without dealing with them in their totality and interrelation, is meaningless. 

Development of Society is a Natural-Historical Process

“You also see that from the standpoint of this sociologist there can be no question of regarding the development of society as a process of natural history. (‘Having accepted something as desirable or undesirable, the sociologist must discover the conditions under which the desirable can be realized, or the undesirable eliminated’ -- ‘under which such and such ideals can be realized’ -- this same Mr. Mikhailovsky reasons.) What is more, there can be no talk even of development, but only of various deviations from the ‘desirable,’ of ‘defects”’ that have occurred in history as a result…of the fact that people were not clever enough, were unable properly to understand what human nature demands, were unable to discover the conditions for the realization of such a rational system. It is obvious that Marx’s basic idea that the development of the social-economic formations is a process of natural history cuts at the very root of this childish morality which lays claim to the title of sociology. By what means did Marx arrive at this basic idea? He did so by singling out the economic sphere from the various spheres of social life, by singling out production relations from all social relations as being basic, primary, determining all other relations.” (“What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are, And How They Fight the Social-Democrats, Collected Works vol. 1, pp. 137-8)

Mikhailovsky’s subjective idealism was the theoretical expression of Narodnism. The Narodniks attempted to provide a philosophical basis for their fantasy of leaping over and avoiding capitalism by jumping directly to socialism, and indulged in moralistic sermons about distinguishing between a “desirable” and “undesirable” society and advocating that the undesirable be eliminated and the desirable realized. From the standpoint of this sort of moralistic subjectivism, naturally the view concerning history as a “natural process” (expression used in the first chapter of Capital) and the necessary development of history never entered into the equation. The question for them, rather, was “human nature” and a society that would agree with this nature, and they felt that if such a society were wished for by human beings it could be achieved. The issue was thus not to develop the class struggle, but rather to engage in moralistic sermons and educational activities. This so-called 18th century philosophy of “ideal-ism” [risoshugi], this social idealism, was dressed up in new clothes from the end of the 19th to the 20th century as neo-Kantianism and all other sorts of bourgeois social philosophy, and this continues today.

On the Theory of Determination

“The point is that this is one of the favorite hobby-horses of the subjective philosopher -- the idea of the conflict between determinism and morality, between historical necessity and the significance of the individual…The idea of determinism, which postulates that human acts are necessitated and rejects the absurd tale about free will, in no way destroys man’s reason          or conscience, or appraisal of his actions. Quite the contrary, only the determinist view makes a strict and correct appraisal possible instead of attributing everything you please to free will. Similarly, the idea of historical necessity does not in the least undermine the role of the individual in history: all history is made up of the actions of individuals, who are undoubtedly active figures. The real question that arises in appraising the social activity of an individual is: what conditions ensure the success of his actions, what guarantee is there that these actions will not remain an isolated act lost in a welter of contrary acts?”  (“What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are, And How They Fight the Social-Democrats, Collected Works vol. 1, p. 159)

Today in Japan the ideologues of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeois parties like the DSP and Komeito are repeating the idea of Mikhailovsky that if human beings are the “puppets” of historical inevitably, they are not active, and would have no subjectivity. They are pawning off their own social idealism under the name of “ideal-ism” [risoshugi], saying that such ideals can be realized by means of subjective human effort, bringing them into opposition with what they consider the “fatalism” of Marxism. In fact, however, they are unable to consider the real basis for human praxis. The idea of Lenin here is the same one Engels expressed, borrowing the words of Hegel, about freedom being the recognition of laws. To talk about historical necessity does not negate an individual’s free will or the role of the individual within history, as subjective idealists believe. Rather, the recognition of necessity itself enables us to indicate, in the true sense, the role of the individual. No matter how gifted a person is, what an individual is able to do is limited by historical conditions, and dependent upon these conditions. The same can be said for the revolutionary political party of the working class. What such a party can do depends on the conditions of the society -- the development of productive power and level of productive relations -- and this determines how the political party will conceive of the actual class relations, and in turn have exert an impact upon these relations.

On Objectivism (Fatalism)

“The objectivist speaks of the necessity of a given historical process; the materialist gives an exact picture of the given socio-economic formation and of the antagonistic relations to which it gives rise. When demonstrating the necessity for a given series of facts, the objectivist always runs the risk of becoming an apologist for these facts: the materialist discloses the class contradictions and in so doing defines his standpoint. The objectivist speaks of “insurmountable historical tendencies”; the materialist speaks of the class which “directs” the given economic system, giving rise to such and such forms of counteraction by the other classes. Thus, on the one hand, the materialist is more consistent than the objectivist, and gives profounder and fuller effect to his objectivism. He does not limit himself to speaking of the necessity of a process, but ascertains exactly what social-economic formation gives the process its content, exactly what class determines this necessity.” (“The Economic Content of Narodnism” Collected Works vol. 1, pp. 400-1)

This passage has been quoted on many occasions by the new left in Japan, a political tendency that assumed a clear political form in the midst of the 1960 struggle against the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. The new left repeatedly said that “Stalinism is essentially objectivistic,” and ignores subjectivity. However, it seems that they do not truly understand what Lenin is saying here. This is not a general refutation of objectivism, which should be clear from Lenin’s statements that “the materialist is more consistent than the objectivist, and gives profounder and fuller effect to his objectivism” (“Economic Content of Narodnism”) and that “Marxism is the objectivism of the class struggle” (“The Political Line”?translated from Japanese edition).  If they are trying to justify their own subjectivism through these words of Lenin, they are clearly mistaken.

Here Lenin’s criticism is directed at “legal Marxists,” -- i.e. the liberal bourgeois ideologue Peter Struve. Struve had criticized the subjectivist sociologist Mikhailovsky for his view that there are no “insurmountable historical tendencies.” In other words, Struve interpreted history in a fatalistic manner. Such a view inevitably rejects the class struggle, since both capitalism and socialism would appear as an “insurmountable historical tendency.” This is the view that capitalism will “inevitably” arrive, and without class struggle! At some point in the future socialism will also “inevitably” arrive, but of course without class struggle! This was a suitable idea or “philosophy” for the reformist bourgeoisie at the time. They desired bourgeois progress but wanted this without class conflict. Lenin was of course opposed to these fatalistic theorists of “inevitability,” and said that true Marxists were those who pointed out the existence of classes and the class struggle, which form the concrete content of historical society. Around the time of the 1960 AMPO struggles, this Struve-like “objectivism” was represented by the Khrushchev-following Structural Reformists. They had fallen into the optimistic view that, rather than the development of class struggle, the development of productive power in the “socialist bloc” would lead to a bright future for socialism.

What is the “Highest Task of Humanity”?

“The fact that you live and conduct your business, beget children, produce products and exchange them, gives rise to an objectively necessary chain of events, a chain of development, which is independent of your social consciousness, and is never grasped by the latter completely. The highest task of humanity is to comprehend this objective logic of economic evolution (the evolution of social life) in its general and fundamental features, so that it may be possible to adapt to it one’s social consciousness and the consciousness of the advanced classes of all capitalist countries in as definite, clear and critical a fashion as possible.” (Materialism and Empiro-Criticism, International Publishers, p. 337)

Human social consciousness is the reflection of social existence. This is the basis of a materialist epistemology. On the other hand, however, social existence is independent of the social consciousness of humanity, and the two are not directly in agreement. For example, at a certain stage in history people enter into commodity exchange, but this is a development and formation of social relations that is independent of social consciousness. For the social consciousness of humanity to reflect the new social relations and the logic of its development, this commodity production must be sufficiently developed, the opposition between capital and wage labor must emerge, the knowledge of commodity relations must expand and the analysis become more profound. The task for Marxists, is to give theoretical expression to this economic development, and to correspond this to their own consciousness and the consciousness of the working class. Lenin called this the “greatest task for humanity.” Here is the foundation for Lenin as a materialist to place an emphasis on theory. Today, when dogmatism and sectarianism are rampant, the following observation of Lenin is full of suggestions: “There can be no dogmatism where the supreme and sole criterion of a doctrine is its conformity to the actual process of social and economic development; there can be no sectarianism when the task is that of promoting the organization of the proletariat, and when, therefore, the role of the ‘intelligentsia’ is to make special leaders from among the intelligentsia unnecessary.” (“What the ‘Friends of the People’ Are, And How They Fight the Social-Democrats, Collected Works vol. 1, p. 298)

<<Before  ||  Lenin Index  ||  Next>>