Historical Materialism

Conceptual Overview and Discussion

Historical materialism should not be confused with “dialectical materialism,” which was developed after Marx's death by his closest collaborator, Frederick Engels, and became the official doctrine and ideology of the Soviet Union (1917–1991). This was developed as an all-encompassing theory of the entirety of human knowledge, of its structure and development. By contrast, what we call historical materialism (a term not used by Marx himself) is an analytical approach to human situations (from the most individual to the most global) in the specific conditions of different times and places.

The term materialist refers to the assertion and directing view that the values and assumptions of the human actor are conditioned primarily by her or his experiences and actions (particular productive or economic behavior) in the specific environment produced by the mode of production prevalent at the time. “Historically,” the mode of production has been dynamic, changing as a result of human activity. In conjunction, as human beings have changed their relationship with the physical environment (nature), they have changed themselves—how they live, how they are organized, and what they believe.

Arguing that the mode of production (the economic framework of any society) has always produced a dominant form of property, historical materialism asserts that the class that owns that property will be the ruling class in society and will control its politics and values or culture. Therefore, at any historical moment, in any specific historical circumstance, one can identify a dominant class.

In the modern period, following industrialization and urbanization, this theory identifies the owners of industrial (and, sometimes, “postindustrial”) property by the means of production (i.e., industrial capital), normally referred to as the bourgeoisie, as the dominant class. This is also taken to include corporate capitalism and finance capitalism. The central bourgeois values are presented as the right to private property, the pursuit of profit and wealth as a valuable contribution to the development and well-being of society, the acceptance of inequality as inevitable (and even desirable)—all of which must be protected and promoted under the legal and political framework of the state. The operation of the “liberal democracies” as seen particularly in [Page 440]Western Europe and North America is regarded as the quintessential form and character of bourgeois domination.

Aiming at an understanding of “developed” economic and social systems, this theory has always placed industrial capitalism at the center of its interest. Yet it can be used as an analytical framework for any economy, from cavemen to contemporary capitalism. Further, even in its 19th-century origins, this theory regarded capitalism as having become international or global. Consequently, analysis of local questions could (and should) be viewed in the larger context of capitalist domination and the integration of the economic forces of the entire planet. Those who would analyze a local situation should always keep the larger context in consideration.

...