Wu Ying: Reinterpreting the Materialist Conception of History; Role of Class Struggle in Class Society
Author: Director of the Historical Theory Branch of the Chinese Historical Society; Director of the Historical Theory Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
Books
1. Reinterpreting the Materialist Conception of History; China Social Sciences Press, 2024 .
2. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on the Science of History, Social Sciences Academic Press, 2014.
3. Introduction to Historiography, Higher Education Press , 2006 .
Science is a system of knowledge that reveals the causal laws of existence and change of things and can test whether these laws are correct in practice. Historical view is people’s systematic understanding of social history. The scientific historical view is a historical view that reveals the causal laws of social and historical development and change. The materialist conception of history created by Marx and Engels is “the science of real people and their historical development” [1] .
Starting from the ultimate cause of the existence and development of human society, it dynamically and progressively analyzes people’s material production practice activities and the material production capacity formed in such practice activities, thereby revealing the causal laws of human social historical evolution. Among the various historical views, the materialist conception of history has the most scientific character.
However, for a period of time, doubts about the scientific nature of historical materialism have gradually arisen, and as a result, the guiding position of historical materialism in historiography has also been challenged, and calls for the diversification of guiding theories for historical research have become increasingly popular. The reasons for this are certainly influenced by many factors, but one of the important reasons is that the original interpretation system of historical materialism has been unable to give satisfactory explanations for major historical and current issues. Therefore, it is necessary to make great efforts to reinterpret the basic theories and basic principles of historical materialism, deepen the understanding and grasp of the true meaning of this theory in line with the times, and make more people believe in the scientific nature of historical materialism.
This article will reinterpret historical materialism around the objective basic factors of the historical evolution of human society and their interrelationships, and around the laws presented by the historical development process of human society, in order to prove that historical materialism is a scientific historical view.
I. The Objective Basis of Social History
In order to survive, people must first be able to sustain their lives, and therefore must engage in practical activities of material production to sustain their living needs. The materialist conception of history starts from this most realistic and basic survival activity of human beings and begins to analyze and explain the laws of the historical evolution of human society. Therefore, Engels pointed out in his speech at Marx’s tomb: “Marx discovered the law of development of human social history, namely, a simple fact that was originally concealed by a complex ideology: people must first eat, drink, live and wear clothes, and then they can engage in politics, science, art, religion, etc.; therefore, the production of direct material means of subsistence, and thus a certain stage of economic development of a nation or an era, constitutes the basis, and people’s state facilities, legal views, art and even religious concepts develop from this basis, and therefore must also be explained by this basis.” [2]
Engels’s summary of the basic principles of the materialist conception of history in the most concise language reveals the objective basis of the historical development of human society and the relationship between people’s social activities at many levels and this objective basis. We will elaborate on the viewpoints of several basic issues of the historical evolution of human society discussed in the materialist conception of history in five parts, namely “the restrictive role of the mode of production”, “social existence and social consciousness”, “economic base and superstructure”, “division of social and economic forms”, and “class struggle and its role in class society”.
1. The Constraining Effect of the Mode of Production (Productive Forces and Production Relations)
The materialist conception of history holds that the mode of production is the way to obtain the material resources necessary for human survival, and is the way people combine and work together in the production process.
The composition of the mode of production includes two levels: productive forces and production relations. Regarding productive forces, Marx has made a clear explanation. He said: “People cannot freely choose their own productive forces – this is the basis of their entire history, because any productive forces is an acquired force and the product of past activities. It can be seen that productive forces is the result of people’s application ability, but this ability itself is determined by the conditions in which people are, by the productive forces that has been acquired before, and by the social form that existed before them, which was not created by them but by the previous generation.” [3]
This passage on productive forces can help us establish three understandings:
First, “productive forces” refer to the ability of people to understand and transform nature in production practice. It is not innate or innate, but the result of application ability, or the result of labor production practice.
second, the productive forces possessed by each generation must first be inherited from the ancestors, that is, the product of past activities, and then innovation and development will make new progress in productive forces.
third, people’s ability to understand and transform nature will also vary depending on their conditions. Regarding production relations, it refers to the social relations formed by people in the process of material production.
Since there is a clear division of labor in the social production process, and this division of labor is becoming more and more advanced with the development of productive forces, there are distribution and exchange relations for the results of production, as well as ownership relations for the means of production.
Marx clearly pointed out: “The structure of distribution is entirely determined by the structure of production. Distribution itself is a product of production, not only in terms of objects, but also in terms of form. In terms of objects, only the results of production can be distributed. In terms of form, certain forms of participation in production determine specific forms of distribution and determine forms of participation in distribution.” [4] The structure of production or the form of participation in production is the division of labor, which determines the form of exchange and the mode of distribution, and thus determines the different nature of ownership. The materialist conception of history mainly defines four meanings of the “division of labor”: First, it distinguishes three types of division of labor, namely, the division of mental labor and physical labor, the social division of labor in the production of different products, and the division of labor in the production process of the same product. The first type of division of labor leads to class differences in society, the second type of division of labor is common to all social and economic forms, and the third type of division of labor is only developed in the capitalist social and economic form. Second, the fundamental reason why the division of labor can emerge and develop is that the continuous improvement of productive forces has led to the continuous increase of surplus products, which has led to the emergence of surplus labor and the development of new production and work areas. Third, “with this division of labor, there is also distribution, and it is an unequal distribution of labor and its products (both in quantity and quality); thus, ownership is generated.” [5]
“Different stages of the development of the division of labor are also different forms of ownership. That is to say, each stage of the division of labor also determines the relationship between individuals and labor materials, labor tools and labor products.” [6]
Fourth, “the degree of development of the productive forces of a nation is most clearly shown by the degree of development of the division of labor within that nation. Any new productive force, as long as it is not a simple quantitative expansion of the productive forces hitherto known (for example, the reclamation of land), will lead to a further development of the division of labor” [7] .
The restrictive (determining) role of the mode of production on social and historical evolution is manifested in the following aspects: First, productive forces is the ultimate cause of the historical evolution of human society.
In order to survive, human beings must engage in material production practices; engaging in material production practices will inevitably continuously improve people’s ability to understand and transform nature; the improvement of material production capacity will inevitably promote the movement and change of production relations and superstructures, and promote the continuous development of social and economic forms from low to high levels.
Therefore, the original motive for the entire historical movement of human society is people’s material production activities, and it is the continuous development of social production capacity that promotes the continuous change of production relations and superstructures and thus determines the continuous evolution of social forms. In these two senses, the materialist conception of history believes that “the sum of the productive forces achieved by people determines the social situation” [8] , that is, the continuous improvement of productive forces is regarded as the ultimate cause of the historical development of human society.
From ancient times to the present, people have evolved from extremely low production capacity, only able to engage in the most primitive material production activities, and barely survived by fishing and hunting in groups. After thousands of years of accumulation of production experience and improvement of production methods, they have entered the information society. They can not only pursue higher-level spiritual needs on the basis of meeting basic material needs, but also explore outer space and the microscopic world on the basis of controlling natural forces. Second, the decisive role of productive forces on production relations. Marx clearly pointed out: “In the social production of their life, people enter into definite relations that are inevitable and independent of their will, namely, relations of production that correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces” [9] .
“Social relations are closely linked to productive forces. With the acquisition of new productive forces, people change their mode of production; with the change of the mode of production, that is, the way of making a living, people will also change all their social relations” [10] .
Therefore, Engels pointed out: “Any change in the social system, every revolution in the ownership relations, is the inevitable result of the old ownership relations no longer being adapted to the new productive forces” [11] .
Third, the restrictive role of the social production mode (productive forces and production relations) on the historical evolution of human society.
From the above citations, it can be seen that the development of productive forces will inevitably lead to the evolution of social production relations (division of labor, distribution, and exchange) and the change of ownership of means of production, which will promote the development of human social history from a low level to a high level.
Based on this, we can clearly understand the restrictive (determining) role of the production mode on the historical evolution of human society.
First, it restricts the nature of society at the economic foundation level. For example, when people relied on hunting, fishing, animal husbandry, or extremely low-yield farming to survive, they could only be ancient societies that implemented community ownership; and in the era of small-scale, crude land cultivation and handicraft industry, they could only establish feudal societies with land ownership or hierarchical ownership as the main form. Second, the pace of evolution and change of the production mode restricts the speed of social transformation and the transition of the times. Therefore, the transformation of social times fundamentally depends on the qualitative evolution of the production mode.
Below we give two historical examples to illustrate the restrictive effect of the evolution of the mode of production on the evolution of social history.
First, Engels made a systematic discussion on the evolution of human society from the barbaric era to the civilized era (that is, the emergence of class society). He pointed out: “The productive forces gradually increased; the denser population formed common interests among various communes in some cases, and conflicting interests among various communes in other cases, and these communes were combined into a larger whole, which in turn led to a new division of labor and the establishment of institutions to protect common interests and prevent conflicting interests.
These institutions, as representatives of the common interests of the entire collective, were already in a special and even antagonistic position in relation to each individual commune under certain circumstances, and they soon became more independent… Here we do not need to study in depth: how this independence of social functions from society gradually rises to rule over society; how the initial public servants gradually become masters when the situation is favorable… Finally, how the various ruling figures combine to form a ruling class. Here, the problem is only to determine the fact that political rule is everywhere based on the performance of certain social functions, and political rule can only last when it performs its social functions.”
In addition to this process of class formation, there is another process of class formation: “The spontaneous division of labor within the agricultural family, when it has reached a certain level of prosperity, makes it possible to absorb one or more external laborers into the family. This is especially common in places where the old common ownership of land has collapsed or at least the old common cultivation of the land has given way to individual cultivation of plots of land allocated to each family. Production has developed to such a point that human labor can now produce more than is required for the simple maintenance of labor; the means of maintaining more labor are already available; the means of using this labor are also available; labor has acquired a certain value. But the commune itself and the group to which it belongs cannot yet provide a surplus of freely disposable labor. War provides this labor… Slavery is discovered. This institution soon becomes the dominant form of production among all nations that have developed beyond the ancient commune, but in the final analysis it is also one of the main causes of their decline.” [12]
The main difference between the two paths of class and ruling relations discussed by Engels is that the former path is the formation of the ruling class when small communes are combined into large communities mainly due to the development of productive forces without the emergence of private ownership and slavery, which leads to new division of labor and the establishment of new institutions “to protect common interests and oppose conflicting interests”.
The latter path of Engels is the emergence of classes with the emergence of slavery and other exploitative systems after the emergence of private ownership or at least individual farming has replaced the communal farming system.
In Engels’ view, in the process of the first path to the emergence of the ruling class, the first “ruling figures” include not only “Oriental tyrants or governors”, but also “Greek clan leaders”, “Celtic patriarchs” and so on.
However, it seems that those ruling figures of the Greeks and Celts have transformed into the second path of class formation as private ownership and slavery have emerged before they have finally “combined into a ruling class”.
In this way, it is mainly the Eastern countries that form the ruling class and the ruled class along the first path. However, although the paths to the emergence of classes are different, the laws are the same: “As long as the products provided by the total social labor are only a small surplus beyond the minimum living needs of all members of society, that is, as long as labor still occupies all or almost all of the time of the majority of members of society, this society will inevitably be divided into classes. Next to the majority of people who are forced to engage in labor, a class is formed that is separated from direct production labor and is in charge of the common affairs of society: labor management, state affairs, justice, science, art, etc.
Therefore, the law of division of labor is the basis of class division.” [13] In short, the development of productive forces has not only produced a small surplus, but also produced increasingly complex social public functions. In the case of both surplus and small surplus, a small special class that is separated from direct production labor and specializes in performing public functions will inevitably emerge; they are both “public servants” who perform social public functions, and gradually use their privileges to evolve into “masters” – exploiters and oppressors. This division of labor between the minority who are separated from direct labor and specialize in performing public functions and the majority who are completely committed to labor is what Marx and Engels called the initial division of mental and physical labor. Mencius called this division of labor the division between “those who work with their minds” and “those who work with their hands”, which is very accurate. Since the rulers and managerial classes (slave owners or feudal lords) performed public functions such as organizing, managing and supervising production in the social division of labor, they also obtained ownership of the most important means of production – land as real estate – and even obtained personal control over the direct producer class, in order to claim surplus products. In the case of little surplus, it is impossible to obtain surplus products through exchange. The only way to obtain surplus products is to control the ownership of land and thus control people by force, thus forming an unequal personal dependency relationship. It can be seen that the improvement of productive forces promotes the transformation of production relations and enables social transformation.
Secondly, Marx made a brilliant argument for the transformation of human society from a traditional society dominated by a self-sufficient peasant economy to a modern society dominated by large-scale socialized production, large-scale exchange and non-agricultural industries. He pointed out: “The whole labour of one part of society in agriculture – necessary labour and surplus labour – must produce the necessary food for the whole of society, and therefore also for non-agricultural workers; that is, to make possible this great division of labour between those engaged in agriculture and those engaged in industry; and also to make possible the division of labour between the peasants who produce food and those who produce raw materials.” [14] He also pointed out: “If we leave aside foreign trade… then it is obvious that the number of workers who are completely separated from agriculture, engaged in processing industry, etc., depends on the amount of agricultural products produced by agricultural workers in excess of their own consumption.” That is to say, without considering foreign trade factors, the transformation from traditional society to modern society first requires that agricultural production must develop substantially, and that the agricultural population must produce agricultural products that can meet the needs of the large number of non-agricultural industry population and the agricultural raw materials needed for industrial production in addition to their own consumption, so that non-agricultural industries can be established and developed.
Later, with the continuous advancement of industrialization and the gradual realization of large-scale socialized production, universal social material exchange will be generated at the level of economic exchange. As a result, the self-sufficient small peasant natural economy is replaced by the commodity – market economy. At this point, another social transformation process is completed. As the ruling class, the bourgeoisie will mainly exploit surplus products or surplus value by controlling the ownership of movable means of production (money as capital, and even means of production in the form of immovable property are calculated in currency), and personal dependence loses its rationality. The law that the development of productive forces leads to changes in production relations is once again revealed.
Please Download for Full Text