deeply averse to such bloodless
abstractions, as befits a good Romantic. ''The materialist method turns into
its opposite,'' he insisted, ''if it is taken not as one's guiding principle of
investigation but as a ready-made pattern to which one shapes the facts of
history to suit oneself.'' 6 His view of the origins of capitalism,
he warns, should not be transformed ''into an historico-philosophical theory of
the general path prescribed by fate to all nations whatever the historical
circumstances in which they find themselves.'' 7 If there were certain
tendencies at work in history, there were also countertendencies, which implies
that outcomes are not assured.
Some Marxists have played
down the ''primacy of the productive forces'' case, and played up the
alternative theory we have just examined. But this is probably too defensive.
The former model crops up in enough important spots in
Marx's work to suggest
that he took it very seriously. It does not sound like a momentary aberration.
It is also the way that Marxists like Lenin and Trotsky generally interpreted
him. Some commentators claim that by the time he came to write Capital, Marx had more or less abandoned his previous faith in the productive forces as
the heroes of history. Others are not so convinced. Students of Marx, however,
are free to select whatever ideas in his work seem most plausible. Only Marxist
fundamentalists regard that work as holy writ, and there are far fewer of those
nowadays than the Christian variety.
There is no evidence that
Marx is in general a determinist, in the sense of denying that human actions
are free. On the contrary, he clearly believes in freedom, and talks all the
time, not least in his journalism, about how individuals could (and sometimes
should) have acted differently, whatever the historical limits placed on their
choices. Engels, who some see as an out-and-out determinist, had a lifelong
interest in military strategy, which is hardly a question of fate. 8 Marx is to be found stressing courage and consistency as essential for
political victory, and seems to allow for the decisive influence of random
events on historical processes. The fact that the militant working class in
France was ravaged by cholera in 1849 is one such example.
There are, in any case,
different kinds of inevitability. You may consider that some things are
inevitable without being a determinist. Even libertarians believe that death is
unavoidable. If enough Texans try to cram themselves into a telephone box, some
of them will end up being seriously squashed. This is a matter of physics rather
than fate. It does not alter the fact that they crammed themselves in of their
own free will. Actions we freely perform often end up confronting us as alien
powers. Marx's theories of alienation and commodity fetishism are based on just
this truth.
There are other senses of
inevitability as well. To claim that the triumph of justice in Zimbabwe is
inevitable may not mean that it is bound to happen. It may be more of a moral
or political imperative, meaning that the alternative is too dreadful to
contemplate. ''Socialism or barbarism'' may not suggest that we will
undoubtedly end up living under one or the other. It may be a way of
emphasizing the unthinkable consequences of not achieving the former. Marx
argues in The German Ideology that ''at the present time . . .
individuals must abolish private property,'' but that "must" is more of a political exhortation than a suggestion that
they have no choice. Marx, then, may not be a determinist in general; but there
are a good many formulations in his work which convey a sense of historical determinism. He sometimes compares historical laws to natural ones, writing in Capital of the ''natural laws of capitalism . . . working with iron
necessity towards inevitable results.'' 9 When a commentator
describes his work as treating the evolution of society like a process of
natural history, Marx seems to concur. He also
abstractions, as befits a good Romantic. ''The materialist method turns into
its opposite,'' he insisted, ''if it is taken not as one's guiding principle of
investigation but as a ready-made pattern to which one shapes the facts of
history to suit oneself.'' 6 His view of the origins of capitalism,
he warns, should not be transformed ''into an historico-philosophical theory of
the general path prescribed by fate to all nations whatever the historical
circumstances in which they find themselves.'' 7 If there were certain
tendencies at work in history, there were also countertendencies, which implies
that outcomes are not assured.
Some Marxists have played
down the ''primacy of the productive forces'' case, and played up the
alternative theory we have just examined. But this is probably too defensive.
The former model crops up in enough important spots in
Marx's work to suggest
that he took it very seriously. It does not sound like a momentary aberration.
It is also the way that Marxists like Lenin and Trotsky generally interpreted
him. Some commentators claim that by the time he came to write Capital, Marx had more or less abandoned his previous faith in the productive forces as
the heroes of history. Others are not so convinced. Students of Marx, however,
are free to select whatever ideas in his work seem most plausible. Only Marxist
fundamentalists regard that work as holy writ, and there are far fewer of those
nowadays than the Christian variety.
There is no evidence that
Marx is in general a determinist, in the sense of denying that human actions
are free. On the contrary, he clearly believes in freedom, and talks all the
time, not least in his journalism, about how individuals could (and sometimes
should) have acted differently, whatever the historical limits placed on their
choices. Engels, who some see as an out-and-out determinist, had a lifelong
interest in military strategy, which is hardly a question of fate. 8 Marx is to be found stressing courage and consistency as essential for
political victory, and seems to allow for the decisive influence of random
events on historical processes. The fact that the militant working class in
France was ravaged by cholera in 1849 is one such example.
There are, in any case,
different kinds of inevitability. You may consider that some things are
inevitable without being a determinist. Even libertarians believe that death is
unavoidable. If enough Texans try to cram themselves into a telephone box, some
of them will end up being seriously squashed. This is a matter of physics rather
than fate. It does not alter the fact that they crammed themselves in of their
own free will. Actions we freely perform often end up confronting us as alien
powers. Marx's theories of alienation and commodity fetishism are based on just
this truth.
There are other senses of
inevitability as well. To claim that the triumph of justice in Zimbabwe is
inevitable may not mean that it is bound to happen. It may be more of a moral
or political imperative, meaning that the alternative is too dreadful to
contemplate. ''Socialism or barbarism'' may not suggest that we will
undoubtedly end up living under one or the other. It may be a way of
emphasizing the unthinkable consequences of not achieving the former. Marx
argues in The German Ideology that ''at the present time . . .
individuals must abolish private property,'' but that "must" is more of a political exhortation than a suggestion that
they have no choice. Marx, then, may not be a determinist in general; but there
are a good many formulations in his work which convey a sense of historical determinism. He sometimes compares historical laws to natural ones, writing in Capital of the ''natural laws of capitalism . . . working with iron
necessity towards inevitable results.'' 9 When a commentator
describes his work as treating the evolution of society like a process of
natural history, Marx seems to concur. He also
Similar Books
