Mikhailovsky says that it has been claimed that historical materialism explained the whole of history, but no such claim has been made. Materialism provides an objective, scientific basis, a framework for investigation, just as Evolution provides such a framework for analysing the differentiation and development of species. But, the science of evolution has been applied to a range of species, but not all. Historical materialism has been applied only to the analysis of capitalist development. It would take extensive and equivalent analysis, based upon a similar collection of data, to apply it to slave society, the Asiatic Mode of Production, and Feudalism. But, even in outline, materialism provides a framework for understanding the development of the AMP, arising from the need for a large, centralised administrative body to organise large-scale civil engineering works, for irrigation, hydraulics etc., which leads to the development of a sizeable bureaucratic-collectivist caste, which does not own, but controls, the means of production, via this body, which, over time, ossifies into a bureaucratic-collectivist state.
Engels provides a similar skeletal outline for the material base of slave society, and both he and Marx provide an outline for the way feudalism arises. But, as Engels describes in his Letter to Bloch, whilst materialism provides the objective basis for understanding the overall development of social formations, what Max Weber might describe as an Ideal Type, it does not explain every nuance and variation, which must be studied in its specificity. Evolution can explain how blackbirds evolve; it cannot explain the specific differences between one blackbird and another, for which is required a more detailed study of their individual biology and environment.
Marx himself angrily responded to refute Mikhailovsky's claims, in this regard, in a Letter to the Editorial Board of Otechestzenniye Zapiski.
Marx and Engels did, of course, set out a treatise on their theory of historical materialism, which is contained in The German Ideology. Engels notes, in his Preface to Ludwig Feurbach, that, because, at that time, their knowledge of economic history was incomplete, it was not possible to scientifically validate the hypothesis proposed by the theory.
“Mr. Mikhailovsky garbles this to make it mean that their knowledge was poor “for such a work” as the elaboration of “the fundamental points of scientific socialism,” that is, of a scientific criticism of the “bourgeois” system, already given in the Manifesto.” (p 147)
This can mean only one of two things. Either Mikhailovsky cannot grasp the difference between trying to embrace the whole history of philosophy and philosophy of history, with an attempt to scientifically analyse bourgeois society, or else Mikhailovsky must be saying that Marx and Engels did not have enough knowledge to analyse political economy itself, i.e. bourgeois production relations. Mikhailovsky does not elaborate his views in this regard, or provide the necessary additions and corrections to Marx and Engels' analysis.
“The decision by Marx and Engels not to publish their work on the history of philosophy and to concentrate all their efforts on a scientific analysis of one social organisation is only indicative of a very high degree of scientific conscientiousness. Mr. Mikhailovsky’s decision to twist this by the little addition that Marx and Engels expounded their views while themselves confessing that their knowledge was inadequate to elaborate them, is only indicative of methods of controversy which testify neither to intellect nor to a sense of decency.” (p 147)
No comments:
Post a Comment