Letter: How do Men Make History?
In his article entitled “An Essay on Historical Materialism” (May S.S.) E.W. tells us that genetically speaking man makes history. Now, if this be so, man must be held responsible for the history he makes, for we cannot logically compare man living in a society with a tree existing in a wood, meaning by that of course that the tree is not responsible for itself as a tree, whereas man is responsible for himself and his actions as a man. And although man did not consciously will himself into society and history, it is still nevertheless true that society and history could not operate independent of the will of man.
However, according to Karl Marx, this is not so, for he claimed that history is governed by laws which operate independent of the will of man. And this view of his contradicts the view of men being able to make their own history. For if history is governed by inexorable laws, man cannot will these laws out of existence and create new ones, seeing that these laws operate independent of will. But if we accepted this view we would need to believe that history willed man, instead of history being willed by man. It is true, of course, that the individual born into capitalist society did not will capitalism, but nevertheless capitalism does not operate independent of men’s wills. Marx’s theory of history is therefore wrong, and, in fact, a contradiction in terms, seeing that all human history is the outcome of what men willed, and not of any mysterious laws operating independent of will.
Capitalistic exploitation of the working class does not operate independent of the wills of the capitalists, but rather, on the contrary, because they consciously will to exploit the working class.
Marx thought that he discovered the key to history, but had he lived long enough he would have found out that there is no key to history at all. And in regard to the will of individuals which he did not take into consideration, he would have found out that they have not only the power to create history, but have even the power to destroy the world.
R. SMITH, Dundee.
The writer asserts, without evidence, that Marx believed history to be an impersonal force, operating independent of men’s wills. Actually, Marx said, all historical change is brought about by men’s ideas. They are not, however, just the outcome of purely mental processes but responses to a concrete social situation arising from urgent class needs and the task of actualising them. All major changes he shows are periods of intense theoretical and intellectual activity. The battle of material interests is also the battle of ideas. “History,” says Marx, “ is not something apart from men, it is the activity of man in pursuit of his ends.” This makes nonsense of the writer’s remarks.
The writer vaguely refers to history being willed by individuals. Historically men have willed all sorts of things but what men have striven for and what has actually transpired has so often shown great discrepancies. In social development there are no ends not willed by men but these ends are not realised merely because men willed them. Even in the contemporary situation men have sought perpetual prosperity, eternal peace, harmony between all men, etc. It is not the will that has been lacking but the conditions essential for their fulfilment.
It is true that capitalists have the power to exploit workers or, to use the writer’s curious phrase, consciously will exploitation. But class ownership backed by the State power are its indispensable pre-requisites. Only when these conditions are fulfilled can the will to exploit become effective. Again the absence of certain conditions made Socialism impossible 500 years ago. Today the consequences of capitalist production not only explain why the need for Socialism arises but why the presence of certain objective conditions make it possible to will its effective realisation. What is willed must then be compatible with a discovered situation which is not willed but accepted. When it is willed must be dependent on the objective possibilities in the situation. Only in this light does the action of men become intelligible, and why the ideas of some men and groups of men have failed and others succeeded.
The writer says history has no key. In that case he himself cannot talk meanfully about it. Where facts and events are not known, where nothing is known, then we have blind determinism, where there is no knowledge of facts and processes there is no freedom. Genuine freedom like will is not something arbitrary or uncontrolled, but based on an appraisal of the objective possibilities in a given situation. Only when what is necessary is known can effective action be taken. When men do not grasp the necessities of a situation, effective action loses its freedom. It was no other than Marx and Engels who tirelessly expounded this to the working class. This is the key to Marx’s conception of social purpose.
E. W.