Irving Zeitlin and Marx's Economic Determinism

by Margaret Stowe

Irving Zeitlin offers many convincing reasons why Marx’s theories go beyond the simple linear economic determinism that has been attributed to him.
According to Zeitlin, Marx’s famous Preface make us want to make blanket statements about Marx’s believe in economics and the forces of production a being the prime mover of social change, but as Zeitlin more deeply analyses Marx’s other writing, we see that Marx acknowledged and understood the important of other forces. Even though Marx expounds the idea that current technology determines the current class system he also says that “callous self interest” is the only motivator of individual action within society. Zeitlin points out that statements like this, as well as many other examples from his writing, cited below, show that he attributes social development to more than simply economic systems determined by the current forces of production.

The forces of production define the relations of production, which define the economic structure. This is basic to Marx theory but this does not exist in isolation, outside of a historical context and, as Zeitlin shows by countless example, it certainly does not exclude other factors like “callous self interest”, tradition, war, conquest, climate and external forces as also being contributors to the development of any society, including its class structure.

Marx also states that the “higher relations (of production) never form until the material conditions are in place”. Zeitlin points out that through statements like these Marx and Engels have contributed to the misconceptions of Marxist theory, however on examination, Zeitlin assures us that metaphoric statements are simply that, and though they paint a picture, they do not mean that Marx believed that and nothing else!
Engels says “interaction on the basis of economic necessity always asserts itself” however this doesn’t mean that other determinants than the forces of production do not come into play to create this economic necessity. Zeitlin’s defense of the many-faceted movers of social change interpretation of Marx is strengthened by references, in Marx’s writing, to “external forces” and “external” relations such as war and trade as being highly significant in a historical analysis of social change. Economic determinism is an “internal factor” and hence, Marx could not possibly believe that this alone shapes social change. Zeitlin notes that in tribal societies geographical and climactic conditions also contributed greatly to the clan structure and the resulting economical structure. (Zeitlin, does however, include “natural habitat” in his “definition” of the ”forces of production”, yet he uses geography and climate factors as argument against the idea that Marxist theory is interpreted only terms of the forces of production.)

Zeitlin also uses Marx’s analysis of the ancient Germanic people to prove that Marx could not have strictly believed that the forces of production, and the current technology, were the sole determiners of social change. The sacredness of the home, a cultural and metaphysical notion, as well as the development of the whole retinue culture were surely the prime determiners of the social systems of the time, and the resulting economies including their ideas of private property, succession and inheritance and infrastructure relations. War was, again, a major contributor to the social development of this period, conquest and pillaging being the major mode of appropriation of wealth and the determinant of the division of labour. The Germans, being historically communal, developed an infrastructural system of nobility and leadership, rather than local clan authority, introducing “external” forces as a major mover of social change. Zeitlin knew that Marx acknowledged this in this in-depth analysis of this period. So, Zeitlin states, Marx and Engels knew that non-economic forces, as well as economic forces, determined social change and the development of class systems.

Zeitlin quotes Marx, then tries to shed light on what Marx meant by what he actually wrote. For example, the quote “the hand-mill gives you a society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, a society with the industrial capitalist”, states an obvious fact about the implications and probabilities of the nature of the respective class structures and also provides a somewhat metaphor general pronouncement about the current conditions of a society. However, Zeitlin reads on in Marx to reveal what he assesses to be his true meaning; that there are many influences affecting the hand-mill and stream-mill societal pictures, including other aspects of technology, how and where they were made, and other social conditions which have a cumulative causal affect on the social evolution. Marx’s historical archaeology shows (Zeitlin’s words) “from tools alone only limited reference can be made about social forces”.

Zeitlin does however acknowledge Marx’s believe in production (in terms of “use value) as a common thread that exists in all epochs, through all stages of development, by nature, but cites Marx’s own clarification, where is states that the tool alone does not tell you about the social conditions, or the property relations under which it is found or used. Zeitlin used this to support his valid argument that Marx’s theories were not unilaterally fixed on forces of production and economics as the sole movers of social change.

Marx’s “historical” approach is evident when he cites the difference between primitive forces of production (which he calls “conservative”) and those under modern industrial society, which he deems “revolutionary”. The study of history was crucial to Marx in the development of his theories of social change. Marx clearly distinguished between pre-capitalist, conservative forces of production, and those under capitalism, which he deemed “revolutionary” or continually changing forces of production. Earlier traditions valued and preserved modes of producing but under capitalism modes of productions were never meant to stay the same. Only in modern industrial society are the productive forces an “ever changing leveler of social change”. Only under capitalism is there a (revolutionary) growth of productive forces. For Zeitlin, this proves that Marx saw the forces of production in a historical context and did not see them in a purely economic context. For Marx, the process of history is the mover and determiner.

Zeitlin is able to provide several direct examples from Marx’s writing the shows his acknowledgement of the ways the forces of production have moved throughout history. For example during the decline of the Roman Empire, under barbarian conquest, Marx states that many forces of production were destroyed, agriculture declined, populations declined, markets and trade declined. Changes to the forces of production, were the “effect” and not the “cause”, and a changing economic system and the new feudal class structure resulted. Marx and Engels point out that it is the level of commerce, the economic system, which determines whether forces of production were maintained or destroyed, and even under developed systems of commerce many forces of production including new inventions were lost or destroyed due to wars and conquest (ie Pheonicians under Alexander the Great). Forces of production, once localized and more easily preserved, became more subject to diffusion, ubiquitous and univeral, as world commerce and trade developed. Again, Zeitlin cites, it is other, often “external” forces that move social change along and it is these other forces that tend to affect the forces of production and not the other way around.

Engels states that under the Roman Empire, and the decline thereof, the level of production, as well as the relations of production and class system, stayed the same for 400 years. This was even more proof the Marx and Engels did not believe that economic forces alone were the prime movers of social change.

Basically the analysis of (European) history by Marx and Engels, various influences directed the progression of human society from primitive antiquity through the decline of the Roman, to feudalism (and the resulting change from slavery to serfdom) as affected by war and conquest, the appearance of military rulers, the decline of urban life. Zeitlin cites that, in fact, nowhere in their analysis do the explain this social process as being the result of growing forces of production. Force and violence play a crucial role here. Zeitlin points out that Marx and Engels even criticized other thinkers for ignoring this fact.

In the subsequent era, after the Crusades, when serfs gained their freedom and populations of the towns increased, the lords seized the opportunity to exploit the labour of the peasants, increase production, expand markets. With a new type of serfdom developing, revolt happened, and again the relations of land and property changed, and the progressions of the centuries, affected by a series of varied forces, led up to the French Revolution, and then market economies. Modes of production progressed from simple, localized, stable, feudal, non-exchange “use value” economies to “exchange-value” commodity based economies and the development of capitalism. It is at this stage, Zeitlin says, the Marx’s theories stress that growing productive forces and their conflict with the relations for production take on a prime importance in affecting social change. The development of serf into the wage labourer (and the alienation and oppression thereof) and the creation of expanding markets by the growing capitalist system affected the division of labour and hence the economy. The forces of production were changed and modified to accelerate manufacturing and feed the capitalist machine. Therefore, taking a historical approach was crucial for Marx in identifying the difference between the conservative and revolutionary modes of production and their effect on social change. Only under capitalism did the productive forces become dynamic and changing.

Marx’s analysis of ancient Asiatic society leads Zeitlin to the same conclusion. He cited that the ancient Asiatic despotic class system was different than European feudalism. Asiatic and European feudal modes of production were different, and developed along different lines. Here the productive forces were stable and unchanging through time and there was no private property was not a phenomena of the East, as the king owned all of the land. Engels, Zeitlin says, attributed this mainly to the climate and conditions of the land, specifically the irrigation of water. Villages were distinct and self sufficient and the division of labour was structured accordingly. This economic system did not develop purely as a result of changes in the forces of production. He also saw that governments came and went and the economic system remained the same. He saw the east and west as developing along different lines, and Zeitlin purports that through his examination of both Eastern and Western society, that there is no way Marx believed that the growing forces of production are the “universal source of change”.

Marx also believed that history would show the abolition of the alienated oppressed class of workers, a further progression of humanity through time. Zeitlin cites Marx’s rigorous analysis of the epochs of humanity were an analysis of the progress of history and not the economically determined linear evolution of mankind through a cause and effect system of economic determinants. Marx did state that he saw capitalism as a “passing historical phase” and clearly historical processes were primary to the development of Marx’s theories, but was history a straight line of lower to higher, less developed to more developed, according to growing forces of production. The facts of Marx and Engels historical analysis show not. Periods of ups and downs and periods of no development at all (Asiatic) are clearly demonstrated. Only capitalist “epoch” shows itself to be linear and changing according to the growing forces of production, but this too is historical process, a “passing historical phase” and not in the evolutionary sense of lower to higher but simply in the progression of time.

Zeitlin notes that Marx only intended his emphasis on primary economic determinants to social change to be historically significant within the period of capitalism. Throughout history many other factors including war, political events, religion and tradition have contributed to the shaping of the process of history and social change. Marx’s historically materialism documented and analyzed the history of human struggle by looking at the conditions at the time and through his countless examples, Zeitlin concludes that Marx rejected “rigid determinants of all kinds”.

M & A focus much more on the materialist nature of Marxist theory but they focus on struggle of individuals and between groups and survival. Abraham and Morgan do focus on the historical materialist aspect of Marx. They state that Marx did not believe that religion and society were not the prime movers of human existence but that “material realism” having to do with “survival” was the mover of social action and change. They take Marx’s statement more at face value, quoting Marx “ The first historical act is the production of material life itself. This is indeed a historical act, a fundamental condition of all history”. Marx documented the struggles of life, of individuals and groups, for survival and A&M state that Marx believed that is was this struggle that lead to social change. “Human history is a process through which men change themselves” in their continuing struggle with nature and with each other for survival and subsistence. This is the prime mover of social change. This idea is crucial for the understanding of Marx’s dialectic approach. “Matter” is primary and “ideas” are advanced stages of matter. Consciousness develops from material conditions and not from the other way around. Social conditions are material conditions in a sense according to Abraham and Morgan’s interpretation of Marx. This basic condition of man precedes the forces of production. It was men themselves who create their own history. Abraham & Morgan state that Marx believes in “historical evolution” rather than “social evolution”.

Contrary to Zeitlin, Abraham & Morgan state that Marx identified four “stages” of human development (primitive, ancient, feudal, industrial) by the forces of production. Further they liken these stages to earlier defined stages like those of Comte. Human history was the inevitable succession of stages. Here Zeitlin would have strongly disagreed and he would see Abraham & Morgan’s presentation as being too simplistic and “unilateral”. In quoting Larson, Abraham & Morgan outline Marx’s dialectics to include the idea of change and movement, one thing to another, through the negation of the last, according to a process of “quantitative advances”. Abraham & Morgan define these “quantitative advances” as the modes of production. Clearly, Marx’s famous statement about the hand-mill and the steam-mill has a much more definitive meaning for Abraham & Morgan that for Zeitlin.

Having said all of this, Abraham and Morgan state that Marx “did not argue for a crude economic determinism” but did consider the economy to be the foundation of society. So as a basic premise they would agree with Zeitlin’s arguments. However, they are much more convinced that Marx understood economy to be the basic of everything from state and legal systems to religion and art and they rely much more on Marx’s Preface as proof than would Zeitlin. They do present the idea that Marx used economics as a metaphor and certainly Zeitlin couldn’t argue with this. There is no doubt though that Abraham and Morgan put more credence in economic (material) determinism than does Zeitlin. They provide continual references to Marx’s writing to strengthen their own beliefs about what Marx thought. They clearly state that Marx’s central thesis was that social structures changed according to changes in material conditions, the forces of production in particular. Zeitlin, on the other hand, uses Marx’s writing to provide arguments against the idea the Marx believed in strictly economic determinism. Abraham and Morgan also strongly advocate that taking a historical approach to these changing material conditions is crucial to Marx’s theories, so in that they would agree with Zeitlin. History is important to Marx as he believed that the only way to understand things like the class stucture was to see it in a context of changing forces and relations of production and other world conditions, through time. There is no doubt that Abraham and Morgan’s analysis of Marx’s theories are much more focused on economics than Zeitlin’s. They do state that they believe that Marx “overemphasized the economic base of political power” so although that means they believe Marx overemphasized economics that doesn’t rule out Marx’s inclusion of other factors.

Marx states that the individual is a product of history, that thinking of the individual as a product of nature is an incorrect assumption

The idea of dialectics is built into Marxist theory, by definition. Dialectics implies movement through time, and therefore, history. . Marx’s theories are materialist, not idealist, like Rousseau’s theories, and were defined more specifically as “dialectic materialism”. The individual is tied to society and the mover of social change is material conditions moving through time. Each stage being the antithesis of the last and presupposes the negation of the previous stage as well as the development of new forces of production.
History is not an abstraction but is the “real life” of man, the “activity of man” and it was this that Marx (and Engels) studied, and it was through this study of human activity, and human struggle, that Marx developed his theories. The historical process was central to the entirety of Marx’s ideas, as the idea of change produced by contradiction and conflict was the center of his “historical dialectic” approach. developing through the negation of the old and no idea could be understood in isolation, outside of history. His utopian idea of the socialist world was inherently a historical idea as it would arise out of the negation of existing capitalist society. Marx’s idea of revolution is a historical idea and his dialectics is a historical approach.

Copyright MStowe 2008