I've been trying to read more of Marx lately and I've found it difficult to pinpoint exactly what his "materialist conception of history" means. I understand the base/superstructure logic but I don't really understand his broader logic of history.
From what I've gathered in the German Ideology, Marx believes that humans have needs, that they perform labour to satisfy those needs, and that because they are social animals, they enter certain arrangements in order to organize their labor. My reading of historical change was originally simply thatthis arrangement can become irrational for certain classes, and that they as such enter conflict over the control of production. For example, the feudal system was upheld by the nobility, but this arrangement wasn't rational for the rising bourgeoisie, and they as such created a period of conflict over the maintenance of feudal traditions.
However, in the preface of "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy", Marx establishes that historical changes occur when :
>"At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution"
This imo contradicts my reading. It's not classes which fight over control of production, because they don't want to change the system/recognize themselves in the system, it's that new technological developments are "hindered" by existing relations of production.
Any thoughts ?
>>2932622One possible explanation I've found is that technological developments enables one class to rethink the rationality of the arrangement that they've entered themselves in. A serf can recognize the logic and rationality for himself and his class of the feudal system, but might percieve it differently if he witnesses the potential unleashed by industrialization. In this sense, the "material productive forces" wouldn't be the technology or tools, but rather the people using those tools and technology. Their development would simply mean one class seeking to change production, only to be hindered by existing property rights.
>>2932622>This imo contradicts my readingI don't think so. Development is not nessecarily purely technological in the narrow sense. Development can simply be having
more than enough of stuff or developing new methods with the same tools, something you realize here.
>>2932623>In this sense, the "material productive forces" wouldn't be the technology or tools, but rather the people using those tools and technology. The development of productive forces under capitalism tend towards socializing production. The complexity and global reach of logistics networks nessecitates such organization. However, this socialized production is constrained by the whims of private ownership of the means of production, the competing interests of various national bourgeoisie and to the market in general. How irrational!
That is
>At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of productionPeople are material too!
>>2932630Yeah it might be a structural vs phenomenal discrepancy. The underlying potential and direction of production changes by virtue of the world's contingency, but this manifests itself through class struggle as new interests emerges in tandem with underlying changes. For instance, you could say that the development of naval science, of travel possibilities and trade potential created the bourgeoisie, which then sought to reorganize production around their special interest, leading to clashes over the control of production