<commit_before>========================
 Historical Materialism
========================

Overview
========

Given that historical materialism is one of the 'three components of
Marxism'[#]_, I figured it'd be a good idea to deep dive into it.

In `the preface to "A contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm>`_, 
Marx gives us a decent summary. First, on materialism [#]_ versus idealism [#]_:

  The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a
  critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law; the introduction to
  this work being published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher issued in
  Paris in 1844. My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations
  nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis
  of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary
  they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel,
  following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century,
  embraces within the term “civil society”; that the anatomy of this civil
  society, however, has to be sought in political economy.

To Marx, society is determined via economic relations before all else. And
economic relations are rooted in the actual material world, not the idealistic
world of the mind. Let's continue to see what those relations are.

  In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite
  relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production
  appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of
  production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the
  economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and
  political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social
  consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general
  process of social, political and intellectual life.

Okay. The first important thing here is that economic relations are 'relations
of production,' meaning that they're about the stuff that we *produce*. This
phrase will be incredibly fruitful for many later thinkers, so I call it out
here. Anyway, when you sum up all of these relations of production, you get
an economic structure or foundation, which is often referred to in Marxist
theory as the 'base' of a society. The base dictates the 'superstructure,'
which contains all of the politics and 'forms of social consciousness.' This
superstructure is informed by the base, which are the material relationships
and economic relationships discussed earlier.

Continuing,

  It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their
  social existence that determines their consciousness. 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. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the
  transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

Okay, three things here: first 'the productive forces of society come into
conflict with property relations.' Property relations are the legal framework
that manages production: the reason that a factory operates the way that it
does is due to the property rights associated with the factory. Because they're
enforcing the *current* relations of production, eventually, once those forces
develop far enough, they will come into conflict with the current rules, since
history is attempting to move forward. More on this later.

Secondly, 'Then begins an era of social revolution.' This friction between the
relations of production and property relations will spark revolution.

Third, the changes in the base lead to the transformation of the
superstructure. This is re-iterating what we heard above: you must change
economic relations before significant change can occur in the social structure
of society.

Further on,

  No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which
  it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of
  production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their
  existence have matured within the framework of the old society. 

We can't move forward in history until the forces of production have been
fully developed. This is a pretty contentious point: without going through all
of the proper stages of development, things just won't work. It has been
argued that Russia and China skipped some of these phases, hence the incredible
trauma as they moved forward from a feudalistic society to a socialist one.
I'm not educated enough on this yet to form my own opinion.

At the very least, the idea that all of these stages are *necessary* removes
Marxism from having an *ethical* critique of capitalism, which many believe
that it is. Marxism is *scientific*, ethics don't really come into it.
In the Marxist framework, capitalism will fall due to its relations of
production becoming obsolete, not because it's 'evil.'

Next up,

  Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve,
  since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only
  when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least
  in the course of formation. In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal
  and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking
  progress in the economic development of society.

This discussion of 'epochs' points to a certain way of viewing history: history
progresses through these epochs, and they are demarcated through economic
development. Each epoch has its own base and superstructure, and therefore,
it's necessary to change those economic relations in order to transition to
the next period of history.

To sum up:

1. History is based on a series of epochs. The epochs are determined by the 
   predominant economic relations of the time, or 'mode of production.'
2. This economic base informs the superstructure of the rest of society.
3. We can't move stages without changing the base, which requires revolution
   to fundamentally alter the relations of production.

Footnotes
=========

.. [#] other two being 'dialectical materialism' and 'Marxist economics' according to Lenin in `The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism <http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm>`_.
.. [#] Materialism asserts that all things are made up of matter or energy, and that all phenomena are the result of material relations.
.. [#] Idealism asserts that reality is immaterial, that is, constructed in the human mind. `Kant <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#TraIde>`_ is often cited as an example of an idealist.<commit_msg>Let's move the summary to the top<commit_after>========================
 Historical Materialism
========================

Overview
========

1. History is based on a series of epochs. The epochs are determined by the 
   predominant economic relations of the time, or 'mode of production.'
2. This economic base informs the superstructure of the rest of society.
3. We can't move stages without changing the base, which requires revolution
   to fundamentally alter the relations of production.

Let's dive in
=============

Given that historical materialism is one of the 'three components of
Marxism'[#]_, I figured it'd be a good idea to deep dive into it.

In `the preface to "A contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm>`_, 
Marx gives us a decent summary. First, on materialism [#]_ versus idealism [#]_:

  The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a
  critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law; the introduction to
  this work being published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher issued in
  Paris in 1844. My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations
  nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis
  of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary
  they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel,
  following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century,
  embraces within the term “civil society”; that the anatomy of this civil
  society, however, has to be sought in political economy.

To Marx, society is determined via economic relations before all else. And
economic relations are rooted in the actual material world, not the idealistic
world of the mind. Let's continue to see what those relations are.

  In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite
  relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production
  appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of
  production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the
  economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and
  political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social
  consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general
  process of social, political and intellectual life.

Okay. The first important thing here is that economic relations are 'relations
of production,' meaning that they're about the stuff that we *produce*. This
phrase will be incredibly fruitful for many later thinkers, so I call it out
here. Anyway, when you sum up all of these relations of production, you get
an economic structure or foundation, which is often referred to in Marxist
theory as the 'base' of a society. The base dictates the 'superstructure,'
which contains all of the politics and 'forms of social consciousness.' This
superstructure is informed by the base, which are the material relationships
and economic relationships discussed earlier.

Continuing,

  It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their
  social existence that determines their consciousness. 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. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the
  transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

Okay, three things here: first 'the productive forces of society come into
conflict with property relations.' Property relations are the legal framework
that manages production: the reason that a factory operates the way that it
does is due to the property rights associated with the factory. Because they're
enforcing the *current* relations of production, eventually, once those forces
develop far enough, they will come into conflict with the current rules, since
history is attempting to move forward. More on this later.

Secondly, 'Then begins an era of social revolution.' This friction between the
relations of production and property relations will spark revolution.

Third, the changes in the base lead to the transformation of the
superstructure. This is re-iterating what we heard above: you must change
economic relations before significant change can occur in the social structure
of society.

Further on,

  No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which
  it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of
  production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their
  existence have matured within the framework of the old society. 

We can't move forward in history until the forces of production have been
fully developed. This is a pretty contentious point: without going through all
of the proper stages of development, things just won't work. It has been
argued that Russia and China skipped some of these phases, hence the incredible
trauma as they moved forward from a feudalistic society to a socialist one.
I'm not educated enough on this yet to form my own opinion.

At the very least, the idea that all of these stages are *necessary* removes
Marxism from having an *ethical* critique of capitalism, which many believe
that it is. Marxism is *scientific*, ethics don't really come into it.
In the Marxist framework, capitalism will fall due to its relations of
production becoming obsolete, not because it's 'evil.'

Next up,

  Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve,
  since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only
  when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least
  in the course of formation. In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal
  and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking
  progress in the economic development of society.

This discussion of 'epochs' points to a certain way of viewing history: history
progresses through these epochs, and they are demarcated through economic
development. Each epoch has its own base and superstructure, and therefore,
it's necessary to change those economic relations in order to transition to
the next period of history.

Footnotes
=========

.. [#] other two being 'dialectical materialism' and 'Marxist economics' according to Lenin in `The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism <http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm>`_.
.. [#] Materialism asserts that all things are made up of matter or energy, and that all phenomena are the result of material relations.
.. [#] Idealism asserts that reality is immaterial, that is, constructed in the human mind. `Kant <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#TraIde>`_ is often cited as an example of an idealist.
{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04389061959155417, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002353755624783662, 'mean_word_length': 4.607919254658385, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 9, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 9, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 4, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
{'dir': 'git-commits-cleaned', 'id': '5822506', 'n_tokens_mistral': 3392, 'n_tokens_neox': 3166, 'n_words': 2153}