Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence [Paperback]

Karl Marx's Theory of History has been rightly acclaimed as a classic of Marxism. Cohen's book has three aims. First, in distinction from Marxist philosophers such as Georg Lukács and Louis Althusser, Cohen wishes to set out what he considers to be Marx's view of historical materialism and not some revision of the theory. Second, by scouring Marx's texts, he wishes to represent Marx's theory in a logically consistent fashion. Thirdly, in representing the theory in this fashion he wants to refute its major critics. While Cohen achieves his first two aims in an impressive manner, he falls at the final hurdle.

The version of historical materialism Cohen defends, and which he convincingly demonstrates to be that held by Marx, is a form of technological determinism. Forms of society rise and fall, on this view, according to the level of development of the productive forces they possess. Adopting functional explanation, Cohen argues that the superstructure (the legal and political order of any class society) is as it is in order to support the relations of production (the way in which owners and producers relate to one another and the forces of production). The relations of production are as they are in order to promote the development of the productive forces. In other words, what drives the historical process according to Cohen, is the constant development of the productive forces.

As his critics have argued, how can we claim that there is constant development of the productive forces across societies when the historical record shows many instances of productive stagnation and even regression? Cohen argues, however, that there is no more than a tendency for the productive forces to develop. At the centre of the book is Cohen's claim that human beings are 'somewhat rational', and that when they are faced with the option of adopting more advanced productive forces that will reduce the burden of labour, they will tend to take that option. Ultimately then, we can say that Cohen's representation of Marx's theory turns around this crucial claim about the nature of human beings.

It is here where Cohen's argument falls down. There is plenty of evidence that people throughout history do not adopt more advanced productive forces, and make this decision on a 'rational' basis, that is by calculating the costs and benefits that would accrue from such a move. The remaining hunter-gatherer societies across the world have consciously chosen to forego agriculture because the initial costs (at least) of the transition would be too much to bear. What then, can we say of prehistory, when hunter-gatherer societies had not been forced into the more barren corners of the earth? Why would it be rational for people who, by and large, had plenty to eat and a great deal of 'leisure' time on their hands, to shift to agriculture when this demanded intense physical and psychological commitments?

Cohen's argument cannot help us here, because it places too much weight on the 'rational' decision of individuals at the cost of culture and social relations. Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that overlooks the independent force of culture and social relations in the shaping people's behaviour. People are rational only in so far as they make some of their decisions (and by no means all) by means of cost-benefit calculation. Costs, in this respect, can include things like not offending gods or ensuring that ones social status is maintained, and these can be considered perfectly rational reasons for rejecting more advanced productive forces. Crucially, what calculations we make are largely determined by the position we occupy in a network of social relations and the beliefs we share with others in the network. Although the state of technology undoubtedly plays a crucial role in many social calculation procedures, it certainly does not determine them in any strict sense.

If, then, we want to explain why the productive forces have developed for what is a relatively small part of human history, we cannot do so by resorting to the argument that people are 'somewhat rational' in the sense that Cohen had in mind when he originally made this claim. Instead, we need to turn to what other Marxists have described as the social relations of production, i.e. the specific way in which societies organise production. These relations tend to determine the level of development of the productive forces rather than vice-versa. If Marx's theory of history is as Cohen says it is (though other Marxologists would disagree) then, quite simply put, it is wrong.

The strength and weakness of Cohen's argument lies in its use of the principles of analytical philosophy to reconstruct historical materialism. Rigorous logical analysis and clarity of expression combine to produce a theory that is indeed consistent and transparent. But the cost of this approach is that we are left with a theory that fails to illuminate either the historical record or the political strategy of the left. The irony of this is thick when one considers that there was a very political, albeit implicit, aim to Cohen's book - that is, to defend a vision of a classless society where the division of labour has been abolished. Desirable as this goal might be, it is as far away today as it has ever been, and it is unlikely that logical analysis alone will make it any more obtainable.

As a species, humanity is prone to hubris and we all find the admission of failure difficult; especially if that admission must be made in the full glare of public scrutiny. Thus it often seems easier to 'manipulate' the facts, to give the impression that there has been no failure; rather than face public humiliation. Hence we frequently see massive organisations being very obviously led to disaster; whilst those employed within these organisations ignore reality, laud the 'vision' of their leaders and curry favours at every turn. A classic but far from unique example of this behaviour is the subject of this book; the old Soviet Union.

I felt this book should have made far clearer the fact that Tsarist Russia was a hugely wealthy empire; providing in abundance all the natural/mineral resources, raw materials, plus the vast hard-working population that a modern industrial power needs. It could have explained that in 1917, an accident of history placed the Bolsheviks in charge of that empire, when the long suffering Russian people finally refused to endure any more of the Tsar's incompetence. This small, incredibly fortunate group of determined young 'Socialist' idealists, set out to build the 'perfect' paradise world; whatever the initial costs and sacrifice.

Sadly, decade's of privation and misery followed; as these idealists cruelly bullyed and hectored their people, in mismanaged attempts to 'prove' that their fantasies would become reality. Rather than the long-winded, convoluted excuses the author provides, he could merely have explained that fifty/sixty years later, it was obvious to any impartial observer that the communist experiment had failed; and radical changes were urgently needed if the decaying system was not to collapse completely. Did however, the now ageing Soviet leadership admit their youthful follies, and institute the changes necessary to prevent the looming catastrophe? Did the second rank party members take the actions needed to save a floundering State which looked to them for salvation? Emphatically not!!!

As the Tsar had done before them, the Soviets used censorship to 'conceal' the failures; police were used to break up the queues which formed whenever a shop had something to sell, dissenting voices were 'silenced', while venal hacks were employed within the propaganda departments to both disparage alternative ideas, and praise the 'vision and sucess' of what was quite obviously a failed philosophy, being clung to by a failed leadership.

As our generation looks back to the 20'th Century tragedies which led to WWI, WWII, the Cold War, and the resultant destruction of Europe's world power; we in the West, like our brothers in the ex-Soviet East, are now aware that alternative decisions taken then, might well have produced far better results for our own era; but do modernday leaders now admit this? Do they attempt to salvage at least some of what was good from that old pre-war world? Emphatically not. Like George Orwell's brainwashed 'proles' of 1984; we watch the remorseless growth of the Chinese/Asiatic industrial complex without understanding just what it means, whilst our own 'liberal/socialist' systems lurch from one crisis to another. We see the remit of 'politically correct' censorship extended, freedom of speech 'controlled', the police used evermore 'to prevent disturbance', while venal hacks in the media/publishing industries attempt to disguise failure and disparage alternative ideas/philosophies.

To conclude this review, I was not impressed with this publication in any way, finding it remenicent of productions by the old Soviet propaganda machine. We all have our own opinions whether right or wrong, as I have demonstrated in this review; but I don't think these opinions should be put forward in a fashion that might suggest they are fact.