The Dialectics of the Historical Process and the Methodology of Its Research

4. The Process of the Historical Development of Society

The process of development can be considered from the point of view of the simultaneous givenness of its moments [sites, parts] (logical aspect) and from the point of view of the unfolding of development over time (historical aspect). In this section, we will focus on characterising the development of society over time.

The discovery by K. Marx and F. Engels of the materialist understanding of history made it possible to understand history as a natural-historical process, as a process that occurs due to necessity, in a law-governed way, and yet is realised through the activity of people who have freedom of choice, freedom of will (at different stages of historical development, the nature and degree of freedom vary).

To understand the process of historical development, it is necessary to define its change over time, and if development is law-governed, then the change must occur in some necessary direction. This law-governed development does not exclude the activity of people as conscious, thinking beings; on the contrary, the historical development of society represents the resultant, formed from the activity of masses of people. However, the activity of people is ultimately carried out to maintain their own physical existence and that of their kind under certain objective, initially predominantly natural conditions. And for this reason alone, the historical development of society, i.e., the historical interactions of people, cannot occur purely arbitrarily.

The history of society cannot be free from accidents, zigzags, interruptions, etc. But still, if we take a sufficiently long period (the length of such a period varies depending on specific conditions), a direction of development will be revealed, making its way through all the accidents, zigzags, interruptions, etc.

The characterisation of any historical process of development means, first and foremost, the consideration of its general direction, therefore including the beginning of the process, the stages it passes through, as well as the ‘mechanisms’ of transition from one stage to another, the specificity, continuity, and direction of the process of development.

It is necessary to specifically emphasise that, by asserting the existence of a direction of development, we note the main direction of development. In doing that, we are abstracting from the fact that, along with the main direction, there may exist other, dead-end directions of development, and that interaction may occur between them and the main direction.

Society is, as already noted above, an ‘organic’ whole, passing in its ascending, progressive development through a series of stages, levels, and phases.

The real existing history of society is not the process of the development of an ‘organic’ whole in a ‘pure’ form. However, to understand the full complexity of the historical development of society, it is necessary to first isolate in a ‘pure’ form the main direction of the development of society and only then introduce complicating factors into the field of consideration.

Society, the social form of motion, is qualitatively distinct from the biological form of motion, but at the same time, society arises from nature and most immediately from the biological form of motion.

Consequently, if society is an ‘organic’ whole, then the history of society must be divided into stages, phases, which every ‘organic’ whole passes through in its development:

1. The formation of the historical preconditions of society, the formation of the social within the biological, and generally within the natural. At this stage, the preconditions for the emergence of society appear, but society itself does not yet exist.

2. The primary emergence of society.

3. The formation of society. The process through which the emerging society transforms the inherited natural basis is underway.

4. The maturity of society. The process of transformation of the inherited natural basis is completed. This substantially transformed natural basis is now included as a moment of the process of the development of society.

At the stage of the formation of the historical preconditions of society, natural laws reign supreme. The source of development here must be sought in the development of nature. At the stage of the primary emergence of society, a fundamentally new source of development is formed and begins to operate.

With the emergence of humanity, social factors became the main drivers of development, rather than natural ones. It is true that the natural factors, the natural basis, are only beginning to be transformed by the new process. At the stage of the formation of society, the transformation of the natural basis continues, but to one degree or another, the natural basis still remains untransformed, and, therefore, the new essence, although it is the main, leading factor of development, does not yet dominate in the sense that the inherited process, the natural basis, has not been completely transformed.

At the stage of maturity, the social factor becomes not only leading but also dominant.

Thus, at the first stage, the source of development lies within nature; at the second stage, a social source of development arises, which immediately becomes leading. Thanks to the emergence of this fundamentally new factor and as its manifestation, an interaction between it and the natural factor arises. The interaction of the social and natural factors dominates, with the social factor being primary. At the third stage, the emerging social factor continues to be the leading, main factor. At the fourth stage, the social factor completely subjugates the natural factor, and only at this stage does it exclusively dominate, and thus only now does the self-movement, self-development of society, the interaction of people as an end in itself, the development of the essence of man as an end in itself, dominate exclusively.

The stage of the formation of the historical preconditions of human society begins with the existence of the ape-like ancestors of man. At this stage, due to purely natural activities (the interaction of the organism and the surrounding natural environment), the preconditions for the transition to the next stage are created, preconditions that are also natural in character.

The transition to the stage of the primary emergence of man occurs due to purely natural influences: it was the change in the surrounding natural environment (the thinning of forests, cooling, the reduction of opportunities for gathering food, etc.) that led to the fact that the ape-like ancestors of man began the transition from an arboreal to a terrestrial way of life and to the use of natural objects as means, tools for obtaining food, protection, etc. The transition to the use of natural objects as tools was thus a continuation of purely natural development. But natural development included in the sphere of its activity such a natural factor that contained fundamentally new potentials for development, different from natural development. The transition to the use of tools, means of labour, opened the way to the creation of objects that do not exist in nature as such. As the use of natural objects as tools and means of labour became systematic, so too did the purposeful modification of the tools and means of labour themselves, i.e. there was a transition to the gradual production of tools, means of labour. 

When does the stage of the primary emergence of man as a social being end? In our opinion, it is when the production of the products of labour becomes constant, regular.

Initially, production emerges as the production of tools for subsistence. Gatherers, hunters, and fishers do not engage in the regular production of the goods they consume.

Only with the emergence of animal husbandry and agriculture do human beings move to the regular, constant production of products of labour that serve as objects for satisfying the physical needs of man. It was then that the production of tools ceased to be primarily about subsistence and became about producing tools for production itself.

The emergence of man also meant a fundamental change in the relationship to nature: from satisfying physical needs with the help of objects found in nature in a ready-made form to the production of objects for consumption, to the purposeful alteration of some natural objects with the help of other objects used as means of alteration.

A fundamental change in the interaction of a living being with nature is, as in any interaction, a fundamental change in both interacting sides. The transformation of the ape into a new type of living being took place with the development of labour activity and was for the most part completed with the formation of the components of labour: objects of labour, means of labour, purposeful actions, and products of labour. In turn, the formation of these components took shape when the foraging/extraction of ready-made objects of nature became the main source of subsistence for human beings and when the production of tools for foraging became constant. All the components of labour listed above are already present in the production of tools for foraging. It was at this time that the biological type of modern man was formed.

Above, we spoke of the primary emergence of a productive relation with nature. But the process of the primary emergence of this relation was also the process of the primary emergence of relations of production.

When foraging for consumable objects is the main source of subsistence, the use and distribution of the foraged objects are in general not differentiated from each other. What is gathered by the collective is consumed together.

In our opinion, if ready-made natural objects are used as tools, there is generally no social division between use and distribution, between consumption and production.

The social division between use and distribution, and between consumption and production, is only just beginning to emerge. As long as we are dealing with a society of ‘foragers,’ consumption and use, on the one hand, and the distribution of the results and tools of foraging, on the other, exist predominantly in an undifferentiated form. Relations of production only begin to emerge as relatively independent, primarily in the production of tools for foraging.

The primary emergence of relations of production as relatively independent can only be completed with the transition to actual production of objects for consumption and to the production of tools for production.

Natural factors transformed the troop of apes into human society. But that’s not all. From the very beginning of this transition, the main driving force behind development was the use of tools and the emergence of labour.

In our opinion, it is impossible to accept the view that, during a period of predominantly appropriating ready-made natural products, the economy and economic relations did not play a decisive role.

At the same time, however, any discussion about the decisive role of the economy or tribal relations should be taken cum grano salis.

Throughout the entire stage of the primary emergence of society, including the primitive stage and the lowest stage of barbarism, the primary emergence of the relations of production and the economy also takes place. This means that relations of production are already beginning to diverge from natural connections, although they still exist as indivisible from them. This means that relations of production have not yet completely transformed natural ties. In this sense, they do not yet dominate. But it is precisely the relations of production that serve as the leading factor of development during this era and, in this sense, the decisive factor.

Relations of production are only just emerging, and their content is largely determined by the weakness of the emerging productive forces, i.e. it is determined negatively. Since relations of production are not yet completely distinct from natural relations, relations of production merge with clan/tribe relations. Clan relations serve simultaneously as relations of production.

As production relations have become distinct from natural relations, they do not merge with clan relations, rather, they exist as a unique form of communal relations of production.

In primitive society, relations of production are predominantly merged with the natural relations of human beings to each other and to the conditions of production. ‘Property’ thus originally means no more than a human being’s relation to his natural conditions of production as belonging to him, as his, as presupposed along with his own being; relations to them as natural presuppositions of his self, which only form, so to speak, his extended body. He actually does not relate to his conditions of production, but rather has a double existence, both subjectively as he himself, and objectively in these natural non-organic conditions of his existence.’[1] The absence of a relation between man and his conditions of production means that property exists inseparably from the natural connection, natural relations.[2] This is because man himself represents the subjective existence of natural conditions.

Thus, primitive communal property existed to a large extent merged with the natural relations of human beings to each other and to the conditions of production.

To one degree or another, the merging of relations of production with natural relations is indispensable to any community. This merging is rooted in the essence of all communities, regardless of their various forms.

At the stage of the primary emergence of man, society exists in the form of separate collectives, each representing society as a whole. The primary necessity for every collective is to provide its members with the minimum means necessary to sustain life and satisfy the minimum physical needs that are indispensable for life. This emerging mode of production exists as subordinate to this necessity, and its relatively independent development has only just begun. At the same time, from the outset, although the mode of production has been in service to the provision of the minimum means of subsistence, it has been the leading factor in development. However, influence of this factor still depends to a considerable extent on chance and specific natural conditions. Consequently, if natural conditions are sufficiently abundant to satisfy primitive needs, the development of the mode of production may stagnate. The primitive collective is, in a sense, a society of predominantly primitive consumers. Of course, overly harsh natural conditions also hinder the emergence of the mode of production.

The activation of the emerging mode of production, as the leading factor of development, only occurs when there is a certain degree of ‘pressure’ from the surrounding conditions on human beings. At this stage, natural conditions and natural human connections (connections related to reproduction, changes in population size due to natural conditions) remain predominant factors but cease to be the leading factors of development.

The third stage is the formation of human society. At this stage, the emerging mode of production of material goods is formed, transforming the inherited natural basis. Of course, its primary emergence was simultaneously a certain transformation of the natural basis. At the previous stage, the basic components of labour, productive forces, and relations of production emerged. So, what exactly did the development of the mode of material production and the reshaping of inherited natural conditions involve during this formative period?

Natural connections and conditions continue to prevail during the formation of society. However, now the activity of the mode of production as the leading factor in the development of society has ceased to depend on random circumstances and has become predominantly necessary. In the process of formation, the mode of production becomes not only the necessary leading factor in development, but also the unchallenged dominant one.

Let us consider in more detail the process of the formation of society from the point of view of the development of the productive forces. The period of the formation of the productive forces begins from the stage when the level of the productive forces allows for the production of a constant surplus beyond what is absolutely necessary for physical survival and continues until the level at which an abundance of material goods can be produced. The formation of the productive forces begins after the basic components of the productive forces (human beings, means of production) first emerge. It consists, first and foremost, in the formation of the social character of labour. Initially, the social character of labour is generally dictated by the overall weakness, underdevelopment and primitive nature of the productive forces, i.e. it is a consequence of the insufficient development of the productive forces. The formation of the social character of labour enters its final stage when processes in which different people serve as moments of a single productive process begin to predominate in production. The formation of the social character of production is completed when the entire production process of society becomes internally unified.

The formation of the productive forces is also the transformation of the inherited natural basis and its transformation into a subordinate moment of the movement of the productive forces. Already at the stage of the primary emergence of man as a social being, the production of tools (for foraging/extraction) becomes established. The production of tools (for foraging/extraction) in providing people with the means for subsistence plays, as does the entire mode of production, a leading role in development, but it by no means predominates in this process. At the stage of the formation of society, the use of tools (actually now tools of production itself, not of foraging/extraction) found in nature in a ready-made form still predominates. At this stage, the transition from the predominance of naturally emerging tools of production to the predominance of produced tools of production takes place. At the same stage, the transition from the predominant use of objects of labour found in nature in a ready-made form to the predominant use of artificial objects of labour, created with predetermined properties, takes place. Humanity at this stage of the development of the productive forces moves to the purposeful impact on all natural conditions on earth, on the entire surrounding earthly natural environment. Finally, the formation of the productive forces includes the formation of man as a productive force. All the transformations listed above mean the penetration into the essence of natural processes, and consequently, presuppose the transition from the empirical level of the development of knowledge to the theoretical, requiring a properly scientific approach to reality. The formation of man as a productive force is his transformation from an empirically acting individual into an individual armed with theory.

The formation of society from the point of view of the development of the relations of production takes place, ultimately, under the determining influence of the forming productive forces. But, at the same time, the formation of the relations of production is a relatively independent process.

The development of the relations of production at the stage of the formation of human society occurs in a contradictory way. On the one hand, throughout the entire stage, although to varying degrees and in variously modified forms, the relation of man to his natural conditions of production ‘as presupposed along with his own being; relations to them as natural presuppositions of his self, which only form, so to speak, his extended body’[3], the direct relation of man to the conditions of production, is preserved. (This side is preserved to a certain extent even under capitalism.) On the other hand, a rift between man and the conditions of production is formed and develops; private property and antagonistic classes emerge and develop.

The first process changes and disappears as human society develops, while the second grows, becomes dominant, and ultimately becomes dominant at the end of the development process.

The basis for preserving, to one degree or another, in one form or another, the direct relation of man to the conditions of production is that the share and role of naturally occurring tools and objects of labour found in nature in ready-made form is still significant, and that man is still enslaved by the activity of natural forces.

The basis for the emergence and growth of the rift between man and the conditions of production is the totality of a number of features of the development of the productive forces. Firstly, it is the transition to the predominance of produced tools of labour, to the predominance of produced objects of labour, to the decisive purposeful impact of man on the entire surrounding environment. Thus, the direct relationship between man and the natural conditions of production becomes mediated. Secondly, this mediated relation manifests as a rift. The productive forces at the stage of formation are sufficient to produce a constant surplus of means of subsistence beyond what is absolutely necessary to maintain the physical existence of individuals, but insufficient for the constant and total satisfaction of the physical needs of all members of society, which leads to the struggle of people with each other over material goods, to the formation of classes and private property. In addition, the predominance of individually operated tools of labour, the presence of the social character of labour, mainly as an external necessity, also leads to the emergence of private property.

What is the source of development at the stage of the formation of human society? The source of the development of society lies primarily in the mode of production, i.e., in the unity of productive forces and production relations. However, at this stage, the internal source, the source of self-development of society, is only just forming. The mode of production already plays the role of the leading factor of development, and it is precisely due to its activity that societal progress occurs at the stage of formation. At the same time, society still depends to a significant extent on natural conditions, which can either facilitate the progress of society (but cannot define its progress) or hinder the development of society. Therefore, the formation of the mode of production itself can begin and proceed under specific natural conditions.

Socio-economic formations characterised by class antagonism, represent various stages of the process of the formation of society. The entire history of humanity up to communism is a process of the maturation of society. When can we speak of a mature society?

A truly mature society is one in which the transformation of the natural basis, i.e., the foundation from which society emerged, has been completed. The stage of maturity of any given process of development is the negation of the negation. Applied to society, this means that initially, there exists predominantly an immediate unity of society and man with nature (the distinction between them is not brought to the fore). Then, the transformation of nature and natural ties intensifies, and the rift between society and nature, the establishment of dominance over nature, begins to come to the fore. At the stage of maturity, there is a type of return to the starting point, to unity with nature, preserving the achievements of the first negation. The unity of society and nature at the stage of maturity of human society is mediated by the transformation of the entire earthly nature. However, here the rift between man and nature disappears, as does man’s hostility towards the forces of nature, the one-sided struggle to become the master of nature, and the predatory attitude towards it, etc.

The productive forces of a mature society are quantitatively developed to the extent that they can deliver an abundance of material goods. The maturity of productive forces is also characterised by the fact that the production of society becomes an internally unified productive process; that the means of production are themselves created by production; and that man, as a component of the productive forces, is equipped with science, and the productive forces become the embodiment of science. The maturity of the productive forces also means the predominance of creative, meaningful, optimally sustained labour, which is impossible without developed automated production. In turn, the adequate basis for automated production is the production of automata by automata. The product of purposeful transformation at this stage of maturity is not only the means and objects of labour, not only labour itself, but all natural conditions on earth. All natural conditions on earth become a unified, purposefully transformed complex. This is followed by the purposeful, comprehensive exploration of near-Earth space.

The relations of production at the stage of maturity of society are no longer communal/tribal or relations of private property, but relations of public ownership, i.e., social appropriation. The goal of society becomes not the provision of a minimum of material goods according to sex, age, and individual characteristics, as in primitive society, nor the acquisition of private property. It would be erroneous to consider the main goal of a mature society to be the provision of all members of society with an abundance of material goods. The main objective becomes the development, self-development of people as individuals. At the stage of the maturity of society, the relationship between productive forces and relations of production changes, as does the entire structure of society. A special study of these changes is the subject of separate research.

Socialism is a stage of maturity of society in which social ownership of the means of production has become the leading and determining factor of the development of society, but in which the limitations of previous development of society have not yet been fully overcome.

The communist phase of the development of the new society is, in fact, the development of the new society on its own foundation.

Notes

[1] K. Marx, Grundrisse: Notebook IV/V―The Chapter on Capital, Continuation of “Forms which precede capitalist production”, 1858

[2] This position should not be taken as absolute. Man cannot be completely unrelated to his conditions of production.

[3] K. Marx, Grundrisse: Notebook IV/V―The Chapter on Capital, Continuation of “Forms which precede capitalist production”, 1858