What Has Marxism Given to the Writing of History?

The theories of Marxism have long been some of the most intriguing and thought provoking put forth in 19^th and 20^th centuries. Marxist theory is hallmarked by actively channeling and critiquing the foundations of the political, social and economic order of Western society and ideologies as a whole. Marxism gave rise to certain basic ideas and beliefs that permeate the writing of history, to allow us the ability to comprehend what history is or was. Marxist theory asks us to use the knowledge of the economics of the societal area and the productive development that enhances it, and to evaluate the viewpoint of the people who made the development happen, the working classes.

Marxism led to the idea that history is a science, as vital as chemistry or physics to their respective fields. History, like chemistry, is borne of theories and ideas, substaniatated by evidence and tested by time, open to interpretation and question, allowing us the understanding of the past to be able to chart a way forward to the future

Marist Theories

Marxism is rooted in the belief that mankind was and is able to evolve to a higher level of understanding simply because of his ability to produce what he needed to survive, rather than depend on others to subsist. Man leaned how to harness his environment to satisfy his needs and wants, and over time to create better methods and methodologies of production. Marxism purports that history is about the collective efforts of men to fulfill the simplictic needs of all men, and from this effort they would achieve their full potential and happiness, and thus attain a world in which there was classless society, an 'all for one and one for all' framework for society as a whole. Marx wrote in A Contribution in the Critique of Political Economy that 'It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their conscious', meaning the dawning of social awareness would lead men to put their efforts toward that of the greater good, rather than the fulfillment of self-worth.

The blueprint for this society came in three levels; the productive forces (methods and methodology of the labouring classes), productive economics (the management and sustainability of how, when and what is produced) and the superstructure (the foundation or framework of societal institutions and ideologies) Marxism focuses on this framework, to suggest on level cannot co-exist without the other, and that the disenfranchising of any level would lead do the downfall or ruin of society as a whole. If the manager negated the ideas of the worker, he lessens the impact of the worker in the climes of production. If the factors, which govern society, weaken the protocols of management, the society as a whole loses cohesiveness and the governing factors begin to lose touch with the needs of the people. If the workers become unproductive, stability is lost and chaos begins to assert itself. If any one level overlooks or bypasses another, society cannot exist without strife, and Marx believed that productive forces, the labouring classes, would be overlooked by the other levels, and this could, in theory, be applied as the catalyst of so many of the uprisings and insurgencies that have been effected by the labouring classes for centuries.

Marxism and the writing of history

Marxism gives rise to the idea that history should be written and recorded from the viewpoint of those who actually lived history: the solider that fought rather than the general who planned battles, from the hands of the builder as opposed to the eyes of the architect, or the works of an artisan instead the interpretation of the gallery owner. History, Marx theorized, should be written by those who day-to-day existence and work buttressed the economic productivity of society, the majority as opposed to the minority, those who govern and make policy that has no basis in the economics or dynamics of society.

Marx's theory of economic understanding is also centralized to the ideals of history being written 'from below', history written as it was lived by the laboring classes. The understanding of the development of history must be concurrent with the understanding of economics and production and where society was in terms of growth, the political climate, and the conditions of the social strata of the area in question. Only with these tools could historical quandary and ideologies be put to the test and allow for analysis and conclusions to be drawn upon and debated.

Marxist theory also gave history credibility as a full-fledged science in certain areas, particularly in the social arena. It shows history as a work of progression, not only a summary of the past or commentary on the present. Rather, it compels the historian to draw upon the viewpoints of many sectors of society, to surmise the rise and fall of civilizations, to assess the applications of technology, in essence, to compile the collective accounts and attitudes of many to chart ethos of our very existence. Thus, the historians could take a seemingly scientific approach to testing their theories and hypothesis from the evidence they had gathered. This could be used to credence to the ideology that in order to determine our future, we must understand and learn from the past, correcting the wrongs and improving upon the rights.

Marxism also gave great credence to the idea of economic history in its own right. Economics is defined as the science of the distribution of wealth, the resources of a community and the administration of these resources. Marxism defines this as the need to know first of the ability to provide economic viability of a culture; the understanding of peoples need to provide themselves with food and shelter first and foremost, for without these basics they could not sustain life. Then the understanding of how these needs is met, and what methods were used to get them to that point. This would be obtained from the archaeology, the writings and oral narratives passed downward from the respective cultures. The Marxist view would allow that the working classes would be the chief proliferates of the economic viability of a community or culture, and that the small minority of the ruling classes would be the beneficiaries of this economic vitality, and thus their commentaries on the culture would have been corrupted by wealth and position, rather than on the recollections and productivity of the labourers. The emergence of economic history allows us to understand the dynamics of the social classes, but allows one to illustrate the idiom of the working class viewpoint, which represented the foundations of the society as a whole.

Marxism and historical interpretation

Thos who subscribe to the Marxist theories hold the believe that that societies contain unifying groups as well as groups that are troublesome, and history is influenced by the resurgence of either group wishing to assert themselves. The Marxist ideal would allow the belief that the interpretation of the oral and narrative histories of either segment of the populations would give credible evidence to the uprisings of the general populace (namely the working classes) in time of economic or productive decline. The French Revolution, the uprisings and revolts in 17^th century England, and to a lesser extent the American War of Independence are could be construed as evidence of the working classes striking out against what they deemed as their oppressors (the ruling classes) and a fine example of the Marxist theory. History, if only interpreted by the ruling classes would no doubt have tried to make light of these uprisings and deem this as the work of troublesome forces and not as the work of the masses who only wanted a say in the way in which they were governed, and how they were able to lead productive life's and provide for the well being of their families.

However it can be argued that the theories of Marxism dilute the true understanding of the past and that it elevates the role of the working classes to being the predominate source of progression of technology and productivity, rather than as instigators of change. One could interpret this as an understanding that progress is only borne out of desperation of the working classes to better themselves, rather than giving way to the possibility that the management or ruling structure or classes may import knowledge or idealism that may indeed be of assistance to the working class. While it is true the progress is sometimes the result of revolution or pressure being brought to bear on the hardships faced by a society, progress often can be derived from the coming together of sets of standardized ideals and using the best of all these to further the momentum of society in relation to progress. The annals of history are littered with many stories of the coming together of families, of cities, of countries and of societies to work towards the betterment of man, and this, in a roundabout way, could be suggestive of what Marx himself was striving for all along, to achieve the betterment of society for the good of all its people, rather than the gains of a select few.

Marxism and aspects of modern history

Marxism is probably best viewed though the advent of Communism. It could be argued that Communism in and of itself had little to with what Marxism gave to the writing of history, but the very nature of this dogma has shaped modern day society in far reaching ways, and has served as a catalyst for economic changes worldwide. Marxism represents the ideals of Communism which purports that economic development is for the benefit of all the peoples of the society in which they live that provide that the people take care of themselves and of each other, and to contribute toward the stability and economic growth of the society as a whole. While Marxism could be perceived as pure in its ideals, the Communist regimes, for the most part, have not adhered to the purity of the collective work ethic, but have made the state the focus of the benefit of the collective group, rather than to benefit the people. It is this skewering of idealistic principles which no doubt contributed to the downfall of some Communist regimes, but on the whole has shown the ideals of Marxism are sound in most ways.

How can this be interpreted as to what has Marxism given to the writing of history? It teaches us that the dogma and principles of Marxism can be applied to the collective good of a society, and that historians can interpret the history of these societies in order to evaluate the credibility of data derived from their study. It can allow an historian to note that the ruling classes of a society can stench the flow of productivity and allow the working classes to stagnate and lose hope. It gives the working classes a voice in the greater viewpoint. But more importantly gives the historian the ability to gather data from all segments of society, and to be able to chart the high and low points of their economic and productive growth. From this, one can hopefully ascertain the negatives aspects in the economics of the society and help to bring about changes for the betterment all of the segments of society, without these changes being a determent to the any of the people, to give all members of the society an equal footing on which to stand, free of social and class tags, in essence, a society based on the mixing of socio-economic groups, rather than the bias of pre-defined social stratification.

Conclusion

The theories of Marxism allow us, the historians, to question, dissect and unravel the ethos and ideology of the political, social and economic structures of history and the part this plays in the workings of people and their place in the greater scheme of his place in the collective of society. Marxism attempts to bolster the contribution of the so called working classes to the productivity and economic viability and stability to society as a whole, while in theory

Marxism gives us, the historians, the presumption that history should be written from the perspective of the working classes, history 'from below'. Rather, that history as written from the experience of those who lived it, by those who maintained the economic livelihood of their societal group. One must understand the mechanics of economics before one can begin to understand the working of society. The idea that man could produce what he needed to sustain his life, improve upon his methods and create newer ways of improving his productivity is the backbone of the Marxist theory. However it can be argued the Marxism pushes the contributions of the working classes to the forefront while laying waste to the contributions of the ruling classes in any form.

Marxism also brought the study of history to the level of a science, giving credence to this discipline as an important tool in the perusal and dissemination of historical evidence in the academic arena, and that the narrative and written experiences of the working populace are as important, if not more, as the accounts of the ruling or elitist bodies to the interpretation of historical facts and figures.

The dogma of Marxism gives us the basis by which historians must use their positions and abilities to compile, research and interpret data, and to base their findings in the practicalities of modern day society, based upon what has been leaned from the collective past. We must understand where we came from, before we can begin to comtemplate our future.