The Development of the Monist View of History

A philosophical work of Plekhanov which was written in 1894 and first published in Petersburg in January 1895 under the pseudonym of N. Beltov.

In the 1890s, the liberal Narodniks, represented by N. K. Mikhailovsky, attacked Marxism by using publications such as Russian Fortune, Notes on the Fatherland and individual articles, propagating reformist and subjective views, which seriously hampered the spread of Marxism in Russia and the rise of the workers’ movement. Plekhanov published an article against the liberal Narodniks in the underground press and planned to publish a book entitled “Our Differences–Part II”. Plekhanov renamed the book as “The Development of the Monist View of History” which passed inspection of the censor committee and the book was published legally.

This book is divided into three parts. The first part, chapters 1 to 4, systematically examines the principle differences and ideological links between the materialist view of history and previous views of history, and clarifies the theoretical sources of the materialist view of history. The second part, chapter 5, deals in detail with the basic ideas of the materialist view of history. The third part, the “Conclusion”, analyses the errors of Mikhailovsky and others on the practical question of whether Russia could and should avoid the path of capitalism.

In the first part, Plekhanov started by revealing the difference between “materialism in the general philosophical sense” and idealism. He pointed out that idealism strives to explain all the phenomena of Nature, all the qualities of matter, by these or those qualities of the spirit. Materialism attempts to explain psychic phenomena by these or those qualities of matter, by this or that organisation of the human or in more general terms, of the animal body. In the view of Plekhanov, all thinkers from French materialists of the 18th century, to Hegel, i.e. the German idealist philosopher of the 19th century, could not correctly treat and explain human history. In fact, Marx’s theory of history, i.e. the materialist conception of history, is indeed the legitimate product of the long-term development of the conception of history. Different from the philosophers and historians of the past, Marx had transcended old materialism and idealism. and mental categories such as “opinions”, “inherent nature of a thing” and “absolute idea” to explain history, but regarded these mental categories as the result of historical movement. Plekhanov pointed out that there is always dualism between materialism and idealism. He claimed that a thorough thinker should make a choice and become a monist; “every consistent idealist is a monist to the same extent as every consistent materialist.”

In the second part, Plekhanov expounded on the main content of the materialist conception of history, criticized the Narodniks for their fallacy that “Heroes” create history, that the masses are “mobs” and that capitalism cannot be established in Russia. First, he pointed out that “ it is only the understanding of interests that can give the key to understanding the true course of historical development.” He emphasized the important role of the geographical environment in the early evolution of mankind, and even the decisive influence of the geographical environment on the fate of a nation. Second, he argued that Engels’ research on the family system, is a supplement to the view that “foundation of the material conception of history is the investigation of the economic structure of society” which explained the history of the family with the history of economic relations. Thirdly, Plekhanov pointed out that the concept of law is determined by the mode of production, and that there is an interaction between politics and economy: Political institutions affect economic life, and the evolution of economy leads to changes in law. Fourth, the psychology of society and thought system. Once the structure of society has been given, it is not difficult to understand that the character of that structure will be reflected generally in the entire psychology of men, in all their habits, manners, feelings, views, aspirations and ideals. The psychology of society is always determined by social economy, and influenced by historical environment and class struggle, and the thought systems of the higher sort such as science, philosophy, religion, art and aesthetics are no exception. Fifth, the individual’s role in social history. He pointed out that the genius in the field of history understands the significance of new social relations earlier than his contemporaries and the social environment provides smaller or bigger possibility for the development of individual genius. Sixth, Marx’s view of history is a philosophy that attaches importance to rational value and rational function and a philosophy that attaches importance practical action. First of all, Plekhanov criticizes the subjective sociologists’ work method that forgets the real relations and creates social ideals on the history with the subjective method. He points out that the objective truth can only be discovered through a comprehensive investigation of the changing social relations and reality.Secondly, he criticizes Mikhailovsky’s view that “the very foundations of the theory of economic materialism remain unconnected among themselves”, demonstrating that the close connection among the very foundations, that is, taking the development of the productive forces as the string (basis) to explain all the social life, and test it with the help of the analysis of social phenomena. Thirdly, it criticizes Mikhailovsky’s metaphysical understanding of necessity, and expounds that it is a process of the human being from the domination of blind necessity to the enslavement of economic necessity and then the defeat of necessity and ushering freedom. Finally, he pointed out that dialectical materialism is philosophy of action. Modern dialectical materialism strives to eliminate the classes, develop the self-consciousness of producers, let the working masses rely on scientific conclusions in their own conscious movement, and defeat blind necessity with human reason.

In the conclusion part, Plekhanov uses the “method of comparative history” to first introduce the attack on Marx and Engels by the “true socialists” in Germany in the 1840s on the question whether Germany should embark on the path of capitalism, and then analyzes the attack on Marx’s students by the Russian liberal Narodniks such as Mikhailovsky in 1890s on the question whether Russia can avoid embarking on the path of capitalism and focuses on criticizing the “practical reason” advocated by Russian liberal Narodniks in the fate of Russian capitalism. The concrete conclusions are as follows: (1) Refuted the view of practical reason advocated by Heinzen and his disciples. Plekhanov criticized the view held by Heinzen and others that Marx’s view was that there was nothing to be done in Germany of that day, Plekhanov pointed out that Marx and Engels had a definite ideal, even they advocated necessity subordination of necessity to freedom, of blind economic forces to the power of human reason. Proceeding from this reasonable ideal, Marx and Engels focused their own practical actions and aimed to develop the self-consciousness of the producers who should be the owners of their products. (2) Critique of the view of practical reason advocated by Mikhailovsky and other Russian liberal Narodniks. Plekhanov pointed out that dialectical materialism does never impose any so called sentence for the development fate of any society, and it doesn’t point out a path which is general and inevitable for all nations at all times; the future development of any given society always depends on the relationships of social forces within it. In the second half of the 19th century, capitalism had developed in Russia and began to invade the rural areas of Russia. The rural communes are in the process of disintegration and even the consolidation of the village communes could not prevent Russia from embarking on the path of capitalism. (3) Plekhanov pointed out that Buhl’s and Vollgraf’s views on the economic situation of Germany in that time were narrow, one-sided and mistaken due to their abstractness. (4) In the Germany of 1840s, people who regarded organizing production as their latest task were utopian socialists, and history has shattered their illusions.

The Development of the Monist View of History is an important literature of historical materialism. Engels called the book’s publication in Russia as “a furore”. Lenin thought the book “helped educate a whole generation of Russian Marxists”. In 1964, Mao Zedong approved the book to be included in the bibliography of 30 Marxist classics that must be read by cadres as stipulated by the CPC Central Committee.