The five basic categories of historical materialism must be known in order to understand what and how historical materialism operates. They are highlighted below;
1. Social being
2. Social consciousness
3. Mode of production
4. Basis (Base)
5. Superstructure
…also included is…
§ The concept of “socio-economic formation” in historical materialism
SOCIAL BEING AND SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS
Man cannot exist without food,
clothes, shelter, and other necessities of life. Mother Nature, however, does
not provide these things ready-made; to produce these, people must work by
utilizing labour on the raw materials of nature. Therefore, labour is the basis
of social life; a fundamentally natural necessity for man. Without labour,
without productive activity, human life itself would be impossible. This is
what social being entails; the
production of material wealth, which is the chief determining factor in social
development. But as it were, idealism (which is a bourgeois tool) is unable to
give a correct explanation of the role of social being in the life of society.
This is because they hold that ideas are the main determinants of society’s
development; but this is erroneous. Nevertheless, historical materialism
clearly shows that the social consciousness (ideas, theories and views) of a
people is a product of their social
being. Hence, social consciousness is secondary and derives from social
being. The subordination of social consciousness to social being asserts the
fact that before people can engage in the mental activities of science, art,
philosophy and so on, they must first get food, clothing, shelter and a means
via which they would produce material values. Hence, it is in social being (the
material productive activity of the people) that we should look for the source
of their ideas, theories and views. As people’s social being changes, so does
their social consciousness; old ideas disappear and new ones arise conforming
to the new social conditions.
On the other hand, it is true that social being
– the material economic relations of people, constitute that basis of social
development; but, social being in itself is not enough for understanding social
development. Besides material productive activity, people have a spiritual
life, as they are guide by definite political and moral views, scientific
theories, and views on art and so on. All these views have their origin and
importance within the confines of society; thus, they belong to the sphere of social consciousness. Social
consciousness can be defined as “the sum-total of ideas, theories and views,
social sentiments, habits and customs of people which reflect objective
reality. Social consciousness is a product and a reflection of the social being
of a people; since social being has various forms and complexities, social
consciousness also follows in the same trend. Political ideas (e.g. democracy),
legal ideas (e.g. Sharia), morality (e.g. doctrine of the mean), art (e.g.
masquerades), science (e.g. bio-chip technology), philosophy and religion are
all forms of social consciousness. These forms have own distinct origin and
development as they reflect various aspects of social being. Furthermore, in a
class society, all forms of social
consciousness takes on a class character. Since, a society is divided into
hostile classes of the exploiting and the exploited; so, each class would have
its own ideology (social consciousness). However, it is the ideology (social
consciousness) of the class which dominates economically and politically that
would hold sway. This is why the ideological struggle is a major form of the
class struggle in antagonistic societies.
MODE OF PRODUCTION
Together,
the unbreakable synthesis of productive forces and production
relations in any society constitute the "mode of production"
- a core category of Historical Materialism.
The concept of productive
forces is best explained from its content perspective. Accordingly, in human
society, productive forces are a combination of three things; means of
production, instruments of labour and the working people.
i.
Means of production
Material production is not
possible without the means of production. The means of production is made up of
the objects of labour and the means of labour. Firstly, the objects of labour
are all those things to which human labour is applied, for example, natural
resources. Secondly, the means of labour are a large combination of the
machines, equipments, tools, transport, production factories, sites and the
likes used to actualise material production.
ii. Instruments of labour
The instruments of labour
are the most important part of the means of labour. They are the physical
instruments that are used to act on and transform the objects of labour.
Production can never be actualised without these, for Mother Nature does not
willingly or easily part with its riches, which cannot also be extracted by
physical human strength alone. It is via these instruments of labour like
cranes, tractors, bulldozers and the like that man can conquer nature and gain
his means of livelihood. Hence, the better and mightier these instruments are,
the greater means of livelihood man gets.
iii. The working people
As a fact, instruments of
labour cannot by themselves produce material wealth, as they are inanimate.
They must not just be made but also put to use; by whom? The working people!
Surely, the most perfect and draconian machine will eventually turn into a useless
pile of metal if no human hand touches, handles or operates it. Hence, only man
(the working people) is capable of operating the instruments of labour and
organising material production. It is for this reason that the working people
are an essential element of production; the principal element of the productive
forces. This is because man does not just make these production tools but uses
them skilfully to give man the immeasurable multitude of things he needs.
§ Production Relations
Since production affects all
mankind, it does not happen in isolation. Thus, production takes place when
people jointly organise themselves in a society, as labour is social in nature.
According to Marx, in order to produce, people enter into definite connections
and relations with one another, of which it is only via such relations that production,
would take place. Hence, production relations (or relations of production) are
the basic connections between people in the production process. In primitive
society, for example, initially, fellow hunters were connected by labour. As
the productive forces and division of labour advanced, the production relations
became more and more diverse. Connections were established between farmers,
herdsmen, peasants, craftsmen and merchants and so on.
Even as society progressed and the
machine industries were birthed, there were also diverse connections between
producers. A good example is thus; an agricultural processing industry (Fadama)
would sell raw cassava to a food processing industry (Dangote), which would
then make flour in bags and sell to a mega food store (Shoprite). The mega food
store would then sell flour to a bakery (supreme bakers), which would make some
specially made bread to be sold to a confectionery (sweet sensation), which
would sell to the final consumer (you). Other production materials like sugar,
water, nylon, paper, groundnut oil, eggs and so on, which all have a role to
play in the bread production process would also pass through various channels
of production relations. Hence, production does not happen in isolation; its
relations are diverse and many-sided.
The basic determining factor in the
production relations is the "form of ownership of the means of
production". By this, it is implied that those who possess ownership
of the means of production are the ones who would control it. For those who do
not own the means of production like land, forests, minerals resources, waters,
raw materials, labour instruments, factories and the likes; they would have to
become subordinate to those who own these means. Accordingly, since property is
privately owned under capitalism, the means of production would belong to the
exploiting few (bourgeoisie). Therefore, the production relations would be that
of dominance and antagonism, since the proletariat are deprived of the means of
production and are then forced to work for those who own them.
Furthermore, the form of
distribution would also be affected by the nature of ownership of the
production means. Thus, the exploiters unjustly determine how the society's
wealth would be shared and distributed. The owners of the means of production
would get the lion share of the wealth produced, to the detriment of the
workers, even though he does not participate directly in the production
process.
BASIS (BASE) AND SUPERSTRUCTURE
The base is simply the "the economic foundations and structure of
a society". The superstructure
is simply "the social, political and legal values in a society as well as
its corresponding institutions. The base is of prime importance, as its serves
as the foundation for the superstructure; hence, one cannot talk of base
without superstructure and vice-versa. Every type of society has its own basis,
of which the basis is a total sum-up of the mode of production (productive
forces and production relations). Hence, no basis can appear until its
corresponding "mode of production" has emerged, and when this
happens, the basis largely determines the life of society. It is at this point
that the basis serves as the foundation for the superstructure of society. The
superstructure of society then produces the political, legal, philosophical,
moral, aesthetic and religious views of society as well as the institutions
(like courts, churches, and social centers e.t.c.) necessary to enforce these
views. Hence, the superstructure expresses the attitude and reaction of the
people to the basis.
Accordingly, it is made clear that the
superstructure is made to exist by virtue of the basis and is thus inseparably
bound to it. For example, in primitive society, the basis was "the absence
of private property and antagonistic classes". Hence, the superstructure
of primitive society had nothing like the state, political and legal ideas and
their institutions. Nevertheless, when the birth of private property and classes
occurred as pioneered by the slave society, this basis influenced a
superstructure that justified the rule of the slave-owner over the slave; it
also birthed institutions that protected this rule. Therefore, if the basis of
a society is contradictory, it follows that its superstructure would also be
contradictory. For example, the basis of capitalism clearly shows that some few
individuals own the means of production while a large number have to be
subordinated to these few. Thus, its superstructure also includes ideas and their
corresponding institutions promoting different classes and social groups, of
which the ideas and institutions of the dominating class prevails. The basis is
the material force of society while the superstructure is the intellectual
force; so, as the bourgeoisie dominates the basis in capitalist society, it is
only natural that bourgeois ideas and institutions would suppress, oppress and
prevail over that of the proletariat.
In capitalist Nigeria today, a clear
example of the base-superstructure principle can be found in the fact that
bourgeois individuals like Babangida, Obasanjo, Tinubu (politicians), Otedola,
Dangote (business moguls), Oyakhilome, Oyedepo (clerics) and so on, own and
control the material basis of the society; hence, the various bourgeois ideas
like joining elite membership clubs, owning yachts and private jets, running five
star hotels and resorts, staying in expensive estates, living an exotic
lifestyle and so on, are the dominating ideologies and institutions that rule
our society. Accordingly, the bourgeois influenced craze for materialism is on
the high side and such a system is so oppressive on the side of the
proletariat. in effect, activities like armed robbery, ritual killings, fraud
and scams are subtly promoted in order to meet up to the trend, as there is the
general belief that "if you don’t have excess money to spend, you are not
living but merely existing" - but this is a total lie and a superstructure
product of the bourgeois influence on the basis.
THE CONCEPT OF “SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORMATION” IN HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
The categories of historical
materialism are all intrinsically relevant to the concept of the socio-economic formation in society. For
the sake of analysis, social being is the foundation of the
socio-economic formation; social consciousness is the spiritual aspect;
the mode of production is the material-economic basis of the
socio-economic formation; the basis is the skeletal structure while the superstructure
is its socio-political aspect. Hence, these categories are the components, the
primary links of any socio-economic formation; they all have specific features
depending on the type of socio-economic formation they belong to. Aside these
categories, there are other social phenomena included in the socio-economic
formation, but these are secondary. Some of these are; the definite historical
communities of people (like clan, tribe and nation), culture, marriage and
family, language, sports and so on. Even though these are not primary, they are
still relevant to the socio-economic formation. For instance, could people work
and think without a language (a means of communication and exchange of ideas)
or could they reproduce themselves, the human race for the sake of continuity,
without the family and marriage? Of course, not!
Furthermore, these social phenomena that make up
a socio-economic formation are fundamentally linked; they influence one another
either directly or in a mediated way and this makes a socio-economic formation
to be a developing social organism. Now for the sake of definition, a socio-economic
formation is simply the sum-total of social phenomena and processes relating to
the economy of the state and based on a certain type of production. As it were,
it is by virtue of the socio-economic formation that the history of society
acquired a strictly scientific division into periods. Hence, society develops
via the natural replacement of one socio-economic formation by another more
improved formation. History has thus progressed starting from the
primitive-communal formation to the slave formation, from the slave formation
to the feudal formation, from the feudal formation to the capitalist formation
and lastly from the capitalist formation to the socialist-communist formation. Accordingly,
within the bounds of each formation, history does not stand still. The
dialectical materialist principle in Marxism shows that historical development
proceeds qualitatively and quantitatively from a lower socio-economic formation
to a higher one.
From the foregoing, it is made clear that the
history of human society knows five consecutive socio-economic formations;
i.
The primitive-communal
socio-economic formationii. The slave socio-economic formation
iii. The feudal socio-economic formation
iv. The capitalist socio-economic formation
v. The socialist-communist socio-economic formation
