Entangled Paths Toward Modernity: Contextualizing Socialism and Nationalism in the Balkans

12. Historical materialism not economic determinism

12. Historical Materialism Not Economic Determinism In his Principles and delusions of the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party,182 P. Dzhidrov discussed the epistemological foundations of Marxism, answering to some of the principle accusations of the Narrows. Dzhidrov identified the low and superficial brochure knowledge prevalent in the party as the basic obstacle in the comprehension of Marxism. Lack of sophistication led to a one-sided understanding of the essence of Marxist teachings. The precondition for the study of any social question was the development of critical thought, which should serve also as a security valve against the jeopardizing influence of brochure knowledge. Many of the party members, having acquired only a shallow socialist education, considered every word, every phrase that they heard for the first time and which could not be found as such in the brochures, as non-socialistic. Dzhidrov discussed the legacy of Marxism after Marx for ensuing generations of Socialists and disputed the absolute primacy of the economic base. Not even Marx himself considered his assertions as the only existing Marxist truth. On the contrary, he constructed a theory , which, following the evolution of thought and the accumulation of new knowledge, would have to be supplemented—with the help of his method—in order to become viable. Notwithstanding the fact that the economic component remained the principal driving force, which in the final instance determined the character of different historical periods , it was necessary to acknowledge the influence of other factors and forces apart from the productive forces in historical development. The quest to explain every historical moment, the intellectual capacities of people or the abundant coincidences in history as the outcome of historical necessity produced completely unscientific and lifeless results . However, there were proponents of this view, who dismissed coincidences in history, regarding all political events as the outcome of indispensability. Dzhidrov explained his case with the example of the monarchy, obviously alluding to the case of King Ferdinand. It was possible that a monarch was gifted and thus beneficial for his country 252 IV. Caught up in the Contradictions of Modernity or on the contrary, inapt and detrimental. Historical materialism could never explain this coincidence. “Is it necessary to explain any kind of human stupidity perpetrated by a monarch which might have serious consequences and historical significance according to Marxist theory, the struggle of the classes or the exclusive influence of the economic factor?”183 The individual personality could exercise an influence on the flow of development as well. Nonetheless, neither the most powerful monarch nor the most profound thinker could determine at will the exact course of development, nor foresee its future form. Accepting the influence of the role of personality in history was neither a negation nor a repudiation of historical materialism. A personality was capable of accelerating or slowing down the course of development. Nevertheless, a careful examination of all instrumental factors would undeniably yield the economic factor the prerogative. At issue was rather the level or the degree of influence. Marx’s theory stood solid, even when other historical factors were taken under consideration. Such an understanding of Marx’s theory had the advantage of forcing the social leader or thinker to correct his views with regard to concrete reality, to understand holistically the moving forces behind it, and use them for subsequent development . Dzhidrov delved in the second place on the reciprocity between material conditions and political forms. In a similar manner to Sakŭzov, he questioned the absolute causality between the political superstructure and the economical base. Why should a certain regime in Bulgaria be regarded as an absolute, direct and necessary result of the mode of production? How could it be that similar economic conditions produced different kinds of regimes? Why in the period of initial capitalistic development were the political superstructures of the Western European states dissimilar? Political order could take various forms and depended on multiple factors like a people’s temperament and intellect, the geographical position of a country, its past history and historical traditions, monarchical compliance, etc. Political structures were not solemnly dependent on economic conditions. The capitalistic mode of production demonstrated similar tendencies in all countries; however, the social forms of the various capitalistic states were very different. He exemplified his assertion through the case study of Germany. In the previous decades, Germany had experienced a most rapid economic development, exceeding in strength the rest of the European states. 253 12...