8 - Marxism and capitalism in historical archaeology

Summary

Marx's theory of capitalism has found its strongest following in Anglo-American archaeology among those scholars who study the modern world. Currently Marxists represent a major school of thought in historical archaeology in North America, the United Kingdom, and Australia. This should not be surprising because Marx's analysis of class is plainly applicable to the deep-seated class exploitation found in the modern history of the West. Moreover, archaeologists studying capitalism are themselves embedded in capitalist class relations. These archaeologists define historical archaeology as the archaeology of capitalism (Leone and Potter 1999). Contemporary historical archaeologists working in the Marxist tradition have by and large rejected a ‘totalising’ notion of Marxism: they instead use class and Marxist analyses as entry points for studies that also consider race, gender, and ethnicity as loci of oppression.

MARXISM

Karl Marx did not create Marxism. In fact, in a famous reaction to the development of a ‘Marxist’ workers' party in France he said, ‘If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist' (Engels 1992). Marxism is a tradition of thought, a philosophy, and a mode of theoretical production that began with Marx's ideas and writings. Many intertwined and sometimes conflicting lines of theory have developed from this origin. Marx pondered the basic questions of social life in order to formulate a critical theory of capitalism. His attempts to understand the social world were tentative, dynamic, and often paradoxical. Modern social thinkers cannot escape the basic questions he raised: much like biologists rereading Darwin, they return to Marx. For social science in general, and for historical archaeology in particular, this tradition is a rich source of insights, theories, concepts, and ideas about the nature of cultural change.

All well-founded Marxist approaches strive for three goals: to gain knowledge of the world, to critique the world, and to transform the world. The tension between these objectives warns scholars away from a sterile scholasticism, a nihilistic scepticism, or politically self-serving illusions. In order to change the world, people must have accurate knowledge of the world, since action based upon incorrect or flawed knowledge can only result in failure and error.