Paresh Chattopadhyay Passage to Socialism:The Dialectic of

Historical Materialism volume 143 (45ndash84)copy Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden 2006Also available online ndash wwwbrillnl

1 This is a substantially rewritten and enlarged version of a paper I have presentedearlier in Berlin and London The following version was presented at the Marxismand the World Stage Conference at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst onNovember 6 2003 for the session organised by MEGA on lsquoMarx and the Non WesternWorldrsquo I am grateful to Alfredo Saad-Filho for his encouragement and to the editorsof HM and the anonymous readers for their helpful suggestions

Paresh Chattopadhyay

Passage to SocialismThe Dialectic of Progress in Marx

Introduction

The basic theme of this article is the passage for thelsquopre-history of human societyrsquo to humanityrsquos historythrough the revolutionary transformation of the oldsociety1 Humanityrsquos progress here is considered asa contradictory movement a manifestation of thedialectic of negativity First the paper restates anddiscusses Marxrsquos central proposition that capitalthrough its inherent contradictions creates theconditions of its own demise as well as the elementsfor building a union of free individuals Then thepaper examines whether the capitalist mode ofproduction (capitalist mode of production) is thenecessary precondition for building the new societyin light of Marxrsquos correspondence with the Russians inhis later years Finally the question of the revolutionarytransformation of society is discussed within thebroad Marxian purview of human progress It is

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 45

46 bull Paresh Chattopadhyay

2 Marx 1973d p 5753 Marx 1988 p 316 This manuscript is not included in Engelsrsquos edition of Capital

Volume 24 Marx 1987 p 110 1965 p 6145 Marx 1965 p 135 Marx and Engels 1973 p 34

argued that Marx is a great lsquorethinkerrsquo of progress that his perspective is nota unilinear view (positive or negative) of human advancement (or regression)and that progress in this view is an aspect of the dialectic of negativitypervading the critique of political economy

Socialism the offspring of Capital

Marxrsquos lsquoCritique of Political Economyrsquo (lsquoCritiquersquo for short) is informed onecould say by what he wrote in two texts referring respectively to Spinoza andHegel In his Parisian manuscripts (1844) referring to Hegelrsquos PhenomenologyMarx underlined that its lsquogreatnessrsquo lay in the lsquodialectic of negativity as themoving and creating principlersquo2 Many years later in the first manuscript ofCapital Volume 2 Marx completed Spinozarsquos well-known phrase in this waylsquoall determination is negation and all negation is determinationrsquo3 Marx showshow capital creates the subjective and objective conditions of its own negationand simultaneously the elements of the new society destined to supersedeit ndash socialism In the lsquoCritiquersquo socialism (equivalently communism) signifiesa lsquosociety of free and associated producersrsquo based on the lsquoassociated mode ofproduction (AMP)rsquo This lsquounion of free individualsrsquo in which individuals aresubject neither to personal dependence as in pre-capitalism nor to materialdependence as in capitalism excludes by definition private property in themeans of production the commodity-form of the product of labour wage-labour and the state Here the freely associated lsquosocial individualsrsquo are themasters of their own social movement subjecting their social relations to theirown control4

The individualrsquos freedom from material dependence necessarily associatedwith the collective (social) domination of the conditions of production by thelsquounion of free individualsrsquo depends first of all on the existence of an abundanceof material wealth This is based on a high degree of development of theproductive forces at the universal level including the quantitative and qualitativedevelopment of the lsquogreatest productive forcersquo the proletariat ndash therevolutionary class ndash in its lsquoworld-historical existencersquo5 First the developmentof productive forces which is basically the lsquodevelopment of the wealth of

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 46

Passage to Socialism bull 47

6 Marx and Engels 1973 pp 34ndash5 Marx 1959a p 1077 lsquoThe true wealth is the developed productive power of all individuals It is then

no more the labour time but the disposable time that is the measure of wealthrsquo (Marx1953 p 596)

8 Marx and Engels 1973 p 339 Marx 1953 p 79 1987 p 110

10 Marx 1976 p 17411 Marx 1988 p 107 The expression lsquoif you likersquo appears in English in the text12 Marx 1976 pp 173 175

human nature as an end in itselfrsquo is an absolutely necessary lsquopractical(pre)condition of human emancipation because without it only the penuryand the necessity will be generalized and with the need shall also start thestruggle for necessityrsquo6 Moreover with the growth in the productive powersof labour also increases the disposable time beyond the necessary labour-time ndash that is the increase in societyrsquos free time which is the basis of allcreative activities for individuals7 On the other hand lsquoonly with this universaldevelopment of the productive powers can universal intercourse [Verkehr] ofhuman beings be positedrsquo8 Societyrsquos (collective) domination over the conditionsof production in its turn implies the mastery by individuals of their ownsocial relations However this situation defining socialism is not somethingnaturally given It is the product of a lsquolong and painful history of developmentrsquo9

More specifically it is capital which creates the requisite material conditionsof the proletarian (and thereby human) emancipation

The contradictory character of the necessary laboursurplus-labour relationtrue for all class societies takes on a special meaning with labourrsquos subsumptionunder capital In precapitalist modes of production where use-values ratherthan exchange-values dominate surplus-labour is circumscribed by a definitecircle of needs In these early class societies labour-time is extended to producebeyond the subsistence of the immediate producers a certain amount of use-values for the masters However surplus-labour acquires a far greaterimportance when exchange-value becomes the determining element ofproduction Under capital which is basically generalised commodityproduction the constraint on labour to extend labour-time beyond necessarylabour-time is maximal10 lsquoThis is a production which is not bound either bylimited needs nor by needs which limit it This is one side positive side ifyou like as distinguished from the earlier modes of productionrsquo11 Along thiscompulsion on labour capital also pushes labour to diversify its needs andthe means to satisfy them To that extent lsquocapital creates culture it performsa historical-social functionrsquo12

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 47


13 See the interesting and pertinent paper by Banaji 200314 Marx 1953 p 23215 Marx 1962 p 419 Emphasis in the text The expressions lsquothe productive forces

developedrsquo and lsquothe whole society undergoesrsquo are in English in the text16 Marx 1987 pp 413 443 1965 pp 959ndash60 983 1988 p 10717 Marx and Engels 1973 p 6018 Marx 1987 p 467 1965 p 993

Wealth in its autonomous being exists only for either directly forced labourslavery or indirectly forced labour wage-labour13 Directly forced labour doesnot confront wealth as capital but only as a relation of (personal) dominationOn this basis of directly forced labour there will only be the reproduction ofthe relation of (personal) domination for which wealth itself has value onlyas enjoyment not as wealth as such lsquoa relation therefore which can nevercreate universal industryrsquo14

The original unity between the labourer and the conditions of production

has two main forms (leaving aside slavery where the labourer himself is a

part of the objective conditions of production) the Asiatic community (natural

communism) and the small family agriculture (bound with household

industry) in one or the other forms Both are infantile forms and equally

little suited to develop labour as social labour and productive power of social

labour whence the necessity of separation of rupture of the opposition

between labour and ownership (in the conditions of production) The extreme

form of this rupture within which at the same time the productive forces

of social labour are most powerfully developed is the form of capital On

the material basis which it creates and by the means of the revolutions which

the working class and the whole society undergoes in the process of creating

it can the original unity be restored15

Production for productionrsquos sake takes place under capitalism lsquoat the cost ofthe human individualrsquo alienating the individual in relation to oneself and toothers The social means of production become in the hands of capital lsquoasystem of robbery during work of the conditions of life of the worker ofspace air light and the personal conditions of safety against the dangers andthe unhealthy environment of the productive processrsquo a most lsquoshamelessrobberyrsquo of the normal conditions of labourrsquos functioning16 Thus undercapital the lsquoproductive forces know only a unilateral development and becomethe destructive forces for the majorityrsquo17

The development of antagonisms within a social form of production is thelsquoonly historical (real) way towards its dissolution and metamorphosisrsquo18 It is

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 48


19 Marx 1973a p 55520 Marx 1965 pp 995ndash6 1987 p 47521 Marx 1953 pp 635ndash6 the word lsquoadvicersquo and the whole expression starting with

lsquoto be gonersquo is in English in the text22 Marx 1962 p 426 1992 pp 504 662 1964 pp 456 621

capital itself which creates the conditions of its own negation In an earlytext addressed to the workers Marx clearly underlines what he calls thelsquopositive side of capitalrsquo without the big industry free competition the worldmarket and the corresponding means of production lsquothere would be no materialresources for the emancipation of the proletariat and the creation of the newsocietyrsquo He adds that lsquowithout these conditions the proletariat would nothave taken the road of union nor known the development which makes itcapable of revolutionizing the old society as well as itselfrsquo19 At the same timecapital transforms the dispersed isolated small-scale labour into large-scalesocially organised labour under its direct domination and thereby alsogeneralises workersrsquo direct struggle against this domination lsquoWith the materialconditions and social combinations of productionrsquo capital developssimultaneously the contradictions and antagonisms lsquothe forces of destructionof the old society and the elements of formation of a new societyrsquo20

Capital itself comes to constitute a material barrier to capitalist productionThe limits within which it valorises and reproduces itself continually enterinto contradiction with the methods of production capital must employ to doso thus leading towards an unlimited increase in production productionbecoming an end in itself The means ndash the unconditional development ofthe social productive powers ndash runs into continual conflict with the limitedend the valorisation of existing capital The increasing inadequacy of theproductive development of society in relation to its hitherto existing productionrelations is expressed in sharp contradictions crises convulsions

The violent destruction of capital not through the relations external to it

but as the condition of its self preservation [is] the most striking form in

which advice is given to it to be gone and to give room to a higher state of

social production21

In this sense the capitalist mode of production constitutes the transition tothe socialist or the lsquoassociated mode of productionrsquo22

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 49


23 These are Marxrsquos letter to Mikhailovsky 1877 his letter as well as several draftsof the letter to Vera Zassulitch 1881 and his and Engelsrsquos joint preface to the Russianedition 1882 of the Communist Manifesto The correspondence with the Russians Marxwrote in French

24 Shanin 198325 Marx is here referring to the chapter on the lsquoSecret of the Original Accumulation

of Capitalrsquo The reference to lsquoWestern Europersquo in this connection was added in theFrench version of the book not reproduced in any of the German editions See Marx1965 p 1170

26 To Mikhailovsky in Marx 1968 p 1555

The lsquolate Marxrsquo and the road to socialism

It has been widely held that Marx in his last years particularly and notablyin his writings on Russia23 did fundamentally change if not contradict hisearlier position that the elements of the new society are generated withincapital through a process of creating the conditions of its own negation Thiswas especially emphasised recently by Teodor Shanin and Haruki Wada ina book which has had a certain influence on scholars ndash Marxist or otherwise24

In these writings Marx addresses a question posed to him by his Russiancorrespondents could the existing Russian rural communes be the basis forbuilding socialism (communism) in Russia without going through the capitalistmode of production or did Russia need to pass through a capitalist stage inorder to arrive at the new society

In his reply Marx first observed that in Capital he had underlined that hisanalysis of capitalist mode of production was confined strictly to lsquoWesternEuropersquo25 He derisively rejected any claim to possess a lsquomaster key of ageneral historical-philosophical theory fatally imposablersquo on all peoplesirrespective of the specific historical circumstances in which they foundthemselves26 Thus the analysis in Capital could not offer either a positive ora negative answer to the question posed by the Russian correspondents Butadded Marx he had concluded from his independent studies on Russia thatthe Russian rural commune could serve as the point of departure for a lsquosocialregenerationrsquo in Russia However this transition would not be automatic Thecommunal ownership in land the point of departure for this lsquoregenerationrsquohad already been affected by adverse forces ndash working inside and outside thecommune ndash which undermined the system On the one hand parcellarycultivation of land and private appropriation of its fruits by its membersand on the other hand the statesrsquo fiscal exactions fraudulent exploitationby usury and merchant capital happening since 1861 when the Tsarist stateadopted measures for the lsquoso-called emancipation of the peasantsrsquo Hence

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 50


27 Shanin 1983 p 1828 Shanin 1983 p 2029 Dussel 1990 pp 260ndash130 Loumlwy 1996 p 20031 Dunayevskaya 2002 p 259 Emphasis in text We should however take note of

another statement by the author which largely attenuates this rather strong positionlsquoWhen Marx describes that the accumulation of capital is not the universal he doesnot mean that it is not the universal in capitalism He does mean that it is no universalfor the world and that the undeveloped non-capitalist countries can experience otherforms of development But even then he qualifies it by saying that they must do ittogether what the advanced capitalist countries dorsquo (Dunayevskaya 2002 p 312)emphasis in original We are grateful to Peter Hudis for referring us to this statement

lsquosocial regenerationrsquo would be possible provided that the negative factorswere eliminated most importantly by a lsquoRussian Revolutionrsquo conducted bythe peasant masses In this process the commune could benefit from thescientific and technological acquisitions of the existing capitalism of the West

From this Shanin concludes that Marx assumes that a peasant revolutionin Russia could serve as the prototype for an immediate transition to socialismfrom peasant societies in backward countries just as England had served as the prototype for the capitalist world27 For Shanin the Russian case added a fourth dimension to lsquoMarxrsquos analytical thoughtrsquo Hence to the lsquotripleorigin suggested by Engels ndash German philosophy French socialism and English political economyrsquo ndash should be added lsquoa fourth one that of Russianrevolutionary populismrsquo28 According to Dussel Marx underwent a lsquochangeof directionrsquo while reflecting on the Russian communes This was not alsquofundamental change in Marxrsquos theoretical positionrsquo but signified the lsquoopeningup of a broad road for the development of Marxrsquos discourse on the differentwaysrsquo to socialism ndash one for the central more developed capitalism the otherfor the less developed countries of the periphery29 A few years later Loumlwyconsidered Marxrsquos Russian correspondence as the lsquoantipode of the evolutionistand deterministic reasoning of the articles on India in 1853rsquo where Marx hadargued in favour of the lsquohistorically progressive missionrsquo of the Englishbourgeoisie in that country30 Similarly Dunayevskaya reads this correspondenceas signifying that the Russian case lent itself to a lsquoconcept of revolution whichchanged everything including economic lawsrsquo as if it was on par with theWestern European case lsquochoosing a different pathrsquo31

Examining more closely the context of Marxrsquos writings on Russia in 1877and 1881 it is important to stress that Marx had insisted on what he calledthe lsquouniquenessrsquo of the Russian case This excludes the possibility that thiscase could be generalised into some kind of a lsquolawrsquo applicable to backward

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 51


32 Marx 1968 p 1566 My emphasis33 Marx 1968 pp 1561 1565 156634 Marx 1968 p 156435 Marx 1968 p 156536 Marx 1968 pp 1564ndash537 Marx 1968 p 1565

peasant societies as for example the lsquolaw of motion of capitalrsquo which appliesto the capitalist societies For Marx the Russian lsquoagricultural communesrsquooffered a lsquounique situation without any precedent in historyrsquo32 First in contrastto India the victim of a foreign conqueror who had violently destroyed itsrural communes with lsquocommon land ownershiprsquo Russia had no foreignconqueror and it was the lsquoonly European countryrsquo where lsquotill todayrsquo itscommunes lsquohave maintained themselves on a national scalersquo Secondly Russiacould benefit from its historical environment the contemporaneity of capitalistproduction in Western Europe which offered a ready-made material conditionfor lsquocooperative labour on a vast scalersquo which allowed it to incorporate allthe lsquopositive acquisitions of the capitalist systemrsquo the lsquofruits with whichcapitalist production has enriched humanityrsquo and allowed them to avoidgoing through capitalism33

There was however also a negative side to the communes that stemmedfrom the lsquodualism inherent in the Russian communal constitutionrsquo along withthe communal ownership of land there was also lsquoparcellary labour the sourceof private appropriationrsquo enabling the communesrsquo members to lsquoaccumulatemoveable property money and sometimes even slaves and serfs uncontrolledby the communersquo This constituted a lsquodissolvent of the original social andeconomic equalityrsquo34 Thus the lsquodualismrsquo of the communes offers an alternativelsquoeither its [private] ownership element will prevail [lrsquoemportera] over itscollective element or its collective element will prevail over the [private]ownership elementrsquo35 One should not forget that the lsquoagricultural communersquoconstituting the lsquolast phase of the primitive formation of societyrsquo was lsquoat thesame time the phase of transition to the society based on private propertyincluding the series of societies founded on slavery and serfdomrsquo36

lsquoTheoretically speakingrsquo the Russian commune could conserve its soil bydeveloping its base the communal ownership of the land and by eliminatingthe lsquoprinciple of private ownership which it also impliesrsquo and thereby lsquobecomea direct point of departure of the economic system to which the modernsociety tendsrsquo37 However lsquocoming down from the theory to realityrsquo nobodycan hide the fact that the lsquoRussian commune today is facing a conspiracy of

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 52


38 Marx 1968 p 1570 Marx also notes this lsquodualism manifesting the contradictoryreality of the Russian countrysidersquo in one of the last manuscripts of Capital II writtenone year after his letter to Mikhailovsky There he observed that lsquofollowing the so-called lsquoemancipation of peasantsrsquo the Russian landowners now operate with wage-labourers instead of unfree serfsrsquo but that at the same time these landownerslsquolack sufficient purchasable labour power at their own chosen moments following theas yet incomplete separation of labourers from the means of production ndash thus havingldquofree wage-labourersrdquo ndash due to common landownership of the villagersquo (1973b p 39)

39 Marx 1968 1570ndash1 This is confirmed by recent research lsquoAccording to communersquospractice tools and livestock were privately owned and it was widely recognized thatthe more prosperous could manipulate the decision-making process of village assembliesso as to exclude the poor and even deprive them of landrsquo (Kingston-Mann 1990 p 31)

40 Marx 1968 pp 1570ndash241 Marx 1968 p 157342 Marx 1968 p 156643 Marx and Engels 1972b p 576

powerful forces and interestsrsquo Besides exercising lsquoincessant exploitation onthe peasants the State has facilitated the domination (within the commune)of a certain part of the capitalist system stock market bank railwaycommercersquo38 Similarly the commune was lsquoexploited fraudulently by theintruding capitalists merchants landed ldquoproprietorsrdquo as well as underminedby usuryrsquo These different factors have lsquounleashed inside the commune itselfthe conflict of interest already present and rapidly developed its germs ofdecompositionrsquo39 This lsquoconcourse of destructive influences unless smashedby a powerful reaction will naturally end in the death of the rural communersquo40

For this reason Marx emphasises the need for a lsquoRussian Revolutionrsquo41

However even if this lsquoRevolutionrsquo is victorious and defeats the communersquostransformation into capitalism the building of communism in the peasant(and technologically backward) Russia would absolutely require the help ofadvanced productive forces the lsquopositive acquisition elaborated by the capitalistsystemrsquo42 Russia could not obtain this material aid from capitalist reacutegimesThis could probably only come from the victorious proletariat in WesternEurope which naturally would also serve as a bulwark against any attemptedcapitalist armed intervention in Russia from the outside This seems to bethe clear message of the lsquoPrefacersquo to the Russian edition of the Manifesto thelast to appear under the joint signatures of its authors There they observedthat though the Russian commune had already been lsquoseriously undermined[stark untergrebene]rsquo it could still directly go over to the lsquocommunist form ofcollective ownershiprsquo provided that there was a lsquorevolutionrsquo in Russia whichprovided a signal to a lsquoproletarian revolutionrsquo in the West and that they wouldcomplement one another43

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 53


44 Shanin 1983 p 2245 Wada in Shanin 1983 p 70 The opposite of Wadarsquos position is offered by the

editors of Dunayevskaya 2002 p 316 who refer to Marx as the sole author of the 1882lsquoPrefacersquo and nowhere mention Engels as its joint author

46 Dussel 1990 p 26247 Rubel in Marx 1968 p 155248 In this polemic Engels affirming the possibility of the existing commune system

to change into a higher from lsquowithout passing through the intermediate stage ofbourgeois parcellary propertyrsquo emphasised that this possibility could not be realisedwithout the help of a successful proletarian revolution in Western Europe which (alone)could offer the Russian peasant particularly the materials which the peasant needs tolsquocarry through a revolution in his whole agricultural systemrsquo 1964 pp 47ndash8 At thesame time Engels underlined the importance of a revolution in Russia lsquoUndoubtedlyRussia is on the eve of a revolution Here all the conditions of a revolution areunited a revolution of the highest importance for Europe since it will destroywith one stroke the reserve of the whole European reaction till now remaining intact(1964 pp 49ndash50) The similarity with what Marx wrote two years later is strikinglsquoRussia has been standing at the threshold of a revolution for a long time All itselements are ready The revolution this time begins in the East where the bulwarkof the reserve army of counter-revolution has as yet remained unhurtrsquo (Marx 1973cp 296)

Shanin imputes uniquely to Engels the position that the Russian revolutionneeded a proletarian revolution as a complement and asserts that lsquoMarx was moving away from such viewsrsquo44 Wada in his turn in an otherwise well-researched paper adds that the lsquoPrefacersquo of 1882 lsquoexpresses the opinion ofEngels more directly than that of Marxrsquo According to him Marx being lsquoinlow spirits [due to his wifersquos death] asked Engels to make the draft andsimply put his signature to itrsquo45 as if Marx had resigned himself to put hisname to whatever Engels wanted to draft Dussel in turn though not goingto Wadarsquos extreme extent writes

[The 1882 Preface] is a text of compromise between Marx and Engels on the

question of the Russian commune (that is between Marxrsquos lsquoRussian

Revolutionrsquo and Engelsrsquos lsquoproletarian revolutionrsquo) and the lsquocompromisersquo

contained a contradiction indicative of the future46

In his different drafts and the final version of his letter to Zassulitch as wellas in his letter to Mikhailovsky Marx does not explicitly refer to the lsquoproletarianrevolutionrsquo (by name) in the West as a complement to the Russian (peasant)revolution As a result the lsquoproletarian revolutionrsquo in the 1882 lsquoPrefacersquo seemsto come uniquely from Engels who had in a polemic in 1875 lsquoat Marxrsquosdemand and developing their common point of viewrsquo47 explicitly spoken ofthe necessity of this complement for successfully transforming the existingcommune system into a higher form48 However a careful reading of Marxrsquos

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 54


49 Engels was not aware of these drafts later discovered by David Riazanov50 Marx 1968 p 1570 My emphasis51 In Shanin 1983 pp 53ndash452 Engels 1964 and 1972a53 Shanin 1983 p 17

drafts shows that the question of a lsquoproletarian revolutionrsquo in the West as anaid to the peasant revolution in Russia is present there even if not in thespecific terms used later In the very first draft49 Marx considers as a lsquoveryfavourable circumstancersquo for the agricultural commune to go over to a higherform of society without passing through capitalism the fact that after havingsurvived a period when the capitalist system still appeared intact bearingits technological fruits the commune is now witness to this (capitalist) system

struggling on the one hand with its labouring masses and on the other with

science and the productive forces which it has itself engendered in a word

in a fatal crisis which will end in the systemrsquos elimination by a return of the

present society to a higher form of the most lsquoarchaiumlquersquo type of collective

ownership and production50

What else is he saying here but indicating ndash as if paraphrasing his famousmuch misunderstood lsquoPrefacersquo of 1859 ndash a situation of acute contradictionbetween the relations of production and the material forces of productionwithin Western capitalism which would end in a lsquofatal crisisrsquo of the wholesystem and lead to its substitution by a society of a higher type through arevolution by its lsquolabouring massesrsquo If our textual reading of Marx is correctMarxrsquos position here is basically the same as that of the lsquoPrefacersquo of 1882 onlyexpressed in a different way and is certainly not very different from EngelsrsquosThis can be easily verified when one reads Engelsrsquos two texts closely thoseof 1875 and of 1894 the first of which was published at Marxrsquos demand andwith his full accord (Rubel asserts this and even Wada concedes this)51 despitebeing unaware of Marxrsquos drafts52

A couple of points should be stressed here concerning Marxrsquos depiction ofa future socialist society as a return in a higher form of the most lsquoarchaiumlquersquotype This is in fact a paraphrase of a sentence from Morgan ndash whom Marxmentions as an lsquoAmerican authorrsquo ndash where this author speaks of a lsquonewsystemrsquo as lsquoa revival in a superior form of an archaiumlque typersquo towards whichthe modern society tends Shanin cites Marxrsquos expression53 and argues (withoutmentioning Marxrsquos source) that this represents a kind of (new) enlightenmentfor Marx confronted with the Russian commune We would however submit

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 55


54 Marx 1988 p 412 Emphasis in the original55 Krader paraphrases this passage and connects this with Marxrsquos draft of letter to

Zassulitch but specifically with reference to the lsquoAsiatic mode of productionrsquo (Krader1973 p 178) not as illustrating the general position of Marx regarding the configurationof the new society in relation to the lsquoarchaiumlquersquo as we are trying to do here (by alsoreferring to Marxrsquos 1865 London lecture)

56 Engels 1962 p 58357 Marx 1968 p 1563

that the idea underlying Marxrsquos expression here is not really a new positionRather he found in Morganrsquos statement a re-affirmation of his and Engelsrsquosearlier position held it is true in a more condensed theoretical manner withoutmuch of an empirical reference Thus in his 1865 lecture to the workers Marxspeaks of three lsquohistorical processesrsquo of the relation between what he calls thelsquoMan of Labour and the Means of Labourrsquo ndash first their lsquoOriginal Unionrsquo thentheir lsquoSeparationrsquo through the lsquoDecomposition of the Original Unionrsquo third thelsquorestoration of the original union in a new historical formrsquo through alsquofundamental revolution in the mode of productionrsquo54 Earlier we referred toa passage from Marxrsquos 1861ndash3 manuscript where Marx in the same wayspeaks of the lsquooriginal unity between the labourer and the conditions ofproductionrsquo as in family agriculture and lsquonatural communismrsquo of theirseparation under capital and of the lsquorestoration of the original unity by meansof a working class revolutionrsquo55 Engels in turn writes in his preparatorynotes towards Anti-Duumlhring

All Indo-Germanic peoples started with common ownership In course of

social development in almost all of these this common ownership was

eliminated negated thrust aside by these forms It is the task of the

social revolution to negate this negation and to restore [wieder herzustellen]

the common ownership to a higher stage of development56

In the draft we also find an interesting depiction of the most archaiumlque typeof community which broadly corresponds to Marxrsquos portrait of communismdrawn in a few bold strokes in Capital (1867) and later in somewhat greaterdetail in the Gothakritik (1875) Here is the laconic sentence in the draftcharacterising the most archaiumlque type (as opposed to its derivative thelsquoagricultural communersquo) lsquoin the more primitive communities (besides thecommon ownership of land) labour is done in common and the productwhich is also common is distributed (to the members) according to the needsof consumption after having put aside the part reserved for reproductionrsquo57

It is striking to see the similarities between this text and a passage in Capital

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 56


58 Marx 1987 p 10959 Shaninrsquos and Dusselrsquos effort to extend the Russian case to the peasant world in

general has no basis in Marxrsquos texts Nor is there much in Marxrsquos texts to supportDunayevskayarsquos affirmation referred to earlier To generalise this case for peasantsocieties one has to show the existence at a considerable scale of the communalownership in them and the availability of capitalismrsquos positive acquisitions for themThere is little textual evidence for this

60 The enthusiasts of the lsquoRussian roadrsquo leading directly to communism seem tohave paid little attention precisely to the lsquodialectic of negativityrsquo in the communersquoslsquodualismrsquo as Marx calls it These readers mainly saw the positive side of the lsquodualismrsquonot the elements of contradiction contained in it which Marx repeatedly stresses Fora recent example see the otherwise important paper by Anderson 2002 The recentwork of a Russian scholar seems broadly to confirm Marxrsquos position He writes lsquoThereform of the 1860s intensified bourgeois tendencies of development The village wasnot left untouched by this progress it too experienced the strong growth of commodity-money relations and a degree of involvement of the peasantry in the countrysidemarket Despite the phenomenal vitality of the commune its days were numberedbecause it did not exist in a social economic and cultural vacuum Certain phenomenain the commune itself (such as ldquocommodity-money relationsrdquo ldquogrowth of individualismstruggling against collectivismrdquo etc) contributed to this development As yet no more

(Volume 1) about the lsquounion of free individualsrsquo labouring with commonmeans of production and in which the product of labour is a lsquosocial productrsquoof which one part is reserved in order to serve again as means of productionwhile the rest is distributed among the members for consumption58 Thisindeed looks like the primitive archaiumlque society appearing at a higher levelin a new form which Marx reaffirms in his 1881 draft citing Morgan

The crucial question here is whether Marxrsquos position on the Russian communeconstitutes a fundamental departure from his point of view on the transitionto a society of free and associated labour As we mentioned the references tothe singularity and lsquouniquenessrsquo of the Russian case (underlined by Marx morethan once) excludes any generalisation of this case (as a prototype) to otherprecapitalist peasant societies Hence this unique example does not affectMarxrsquos general position59 It is quite clear from Marxrsquos correspondence thatin its effort to go over to a higher type of society through a successful lsquoRussianRevolutionrsquo the commune cannot avoid capitalism It still needs it to developelsewhere and foster the conditions for a proletarian revolution through itsown contradictions just as it needs it to create advanced forces of productionwhich would be made available by the victorious proletariat in the West Thecommunersquos transformation into a higher type of society would be impossiblein the absence of capitalism elsewhere However even before arriving at thispoint the Russian commune already faces a sombre future which Marx discernsin his dissection of the elements of its decomposition contained integrally inits lsquodualismrsquo on the basis of the lsquoRussian realityrsquo as we saw earlier60 Even

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57


than tendencies these phenomena nevertheless undermined the commune andthreatened to destroy itrsquo (Mironov in B Eklof and S Frank (eds) 1990 pp 28 31 32)

61 More than a decade later in a letter to Danielson (1892) Engels recalled Marxrsquos1877 letter to Mikhailovsky where Engels observed lsquoour author said that if the lineentered upon in 1861 was persevered in the peasants lsquoobshchinarsquo must go to ruin Thatseems to me to be in course of fulfilment just now I am afraid we shall have totreat lsquoobshchinarsquo as a dream of the past and reckon in future with a capitalist RussiaNo doubt a great chance is thus being lostrsquo (in Marx Engels 1972c p 338) In his lsquoAfterwordrsquo (1894) Engels would cite again this letter to make the same pointwhile stressing the importance of a lsquoRussian Revolutionrsquo both for lsquopreserving whatremains of the communersquo and for lsquogiving the workersrsquo movement in the West a newpush and new better conditions of struggle and thereby hastening the victory of theproletariat without which todayrsquos Russia can neither from capitalism nor from thecommune come to a socialist transformationrsquo (Engels 1972a pp 431 435) In a well-researched work a contemporary historian of Russia emphasises this tendency towards decomposition of the commune arising from economic factors both internaland external Among the first he mentions land shortage rural overpopulationunderemployment of labour leading large numbers of peasants to seek wageemployment outside The external factor was the increasing demand for wage-labourarising from the growth of urban centres and development of modern industry aidedby the construction a national network of railways after 1850s (Moon 1999 pp 287383ndash4)

62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45

before he had composed the drafts to his letter to Zassulitch Marxrsquos letter toMikhailovsky (1877) already indicated the possibility of decomposition of thecommune and clearly emphasised that the path of 1861 if continued wouldpush the commune under the general case of Capital which in fact turnedout to be the case61

The Russian case rather confirms Marxrsquos 1860s assertion that the two basicpreconditions for building the new lsquofree associationrsquo namely the developmentof labour as social labour and the high development of the productive powersof labour could not be generated in the different forms of natural lsquocommunismrsquo(and small family mode of production) In Russia not only were the productivepowers of labour backward but the rural commune was lsquostruck by a weakness ndashbesides the parcellary mode of labour ndash namely its isolation as a lsquolocalizedmicrocosmrsquo with a lsquolack of contact of its life with the life of the other communesrsquo(far from developing labour as social labour)62

This lsquoweaknessrsquo of the commune system ndash even with common ownershipof land ndash constituted an obstacle to its transformation into a new type ofsociety and was already established theoretically in the first edition of Capital

(1867) (reiterating his 1860s position) that is before his exposure to Cherny-shevsky in 1870 which according to Wada was a lsquoturning point for Marxrsquo63

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58


64 Marx 1983 p 48 1987 pp 109ndash10 1965 p 61465 Years later Rosa Luxemburg in her posthumously (and fragmentarily) published

lectures on political economy in the party school (beginning 1907) gave figures onthe gradual erosion of the communal land ownership in European Russia for theperiod of 1890ndash1900 In our calculation from these figures it appears that communalland ownership came down from about 34 per cent to 31 per cent of the total landownership in European Russia during this period (Luxemburg 1972 p 97) Luxemburgdid not cite her source However the relevant Russian official data cited by a modernauthority on Russian history do not show much difference from Luxemburgrsquos dataThey show the extent of the rural communal land in Russiarsquos total land area at theend of the nineteenth century to be 343 per cent (Gruumlnwald 1975 p 169) The dataon the proportion of communal land in the total Russian land for the subsequentperiod from around 1905 to 1917 are subject to controversy (more importantly theirinterpretation) See the critical survey by Atkinson 1973 pp 773ndash89 It is interestingto note that Luxemburgrsquos view about the Tsarist policy regarding the Russian communeswas directly opposite to Marxrsquos based on the findings of his Russian sources Comparingthe destiny of the rural communes elsewhere (India et al) where these communeswere destroyed through the lsquocollision with the European capitalismrsquo in Russia lsquohistoryhas followed another coursersquo she wrote where the lsquostate did not seek to destroyviolently the rural communes but sought to save and preserve them by all meansrsquo(Atkinson 1973 p 95)

Very interestingly Marx retained in the second edition of Capital (1872) aswell as in its French version (1875) this same passage word for word

The ancient social organisms of production [in the lsquomodes of production

of ancient Asia of antiquityrsquo etc] are extraordinarily much simpler and more

transparent than the bourgeois [mode] But they are based either on the

immaturity of the individual human who has not yet severed his umbilical

chord connecting him with others in a natural community (of a primitive

tribe) or the direct relations of lordship and bondage They are conditioned

by a low level of development of the productive powers of labour and

correspondingly the narrowness of the relations of human beings as between

themselves and with nature in the process of production of material life64

As we see much of this central idea about the old communal system is carriedover and gets confirmed in the concrete case of Russia as seen in Marxrsquos 1881correspondence (after he has read Kovalevaky and Morgan)

It would of course be wrong to affirm that there was nothing new inMarxrsquos reflections on the Russian communes Marx and Engels wereundoubtedly impressed by the vitality of these communes still having abouthalf the land under communal ownership as nowhere else at the time65 Thisis reflected in their continued interest for this question for at least two decadesbeginning with the early 1870s Common ownership of the means of productionby the producers being the very basis of a new society its existence in the

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59


66 Marx 1962 p 255 The expressions lsquofree timersquo lsquofree activityrsquo are in English in thetext

67 Marx 1968 p 156668 Marx and Engels 1972b p 576 It is interesting to note that at the same period

when Marx was composing his correspondence in question ndash in 1880 to be precise ndashhe in a different context also maintained that the lsquomaterial and intellectual elementsof the collective form of the means of production are constituted by the developmentof the capitalist class itselfrsquo (Marx 1965 p 1538)

69 In Howe 1972 p 517

Russian communal system appeared to Marx (and Engels) as a very favourablefactor enabling the Russian peasants to skip the stage of capitalist privateownership However this did not fundamentally change Marxrsquos thoughtbecause it did not affect his general position on the preconditions for thetransition to socialism on the one hand the existence of social labour (withthe socialisation of production) not at a local level but at the level of thewhole society and on the other hand a high development of the productivepowers of social labour to free individuals from the struggle for necessityand to increase their lsquofree timersquo beyond labour-time66 Ideally capitalism neednot be the system where these conditions are created and it would certainlybe better if it were not Historically however as Marx repeatedly emphasisedit is only capital which has through its contradictions generated theseconditions Even as an exceptional case with its communal land ownershipthe Russian communal system had to depend on capitalismrsquos positiveachievements particularly the lsquoready made material conditions of cooperativelabourrsquo67 Finally it was only the Western proletariat through its own revolutionthat could stand as a bulwark against foreign interventions in order to ensurea successful Russian Revolution against the Tsarist reacutegime the lsquohead ofEuropean reactionrsquo as the 1882 lsquoPrefacersquo observes68 In short what was newin Marxrsquos thinking confronted with the Russian commune was his theoreticalnon-exclusion of the possibility for a society to go over directly to socialismwithout passing through capitalism At the same time Marx severely qualifiedthis idea by emphasising the uniqueness of the Russian case and underliningthe negative factors inherent in the communersquos lsquodualismrsquo working steadilyagainst this possibility The events of history the lsquobest of all Marxistsrsquo asHilferding used to say69 vindicated Marxrsquos dire prognostic

At this point it is important to clarify a serious confusion resulting froman ideological reading of Marxrsquos writings on Russia that emerged around theFirst World War Various scholars have read Marxrsquos idea of a lsquoRussianRevolutionrsquo in his correspondence and in the lsquoPrefacersquo (1882) to the Manifesto

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60


70 Shanin 1983 pp 25 25471 Dussel 1990 p 261 Emphasis in text72 Loumlwy 1998 pp 18ndash1973 Dunayevskaya 1991 p 18774 However the principal proponent of this idea at the time correctly acknowledged

in contrast to many later Marxists and non-Marxists that such a revolution had notbeen foreseen by Marx and Engels

as the prefiguration of twentieth-century revolutions particularly those ledby Marxists beginning with the Bolshevik seizure of power According toShanin Marxrsquos new position was vindicated by victorious revolutions inbackward countries in which Marxists such as lsquoLenin Mao and Ho provedsocialist in leadership and resultsrsquo whereas lsquono socialist revolution came inthe Westrsquo70 Similarly Dussel has written

Russia has certainly followed the road foreseen by Marx [siguio el camino

previsto por Marx] Without passing through capitalism it has realised its

revolution allowing the rural Russian commune to pass in great measure

directly from the communal ownership to the social ownership since the

revolution of 191771

Michael Loumlwy in his turn writes

It is often forgotten that in their preface to the Russian translation of the

Manifesto Marx and Engels envisaged a hypothetical situation in which

socialist revolution could begin in Russia and then spread to western Europe72

Similarly Raya Dunayevskaya interpreted the 1882 lsquoPrefacersquo as lsquoprojectingthe idea that Russia could be the first to have a proletarian revolution aheadof the Westrsquo73

Marxrsquos writings discussed here however contain no reference to alsquoproletarianrsquo or lsquosocialistrsquo revolution in Russia They refer rather to the lsquoRussianRevolutionrsquo tout court a revolution by Russian communal peasants againstthe principal enemy of the communal system ndash the Tsarist reacutegime Naturallyfor Marx (and Engels) following his materialist conception of history therecould be no proletarian revolution in the quasi-absence of a proletariat Theidea of a proletarian revolution occurring in a technologically backwardsociety where the proletariat constitutes only a small part of society gainedits droit de citeacute through a theory propagated around the time of the First WorldWar when the idea was advanced of a possible proletarian revolution breakingout in the lsquoweakest linkrsquo in the world capitalist chain74

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61


75 See the pertinent remarks by Rubel 1971 p 41976 Marx 1968 p 156777 Getzler 1983 p 24678 See in particular on the whole question Anweiler 1958 Daniels 1967 Ferro 1967

1980

More fundamentally there is an unbridgeable gulf between Marxrsquos conceptionof the socialist revolution led by the producers themselves and the revolutionsthat took place in the twentieth century under the leadership not of theproducers themselves but of small groups of radicalised intelligentsia actingin their name even if with mass support at the initial stage The Bolshevikseizure of power far from inaugurating the lsquorule of the immense majority inthe interest of the immense majorityrsquo as the Communist Manifesto famouslyput it excluded from the start the immediate producers from any real powerEven in Marxrsquos correspondence discussed here one is struck by the emphasishe puts on the creative power of the immediate producers in the transformationof their society He never mentions the need for a special apparatus to substituteitself to the spontaneous self-activity of the masses towards their ownemancipation75 Marx thus insists on the need for lsquosubstituting the governmentalinstitution volost by an assembly of peasants elected by the communesthemselves and serving as the economic and administrative organ of theirinterestsrsquo76 This is in stark contrast with the systematic elimination of theproducersrsquo organs of self-rule which occurred very rapidly under the Bolshevikreacutegime This culminated in the bloody liquidation of Kronstadtrsquos sovietdemocracy a lsquobustling self-governing egalitarian and highly politicized thelike of which had not been seen in Europe since the Paris commune (of 1871)rsquoin the words of perhaps the most authoritative academic historian of thequestion77 Russiarsquos popular uprising of February 1917 in fact wouldcorresponded more closely to Marxrsquos idea of a lsquoRussian Revolutionrsquo It wasinitiated by the producers themselves without any party guidance as animmense revolutionary mass movement in an open-ended plural revolutionaryprocess though without lsquosocialismrsquo being proclaimed as their immediate aimThe Bolsheviks put a brake on this process and destroyed this revolutionarydemocracy78

Marx lsquorethinker of progressrsquo

Marx it is well known places the lsquobourgeois mode of productionrsquo as the lastof the lsquoprogressive epochs of the economic-social formationrsquo before its

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62


79 Thus the article on the lsquoIdea of Progressrsquo in the authoritative Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy (Volume 6 Macmillan New York 1967) brackets Marx with John StuartMill and Auguste Comte in this regard

80 Marx 1953 p 2981 In a work of early 1840s Marx writes lsquoIn spite of the pretensions of ldquoprogressrdquo

we see all the time regressions and circular movements [Kreisbewegungen] The categoryof progress is wholly abstract and devoid of content All the communist and socialistwriters start from their observation that all the progress of spirit has been till nowprogress against the mass of humanity which has been driven to an increasingly inhumansituation They have therefore declared progress as an inadequate abstract phraseThey have supposed [this] as a fundamental affliction of the civilized world Theyhave therefore subjected the real basis of the present day society to a decisive critiqueTo this communist critique has corresponded simultaneously the movement of thegreat mass against whom the earlier historical development had taken placersquo (Marx-Engels 1972a pp 88ndash9) Emphasis in text

replacement by the AMP Though the term lsquoprogressiversquo refers here to achronological ordering of the epochs ndash capitalism preceded by feudalismslavery and communal modes of production ndash does this mean that he sharedthe conception of progress associated with Bacon Descartes Pascal theEncyclopaedists and the positivists of the nineteenth century More preciselywas Marx a partisan of the idea of lsquoprogressrsquo conceived basically as a cumu-lative and continuing improvement in the situation of the human beings duenotably to the continuing advances in science and technology79

Far from answering this question in the positive we submit that Marxreconceptualised progress in a radical way Marx firmly placed (human)progress in its historical context never taking it as an absolute abstractcategory with a unilinear direction He warned against taking the lsquoconceptof progress in the commonplace (customary) abstractrsquo sense80 Progress wasalways considered by him as a contradictory movement simultaneouslypositive and negative81 Hence most of the criticisms of progress made todaycould be shown to apply to the pre-Marxian unilinear idea of progress As amatter of fact the misdeeds of capitalist progress were already emphasisedby Marx and in a more penetrating way than most modern critics of progressBut unlike these critics whose ideas on progress are also equally unilinearas the ideas of their opponents Marx clearly saw the profoundly contradictorycharacter of progress under capital

Given that the extraction of unpaid surplus-labour is the common basis ofall hitherto existing social formations (at least from a certain period in history)Marx considers the capitalist social formation superior to earlier socialformations precisely because capital unlike any earlier mode of productioncontributes to the universal development of the productive powers of labour

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63


82 Marx 1987 p 11083 Marx 1953 p 313 1988 p 10784 Marx 1965 p 8185 Marx 1962 p 42586 Marx 1953 p 387

a basic condition for building the new society This is achieved of course ata tremendous cost to society undergoing lsquoa long and painful history ofdevelopmentrsquo82 This tendency of capital towards the universal developmentof the productive powers of labour Marx sees as a lsquopositive sidersquo to capitalonly in comparison with precapitalist modes of production in which humandevelopment lsquohad only a limited and local characterrsquo83 However Marxunderlines more than any other critic of capital the antagonistic characterof this lsquopositive sidersquo of capitalist progress

Marxrsquos position on progress follows from his rejection of the lsquodogmaticdistinction between the good and the badrsquo in favour of the lsquodialecticalmovementrsquo which consists of the necessary lsquocoexistence of two contradictorysides and their fusion into a new categoryrsquo84 Marx approvingly cites a passagefrom Richard Jones where the latter speaks precisely of lsquoprogressrsquo undermodern society as certainly lsquonot the most desirable state of thingsrsquo (as regardsthe relation between the labourers and the lsquoaccumulated stockrsquo) but whichnevertheless has to be viewed as lsquoconstituting a stage in the march of industrywhich has hitherto marked the progress of advancing nationsrsquo Marx interpretsJones as asserting on the one hand that capitalist mode of productionconstitutes an lsquoimmense progress as opposed to all the earlier forms whenone considers the productive powers of social labourrsquo while underlining on the other hand the lsquoantagonistic formrsquo of this progress which containsalso the lsquonecessity of its downfallrsquo85

The very principle of production for productionrsquos sake the recognition ofwealth for its own sake as supreme virtue leading to the universal developmentof the productive powers of social labour which marks the lsquopositive sidersquo ofthe lsquomodern worldrsquo also shows the other backward and inferior character ofprogress in the lsquomodern worldrsquo when compared with the lsquoancient worldrsquoThus the ancient idea that the human being is the aim of production notproduction the aim of the human being appears lsquovery lofty against the modernworldrsquo When compared with the form of lsquocomplete emptinessrsquo of the modernworld (the lsquobourgeois economyrsquo) the lsquochildlike ancient world appearssuperiorrsquo86 In his comments on Morgan referring to the early period of humanevolution Marx contrasts the absence of passion for possession in the early

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64


87 In Krader 1974 p 128 Emphasis in the text This expression appears in EnglishlsquoModern family contains in germ not only servitus but also serfdom It contains inminiature all the antagonisms within itself which later broadly developed in societyand its statersquo (Marx in Krader 1974 p 120)

88 Marx 1968 p 156889 Marx 1987 pp 396ndash7 Words under single quotation marks appear in English in

the text

humans with possession being lsquosuch a commanding force in the human mind

nowrsquo87 Again in the first draft of his letter to Zassulitch Marx asserts thatlsquoone should not be afraid of the word ldquoarchaicrdquorsquo that the lsquovitality of theprimitive communities was incomparably greaterrsquo not only compared to theSemitic Greek Roman but lsquoeven more so compared to the modern capitalistsocietiesrsquo and adds that some bourgeois writers lsquoinfatuated [eacutepris] with thecapitalist system and aiming to praise this system and show its superiorityare incapable of understanding [this]rsquo88 Years earlier Marx had sarcasticallywritten the following

Antipatros a Greek poet of Cicerorsquos time greeted the discovery of the

watermill as the liberator [Befreierin] of the female slaves and the builder of

the golden age Oh those pagans They as the learned Bastiat and before

him still more gifted MacCulloch have discovered understood nothing of

political economy and Christianity Among other things they did not grasp

that the machine is the most tested means for prolonging the working day

These pagans excused the slavery of one as the means towards the full

human development of another But they lacked the specific Christian charity

of preaching the slavery of the masses for turning the crude or half educated

upstarts into lsquoeminent spinnersrsquo lsquoextensive sausage makersrsquo and lsquoinfluential

shoe black dealersrsquo89

Marxrsquos view of progress under capital as contradictory (antagonistic) alsoclearly comes out in his observations on the two great classical economists ndashRicardo and Sismondi ndash regarding their respective points of view on thedevelopment of productive powers of labour under the capitalist mode ofproduction Ricardo who considered capitalist production as the absoluteform of production and who insisted on the creation of wealth for the sakeof wealth production for the sake of production showed a lsquoprofoundunderstanding of the positive nature of capitalrsquo Sismondi in his turnlsquoprofoundly graspedrsquo capitalrsquos lsquolimitedness [Borniertheit]rsquo its lsquonegative

unilateralityrsquo with his lsquoprofound sentiment that capitalist production iscontradictoryrsquo and that the contradictions grow with the growth of the

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


90 Marx 1953 p 314 1962 pp 48 50 Our emphasis91 See for example Benton 1989 and Sikorski 1993 For an excellent refutation of

Bentonrsquos lsquoneo-Malthusian Marxismrsquo see Burkett 199892 Marx 1987 pp 476ndash7 1965 pp 998ndash9 Emphasis in the French version following

the first edition See 1983 p 41393 Marx 1965 pp 1527ndash3694 In his lsquoUrtextrsquo (1858) Marx detects this insistence on production for productionrsquos

productive powers of labour Ricardo understood more the universal tendencyof capital Sismondi more its limitedness Whereas Ricardorsquos viewpoint waslsquorevolutionaryrsquo in relation to the old society Sismondirsquos was lsquoreactionaryrsquo inrelation to capitalist society90

It would be completely wrong to depict Marx ndash as some ecologists oftendo ndash as a productivist par excellence a high priest of production for productionrsquossake91 Marxrsquos concern for the environment under capital is clear in thefollowing passage

Capitalist production destroys not only the physical health of the urban and

the intellectual life of the rural labourers but also destroys the spontaneously

grown conditions of organic exchanges between the earth and the human

being In agriculture as in manufacture the capitalist transformation

of productive process appears simultaneously as the martyrdom of the

producers the means of labour appear as means of subjugating exploiting

and impoverishing the labourers the social combination of the labour process

appears as organised suppression of labourerrsquos vitality freedom and individual

independence The capitalist production develops technology and the

combination of the social process of production only by exhausting

simultaneously the two sources from which springs all wealth the earth and

the labourer92

The same concern is expressed in practicalempirical terms in the questionnairethat Marx set up in 1880 on the living and working conditions of the Frenchworking men and women93

Everybody knows the Communist Manifestorsquos lsquocomplimentsrsquo to the bourgeoisiefor their material achievements the immense development of the productivepowers of labour We also referred earlier to the great importance Marxattaches to the growth of these powers as a condition for human emancipationIndeed Marx considers Ricardorsquos insistence on the need for unlimitedproduction without any regard for individuals as lsquojustrsquo and considers Ricardorsquoscritics in this regard as lsquoreactionariesrsquo94 However we should be careful tonote that when Marx refers to Ricardorsquos position of lsquoequating the proletariat

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66


sake much earlier in Petty reflecting the lsquoenergetic merciless universal drive forenrichment of the English nation in the 17th centuryrsquo (1953 p 890)

95 Marx 1959a pp 106 107 108 Our emphasis In his first manuscript for CapitalVolume 2 (not included in Engelsrsquos published version) Marx noted that Ricardo forwhom lsquothe capitalist mode of production is the natural and absolute form of socialproductionrsquo and for whom lsquothe productive labouring class exists on the whole onlyas a machine for producing surplus-value for the possessors of the conditions oflabourrsquo was the lsquoeconomist of the big industry and sees [saw] things from the standpointof the big bourgeoisiersquo (1988 p 376) About two decades earlier Marx had pointedout that the lsquoRicardian doctrine resumes rigorously and ruthlessly [impitoyablement]the whole English bourgeoisie which itself is the type of the modern bourgeoisiersquo(1965 p 21)

96 Marx 1988 p 107 Our emphasis97 Marx 1965 pp 35ndash6 Our emphasis

with machines or beasts of burden or a commodityrsquo and goes so far as tosay that this point of view is lsquonot mean of Ricardorsquo and that this is lsquostoicscientific objectiversquo Marx is doing this because lsquofrom [Ricardorsquos] point of view

ldquoproductionrdquo is enhanced this wayrsquo because the proletarians are lsquomerelymachines or beasts of burden or they are really simple commodities in bourgeois

productionrsquo In other words lsquoRicardorsquos ruthlessness [Ruumlcksichtslosigkeit] wasnot only scientifically honest but also scientifically necessary from his point

of viewrsquo inasmuch as Ricardo lsquorightly for his timersquo simply gave a scientificallyhonest representation of bourgeois reality because lsquocapitalist production [was]the most advantageous for creating wealthrsquo95 Of course this praise for Ricardogoes hand in hand with Marxrsquos severe critique of Ricardo for his denial ofthe contradictory character of the capitalist mode of production taken byhim as the lsquoabsolute form of productionrsquo

As Marx never fails to emphasise the very nature of capital cannot but beinherently antagonistic cannot but have profoundly destructive dimensionsFor Marx the

negative or the contradictory character of capitalist production [is that] this

production is indifferent and in opposition to the producers The producer

[is] a simple means of production the material wealth is the end in itself

Therefore the development of this material wealth [is] in opposition to and

at the cost of the human individual96

However as long as capital continues we cannot have one without the otherIn general given a society divided in classes lsquoif there is no antagonism thereis no progressrsquo This is the lsquolaw that civilization has followed till our times

Till now the productive forces have developed thanks to the antagonisticreacutegime of classesrsquo97

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67


98 Marx 1953 p 31499 For an example of an ecological socialist who would like to see capitalrsquos ecological

destruction eliminated while retaining lsquomoney wage-labor the rational features of themarket and privately owned enterprisersquo that is who wants what he considers as thelsquogoodrsquo side and not the lsquobadrsquo side of the capitalist mode of production see Kovel 1995Proudhonrsquos influence seems to be abiding

100 Marx 1959a p 107 Our emphasis101 Marx 1976 p 327 1992 pp 124ndash5 The whole sentence appears in English almost

identically in the two manuscripts Our emphasis In Engelsrsquos edition of Capital Volume3 the original English expression is translated in German not quite faithfully notablyreplacing lsquosocialist constitution of mankindrsquo by lsquoconscious reconstruction of the humansocietyrsquo See Marx 1964 p 99 Regarding the domination of capital over labour Marxwrites elsewhere lsquohistorically considered this inversion appears as a necessary stageof transition [Durchgangspunkt] to obtain by violence and at the cost of the majoritythe creation of wealth as such that is the unlimited productive powers of social labourwhich alone can build the material basis of a free human society This antagonisticform has to be traversed just as the human must give his spiritual forces a religiousform and erect them as an independent power confronting himrsquo (1988 p 65 Emphasisin text)

While Marx praises Sismondi for his profound analysis of capitalrsquoscontradiction (which Ricardo could not understand) Marx reproaches Sismondifor trying to eliminate these contradictions by setting lsquomoral and legal limitsrsquoto capital lsquofrom outsidersquo which as lsquoexternal and artificial barriersrsquo capitalnecessarily throws overboard98 How astonishingly modern this sounds99

Indeed the critics of capitalrsquos tendency towards unlimited development ofproductive powers fail to realise that even if this development is achievedlsquoat first at the cost of the majority of human individuals and even of the entireclassesrsquo it lsquoends up by breaking through this antagonism and coincides withthe development of the singular individualsrsquo Hence the lsquohigher developmentof the individuality is brought only through a historical process in which the

individuals are sacrificedrsquo100 This catastrophic situation ndash the destruction of themajority as a cost of lsquoprogressrsquo ndash Marx certainly does not posit as a universallaw valid for all times This is valid only during what Marx famously callsthe lsquopre-history of human societyrsquo Marx puts this very clearly in almostidentical terms in two texts

It is in fact only at the greatest waste of individual development that the

development of general men is secured in the epochs of history which preludes

to a socialist constitution of mankind101

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68


102 Loumlwy 2000 pp 35 37 Emphasis in text103 Loumlwy 2000 p 35104 Loumlwy 2000 pp 35ndash6105 Loumlwy 2000 pp 37ndash8106 Loumlwy 2000 pp 36 40

Two recent contributions on the question of progress

Before we conclude let us consider two recent contributions in the area ofour discussion ndash those by Jeffrey Vogel (1996) and Michael Loumlwy (2000) Formatters of convenience let us reverse the chronological order and start withLoumlwy and then come back to Vogel Loumlwy holds that there are two conflictingconceptions of progress in Marx The first is lsquoEurocentric Hegelian teleologicaland closedrsquo while the second is lsquocritical non-teleological and openrsquo102 The firstconception can be found in lsquocertain writings of Marx which seem to treat thedevelopment of productive forces ndash originating in Europe ndash as identical toprogress in the sense of necessarily leading to socialismrsquo103 In this regardthe author specifically mentions Marxrsquos 1850s writings on India104 The secondand opposite conception considers history simultaneously as progress andcatastrophe lsquothe outcome of the historic process not being pre-determinedrsquoThis is seen in lsquocertain passages of Capital as well as in Marxrsquos later writingson rdquoprimitive communismrdquo as well as on Russiarsquo105 The first conception thelsquolinearrsquo view of progression whose lsquooutcome is pre-determined by thelsquocontradiction between forces and relations of productionrsquo served the SecondInternational and the Third after 1924 in their lsquodeterministic conception ofsocialism as the inevitable result of the development of the forces of production(in growing contradiction with capitalist relations of productionrsquo106 WhileLoumlwy discusses Rosa Luxemburg Lenin Trotsky and other more contemporaryMarxists in opposing the lsquodeterministrsquo view of progress we will leave asidehis account of other lsquoMarxistsrsquo and deal exclusively with his views on Marxin order not to overburden the paper

Regarding the charge of lsquoEurocentrismrsquo in Marxrsquos lsquocertain writingsrsquo whichLoumlwy shares with a number of leftists it stems from a misreading of Marxrsquostexts True among all the regions of the world Marxrsquos focuses mostly onEurope The reason is simple It is here that the capitalist mode of productionfirst emerged and started its journey towards world domination And it isthe capitalist mode of production which was Marxrsquos increasing concernstarting with his lsquocritique of political economyrsquo (1844) long before he formallydeclared his preoccupation with the lsquodiscovery of the law of motion of capitalrsquo(1867) Needless to add Marx saw capital as the most revolutionary mode

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69


107 Lukaacutecs has convincingly argued that in contrast to his great predecessorsAristotle and Hegel Marx had no teleology in his conception of history (Lukaacutecs 1971)Curiously Loumlwy mentions Hegel only in connection with the teleological conception(of history) which Marx had completely rejected and he is silent on concepts andideas which Marx took over from Hegel by lsquoputting them back on their feetrsquo

108 Marx and Engels 1972a pp 83 98 Emphasis in text Much later after readingDarwin Engels wrote in a letter to Marx (11 or 12 December 1859) lsquotill now in onerespect [nach einer Seite hin] teleology had not been destroyed This has happenednowrsquo Engels 1963 p 524

109 Marx and Engels 1973 pp 26ndash7

of production so far breaking down all narrowness and localism of earliermodes of production and having a universal character by the very logic ofits nature He saw the capitalist mode of production as the only mode ofproduction so far which created ndash antagonistically ndash the necessary subjectiveand material conditions for building a lsquounion of free individualsrsquo ndash the onlylsquohistorical justificationrsquo for itrsquos existence in Marxrsquos view And the capitalistmode of production happened to originate in and spread from Europe Infact geographically the reference point of Marx is not even Europe but WesternEurope if not England with France occupying a distant second place Thereason is obvious It is capital not Europe that Marxrsquos is concerned with

As for the accusation that Marx viewed social development in a teleologicalway that is as serving a (predetermined) purpose or design then Marxrsquosconception of history is certainly not teleological107 Marx and Engels madethis clear from their early days in discussing Hegelrsquos view that the lsquoTruth isan automation which is self-demonstrating to be followed by the humanrsquoMarx had earlier criticised Hegel for sharing the point of view of the lsquooldteleologistsrsquo for whom lsquoHistory like the Truth becomes a metaphysical subjectof which the real humans are only the supporting elements [Traumlger]rsquo ThenMarx added

Surely it is not lsquohistoryrsquo which uses the human as a means to achieve its

ends ndash as if it is a person apart History does nothing it does not produce

(immense) wealth does not wage battles History is nothing but the activities

of the humans following their own objectives108

In a following text Marx and Engels wrote

Religion morality metaphysics and all the rest of ideology have neither

history nor development it is on the contrary the humans who while

developing their material production and communication transform along

with their own reality their thought and its products109

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70


110 Marx 1953 p 387111 Marx and Engels 1973 p 27112 Engels 1972b p 321 Emphasis in original113 Marx and Engels 1973 p 35 1979 p 70114 Marx 1972 p 439 About a decade later Marx famously declared lsquoWorkers have

no ready made utopias to introduce no ideals to realize but to set free the elementsof the new society with which the old collapsing bourgeois society is pregnantrsquo inMarx Engels 1971 p 36

115 Loumlwy 2000 pp 35ndash6

The only presupposition allowed in this materialist conception of history isthe lsquoprevious historical developmentrsquo110 that is the individuals in their lsquorealempirically perceptible practical activities in the practical process of evolutionunder definite conditionsrsquo there is no place here for lsquoa recipe or a design forarranging historical epochsrsquo111 It is in this anti-teleological rein that communismis presented by Marx and Engels in their very first works on the materialistconception of history as a lsquomovementrsquo not a lsquodoctrinersquo Its lsquopoint of departurersquois not

theoretically determined principles but facts to the extent it is theoretical

communism is the theoretical expression of the position of the proletariat

in the class struggle and the theoretical synthesis of conditions of liberation

of the proletariat112

Communism is not an ideal to which the reality should conform It is a lsquorealmovementrsquo The lsquoconditions of this movementrsquo lsquowhich is going on under oureyesrsquo lsquoresult from the previously given prerequisites which exist at presentrsquo113

Fifteen years later Marx emphasised

The only solid theoretical basis [of communism] is the scientific insight into

the economic structure of the [existing] bourgeois society It is not a question

of setting up any utopian system It is a question of self conscious participation

in the historical revolutionary process of society which is going on before

our eyes114

Such a conception of history excludes by definition a teleological outlookAs an example of Marxrsquos lsquoteleological determinist economistic approachrsquo

Loumlwy refers to Marxrsquos two articles on India (1853) In one of them he pointsto Marxrsquos assertion that the British bourgeoisie was acting as the lsquounconscioustoolrsquo of history in lsquobringing about a social revolutionrsquo in India through thedestruction of the old social structure and the introduction of steam andscience in that country115 We submit that what Marx says here is simply avariation of a central theme of the materialist conception of history that can

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71


116 Marx and Engels 1972a p 37 lsquoPrivate propertyrsquo here as in his Parisian manuscripts(1844) stands for capital

117 Marx and Engels 1979 pp 61 62 69118 Marx 1992 p 333 First emphasis is Marxrsquos the second is ours119 Loumlwy 2000 p 37 Emphasis in text

be found in other writings by him (and Engels) In one of his early texts hewas already asserting that

Private property in its economic movement drives itself towards its own

dissolution but only through a movement ndash conditioned by the nature of

things ndash which is independent of it of which it is not conscious and (is)

against its (own) will116

Then in the Manifesto (1848) the bourgeoisie is depicted as continuallyrevolutionising the forces and relations of production through the destructionof earlier modes of production and serving as the lsquopassive and unconsciousvehicle [willenlose Traumlger]rsquo of industrial progress generating its own lsquogravediggersrsquo the proletariat117 Years later in the manuscript of Capital III havingreferred to the development of the productive forces of labour as the lsquohistorical

task and justification of capitalrsquo Marx added lsquothereby it creates unconsciously

the material conditions of a higher mode of productionrsquo118 And the famoussection on the lsquohistorical tendency of capitalist accumulationrsquo in Capital I

precisely ends by citing the Manifestorsquos passage just mentioned Marxrsquos 1853writings on India are non-teleological just as the texts mentioned above

To show that there are texts in Marx which in contrast to those on Indiapoint to a different lsquodialectic of progressrsquo which is lsquocritical non-teleologicaland fundamentally openrsquo119 Loumlwy cites from Capital I the sentence lsquoeacheconomic advance is at the same time a calamityrsquo and then a long passageon capitalrsquos disastrous ecological record First one should note that thesetexts appear in the same chapter in Capital (lsquoBig Industryrsquo) which should beread as a whole Thus the single sentence cited by Loumlwy (as given above) isimmediately qualified by Marx in the same passage as the lsquonegative sidersquo ofcapitalist production Interestingly after citing in the same passage a fewlines from the Manifesto (1848) emphasising the eminently lsquorevolutionary rolersquoof the bourgeoisie through the destruction of all that was fixed and venerablein earlier modes of production Marx points out that the

catastrophes themselves created by big industry impose the recognition of

the variation of labour and thereby the maximum possible all-sidedness of

the labourers as the general law of social production Big industry compels

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72


120 Marx 1965 pp 992 993 1987 pp 466ndash7 In the French version lsquocontradictionrsquois replaced by a stronger term lsquoantagonismrsquo 1965 p 993 We could refer here to whatMarx wrote to Kugelmann (17 March 1868) lsquoI present big industry not only as themother of antagonism but also as the creator of the material and intellectual conditionstowards solving this antagonismrsquo Marx and Engels 1972c p 162 emphasis in original

121 In Marx 1959b pp 85 87122 Loumlwy 2000 pp 36 40

society to replace the fragmented individuals the simple bearers of detailed

labour by the totally developed individual

In the same paragraph Marx sums up brilliantly the whole approach lsquoThedevelopment of contradictions of a historical form of production is the onlyhistorical way towards its dissolution and transformationrsquo and then addssignificantly (in the French version) lsquotherein lies the secret of historicalmovement which doctrinaires utopians and socialists do not want tounderstandrsquo120 We argue that it is essentially the same message that we getfrom Marxrsquos 1850s articles on India Let us take the same articles that Loumlwychooses to illustrate Marxrsquos lsquoteleological determinist and economistic approachrsquoto progress One reads

All that the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate

nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people But what

they will not fail to do is to lay down the material premise for both Bourgeois

industry and commerce create these material conditions of a new world in

the same way as geological revolutions have created the surface of the earth

Has the bourgeoisie ever done more Has it ever effected a progress without

dragging individuals and peoples through the blood and dirt through misery

and degradation121

These lines illustrate once more how Marxrsquos general thesis informed his wholelife work emphasising the historically revolutionary role ndash simultaneouslypositive and negative ndash of the bourgeoisie compared with the earlier classesand in relation to the advent of the lsquounion of free individualsrsquo

Loumlwy dismisses as lsquolinearrsquo lsquoEurocentricrsquo and lsquoteleologicalrsquo122 Marxrsquos emphasison the development of productive forces as a fundamental factor of humanprogress as well as Marxrsquos strongly held idea ndash derived from a close studyof past history ndash that the productive forcesproduction relations contradictionis the mother of all social dynamics (including revolutions) As Marx remindedthe English workers lsquoAntagonism between the productive powers and thesocial relations of our epoch is a fact palpable overwhelming and not to be

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73


123 Marx 1980b p 655124 Marx and Engels 1973 p 72125 Ten years later Marx would qualify the lsquohuman individualrsquo as lsquothe principal

productive forcersquo (1953 p 325) There is not a trace of this specific Marxian meaningof the lsquoproductive forcersquo in Loumlwy

126 Marx 1965 p 79127 Marx 1965 p 915 The term lsquosocial relationsrsquo in the French version replaces lsquosocial

relations of lifersquo in the German version See Marx 1987 p 364

contradictedrsquo123 Unfortunately Loumlwy does not adequately explain his positionbesides denouncing the Second International and Stalin for (mis)using these complex of ideas This is of course a poor substitute for a rigorousdemonstration based on Marxrsquos own texts As a matter of fact Loumlwyrsquos positionamounts to nothing short of a rejection pure and simple of the wholematerialist conception of history as we find it in Marx (and Engels) Howdoes this conception consider productive forces Marx had pointed out inone of the first elaborations of his lsquonew materialismrsquo that lsquothe history ofproductive forces is the history of the development of the individualrsquos ownforcesrsquo124 In the immediately following work Marx characterises the lsquoproletariatthe revolutionary classrsquo as the lsquogreatest productive power among all theinstruments of productionrsquo125 In that text Marx writes

The social relations are intimately related to the productive forces By

acquiring the new forces of production the humans change their mode of

production and by changing the latter they change all their social relations126

This lsquointimate relationrsquo between the productive forces and the relations ofproduction including their growing antagonism would find its most rigorousformulation in the famous 1859 lsquoPrefacersquo This would again be taken up byMarx in an important methodological note in Capital I

Technology reveals how the human actively relates to nature the process

of production of the material life (of the human) and consequently the

origin of social relations and the ideas which follow therefrom

Such a view is presented within the context of the discussion of what Marxconsiders as the lsquoonly materialist and therefore scientific methodrsquo127

Returning to the importance of the development of productive forces onefinds Marx emphasising that limited productive forces would simply notallow human emancipation Until now humans have gained their liberationonly to the extent that the existing forces of production lsquoprescribed and allowed itrsquo

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74


128 Marx and Engels 1973 p 417129 Marx 1980b p 655130 Marx 1988 p 65131 Loumlwy 2000 p 39132 Marx 1968 p 1554

Till now all the freedoms have been based on limited productive forces

Their production insufficient to satisfy the whole society allowed progress

only if some individuals satisfied their needs at the expense of others such

that the ones ndash the minority ndash obtained the monopoly of progress while the

others ndash the majority ndash because of their continuous struggle for bare necessities

were provisionally excluded from all progress128

In his lsquolittle speech in Englishrsquo as Marx called it of 1856 Marx starkly toldthe English workers lsquoSteam electricity and the self-acting mule wererevolutionists of a rather more dangerous character than even citizens BarbegravesRaspail and Blanquirsquo129 About a decade later he would emphasise lsquocreationof wealth as such that is unlimited [ruumlcksichtslosen] productive powers of social labour alone can constitute the material basis of a free humansocietyrsquo130 As we already know the creation of such wealth is the only lsquohistoricaljustificationrsquo of capital

Finally regarding Loumlwyrsquos contention that the lsquolatersquo Marxrsquos writingsfundamentally differ from the writings of the earlier period by their lsquonon-teleologicalrsquo and lsquoopenrsquo conception of progress it should be clear from ourearlier detailed discussion that Marxrsquos writings on Russia still fall basicallywithin the framework of the materialist conception of history which governsall his texts from the early 1840s onwards As an example of Marxrsquos lsquoteleologicalrsquoand lsquodeterministrsquo conception of progress Loumlwy quotes from Capital I lsquocapitalistproduction begets with the inexorability of a law of nature its own negationIt is the negation of the negationrsquo131 However the lsquolatersquo Marx in his reply to a Russian correspondent while reiterating that his analysis of capitalaccumulation applied uniquely to Western Europe cited the very first sentenceof Loumlwyrsquos quotation (given here) and added that if he had not given anylsquoproofrsquo for this assertion that was because it was lsquoonly a ldquoreacutesumeacute sommairerdquoof the lsquolong developments (already) given in the chapters on capitalistproductionrsquo132

Let us turn now to Vogelrsquos article which takes a different perspective onthe question of progress This piece is informed by the idea ndash ascribed toMarx ndash that the development of productive forces creating the objective and

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75


133 Vogel 1996 p 41134 Loumlwy 2000 pp 39 46135 Vogel 1996 p 37136 Vogel 1996 p 37137 Marx 1980a p 101 1987 p 109138 Vogel 1996 p 37139 Marxrsquos 1859 lsquoPrefacersquo

subjective conditions for a lsquofully human social orderrsquo achieved at the cost ofthe majority is lsquothe tragedy of historyrsquo133 This argument starts by placingMarx within the framework of the lsquotwo fundamental valuesrsquo derived fromEnlightenment a belief in human rights or human dignity and a belief inhuman progress or human destiny Vogel notes an lsquoirreconcilable conflictlsquobetween these two values in Marxrsquos theory of history ndash human progress beinglsquounavoidably painful and conflict riddenrsquo To illustrate this Vogel mentionsMarxrsquos lsquocomplex attitudersquo to ancient Greek slavery and lsquomore importantlyrsquoMarxrsquos conflicting attitude to lsquoearly capitalismrsquo ndash including lsquoprimitiveaccumulationrsquo and colonial conquests134 As I will show however Vogel failsto interpret consistently the writings of Marx and Engels on both thesephenomena135 This is particularly the case for example when interpretingMarxrsquos characterisation of slavery as a lsquoprogressive epochrsquo of social-economicformation136 At the same time Vogel refers to Marxrsquos point that the recordso far has shown that culture and material progress for the few requiredoppression and enslavement of many lsquoFor Marx this is the tragedy of historyrsquoAlthough a large part of Vogelrsquos paper is devoted to his debate with somecontemporary thinkers on progress in relation to Marxrsquos views on progresswe will again concentrate on his discussion of Marx

First it is not clear why Marx should consider this process as a tragedy iflsquotragedyrsquo means a drama with an unhappy ending There is no textual evidencefor this More generally the recognition that the development of productiveforces has so far been at the cost of the majority would be considered alsquotragedyrsquo if it were accepted as a fatal law destined to govern human societyforever However it could not be considered a tragedy if the process of thisdevelopment is seen only as a transitory phase at the end of which humansbegin their own real lsquohistoryrsquo in the lsquounion of free individualsrsquo137 Vogelsuccessively deals with Marxrsquos treatment of ancient slavery and early capitalismwhich he finds lsquodifficult to interpret consistentlyrsquo Particularly hard tounderstand is the lsquoprogressivenessrsquo of slavery138 Yet the sentence from whichthis characterisation of slavery is taken by Vogel139 does not we submit carry

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76


140 Marx and Engels 1970 pp 35ndash6141 Marx 1953 p 395 Vogel in support of his contention writes lsquoMarx displays

sympathy for Aristotle who ldquoexcused the slavery of one person as a means to thedevelopment of anotherrdquorsquo This is however a mistaken reading of Marxrsquos text Thisparticular expression appears in a passage (cited earlier in this paper) which refersnot to Aristotle but to a poet who appeared a couple of centuries later What in factMarx quotes from Aristotle immediately preceding this reference to Antipatros speaksrather of the possibility of the total disappearance of slavery in case tools could beinvented which could do the appropriate work (Marx 1987 p 396)

142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438

any value judgement in the use of the term lsquoprogressiversquo Rather it refers tolsquoprogressrsquo as the chronological order of succession This is seen in the fullsentence which speaks of lsquoAsiatic antic feudal and bourgeois modes ofproductionrsquo as the lsquoprogressive epochs of the social economic formationrsquo Ourinterpretation seems to be in line with what Marx and Engels wrote elsewhereThus to the affirmation of the Communist Manifesto (1848) that the class oflsquofreeman and slave was the starting point of lsquoall hitherto existing societyrsquoEngels added in its 1888 English edition that the post-1848 research had shownthat classes (including of course freemen and slaves) arose from thelsquodissolutionrsquo of the lsquovillage communityrsquo which had existed earlier as lsquothe formof society everywhere from India to Irelandrsquo140 Marx in his turn held thatlsquoslavery serfdom etc is always secondary never original though a necessaryand consequent result from property based on community and labour incommunityrsquo where he placed lsquoAsiaticrsquo as the first form of communal property141

Vogel refers to a passage from Engels which emphasises the necessity of(ancient) slavery as lsquocontributing to the whole economic political andintellectual developmentrsquo142 Writing with reference to lsquodirect slaveryrsquo of theblacks in the South and North America of his day Marx saw lsquono needrsquo tospeak of its lsquobad sidersquo ndash which was well-known ndash and held that lsquothe onlything which has to be explained is the good side of slaveryrsquo He stressed thatlsquodirect slavery is the pivot of our present day industrialisation Withoutslavery North America would have been transformed into a patriarchal landHence slavery is a category of extreme importancersquo143 The lsquogood sidersquo hererefers to Marxrsquos emphasis on the positive contribution of slave labour althoughunder abject subjugation to humanityrsquos development This lsquopositiversquo view ofslavery in Marx and Engels will be puzzling unless we know the role whichthe materialist conception of history assigns to labour Indeed labour playsa central role in this conception it being the active agent ndash aided by nature ndash

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77


144 Engels wrote that the lsquonew orientationrsquo initiated by Marx (and himself) lsquorecognizedin the history of development of labour the key to the understanding of the wholehistory of societyrsquo (Engels 1979 p 222)

145 Marx 1953 p 75146 Marx 1953 p 505 1979a p 23 Hegel seems to have gone beyond political

economy by emphasising the labourrsquos positive side in transcending naturersquos constraintHence there is lsquoa moment of liberation in labourrsquo (Hegel 1972 p 177)

147 Vogel 1996 p 39148 Marx and Engels 1972a p 38149 Marx and Engels 1979 p 65

for production and reproduction of material life the basis of all society144

But so far in societyrsquos evolution starting with the appearance of classeslabour has been under subjection ndash either lsquopersonalrsquo as with direct slaves(serfs) or lsquomaterialrsquo as with lsquowage slavesrsquo145 The materialist conception ofhistory indeed recognises both negative and positive ndash enslaving and creatingndash sides existing in labour simultaneously and inseparably unlike lsquopoliticaleconomy which knows labour only as a beast of burdenrsquo which is lsquoa purelynegative definitionrsquo146

Moreover it is not clear why Vogel is preoccupied uniquely with Marxrsquosviews on early capitalism and lsquoprimitive accumulationrsquo of capital What Vogelcalls lsquoMarxrsquos horror at the vast suffering and wonder at the potentialities forhuman developmentrsquo147 applies to all stages of capitalism not simply to itslsquoearly stagersquo

In the developed proletariat the abstraction of humanity even of the

appearance of humanity is completed The conditions of existence of the

proletariat resume all the conditions of the present society which have

reached the paroxysm of inhumanity148

This view of universal alienation is a general view of Marx that applies tothe proletariat at all stages of its existence Similarly the Manifestorsquos moreconcrete characterisation of the labourer under capital as an lsquoaccessory of themachinersquo and her subjugation under the lsquodespotism of the bourgeoisiersquo149

applies equally to the situation of labour under capital in all its phases notsimply in its lsquoearlyrsquo phase

The so-called lsquotensionrsquo in Marxrsquos treatment of labour in relation to capitalin the broad perspective of lsquoprogressrsquo can be seen in his writings from the1840s onwards The lsquotensionrsquo in fact lies in the reality itself of which Marxrsquosanalysis is only the theoretical expression not a reflection of any lsquotensionrsquo inhis personal conscience This analysis is firmly based on Marxrsquos dialecticalprinciple condensed in the Spinoza-Marx (via Hegel) formula cited at the

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


150 Marx 1953 p 203 Our emphasis The same ideas appear in almost identicalterms in Marx 1976 p 35

151 Marx 1965 p 93152 Marx and Engels 1972a p 38153 Marx and Engels 1972a p 37 Marx 1988 p 65 Emphasis in the text In the

earlier of these two manuscripts Marx cites Hegel on lsquorebellion against abjectnesswithin abjectnessrsquo Indeed in his well-known discussion of the lordship-bondagerelation Hegel asserts the superiority of the bondsman over the lord inasmuch as thelatterrsquos only concern is immediate satisfaction of needs lsquowhich has no significance forhuman development as it is only momentaryrsquo whereas the lsquoact of fashioning the objectis the pure self expression of consciousness which now acquires an element ofpermanencersquo (1987 pp 147ndash8) Elsewhere Hegel wrote lsquothe plough is more honourablethan the immediate enjoyments produced by it The instrument is preserved whilethe enjoyment passes awayrsquo (1963 p 398)

beginning of this paper Earlier in this paper we referred to Marxrsquos severaltexts showing capital as being negative and positive at the same time Thesame goes for labour

Grasped negatively the living labour is complete denudation [Entbloumlssung]

of all objectivity Labour as absolute poverty poverty not as shortage

but as complete exclusion from objective wealth grasped positively labour

not as object but as activity as its universal possibility In other words

labour on the one hand is absolute poverty as object and on the other hand

universal possibility of wealth as subject150

It is hard for most people to understand that the negative itself is positiveMarx faulted the lsquoutopian theoristsrsquo for viewing lsquomisery as only misery withoutseeing in it the revolutionary subversive side which will overturn the oldsocietyrsquo151 Thus victim of the lsquoparoxysm of inhumanityrsquo the lsquoproletariat findsitself compelled by the misery which is ineluctable imperious and can nolonger be glossed over to revolt against this inhumanityrsquo152 Marx goes furtherOn the capital-labour antithesis one reads in two manuscripts separated bytwo decades

the possessing class and the proletarian class represent the same human

alienation [but] in the process of alienation from the beginning the

labourer is superior to the capitalist The latter is rooted in the process of

alienation and finds absolute satisfaction in it while the labourer who is the

victim is from the outset in a state of rebellion153

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79


154 Marx 1988 pp 431ndash2

Conclusion

In 1865 Marx told the workers in a statement that summed up very well hisposition where there is no trace of any blind fatality

The very development of modern industry must progressively turn the

scales in favour of the capitalist against the working man Such being

the tendency of things in this system is this saying that the working class

ought to renounce their resistance against the encroachment of capital

abandon their attempts at making the best of the occasional chances for

their temporary improvement If they did they would be degraded to one

level mass of broken wretches past redemption By cowardly giving way

in their conflict with capital they would certainly disqualify themselves for

the initiative of any large movement They ought to understand that

with all the miseries it imposes upon them the present system simultaneously

engenders the material conditions and social forms necessary for an

economical reconstruction of society154

It is the old society itself which contradictorily creates the conditions of itsown negation together with the conditions of building a society of freelyassociated producers Two basic material conditions in this regard are animmense development of productive powers of labour and the developmentof labour as social labour The capitalist mode of production alone amongall the hitherto existing modes of production creates these conditions Eventhough socialism could arise in an essentially non-capitalist society givensome form of communal ownership in the means of production not alreadyundermined from within the process would prove unviable unless it washelped by the material acquisitions of the capitalist mode of production fromoutside Such help is difficult to conceive in the absence of a victoriousproletarian revolution in capitalist countries

However the creation of the material conditions in question ndash commonlycalled material progress ndash under capital is necessarily bought at a tremendouscost to human beings including their surroundings given the specific natureof capital Capital cannot create the conditions of its own negation and thosefor building the new society except by devouring agrave la Timur lsquomyriads ofhuman soulsrsquo Many have stressed unilaterally the regressive or negativeprogress under capital just as many have stressed equally unilaterally its

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80


155 lsquoIn proportion as the social labour develops and thereby becomes the source ofwealth poverty and demoralization among the labourers and wealth and cultureamong the non-labourers develop This is the law of the whole hitherto existing historyIn the present day capitalist society material etc conditions have finally been createdwhich enable and compel the labourers to smash this historical malediction [geschichtlicheFluch]rsquo (Marx 1979b pp 175ndash6)

156 Marx 1965 p 995 not reproduced in the German version

positive side Marx lsquorethoughtrsquo progress more profoundly and more clearlythan perhaps anyone else by underlining the non-separability of thesecontradictory aspects belonging to the same process of capitalist developmentYou cannot simply have only the lsquogoodrsquo side and not the lsquobadrsquo side of progressunder this tremendously antagonistic social formation In fact the negativeside itself proves to be positive by generating as necessarily as it generatesthe bad side massive resistance and struggle by capitalrsquos victims to uprootthe basic cause itself155 As Marx emphasises in the French version of Capitallsquoin history as in nature putrefaction is the laboratory of life156

References

Anderson Kevin 2002 lsquoMarxrsquos Late Writings on Non-Western and Precapitalist Societiesand Genderrsquo Rethinking Marxism 14 4 84ndash96

Anweiler Oskar 1958 Die Raumltebewegung in Russland 1905ndash1921 Leiden EJ Brill

Atkinson Dorothy 1973 lsquoThe Statistics on the Russian Land Commune 1905ndash1917rsquoSlavic Review 32 4 773ndash87

Banaji Jairus 2003 lsquoThe Fictions of Free Labourrsquo Historical Materialism 11 3 69ndash95

Benton Ted 1989 lsquoMarxism and Natural Limitsrsquo New Left Review I 178 51ndash86

Burkett Paul 1999 Marx and Nature A Red and Green Perspective New York St MartinrsquosPress

Daniels Robert V 1967 The Red October New York Charles Scribner

de Gruumlnwald Constantin 1975 Socieacuteteacute et civilisation Russe au XIXe siegravecle Paris Eacuteditionsdu Seuil

Dunayevskaya Raya 1991 Rosa Luxemburg Womenrsquos Liberation and Marxrsquos Philosophyof Revolution Chicago University of Illinois Press

Dunayevskaya Raya 2002 Selected Writings on the Dialectic in Hegel and Marx editedby Peter Hudis and Kevin Anderson New York Lexington Books

Dussel Enrique 1990 El ultimo Marx (1863ndash1882) Mexico Siglo Veintiuno Editores

Engels Friedrich 1962 [1876ndash7] lsquoAus Engelsrsquo Vorarbeiten zum Anti Duumlhringrsquo in Marx-Engels Werke (hereinafter MEW) Volume 20 Berlin Dietz

Engels Friedrich 1963 [11 or 12 December 1859] lsquoLetter to Marxrsquo in MEW Volume 29Berlin Dietz

Engels Friedrich 1964 [1875] lsquoSoziales aus Russlandrsquo in Karl Marx and FriedrichEngels Ausgewaumlhlte Schriften Volume 2 Berlin Dietz

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81


Engels Friedrich 1972a [1894] lsquoZu ldquoSoziales aus Russlandrdquorsquo in MEW Volume 22Berlin Dietz

Engels Friedrich 1972b [1847] lsquoDie Kommunisten und Karl Heinzenrsquo in MEW Volume4 Berlin Dietz

Engels Friedrich 1979 [1888] Ludwig Feuerbach und der Ausgang der klassischen deutschenPhilosophie in Marx-Engels Studienausgabe (hereafter MESA) I Frankfurt Fischer

Ferro Marc 1967 La Reacutevolution de 1917 Volume 1 Paris Aubier Montaigne

Ferro Marc 1980 Des Soviets au communisme bureaucratique Paris Gallimard

Getzler Israel 1983 Kronstadt (1917ndash1921) The Fate of a Soviet Democracy CambridgeCambridge University Press

Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 1963 [1813] Wissenschaft der Logik II edited by G Lasson Hamburg Felix Meiner

Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 1972 [1820] Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechtsedited by H Reichelt Frankfurt AM Ullstein

Hegel Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 1987 [1807] Phaumlnomenologie des Geistes StuttgartPhilipp Reclam

Hilferding Rudolf 1972 lsquoState Capitalism or Totalitarian State Economyrsquo in A Handbookof Socialist Thought edited by Irving Howe London Victor Gollancz

Kingston-Mann Esther 1990 lsquoPeasant Communes and Economic Innovationrsquo in PeasantEconomy Culture and Politics of European Russia 1800ndash1921 edited by Esther Kingston-Mann and Timothy Mixter (eds) Princeton Princeton University Press

Kovel Joel 1995 lsquoEcological Marxism and Dialecticrsquo Capitalism Nature Socialism 2431ndash50

Krader Lawrence 1973 The Asiatic Mode of Production Assen Van Gorcum

Krader Lawrence 1974 The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx Assen Van Gorcum

Loumlwy Michael 1996 lsquoLa dialectique du progregraves et enjeu actuel des mouvementssociauxrsquo in Congregraves Marx International Cent ans du marxisme bilan critique et perspectiveParis PUF

Loumlwy Michael and Shane Henry Mage 1998 lsquoGlobalization and InternationalismHow Up-to-Date Is the Communist Manifestorsquo Monthly Review 50 6 16ndash27

Loumlwy Michael 2000 lsquoMarxrsquos Dialectic of Progress Closed or Openrsquo Socialism andDemocracy 14 1 35ndash44

Lukaacutecs Georg 1971 Zur Ontologie des gesellschaftlichen Seins Berlin HermannLuchterhand Verlag

Luxemburg Rosa 1972 Einfuumlhrung in die Nationaloumlkonomie Hamburg Rowohlt

Marx Karl 1953 [1857ndash8] Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Oumlkonomie Berlin DietzVerlag

Marx Karl 1959a [1861ndash63] Theorien uumlber den Mehrwert volume II Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl 1959b [1853] lsquoThe British Rule in Indiarsquo and lsquoThe Future Results of theBritish Rule in Indiarsquo in Marx and Engels On Colonialism Moscow Progress

Marx Karl 1962 [1861ndash3] Theorien uumlber den Mehrwert III Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl 1964 [1863ndash5] Das Kapital Volume III Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl 1965 Misegravere de la philosophie [1847] Le Capital I [1875] lsquoConsideacuterants

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82


du programme du parti ouvrier franccedilaisrsquo [1880] in Oeuvres Economie I ParisGallimard

Marx Karl 1968 [1877 1881] lsquoSur la commune rurale et les perspectives reacutevolutionnairesen Russiersquo in Oeuvres Eacuteconomie II Paris Gallimard

Marx Karl 1971 [1871] lsquoThe Civil War in Francersquo in Marx and Engels On the ParisCommune Moscow Progress

Marx Karl 1972 [1860] lsquoHerr Vogtrsquo in MEW Volume 14 Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl 1973a [1847] lsquoArbeitslohnrsquo MEW Volume 6 Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl 1973b [1869ndash79] Das Kapital Volume 2 Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl 1973c [2791877] lsquoLetter to FA Sorgersquo in MEW Volume 34 Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl 1973d [1844] Oumlkonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte in MEWErgaumlnzungsband Erster Teil Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl 1976 [1861ndash3] Zur Kritik der politischen Oumlkonomie Manuskript in MEGA231 Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl 1979b [1875] lsquoRandglossen zum Programm der deutschen Arbeiterparteirsquoin MESA II Frankfurt Fischer

Marx Karl 1980a [1858ndash61] Oumlkonomische Manuskripte und Schriften in MEGA 22Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl 1980b [1856] lsquoSpeech at the Anniversary of The Peoplersquos Paperrsquo in K Marxand F Engels Collected Works Volume 14 New York International Publishers


Marx Karl 1983 [1867] Das Kapital Volume I MEGA 25 Berlin Dietz


Marx Karl 1988 lsquoResultate des unmittelbaren Produktionsprozessesrsquo lsquoDas Kapitalrsquo II(Manuskript I) and lsquoValue Price and Profitrsquo in Oumlkonomische Manuskripte (1863ndash7)in MEGA 241 Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl 1992 [1863ndash7] Oumlkonomische Manuskripte in MEGA 242 Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl and Friedrich Engels 1970 [1848 1888] lsquoManifesto of the Communist Partyrsquoin Selected Works Moscow Progress

Marx Karl and Friedrich Engels 1972a [1844ndash5] Die heilige Familie in MEW Volume 2Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl and Friedrich Engels 1972b [1882] lsquoPreface to the Russian Edition of theCommunist Manifestorsquo in MEW Volume 4 Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl and Friedrich Engels 1972c Briefe uumlber lsquoDas Kapitalrsquo Erlangen Politladen

Marx Karl and Friedrich Engels 1973 [1845ndash6] Die deutsche Ideologie in MEW Volume 3Berlin Dietz

Marx Karl and Friedrich Engels 1979 [1848] Manifest der kommunistischen Partei inMESA III Frankfurt Fischer

Mironov Boris 1990 lsquoThe Russian Peasant Communes after the Reform of 1860srsquo inThe World of the Russian Peasant Post Emancipation Culture and Society edited by BenEklof and Stephen Frank Boston Unwin Hyman

Moon David 1999 The Russian Peasantry 1600ndash1930 London Longman

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83


Rubel Maximilien 1971 Karl Marx Essai de biographie intellectuelle Paris Marcel Riviegravere

Shanin Teodor (ed) 1983 Late Marx and the Russian Road New York Monthly ReviewPress

Sikorski John 1993 Modernity and Technology Tuscalossa University of Alabama Press

Vogel Jeffrey 1996 lsquoThe Tragedy of Historyrsquo New Left Review I 220 36ndash61

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84


2 Marx 1973d p 5753 Marx 1988 p 316 This manuscript is not included in Engelsrsquos edition of Capital

Volume 24 Marx 1987 p 110 1965 p 6145 Marx 1965 p 135 Marx and Engels 1973 p 34

argued that Marx is a great lsquorethinkerrsquo of progress that his perspective is nota unilinear view (positive or negative) of human advancement (or regression)and that progress in this view is an aspect of the dialectic of negativitypervading the critique of political economy

Socialism the offspring of Capital

Marxrsquos lsquoCritique of Political Economyrsquo (lsquoCritiquersquo for short) is informed onecould say by what he wrote in two texts referring respectively to Spinoza andHegel In his Parisian manuscripts (1844) referring to Hegelrsquos PhenomenologyMarx underlined that its lsquogreatnessrsquo lay in the lsquodialectic of negativity as themoving and creating principlersquo2 Many years later in the first manuscript ofCapital Volume 2 Marx completed Spinozarsquos well-known phrase in this waylsquoall determination is negation and all negation is determinationrsquo3 Marx showshow capital creates the subjective and objective conditions of its own negationand simultaneously the elements of the new society destined to supersedeit ndash socialism In the lsquoCritiquersquo socialism (equivalently communism) signifiesa lsquosociety of free and associated producersrsquo based on the lsquoassociated mode ofproduction (AMP)rsquo This lsquounion of free individualsrsquo in which individuals aresubject neither to personal dependence as in pre-capitalism nor to materialdependence as in capitalism excludes by definition private property in themeans of production the commodity-form of the product of labour wage-labour and the state Here the freely associated lsquosocial individualsrsquo are themasters of their own social movement subjecting their social relations to theirown control4

The individualrsquos freedom from material dependence necessarily associatedwith the collective (social) domination of the conditions of production by thelsquounion of free individualsrsquo depends first of all on the existence of an abundanceof material wealth This is based on a high degree of development of theproductive forces at the universal level including the quantitative and qualitativedevelopment of the lsquogreatest productive forcersquo the proletariat ndash therevolutionary class ndash in its lsquoworld-historical existencersquo5 First the developmentof productive forces which is basically the lsquodevelopment of the wealth of

HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 46









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 47




















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 48









social production21


HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 49










HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 50







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 51






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 52








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 53












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 54











HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 55




56 Engels 1962 p 58357 Marx 1968 p 1563









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 56







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 47




















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 48









social production21


HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 49










HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 50







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 51






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 52








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 53












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 54











HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 55




56 Engels 1962 p 58357 Marx 1968 p 1563









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 56







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84




















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM 8









social production21


HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 49










HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 50







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 51






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 52








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 53












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 54











HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 55




56 Engels 1962 p 58357 Marx 1968 p 1563









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 56







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84









social production21


HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 49










HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM 0







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 51






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 52








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 53












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 54











HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 55




56 Engels 1962 p 58357 Marx 1968 p 1563









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 56







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84










HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 50







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 51






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 52








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 53












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 54











HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 55




56 Engels 1962 p 58357 Marx 1968 p 1563









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 56







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM 0
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 51






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 52








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 53












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 54











HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 55




56 Engels 1962 p 58357 Marx 1968 p 1563









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 56







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM 0
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 52








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 53












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 54











HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 55




56 Engels 1962 p 58357 Marx 1968 p 1563









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 56







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM 0





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 53












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 54











HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 55




56 Engels 1962 p 58357 Marx 1968 p 1563









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 56







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 54











HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 55




56 Engels 1962 p 58357 Marx 1968 p 1563









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 56







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84











HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 55




56 Engels 1962 p 58357 Marx 1968 p 1563









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 56







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84




56 Engels 1962 p 58357 Marx 1968 p 1563









HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 56







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84







HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 57




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84




62 Marx 1968 p 156763 In Shanin 1983 p 45





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 58
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 59





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84





69 In Howe 1972 p 517



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 60
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 61



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84



1980




HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 62








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84








HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 63






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 64




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84




the text
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 65


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84


















the labourer92



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 66

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 67












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 68






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 69
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 70
















our eyes114



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 71

















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 72














and degradation121



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 73
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 74












HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 75





HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 76




142 In Vogel 1996 p 37143 Marx 1965 p 1438



HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 77
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 78


















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 79



Conclusion
















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 80





References















HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 81



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 82



























HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 83






HIMA 143_f3_44-84I 81106 313 PM Page 84

Paresh Chattopadhyay Passage to Socialism:The Dialectic of

Documents

Transcript of Paresh Chattopadhyay Passage to Socialism:The Dialectic of