PHỤ LỤC
I. DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
Dialectical Materialism
by J Pickard
When
we discuss the method of Marxism, we are dealing with the ideas which
provide the basis for our activities in the labour movement, the
arguments we raise in the discussions we take part in, and the articles
we write. It is generally accepted that Marxism took its form from three
main roots.
One of those roots was the development of Marx's analysis of French politics, particularly the bourgeois revolution in France in the 1790s, and the subsequent class struggles during the early 19th century. Another of the roots of Marxism is what is called 'English economics', ie., Marx's analysis of the capitalist system as it developed in England.
The other root of Marxism, which was its starting point historically, is said to be 'German philosophy', and it is that aspect of it that I want to deal with here. To begin with, we say that the basis of Marxism is materialism.
One of those roots was the development of Marx's analysis of French politics, particularly the bourgeois revolution in France in the 1790s, and the subsequent class struggles during the early 19th century. Another of the roots of Marxism is what is called 'English economics', ie., Marx's analysis of the capitalist system as it developed in England.
The other root of Marxism, which was its starting point historically, is said to be 'German philosophy', and it is that aspect of it that I want to deal with here. To begin with, we say that the basis of Marxism is materialism.
That
is to say, Marxism starts from the idea that matter is the essence of
all reality, and that matter creates mind, and not vice versa. In other
words, thought and all the things that are said to derive from thought -
artistic ideas, scientific ideas, ideas of law, politics, morality and
so on - these things are in fact derived from the material world. The
'mind', ie., thought and thought processes, is a product of the brain;
and the brain itself, and therefore ideas, arose at a certain stage in
the development of living matter. It is a product of the material world.
Therefore,
to understand the real nature of human consciousness and society, as
Marx himself put it, it is a question "not of setting out from what men
say, imagine, conceive... in order to arrive at men in the flesh; but
setting out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real
life-process demonstrating the development of the ideological reflexes
and echoes of this life-process.
The
phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, images of
their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound
to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of
ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer
retain the semblance of independence.
They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first (non-materialist) method of approach the starting point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second (materialist) method, which conforms to real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness." (The German Ideology, Chapter one).
They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first (non-materialist) method of approach the starting point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second (materialist) method, which conforms to real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness." (The German Ideology, Chapter one).
A
materialist therefore seeks an explanation not only for ideas, but for
material phenomena themselves, in terms of material causes and not in
terms of supernatural intervention by gods and the like. And that is a
very important aspect of Marxism, which clearly sets it aside from the
methods of thinking and logic which have become established in
capitalist society. The development of scientific thought in the
European countries in the 17th and 18th centuries displayed some really
contradictory characteristics, which still remain typical of the
approach of bourgeois theoreticians today.
On
the one hand there was a development towards a materialist method.
Scientists looked for causes. They didn't just accept natural phenomena
as god-ordained miracles, they sought some explanation for them. But at
the same time these scientists did not yet possess a consistent or
worked-out materialist understanding; and very often, behind the
explanations for natural phenomena, they also saw, at the end of the
chain, the hand of God at work. Such an approach means accepting, or at
least leaving open the possibility, that the material world we live in
is ultimately shaped by forces from outside it, and that consciousness
or ideas come first, in the sense that they can exist independently of
the real world. This approach, which is the philosophical opposite of
materialism, we call 'idealism'.
According
to this approach, the development of mankind and of society - of art,
science, etc. - is dictated not by material processes but by the
development of ideas, by the perfection or degeneration of human
thought. And it is no accident that this general approach, whether
spoken or unspoken, pervades all the philosophies of capitalism.
Bourgeois philosophers and historians in general take the present system
for granted. They accept that capitalism is some kind of finished,
complete system which is incapable of being replaced by a new and higher
system. And they try to present all past history as the efforts of
lesser mortals to achieve the kind of 'perfect society' which they
believe capitalism has achieved or can achieve.
So, when we look at the work of some of the greatest bourgeois
scientists and thinkers in the past or even today, we can see how they
have tended to jumble up materialist ideas and idealist ideas in their
minds. For example Isaac Newton, who examined the laws of mechanics and
the laws of motion of planets and planetary bodies, didn't believe that
these processes were dictated by mind or thought. But what he did
believe was that an original impetus was given to all matter, and that
this initial push was provided by some sort of supernatural force, by
God.
In the
same way it is possible today for many biologists to accept the idea
that species of plants and animals evolved from one type to another, and
that mankind itself is a development from earlier species. And yet many
of them cling to the notion that there is a qualitative difference
between the human mind and the animal mind, consisting of the 'eternal
soul' which leaves the human body after death. Even some of the most
eminent scientists jumble up the materialist method with idealist ideas
of this kind, which are really backward, scientifically speaking, and
are more related to magic and superstition than to science.
Marxism
therefore represents a systematic and fundamental break with idealism
in all its forms, and the development in it place of a materialist
understanding of what is taking place in reality. Materialism in this
sense provides one of the basic starting points of Marxism. The other
basic starting point is dialectics.
DIALECTICS
Dialectics
is quite simply the logic of motion, or the logic of common sense to
activists in the movement. We all know that things don't stand still,
they change. But there is another form of logic which stands in
contradiction to dialectics, which we call 'formal logic', which again
is deeply embodied in capitalist society. It is perhaps necessary to
begin by describing briefly what this method implies. Formal logic is
based on what is known as the 'law of identity', which says that 'A'
equals 'A' - i.e. that things are what they are, and that they stand in
definite relationships to each other.
There
are other derivative laws based on the law of identity; for example, if
'A' equals 'A', it follows that 'A' cannot equal 'B', nor 'C'. On the
face of it this method of thinking may again seem like common sense; and
in fact it has been a very important tool, a very important device in
the development of science and in the industrial revolution which
created the present-day society. The development of mathematics and
basic arithmetic, for example, was based on formal logic. You couldn't
teach a child a table of multiplication or addition without using formal
logic. One plus one equals two, and not three.
And
in the same way, the method of formal logic was also the basis for the
development of mechanics, of chemistry, of biology, etc. For example, in
the 18th century the Scandinavian biologist Linnaeus developed a system
of classification for all known plants and animals. Linnaeus divided
all living things into classes, into orders, into families, in the order
of primates, in the family of hominids, in the genus of homo, and
represents the species homo sapiens. The system of classification
represented an enormous step forward in biology.
It
made possible, for the first time, a real systematic study of plants ad
animals, to compare and contrast animal and plant species. But it was
based on formal logic. It was based on saying that homo sapiens equals
homo sapiens; that musca domestica (the common housefly) equals musca
domestica; that an earthworm equals earthworm, and so on. It was, in
other words, a fixed and rigid system. It wasn't possible, according to
this system, for a species to equal to anything else, otherwise the
system of classification would have completely collapsed.
The
same applies in the field of chemistry, where Dalton's atomic theory
meant a huge stride forward. Dalton's theory was based on the idea that
matter is made up of atoms, and that each type of atom is completely
separate and peculiar to itself - that its shape and weight is peculiar
to that particular element and to none other. After Dalton there was a
more or less rigid classification of elements, again based on a rigid
formal logic, whereby it was said that an atom of hydrogen was an atom
of hydrogen, an atom of carbon was an atom of carbon, etc. And if any
atom could have been something else, this whole system of
classification, which has formed the basis of modern chemistry, would
have collapsed.
Now
it is important to see that there are limitations to the method of
formal logic. It is a useful everyday method, and it gives us useful
approximations for identifying things. For example, the Linnaean system
of classification is still useful to biologists; but since the work of
Charles Darwin in particular we can also see the weaknesses in that
system. Darwin pointed out, for instance, that in the Linnaean system
some types of plants are given separate names, as separate species, but
actually they are very similar to each other. And yet there are other
plants with the same name, of the same species, which are said to be
different varieties of the same plant, and yet they are very different
from each other.
So
even by the time of Charles Darwin it was possible to look at the
Linnaean system of classification and say, 'well, there's something
wrong somewhere'. And of course Darwin's own work provided a systematic
basis for the theory of evolution, which for the first time said it is
possible for one species to be transformed into another species. And
that left a big hole in the Linnaean system. Before Darwin it was
thought that the number of species on the planet was exactly the same as
the number of species created by God in the first six days of his
labour - except, of course, for those destroyed by the Flood - and that
those species had survived unchanged over the millennia. But Darwin
produced the idea of species changing, and so inevitably the method of
classification also had to be changed. What applies in the field of
biology applies also in the field of chemistry.
Chemists became aware, by the late 19th century, that it was possible
for one atomic element to become transformed into another. In other
words, atoms aren't completely separated and peculiar to themselves. We
know now that many atoms, many chemical elements, are unstable. For
example, uranium and other radioactive atoms will split in the course of
time and produce completely different atoms with completely different
chemical properties and different atomic weights. So we can see that the
method of formal logic was beginning to break down with the development
of science itself.
But
it is the method of dialectics which draws the conclusions of these
factual discoveries, and points out there are no absolute or fixed
categories, either in nature or in society. Whereas the formal logician
will say that 'A' equals 'A', the dialectician will say that 'A' does
not necessarily equal 'A'. Or to take a practical example that Trotsky
uses in his writings, one pound of sugar will not be precisely equal to
another pound of sugar. It is a good enough approximation if you want to
buy sugar in a shop, but if you look at it more carefully you will see
that it's actually wrong.
So
we need to have a form of understanding, a form of logic, that takes
into account the fact that things, and life, and society, are in a state
of constant motion and change. And that form of logic, of course, is
dialectics. But on the other hand it would be wrong to think that
dialectics ascribes to the universe a process of even and gradual
change.
The laws of dialectics -
and
here is a word of warning: these concepts sound more intimidating than
they really are - the laws of dialectics describe the manner in which
the processes of change in reality take place.
QUANTITY INTO QUALITY
QUANTITY INTO QUALITY
Let
us take, to begin with, the law of the transformation of quantity into
quality'. This law states that the processes of change - motion in the
universe - are not gradual, they are not even. Periods of relatively
gradual or slight change are interspersed with periods of enormously
rapid change - change which cannot be measured in terms of quantity but
only in terms of quality. To use an example from natural science again,
let us imagine the heating of water. You can actually measure
("quantify"), in terms of degrees of temperature, the change that takes
place in the water as you add heat to it. From, let us say, 10 degrees
centigrade (which is normal tap water) to about 98 degrees centigrade,
the change will remain quantitative; i.e., the water will remain water,
although it is getting warmer.
But
then comes a point where the change in the water becomes qualitative,
and the water turns into steam. You can no longer describe the change in
the water as it is heated from 98 degrees to 102 degrees in purely
quantitative terms. We have to say that a qualitative change (water into
steam) has come about as a result of an accumulation of quantitative
change (adding more and more heat). And that is what Marx and Engels
meant when they referred to the transformation of quantity into quality.
The same can be seen in the development of species. There is always a
great variety in every species. If we look around this room we can see
the degree of variety in homo sapiens.
That
variety can be measured quantitatively, for example, in terms of
height, weight, skin colour, length of nose, etc. But if evolutionary
changes progress to a certain point under the impact of environmental
changes, then those quantitative changes can add up to a qualitative
change. In other words, you would no longer characterise that change in
animal or plant species merely in terms of quantitative details.
The
species will have become qualitatively different. For example, we as a
species are qualitatively different from chimpanzees or gorillas, and
they in turn are qualitatively different from other species of mammals.
And those qualitative differences, those evolutionary leaps, have come
about as a result of quantitative changes in the past. The idea of
Marxism is that there will always be periods of gradual change
interspersed with periods of sudden change. In pregnancy, there is a
period of gradual development, and then a period of very sudden
development at the end.
The same applies to social development. Very often Marxists have used
the analogy of pregnancy to describe the development of wars and
revolutions. These represent qualitative leaps in social development;
but they come about as a result of the accumulation of quantitative
contradictions in society.
NEGATION OF THE NEGATION
A
second law of dialectics is 'the law of the negation of the negation',
and again it sounds more complicated than it really is. 'Negation' in
this sense simply means the passing away of one thing, the death of one
thing as it becomes transformed into another. For example, the
development of class society in the early history of humanity
represented the negation of the previous classless society. And in
future, with the development of communism, we will see another classless
society, that would mean the negation of all present class society. So
the law of the negation of the negation simply states that as one system
comes into existence, it forces another system to pass away. But that
doesn't mean that the second system is permanent or unchangeable.
That
second system itself becomes negated as a result of the further
developments and processes of change in society. As class society has
been the negation of classless society, so communist society will be the
negation of class society - the negation of the negation.
Another concept of dialectics is
the law of the 'interpenetration of opposite'.
This
law quite simply states that processes of change take place because of
contradictions - because of the conflicts between the different elements
that are embodied in all natural and social processes. Probably the
best example of the interpenetration of opposites in natural science is
the 'quantum theory'. This theory is based on the concept of energy
having a dual character - that for some purposes, according to some
experiments, energy exists in the form of waves, like electromagnetic
energy. But for other purposes energy manifests itself as particles.
In
other words, it is quite accepted among scientists that matter and
energy can actually exist in two different forms at one and the same
time - on the one hand as a kind of intangible wave, on the other hand
as a particle with a definite 'quantum' (amount) of energy embodied in
it. Therefore the basis of the quantum theory in modern physics is
contradiction. But there are many other contradictions known to science.
Electromagnetic
energy, for example, is set in motion through the effect of positive
and negative forces on each other. Magnetism depends on the existence of
a north pole and a south pole. These things cannot exist separately.
They exist and operate precisely because of the contradictory forces
being embodied in one and the same system.
Similarly,
every society today consists of different contradictory elements joined
together in one system, which makes it impossible for any society, any
country, to remain stable or unchanged. The dialectical method, in
contrast to the method of formal logic, trains us to identify these
contradictions, and thereby get to the bottom of the changes taking
place.
Marxists
are not embarrassed to say that there are contradictory elements within
every social process. On the contrary, it is precisely by recognising
and understanding the opposite interests embodied within the same
process that we are able to work out the likely direction of change, and
consequently to identify the aims and objectives which it is necessary
and possible in that situation to strive for from the working class
point of view.
At
the same time, Marxism doesn't abandon formal logic altogether. But it
is important to see, from the point of view of understanding social
developments, that formal logic must take second position. We all use
formal logic for everyday purposes. It gives us the necessary
approximations for communication and conducting our daily activities.
We
wouldn't be able to lead normal lives without paying lip service to
formal logic, without using the approximation that one equals one. But,
on the other hand, we have to see the limitations of formal logic - the
limitations that become evident in science when we study processes in
more depth and detail, and also when we examine social and political
processes more closely.
Dialectics
is very rarely accepted by scientists. Some scientists are
dialecticians, but the majority even today muddle up a materialist
approach with all sorts of formal and idealistic ideas. And if that's
the case in natural science, it is much, much more the case as far as
the social sciences are concerned.
The reasons for this are fairly obvious. If you try to examine society
and social processes from a scientific point of view, then you cannot
avoid coming up against the contradictions of the capitalist system and
the need for the socialist transformation of society.
But the universities, which are supposed to be centres of learning and study, are under capitalism far from being independent of the ruling class and the state. That is why natural science can still have a scientific method which leans towards dialectical materialism; but when it comes to the social sciences you will find in the colleges and universities some of the worst kinds of formalism and idealism possible.
But the universities, which are supposed to be centres of learning and study, are under capitalism far from being independent of the ruling class and the state. That is why natural science can still have a scientific method which leans towards dialectical materialism; but when it comes to the social sciences you will find in the colleges and universities some of the worst kinds of formalism and idealism possible.
That
is not unrelated to the vested interests of the professors and
academics who are highly paid. It is obvious and unavoidable that their
privileged position in society will have some reflection, some effect on
what they're supposed to teach. Their own views and prejudices will be
contained in the 'knowledge' which they pass on to their students, and
so on down to the level of the schools. Bourgeois historians, in
particular, are among the most shortsighted of all social scientists.
How many times have we seen examples of bourgeois historians who imagine
that history ended yesterday!
Here in Britain they all seem to admit the horrors of British
imperialism as far as the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries are concerned;
that British imperialism engaged in slave traffic; that it was
responsible for some of the most bloody subjugation of colonial peoples;
that it was also responsible for some of the worst exploitation of
British workers, including women and children, in the coal mines, the
cotton mills, and so on. They will accept all these iniquities - up
until yesterday. But when it comes to today, of course, then British
imperialism suddenly becomes democratic and progressive. And that is
completely one-sided, a completely lopsided view of history, which is
diametrically opposed to the method of Marxism.
The
attitude of Marx and Engels was to view social processes from the same
dialectical standpoint from which they viewed nature - from the
standpoint of the processes that are actually taking place. In our
everyday discussions and debates in the labour movement, we will often
come across people who are formalists.
Even many on the left will look at things in a completely rigid and formal way, without understanding the direction in which things are moving. The right wing in the labour movement, and also some on the left, believe that Marxist theory is a dogma, that 'theory' is like a 600 lb weight on the back of an activist, and the quicker you get rid of that weight, the more active and effective you can be. But that is a complete misconception of the whole nature of Marxist theory.
Even many on the left will look at things in a completely rigid and formal way, without understanding the direction in which things are moving. The right wing in the labour movement, and also some on the left, believe that Marxist theory is a dogma, that 'theory' is like a 600 lb weight on the back of an activist, and the quicker you get rid of that weight, the more active and effective you can be. But that is a complete misconception of the whole nature of Marxist theory.
In point of fact Marxism is the opposite of a dogma. It is precisely a
method for coming to grips with the processes of change that are taking
place around us. Nothing is fixed and nothing remains unchanged. It is
the formalists who see society as a still photograph, who can get
overawed by the situations they are faced with because they don't see
how and why things will change. It is this kind of approach that can
easily lead to a dogmatic acceptance of things as they are or as they
have been, without understanding the inevitability of change.
Marxist
theory is therefore an absolutely essential device for any activity
within the labour movement. We need to be consciously attuned to the
contradictory forces at work in the class struggle, in order to orient
ourselves to the way in which events are developing. Of course it isn't
always easy to free ourselves from the prevailing framework of thinking
in capitalist society and absorb the Marxist method. As Karl Marx said,
there is no royal road to science. You have to treat the hard path
sometimes in grappling with new political ideas.
But
the discussion and study of Marxist theory is an absolutely essential
part of the development of every activist. It is that theory alone that
will provide comrades with a compass and a map amidst all the
complexities of the struggle. It is all very well to be an activist. But
without a conscious understanding of the processes you are involved in,
you are no more effective than an explorer without a compass and a map.
And if you try to explore without scientific aids, you can be as
energetic as you like but sooner or later you will fall into a ravine or
a bog and disappear, as so many activists over the years have
unfortunately done.
The
idea of having a compass and a map is that you can take your bearings.
You can judge where you are at any particular time, where you are going
and where you will be. And that is the fundamental reason why we need to
get to grips with Marxist theory. It provides us with an absolutely
invaluable guide to action as far as our activities in the labour
movement are concerned.
J.Pickard
J.Pickard
http://www.marxist.com/what-is-dialectical-materialism.htm
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/JPickard.html
http://www.socialistappeal.org/flyers/intro_to_dm.pdf
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/JPickard.html
http://www.socialistappeal.org/flyers/intro_to_dm.pdf
II.The ABC of Materialist Dialectics
by Leon Trotsky
The
dialectic is neither fiction nor mysticism, but a science of the forms
of our thinking insofar as it is not limited to the daily problems of
life but attempts to arrive at an understanding of more complicated and
drawn-out processes. The dialectic and formal logic bear a relationship
similar to that between higher and lower mathematics.
I
will here attempt to sketch the substance of the problem in a very
concise form. The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from
the proposition that A is equal to A. This postulate is accepted as an
axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary
generalisations. But in reality A is not equal to A.
This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens - they are quite different from each other.
But,
one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of the
letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities: for instance,
a pound of sugar.
The objection is
beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound
of sugar - a more delicate scale always discloses a difference.
Again
one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is
this true - all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour,
etc. They are never equal to themselves.
A
sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself "at a
given moment." Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this
'axiom,' it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should
we conceive the word 'moment'? If it is an infinitesimal interval of
time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that
'moment' to inevitable changes.
Or
is the 'moment' a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of
time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an
uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a
fundamental element of existence.
Thus the axiom A is equal to A signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.
At
first glance it could seem that these "subtleties" are useless. In
reality they are of decisive significance. The axiom A is equal to A
appears on one hand to be the point of departure for all our knowledge,
on the other hand the point of departure for all the errors in our
knowledge.
To make use of the axiom A
is equal to A with impunity is possible only within certain limits.
When quantitative changes in A are negligible for the task at hand, then
we can presume A is equal to A. This is, for example, the manner in
which a buyer and a seller consider a pound of sugar.
We
consider the temperature of the sun likewise. Until recently we
considered the buying power of the dollar in the same way. But
quantitative changes beyond certain limits become converted into
qualitative. A pound of sugar subjected to the action of water or
kerosene ceases to be a pound of sugar. A dollar in the embrace of a
president ceases to be a dollar. To determine at the right moment the
critical point where quantity changes into quality is one of the most
important and difficult tasks in all the spheres of knowledge, including
sociology.
Every worker knows that
it is impossible to make two completely equal objects. In the
elaboration of bearing-brass into cone bearings, a certain deviation is
allowed for the cones which should not, however, go beyond certain
limits (this is called tolerance). By observing the norms of tolerance,
the cones are considered as being equal (A is equal to A). When the
tolerance is exceeded, the quantity goes over into quality; in other
words, the cone bearings become inferior or completely worthless.
Our
scientific thinking is only a part of our general practice, including
techniques. For concepts there also exists "tolerance" which is
established not by formal logic issuing from the axiom A is equal to A
but by dialectical logic issuing from the axiom that everything is
always changing. "Common sense" is characterized by the fact that it
systematically exceeds dialectical "tolerance."
Vulgar
thought operates with such concepts as capitalism, morals, freedom,
workers' state, etc., as fixed abstractions, presuming that capitalism
is equal to capitalism, morals are equal to morals, etc. Dialectical
thinking analyses all things and phenomena in their continuous change,
while determining in the material conditions of those changes that
critical limit beyond which A ceases to be A, a workers' state ceases to
be a workers' state.
The
fundamental flaw of vulgar thought lies in the fact that it wishes to
content itself with motionless imprints of reality, which consists of
eternal motion. Dialectical thinking gives to concepts, by means of
closer approximations, corrections, concretisations, a richness of
content and flexibility, I would even say a succulence, which to a
certain extent brings them close to living phenomena. Not capitalism in
general but a given capitalism at a given stage of development. Not a
workers' state in general, but a given workers' state in a backward
country in an Imperialist encirclement etc.
Dialectical
thinking is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion
picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not
outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to
the laws of motion. Dialectics does not deny the syllogism, but teaches
us to combine syllogisms in such a way as to bring our understanding
closer to the eternally changing reality.
Hegel
in his Logic established a series of laws: change of quantity into
quality, development through contradictions, conflict of content and
form, interruption of continuity, change of possibility into
inevitability, etc., which are just as important for theoretical thought
as is the simple syllogism for more elementary tasks.
Hegel
wrote before Darwin and before Marx. Thanks to the powerful impulse
given to thought by the French Revolution, Hegel anticipated the general
movement of science. But because it was only an anticipation, although
by a genius, it received from Hegel an idealistic character. Hegel
operated with ideological shadows as the ultimate reality. Marx
demonstrated that the movement of these ideological shadows reflected
nothing but the movement of material bodies.
We
call our dialectic materialist since its roots are neither in heaven
nor in the depths of our "free will" but in objective reality, in
nature. Consciousness grew out of the unconscious, psychology out of
physiology, the organic world out of the inorganic, the solar system out
of nebula.
On all the rungs of this
ladder of development the quantitative changes were transformed into
qualitative. Our thought including dialectical thought is only one of
the forms of the expression of changing matter. There is place within
this system for neither God, nor Devil, nor immortal soul nor eternal
norms of laws and morals. The dialectic of thinking, having grown out of
the dialectic of nature, possesses consequently a thoroughly
materialist character.
Darwinism,
which explained the evolution of species through quantitative
transformations passing into qualitative, was the highest triumph of the
dialectic in the whole field of organic matter. Another great triumph
was the discovery of the table of atomic weights of chemical elements
and further the transformation of one element into another. With these
transformations (species, elements, etc.) is closely linked the question
of classifications, just as important in the natural as in the social
sciences. Linnaeus's system (eighteenth century), utilizing as its
starting point the immutability of species, was limited to the
description and classification of plants according to their external
characteristics.
The infantile
period of botany is analogous to the infantile period of logic, since
the forms of our thought develop like everything that lives. Only
decisive repudiation of the idea of fixed species, only the study of the
history of the evolution of plants and their anatomy prepared the basis
for a really scientific classification.
Marx,
who in distinction from Darwin was a conscious dialectician, discovered
a basis for the scientific classification of human societies in the
development of their productive forces and the structure of the
relations of ownership, which constitute the anatomy of society. Marxism
substituted for the vulgar descriptive classification of societies and
states, which even up to now still flourishes in the universities, a
materialistic dialectical classification.
Only through using the method
of Marx is it possible correctly to determine both the concept of a
workers' state and the moment of its downfall.
All
this, as we see, contains nothing "metaphysical" or "scholastic," as
conceited ignorance affirms. Dialectical logic expresses the laws of
motion in contemporary scientific thought. The struggle against
materialist dialectics on the contrary expresses a distant past
conservatism of the petty bourgeoisie, the self-conceit of university
routinists and . . . a spark of hope for an afterlife.
Leon TrotskyIII.What is dialectical materialism?
Written by Rob Sewell
Saturday, 02 November 2002
We
are publishing the first of what will be a series of Marxist study
guides. The purpose is to provide a basic explanation of the fundamental
ideas of Marxism with a guide to further reading and points to help
organise discussion groups around these ideas. We are starting with
dialectical materialism, the philosophy of Marxism.
Introduction
Marxism, or Scientific Socialism, is the name given to the body of
ideas first worked out by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels
(1820-1895). In their totality, these ideas provide a fully worked-out
theoretical basis for the struggle of the working class to attain a
higher form of human society - socialism.
The study of Marxism falls under three main headings, corresponding
broadly to philosophy, social history and economics - Dialectical
Materialism, Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics. These are the
famous "Three component parts of Marxism" of which Lenin wrote.
The Education for Socialists series was launched to promote the study
of Marxism. They are intended to assist the student of Marxism by
providing an introduction to the subject matter, with suitable Marxist
texts that we hope will whet their appetite for further reading and
study. In the first of these Education for Socialists study guides, we
provide a selection of material on Dialectical Materialism. The other
"component parts", as well as other fundamental questions, will be dealt
with in future issues. The guides are suitable for individual study or
as the basis of a Marxist discussion group.
In beginning this study of Dialectical Materialism the editors are
publishing an introductory article by Rob Sewell. While this is a good
start to the subject, there is no substitute for proceeding from there
to tackle the philosophical works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky,
Plekhanov and others. Unfortunately Marx and Engels never wrote a
comprehensive work on dialectical materialism, although they intended to
do so. On his death, Engels left a pile of manuscripts, which he
intended to work up into an account of dialectics, or the laws of motion
of nature, human society and human thought. These were later published
as the Dialectics of Nature. Even in their rough, unfinished form these
notes give a brilliant insight into the method of Marxism and its
relation to the sciences.
The newer reader should not be put off by the sometimes difficult and
abstract ideas expressed in these writings. Whatever the initial
difficulty, a certain perseverance will pay just rewards. Marxism is a
science with its own terminology, and therefore makes heavy demands upon
the beginner. However, every serious worker and student knows that
nothing is worthwhile if attained without a degree of struggle and
sacrifice.
The theories of Marxism provide the thinking worker with a
comprehensive understanding. It is the duty of every worker and student
to conquer for himself or herself the theories of Marx and Engels, as an
essential prerequisite for the conquest of society by working people.
Contents
Introduction
Do we need a philosophy?
The Limits of Formal logic
Materialism versus idealism
Dialectics and Metaphysics
The law of quantity into quality (and vice versa)
The unity of Opposites
The Negation of the Negation
Hegel and Marx
Do we need a philosophy?
The Limits of Formal logic
Materialism versus idealism
Dialectics and Metaphysics
The law of quantity into quality (and vice versa)
The unity of Opposites
The Negation of the Negation
Hegel and Marx
We recognise that there are real obstacles in the path of the
worker's struggle for theory. A man or woman who is obliged to toil long
hours in work, who has not had the benefit of a decent education and
consequently lacks the habit of reading, finds great difficulty in
absorbing some of the more complex ideas, especially at the outset. Yet
it was for workers that Marx and Engels wrote, and not for "clever"
academics. "Every beginning is difficult" no matter what science we are
talking about. To the class conscious worker who is prepared to
persevere, one promise can be made: once the initial effort is made to
come to grips with unfamiliar and new ideas, the theories of Marxism
will be found to be basically straight-forward and simple.
Once the basic concepts of Marxism are conquered, they open up a
whole new outlook on politics, the class struggle, and every aspect of
life.
As a further introduction to dialectics, we are also republishing in
this issue Trotsky's ACB of Materialist Dialectics, also by Trotsky A
Triumph of Dialectical Materialism, an extract from Lenin's The Three
Sources and Three Components parts of Marxism, Lenin's Elements of
Dialectics, and an extract from Engels' Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of
Classical German Philosophy.
For further study, we recommend the following works by Engels,
especially chapters 12 and 13 in Anti-Duhring, the introduction to the
Dialectics of Nature, and Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical
German Philosophy.
Those who wish to go into greater depth should try reading
Plekhanov's The Monist View of History, Lenin's Materialism and
Empirio-Criticism, as well as his Philosophical Notebooks (Collected
Works, Vol. 38). Although these books are not an easy read, they are
nonetheless very rewarding if studied thoroughly.
The editors,
October 2002
---
Do we need a philosophy?
Scientific socialism or Marxism is composed of three component parts:
Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics.
This pamphlet, the first in this series, is an introduction to the
concepts of Dialectical Materialism - the method of Marxism.
For those unacquainted with Marxist philosophy, dialectical
materialism may seem an obscure and difficult concept. However, for
those prepared to take the time to study this new way of looking at
things, they will discover a revolutionary outlook that will allow them
an insight into and understanding of the mysteries of the world in which
we live. A grasp of dialectical materialism is an essential
prerequisite in understanding the doctrine of Marxism. Dialectical
materialism is the philosophy of Marxism, which provides us with a
scientific and comprehensive world outlook. It is the philosophical
bedrock - the method - on which the whole of Marxist doctrine is
founded.
According to Engels, dialectics was "our best working tool and our
sharpest weapon." And for us also, it is a guide to action and our
activities within the working class movement. It is similar to a compass
or map, which allows us to get our bearings in the turmoil of events,
and permits us to understand the underlying processes that shape our
world.
Whether we like it or not, consciously or unconsciously, everyone has a philosophy. A philosophy is simply a way of looking at the world. Under capitalism, without our own scientific philosophy, we will inevitably adopt the dominant philosophy of the ruling class and the prejudices of the society in which we live. "Things will never change" is a common refrain, reflecting the futility of changing things and of the need to accept our lot in life. There are other such proverbs as "There is nothing new under the sun", and "History always repeats itself", which reflect the same conservative outlook. Such ideas, explained Marx, form a crushing weight on the consciousness of men and women.
Whether we like it or not, consciously or unconsciously, everyone has a philosophy. A philosophy is simply a way of looking at the world. Under capitalism, without our own scientific philosophy, we will inevitably adopt the dominant philosophy of the ruling class and the prejudices of the society in which we live. "Things will never change" is a common refrain, reflecting the futility of changing things and of the need to accept our lot in life. There are other such proverbs as "There is nothing new under the sun", and "History always repeats itself", which reflect the same conservative outlook. Such ideas, explained Marx, form a crushing weight on the consciousness of men and women.
Just as the emerging bourgeoisie in its revolution against feudal
society challenged the conservative ideas of the old feudal aristocracy,
so the working class, in its fight for a new society, needs to
challenge the dominant outlook of its own oppressor, the capitalist
class. Of course, the ruling class, through its monopoly control of the
mass media, the press, school, university and pulpit, consciously
justifies its system of exploitation as the most "natural form of
society". The repressive state machine, with its "armed bodies of men",
is not sufficient to maintain the capitalist system. The dominant ideas
and morality of bourgeois society serve as a vital defence of the
material interests of the ruling class. Without this powerful ideology,
the capitalist system could not last for any length of time.
"In one way or another," states Lenin, "all official and liberal science defends wage-slavery… To expect science to be impartial in a wage-slave society is as foolishly naïve as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers' wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital."
Official bourgeois ideology conducts a relentless war against
Marxism, which it correctly sees as a mortal danger to capitalism. The
bourgeois scribes and professors pour out a continual stream of
propaganda in an attempt to discredit Marxism - particularly the
dialectic. This has especially been the case since the collapse of the
Berlin Wall, and the ferocious ideological offensive against Marxism,
communism, revolution, and such like. "Marxism is dead", they repeatedly
proclaim like some religious incantation. But Marxism refuses to lie
down in front of these witch doctors! Marxism reflects the unconscious
will of the working class to change society. Its fate is linked to that
of the proletariat.
The apologists of capitalism, together with their shadows in the
labour movement, constantly assert that their system is a natural and
permanent form of society. On the other hand, the dialect asserts that
nothing is permanent and all things perish in time. Such a revolutionary
philosophy constitutes a profound threat to the capitalist system and
therefore must be discredited at all cost. This explains the daily
churning out of anti-Marxist propaganda. But each real step forward in
science and knowledge serves to confirm the correctness of the
dialectic. For millions of people the growing crisis of capitalism
increasingly demonstrates the validity of Marxism. The objective
situation is forcing working people to seek a way out of the impasse.
"Life teaches", remarked Lenin. Today, to use the famous words of the
Communist Manifesto, "A spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of
communism."
In the fight for the emancipation of the working class, Marxism also
wages a relentless war against capitalism and its ideology, which
defends and justifies its system of exploitation, the "market economy".
But Marxism does more than this. Marxism provides the working class with
"an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of
superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression." (Lenin) It
seeks to reveal the real relationships that exist under capitalism and
arms the working class with an understanding of how it can achieve its
own emancipation. Dialectical materialism, to use the words of the
Russian Marxist Plekhanov, is more than an outlook, it is a "philosophy
of action."
The Limits of Formal logic
Men and women attempt to think in a rational manner. Logic (from the
Greek logos, meaning word or reason) is the science of the laws of
thinking. Whatever thoughts we think, and whatever language they are
expressed in, they must satisfy the requirements of reasoning. These
requirements give rise to laws of thought, to the principles of logic.
It was the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 - 322BC) more than 2,000
years ago who formulated the present system of formal logic - a system
that is the basis of our educational establishments to this very day. He
categorised the method of how we should reason correctly and how
statements are combined to arrive at judgements, and from them, how
conclusions are drawn. He laid down three basic laws of logic: the
principle of Identity (A = A), of contradiction (A cannot be A and
not-A), and the excluded middle (A is either A or non-A; there is no
middle alternative).
Formal logic has held sway for more than two millennia and was the
basis of experiment and the great advances of modern science. The
development of mathematics was based on this logic. You cannot teach a
child to add up without it. One plus one equals two, not three. Formal
logic may seem like common sense and is responsible for the execution of
a million and one everyday things, but - and this is the big but - it
has its limits. When dealing with drawn out processes or complicated
events, formal logic becomes a totally inadequate way of thinking. This
is particularly the case in dealing with movement, change and
contradiction. Formal logic regards things as fixed and motionless. Of
course, this is not to deny the everyday usefulness of formal logic, on
the contrary, but we need to recognise it limits.
"The dialectic is neither fiction or mysticism," wrote Leon Trotsky, "but a science of the forms of our thinking insofar as it is not limited to the daily problems of life but attempts to arrive at an understanding of more complicated and drawn-out processes. The dialectic and formal logic bear a relationship similar to that between higher and lower mathematics." (The ABC of Materialist Dialectics)
With the development of modern science, the system of classification
(of Linnaeus) was based on formal logic, where all living things were
divided into species and orders. This constituted a great leap forward
for biology compared to the past. However, it was a fixed and rigid
system, with its rigid categories, which over time revealed its limits.
Darwin in particular showed that through evolution it was possible for
one species to be transformed into another species. Consequently, the
rigid system of classification had to be changed to allow for this new
understanding of reality.
In effect, the system of formal logic broke down. It could not cope
with these contradictions. On the other hand, dialectics - the logic of
change - explains that there are no absolute or fixed categories in
nature or society. Engels had great fun in pointing to the duck-billed
platypus, this transitional form, and asking where it fitted into the
rigid scheme of things!
Only dialectical materialism can explain the laws of evolution and
change, which sees the world not as a complex of ready-made things, but
as a complex of processes, which go through an uninterrupted
transformation of coming into being and passing away. For Hegel, the old
logic was exactly like a child's game, which sought to make pictures
out of jigsaw pieces. "The fundamental flaw in vulgar thought", wrote
Trotsky, "lies in the fact that it wishes to content itself with
motionless imprints of reality which consists of eternal motion."
Before we look at the main laws of dialectical materialism, let us take a look at the origins of the materialist outlook.
Materialism versus idealism
"The philosophy of Marxism is materialism", wrote Lenin. Philosophy
itself fits into two great ideological camps: materialism and idealism.
Before we proceed, even these terms need an explanation. To begin with,
materialism and idealism have nothing whatsoever in common with their
everyday usage, where materialism is associated with material greed and
swindling (in short, the morality of present-day capitalism) and
idealism with high ideals and virtue. Far from it!
Philosophical materialism is the outlook which explains that there is
only one material world. There is no Heaven or Hell. The universe,
which has always existed and is not the creation of any supernatural
being, is in the process of constant flux. Human beings are a part of
nature, and evolved from lower forms of life, whose origins sprung from a
lifeless planet some 3.6 billion or so years ago.
With the evolution of life, at a certain stage, came the development of animals with a nervous system, and eventually human beings with a large brain. With humans emerged human thought and consciousness. The human brain alone is capable of producing general ideas, i.e., thinking. Therefore matter, which existed eternally, existed and still exists independently of the mind and human beings. Things existed long before any awareness of them arose or could have arisen on the part of living organisms.
With the evolution of life, at a certain stage, came the development of animals with a nervous system, and eventually human beings with a large brain. With humans emerged human thought and consciousness. The human brain alone is capable of producing general ideas, i.e., thinking. Therefore matter, which existed eternally, existed and still exists independently of the mind and human beings. Things existed long before any awareness of them arose or could have arisen on the part of living organisms.
For materialists there is no consciousness apart from the living
brain, which is part of a material body. A mind without a body is an
absurdity. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is the
highest product of matter. Ideas are simply a reflection of the
independent material world that surrounds us. Things reflected in a
mirror do not depend on this reflection for their existence. "All ideas
are taken from experience, are reflections - true or distorted - of
reality," states Engels. Or to use the words of Marx, "Life is not
determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life."
Marxists do not deny that mind, consciousness, thought, will, feeling
or sensation are real. What materialists deny is that the thing called
"the mind" exists separately from the body. Mind is not distinct from
the body. Thinking is the product of the brain, which is the organ of
thought.
Yet this does not mean that our consciousness is a lifeless mirror of
nature. Human beings relate to their surroundings; they are aware of
their surroundings and react accordingly; in turn, the environment
reacts back upon them. While rooted in material conditions, human beings
generalise and think creatively. They in turn change their material
surroundings.
On the other hand, philosophical idealism states that the material
world is not real but is simply the reflection of the world of ideas.
There are different forms of idealism, but all essentially explain that
ideas are primary and matter, if it exists at all, secondary. For the
idealists, ideas are dissevered from matter, from nature. This is
Hegel's conception of the Absolute Idea or what amounts to God.
Philosophical idealism opens the road, in one way or another, to the
defence of or support for religion and superstition. Not only is this
outlook false, it is also profoundly conservative, leading us to the
pessimistic conclusion that we can never understand the "mysterious
ways" of the world. Whereas materialism understands that human beings
not only observe the real world, but can change it, and in doing so,
change themselves.
The idealist view of the world grew out of the division of labour
between physical and mental labour. This division constituted an
enormous advance as it freed a section of society from physical work and
allowed them the time to develop science and technology. However, the
further removed from physical labour, the more abstract became their
ideas. And when thinkers separate their ideas from the real world, they
become increasingly consumed by abstract "pure thought" and end up with
all types of fantasies. Today, cosmology is dominated by complex
abstract mathematical conceptions, which have led to all sorts of weird
and wonderful erroneous theories: the Big Bang, beginning of time,
parallel universes, etc. Every break with practice leads to a one-sided
idealism.
The materialist outlook has a long history stretching back to the
ancient Greeks of Anaxagoras (c.500 - 428 BC) and Democritus (c.460 -
c.370 BC). With the collapse of Ancient Greece, this rational outlook
was cut across for a whole historical epoch, and only after the
reawakening of thought following the demise of the Christian Middle Ages
was there a revival of philosophy and natural science. From the
seventeenth century, the home of modern materialism was England. "The
real progenitor of English materialism is Bacon," wrote Marx. The
materialism of Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) was then systemised and
developed by Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679), whose ideas were in turn
developed by John Locke (1632 - 1704).
The latter already thought it possible that matter could posses the faculty of thinking. It is no accident that these advances in human thought coincided with the rise of the bourgeoisie and great advances in science, particularly mechanics, astronomy and medicine. These great thinkers in turn provided the breakthrough for the brilliant school of French materialists of the eighteenth century, most notably René Descartes (1596 - 1650).
The latter already thought it possible that matter could posses the faculty of thinking. It is no accident that these advances in human thought coincided with the rise of the bourgeoisie and great advances in science, particularly mechanics, astronomy and medicine. These great thinkers in turn provided the breakthrough for the brilliant school of French materialists of the eighteenth century, most notably René Descartes (1596 - 1650).
It was their materialism and rationalism that became the creed of the
Great French Revolution of 1789. These revolutionary thinkers
recognised no external authority. Everything from religion to natural
science, from society to political institutions, was subjected to the
most searching criticism. Reason became the measure of everything.
This materialist philosophy, consistently championed by Holbach (1723
- 1789) and Helvetius, was a revolutionary philosophy. "The universe is
the vast unity of everything that is, everywhere it shows us only
matter in movement," states Holbach. "This is all that there is and it
displays only an infinite and continuous chain of causes and actions;
some of these causes we know, since they immediately strike our senses;
others we do not know since they act on us only by means of
consequences, quite remote from first causes."
This rational philosophy was an ideological reflection of the
revolutionary bourgeoisie's struggle against the church, the aristocracy
and the absolute monarchy. It represented a fierce attack on the
ideology of the Old Order. In the end, the kingdom of Reason became
nothing more than the idealised kingdom of the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois
property became one of the essential rights of man. The revolutionary
materialists paved the way for the new bourgeois society and the
domination of new private property forms. "Different times, different
circumstances, a different philosophy," stated Denis Diderot (1713 -
1784).
The new materialism, although a revolutionary advance, tended to be
very rigid and mechanical. These new philosophers attacked the church
and denied the self-sufficiency of the soul and held that man was simply
a material body as all other animals and inorganic bodies. Man was
regarded as a more complex and more delicate mechanism than other
bodies. According to La Mettrie (1709 - 1751) in his principal work Man
the Machine, "We are instruments endowed with feeling and memory."
For the French materialists the origin of knowledge - the discovery
of objective truth - lay through the action of nature on our senses. The
planets and man's place within the solar system and nature itself was
fixed. For them, it was a clockwork world, where everything had its
logical static place, and where the impulse for movement came from
outside. The whole approach, while materialist, was mechanical, and
failed to grasp the living reality of the world. It could not grasp the
universe as a process, as matter undergoing continuous change. This
weakness led to the false dichotomy between the material world and the
world of ideas. And this dualism opened the door to idealism.
Others held to a monist view that the universe was one system which
was not pure spirit or pure matter. Spinoza was the first to work out
such a system. While he saw the need for a God, the universe was one
system, which was wholly material from end to end.
Dialectics and Metaphysics
The Marxist view of the world is not only materialist, but also
dialectical. For its critics, the dialectic is portrayed as something
totally mystical, and therefore irrelevant. But this is certainly not
the case. The dialectical method is simply an attempt to understand more
clearly our real interdependent world. Dialectics, states Engels in
Anti-Duhring, "is nothing more than the science of the general laws of
motion and development of nature, human society and thought." Put
simply, it is the logic of motion.
It is obvious to most people that we do not live in a static world.
In fact, everything in nature is in a state of constant change.
"Motion is the mode of existence of matter," states Engels. "Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be." The earth revolves continually around its axis, and in turn itself revolves around the sun. This results in day and night, and the different seasons that we experience throughout the year. We are born, grow up, grow old and eventually die. Everything is moving, changing, either rising and developing or declining and dying away. Any equilibrium is only relative, and only has meaning in relation to other forms of motion.
"Motion is the mode of existence of matter," states Engels. "Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be." The earth revolves continually around its axis, and in turn itself revolves around the sun. This results in day and night, and the different seasons that we experience throughout the year. We are born, grow up, grow old and eventually die. Everything is moving, changing, either rising and developing or declining and dying away. Any equilibrium is only relative, and only has meaning in relation to other forms of motion.
"When we consider and reflect upon nature at large or the history of mankind or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions, permutations and combinations, in which nothing remains what, where, and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being, and passes away," remarks Engels. "We see, therefore, at first the picture as a whole, with its individual parts still more or less kept in the background; we observe the movements, transitions, connections rather than the things that move, combine, and are connected. This primitive, naïve but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away."
The Greeks made a whole series of revolutionary discoveries and
advances in natural science. Anaximander made a map of the world, and
wrote a book on cosmology, from which only a few fragments survive. The
Antikythera mechanism, as it is called, appears to be the remains of a
clockwork planetarium dating back to the first century BC. Given the
limited knowledge of the time, many were anticipations and inspired
guesses. Under slave society, these brilliant inventions could not be
put to productive use and were simply regarded as playthings for
amusement.
The real advances in natural science took place in the mid-fifteenth century. The new methods of investigation meant the division of nature into its individual parts, allowing objects and processes to be classified. While this provided massive amount of data, objects were analysed in isolation and not in their living environment. This produced a narrow, rigid, metaphysical mode of thought that has become the hallmark of empiricism. "The Facts" became the all important feature. "Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life," states the Dickensian character Thomas Gradgrind in Hard Times.
The real advances in natural science took place in the mid-fifteenth century. The new methods of investigation meant the division of nature into its individual parts, allowing objects and processes to be classified. While this provided massive amount of data, objects were analysed in isolation and not in their living environment. This produced a narrow, rigid, metaphysical mode of thought that has become the hallmark of empiricism. "The Facts" became the all important feature. "Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life," states the Dickensian character Thomas Gradgrind in Hard Times.
"To the metaphysician things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are
isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each
other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once and for
all", states Engels. "He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses.
'His communication is "yea, yea; nay, nay"; for whatsoever is more than
these cometh of evil.' For him a thing either exists or does not exist;
a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive
and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in
rigid antithesis one to another.
"At first sight this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is that of so-called sound common sense. Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit beyond which it becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions. In the contemplation of individual things it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence it forgets the beginning and the end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the wood for the trees."
Engels goes on to explain that for everyday purposes we know whether
an animal is alive or not. But upon closer examination, we are forced to
recognise that is not a simple straightforward question. On the
contrary, it is a complex question. There are raging debates even today
as to when life begins in the mothers' womb. Likewise, it is just as
difficult to say when the exact moment of death occurs, as physiology
proves that death is not a single instantaneous act, but a protracted
process.
In the brilliant words of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, "It is the same thing in us that is living and dead, asleep and awake, young and old; each changes place and becomes the other. We step and we do not step into the same stream; we are and we are not."
In the brilliant words of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, "It is the same thing in us that is living and dead, asleep and awake, young and old; each changes place and becomes the other. We step and we do not step into the same stream; we are and we are not."
Not everything is as appears on the surface of things. Every species,
every aspect of organic life, is every moment the same and not the
same. It develops by assimilating matter from without and simultaneously
discards other unwanted matter; continually some cells die, while
others are renewed. Over time, the body is completely transformed,
renewed from top to bottom. Therefore, every organic entity is both
itself and yet something other than itself.
This phenomenon cannot be explained by metaphysical thought or formal
logic. This approach is incapable of explaining contradiction. This
contradictory reality does not enter the realm of common sense
reasoning. Dialectics, on the other hand, comprehends things in their
connection, development, and motion. As far as Engels was concerned,
"Nature is the proof of dialectics."
Here is how Engels described the rich processes of change in his book the Dialectics of Nature:
"Matter moves in an eternal cycle, completing its trajectory in a period so vast that in comparison with it our earthly year is as nothing; in a cycle in which the period of highest development, namely the period of organic life with its crowning achievement - self-consciousness, is a space just as comparatively minute in the history of life and self-consciousness; in a cycle in which every particular form of the existence of matter - be it the sun or a nebular, a particular animal or animal-species, a chemical combination or decomposition - is equally in transition; in a cycle in which nothing is eternal, except eternally changing, eternally moving matter and the laws of its movement and change.
But however often and pitilessly this cycle may be accomplished in time and space, however many countless suns and earths may arise and fall, however long it may be necessary to wait until in some solar system, on some planet appear conditions suitable for organic life, however many countless beings may fall and rise before, out of their midst, develop animals with a thinking brain that find an environment that permits them to live, be it even only for a short period, we are, nevertheless, assured that matter in all its changes remains eternally one and the same, that not one of its attributes may perish, and that that same iron necessity which compels the destruction of the highest early bloom of matter - the thinking spirit - also necessitates its rebirth at some other place, at some other time."
Along with, and following the French philosophy of the eighteenth
century, arose a new radical German philosophy. Through Emmanuel Kant,
the culmination of this philosophy was epitomised by the system of
George F. Hegel, who had greatly admired the French Revolution. Hegel,
although an idealist, was the most encyclopaedic mind of his age. The
great contribution of this genius was the rescuing of the dialectical
mode of thought originally developed by the ancient Greek philosophers
some 2,000 years before.
"Changes in being consist not only in the fact that one quantity passes into another quantity, but also that quality passes into quantity, and vice versa," wrote Hegel. "Each transition of the latter kind represents an interruption, and gives the phenomenon a new aspect, qualitatively distinct from the previous one. Thus water when cooled grows hard, not gradually… but all at once; having already cooled to freezing-point, it can still remain a liquid only if preserves a tranquil condition, and then the slightest shock is sufficient for it suddenly to become hard… In the world of moral phenomena… there take place the same changes of quantitative into qualitative, and differences in qualities there also are founded upon quantitative differences. Thus, a little less, a little more constitutes that limit beyond which frivolity ceases and there appears something quite different, crime…" (Science of Logic)
Hegel's works are full of references and examples of dialectics.
Unfortunately, Hegel was not only an idealist, but wrote in the most
obscure and abstruse fashion imaginable, making his works very difficult
to read. Lenin, while re-reading Hegel in exile during the First World
War, wrote: "I am in general trying to read Hegel materialistically:
Hegel is materialism which has been stood on its head (according to
Engels) - that is to say, I cast aside for the most part God, the
Absolute, the Pure Idea, etc." Lenin was greatly impressed by Hegel,
and, despite his idealism, later recommended that young communists study
his writings for themselves.
The young Marx and Engels were followers of the great Hegel. They
learned a colossal amount from this teacher. He opened their eyes to a
new outlook on the world epitomised by the dialectic. By embracing the
dialectic, Hegel freed history from metaphysics. For the dialectic,
there is nothing final, absolute, or sacred. It reveals the transitory
character of everything. However, Hegel was limited by his knowledge,
the knowledge of his age, and the fact he was an idealist.
He regarded thoughts within the brain not as more or less abstract pictures of real things and processes, but as realisations of the "Absolute Idea", existing from eternity. Hegel's idealism turned reality on its head.
He regarded thoughts within the brain not as more or less abstract pictures of real things and processes, but as realisations of the "Absolute Idea", existing from eternity. Hegel's idealism turned reality on its head.
Nevertheless, Hegel systematically outlined the important laws of change, touched upon earlier.
The law of quantity into quality (and vice versa)
"It has been said that there are no sudden leaps in nature, and it is a common notion that things have their origin through gradual increase or decrease," states Hegel. "But there is also such a thing as sudden transformation from quantity to quality. For example, water does not become gradually hard on cooling, becoming first pulpy and ultimately attaining a rigidity of ice, but turns hard at once. If temperature be lowered to a certain degree, the water is suddenly changed into ice, i.e., the quantity - the number of degrees of temperature - is transformed into quality - a change in the nature of the thing." (Logic)
This is the cornerstone of understanding change. Change or evolution
does not take place gradually in a straight smooth line. Marx compared
the social revolution to an old mole burrowing busily beneath the
ground, invisible for long periods, but steadily undermining the old
order and later emerging into the light in a sudden overturn. Even
Charles Darwin believed that his theory of evolution was essentially
gradual and that the gaps in the fossil record did not represent any
breaks or leaps in evolution, and would be "filled in" by further
discoveries. In this Darwin was wrong.
Today, new theories, essentially dialectical, have been put forward to explain the leaps in evolution. Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge termed their dialectical theory of evolution "punctuated equilibria". They explained that there were long periods of evolution where there were no apparent changes taking place, then suddenly, a new life form or forms emerged. In other words, quantitative differences gave rise to a qualitative change, leading to new species. The whole of development is characterised by breaks in continuity, leaps, catastrophes and revolutions.
Today, new theories, essentially dialectical, have been put forward to explain the leaps in evolution. Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge termed their dialectical theory of evolution "punctuated equilibria". They explained that there were long periods of evolution where there were no apparent changes taking place, then suddenly, a new life form or forms emerged. In other words, quantitative differences gave rise to a qualitative change, leading to new species. The whole of development is characterised by breaks in continuity, leaps, catastrophes and revolutions.
The emergence of single-cellular life in the earth's oceans some 3.6
billion years ago was a qualitative leap in the evolution of matter. The
"Cambrian explosion", some 600 million years ago, where complex
multicellular life with hard parts exploded onto the scene was a further
qualitative leap forward in evolution. In the lower Palaeozoic, some
400 to 500 million years ago, the first vertebrate fish emerged. This
revolutionary design became dominant and advanced through the amphibians
(which lived both in water and on land), through reptiles, and finally
branched off into warm-blooded creatures: birds and mammals. Such
revolutionary leaps culminated in human beings that have the capacity to
think. Evolution is a long process whereby an accumulation of changes
inside and outside the organism leads to a leap, a qualitatively higher
state of development.
Just as colossal subterranean pressures that accumulate and
periodically break through the earth's crust in the form of earthquakes,
so gradual changes in the consciousness of workers lead to an explosion
in the class struggle. A strike in a factory is not caused by outside
"agitators", but is produced by an accumulation of changes within the
factory that finally pushes the workforce to strike. The "cause" of the
strike maybe something quite small and incidental, a tea-break for
instance, but it has become "the last straw that breaks the camel's
back", to use a popular (dialectical) expression. It has become the
catalyst whereby quantity changes into quality.
Today, a whole series of left wing electoral victories within the
British trade unions are a product of a long accumulation of discontent
within the union rank and file. Twenty years of bitter attacks on the
working class has resulted in these changes at the top of the trade
unions. Only those armed with a Marxist philosophy could foresee this
development, which is rooted in the changing objective situation. These
changes of mood, which are already taking place in the trade unions,
will inevitably be reflected within the Labour Party at a certain stage
that will result in the demise of the right wing under Blair. The
ultra-lefts on the fringes of the Labour movement have continually
written off the Labour Party as something that could never be changed.
They are incapable of thinking dialectically, and have an empirical and formalistic outlook that only sees the surface of reality. They fail to draw a distinction between appearance and reality - between the immediate appearance evident to observation and the hidden processes, interconnections and laws that underlie the observed facts. In other words, they are blind to the subterranean processes taking place before their very eyes. "Blairism dominates the Labour Party!" they exclaim and throw up their hands in despair.
They are under the spell of formal logic, and do not understand the process at work that will inevitably undermine Blairism, and lead to its collapse, as night follows day. As they wrote off the right wing unions in the past, they write off the Labour Party today. On the basis of events and the pressures of the leftward moving trade union movement, the Labour Party, given its roots in the trade unions, will inevitably move in a similar direction.
They are incapable of thinking dialectically, and have an empirical and formalistic outlook that only sees the surface of reality. They fail to draw a distinction between appearance and reality - between the immediate appearance evident to observation and the hidden processes, interconnections and laws that underlie the observed facts. In other words, they are blind to the subterranean processes taking place before their very eyes. "Blairism dominates the Labour Party!" they exclaim and throw up their hands in despair.
They are under the spell of formal logic, and do not understand the process at work that will inevitably undermine Blairism, and lead to its collapse, as night follows day. As they wrote off the right wing unions in the past, they write off the Labour Party today. On the basis of events and the pressures of the leftward moving trade union movement, the Labour Party, given its roots in the trade unions, will inevitably move in a similar direction.
Marx stressed that the task of science is always to proceed from the
immediate knowledge of appearances to the discovery of reality, of the
essence, of the laws underlying the appearances. Marx's Capital is a
fine example of this method. "The way of thinking of the vulgar
economists", wrote Marx to Engels, "derives from the fact that it is
always only the immediate form in which relationships appear which is
reflected in the brain, and not their inner connections." (June 27,
1867)
The same could be said of those who in the past wrote off the Soviet
Union as "state capitalist". Stalinism had nothing in common with
socialism; it was a repressive regime, where workers had less rights
than in the west. However, instead of a scientific analysis of the
Soviet Union, they simply pronounced it state capitalist. As Trotsky
explained the theorists of state capitalism looked at the USSR through
the eyes of formal logic. It was either-or, black or white. The USSR was
either a wonderful socialist state, as the Stalinists said, or it must
be a (state) capitalist state. Such thinking is pure formalism.
They never understood the possibility of a degeneration of the workers' state into a chronically deformed variant of proletarian rule, as explained by Trotsky. It is clear that the revolution, due to its isolation in a backward country, went through a process of degeneration. However, while the nationalised planned economy remained, not everything was lost. The bureaucracy was not a new ruling class, but a parasitic growth on the state, which usurped political power. Only a new political revolution could eliminate the bureaucracy and reintroduce soviets and workers' democracy.
They never understood the possibility of a degeneration of the workers' state into a chronically deformed variant of proletarian rule, as explained by Trotsky. It is clear that the revolution, due to its isolation in a backward country, went through a process of degeneration. However, while the nationalised planned economy remained, not everything was lost. The bureaucracy was not a new ruling class, but a parasitic growth on the state, which usurped political power. Only a new political revolution could eliminate the bureaucracy and reintroduce soviets and workers' democracy.
The supporters of state capitalism tied themselves in knots,
confusing counterrevolution with revolution and vice versa. In
Afghanistan, they supported the reactionary fundamentalist mujahideen as
"freedom fighters" against Russian "imperialism". With the collapse of
the USSR and the move to restore capitalism from 1991 onwards, they
remained neutral in face of real capitalist counterrevolution.
The unity of Opposites
"The contradiction, however, is the source of all movement and life; only in so far as it contains a contradiction can anything have movement, power, and effect." (Hegel). "In brief", states Lenin, "dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics…"
The world in which we live is a unity of contradictions or a unity of
opposites: cold-heat, light-darkness, Capital-Labour, birth-death,
riches-poverty, positive-negative, boom-slump, thinking-being,
finite-infinite, repulsion-attraction, left-right, above-below,
evolution-revolution, chance-necessity, sale-purchase, and so on.
The fact that two poles of a contradictory antithesis can manage to
coexist as a whole is regarded in popular wisdom as a paradox. The
paradox is a recognition that two contradictory, or opposite,
considerations may both be true. This is a reflection in thought of a
unity of opposites in the material world.
Motion, space and time are nothing else but the mode of existence of
matter. Motion, as we have explained is a contradiction, - being in one
place and another at the same time. It is a unity of opposites.
"Movement means to be in this place and not to be in it; this is the
continuity of space and time - and it is this which first makes motion
possible." (Hegel)
To understand something, its essence, it is necessary to seek out
these internal contradictions. Under certain circumstances, the
universal is the individual, and the individual is the universal. That
things turn into their opposites, - cause can become effect and effect
can become cause - is because they are merely links in the never-ending
chain in the development of matter.
"The negative is to an equal extent positive," states Hegel.
Dialectical thought is "comprehending the antithesis in its unity." In
fact Hegel goes further:
"Contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality, and it is only insofar as it contains a Contradiction that anything moves and has impulse and activity…Something moves, not because it is here at one point of time and there at another, but because at one and the same point of time it is here and not here, and in this here both is and is not. We must grant the old dialecticians the contradictions which they prove in motion; but what follows is not that there is no motion, but rather that motion is existent Contradiction itself." Therefore for Hegel, something is living insofar as it contains contradiction, which provides it with self-movement.
The Greek atomists first advanced the revolutionary theory that the
material world was made up of atoms, considered the smallest unit of
matter. The Greek word atomos means indivisible. This was a brilliant
intuitive guess. Twentieth century science proved that everything was
composed of atoms, although it was subsequently discovered that even
smaller particles existed. Every atom contains a nucleus at its centre,
composed of sub-atomic particles called protons and neutrons. Orbiting
around the nucleus are particles known as electrons.
All protons carry a positive electrical charge, and would therefore repel each other, but they are bound together by a type of energy known as the strong nuclear force. This shows that everything that exists is based on a unity of opposites and has self-movement of "impulse and activity", to use Hegel's words.
All protons carry a positive electrical charge, and would therefore repel each other, but they are bound together by a type of energy known as the strong nuclear force. This shows that everything that exists is based on a unity of opposites and has self-movement of "impulse and activity", to use Hegel's words.
In humans, the level of blood sugar is essential for life. Too high a
level is likely to result in diabetic coma, too little and the person
is incapable of eating. This safe level is regulated by the rate at
which sugar is released into the bloodstream by the digestion of
carbohydrates, the rate at which stored glycogen, fat or protein is
converted into sugar, and the rate at which sugar is removed and
utilised.
If the blood sugar level rises, then the rate of utilisation is increased by the release of more insulin from the pancreas. If it falls, more sugar is released into the blood, or the person gets hungry and consumes a source of sugar. In this self-regulation of opposing forces, of positive and negative feedbacks, the blood level is kept within tolerable limits.
If the blood sugar level rises, then the rate of utilisation is increased by the release of more insulin from the pancreas. If it falls, more sugar is released into the blood, or the person gets hungry and consumes a source of sugar. In this self-regulation of opposing forces, of positive and negative feedbacks, the blood level is kept within tolerable limits.
Lenin explains this self-movement in a note when he says, "Dialectics
is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they become
identical - under what conditions they are identical, becoming
transformed into one another - why the human mind should grasp these
opposites not as dead, rigid, but living, conditional, mobile, becoming
transformed into one another."
Lenin also laid great stress on the importance of contradiction as the motive force of development.
"It is common knowledge that, in any given society, the strivings of some of its members conflict with the strivings of others, that social life is full of contradictions, and that history reveals a struggle between nations and societies, as well as within nations and societies, and, besides, an alternation of periods of revolution and reaction, peace and war, stagnation and rapid progress or decline." (Lenin, Three Sources and Component Parts of Marxism).
This is best illustrated by the class struggle. Capitalism requires a
capitalist class and a working class. The struggle over the surplus
value created by the workers and expropriated by the capitalists leads
to an irreconcilable struggle that will provide the basis for the
eventual overthrow of capitalism, and the resolution of the
contradiction through the abolition of classes.
The Negation of the Negation
The general pattern of historical development is not one of a
straight line upward, but of a complex interaction in which each step
forward is only achieved at the cost of a partial step backwards. These
regressions, in turn, are remedied at the next stage of development.
The law of the negation of the negation explains the repetition at a
higher level of certain features and properties of the lower level and
the apparent return of past features. There is a constant struggle
between form and content and between content and form, resulting in the
eventual shattering of the old form and the transformation of the
content.
This whole process can be best pictured as a spiral, where the
movement comes back to the position it started, but at a higher level.
In other words, historical progress is achieved through a series of
contradictions. Where the previous stage is negated, this does not
represent its total elimination. It does not wipe out completely the
stage that it supplants.
"The capitalist method of appropriation, which springs from the
capitalist method of production, and therefore capitalist private
property, is the first negation of individual private property based on
one's own labour. But capitalist production begets with the
inevitableness of a natural process its own negation. It is the negation
of the negation," remarked Marx in volume one of Capital.
Engels explains a whole series of examples to illustrate the negation
of the negation in his book Anti-Duhring. "Let us take a grain of
barley. Millions of such grains of barley are milled, boiled and brewed
and then consumed. But if such a grain of barley meets with conditions
which for it are normal, if it falls on suitable soil, then under the
influence of heat and moisture a specific change takes place, it
germinates; the grain as such ceases to exist, it is negated, and in its
place appears the plant which has arisen from it, the negation of the
grain.
But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilised and finally once more produces grains of barley, and, as soon as these have ripened, the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have once again the original grain of barley, but not as a single unit, but ten, twenty or thirty fold."
But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilised and finally once more produces grains of barley, and, as soon as these have ripened, the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have once again the original grain of barley, but not as a single unit, but ten, twenty or thirty fold."
The barley lives and evolves by means of returning to its starting
point - but at a higher level. One seed has produced many. Also over
time, plants have evolved qualitatively as well as quantitatively.
Successive generations have shown variations, and become more adapted to
their environment.
Engels gives a further example from the insect world. "Butterflies,
for example, spring from the egg through a negation of the egg, they
pass through certain transformations until they reach sexual maturity,
they pair and are in turn negated, dying as soon as the pairing process
has been completed and the female has laid its numerous eggs."
Hegel and Marx
Hegel, who had a giant intellect, illuminated a great many things. It
was a debt that Marx repeatedly recognised. "The mystification which
dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being
the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and
conscious manner," states Marx. Nevertheless, Hegel's philosophical
system was a huge miscarriage. It suffered from an incurable internal
contradiction.
Hegel's conception of history is an evolutionary one, where there is nothing final or eternal. However, his system laid claim to being the absolute truth, in complete contradiction to the laws of dialectical thought. While Hegel defended the status quo in Germany, the dialectic embraced a revolutionary view of constant change. For Hegel, all that was real was rational. But using the Hegelian dialectic, all that is real will become irrational. All that exists deserves to perish. In this lay the revolutionary significance of the Hegelian philosophy.
Hegel's conception of history is an evolutionary one, where there is nothing final or eternal. However, his system laid claim to being the absolute truth, in complete contradiction to the laws of dialectical thought. While Hegel defended the status quo in Germany, the dialectic embraced a revolutionary view of constant change. For Hegel, all that was real was rational. But using the Hegelian dialectic, all that is real will become irrational. All that exists deserves to perish. In this lay the revolutionary significance of the Hegelian philosophy.
The solution of this contradiction led back to materialism, but not
the old mechanical materialism, but one based upon the new sciences and
advances. "Materialism rose again enriched by all the acquisitions of
idealism. The most important of these acquisitions was the dialectical
method, the examination of phenomena in their development, in their
origin and destruction. The genius who represented this new direction of
thought was Karl Marx," writes Plekhanov. Spurred on by revolutionary
developments in Europe in 1830-31, the Hegelian School split into left,
right and centre.
The most prominent representative of the Hegelian Left was Ludwig
Feuerbach who challenged the old orthodoxy, especially religion, and
placed materialism at the centre of things again. "Nature has no
beginning and no end. Everything in it is in mutual interaction,
everything at once effect and cause, everything in it is all-sided and
reciprocal…" writes Feuerbach, adding that there is no place there for
God. "Christians tear out the spirit, the soul, of man out of his body
and make this torn-out, disembodied spirit into their God." Despite
Feuerbach's limitations, Marx and Engels welcomed the new breakthrough
with enthusiasm.
"But in the meantime", noted Engels, "the Revolution of 1848 thrust the whole of philosophy aside as unceremoniously as Feuerbach himself was also pushed into the background." It was left to Marx and Engels to consistently apply the dialectic to the new materialism, producing dialectical materialism. For them, the new philosophy was not an abstract philosophy, but directly linked to practice.
"Dialectics reduces itself to the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought - two sets of laws which are identical in substance, but differ in their expression in so far as the human mind can apply them consciously, while in nature and also up to now for the most part in human history, these laws assert themselves unconsciously, in the form of external necessity, in the midst of an endless series of seeming accidents." (Engels)
Neither Marx nor Engels left behind them a comprehensive book on
dialectics as such. Marx was preoccupied with Capital. Engels intended
to write such a book, but was overtaken by the need to complete Capital
after Marx's death. He nevertheless wrote quite extensively on the
subject, especially in Anti-Dühring and the Dialectics of Nature.
Lenin commentated, "If Marx did not leave behind him a 'Logic' (with a capital letter), he did leave the logic of Capital, and this ought to be utilised to the full. In Capital, Marx applied to a single science logic, dialectics and the theory of knowledge of materialism (three words are not needed: it is one and the same thing) which has taken everything valuable in Hegel and developed it further."
Lenin commentated, "If Marx did not leave behind him a 'Logic' (with a capital letter), he did leave the logic of Capital, and this ought to be utilised to the full. In Capital, Marx applied to a single science logic, dialectics and the theory of knowledge of materialism (three words are not needed: it is one and the same thing) which has taken everything valuable in Hegel and developed it further."
Today, a small number of scientists, mainly from the natural
sciences, have become conscious of the dialectic, which has opened their
eyes to problems in their specialised fields. This relationship between
science and dialectical materialism has been fully discussed in the
book by Alan Woods and Ted Grant Reason in Revolt. They showed, along
with Engels, that nature is completely dialectical. Apart from Stephen
J. Gould and Niles Eldredge, Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin, who
regard themselves as dialectical materialists, have also written about
the application of the dialectic to the field of biology in their book
The Dialectical Biologist:
"What characterises the dialectical world, in all its aspects, as we have described it is that it is constantly in motion. Constants become variables, causes become effects, and systems develop, destroying the conditions that gave rise to them. Even elements that appear to be stable are in a dynamic equilibrium of forces that can suddenly become unbalanced, as when a dull grey lump of metal of a critical size becomes a fireball brighter than a thousand suns.
Yet the motion is not unconstrained and uniform. Organisms develop and differentiate, then die and disintegrate. Species arise but inevitably become extinct. Even in the simple physical world we know of no uniform motion. Even the earth rotating on its axis has slowed down in geological time. The development of systems through time, then, seems to be the consequence of opposing forces and opposing motions.
"This appearance of opposing forces has given rise to the most debated and difficult, yet the most central, concept in dialectical thought, the principle of contradiction. For some, contradiction is an epistemic principle only. It describes how we come to understand the world by a history of antithetical theories that, in contradiction to each other and in contradiction to observed phenomena, lead to a new view of nature. Kuhn's (1962) theory of scientific revolution has some of this flavour of continual contradiction and resolution, giving way to new contradiction.
For others, contradiction becomes an ontological property at least of human social existence. For us, contradiction is not only epistemic and political, but also ontological in the broadest sense. Contradictions between forces are everywhere in nature, not only in human social institutions. This tradition of dialectics goes back to Engels (1880) who wrote, in Dialectics of Nature, that 'to me there could be no question of building the laws of dialectics of nature, but of discovering them in it and evolving them from it.'" (The Dialectical Biologist, p.279)
Marxists have always stressed the unity of theory and practice.
"Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the
point, however, is to change it", as Marx pointed to in his thesis on
Feuerbach. "If the truth is abstract it must be untrue," states Hegel.
All truth is concrete. We have to look at things as they exist, with a
view to understanding their underlying contradictory development. This
has very important conclusions, especially for those fighting to change
society. Unlike the Utopian socialists who viewed socialism as a
wonderful idea, Marxists see the development of socialism as arising out
of the contradictions of capitalism.
Capitalist society has prepared the material basis for a classless society with its highly developed productive forces and its world division of labour. It has brought into being the working class, whose very life existence brings it into conflict with capitalism. On the basis of experience, it will become fully conscious of its position in society and it will be transformed, in the words of Marx, from a "class in-itself" to a "class for-itself".
Capitalist society has prepared the material basis for a classless society with its highly developed productive forces and its world division of labour. It has brought into being the working class, whose very life existence brings it into conflict with capitalism. On the basis of experience, it will become fully conscious of its position in society and it will be transformed, in the words of Marx, from a "class in-itself" to a "class for-itself".
Dialectics bases itself on determinism, but this has nothing in
common with fatalism which denies the existence of accident in nature,
society and thought. Dialectical determinism asserts the unity of
necessity and accident, and explains that necessity expresses itself
through accident. All events have causes, necessary events and
accidental ones alike.
If there were no causal laws in nature everything would be in a state of utter chaos. It would be an impossible position where nothing could exist. So everything is dependent upon everything else, as in a continuous chain of cause and effect. Particular events always have a chance or accidental character, but these arise only as the result of a deeper necessity. In fact, necessity manifests itself through a series of accidents. Without doubt, accidents have their place, but the essential thing is to discover what laws determine this deeper necessity.
If there were no causal laws in nature everything would be in a state of utter chaos. It would be an impossible position where nothing could exist. So everything is dependent upon everything else, as in a continuous chain of cause and effect. Particular events always have a chance or accidental character, but these arise only as the result of a deeper necessity. In fact, necessity manifests itself through a series of accidents. Without doubt, accidents have their place, but the essential thing is to discover what laws determine this deeper necessity.
From the point of view of superficial observation, everything may
appear to be accidental or open to chance. This can appear especially so
when we have no knowledge of the laws that govern change and their
interconnections. "Where on the surface accident holds sway, there
actually it is always governed by inner, hidden laws and it is only a
matter of discovering these laws," remarked Engels in Ludwig Feuerbach.
In nature, the evolution of matter follows a certain path, although
how, when, and in what form this is realised, depends upon accidental
circumstances. For example, whether life was created or not on earth
depended on a whole series of accidental factors, such as the presence
of water, different chemical elements, the earth's distance from the
sun, an atmosphere, etc. "It is the nature of matter to advance to the
evolution of thinking beings", states Engels, "hence, too, this always
necessarily occurs whenever the conditions for it (not necessarily
identical at all places and times) are present…what is maintained to be
necessary is composed of sheer accidents, and the so-called accidental
is the form behind which necessity hides itself."
Superficial historians have written that the First World War was
"caused" by the assassination of a Crown Prince at Sarajevo. To a
Marxist this event was an historical accident, in the sense that this
chance event served as the pretext, or catalyst, for the world conflict
which had already been made inevitable by the economic, political and
military contradictions of imperialism. If the assassin had missed, or
if the Crown Prince had never been born, the war would still have taken
place, on some other diplomatic pretext or other. Necessity would have
expressed itself through a different "accident".
In the words of Hegel, everything which exists, exists of necessity.
But, equally, everything which exists is doomed to perish, to be
transformed into something else. Thus what is "necessary" in one time
and place becomes "unnecessary" in another. Everything begets its
opposite, which is destined to overcome and negate it. This is true of
individual living things as much as societies and nature generally.
Every type of human society exists because it is necessary at the
given time when it arises: "No social order ever disappears before all
the productive forces for which there is room in it, have been
developed: and new higher relations of production never appear before
the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of
the old society. Therefore mankind always takes up only such problems as
it can solve, since, looking at the matter more closely, we will always
find that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions
necessary for its solution already exist or at least are in the process
of formation." (Marx, Critique of Political Economy.)
Slavery, in its day, represented an enormous leap forward over
barbarism. It was a necessary stage in the development of productive
forces, culture and human society. As Hegel brilliantly explained it:
"It is not so much from slavery as through slavery that man becomes
free."
Similarly capitalism was originally a necessary and progressive stage
in human society. However, like primitive communism, slavery, and
feudalism, capitalism has long since ceased to represent a necessary and
progressive social system. It has foundered upon the deep
contradictions inherent in it, and is doomed to be overcome by the
rising forces of the new society within the old, represented by the
modem proletariat. Private ownership of the means of production and the
nation state, the basic features of capitalist society, which originally
marked a great step forward, now serve only to fetter and undermine the
productive forces and threaten all the gains made in centuries of human
development.
Capitalism is now a thoroughly degenerate social system, which must
be overthrown and replaced by its opposite, socialism, if human culture
is to survive. Marxism is determinist, but not fatalist. Men and women
make history. The transformation of society can only be achieved by men
and women consciously striving for their own emancipation. This struggle
of the classes is not pre-determined. Who succeeds depends on many
factors, and a rising, progressive class has many advantages over the
old, decrepit force of reaction. But ultimately, the result must depend
upon which side has the stronger will, the greater organisation and the
most skilful and resolute leadership.
The victory of socialism will mark a new and qualitatively different
stage of human history. To be more accurate it will mark the end of the
prehistory of the human race, and start a real history.
However on the other hand, socialism marks a return to the earliest
form of human society - tribal communism - but on a much higher level,
which stands upon all the enormous gains of thousands of years of class
society. The negation of primitive communism by class society is in turn
negated by socialism.
The economy of superabundance will be made possible by the application of conscious planning to the industry, science and technique established by capitalism, on a world scale. This in turn will once and for all make redundant the division of labour, the difference between mental and manual labour, between town and countryside, and the wasteful and barbaric class struggle and enable the human race at last to set its resources to the conquest of nature: to use Engels' famous phrase, "the leap of man from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom".
Rob Sewell
The economy of superabundance will be made possible by the application of conscious planning to the industry, science and technique established by capitalism, on a world scale. This in turn will once and for all make redundant the division of labour, the difference between mental and manual labour, between town and countryside, and the wasteful and barbaric class struggle and enable the human race at last to set its resources to the conquest of nature: to use Engels' famous phrase, "the leap of man from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom".
Rob Sewell
IV. From 'Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'
by Frederick Engels
Out of the dissolution of the Hegelian school, however, there developed still another tendency, the only one which has borne real fruit. And this tendency is essentially connected with the name of Marx.
The separation from Hegelian philosophy was here also the result of a
return to the materialist standpoint. That means it was resolved to
comprehend the real world - nature and history - just as it presents
itself to everyone who approaches it free from preconceived idealist
crotchets. It was decided mercilessly to sacrifice every idealist which
could not be brought into harmony with the facts conceived in their own
and not in a fantastic interconnection.
And materialism means nothing more than this. But here the materialistic world outlook was taken really seriously for the first time and was carried through consistently - at least in its basic features - in all domains of knowledge concerned.
And materialism means nothing more than this. But here the materialistic world outlook was taken really seriously for the first time and was carried through consistently - at least in its basic features - in all domains of knowledge concerned.
Hegel was not simply put aside. On the contrary, a start was made
from his revolutionary side, described above, from the dialectical
method. But in its Hegelian form, this method was unusable. According to
Hegel, dialectics is the self-development of the concept. The absolute
concept does not only exist - unknown where - from eternity, it is also
the actual living soul of the whole existing world. It develops into
itself through all the preliminary stages which are treated at length in
the Logic and which are all included in it.
Then it "alienates" itself by changing into nature, where, unconscious of itself, disguised as a natural necessity, it goes through a new development and finally returns as man's consciousness of himself. This self-consciousness then elaborates itself again in history in the crude form until finally the absolute concept again comes to itself completely in the Hegelian philosophy.
According to Hegel, therefore, the dialectical development apparent in nature and history - that is, the causal interconnection of the progressive movement from the lower to the higher, which asserts itself through all zigzag movements and temporary retrogression - is only a copy [Abklatsch] of the self-movement of the concept going on from eternity, no one knows where, but at all events independently of any thinking human brain. This ideological perversion had to be done away with. We again took a materialistic view of the thoughts in our heads, regarding them as images [Abbilder] of real things instead of regarding real things as images of this or that stage of the absolute concept.
Thus dialectics reduced itself to the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought - two sets of laws which are identical in substance, but differ in their expression in so far as the human mind can apply them consciously, while in nature and also up to now for the most part in human history, these laws assert themselves unconsciously, in the form of external necessity, in the midst of an endless series of seeming accidents.
Thereby the dialectic of concepts itself became merely the conscious reflex of the dialectical motion of the real world and thus the dialectic of Hegel was turned over; or rather, turned off its head, on which it was standing, and placed upon its feet. And this materialist dialectic, which for years has been our best working tool and our sharpest weapon, was, remarkably enough, discovered not only by us but also, independently of us and even of Hegel, by a German worker, Joseph Dietzgen. (2)
Then it "alienates" itself by changing into nature, where, unconscious of itself, disguised as a natural necessity, it goes through a new development and finally returns as man's consciousness of himself. This self-consciousness then elaborates itself again in history in the crude form until finally the absolute concept again comes to itself completely in the Hegelian philosophy.
According to Hegel, therefore, the dialectical development apparent in nature and history - that is, the causal interconnection of the progressive movement from the lower to the higher, which asserts itself through all zigzag movements and temporary retrogression - is only a copy [Abklatsch] of the self-movement of the concept going on from eternity, no one knows where, but at all events independently of any thinking human brain. This ideological perversion had to be done away with. We again took a materialistic view of the thoughts in our heads, regarding them as images [Abbilder] of real things instead of regarding real things as images of this or that stage of the absolute concept.
Thus dialectics reduced itself to the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought - two sets of laws which are identical in substance, but differ in their expression in so far as the human mind can apply them consciously, while in nature and also up to now for the most part in human history, these laws assert themselves unconsciously, in the form of external necessity, in the midst of an endless series of seeming accidents.
Thereby the dialectic of concepts itself became merely the conscious reflex of the dialectical motion of the real world and thus the dialectic of Hegel was turned over; or rather, turned off its head, on which it was standing, and placed upon its feet. And this materialist dialectic, which for years has been our best working tool and our sharpest weapon, was, remarkably enough, discovered not only by us but also, independently of us and even of Hegel, by a German worker, Joseph Dietzgen. (2)
In this way, however, the revolutionary side of Hegelian philosophy
was again taken up and at the same time freed from the idealist
trimmings which with Hegel had prevented its consistent execution. The
great basic thought that the world is not to be comprehended as a
complex of readymade things, but as a complex of processes, in which the
things apparently stable no less than their mind images in our heads,
the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being
and passing away, in which, in spite of all seeming accidentally and of
all temporary retrogression, a progressive development asserts itself in
the end - this great fundamental thought has, especially since the time
of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary consciousness that in this
generality it is now scarcely ever contradicted.
But to acknowledge this fundamental thought in words and to apply it in reality in detail to each domain of investigation are two different things. If, however, investigation always proceeds from this standpoint, the demand for final solutions and eternal truths ceases once for all; one is always conscious of the necessary limitation of all acquired knowledge, of the fact that it is conditioned by the circumstances in which it was acquired. On the other hand, one no longer permits oneself to be imposed upon by the antithesis, insuperable for the still common old metaphysics, between true and false, good and bad, identical and different, necessary and accidental.
One knows that these antitheses have only a relative validity; that that which is recognized now as true has also its latent false side which will later manifest itself, just as that which is now regarded as false has also its true side by virtue of which it could previously be regarded as true. One knows that what is maintained to be necessary is composed of sheer accidents and that the so-called accidental is the form behind which necessity hides itself - and so on.
But to acknowledge this fundamental thought in words and to apply it in reality in detail to each domain of investigation are two different things. If, however, investigation always proceeds from this standpoint, the demand for final solutions and eternal truths ceases once for all; one is always conscious of the necessary limitation of all acquired knowledge, of the fact that it is conditioned by the circumstances in which it was acquired. On the other hand, one no longer permits oneself to be imposed upon by the antithesis, insuperable for the still common old metaphysics, between true and false, good and bad, identical and different, necessary and accidental.
One knows that these antitheses have only a relative validity; that that which is recognized now as true has also its latent false side which will later manifest itself, just as that which is now regarded as false has also its true side by virtue of which it could previously be regarded as true. One knows that what is maintained to be necessary is composed of sheer accidents and that the so-called accidental is the form behind which necessity hides itself - and so on.
The old method of investigation and thought which Hegel calls
"metaphysical", which preferred to investigate things as given, as fixed
and stable, a method the relics of which still strongly haunt people's
minds, had a great deal of historical justification in its day. It was
necessary first to examine things before it was possible to examine
processes. One had first to know what a particular thing was before one
could observe the changes it was undergoing. And such was the case with
natural science. The old metaphysics, which accepted things as finished
objects, arose from a natural science which investigated dead and living
things as finished objects.
But when this investigation had progressed so far that it became possible to take the decisive step forward, that is, to pass on the systematic investigation of the changes which these things undergo in nature itself, then the last hour of the old metaphysic struck in the realm of philosophy also. And in fact, while natural science up to the end of the last century was predominantly a collecting science, a science of finished things, in our century it is essentially a systematizing science, a science of the processes, of the origin and development of these things and of the interconnection which binds all these natural processes into one great whole.
Physiology, which investigates the processes occurring in plant and animal organisms; embryology, which deals with the development of individual organisms from germs to maturity; geology, which investigates the gradual formation of the Earth's surface - all these are the offspring of our century.
But when this investigation had progressed so far that it became possible to take the decisive step forward, that is, to pass on the systematic investigation of the changes which these things undergo in nature itself, then the last hour of the old metaphysic struck in the realm of philosophy also. And in fact, while natural science up to the end of the last century was predominantly a collecting science, a science of finished things, in our century it is essentially a systematizing science, a science of the processes, of the origin and development of these things and of the interconnection which binds all these natural processes into one great whole.
Physiology, which investigates the processes occurring in plant and animal organisms; embryology, which deals with the development of individual organisms from germs to maturity; geology, which investigates the gradual formation of the Earth's surface - all these are the offspring of our century.
Frederick Engels
V.The Three Sources and Component Parts of Marxism (extract)
by Lenin
The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the recent
history of Europe, and particularly at the end of the eighteenth century
in France, which was the scene of the decisive battle against every
kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas,
materialism proved to be the only consistent philosophy, true to all the
teachings of natural science, hostile to superstitions, cant, etc. The
enemies of democracy tried, therefore, with all their energy, to
"overthrow," undermine and defame materialism, and defended various
forms of philosophic idealism, which always leads, in one way or
another, to the defence and support of religion.
Marx and Engels always defended philosophic materialism in the most
determined manner, and repeatedly explained the profound error of every
deviation from this basis. Their views are more dearly and fully
expounded in the works of Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and Anti-Duhring,
which, like the Communist Manifesto, are household books for every
conscious worker.
However, Marx did not stop at the materialism of the eighteenth
century but moved philosophy forward. He enriched it by the achievements
of German classical philosophy especially by Hegel's system, which in
its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach.
Of these the main achievement is dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fuller, deeper form, free from one-sidedness-the doctrine, also, of the relativity of human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter.
The latest discoveries of natural science-radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements-are a remarkable confirmation of the dialectical materialism of Marx, despite the doctrines of bourgeois philosophers with their "new" returns to old and rotten idealism.
Of these the main achievement is dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fuller, deeper form, free from one-sidedness-the doctrine, also, of the relativity of human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter.
The latest discoveries of natural science-radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements-are a remarkable confirmation of the dialectical materialism of Marx, despite the doctrines of bourgeois philosophers with their "new" returns to old and rotten idealism.
While deepening and developing philosophic materialism, Marx carried
it to its conclusion; he extended its perception of nature to the
perception of human society. The historical materialism of Marx
represented the greatest conquest of scientific thought.
Chaos and arbitrariness, which reigned until then in the views on
history and politics, were replaced by a strikingly consistent and
harmonious scientific theory, which shows how out of one order of social
life another and higher order develops, in consequence of the growth of
the productive forces - how capitalism, for instance, grows out of
serfdom.
Just as the cognition of man reflects nature (i.e., developing
matter) which exists independently of him, so also the social cognition
of man (i.e., the various views and doctrines-philosophic, religious,
political, etc.) reflects the economic order of society. Political
institutions are a superstructure on the economic foundation. We see,
for example, that the various political forms of modern European states
serve the purpose of strengthening the domination of the bourgeoisie
over the proletariat.
The philosophy of Marx completes in itself philosophic materialism
which has provided humanity, and especially the working class, with a
powerful instrument of knowledge.
Lenin
VI. Lenin's Collected Works
Lenin
Volume 38, p359:
On the Question of Dialectics
The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its
contradictory parts is the essence (one of the "essentials", one of the
principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of
dialectics. That is precisely how Hegel, too, puts the matter.
The correctness of this aspect of the content of dialectics must be
tested by the history of science. This aspect of dialectics (e.g. in
Plekhanov) usually receives inadequate attention: the identity of
opposites is taken as the sum-total of examples ("for example, a seed",
"for example, primitive communism". The same is true of Engels. But it
is "in the interests of popularisation ...") and not as a law of
cognition (and as a law of the objective world.)
In mathematics: + and -, differential and integral,
In mechanics: action and reaction,
In physics: positive and negative electricity,
In chemistry: the combination and dissociation of atoms,
In social science: the class struggle.
The identity of opposites (it would be more correct, perhaps, to say
their "unity", - although the difference between the terms identity and
unity is not particularly important here. In a certain sense both are
correct) is the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually
exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature
(including mind and society). The condition for the knowledge of all
processes of the world in their "self-movement", in their spontaneous
development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of
opposites.
Development is the "struggle" of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? Or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation)! .
Development is the "struggle" of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? Or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation)! .
In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force,
its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made
external - God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief
attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of
"self"-movement.
The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living.
The second alone furnishes the key to the "self-movement" of everything
existing; it alone furnishes the key to "leaps", to the "break in
continuity," to the transformation into the opposite", to the
destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.
The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is
conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually
exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are
absolute.
NB: The distinction between subjectivism (scepticism, sophistry,
etc.) and dialectics, incidentally, is that in (objective) dialectics
the difference between the relative and the absolute is itself relative.
For objective dialectics there is an absolute within the relative. For
subjectivism and sophistry the relative is only relative and excludes
the absolute.
In his Capital, Marx first analyses the simplest, most ordinary and
fundamental, most common and everyday relation of bourgeois (commodity)
society, a relation encountered billions of times, viz., the exchange of
commodities. In this very simple phenomenon (in this "cell" of
bourgeois society) analysis reveals all the contradictions (or the germs
of all contradictions) of modern society. The subsequent exposition
shows us the development (both growth and movement) of these
contradictions and of this society in the Sum of its individual parts.
From its beginning to its end.
Such must also be the method of exposition (or study) of dialectics
in general (for with Marx the dialectics of bourgeois society is only a
particular case of dialectics). To begin with what is the simplest, most
ordinary, common, etc., with any proposition: the leaves of a tree are
green; John is a man: Fido is a dog, etc. Here already we have
dialectics (as Hegel's genius recognised); the individual is the
universal.
Consequently, the opposites (the individual is opposed to the
universal) are identical: the individual exists only in the connection
that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in the individual
and through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another)
a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the
essence of) an individual. Every universal only approximately embraces
all the individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into
the universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of
transitions with other kinds of individuals (things, phenomena,
processes) etc.
Here already we have the elements, the germs, the concepts of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say: John is a man, Fido is a dog, this is a leaf of a tree, etc., we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other.
Here already we have the elements, the germs, the concepts of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say: John is a man, Fido is a dog, this is a leaf of a tree, etc., we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other.
Thus in any proposition we can (and must) disclose as in a "nucleus"
(:cell") the germs of all the elements of dialectics, and thereby show
that dialectics is a property of all human knowledge in general.
And natural science shows us (and here again it must be demonstrated
in any simple instance) objective nature with the same qualities, the
transformation of the individual into the universal, of the contingent
into the necessary, transitions, modulations, and the reciprocal
connection of opposites. Dialectics is the theory of knowledge of (Hegel
and) Marxism. This is the "aspect" of the matter (it is not "an aspect"
but the essence of the matter) to which Plekhanov, not to speak of
other Marxists, paid no attention.
Knowledge is represented in the form of a series of circles both by
Hegel (see Logic) and by the modern epistemologists" of natural science,
the eclectic and foe of Hegelianism (which he did not understand!!),
Paul Volkmann.
"Circles" in philosophy: [is a chronology of persons - essential? No!
Ancient: from Democritus to Plato and the dialectics of Heraclitus.
Renaissance: Descartes versus Gassendi (Spinoza?)
Modern: Holbach-Hegel (via Berkeley, Hume, Kant).
Hegel - Feuerbach - Marx
Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing), with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality (with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade) - here we have an immeasurably rich content as compared with metaphysical materialism, the fundamental misfortune of which is its inability to apply dialectics to the theory of reflection, to the process and development of knowledge.
Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude,
simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical
materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided,
exaggerated, development (inflation, distension) of one of the features,
aspects, facets of knowledge, into an absolute, divorced from matter,
from nature, apotheosised. Idealism is clerical obscurantism. True. But
philosophical idealism is ("more correctly" and "in addition") a road to
clerical obscurantism through one of the shades of the infinitely
complex knowledge (dialectical) of man.
Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a
curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles, a spiral. Any
fragment, segment, section of this curve can be transformed (transformed
one-sidedly) into an independent, complete, straight line, which then
(if one does not see the wood for the trees) leads into the quagmire,
into clerical obscurantism (where it is anchored by the class interests
of the ruling classes).
Rectilinearity and one-sidedness, woodenness and petrification, subjectivism and subjective blindness - voila the epistemological roots of idealism. And clerical obscurantism (= philosophical idealism), of course, has epistemological roots, it is not groundless; it is a sterile flower undoubtedly, but a sterile flower that grows on the living tree of living, fertile, genuine, powerful, omnipotent, objective, absolute human knowledge.
Lenin
Rectilinearity and one-sidedness, woodenness and petrification, subjectivism and subjective blindness - voila the epistemological roots of idealism. And clerical obscurantism (= philosophical idealism), of course, has epistemological roots, it is not groundless; it is a sterile flower undoubtedly, but a sterile flower that grows on the living tree of living, fertile, genuine, powerful, omnipotent, objective, absolute human knowledge.
Lenin
VII.VOLUME 38, pp 221 - 222
Summary of Dialectics
by Lenin
1) The determination of the concept out of itself [the thing itself must be considered in its relations and in its development];
2) the contradictory nature of the thing itself (the other of itself), the contradictory forces and tendencies in each phenomenon;
3) the union of analysis and synthesis.
2) the contradictory nature of the thing itself (the other of itself), the contradictory forces and tendencies in each phenomenon;
3) the union of analysis and synthesis.
Such apparently are the elements of dialectics.
One could perhaps present these elements in greater detail as follows:
1) the objectivity of consideration (not examples, not divergencies, but the Thing-in-itself).
2) the entire totality of the manifold relations of this thing to others.
3) the development of this thing, (phenomenon, respectively), its own movement, its own life.
4) the internally contradictory tendencies (and sides) in this thing.
5) the thing (phenomenon, etc) as the sum andunity of opposites.
6) the struggle, respectively unfolding, of these opposites, contradictory strivings, etc.
7) the union of analysis and synthesis - the breakdown of the separate parts and the totality, the summation of these parts.
8) the relations of each thing (phenomenon, etc.) are not only manifold, but general, universal. Each thing (phenomenon, etc.) is connected with every other.
9) not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?].
10) the endless process of the discovery of new sides, relations, etc.
11) the endless process of the deepening of man's knowledge of the thing, of phenomena, processes, etc., from appearance to essence and from less profound to more profound essence.
12) from co-existence to causality and from one form of connection and reciprocal dependence to another, deeper, more general form.
13) the repetition at a higher stage of certain features, properties, etc., of the lower and
14) the apparent return to the old (negation of the negation).
15) the struggle of content with form and conversely. The throwing off of the form, the transformation of the content.
16) the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa (15 and 16 are examples of 9)
2) the entire totality of the manifold relations of this thing to others.
3) the development of this thing, (phenomenon, respectively), its own movement, its own life.
4) the internally contradictory tendencies (and sides) in this thing.
5) the thing (phenomenon, etc) as the sum andunity of opposites.
6) the struggle, respectively unfolding, of these opposites, contradictory strivings, etc.
7) the union of analysis and synthesis - the breakdown of the separate parts and the totality, the summation of these parts.
8) the relations of each thing (phenomenon, etc.) are not only manifold, but general, universal. Each thing (phenomenon, etc.) is connected with every other.
9) not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?].
10) the endless process of the discovery of new sides, relations, etc.
11) the endless process of the deepening of man's knowledge of the thing, of phenomena, processes, etc., from appearance to essence and from less profound to more profound essence.
12) from co-existence to causality and from one form of connection and reciprocal dependence to another, deeper, more general form.
13) the repetition at a higher stage of certain features, properties, etc., of the lower and
14) the apparent return to the old (negation of the negation).
15) the struggle of content with form and conversely. The throwing off of the form, the transformation of the content.
16) the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa (15 and 16 are examples of 9)
In
brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of
opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics, but it requires
explanations and development.
Lenin
VIII.What is Marxism
Written by Rob Sewell and Alan Woods
Wednesday, 15 March 2000
We are reproducing a slightly edited version of What is Marxism?
by Rob Sewell and Alan Woods, last published in 1983 to celebrate the
centenary of the death of Karl Marx. The three articles on the
fundamental aspects of Marxism, Marxist Economics, Dialectical
Materialism and Historical Materialism were originally published
separately in the 1970s. These articles are a good, brief introduction
to the basic methods of Marxism and can serve as a first approach to the
ideas developed by Marx and Engels.
18 February, 1983
The growth of private property in the later stages of primitive communism is regarded by Marxists as elements of the new society within the old. Eventually the qualitative accumulation of these new elements led to the qualitative break up of the old society.
Its export of commodities and then Capital leads the capitalist class
to create “a world after its own image”. The productive forces,
technique and science gradually outgrew the nation state which protected
it.
What we have to be clear about is what the capitalist has bought. The worker has sold not his labour but his ability to work. This Marx calls his labour power.
The means of production on the one hand, and labour power on the
other--the “factors of production” of bourgeois economics--represent the
different forms assumed by the original capital in the second phase of
the cycle:
MONEY COMMODITY MONEY
(purchase) (production) (sale)
For example, take a small capitalist with a total capital of £150
made up of Constant Capital (£50) and Variable (£100). He employs 10 men
at £10 per day making tables and chairs. After one day work they
produce £250 in total value:
Total Capital : The wages paid = £100
The constant capital = £50
Surplus value = £100
- An Introduction to Dialectical Materialism
- Introduction to Historical Materialism
- Introduction to Marxist Economics
1983 Introduction
Marxism, or Scientific Socialism, is the name given to the body of
ideas first worked out by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels
(1820-1895). In their totality, these ideas provide a fully worked-out
theoretical basis for the struggle of the working class to attain a
higher form of human society--socialism.
While the conceptions of Marxism have been subsequently developed and
enriched by the historical experience of the working class itself, the
fundamental ideas remain unshaken, providing a firm foundation for the
Labour Movement today. Neither before, nor since the lifetime of Marx
and Engels have any superior, more truthful or scientific theories been
advanced to explain the movement of society and the role of the working
class in that movement. A knowledge of Marxism therefore equips the
proletariat theoretically for the great historic task of the Socialist
transformation of Society.
It is this fact which explains the constant and bitter attacks on all
aspects of Marxism which have been delivered by every conceivable
defender of the existing social order--from the Tory to the Fabian, from
the Jesuit priest to the University professor. From the very spleen of
these attacks, to the fact that they have to be kept up continuously
despite the fact that every single one of the pundits in turn claims to
have “finally disposed” of Marxism, the thinking member of the Labour
Movement can deduce two facts.
First, that the defenders of capitalism
recognise in Marxism the most dangerous challenge to their system, and
thereby also instantly confess the truth in it, despite all their
attempts to “disprove” it. Second, that far from disappearing under the
heap of abuse, quack “exposures”, and flagrant distortions, the theories
of Marx and Engels are steadily gaining ground, particularly within the
active layers of the Labour Movement, as increasing numbers of workers,
under the impact of the crisis of capitalism, strive to discover the
real meaning of the forces which shape their lives, in order to be able
to consciously influence and determine their own destiny.
The theories of Marxism provide the thinking worker with such an
understanding--a thread which is capable of leading him through the
confused labyrinth of events, of the complex processes of society, of
economics, of the struggle of classes, of politics. Armed with this
sword the worker can cut the Gordian knot which binds him to the
mightiest obstacle in the way of the advancement of himself and his
class--ignorance.
It is to keep this knot firmly in place that the hired
representatives of the ruling class struggle with might and main to
discredit Marxism in the eyes of the working class. It is the duty of
every serious worker of the Labour Movement to conquer for himself or
herself the theories of Marx and Engels, as an essential prerequisite
for the conquest of society by the working people.
Yet there are obstacles in the path of the worker's struggle for
theory and understanding far more intractable than the scribblings of
priests and professors. A man or woman who is obliged to toil long hours
in industry, who has not had the benefit of a decent education and
consequently lacks the habit of reading, finds great difficulty in
absorbing some of the more complex ideas, especially at the outset. Yet
it was for workers that Marx and Engels wrote, and not for “clever”
students and middle class people. “Every beginning is difficult” no
matter what science we are talking about. Marxism is a science and
therefore makes heavy demands upon the beginner.
But every worker who is
active in the trade unions or Labour Party knows that nothing is
worthwhile if attained without a degree of struggle and sacrifice. It is
the activists in the Labour Movement at whom the present pamphlet is
aimed. To the active worker who is prepared to persevere, one promise
can be made: once the initial effort is made to come to grips with
unfamiliar and new ideas, the theories of Marxism will be found to be
basically straight-forward and simple. Moreover--and this should be
emphasised--the worker who acquires by patient effort an understanding
of Marxism will turn out to be a better theoretician than most students,
just because he can grasp the ideas not merely in the abstract, but
concretely, as applied to his own life and work.
All exploiting classes attempt to morally justify their class rule by
portraying them, as the highest, most natural form of social
development, deliberately concealing the system of exploitation by
disguising and distorting the truth. The present day capitalist class,
through their professional hirelings and hangers on, have elaborately
evolved a whole new philosophy and morality to justify their ruling
position in society.
The working class, on the contrary, has no material interest in
distorting the truth, and sets itself the task of laying bare the
realities of capitalism in order to consciously prepare for its
emancipation. Far from seeking a special position for itself, the
working class has the aim of abolishing capitalism and with it all class
distinctions and privileges. To do so it must reject the outlook of the
capitalists, and seek for itself a new Marxist method of understanding.
The Marxist method provides a richer, fuller, more comprehensive view
of society and life in general, and clears away the veil of mysticism
in understanding human and social development. Marxist philosophy
explains that the driving force of history is neither “Great Men” nor
the super-natural, but stems from the development of the productive
forces (industry, science, technique, etc.) themselves. It is economics,
in the last analysis, that determines the conditions of life, the
habits and consciousness of human beings.
Each new re-organisation of society--be it slavery, feudalism or
capitalism--has ushered in an enormous development of the productive
forces which in turn gave men and women greater powers over nature. As
soon as a social system proves unable to develop these forces of
production, then that society enters an epoch of revolution. However, in
the case of the change from capitalism to socialism, the process is not
automatic but requires the conscious intervention of the working class
to carry through this task of history. Failure to do so in the long run
would pave the way for the advent of reaction and eventual world war.
Capitalism has once again entered a new world economic crisis
resulting in mass unemployment on the lines of the 1930s. The quack
theories of capitalist economists have proved utterly incapable of
preventing recessions, which has driven the ruling class to ditch
Keynesianism and re-adopt the old measures of “sound finance”, of
monetarism. Rather than rescue the situation this latter programme has
served to deepen and prolong the crisis!
Only Marxism has been able to expose the contradictions of Capitalism
which result periodically in depression and slump. Capitalism has now
completely exhausted its historical role in developing the productive
basis of society. Hemmed in by the nation state and private ownership,
the productive forces are systematically destroyed in the face of the
mass overproduction of commodities and capital.
As Marx himself explained: “In these crises there breaks out an
epidemic that in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity--the
epidemic of overproduction.
“Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of monetary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of destruction has cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce.
The
productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further
the development of the conditions of Bourgeois property; on the contrary
they have become too powerful for these conditions by which they are
fettered, and so as soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring
disorder into the whole of Bourgeois society, endanger the existence of
Bourgeois property.”
The present pamphlet brings together for the first time the three
supplements of the South Wales Bulletin of Marxist Studies (first
published in the 1970s) as a small contribution to the increasing thirst
for the ideas of Marxism. It is also fitting that the issue of the
pamphlet coincides with the centenary of Karl Marx's death, on 14 March
1883, the co-founder with Engels, of scientific socialism.
This pamphlet however is not intended to provide a complete
exposition of Marxism, but to assist the worker-student in his approach
to the subject by giving a rough outline of some basic ideas, plus a
selected reading list with which he may continue his studies. Marx and
Engels themselves wrote many brief pamphlets and shorter explanatory
works aimed at popularising their theories among the working class, and
these provide the basis of the suggested reading list.
The study of Marxism falls under three main headings, corresponding
broadly to philosophy, social history and economics, or, to give them
their correct names, Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism and
the Labour Theory of Value. These are the famous “three component parts
of Marxism” of which Lenin wrote.
Rob Sewell and Alan Woods18 February, 1983
THE METHOD OF MARXISM
AN INTRODUCTION TO DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
What is a philosophy?
At each stage in human history, men and women have worked out some
sort of picture of the world and their place in it. They develop a
Philosophy. The pieces they use to make up this picture have been
obtained by observing nature and through generalising their day to day
experiences.
Some people believe they have no need of such a philosophy or world
outlook. Yet in practise everyone has a philosophy, even if it is not
consciously worked out. People who live by rule of thumb or “common
sense” and think they are doing without theory, in practice think in the
traditional way. Marx once said that the dominant ideas of society are
those of the ruling class.
To maintain and justify its rule, the
capitalist class makes use of every available means to distort the
consciousness of the worker. The school, church, TV, and press are used
to foster the ideology of the ruling class and indoctrinate the worker
into accepting their system as the most natural permanent form of
society. In the absence of a conscious socialist philosophy, they accept
unconsciously the capitalist one.
At each point in class society, the rising revolutionary class,
aiming to change society, have to fight for a new world outlook and have
to attack the old philosophy, which, being based on the old order,
justified and defended it.
Idealism and materialism
Throughout the history of philosophy we find two camps, the Idealist and the Materialist. The common idea of “Idealism” (i.e. honesty, uprightness in the pursuit of ideals) and “Materialism” (i.e. base, greedy, money-grabbing egoism) has nothing to do with philosophical idealism and philosophical materialism.
Many great thinkers of the past were Idealists, notably Plato and
Hegel. This school of thought looks upon nature and history as a
reflection of ideas or spirit. The theory that men and women and every
material thing was created by a divine Spirit, is a basic concept of
idealism. This outlook is expressed in a number of ways, yet its basis
is that ideas govern the development of the material world. History is
explained as a history of thought.
People's actions are seen as
resulting from abstract thoughts, and not from their material needs.
Hegel went one step further, being a consistent idealist, and turned
thoughts into an independent “Idea” existing outside of the brain and
independent of the material world. The latter was merely a reflection of
this Idea. Religion is part and parcel of philosophical idealism.
The Materialist thinkers on the other hand, have maintained that the
material world is real and that nature or matter is primary. The mind or
ideas are a product of the brain. The brain, and therefore ideas, arose
at a certain stage in the development of living matter. The basic
corner-stones of Materialism are as follows:
(a) The material world, known to us by our senses and explored by science, is real. The development of the world is due to its own natural laws, without any recourse to the supernatural.
(b) There is only one world, the material one. Thought is a product of matter (the brain) without which there can be no separate ideas. Therefore minds or ideas cannot exist in isolation apart from matter. General ideas are only reflections of the material world. “To me,” wrote Marx, “the idea is nothing else than the material world reflected in the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.” And further, “Social being determines consciousness”.
The Idealists conceive of consciousness, of thought, as something
external, and opposed to matter, to nature. This opposition is something
entirely false and artificial. There is a close correlation between the
laws of thought and the laws of nature, because the former follow and
reflect the latter. Thought cannot derive its categories from itself,
but only from the external world. Even the most seemingly abstract
thoughts are in fact derived from the observation of the material world.
Even an apparently abstract science like pure mathematics has, in the
last analysis, been derived from material reality, and is not spun from
the brain. The school-child secretly counts his material fingers under a
material desk before solving an abstract arithmetical problem. In so
doing, he is re-creating the origins of mathematics itself. We base
ourselves upon the decimal system because we have ten fingers. The Roman
numerals were originally based on the representation of fingers.
According to Lenin, “this is materialism: matter acting on our sense
organs produces sensation. Sensations depend upon the brain, nerves,
retina, etc., i.e., matter is primary. Sensation, thought, consciousness
are the supreme product of matter”.
People are a part of nature, who develop their ideas in interaction
with the rest of the world. Mental processes are real enough, but they
are not something absolute, outside nature. They should be studied in
their material and social circumstances in which they arise. “The
phantoms formed in the human brain,” stated Marx, “are … necessarily,
sublimates of their material life-process.” Later he concluded,
“morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their
corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the
semblance of independence. They have no history, no development, but
men, developing their material production and their material
intercourses, alter along with this their real existence their thinking
and the product of their thinking. Life is not determined by
consciousness, but consciousness by life.”
The origins of materialism
“The original home of all modern materialism,” wrote Engels, “from
the seventeenth century onwards, is England.” At this time, the old
feudal aristocracy and monarchy were being challenged by the newly
emerged middle classes. The bastion of feudalism was the Roman Catholic
church, which provided the divine justification for the monarchy and
feudal institutions. This, therefore, had to be undermined before
feudalism could be overthrown. The rising bourgeoisie challenged the old
ideas and divine concepts that the old order was based upon.
“Parallel with the rise of the middle classes went on the great revival of science; astronomy, mechanics, physics, anatomy, physiology, were again cultivated. And the bourgeoisie for the development of its industrial production, required a science which ascertained the physical properties of natural objects and the modes of action of the forces of Nature.
Now up to then science had but been the humble handmaid of the
church, had not been allowed to overstep the limits set by faith, and
for that reason had been no science at all. [In the 17th century,
Galileo demonstrated the truth of Copernicus' theory that the earth and
planets revolved around the Sun. The professors of the day ridiculed
these ideas and used the power of the Index and the Inquisition against
Galileo to force him to recant his views. RS] (Science rebelled against
the church; the bourgeoisie could not do without science, and therefore,
had to join in the rebellion.)” (F. Engels.)
It was at this time that Francis Bacon (1561-1626) developed his
revolutionary ideas of materialism.
According to him the senses were
infallible and the source of all knowledge. All science was based upon
experience, and consisted in subjecting the data to a rational method of
investigation; induction, analysis, comparison, observation and
experiment. It was, however, left to Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) to
continue and develop Bacon's materialism into a system. He realised that
ideas and concepts were only a reflection of the material world, and
that “it is impossible to separate thought from matter that thinks”.
Later, the English thinker John Locke (1632-1704) provided proof of this
materialism.
The materialist school of philosophy passed from England to France,
to be taken up and developed further by Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and
his followers. These French materialists did not limit themselves to
criticisms of religion, but extended them to all institutions and ideas.
They challenged these things in the name of Reason, and gave ammunition
to the developing bourgeoisie in their struggle with the monarchy. The
birth of the great French Bourgeois Revolution of 1789-93 took as its
creed materialist philosophy. Unlike the English Revolution in the
mid-17th century, its French counter-part completely destroyed the old
feudal order. As Engels later pointed out: “We know today that this
kingdom of reason was nothing more than the idealised kingdom of the
bourgeoisie.”
The defect, however, of this materialism from Bacon onwards was its
rigid, mechanical interpretation of Nature. Not accidentally, the
English school of materialist philosophy flourished in the 18th century,
when the discoveries of Isaac Newton made “mechanics” the most advanced
and important science. In the words of Engels: “The specific limitation
of this materialism lay in its inability to comprehend the universe as a
process, as matter undergoing uninterrupted historical development.”
The French Revolution had a profound effect upon the civilised world,
similar to the Russian Revolution of 1917. It revolutionised thinking
in every field, politics, philosophy, science and art. The ferment of
ideas emerging from this bourgeois democratic revolution ushered in
advances in natural science, geology, botany, chemistry as well as
political economy.
It was in this period that a criticism was made of the mechanical
approach of the materialists. A German philosopher, Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804), made the first breakthrough in the old mechanistic ways
with his discovery that the Earth and the solar system had come into
being, and had not existed eternally. The same also applies to
geography, geology, plants and animals.
This revolutionary idea of Kant was comprehensively developed by
another brilliant German thinker, George Hegel (1770-1831). Hegel was a
philosophical idealist, believing that the world could be explained as a
manifestation or reflection of a “Universal Mind” or “Idea”, i.e., some
form of God.
Hegel looked upon the world not as an active participant in society
and human history, but as a philosopher, contemplating events from afar.
He set himself up as a measuring rod of the world, interpreting history
according to his prejudices as the history of thought, the world as the
world of ideas, an Ideal World. Thus for Hegel, problems and
contradictions were posed not in real terms but in terms of thought, and
could therefore find their solution only in terms of thought. Instead
of contradictions in society being solved by the actions of men and
women, by the class struggle, they instead find their solution in the
philosopher's head, in the Absolute Idea!
Nevertheless, Hegel recognised the errors and shortcomings of the old
mechanistic outlook. He also pointed out the inadequacies of formal
logic and set about the creation of a new world outlook which could
explain the contradictions of change and movement. (See below).
Although Hegel rediscovered and analysed the laws of motion and
change, his idealism placed everything on its head. It was the struggle
and criticism of the Young Hegelians, led by Ludwig Feuerbach
(1804-1872), which tried to correct and place philosophy back on its
feet. Yet even Feuerbach--“the under half of him was materialist, the
upper half idealist” (Engels)--was not able to fully purge Hegelianism
of its idealist outlook. This work was left to Marx and Engels, who were
able to rescue the dialectical method from its mystical shell. Hegelian
dialectics were fused with modern materialism to produce the
revolutionary understanding of dialectical materialism.
What are dialectics?
We have seen that modern materialism is the concept that matter is
primary and the mind or ideas are the product of the brain. But what is
dialectical thinking or dialectics?
“Dialectics is nothing more than the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought.” (Engels, Anti-Dühring.)
The dialectical method of thinking already had a long existence
before Marx and Engels developed it scientifically as a means of
understanding the evolution of human society.
The ancient Greeks produced some great dialectical thinkers,
including Plato, Zenon and Aristotle. As early as 500 B.C., Heraclitus
advanced the idea that “everything is and is not, for everything is in
flux, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing
away”. And further, “all things flow, all change. It is impossible to
enter twice into one and the same stream”. This statement already
contains the fundamental conception of dialectics that everything in
nature is in a constant state of change, and that this change unfolds
through a series of contradictions.
“...the great basic thought that the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready made things, but as a complex of processes, in which things apparently stable, no less than their mental images in our heads, concepts go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away.” (Engels, Anti-Dühring,)
“For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything: nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical philosophy is nothing more than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain.” (Ibid.)
Dialectics and metaphysics
The Greek Philosophers brilliantly anticipated the later development
of dialectics as of other sciences. But they could not themselves carry
this anticipation to its logical conclusion owing to the low development
of the means of production, and the lack of adequate information about
the detailed workings of the universe. Their ideas gave a more-or-less
correct general picture, but they were often more in the nature of
inspired guesses than scientifically worked out theories. In order to
carry human thought further, it was necessary to abandon these old
methods to arrive at a general understanding of the universe, and
concentrate on the smaller, more mundane tasks of collecting, sorting
out and labelling a host of individual facts, of testing particular
theories by experiment, of defining, etc.
This empirical, experimental, factual approach provided an enormous
boost to human thought and science. Investigations into the workings of
nature could now be carried out scientifically, analysing each
particular problem and testing each conclusion. But in the process, the
old ability to deal with things in their connection, not separately, in
their movement, not statically, in their life not in their death, was
lost. The narrow, empirical mode of thought which consequently arose is
termed the “Metaphysical” approach. It still dominates modern capitalist
philosophy and science. In politics it is reflected in Harold Wilson's
famous “pragmatism” (“if it works, it must be right”) and the constant
appeals to “the Facts”.
But facts do not select themselves. They have to be chosen by
individuals. The order and sequence in which they are arranged, and the
conclusions drawn from them depend upon the preconceived notions of the
individual. Thus such appeals for “the Facts”, which are supposed to
convey the impression of scientific impartiality, are usually just a
smokescreen to conceal the prejudices of the speaker.
Dialectics deals not only with facts, but with facts in their
connection, i.e. processes, not only with isolated ideas, but with laws,
not only with the particular, but with the general.
Dialectical thinking stands in the same relationship to metaphysics
as a motion picture to a still photograph. The one does not contradict
the other, but compliments it. However, the truer, more complete
approximation of reality is contained in the movie.
For everyday purposes and simple calculations, metaphysical thought,
or “common sense”, suffices. But it has its limitations, and beyond
these the application of “common sense” turns truth into its opposite.
The fundamental shortcoming of this type of thinking is its inability to
conceive of motion and development, and its rejection of all
contradiction. However, movement and change imply contradiction.
“To the metaphysician things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation, fixed, rigid, given once and for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antithesis … For him a thing either exists or does not exist: a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another: cause and effect stand in rigid antithesis one to the other.” (Anti-Dühring, p. 34.)
For everyday purposes, for instance, it is possible to say with a
degree of certainty whether an individual, plant or animal is alive or
dead. But in reality the question is not so simple, as legal cases on
abortion and the “rights of the foetus” indicate. At what point
precisely does human life begin? At what point does it end? Death, also
is not a simple event but a protracted process, as Heraclitus
understood: “It is the same thing in us that is living and dead, asleep
and awake, young and old; each changes place and becomes the other. We
step and we do not step into the same stream: we are and are not.”
Trotsky, in his ABC of Materialist Dialectics characterised the
dialectic as “a science of the forms of our thinking insofar as it is
not limited to the daily problems of life but attempts to arrive at an
understanding of more complicated and drawn-out processes.”
He compared dialectics and formal logic (metaphysics) to higher and
lower mathematics. It was Aristotle who first developed the laws of
formal logic, and his system of logic has been accepted ever since by
the metaphysicians as the only possible method of scientific thinking.
“The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism is accepted as an axiom for a multitude of practical human activities and elementary generalisations. The postulate starts from the proposition that 'A' = 'A'. But in reality 'A' is not equal to 'A'. This is quite easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens--they are quite different from each other. But, one can object, the question is not of the size or form of the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities, for instance, a pound of sugar. The objection is beside the point--in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar--a more delicate scale will always disclose a difference.
Again one can object; but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true--all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself 'at any given moment'.
Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of the 'axiom' it does not withstand theoretical criticism, either. How should we really conceive the word 'moment' a purely mathematical abstraction, that is a zero of time? But everything exists in time: and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation: time is subsequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom 'A' is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.
“At first glance it could seem that these 'subtleties' are useless. In reality they are of decisive significance. The axiom 'A equals A' appears on the one hand to be the point of departure for all knowledge on the other hand the point of departure for all errors in our knowledge. To make use of the axiom 'A equals A' with impunity is possible only within certain limits. When quantitative changes in 'A' are negligible for the task at hand, then we can presume that 'A equals A'. This is, for example, the manner in which a buyer and a seller both consider a pound of sugar.
We consider the Sun's temperature likewise. Until recently we considered the buying power of the dollar in the same way. But quantitative changes beyond certain limits become qualitative. A pound of sugar subjected to the action of water or Kerosene cease to be a pound of sugar. A dollar in the embraces of a president ceases to be a dollar. To determine the right moment, the critical point where quantity changes to quality is one of the most important and difficult tasks in all spheres of knowledge, including sociology.” (Trotsky, ABC of Materialist Dialectic)
Hegel
The old dialectical method of reasoning, which had fallen into disuse
from medieval times on, was revived in the early 19th century by the
great German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, (1770-1831). Hegel, one of the
most encyclopaedic minds of his time, subjected the forms of formal
logic to a detailed criticism, and demonstrated their limitations and
one-sidedness.
Hegel produced the first really comprehensive analysis of
the laws of dialectics, which served as a basis upon which Marx and
Engels later developed their theory of dialectical materialism. Lenin
characterised Hegelian dialectics as “the most comprehensive, the most
right in content and the most profound doctrine of development”. In
comparison with this, every other formulation was “one-sided and poor in
content, and distorting and mutilating the real course of development
(which often proceeds in leaps, catastrophes and revolutions) in nature
and society”. (Lenin, Karl Marx.)
Hegel's View of things was that of “A development that seemingly
repeats the stages already passed, but repeats them differently, on a
higher basis (negation of the negation), a development, so to speak, in
spirals, not in a straight line; a development by leaps, catastrophes,
revolutions; breaks in continuity; the transformations of quantity into
quality; the inner impulses of development, imparted by the
contradictions and conflict of the various forces and tendencies acting
on a given body, or within a given phenomenon, or within a given
society: the interdependence and the closest, indissoluble connection of
all sides of every phenomenon (while history constantly discloses ever
new sides), a connection that provides a uniform, a law-governed,
universal process of motion, such are some of the features of dialectics
as a richer (than the ordinary) doctrine of development.” (Ibid.)
“This new German philosophy culminated in the Hegelian system. In this system--and herein is its great merit--for the first time the whole world, natural, historical, intellectual, is represented as a process, i.e., as in constant motion, change, transformation, development; and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development.
From this point of view the history of mankind no longer appeared as a wild whirl of senseless deeds of violence, as equally condemnable at the judgement-seat of mature philosophic reason, and which are best forgotten as quickly as possible, but as the process of evolution of man himself. It was now the task of the intellect to follow the gradual march of this process through all its devious ways and to trace out the inner laws running through all its apparently accidental phenomena.” (Engels, Anti-Dühring, p. 37.)
Hegel brilliantly posed the problem, but was prevented from solving
it by his idealist preconceptions. It was, in Engels' words “a colossal
miscarriage”. Despite its mystical side, Hegel's philosophy already
explained the most important laws of dialectics: Quantity and quality,
the interpenetration of opposites and negation of the negation.
Quantity and quality
“In spite of all gradualness, the transition from one form of motion to another always remains a leap, a decisive change”. (Engels, Anti-Dühring.)
The idea of change and evolution is now generally accepted, but the
forms by which changes occur in nature and society have only been
explained by Marxian dialectics. The common view of evolution as a
peaceful, smooth and uninterrupted development is both one-sided and
false. In politics it is the “gradualist” theory of social change--the
basic theoretical plank of reformism.
Hegel developed the idea of a “nodal line of measure relations”--in
which at a definite nodal point, the purely quantitative increase or
decrease gives rise to a qualitative leap: for example in the case of
heated water, where boiling point and freezing point are the nodes at
which under normal pressure the leap into a new state of aggregation
takes place, and where consequently quantity is transformed into
quality.” (Engels, Anti-Dühring.)
Thus, in the example cited, the transformation of water from a liquid
to vapour or solid ice do not occur by a gradual congealing or
dissipation, but suddenly at a particular temperature (0°C, 100°C). The
cumulative effect of numerous changes of the speed of the molecules
eventually produces a change of state--quantity into quality.
Examples may be produced at will, from all the branches of science,
from sociology and even from everyday life (e.g., the point at which the
addition of salt changes the soup from something palatable to something
undrinkable).
The Hegelian nodal line of measurement and the law of the transition
of quantity into quality and vice-versa are of crucial importance not
only to science (where, like other dialectical laws, they are used
unconsciously by scientists who are not conscious dialecticians) but
above all in an analysis of history, society and the movement of the
working class.
The interpenetration of opposites
Just as “common sense” metaphysics seeks to eliminate contradiction
from thought and revolution from evolution, it also tries to prove that
all opposing ideas and forces are mutually exclusive. However, “we find
upon closer examination that the two poles of an antithesis, positive
and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed, and that
despite all their opposition they mutually interpenetrate.
And we find,
in like manner that cause and effect are conception to individual cases,
but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general
connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and
they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and
interaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places,
so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then and
vice-versa”. (Engels, Anti-Dühring, p. 36.)
Dialectics is the science of inter-connections, in contrast to
metaphysics which treats phenomena as separate and isolated. Dialectics
seeks to uncover the countless threads, transition, cause and effect
which bind together the universe. The first task of a dialectical
analysis is therefore to trace the “Necessary connection, the objective
connection of all the aspects, forces, tendencies etc., of the given
sphere of phenomena”. (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 97.)
Dialectics approaches a given phenomenon from the point of view of its development,
its own movement and life; how it arises and how it passes away; it
also considers the internal contradictory tendencies and sides of this
thing.
Motion is the mode of existence of the entire material universe.
Energy and matter are inseparable. Furthermore, motion is not imparted
“from without”, but the manifestation of the internal tensions that are
inseparable not only from life, but from all forms of matter.
Development and change takes place through internal contradictions. Thus
dialectical analysis begins by laying bare by empirical investigation
the inner contradictions which give rise to development and change.
From the dialectical standpoint all “polar opposites” are one-sided
and inadequate, including the contradiction between “truth and error”.
Marxism does not accept the existence of any “Eternal Truths”. All
“truths” and “errors” are relative. What is true in one time and context
becomes false in another: truth and error pass into each other.
Thus the progress of knowledge and science does not proceed from the
mere negation of “incorrect theories”. All theories are relative,
grasping one side of reality. Initially they are assumed to have
universal validity and application. They are “true”. But at a certain
point, deficiencies in the theory are noticed; they are not applicable
to all circumstances, exceptions to the rule are found. These have to be
explained, and at a certain point, new theories are developed which can
account for the exceptions. But the new theories not only “negate” the
old, but incorporate them in a new form.
We can exclude contradictions only by regarding objects as lifeless,
at rest and individually juxtaposed, i.e. metaphysically. But as soon as
we consider things in their motion and change, in their life, their
mutual interdependence and interaction, we come up against a series of
contradictions.
Motion itself is a contradiction between being in the same place and somewhere else at the same time.
Life, equally, is a contradiction that “a being is at each moment itself and yet something else”. (Engels, Anti-Dühring, p. 167.)
Living structures constantly absorb substances from the environment,
assimilate them and simultaneously other parts of the body decay,
disintegrate and are expelled. Constant transformations occur also in
the world of organic nature; e.g., a rock which disintegrated under the
pressure of the elements. Everything is therefore constantly itself and
something else at one and the same time. Thus, the desire to eliminate
contradictions is the desire to eliminate reality.
Negation of the negation
Engels characterises this as “an extremely general and for this
reason extremely far-reaching and important law of development of
nature, history and thought; a law which … holds good in the animal and
plant kingdoms, in geology, in mathematics, in history and philosophy”.
(Ibid., p. 193.)
This law, the workings of which were observed in nature long before
it was written down, was first clearly elaborated by Hegel, who gives a
whole series of concrete examples which are reiterated in Anti-Dühring.
(Ibid., pp. 186-190.)
The law of the negation of the negation deals with the nature of
development through a series of contradictions, which appear to annul,
or negate a previous fact, theory, or form of existence, only to be
later negated in its turn. Motion, change and development thus moves
through an uninterrupted series of negations.
However, negation in the dialectical sense does not signify a mere
annulment or obliteration whereby the earlier stage is both overcome and
preserved at the same time. Negation, in this sense, is both a positive
and a negative act.
Hegel gives a simple example in his book, The Phenomenology of the
Mind: “The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might
say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the
fruit comes the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the
plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of
the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated, they supplement
one another as being incomparable with one another. But the ceaseless
activity of their own inherent nature makes them at the same time
moments of an organic unity, where they do not merely contradict one
another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal
necessity of all moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the
whole.”
In this process of endless self-annulment, the disappearance of
certain forms and the emergence of others, a pattern frequently emerges
which seem to be a repetition of forms, events and theories already
surpassed. Thus, it is a commonplace that “history repeats itself”.
Reactionary bourgeois historians have thus tried to prove that history
itself is merely a meaningless repetition, proceeding in a never-ending
circle.
Dialectics, on the contrary, discerns within these seeming
repetitions an actual … development from lower to higher, an evolution
in which the same forms may repeat themselves, but on a higher level,
enriched by previous developments.
This can be seen most clearly from the process of development of
human ideas. Hegel already showed how philosophy developed through a
series of contradictions; one school of thought negating another, but
simultaneously absorbing the older theories into its own system of
thought.
Similarly with the development of science. The alchemists of the
Middle Ages were motivated for the search for the “Philosophers' Stone”
which could turn base metal into gold. Owing to the low level of the
productive forces and the lack of scientific technique, these early
attempts at the “transmutation” of the elements was in reality a utopian
fantasy. However, in the process of these vain attempts, the alchemists
actually discovered a whole series of valuable facts about chemicals
and experimental apparatus which later provided the basis of modern
chemistry.
With the rise of capitalism, industry and technique, chemistry
becomes a science which rejected the early “crazy” notions of the
transmutation of the elements which was thus negated. However, all that
was valuable and scientific in the discoveries of alchemy were preserved
in the new chemistry, which maintained that the elements were
“immutable” and could not be transformed one into another.\
The 20th century has seen the revolutionising of science and
technique with the discovery of nuclear physics, by means of which one
element can actually be transformed into another. In fact, it would be
theoretically possible to turn lead into gold, in modern times, but the
process would be too expensive to be justified economically. Thus this
particular process seems to have turned full circle:\
(a) transmutation of elements (b) non transmutation of elements (c) transmutation of elements
But the repetition is only apparent. In reality, modern science,
which in one sense has returned to an idea of the ancient alchemists,
includes within itself all the enormous discoveries of the 19th century
and 18th century science. Thus, one generation stands on the shoulders
of another. Ideas which have apparently been “disproved” or “negated”
make their re-appearance, but on a higher level, enriched by the
previous experiences and discoveries.
Dialectics bases itself upon determinism: the thought that nothing in
nature, society or thought is accidental; that seeming “accidents”
arise only as the result of a deeper necessity.
Superficial historians have written that the First World War was
“caused” by the assassination of a Crown Prince at Sarajevo. To a
Marxist this event was an historical accident, in the sense that this
chance event served as the pretext, or catalyst, for the world conflict
which had already been made inevitable by the economic, political and
military contradictions of imperialism. If the assassin had missed, or
if the Crown Prince had never been born, the war would still have taken
place, on some other diplomatic pretext. Necessity would have expressed
itself through a different “accident”.
Everything which exists, exists of necessity. But, equally,
everything which exists is doomed to perish, to be transformed into
something else. Thus what is “necessary” in one time and place becomes
“unnecessary” in another. Everything begets its opposite which is
destined to overcome and negate it. This is true of individual living
things as much as societies.
Every type of human society exists because it is necessary at the
given time when it arises: “No special order ever disappears before all
the productive forces for which there is room in it, have been
developed: and new higher relations of production never appear before
the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of
the old society. Therefore mankind always takes up only such problems as
it can solve, since, looking at the matter more closely, we will always
find that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions
necessary for its solution already exist or at least are in the process
of formation”. (Marx, Critique of Political Economy.)
Slavery, in its day, represented an enormous leap forward over
barbarism. It was a necessary stage in the development of productive
forces, culture and human society. As Hegel put it: “It is not so much from slavery as through slavery that man becomes free”.
Similarly capitalism was originally a necessary and progressive stage
in human society. However, like slavery, primitive communism and
feudalism (see section 2), capitalism has long since ceased to represent
a necessary and progressive social system. It has foundered upon the
deep contradictions inherent in it, and is doomed to be overcome by the
rising forces of socialism, represented by the modem proletariat.
Private ownership of the means of production and the nation state, the
basic features of capitalist society, which originally marked a great
step forward, now serve only to fetter and undermine the productive
forces and threaten all the gains made in centuries of human
development.
Capitalism is now a thoroughly decrepit, degenerate social system,
which must be overthrown and replaced by its opposite, Socialism, if
human culture is to survive. Marxism is determinist, but not fatalist,
because the working out of contradictions in society can only be
achieved by men and women consciously striving for the transformation of
society. This struggle of the classes is not pre-determined. Who
succeeds depends on many factors, and a rising, progressive class has
many advantages over the old, decrepit force of reaction. But
ultimately, the result must depend upon which side has the stronger
will, the greater organisation and the most skilful and resolute
leadership.
The Marxist philosophy is therefore essentially a guide to action:
“Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point
is, however, to change it”. (Marx, Theses on Feuerbach.)
The victory of socialism will mark a new and qualitatively different
stage of human history. To be more accurate it will mark the end of the
prehistory of the human race, and start a real history.
However on the other hand, socialism marks a return to the earliest
form of human society--tribal communism--but on a much higher level,
which stands upon all the enormous gains of thousands of years of class
society.
The economy of superabundance, will be made possible by the
application of socialist planning to the industry, science and technique
established by capitalism, on a world scale. This in turn will once and
for all make redundant the division of labour, the difference between
mental and manual labour, between town and countryside, and the wasteful
and barbaric class struggle and enable the human race at least to set
its resources to the conquest of nature: to use Engels' famous phrase,
“Mankind's leap from the realms of necessity to the Realm of Freedom”.
INTRODUCTION TO HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
When one looks at history, it appears to be a mass of contradictions.
Events are lost in a maze of revolutions, wars, periods of progress and
of decline. Conflicts of classes and nations swirl around in the chaos
of social development. How is it possible to understand and explain
these events, when it appears that they have no rational basis?
From the beginning, human beings have sought to discover the laws
which govern their existence. Theories ranging from supernatural
guidance to the leadership of “Great Men” have attempted in one way or
another, at one time or another to provide such an explanation. Some
believe that as people act independently of each other, theories of
human development are utterly worthless!
For almost 2,000 years the ideas of Genesis dominated the outlook of
Western Europe. Those who attempted to undermine this concept were
branded as disciples of the Devil. It is only in very recent times that
the “heretical” view of history, evolution, has been generally accepted
although even then in a one-sided fashion.
For the capitalist class and their functionaries in the universities,
schools and places of learning, history has to be taught in an academic
and biased fashion with absolutely no relevance to the present day.
They continue to peddle the myth that classes and private property have
always existed in a bid to justify the “eternal” nature of capitalist
exploitation and the economic anarchy inherent within it. Volumes and
volumes have been written by leading academics and professors to
disprove the writings of Marxism and above all its Materialist
Conception of History.
Marxists attach enormous importance to the study of history; not for
its own sake but so as to study the great lessons it contains. Without
that understanding of the development of events, it is not possible to
foresee future perspectives. Lenin, for example, prepared the Bolshevik
Party for the October 1917 Revolution by a meticulous analysis of the
experience of the Paris Commune and the events in Russia of 1905 and
February 1917.
It is precisely in this sense that we study and learn from history.
Marxism is the science of perspectives, using its method of Dialectical
Materialism to unravel the complex processes of historical development.
Marxist philosophy examines things not as static entities but in
their development, movement and life. Historical events are seen as
processes. Evolution, however, is not simply the movement from the lower
to the higher. Life and society develop in a contradictory way, through
“spirals not in a straight line; a development by leaps, catastrophes,
and revolutions; breaks in continuity; the transformation of quantity
into quality; inner impulses towards development, imparted by the
contradiction and conflict of the various forces and tendencies.”
(Lenin.)
Engels expressed dialectics as being “the great basic thought that
the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready-made things,
but as a complex of processes, in which the things apparently stable no
less than their mind images in our heads, the concepts, go through an
uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away.” (Anti-Duhring).
This method is also materialist in outlook. Ideas, theories, party
programmes, etc., do not fall from the sky but always reflect the
material world and material interests. As Marx explained, “the mode of
production of material life conditioned the social, political and
intellectual life processes in general. It is not the consciousness of
men that determines their being, but on the contrary their social being
that determines their consciousness”.
Using this method, Marx was able to indicate:
“the way to an all-embracing and comprehensive study of the process of the rise, development, and decline of socio-economic systems. People make their own history but what determines the motives of people, of the mass of people—i.e., what is the sum total of all these clashes in the mass of human societies? What are the objective conditions of production of material life that form the basis of all man's historical activity? What is the law of development of these conditions? To all these Marx drew attention and indicated the way to a scientific study of history as a single process which, with all its immense variety and contradictoriness, is governed by definite laws.”. (Lenin, Karl Marx - A Brief Biographical Sketch With an Exposition of Marxism)
Primitive communism
Early humans evolved some three million years ago out of a highly
evolved species of ape. Slowly primitive “humans” moved away from the
forests and into the plains; a transition which was accompanied by an
improvement in the flexibility and dexterity of the hand. The posture of
the body became more erect. Whereas other animals had different organs
for defence (cutting digging, shovelling and coats for warmth), humans
had none of these. To survive they had to develop their only resources
which were their hands and brain.
Through trial and error, humans
learned various skills, which had to be handed down from one generation
to another. Communication through speech became a vital necessity. As
Engels explained, “mastery over nature began with the development of the
hand, with labour, and widened man's horizon at every new advance”. Men
and women were social animals forced to band together and co-operate in
order to survive. Unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, they developed
the ability to generalise and think abstractly.
Labour begins with the
making of tools. With these tools, humans change their surrounding to
meet their needs. “The animal merely uses its environment,” says Engels,
“and brings about changes in it simply by his presence; Man by his
changes makes it serve his ends, masters it. This is the final,
essential distinction between Man and other animals, and once again it
is labour that brings about this distinction.”
The economic forms were very simple. Humans, were very rare animals,
and they roamed around in groups in search of food. This nomadic life
was completely dominated with food gathering. Archaeologists call this
period the old stone age. Henry Morgan, an early anthropologist, termed
the period savagery. Then and for many thousands of years to come,
private property did not exist. Everything that was made, collected, or
produced was considered common property.
Between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago, a new higher period emerged
known as the new stone age or Barbarism. Instead of roaming for food,
advances were made in cultivating crops and domesticating animals. Men
and women became free to settle in a particular place and as a result
new tools were fashioned to assist the new work, and a food producing
economy was created. Stable tribes and communities arose at this time.
Even today, for a variety of reasons, many tribes in Africa, the South
Pacific and South America exist at this stage of Barbarism.
Yet with the birth of the permanent settlement, private dwellings did
not come into being; on the contrary, the large ones that were built
were for common use. In this period, no private family existed. The
children belonged to the entire tribe.
In the stage of primitive communism (savagery and barbarism, each
being a lower and higher stage respectively), no private property,
classes, privileged elites, police or special coercive apparatus (the
state) existed. The tribes themselves were divided into social units
called clans or gentes (singular gens). These, in fact, were very large
family groups, which traced their descent from the female line alone.
This is what is termed a matriarchal society. How else could it be when
it was impossible to identify the real father of a child? It was
forbidden for a man to cohabit with a woman from his own clan or gens,
thus the tribes were made up from a coalition of clans. At certain
times, a form of group marriage existed between the clans themselves.
This classless form of society was extremely democratic in its
character. Everyone would participate in a general assembly to decide
the important issues as they occurred, and their chiefs and officers
would be elected for particular purposes. As Engels pointed out in his
book, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State:
“How wonderful this gentle constitution is in all its natural simplicity! No soldiers, gendarmes and policemen, no nobility, kings, regents, prefects or judges, no prisons, no law-suits, and still affairs run smoothly. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the entire community involved in them, either the Gens or the tribe or the various Gentes amongst themselves.Only in very rare cases the blood revenge is threatened as an extreme measure. Our capital punishment is simply a civilised form of it, afflicted with all the advantages and drawbacks of civilisation … the communistic household is shared by a number of families, the land belongs to the tribe, only the gardens are temporarily assigned to the households … There cannot be any poor and destitute--the communistic households and the Gentes know their duties towards the aged, sick and disabled. All are free and equal--the women included. There is no room yet for slaves, nor for the subjection of foreign tribes”.
To the narrow philistine, who sees private property as a sacred god,
these societies are looked upon with contempt. To the tribespeople,
private property is completely alien. “The Indians,” explains the
historian Heckewelder, “think that the great spirit has made the earth,
and all that it contains, for the common good of mankind, when he
stocked the country and gave them plenty of game, it was not for the
good of the few, but of all. Everything is given in common to the sons
of men. Whatever liveth on the land, whatever groweth out of the earth,
and all that is in the rivers and waters was given jointly to all, and
everyone is entitled to his share”.
Common tribal property came under growing strain from the development
with the private family, with private houses growing up alongside the
communal dwellings. As time went on Common Land became later divided up
to form the collective property of each family. The Matriarchal family
gave way to the Patriarchal (male dominated) form, which became
essential to the maintenance of the collective property.
This “family”, however, must not be looked up on as similar to that
of today. As Paul Lafargue says, “the family was not reduced to its last
and simplest expression, as it is in our day, where it is composed of
three indispensable elements: the father, the mother and the offspring;
it consisted of the father, the recognised head of the family; of the
legitimate wife, and his concubines, living under the same roof; of his
children, his younger brothers, with their wives and children, and his
unmarried sisters: such a family comprised many members”.
The growth of private property in the later stages of primitive communism is regarded by Marxists as elements of the new society within the old. Eventually the qualitative accumulation of these new elements led to the qualitative break up of the old society.
With the growth of new means of production, particularly in
agriculture, the question arose who should own them? The possession of
tools, weapons, new metals, but above all the means to make them, enabled a family to rise above the terrible life and death struggle with the force of nature.
Then with the further development (trade developed at first between
the different communities) of the productive forces, inequality began to
appear within society. This had a profound effect upon the Old Order.
For the first time, men and women were able to produce a surplus above and beyond his own needs, resulting in a revolutionary leap forward for humanity.
In the past, where war broke out between two tribes, it was
uneconomic to take captives as slaves. After all, a captive would only
have been able to produce sufficient food for himself. No surplus was
produced. The only use for a captive, given the shortage of food, was as
a source of meat. This was the economic foundation of cannibalism.
But once a surplus was produced, it became economically viable to
keep a slave who was forced to work for his master. The surplus obtained
from a growing number of slaves was then appropriated by the new class
of slave owners. But how were the slaves to be controlled and forced to
work? The old tribes had no police force or means of coercion. Every
individual was free and was a warrior.
The production of a surplus product smashed the old forms of society,
enabling classes to crystallise. The existence of these classes
required an apparatus of force to subject one class by another. Rich and
poor, landowner and tenant, creditor and debtor all made their
appearance in society. The clans which were social units of originally
blood relations, began to disintegrate. The rich of different clans had
more in common with each other than they had with the poor of their own
clan.
Slave society
Despite all the horrors which accompanied it, the emergence of class
society was enormously progressive in further developing society. For
the first time since humans evolved from the ape, a section of society
was freed from the labour of eking out an existence. Those who were
freed from work could now devote their time to science, philosophy and
culture. Class society brought with it priests, clerks, officials and
specialised craftsmen. The historical justification and function of the
new ruling class was to develop the productive forces and take society
forward. It was at this stage that civilisation first emerged.
Special institutions were now created to protect the interests of the
ruling class. Special armed bodies of men, with their gaols, courts,
executioners, etc., as well as new laws were all needed to protect
private property of the slave owner. The state together with its
appendages came into being and the freedom and equality of the old
gentile system fell into ruins. New ideas and morals developed to
justify the new social and economic order.
By the 7th century B.C. the tribal aristocracy of Greece had become a
ruling class of well-endowed slave owning landlords. According to the
Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, the majority of the population of
Attica had been enslaved by this time.
With the growth of the city-states, the increase in the division of
labour greatly accelerated. Not only between town and country, but
between branches of trade and finance, merchant and usurer; new crafts
sprung up together with a growing band of artists catering for the
tastes and culture of the upper class.
The drive of the city-states for more and more slaves, resulted in
continuous war. In the war against Macedonia by the Romans in 169 B.C.,
70 cities in Epirus alone were sacked and 150,000 of their inhabitants
sold as slaves. The slave economy was extremely wasteful and needed for
its survival a continuous supply of slaves to replace those who had been
injured or died. However the natural reproduction amongst slaves was
very slow owing to the harshness of their lot, thus the only real method
of replenishment was by conquest.
Although the slave was much less productive than the free peasant on
the land, the low cost of his maintenance made slavery far more
profitable. The ruination of the free peasants led to large numbers
fleeing to the town forming the de-classed lumpenproletariat of the
slave societies. The latter relied upon the charity of the upper
classes, who provided them with circuses for their amusement.
It was in this period that the revolutionary Christian movement
emerged. Originally a group of primitive Communist sects with a deep
hatred of the conquering Romans and their rich lackeys, they won much
support from the poor and oppressed. These early Christian
revolutionaries were prepared to use violent means to overthrow the
upper classes and bring about “Heaven on Earth”.
They were therefore
hounded by the authorities and were ruthlessly executed for treason
against the Emperor. Later, Christianity was raised to the position of
state religion after being purged of its class hatred. The ruling class
used it as a weapon to dupe and pacify the lower classes into accepting
their earthly lot and to encourage their illusions in a better life
after death.
The greater the surpluses the slave-owners obtained from the
exploitation of the slaves, the greater became their extravagance,
brilliance, arrogance and idleness. As more and more wars had to be
waged to increase the slave population by conquest, the Roman Empire
overstretched itself. Wars cannot be fought without soldiers and the
best soldiers were the peasants. They were rapidly disappearing and thus
had to be replaced by highly paid foreign mercenaries. The age of the
“cheap slave” came to a rapid end bringing with it the decline of the
slave empires.
Despite the various slave rebellions--the most famous being led by
Spartacus--the slave did not prove to be a revolutionary class that
could take society forward. As Marx was to point out, the class struggle
would end “either in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at
large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes”. Karl Kautsky,
the German Marxist, explained that “the great migrations, the flooding
of the Roman Empire by the swarms of savage Germans did not mean the
premature destruction of a flourishing high culture, but merely the
conclusion of a dying civilisation and the formation of the basis for a
new upswing of civilisation”.
The mighty slave civilisations had produced an enormous leap forward
for society. One is amazed at the cultural achievements of Ancient Egypt
and Babylon. The Greeks and Romans developed scientific knowledge to
tremendous heights. Hero, the philosopher, had discovered the basic
principles of the steam engine. The contributions of Archimedes,
Pythagoras and Euclid advanced mathematics to the stage where the
beginnings of mechanical engineering would have been possible.
Nevertheless, slave society had reached its limits and internal decay
and external factors were to bring it to destruction.
The rise of feudalism
“The last centuries of the declining Roman Empire and its conquest by the Barbarians destroyed a number of productive forces: agriculture had declined, industry had decayed for want of a market, trade had died out or had been violently suspended, the rural population and urban population had decreased.” (Karl Marx, The German Ideology.)
Over the centuries, the barbarian masses overran Europe; in the East,
the Goths, Germans and Huns; in the North and West, the Scandinavian;
in the South, the Arabs. In their conquest of territories they proceeded
to ransack the towns, and settle down in the countryside, where they
lived by means of primitive agriculture.
In these communities, they elected their village chiefs, however, as
time passed by, chiefs were always chosen from the same family. The head
of the privileged family, through succession, became the natural chief.
The villages were at constant war with their neighbours, resulting in
conquered lands being divided up with the greater share accruing to the
chief. He thus became the most powerful and propertied man in the
community. In times of strife, he would guarantee the protection of
those under him while in turn they were duty bound to grant military
service to him. These peasants were later able to forgo their military
service for a tribute in some form or another.
The authority of these village lords was extended into the
surrounding countryside. The lord “owed justice, aid, and protection to
his vassals, and these, in their turn, owed fidelity and homage to their
lord”. (Lafargue, The Evolution of Property.) Wars and conquests served
to crystallise these feudal relationships. The lords and barons
together with their men-at-arms formed a new social hierarchy, sustained
by the labour provided by their vassals. As Lafargue expressed it:
“So soon as the authority of the feudal nobility was constituted, it became in its turn, a source of trouble to the country whose defence it had been charged with. The barons, in order to enlarge their territories and thereby extend their power, carried on continual warfare among themselves, only interrupted now and again by a short truce necessitated by the tillage of the fields …The vanquished, when not killed outright or utterly despoiled, became the vassals of the conqueror, who seized upon a portion of their lands and vassals. The petty barons disappeared for the benefit of the great ones, who became potent feudatories, and established ducal courts at which the lords in vassalage were bound to attend”.
As feudal relations matured, the majority of farm land in Europe
became divided into areas known as manors, each manor possessing its own
lord and officials whose task was to manage the estate. The arable land
was divided into two parts, about a third of it belonged to the lord
(called a Demesne), while the rest was divided amongst his vassals.
Pastures, wood and meadows were used as Common Land--a survival in fact
from the days of Primitive Communism. Agriculture was to make great
strides forward with the introduction of the three field system. The
vassals share of the land, however, was further divided up into separate
strips scattered throughout the fields which meant a massive drain on
productivity.
The social structure which developed under Feudalism, gave rise to
new classes and groups. The social framework resembled a pyramid
structure, headed by the king, aristocracy, the great churchmen and
bishops. Under them were the privileged barons, dukes, counts and
knights. On the bottom rungs of the social order were the freeman, serfs
(Bordars, Cotters, Villeins), and slaves.
Unlike today, where the main body of wealth is created in the
factories the land produced nearly all of social requirement. So land
became the most important possession of the Feudal system. The more land
one held, the more powerful one became. The ruling class ruled by their
virtual monopoly of land to which the serfs were tied. Theoretically,
the King owned all the land but in reality areas and domains were
granted to dukes, who in turn granted tenancy to counts, who would have
many vassals under him granted tenancy of much smaller parcels of land.
All had to provide services to their superiors in guaranteeing
men-at-arms, payment of rent, etc.
Unlike the slave who owned nothing, the serf was a tenant of the
lord. Unlike the slave, the serf has a vested interest in his plot of
land. He had more rights than the slave: he could not be sold (neither
could his family), providing some security, although the degree of
serfdom and obligations varied. In return for this land and “rights”,
the serf was forced to work for the lord of the manor for certain
periods of the week, without pay.
Other services were demanded of him
(Boon Days) at harvest time, and whenever the lord needed assistance.
The lords' needs came first. The serf could not leave the land, had to
have the lords' permission if his children were to marry outside his
demesne. Taxes were imposed on a serf's inheritance and female heirs to
land had to get the permission of their overlord.
The new organisation of society based on landed property gave rise to
a further development of the productive forces. This time the surplus
value created by the serf's labour was appropriated by the aristocratic
lay and ecclesiastical ruling class.
In the words of the historian Meilly: “It is an economic maxim that
productiveness increases in proportion as the freer constitution of
society insures the workers an absolutely larger and more secure portion
of the product of their labour. In other words, freer social forms have
the direct effect of stimulating production.”
As the new classes crystallised, new forms of state apparatus also
came into existence to preserve the feudal property forms. The new
morality and ideology that arose from these forms cemented social
relationships. The Church, which became more and more powerful, provided
the spiritual foundations of the new order and with it the Popes became
more powerful than King or Emperor, with churchlands extending to
between a third and a half of the land in Christendom. The tithe that is
collected amounted to a 10 per cent tax on all income, goods, etc.
In general the feudal state remained centrally weak until the rise of
the absolute monarchies of the 16th century. As a result, continual
baronial wars shook the outlying provinces where robber barons built up
their power and prestige, threatening the position of the central
monarch. The struggle of the central monarch to subdue the regions is a
characteristic feature of the period. The eventual defeat of these
provincial lords, with their constant strife and war, enabled trade to
develop to a higher level.
Trade was at a low level. The land, in fact, produced practically
everything. It was a “natural” economy geared towards self-sufficiency.
However, with the launching of the crusades, the expeditions to the Holy
Land, new needs arose, and the merchants who supplied these needs,
began to establish huge fairs in France, Belgium, England, Germany and
Italy. These periodic fairs played an essential part in the growth of
European trade, and helped to establish a strong class of rich
merchants. Money relations began to erode the straight jacket of feudal
society.
Hand in hand with the development of trade, went the growth of the
towns. The merchant class that arose in the town clashed with the
traditional standards and restrictions of feudalism.
The Church, for instance, considered the practice of usury as a sin,
using the threat of excommunication against those who promoted it.
In his very good book, Man's Worldly Goods, Leo Huberinan explains the nature of the conflict:
“The whole atmosphere of feudalism was one of confinement, whereas the whole atmosphere of merchant activity in the town was one of freedom. Town land belonged to feudal lords, bishops, nobles, kings. These feudal lords at first looked upon their town land in no different light from that in which they looked on the other land …
All these forms (feudal dues, taxes, services) were feudal, based on the ownership of the soil. And all these forms had changed as far the towns were concerned. Feudal regulations and feudal justice were fixed by custom and difficult to alter. But trade by its very nature is active, changing, and impatient of barriers. It could not fit into the rigid feudal frame.”
Therefore old relationships had to be challenged and changed. The
towns began to demand their freedom and independence, and gradually town
charters were conceded, some by agreement, others by force.
Trade itself gave rise to new forms of wealth. No longer was land the
sole source of power and privilege, as money acquired in trading
assumed a much greater importance. In the towns was born the wealthy
merchant oligarchy which controlled and regulated the small scale
individual production, through the guild system. With the further
division of labour,
Craft Guilds were established comprising the guild
master, apprentices and journeymen. As more and more wealth was created
through production the guild masters (employers of labour) came into
sharp conflict with their journeymen (workers). By the 15th century,
actual journeymen's unions were formed to protect their interests.
The introduction of the money economy (which had only a very limited
character in slave society) slowly undermined the basis of the feudal
system. Its laws and customs were modified to correspond with the new
development. As serfs ran away to the towns to make their fortunes,
money values began to transcend the old relationships, Labour dues being
replaced by rented property.
The impact of the Black Death, in the
mid-14th century, greatly accelerated the process. Historians have
estimated between 30 and 50 per cent of the population of England,
Germany, the Low Countries, and France were wiped out by the Great
Plague. This in turn resulted in the chronic shortage of labour, which
forced many landowners to introduce wage labour to overcome their
difficulties.
The rise of the absolute monarch
The nation-state as we know it today did not always exist. Peoples'
allegiances at this time belonged not to the nation but to the lord, the
town, the locality, or the guild. People considered themselves not
French, English, etc., but people of a town or city. Every Christian was
a member of the Roman Catholic Church, which in turn ruled over
Christendom, and thus was the greatest power of all.
With the growth of wealth in the towns, a capitalist class began to
arise which demanded conditions suitable for the unhindered development
of trade and commerce. They wanted order and security. The struggle for
independence of the towns from their feudal overlords, the continuous
battles between local barons, the pillaging that followed, all gave rise
to the need for a central authority, a nation state.
The conflict between the central monarch and the great barons (a
struggle between two sections of the ruling class) ended with a victory
for the king. He was supported by the merchants and middle class, who
provided the money to raise the armies he required. The emergence of the
nation state together with the centralised monarchy ushered in a great
economic advance. For their support, the monarch granted certain
monopolies and privileges to sections of the middle class and the next
stage was set for the clash between the national monarch and the
interests of the international church.
The late 15th century saw the beginning of the voyages of discovery.
Men such as Columbus and Vasco Da Gama were financed by rich merchants
to seek new areas of exploitation and “spread the Word of God”. Joint
stock companies were established to promote the financing of greater
exploitation, for plunder and profit.
With the massive profits from the voyages, many merchants and
financiers became the real centres of power and wealth. Nobles,
aristocrats and monarchs became debtors to the rich merchants. One
banking family, the Fuggors, were even able to decide who was to be made
Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire!
The new economic developments were giving rise to a capitalist
formation. The basis of the feudal economy had begun to disintegrate
with the growth in power and wealth of the rising bourgeoisie. New
values, ideas, philosophies, and morals evolved out of the new
relationships. The old ruling class stubbornly resisted the changes.
As Marx explained:“At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relation of production or--this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms--with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution”. Later on, Marx adds: “No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.”
The old society has been undermined during the previous period.
Probably one of the greatest challenges to the old order was the attack
on Catholicism. In this period, the Church was not just a religious
institution but the chief bulwark of the social order. Apart from being a
powerful landowner, it collected a tithe from everyone, had its courts
and special privileges, controlled education and shaped the political
and moral outlook of the people.
As Charles I once said: “People are
governed by the pulpit more than the sword in times of peace.” The
Church censored books, and used the threat of excommunication against
dissenters. It is said that this was a very religious period but this is
wildly exaggerated by historians. Rather than people actually living
according to the precepts of the Bible, religion was rather used to
justify the Old Order. Everything, including political thought, was
expressed in religious terms. Those who wished to undermine the system,
had to first challenge the monopoly of Catholicism.
In the early 16th century, the absolute monarchies came into conflict
with the Catholic Church themselves. The Protestant Reformation ushered
in by Luther, supplied the weapons in the struggle against Papal power.
In England, Henry VIII broke with Catholicism and raided the wealth of
the monasteries, which was dissipated in expensive European and Irish
wars.
The capitalist revolution
The Puritanism of the Calvin variety suited the outlook and morality
of the rising middle class in town and country with its emphasis on
self-reliance and personal success. The middle class was now set to rise
quickly after adapting to the inflation rampant between 1540-1640, in
which prices rose by more than fourfold and came increasingly into
conflict with the old ruling class.
In England, the struggle between the new bourgeoisie and the old
order took the form of the civil war. The New Model Army of Oliver
Cromwell led the middle class into the armed struggle against the King
and Old Order. In 1649, the King was beheaded and a capitalist republic
declared. Cromwell, resting for support on the army, established himself
as the head of a Bonapartist military dictatorship.
The elements of
left-wing democracy and its proponents (the levellers and diggers), who
threatened capitalist property rights, had to be mercilessly quashed.
From then on the regime rested on a narrow social basis--the armed
forces. The capitalist regime under these critical crises circumstances
reduced itself in the Bonapartist fashion to the rule of one man.
The feudal structures were dismantled together with the House of
Lords and monarchy. The old ruling class had been defeated, and the
lower classes kept in their place. The struggle of the Parliamentarians
against the King has been seen by historians and even by some
contemporaries as a struggle against tyranny and for religious liberty
but as Marx commented:
“Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradiction of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production”.
Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution, once
noted: “Revolutions have always in history been followed by
counter-revolutions. Counter-revolutions have always thrown society
back, but never as far back as the starting point of the revolution”. So
it was in 1660 and 1689, where the big bourgeoisie hurriedly made a
compromise with the “bourgeois” elements of the aristocracy.
The
monarchy and House of Lords were restored although from then on they
could never play the same role as their predecessors, on the contrary,
they became part and parcel of the capitalist state. The bourgeois men
of property concerned themselves with their future, and of keeping the
lower orders in their place with their power carefully checked.
One hundred years later, the French Capitalist revolution was carried
through to completion without any compromise being struck. The French
Revolution, like its English counter-part, began with a split in the
ruling class. The King and his ministers clashed over a scheme to avoid
state bankruptcy, with the Parliament (which represented the nobility,
higher clergy, the court clique, etc.).
The latter's appeal against the
government tyranny took on unforeseen flesh and rioting broke out in the
streets of the towns and cities. It brought to a head all the simmering
discontent of the middle class and lower orders against the regime.
“The revolt of the nobility was,” explains George Rude, “perhaps, a
curtain-raiser rather than a revolution which, by associating the middle
and lower classes in common action against King and aristocracy, was
unique in contemporary Europe.” Despite the attempts at reform from
above, they were insufficient to prevent revolution from below.
As in all popular revolutions the masses burst onto the scene of
history. The most self-sacrificing came to the fore, and pushed the
revolution far to the left. Between 1789 and 1793 the old feudal regime
and aristocracy had been completely swept away. The regime was headed by
the revolutionary middle class, the Jacobins, who were supported and
pushed by the plebeian masses made up of wage-earners and small
craftsmen.
A shift to the right occurred in 1794 with the government of
the Directory coming to power. This in its turn gave way to a new
political counter-revolution, which brought to power the law and order
type regime of Napoleon Bonaparte. Nevertheless, the old order had been
broken, and the new bourgeois property rights were to remain intact. The
shift of political power was not accompanied by a social change
backwards, i.e., it did not bring a return to the feudal order but was a
political change brought about through the struggles of different
sections of the capitalist class itself.
The triumph of capitalism
The great Bourgeois revolutions cleared the path for Capitalism. The
agrarian changes ensured the growth of capitalist agriculture, where the
old feudal estates had been broken up and distributed to the peasants.
In England, the conversion of a section of the aristocracy before the
revolution prepared the way for the ruination of the peasantry itself.
Governments now, instead of acting as a brake on trade and industry,
actually championed its cause.
Through robbery, enclosure and plunder and competition, the means of
production became concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. The ruination
of the peasantry provided a pool of labour-power in the towns and
cities. The class structure became more simplified. On the one hand were
the capitalists and on the other the propertyless proletarians. All
that these workers possessed was their ability to work.
The only way
they could remain alive was to sell their labour-power to the
capitalists in return for wages. In the process of production, the
proletarian produces more value than he receives in wages, the surplus
value being expropriated by the capitalists. In its search for profit,
amidst competition from rivals, the capitalist class is forced to
introduce new methods of production, in this way Capitalism has,
historically, played a progressive role continually revolutionising the
productive forces.
Imperialism
The period from 1870 to 1900 saw the division of the world amongst
the main powers. In 1870 one-tenth of Africa had been divided up; by
1900 some nine-tenths of the “Dark Continent” were in the hands of
Britain, France or one of the other European Empires. By 1914 this
process of world division had been completed, and capitalism entered its
highest stage of Imperialism. Huge trusts and monopolies had grown out
of the earlier period of competition. “The state had more and more fused
with the monopolies and financial institutions and acted increasingly
in their interest. Production in this epoch is accompanied by the export
of capital itself.” (Lenin)
The imperialist stage brings with it the threat of world war, in the
struggle for new markets, etc. Due to the carving up of the world and
the tremendous growth in production, markets can now only be obtained by
a new re-division of the world which inevitably leads to conflict on a
world scale. World war indicates the contradictions between the private
ownership of the means of production on the one hand and the nation
state on the other. But unlike previous societies Capitalism has
furnished the material pre-requisites for the new socialist order that
can guarantee plenty for all.
The proletariat is the only consistent revolutionary class capable of
carrying through to a conclusion the Socialist Revolution. This stems
from its particular place in social production. The working class is
disciplined in the factories and forced to co-operate in the productive
process. It organises itself into large trade unions and then into its
own independent party.
Marxism, as opposed to all other theories,
provides it with a clear ideology and tasks in its mission to overthrow
Capitalism. The Bolshevik Party, led by Lenin and Trotsky, provided a
living model to the workers of the world.
The peasantry and the middle classes are incapable of playing a
leading role, due to their social position. The peasantry is scattered
in the countryside, and have no real conception of unity or
internationalism. These middle layers of society follow either the
bourgeoisie or the proletariat.
The peasantry have been in fact, the classical tool of Bonapartism--a
regime based on the armed forces, balancing between the classes. In the
epoch of imperialism and the decay of monopoly capitalism, if the
working class fails to win the middle layers to its Socialist banner,
they will be driven into the arms of reaction.
The law of uneven and combined development
From a progressive social system, Capitalism has now become a fetter
upon production and the further development of humanity. Marx believed
that the proletariat would come to power first in the advanced
capitalist countries of Britain, Germany, and France. However, with the
emergence of Imperialism, Capitalism, in the words of Lenin, “broke at
its weakest link” in backward Russia.
Society does not develop in a straight line, but according to its
laws of uneven and combined development. The uneven growth of society on
the world scale is constantly cut across by the introduction of new
products and ideas from different social systems. The backwardness of
semi-feudal Russia was supplemented by the most modern techniques of
production in its cities, due to the enormous amount of foreign capital
from France and Britain.
The new industrial proletariat which had
recently come into being accepted the most advanced ideas of the working
class: Marxism.
In many of the under-developed countries the festering sores of much
needed land reform, autocracy, national oppression, and economic
stagnation, have resulted in enormous discontent. The tasks of the
bourgeois democratic revolution, which would have laid the basis for
capitalist development, have either only been partially carried out or
not at all.
In these countries the Capitalist class has come on the scene too
late to play a similar role as its revolutionary counter-part of the
17th and 18th century. As in Russia before 1917, they are too weak and
tied by a thousand strings--through marriage and mortgage--to the land
owners and imperialists. They both now acquire a common hatred of the
emerging proletariat. The nationalist capitalist class prefers to cling
to the old order rather than appeal to the lower classes to carry
through the anti-feudal revolution.
The only class capable of carrying out the revolution is the
proletariat by uniting around itself the poorer sections of the
peasantry. Once the working class comes to power as in October 1917, it
is then able to give the land to the peasants, expel the imperialists
and unify the country. However, the proletariat would not stop at these
measures but would then proceed to the socialist tasks: nationalisation
of the basic industries, land, and financial institutions.
The Russian Revolution was the greatest event in the whole of human
history. For the first time the working class took power, swept out the
Capitalists, landlords and gangsters and organised a “democratic
workers' state”. It was to be the beginning of the international
socialist revolution and fully confirmed the theory of Permanent
Revolution.
Unfortunately, the betrayal of the socialist revolution in Germany,
and other countries, led to the isolation of the revolution in a
backward, devastated country. The destruction of the War, mass
illiteracy, civil war, exhaustion, placed terrible strains upon the weak
working class, and contributed to the degeneration of the revolution.
It was these objective conditions which encouraged the growth of
bureaucratism in the state, trade unions and the Party. Stalin rose to
power on the back of this new bureaucratic caste. The individual in
history represents not himself, but the interests of a group, caste or
class in society.
Stalinism and its monstrous dictatorship grew not from the Bolshevik
Party or socialist revolution, but out of the isolation and material
backwardness of Russia. It destroyed the workers' democracy in order to
preserve its privileges and power.
The Stalinist regime nevertheless rested on the new property forms of
nationalised industry and the plan of production. The Soviets (Workers'
Councils) and workers democracy were crushed in the Stalinist political counter-revolution. Only by a new political
revolution could the Russian working class have restored the workers'
democracy which existed under Lenin and Trotsky. This would not mean a
return to capitalism, but an end to the privileged bureaucratic elite,
as the masses themselves become involved in the running of society and
the state.
The socialist transformation
The socialist transformation ushers in a new and higher form of
society by breaking the fetters on the development of the productive
forces. The obstacle of private property and the nation state are swept
away, allowing the socialised property to be planned in the interests of
the majority.
The Socialist Revolution cannot be confined to one country, but puts
the world revolution on the order of the day. The world economy and the
world division of labour created by capitalism demands an international
solution. A Socialist United States of Europe would prepare the ground
for a World Federation of Socialist States, and the international
planning of production. This in turn would provide the basis for the
“planned and harmonious production of goods for the satisfaction of
human wants”.
One of the first tasks of the victorious working class would be the
destruction of the old state machine. In all class societies the state
came into existence as “an organ of class rule, an organ for the
oppression of one class by another”. This raises the question, does the
working class need a state? The anarchists reply no. But they fail to
understand that some form of force is required to keep the old
landowners, bankers and capitalists in their place.
The proletariat
therefore has to construct a new type of state to represent its
interests. In a workers' state, the majority are holding a tiny minority
of ex-capitalists in check and therefore the massive bureaucratic state
of the past is not needed. This “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” or
Workers' Democracy, as Trotsky preferred to call it, vastly broadened
and extended the highest forms of bourgeois democracy.
Bourgeois democracy was defined by Marx as the workers deciding every
five years which section of the ruling class would misrepresent their
interests in Parliament. Everyone could say what they liked, provided
that the boards of the monopolies could actually decide what was to be
done.
The new workers state would extend democracy from the political to
the economic sphere with the nationalisation of the major monopolies.
New organs of power, such as the Soviets in Russia, based on the armed
people, constitute “working bodies, executive and legislative at the
same time”. Bureaucracy would be replaced by the involvement of the
masses in the running of the state and society. In order to prevent the
growth of officialdom, the proletariat of Paris in 1871 and of Russia in
1917 introduced the following measures:
(1) Election of all officials, with the right to recall. (2) No
standing army, but an armed people. (3) No official to receive more than
a skilled worker. (4) Positions in the state to be rotated amongst the
people.
With the reduction of the working week, the masses are given the
opportunity to involve themselves in the state, and obtain the key to
culture, science and art. For as Engels once said, if art, science and
government remain the preserve of the minority, they will use and abuse
this position in their own interest, as was the case in the Stalinist
countries.
The state arose historically with the emergence of class society. Thus, from its very inception, the workers' state begins to wither away, as classes themselves dissolve within society. This is why Engels characterised the proletarian state as a “semi-state”.
“Under socialism much of 'primitive' democracy will inevitably be revived, since, for the first time in the history of civilised society, the mass of the people will rise to taking an independent part, not only in voting and elections, but also in the everyday administration of the state. Under Socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing”. (Lenin, State and Revolution.)
In this lower stage of Socialism as Marx called it, one sees society, “just as it emerges
from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically,
morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old
society from whose womb it comes”. (Marx, Critique of the Gotha
Programme.) Although the exploitation of man by man has
been ended, production has not yet reached a high enough level to
completely eradicate inequality or class differences. People still have
to follow the principle: “He who does not work shall not eat”. The
state, despite its transitory character, remains the guardian of
inequality.
Socialism, the classless society
Yet with huge strides forward in production, based on the most
advanced science and conscious planning, humanity enters the higher
realms of real society. Classes and the state will have completely
withered away, as society now adopts the slogan “From each according to
his ability, to each according to his needs”. The antitheses of town and
country, and mental and physical labour disappear with the further
revolution in the productive forces.
In the words of Lenin, “the narrow
horizon of bourgeois law”, which compels one to calculate with the
heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more
than somebody else, whether one is getting less pay than somebody
else--this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will then be
no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the
quantity to be received by each; each will take freely according to his
needs.
The barbarous nature of class society would have ended once and for
all. The prehistory of humankind would have been completed. The
productive forces built up over thousands of years of class rule now
laid the basis for classless society where the state and division of
labour were rendered superfluous. Humanity sets itself the task of
conquering nature, and opens up the tremendous wonders of science and
technology. In the words of Engels, “the government of persons is
replaced by the administration of things”.
And Trotsky pointed out that, “Once he has done with the anarchic
forces of his own society man will set to work on himself, in the pestle
and retort of the chemist. For the first time mankind will regard
itself as raw material, or at best as a physical and psychic
semi-finished product. Socialism will mean a leap from the realm of
necessity into the realm of freedom in this sense also, that the man of
today, with all his contradictions and lack of harmony, will open the
road for a new and happier race”. (Leon Trotsky, In Defence of October.)
INTRODUCTION TO MARXIST ECONOMICS
Introduction
Today, under the impact of the capitalist crisis, many workers have
developed a thirst for economics. They are attempting to understand the
forces which dominate their lives. This brief introduction to Marxist
economics attempts to provide the class conscious worker not with a
complete account of economics, but a guide to the basic laws of motion
of capitalist society dominating his existence.
The shallowness of capitalist economics is demonstrated by their
inability to understand the crisis affecting their system. Its role is
to cover up the exploitation of the working class and to “prove” the
superiority of capitalist society. Their quack “theories” and
“solutions” are incapable of patching up the rotten and diseased nature
of capitalism. Only the transformation of society on socialist lines and
the introduction of a planned economy can end the nightmare of
unemployment, slump and chaos.
The right wing labour leaders have rejected their old god Keynes, to
be replaced by “orthodox” economic solutions: cuts, wage restraint and
deflation. The left reformists still cling to the capitalist policies of
yesterday (reflation, import controls, etc.), which have been
recognised as totally ineffective under capitalism.
Only with a Marxist understanding of capitalist society can the
conscious worker cut through the lies and distortion of the capitalist
economists and combat their influence within the Labour Movement.
Conditions for capitalism
Today, modern production is concentrated in the hands of giant
companies. Unilever, ICI, Fords, British Petroleum, are some examples of
the firms which dominate our lives. Although it is true that small
businesses do exist, they really represent the production of the past
and not the present. Modern production is essentially a mass,
large-scale business.
At present, 200 top companies together with 35 banks and finance
houses control the British economy, and account for 85 per cent of
output. This development has come about over the past few hundred years
through ruthless competition, crisis and war. At the time when the
classical economists predicted free trade in the future, Marx explained
the development of monopoly from competition as the weaker firms went to
the wall. Monopoly capitalism grew out of and abolished free
competition.
At first sight, it looks as if goods and things are produced mainly
for people's needs. Obviously every society has to do this. But under
capitalism, goods are not merely produced to satisfy someone's want or
need, but primarily for sale. That is the paramount function of
capitalist industry.
In the famous words of the ex-chairman of British Leyland, Lord
Stokes, “I'm in business to make money, not cars!” This is a perfect
expression of the aspirations of the entire capitalist class.
The capitalist process of production requires the existence of
certain conditions. Firstly, the existence of a large class of
propertyless workers who are obliged to sell themselves piece-meal in
order to live.
Thus the Tory conception of a “property owning democracy”
is an absurdity under capitalism, because if the mass of the population
owned sufficient property to be self-sufficient, the capitalists would
not find the workers to produce their profits.
Secondly, the means of
production must be concentrated in the hands of the capitalists. Over
the centuries, the peasants and those who owned their own means of
subsistence were ruthlessly crushed and their means of life appropriated
by the capitalists and landlords. They in turn hire the workers to work
these means of production and produce surplus value.
Value and commodities
How does capitalism work? How are workers exploited? Where does profit come from? How are slumps caused?
In order to answer these questions, we first need to learn the key to
the mystery: what is value? Having solved this problem, the other
answers fall into place. An understanding of value is essential, for an
understanding of the economics of capitalist society.
To begin with, all the capitalist firms produce goods or services, or
more correctly they produce commodities. That is a good or service
produced for sale only. Of course, someone may make something for his or
her own personal use. Before capitalism existed, many people had to.
But this is not a commodity. Capitalist production is above all the
creation and “immense accumulation of commodities”. That is why Marx
himself started his investigation of capitalism with an analysis of the
character of the commodity itself.
Every commodity has a use-value for people. That means they are
useful to someone otherwise they could not be sold. This use-value is
limited to the physical properties of the commodity.
They also contain a value. What is it and how can it be shown?
If we leave the use of money out for the time being, commodities, when they are exchanged, fall into certain proportions.
For example:
1 pair of shoes ) 1 watch ) = 10 yards of cloth 3 bottles of whisky ) 1 car tyre )
Each of the items on the left can be exchanged for 10 yards of cloth.
They also, in the same amounts, can be exchanged with one another.
This simple example shows that the exchange value of these different
commodities expresses something contained in them. But what makes a pair
of shoes = 10 yards of cloth? Or 1 watch = 3 bottles of whisky? And so
on…
Well, obviously, there must be something common to all. Clearly it is
neither weight, colour, nor hardness. Again, it is not because they are
useful. Bread after all is worth less than a Roll Royce, yet one is a
necessity and the other luxury. So what is the common quality? The only
thing in common is they are all products of human labour.
The amount of human labour contained in a commodity is expressed in time: weeks, days, hours, minutes.
To go back to the example: all these commodities can be expressed in terms of their common factor, labour-time.
5 hours (labour) worth of shoes 5 hours (labour) worth of tyres 5
hours (labour) worth of watches 5 hours (labour) worth of whisky 5 hours
(labour) worth of cloth
Average labour
If we look at commodities as use-values (their utility), we see them
as a “shoe”, “watch”, etc., as products of a particular kind of labour …
the labour of the cobbler, watchmaker, etc. But in exchange,
commodities are looked at differently. The special character is lost
sight of and they appear as so many units of average labour. In exchange
we are now comparing the amounts of human labour in general contained
in the commodities. All labour, in exchange, is reduced to average
simple units of labour.
It is true that the commodity produced by skilled labour contains
more value than that produced by unskilled. Therefore in exchange, the
units of skilled labour are reduced to so many units of unskilled,
simple labour. For example, the ratio of 1 skilled unit = 3 unskilled
units, or simply skilled labour is worth three times as much as
unskilled.
Explained simply, the value of commodity is determined by the amount
of average labour used in its production. (Or how long it takes to
produce). But left like this, it appears that the lazy worker produces
more values than the most efficient worker!
Let us take the example of a shoemaker who decides to use the
outdated methods of the Middle Ages to produce shoes. Using this method,
it takes him a whole day to make a pair of shoes. When he tries to sell
them on the market, he will find that they will only fetch the same as
shoes produced by the better equipped more modern factories.
If these factories produce a pair of shoes in, say half an hour, they
will contain less labour (and therefore less value) and will be sold
cheaper. This will drive the shoemaker using medieval methods out of
business. His labour producing a pair of shoes after half an hour is
wasted labour, and unnecessary under modern conditions. On pain of
extinction he will be forced to introduce modern techniques and produce
shoes at least equal to the necessary time developed by society.
At any given time, using the average labour, machines, methods, etc.,
all commodities take a particular time to make. This is governed by the
level of technique in society. In the words of Marx, all commodities
must be produced in a socially necessary time. Any more labour-time
spent over and above this will be useless labour, causing costs to rise
and making the firm uncompetitive.
So to be more precise, the value of a commodity is determined by the
amount of socially necessary labour in the article. Naturally, this
labour time is continually changing as new techniques and methods of
work are introduced. Competition drives the inefficient to the wall.
Thus we can also understand why precious gems have more value than
everyday items. More socially necessary labour time is needed to find,
and extract the gems, than the production of ordinary commodities. Their
value therefore being considerably higher.
Again a thing can be a use value without having any value, i.e. a
useful thing that has had no labour time spent on its production: air,
rivers, virgin soil, natural meadows, etc. Therefore labour is not the
only source of wealth, i.e. use values, but nature too is a source.
From the above we can see that an increase in productivity will
increase the amount of things produced (material wealth), but can reduce
the value of the things concerned, i.e. the amount of labour in each
commodity is less. Increased productivity therefore results in an
increase in wealth. With two coats two people can be clothed, with one
coat only one person. Nevertheless, the increase in the quantity of
material wealth may correspond with a fall in the magnitude of its
value.
Money
As a result of the difficulties in exchange by using the methods of
barter, more frequently a common article was used as “money”. Over the
centuries one commodity--gold--became singled out to play this role as
the “universal equivalent”.
Instead of saying a good is worth so much butter, meat, cloth, etc.,
it became expressed in terms of gold. The money expression of value is
price. Gold was used because of its qualities. It concentrates much
value in a small amount, can easily be divided into coins, and is also
hard wearing.
As with all commodities, the value of gold itself is determined by
the amount of labour-time spent on its production. For example, say it
takes 40 hours labour to produce one ounce of gold. Then all the other
goods that take the same time to produce are equal to that ounce of
gold. Those that take half the time equal half the amount, etc.
One ounce of gold = 40 hours labour 1/2 ounce of gold = 20 hours
labour 1/4 ounce of gold = 10 hours of labour Therefore: One car (40
hours labour) = 1 ounce of gold One table (10 hours labour) = 1/4 ounce
of gold
Due to the changes in productive technique and the increase in the
productivity of labour, all the values of commodities are continually
fluctuating, like so many trains in a station pulling in and out at
differing times. If you take any train as a standard which is moving off
to gauge the movement of others, it would lead to confusion. Only by
standing on the firm platform can you judge accurately what is
happening. In relation to the changes of all goods, gold acts as the
measure. Although the most stable, even this is in constant motion, as
no commodity has a totally fixed value.
Prices of commodities
The law of value governs the price of goods. As explained earlier,
the value of commodities is equal to the amount of labour contained in
it. In theory, the value is equal to its price. Yet, in reality, the
price of a commodity tends to be either above or below its real value.
This fluctuation is caused by different influences on market price, such
as the growth of monopoly. The differences of supply and demand also
have a great effect.
For instance, there may be a surplus of a commodity
in the market, and the price that day may be far below the real value,
or if there was a shortage, the price would rise above it. The effects
of supply and demand have led bourgeois economists to believe that this
law is the sole factor in determining price. What they were unable to
explain was that prices always fluctuate around a definite level. What
that level is, is not determined by supply and demand, but by the labour
time spent in the articles' production. A lorry will always be more
expensive than a plastic bucket.
Profits
Some “clever” people have invented the theory that profits arise from buying cheap and selling dear. In Wage, Labour and Capital, Marx explains the nonsense of this argument:“What a man would certainly win as a seller he would lose as a purchaser. It would not do to say that there are men who are buyers without being sellers or consumers without being producers. What these people pay to the producers, they must first get from them for nothing. If a man first takes your money and afterwards returns that money in buying your commodities you will never enrich yourself by selling your commodities too dear to that same man. This sort of transaction might diminish a loss, but would help in realising a profit”.
Labour power
In obtaining the “factors of production”, the capitalist looks on the “labour market” as just another branch of the general market for commodities. The abilities and energies of the worker are seen as just another commodity. He advertises for so many “hands”.What we have to be clear about is what the capitalist has bought. The worker has sold not his labour but his ability to work. This Marx calls his labour power.
Labour power is a commodity governed by the same laws as other
commodities. Its value is determined by the labour-time necessary for
its production. Labour power is the ability of the worker to work. It is
“consumed” by the capitalist in the actual labour-process. But this
presupposes the existence and health and strength of the worker. The
production of labour power therefore means the worker's self-maintenance
and the reproduction of his species, to provide new generations of
“hands” for the capitalist.
The labour-time necessary for the worker's maintenance is the
labour-time it takes to produce the means of subsistence for him and his
family: food, clothing, fuel, etc. The amount of this varies in
different countries, different climates, and different historical
periods. What is adequate subsistence for a labourer in Calcutta would
not be adequate for a Welsh miner.
What was adequate for a Welsh miner
fifty years ago would not be for a Midlands car worker today. Into this
question, unlike the value of other commodities, there enters a
historical and even moral element. Nevertheless, in any given country,
at any particular stage of historical development, the “standard of
living” is known. (Incidentally, it is precisely the creation of new
needs which is the spur to all kinds of human progress).
Not cheated!
Apart from the daily reproduction of his labour power, and the
reproduction of the species, at a certain stage in the development of
capitalist technique, a certain amount has to be provided for the
education of the workers in order to fit them for the conditions of
modern industry and raise their productivity.
Unlike most commodities, labour power is paid for only after it has
been consumed. The workers thus philanthropically extend credit to their
employers! (weeks in hand, petty cheating and bankruptcy, leading to
loss of wages).
Despite this, the worker has not been cheated. He has arrived at an
agreement of his own free will. As with all other commodities,
equivalent values are exchanged: the worker's commodity, labour power,
is sold to the boss at the “going rate”. Everybody is satisfied. And if
the worker is not, then he is free to leave and find work elsewhere � if
he can�
The sale of labour power poses a problem. If “nobody is cheated”, if
the worker receives the full value of his commodity, where does
exploitation come from? Where does the capitalist make his profits? The
answer is that the worker sells the capitalist not his labour (which is
realised in the work process), but his labour power--his ability to
work.
Having purchased this as a commodity, the capitalist is free to use
it as he pleases. As Marx explained: “From the instant he steps into the
work shop, the use-value of his labour power, and therefore also its
use, which is labour, belongs to the capitalist”.
Surplus value
We will see from the following example that the capitalist purchases
labour power because it is the only commodity which can produce new values above and beyond its own value.
Let us take a worker who is employed to spin cotton into yarn. He gets paid £1 per hour and works an 8 hour day.
After 4 hours he had produced 100lbs of yarn at a total vale of £20. This value of £20 is made up from the following:
Raw materials £11 (cotton, spindle, power) Depreciation £1 (wear and tear) New value £8
The new value created is sufficient to pay the workers' wages for the
full 8 hours. At this point the capitalist has covered all his costs
(including his total wage bill). But as yet no surplus value (profit)
has been produced.
During the next 4 hours another 100lbs of yarn is produced valued
again at £20. And again £8 of new value is created, but this time the
wages have already been covered. Therefore this new value (£8) is
surplus value. From this comes rent (to the landlord), interest (to the
moneylender) and profit (to the industrialist). Thus surplus value or
profit, in the words of Marx, is the unpaid labour of the working class.
The working day
The secret of the production of surplus value is that the worker
continues to work longer after he has produced the value necessary to
reproduce the value of his labour power (his wages). “The fact that half
a day's labour is necessary to keep the labourer alive does not in any
way prevent him from working a full day.” (Marx).
The worker has sold his commodity and cannot complain about the way
he is used, any more than the tailor can sell a suit and then demand
that his customer must not wear it as often as he likes. The working day
is therefore so organised as to give the maximum benefits from the
labour power he has bought. In this lay the secret of the transformation
of money into capital.
Constant capital
In production itself, machines and raw materials lose their use
value, they become burnt up and become absorbed into the new product.
They transfer their value into the new commodity.
This is clear in relation to raw materials (wood, metal, dyes, fuel,
etc.) which are wholly consumed in the process of production, only to
reappear in the properties of the article produced.
Machines on the other hand, do not disappear in the same way. But
they do deteriorate in the course of production, thus dying a protracted
death. The exact moment when a machine is finally declared redundant is
no more possible to fix with exactitude than the exact moment of a
person's death. But just as the insurance company, on the basis of the
theory of averages, makes very accurate (and profitable) calculations
concerning the life-span of men and women, so the capitalist know by
experience and calculation roughly how long a machine will last.
The depreciation of machinery, its daily loss of use value, is
calculated on this basis and added on to the cost of the article
produced. Thus, the means of production add to the commodity their own
value in proportion as the deterioration of its use value unfolds. The
means of production, therefore, cannot transfer to the commodity more than that value which they themselves lose in the process of production. It is thus called constant capital.
Variable capital
While the means of production add no new value to the commodities produced, but only deteriorate, the labour of the worker not only preserves, but adds new value
to his product by merely working. If the process of work were to stop
at that moment when the worker had produced articles to the value of his
own labour power, e.g. in 4 hours (£8) this is the only bit of new
value created.
But the work process does not stop there. This would
only cover the expenses of the capitalist in hiring the workmen. The
capitalist does not hire workers for charity but for profit. Having
“freely” entered into a contract with the capitalist, the worker must
labour on, producing extra value and beyond that sum agreed on as his
wage.
MONEY COMMODITY MONEY
(purchase) (production) (sale)
Capitalist economists treat these factors as equal. Marxism
distinguishes between that part of capital which does not undergo any
change of value in the process of production (machines, tools, raw
materials) and that part represented by labour power which creates new
value. The first part of capital called constant capital, and the latter
variable capital. The total value of a commodity is made up from
constant capital, variable capital and surplus value, i.e. C + V + S.
Necessary and surplus labour
The labour performed by the working class can be divided up into two parts:
(1) Necessary Labour: This is the part of the labour process which is needed to cover the cost of wages.
(2) Surplus Labour: This is the extra labour performed in addition to labour, which produces the profits.
To increase his profits, the capitalist is constantly attempting to
reduce his wages bill. He does this by attempting to (1) lengthen the
working day, introduce new shift patterns, etc., (2) increase
productivity to cover wages more quickly, (3) resist wage rises or
attempt to cut them.
Rate of surplus value
Since the whole purpose of capitalist production is to extract
surplus value from the labour of the working class, the proportion
between variable capital (wages) and the surplus value (profits) is of
the greatest importance. One is expanding or contracting at the expense
of the other. This struggle over the surplus constitutes the class struggle. What concerns the capitalist is not so much the amount of surplus value produced but the rate
of surplus value. For every pound he lays out in capital he expects a
big return.
The rate of surplus value is the rate of exploitation of
labour by capital. It may be defined as S/V or surplus labour/necessary
labour, (it is the same thing expressed in a different way), where V =
Variable capital, S = Surplus value. For example in a small plant, total
capital of £500 is divided between Constant (£410) and Variable (£90).
Through the process of production the value of the commodities have
increased by £90 surplus: (C+V) + S or (410 + £90) + £90 surplus. The
total new value is £590.
It is the variable capital that is the living labour,
i.e. it produces the new value of surplus value. So the relative
increase in the value produced by variable capital gives us the rate of surplus value S/V = £90/£90 =100% rate of surplus value.
The rate of profit
Under the pressure of competition at home and abroad, the capitalist
is compelled to constantly revolutionise the means of production and to
increase productivity. The need to expand compels him to spend a larger
and larger proportion of his capital on machinery and raw materials and
less on labour power, thus diminishing the proportion of variable
capital to constant capital. Side by side with automation goes the concentration of capital,
the liquidation of the smaller concerns and the domination of the
economy by giant monopolies. This constitutes a change in the technical
composition of capital.
But since it is the variable capital (labour power) alone which is
the source of surplus value (profit), the bigger amounts invested in
constant capital results in the tendency for the rate
of profit to fall, although with new investments profits can increase
enormously they do not rise proportionately to the much greater capital
outlay.
Total Capital : The wages paid = £100
The constant capital = £50
Surplus value = £100
The rate of surplus value can be calculated: S/V = £100/£100 = 100%.
The rate of profit is calculated as the ratio between total capital and
surplus value: Surplus Value/Total capital or £100/£150 = 66.66 % rate
of profit. As the amount of constant capital is increased, so the rate
of profit falls. In the same example given the same rate of surplus
value we increase the constant capital from £50 to £100. The rate of
profit = Surplus value/Total capital = £100/£200 = 50%. Again if we
increase the constant capital to £200, all other things being equal,
Surplus Value/Total Capital = £100/£300 = 33.33 % rate of profit. And
lastly constant capital is increased to £300, the rate of profit would
be £100/£400 = 25%.
This increase in constant capital expresses in Marxist terms a higher
organic composition of capital, and is a progressive development of the
productive forces. The tendency is therefore built
into the very nature of the capitalist mode of production, and has been
one of the major problems facing the capitalist class in the post-war
period. The mass of surplus value increases, but in
proportion to the increased size of constant capital it results in a
falling rate of profit. The capitalists have continually attempted to
overcome this contradiction by the increased exploitation of the working
class, to increase the mass of surplus value and therefore the rate of
profit, by means other than investment.
They do this in a number of ways
by raising the intensity of exploitation, increasing the speed of the
machinery and the lengthening of the working day. Another method to
restore the rate of profit is to cut the real wages of the workers below
their real value. The very laws of capitalism gives rise to enormous
contradictions. The capitalists' constant striving for profits gives the
impetus for investment, but new technology forces more workers on the
scrap heap. Yet paradoxically the only source of profit is from the
labour of the working class.
Export of capital
The highest stage of capitalism--imperialism--is marked by the
enormous export of capital. In their search for increased rates of
profit, the capitalists are forced to invest huge sums of money abroad
in countries of low composition of capital. Eventually, the whole world,
as Marx and Engels explain in the Communist Manifesto becomes dominated
by the capitalist mode of production.
One of the major contradictions of capitalism is the obvious problem
that the working class as consumers have to buy back what they have
produced. But as they do not receive the full value of their labour,
they have not the resources to do this. The capitalists solve this
contradiction by taking the surplus and reinvesting it in developing the
productive further. Also they seek to sell the remaining surplus on the
world market in competition with the capitalists of all the other
different countries. But there are also limits to this as all the
capitalists of the world are playing the same game.
In addition, the
capitalists resort to credit, via the banking system, to provide the
necessary cash for the mass of the population to buy the goods. But this
also has its limits as the credit eventually has to be paid back, with
interest.
That explains why periodically, the booms are followed in regular
succession by periods of slump. The feverish struggle for markets end up
in a crisis of overproduction for capitalism. The destructiveness of
the crisis, which are met with the wholesale writing-off of accumulated
capital, are a sufficient indication of the impasse of capitalist
society.
All the factors that led to the world upswing after the war have
prepared the way for downswing and crisis. The characteristic of this
new epoch is the organic crisis that capitalism now
faces. At some stage the working class will be faced with a 1929-type
slump if capitalism is not eradicated. Only by overthrowing the anarchy
of capitalist production can humanity prevent the chaos, wastage and
barbarism of capitalism. Only by eliminating private property of the
means of production, can society escape the laws of motion of capitalism
and develop and blossom in a planned and rational way.
The mighty
forces of production, built by class society, can abolish once and for
all the criminal scandal of so-called overproduction in a world of want
and starvation. Eradicating the contradiction of the development of the
productive forces and the nation state and private ownership, will
provide the basis for an international plan of production.
Using the powers of science and technology, the whole of the planet
could be transformed in the space of a decade. The socialist
transformation of society remains the most urgent and burning task
facing the world's working class. Marxism provides the weapon and
understanding to weld together this mighty army for the establishment of
a socialist Britain, a socialist Europe, and the basis for the World
Federation of Socialist States.
Rob Sewell and Alan Woods
IX. What is historical materialism? - A study guide with questions, extracts and suggested reading
Written by Mick Brooks
Thursday, 14 November 2002
We
are publishing our second study guide on historical materialism.
Historical Materialism is the application of Marxist science to
historical development. The fundamental proposition of historical
materialism can be summed up in a sentence: “it is not the consciousness
of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their
social existence that determines their consciousness.” (Marx, in the
Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.)
Marxism, or Scientific Socialism, is the name given to the body of ideas first worked out by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). In their totality, these ideas provide a fully worked-out theoretical basis for the struggle of the working class to attain a higher form of human society - socialism.
The study of Marxism falls under three main headings, corresponding
broadly to philosophy, social history and economics - Dialectical
Materialism, Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics. These are the
famous “Three component parts of Marxism” of which Lenin wrote.
The Education for Socialists series was launched to promote the study
of Marxism. They are intended to assist the student of Marxism by
providing an introduction to the subject matter, with suitable Marxist
texts that we hope will whet their appetite for further reading and
study. In the second of these Education for Socialists study guides, we
provide a selection of material on Historical Materialism. The remaining
“component part”, as well as other fundamental questions, will be dealt
with in future issues. The guides are suitable for individual study or
as the basis of a Marxist discussion group.
In this study of Historical Materialism the editors are publishing an
introductory article by Mick Brooks. While this is a good beginning to
the subject, there is no substitute for proceeding from there to tackle
the historical works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Plekhanov and
others. Marx and Engels wrote extensively about Historical Materialism
from the German Ideology onwards. The Communist Manifesto is a masterpiece in this regard.
The newer reader should not be put off by the sometimes difficult and
abstract ideas expressed in these writings. Whatever the initial
difficulty, a certain perseverance will pay just rewards. Marxism is a
science with its own terminology, and therefore makes heavy demands upon
the beginner. However, every serious worker and student knows that
nothing is worthwhile if attained without a degree of struggle and
sacrifice.
The theories of Marxism provide the thinking worker with a
comprehensive understanding. It is the duty of every worker and student
to conquer for himself or herself the theories of Marx and Engels, as an
essential prerequisite for the conquest of society by working people.
We recognise that there are real obstacles in the path of the
worker's struggle for theory. A man or woman who is obliged to toil long
hours in work, who has not had the benefit of a decent education and
consequently lacks the habit of reading, finds great difficulty in
absorbing some of the more complex ideas, especially at the outset.
Yet
it was for workers that Marx and Engels wrote, and not for “clever”
academics. “Every beginning is difficult” no matter what science we are
talking about. To the class conscious worker who is prepared to
persevere, one promise can be made: once the initial effort is made to
come to grips with unfamiliar and new ideas, the theories of Marxism
will be found to be basically straight-forward and simple.
Once the basic concepts of Marxism are conquered, they open up a
whole new outlook on politics, the class struggle, and every aspect of
life.
As a further introduction to Historical Materialism, we are also republishing the preface to Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution, an extract from Engels' Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German Philosophy, his introduction to the Dialectics of Nature, and an extract from Marx's Preface to A Contribution of Political Economy.
For further study, we recommend The German Ideology by Marx and Engels, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte by Marx and The History of the Russian Revolution by Trotsky.
Those who wish to go into greater depth should try reading Karl Kautsky's Foundations of Christianity, Plekhanov's The Materialist Conception of History and his Role of the Individual in History. In addition, Plekhanov's The Fundamental Problems of Marxism is highly recommended, as is other material in the suggested reading at the end of this study guide.
The editors, November 2002Historical Materialism
What is Historical Materialism?
Historical Materialism is the application of Marxist science to
historical development. The fundamental proposition of historical
materialism can be summed up in a sentence: “it is not the consciousness
of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their
social existence that determines their consciousness.” (Marx, in the
Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.)
What does this mean? Readers of the Daily Mirror will be familiar
with the “Perishers” cartoon strip. In one incident the old dog,
Wellington wanders down to a pool full of crabs. The crabs speculate
about the mysterious divinity, the “eyeballs in the sky,” which appears
to them.
The point is, that is actually how you would look at things if your
universe were a pond. Your consciousness is determined by your being.
Thought is limited by the range of experience of the species.
We know very little about how primitive people thought, but we know
what they couldn't have been thinking about. They wouldn't have wandered
about wondering what the football results were, for instance. League
football presupposes big towns able to get crowds large enough to pay
professional footballers and the rest of the club staff. Industrial
towns in their turn can only emerge when the productivity of labour has
developed to the point where a part of society can be fed by the rest,
and devote themselves to producing other requirements than food.
In other words, an extensive division of labour must exist. The other
side of this is that people must be accustomed to working for money and
buying the things they want from others - including tickets to the
football - which, of course, was not the case in primitive society.
So this simple example shows how even things like professional
football are dependent on the way society makes its daily bread, on
people's “social existence”.
After all, what is mankind? The great idealist philosopher Hegel said
that “man, is a thinking being.” Actually Hegel's view was a slightly
more sophisticated form of the usual religious view that man is endowed
by his Creator with a brain to admire His handiwork. It is true that
thinking is one way we are different from dung beetles, sticklebacks and
lizards. But why did humans develop the capacity to think?
Over a hundred years ago, Engels pointed out that upright posture
marked the transition from ape to man, a completely materialist
explanation. This view has been confirmed by the more recent researches
of anthropologists such as Leakey. Upright posture liberated the hands
for gripping with an opposable thumb. This enabled tools to be used and
developed.
Upright posture also allowed early humans to rely more on the eyes,
rather than the other senses, for sensing the world around. The use of
the hands developed the powers of the brain through the medium of the
eyes.
Engels was a dialectical materialist. In no way did he minimise the
importance of thought - rather he explained how it arose. We can also
see that Benjamin Franklin, the eighteenth-century US politician and
inventor, was much nearer a materialist approach than Hegel when he
defined man as a “tool-making animal.”
Darwin showed a hundred years ago that there is a struggle for
existence, and species survive through natural selection. At first sight
early humans didn't have a lot going for them, compared with the speed
of the cheetah, the strength of the lion, or the sheer intimidating bulk
of the elephant. Yet humans came to dominate the planet and, more
recently, to drive many of these more fearsome animals to the point of
extinction.
What differentiates humanity from the lower animals is that, however
self-reliant animals such as lions may seem, they ultimately just take
external nature around them for granted, whereas, mankind progressively
masters nature.
The process whereby mankind masters nature is labour. At Marx's
grave, Engels stated that his friend's great discovery was that “mankind
must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, and therefore
work before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion etc.”
While we can't read the minds of our primitive human ancestors, we
can make a pretty good guess about what they were thinking most of the
time - food. The struggle against want has dominated history ever since.
Marxists are often accused of being 'economic determinists'.
Actually, Marxists are far from denying the importance of ideas or the
active role of individuals in history. But precisely because we are
active, we understand the limits of individual activity, and the fact
that the appropriate social conditions must exist before our ideas and
our activity can be effective.
Our academic opponents are generally passive cynics who exalt
individual activity amid the port and walnuts from over-stuffed
armchairs. We understand, with Marx that people “make their own
history...but under circumstances directly encountered, given and
transmitted from the past”. We need to understand how society is
developing in order to intervene in the process. That is what we mean
when we say Marxism is the science of perspectives.
We have seen that labour distinguishes mankind from the other animals
- that mankind progressively changes nature through labour, and in
doing so changes itself. It follows that there is a real measure of
progress through all the miseries and pitfalls of human history - the
increasing ability of men and women to master nature and subjugate it to
their own requirements: in other words, the increasing productivity of
labour.
To each stage in the development of the productive forces corresponds
a certain set of production relations. Production relation means the
way people organise themselves to gain their daily bread. Production
relations are thus the skeleton of every form of society. They provide
the conditions of social existence that determine human consciousness.
Marx explained how the development of the productive forces brings
into existence different production relations, and different forms of
class society.
By a 'class' we mean a group of people in society with the same
relationship to the means of production. The class which owns and
controls the means of production rules society. This, at the same time,
enables it to force the oppressed or labouring class to toil in the
rulers' interests. The labouring class is forced to produce a surplus
which the ruling class lives off.
Marx explained:“The specific economic form in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of the direct producers determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element.
Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves; thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers-a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity-which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure, and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short the corresponding specific form of the state.” (Capital, Vol. III.)
Primitive Communism
In the earliest stages of society people did not go into factories,
work to produce things they would not normally consume, and be
'rewarded' at the end of the week with pieces of coloured paper or
decorated discs which other people would be quite prepared to accept in
exchange for the food, clothing, etc., which they needed. Such behaviour
would have struck our remote ancestors as quite fantastic.
Nor did many of the other features of modern society we so much take
for granted exist. What socialist has not heard the argument “People are
bound to be greedy and grabbing. You can't get socialism because you
can't change human nature?” In fact, society divided into classes has
existed for no more than about 10,000 years-one hundredth of the time
mankind has been on this planet. For the other 99% of the time there was
no class society, that is, no enforced inequalities, no state, and no
family in the modern sense.
This was not because primitive people were unaccountably more noble than us, but because production relations produced a different sort of society, and so a different 'human nature'. Being determines consciousness, and if people's social being changes - if the society they live under changes - then their consciousness will also change.
The basis of primitive society was gathering and hunting. The only
division of labour was that between men and women for the entirely
natural biological reason that women were burdened much of the time with
young children. They gathered vegetable foods while the men hunted.
Thus each sex played an important part in production. On the basis of
studying tribes such as the !Kung in the Kalahari desert, who still
live under primitive communist conditions, it has been estimated that
the female contribution to the food supply may well have been more
important than the male's. Women were held in high esteem in such
societies. They contributed at least equally to the wealth of the tribe.
They developed separate skills - it seems women invented pottery and
even made the crucial breakthrough to agriculture
All these tribal societies had features in common. The hunting
grounds were regarded as the common property of the tribe. How could
they be anything else when hunting itself is a collective activity? The
very insecurity of existence leads to sharing. It's no good hiding a
dead hippo from your mates--you won't be able to eat it before it rots
anyway, and there may well come a time when other tribe members have a
superfluity while you're in distress. It's common sense to share and
share alike.
Private property did exist in personal implements, but in the most
different tribal societies there existed similar rules to burn or bury
these with the body of the owner, in order to prevent the accumulation
of inequality.
No such institution as the state was necessary, for there were no
fundamental antagonistic class interests tearing society apart.
Individual disputes could be sorted out within the tribe. Old men with
experience certainly played leading parts in the decision-making of the
tribe. They were chiefs, however, and not kings--their authority was
deserved or it did not exist. As late as the third century AD (when it
was ceasing to be true) Athanaric, leader of the German tribe, the
Visigoths, said: “I have authority, not power”.
Society developed because it had to. Beginning in tropical Africa, as
population grew to cover more inhospitable parts of the globe, people
had to use their power of thought and labour to develop - or die. From
gathering fruit, nuts, etc., it was a step forward to cultivating the
land - actually ensuring that vegetable food was to hand. From hunting
it was a step to husbandry, penning in the animals. Tribal society
remained the norm.
The First Revolution
The first great revolution in mankind's history was the agricultural,
or neolithic revolution. Grains were selected and sown, and the ground
ploughed up with draught animals. For the first time a substantial
surplus over and above the subsistence needs of the toilers came into
existence.
Under primitive communism there had been simply no basis for an idle
class. There was no point in enslaving someone else, since they could
only provide for their own needs. Now the possibility arose for idleness
for some, but mankind could still not provide enough for everyone to
lead such a life. On this basis, class societies arose - societies
divided between possessing and labouring classes.
The main issue in the class struggle down the ages has been the
struggle over the surplus produced by the toilers. The way this surplus
was appropriated - grabbed - depended on the different mode of
production inaugurated by agriculture. This change provided the base for
the complete transformation of social life.
Agriculture, unlike hunting, could be more an individual activity. By
working harder you could get more and, when everyone lived on the
margin of survival, that was important. Moreover, the agricultural
revolution - involving the use of draught animals in ploughing, etc.,
mainly handled by men - relegated women to the home, working up
materials provided by the man. It was the lack of a direct role in
production that led to the 'world-historic defeat of the female sex'.
Men wanted to pass on their unequal property to a male heir. In primitive communist society descent had been traced through the female line (inheritance had been unimportant). Now inheritance began to be traced through the male line.
We do not know exactly how class society came into being, but we can
piece together the story from bits of evidence available to us. We call
this process a revolution, and so it was in the profoundest sense of the
word.
But we must remember that transitional forms between the different
types of society were in existence for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
years before the new type definitively replaced the old. Human progress
did not proceed evenly but according to the law of combined and uneven
development.
We have spoken of agriculture as being the breakthrough to a society
where a surplus could be produced. In fact the raising of the
productivity of labour made possible by agriculture allowed a more
extensive division of labour - people could turn their hands to
producing other things. So the agricultural revolution brought in its
train associated revolutions in technique (such as in pottery and
metal-working) and in the whole social structure.
Trade developed from ritual gifts between tribes. What was the
measure of the value of a gift? As soon as people could form some
conception of how long it took to produce the gifts they got, they would
attempt to outdo the donors in generosity by giving the product of more
labour in return.
As trade became more regular, the need naturally arose for a
universal equivalent - something which could readily be exchanged in
trade and which would be accepted generally as a measure of value. At
first this need was met by cattle. (The Latin pecunia meaning 'money' is
derived from pecus meaning cattle) Later this need was fulfilled more
conveniently by ingots of metal, in which there was a burgeoning trade,
and which were stamped by the monarchs as a guarantee of weight.
The Asiatic Mode of Production
Civilisation developed differently in different places. So far as we
know, it arose first in the Nile delta of Egypt and in Mesopotamia (in
what is now Iraq), though recent discoveries suggest it may also have
developed independently in India and in South-East Asia at around the
same time.
In both Egypt and Mesopotamia the ruling class seems to have sprung
from the elevation of a stratum of priests, above the rest of society.
This is because the priests had the leisure to develop a calendar,
allowing them to foretell the coming of the Nile floods, and arithmetic
to develop the centrally planned irrigation works which first produced a
massive surplus. The interest of Egyptian priests in maths and
astronomy was thus not accidental, but rooted in the requirements of
production.
Because of the requirements of planned irrigation, as Marx explains:
“The communal conditions for real appropriation through labour, such as
irrigation systems (very important among the Asian peoples), means of
communication, etc., will then appear as the work of the superior entity
- the despotic government which is poised above the small communities.”
The Asiatic state, which was not accountable in any way to the
village communities, will feel entitled to appropriate the surplus as a
tribute. This tribute is exacted through state ownership of the land:
“...the integrating entity which stands above all these small
communities may appear as the superior or sole proprietor, and the real
communities therefore only as hereditary possessors.'”
The villages were largely self-sufficient, rendering tribute to the
Asiatic despotism in order for the “general conditions of production'”
(irrigation, etc.) to be maintained. Handicrafts and agriculture were
combined within each village. The dispersed villages were unable to
organise effectively against their exploitation, so the whole system was
very resistant to change.
This is what Marx and Engels meant when they said that such societies
were “outside history'”. India, for instance, was invaded by one set of
conquerors after another, but none of these political changes reached
beneath the surface.
It was only after thousands of years, when British capitalism
conquered India and strove to introduce private property in land in
order to destroy the unity of native agriculture and handicrafts, and
develop the preconditions for capitalism, that the Asiatic mode of
production was finally destroyed. The result was the decline of the
irrigation systems and a series of horrible famines throughout the
nineteenth century.
The Asiatic mode of production saw the first development of class
society, though retaining certain features of primitive communism, such
as collective tilling of the soil. It raised production to a higher
level than it had ever been before, and then stagnated.
Thus, in vast areas of the globe, there arose a form of society
completely different from anything seen in Western Europe. Slavery was
known, but it was not the dominant mode of production. In contrast with
western feudalism, the surplus was extorted by the central state rather
than by landlords.
Once civilisation was established and maintained, it was bound to
radiate its effects all around it, whether through war or trade. Egypt
was always dependent on outside areas for trade, thus stimulating the
advance of civilisation in Crete and thereby giving an enormous impetus
to the trading communities on the Greek coast to develop. Here
civilisation found relations of production - private land-ownership
providing an unlimited spur to private enrichment - which could take
humanity forward again.
Ancient Greece: Slavery and Democracy
All city states in Greece and Rome were organised around the same
principles. The whole city-state ('polis' in Greek) was unified against
every other city-state, but divided within itself. It was divided on
class lines - and between citizens and slaves.
At first the poor citizens ('plebeians' as they were called in Rome)
were blocked from all political rights. Their struggle was political -
to gain a say in the decision making of the state. In Athens, a
predominantly trading centre with a higher concentration of merchants
and artisans, the small people were eventually able to win full
democratic rights. Poor men were paid for public service, and over 5,000
citizens regularly met in the assembly to discuss policy.
But Athenian democracy - democracy for the citizens - had as its
foundation the exploitation of a class of non-citizens: slaves who were
without political rights. Athenian democracy was in fact a mechanism for
enforcing the interests of the ruling class over the exploited slave
class - and for defending the interests of the ruling class in war.
The polis was an institution geared up for permanent war. The power
of the city state was based on independent peasants capable of arming
themselves ('hoplites'). The victory of democracy was inevitable in
Athens after the poor citizens won the naval battle of Salamis against
the Persians for the city. Though too poor to arm themselves, they
provided the rowers for the Athenian navy. A precarious unity of
interests was established between rich and poor citizens through
expansion outwards and the conquest of slaves.
By comparison with later Roman slave society the Greek slave mode of
production was relatively “democratic” - as far as the citizens were
concerned. Even poor citizens could own a slave to help around the farm
or workshop, or lease them out to work on slave gangs.
Slavery itself was only possible because labour was now capable of
yielding a surplus. That surplus was appropriated by a ruling class who
owned the means of production - in this case the slaves themselves. The
state was the state of the ruling class. The whole structure of society
was based upon slave labour - all the miracles of art, culture and
philosophy were only possible because an exploited class laboured so
slave-holders could have leisure.
Slave society had its own dynamic. Its success depended upon the continual appropriation of more slaves, more unpaid labour.
“Wherever slavery is the main form of production it turns labour into servile activity, consequently makes it dishonourable for freemen. Thus the way out of such a mode of production is barred, while on the other hand slavery is an impediment to more developed production, which urgently requires its removal. This contradiction spells the doom of all production based on slavery and of all communities based on it.
A solution comes about in most cases through the forcible subjection of the deteriorating communities by other, stronger ones (Greece by Macedonia and later Rome). As long as these themselves have slavery as their foundation there is merely a shifting of the centre and a repetition of the process on a higher plane until (Rome) finally a people conquers that replaces slavery by another form of production.” (Engels, in his preparatory writings for Anti-Duhring)
To illustrate this explanation, let us turn to Rome, where slavery
exhausted its potential, and Western European society finally blundered
out of the blind alley it found itself in.
Roman Slavery
Roman society, after the expulsion of its early kings, presents at
first the same aspect as the Greek city states, when they were dominated
by landlords (in Rome called “patricians” and organised in the Senate).
Initially they monopolised all political rights.
The difference with Greece was that the Roman patricians hung on to
power, despite the concessions wrung from them, and monopolised the
benefits of this influx. They linked slave labour to the exploitation of
the great farms (latifundia). In so doing they inevitably undercut the
plebians who, organised in legions, provided the basis for Roman
military greatness.
The dispossessed legionaires could come back after twenty years of
military service to find their farms choked with weeds. Inevitably they
were ruined and drifted into the town to form a rootless, propertyless
proletariat. But as the nineteenth century anti-capitalist social critic
Sismondi said, “whereas the Roman proletariat lived at the expense of
society, modern society lives at the expense of the proletariat”.
In Rome the Gracchus brothers led a last desperate struggle to save
the independent plebeians. Both were cut down by the bought mob of the
patricians.
Decline of the Roman Empire
In this situation the limits of slave production showed themselves.
The slave has no incentive to develop production. He only works under
threat of the whip. Free men for their part despised labour, which they
associated with being an “instrumentum vocale”, an “item of property
with a voice”, as the Roman jurists called slaves.
The tragedy of Roman society was that the class struggle was
three-cornered. The poor freemen had their quarrel with the great
slave-holders, but the only pathetic bit of dignity they had to hang on
to was that they were free, and thus they always made common cause with
their oppressors in the army of the polis in conquering lands for slaves
and holding down slave rebellions.
The slaves for their part lived in a world where slavery was
universal, and so dreamed for the most part of “'enslaving the
slave-holders”, not creating a world without slaves.
Slavery was beginning to die out, not because of humanitarian ideas
supposedly introduced by Christianity, but because it simply did not
pay. The only way slave production could take society forward was
through the conquest of enormous numbers of slaves who could be worked
to death in a few years and replaced.
These conquests had been made possible by the Roman legions of armed
plebeians. But the plebeians had been destroyed by the very success of
big slave-worked farms.
By this time the Romans could only find barbarian mercenaries to man their armies. Thus Rome was defended from the barbarians by barbarians! Clearly the empire was living on borrowed time.
Slavery was still important, particularly in domestic service to the
rich, but it gradually ceased to be the dominant mode of production. As
production and trade shrank, it became clear to the landlords that it
was pointless feeding men to work on the fields all the year round when,
because of the natural rhythms of agricultural work, they were idle
half the time. Much better to get them to fend for themselves in periods
of slack!
Former slaves were rented plots of land from which they had to pay a
regular part of their produce to the landlord as well as wrench a
subsistence for their family. In time, because of the natural tendency
for peasants to get into debt in times of bad harvest, they were bound
to the soil in a serf-like condition. This is called the period of the
“colonate”.
Eventually the Western Empire was overthrown, not because the
barbarians had become more aggressive and threatening, but because of
the inner rottenness of the empire. We have seen that the productive
forces were already in decline; and in the colonate some of the
tendencies, that were to come to fruition under feudalism, were in the
process of coming into existence.
Feudal Society
Feudal society thus emerged in the form of a pyramid of military obligations to those above in exchange for command of the land to those below.
The whole structure relied on the unpaid labour of the peasants
working on the lords' land. Unlike slaves, they were not the property of
the lord. Feudalism developed untidily. Some in the village were in
possession of very little land and either existed still as slaves or as
household servants working on the lord's land. Freer peasants had land
to till and had to pay a rent in kind. Others had an intermediate
status, working small plots to gain their own subsistence and forced to
pay labour services the rest of the time, on the lord's land.
Exploitation under feudalism is clear and unveiled. The peasants pay
services in money, labour or produce to the lords. Everyone can see what
is going on. If the lord is in a position to force the peasant to work
four days instead of three on his land, then it is clear to both parties
that the rate of exploitation has been increased.
Under slavery, on the contrary, even the part of the working week
which the slave has to work to gain his own subsistence seems to be
unpaid. He therefore seems to work for nothing. Under capitalism, the
wage worker is paid a sum of money which is presented as being the value
of his labour. All labour seems to be paid.
In all three systems the producer is exploited: but the particular
form of exploitation ultimately determined the whole structure of
society.
Under feudalism the 'bodies of armed men' which comprised the state
were mainly drawn from the ruling class, who had a monopoly of armed
might. So political and economic power were in the same hands. Justice
in the village was largely in the hands of the lords' manorial courts.
The feudal lord and his men-at-arms were police, judge, and executioners
all rolled into one.
Looking back, we tend to regard feudalism as a static system. But,
compared with slavery, feudalism provided a limited incentive for the
producer to expand production for his own advantage. Sometimes the lord
took the lead in developing agriculture, sometimes the peasants. This
depended on the class struggle. Whether the incentive to produce more
came from the lord's desire for more revenue for luxuries, or from the
ambition of the peasants to set themselves up in business as independent
farmers, production crept up.
But feudalism, like slavery before it imposed limits on the
development of productivity. From generation to generation agricultural
productivity was largely stagnant. The easiest way for the feudal lords
to gain more wealth was to exploit more people. There was therefore a
perpetual impulse to warfare, the net effect of which was to waste and
destroy the productive forces.
Medieval Towns
Like previous forms of class society, feudalism in its development produced the germs of a new society in the towns.
Medieval cities were centres of trade and handicrafts. As
productivity developed, trade necessarily grew. Artisans, who had been
attached to aristocratic households and monasteries in the dark ages,
gathered together to trade with the rural areas in goods that could be
produced quicker and therefore cheaper, or could only be produced by
skilled specialists.
These towns represented a new principle. Unlike the universal
relations of dominance and subservience of feudalism, they were free
associations of trading people, producing what one representative of the
feudal lords called that “new and detestable name”, the commune. Within
the towns production and trade was organised in guilds, divided on
craft lines. These attempted to regulate production, price and quality.
As the productivity of labour grew, so did trade, and production for
the market, commodity production, and a money economy. Increasingly,
grain crops were produced for sale to feed the towns. A stratum of
peasants grew rich at their fellows' expense, and aspired to become
land-owning farmers producing for a market.
Serfdom had largely died out in England by the end of the fourteenth
century, but bondage to the soil was replaced by short-term leases and
an increasing stream of poor peasants being pushed out altogether and
forced into vagabondage (roaming the land in search of a living). By the
seventeenth century, it was reckoned that up to quarter of the
population was without any means of livelihood other than begging.
Progress, as ever, was achieved at the expense of the common people.
Class Struggle Under Feudalism
Whereas the class struggle between patricians and plebians was
political, concerned with access to state power, the feudal class
struggle was mainly waged on the economic plane.
A constant, unremitting struggle took place between landlords and
peasants. Occasionally this spilt over into revolutionary strife. The
Peasants' Revolt of 1381 was the most notable such occasion in England.
After the Black Death, the peasants were in a strong position because
of the shortage of labour. The landlords attempted to recoup their
losses by enforcing traditional obligations all the harder. This
produced a social explosion.
The revolt failed at bottom because the peasantry were a scattered
class divided against themselves. King Richard II urged them to “go back
to their haymaking”, and he hit them on their weak point. It was
impossible to maintain the peasantry in a permanent state of
mobilisation. Production had developed to a point where only a minority
of the population could be maintained as fighting men, while the
majority had to work on the land.
From Feudalism to Capitalism
Marx called the process of the dissolution of feudalism and emergence
of capitalism “primitive accumulation'”. This process is one of piling
up of fortunes in money rather than land on the one hand, and the
creation of a propertyless proletariat on the other. It is the
separation of the producers from the means by which they can maintain
themselves.
We have seen that the feudal peasantry was attached to the land. This
guaranteed them a modest subsistence except in times of famine.
Nobody will work for money, with all the insecurity that entails,
unless they have to. That is why the imperialists in Africa introduced
money poll taxes and, in the case of South Africa drove the Africans on
to barren reserves, to force them to provide a supply of wage labour.
That is why a monopoly of land in the hands of private owners is a
condition for the development of capitalism.
The main lever of dispossession of the peasantry in England was the
passing of private Acts of Parliament through a parliament of landlords,
called Acts of Enclosure. This was simply legalised robbery. It came at
a time when the wool trade was expanding, and the landlords wanted more
land in order to graze flocks of sheep. Land formerly occupied by
perhaps five hundred people was decreed to be the squire's land, and a
couple of shepherds took the villagers' place.
Brutal as this process was, it advanced production on the land by
doing away with the old inefficient strip system and laying the basis
for rational agriculture. Later, the advantages of the industrial
revolution - modern machinery - could be applied to these big farms.
The other pole of the process of primitive accumulation was the
accumulation of money. The first forms of capital, before industrial
capital transformed production, were merchant capital and money-lending
capital.
The 'discovery' of America by Spanish plunderers shifted the axis of world trade. Huge fortunes were made in the 'New World'.
At the end of the middle ages absolutist monarchs like the Tudors in
England sprang up in most of the West European countries. These
monarchies balanced between the old landed ruling class and the
up-and-coming capitalists. To start with they took society forward by
forming strong, stable nation-states within which trade, and hence
capitalism, could develop. They defended the interests of merchants
abroad in wars of conquest for colonies.
Yet, at bottom, they were out for themselves, and could only flourish
because of a deadlock in the class struggle between the capitalists and
the landowners. As capitalism developed further, the rising capitalist
class conceived ambitions for political power to match their growing
economic power. Bourgeois revolutions aimed against the reigning
absolute monarchs would become necessary for capitalism to consolidate
its rule.
Merchants began to turn their attention to the peasants half-employed
on tiny plots of land. They began to 'put out' weaving to these
households. The peasantry became more and more dependent on their
weaving income. The merchants were able to move from just supplying raw
materials and supplying sales outlets, to possession of the peasants,
looms and even their cottages. Through their control over outlets they
held the whip hand. This was another important process whereby the
feudal peasantry was reduced to proletarian status.
Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, handicraft
workshops were set up. It was found that the job could be broken down
into simple processes. Adam Smith begins his Wealth of Nations by
explaining the division of labour in making pins, through which an
enormous amount of pins could be cheaply produced compared with the old
skilled processes.
More than that, the breaking down of the job into simple repetitive
tasks provided the possibility of replacing manual labour with machines.
Starting by taking production as it found it, capitalism was beginning
to revolutionise the instruments of production.
Capitalism could not move straight into domination of the world
economy without hindrance. The newly awakened productive forces were in
revolt at the old relations of production. These had to be overcome and
new production relations installed which corresponded to the stage of
development of the productive forces.
This was the task of the bourgeois revolutions. The English
Revolution of the 1640s, the American Revolution of 1776, and the French
Revolution of 1789-94 were the decisive struggles that laid the
foundations for the domination of capitalism on a world scale.
What precisely were the tasks of these bourgeois revolutions? Though
feudalism was no longer dominant, the landed interest remained a fetter
on commodity production.
Though in England the land-owning gentry switched to production for
the market, in France up till 1789 the aristocracy guzzled a large part
of the surplus in rents, and used their privileged position to impose
all kinds of tolls on the free movement of goods.
This raised prices for everyone and enabled the bourgeoisie, in
opposing the aristocracy, to claim to represent the interests of the
nation as a whole. Up till the storming of the Bastille by the Parisian
masses in 1789, for instance, food entering Paris was subject to a toll
as a feudal privilege.
France was the classic country of the bourgeois revolution, where the
old aristocracy was completely swept aside. The peasantry, increasingly
producing for a market, had a tendency after the bourgeois revolution
of 1789 to become divided into an aspiring capitalist class and a
propertyless class of rural wage labourers.
Capitalism also had the task of setting up centralised national
economies as an envelope within which the new mode of production could
develop.
The capitalist class as a whole was now strong enough to bid for
political power, which it needed to complete its revolution. The
absolutist monarchies, from being a shield to defend the expansion of
trade, had become an obstacle. They had to be done away with; and the
masses of artisans and yeomen were mobilised to do the job for the
capitalist class.
Capitalism
Capitalists measure their wealth not in land or slaves, but in money. The money fortunes found their way into production in the industrial revolution, a period as significant for mankind as the agricultural revolution thousands of years earlier.
Capitalism is a system of exploitation like feudalism or slavery. Its
distinctive feature is that rather than just consuming the surplus, the
capitalists are forced by the nature of their system to plough the bulk
of it back into production.
Capitalism thus achieves a dynamic unheard of in earlier epochs.
Instead of just exploiting more people, as feudal lords strove to do
through never-ending wars, capitalism exploits people more - it develops
the productivity of labour.
In so doing it provides the possibility of a society of abundance,
and so for doing away altogether with the division between exploiter and
exploited. It provides, in other words, the possibility of a higher
stage of society than capitalism itself.
Capitalism bases itself on the monopoly of the means of production in
the hands of the ruling capitalist class. The vast majority of people
are cut off from the means of life unless they work on terms dictated by
the capitalist class.
Formally, wage workers seem to be paid for the work they do. In
reality they are exploited as much as the feudal serf or the slave.
Under capitalism, labour-power (the capacity of the worker to labour)
is a commodity like any other, in that it is bought and sold on the
market. It is sold by its owner, the worker, and bought by the owner of
money, the capitalist.
But labour-power is different from other commodities in this respect:
it has the unique property of being able to create value. This is its
usefulness to the capitalist, this is why the capitalist buys
labour-power (employs workers).
As labour-power is consumed in production (as workers are put to
work) value is created far in excess of what the capitalist has paid (as
wages) for the labour-power. This is the source of the capitalist's
profit.
If labour-power is to be available in the market place, so that the
capitalist can buy it, labour-power must be produced. “Given the
individual,” Marx wrote, “the production of labour-power consists in his
reproduction of himself, or his maintenance”. Marx adds immediately
that this maintenance contains “a historical and moral element” - i.e.,
what a working-class family require for their maintenance, and for the
raising of children as a new generation of wage-workers, will depend on
standards of living which have been established through struggle as
acceptable to the working class in that society.
The essence of capitalist exploitation is this: The worker is paid
wages not for his/her labour but for his/her labour-power - his/her
keep. The difference is taken by the capitalist.
Thus the worker's daily work is divided into “necessary labour” and
“surplus labour”. The worker performs “necessary labour” during that
part of the day spent in producing value which, when sold, will cover
the cost of the wages. The worker performs “surplus labour” during the
remainder of the working day, producing value which, when sold, will
cover the rent, interest and profit which goes to the capitalist class.
Capitalists vie with each other to increase the rate of exploitation
of the workers. The detailed way they do this is dealt with in our
companion pamphlet on Marxist Economics, which deals specifically with
the dynamics of capitalism.
The motor of capitalism is competition. Each capitalist has to
undercut his competitors if he is to survive. The best way to sell
cheaper is to produce cheaper. Since labour-time is the measure of
value, that means producing with less labour-time.
Mechanising is the main means of continually raising the productivity
of labour. Perhaps the best example of the process is the one supplied
by Marx-the case of the hand-loom weavers. The invention of the spinning
jenny, and the mass-production of cheaper yarn, led to the
mechanisation of cloth-making. Weaving, up to then, had still been a
handicraft process.
As demand for weavers expanded in the early years of
the industrial revolution, the hand-loom weavers were able to bid up
their wages and become a regular 'aristocracy of labour'. For capitalism
they represented an obstacle to cheap production. Inevitably, as a
result, the power loom was invented, for capitalist necessity is the
mother and father of invention.
It would be quite clear to any casual observer that the power loom
took much less labour-time to produce an equivalent amount of woven
cloth.
In vain did the hand-loom weavers bid the price of their product
down. In no way could they compete with the power loom. At their peak
there had been a quarter of a million hand-loom weavers. Over a
generation they were wiped out with thousands actually dying of
starvation. A much smaller number were able to get jobs, at lower rates
of pay, supervising the power looms.
That has ever been the way with capitalist progress. But in this way
capitalism has developed the fantastic productive powers of modern
industry.
Capitalism also develops a form of the state appropriate to its own
rule. Different forms of state can exist under capitalism, each
corresponding to a different stage in the development of the class
struggle - from parliamentary democracy to fascism and bonapartist
military-police dictatorships of the most variegated kinds.
Marx and Engels often emphasised that democracy is the ideal form of
capitalist class rule, first because it enables the capitalists to sort
out their differences; and secondly because it gives the working-class
parties a semblance of a say of running society. Changes necessary for
the continued existence of the system can thus more easily be made.
At the same time bourgeois democracy provides the most favourable
ground for the workers to organise to overthrow their exploiters.
Capitalism has required, as a precondition of its existence, a new
class of propertyless toilers. Throughout its development capitalism has
created a bigger and bigger pool of wage-workers.
Even since the second world war, millions of small farmers have been
driven from the land in countries such as France, Italy and Japan. This
has been a progressive step in so far as it tears these people away from
the isolation and backwardness of rural life, and in so far as it
represents a raising of the productivity of labour, so that less people
are needed to grow food and more can set their hands to producing other
things.
But, at the same time, capitalism has no regard for the interests of
people, and relentlessly searches out surplus value at any cost to the
masses.
The Capitalist World Market
As we have seen, though it has created misery for the masses,
capitalism has been a dynamic system. Its aim and impulse is more and
more surplus value.
Thus industrial capitalism strives to conquer the world. Merchant
capital had contented itself with exacting tribute from the existing
modes of production in other countries; industrial capital, in the
empires it created after the industrial revolution, flooded these
countries with cheap manufactured goods.
These goods necessarily destroyed the existing system of handicrafts, which was united with agriculture in the villages.
Existing societies were forcibly broken up. Moreover agriculture was
increasingly switched towards the requirements of the world market.
Capitalism was striving to create a world after its own image.
This process was brought to its highest stage in the imperialist
phase of capitalist development. After the Indian Mutiny, which began in
1857, the British rulers saw the need to build up a network of
railways, to allow rapid troop movements, in order to keep the
population pinned down. This marked the beginning of the imperialist
phase of the exploitation of India. Export of capital rather than of
goods became the predominant feature.
Imperialism
This development was the result of the growth of monopoly capitalism
in the metropolitan countries, involving the fusion of finance with
manufacturing capital-the epoch of imperialism, which was analysed by
Lenin. National markets became too small for the giant monopolies as
they swallowed up their weaker competitors, expanded production to new
heights, and looked for new and profitable areas for investment.
In the case of India, this process really got going at the end of the
nineteenth century when capital was exported from Britain to build up a
modern Indian-based textile industry, mainly under British ownership.
“One capitalist kills many”, as Marx says. Capitalism destroys not
only petty production, but also continually bankrupts the weakest of its
own brethren and jettisons them into the ranks of the propertyless.
This is a two-sided process - progressive in its objective economic
content, by piling up enormous productive resources for the potential
benefit of mankind, but, under capitalism, concentrating colossal power
in the hands of a tiny handful of rich magnates. At the end of the
nineteenth century we saw the development of monopoly out of competition
itself.
The banking system, Marx wrote, “places all the available and even
potential capital of society that is not already actively employed at
the disposal of the industrial and commercial capitalists, so that
neither the lenders nor users of this capital are its real owners or
producers. It thus does away with the private character of capital and
thus contains in itself, but only in itself, the abolition of capital
itself... Finally there is no doubt that the credit system will serve as
a powerful lever during the transition from the capitalist mode of
production to the mode of production of associated labour, but only as
one element in connection with other great organic revolutions of the
mode of production itself.”
Capitalism continually requires infusions of money capital in order
for profit-making to continue uninterruptedly. Once a stock of
commodities has been produced, a single capitalist would either have to
wait till he had sold them before he once again had money in his pocket
to restart production; or he would have to keep stocks of money-capital
idle much of the time as a reserve for investment when needed; he would
have to continually pay money into a fund to renew stocks of fixed
capital which might be idle for ten or twenty years.
In reality, a stratum of capitalist hangers-on develop, not prepared
to invest directly in production, but quite prepared to lend their money
in order to cut themselves a slice of the pie of surplus-value. So
there is a tendency for competition to generate unused reserves of money
capital. These reserves are collected in a few rich hands -
concentrations of finance capital.
Finance capital initially provided a stimulus to the capitalist
system by gathering and siphoning money-capital into production. It did
so, of course, only to cream off an increasing proportion of the surplus
value for itself.
As Marx pointed out, finance capital also concentrates tremendous
economic power in its own hands, and effectively integrates the
individual manufacturing capitalist into the requirements of capitalist
production as a whole through allocation and withdrawal of credits.
Imperialism is the epoch in which finance capital has fused with monopoly capital involved in production.
Under imperialism, while competition between capitalists within the
boundaries of the nation-state has not been completely done away with,
conflict has spilt over into the international arena.
The big monopolies and the banks exported capital rather than just
commodities. A massive programme of railway building was undertaken in
every continent and clime. Loans were floated for the most far-flung
places. A systematic search was undertaken for every kind of raw
material and mineral resource.
Conflicts now began between national capital blocs. The struggle was
for nothing less than mastery of the world. Wars unparalleled in
ferocity in the history of mankind broke out for colonies and a
redivision of imperial spoils.
The first world war indicated that capitalism, like previous forms of
class society, had ceased to be progressive. Instead of taking
production forward, there was mass destruction and mass murder.
But at the same time, a new society was developing within the old.
The Russian revolution served notice that the rule of the working class
was at hand.
Revolutionary Role of the Working Class
The working class is unlike any other exploited class in history. We
have seen how the three-sided class struggle within slave society
necessarily led to the “common ruin of the contending classes”. We have
seen how the feudal peasantry were for hundreds of years incapable of
formulating a coherent revolutionary alternative to the system that
exploited them.
This failure had not been accidental. The peasantry is an isolated
class, scattered over the countryside and finding it very difficult to
combine. But their problem is not just geographical, it is at bottom
social. For as Marx put it, the peasantry is a class only in one sense:
“in so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. In so far as...the identity of their interests begets no community, no national bond and no political organisation among them, they do not form a class.”
For the peasantry are smallholders-a class divided against itself.
They are like potatoes in a sack-destined for the chipping machine under
capitalist progress.
The working class, on the other hand, is concentrated in great masses
by the very nature of factory production. Unlike the peasantry, their
only strength lies in collective action. Through collective
exploitation, the working class are trained and educated by capitalism
itself to act as the system's grave-diggers.
Capitalist Crisis
Nor is the modern working class left to vegetate at a modest but
constant standard of living. Insecurity is a condition of their
existence.
Capitalism has produced many wonders inconceivable hitherto. It has
also produced social disasters inconceivable under previous forms of
society - crises taking the form of overproduction.
In pre-capitalist societies, the subsistence of the toilers was only
interrupted by famine - physical shortage of necessities. Primitive
people's minds may well have been clogged with all sorts of
superstition, but the spectacle of people starving, while sitting idly
in front of the tools necessary to make the things they need, is a
unique product of our society.
Capitalism is social production. It is social in two ways. Firstly,
it ties the whole world up into one economic unit through the world
market, a worldwide division of labour. Everybody is dependent on
everyone else for the things they need.
Secondly it introduces large scale production only workable by collective labour.
Yet, at the same time, the system runs on private appropriation and
private profit. It is anarchic - nobody knows how much of any commodity
is needed at any time. The capitalist plans production within his own
factory, but social production as a whole is unplanned.
Marx wrote:
“Capitalist production seeks continually to overcome these immanent barriers but overcomes them only by means which again place the barriers in its way and on a more formidable scale. The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself”. (Capital, Vol. 3)
The laws of capitalism work, “despite anarchy, in and through
anarchy”. Each capitalist is oblivious to the actual requirements of
society for pig-iron or knicker-elastic at any time. They produce what
they hope will make the maximum profit, whether pig-iron or
knicker-elastic. They organise production within their factory; but
anarchy reigns in production as a whole.
The possibility of crisis is inherent in such a system. All that
socialists want to do is plan production in society at large in the same
meticulous way the capitalists do within each separate factory.
The worker, unlike the exploited classes in pre-capitalist society,
is a free person - free in that he is not subject to “relations of
personal dependence” and can work for any boss he likes, and free from
any attachment to the means of subsistence. But the workers'
expectations and feelings of security are continually shattered by
plagues of mass unemployment.
Crisis poses over and over again before the working class the need to
change society. Capitalism will never collapse of its own accord. It
has to be overthrown.
It is a caricature of Marxism to suggest that the revolution will be
made automatically by workers made destitute by the workings of the
system. It will be overthrown by a conscious and determined class, not
just by a desperate class.
What is true is that the perpetual insecurity of existence under
capitalism will produce a questioning in the minds of workers. Just as
we have to understand nature in order to master it, so workers will have
to understand the nature of their enemy before they can overthrow it.
We have outlined the progress of mankind from primitive communism to
capitalism. An objective look at the record shows also the world we have
lost. Chief Sitting Bull, an outstanding defender of Native American
tribal society, ended up miserably as a kind of freak in Buffalo Bill's
Wild West Show. As he toured the Western capitals he was astounded at
the wealth - but also at the poverty. He said, “The white man (by which
he meant the capitalist system) knows how to produce wealth, not how to
distribute it”.
Yet the possibility now exists for a society where enough can be
produced for each to take according to their need. The possibilities
posed before mankind by science and new technology were foreseen by Marx
over 120 years ago. In one of his notebooks he wrote:
“No longer does the worker insert a modified natural thing as middle link between the object and himself; rather he inserts the process of nature, transformed into an industrial process, as a means between himself and unorganic nature mastering it. In this transformation it is...the development of the social individual which appears as the great foundation-stone of production and of wealth. The theft of alien labour-time, on which the present is based, appears a miserable foundation in face of this new one, created by large-scale industry itself...
“The surplus labour of the mass has ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few, for the development of the human head... The free development of individuals and hence...the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific, etc., development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.” (Grundrisse)
The !Kung people in the Kalahari live lives of material want and
intellectual backwardness by our standards, but they know better than to
make labour for others the driving force of their society. In
consequence they work a week of between 12 and 19 hours!
Now mankind has the resources and technical means to reach a society
of abundance. The working class, organised and conscious, can overthrow
capitalism and create such a society - a society where people can plan
what they need and want, produce it, and then spend the rest of the time
enjoying it. It's as simple as that.
Mick Brooks
Mick Brooks
X.Preface to The History of the Russian Revolution
by Trotsky
During the first two months of 1917 Russia was still a Romanov
monarchy. Eight months later the Bolsheviks stood at the helm. They were
little know to anybody when the year began, and their leaders were
still under indictment for state treason when they came to power. You
will not find another such sharp turn in history - especially if you
remember that it involves a nation of 150 million people. It is clear
that the events of 1917, whatever you think of them, deserve study.
The history of a revolution, like every other history, ought first of
all to tell what happened and how. That, however, is little enough.
From the very telling it ought to become clear why it happened thus and
not otherwise. Events can neither be regarded as a series of adventures,
nor strung on the thread of a preconceived moral. They must obey their
own laws. The discovery of these laws is the author's task.
The most indubitable feature of a revolution is the direct
interference of the masses in historical events. In ordinary times the
state, be it monarchical or democratic, elevates itself above the
nation, and history is made by specialists in that line of business -
kings, ministers, bureaucrats, parliamentarians, journalists. But at
those crucial moments when the old order becomes no longer endurable to
the masses, they break over the barriers excluding them from the
political arena, sweep aside their traditional representatives, and
create by their own interference the initial groundwork for a new
régime.
Whether this is good or bad we leave to the judgement of
moralists. We ourselves will take the facts as they are given by the
objective course of development. The history of a revolution is for us
first of all a history of the forcible entrance of the masses into the
realm of rulership over their own destiny.
In a society that is seized by revolution classes are in conflict. It
is perfectly clear, however, that the changes introduced between the
beginning and the end of a revolution in the economic bases of the
society and its social substratum of classes, are not sufficient to
explain the course of the revolution itself, which can overthrow in a
short interval age-old institutions, create new ones, and again
overthrow them. The dynamic of revolutionary events is directly
determined by swift, intense and passionate changes in the psychology of
classes which have already formed themselves before the revolution.
The point is that society does not change its institutions as need
arises, the way a mechanic changes his instruments. On the contrary,
society actually takes the institutions which hang upon it as given once
for all. For decades the oppositional criticism is nothing more than a
safety valve for mass dissatisfaction, a condition of the stability of
the social structure. Such in principle, for example, was the
significance acquired by the social-democratic criticism. Entirely
exceptional conditions, independent of the will of persons and parties,
are necessary in order to tear off from discontent the fetters of
conservatism, and bring the masses to insurrection.
The swift changes of mass views and moods in an epoch of revolution
thus derive, not from the flexibility and mobility of man's mind, but
just the opposite, from its deep conservatism. The chronic lag of ideas
and relations behind new objective conditions, right up to the moment
when the latter crash over people in the form of a catastrophe, is what
creates in a period of revolution that leaping movement of ideas and
passions which seems to the police mind a mere result of the activities
of “demagogues.”
The masses go into a revolution not with a prepared plan of social
reconstruction, but with a sharp feeling that they cannot endure the old
régime. Only the guiding layers of a class have a political program,
and even this still requires the test of events, and the approval of the
masses. The fundamental political process of the revolution thus
consists in the gradual comprehension by a class of the problems arising
from the social crisis - the active orientation of the masses by a
method of successive approximations.
The different stages of a
revolutionary process, certified by a change of parties in which the
more extreme always supersedes the less, express the growing pressure to
the left of the masses - so long as the swing of the movement does not
run into objective obstacles. When it does, there begins a reaction:
disappointments of the different layers of the revolutionary class,
growth of indifferentism, and therewith a strengthening of the position
of the counter-revolutionary forces. Such, at least, is the general
outline of the old revolutions.
Only on the basis of a study of political processes in the masses
themselves, can we understand the rôle of parties and leaders, whom we
least of all are inclined to ignore. They constitute not an independent,
but nevertheless a very important, element in the process. Without a
guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like
steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things
is not the piston or the box, but the steam.
The difficulties which stand in the way of studying the changes of
mass consciousness in a revolutionary epoch are quite obvious. The
oppressed classes make history in the factories, in the barracks, in the
villages, on the streets of the cities. Moreover, they are least of all
accustomed to write things down. Periods of high tension in social
passions leave little room for contemplation and reflection. All the
muses - even the plebeian muse of journalism, in spite of her sturdy
hips - have hard sledding in times of revolution. Still the historian's
situation is by no means hopeless.
The records are incomplete,
scattered, accidental. But in the light of the events themselves these
fragments often permit a guess as to the direction and rhythm of the
hidden process. For better or worse, a revolutionary party bases its
tactics upon a calculation of the changes of mass consciousness. The
historic course of Bolshevism demonstrates that such a calculation, at
least in its rough features, can be made. If it can be made by a
revolutionary leader in the whirlpool of the struggle, why not by the
historian afterwards?
However, the processes taking place in the consciousness of the
masses are not unrelated and independent. No matter how the idealists
and the eclectics rage, consciousness is nevertheless determined by
conditions. In the historic conditions which formed Russia, her economy,
her classes, her State, in the action upon her of other states, we
ought to be able to find the premises both of the February revolution
and of the October revolution which replaced it. Since the greatest
enigma is the fact that a backward country was the first to place the
proletariat in power, it behoves us to seek the solution of that enigma
in the peculiarities of that backward country - that is, in its
differences from other countries.
The historic peculiarities of Russia and their relative weight will
be characterised by us in the early chapters of this book which give a
short outline of the development of Russian society and its inner
forces. We venture to hope that the inevitable schematism of these
chapters will not repel the reader. In the further development of the
book he will meet these same forces in living action.
This work will not rely in any degree upon personal recollections.
The circumstance that the author was a participant in the events does
not free him from the obligation to base his exposition upon
historically verified documents. The author speaks of himself, in so far
as that is demanded by the course of events, in the third person. And
that is not a mere literary form: the subjective tone, inevitable in
autobiographies or memoirs, is not permissible in a work of history.
There remains the question of the political position of the author,
who stands as a historian upon the same viewpoint upon which he stood as
a participant in the events. The reader, of course, is not obliged to
share the political views of the author, which the latter on his side
has no reason to conceal. But the reader does have the right to demand
that a historical work should not be the defence of a political
position, but an internally well-founded portrayal of the actual process
of the revolution. A historical work only then completely fulfils the
mission when events unfold upon its pages in their full natural
necessity.
For this, is it necessary to have the so-called historian's
“impartiality”? Nobody has yet clearly explained what this impartiality
consists of. The often quoted words of Clemenceau that it is necessary
to take a revolution “en bloc,” as a whole - are at the best a clever
evasion. How can you take as a whole a thing whose essence consists in a
split? Clemenceau's aphorism was dictated partly by shame for his too
resolute ancestors, partly by embarrassment before their shades.
One of the reactionary and therefore fashionable historians in
contemporary France, L. Madelin, slandering in his drawing-room fashion
the great revolution - that is, the birth of his own nation - asserts
that “the historian ought to stand upon the wall of a threatened city,
and behold at the same time the besiegers and the besieged”: only in
this way, it seems, can he achieve a “conciliatory justice.” However,
the words of Madelin himself testify that if he climbs out on the wall
dividing the two camps, it is only in the character of a reconnoiterer
for the reaction. It is well that he is concerned only with war camps of
the past: in a time of revolution standing on the wall involves great
danger. Moreover, in times of alarm the priests of “conciliatory
justice” are usually found sitting on the inside of four walls waiting
to see which side will win.
The sources of this book are innumerable periodical publications,
newspapers and journals, memoirs, reports, and other material, partly in
manuscript, but the greater part published by the Institute of the
History of the Revolution in Moscow and Leningrad. We have considered
its superfluous to make reference in the text to particular
publications, since that would only bother the reader. Among the books
which have the character of collective historical works we have
particularly used the two-volume Essays on the History of the October
Revolution (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927). Written by different authors, the
various parts of this book are unequal in value, but they contain at any
rate abundant factual material.
The dates in our book are everywhere indicated according to the old
style - that is, they are 13 days behind the international and the
present Soviet calendar. The author felt obliged to use the calendar
which was in use at the time of the revolution. It would have been no
labour of course to translate the dates into the new style. But this
operation in removing one difficulty would have created others more
essential.
The overthrow of the monarchy has gone into history as the
February revolution; according to the Western calendar, however, it
occurred in March. The armed demonstration against the imperialist
policy of the Provisional Government has gone into history under the
name of the “April Days,” whereas according to the Western calendar it
happened in May.
Not to mention other intervening events and dates, we
remark only that the October revolution happened according to European
reckoning in November. The calendar itself, we see, is tinted by the
events, and the historian cannot handle revolutionary chronology by mere
arithmetic. The reader will be kind enough to remember that before
overthrowing the Byzantine calendar, the revolution had to overthrow the
institutions that clung to it.
Leon TrotskyPrinkipo, November 14, 1930.
XI .From Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy
Extract from Chapter Four by Frederick Engels, 1886
….What is true of nature, which is hereby recognized also as a
historical process of development, is likewise true of the history of
society in all its branches and of the totality of all sciences which
occupy themselves with things human (and divine).
Here, too, the
philosophy of history, of right, of religion, etc., has consisted in the
substitution of an interconnection fabricated in the mind of the
philosopher for the real interconnection to be demonstrated in the
events; has consisted in the comprehension of history as a whole as well
as in its separate parts, as the gradual realization of ideas -- and
naturally always only the pet ideas of the philosopher himself.
According to this, history worked unconsciously but of necessity towards
a certain ideal goal set in advance -- as, for example, in Hegel,
towards the realization of his absolute idea -- and the unalterable
trend towards this absolute idea formed the inner interconnection in the
events of history.
A new mysterious providence -- unconscious or
gradually coming into consciousness -- was thus put in the place of the
real, still unknown interconnection. Here, therefore, just as in the
realm of nature, it was necessary to do away with these fabricated,
artificial interconnections by the discovery of the real ones -- a task
which ultimately amounts to the discovery of the general laws of motion
which assert themselves as the ruling ones in the history of human
society.
In one point, however, the history of the development of society
proves to be essentially different from that of nature. In nature -- in
so far as we ignore man's reaction upon nature -- there are only blind,
unconscious agencies acting upon one another, out of whose interplay the
general law comes into operation. Nothing of all that happens --
whether in the innumerable apparent accidents observable upon the
surface, or in the ultimate results which confirm the regularity
inherent in these accidents -- happens as a consciously desired aim. In
the history of society, on the contrary, the actors are all endowed with
consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working
towards definite goals; nothing happens without a conscious purpose,
without an intended aim.
But this distinction, important as it is for
historical investigation, particularly of single epochs and events,
cannot alter the fact that the course of history is governed by inner
general laws. For here, also, on the whole, in spite of the consciously
desired aims of all individuals, accident apparently reigns on the
surface.
That which is willed happens but rarely; in the majority of
instances the numerous desired ends cross and conflict with one another,
or these ends themselves are from the outset incapable of realization,
or the means of attaining them are insufficient. thus the conflicts of
innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the domain of
history produce a state of affairs entirely analogous to that prevailing
in the realm of unconscious nature.
The ends of the actions are
intended, but the results which actually follow from these actions are
not intended; or when they do seem to correspond to the end intended,
they ultimately have consequences quite other than those intended.
Historical events thus appear on the whole to be likewise governed by
chance. But where on the surface accident holds sway, there actually it
is always governed by inner, hidden laws, and it is only a matter of
discovering these laws.
Men make their own history, whatever its outcome may be, in that each
person follows his own consciously desired end, and it is precisely the
resultant of these many wills operating in different directions, and of
their manifold effects upon the outer world, that constitutes history.
Thus it is also a question of what the many individuals desire.
The will
is determined by passion or deliberation. But the levers which
immediately determine passion or deliberation are of very different
kinds. Partly they may be external objects, partly ideal motives,
ambition, “enthusiasm for truth and justice”, personal hatred, or even
purely individual whims of all kinds.
But, on the one hand, we have seen
that the many individual wills active in history for the most part
produce results quite other than those intended -- often quite the
opposite; that their motives, therefore, in relation to the total result
are likewise of only secondary importance. On the other hand, the
further question arises: What driving forces in turn stand behind these
motives? What are the historical forces which transform themselves into
these motives in the brains of the actors?
The old materialism never put this question to itself. Its conception
of history, in so far as it has one at all, is therefore essentially
pragmatic; it divides men who act in history into noble and ignoble and
then finds that as a rule the noble are defrauded and the ignoble are
victorious. hence, it follows for the old materialism that nothing very
edifying is to be got from the study of history, and for us that in the
realm of history the old materialism becomes untrue to itself because it
takes the ideal driving forces which operate there as ultimate causes,
instead of investigating what is behind them, what are the driving
forces of these driving forces.
This inconsistency does not lie in the
fact that ideal driving forces are recognized, but in the investigation
not being carried further back behind these into their motive causes. On
the other hand, the philosophy of history, particularly as represented
by Hegel, recognizes that the ostensible and also the really operating
motives of men who act in history are by no means the ultimate causes of
historical events; that behind these motives are other motive powers,
which have to be discovered. But it does not seek these powers in
history itself, it imports them rather from outside, from philosophical
ideology, into history.
Hegel, for example, instead of explaining the
history of ancient Greece out of its own inner interconnections, simply
maintains that it is nothing more than the working out of “forms of
beautiful individuality”, the realization of a “work of art” as such. He
says much in this connection about the old Greeks that is fine and
profound, but that does not prevent us today from refusing to be put off
with such an explanation, which is a mere manner of speech.
When, therefore, it is a question of investigating the driving powers
which - consciously or unconsciously, and indeed very often
unconsciously -- lie behind the motives of men who act in history and
which constitute the real ultimate driving forces of history, then it is
not a question so much of the motives of single individuals, however
eminent, as of those motives which set in motion great masses, whole
people, and again whole classes of the people in each people; and this,
too, not merely for an instant, like the transient flaring up of a
straw-fire which quickly dies down, but as a lasting action resulting in
a great historical transformation.
To ascertain the driving causes
which here in the minds of acting masses and their leaders - the
so-called great men - are reflected as conscious motives, clearly or
unclearly, directly or in an ideological, even glorified, form - is the
only path which can put us on the track of the laws holding sway both in
history as a whole, and at particular periods and in particular lands.
Everything which sets men in motion must go through their minds; but
what form it will take in the mind will depend very much upon the
circumstances. The workers have by no means become reconciled to
capitalist machine industry, even though they no longer simply break the
machines to pieces, as they still did in 1848 on the Rhine.
But while in all earlier periods the investigation of these driving
causes of history was almost impossible - on account of the complicated
and concealed interconnections between them and their effects - our
present period has so far simplified these interconnections that the
riddle could be solved. Since the establishment of large-scale industry -
that is, at least since the European peace of 1815 - it has been no
longer a secret to any man in England that the whole political struggle
there pivoted on the claims to supremacy of two classes: the landed
aristocracy and the bourgeoisie (middle class).
In France, with the
return of the Bourbons, the same fact was perceived, the historians of
the Restoration period, from Thierry to Guizot, Mignet, and Thiers,
speak of it everywhere as the key to the understanding of all French
history since the Middle Ages. And since 1830, the working class, the
proletariat, has been recognized in both countries as a third competitor
for power. Conditions had become so simplified that one would have had
to close one's eyes deliberately not to see in the light of these three
great classes and in the conflict of their interests the driving force
of modern history -- at least in the two most advanced countries.
But how did these classes come into existence? If it was possible at
first glance still to ascribe the origin of the great, formerly feudal
landed property - at least in the first instance - to political causes,
to taking possession by force, this could not be done in regard to the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Here, the origin and development of two
great classes was seen to lie clearly and palpably in purely economic
causes. And it was just as clear that in the struggle between landed
property and the bourgeoisie, no less than in the struggle between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat, it was a question, first and foremost,
of economic interests, to the furtherance of which political power was
intended to serve merely as a means.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat both
arose in consequences of a transformation of the economic conditions,
more precisely, of the mode of production. The transition, first from
guild handicrafts to manufacture, and then from manufacture to
large-scale industry, with steam and mechanical power, had caused the
development of these two classes.
At a certain stage, the new productive
forces set in motion by the bourgeoisie - in the first place the
division of labour and the combination of many detail labourers in one
general manufactory - and the conditions and requirements of exchange,
developed through these productive forces, became incompatible with the
existing order of production handed down by history and sanctified by
law -- that is to say, incompatible with the privileges of the guild and
the numerous other personal and local privileges (which were only so
many fetters to the unprivileged estates) of the feudal order to
society. The productive forces represented by the bourgeoisie rebelled
against the order of production represented by the feudal landlords and
the guild-masters.
The result is known, the feudal fetters were smashed,
gradually in England, at one blow in France. In Germany, the process is
not yet finished. But just as, at a definite stage of its development,
manufacture came into conflict with the feudal order of production, so
now large-scale industry has already come into conflict with the
bourgeois order or production established in its place. Tied down by
this order, by the narrow limits of the capitalist mode of production,
this industry produces, on the one hand, an ever-increasingly
proletarianisation of the great mass of the people, and on the other
hand, an ever greater mass of unsaleable products.
Overproduction and
mass misery, each the cause of the other - that is the absurd
contradiction which is its outcome, and which of necessity calls for the
liberation of the productive forces by means of a change in the mode of
production.
In modern history at least it is, therefore, proved that all
political struggles are class struggles, and all class struggles for
emancipation, despite their necessarily political form - for every class
struggle is a political struggle - turn ultimately on the question of
economic emancipation. Therefore, here at least, the state - the
political order - is the subordination, and civil society - the realm of
economic relations - the decisive element.
The traditional conception,
to which Hegel, too, pays homage, saw in the state the determining
element, and in civil society the element determined by it. Appearances
correspond to this. As all the driving forces of the actions of any
individual person must pass through his brain, and transform themselves
into motives of his will in order to set him into action, so also all
the needs of civil society - no matter which class happens to be the
ruling one - must pass through the will of the state in order to secure
general validity in the form of laws. That is the formal aspect of the
matter - the one which is self-evident.
The question arises, however,
what is the content of this merely formal will - of the individual as
well as of the state -- and whence is this content derived? Why is just
this willed and not something else? If we enquire into this, we discover
that in modern history the will of the state is, on the whole,
determined by the changing needs of civil society, but the supremacy of
this or that class, in the last resort, by the development of the
productive forces and relations of exchange.
But if even in our modern era, with its gigantic means of production
and communication, the state is not an independent domain with an
independent development, but one whose existence as well as development
is to be explained in the last resort by the economic conditions of life
of society, then this must be still more true of all earlier times when
the production of the material life of man was not yet carried on with
these abundant auxiliary means, and when, therefore, the necessity of
such production must have exercised a still greater mastery over men.
If
the state even today, in the era of big industry and of railways, is on
the whole only a reflection, in concentrated form, of the economic
needs of the class controlling production, then this must have been much
more so in an epoch when each generation of men was forced to spend a
far greater part of its aggregate lifetime in satisfying material needs,
and was therefore much more dependent on them than we are today. An
examination of the history of earlier periods, as soon as it is
seriously undertaken from this angle, most abundantly confirms this.
But, of course, this cannot be gone into here….
XII. From the Introduction to Dialectics of Nature
by Frederick Engels, 1875-6
With men we enter history. Animals also have a history, that of their
derivation and gradual evolution to their present position. This
history, however, is made for them, and in so far as they themselves
take part in it, this occurs without their knowledge or desire. On the
other hand, the more that human beings become removed from animals in
the narrower sense of the word, the more they make their own history
consciously, the less becomes the influence of unforeseen effects and
uncontrolled forces of this history, and the more accurately does the
historical result correspond to the aim laid down in advance.
If, however, we apply this measure to human history, to that of even
the most developed peoples of the present day, we find that there still
exists here a colossal disproportion between the proposed aims and the
results arrived at, that unforeseen effects predominate, and that the
uncontrolled forces are far more powerful than those set into motion
according to plan.
And this cannot be otherwise as long as the most
essential historical activity of men, the one which has raised them from
bestiality to humanity and which forms the material foundation of all
their other activities, namely the production of their requirements of
life, that is today social production, is above all subject to the
interplay of unintended effects from uncontrolled forces and achieves
its desired end only by way of exception and, much more frequently, the
exact opposite.
In the most advanced industrial countries we have subdued the forces
of nature and pressed them into the service of mankind; we have thereby
infinitely multiplied production, so that a child now produces more than
a hundred adults previously did. And what is the result? Increasing
overwork and increasing misery of the masses, and every ten years a
great [economic] collapse. Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he
wrote on mankind, and especially on his countrymen, when he showed that
free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists
celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of
the animal kingdom.
Only conscious organisation of social production, in which production
and distribution are carried on in a planned way, can lift mankind
above the rest of the animal world as regards the social aspect, in the
same way that production in general has done this for men in their
aspect as species. Historical evolution makes such an organisation daily
more indispensable, but also with every day more possible. From it will
date a new epoch of history, in which mankind itself, and with mankind
all branches of its activity, and especially natural science, will
experience an advance that will put everything preceding it in the
deepest shade.
XIII.Extract from the Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
by Marx
In the social production of their life, men enter into definite
relations that are indispensable and independent of their will,
relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of
development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these
relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society,
the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure
and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production of material life conditions the social,
political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the
consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary,
their social being that determines their consciousness.
At a certain stage of their development, the material productive
forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of
production, or - what is but a legal expression for the same thing -
with the property relations within which they have been at work
hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these
relations turn into their fetters.
Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the
economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less
rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction
should always be made between the material transformation of the
economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the
precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious,
aesthetic or philosophic - in short, ideological forms in which men
become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion
of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we
not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness;
on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the
contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the
social productive forces and the relations of production.
No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for
which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of
production never appear before the material conditions of their
existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore
mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since,
looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the
tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution
already exist or are at least in the process of formation….
The
bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the
social process of production - antagonistic not in the sense of
individual antagonisms, but of one arising form the social conditions of
life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces
developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material
conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation
brings, therefore, the prehistory of society to a close.
XIV. From Karl Marx
by Frederick Engels, 1877
Of the many important discoveries through which Marx has inscribed
his name in the annals of science, we can here dwell on only two.
The first is the revolution brought about by him in the whole
conception of world history. The whole previous view of history was
based on conception that the ultimate causes of all historical changes
are to be looked for in the changing ideas of human beings, and that of
all historical changes political changes are the most important and
dominate the whole of history.
But the question was not asked as to
whence the ideas come into men's minds and what the driving causes of
the political changes are. Only upon the newer school of French, and
partly also of English, historians have forced the conviction that,
since the Middle Ages at least, the driving force in European history
was the struggle of the developing bourgeoisie with the fuedal
aristocracy for social and political domination.
Now Marx has proved that the whole of previous history is a history
of class struggles, that in all the manifold and complicated political
struggles the only thing at issue has been the social and political rule
of social classes, the maintenance of domination by older classes and
the conquest of domination by newly arising classes. To what, however,
do these classes owe their origin and their continued existence? They
owe it to the particular material, physically sensible conditions in
which society at a given period produces and exchanges its means of
sustenance.
The fuedal rule of the Middle Ages rested on a self-sufficient
economy of small peasant communities, which themselves produced almost
all their requirements, in which there is almost no exchange and which
received from the arms bearing nobility protection from without and
national or at least political cohesion. When the towns arose and with
them separate handicraft industry and trade intercourse, at first
internal and later international, the urban bourgeoisie developed, and
already during the Middle Ages achieved, in struggle with the nobility,
its inclusion in the feudal order as likewise a privileged estate.
But with the discovery of the extra-European world, from the middle
of the 15th century onwards, this bourgeoisie acquired a far more
extensive sphere of trade and therewith a new spur for its industry; in
the most important branches handicrafts were supplemented by
manufacture, now on a factory scale, and this again was supplanted by
large scale industry, possible owing to the discoveries of the previous
century, especially that of the steam engine. Large scale industry, in
its turn, reacted on trade by driving out the old manual labour in
backward countries, and creating the present day new means of
communication: steam engines, railways, electric telegraphy, in the more
developed ones.
Thus the bourgeoisie came more and more to combine social wealth and
social power in its hands, while it still for a long period remained
excluded from political power, which was in the hands of the nobility
and the monarchy supported by the nobility. But at a certain stage - in
France since the Great Revolution - it also conquered political power,
and now in turn became the ruling class over the proletariat and small
peasants.
From this point of view all the historical phenomenon are explicable
in simplest possible way - with sufficient knowledge of the particular
economic condition of society (which it is true is totally lacking in
our professional historians), and in the same way the conceptions and
ideas of each historical period are most simply to be explained from the
economic conditions of life and from the social and political relations
of the period, which are in turn determined by these economic
conditions.
History was for the first time placed on its real basis; the
palpable but previously totally overlooked fact that men must first of
all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, therefore must work , before
they can fight for domination, pursue politics, religion, philosophy,
etc. - this palpable fact at last came into its historical rights.
This new conception of history, however, was of supreme significance
for the socialist outlook. It showed that all previous history moved in
class antagonisms and class struggles, that there have always existed
ruling and ruled, exploiting and exploited classes, and that the great
majority of mankind has always been condemned to arduous labour and
little enjoyment.
Why is this? Simply because in all earlier stages of
development of mankind production was so little developed that the
historical development could proceed only in this antagonistic form,
that historical progress as all whole was assigned to the activity of a
small privileged minority, while the great mass remained condemned to
producing by their labour their own meagre means of subsistence and also
the increasingly rich means of the privileged.
But the same investigation of history, which in this way provides a natural and reasonable explanation of the previous class rule, otherwise only explicable from the wickednesses of man, also leads to the realization that, in consequence of the so tremendously increased productive forces of the present time, even the last pretext has vanished for a division of mankind into rulers and ruled, exploiters and exploited, at least in the most advanced countries.
But the same investigation of history, which in this way provides a natural and reasonable explanation of the previous class rule, otherwise only explicable from the wickednesses of man, also leads to the realization that, in consequence of the so tremendously increased productive forces of the present time, even the last pretext has vanished for a division of mankind into rulers and ruled, exploiters and exploited, at least in the most advanced countries.
That the ruling big bourgeoisie has
fulfilled its historic mission, that it is no longer capable of the
leadership of society and has even become a hindrance to the development
of production, as the trade crisis, and especially the last great
collapse, and the depressed condition of industry in all countries have
proved. That historical leadership has passed to the proletariat, a
class which, owing to its whole position in society, can only free
itself by abolishing altogether all class rule, all servitude and all
exploitation.
And that the social productive forces, which have outgrown
the control of the bourgeoisie, are only waiting for the associated
proletariat to take possession of them in order to bring about a state
of things in which every member of society will be enabled to
participate not only in production but also in the distribution and
administration of social wealth, and which so increases the social
productive forces and their yield by planned operation of the whole of
production that satisfaction of all reasonable needs will be assured to
everyone in an ever-increasing measure.
XV. From Engels' Letter to J. Bloch
London, September 21, 1890
According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately
determining element in history is the production and reproduction of
real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence
if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the
only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless,
abstract, senseless phrase.
The economic situation is the basis, but
the various elements of the superstructure - political forms of the
class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the
victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and
even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the
participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious
views and their further development into systems of dogmas - also
exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and
in many cases preponderate in determining their form.
There is an
interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of
accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is
so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as
non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts
itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any
period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation
of the first degree.
We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very
definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are
ultimately decisive. But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the
traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the
decisive one. The Prussian state also arose and developed from
historical, ultimately economic, causes.
But it could scarcely be
maintained without pedantry that among the many small states of North
Germany, Brandenburg was specifically determined by economic necessity
to become the great power embodying the economic, linguistic and, after
the Reformation, also the religious difference between North and South,
and not by other elements as well (above all by its entanglement with
Poland, owing to the possession of Prussia, and hence with international
political relations - which were indeed also decisive in the formation
of the Austrian dynastic power).
Without making oneself ridiculous it
would be a difficult thing to explain in terms of economics the
existence of every small state in Germany, past and present, or the
origin of the High German consonant permutations, which widened the
geographic partition wall formed by the mountains from the Sudetic range
to the Taunus to form a regular fissure across all Germany.
In the second place, however, history is made in such a way that the
final result always arises from conflicts between many individual wills,
of which each in turn has been made what it is by a host of particular
conditions of life. Thus there are innumerable intersecting force, an
infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one
resultant - the historical event.
This may again itself be viewed as the
product of a power which works as a whole unconsciously and without
volition. For what each individual wills is obstructed by everyone else,
and what emerges is something that no one willed. Thus history has
proceeded hitherto in the manner of a natural process and is essentially
subject to the same laws of motion.
But from the fact that the wills of
individuals - each of whom desires what he is impelled to by his
physical constitution and external, in the last resort economic,
circumstances (either his own personal circumstances or those of society
in general) - do not attain what they want, but are merged into an
aggregate mean, a common resultant, it must not be concluded that they
are equal to zero. On the contrary, each contributes to the resultant
and is to this extent included in it.
I would furthermore ask you to study this theory from its original
sources and not at second-hand; it is really much easier. Marx hardly
wrote anything in which it did not play a part. But especially The Eigteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is a most excellent example of its application. There are also many allusion to it in Capital. Then may I also direct you to my writings: Herr Eugen Duhring's Revolution in Science and Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, in which I have given the most detailed account of historical material which, as far as I know, exists.
Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the
younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is
due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-á-vis our
adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or
the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the
interaction.
But when it came to presenting a section of history, that
is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and
there no error was permissible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only
too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and
can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its
main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot
exempt many of the more recent “Marxists” from this reproach, for the
most amazing rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too....
XVI.From The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
by Karl Marx, 1852
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and
personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time
as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidiere for Danton, Louis
Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851 for the Montagne of
1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle. And the same caricature occurs
in the circumstances of the second edition of the Eighteenth Brumaire.
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please;
they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under
circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The
tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of
the living.
And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.
And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.
Thus Luther put
on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped
itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman
Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to
parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like
manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it
back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new
language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it
without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.
When we think about this conjuring up of the dead of world history, a
salient difference reveals itself. Camille Desmoulins, Danton,
Robespierre, St. Just, Napoleon, the heroes as well as the parties and
the masses of the old French Revolution, performed the task of their
time -- that of unchaining and establishing modern bourgeois society --
in Roman costumes and with Roman phrases. The first one destroyed the
feudal foundation and cut off the feudal heads that had grown on it.
The
other created inside France the only conditions under which free
competition could be developed, parceled-out land properly used, and the
unfettered productive power of the nation employed; and beyond the
French borders it swept away feudal institutions everywhere, to provide,
as far as necessary, bourgeois society in France with an appropriate
up-to-date environment on the European continent. Once the new social
formation was established, the antediluvian colossi disappeared and with
them also the resurrected Romanism -- the Brutuses, the Gracchi, the
publicolas, the tribunes, the senators, and Caesar himself.
Bourgeois society in its sober reality bred its own true interpreters
and spokesmen in the Says, Cousins, Royer-Collards, Benjamin Constants,
and Guizots; its real military leaders sat behind the office desk and
the hog-headed Louis XVIII was its political chief. Entirely absorbed in
the production of wealth and in peaceful competitive struggle, it no
longer remembered that the ghosts of the Roman period had watched over
its cradle. But unheroic though bourgeois society is, it nevertheless
needed heroism, sacrifice, terror, civil war, and national wars to bring
it into being.
And in the austere classical traditions of the Roman
Republic, the bourgeois gladiators found the ideals and the art forms,
the self-deceptions, that they needed to conceal from themselves the
bourgeois-limited content of their struggles and to keep their passion
on the high plane of great historic tragedy. Similarly, at another stage
of development a century earlier, Cromwell and the English people had
borrowed from the Old Testament the speech, emotions, and illusions for
their bourgeois revolution. When the real goal had been achieved and the
bourgeois transformation of English society had been accomplished,
Locke supplanted Habakkuk.
From 1848 to 1851, only the ghost of the old revolution circulated --
from Marrast, the républicain en gants jaunes [Republican in yellow
gloves], who disguised himself as old Bailly, down to the adventurer who
hides his trivial and repulsive features behind the iron death mask of
Napoleon. A whole nation, which thought it had acquired an accelerated
power of motion by means of a revolution, suddenly finds itself set back
into a defunct epoch, and to remove any doubt about the relapse, the
old dates arise again -- the old chronology, the old names, the old
edicts, which had long since become a subject of antiquarian
scholarship, and the old minions of the law who had seemed long dead.
The nation feels like the mad Englishman in Bedlam who thinks he is
living in the time of the old Pharaohs and daily bewails the hard labour
he must perform in the Ethiopian gold mines, immured in this
subterranean prison, a pale lamp fastened to his head, the overseer of
the slaves behind him with a long whip, and at the exits a confused
welter of barbarian war slaves who understand neither the forced
labourers nor each other, since they speak no common language.
“And all
this,” sighs the mad Englishman, “is expected of me, a freeborn Briton,
in order to make gold for the Pharaohs.” “In order to pay the debts of
the Bonaparte family,” sighs the French nation. The Englishman, so long
as he was not in his right mind, could not get rid of his fixed idea of
mining gold.
The French, so long as they were engaged in revolution,
could not get rid of the memory of Napoleon, as the election of December
10 [in 1848, when Louis Bonaparte was elected President of the French
Republic] was proved. They longed to return from the perils of
revolution to the fleshpots of Egypt, and December 2, 1851 [The date of
the coup d'état by Louis Bonaparte], was the answer. Now they have not
only a caricature of the old Napoleon, but the old Napoleon himself,
caricatured as he would have to be in the middle of the nineteenth
century.
The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot take its
poetry from the past but only from the future. It cannot begin with
itself before it has stripped away all superstition about the past. The
former revolutions required recollections of past world history in order
to smother their own content. The revolution of the nineteenth century
must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content.
There the phrase went beyond the content -- here the content goes
beyond the phrase.
The February Revolution was a surprise attack, a seizing of the old
society unaware, and the people proclaimed this unexpected stroke a deed
of world importance, ushering in a new epoch. On December 2 the
February Revolution is conjured away as a cardsharp's trick, and what
seems overthrown is no longer the monarchy but the liberal concessions
that had been wrung from it through centuries of struggle. Instead of
society having conquered a new content for itself, it seems that the
state has only returned to its oldest form, to a shamelessly simple rule
by the sword and the monk's cowl.
This is the answer to the coup de
main [Unexpected stroke] of February, 1848, given by the coup de téte
[Rash act] of December, 1851. Easy come, easy go. Meantime, the interval
did not pass unused. During 1848-51 French society, by an abbreviated
revolutionary method, caught up with the studies and experiences which
in a regular, so to speak, textbook course of development would have
preceded the February Revolution, if the latter were to be more than a
mere ruffling of the surface. Society seems now to have retreated to
behind its starting point; in truth, it has first to create for itself
the revolutionary point of departure-the situation, the relations, the
conditions under which alone modern revolution becomes serious.
Bourgeois revolutions like those of the eighteenth century storm more
swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each
other, men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the
order of the day- but they are short-lived, soon they have reached their
zenith, and a long Katzenjammer [crapulence] takes hold of society
before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress
period soberly.
On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those
of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly
interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently
accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel
thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their
first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter
may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more
gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness
of their own goals -- until a situation is created which makes all
turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out:
Hic Rhodus, hic salta![Here is the rose, here dance!]
(“Here is the rose, here dance!” From Aesop's fable, “The Swaggerer,” referring to one who boasted that he had made a gigantic leap in Rhodes (which also means “rose” in Greek) and was challenged: “Here is Rhodes, here leap!” Marx's paraphrase, “Here is the rose, here dance,” is from the quotation used by Hegel in the preface to his book Outlines of the Philosophy of Right (1821). -- Ed. )
Questions on Historical Materialism
- What separates human beings from other animals?
- What determines our consciousness, our ideas, and view of the world?
- What role do Marxist explain is played by individuals in history?
- What do we mean by 'class'?
- How long did human beings exist before society was divided into classes, and what caused that division?
- Which group of people constituted the first ruling class and why?
- What was the Asiatic Mode of Production?
- What was the cause of the decline and fall of Roman slave society?
- In what way did the exploitation of serfs differ from that of slaves?
- What ultimately undermined the class struggle of the peasantry against the landlords during feudal times?
- What did Marx mean by “primitive accumulation”?
- What part did the “revolutionising of the means of production” play in the development of capitalism?
- Describe some modern day examples of this process?
- What were the tasks of the bourgeois revolutions?
- What differentiates capitalism from earlier systems of exploitation?
- How does the exploitation of the wage worker differ from that of the serf?
- Explain what Marxists mean by “Imperialism”?
- During what period did capitalism cease playing a progressive role?
- Marx described the working class as the “gravediggers” of capitalism. Why?
- What are the tasks of the proletarian, socialist revolution?
I.DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
Dialectical Materialismby J Pickard
When
we discuss the method of Marxism, we are dealing with the ideas which
provide the basis for our activities in the labour movement, the
arguments we raise in the discussions we take part in, and the articles
we write. It is generally accepted that Marxism took its form from three
main roots. One of those roots was the development of Marx's analysis
of French politics, particularly the bourgeois revolution in France in
the 1790s, and the subsequent class struggles during the early 19th
century. Another of the roots of Marxism is what is called 'English
economics', ie., Marx's analysis of the capitalist system as it
developed in England. The other root of Marxism, which was its starting
point historically, is said to be 'German philosophy', and it is that
aspect of it that I want to deal with here. To begin with, we say that
the basis of Marxism is materialism.
That
is to say, Marxism starts from the idea that matter is the essence of
all reality, and that matter creates mind, and not vice versa. In other
words, thought and all the things that are said to derive from thought -
artistic ideas, scientific ideas, ideas of law, politics, morality and
so on - these things are in fact derived from the material world. The
'mind', ie., thought and thought processes, is a product of the brain;
and the brain itself, and therefore ideas, arose at a certain stage in
the development of living matter. It is a product of the material world.
Therefore,
to understand the real nature of human consciousness and society, as
Marx himself put it, it is a question "not of setting out from what men
say, imagine, conceive... in order to arrive at men in the flesh; but
setting out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real
life-process demonstrating the development of the ideological reflexes
and echoes of this life-process.
The
phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, images of
their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound
to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of
ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer
retain the semblance of independence.
They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first (non-materialist) method of approach the starting point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second (materialist) method, which conforms to real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness." (The German Ideology, Chapter one).
They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first (non-materialist) method of approach the starting point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second (materialist) method, which conforms to real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness." (The German Ideology, Chapter one).
A
materialist therefore seeks an explanation not only for ideas, but for
material phenomena themselves, in terms of material causes and not in
terms of supernatural intervention by gods and the like. And that is a
very important aspect of Marxism, which clearly sets it aside from the
methods of thinking and logic which have become established in
capitalist society. The development of scientific thought in the
European countries in the 17th and 18th centuries displayed some really
contradictory characteristics, which still remain typical of the
approach of bourgeois theoreticians today.
On
the one hand there was a development towards a materialist method.
Scientists looked for causes. They didn't just accept natural phenomena
as god-ordained miracles, they sought some explanation for them. But at
the same time these scientists did not yet possess a consistent or
worked-out materialist understanding; and very often, behind the
explanations for natural phenomena, they also saw, at the end of the
chain, the hand of God at work. Such an approach means accepting, or at
least leaving open the possibility, that the material world we live in
is ultimately shaped by forces from outside it, and that consciousness
or ideas come first, in the sense that they can exist independently of
the real world. This approach, which is the philosophical opposite of
materialism, we call 'idealism'.
According
to this approach, the development of mankind and of society - of art,
science, etc. - is dictated not by material processes but by the
development of ideas, by the perfection or degeneration of human
thought. And it is no accident that this general approach, whether
spoken or unspoken, pervades all the philosophies of capitalism.
Bourgeois philosophers and historians in general take the present system
for granted. They accept that capitalism is some kind of finished,
complete system which is incapable of being replaced by a new and higher
system. And they try to present all past history as the efforts of
lesser mortals to achieve the kind of 'perfect society' which they
believe capitalism has achieved or can achieve.
So, when we look at the work of some of the greatest bourgeois
scientists and thinkers in the past or even today, we can see how they
have tended to jumble up materialist ideas and idealist ideas in their
minds. For example Isaac Newton, who examined the laws of mechanics and
the laws of motion of planets and planetary bodies, didn't believe that
these processes were dictated by mind or thought. But what he did
believe was that an original impetus was given to all matter, and that
this initial push was provided by some sort of supernatural force, by
God.
In the
same way it is possible today for many biologists to accept the idea
that species of plants and animals evolved from one type to another, and
that mankind itself is a development from earlier species. And yet many
of them cling to the notion that there is a qualitative difference
between the human mind and the animal mind, consisting of the 'eternal
soul' which leaves the human body after death. Even some of the most
eminent scientists jumble up the materialist method with idealist ideas
of this kind, which are really backward, scientifically speaking, and
are more related to magic and superstition than to science.
Marxism
therefore represents a systematic and fundamental break with idealism
in all its forms, and the development in it place of a materialist
understanding of what is taking place in reality. Materialism in this
sense provides one of the basic starting points of Marxism. The other
basic starting point is dialectics.
DIALECTICS
Dialectics
is quite simply the logic of motion, or the logic of common sense to
activists in the movement. We all know that things don't stand still,
they change. But there is another form of logic which stands in
contradiction to dialectics, which we call 'formal logic', which again
is deeply embodied in capitalist society. It is perhaps necessary to
begin by describing briefly what this method implies. Formal logic is
based on what is known as the 'law of identity', which says that 'A'
equals 'A' - i.e. that things are what they are, and that they stand in
definite relationships to each other.
There
are other derivative laws based on the law of identity; for example, if
'A' equals 'A', it follows that 'A' cannot equal 'B', nor 'C'. On the
face of it this method of thinking may again seem like common sense; and
in fact it has been a very important tool, a very important device in
the development of science and in the industrial revolution which
created the present-day society. The development of mathematics and
basic arithmetic, for example, was based on formal logic. You couldn't
teach a child a table of multiplication or addition without using formal
logic. One plus one equals two, and not three.
And
in the same way, the method of formal logic was also the basis for the
development of mechanics, of chemistry, of biology, etc. For example, in
the 18th century the Scandinavian biologist Linnaeus developed a system
of classification for all known plants and animals. Linnaeus divided
all living things into classes, into orders, into families, in the order
of primates, in the family of hominids, in the genus of homo, and
represents the species homo sapiens. The system of classification
represented an enormous step forward in biology.
It
made possible, for the first time, a real systematic study of plants ad
animals, to compare and contrast animal and plant species. But it was
based on formal logic. It was based on saying that homo sapiens equals
homo sapiens; that musca domestica (the common housefly) equals musca
domestica; that an earthworm equals earthworm, and so on. It was, in
other words, a fixed and rigid system. It wasn't possible, according to
this system, for a species to equal to anything else, otherwise the
system of classification would have completely collapsed.
The
same applies in the field of chemistry, where Dalton's atomic theory
meant a huge stride forward. Dalton's theory was based on the idea that
matter is made up of atoms, and that each type of atom is completely
separate and peculiar to itself - that its shape and weight is peculiar
to that particular element and to none other. After Dalton there was a
more or less rigid classification of elements, again based on a rigid
formal logic, whereby it was said that an atom of hydrogen was an atom
of hydrogen, an atom of carbon was an atom of carbon, etc. And if any
atom could have been something else, this whole system of
classification, which has formed the basis of modern chemistry, would
have collapsed.
Now
it is important to see that there are limitations to the method of
formal logic. It is a useful everyday method, and it gives us useful
approximations for identifying things. For example, the Linnaean system
of classification is still useful to biologists; but since the work of
Charles Darwin in particular we can also see the weaknesses in that
system. Darwin pointed out, for instance, that in the Linnaean system
some types of plants are given separate names, as separate species, but
actually they are very similar to each other. And yet there are other
plants with the same name, of the same species, which are said to be
different varieties of the same plant, and yet they are very different
from each other.
So
even by the time of Charles Darwin it was possible to look at the
Linnaean system of classification and say, 'well, there's something
wrong somewhere'. And of course Darwin's own work provided a systematic
basis for the theory of evolution, which for the first time said it is
possible for one species to be transformed into another species. And
that left a big hole in the Linnaean system. Before Darwin it was
thought that the number of species on the planet was exactly the same as
the number of species created by God in the first six days of his
labour - except, of course, for those destroyed by the Flood - and that
those species had survived unchanged over the millennia. But Darwin
produced the idea of species changing, and so inevitably the method of
classification also had to be changed. What applies in the field of
biology applies also in the field of chemistry.
Chemists became aware, by the late 19th century, that it was possible
for one atomic element to become transformed into another. In other
words, atoms aren't completely separated and peculiar to themselves. We
know now that many atoms, many chemical elements, are unstable. For
example, uranium and other radioactive atoms will split in the course of
time and produce completely different atoms with completely different
chemical properties and different atomic weights. So we can see that the
method of formal logic was beginning to break down with the development
of science itself.
But
it is the method of dialectics which draws the conclusions of these
factual discoveries, and points out there are no absolute or fixed
categories, either in nature or in society. Whereas the formal logician
will say that 'A' equals 'A', the dialectician will say that 'A' does
not necessarily equal 'A'. Or to take a practical example that Trotsky
uses in his writings, one pound of sugar will not be precisely equal to
another pound of sugar. It is a good enough approximation if you want to
buy sugar in a shop, but if you look at it more carefully you will see
that it's actually wrong.
So
we need to have a form of understanding, a form of logic, that takes
into account the fact that things, and life, and society, are in a state
of constant motion and change. And that form of logic, of course, is
dialectics. But on the other hand it would be wrong to think that
dialectics ascribes to the universe a process of even and gradual
change.
The laws of dialectics -
and
here is a word of warning: these concepts sound more intimidating than
they really are - the laws of dialectics describe the manner in which
the processes of change in reality take place.
QUANTITY INTO QUALITY
Let
us take, to begin with, the law of the transformation of quantity into
quality'. This law states that the processes of change - motion in the
universe - are not gradual, they are not even. Periods of relatively
gradual or slight change are interspersed with periods of enormously
rapid change - change which cannot be measured in terms of quantity but
only in terms of quality. To use an example from natural science again,
let us imagine the heating of water. You can actually measure
("quantify"), in terms of degrees of temperature, the change that takes
place in the water as you add heat to it. From, let us say, 10 degrees
centigrade (which is normal tap water) to about 98 degrees centigrade,
the change will remain quantitative; i.e., the water will remain water,
although it is getting warmer.
But
then comes a point where the change in the water becomes qualitative,
and the water turns into steam. You can no longer describe the change in
the water as it is heated from 98 degrees to 102 degrees in purely
quantitative terms. We have to say that a qualitative change (water into
steam) has come about as a result of an accumulation of quantitative
change (adding more and more heat). And that is what Marx and Engels
meant when they referred to the transformation of quantity into quality.
The same can be seen in the development of species. There is always a
great variety in every species. If we look around this room we can see
the degree of variety in homo sapiens.
That
variety can be measured quantitatively, for example, in terms of
height, weight, skin colour, length of nose, etc. But if evolutionary
changes progress to a certain point under the impact of environmental
changes, then those quantitative changes can add up to a qualitative
change. In other words, you would no longer characterise that change in
animal or plant species merely in terms of quantitative details.
The
species will have become qualitatively different. For example, we as a
species are qualitatively different from chimpanzees or gorillas, and
they in turn are qualitatively different from other species of mammals.
And those qualitative differences, those evolutionary leaps, have come
about as a result of quantitative changes in the past. The idea of
Marxism is that there will always be periods of gradual change
interspersed with periods of sudden change. In pregnancy, there is a
period of gradual development, and then a period of very sudden
development at the end.
The same applies to social development. Very often Marxists have used
the analogy of pregnancy to describe the development of wars and
revolutions. These represent qualitative leaps in social development;
but they come about as a result of the accumulation of quantitative
contradictions in society.
NEGATION OF THE NEGATION
A
second law of dialectics is 'the law of the negation of the negation',
and again it sounds more complicated than it really is. 'Negation' in
this sense simply means the passing away of one thing, the death of one
thing as it becomes transformed into another. For example, the
development of class society in the early history of humanity
represented the negation of the previous classless society. And in
future, with the development of communism, we will see another classless
society, that would mean the negation of all present class society. So
the law of the negation of the negation simply states that as one system
comes into existence, it forces another system to pass away. But that
doesn't mean that the second system is permanent or unchangeable.
That
second system itself becomes negated as a result of the further
developments and processes of change in society. As class society has
been the negation of classless society, so communist society will be the
negation of class society - the negation of the negation.
Another concept of dialectics is
the law of the 'interpenetration of opposite'.
This
law quite simply states that processes of change take place because of
contradictions - because of the conflicts between the different elements
that are embodied in all natural and social processes. Probably the
best example of the interpenetration of opposites in natural science is
the 'quantum theory'. This theory is based on the concept of energy
having a dual character - that for some purposes, according to some
experiments, energy exists in the form of waves, like electromagnetic
energy. But for other purposes energy manifests itself as particles.
In
other words, it is quite accepted among scientists that matter and
energy can actually exist in two different forms at one and the same
time - on the one hand as a kind of intangible wave, on the other hand
as a particle with a definite 'quantum' (amount) of energy embodied in
it. Therefore the basis of the quantum theory in modern physics is
contradiction. But there are many other contradictions known to science.
Electromagnetic
energy, for example, is set in motion through the effect of positive
and negative forces on each other. Magnetism depends on the existence of
a north pole and a south pole. These things cannot exist separately.
They exist and operate precisely because of the contradictory forces
being embodied in one and the same system.
Similarly,
every society today consists of different contradictory elements joined
together in one system, which makes it impossible for any society, any
country, to remain stable or unchanged. The dialectical method, in
contrast to the method of formal logic, trains us to identify these
contradictions, and thereby get to the bottom of the changes taking
place.
Marxists
are not embarrassed to say that there are contradictory elements within
every social process. On the contrary, it is precisely by recognising
and understanding the opposite interests embodied within the same
process that we are able to work out the likely direction of change, and
consequently to identify the aims and objectives which it is necessary
and possible in that situation to strive for from the working class
point of view.
At
the same time, Marxism doesn't abandon formal logic altogether. But it
is important to see, from the point of view of understanding social
developments, that formal logic must take second position. We all use
formal logic for everyday purposes. It gives us the necessary
approximations for communication and conducting our daily activities.
We
wouldn't be able to lead normal lives without paying lip service to
formal logic, without using the approximation that one equals one. But,
on the other hand, we have to see the limitations of formal logic - the
limitations that become evident in science when we study processes in
more depth and detail, and also when we examine social and political
processes more closely.
Dialectics
is very rarely accepted by scientists. Some scientists are
dialecticians, but the majority even today muddle up a materialist
approach with all sorts of formal and idealistic ideas. And if that's
the case in natural science, it is much, much more the case as far as
the social sciences are concerned.
The reasons for this are fairly obvious. If you try to examine society
and social processes from a scientific point of view, then you cannot
avoid coming up against the contradictions of the capitalist system and
the need for the socialist transformation of society.
But the universities, which are supposed to be centres of learning and study, are under capitalism far from being independent of the ruling class and the state. That is why natural science can still have a scientific method which leans towards dialectical materialism; but when it comes to the social sciences you will find in the colleges and universities some of the worst kinds of formalism and idealism possible.
But the universities, which are supposed to be centres of learning and study, are under capitalism far from being independent of the ruling class and the state. That is why natural science can still have a scientific method which leans towards dialectical materialism; but when it comes to the social sciences you will find in the colleges and universities some of the worst kinds of formalism and idealism possible.
That
is not unrelated to the vested interests of the professors and
academics who are highly paid. It is obvious and unavoidable that their
privileged position in society will have some reflection, some effect on
what they're supposed to teach. Their own views and prejudices will be
contained in the 'knowledge' which they pass on to their students, and
so on down to the level of the schools. Bourgeois historians, in
particular, are among the most shortsighted of all social scientists.
How many times have we seen examples of bourgeois historians who imagine
that history ended yesterday!
Here in Britain they all seem to admit the horrors of British
imperialism as far as the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries are concerned;
that British imperialism engaged in slave traffic; that it was
responsible for some of the most bloody subjugation of colonial peoples;
that it was also responsible for some of the worst exploitation of
British workers, including women and children, in the coal mines, the
cotton mills, and so on. They will accept all these iniquities - up
until yesterday. But when it comes to today, of course, then British
imperialism suddenly becomes democratic and progressive. And that is
completely one-sided, a completely lopsided view of history, which is
diametrically opposed to the method of Marxism.
The
attitude of Marx and Engels was to view social processes from the same
dialectical standpoint from which they viewed nature - from the
standpoint of the processes that are actually taking place. In our
everyday discussions and debates in the labour movement, we will often
come across people who are formalists. Even many on the left will look
at things in a completely rigid and formal way, without understanding
the direction in which things are moving. The right wing in the labour
movement, and also some on the left, believe that Marxist theory is a
dogma, that 'theory' is like a 600 lb weight on the back of an activist,
and the quicker you get rid of that weight, the more active and
effective you can be. But that is a complete misconception of the whole
nature of Marxist theory.
In point of fact Marxism is the opposite of a dogma. It is precisely a
method for coming to grips with the processes of change that are taking
place around us. Nothing is fixed and nothing remains unchanged. It is
the formalists who see society as a still photograph, who can get
overawed by the situations they are faced with because they don't see
how and why things will change. It is this kind of approach that can
easily lead to a dogmatic acceptance of things as they are or as they
have been, without understanding the inevitability of change.
Marxist
theory is therefore an absolutely essential device for any activity
within the labour movement. We need to be consciously attuned to the
contradictory forces at work in the class struggle, in order to orient
ourselves to the way in which events are developing. Of course it isn't
always easy to free ourselves from the prevailing framework of thinking
in capitalist society and absorb the Marxist method. As Karl Marx said,
there is no royal road to science. You have to treat the hard path
sometimes in grappling with new political ideas.
But
the discussion and study of Marxist theory is an absolutely essential
part of the development of every activist. It is that theory alone that
will provide comrades with a compass and a map amidst all the
complexities of the struggle. It is all very well to be an activist. But
without a conscious understanding of the processes you are involved in,
you are no more effective than an explorer without a compass and a map.
And if you try to explore without scientific aids, you can be as
energetic as you like but sooner or later you will fall into a ravine or
a bog and disappear, as so many activists over the years have
unfortunately done.
The
idea of having a compass and a map is that you can take your bearings.
You can judge where you are at any particular time, where you are going
and where you will be. And that is the fundamental reason why we need to
get to grips with Marxist theory. It provides us with an absolutely
invaluable guide to action as far as our activities in the labour
movement are concerned.
http://www.marxist.com/what-is-dialectical-materialism.htm
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/JPickard.html
http://www.socialistappeal.org/flyers/intro_to_dm.pdf
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/JPickard.html
http://www.socialistappeal.org/flyers/intro_to_dm.pdf
II.The ABC of Materialist Dialectics
by Leon Trotsky
The
dialectic is neither fiction nor mysticism, but a science of the forms
of our thinking insofar as it is not limited to the daily problems of
life but attempts to arrive at an understanding of more complicated and
drawn-out processes. The dialectic and formal logic bear a relationship
similar to that between higher and lower mathematics.
I
will here attempt to sketch the substance of the problem in a very
concise form. The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from
the proposition that A is equal to A. This postulate is accepted as an
axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary
generalisations. But in reality A is not equal to A.
This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens - they are quite different from each other.
But,
one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of the
letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities: for instance,
a pound of sugar.
The objection is
beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound
of sugar - a more delicate scale always discloses a difference.
Again
one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is
this true - all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour,
etc. They are never equal to themselves.
A
sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself "at a
given moment." Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this
'axiom,' it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should
we conceive the word 'moment'? If it is an infinitesimal interval of
time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that
'moment' to inevitable changes.
Or
is the 'moment' a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of
time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an
uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a
fundamental element of existence.
Thus the axiom A is equal to A signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.
At
first glance it could seem that these "subtleties" are useless. In
reality they are of decisive significance. The axiom A is equal to A
appears on one hand to be the point of departure for all our knowledge,
on the other hand the point of departure for all the errors in our
knowledge.
To make use of the axiom A
is equal to A with impunity is possible only within certain limits.
When quantitative changes in A are negligible for the task at hand, then
we can presume A is equal to A. This is, for example, the manner in
which a buyer and a seller consider a pound of sugar.
We
consider the temperature of the sun likewise. Until recently we
considered the buying power of the dollar in the same way. But
quantitative changes beyond certain limits become converted into
qualitative. A pound of sugar subjected to the action of water or
kerosene ceases to be a pound of sugar. A dollar in the embrace of a
president ceases to be a dollar. To determine at the right moment the
critical point where quantity changes into quality is one of the most
important and difficult tasks in all the spheres of knowledge, including
sociology.
Every worker knows that
it is impossible to make two completely equal objects. In the
elaboration of bearing-brass into cone bearings, a certain deviation is
allowed for the cones which should not, however, go beyond certain
limits (this is called tolerance). By observing the norms of tolerance,
the cones are considered as being equal (A is equal to A). When the
tolerance is exceeded, the quantity goes over into quality; in other
words, the cone bearings become inferior or completely worthless.
Our
scientific thinking is only a part of our general practice, including
techniques. For concepts there also exists "tolerance" which is
established not by formal logic issuing from the axiom A is equal to A
but by dialectical logic issuing from the axiom that everything is
always changing. "Common sense" is characterized by the fact that it
systematically exceeds dialectical "tolerance."
Vulgar
thought operates with such concepts as capitalism, morals, freedom,
workers' state, etc., as fixed abstractions, presuming that capitalism
is equal to capitalism, morals are equal to morals, etc. Dialectical
thinking analyses all things and phenomena in their continuous change,
while determining in the material conditions of those changes that
critical limit beyond which A ceases to be A, a workers' state ceases to
be a workers' state.
The
fundamental flaw of vulgar thought lies in the fact that it wishes to
content itself with motionless imprints of reality, which consists of
eternal motion. Dialectical thinking gives to concepts, by means of
closer approximations, corrections, concretisations, a richness of
content and flexibility, I would even say a succulence, which to a
certain extent brings them close to living phenomena. Not capitalism in
general but a given capitalism at a given stage of development. Not a
workers' state in general, but a given workers' state in a backward
country in an Imperialist encirclement etc.
Dialectical
thinking is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion
picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not
outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to
the laws of motion. Dialectics does not deny the syllogism, but teaches
us to combine syllogisms in such a way as to bring our understanding
closer to the eternally changing reality.
Hegel
in his Logic established a series of laws: change of quantity into
quality, development through contradictions, conflict of content and
form, interruption of continuity, change of possibility into
inevitability, etc., which are just as important for theoretical thought
as is the simple syllogism for more elementary tasks.
Hegel
wrote before Darwin and before Marx. Thanks to the powerful impulse
given to thought by the French Revolution, Hegel anticipated the general
movement of science. But because it was only an anticipation, although
by a genius, it received from Hegel an idealistic character. Hegel
operated with ideological shadows as the ultimate reality. Marx
demonstrated that the movement of these ideological shadows reflected
nothing but the movement of material bodies.
We
call our dialectic materialist since its roots are neither in heaven
nor in the depths of our "free will" but in objective reality, in
nature. Consciousness grew out of the unconscious, psychology out of
physiology, the organic world out of the inorganic, the solar system out
of nebula.
On all the rungs of this
ladder of development the quantitative changes were transformed into
qualitative. Our thought including dialectical thought is only one of
the forms of the expression of changing matter. There is place within
this system for neither God, nor Devil, nor immortal soul nor eternal
norms of laws and morals. The dialectic of thinking, having grown out of
the dialectic of nature, possesses consequently a thoroughly
materialist character.
Darwinism,
which explained the evolution of species through quantitative
transformations passing into qualitative, was the highest triumph of the
dialectic in the whole field of organic matter. Another great triumph
was the discovery of the table of atomic weights of chemical elements
and further the transformation of one element into another. With these
transformations (species, elements, etc.) is closely linked the question
of classifications, just as important in the natural as in the social
sciences. Linnaeus's system (eighteenth century), utilizing as its
starting point the immutability of species, was limited to the
description and classification of plants according to their external
characteristics.
The infantile
period of botany is analogous to the infantile period of logic, since
the forms of our thought develop like everything that lives. Only
decisive repudiation of the idea of fixed species, only the study of the
history of the evolution of plants and their anatomy prepared the basis
for a really scientific classification.
Marx,
who in distinction from Darwin was a conscious dialectician, discovered
a basis for the scientific classification of human societies in the
development of their productive forces and the structure of the
relations of ownership, which constitute the anatomy of society. Marxism
substituted for the vulgar descriptive classification of societies and
states, which even up to now still flourishes in the universities, a
materialistic dialectical classification. Only through using the method
of Marx is it possible correctly to determine both the concept of a
workers' state and the moment of its downfall.
All
this, as we see, contains nothing "metaphysical" or "scholastic," as
conceited ignorance affirms. Dialectical logic expresses the laws of
motion in contemporary scientific thought. The struggle against
materialist dialectics on the contrary expresses a distant past
conservatism of the petty bourgeoisie, the self-conceit of university
routinists and . . . a spark of hope for an afterlife.
From 'Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'
What is dialectical materialism?
Written by Rob Sewell
Saturday, 02 November 2002
We
are publishing the first of what will be a series of Marxist study
guides. The purpose is to provide a basic explanation of the fundamental
ideas of Marxism with a guide to further reading and points to help
organise discussion groups around these ideas. We are starting with
dialectical materialism, the philosophy of Marxism.
Introduction
Marxism, or Scientific Socialism, is the name given to the body of
ideas first worked out by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels
(1820-1895). In their totality, these ideas provide a fully worked-out
theoretical basis for the struggle of the working class to attain a
higher form of human society - socialism.
The study of Marxism falls under three main headings, corresponding
broadly to philosophy, social history and economics - Dialectical
Materialism, Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics. These are the
famous "Three component parts of Marxism" of which Lenin wrote.
The Education for Socialists series was launched to promote the study
of Marxism. They are intended to assist the student of Marxism by
providing an introduction to the subject matter, with suitable Marxist
texts that we hope will whet their appetite for further reading and
study. In the first of these Education for Socialists study guides, we
provide a selection of material on Dialectical Materialism. The other
"component parts", as well as other fundamental questions, will be dealt
with in future issues. The guides are suitable for individual study or
as the basis of a Marxist discussion group.
In beginning this study of Dialectical Materialism the editors are
publishing an introductory article by Rob Sewell. While this is a good
start to the subject, there is no substitute for proceeding from there
to tackle the philosophical works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky,
Plekhanov and others. Unfortunately Marx and Engels never wrote a
comprehensive work on dialectical materialism, although they intended to
do so. On his death, Engels left a pile of manuscripts, which he
intended to work up into an account of dialectics, or the laws of motion
of nature, human society and human thought. These were later published
as the Dialectics of Nature. Even in their rough, unfinished form these
notes give a brilliant insight into the method of Marxism and its
relation to the sciences.
The newer reader should not be put off by the sometimes difficult and
abstract ideas expressed in these writings. Whatever the initial
difficulty, a certain perseverance will pay just rewards. Marxism is a
science with its own terminology, and therefore makes heavy demands upon
the beginner. However, every serious worker and student knows that
nothing is worthwhile if attained without a degree of struggle and
sacrifice.
The theories of Marxism provide the thinking worker with a
comprehensive understanding. It is the duty of every worker and student
to conquer for himself or herself the theories of Marx and Engels, as an
essential prerequisite for the conquest of society by working people.
Contents
Introduction
Do we need a philosophy?
The Limits of Formal logic
Materialism versus idealism
Dialectics and Metaphysics
The law of quantity into quality (and vice versa)
The unity of Opposites
The Negation of the Negation
Hegel and Marx
The ABC of Materialist Dialectics, by Trotsky
From 'Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical Philosophy', by Engels
The Three Sources and Components parts of Marxism (extract), by Lenin
Lenin's Collected Works:
- VOLUME 38, p359: On the Question of Dialectics
- VOLUME 38, pp 221 - 222 Summary of Dialectics
Questions on Dialectical Materialism: Suggested Reading List
Do we need a philosophy?
The Limits of Formal logic
Materialism versus idealism
Dialectics and Metaphysics
The law of quantity into quality (and vice versa)
The unity of Opposites
The Negation of the Negation
Hegel and Marx
The ABC of Materialist Dialectics, by Trotsky
From 'Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical Philosophy', by Engels
The Three Sources and Components parts of Marxism (extract), by Lenin
Lenin's Collected Works:
- VOLUME 38, p359: On the Question of Dialectics
- VOLUME 38, pp 221 - 222 Summary of Dialectics
Questions on Dialectical Materialism: Suggested Reading List
We recognise that there are real obstacles in the path of the
worker's struggle for theory. A man or woman who is obliged to toil long
hours in work, who has not had the benefit of a decent education and
consequently lacks the habit of reading, finds great difficulty in
absorbing some of the more complex ideas, especially at the outset. Yet
it was for workers that Marx and Engels wrote, and not for "clever"
academics. "Every beginning is difficult" no matter what science we are
talking about. To the class conscious worker who is prepared to
persevere, one promise can be made: once the initial effort is made to
come to grips with unfamiliar and new ideas, the theories of Marxism
will be found to be basically straight-forward and simple.
Once the basic concepts of Marxism are conquered, they open up a
whole new outlook on politics, the class struggle, and every aspect of
life.
As a further introduction to dialectics, we are also republishing in
this issue Trotsky's ACB of Materialist Dialectics, also by Trotsky A
Triumph of Dialectical Materialism, an extract from Lenin's The Three
Sources and Three Components parts of Marxism, Lenin's Elements of
Dialectics, and an extract from Engels' Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of
Classical German Philosophy.
For further study, we recommend the following works by Engels,
especially chapters 12 and 13 in Anti-Duhring, the introduction to the
Dialectics of Nature, and Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical
German Philosophy.
Those who wish to go into greater depth should try reading
Plekhanov's The Monist View of History, Lenin's Materialism and
Empirio-Criticism, as well as his Philosophical Notebooks (Collected
Works, Vol. 38). Although these books are not an easy read, they are
nonetheless very rewarding if studied thoroughly.
The editors,
October 2002
---
Do we need a philosophy?
Scientific socialism or Marxism is composed of three component parts:
Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics.
This pamphlet, the first in this series, is an introduction to the
concepts of Dialectical Materialism - the method of Marxism.
For those unacquainted with Marxist philosophy, dialectical
materialism may seem an obscure and difficult concept. However, for
those prepared to take the time to study this new way of looking at
things, they will discover a revolutionary outlook that will allow them
an insight into and understanding of the mysteries of the world in which
we live. A grasp of dialectical materialism is an essential
prerequisite in understanding the doctrine of Marxism. Dialectical
materialism is the philosophy of Marxism, which provides us with a
scientific and comprehensive world outlook. It is the philosophical
bedrock - the method - on which the whole of Marxist doctrine is
founded.
According to Engels, dialectics was "our best working tool and our
sharpest weapon." And for us also, it is a guide to action and our
activities within the working class movement. It is similar to a compass
or map, which allows us to get our bearings in the turmoil of events,
and permits us to understand the underlying processes that shape our
world.
Whether we like it or not, consciously or unconsciously, everyone has a philosophy. A philosophy is simply a way of looking at the world. Under capitalism, without our own scientific philosophy, we will inevitably adopt the dominant philosophy of the ruling class and the prejudices of the society in which we live. "Things will never change" is a common refrain, reflecting the futility of changing things and of the need to accept our lot in life. There are other such proverbs as "There is nothing new under the sun", and "History always repeats itself", which reflect the same conservative outlook. Such ideas, explained Marx, form a crushing weight on the consciousness of men and women.
Whether we like it or not, consciously or unconsciously, everyone has a philosophy. A philosophy is simply a way of looking at the world. Under capitalism, without our own scientific philosophy, we will inevitably adopt the dominant philosophy of the ruling class and the prejudices of the society in which we live. "Things will never change" is a common refrain, reflecting the futility of changing things and of the need to accept our lot in life. There are other such proverbs as "There is nothing new under the sun", and "History always repeats itself", which reflect the same conservative outlook. Such ideas, explained Marx, form a crushing weight on the consciousness of men and women.
Just as the emerging bourgeoisie in its revolution against feudal
society challenged the conservative ideas of the old feudal aristocracy,
so the working class, in its fight for a new society, needs to
challenge the dominant outlook of its own oppressor, the capitalist
class. Of course, the ruling class, through its monopoly control of the
mass media, the press, school, university and pulpit, consciously
justifies its system of exploitation as the most "natural form of
society". The repressive state machine, with its "armed bodies of men",
is not sufficient to maintain the capitalist system. The dominant ideas
and morality of bourgeois society serve as a vital defence of the
material interests of the ruling class. Without this powerful ideology,
the capitalist system could not last for any length of time.
"In one way or another," states Lenin, "all official and liberal science defends wage-slavery… To expect science to be impartial in a wage-slave society is as foolishly naïve as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers' wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital."
Official bourgeois ideology conducts a relentless war against
Marxism, which it correctly sees as a mortal danger to capitalism. The
bourgeois scribes and professors pour out a continual stream of
propaganda in an attempt to discredit Marxism - particularly the
dialectic. This has especially been the case since the collapse of the
Berlin Wall, and the ferocious ideological offensive against Marxism,
communism, revolution, and such like. "Marxism is dead", they repeatedly
proclaim like some religious incantation. But Marxism refuses to lie
down in front of these witch doctors! Marxism reflects the unconscious
will of the working class to change society. Its fate is linked to that
of the proletariat.
The apologists of capitalism, together with their shadows in the
labour movement, constantly assert that their system is a natural and
permanent form of society. On the other hand, the dialect asserts that
nothing is permanent and all things perish in time. Such a revolutionary
philosophy constitutes a profound threat to the capitalist system and
therefore must be discredited at all cost. This explains the daily
churning out of anti-Marxist propaganda. But each real step forward in
science and knowledge serves to confirm the correctness of the
dialectic. For millions of people the growing crisis of capitalism
increasingly demonstrates the validity of Marxism. The objective
situation is forcing working people to seek a way out of the impasse.
"Life teaches", remarked Lenin. Today, to use the famous words of the
Communist Manifesto, "A spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of
communism."
In the fight for the emancipation of the working class, Marxism also
wages a relentless war against capitalism and its ideology, which
defends and justifies its system of exploitation, the "market economy".
But Marxism does more than this. Marxism provides the working class with
"an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of
superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression." (Lenin) It
seeks to reveal the real relationships that exist under capitalism and
arms the working class with an understanding of how it can achieve its
own emancipation. Dialectical materialism, to use the words of the
Russian Marxist Plekhanov, is more than an outlook, it is a "philosophy
of action."
The Limits of Formal logic
Men and women attempt to think in a rational manner. Logic (from the
Greek logos, meaning word or reason) is the science of the laws of
thinking. Whatever thoughts we think, and whatever language they are
expressed in, they must satisfy the requirements of reasoning. These
requirements give rise to laws of thought, to the principles of logic.
It was the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 - 322BC) more than 2,000
years ago who formulated the present system of formal logic - a system
that is the basis of our educational establishments to this very day. He
categorised the method of how we should reason correctly and how
statements are combined to arrive at judgements, and from them, how
conclusions are drawn. He laid down three basic laws of logic: the
principle of Identity (A = A), of contradiction (A cannot be A and
not-A), and the excluded middle (A is either A or non-A; there is no
middle alternative).
Formal logic has held sway for more than two millennia and was the
basis of experiment and the great advances of modern science. The
development of mathematics was based on this logic. You cannot teach a
child to add up without it. One plus one equals two, not three. Formal
logic may seem like common sense and is responsible for the execution of
a million and one everyday things, but - and this is the big but - it
has its limits. When dealing with drawn out processes or complicated
events, formal logic becomes a totally inadequate way of thinking. This
is particularly the case in dealing with movement, change and
contradiction. Formal logic regards things as fixed and motionless. Of
course, this is not to deny the everyday usefulness of formal logic, on
the contrary, but we need to recognise it limits.
"The dialectic is neither fiction or mysticism," wrote Leon Trotsky, "but a science of the forms of our thinking insofar as it is not limited to the daily problems of life but attempts to arrive at an understanding of more complicated and drawn-out processes. The dialectic and formal logic bear a relationship similar to that between higher and lower mathematics." (The ABC of Materialist Dialectics)
With the development of modern science, the system of classification
(of Linnaeus) was based on formal logic, where all living things were
divided into species and orders. This constituted a great leap forward
for biology compared to the past. However, it was a fixed and rigid
system, with its rigid categories, which over time revealed its limits.
Darwin in particular showed that through evolution it was possible for
one species to be transformed into another species. Consequently, the
rigid system of classification had to be changed to allow for this new
understanding of reality.
In effect, the system of formal logic broke down. It could not cope
with these contradictions. On the other hand, dialectics - the logic of
change - explains that there are no absolute or fixed categories in
nature or society. Engels had great fun in pointing to the duck-billed
platypus, this transitional form, and asking where it fitted into the
rigid scheme of things!
Only dialectical materialism can explain the laws of evolution and
change, which sees the world not as a complex of ready-made things, but
as a complex of processes, which go through an uninterrupted
transformation of coming into being and passing away. For Hegel, the old
logic was exactly like a child's game, which sought to make pictures
out of jigsaw pieces. "The fundamental flaw in vulgar thought", wrote
Trotsky, "lies in the fact that it wishes to content itself with
motionless imprints of reality which consists of eternal motion."
Before we look at the main laws of dialectical materialism, let us take a look at the origins of the materialist outlook.
Materialism versus idealism
"The philosophy of Marxism is materialism", wrote Lenin. Philosophy
itself fits into two great ideological camps: materialism and idealism.
Before we proceed, even these terms need an explanation. To begin with,
materialism and idealism have nothing whatsoever in common with their
everyday usage, where materialism is associated with material greed and
swindling (in short, the morality of present-day capitalism) and
idealism with high ideals and virtue. Far from it!
Philosophical materialism is the outlook which explains that there is
only one material world. Th
ere is no Heaven or Hell. The universe, which has always existed and is not the creation of any supernatural being, is in the process of constant flux. Human beings are a part of nature, and evolved from lower forms of life, whose origins sprung from a lifeless planet some 3.6 billion or so years ago. With the evolution of life, at a certain stage, came the development of animals with a nervous system, and eventually human beings with a large brain. With humans emerged human thought and consciousness. The human brain alone is capable of producing general ideas, i.e., thinking. Therefore matter, which existed eternally, existed and still exists independently of the mind and human beings. Things existed long before any awareness of them arose or could have arisen on the part of living organisms.
ere is no Heaven or Hell. The universe, which has always existed and is not the creation of any supernatural being, is in the process of constant flux. Human beings are a part of nature, and evolved from lower forms of life, whose origins sprung from a lifeless planet some 3.6 billion or so years ago. With the evolution of life, at a certain stage, came the development of animals with a nervous system, and eventually human beings with a large brain. With humans emerged human thought and consciousness. The human brain alone is capable of producing general ideas, i.e., thinking. Therefore matter, which existed eternally, existed and still exists independently of the mind and human beings. Things existed long before any awareness of them arose or could have arisen on the part of living organisms.
For materialists there is no consciousness apart from the living
brain, which is part of a material body. A mind without a body is an
absurdity. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is the
highest product of matter. Ideas are simply a reflection of the
independent material world that surrounds us. Things reflected in a
mirror do not depend on this reflection for their existence. "All ideas
are taken from experience, are reflections - true or distorted - of
reality," states Engels. Or to use the words of Marx, "Life is not
determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life."
Marxists do not deny that mind, consciousness, thought, will, feeling
or sensation are real. What materialists deny is that the thing called
"the mind" exists separately from the body. Mind is not distinct from
the body. Thinking is the product of the brain, which is the organ of
thought.
Yet this does not mean that our consciousness is a lifeless mirror of
nature. Human beings relate to their surroundings; they are aware of
their surroundings and react accordingly; in turn, the environment
reacts back upon them. While rooted in material conditions, human beings
generalise and think creatively. They in turn change their material
surroundings.
On the other hand, philosophical idealism states that the material
world is not real but is simply the reflection of the world of ideas.
There are different forms of idealism, but all essentially explain that
ideas are primary and matter, if it exists at all, secondary. For the
idealists, ideas are dissevered from matter, from nature. This is
Hegel's conception of the Absolute Idea or what amounts to God.
Philosophical idealism opens the road, in one way or another, to the
defence of or support for religion and superstition. Not only is this
outlook false, it is also profoundly conservative, leading us to the
pessimistic conclusion that we can never understand the "mysterious
ways" of the world. Whereas materialism understands that human beings
not only observe the real world, but can change it, and in doing so,
change themselves.
The idealist view of the world grew out of the division of labour
between physical and mental labour. This division constituted an
enormous advance as it freed a section of society from physical work and
allowed them the time to develop science and technology. However, the
further removed from physical labour, the more abstract became their
ideas. And when thinkers separate their ideas from the real world, they
become increasingly consumed by abstract "pure thought" and end up with
all types of fantasies. Today, cosmology is dominated by complex
abstract mathematical conceptions, which have led to all sorts of weird
and wonderful erroneous theories: the Big Bang, beginning of time,
parallel universes, etc. Every break with practice leads to a one-sided
idealism.
The materialist outlook has a long history stretching back to the
ancient Greeks of Anaxagoras (c.500 - 428 BC) and Democritus (c.460 -
c.370 BC). With the collapse of Ancient Greece, this rational outlook
was cut across for a whole historical epoch, and only after the
reawakening of thought following the demise of the Christian Middle Ages
was there a revival of philosophy and natural science. From the
seventeenth century, the home of modern materialism was England. "The
real progenitor of English materialism is Bacon," wrote Marx. The
materialism of Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) was then systemised and
developed by Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679), whose ideas were in turn
developed by John Locke (1632 - 1704).
The latter already thought it possible that matter could posses the faculty of thinking. It is no accident that these advances in human thought coincided with the rise of the bourgeoisie and great advances in science, particularly mechanics, astronomy and medicine. These great thinkers in turn provided the breakthrough for the brilliant school of French materialists of the eighteenth century, most notably René Descartes (1596 - 1650).
The latter already thought it possible that matter could posses the faculty of thinking. It is no accident that these advances in human thought coincided with the rise of the bourgeoisie and great advances in science, particularly mechanics, astronomy and medicine. These great thinkers in turn provided the breakthrough for the brilliant school of French materialists of the eighteenth century, most notably René Descartes (1596 - 1650).
It was their materialism and rationalism that became the creed of the
Great French Revolution of 1789. These revolutionary thinkers
recognised no external authority. Everything from religion to natural
science, from society to political institutions, was subjected to the
most searching criticism. Reason became the measure of everything.
This materialist philosophy, consistently championed by Holbach (1723
- 1789) and Helvetius, was a revolutionary philosophy. "The universe is
the vast unity of everything that is, everywhere it shows us only
matter in movement," states Holbach. "This is all that there is and it
displays only an infinite and continuous chain of causes and actions;
some of these causes we know, since they immediately strike our senses;
others we do not know since they act on us only by means of
consequences, quite remote from first causes."
This rational philosophy was an ideological reflection of the
revolutionary bourgeoisie's struggle against the church, the aristocracy
and the absolute monarchy. It represented a fierce attack on the
ideology of the Old Order. In the end, the kingdom of Reason became
nothing more than the idealised kingdom of the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois
property became one of the essential rights of man. The revolutionary
materialists paved the way for the new bourgeois society and the
domination of new private property forms. "Different times, different
circumstances, a different philosophy," stated Denis Diderot (1713 -
1784).
The new materialism, although a revolutionary advance, tended to be
very rigid and mechanical. These new philosophers attacked the church
and denied the self-sufficiency of the soul and held that man was simply
a material body as all other animals and inorganic bodies. Man was
regarded as a more complex and more delicate mechanism than other
bodies. According to La Mettrie (1709 - 1751) in his principal work Man
the Machine, "We are instruments endowed with feeling and memory."
For the French materialists the origin of knowledge - the discovery
of objective truth - lay through the action of nature on our senses. The
planets and man's place within the solar system and nature itself was
fixed. For them, it was a clockwork world, where everything had its
logical static place, and where the impulse for movement came from
outside. The whole approach, while materialist, was mechanical, and
failed to grasp the living reality of the world. It could not grasp the
universe as a process, as matter undergoing continuous change. This
weakness led to the false dichotomy between the material world and the
world of ideas. And this dualism opened the door to idealism.
Others held to a monist view that the universe was one system which
was not pure spirit or pure matter. Spinoza was the first to work out
such a system. While he saw the need for a God, the universe was one
system, which was wholly material from end to end.
Dialectics and Metaphysics
The Marxist view of the world is not only materialist, but also
dialectical. For its critics, the dialectic is portrayed as something
totally mystical, and therefore irrelevant. But this is certainly not
the case. The dialectical method is simply an attempt to understand more
clearly our real interdependent world. Dialectics, states Engels in
Anti-Duhring, "is nothing more than the science of the general laws of
motion and development of nature, human society and thought." Put
simply, it is the logic of motion.
It is obvious to most people that we do not live in a static world.
In fact, everything in nature is in a state of constant change.
"Motion is the mode of existence of matter," states Engels. "Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be." The earth revolves continually around its axis, and in turn itself revolves around the sun. This results in day and night, and the different seasons that we experience throughout the year. We are born, grow up, grow old and eventually die. Everything is moving, changing, either rising and developing or declining and dying away. Any equilibrium is only relative, and only has meaning in relation to other forms of motion.
"Motion is the mode of existence of matter," states Engels. "Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, nor can there be." The earth revolves continually around its axis, and in turn itself revolves around the sun. This results in day and night, and the different seasons that we experience throughout the year. We are born, grow up, grow old and eventually die. Everything is moving, changing, either rising and developing or declining and dying away. Any equilibrium is only relative, and only has meaning in relation to other forms of motion.
"When we consider and reflect upon nature at large or the history of mankind or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions, permutations and combinations, in which nothing remains what, where, and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being, and passes away," remarks Engels. "We see, therefore, at first the picture as a whole, with its individual parts still more or less kept in the background; we observe the movements, transitions, connections rather than the things that move, combine, and are connected. This primitive, naïve but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away."
The Greeks made a whole series of revolutionary discoveries and
advances in natural science. Anaximander made a map of the world, and
wrote a book on cosmology, from which only a few fragments survive. The
Antikythera mechanism, as it is called, appears to be the remains of a
clockwork planetarium dating back to the first century BC. Given the
limited knowledge of the time, many were anticipations and inspired
guesses. Under slave society, these brilliant inventions could not be
put to productive use and were simply regarded as playthings for
amusement.
The real advances in natural science took place in the mid-fifteenth century. The new methods of investigation meant the division of nature into its individual parts, allowing objects and processes to be classified. While this provided massive amount of data, objects were analysed in isolation and not in their living environment. This produced a narrow, rigid, metaphysical mode of thought that has become the hallmark of empiricism. "The Facts" became the all important feature. "Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life," states the Dickensian character Thomas Gradgrind in Hard Times.
The real advances in natural science took place in the mid-fifteenth century. The new methods of investigation meant the division of nature into its individual parts, allowing objects and processes to be classified. While this provided massive amount of data, objects were analysed in isolation and not in their living environment. This produced a narrow, rigid, metaphysical mode of thought that has become the hallmark of empiricism. "The Facts" became the all important feature. "Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life," states the Dickensian character Thomas Gradgrind in Hard Times.
"To the metaphysician things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are
isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each
other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once and for
all", states Engels. "He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses.
'His communication is "yea, yea; nay, nay"; for whatsoever is more than
these cometh of evil.' For him a thing either exists or does not exist;
a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive
and negative absolutely exclude one another; cause and effect stand in
rigid antithesis one to another.
"At first sight this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is that of so-called sound common sense. Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit beyond which it becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions. In the contemplation of individual things it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence it forgets the beginning and the end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the wood for the trees."
Engels goes on to explain that for everyday purposes we know whether
an animal is alive or not. But upon closer examination, we are forced to
recognise that is not a simple straightforward question. On the
contrary, it is a complex question. There are raging debates even today
as to when life begins in the mothers' womb. Likewise, it is just as
difficult to say when the exact moment of death occurs, as physiology
proves that death is not a single instantaneous act, but a protracted
process. In the brilliant words of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, "It
is the same thing in us that is living and dead, asleep and awake,
young and old; each changes place and becomes the other. We step and we
do not step into the same stream; we are and we are not."
Not everything is as appears on the surface of things. Every species,
every aspect of organic life, is every moment the same and not the
same. It develops by assimilating matter from without and simultaneously
discards other unwanted matter; continually some cells die, while
others are renewed. Over time, the body is completely transformed,
renewed from top to bottom. Therefore, every organic entity is both
itself and yet something other than itself.
This phenomenon cannot be explained by metaphysical thought or formal
logic. This approach is incapable of explaining contradiction. This
contradictory reality does not enter the realm of common sense
reasoning. Dialectics, on the other hand, comprehends things in their
connection, development, and motion. As far as Engels was concerned,
"Nature is the proof of dialectics."
Here is how Engels described the rich processes of change in his book the Dialectics of Nature:
"Matter moves in an eternal cycle, completing its trajectory in a period so vast that in comparison with it our earthly year is as nothing; in a cycle in which the period of highest development, namely the period of organic life with its crowning achievement - self-consciousness, is a space just as comparatively minute in the history of life and self-consciousness; in a cycle in which every particular form of the existence of matter - be it the sun or a nebular, a particular animal or animal-species, a chemical combination or decomposition - is equally in transition; in a cycle in which nothing is eternal, except eternally changing, eternally moving matter and the laws of its movement and change.
But however often and pitilessly this cycle may be accomplished in time and space, however many countless suns and earths may arise and fall, however long it may be necessary to wait until in some solar system, on some planet appear conditions suitable for organic life, however many countless beings may fall and rise before, out of their midst, develop animals with a thinking brain that find an environment that permits them to live, be it even only for a short period, we are, nevertheless, assured that matter in all its changes remains eternally one and the same, that not one of its attributes may perish, and that that same iron necessity which compels the destruction of the highest early bloom of matter - the thinking spirit - also necessitates its rebirth at some other place, at some other time."
Along with, and following the French philosophy of the eighteenth
century, arose a new radical German philosophy. Through Emmanuel Kant,
the culmination of this philosophy was epitomised by the system of
George F. Hegel, who had greatly admired the French Revolution. Hegel,
although an idealist, was the most encyclopaedic mind of his age. The
great contribution of this genius was the rescuing of the dialectical
mode of thought originally developed by the ancient Greek philosophers
some 2,000 years before.
"Changes in being consist not only in the fact that one quantity passes into another quantity, but also that quality passes into quantity, and vice versa," wrote Hegel. "Each transition of the latter kind represents an interruption, and gives the phenomenon a new aspect, qualitatively distinct from the previous one. Thus water when cooled grows hard, not gradually… but all at once; having already cooled to freezing-point, it can still remain a liquid only if preserves a tranquil condition, and then the slightest shock is sufficient for it suddenly to become hard… In the world of moral phenomena… there take place the same changes of quantitative into qualitative, and differences in qualities there also are founded upon quantitative differences. Thus, a little less, a little more constitutes that limit beyond which frivolity ceases and there appears something quite different, crime…" (Science of Logic)
Hegel's works are full of references and examples of dialectics.
Unfortunately, Hegel was not only an idealist, but wrote in the most
obscure and abstruse fashion imaginable, making his works very difficult
to read. Lenin, while re-reading Hegel in exile during the First World
War, wrote: "I am in general trying to read Hegel materialistically:
Hegel is materialism which has been stood on its head (according to
Engels) - that is to say, I cast aside for the most part God, the
Absolute, the Pure Idea, etc." Lenin was greatly impressed by Hegel,
and, despite his idealism, later recommended that young communists study
his writings for themselves.
The young Marx and Engels were followers of the great Hegel. They
learned a colossal amount from this teacher. He opened their eyes to a
new outlook on the world epitomised by the dialectic. By embracing the
dialectic, Hegel freed history from metaphysics. For the dialectic,
there is nothing final, absolute, or sacred. It reveals the transitory
character of everything. However, Hegel was limited by his knowledge,
the knowledge of his age, and the fact he was an idealist.
He regarded thoughts within the brain not as more or less abstract pictures of real things and processes, but as realisations of the "Absolute Idea", existing from eternity. Hegel's idealism turned reality on its head.
He regarded thoughts within the brain not as more or less abstract pictures of real things and processes, but as realisations of the "Absolute Idea", existing from eternity. Hegel's idealism turned reality on its head.
Nevertheless, Hegel systematically outlined the important laws of change, touched upon earlier.
The law of quantity into quality (and vice versa)
"It has been said that there are no sudden leaps in nature, and it is a common notion that things have their origin through gradual increase or decrease," states Hegel. "But there is also such a thing as sudden transformation from quantity to quality. For example, water does not become gradually hard on cooling, becoming first pulpy and ultimately attaining a rigidity of ice, but turns hard at once. If temperature be lowered to a certain degree, the water is suddenly changed into ice, i.e., the quantity - the number of degrees of temperature - is transformed into quality - a change in the nature of the thing." (Logic)
This is the cornerstone of understanding change. Change or evolution
does not take place gradually in a straight smooth line. Marx compared
the social revolution to an old mole burrowing busily beneath the
ground, invisible for long periods, but steadily undermining the old
order and later emerging into the light in a sudden overturn. Even
Charles Darwin believed that his theory of evolution was essentially
gradual and that the gaps in the fossil record did not represent any
breaks or leaps in evolution, and would be "filled in" by further
discoveries. In this Darwin was wrong.
Today, new theories, essentially dialectical, have been put forward to explain the leaps in evolution. Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge termed their dialectical theory of evolution "punctuated equilibria". They explained that there were long periods of evolution where there were no apparent changes taking place, then suddenly, a new life form or forms emerged. In other words, quantitative differences gave rise to a qualitative change, leading to new species. The whole of development is characterised by breaks in continuity, leaps, catastrophes and revolutions.
Today, new theories, essentially dialectical, have been put forward to explain the leaps in evolution. Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge termed their dialectical theory of evolution "punctuated equilibria". They explained that there were long periods of evolution where there were no apparent changes taking place, then suddenly, a new life form or forms emerged. In other words, quantitative differences gave rise to a qualitative change, leading to new species. The whole of development is characterised by breaks in continuity, leaps, catastrophes and revolutions.
The emergence of single-cellular life in the earth's oceans some 3.6
billion years ago was a qualitative leap in the evolution of matter. The
"Cambrian explosion", some 600 million years ago, where complex
multicellular life with hard parts exploded onto the scene was a further
qualitative leap forward in evolution. In the lower Palaeozoic, some
400 to 500 million years ago, the first vertebrate fish emerged. This
revolutionary design became dominant and advanced through the amphibians
(which lived both in water and on land), through reptiles, and finally
branched off into warm-blooded creatures: birds and mammals. Such
revolutionary leaps culminated in human beings that have the capacity to
think. Evolution is a long process whereby an accumulation of changes
inside and outside the organism leads to a leap, a qualitatively higher
state of development.
Just as colossal subterranean pressures that accumulate and
periodically break through the earth's crust in the form of earthquakes,
so gradual changes in the consciousness of workers lead to an explosion
in the class struggle. A strike in a factory is not caused by outside
"agitators", but is produced by an accumulation of changes within the
factory that finally pushes the workforce to strike. The "cause" of the
strike maybe something quite small and incidental, a tea-break for
instance, but it has become "the last straw that breaks the camel's
back", to use a popular (dialectical) expression. It has become the
catalyst whereby quantity changes into quality.
Today, a whole series of left wing electoral victories within the
British trade unions are a product of a long accumulation of discontent
within the union rank and file. Twenty years of bitter attacks on the
working class has resulted in these changes at the top of the trade
unions. Only those armed with a Marxist philosophy could foresee this
development, which is rooted in the changing objective situation. These
changes of mood, which are already taking place in the trade unions,
will inevitably be reflected within the Labour Party at a certain stage
that will result in the demise of the right wing under Blair. The
ultra-lefts on the fringes of the Labour movement have continually
written off the Labour Party as something that could never be changed.
They are incapable of thinking dialectically, and have an empirical and formalistic outlook that only sees the surface of reality. They fail to draw a distinction between appearance and reality - between the immediate appearance evident to observation and the hidden processes, interconnections and laws that underlie the observed facts. In other words, they are blind to the subterranean processes taking place before their very eyes. "Blairism dominates the Labour Party!" they exclaim and throw up their hands in despair.
They are under the spell of formal logic, and do not understand the process at work that will inevitably undermine Blairism, and lead to its collapse, as night follows day. As they wrote off the right wing unions in the past, they write off the Labour Party today. On the basis of events and the pressures of the leftward moving trade union movement, the Labour Party, given its roots in the trade unions, will inevitably move in a similar direction.
They are incapable of thinking dialectically, and have an empirical and formalistic outlook that only sees the surface of reality. They fail to draw a distinction between appearance and reality - between the immediate appearance evident to observation and the hidden processes, interconnections and laws that underlie the observed facts. In other words, they are blind to the subterranean processes taking place before their very eyes. "Blairism dominates the Labour Party!" they exclaim and throw up their hands in despair.
They are under the spell of formal logic, and do not understand the process at work that will inevitably undermine Blairism, and lead to its collapse, as night follows day. As they wrote off the right wing unions in the past, they write off the Labour Party today. On the basis of events and the pressures of the leftward moving trade union movement, the Labour Party, given its roots in the trade unions, will inevitably move in a similar direction.
Marx stressed that the task of science is always to proceed from the
immediate knowledge of appearances to the discovery of reality, of the
essence, of the laws underlying the appearances. Marx's Capital is a
fine example of this method. "The way of thinking of the vulgar
economists", wrote Marx to Engels, "derives from the fact that it is
always only the immediate form in which relationships appear which is
reflected in the brain, and not their inner connections." (June 27,
1867)
The same could be said of those who in the past wrote off the Soviet
Union as "state capitalist". Stalinism had nothing in common with
socialism; it was a repressive regime, where workers had less rights
than in the west. However, instead of a scientific analysis of the
Soviet Union, they simply pronounced it state capitalist. As Trotsky
explained the theorists of state capitalism looked at the USSR through
the eyes of formal logic. It was either-or, black or white. The USSR was
either a wonderful socialist state, as the Stalinists said, or it must
be a (state) capitalist state. Such thinking is pure formalism.
They never understood the possibility of a degeneration of the workers' state into a chronically deformed variant of proletarian rule, as explained by Trotsky. It is clear that the revolution, due to its isolation in a backward country, went through a process of degeneration. However, while the nationalised planned economy remained, not everything was lost. The bureaucracy was not a new ruling class, but a parasitic growth on the state, which usurped political power. Only a new political revolution could eliminate the bureaucracy and reintroduce soviets and workers' democracy.
They never understood the possibility of a degeneration of the workers' state into a chronically deformed variant of proletarian rule, as explained by Trotsky. It is clear that the revolution, due to its isolation in a backward country, went through a process of degeneration. However, while the nationalised planned economy remained, not everything was lost. The bureaucracy was not a new ruling class, but a parasitic growth on the state, which usurped political power. Only a new political revolution could eliminate the bureaucracy and reintroduce soviets and workers' democracy.
The supporters of state capitalism tied themselves in knots,
confusing counterrevolution with revolution and vice versa. In
Afghanistan, they supported the reactionary fundamentalist mujahideen as
"freedom fighters" against Russian "imperialism". With the collapse of
the USSR and the move to restore capitalism from 1991 onwards, they
remained neutral in face of real capitalist counterrevolution.
The unity of Opposites
"The contradiction, however, is the source of all movement and life; only in so far as it contains a contradiction can anything have movement, power, and effect." (Hegel). "In brief", states Lenin, "dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics…"
The world in which we live is a unity of contradictions or a unity of
opposites: cold-heat, light-darkness, Capital-Labour, birth-death,
riches-poverty, positive-negative, boom-slump, thinking-being,
finite-infinite, repulsion-attraction, left-right, above-below,
evolution-revolution, chance-necessity, sale-purchase, and so on.
The fact that two poles of a contradictory antithesis can manage to
coexist as a whole is regarded in popular wisdom as a paradox. The
paradox is a recognition that two contradictory, or opposite,
considerations may both be true. This is a reflection in thought of a
unity of opposites in the material world.
Motion, space and time are nothing else but the mode of existence of
matter. Motion, as we have explained is a contradiction, - being in one
place and another at the same time. It is a unity of opposites.
"Movement means to be in this place and not to be in it; this is the
continuity of space and time - and it is this which first makes motion
possible." (Hegel)
To understand something, its essence, it is necessary to seek out
these internal contradictions. Under certain circumstances, the
universal is the individual, and the individual is the universal. That
things turn into their opposites, - cause can become effect and effect
can become cause - is because they are merely links in the never-ending
chain in the development of matter.
"The negative is to an equal extent positive," states Hegel.
Dialectical thought is "comprehending the antithesis in its unity." In
fact Hegel goes further:
"Contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality, and it is only insofar as it contains a Contradiction that anything moves and has impulse and activity…Something moves, not because it is here at one point of time and there at another, but because at one and the same point of time it is here and not here, and in this here both is and is not. We must grant the old dialecticians the contradictions which they prove in motion; but what follows is not that there is no motion, but rather that motion is existent Contradiction itself." Therefore for Hegel, something is living insofar as it contains contradiction, which provides it with self-movement.
The Greek atomists first advanced the revolutionary theory that the
material world was made up of atoms, considered the smallest unit of
matter. The Greek word atomos means indivisible. This was a brilliant
intuitive guess. Twentieth century science proved that everything was
composed of atoms, although it was subsequently discovered that even
smaller particles existed. Every atom contains a nucleus at its centre,
composed of sub-atomic particles called protons and neutrons. Orbiting
around the nucleus are particles known as electrons.
All protons carry a positive electrical charge, and would therefore repel each other, but they are bound together by a type of energy known as the strong nuclear force. This shows that everything that exists is based on a unity of opposites and has self-movement of "impulse and activity", to use Hegel's words.
All protons carry a positive electrical charge, and would therefore repel each other, but they are bound together by a type of energy known as the strong nuclear force. This shows that everything that exists is based on a unity of opposites and has self-movement of "impulse and activity", to use Hegel's words.
In humans, the level of blood sugar is essential for life. Too high a
level is likely to result in diabetic coma, too little and the person
is incapable of eating. This safe level is regulated by the rate at
which sugar is released into the bloodstream by the digestion of
carbohydrates, the rate at which stored glycogen, fat or protein is
converted into sugar, and the rate at which sugar is removed and
utilised. If the blood sugar level rises, then the rate of utilisation
is increased by the release of more insulin from the pancreas. If it
falls, more sugar is released into the blood, or the person gets hungry
and consumes a source of sugar. In this self-regulation of opposing
forces, of positive and negative feedbacks, the blood level is kept
within tolerable limits.
Lenin explains this self-movement in a note when he says, "Dialectics
is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they become
identical - under what conditions they are identical, becoming
transformed into one another - why the human mind should grasp these
opposites not as dead, rigid, but living, conditional, mobile, becoming
transformed into one another."
Lenin also laid great stress on the importance of contradiction as the motive force of development.
"It is common knowledge that, in any given society, the strivings of some of its members conflict with the strivings of others, that social life is full of contradictions, and that history reveals a struggle between nations and societies, as well as within nations and societies, and, besides, an alternation of periods of revolution and reaction, peace and war, stagnation and rapid progress or decline." (Lenin, Three Sources and Component Parts of Marxism).
This is best illustrated by the class struggle. Capitalism requires a
capitalist class and a working class. The struggle over the surplus
value created by the workers and expropriated by the capitalists leads
to an irreconcilable struggle that will provide the basis for the
eventual overthrow of capitalism, and the resolution of the
contradiction through the abolition of classes.
The Negation of the Negation
The general pattern of historical development is not one of a
straight line upward, but of a complex interaction in which each step
forward is only achieved at the cost of a partial step backwards. These
regressions, in turn, are remedied at the next stage of development.
The law of the negation of the negation explains the repetition at a
higher level of certain features and properties of the lower level and
the apparent return of past features. There is a constant struggle
between form and content and between content and form, resulting in the
eventual shattering of the old form and the transformation of the
content.
This whole process can be best pictured as a spiral, where the
movement comes back to the position it started, but at a higher level.
In other words, historical progress is achieved through a series of
contradictions. Where the previous stage is negated, this does not
represent its total elimination. It does not wipe out completely the
stage that it supplants.
"The capitalist method of appropriation, which springs from the
capitalist method of production, and therefore capitalist private
property, is the first negation of individual private property based on
one's own labour. But capitalist production begets with the
inevitableness of a natural process its own negation. It is the negation
of the negation," remarked Marx in volume one of Capital.
Engels explains a whole series of examples to illustrate the negation
of the negation in his book Anti-Duhring. "Let us take a grain of
barley. Millions of such grains of barley are milled, boiled and brewed
and then consumed. But if such a grain of barley meets with conditions
which for it are normal, if it falls on suitable soil, then under the
influence of heat and moisture a specific change takes place, it
germinates; the grain as such ceases to exist, it is negated, and in its
place appears the plant which has arisen from it, the negation of the
grain.
But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilised and finally once more produces grains of barley, and, as soon as these have ripened, the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have once again the original grain of barley, but not as a single unit, but ten, twenty or thirty fold."
But what is the normal life-process of this plant? It grows, flowers, is fertilised and finally once more produces grains of barley, and, as soon as these have ripened, the stalk dies, is in its turn negated. As a result of this negation of the negation we have once again the original grain of barley, but not as a single unit, but ten, twenty or thirty fold."
The barley lives and evolves by means of returning to its starting
point - but at a higher level. One seed has produced many. Also over
time, plants have evolved qualitatively as well as quantitatively.
Successive generations have shown variations, and become more adapted to
their environment.
Engels gives a further example from the insect world. "Butterflies,
for example, spring from the egg through a negation of the egg, they
pass through certain transformations until they reach sexual maturity,
they pair and are in turn negated, dying as soon as the pairing process
has been completed and the female has laid its numerous eggs."
Hegel and Marx
Hegel, who had a giant intellect, illuminated a great many things. It
was a debt that Marx repeatedly recognised. "The mystification which
dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being
the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and
conscious manner," states Marx. Nevertheless, Hegel's philosophical
system was a huge miscarriage. It suffered from an incurable internal
contradiction.
Hegel's conception of history is an evolutionary one, where there is nothing final or eternal. However, his system laid claim to being the absolute truth, in complete contradiction to the laws of dialectical thought. While Hegel defended the status quo in Germany, the dialectic embraced a revolutionary view of constant change. For Hegel, all that was real was rational. But using the Hegelian dialectic, all that is real will become irrational. All that exists deserves to perish. In this lay the revolutionary significance of the Hegelian philosophy.
Hegel's conception of history is an evolutionary one, where there is nothing final or eternal. However, his system laid claim to being the absolute truth, in complete contradiction to the laws of dialectical thought. While Hegel defended the status quo in Germany, the dialectic embraced a revolutionary view of constant change. For Hegel, all that was real was rational. But using the Hegelian dialectic, all that is real will become irrational. All that exists deserves to perish. In this lay the revolutionary significance of the Hegelian philosophy.
The solution of this contradiction led back to materialism, but not
the old mechanical materialism, but one based upon the new sciences and
advances. "Materialism rose again enriched by all the acquisitions of
idealism. The most important of these acquisitions was the dialectical
method, the examination of phenomena in their development, in their
origin and destruction. The genius who represented this new direction of
thought was Karl Marx," writes Plekhanov. Spurred on by revolutionary
developments in Europe in 1830-31, the Hegelian School split into left,
right and centre.
The most prominent representative of the Hegelian Left was Ludwig
Feuerbach who challenged the old orthodoxy, especially religion, and
placed materialism at the centre of things again. "Nature has no
beginning and no end. Everything in it is in mutual interaction,
everything at once effect and cause, everything in it is all-sided and
reciprocal…" writes Feuerbach, adding that there is no place there for
God. "Christians tear out the spirit, the soul, of man out of his body
and make this torn-out, disembodied spirit into their God." Despite
Feuerbach's limitations, Marx and Engels welcomed the new breakthrough
with enthusiasm.
"But in the meantime", noted Engels, "the Revolution of 1848 thrust the whole of philosophy aside as unceremoniously as Feuerbach himself was also pushed into the background." It was left to Marx and Engels to consistently apply the dialectic to the new materialism, producing dialectical materialism. For them, the new philosophy was not an abstract philosophy, but directly linked to practice.
"Dialectics reduces itself to the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought - two sets of laws which are identical in substance, but differ in their expression in so far as the human mind can apply them consciously, while in nature and also up to now for the most part in human history, these laws assert themselves unconsciously, in the form of external necessity, in the midst of an endless series of seeming accidents." (Engels)
Neither Marx nor Engels left behind them a comprehensive book on
dialectics as such. Marx was preoccupied with Capital. Engels intended
to write such a book, but was overtaken by the need to complete Capital
after Marx's death. He nevertheless wrote quite extensively on the
subject, especially in Anti-Dühring and the Dialectics of Nature. Lenin
commentated, "If Marx did not leave behind him a 'Logic' (with a capital
letter), he did leave the logic of Capital, and this ought to be
utilised to the full. In Capital, Marx applied to a single science
logic, dialectics and the theory of knowledge of materialism (three
words are not needed: it is one and the same thing) which has taken
everything valuable in Hegel and developed it further."
Today, a small number of scientists, mainly from the natural
sciences, have become conscious of the dialectic, which has opened their
eyes to problems in their specialised fields. This relationship between
science and dialectical materialism has been fully discussed in the
book by Alan Woods and Ted Grant Reason in Revolt. They showed, along
with Engels, that nature is completely dialectical. Apart from Stephen
J. Gould and Niles Eldredge, Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin, who
regard themselves as dialectical materialists, have also written about
the application of the dialectic to the field of biology in their book
The Dialectical Biologist:
"What characterises the dialectical world, in all its aspects, as we have described it is that it is constantly in motion. Constants become variables, causes become effects, and systems develop, destroying the conditions that gave rise to them. Even elements that appear to be stable are in a dynamic equilibrium of forces that can suddenly become unbalanced, as when a dull grey lump of metal of a critical size becomes a fireball brighter than a thousand suns.
Yet the motion is not unconstrained and uniform. Organisms develop and differentiate, then die and disintegrate. Species arise but inevitably become extinct. Even in the simple physical world we know of no uniform motion. Even the earth rotating on its axis has slowed down in geological time. The development of systems through time, then, seems to be the consequence of opposing forces and opposing motions.
"This appearance of opposing forces has given rise to the most debated and difficult, yet the most central, concept in dialectical thought, the principle of contradiction. For some, contradiction is an epistemic principle only. It describes how we come to understand the world by a history of antithetical theories that, in contradiction to each other and in contradiction to observed phenomena, lead to a new view of nature. Kuhn's (1962) theory of scientific revolution has some of this flavour of continual contradiction and resolution, giving way to new contradiction.
For others, contradiction becomes an ontological property at least of human social existence. For us, contradiction is not only epistemic and political, but also ontological in the broadest sense. Contradictions between forces are everywhere in nature, not only in human social institutions. This tradition of dialectics goes back to Engels (1880) who wrote, in Dialectics of Nature, that 'to me there could be no question of building the laws of dialectics of nature, but of discovering them in it and evolving them from it.'" (The Dialectical Biologist, p.279)
Marxists have always stressed the unity of theory and practice.
"Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the
point, however, is to change it", as Marx pointed to in his thesis on
Feuerbach. "If the truth is abstract it must be untrue," states Hegel.
All truth is concrete. We have to look at things as they exist, with a
view to understanding their underlying contradictory development. This
has very important conclusions, especially for those fighting to change
society. Unlike the Utopian socialists who viewed socialism as a
wonderful idea, Marxists see the development of socialism as arising out
of the contradictions of capitalism.
Capitalist society has prepared the material basis for a classless society with its highly developed productive forces and its world division of labour. It has brought into being the working class, whose very life existence brings it into conflict with capitalism. On the basis of experience, it will become fully conscious of its position in society and it will be transformed, in the words of Marx, from a "class in-itself" to a "class for-itself".
Capitalist society has prepared the material basis for a classless society with its highly developed productive forces and its world division of labour. It has brought into being the working class, whose very life existence brings it into conflict with capitalism. On the basis of experience, it will become fully conscious of its position in society and it will be transformed, in the words of Marx, from a "class in-itself" to a "class for-itself".
Dialectics bases itself on determinism, but this has nothing in
common with fatalism which denies the existence of accident in nature,
society and thought. Dialectical determinism asserts the unity of
necessity and accident, and explains that necessity expresses itself
through accident. All events have causes, necessary events and
accidental ones alike.
If there were no causal laws in nature everything would be in a state of utter chaos. It would be an impossible position where nothing could exist. So everything is dependent upon everything else, as in a continuous chain of cause and effect. Particular events always have a chance or accidental character, but these arise only as the result of a deeper necessity. In fact, necessity manifests itself through a series of accidents. Without doubt, accidents have their place, but the essential thing is to discover what laws determine this deeper necessity.
If there were no causal laws in nature everything would be in a state of utter chaos. It would be an impossible position where nothing could exist. So everything is dependent upon everything else, as in a continuous chain of cause and effect. Particular events always have a chance or accidental character, but these arise only as the result of a deeper necessity. In fact, necessity manifests itself through a series of accidents. Without doubt, accidents have their place, but the essential thing is to discover what laws determine this deeper necessity.
From the point of view of superficial observation, everything may
appear to be accidental or open to chance. This can appear especially so
when we have no knowledge of the laws that govern change and their
interconnections. "Where on the surface accident holds sway, there
actually it is always governed by inner, hidden laws and it is only a
matter of discovering these laws," remarked Engels in Ludwig Feuerbach.
In nature, the evolution of matter follows a certain path, although
how, when, and in what form this is realised, depends upon accidental
circumstances. For example, whether life was created or not on earth
depended on a whole series of accidental factors, such as the presence
of water, different chemical elements, the earth's distance from the
sun, an atmosphere, etc. "It is the nature of matter to advance to the
evolution of thinking beings", states Engels, "hence, too, this always
necessarily occurs whenever the conditions for it (not necessarily
identical at all places and times) are present…what is maintained to be
necessary is composed of sheer accidents, and the so-called accidental
is the form behind which necessity hides itself."
Superficial historians have written that the First World War was
"caused" by the assassination of a Crown Prince at Sarajevo. To a
Marxist this event was an historical accident, in the sense that this
chance event served as the pretext, or catalyst, for the world conflict
which had already been made inevitable by the economic, political and
military contradictions of imperialism. If the assassin had missed, or
if the Crown Prince had never been born, the war would still have taken
place, on some other diplomatic pretext or other. Necessity would have
expressed itself through a different "accident".
In the words of Hegel, everything which exists, exists of necessity.
But, equally, everything which exists is doomed to perish, to be
transformed into something else. Thus what is "necessary" in one time
and place becomes "unnecessary" in another. Everything begets its
opposite, which is destined to overcome and negate it. This is true of
individual living things as much as societies and nature generally.
Every type of human society exists because it is necessary at the
given time when it arises: "No social order ever disappears before all
the productive forces for which there is room in it, have been
developed: and new higher relations of production never appear before
the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of
the old society. Therefore mankind always takes up only such problems as
it can solve, since, looking at the matter more closely, we will always
find that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions
necessary for its solution already exist or at least are in the process
of formation." (Marx, Critique of Political Economy.)
Slavery, in its day, represented an enormous leap forward over
barbarism. It was a necessary stage in the development of productive
forces, culture and human society. As Hegel brilliantly explained it:
"It is not so much from slavery as through slavery that man becomes
free."
Similarly capitalism was originally a necessary and progressive stage
in human society. However, like primitive communism, slavery, and
feudalism, capitalism has long since ceased to represent a necessary and
progressive social system. It has foundered upon the deep
contradictions inherent in it, and is doomed to be overcome by the
rising forces of the new society within the old, represented by the
modem proletariat. Private ownership of the means of production and the
nation state, the basic features of capitalist society, which originally
marked a great step forward, now serve only to fetter and undermine the
productive forces and threaten all the gains made in centuries of human
development.
Capitalism is now a thoroughly degenerate social system, which must
be overthrown and replaced by its opposite, socialism, if human culture
is to survive. Marxism is determinist, but not fatalist. Men and women
make history. The transformation of society can only be achieved by men
and women consciously striving for their own emancipation. This struggle
of the classes is not pre-determined. Who succeeds depends on many
factors, and a rising, progressive class has many advantages over the
old, decrepit force of reaction. But ultimately, the result must depend
upon which side has the stronger will, the greater organisation and the
most skilful and resolute leadership.
The victory of socialism will mark a new and qualitatively different
stage of human history. To be more accurate it will mark the end of the
prehistory of the human race, and start a real history.
However on the other hand, socialism marks a return to the earliest
form of human society - tribal communism - but on a much higher level,
which stands upon all the enormous gains of thousands of years of class
society. The negation of primitive communism by class society is in turn
negated by socialism.
The economy of superabundance will be made possible by the application of conscious planning to the industry, science and technique established by capitalism, on a world scale. This in turn will once and for all make redundant the division of labour, the difference between mental and manual labour, between town and countryside, and the wasteful and barbaric class struggle and enable the human race at last to set its resources to the conquest of nature: to use Engels' famous phrase, "the leap of man from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom".
The economy of superabundance will be made possible by the application of conscious planning to the industry, science and technique established by capitalism, on a world scale. This in turn will once and for all make redundant the division of labour, the difference between mental and manual labour, between town and countryside, and the wasteful and barbaric class struggle and enable the human race at last to set its resources to the conquest of nature: to use Engels' famous phrase, "the leap of man from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom".
The ABC of Materialist Dialectics
by Leon Trotsky
The dialectic is neither fiction nor mysticism, but a science of the
forms of our thinking insofar as it is not limited to the daily problems
of life but attempts to arrive at an understanding of more complicated
and drawn-out processes. The dialectic and formal logic bear a
relationship similar to that between higher and lower mathematics.
I will here attempt to sketch the substance of the problem in a very
concise form. The Aristotelian logic of the simple syllogism starts from
the proposition that A is equal to A. This postulate is accepted as an
axiom for a multitude of practical human actions and elementary
generalisations. But in reality A is not equal to A.
This is easy to prove if we observe these two letters under a lens - they are quite different from each other.
But, one can object, the question is not of the size or the form of
the letters, since they are only symbols for equal quantities: for
instance, a pound of sugar.
The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is
never equal to a pound of sugar - a more delicate scale always discloses
a difference.
Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself.
Neither is this true - all bodies change uninterruptedly in size,
weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves.
A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself "at a
given moment." Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this
'axiom,' it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should
we conceive the word 'moment'? If it is an infinitesimal interval of
time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that
'moment' to inevitable changes.
Or is the 'moment' a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero
of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an
uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a
fundamental element of existence.
Thus the axiom A is equal to A signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.
At first glance it could seem that these "subtleties" are useless. In
reality they are of decisive significance. The axiom A is equal to A
appears on one hand to be the point of departure for all our knowledge,
on the other hand the point of departure for all the errors in our
knowledge.
To make use of the axiom A is equal to A with impunity is possible
only within certain limits. When quantitative changes in A are
negligible for the task at hand, then we can presume A is equal to A.
This is, for example, the manner in which a buyer and a seller consider a
pound of sugar.
We consider the temperature of the sun likewise. Until recently we
considered the buying power of the dollar in the same way. But
quantitative changes beyond certain limits become converted into
qualitative. A pound of sugar subjected to the action of water or
kerosene ceases to be a pound of sugar. A dollar in the embrace of a
president ceases to be a dollar. To determine at the right moment the
critical point where quantity changes into quality is one of the most
important and difficult tasks in all the spheres of knowledge, including
sociology.
Every worker knows that it is impossible to make two completely equal
objects. In the elaboration of bearing-brass into cone bearings, a
certain deviation is allowed for the cones which should not, however, go
beyond certain limits (this is called tolerance). By observing the
norms of tolerance, the cones are considered as being equal (A is equal
to A). When the tolerance is exceeded, the quantity goes over into
quality; in other words, the cone bearings become inferior or completely
worthless.
Our scientific thinking is only a part of our general practice,
including techniques. For concepts there also exists "tolerance" which
is established not by formal logic issuing from the axiom A is equal to A
but by dialectical logic issuing from the axiom that everything is
always changing. "Common sense" is characterized by the fact that it
systematically exceeds dialectical "tolerance."
Vulgar thought operates with such concepts as capitalism, morals,
freedom, workers' state, etc., as fixed abstractions, presuming that
capitalism is equal to capitalism, morals are equal to morals, etc.
Dialectical thinking analyses all things and phenomena in their
continuous change, while determining in the material conditions of those
changes that critical limit beyond which A ceases to be A, a workers'
state ceases to be a workers' state.
The fundamental flaw of vulgar thought lies in the fact that it
wishes to content itself with motionless imprints of reality, which
consists of eternal motion. Dialectical thinking gives to concepts, by
means of closer approximations, corrections, concretisations, a richness
of content and flexibility, I would even say a succulence, which to a
certain extent brings them close to living phenomena. Not capitalism in
general but a given capitalism at a given stage of development. Not a
workers' state in general, but a given workers' state in a backward
country in an Imperialist encirclement etc.
Dialectical thinking is related to vulgar thinking in the same way
that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion
picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of
them according to the laws of motion. Dialectics does not deny the
syllogism, but teaches us to combine syllogisms in such a way as to
bring our understanding closer to the eternally changing reality.
Hegel in his Logic established a series of laws: change of quantity
into quality, development through contradictions, conflict of content
and form, interruption of continuity, change of possibility into
inevitability, etc., which are just as important for theoretical thought
as is the simple syllogism for more elementary tasks.
Hegel wrote before Darwin and before Marx. Thanks to the powerful
impulse given to thought by the French Revolution, Hegel anticipated the
general movement of science. But because it was only an anticipation,
although by a genius, it received from Hegel an idealistic character.
Hegel operated with ideological shadows as the ultimate reality. Marx
demonstrated that the movement of these ideological shadows reflected
nothing but the movement of material bodies.
We call our dialectic materialist since its roots are neither in
heaven nor in the depths of our "free will" but in objective reality, in
nature. Consciousness grew out of the unconscious, psychology out of
physiology, the organic world out of the inorganic, the solar system out
of nebula.
On all the rungs of this ladder of development the quantitative
changes were transformed into qualitative. Our thought including
dialectical thought is only one of the forms of the expression of
changing matter. There is place within this system for neither God, nor
Devil, nor immortal soul nor eternal norms of laws and morals. The
dialectic of thinking, having grown out of the dialectic of nature,
possesses consequently a thoroughly materialist character.
Darwinism, which explained the evolution of species through
quantitative transformations passing into qualitative, was the highest
triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter. Another
great triumph was the discovery of the table of atomic weights of
chemical elements and further the transformation of one element into
another. With these transformations (species, elements, etc.) is closely
linked the question of classifications, just as important in the
natural as in the social sciences. Linnaeus's system (eighteenth
century), utilizing as its starting point the immutability of species,
was limited to the description and classification of plants according to
their external characteristics.
The infantile period of botany is analogous to the infantile period
of logic, since the forms of our thought develop like everything that
lives. Only decisive repudiation of the idea of fixed species, only the
study of the history of the evolution of plants and their anatomy
prepared the basis for a really scientific classification.
Marx, who in distinction from Darwin was a conscious dialectician,
discovered a basis for the scientific classification of human societies
in the development of their productive forces and the structure of the
relations of ownership, which constitute the anatomy of society. Marxism
substituted for the vulgar descriptive classification of societies and
states, which even up to now still flourishes in the universities, a
materialistic dialectical classification.
Only through using the method of Marx is it possible correctly to determine both the concept of a workers' state and the moment of its downfall.
Only through using the method of Marx is it possible correctly to determine both the concept of a workers' state and the moment of its downfall.
All this, as we see, contains nothing "metaphysical" or "scholastic,"
as conceited ignorance affirms. Dialectical logic expresses the laws of
motion in contemporary scientific thought. The struggle against
materialist dialectics on the contrary expresses a distant past
conservatism of the petty bourgeoisie, the self-conceit of university
routinists and . . . a spark of hope for an afterlife.
From 'Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy'
by Frederick Engels
Out of the dissolution of the Hegelian school, however, there
developed still another tendency, the only one which has borne real
fruit. And this tendency is essentially connected with the name of Marx.
The separation from Hegelian philosophy was here also the result of a
return to the materialist standpoint. That means it was resolved to
comprehend the real world - nature and history - just as it presents
itself to everyone who approaches it free from preconceived idealist
crotchets. It was decided mercilessly to sacrifice every idealist which
could not be brought into harmony with the facts conceived in their own
and not in a fantastic interconnection. And materialism means nothing
more than this. But here the materialistic world outlook was taken
really seriously for the first time and was carried through consistently
- at least in its basic features - in all domains of knowledge
concerned.
Hegel was not simply put aside. On the contrary, a start was made
from his revolutionary side, described above, from the dialectical
method. But in its Hegelian form, this method was unusable. According to
Hegel, dialectics is the self-development of the concept. The absolute
concept does not only exist - unknown where - from eternity, it is also
the actual living soul of the whole existing world. It develops into
itself through all the preliminary stages which are treated at length in
the Logic and which are all included in it.
Then it "alienates" itself by changing into nature, where, unconscious of itself, disguised as a natural necessity, it goes through a new development and finally returns as man's consciousness of himself. This self-consciousness then elaborates itself again in history in the crude form until finally the absolute concept again comes to itself completely in the Hegelian philosophy. According to Hegel, therefore, the dialectical development apparent in nature and history - that is, the causal interconnection of the progressive movement from the lower to the higher, which asserts itself through all zigzag movements and temporary retrogression - is only a copy [Abklatsch] of the self-movement of the concept going on from eternity, no one knows where, but at all events independently of any thinking human brain. This ideological perversion had to be done away with. We again took a materialistic view of the thoughts in our heads, regarding them as images [Abbilder] of real things instead of regarding real things as images of this or that stage of the absolute concept.
Thus dialectics reduced itself to the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought - two sets of laws which are identical in substance, but differ in their expression in so far as the human mind can apply them consciously, while in nature and also up to now for the most part in human history, these laws assert themselves unconsciously, in the form of external necessity, in the midst of an endless series of seeming accidents.
Thereby the dialectic of concepts itself became merely the conscious reflex of the dialectical motion of the real world and thus the dialectic of Hegel was turned over; or rather, turned off its head, on which it was standing, and placed upon its feet. And this materialist dialectic, which for years has been our best working tool and our sharpest weapon, was, remarkably enough, discovered not only by us but also, independently of us and even of Hegel, by a German worker, Joseph Dietzgen. (2)
Then it "alienates" itself by changing into nature, where, unconscious of itself, disguised as a natural necessity, it goes through a new development and finally returns as man's consciousness of himself. This self-consciousness then elaborates itself again in history in the crude form until finally the absolute concept again comes to itself completely in the Hegelian philosophy. According to Hegel, therefore, the dialectical development apparent in nature and history - that is, the causal interconnection of the progressive movement from the lower to the higher, which asserts itself through all zigzag movements and temporary retrogression - is only a copy [Abklatsch] of the self-movement of the concept going on from eternity, no one knows where, but at all events independently of any thinking human brain. This ideological perversion had to be done away with. We again took a materialistic view of the thoughts in our heads, regarding them as images [Abbilder] of real things instead of regarding real things as images of this or that stage of the absolute concept.
Thus dialectics reduced itself to the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought - two sets of laws which are identical in substance, but differ in their expression in so far as the human mind can apply them consciously, while in nature and also up to now for the most part in human history, these laws assert themselves unconsciously, in the form of external necessity, in the midst of an endless series of seeming accidents.
Thereby the dialectic of concepts itself became merely the conscious reflex of the dialectical motion of the real world and thus the dialectic of Hegel was turned over; or rather, turned off its head, on which it was standing, and placed upon its feet. And this materialist dialectic, which for years has been our best working tool and our sharpest weapon, was, remarkably enough, discovered not only by us but also, independently of us and even of Hegel, by a German worker, Joseph Dietzgen. (2)
In this way, however, the revolutionary side of Hegelian philosophy
was again taken up and at the same time freed from the idealist
trimmings which with Hegel had prevented its consistent execution. The
great basic thought that the world is not to be comprehended as a
complex of readymade things, but as a complex of processes, in which the
things apparently stable no less than their mind images in our heads,
the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being
and passing away, in which, in spite of all seeming accidentally and of
all temporary retrogression, a progressive development asserts itself in
the end - this great fundamental thought has, especially since the time
of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary consciousness that in this
generality it is now scarcely ever contradicted.
But to acknowledge this fundamental thought in words and to apply it in reality in detail to each domain of investigation are two different things. If, however, investigation always proceeds from this standpoint, the demand for final solutions and eternal truths ceases once for all; one is always conscious of the necessary limitation of all acquired knowledge, of the fact that it is conditioned by the circumstances in which it was acquired. On the other hand, one no longer permits oneself to be imposed upon by the antithesis, insuperable for the still common old metaphysics, between true and false, good and bad, identical and different, necessary and accidental.
One knows that these antitheses have only a relative validity; that that which is recognized now as true has also its latent false side which will later manifest itself, just as that which is now regarded as false has also its true side by virtue of which it could previously be regarded as true. One knows that what is maintained to be necessary is composed of sheer accidents and that the so-called accidental is the form behind which necessity hides itself - and so on.
But to acknowledge this fundamental thought in words and to apply it in reality in detail to each domain of investigation are two different things. If, however, investigation always proceeds from this standpoint, the demand for final solutions and eternal truths ceases once for all; one is always conscious of the necessary limitation of all acquired knowledge, of the fact that it is conditioned by the circumstances in which it was acquired. On the other hand, one no longer permits oneself to be imposed upon by the antithesis, insuperable for the still common old metaphysics, between true and false, good and bad, identical and different, necessary and accidental.
One knows that these antitheses have only a relative validity; that that which is recognized now as true has also its latent false side which will later manifest itself, just as that which is now regarded as false has also its true side by virtue of which it could previously be regarded as true. One knows that what is maintained to be necessary is composed of sheer accidents and that the so-called accidental is the form behind which necessity hides itself - and so on.
The old method of investigation and thought which Hegel calls
"metaphysical", which preferred to investigate things as given, as fixed
and stable, a method the relics of which still strongly haunt people's
minds, had a great deal of historical justification in its day. It was
necessary first to examine things before it was possible to examine
processes. One had first to know what a particular thing was before one
could observe the changes it was undergoing. And such was the case with
natural science. The old metaphysics, which accepted things as finished
objects, arose from a natural science which investigated dead and living
things as finished objects.
But when this investigation had progressed so far that it became possible to take the decisive step forward, that is, to pass on the systematic investigation of the changes which these things undergo in nature itself, then the last hour of the old metaphysic struck in the realm of philosophy also. And in fact, while natural science up to the end of the last century was predominantly a collecting science, a science of finished things, in our century it is essentially a systematizing science, a science of the processes, of the origin and development of these things and of the interconnection which binds all these natural processes into one great whole.
Physiology, which investigates the processes occurring in plant and animal organisms; embryology, which deals with the development of individual organisms from germs to maturity; geology, which investigates the gradual formation of the Earth's surface - all these are the offspring of our century.
But when this investigation had progressed so far that it became possible to take the decisive step forward, that is, to pass on the systematic investigation of the changes which these things undergo in nature itself, then the last hour of the old metaphysic struck in the realm of philosophy also. And in fact, while natural science up to the end of the last century was predominantly a collecting science, a science of finished things, in our century it is essentially a systematizing science, a science of the processes, of the origin and development of these things and of the interconnection which binds all these natural processes into one great whole.
Physiology, which investigates the processes occurring in plant and animal organisms; embryology, which deals with the development of individual organisms from germs to maturity; geology, which investigates the gradual formation of the Earth's surface - all these are the offspring of our century.
The Three Sources and Component Parts of Marxism (extract)
by Lenin
The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the recent
history of Europe, and particularly at the end of the eighteenth century
in France, which was the scene of the decisive battle against every
kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas,
materialism proved to be the only consistent philosophy, true to all the
teachings of natural science, hostile to superstitions, cant, etc. The
enemies of democracy tried, therefore, with all their energy, to
"overthrow," undermine and defame materialism, and defended various
forms of philosophic idealism, which always leads, in one way or
another, to the defence and support of religion.
Marx and Engels always defended philosophic materialism in the most
determined manner, and repeatedly explained the profound error of every
deviation from this basis. Their views are more dearly and fully
expounded in the works of Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and Anti-Duhring,
which, like the Communist Manifesto, are household books for every
conscious worker.
However, Marx did not stop at the materialism of the eighteenth
century but moved philosophy forward. He enriched it by the achievements
of German classical philosophy especially by Hegel's system, which in
its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach. Of these the main
achievement is dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its
fuller, deeper form, free from one-sidedness-the doctrine, also, of the
relativity of human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of
eternally developing matter. The latest discoveries of natural
science-radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements-are a
remarkable confirmation of the dialectical materialism of Marx, despite
the doctrines of bourgeois philosophers with their "new" returns to old
and rotten idealism.
While deepening and developing philosophic materialism, Marx carried
it to its conclusion; he extended its perception of nature to the
perception of human society. The historical materialism of Marx
represented the greatest conquest of scientific thought.
Chaos and arbitrariness, which reigned until then in the views on
history and politics, were replaced by a strikingly consistent and
harmonious scientific theory, which shows how out of one order of social
life another and higher order develops, in consequence of the growth of
the productive forces - how capitalism, for instance, grows out of
serfdom.
Just as the cognition of man reflects nature (i.e., developing
matter) which exists independently of him, so also the social cognition
of man (i.e., the various views and doctrines-philosophic, religious,
political, etc.) reflects the economic order of society. Political
institutions are a superstructure on the economic foundation. We see,
for example, that the various political forms of modern European states
serve the purpose of strengthening the domination of the bourgeoisie
over the proletariat.
The philosophy of Marx completes in itself philosophic materialism
which has provided humanity, and especially the working class, with a
powerful instrument of knowledge.
Lenin's Collected Works
Volume 38, p359:
On the Question of Dialectics
The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its
contradictory parts is the essence (one of the "essentials", one of the
principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of
dialectics. That is precisely how Hegel, too, puts the matter.
The correctness of this aspect of the content of dialectics must be
tested by the history of science. This aspect of dialectics (e.g. in
Plekhanov) usually receives inadequate attention: the identity of
opposites is taken as the sum-total of examples ("for example, a seed",
"for example, primitive communism". The same is true of Engels. But it
is "in the interests of popularisation ...") and not as a law of
cognition (and as a law of the objective world.)
In mathematics: + and -, differential and integral,
In mechanics: action and reaction,
In physics: positive and negative electricity,
In chemistry: the combination and dissociation of atoms,
In social science: the class struggle.
The identity of opposites (it would be more correct, perhaps, to say
their "unity", - although the difference between the terms identity and
unity is not particularly important here. In a certain sense both are
correct) is the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually
exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature
(including mind and society). The condition for the knowledge of all
processes of the world in their "self-movement", in their spontaneous
development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of
opposites.
Development is the "struggle" of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? Or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation)! .
Development is the "struggle" of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? Or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation)! .
In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force,
its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made
external - God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief
attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of
"self"-movement.
The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living.
The second alone furnishes the key to the "self-movement" of everything
existing; it alone furnishes the key to "leaps", to the "break in
continuity," to the transformation into the opposite", to the
destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.
The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is
conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually
exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are
absolute.
NB: The distinction between subjectivism (scepticism, sophistry,
etc.) and dialectics, incidentally, is that in (objective) dialectics
the difference between the relative and the absolute is itself relative.
For objective dialectics there is an absolute within the relative. For
subjectivism and sophistry the relative is only relative and excludes
the absolute.
In his Capital, Marx first analyses the simplest, most ordinary and
fundamental, most common and everyday relation of bourgeois (commodity)
society, a relation encountered billions of times, viz., the exchange of
commodities. In this very simple phenomenon (in this "cell" of
bourgeois society) analysis reveals all the contradictions (or the germs
of all contradictions) of modern society. The subsequent exposition
shows us the development (both growth and movement) of these
contradictions and of this society in the Sum of its individual parts.
From its beginning to its end.
Such must also be the method of exposition (or study) of dialectics
in general (for with Marx the dialectics of bourgeois society is only a
particular case of dialectics). To begin with what is the simplest, most
ordinary, common, etc., with any proposition: the leaves of a tree are
green; John is a man: Fido is a dog, etc. Here already we have
dialectics (as Hegel's genius recognised); the individual is the
universal.
Consequently, the opposites (the individual is opposed to the
universal) are identical: the individual exists only in the connection
that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in the individual
and through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another)
a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the
essence of) an individual. Every universal only approximately embraces
all the individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into
the universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of
transitions with other kinds of individuals (things, phenomena,
processes) etc.
Here already we have the elements, the germs, the concepts of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say: John is a man, Fido is a dog, this is a leaf of a tree, etc., we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other.
Here already we have the elements, the germs, the concepts of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say: John is a man, Fido is a dog, this is a leaf of a tree, etc., we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other.
Thus in any proposition we can (and must) disclose as in a "nucleus"
(:cell") the germs of all the elements of dialectics, and thereby show
that dialectics is a property of all human knowledge in general.
And natural science shows us (and here again it must be demonstrated
in any simple instance) objective nature with the same qualities, the
transformation of the individual into the universal, of the contingent
into the necessary, transitions, modulations, and the reciprocal
connection of opposites. Dialectics is the theory of knowledge of (Hegel
and) Marxism. This is the "aspect" of the matter (it is not "an aspect"
but the essence of the matter) to which Plekhanov, not to speak of
other Marxists, paid no attention.
Knowledge is represented in the form of a series of circles both by
Hegel (see Logic) and by the modern epistemologists" of natural science,
the eclectic and foe of Hegelianism (which he did not understand!!),
Paul Volkmann.
"Circles" in philosophy: [is a chronology of persons - essential? No!
Ancient: from Democritus to Plato and the dialectics of Heraclitus.
Renaissance: Descartes versus Gassendi (Spinoza?)
Modern: Holbach-Hegel (via Berkeley, Hume, Kant).
Hegel - Feuerbach - Marx
Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides
eternally increasing), with an infinite number of shades of every
approach and approximation to reality (with a philosophical system
growing into a whole out of each shade) - here we have an immeasurably
rich content as compared with metaphysical materialism, the fundamental
misfortune of which is its inability to apply dialectics to the theory
of reflection, to the process and development of knowledge.
Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude,
simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical
materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided,
exaggerated, development (inflation, distension) of one of the features,
aspects, facets of knowledge, into an absolute, divorced from matter,
from nature, apotheosised. Idealism is clerical obscurantism. True. But
philosophical idealism is ("more correctly" and "in addition") a road to
clerical obscurantism through one of the shades of the infinitely
complex knowledge (dialectical) of man.
Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a
curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles, a spiral. Any
fragment, segment, section of this curve can be transformed (transformed
one-sidedly) into an independent, complete, straight line, which then
(if one does not see the wood for the trees) leads into the quagmire,
into clerical obscurantism (where it is anchored by the class interests
of the ruling classes).
Rectilinearity and one-sidedness, woodenness and petrification, subjectivism and subjective blindness - voila the epistemological roots of idealism. And clerical obscurantism (= philosophical idealism), of course, has epistemological roots, it is not groundless; it is a sterile flower undoubtedly, but a sterile flower that grows on the living tree of living, fertile, genuine, powerful, omnipotent, objective, absolute human knowledge.
Rectilinearity and one-sidedness, woodenness and petrification, subjectivism and subjective blindness - voila the epistemological roots of idealism. And clerical obscurantism (= philosophical idealism), of course, has epistemological roots, it is not groundless; it is a sterile flower undoubtedly, but a sterile flower that grows on the living tree of living, fertile, genuine, powerful, omnipotent, objective, absolute human knowledge.
VOLUME 38, pp 221 - 222
Summary of Dialectics
by Lenin
1) The determination of the concept out of itself [the thing itself must be considered in its relations and in its development];
2) the contradictory nature of the thing itself (the other of itself), the contradictory forces and tendencies in each phenomenon;
3) the union of analysis and synthesis.
2) the contradictory nature of the thing itself (the other of itself), the contradictory forces and tendencies in each phenomenon;
3) the union of analysis and synthesis.
Such apparently are the elements of dialectics.
One could perhaps present these elements in greater detail as follows:
1) the objectivity of consideration (not examples, not divergencies, but the Thing-in-itself).
2) the entire totality of the manifold relations of this thing to others.
3) the development of this thing, (phenomenon, respectively), its own movement, its own life.
4) the internally contradictory tendencies (and sides) in this thing.
5) the thing (phenomenon, etc) as the sum andunity of opposites.
6) the struggle, respectively unfolding, of these opposites, contradictory strivings, etc.
7) the union of analysis and synthesis - the breakdown of the separate parts and the totality, the summation of these parts.
8) the relations of each thing (phenomenon, etc.) are not only manifold, but general, universal. Each thing (phenomenon, etc.) is connected with every other.
9) not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?].
10) the endless process of the discovery of new sides, relations, etc.
11) the endless process of the deepening of man's knowledge of the thing, of phenomena, processes, etc., from appearance to essence and from less profound to more profound essence.
12) from co-existence to causality and from one form of connection and reciprocal dependence to another, deeper, more general form.
13) the repetition at a higher stage of certain features, properties, etc., of the lower and
14) the apparent return to the old (negation of the negation).
15) the struggle of content with form and conversely. The throwing off of the form, the transformation of the content.
16) the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa (15 and 16 are examples of 9)
2) the entire totality of the manifold relations of this thing to others.
3) the development of this thing, (phenomenon, respectively), its own movement, its own life.
4) the internally contradictory tendencies (and sides) in this thing.
5) the thing (phenomenon, etc) as the sum andunity of opposites.
6) the struggle, respectively unfolding, of these opposites, contradictory strivings, etc.
7) the union of analysis and synthesis - the breakdown of the separate parts and the totality, the summation of these parts.
8) the relations of each thing (phenomenon, etc.) are not only manifold, but general, universal. Each thing (phenomenon, etc.) is connected with every other.
9) not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?].
10) the endless process of the discovery of new sides, relations, etc.
11) the endless process of the deepening of man's knowledge of the thing, of phenomena, processes, etc., from appearance to essence and from less profound to more profound essence.
12) from co-existence to causality and from one form of connection and reciprocal dependence to another, deeper, more general form.
13) the repetition at a higher stage of certain features, properties, etc., of the lower and
14) the apparent return to the old (negation of the negation).
15) the struggle of content with form and conversely. The throwing off of the form, the transformation of the content.
16) the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa (15 and 16 are examples of 9)
In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of
opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics, but it requires
explanations and development.
Questions on Dialectical Materialism
1) Why does the working class need a philosophy?
2) Is "common sense" a philosophy?
3) What is materialism?
4) What is idealism?
5) Is Darwin's theory of evolution correct?
6) What is meant by metaphysical?
7) How would you define dialectics?
8) What was wrong with the old materialism?
9) What is formal logic?
10) Does a pound of sugar equal a pound of sugar?
11) Why do workers sometimes accept major attacks on their terms and conditions, then strike over a tea break, washing up time or other "small" incident?
12) Does history repeat itself?
13) Was the First World War caused by the assassination of a Crown Prince in Sarajevo? What is the role of accident in history?
14) Can you be in one place and another at the same time?
15) What was Hegel's great contribution to philosophy?
16) What was the contribution of Marx and Engels to philosophy?
17) Why can it be said that nature is the proof of dialectics?
18) What is the relevance of dialectical materialism in understanding the future?
19) When did the universe begin?
20) Why are Marxists determinists?
2) Is "common sense" a philosophy?
3) What is materialism?
4) What is idealism?
5) Is Darwin's theory of evolution correct?
6) What is meant by metaphysical?
7) How would you define dialectics?
8) What was wrong with the old materialism?
9) What is formal logic?
10) Does a pound of sugar equal a pound of sugar?
11) Why do workers sometimes accept major attacks on their terms and conditions, then strike over a tea break, washing up time or other "small" incident?
12) Does history repeat itself?
13) Was the First World War caused by the assassination of a Crown Prince in Sarajevo? What is the role of accident in history?
14) Can you be in one place and another at the same time?
15) What was Hegel's great contribution to philosophy?
16) What was the contribution of Marx and Engels to philosophy?
17) Why can it be said that nature is the proof of dialectics?
18) What is the relevance of dialectical materialism in understanding the future?
19) When did the universe begin?
20) Why are Marxists determinists?
Suggested Reading List
The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Marx
Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German Philosophy, Engels
The German Ideology (Student edition), Marx and Engels
Anti-Duhring, Engels
Dialectics of Nature, Engels
Socialism Utopian and Scientific Engels
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (Collected Works, vol 17), Lenin
Philosophical Notebooks (Collected Works, volume 38), Lenin
On Marx and Engels, Lenin
The Three Sources and Component Parts of Marxism, Lenin
Introduction to the Logic of Marxism, Novack
Reason in Revolt, Woods and Grant
The Fundamental Problems of Marxism, Plekhanov
The Development of the Monist View of History, Plekhanov
In Defence of Marxism, Trotsky
Radio, Science, Technology and Society, Trotsky
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Marx
Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German Philosophy, Engels
The German Ideology (Student edition), Marx and Engels
Anti-Duhring, Engels
Dialectics of Nature, Engels
Socialism Utopian and Scientific Engels
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (Collected Works, vol 17), Lenin
Philosophical Notebooks (Collected Works, volume 38), Lenin
On Marx and Engels, Lenin
The Three Sources and Component Parts of Marxism, Lenin
Introduction to the Logic of Marxism, Novack
Reason in Revolt, Woods and Grant
The Fundamental Problems of Marxism, Plekhanov
The Development of the Monist View of History, Plekhanov
In Defence of Marxism, Trotsky
Radio, Science, Technology and Society, Trotsky
You can buy Marxist literature online from our
Wellred Books Online Bookshop
by Frederick Engels
Out
of the dissolution of the Hegelian school, however, there developed
still another tendency, the only one which has borne real fruit. And
this tendency is essentially connected with the name of Marx.
The
separation from Hegelian philosophy was here also the result of a
return to the materialist standpoint. That means it was resolved to
comprehend the real world - nature and history - just as it presents
itself to everyone who approaches it free from preconceived idealist
crotchets. It was decided mercilessly to sacrifice every idealist which
could not be brought into harmony with the facts conceived in their own
and not in a fantastic interconnection. And materialism means nothing
more than this. But here the materialistic world outlook was taken
really seriously for the first time and was carried through consistently
- at least in its basic features - in all domains of knowledge
concerned.
Hegel was not simply put
aside. On the contrary, a start was made from his revolutionary side,
described above, from the dialectical method. But in its Hegelian form,
this method was unusable. According to Hegel, dialectics is the
self-development of the concept. The absolute concept does not only
exist - unknown where - from eternity, it is also the actual living soul
of the whole existing world. It develops into itself through all the
preliminary stages which are treated at length in the Logic and which
are all included in it. Then it "alienates" itself by changing into
nature, where, unconscious of itself, disguised as a natural necessity,
it goes through a new development and finally returns as man's
consciousness of himself.
This self-consciousness then elaborates itself again in history in the crude form until finally the absolute concept again comes to itself completely in the Hegelian philosophy. According to Hegel, therefore, the dialectical development apparent in nature and history - that is, the causal interconnection of the progressive movement from the lower to the higher, which asserts itself through all zigzag movements and temporary retrogression - is only a copy [Abklatsch] of the self-movement of the concept going on from eternity, no one knows where, but at all events independently of any thinking human brain. This ideological perversion had to be done away with. We again took a materialistic view of the thoughts in our heads, regarding them as images [Abbilder] of real things instead of regarding real things as images of this or that stage of the absolute concept.
Thus dialectics reduced itself to the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought - two sets of laws which are identical in substance, but differ in their expression in so far as the human mind can apply them consciously, while in nature and also up to now for the most part in human history, these laws assert themselves unconsciously, in the form of external necessity, in the midst of an endless series of seeming accidents.
Thereby the dialectic of concepts itself became merely the conscious reflex of the dialectical motion of the real world and thus the dialectic of Hegel was turned over; or rather, turned off its head, on which it was standing, and placed upon its feet. And this materialist dialectic, which for years has been our best working tool and our sharpest weapon, was, remarkably enough, discovered not only by us but also, independently of us and even of Hegel, by a German worker, Joseph Dietzgen. (2)
This self-consciousness then elaborates itself again in history in the crude form until finally the absolute concept again comes to itself completely in the Hegelian philosophy. According to Hegel, therefore, the dialectical development apparent in nature and history - that is, the causal interconnection of the progressive movement from the lower to the higher, which asserts itself through all zigzag movements and temporary retrogression - is only a copy [Abklatsch] of the self-movement of the concept going on from eternity, no one knows where, but at all events independently of any thinking human brain. This ideological perversion had to be done away with. We again took a materialistic view of the thoughts in our heads, regarding them as images [Abbilder] of real things instead of regarding real things as images of this or that stage of the absolute concept.
Thus dialectics reduced itself to the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought - two sets of laws which are identical in substance, but differ in their expression in so far as the human mind can apply them consciously, while in nature and also up to now for the most part in human history, these laws assert themselves unconsciously, in the form of external necessity, in the midst of an endless series of seeming accidents.
Thereby the dialectic of concepts itself became merely the conscious reflex of the dialectical motion of the real world and thus the dialectic of Hegel was turned over; or rather, turned off its head, on which it was standing, and placed upon its feet. And this materialist dialectic, which for years has been our best working tool and our sharpest weapon, was, remarkably enough, discovered not only by us but also, independently of us and even of Hegel, by a German worker, Joseph Dietzgen. (2)
In
this way, however, the revolutionary side of Hegelian philosophy was
again taken up and at the same time freed from the idealist trimmings
which with Hegel had prevented its consistent execution.
The great basic thought that the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of readymade things, but as a complex of processes, in which the things apparently stable no less than their mind images in our heads, the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away, in which, in spite of all seeming accidentally and of all temporary retrogression, a progressive development asserts itself in the end - this great fundamental thought has, especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary consciousness that in this generality it is now scarcely ever contradicted. But to acknowledge this fundamental thought in words and to apply it in reality in detail to each domain of investigation are two different things.
If, however, investigation always proceeds from this standpoint, the demand for final solutions and eternal truths ceases once for all; one is always conscious of the necessary limitation of all acquired knowledge, of the fact that it is conditioned by the circumstances in which it was acquired. On the other hand, one no longer permits oneself to be imposed upon by the antithesis, insuperable for the still common old metaphysics, between true and false, good and bad, identical and different, necessary and accidental.
One knows that these antitheses have only a relative validity; that that which is recognized now as true has also its latent false side which will later manifest itself, just as that which is now regarded as false has also its true side by virtue of which it could previously be regarded as true. One knows that what is maintained to be necessary is composed of sheer accidents and that the so-called accidental is the form behind which necessity hides itself - and so on.
The great basic thought that the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of readymade things, but as a complex of processes, in which the things apparently stable no less than their mind images in our heads, the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away, in which, in spite of all seeming accidentally and of all temporary retrogression, a progressive development asserts itself in the end - this great fundamental thought has, especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary consciousness that in this generality it is now scarcely ever contradicted. But to acknowledge this fundamental thought in words and to apply it in reality in detail to each domain of investigation are two different things.
If, however, investigation always proceeds from this standpoint, the demand for final solutions and eternal truths ceases once for all; one is always conscious of the necessary limitation of all acquired knowledge, of the fact that it is conditioned by the circumstances in which it was acquired. On the other hand, one no longer permits oneself to be imposed upon by the antithesis, insuperable for the still common old metaphysics, between true and false, good and bad, identical and different, necessary and accidental.
One knows that these antitheses have only a relative validity; that that which is recognized now as true has also its latent false side which will later manifest itself, just as that which is now regarded as false has also its true side by virtue of which it could previously be regarded as true. One knows that what is maintained to be necessary is composed of sheer accidents and that the so-called accidental is the form behind which necessity hides itself - and so on.
The old method of
investigation and thought which Hegel calls "metaphysical", which
preferred to investigate things as given, as fixed and stable, a method
the relics of which still strongly haunt people's minds, had a great
deal of historical justification in its day. It was necessary first to
examine things before it was possible to examine processes. One had
first to know what a particular thing was before one could observe the
changes it was undergoing.
And such was the case with natural science. The old metaphysics, which accepted things as finished objects, arose from a natural science which investigated dead and living things as finished objects. But when this investigation had progressed so far that it became possible to take the decisive step forward, that is, to pass on the systematic investigation of the changes which these things undergo in nature itself, then the last hour of the old metaphysic struck in the realm of philosophy also.
And in fact, while natural science up to the end of the last century was predominantly a collecting science, a science of finished things, in our century it is essentially a systematizing science, a science of the processes, of the origin and development of these things and of the interconnection which binds all these natural processes into one great whole.
Physiology, which investigates the processes occurring in plant and animal organisms; embryology, which deals with the development of individual organisms from germs to maturity; geology, which investigates the gradual formation of the Earth's surface - all these are the offspring of our century.
And such was the case with natural science. The old metaphysics, which accepted things as finished objects, arose from a natural science which investigated dead and living things as finished objects. But when this investigation had progressed so far that it became possible to take the decisive step forward, that is, to pass on the systematic investigation of the changes which these things undergo in nature itself, then the last hour of the old metaphysic struck in the realm of philosophy also.
And in fact, while natural science up to the end of the last century was predominantly a collecting science, a science of finished things, in our century it is essentially a systematizing science, a science of the processes, of the origin and development of these things and of the interconnection which binds all these natural processes into one great whole.
Physiology, which investigates the processes occurring in plant and animal organisms; embryology, which deals with the development of individual organisms from germs to maturity; geology, which investigates the gradual formation of the Earth's surface - all these are the offspring of our century.
The Three Sources and Component Parts of Marxism (extract)
by Lenin
The
philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the recent history of
Europe, and particularly at the end of the eighteenth century in France,
which was the scene of the decisive battle against every kind of
medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism
proved to be the only consistent philosophy, true to all the teachings
of natural science, hostile to superstitions, cant, etc. The enemies of
democracy tried, therefore, with all their energy, to "overthrow,"
undermine and defame materialism, and defended various forms of
philosophic idealism, which always leads, in one way or another, to the
defence and support of religion.
Marx
and Engels always defended philosophic materialism in the most
determined manner, and repeatedly explained the profound error of every
deviation from this basis. Their views are more dearly and fully
expounded in the works of Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and Anti-Duhring,
which, like the Communist Manifesto, are household books for every
conscious worker.
However, Marx did
not stop at the materialism of the eighteenth century but moved
philosophy forward. He enriched it by the achievements of German
classical philosophy especially by Hegel's system, which in its turn had
led to the materialism of Feuerbach. Of these the main achievement is
dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fuller, deeper
form, free from one-sidedness-the doctrine, also, of the relativity of
human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally
developing matter. The latest discoveries of natural science-radium,
electrons, the transmutation of elements-are a remarkable confirmation
of the dialectical materialism of Marx, despite the doctrines of
bourgeois philosophers with their "new" returns to old and rotten
idealism.
While deepening and
developing philosophic materialism, Marx carried it to its conclusion;
he extended its perception of nature to the perception of human society.
The historical materialism of Marx represented the greatest conquest of
scientific thought.
Chaos and
arbitrariness, which reigned until then in the views on history and
politics, were replaced by a strikingly consistent and harmonious
scientific theory, which shows how out of one order of social life
another and higher order develops, in consequence of the growth of the
productive forces - how capitalism, for instance, grows out of serfdom.
Just
as the cognition of man reflects nature (i.e., developing matter) which
exists independently of him, so also the social cognition of man (i.e.,
the various views and doctrines-philosophic, religious, political,
etc.) reflects the economic order of society. Political institutions are
a superstructure on the economic foundation. We see, for example, that
the various political forms of modern European states serve the purpose
of strengthening the domination of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat.
The
philosophy of Marx completes in itself philosophic materialism which
has provided humanity, and especially the working class, with a powerful
instrument of knowledge.
Lenin's Collected Works
Volume 38, p359:
On the Question of Dialectics
The
splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory
parts is the essence (one of the "essentials", one of the principal, if
not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics. That is
precisely how Hegel, too, puts the matter.
The
correctness of this aspect of the content of dialectics must be tested
by the history of science. This aspect of dialectics (e.g. in Plekhanov)
usually receives inadequate attention: the identity of opposites is
taken as the sum-total of examples ("for example, a seed", "for example,
primitive communism". The same is true of Engels. But it is "in the
interests of popularisation ...") and not as a law of cognition (and as a
law of the objective world.)
In mathematics: + and -, differential and integral,
In mechanics: action and reaction,
In physics: positive and negative electricity,
In chemistry: the combination and dissociation of atoms,
In social science: the class struggle.
The
identity of opposites (it would be more correct, perhaps, to say their
"unity", - although the difference between the terms identity and unity
is not particularly important here. In a certain sense both are correct)
is the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually
exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature
(including mind and society).
The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their "self-movement", in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the "struggle" of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? Or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation)! .
The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their "self-movement", in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the "struggle" of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? Or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation)! .
In
the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its
source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made
external - God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief
attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of
"self"-movement.
The first
conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second
alone furnishes the key to the "self-movement" of everything existing;
it alone furnishes the key to "leaps", to the "break in continuity," to
the transformation into the opposite", to the destruction of the old and
the emergence of the new.
The unity
(coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is conditional,
temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive
opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute.
NB:
The distinction between subjectivism (scepticism, sophistry, etc.) and
dialectics, incidentally, is that in (objective) dialectics the
difference between the relative and the absolute is itself relative. For
objective dialectics there is an absolute within the relative. For
subjectivism and sophistry the relative is only relative and excludes
the absolute.
In his Capital, Marx
first analyses the simplest, most ordinary and fundamental, most common
and everyday relation of bourgeois (commodity) society, a relation
encountered billions of times, viz., the exchange of commodities. In
this very simple phenomenon (in this "cell" of bourgeois society)
analysis reveals all the contradictions (or the germs of all
contradictions) of modern society. The subsequent exposition shows us
the development (both growth and movement) of these contradictions and
of this society in the Sum of its individual parts. From its beginning
to its end.
Such must also be the
method of exposition (or study) of dialectics in general (for with Marx
the dialectics of bourgeois society is only a particular case of
dialectics). To begin with what is the simplest, most ordinary, common,
etc., with any proposition: the leaves of a tree are green; John is a
man: Fido is a dog, etc. Here already we have dialectics (as Hegel's
genius recognised); the individual is the universal.
Consequently,
the opposites (the individual is opposed to the universal) are
identical: the individual exists only in the connection that leads to
the universal. The universal exists only in the individual and through
the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another) a universal.
Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the essence of) an
individual. Every universal only approximately embraces all the
individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into the
universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of
transitions with other kinds of individuals (things, phenomena,
processes) etc.
Here already we have the elements, the germs, the concepts of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say: John is a man, Fido is a dog, this is a leaf of a tree, etc., we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other.
Here already we have the elements, the germs, the concepts of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say: John is a man, Fido is a dog, this is a leaf of a tree, etc., we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other.
Thus in any proposition we
can (and must) disclose as in a "nucleus" (:cell") the germs of all the
elements of dialectics, and thereby show that dialectics is a property
of all human knowledge in general.
And
natural science shows us (and here again it must be demonstrated in any
simple instance) objective nature with the same qualities, the
transformation of the individual into the universal, of the contingent
into the necessary, transitions, modulations, and the reciprocal
connection of opposites. Dialectics is the theory of knowledge of (Hegel
and) Marxism. This is the "aspect" of the matter (it is not "an aspect"
but the essence of the matter) to which Plekhanov, not to speak of
other Marxists, paid no attention.
Knowledge
is represented in the form of a series of circles both by Hegel (see
Logic) and by the modern epistemologists" of natural science, the
eclectic and foe of Hegelianism (which he did not understand!!), Paul
Volkmann.
"Circles" in philosophy: [is a chronology of persons - essential? No!
Ancient: from Democritus to Plato and the dialectics of Heraclitus.
Renaissance: Descartes versus Gassendi (Spinoza?)
Modern: Holbach-Hegel (via Berkeley, Hume, Kant).
Hegel - Feuerbach - Marx
Dialectics
as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally
increasing), with an infinite number of shades of every approach and
approximation to reality (with a philosophical system growing into a
whole out of each shade) - here we have an immeasurably rich content as
compared with metaphysical materialism, the fundamental misfortune of
which is its inability to apply dialectics to the theory of reflection,
to the process and development of knowledge.
Philosophical
idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple,
metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical
materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided,
exaggerated, development (inflation, distension) of one of the features,
aspects, facets of knowledge, into an absolute, divorced from matter,
from nature, apotheosised. Idealism is clerical obscurantism. True. But
philosophical idealism is ("more correctly" and "in addition") a road to
clerical obscurantism through one of the shades of the infinitely
complex knowledge (dialectical) of man.
Human
knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curve,
which endlessly approximates a series of circles, a spiral. Any
fragment, segment, section of this curve can be transformed (transformed
one-sidedly) into an independent, complete, straight line, which then
(if one does not see the wood for the trees) leads into the quagmire,
into clerical obscurantism (where it is anchored by the class interests
of the ruling classes).
Rectilinearity and one-sidedness, woodenness and petrification, subjectivism and subjective blindness - voila the epistemological roots of idealism. And clerical obscurantism (= philosophical idealism), of course, has epistemological roots, it is not groundless; it is a sterile flower undoubtedly, but a sterile flower that grows on the living tree of living, fertile, genuine, powerful, omnipotent, objective, absolute human knowledge.
Rectilinearity and one-sidedness, woodenness and petrification, subjectivism and subjective blindness - voila the epistemological roots of idealism. And clerical obscurantism (= philosophical idealism), of course, has epistemological roots, it is not groundless; it is a sterile flower undoubtedly, but a sterile flower that grows on the living tree of living, fertile, genuine, powerful, omnipotent, objective, absolute human knowledge.
VOLUME 38, pp 221 - 222
Summary of Dialectics
by Lenin
1) The determination of the concept out of itself [the thing itself must be considered in its relations and in its development];
2) the contradictory nature of the thing itself (the other of itself), the contradictory forces and tendencies in each phenomenon;
3) the union of analysis and synthesis.
2) the contradictory nature of the thing itself (the other of itself), the contradictory forces and tendencies in each phenomenon;
3) the union of analysis and synthesis.
Such apparently are the elements of dialectics.
One could perhaps present these elements in greater detail as follows:
1) the objectivity of consideration (not examples, not divergencies, but the Thing-in-itself).
2) the entire totality of the manifold relations of this thing to others.
3) the development of this thing, (phenomenon, respectively), its own movement, its own life.
4) the internally contradictory tendencies (and sides) in this thing.
5) the thing (phenomenon, etc) as the sum andunity of opposites.
6) the struggle, respectively unfolding, of these opposites, contradictory strivings, etc.
7) the union of analysis and synthesis - the breakdown of the separate parts and the totality, the summation of these parts.
8) the relations of each thing (phenomenon, etc.) are not only manifold, but general, universal. Each thing (phenomenon, etc.) is connected with every other.
9) not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?].
10) the endless process of the discovery of new sides, relations, etc.
11) the endless process of the deepening of man's knowledge of the thing, of phenomena, processes, etc., from appearance to essence and from less profound to more profound essence.
12) from co-existence to causality and from one form of connection and reciprocal dependence to another, deeper, more general form.
13) the repetition at a higher stage of certain features, properties, etc., of the lower and
14) the apparent return to the old (negation of the negation).
15) the struggle of content with form and conversely. The throwing off of the form, the transformation of the content.
16) the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa (15 and 16 are examples of 9)
2) the entire totality of the manifold relations of this thing to others.
3) the development of this thing, (phenomenon, respectively), its own movement, its own life.
4) the internally contradictory tendencies (and sides) in this thing.
5) the thing (phenomenon, etc) as the sum andunity of opposites.
6) the struggle, respectively unfolding, of these opposites, contradictory strivings, etc.
7) the union of analysis and synthesis - the breakdown of the separate parts and the totality, the summation of these parts.
8) the relations of each thing (phenomenon, etc.) are not only manifold, but general, universal. Each thing (phenomenon, etc.) is connected with every other.
9) not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?].
10) the endless process of the discovery of new sides, relations, etc.
11) the endless process of the deepening of man's knowledge of the thing, of phenomena, processes, etc., from appearance to essence and from less profound to more profound essence.
12) from co-existence to causality and from one form of connection and reciprocal dependence to another, deeper, more general form.
13) the repetition at a higher stage of certain features, properties, etc., of the lower and
14) the apparent return to the old (negation of the negation).
15) the struggle of content with form and conversely. The throwing off of the form, the transformation of the content.
16) the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa (15 and 16 are examples of 9)
In
brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of
opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics, but it requires
explanations and development.
What is historical materialism? - A study guide with questions, extracts and suggested reading
Written by Mick Brooks
Thursday, 14 November 2002
We
are publishing our second study guide on historical materialism.
Historical Materialism is the application of Marxist science to
historical development. The fundamental proposition of historical
materialism can be summed up in a sentence: “it is not the consciousness
of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their
social existence that determines their consciousness.” (Marx, in the
Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.)
Marxism, or Scientific Socialism, is the name given to the body of ideas first worked out by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). In their totality, these ideas provide a fully worked-out theoretical basis for the struggle of the working class to attain a higher form of human society - socialism.
The study of Marxism falls under three main headings, corresponding broadly to philosophy, social history and economics - Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics. These are the famous “Three component parts of Marxism” of which Lenin wrote.
The Education for Socialists series was launched to promote the study of Marxism. They are intended to assist the student of Marxism by providing an introduction to the subject matter, with suitable Marxist texts that we hope will whet their appetite for further reading and study. In the second of these Education for Socialists study guides, we provide a selection of material on Historical Materialism. The remaining “component part”, as well as other fundamental questions, will be dealt with in future issues. The guides are suitable for individual study or as the basis of a Marxist discussion group.
In this study of Historical Materialism the editors are publishing an introductory article by Mick Brooks. While this is a good beginning to the subject, there is no substitute for proceeding from there to tackle the historical works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Plekhanov and others. Marx and Engels wrote extensively about Historical Materialism from the German Ideology onwards. The Communist Manifesto is a masterpiece in this regard.
The newer reader should not be put off by the sometimes difficult and abstract ideas expressed in these writings. Whatever the initial difficulty, a certain perseverance will pay just rewards. Marxism is a science with its own terminology, and therefore makes heavy demands upon the beginner. However, every serious worker and student knows that nothing is worthwhile if attained without a degree of struggle and sacrifice.
The theories of Marxism provide the thinking worker with a comprehensive understanding. It is the duty of every worker and student to conquer for himself or herself the theories of Marx and Engels, as an essential prerequisite for the conquest of society by working people.
We recognise that there are real obstacles in the path of the worker's struggle for theory. A man or woman who is obliged to toil long hours in work, who has not had the benefit of a decent education and consequently lacks the habit of reading, finds great difficulty in absorbing some of the more complex ideas, especially at the outset. Yet it was for workers that Marx and Engels wrote, and not for “clever” academics. “Every beginning is difficult” no matter what science we are talking about. To the class conscious worker who is prepared to persevere, one promise can be made: once the initial effort is made to come to grips with unfamiliar and new ideas, the theories of Marxism will be found to be basically straight-forward and simple.
Once the basic concepts of Marxism are conquered, they open up a whole new outlook on politics, the class struggle, and every aspect of life.
As a further introduction to Historical Materialism, we are also republishing the preface to Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution, an extract from Engels' Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German Philosophy, his introduction to the Dialectics of Nature, and an extract from Marx's Preface to A Contribution of Political Economy.
For further study, we recommend The German Ideology by Marx and Engels, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte by Marx and The History of the Russian Revolution by Trotsky.
Those who wish to go into greater depth should try reading Karl Kautsky's Foundations of Christianity, Plekhanov's The Materialist Conception of History and his Role of the Individual in History. In addition, Plekhanov's The Fundamental Problems of Marxism is highly recommended, as is other material in the suggested reading at the end of this study guide.
The editors, November 2002
What does this mean? Readers of the Daily Mirror will be familiar with the “Perishers” cartoon strip. In one incident the old dog, Wellington wanders down to a pool full of crabs. The crabs speculate about the mysterious divinity, the “eyeballs in the sky,” which appears to them.
The point is, that is actually how you would look at things if your universe were a pond. Your consciousness is determined by your being. Thought is limited by the range of experience of the species.
We know very little about how primitive people thought, but we know what they couldn't have been thinking about. They wouldn't have wandered about wondering what the football results were, for instance. League football presupposes big towns able to get crowds large enough to pay professional footballers and the rest of the club staff. Industrial towns in their turn can only emerge when the productivity of labour has developed to the point where a part of society can be fed by the rest, and devote themselves to producing other requirements than food.
In other words, an extensive division of labour must exist. The other side of this is that people must be accustomed to working for money and buying the things they want from others - including tickets to the football - which, of course, was not the case in primitive society.
So this simple example shows how even things like professional football are dependent on the way society makes its daily bread, on people's “social existence”.
After all, what is mankind? The great idealist philosopher Hegel said that “man, is a thinking being.” Actually Hegel's view was a slightly more sophisticated form of the usual religious view that man is endowed by his Creator with a brain to admire His handiwork. It is true that thinking is one way we are different from dung beetles, sticklebacks and lizards. But why did humans develop the capacity to think?
Over a hundred years ago, Engels pointed out that upright posture marked the transition from ape to man, a completely materialist explanation. This view has been confirmed by the more recent researches of anthropologists such as Leakey. Upright posture liberated the hands for gripping with an opposable thumb. This enabled tools to be used and developed.
Upright posture also allowed early humans to rely more on the eyes, rather than the other senses, for sensing the world around. The use of the hands developed the powers of the brain through the medium of the eyes.
Engels was a dialectical materialist. In no way did he minimise the importance of thought - rather he explained how it arose. We can also see that Benjamin Franklin, the eighteenth-century US politician and inventor, was much nearer a materialist approach than Hegel when he defined man as a “tool-making animal.”
Darwin showed a hundred years ago that there is a struggle for existence, and species survive through natural selection. At first sight early humans didn't have a lot going for them, compared with the speed of the cheetah, the strength of the lion, or the sheer intimidating bulk of the elephant. Yet humans came to dominate the planet and, more recently, to drive many of these more fearsome animals to the point of extinction.\
What differentiates humanity from the lower animals is that, however self-reliant animals such as lions may seem, they ultimately just take external nature around them for granted, whereas, mankind progressively masters nature.
The process whereby mankind masters nature is labour. At Marx's grave, Engels stated that his friend's great discovery was that “mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, and therefore work before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion etc.”
While we can't read the minds of our primitive human ancestors, we can make a pretty good guess about what they were thinking most of the time - food. The struggle against want has dominated history ever since.
Marxists are often accused of being 'economic determinists'. Actually, Marxists are far from denying the importance of ideas or the active role of individuals in history. But precisely because we are active, we understand the limits of individual activity, and the fact that the appropriate social conditions must exist before our ideas and our activity can be effective.
Our academic opponents are generally passive cynics who exalt individual activity amid the port and walnuts from over-stuffed armchairs. We understand, with Marx that people “make their own history...but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past”. We need to understand how society is developing in order to intervene in the process. That is what we mean when we say Marxism is the science of perspectives.
We have seen that labour distinguishes mankind from the other animals - that mankind progressively changes nature through labour, and in doing so changes itself. It follows that there is a real measure of progress through all the miseries and pitfalls of human history - the increasing ability of men and women to master nature and subjugate it to their own requirements: in other words, the increasing productivity of labour.
To each stage in the development of the productive forces corresponds a certain set of production relations. Production relation means the way people organise themselves to gain their daily bread. Production relations are thus the skeleton of every form of society. They provide the conditions of social existence that determine human consciousness.
Marx explained how the development of the productive forces brings into existence different production relations, and different forms of class society.
By a 'class' we mean a group of people in society with the same relationship to the means of production. The class which owns and controls the means of production rules society. This, at the same time, enables it to force the oppressed or labouring class to toil in the rulers' interests. The labouring class is forced to produce a surplus which the ruling class lives off.
Marx explained:
Nor did many of the other features of modern society we so much take for granted exist. What socialist has not heard the argument “People are bound to be greedy and grabbing. You can't get socialism because you can't change human nature?” In fact, society divided into classes has existed for no more than about 10,000 years-one hundredth of the time mankind has been on this planet. For the other 99% of the time there was no class society, that is, no enforced inequalities, no state, and no family in the modern sense.
This was not because primitive people were unaccountably more noble than us, but because production relations produced a different sort of society, and so a different 'human nature'. Being determines consciousness, and if people's social being changes - if the society they live under changes - then their consciousness will also change.
The basis of primitive society was gathering and hunting. The only division of labour was that between men and women for the entirely natural biological reason that women were burdened much of the time with young children. They gathered vegetable foods while the men hunted.
Thus each sex played an important part in production. On the basis of studying tribes such as the !Kung in the Kalahari desert, who still live under primitive communist conditions, it has been estimated that the female contribution to the food supply may well have been more important than the male's. Women were held in high esteem in such societies. They contributed at least equally to the wealth of the tribe. They developed separate skills - it seems women invented pottery and even made the crucial breakthrough to agriculture
All these tribal societies had features in common. The hunting grounds were regarded as the common property of the tribe. How could they be anything else when hunting itself is a collective activity? The very insecurity of existence leads to sharing. It's no good hiding a dead hippo from your mates--you won't be able to eat it before it rots anyway, and there may well come a time when other tribe members have a superfluity while you're in distress. It's common sense to share and share alike.
Private property did exist in personal implements, but in the most different tribal societies there existed similar rules to burn or bury these with the body of the owner, in order to prevent the accumulation of inequality.
No such institution as the state was necessary, for there were no fundamental antagonistic class interests tearing society apart. Individual disputes could be sorted out within the tribe. Old men with experience certainly played leading parts in the decision-making of the tribe. They were chiefs, however, and not kings--their authority was deserved or it did not exist. As late as the third century AD (when it was ceasing to be true) Athanaric, leader of the German tribe, the Visigoths, said: “I have authority, not power”.
Society developed because it had to. Beginning in tropical Africa, as population grew to cover more inhospitable parts of the globe, people had to use their power of thought and labour to develop - or die. From gathering fruit, nuts, etc., it was a step forward to cultivating the land - actually ensuring that vegetable food was to hand. From hunting it was a step to husbandry, penning in the animals. Tribal society remained the norm.
Under primitive communism there had been simply no basis for an idle class. There was no point in enslaving someone else, since they could only provide for their own needs. Now the possibility arose for idleness for some, but mankind could still not provide enough for everyone to lead such a life. On this basis, class societies arose - societies divided between possessing and labouring classes.
The main issue in the class struggle down the ages has been the struggle over the surplus produced by the toilers. The way this surplus was appropriated - grabbed - depended on the different mode of production inaugurated by agriculture. This change provided the base for the complete transformation of social life.
Agriculture, unlike hunting, could be more an individual activity. By working harder you could get more and, when everyone lived on the margin of survival, that was important. Moreover, the agricultural revolution - involving the use of draught animals in ploughing, etc., mainly handled by men - relegated women to the home, working up materials provided by the man. It was the lack of a direct role in production that led to the 'world-historic defeat of the female sex'.
Men wanted to pass on their unequal property to a male heir. In primitive communist society descent had been traced through the female line (inheritance had been unimportant). Now inheritance began to be traced through the male line.
We do not know exactly how class society came into being, but we can piece together the story from bits of evidence available to us. We call this process a revolution, and so it was in the profoundest sense of the word.
But we must remember that transitional forms between the different types of society were in existence for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years before the new type definitively replaced the old. Human progress did not proceed evenly but according to the law of combined and uneven development.
We have spoken of agriculture as being the breakthrough to a society where a surplus could be produced. In fact the raising of the productivity of labour made possible by agriculture allowed a more extensive division of labour - people could turn their hands to producing other things. So the agricultural revolution brought in its train associated revolutions in technique (such as in pottery and metal-working) and in the whole social structure.
Trade developed from ritual gifts between tribes. What was the measure of the value of a gift? As soon as people could form some conception of how long it took to produce the gifts they got, they would attempt to outdo the donors in generosity by giving the product of more labour in return.
As trade became more regular, the need naturally arose for a universal equivalent - something which could readily be exchanged in trade and which would be accepted generally as a measure of value. At first this need was met by cattle. (The Latin pecunia meaning 'money' is derived from pecus meaning cattle) Later this need was fulfilled more conveniently by ingots of metal, in which there was a burgeoning trade, and which were stamped by the monarchs as a guarantee of weight.
In both Egypt and Mesopotamia the ruling class seems to have sprung from the elevation of a stratum of priests, above the rest of society. This is because the priests had the leisure to develop a calendar, allowing them to foretell the coming of the Nile floods, and arithmetic to develop the centrally planned irrigation works which first produced a massive surplus. The interest of Egyptian priests in maths and astronomy was thus not accidental, but rooted in the requirements of production.
Because of the requirements of planned irrigation, as Marx explains: “The communal conditions for real appropriation through labour, such as irrigation systems (very important among the Asian peoples), means of communication, etc., will then appear as the work of the superior entity - the despotic government which is poised above the small communities.”
The Asiatic state, which was not accountable in any way to the village communities, will feel entitled to appropriate the surplus as a tribute. This tribute is exacted through state ownership of the land: “...the integrating entity which stands above all these small communities may appear as the superior or sole proprietor, and the real communities therefore only as hereditary possessors.'”
The villages were largely self-sufficient, rendering tribute to the Asiatic despotism in order for the “general conditions of production'” (irrigation, etc.) to be maintained. Handicrafts and agriculture were combined within each village. The dispersed villages were unable to organise effectively against their exploitation, so the whole system was very resistant to change.
This is what Marx and Engels meant when they said that such societies were “outside history'”. India, for instance, was invaded by one set of conquerors after another, but none of these political changes reached beneath the surface.
It was only after thousands of years, when British capitalism conquered India and strove to introduce private property in land in order to destroy the unity of native agriculture and handicrafts, and develop the preconditions for capitalism, that the Asiatic mode of production was finally destroyed. The result was the decline of the irrigation systems and a series of horrible famines throughout the nineteenth century.
The Asiatic mode of production saw the first development of class society, though retaining certain features of primitive communism, such as collective tilling of the soil. It raised production to a higher level than it had ever been before, and then stagnated.
Thus, in vast areas of the globe, there arose a form of society completely different from anything seen in Western Europe. Slavery was known, but it was not the dominant mode of production. In contrast with western feudalism, the surplus was extorted by the central state rather than by landlords.
Once civilisation was established and maintained, it was bound to radiate its effects all around it, whether through war or trade. Egypt was always dependent on outside areas for trade, thus stimulating the advance of civilisation in Crete and thereby giving an enormous impetus to the trading communities on the Greek coast to develop. Here civilisation found relations of production - private land-ownership providing an unlimited spur to private enrichment - which could take humanity forward again.
At first the poor citizens ('plebeians' as they were called in Rome) were blocked from all political rights. Their struggle was political - to gain a say in the decision making of the state. In Athens, a predominantly trading centre with a higher concentration of merchants and artisans, the small people were eventually able to win full democratic rights. Poor men were paid for public service, and over 5,000 citizens regularly met in the assembly to discuss policy.
But Athenian democracy - democracy for the citizens - had as its foundation the exploitation of a class of non-citizens: slaves who were without political rights. Athenian democracy was in fact a mechanism for enforcing the interests of the ruling class over the exploited slave class - and for defending the interests of the ruling class in war.
The polis was an institution geared up for permanent war. The power of the city state was based on independent peasants capable of arming themselves ('hoplites'). The victory of democracy was inevitable in Athens after the poor citizens won the naval battle of Salamis against the Persians for the city. Though too poor to arm themselves, they provided the rowers for the Athenian navy. A precarious unity of interests was established between rich and poor citizens through expansion outwards and the conquest of slaves.
By comparison with later Roman slave society the Greek slave mode of production was relatively “democratic” - as far as the citizens were concerned. Even poor citizens could own a slave to help around the farm or workshop, or lease them out to work on slave gangs.
Slavery itself was only possible because labour was now capable of yielding a surplus. That surplus was appropriated by a ruling class who owned the means of production - in this case the slaves themselves. The state was the state of the ruling class. The whole structure of society was based upon slave labour - all the miracles of art, culture and philosophy were only possible because an exploited class laboured so slave-holders could have leisure.
Slave society had its own dynamic. Its success depended upon the continual appropriation of more slaves, more unpaid labour.
The difference with Greece was that the Roman patricians hung on to power, despite the concessions wrung from them, and monopolised the benefits of this influx. They linked slave labour to the exploitation of the great farms (latifundia). In so doing they inevitably undercut the plebians who, organised in legions, provided the basis for Roman military greatness.
The dispossessed legionaires could come back after twenty years of military service to find their farms choked with weeds. Inevitably they were ruined and drifted into the town to form a rootless, propertyless proletariat. But as the nineteenth century anti-capitalist social critic Sismondi said, “whereas the Roman proletariat lived at the expense of society, modern society lives at the expense of the proletariat”.
In Rome the Gracchus brothers led a last desperate struggle to save the independent plebeians. Both were cut down by the bought mob of the patricians.
The tragedy of Roman society was that the class struggle was three-cornered. The poor freemen had their quarrel with the great slave-holders, but the only pathetic bit of dignity they had to hang on to was that they were free, and thus they always made common cause with their oppressors in the army of the polis in conquering lands for slaves and holding down slave rebellions.
The slaves for their part lived in a world where slavery was universal, and so dreamed for the most part of “'enslaving the slave-holders”, not creating a world without slaves.
Slavery was beginning to die out, not because of humanitarian ideas supposedly introduced by Christianity, but because it simply did not pay. The only way slave production could take society forward was through the conquest of enormous numbers of slaves who could be worked to death in a few years and replaced.
These conquests had been made possible by the Roman legions of armed plebeians. But the plebeians had been destroyed by the very success of big slave-worked farms.
By this time the Romans could only find barbarian mercenaries to man their armies. Thus Rome was defended from the barbarians by barbarians! Clearly the empire was living on borrowed time.
Slavery was still important, particularly in domestic service to the rich, but it gradually ceased to be the dominant mode of production. As production and trade shrank, it became clear to the landlords that it was pointless feeding men to work on the fields all the year round when, because of the natural rhythms of agricultural work, they were idle half the time. Much better to get them to fend for themselves in periods of slack!
Former slaves were rented plots of land from which they had to pay a regular part of their produce to the landlord as well as wrench a subsistence for their family. In time, because of the natural tendency for peasants to get into debt in times of bad harvest, they were bound to the soil in a serf-like condition. This is called the period of the “colonate”.
Eventually the Western Empire was overthrown, not because the barbarians had become more aggressive and threatening, but because of the inner rottenness of the empire. We have seen that the productive forces were already in decline; and in the colonate some of the tendencies, that were to come to fruition under feudalism, were in the process of coming into existence.
The whole structure relied on the unpaid labour of the peasants working on the lords' land. Unlike slaves, they were not the property of the lord. Feudalism developed untidily. Some in the village were in possession of very little land and either existed still as slaves or as household servants working on the lord's land. Freer peasants had land to till and had to pay a rent in kind. Others had an intermediate status, working small plots to gain their own subsistence and forced to pay labour services the rest of the time, on the lord's land.
Exploitation under feudalism is clear and unveiled. The peasants pay services in money, labour or produce to the lords. Everyone can see what is going on. If the lord is in a position to force the peasant to work four days instead of three on his land, then it is clear to both parties that the rate of exploitation has been increased.
Under slavery, on the contrary, even the part of the working week which the slave has to work to gain his own subsistence seems to be unpaid. He therefore seems to work for nothing. Under capitalism, the wage worker is paid a sum of money which is presented as being the value of his labour. All labour seems to be paid.
In all three systems the producer is exploited: but the particular form of exploitation ultimately determined the whole structure of society.
Under feudalism the 'bodies of armed men' which comprised the state were mainly drawn from the ruling class, who had a monopoly of armed might. So political and economic power were in the same hands. Justice in the village was largely in the hands of the lords' manorial courts. The feudal lord and his men-at-arms were police, judge, and executioners all rolled into one.
Looking back, we tend to regard feudalism as a static system. But, compared with slavery, feudalism provided a limited incentive for the producer to expand production for his own advantage. Sometimes the lord took the lead in developing agriculture, sometimes the peasants. This depended on the class struggle. Whether the incentive to produce more came from the lord's desire for more revenue for luxuries, or from the ambition of the peasants to set themselves up in business as independent farmers, production crept up.
But feudalism, like slavery before it imposed limits on the development of productivity. From generation to generation agricultural productivity was largely stagnant. The easiest way for the feudal lords to gain more wealth was to exploit more people. There was therefore a perpetual impulse to warfare, the net effect of which was to waste and destroy the productive forces.
Medieval cities were centres of trade and handicrafts. As productivity developed, trade necessarily grew. Artisans, who had been attached to aristocratic households and monasteries in the dark ages, gathered together to trade with the rural areas in goods that could be produced quicker and therefore cheaper, or could only be produced by skilled specialists.
These towns represented a new principle. Unlike the universal relations of dominance and subservience of feudalism, they were free associations of trading people, producing what one representative of the feudal lords called that “new and detestable name”, the commune. Within the towns production and trade was organised in guilds, divided on craft lines. These attempted to regulate production, price and quality.
As the productivity of labour grew, so did trade, and production for the market, commodity production, and a money economy. Increasingly, grain crops were produced for sale to feed the towns. A stratum of peasants grew rich at their fellows' expense, and aspired to become land-owning farmers producing for a market.
Serfdom had largely died out in England by the end of the fourteenth century, but bondage to the soil was replaced by short-term leases and an increasing stream of poor peasants being pushed out altogether and forced into vagabondage (roaming the land in search of a living). By the seventeenth century, it was reckoned that up to quarter of the population was without any means of livelihood other than begging. Progress, as ever, was achieved at the expense of the common people.
A constant, unremitting struggle took place between landlords and peasants. Occasionally this spilt over into revolutionary strife. The Peasants' Revolt of 1381 was the most notable such occasion in England.
After the Black Death, the peasants were in a strong position because of the shortage of labour. The landlords attempted to recoup their losses by enforcing traditional obligations all the harder. This produced a social explosion.
The revolt failed at bottom because the peasantry were a scattered class divided against themselves. King Richard II urged them to “go back to their haymaking”, and he hit them on their weak point. It was impossible to maintain the peasantry in a permanent state of mobilisation. Production had developed to a point where only a minority of the population could be maintained as fighting men, while the majority had to work on the land.
We have seen that the feudal peasantry was attached to the land. This guaranteed them a modest subsistence except in times of famine.
Nobody will work for money, with all the insecurity that entails, unless they have to. That is why the imperialists in Africa introduced money poll taxes and, in the case of South Africa drove the Africans on to barren reserves, to force them to provide a supply of wage labour. That is why a monopoly of land in the hands of private owners is a condition for the development of capitalism.
The main lever of dispossession of the peasantry in England was the passing of private Acts of Parliament through a parliament of landlords, called Acts of Enclosure. This was simply legalised robbery. It came at a time when the wool trade was expanding, and the landlords wanted more land in order to graze flocks of sheep. Land formerly occupied by perhaps five hundred people was decreed to be the squire's land, and a couple of shepherds took the villagers' place.
Brutal as this process was, it advanced production on the land by doing away with the old inefficient strip system and laying the basis for rational agriculture. Later, the advantages of the industrial revolution - modern machinery - could be applied to these big farms.
The other pole of the process of primitive accumulation was the accumulation of money. The first forms of capital, before industrial capital transformed production, were merchant capital and money-lending capital.
The 'discovery' of America by Spanish plunderers shifted the axis of world trade. Huge fortunes were made in the 'New World'.
At the end of the middle ages absolutist monarchs like the Tudors in England sprang up in most of the West European countries. These monarchies balanced between the old landed ruling class and the up-and-coming capitalists. To start with they took society forward by forming strong, stable nation-states within which trade, and hence capitalism, could develop. They defended the interests of merchants abroad in wars of conquest for colonies.
\
Yet, at bottom, they were out for themselves, and could only flourish because of a deadlock in the class struggle between the capitalists and the landowners. As capitalism developed further, the rising capitalist class conceived ambitions for political power to match their growing economic power. Bourgeois revolutions aimed against the reigning absolute monarchs would become necessary for capitalism to consolidate its rule.
Merchants began to turn their attention to the peasants half-employed on tiny plots of land. They began to 'put out' weaving to these households. The peasantry became more and more dependent on their weaving income. The merchants were able to move from just supplying raw materials and supplying sales outlets, to possession of the peasants, looms and even their cottages. Through their control over outlets they held the whip hand. This was another important process whereby the feudal peasantry was reduced to proletarian status.
Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, handicraft workshops were set up. It was found that the job could be broken down into simple processes. Adam Smith begins his Wealth of Nations by explaining the division of labour in making pins, through which an enormous amount of pins could be cheaply produced compared with the old skilled processes.
More than that, the breaking down of the job into simple repetitive tasks provided the possibility of replacing manual labour with machines. Starting by taking production as it found it, capitalism was beginning to revolutionise the instruments of production.
Capitalism could not move straight into domination of the world economy without hindrance. The newly awakened productive forces were in revolt at the old relations of production. These had to be overcome and new production relations installed which corresponded to the stage of development of the productive forces.
This was the task of the bourgeois revolutions. The English Revolution of the 1640s, the American Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789-94 were the decisive struggles that laid the foundations for the domination of capitalism on a world scale.
What precisely were the tasks of these bourgeois revolutions? Though feudalism was no longer dominant, the landed interest remained a fetter on commodity production.
Though in England the land-owning gentry switched to production for the market, in France up till 1789 the aristocracy guzzled a large part of the surplus in rents, and used their privileged position to impose all kinds of tolls on the free movement of goods.
This raised prices for everyone and enabled the bourgeoisie, in opposing the aristocracy, to claim to represent the interests of the nation as a whole. Up till the storming of the Bastille by the Parisian masses in 1789, for instance, food entering Paris was subject to a toll as a feudal privilege.
France was the classic country of the bourgeois revolution, where the old aristocracy was completely swept aside. The peasantry, increasingly producing for a market, had a tendency after the bourgeois revolution of 1789 to become divided into an aspiring capitalist class and a propertyless class of rural wage labourers.
Capitalism also had the task of setting up centralised national economies as an envelope within which the new mode of production could develop.
The capitalist class as a whole was now strong enough to bid for political power, which it needed to complete its revolution. The absolutist monarchies, from being a shield to defend the expansion of trade, had become an obstacle. They had to be done away with; and the masses of artisans and yeomen were mobilised to do the job for the capitalist class.
Capitalism is a system of exploitation like feudalism or slavery. Its distinctive feature is that rather than just consuming the surplus, the capitalists are forced by the nature of their system to plough the bulk of it back into production.
Capitalism thus achieves a dynamic unheard of in earlier epochs. Instead of just exploiting more people, as feudal lords strove to do through never-ending wars, capitalism exploits people more - it develops the productivity of labour.
In so doing it provides the possibility of a society of abundance, and so for doing away altogether with the division between exploiter and exploited. It provides, in other words, the possibility of a higher stage of society than capitalism itself.
Capitalism bases itself on the monopoly of the means of production in the hands of the ruling capitalist class. The vast majority of people are cut off from the means of life unless they work on terms dictated by the capitalist class.
Formally, wage workers seem to be paid for the work they do. In reality they are exploited as much as the feudal serf or the slave.
Under capitalism, labour-power (the capacity of the worker to labour) is a commodity like any other, in that it is bought and sold on the market. It is sold by its owner, the worker, and bought by the owner of money, the capitalist.
But labour-power is different from other commodities in this respect: it has the unique property of being able to create value. This is its usefulness to the capitalist, this is why the capitalist buys labour-power (employs workers).
As labour-power is consumed in production (as workers are put to work) value is created far in excess of what the capitalist has paid (as wages) for the labour-power. This is the source of the capitalist's profit.
If labour-power is to be available in the market place, so that the capitalist can buy it, labour-power must be produced. “Given the individual,” Marx wrote, “the production of labour-power consists in his reproduction of himself, or his maintenance”. Marx adds immediately that this maintenance contains “a historical and moral element” - i.e., what a working-class family require for their maintenance, and for the raising of children as a new generation of wage-workers, will depend on standards of living which have been established through struggle as acceptable to the working class in that society.
The essence of capitalist exploitation is this: The worker is paid wages not for his/her labour but for his/her labour-power - his/her keep. The difference is taken by the capitalist.
Thus the worker's daily work is divided into “necessary labour” and “surplus labour”. The worker performs “necessary labour” during that part of the day spent in producing value which, when sold, will cover the cost of the wages. The worker performs “surplus labour” during the remainder of the working day, producing value which, when sold, will cover the rent, interest and profit which goes to the capitalist class.
Capitalists vie with each other to increase the rate of exploitation of the workers. The detailed way they do this is dealt with in our companion pamphlet on Marxist Economics, which deals specifically with the dynamics of capitalism.
The motor of capitalism is competition. Each capitalist has to undercut his competitors if he is to survive. The best way to sell cheaper is to produce cheaper. Since labour-time is the measure of value, that means producing with less labour-time.
Mechanising is the main means of continually raising the productivity of labour. Perhaps the best example of the process is the one supplied by Marx-the case of the hand-loom weavers. The invention of the spinning jenny, and the mass-production of cheaper yarn, led to the mechanisation of cloth-making. Weaving, up to then, had still been a handicraft process. As demand for weavers expanded in the early years of the industrial revolution, the hand-loom weavers were able to bid up their wages and become a regular 'aristocracy of labour'. For capitalism they represented an obstacle to cheap production. Inevitably, as a result, the power loom was invented, for capitalist necessity is the mother and father of invention.
It would be quite clear to any casual observer that the power loom took much less labour-time to produce an equivalent amount of woven cloth.
In vain did the hand-loom weavers bid the price of their product down. In no way could they compete with the power loom. At their peak there had been a quarter of a million hand-loom weavers. Over a generation they were wiped out with thousands actually dying of starvation. A much smaller number were able to get jobs, at lower rates of pay, supervising the power looms.
That has ever been the way with capitalist progress. But in this way capitalism has developed the fantastic productive powers of modern industry.
Capitalism also develops a form of the state appropriate to its own rule. Different forms of state can exist under capitalism, each corresponding to a different stage in the development of the class struggle - from parliamentary democracy to fascism and bonapartist military-police dictatorships of the most variegated kinds.
All these forms of state have one thing in common - in the last analysis they defend private property in the means of production, and therefore the rule of capital.
Marx and Engels often emphasised that democracy is the ideal form of capitalist class rule, first because it enables the capitalists to sort out their differences; and secondly because it gives the working-class parties a semblance of a say of running society. Changes necessary for the continued existence of the system can thus more easily be made.
At the same time bourgeois democracy provides the most favourable ground for the workers to organise to overthrow their exploiters.
Capitalism has required, as a precondition of its existence, a new class of propertyless toilers. Throughout its development capitalism has created a bigger and bigger pool of wage-workers.
Even since the second world war, millions of small farmers have been driven from the land in countries such as France, Italy and Japan. This has been a progressive step in so far as it tears these people away from the isolation and backwardness of rural life, and in so far as it represents a raising of the productivity of labour, so that less people are needed to grow food and more can set their hands to producing other things.
But, at the same time, capitalism has no regard for the interests of people, and relentlessly searches out surplus value at any cost to the masses.
Thus industrial capitalism strives to conquer the world. Merchant capital had contented itself with exacting tribute from the existing modes of production in other countries; industrial capital, in the empires it created after the industrial revolution, flooded these countries with cheap manufactured goods.
These goods necessarily destroyed the existing system of handicrafts, which was united with agriculture in the villages.
Existing societies were forcibly broken up. Moreover agriculture was increasingly switched towards the requirements of the world market. Capitalism was striving to create a world after its own image.
This process was brought to its highest stage in the imperialist phase of capitalist development. After the Indian Mutiny, which began in 1857, the British rulers saw the need to build up a network of railways, to allow rapid troop movements, in order to keep the population pinned down. This marked the beginning of the imperialist phase of the exploitation of India. Export of capital rather than of goods became the predominant feature.
In the case of India, this process really got going at the end of the nineteenth century when capital was exported from Britain to build up a modern Indian-based textile industry, mainly under British ownership.
“One capitalist kills many”, as Marx says. Capitalism destroys not only petty production, but also continually bankrupts the weakest of its own brethren and jettisons them into the ranks of the propertyless.
This is a two-sided process - progressive in its objective economic content, by piling up enormous productive resources for the potential benefit of mankind, but, under capitalism, concentrating colossal power in the hands of a tiny handful of rich magnates. At the end of the nineteenth century we saw the development of monopoly out of competition itself.
The banking system, Marx wrote, “places all the available and even potential capital of society that is not already actively employed at the disposal of the industrial and commercial capitalists, so that neither the lenders nor users of this capital are its real owners or producers. It thus does away with the private character of capital and thus contains in itself, but only in itself, the abolition of capital itself... Finally there is no doubt that the credit system will serve as a powerful lever during the transition from the capitalist mode of production to the mode of production of associated labour, but only as one element in connection with other great organic revolutions of the mode of production itself.”
Capitalism continually requires infusions of money capital in order for profit-making to continue uninterruptedly. Once a stock of commodities has been produced, a single capitalist would either have to wait till he had sold them before he once again had money in his pocket to restart production; or he would have to keep stocks of money-capital idle much of the time as a reserve for investment when needed; he would have to continually pay money into a fund to renew stocks of fixed capital which might be idle for ten or twenty years.
In reality, a stratum of capitalist hangers-on develop, not prepared to invest directly in production, but quite prepared to lend their money in order to cut themselves a slice of the pie of surplus-value. So there is a tendency for competition to generate unused reserves of money capital. These reserves are collected in a few rich hands - concentrations of finance capital.
Finance capital initially provided a stimulus to the capitalist system by gathering and siphoning money-capital into production. It did so, of course, only to cream off an increasing proportion of the surplus value for itself.
As Marx pointed out, finance capital also concentrates tremendous economic power in its own hands, and effectively integrates the individual manufacturing capitalist into the requirements of capitalist production as a whole through allocation and withdrawal of credits.
Imperialism is the epoch in which finance capital has fused with monopoly capital involved in production.
Under imperialism, while competition between capitalists within the boundaries of the nation-state has not been completely done away with, conflict has spilt over into the international arena.
The big monopolies and the banks exported capital rather than just commodities. A massive programme of railway building was undertaken in every continent and clime. Loans were floated for the most far-flung places. A systematic search was undertaken for every kind of raw material and mineral resource.
Conflicts now began between national capital blocs. The struggle was for nothing less than mastery of the world. Wars unparalleled in ferocity in the history of mankind broke out for colonies and a redivision of imperial spoils.
The first world war indicated that capitalism, like previous forms of class society, had ceased to be progressive. Instead of taking production forward, there was mass destruction and mass murder.
But at the same time, a new society was developing within the old. The Russian revolution served notice that the rule of the working class was at hand.
This failure had not been accidental. The peasantry is an isolated class, scattered over the countryside and finding it very difficult to combine. But their problem is not just geographical, it is at bottom social. For as Marx put it, the peasantry is a class only in one sense:
The working class, on the other hand, is concentrated in great masses by the very nature of factory production. Unlike the peasantry, their only strength lies in collective action. Through collective exploitation, the working class are trained and educated by capitalism itself to act as the system's grave-diggers.
Capitalism has produced many wonders inconceivable hitherto. It has also produced social disasters inconceivable under previous forms of society - crises taking the form of overproduction.
In pre-capitalist societies, the subsistence of the toilers was only interrupted by famine - physical shortage of necessities. Primitive people's minds may well have been clogged with all sorts of superstition, but the spectacle of people starving, while sitting idly in front of the tools necessary to make the things they need, is a unique product of our society.
Capitalism is social production. It is social in two ways. Firstly, it ties the whole world up into one economic unit through the world market, a worldwide division of labour. Everybody is dependent on everyone else for the things they need.
Secondly it introduces large scale production only workable by collective labour.
Yet, at the same time, the system runs on private appropriation and private profit. It is anarchic - nobody knows how much of any commodity is needed at any time. The capitalist plans production within his own factory, but social production as a whole is unplanned.
Marx wrote:
The possibility of crisis is inherent in such a system. All that socialists want to do is plan production in society at large in the same meticulous way the capitalists do within each separate factory.
The worker, unlike the exploited classes in pre-capitalist society, is a free person - free in that he is not subject to “relations of personal dependence” and can work for any boss he likes, and free from any attachment to the means of subsistence. But the workers' expectations and feelings of security are continually shattered by plagues of mass unemployment.
Crisis poses over and over again before the working class the need to change society. Capitalism will never collapse of its own accord. It has to be overthrown.
It is a caricature of Marxism to suggest that the revolution will be made automatically by workers made destitute by the workings of the system. It will be overthrown by a conscious and determined class, not just by a desperate class.
What is true is that the perpetual insecurity of existence under capitalism will produce a questioning in the minds of workers. Just as we have to understand nature in order to master it, so workers will have to understand the nature of their enemy before they can overthrow it.
We have outlined the progress of mankind from primitive communism to capitalism. An objective look at the record shows also the world we have lost. Chief Sitting Bull, an outstanding defender of Native American tribal society, ended up miserably as a kind of freak in Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. As he toured the Western capitals he was astounded at the wealth - but also at the poverty. He said, “The white man (by which he meant the capitalist system) knows how to produce wealth, not how to distribute it”.
Yet the possibility now exists for a society where enough can be produced for each to take according to their need. The possibilities posed before mankind by science and new technology were foreseen by Marx over 120 years ago. In one of his notebooks he wrote:
The !Kung people in the Kalahari live lives of material want and intellectual backwardness by our standards, but they know better than to make labour for others the driving force of their society. In consequence they work a week of between 12 and 19 hours!
Now mankind has the resources and technical means to reach a society of abundance. The working class, organised and conscious, can overthrow capitalism and create such a society - a society where people can plan what they need and want, produce it, and then spend the rest of the time enjoying it. It's as simple as that.
During the first two months of 1917 Russia was still a Romanov monarchy. Eight months later the Bolsheviks stood at the helm. They were little know to anybody when the year began, and their leaders were still under indictment for state treason when they came to power. You will not find another such sharp turn in history - especially if you remember that it involves a nation of 150 million people. It is clear that the events of 1917, whatever you think of them, deserve study.
The history of a revolution, like every other history, ought first of all to tell what happened and how. That, however, is little enough. From the very telling it ought to become clear why it happened thus and not otherwise. Events can neither be regarded as a series of adventures, nor strung on the thread of a preconceived moral. They must obey their own laws. The discovery of these laws is the author's task.
The most indubitable feature of a revolution is the direct interference of the masses in historical events. In ordinary times the state, be it monarchical or democratic, elevates itself above the nation, and history is made by specialists in that line of business - kings, ministers, bureaucrats, parliamentarians, journalists.
But at those crucial moments when the old order becomes no longer endurable to the masses, they break over the barriers excluding them from the political arena, sweep aside their traditional representatives, and create by their own interference the initial groundwork for a new régime. Whether this is good or bad we leave to the judgement of moralists. We ourselves will take the facts as they are given by the objective course of development. The history of a revolution is for us first of all a history of the forcible entrance of the masses into the realm of rulership over their own destiny.
In a society that is seized by revolution classes are in conflict. It is perfectly clear, however, that the changes introduced between the beginning and the end of a revolution in the economic bases of the society and its social substratum of classes, are not sufficient to explain the course of the revolution itself, which can overthrow in a short interval age-old institutions, create new ones, and again overthrow them. The dynamic of revolutionary events is directly determined by swift, intense and passionate changes in the psychology of classes which have already formed themselves before the revolution.
The point is that society does not change its institutions as need arises, the way a mechanic changes his instruments. On the contrary, society actually takes the institutions which hang upon it as given once for all. For decades the oppositional criticism is nothing more than a safety valve for mass dissatisfaction, a condition of the stability of the social structure. Such in principle, for example, was the significance acquired by the social-democratic criticism. Entirely exceptional conditions, independent of the will of persons and parties, are necessary in order to tear off from discontent the fetters of conservatism, and bring the masses to insurrection.
The swift changes of mass views and moods in an epoch of revolution thus derive, not from the flexibility and mobility of man's mind, but just the opposite, from its deep conservatism. The chronic lag of ideas and relations behind new objective conditions, right up to the moment when the latter crash over people in the form of a catastrophe, is what creates in a period of revolution that leaping movement of ideas and passions which seems to the police mind a mere result of the activities of “demagogues.”
The masses go into a revolution not with a prepared plan of social reconstruction, but with a sharp feeling that they cannot endure the old régime. Only the guiding layers of a class have a political program, and even this still requires the test of events, and the approval of the masses. The fundamental political process of the revolution thus consists in the gradual comprehension by a class of the problems arising from the social crisis - the active orientation of the masses by a method of successive approximations.
The different stages of a revolutionary process, certified by a change of parties in which the more extreme always supersedes the less, express the growing pressure to the left of the masses - so long as the swing of the movement does not run into objective obstacles. When it does, there begins a reaction: disappointments of the different layers of the revolutionary class, growth of indifferentism, and therewith a strengthening of the position of the counter-revolutionary forces. Such, at least, is the general outline of the old revolutions.
Only on the basis of a study of political processes in the masses themselves, can we understand the rôle of parties and leaders, whom we least of all are inclined to ignore. They constitute not an independent, but nevertheless a very important, element in the process. Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam.
The difficulties which stand in the way of studying the changes of mass consciousness in a revolutionary epoch are quite obvious. The oppressed classes make history in the factories, in the barracks, in the villages, on the streets of the cities. Moreover, they are least of all accustomed to write things down. Periods of high tension in social passions leave little room for contemplation and reflection. All the muses - even the plebeian muse of journalism, in spite of her sturdy hips - have hard sledding in times of revolution. Still the historian's situation is by no means hopeless. The records are incomplete, scattered, accidental.
But in the light of the events themselves these fragments often permit a guess as to the direction and rhythm of the hidden process. For better or worse, a revolutionary party bases its tactics upon a calculation of the changes of mass consciousness. The historic course of Bolshevism demonstrates that such a calculation, at least in its rough features, can be made. If it can be made by a revolutionary leader in the whirlpool of the struggle, why not by the historian afterwards?
However, the processes taking place in the consciousness of the masses are not unrelated and independent. No matter how the idealists and the eclectics rage, consciousness is nevertheless determined by conditions. In the historic conditions which formed Russia, her economy, her classes, her State, in the action upon her of other states, we ought to be able to find the premises both of the February revolution and of the October revolution which replaced it. Since the greatest enigma is the fact that a backward country was the first to place the proletariat in power, it behoves us to seek the solution of that enigma in the peculiarities of that backward country - that is, in its differences from other countries.
The historic peculiarities of Russia and their relative weight will be characterised by us in the early chapters of this book which give a short outline of the development of Russian society and its inner forces. We venture to hope that the inevitable schematism of these chapters will not repel the reader. In the further development of the book he will meet these same forces in living action.
This work will not rely in any degree upon personal recollections. The circumstance that the author was a participant in the events does not free him from the obligation to base his exposition upon historically verified documents. The author speaks of himself, in so far as that is demanded by the course of events, in the third person. And that is not a mere literary form: the subjective tone, inevitable in autobiographies or memoirs, is not permissible in a work of history.
However, the fact that the author did participate in the struggle naturally makes easier his understanding, not only of the psychology of the forces in action, both individual and collective, but also of the inner connection of events. This advantage will give positive results only if one condition is observed: that he does not rely upon the testimony of his own memory either in trivial details or in important matters, either in questions of fact or questions of motive and mood. The author believes that in so far as in him lies he has fulfilled this condition.
There remains the question of the political position of the author, who stands as a historian upon the same viewpoint upon which he stood as a participant in the events. The reader, of course, is not obliged to share the political views of the author, which the latter on his side has no reason to conceal. But the reader does have the right to demand that a historical work should not be the defence of a political position, but an internally well-founded portrayal of the actual process of the revolution. A historical work only then completely fulfils the mission when events unfold upon its pages in their full natural necessity.
For this, is it necessary to have the so-called historian's “impartiality”? Nobody has yet clearly explained what this impartiality consists of. The often quoted words of Clemenceau that it is necessary to take a revolution “en bloc,” as a whole - are at the best a clever evasion. How can you take as a whole a thing whose essence consists in a split? Clemenceau's aphorism was dictated partly by shame for his too resolute ancestors, partly by embarrassment before their shades.
One of the reactionary and therefore fashionable historians in contemporary France, L. Madelin, slandering in his drawing-room fashion the great revolution - that is, the birth of his own nation - asserts that “the historian ought to stand upon the wall of a threatened city, and behold at the same time the besiegers and the besieged”: only in this way, it seems, can he achieve a “conciliatory justice.” However, the words of Madelin himself testify that if he climbs out on the wall dividing the two camps, it is only in the character of a reconnoiterer for the reaction. It is well that he is concerned only with war camps of the past: in a time of revolution standing on the wall involves great danger. Moreover, in times of alarm the priests of “conciliatory justice” are usually found sitting on the inside of four walls waiting to see which side will win.
The serious and critical reader will not want a treacherous impartiality, which offers him a cup of conciliation with a well-settled poison of reactionary hate at the bottom, but a scientific conscientiousness, which for its sympathies and antipathies - open and undisguised - seeks support in an honest study of the facts, a determination of their real connections, an exposure of the causal laws of their movement. That is the only possible historic objectivism, and moreover it is amply sufficient, for it is verified and attested not by the good intentions of the historian, for which only he himself can vouch, but the natural laws revealed by him of the historic process itself.
The sources of this book are innumerable periodical publications, newspapers and journals, memoirs, reports, and other material, partly in manuscript, but the greater part published by the Institute of the History of the Revolution in Moscow and Leningrad. We have considered its superfluous to make reference in the text to particular publications, since that would only bother the reader. Among the books which have the character of collective historical works we have particularly used the two-volume Essays on the History of the October Revolution (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927). Written by different authors, the various parts of this book are unequal in value, but they contain at any rate abundant factual material.
The dates in our book are everywhere indicated according to the old style - that is, they are 13 days behind the international and the present Soviet calendar. The author felt obliged to use the calendar which was in use at the time of the revolution. It would have been no labour of course to translate the dates into the new style. But this operation in removing one difficulty would have created others more essential. The overthrow of the monarchy has gone into history as the February revolution; according to the Western calendar, however, it occurred in March.
The armed demonstration against the imperialist policy of the Provisional Government has gone into history under the name of the “April Days,” whereas according to the Western calendar it happened in May. Not to mention other intervening events and dates, we remark only that the October revolution happened according to European reckoning in November. The calendar itself, we see, is tinted by the events, and the historian cannot handle revolutionary chronology by mere arithmetic. The reader will be kind enough to remember that before overthrowing the Byzantine calendar, the revolution had to overthrow the institutions that clung to it.
Leon Trotsky
Prinkipo, November 14, 1930.
….What is true of nature, which is hereby recognized also as a historical process of development, is likewise true of the history of society in all its branches and of the totality of all sciences which occupy themselves with things human (and divine). Here, too, the philosophy of history, of right, of religion, etc., has consisted in the substitution of an interconnection fabricated in the mind of the philosopher for the real interconnection to be demonstrated in the events; has consisted in the comprehension of history as a whole as well as in its separate parts, as the gradual realization of ideas -- and naturally always only the pet ideas of the philosopher himself.
According to this, history worked unconsciously but of necessity towards a certain ideal goal set in advance -- as, for example, in Hegel, towards the realization of his absolute idea -- and the unalterable trend towards this absolute idea formed the inner interconnection in the events of history. A new mysterious providence -- unconscious or gradually coming into consciousness -- was thus put in the place of the real, still unknown interconnection. Here, therefore, just as in the realm of nature, it was necessary to do away with these fabricated, artificial interconnections by the discovery of the real ones -- a task which ultimately amounts to the discovery of the general laws of motion which assert themselves as the ruling ones in the history of human society.
In one point, however, the history of the development of society proves to be essentially different from that of nature. In nature -- in so far as we ignore man's reaction upon nature -- there are only blind, unconscious agencies acting upon one another, out of whose interplay the general law comes into operation. Nothing of all that happens -- whether in the innumerable apparent accidents observable upon the surface, or in the ultimate results which confirm the regularity inherent in these accidents -- happens as a consciously desired aim. In the history of society, on the contrary, the actors are all endowed with consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working towards definite goals; nothing happens without a conscious purpose, without an intended aim.
But this distinction, important as it is for historical investigation, particularly of single epochs and events, cannot alter the fact that the course of history is governed by inner general laws. For here, also, on the whole, in spite of the consciously desired aims of all individuals, accident apparently reigns on the surface.
That which is willed happens but rarely; in the majority of instances the numerous desired ends cross and conflict with one another, or these ends themselves are from the outset incapable of realization, or the means of attaining them are insufficient. thus the conflicts of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the domain of history produce a state of affairs entirely analogous to that prevailing in the realm of unconscious nature.
The ends of the actions are intended, but the results which actually follow from these actions are not intended; or when they do seem to correspond to the end intended, they ultimately have consequences quite other than those intended. Historical events thus appear on the whole to be likewise governed by chance. But where on the surface accident holds sway, there actually it is always governed by inner, hidden laws, and it is only a matter of discovering these laws.
Men make their own history, whatever its outcome may be, in that each person follows his own consciously desired end, and it is precisely the resultant of these many wills operating in different directions, and of their manifold effects upon the outer world, that constitutes history. Thus it is also a question of what the many individuals desire.
The will is determined by passion or deliberation. But the levers which immediately determine passion or deliberation are of very different kinds. Partly they may be external objects, partly ideal motives, ambition, “enthusiasm for truth and justice”, personal hatred, or even purely individual whims of all kinds. But, on the one hand, we have seen that the many individual wills active in history for the most part produce results quite other than those intended -- often quite the opposite; that their motives, therefore, in relation to the total result are likewise of only secondary importance. On the other hand, the further question arises: What driving forces in turn stand behind these motives? What are the historical forces which transform themselves into these motives in the brains of the actors?
The old materialism never put this question to itself. Its conception of history, in so far as it has one at all, is therefore essentially pragmatic; it divides men who act in history into noble and ignoble and then finds that as a rule the noble are defrauded and the ignoble are victorious. hence, it follows for the old materialism that nothing very edifying is to be got from the study of history, and for us that in the realm of history the old materialism becomes untrue to itself because it takes the ideal driving forces which operate there as ultimate causes, instead of investigating what is behind them, what are the driving forces of these driving forces.
This inconsistency does not lie in the fact that ideal driving forces are recognized, but in the investigation not being carried further back behind these into their motive causes. On the other hand, the philosophy of history, particularly as represented by Hegel, recognizes that the ostensible and also the really operating motives of men who act in history are by no means the ultimate causes of historical events; that behind these motives are other motive powers, which have to be discovered. But it does not seek these powers in history itself, it imports them rather from outside, from philosophical ideology, into history.
Hegel, for example, instead of explaining the history of ancient Greece out of its own inner interconnections, simply maintains that it is nothing more than the working out of “forms of beautiful individuality”, the realization of a “work of art” as such. He says much in this connection about the old Greeks that is fine and profound, but that does not prevent us today from refusing to be put off with such an explanation, which is a mere manner of speech.
When, therefore, it is a question of investigating the driving powers which - consciously or unconsciously, and indeed very often unconsciously -- lie behind the motives of men who act in history and which constitute the real ultimate driving forces of history, then it is not a question so much of the motives of single individuals, however eminent, as of those motives which set in motion great masses, whole people, and again whole classes of the people in each people; and this, too, not merely for an instant, like the transient flaring up of a straw-fire which quickly dies down, but as a lasting action resulting in a great historical transformation.
To ascertain the driving causes which here in the minds of acting masses and their leaders - the so-called great men - are reflected as conscious motives, clearly or unclearly, directly or in an ideological, even glorified, form - is the only path which can put us on the track of the laws holding sway both in history as a whole, and at particular periods and in particular lands. Everything which sets men in motion must go through their minds; but what form it will take in the mind will depend very much upon the circumstances. The workers have by no means become reconciled to capitalist machine industry, even though they no longer simply break the machines to pieces, as they still did in 1848 on the Rhine.
But while in all earlier periods the investigation of these driving causes of history was almost impossible - on account of the complicated and concealed interconnections between them and their effects - our present period has so far simplified these interconnections that the riddle could be solved. Since the establishment of large-scale industry - that is, at least since the European peace of 1815 - it has been no longer a secret to any man in England that the whole political struggle there pivoted on the claims to supremacy of two classes: the landed aristocracy and the bourgeoisie (middle class).
In France, with the return of the Bourbons, the same fact was perceived, the historians of the Restoration period, from Thierry to Guizot, Mignet, and Thiers, speak of it everywhere as the key to the understanding of all French history since the Middle Ages. And since 1830, the working class, the proletariat, has been recognized in both countries as a third competitor for power. Conditions had become so simplified that one would have had to close one's eyes deliberately not to see in the light of these three great classes and in the conflict of their interests the driving force of modern history -- at least in the two most advanced countries.
But how did these classes come into existence? If it was possible at first glance still to ascribe the origin of the great, formerly feudal landed property - at least in the first instance - to political causes, to taking possession by force, this could not be done in regard to the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Here, the origin and development of two great classes was seen to lie clearly and palpably in purely economic causes. And it was just as clear that in the struggle between landed property and the bourgeoisie, no less than in the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, it was a question, first and foremost, of economic interests, to the furtherance of which political power was intended to serve merely as a means.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat both arose in consequences of a transformation of the economic conditions, more precisely, of the mode of production. The transition, first from guild handicrafts to manufacture, and then from manufacture to large-scale industry, with steam and mechanical power, had caused the development of these two classes. At a certain stage, the new productive forces set in motion by the bourgeoisie - in the first place the division of labour and the combination of many detail labourers in one general manufactory - and the conditions and requirements of exchange, developed through these productive forces, became incompatible with the existing order of production handed down by history and sanctified by law -- that is to say, incompatible with the privileges of the guild and the numerous other personal and local privileges (which were only so many fetters to the unprivileged estates) of the feudal order to society.
The productive forces represented by the bourgeoisie rebelled against the order of production represented by the feudal landlords and the guild-masters. The result is known, the feudal fetters were smashed, gradually in England, at one blow in France. In Germany, the process is not yet finished. But just as, at a definite stage of its development, manufacture came into conflict with the feudal order of production, so now large-scale industry has already come into conflict with the bourgeois order or production established in its place.
Tied down by this order, by the narrow limits of the capitalist mode of production, this industry produces, on the one hand, an ever-increasingly proletarianisation of the great mass of the people, and on the other hand, an ever greater mass of unsaleable products. Overproduction and mass misery, each the cause of the other - that is the absurd contradiction which is its outcome, and which of necessity calls for the liberation of the productive forces by means of a change in the mode of production.
In modern history at least it is, therefore, proved that all political struggles are class struggles, and all class struggles for emancipation, despite their necessarily political form - for every class struggle is a political struggle - turn ultimately on the question of economic emancipation. Therefore, here at least, the state - the political order - is the subordination, and civil society - the realm of economic relations - the decisive element. The traditional conception, to which Hegel, too, pays homage, saw in the state the determining element, and in civil society the element determined by it.
Appearances correspond to this. As all the driving forces of the actions of any individual person must pass through his brain, and transform themselves into motives of his will in order to set him into action, so also all the needs of civil society - no matter which class happens to be the ruling one - must pass through the will of the state in order to secure general validity in the form of laws. That is the formal aspect of the matter - the one which is self-evident.
The question arises, however, what is the content of this merely formal will - of the individual as well as of the state -- and whence is this content derived? Why is just this willed and not something else? If we enquire into this, we discover that in modern history the will of the state is, on the whole, determined by the changing needs of civil society, but the supremacy of this or that class, in the last resort, by the development of the productive forces and relations of exchange.
But if even in our modern era, with its gigantic means of production and communication, the state is not an independent domain with an independent development, but one whose existence as well as development is to be explained in the last resort by the economic conditions of life of society, then this must be still more true of all earlier times when the production of the material life of man was not yet carried on with these abundant auxiliary means, and when, therefore, the necessity of such production must have exercised a still greater mastery over men.
If the state even today, in the era of big industry and of railways, is on the whole only a reflection, in concentrated form, of the economic needs of the class controlling production, then this must have been much more so in an epoch when each generation of men was forced to spend a far greater part of its aggregate lifetime in satisfying material needs, and was therefore much more dependent on them than we are today. An examination of the history of earlier periods, as soon as it is seriously undertaken from this angle, most abundantly confirms this. But, of course, this cannot be gone into here….
With men we enter history. Animals also have a history, that of their derivation and gradual evolution to their present position. This history, however, is made for them, and in so far as they themselves take part in it, this occurs without their knowledge or desire. On the other hand, the more that human beings become removed from animals in the narrower sense of the word, the more they make their own history consciously, the less becomes the influence of unforeseen effects and uncontrolled forces of this history, and the more accurately does the historical result correspond to the aim laid down in advance.
If, however, we apply this measure to human history, to that of even the most developed peoples of the present day, we find that there still exists here a colossal disproportion between the proposed aims and the results arrived at, that unforeseen effects predominate, and that the uncontrolled forces are far more powerful than those set into motion according to plan.
And this cannot be otherwise as long as the most essential historical activity of men, the one which has raised them from bestiality to humanity and which forms the material foundation of all their other activities, namely the production of their requirements of life, that is today social production, is above all subject to the interplay of unintended effects from uncontrolled forces and achieves its desired end only by way of exception and, much more frequently, the exact opposite.
In the most advanced industrial countries we have subdued the forces of nature and pressed them into the service of mankind; we have thereby infinitely multiplied production, so that a child now produces more than a hundred adults previously did. And what is the result? Increasing overwork and increasing misery of the masses, and every ten years a great [economic] collapse. Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind, and especially on his countrymen, when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom.
Only conscious organisation of social production, in which production and distribution are carried on in a planned way, can lift mankind above the rest of the animal world as regards the social aspect, in the same way that production in general has done this for men in their aspect as species. Historical evolution makes such an organisation daily more indispensable, but also with every day more possible. From it will date a new epoch of history, in which mankind itself, and with mankind all branches of its activity, and especially natural science, will experience an advance that will put everything preceding it in the deepest shade.
In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.
At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or - what is but a legal expression for the same thing - with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.
Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic - in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production.
No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation….
The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production - antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonisms, but of one arising form the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of society to a close.
Of the many important discoveries through which Marx has inscribed his name in the annals of science, we can here dwell on only two.
The first is the revolution brought about by him in the whole conception of world history. The whole previous view of history was based on conception that the ultimate causes of all historical changes are to be looked for in the changing ideas of human beings, and that of all historical changes political changes are the most important and dominate the whole of history.
But the question was not asked as to whence the ideas come into men's minds and what the driving causes of the political changes are. Only upon the newer school of French, and partly also of English, historians have forced the conviction that, since the Middle Ages at least, the driving force in European history was the struggle of the developing bourgeoisie with the fuedal aristocracy for social and political domination.
Now Marx has proved that the whole of previous history is a history of class struggles, that in all the manifold and complicated political struggles the only thing at issue has been the social and political rule of social classes, the maintenance of domination by older classes and the conquest of domination by newly arising classes. To what, however, do these classes owe their origin and their continued existence? They owe it to the particular material, physically sensible conditions in which society at a given period produces and exchanges its means of sustenance.
The fuedal rule of the Middle Ages rested on a self-sufficient economy of small peasant communities, which themselves produced almost all their requirements, in which there is almost no exchange and which received from the arms bearing nobility protection from without and national or at least political cohesion. When the towns arose and with them separate handicraft industry and trade intercourse, at first internal and later international, the urban bourgeoisie developed, and already during the Middle Ages achieved, in struggle with the nobility, its inclusion in the feudal order as likewise a privileged estate.
But with the discovery of the extra-European world, from the middle of the 15th century onwards, this bourgeoisie acquired a far more extensive sphere of trade and therewith a new spur for its industry; in the most important branches handicrafts were supplemented by manufacture, now on a factory scale, and this again was supplanted by large scale industry, possible owing to the discoveries of the previous century, especially that of the steam engine. Large scale industry, in its turn, reacted on trade by driving out the old manual labour in backward countries, and creating the present day new means of communication: steam engines, railways, electric telegraphy, in the more developed ones.
Thus the bourgeoisie came more and more to combine social wealth and social power in its hands, while it still for a long period remained excluded from political power, which was in the hands of the nobility and the monarchy supported by the nobility. But at a certain stage - in France since the Great Revolution - it also conquered political power, and now in turn became the ruling class over the proletariat and small peasants.
From this point of view all the historical phenomenon are explicable in simplest possible way - with sufficient knowledge of the particular economic condition of society (which it is true is totally lacking in our professional historians), and in the same way the conceptions and ideas of each historical period are most simply to be explained from the economic conditions of life and from the social and political relations of the period, which are in turn determined by these economic conditions. History was for the first time placed on its real basis; the palpable but previously totally overlooked fact that men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, therefore must work , before they can fight for domination, pursue politics, religion, philosophy, etc. - this palpable fact at last came into its historical rights.
This new conception of history, however, was of supreme significance for the socialist outlook. It showed that all previous history moved in class antagonisms and class struggles, that there have always existed ruling and ruled, exploiting and exploited classes, and that the great majority of mankind has always been condemned to arduous labour and little enjoyment. Why is this? Simply because in all earlier stages of development of mankind production was so little developed that the historical development could proceed only in this antagonistic form, that historical progress as all whole was assigned to the activity of a small privileged minority, while the great mass remained condemned to producing by their labour their own meagre means of subsistence and also the increasingly rich means of the privileged.
But the same investigation of history, which in this way provides a natural and reasonable explanation of the previous class rule, otherwise only explicable from the wickednesses of man, also leads to the realization that, in consequence of the so tremendously increased productive forces of the present time, even the last pretext has vanished for a division of mankind into rulers and ruled, exploiters and exploited, at least in the most advanced countries.
That the ruling big bourgeoisie has fulfilled its historic mission, that it is no longer capable of the leadership of society and has even become a hindrance to the development of production, as the trade crisis, and especially the last great collapse, and the depressed condition of industry in all countries have proved.
That historical leadership has passed to the proletariat, a class which, owing to its whole position in society, can only free itself by abolishing altogether all class rule, all servitude and all exploitation. And that the social productive forces, which have outgrown the control of the bourgeoisie, are only waiting for the associated proletariat to take possession of them in order to bring about a state of things in which every member of society will be enabled to participate not only in production but also in the distribution and administration of social wealth, and which so increases the social productive forces and their yield by planned operation of the whole of production that satisfaction of all reasonable needs will be assured to everyone in an ever-increasing measure.
According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.
The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure - political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas - also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form.
There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.
We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive. But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the decisive one. The Prussian state also arose and developed from historical, ultimately economic, causes. But it could scarcely be maintained without pedantry that among the many small states of North Germany,
Brandenburg was specifically determined by economic necessity to become the great power embodying the economic, linguistic and, after the Reformation, also the religious difference between North and South, and not by other elements as well (above all by its entanglement with Poland, owing to the possession of Prussia, and hence with international political relations - which were indeed also decisive in the formation of the Austrian dynastic power).
Without making oneself ridiculous it would be a difficult thing to explain in terms of economics the existence of every small state in Germany, past and present, or the origin of the High German consonant permutations, which widened the geographic partition wall formed by the mountains from the Sudetic range to the Taunus to form a regular fissure across all Germany.
In the second place, however, history is made in such a way that the final result always arises from conflicts between many individual wills, of which each in turn has been made what it is by a host of particular conditions of life. Thus there are innumerable intersecting force, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant - the historical event.
This may again itself be viewed as the product of a power which works as a whole unconsciously and without volition. For what each individual wills is obstructed by everyone else, and what emerges is something that no one willed. Thus history has proceeded hitherto in the manner of a natural process and is essentially subject to the same laws of motion.
But from the fact that the wills of individuals - each of whom desires what he is impelled to by his physical constitution and external, in the last resort economic, circumstances (either his own personal circumstances or those of society in general) - do not attain what they want, but are merged into an aggregate mean, a common resultant, it must not be concluded that they are equal to zero. On the contrary, each contributes to the resultant and is to this extent included in it.
I would furthermore ask you to study this theory from its original sources and not at second-hand; it is really much easier. Marx hardly wrote anything in which it did not play a part. But especially The Eigteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is a most excellent example of its application. There are also many allusion to it in Capital. Then may I also direct you to my writings: Herr Eugen Duhring's Revolution in Science and Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, in which I have given the most detailed account of historical material which, as far as I know, exists.
Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-á-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction.
But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent “Marxists” from this reproach, for the most amazing rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too....
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidiere for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851 for the Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle. And the same caricature occurs in the circumstances of the second edition of the Eighteenth Brumaire.
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.
Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.
When we think about this conjuring up of the dead of world history, a salient difference reveals itself. Camille Desmoulins, Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Napoleon, the heroes as well as the parties and the masses of the old French Revolution, performed the task of their time -- that of unchaining and establishing modern bourgeois society -- in Roman costumes and with Roman phrases. The first one destroyed the feudal foundation and cut off the feudal heads that had grown on it.
The other created inside France the only conditions under which free competition could be developed, parceled-out land properly used, and the unfettered productive power of the nation employed; and beyond the French borders it swept away feudal institutions everywhere, to provide, as far as necessary, bourgeois society in France with an appropriate up-to-date environment on the European continent. Once the new social formation was established, the antediluvian colossi disappeared and with them also the resurrected Romanism -- the Brutuses, the Gracchi, the publicolas, the tribunes, the senators, and Caesar himself.
Bourgeois society in its sober reality bred its own true interpreters and spokesmen in the Says, Cousins, Royer-Collards, Benjamin Constants, and Guizots; its real military leaders sat behind the office desk and the hog-headed Louis XVIII was its political chief. Entirely absorbed in the production of wealth and in peaceful competitive struggle, it no longer remembered that the ghosts of the Roman period had watched over its cradle.
But unheroic though bourgeois society is, it nevertheless needed heroism, sacrifice, terror, civil war, and national wars to bring it into being. And in the austere classical traditions of the Roman Republic, the bourgeois gladiators found the ideals and the art forms, the self-deceptions, that they needed to conceal from themselves the bourgeois-limited content of their struggles and to keep their passion on the high plane of great historic tragedy.
Similarly, at another stage of development a century earlier, Cromwell and the English people had borrowed from the Old Testament the speech, emotions, and illusions for their bourgeois revolution. When the real goal had been achieved and the bourgeois transformation of English society had been accomplished, Locke supplanted Habakkuk.
Thus the awakening of the dead in those revolutions served the purpose of glorifying the new struggles, not of parodying the old; of magnifying the given task in the imagination, not recoiling from its solution in reality; of finding once more the spirit of revolution, not making its ghost walk again.
From 1848 to 1851, only the ghost of the old revolution circulated -- from Marrast, the républicain en gants jaunes [Republican in yellow gloves], who disguised himself as old Bailly, down to the adventurer who hides his trivial and repulsive features behind the iron death mask of Napoleon. A whole nation, which thought it had acquired an accelerated power of motion by means of a revolution, suddenly finds itself set back into a defunct epoch, and to remove any doubt about the relapse, the old dates arise again -- the old chronology, the old names, the old edicts, which had long since become a subject of antiquarian scholarship, and the old minions of the law who had seemed long dead.
The nation feels like the mad Englishman in Bedlam who thinks he is living in the time of the old Pharaohs and daily bewails the hard labour he must perform in the Ethiopian gold mines, immured in this subterranean prison, a pale lamp fastened to his head, the overseer of the slaves behind him with a long whip, and at the exits a confused welter of barbarian war slaves who understand neither the forced labourers nor each other, since they speak no common language. “And all this,” sighs the mad Englishman, “is expected of me, a freeborn Briton, in order to make gold for the Pharaohs.” “In order to pay the debts of the Bonaparte family,” sighs the French nation.
The Englishman, so long as he was not in his right mind, could not get rid of his fixed idea of mining gold. The French, so long as they were engaged in revolution, could not get rid of the memory of Napoleon, as the election of December 10 [in 1848, when Louis Bonaparte was elected President of the French Republic] was proved. They longed to return from the perils of revolution to the fleshpots of Egypt, and December 2, 1851 [The date of the coup d'état by Louis Bonaparte], was the answer. Now they have not only a caricature of the old Napoleon, but the old Napoleon himself, caricatured as he would have to be in the middle of the nineteenth century.
The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped away all superstition about the past. The former revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to smother their own content. The revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content. There the phrase went beyond the content -- here the content goes beyond the phrase.
The February Revolution was a surprise attack, a seizing of the old society unaware, and the people proclaimed this unexpected stroke a deed of world importance, ushering in a new epoch. On December 2 the February Revolution is conjured away as a cardsharp's trick, and what seems overthrown is no longer the monarchy but the liberal concessions that had been wrung from it through centuries of struggle. Instead of society having conquered a new content for itself, it seems that the state has only returned to its oldest form, to a shamelessly simple rule by the sword and the monk's cowl. This is the answer to the coup de main [Unexpected stroke] of February, 1848, given by the coup de téte [Rash act] of December, 1851.
Easy come, easy go. Meantime, the interval did not pass unused. During 1848-51 French society, by an abbreviated revolutionary method, caught up with the studies and experiences which in a regular, so to speak, textbook course of development would have preceded the February Revolution, if the latter were to be more than a mere ruffling of the surface. Society seems now to have retreated to behind its starting point; in truth, it has first to create for itself the revolutionary point of departure-the situation, the relations, the conditions under which alone modern revolution becomes serious.
Bourgeois revolutions like those of the eighteenth century storm more swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the day- but they are short-lived, soon they have reached their zenith, and a long Katzenjammer [crapulence] takes hold of society before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly.
On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals -- until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out:
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
[Here is the rose, here dance!]
(“Here is the rose, here dance!” From Aesop's fable, “The Swaggerer,” referring to one who boasted that he had made a gigantic leap in Rhodes (which also means “rose” in Greek) and was challenged: “Here is Rhodes, here leap!” Marx's paraphrase, “Here is the rose, here dance,” is from the quotation used by Hegel in the preface to his book Outlines of the Philosophy of Right (1821). -- Ed. )
Po Box 2626
London N1 7SQ
You can also buy Marxist literature online from Wellred Books Online Bookshop
Marxism, or Scientific Socialism, is the name given to the body of ideas first worked out by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). In their totality, these ideas provide a fully worked-out theoretical basis for the struggle of the working class to attain a higher form of human society - socialism.
The study of Marxism falls under three main headings, corresponding broadly to philosophy, social history and economics - Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics. These are the famous “Three component parts of Marxism” of which Lenin wrote.
The Education for Socialists series was launched to promote the study of Marxism. They are intended to assist the student of Marxism by providing an introduction to the subject matter, with suitable Marxist texts that we hope will whet their appetite for further reading and study. In the second of these Education for Socialists study guides, we provide a selection of material on Historical Materialism. The remaining “component part”, as well as other fundamental questions, will be dealt with in future issues. The guides are suitable for individual study or as the basis of a Marxist discussion group.
In this study of Historical Materialism the editors are publishing an introductory article by Mick Brooks. While this is a good beginning to the subject, there is no substitute for proceeding from there to tackle the historical works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Plekhanov and others. Marx and Engels wrote extensively about Historical Materialism from the German Ideology onwards. The Communist Manifesto is a masterpiece in this regard.
The newer reader should not be put off by the sometimes difficult and abstract ideas expressed in these writings. Whatever the initial difficulty, a certain perseverance will pay just rewards. Marxism is a science with its own terminology, and therefore makes heavy demands upon the beginner. However, every serious worker and student knows that nothing is worthwhile if attained without a degree of struggle and sacrifice.
The theories of Marxism provide the thinking worker with a comprehensive understanding. It is the duty of every worker and student to conquer for himself or herself the theories of Marx and Engels, as an essential prerequisite for the conquest of society by working people.
We recognise that there are real obstacles in the path of the worker's struggle for theory. A man or woman who is obliged to toil long hours in work, who has not had the benefit of a decent education and consequently lacks the habit of reading, finds great difficulty in absorbing some of the more complex ideas, especially at the outset. Yet it was for workers that Marx and Engels wrote, and not for “clever” academics. “Every beginning is difficult” no matter what science we are talking about. To the class conscious worker who is prepared to persevere, one promise can be made: once the initial effort is made to come to grips with unfamiliar and new ideas, the theories of Marxism will be found to be basically straight-forward and simple.
Once the basic concepts of Marxism are conquered, they open up a whole new outlook on politics, the class struggle, and every aspect of life.
As a further introduction to Historical Materialism, we are also republishing the preface to Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution, an extract from Engels' Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German Philosophy, his introduction to the Dialectics of Nature, and an extract from Marx's Preface to A Contribution of Political Economy.
For further study, we recommend The German Ideology by Marx and Engels, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte by Marx and The History of the Russian Revolution by Trotsky.
Those who wish to go into greater depth should try reading Karl Kautsky's Foundations of Christianity, Plekhanov's The Materialist Conception of History and his Role of the Individual in History. In addition, Plekhanov's The Fundamental Problems of Marxism is highly recommended, as is other material in the suggested reading at the end of this study guide.
The editors, November 2002
Historical Materialism
What is Historical Materialism?
Historical Materialism is the application of Marxist science to historical development. The fundamental proposition of historical materialism can be summed up in a sentence: “it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness.” (Marx, in the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.)What does this mean? Readers of the Daily Mirror will be familiar with the “Perishers” cartoon strip. In one incident the old dog, Wellington wanders down to a pool full of crabs. The crabs speculate about the mysterious divinity, the “eyeballs in the sky,” which appears to them.
The point is, that is actually how you would look at things if your universe were a pond. Your consciousness is determined by your being. Thought is limited by the range of experience of the species.
We know very little about how primitive people thought, but we know what they couldn't have been thinking about. They wouldn't have wandered about wondering what the football results were, for instance. League football presupposes big towns able to get crowds large enough to pay professional footballers and the rest of the club staff. Industrial towns in their turn can only emerge when the productivity of labour has developed to the point where a part of society can be fed by the rest, and devote themselves to producing other requirements than food.
In other words, an extensive division of labour must exist. The other side of this is that people must be accustomed to working for money and buying the things they want from others - including tickets to the football - which, of course, was not the case in primitive society.
So this simple example shows how even things like professional football are dependent on the way society makes its daily bread, on people's “social existence”.
After all, what is mankind? The great idealist philosopher Hegel said that “man, is a thinking being.” Actually Hegel's view was a slightly more sophisticated form of the usual religious view that man is endowed by his Creator with a brain to admire His handiwork. It is true that thinking is one way we are different from dung beetles, sticklebacks and lizards. But why did humans develop the capacity to think?
Over a hundred years ago, Engels pointed out that upright posture marked the transition from ape to man, a completely materialist explanation. This view has been confirmed by the more recent researches of anthropologists such as Leakey. Upright posture liberated the hands for gripping with an opposable thumb. This enabled tools to be used and developed.
Upright posture also allowed early humans to rely more on the eyes, rather than the other senses, for sensing the world around. The use of the hands developed the powers of the brain through the medium of the eyes.
Engels was a dialectical materialist. In no way did he minimise the importance of thought - rather he explained how it arose. We can also see that Benjamin Franklin, the eighteenth-century US politician and inventor, was much nearer a materialist approach than Hegel when he defined man as a “tool-making animal.”
Darwin showed a hundred years ago that there is a struggle for existence, and species survive through natural selection. At first sight early humans didn't have a lot going for them, compared with the speed of the cheetah, the strength of the lion, or the sheer intimidating bulk of the elephant. Yet humans came to dominate the planet and, more recently, to drive many of these more fearsome animals to the point of extinction.\
What differentiates humanity from the lower animals is that, however self-reliant animals such as lions may seem, they ultimately just take external nature around them for granted, whereas, mankind progressively masters nature.
The process whereby mankind masters nature is labour. At Marx's grave, Engels stated that his friend's great discovery was that “mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, and therefore work before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion etc.”
While we can't read the minds of our primitive human ancestors, we can make a pretty good guess about what they were thinking most of the time - food. The struggle against want has dominated history ever since.
Marxists are often accused of being 'economic determinists'. Actually, Marxists are far from denying the importance of ideas or the active role of individuals in history. But precisely because we are active, we understand the limits of individual activity, and the fact that the appropriate social conditions must exist before our ideas and our activity can be effective.
Our academic opponents are generally passive cynics who exalt individual activity amid the port and walnuts from over-stuffed armchairs. We understand, with Marx that people “make their own history...but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past”. We need to understand how society is developing in order to intervene in the process. That is what we mean when we say Marxism is the science of perspectives.
We have seen that labour distinguishes mankind from the other animals - that mankind progressively changes nature through labour, and in doing so changes itself. It follows that there is a real measure of progress through all the miseries and pitfalls of human history - the increasing ability of men and women to master nature and subjugate it to their own requirements: in other words, the increasing productivity of labour.
To each stage in the development of the productive forces corresponds a certain set of production relations. Production relation means the way people organise themselves to gain their daily bread. Production relations are thus the skeleton of every form of society. They provide the conditions of social existence that determine human consciousness.
Marx explained how the development of the productive forces brings into existence different production relations, and different forms of class society.
By a 'class' we mean a group of people in society with the same relationship to the means of production. The class which owns and controls the means of production rules society. This, at the same time, enables it to force the oppressed or labouring class to toil in the rulers' interests. The labouring class is forced to produce a surplus which the ruling class lives off.
Marx explained:
“The specific economic form in which unpaid surplus-labour is pumped out of the direct producers determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves; thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers-a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and thereby its social productivity-which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure, and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short the corresponding specific form of the state.” (Capital, Vol. III.)
Primitive Communism
In the earliest stages of society people did not go into factories, work to produce things they would not normally consume, and be 'rewarded' at the end of the week with pieces of coloured paper or decorated discs which other people would be quite prepared to accept in exchange for the food, clothing, etc., which they needed. Such behaviour would have struck our remote ancestors as quite fantastic.Nor did many of the other features of modern society we so much take for granted exist. What socialist has not heard the argument “People are bound to be greedy and grabbing. You can't get socialism because you can't change human nature?” In fact, society divided into classes has existed for no more than about 10,000 years-one hundredth of the time mankind has been on this planet. For the other 99% of the time there was no class society, that is, no enforced inequalities, no state, and no family in the modern sense.
This was not because primitive people were unaccountably more noble than us, but because production relations produced a different sort of society, and so a different 'human nature'. Being determines consciousness, and if people's social being changes - if the society they live under changes - then their consciousness will also change.
The basis of primitive society was gathering and hunting. The only division of labour was that between men and women for the entirely natural biological reason that women were burdened much of the time with young children. They gathered vegetable foods while the men hunted.
Thus each sex played an important part in production. On the basis of studying tribes such as the !Kung in the Kalahari desert, who still live under primitive communist conditions, it has been estimated that the female contribution to the food supply may well have been more important than the male's. Women were held in high esteem in such societies. They contributed at least equally to the wealth of the tribe. They developed separate skills - it seems women invented pottery and even made the crucial breakthrough to agriculture
All these tribal societies had features in common. The hunting grounds were regarded as the common property of the tribe. How could they be anything else when hunting itself is a collective activity? The very insecurity of existence leads to sharing. It's no good hiding a dead hippo from your mates--you won't be able to eat it before it rots anyway, and there may well come a time when other tribe members have a superfluity while you're in distress. It's common sense to share and share alike.
Private property did exist in personal implements, but in the most different tribal societies there existed similar rules to burn or bury these with the body of the owner, in order to prevent the accumulation of inequality.
No such institution as the state was necessary, for there were no fundamental antagonistic class interests tearing society apart. Individual disputes could be sorted out within the tribe. Old men with experience certainly played leading parts in the decision-making of the tribe. They were chiefs, however, and not kings--their authority was deserved or it did not exist. As late as the third century AD (when it was ceasing to be true) Athanaric, leader of the German tribe, the Visigoths, said: “I have authority, not power”.
Society developed because it had to. Beginning in tropical Africa, as population grew to cover more inhospitable parts of the globe, people had to use their power of thought and labour to develop - or die. From gathering fruit, nuts, etc., it was a step forward to cultivating the land - actually ensuring that vegetable food was to hand. From hunting it was a step to husbandry, penning in the animals. Tribal society remained the norm.
The First Revolution
The first great revolution in mankind's history was the agricultural, or neolithic revolution. Grains were selected and sown, and the ground ploughed up with draught animals. For the first time a substantial surplus over and above the subsistence needs of the toilers came into existence.Under primitive communism there had been simply no basis for an idle class. There was no point in enslaving someone else, since they could only provide for their own needs. Now the possibility arose for idleness for some, but mankind could still not provide enough for everyone to lead such a life. On this basis, class societies arose - societies divided between possessing and labouring classes.
The main issue in the class struggle down the ages has been the struggle over the surplus produced by the toilers. The way this surplus was appropriated - grabbed - depended on the different mode of production inaugurated by agriculture. This change provided the base for the complete transformation of social life.
Agriculture, unlike hunting, could be more an individual activity. By working harder you could get more and, when everyone lived on the margin of survival, that was important. Moreover, the agricultural revolution - involving the use of draught animals in ploughing, etc., mainly handled by men - relegated women to the home, working up materials provided by the man. It was the lack of a direct role in production that led to the 'world-historic defeat of the female sex'.
Men wanted to pass on their unequal property to a male heir. In primitive communist society descent had been traced through the female line (inheritance had been unimportant). Now inheritance began to be traced through the male line.
We do not know exactly how class society came into being, but we can piece together the story from bits of evidence available to us. We call this process a revolution, and so it was in the profoundest sense of the word.
But we must remember that transitional forms between the different types of society were in existence for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years before the new type definitively replaced the old. Human progress did not proceed evenly but according to the law of combined and uneven development.
We have spoken of agriculture as being the breakthrough to a society where a surplus could be produced. In fact the raising of the productivity of labour made possible by agriculture allowed a more extensive division of labour - people could turn their hands to producing other things. So the agricultural revolution brought in its train associated revolutions in technique (such as in pottery and metal-working) and in the whole social structure.
Trade developed from ritual gifts between tribes. What was the measure of the value of a gift? As soon as people could form some conception of how long it took to produce the gifts they got, they would attempt to outdo the donors in generosity by giving the product of more labour in return.
As trade became more regular, the need naturally arose for a universal equivalent - something which could readily be exchanged in trade and which would be accepted generally as a measure of value. At first this need was met by cattle. (The Latin pecunia meaning 'money' is derived from pecus meaning cattle) Later this need was fulfilled more conveniently by ingots of metal, in which there was a burgeoning trade, and which were stamped by the monarchs as a guarantee of weight.
The Asiatic Mode of Production
Civilisation developed differently in different places. So far as we know, it arose first in the Nile delta of Egypt and in Mesopotamia (in what is now Iraq), though recent discoveries suggest it may also have developed independently in India and in South-East Asia at around the same time.In both Egypt and Mesopotamia the ruling class seems to have sprung from the elevation of a stratum of priests, above the rest of society. This is because the priests had the leisure to develop a calendar, allowing them to foretell the coming of the Nile floods, and arithmetic to develop the centrally planned irrigation works which first produced a massive surplus. The interest of Egyptian priests in maths and astronomy was thus not accidental, but rooted in the requirements of production.
Because of the requirements of planned irrigation, as Marx explains: “The communal conditions for real appropriation through labour, such as irrigation systems (very important among the Asian peoples), means of communication, etc., will then appear as the work of the superior entity - the despotic government which is poised above the small communities.”
The Asiatic state, which was not accountable in any way to the village communities, will feel entitled to appropriate the surplus as a tribute. This tribute is exacted through state ownership of the land: “...the integrating entity which stands above all these small communities may appear as the superior or sole proprietor, and the real communities therefore only as hereditary possessors.'”
The villages were largely self-sufficient, rendering tribute to the Asiatic despotism in order for the “general conditions of production'” (irrigation, etc.) to be maintained. Handicrafts and agriculture were combined within each village. The dispersed villages were unable to organise effectively against their exploitation, so the whole system was very resistant to change.
This is what Marx and Engels meant when they said that such societies were “outside history'”. India, for instance, was invaded by one set of conquerors after another, but none of these political changes reached beneath the surface.
It was only after thousands of years, when British capitalism conquered India and strove to introduce private property in land in order to destroy the unity of native agriculture and handicrafts, and develop the preconditions for capitalism, that the Asiatic mode of production was finally destroyed. The result was the decline of the irrigation systems and a series of horrible famines throughout the nineteenth century.
The Asiatic mode of production saw the first development of class society, though retaining certain features of primitive communism, such as collective tilling of the soil. It raised production to a higher level than it had ever been before, and then stagnated.
Thus, in vast areas of the globe, there arose a form of society completely different from anything seen in Western Europe. Slavery was known, but it was not the dominant mode of production. In contrast with western feudalism, the surplus was extorted by the central state rather than by landlords.
Once civilisation was established and maintained, it was bound to radiate its effects all around it, whether through war or trade. Egypt was always dependent on outside areas for trade, thus stimulating the advance of civilisation in Crete and thereby giving an enormous impetus to the trading communities on the Greek coast to develop. Here civilisation found relations of production - private land-ownership providing an unlimited spur to private enrichment - which could take humanity forward again.
Ancient Greece: Slavery and Democracy
All city states in Greece and Rome were organised around the same principles. The whole city-state ('polis' in Greek) was unified against every other city-state, but divided within itself. It was divided on class lines - and between citizens and slaves.At first the poor citizens ('plebeians' as they were called in Rome) were blocked from all political rights. Their struggle was political - to gain a say in the decision making of the state. In Athens, a predominantly trading centre with a higher concentration of merchants and artisans, the small people were eventually able to win full democratic rights. Poor men were paid for public service, and over 5,000 citizens regularly met in the assembly to discuss policy.
But Athenian democracy - democracy for the citizens - had as its foundation the exploitation of a class of non-citizens: slaves who were without political rights. Athenian democracy was in fact a mechanism for enforcing the interests of the ruling class over the exploited slave class - and for defending the interests of the ruling class in war.
The polis was an institution geared up for permanent war. The power of the city state was based on independent peasants capable of arming themselves ('hoplites'). The victory of democracy was inevitable in Athens after the poor citizens won the naval battle of Salamis against the Persians for the city. Though too poor to arm themselves, they provided the rowers for the Athenian navy. A precarious unity of interests was established between rich and poor citizens through expansion outwards and the conquest of slaves.
By comparison with later Roman slave society the Greek slave mode of production was relatively “democratic” - as far as the citizens were concerned. Even poor citizens could own a slave to help around the farm or workshop, or lease them out to work on slave gangs.
Slavery itself was only possible because labour was now capable of yielding a surplus. That surplus was appropriated by a ruling class who owned the means of production - in this case the slaves themselves. The state was the state of the ruling class. The whole structure of society was based upon slave labour - all the miracles of art, culture and philosophy were only possible because an exploited class laboured so slave-holders could have leisure.
Slave society had its own dynamic. Its success depended upon the continual appropriation of more slaves, more unpaid labour.
“Wherever slavery is the main form of production it turns labour into servile activity, consequently makes it dishonourable for freemen. Thus the way out of such a mode of production is barred, while on the other hand slavery is an impediment to more developed production, which urgently requires its removal. This contradiction spells the doom of all production based on slavery and of all communities based on it. A solution comes about in most cases through the forcible subjection of the deteriorating communities by other, stronger ones (Greece by Macedonia and later Rome). As long as these themselves have slavery as their foundation there is merely a shifting of the centre and a repetition of the process on a higher plane until (Rome) finally a people conquers that replaces slavery by another form of production.” (Engels, in his preparatory writings for Anti-Duhring)To illustrate this explanation, let us turn to Rome, where slavery exhausted its potential, and Western European society finally blundered out of the blind alley it found itself in.
Roman Slavery
Roman society, after the expulsion of its early kings, presents at first the same aspect as the Greek city states, when they were dominated by landlords (in Rome called “patricians” and organised in the Senate). Initially they monopolised all political rights.The difference with Greece was that the Roman patricians hung on to power, despite the concessions wrung from them, and monopolised the benefits of this influx. They linked slave labour to the exploitation of the great farms (latifundia). In so doing they inevitably undercut the plebians who, organised in legions, provided the basis for Roman military greatness.
The dispossessed legionaires could come back after twenty years of military service to find their farms choked with weeds. Inevitably they were ruined and drifted into the town to form a rootless, propertyless proletariat. But as the nineteenth century anti-capitalist social critic Sismondi said, “whereas the Roman proletariat lived at the expense of society, modern society lives at the expense of the proletariat”.
In Rome the Gracchus brothers led a last desperate struggle to save the independent plebeians. Both were cut down by the bought mob of the patricians.
Decline of the Roman Empire
In this situation the limits of slave production showed themselves. The slave has no incentive to develop production. He only works under threat of the whip. Free men for their part despised labour, which they associated with being an “instrumentum vocale”, an “item of property with a voice”, as the Roman jurists called slaves.The tragedy of Roman society was that the class struggle was three-cornered. The poor freemen had their quarrel with the great slave-holders, but the only pathetic bit of dignity they had to hang on to was that they were free, and thus they always made common cause with their oppressors in the army of the polis in conquering lands for slaves and holding down slave rebellions.
The slaves for their part lived in a world where slavery was universal, and so dreamed for the most part of “'enslaving the slave-holders”, not creating a world without slaves.
Slavery was beginning to die out, not because of humanitarian ideas supposedly introduced by Christianity, but because it simply did not pay. The only way slave production could take society forward was through the conquest of enormous numbers of slaves who could be worked to death in a few years and replaced.
These conquests had been made possible by the Roman legions of armed plebeians. But the plebeians had been destroyed by the very success of big slave-worked farms.
By this time the Romans could only find barbarian mercenaries to man their armies. Thus Rome was defended from the barbarians by barbarians! Clearly the empire was living on borrowed time.
Slavery was still important, particularly in domestic service to the rich, but it gradually ceased to be the dominant mode of production. As production and trade shrank, it became clear to the landlords that it was pointless feeding men to work on the fields all the year round when, because of the natural rhythms of agricultural work, they were idle half the time. Much better to get them to fend for themselves in periods of slack!
Former slaves were rented plots of land from which they had to pay a regular part of their produce to the landlord as well as wrench a subsistence for their family. In time, because of the natural tendency for peasants to get into debt in times of bad harvest, they were bound to the soil in a serf-like condition. This is called the period of the “colonate”.
Eventually the Western Empire was overthrown, not because the barbarians had become more aggressive and threatening, but because of the inner rottenness of the empire. We have seen that the productive forces were already in decline; and in the colonate some of the tendencies, that were to come to fruition under feudalism, were in the process of coming into existence.
Feudal Society
Feudal society thus emerged in the form of a pyramid of military obligations to those above in exchange for command of the land to those below.The whole structure relied on the unpaid labour of the peasants working on the lords' land. Unlike slaves, they were not the property of the lord. Feudalism developed untidily. Some in the village were in possession of very little land and either existed still as slaves or as household servants working on the lord's land. Freer peasants had land to till and had to pay a rent in kind. Others had an intermediate status, working small plots to gain their own subsistence and forced to pay labour services the rest of the time, on the lord's land.
Exploitation under feudalism is clear and unveiled. The peasants pay services in money, labour or produce to the lords. Everyone can see what is going on. If the lord is in a position to force the peasant to work four days instead of three on his land, then it is clear to both parties that the rate of exploitation has been increased.
Under slavery, on the contrary, even the part of the working week which the slave has to work to gain his own subsistence seems to be unpaid. He therefore seems to work for nothing. Under capitalism, the wage worker is paid a sum of money which is presented as being the value of his labour. All labour seems to be paid.
In all three systems the producer is exploited: but the particular form of exploitation ultimately determined the whole structure of society.
Under feudalism the 'bodies of armed men' which comprised the state were mainly drawn from the ruling class, who had a monopoly of armed might. So political and economic power were in the same hands. Justice in the village was largely in the hands of the lords' manorial courts. The feudal lord and his men-at-arms were police, judge, and executioners all rolled into one.
Looking back, we tend to regard feudalism as a static system. But, compared with slavery, feudalism provided a limited incentive for the producer to expand production for his own advantage. Sometimes the lord took the lead in developing agriculture, sometimes the peasants. This depended on the class struggle. Whether the incentive to produce more came from the lord's desire for more revenue for luxuries, or from the ambition of the peasants to set themselves up in business as independent farmers, production crept up.
But feudalism, like slavery before it imposed limits on the development of productivity. From generation to generation agricultural productivity was largely stagnant. The easiest way for the feudal lords to gain more wealth was to exploit more people. There was therefore a perpetual impulse to warfare, the net effect of which was to waste and destroy the productive forces.
Medieval Towns
Like previous forms of class society, feudalism in its development produced the germs of a new society in the towns.Medieval cities were centres of trade and handicrafts. As productivity developed, trade necessarily grew. Artisans, who had been attached to aristocratic households and monasteries in the dark ages, gathered together to trade with the rural areas in goods that could be produced quicker and therefore cheaper, or could only be produced by skilled specialists.
These towns represented a new principle. Unlike the universal relations of dominance and subservience of feudalism, they were free associations of trading people, producing what one representative of the feudal lords called that “new and detestable name”, the commune. Within the towns production and trade was organised in guilds, divided on craft lines. These attempted to regulate production, price and quality.
As the productivity of labour grew, so did trade, and production for the market, commodity production, and a money economy. Increasingly, grain crops were produced for sale to feed the towns. A stratum of peasants grew rich at their fellows' expense, and aspired to become land-owning farmers producing for a market.
Serfdom had largely died out in England by the end of the fourteenth century, but bondage to the soil was replaced by short-term leases and an increasing stream of poor peasants being pushed out altogether and forced into vagabondage (roaming the land in search of a living). By the seventeenth century, it was reckoned that up to quarter of the population was without any means of livelihood other than begging. Progress, as ever, was achieved at the expense of the common people.
Class Struggle Under Feudalism
Whereas the class struggle between patricians and plebians was political, concerned with access to state power, the feudal class struggle was mainly waged on the economic plane.A constant, unremitting struggle took place between landlords and peasants. Occasionally this spilt over into revolutionary strife. The Peasants' Revolt of 1381 was the most notable such occasion in England.
After the Black Death, the peasants were in a strong position because of the shortage of labour. The landlords attempted to recoup their losses by enforcing traditional obligations all the harder. This produced a social explosion.
The revolt failed at bottom because the peasantry were a scattered class divided against themselves. King Richard II urged them to “go back to their haymaking”, and he hit them on their weak point. It was impossible to maintain the peasantry in a permanent state of mobilisation. Production had developed to a point where only a minority of the population could be maintained as fighting men, while the majority had to work on the land.
From Feudalism to Capitalism
Marx called the process of the dissolution of feudalism and emergence of capitalism “primitive accumulation'”. This process is one of piling up of fortunes in money rather than land on the one hand, and the creation of a propertyless proletariat on the other. It is the separation of the producers from the means by which they can maintain themselves.We have seen that the feudal peasantry was attached to the land. This guaranteed them a modest subsistence except in times of famine.
Nobody will work for money, with all the insecurity that entails, unless they have to. That is why the imperialists in Africa introduced money poll taxes and, in the case of South Africa drove the Africans on to barren reserves, to force them to provide a supply of wage labour. That is why a monopoly of land in the hands of private owners is a condition for the development of capitalism.
The main lever of dispossession of the peasantry in England was the passing of private Acts of Parliament through a parliament of landlords, called Acts of Enclosure. This was simply legalised robbery. It came at a time when the wool trade was expanding, and the landlords wanted more land in order to graze flocks of sheep. Land formerly occupied by perhaps five hundred people was decreed to be the squire's land, and a couple of shepherds took the villagers' place.
Brutal as this process was, it advanced production on the land by doing away with the old inefficient strip system and laying the basis for rational agriculture. Later, the advantages of the industrial revolution - modern machinery - could be applied to these big farms.
The other pole of the process of primitive accumulation was the accumulation of money. The first forms of capital, before industrial capital transformed production, were merchant capital and money-lending capital.
The 'discovery' of America by Spanish plunderers shifted the axis of world trade. Huge fortunes were made in the 'New World'.
At the end of the middle ages absolutist monarchs like the Tudors in England sprang up in most of the West European countries. These monarchies balanced between the old landed ruling class and the up-and-coming capitalists. To start with they took society forward by forming strong, stable nation-states within which trade, and hence capitalism, could develop. They defended the interests of merchants abroad in wars of conquest for colonies.
\
Yet, at bottom, they were out for themselves, and could only flourish because of a deadlock in the class struggle between the capitalists and the landowners. As capitalism developed further, the rising capitalist class conceived ambitions for political power to match their growing economic power. Bourgeois revolutions aimed against the reigning absolute monarchs would become necessary for capitalism to consolidate its rule.
Merchants began to turn their attention to the peasants half-employed on tiny plots of land. They began to 'put out' weaving to these households. The peasantry became more and more dependent on their weaving income. The merchants were able to move from just supplying raw materials and supplying sales outlets, to possession of the peasants, looms and even their cottages. Through their control over outlets they held the whip hand. This was another important process whereby the feudal peasantry was reduced to proletarian status.
Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, handicraft workshops were set up. It was found that the job could be broken down into simple processes. Adam Smith begins his Wealth of Nations by explaining the division of labour in making pins, through which an enormous amount of pins could be cheaply produced compared with the old skilled processes.
More than that, the breaking down of the job into simple repetitive tasks provided the possibility of replacing manual labour with machines. Starting by taking production as it found it, capitalism was beginning to revolutionise the instruments of production.
Capitalism could not move straight into domination of the world economy without hindrance. The newly awakened productive forces were in revolt at the old relations of production. These had to be overcome and new production relations installed which corresponded to the stage of development of the productive forces.
This was the task of the bourgeois revolutions. The English Revolution of the 1640s, the American Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789-94 were the decisive struggles that laid the foundations for the domination of capitalism on a world scale.
What precisely were the tasks of these bourgeois revolutions? Though feudalism was no longer dominant, the landed interest remained a fetter on commodity production.
Though in England the land-owning gentry switched to production for the market, in France up till 1789 the aristocracy guzzled a large part of the surplus in rents, and used their privileged position to impose all kinds of tolls on the free movement of goods.
This raised prices for everyone and enabled the bourgeoisie, in opposing the aristocracy, to claim to represent the interests of the nation as a whole. Up till the storming of the Bastille by the Parisian masses in 1789, for instance, food entering Paris was subject to a toll as a feudal privilege.
France was the classic country of the bourgeois revolution, where the old aristocracy was completely swept aside. The peasantry, increasingly producing for a market, had a tendency after the bourgeois revolution of 1789 to become divided into an aspiring capitalist class and a propertyless class of rural wage labourers.
Capitalism also had the task of setting up centralised national economies as an envelope within which the new mode of production could develop.
The capitalist class as a whole was now strong enough to bid for political power, which it needed to complete its revolution. The absolutist monarchies, from being a shield to defend the expansion of trade, had become an obstacle. They had to be done away with; and the masses of artisans and yeomen were mobilised to do the job for the capitalist class.
Capitalism
Capitalists measure their wealth not in land or slaves, but in money. The money fortunes found their way into production in the industrial revolution, a period as significant for mankind as the agricultural revolution thousands of years earlier.Capitalism is a system of exploitation like feudalism or slavery. Its distinctive feature is that rather than just consuming the surplus, the capitalists are forced by the nature of their system to plough the bulk of it back into production.
Capitalism thus achieves a dynamic unheard of in earlier epochs. Instead of just exploiting more people, as feudal lords strove to do through never-ending wars, capitalism exploits people more - it develops the productivity of labour.
In so doing it provides the possibility of a society of abundance, and so for doing away altogether with the division between exploiter and exploited. It provides, in other words, the possibility of a higher stage of society than capitalism itself.
Capitalism bases itself on the monopoly of the means of production in the hands of the ruling capitalist class. The vast majority of people are cut off from the means of life unless they work on terms dictated by the capitalist class.
Formally, wage workers seem to be paid for the work they do. In reality they are exploited as much as the feudal serf or the slave.
Under capitalism, labour-power (the capacity of the worker to labour) is a commodity like any other, in that it is bought and sold on the market. It is sold by its owner, the worker, and bought by the owner of money, the capitalist.
But labour-power is different from other commodities in this respect: it has the unique property of being able to create value. This is its usefulness to the capitalist, this is why the capitalist buys labour-power (employs workers).
As labour-power is consumed in production (as workers are put to work) value is created far in excess of what the capitalist has paid (as wages) for the labour-power. This is the source of the capitalist's profit.
If labour-power is to be available in the market place, so that the capitalist can buy it, labour-power must be produced. “Given the individual,” Marx wrote, “the production of labour-power consists in his reproduction of himself, or his maintenance”. Marx adds immediately that this maintenance contains “a historical and moral element” - i.e., what a working-class family require for their maintenance, and for the raising of children as a new generation of wage-workers, will depend on standards of living which have been established through struggle as acceptable to the working class in that society.
The essence of capitalist exploitation is this: The worker is paid wages not for his/her labour but for his/her labour-power - his/her keep. The difference is taken by the capitalist.
Thus the worker's daily work is divided into “necessary labour” and “surplus labour”. The worker performs “necessary labour” during that part of the day spent in producing value which, when sold, will cover the cost of the wages. The worker performs “surplus labour” during the remainder of the working day, producing value which, when sold, will cover the rent, interest and profit which goes to the capitalist class.
Capitalists vie with each other to increase the rate of exploitation of the workers. The detailed way they do this is dealt with in our companion pamphlet on Marxist Economics, which deals specifically with the dynamics of capitalism.
The motor of capitalism is competition. Each capitalist has to undercut his competitors if he is to survive. The best way to sell cheaper is to produce cheaper. Since labour-time is the measure of value, that means producing with less labour-time.
Mechanising is the main means of continually raising the productivity of labour. Perhaps the best example of the process is the one supplied by Marx-the case of the hand-loom weavers. The invention of the spinning jenny, and the mass-production of cheaper yarn, led to the mechanisation of cloth-making. Weaving, up to then, had still been a handicraft process. As demand for weavers expanded in the early years of the industrial revolution, the hand-loom weavers were able to bid up their wages and become a regular 'aristocracy of labour'. For capitalism they represented an obstacle to cheap production. Inevitably, as a result, the power loom was invented, for capitalist necessity is the mother and father of invention.
It would be quite clear to any casual observer that the power loom took much less labour-time to produce an equivalent amount of woven cloth.
In vain did the hand-loom weavers bid the price of their product down. In no way could they compete with the power loom. At their peak there had been a quarter of a million hand-loom weavers. Over a generation they were wiped out with thousands actually dying of starvation. A much smaller number were able to get jobs, at lower rates of pay, supervising the power looms.
That has ever been the way with capitalist progress. But in this way capitalism has developed the fantastic productive powers of modern industry.
Capitalism also develops a form of the state appropriate to its own rule. Different forms of state can exist under capitalism, each corresponding to a different stage in the development of the class struggle - from parliamentary democracy to fascism and bonapartist military-police dictatorships of the most variegated kinds.
All these forms of state have one thing in common - in the last analysis they defend private property in the means of production, and therefore the rule of capital.
Marx and Engels often emphasised that democracy is the ideal form of capitalist class rule, first because it enables the capitalists to sort out their differences; and secondly because it gives the working-class parties a semblance of a say of running society. Changes necessary for the continued existence of the system can thus more easily be made.
At the same time bourgeois democracy provides the most favourable ground for the workers to organise to overthrow their exploiters.
Capitalism has required, as a precondition of its existence, a new class of propertyless toilers. Throughout its development capitalism has created a bigger and bigger pool of wage-workers.
Even since the second world war, millions of small farmers have been driven from the land in countries such as France, Italy and Japan. This has been a progressive step in so far as it tears these people away from the isolation and backwardness of rural life, and in so far as it represents a raising of the productivity of labour, so that less people are needed to grow food and more can set their hands to producing other things.
But, at the same time, capitalism has no regard for the interests of people, and relentlessly searches out surplus value at any cost to the masses.
The Capitalist World Market
As we have seen, though it has created misery for the masses, capitalism has been a dynamic system. Its aim and impulse is more and more surplus value.Thus industrial capitalism strives to conquer the world. Merchant capital had contented itself with exacting tribute from the existing modes of production in other countries; industrial capital, in the empires it created after the industrial revolution, flooded these countries with cheap manufactured goods.
These goods necessarily destroyed the existing system of handicrafts, which was united with agriculture in the villages.
Existing societies were forcibly broken up. Moreover agriculture was increasingly switched towards the requirements of the world market. Capitalism was striving to create a world after its own image.
This process was brought to its highest stage in the imperialist phase of capitalist development. After the Indian Mutiny, which began in 1857, the British rulers saw the need to build up a network of railways, to allow rapid troop movements, in order to keep the population pinned down. This marked the beginning of the imperialist phase of the exploitation of India. Export of capital rather than of goods became the predominant feature.
Imperialism
This development was the result of the growth of monopoly capitalism in the metropolitan countries, involving the fusion of finance with manufacturing capital-the epoch of imperialism, which was analysed by Lenin. National markets became too small for the giant monopolies as they swallowed up their weaker competitors, expanded production to new heights, and looked for new and profitable areas for investment.In the case of India, this process really got going at the end of the nineteenth century when capital was exported from Britain to build up a modern Indian-based textile industry, mainly under British ownership.
“One capitalist kills many”, as Marx says. Capitalism destroys not only petty production, but also continually bankrupts the weakest of its own brethren and jettisons them into the ranks of the propertyless.
This is a two-sided process - progressive in its objective economic content, by piling up enormous productive resources for the potential benefit of mankind, but, under capitalism, concentrating colossal power in the hands of a tiny handful of rich magnates. At the end of the nineteenth century we saw the development of monopoly out of competition itself.
The banking system, Marx wrote, “places all the available and even potential capital of society that is not already actively employed at the disposal of the industrial and commercial capitalists, so that neither the lenders nor users of this capital are its real owners or producers. It thus does away with the private character of capital and thus contains in itself, but only in itself, the abolition of capital itself... Finally there is no doubt that the credit system will serve as a powerful lever during the transition from the capitalist mode of production to the mode of production of associated labour, but only as one element in connection with other great organic revolutions of the mode of production itself.”
Capitalism continually requires infusions of money capital in order for profit-making to continue uninterruptedly. Once a stock of commodities has been produced, a single capitalist would either have to wait till he had sold them before he once again had money in his pocket to restart production; or he would have to keep stocks of money-capital idle much of the time as a reserve for investment when needed; he would have to continually pay money into a fund to renew stocks of fixed capital which might be idle for ten or twenty years.
In reality, a stratum of capitalist hangers-on develop, not prepared to invest directly in production, but quite prepared to lend their money in order to cut themselves a slice of the pie of surplus-value. So there is a tendency for competition to generate unused reserves of money capital. These reserves are collected in a few rich hands - concentrations of finance capital.
Finance capital initially provided a stimulus to the capitalist system by gathering and siphoning money-capital into production. It did so, of course, only to cream off an increasing proportion of the surplus value for itself.
As Marx pointed out, finance capital also concentrates tremendous economic power in its own hands, and effectively integrates the individual manufacturing capitalist into the requirements of capitalist production as a whole through allocation and withdrawal of credits.
Imperialism is the epoch in which finance capital has fused with monopoly capital involved in production.
Under imperialism, while competition between capitalists within the boundaries of the nation-state has not been completely done away with, conflict has spilt over into the international arena.
The big monopolies and the banks exported capital rather than just commodities. A massive programme of railway building was undertaken in every continent and clime. Loans were floated for the most far-flung places. A systematic search was undertaken for every kind of raw material and mineral resource.
Conflicts now began between national capital blocs. The struggle was for nothing less than mastery of the world. Wars unparalleled in ferocity in the history of mankind broke out for colonies and a redivision of imperial spoils.
The first world war indicated that capitalism, like previous forms of class society, had ceased to be progressive. Instead of taking production forward, there was mass destruction and mass murder.
But at the same time, a new society was developing within the old. The Russian revolution served notice that the rule of the working class was at hand.
Revolutionary Role of the Working Class
The working class is unlike any other exploited class in history. We have seen how the three-sided class struggle within slave society necessarily led to the “common ruin of the contending classes”. We have seen how the feudal peasantry were for hundreds of years incapable of formulating a coherent revolutionary alternative to the system that exploited them.This failure had not been accidental. The peasantry is an isolated class, scattered over the countryside and finding it very difficult to combine. But their problem is not just geographical, it is at bottom social. For as Marx put it, the peasantry is a class only in one sense:
“in so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. In so far as...the identity of their interests begets no community, no national bond and no political organisation among them, they do not form a class.”For the peasantry are smallholders-a class divided against itself. They are like potatoes in a sack-destined for the chipping machine under capitalist progress.
The working class, on the other hand, is concentrated in great masses by the very nature of factory production. Unlike the peasantry, their only strength lies in collective action. Through collective exploitation, the working class are trained and educated by capitalism itself to act as the system's grave-diggers.
Capitalist Crisis
Nor is the modern working class left to vegetate at a modest but constant standard of living. Insecurity is a condition of their existence.Capitalism has produced many wonders inconceivable hitherto. It has also produced social disasters inconceivable under previous forms of society - crises taking the form of overproduction.
In pre-capitalist societies, the subsistence of the toilers was only interrupted by famine - physical shortage of necessities. Primitive people's minds may well have been clogged with all sorts of superstition, but the spectacle of people starving, while sitting idly in front of the tools necessary to make the things they need, is a unique product of our society.
Capitalism is social production. It is social in two ways. Firstly, it ties the whole world up into one economic unit through the world market, a worldwide division of labour. Everybody is dependent on everyone else for the things they need.
Secondly it introduces large scale production only workable by collective labour.
Yet, at the same time, the system runs on private appropriation and private profit. It is anarchic - nobody knows how much of any commodity is needed at any time. The capitalist plans production within his own factory, but social production as a whole is unplanned.
Marx wrote:
“Capitalist production seeks continually to overcome these immanent barriers but overcomes them only by means which again place the barriers in its way and on a more formidable scale. The real barrier of capitalist production is capital itself”. (Capital, Vol. 3)The laws of capitalism work, “despite anarchy, in and through anarchy”. Each capitalist is oblivious to the actual requirements of society for pig-iron or knicker-elastic at any time. They produce what they hope will make the maximum profit, whether pig-iron or knicker-elastic. They organise production within their factory; but anarchy reigns in production as a whole.
The possibility of crisis is inherent in such a system. All that socialists want to do is plan production in society at large in the same meticulous way the capitalists do within each separate factory.
The worker, unlike the exploited classes in pre-capitalist society, is a free person - free in that he is not subject to “relations of personal dependence” and can work for any boss he likes, and free from any attachment to the means of subsistence. But the workers' expectations and feelings of security are continually shattered by plagues of mass unemployment.
Crisis poses over and over again before the working class the need to change society. Capitalism will never collapse of its own accord. It has to be overthrown.
It is a caricature of Marxism to suggest that the revolution will be made automatically by workers made destitute by the workings of the system. It will be overthrown by a conscious and determined class, not just by a desperate class.
What is true is that the perpetual insecurity of existence under capitalism will produce a questioning in the minds of workers. Just as we have to understand nature in order to master it, so workers will have to understand the nature of their enemy before they can overthrow it.
We have outlined the progress of mankind from primitive communism to capitalism. An objective look at the record shows also the world we have lost. Chief Sitting Bull, an outstanding defender of Native American tribal society, ended up miserably as a kind of freak in Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. As he toured the Western capitals he was astounded at the wealth - but also at the poverty. He said, “The white man (by which he meant the capitalist system) knows how to produce wealth, not how to distribute it”.
Yet the possibility now exists for a society where enough can be produced for each to take according to their need. The possibilities posed before mankind by science and new technology were foreseen by Marx over 120 years ago. In one of his notebooks he wrote:
“No longer does the worker insert a modified natural thing as middle link between the object and himself; rather he inserts the process of nature, transformed into an industrial process, as a means between himself and unorganic nature mastering it. In this transformation it is...the development of the social individual which appears as the great foundation-stone of production and of wealth. The theft of alien labour-time, on which the present is based, appears a miserable foundation in face of this new one, created by large-scale industry itself...
“The surplus labour of the mass has ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few, for the development of the human head... The free development of individuals and hence...the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific, etc., development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.” (Grundrisse)
The !Kung people in the Kalahari live lives of material want and intellectual backwardness by our standards, but they know better than to make labour for others the driving force of their society. In consequence they work a week of between 12 and 19 hours!
Now mankind has the resources and technical means to reach a society of abundance. The working class, organised and conscious, can overthrow capitalism and create such a society - a society where people can plan what they need and want, produce it, and then spend the rest of the time enjoying it. It's as simple as that.
Preface to The History of the Russian Revolution
by TrotskyDuring the first two months of 1917 Russia was still a Romanov monarchy. Eight months later the Bolsheviks stood at the helm. They were little know to anybody when the year began, and their leaders were still under indictment for state treason when they came to power. You will not find another such sharp turn in history - especially if you remember that it involves a nation of 150 million people. It is clear that the events of 1917, whatever you think of them, deserve study.
The history of a revolution, like every other history, ought first of all to tell what happened and how. That, however, is little enough. From the very telling it ought to become clear why it happened thus and not otherwise. Events can neither be regarded as a series of adventures, nor strung on the thread of a preconceived moral. They must obey their own laws. The discovery of these laws is the author's task.
The most indubitable feature of a revolution is the direct interference of the masses in historical events. In ordinary times the state, be it monarchical or democratic, elevates itself above the nation, and history is made by specialists in that line of business - kings, ministers, bureaucrats, parliamentarians, journalists.
But at those crucial moments when the old order becomes no longer endurable to the masses, they break over the barriers excluding them from the political arena, sweep aside their traditional representatives, and create by their own interference the initial groundwork for a new régime. Whether this is good or bad we leave to the judgement of moralists. We ourselves will take the facts as they are given by the objective course of development. The history of a revolution is for us first of all a history of the forcible entrance of the masses into the realm of rulership over their own destiny.
In a society that is seized by revolution classes are in conflict. It is perfectly clear, however, that the changes introduced between the beginning and the end of a revolution in the economic bases of the society and its social substratum of classes, are not sufficient to explain the course of the revolution itself, which can overthrow in a short interval age-old institutions, create new ones, and again overthrow them. The dynamic of revolutionary events is directly determined by swift, intense and passionate changes in the psychology of classes which have already formed themselves before the revolution.
The point is that society does not change its institutions as need arises, the way a mechanic changes his instruments. On the contrary, society actually takes the institutions which hang upon it as given once for all. For decades the oppositional criticism is nothing more than a safety valve for mass dissatisfaction, a condition of the stability of the social structure. Such in principle, for example, was the significance acquired by the social-democratic criticism. Entirely exceptional conditions, independent of the will of persons and parties, are necessary in order to tear off from discontent the fetters of conservatism, and bring the masses to insurrection.
The swift changes of mass views and moods in an epoch of revolution thus derive, not from the flexibility and mobility of man's mind, but just the opposite, from its deep conservatism. The chronic lag of ideas and relations behind new objective conditions, right up to the moment when the latter crash over people in the form of a catastrophe, is what creates in a period of revolution that leaping movement of ideas and passions which seems to the police mind a mere result of the activities of “demagogues.”
The masses go into a revolution not with a prepared plan of social reconstruction, but with a sharp feeling that they cannot endure the old régime. Only the guiding layers of a class have a political program, and even this still requires the test of events, and the approval of the masses. The fundamental political process of the revolution thus consists in the gradual comprehension by a class of the problems arising from the social crisis - the active orientation of the masses by a method of successive approximations.
The different stages of a revolutionary process, certified by a change of parties in which the more extreme always supersedes the less, express the growing pressure to the left of the masses - so long as the swing of the movement does not run into objective obstacles. When it does, there begins a reaction: disappointments of the different layers of the revolutionary class, growth of indifferentism, and therewith a strengthening of the position of the counter-revolutionary forces. Such, at least, is the general outline of the old revolutions.
Only on the basis of a study of political processes in the masses themselves, can we understand the rôle of parties and leaders, whom we least of all are inclined to ignore. They constitute not an independent, but nevertheless a very important, element in the process. Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam.
The difficulties which stand in the way of studying the changes of mass consciousness in a revolutionary epoch are quite obvious. The oppressed classes make history in the factories, in the barracks, in the villages, on the streets of the cities. Moreover, they are least of all accustomed to write things down. Periods of high tension in social passions leave little room for contemplation and reflection. All the muses - even the plebeian muse of journalism, in spite of her sturdy hips - have hard sledding in times of revolution. Still the historian's situation is by no means hopeless. The records are incomplete, scattered, accidental.
But in the light of the events themselves these fragments often permit a guess as to the direction and rhythm of the hidden process. For better or worse, a revolutionary party bases its tactics upon a calculation of the changes of mass consciousness. The historic course of Bolshevism demonstrates that such a calculation, at least in its rough features, can be made. If it can be made by a revolutionary leader in the whirlpool of the struggle, why not by the historian afterwards?
However, the processes taking place in the consciousness of the masses are not unrelated and independent. No matter how the idealists and the eclectics rage, consciousness is nevertheless determined by conditions. In the historic conditions which formed Russia, her economy, her classes, her State, in the action upon her of other states, we ought to be able to find the premises both of the February revolution and of the October revolution which replaced it. Since the greatest enigma is the fact that a backward country was the first to place the proletariat in power, it behoves us to seek the solution of that enigma in the peculiarities of that backward country - that is, in its differences from other countries.
The historic peculiarities of Russia and their relative weight will be characterised by us in the early chapters of this book which give a short outline of the development of Russian society and its inner forces. We venture to hope that the inevitable schematism of these chapters will not repel the reader. In the further development of the book he will meet these same forces in living action.
This work will not rely in any degree upon personal recollections. The circumstance that the author was a participant in the events does not free him from the obligation to base his exposition upon historically verified documents. The author speaks of himself, in so far as that is demanded by the course of events, in the third person. And that is not a mere literary form: the subjective tone, inevitable in autobiographies or memoirs, is not permissible in a work of history.
However, the fact that the author did participate in the struggle naturally makes easier his understanding, not only of the psychology of the forces in action, both individual and collective, but also of the inner connection of events. This advantage will give positive results only if one condition is observed: that he does not rely upon the testimony of his own memory either in trivial details or in important matters, either in questions of fact or questions of motive and mood. The author believes that in so far as in him lies he has fulfilled this condition.
There remains the question of the political position of the author, who stands as a historian upon the same viewpoint upon which he stood as a participant in the events. The reader, of course, is not obliged to share the political views of the author, which the latter on his side has no reason to conceal. But the reader does have the right to demand that a historical work should not be the defence of a political position, but an internally well-founded portrayal of the actual process of the revolution. A historical work only then completely fulfils the mission when events unfold upon its pages in their full natural necessity.
For this, is it necessary to have the so-called historian's “impartiality”? Nobody has yet clearly explained what this impartiality consists of. The often quoted words of Clemenceau that it is necessary to take a revolution “en bloc,” as a whole - are at the best a clever evasion. How can you take as a whole a thing whose essence consists in a split? Clemenceau's aphorism was dictated partly by shame for his too resolute ancestors, partly by embarrassment before their shades.
One of the reactionary and therefore fashionable historians in contemporary France, L. Madelin, slandering in his drawing-room fashion the great revolution - that is, the birth of his own nation - asserts that “the historian ought to stand upon the wall of a threatened city, and behold at the same time the besiegers and the besieged”: only in this way, it seems, can he achieve a “conciliatory justice.” However, the words of Madelin himself testify that if he climbs out on the wall dividing the two camps, it is only in the character of a reconnoiterer for the reaction. It is well that he is concerned only with war camps of the past: in a time of revolution standing on the wall involves great danger. Moreover, in times of alarm the priests of “conciliatory justice” are usually found sitting on the inside of four walls waiting to see which side will win.
The serious and critical reader will not want a treacherous impartiality, which offers him a cup of conciliation with a well-settled poison of reactionary hate at the bottom, but a scientific conscientiousness, which for its sympathies and antipathies - open and undisguised - seeks support in an honest study of the facts, a determination of their real connections, an exposure of the causal laws of their movement. That is the only possible historic objectivism, and moreover it is amply sufficient, for it is verified and attested not by the good intentions of the historian, for which only he himself can vouch, but the natural laws revealed by him of the historic process itself.
The sources of this book are innumerable periodical publications, newspapers and journals, memoirs, reports, and other material, partly in manuscript, but the greater part published by the Institute of the History of the Revolution in Moscow and Leningrad. We have considered its superfluous to make reference in the text to particular publications, since that would only bother the reader. Among the books which have the character of collective historical works we have particularly used the two-volume Essays on the History of the October Revolution (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927). Written by different authors, the various parts of this book are unequal in value, but they contain at any rate abundant factual material.
The dates in our book are everywhere indicated according to the old style - that is, they are 13 days behind the international and the present Soviet calendar. The author felt obliged to use the calendar which was in use at the time of the revolution. It would have been no labour of course to translate the dates into the new style. But this operation in removing one difficulty would have created others more essential. The overthrow of the monarchy has gone into history as the February revolution; according to the Western calendar, however, it occurred in March.
The armed demonstration against the imperialist policy of the Provisional Government has gone into history under the name of the “April Days,” whereas according to the Western calendar it happened in May. Not to mention other intervening events and dates, we remark only that the October revolution happened according to European reckoning in November. The calendar itself, we see, is tinted by the events, and the historian cannot handle revolutionary chronology by mere arithmetic. The reader will be kind enough to remember that before overthrowing the Byzantine calendar, the revolution had to overthrow the institutions that clung to it.
Leon Trotsky
Prinkipo, November 14, 1930.
From Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy
Extract from Chapter Four by Frederick Engels, 1886….What is true of nature, which is hereby recognized also as a historical process of development, is likewise true of the history of society in all its branches and of the totality of all sciences which occupy themselves with things human (and divine). Here, too, the philosophy of history, of right, of religion, etc., has consisted in the substitution of an interconnection fabricated in the mind of the philosopher for the real interconnection to be demonstrated in the events; has consisted in the comprehension of history as a whole as well as in its separate parts, as the gradual realization of ideas -- and naturally always only the pet ideas of the philosopher himself.
According to this, history worked unconsciously but of necessity towards a certain ideal goal set in advance -- as, for example, in Hegel, towards the realization of his absolute idea -- and the unalterable trend towards this absolute idea formed the inner interconnection in the events of history. A new mysterious providence -- unconscious or gradually coming into consciousness -- was thus put in the place of the real, still unknown interconnection. Here, therefore, just as in the realm of nature, it was necessary to do away with these fabricated, artificial interconnections by the discovery of the real ones -- a task which ultimately amounts to the discovery of the general laws of motion which assert themselves as the ruling ones in the history of human society.
In one point, however, the history of the development of society proves to be essentially different from that of nature. In nature -- in so far as we ignore man's reaction upon nature -- there are only blind, unconscious agencies acting upon one another, out of whose interplay the general law comes into operation. Nothing of all that happens -- whether in the innumerable apparent accidents observable upon the surface, or in the ultimate results which confirm the regularity inherent in these accidents -- happens as a consciously desired aim. In the history of society, on the contrary, the actors are all endowed with consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working towards definite goals; nothing happens without a conscious purpose, without an intended aim.
But this distinction, important as it is for historical investigation, particularly of single epochs and events, cannot alter the fact that the course of history is governed by inner general laws. For here, also, on the whole, in spite of the consciously desired aims of all individuals, accident apparently reigns on the surface.
That which is willed happens but rarely; in the majority of instances the numerous desired ends cross and conflict with one another, or these ends themselves are from the outset incapable of realization, or the means of attaining them are insufficient. thus the conflicts of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the domain of history produce a state of affairs entirely analogous to that prevailing in the realm of unconscious nature.
The ends of the actions are intended, but the results which actually follow from these actions are not intended; or when they do seem to correspond to the end intended, they ultimately have consequences quite other than those intended. Historical events thus appear on the whole to be likewise governed by chance. But where on the surface accident holds sway, there actually it is always governed by inner, hidden laws, and it is only a matter of discovering these laws.
Men make their own history, whatever its outcome may be, in that each person follows his own consciously desired end, and it is precisely the resultant of these many wills operating in different directions, and of their manifold effects upon the outer world, that constitutes history. Thus it is also a question of what the many individuals desire.
The will is determined by passion or deliberation. But the levers which immediately determine passion or deliberation are of very different kinds. Partly they may be external objects, partly ideal motives, ambition, “enthusiasm for truth and justice”, personal hatred, or even purely individual whims of all kinds. But, on the one hand, we have seen that the many individual wills active in history for the most part produce results quite other than those intended -- often quite the opposite; that their motives, therefore, in relation to the total result are likewise of only secondary importance. On the other hand, the further question arises: What driving forces in turn stand behind these motives? What are the historical forces which transform themselves into these motives in the brains of the actors?
The old materialism never put this question to itself. Its conception of history, in so far as it has one at all, is therefore essentially pragmatic; it divides men who act in history into noble and ignoble and then finds that as a rule the noble are defrauded and the ignoble are victorious. hence, it follows for the old materialism that nothing very edifying is to be got from the study of history, and for us that in the realm of history the old materialism becomes untrue to itself because it takes the ideal driving forces which operate there as ultimate causes, instead of investigating what is behind them, what are the driving forces of these driving forces.
This inconsistency does not lie in the fact that ideal driving forces are recognized, but in the investigation not being carried further back behind these into their motive causes. On the other hand, the philosophy of history, particularly as represented by Hegel, recognizes that the ostensible and also the really operating motives of men who act in history are by no means the ultimate causes of historical events; that behind these motives are other motive powers, which have to be discovered. But it does not seek these powers in history itself, it imports them rather from outside, from philosophical ideology, into history.
Hegel, for example, instead of explaining the history of ancient Greece out of its own inner interconnections, simply maintains that it is nothing more than the working out of “forms of beautiful individuality”, the realization of a “work of art” as such. He says much in this connection about the old Greeks that is fine and profound, but that does not prevent us today from refusing to be put off with such an explanation, which is a mere manner of speech.
When, therefore, it is a question of investigating the driving powers which - consciously or unconsciously, and indeed very often unconsciously -- lie behind the motives of men who act in history and which constitute the real ultimate driving forces of history, then it is not a question so much of the motives of single individuals, however eminent, as of those motives which set in motion great masses, whole people, and again whole classes of the people in each people; and this, too, not merely for an instant, like the transient flaring up of a straw-fire which quickly dies down, but as a lasting action resulting in a great historical transformation.
To ascertain the driving causes which here in the minds of acting masses and their leaders - the so-called great men - are reflected as conscious motives, clearly or unclearly, directly or in an ideological, even glorified, form - is the only path which can put us on the track of the laws holding sway both in history as a whole, and at particular periods and in particular lands. Everything which sets men in motion must go through their minds; but what form it will take in the mind will depend very much upon the circumstances. The workers have by no means become reconciled to capitalist machine industry, even though they no longer simply break the machines to pieces, as they still did in 1848 on the Rhine.
But while in all earlier periods the investigation of these driving causes of history was almost impossible - on account of the complicated and concealed interconnections between them and their effects - our present period has so far simplified these interconnections that the riddle could be solved. Since the establishment of large-scale industry - that is, at least since the European peace of 1815 - it has been no longer a secret to any man in England that the whole political struggle there pivoted on the claims to supremacy of two classes: the landed aristocracy and the bourgeoisie (middle class).
In France, with the return of the Bourbons, the same fact was perceived, the historians of the Restoration period, from Thierry to Guizot, Mignet, and Thiers, speak of it everywhere as the key to the understanding of all French history since the Middle Ages. And since 1830, the working class, the proletariat, has been recognized in both countries as a third competitor for power. Conditions had become so simplified that one would have had to close one's eyes deliberately not to see in the light of these three great classes and in the conflict of their interests the driving force of modern history -- at least in the two most advanced countries.
But how did these classes come into existence? If it was possible at first glance still to ascribe the origin of the great, formerly feudal landed property - at least in the first instance - to political causes, to taking possession by force, this could not be done in regard to the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Here, the origin and development of two great classes was seen to lie clearly and palpably in purely economic causes. And it was just as clear that in the struggle between landed property and the bourgeoisie, no less than in the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, it was a question, first and foremost, of economic interests, to the furtherance of which political power was intended to serve merely as a means.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat both arose in consequences of a transformation of the economic conditions, more precisely, of the mode of production. The transition, first from guild handicrafts to manufacture, and then from manufacture to large-scale industry, with steam and mechanical power, had caused the development of these two classes. At a certain stage, the new productive forces set in motion by the bourgeoisie - in the first place the division of labour and the combination of many detail labourers in one general manufactory - and the conditions and requirements of exchange, developed through these productive forces, became incompatible with the existing order of production handed down by history and sanctified by law -- that is to say, incompatible with the privileges of the guild and the numerous other personal and local privileges (which were only so many fetters to the unprivileged estates) of the feudal order to society.
The productive forces represented by the bourgeoisie rebelled against the order of production represented by the feudal landlords and the guild-masters. The result is known, the feudal fetters were smashed, gradually in England, at one blow in France. In Germany, the process is not yet finished. But just as, at a definite stage of its development, manufacture came into conflict with the feudal order of production, so now large-scale industry has already come into conflict with the bourgeois order or production established in its place.
Tied down by this order, by the narrow limits of the capitalist mode of production, this industry produces, on the one hand, an ever-increasingly proletarianisation of the great mass of the people, and on the other hand, an ever greater mass of unsaleable products. Overproduction and mass misery, each the cause of the other - that is the absurd contradiction which is its outcome, and which of necessity calls for the liberation of the productive forces by means of a change in the mode of production.
In modern history at least it is, therefore, proved that all political struggles are class struggles, and all class struggles for emancipation, despite their necessarily political form - for every class struggle is a political struggle - turn ultimately on the question of economic emancipation. Therefore, here at least, the state - the political order - is the subordination, and civil society - the realm of economic relations - the decisive element. The traditional conception, to which Hegel, too, pays homage, saw in the state the determining element, and in civil society the element determined by it.
Appearances correspond to this. As all the driving forces of the actions of any individual person must pass through his brain, and transform themselves into motives of his will in order to set him into action, so also all the needs of civil society - no matter which class happens to be the ruling one - must pass through the will of the state in order to secure general validity in the form of laws. That is the formal aspect of the matter - the one which is self-evident.
The question arises, however, what is the content of this merely formal will - of the individual as well as of the state -- and whence is this content derived? Why is just this willed and not something else? If we enquire into this, we discover that in modern history the will of the state is, on the whole, determined by the changing needs of civil society, but the supremacy of this or that class, in the last resort, by the development of the productive forces and relations of exchange.
But if even in our modern era, with its gigantic means of production and communication, the state is not an independent domain with an independent development, but one whose existence as well as development is to be explained in the last resort by the economic conditions of life of society, then this must be still more true of all earlier times when the production of the material life of man was not yet carried on with these abundant auxiliary means, and when, therefore, the necessity of such production must have exercised a still greater mastery over men.
If the state even today, in the era of big industry and of railways, is on the whole only a reflection, in concentrated form, of the economic needs of the class controlling production, then this must have been much more so in an epoch when each generation of men was forced to spend a far greater part of its aggregate lifetime in satisfying material needs, and was therefore much more dependent on them than we are today. An examination of the history of earlier periods, as soon as it is seriously undertaken from this angle, most abundantly confirms this. But, of course, this cannot be gone into here….
From the Introduction to Dialectics of Nature
by Frederick Engels, 1875-6With men we enter history. Animals also have a history, that of their derivation and gradual evolution to their present position. This history, however, is made for them, and in so far as they themselves take part in it, this occurs without their knowledge or desire. On the other hand, the more that human beings become removed from animals in the narrower sense of the word, the more they make their own history consciously, the less becomes the influence of unforeseen effects and uncontrolled forces of this history, and the more accurately does the historical result correspond to the aim laid down in advance.
If, however, we apply this measure to human history, to that of even the most developed peoples of the present day, we find that there still exists here a colossal disproportion between the proposed aims and the results arrived at, that unforeseen effects predominate, and that the uncontrolled forces are far more powerful than those set into motion according to plan.
And this cannot be otherwise as long as the most essential historical activity of men, the one which has raised them from bestiality to humanity and which forms the material foundation of all their other activities, namely the production of their requirements of life, that is today social production, is above all subject to the interplay of unintended effects from uncontrolled forces and achieves its desired end only by way of exception and, much more frequently, the exact opposite.
In the most advanced industrial countries we have subdued the forces of nature and pressed them into the service of mankind; we have thereby infinitely multiplied production, so that a child now produces more than a hundred adults previously did. And what is the result? Increasing overwork and increasing misery of the masses, and every ten years a great [economic] collapse. Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind, and especially on his countrymen, when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom.
Only conscious organisation of social production, in which production and distribution are carried on in a planned way, can lift mankind above the rest of the animal world as regards the social aspect, in the same way that production in general has done this for men in their aspect as species. Historical evolution makes such an organisation daily more indispensable, but also with every day more possible. From it will date a new epoch of history, in which mankind itself, and with mankind all branches of its activity, and especially natural science, will experience an advance that will put everything preceding it in the deepest shade.
Extract from the Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
by MarxIn the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.
At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or - what is but a legal expression for the same thing - with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.
Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic - in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production.
No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation….
The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production - antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonisms, but of one arising form the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of society to a close.
From Karl Marx
by Frederick Engels, 1877Of the many important discoveries through which Marx has inscribed his name in the annals of science, we can here dwell on only two.
The first is the revolution brought about by him in the whole conception of world history. The whole previous view of history was based on conception that the ultimate causes of all historical changes are to be looked for in the changing ideas of human beings, and that of all historical changes political changes are the most important and dominate the whole of history.
But the question was not asked as to whence the ideas come into men's minds and what the driving causes of the political changes are. Only upon the newer school of French, and partly also of English, historians have forced the conviction that, since the Middle Ages at least, the driving force in European history was the struggle of the developing bourgeoisie with the fuedal aristocracy for social and political domination.
Now Marx has proved that the whole of previous history is a history of class struggles, that in all the manifold and complicated political struggles the only thing at issue has been the social and political rule of social classes, the maintenance of domination by older classes and the conquest of domination by newly arising classes. To what, however, do these classes owe their origin and their continued existence? They owe it to the particular material, physically sensible conditions in which society at a given period produces and exchanges its means of sustenance.
The fuedal rule of the Middle Ages rested on a self-sufficient economy of small peasant communities, which themselves produced almost all their requirements, in which there is almost no exchange and which received from the arms bearing nobility protection from without and national or at least political cohesion. When the towns arose and with them separate handicraft industry and trade intercourse, at first internal and later international, the urban bourgeoisie developed, and already during the Middle Ages achieved, in struggle with the nobility, its inclusion in the feudal order as likewise a privileged estate.
But with the discovery of the extra-European world, from the middle of the 15th century onwards, this bourgeoisie acquired a far more extensive sphere of trade and therewith a new spur for its industry; in the most important branches handicrafts were supplemented by manufacture, now on a factory scale, and this again was supplanted by large scale industry, possible owing to the discoveries of the previous century, especially that of the steam engine. Large scale industry, in its turn, reacted on trade by driving out the old manual labour in backward countries, and creating the present day new means of communication: steam engines, railways, electric telegraphy, in the more developed ones.
Thus the bourgeoisie came more and more to combine social wealth and social power in its hands, while it still for a long period remained excluded from political power, which was in the hands of the nobility and the monarchy supported by the nobility. But at a certain stage - in France since the Great Revolution - it also conquered political power, and now in turn became the ruling class over the proletariat and small peasants.
From this point of view all the historical phenomenon are explicable in simplest possible way - with sufficient knowledge of the particular economic condition of society (which it is true is totally lacking in our professional historians), and in the same way the conceptions and ideas of each historical period are most simply to be explained from the economic conditions of life and from the social and political relations of the period, which are in turn determined by these economic conditions. History was for the first time placed on its real basis; the palpable but previously totally overlooked fact that men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, therefore must work , before they can fight for domination, pursue politics, religion, philosophy, etc. - this palpable fact at last came into its historical rights.
This new conception of history, however, was of supreme significance for the socialist outlook. It showed that all previous history moved in class antagonisms and class struggles, that there have always existed ruling and ruled, exploiting and exploited classes, and that the great majority of mankind has always been condemned to arduous labour and little enjoyment. Why is this? Simply because in all earlier stages of development of mankind production was so little developed that the historical development could proceed only in this antagonistic form, that historical progress as all whole was assigned to the activity of a small privileged minority, while the great mass remained condemned to producing by their labour their own meagre means of subsistence and also the increasingly rich means of the privileged.
But the same investigation of history, which in this way provides a natural and reasonable explanation of the previous class rule, otherwise only explicable from the wickednesses of man, also leads to the realization that, in consequence of the so tremendously increased productive forces of the present time, even the last pretext has vanished for a division of mankind into rulers and ruled, exploiters and exploited, at least in the most advanced countries.
That the ruling big bourgeoisie has fulfilled its historic mission, that it is no longer capable of the leadership of society and has even become a hindrance to the development of production, as the trade crisis, and especially the last great collapse, and the depressed condition of industry in all countries have proved.
That historical leadership has passed to the proletariat, a class which, owing to its whole position in society, can only free itself by abolishing altogether all class rule, all servitude and all exploitation. And that the social productive forces, which have outgrown the control of the bourgeoisie, are only waiting for the associated proletariat to take possession of them in order to bring about a state of things in which every member of society will be enabled to participate not only in production but also in the distribution and administration of social wealth, and which so increases the social productive forces and their yield by planned operation of the whole of production that satisfaction of all reasonable needs will be assured to everyone in an ever-increasing measure.
From Engels' Letter to J. Bloch
London, September 21, 1890According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.
The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure - political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas - also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form.
There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.
We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive. But the political ones, etc., and indeed even the traditions which haunt human minds also play a part, although not the decisive one. The Prussian state also arose and developed from historical, ultimately economic, causes. But it could scarcely be maintained without pedantry that among the many small states of North Germany,
Brandenburg was specifically determined by economic necessity to become the great power embodying the economic, linguistic and, after the Reformation, also the religious difference between North and South, and not by other elements as well (above all by its entanglement with Poland, owing to the possession of Prussia, and hence with international political relations - which were indeed also decisive in the formation of the Austrian dynastic power).
Without making oneself ridiculous it would be a difficult thing to explain in terms of economics the existence of every small state in Germany, past and present, or the origin of the High German consonant permutations, which widened the geographic partition wall formed by the mountains from the Sudetic range to the Taunus to form a regular fissure across all Germany.
In the second place, however, history is made in such a way that the final result always arises from conflicts between many individual wills, of which each in turn has been made what it is by a host of particular conditions of life. Thus there are innumerable intersecting force, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant - the historical event.
This may again itself be viewed as the product of a power which works as a whole unconsciously and without volition. For what each individual wills is obstructed by everyone else, and what emerges is something that no one willed. Thus history has proceeded hitherto in the manner of a natural process and is essentially subject to the same laws of motion.
But from the fact that the wills of individuals - each of whom desires what he is impelled to by his physical constitution and external, in the last resort economic, circumstances (either his own personal circumstances or those of society in general) - do not attain what they want, but are merged into an aggregate mean, a common resultant, it must not be concluded that they are equal to zero. On the contrary, each contributes to the resultant and is to this extent included in it.
I would furthermore ask you to study this theory from its original sources and not at second-hand; it is really much easier. Marx hardly wrote anything in which it did not play a part. But especially The Eigteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte is a most excellent example of its application. There are also many allusion to it in Capital. Then may I also direct you to my writings: Herr Eugen Duhring's Revolution in Science and Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, in which I have given the most detailed account of historical material which, as far as I know, exists.
Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-á-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction.
But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent “Marxists” from this reproach, for the most amazing rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too....
From The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
by Karl Marx, 1852Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidiere for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851 for the Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle. And the same caricature occurs in the circumstances of the second edition of the Eighteenth Brumaire.
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.
Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.
When we think about this conjuring up of the dead of world history, a salient difference reveals itself. Camille Desmoulins, Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Napoleon, the heroes as well as the parties and the masses of the old French Revolution, performed the task of their time -- that of unchaining and establishing modern bourgeois society -- in Roman costumes and with Roman phrases. The first one destroyed the feudal foundation and cut off the feudal heads that had grown on it.
The other created inside France the only conditions under which free competition could be developed, parceled-out land properly used, and the unfettered productive power of the nation employed; and beyond the French borders it swept away feudal institutions everywhere, to provide, as far as necessary, bourgeois society in France with an appropriate up-to-date environment on the European continent. Once the new social formation was established, the antediluvian colossi disappeared and with them also the resurrected Romanism -- the Brutuses, the Gracchi, the publicolas, the tribunes, the senators, and Caesar himself.
Bourgeois society in its sober reality bred its own true interpreters and spokesmen in the Says, Cousins, Royer-Collards, Benjamin Constants, and Guizots; its real military leaders sat behind the office desk and the hog-headed Louis XVIII was its political chief. Entirely absorbed in the production of wealth and in peaceful competitive struggle, it no longer remembered that the ghosts of the Roman period had watched over its cradle.
But unheroic though bourgeois society is, it nevertheless needed heroism, sacrifice, terror, civil war, and national wars to bring it into being. And in the austere classical traditions of the Roman Republic, the bourgeois gladiators found the ideals and the art forms, the self-deceptions, that they needed to conceal from themselves the bourgeois-limited content of their struggles and to keep their passion on the high plane of great historic tragedy.
Similarly, at another stage of development a century earlier, Cromwell and the English people had borrowed from the Old Testament the speech, emotions, and illusions for their bourgeois revolution. When the real goal had been achieved and the bourgeois transformation of English society had been accomplished, Locke supplanted Habakkuk.
Thus the awakening of the dead in those revolutions served the purpose of glorifying the new struggles, not of parodying the old; of magnifying the given task in the imagination, not recoiling from its solution in reality; of finding once more the spirit of revolution, not making its ghost walk again.
From 1848 to 1851, only the ghost of the old revolution circulated -- from Marrast, the républicain en gants jaunes [Republican in yellow gloves], who disguised himself as old Bailly, down to the adventurer who hides his trivial and repulsive features behind the iron death mask of Napoleon. A whole nation, which thought it had acquired an accelerated power of motion by means of a revolution, suddenly finds itself set back into a defunct epoch, and to remove any doubt about the relapse, the old dates arise again -- the old chronology, the old names, the old edicts, which had long since become a subject of antiquarian scholarship, and the old minions of the law who had seemed long dead.
The nation feels like the mad Englishman in Bedlam who thinks he is living in the time of the old Pharaohs and daily bewails the hard labour he must perform in the Ethiopian gold mines, immured in this subterranean prison, a pale lamp fastened to his head, the overseer of the slaves behind him with a long whip, and at the exits a confused welter of barbarian war slaves who understand neither the forced labourers nor each other, since they speak no common language. “And all this,” sighs the mad Englishman, “is expected of me, a freeborn Briton, in order to make gold for the Pharaohs.” “In order to pay the debts of the Bonaparte family,” sighs the French nation.
The Englishman, so long as he was not in his right mind, could not get rid of his fixed idea of mining gold. The French, so long as they were engaged in revolution, could not get rid of the memory of Napoleon, as the election of December 10 [in 1848, when Louis Bonaparte was elected President of the French Republic] was proved. They longed to return from the perils of revolution to the fleshpots of Egypt, and December 2, 1851 [The date of the coup d'état by Louis Bonaparte], was the answer. Now they have not only a caricature of the old Napoleon, but the old Napoleon himself, caricatured as he would have to be in the middle of the nineteenth century.
The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped away all superstition about the past. The former revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to smother their own content. The revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content. There the phrase went beyond the content -- here the content goes beyond the phrase.
The February Revolution was a surprise attack, a seizing of the old society unaware, and the people proclaimed this unexpected stroke a deed of world importance, ushering in a new epoch. On December 2 the February Revolution is conjured away as a cardsharp's trick, and what seems overthrown is no longer the monarchy but the liberal concessions that had been wrung from it through centuries of struggle. Instead of society having conquered a new content for itself, it seems that the state has only returned to its oldest form, to a shamelessly simple rule by the sword and the monk's cowl. This is the answer to the coup de main [Unexpected stroke] of February, 1848, given by the coup de téte [Rash act] of December, 1851.
Easy come, easy go. Meantime, the interval did not pass unused. During 1848-51 French society, by an abbreviated revolutionary method, caught up with the studies and experiences which in a regular, so to speak, textbook course of development would have preceded the February Revolution, if the latter were to be more than a mere ruffling of the surface. Society seems now to have retreated to behind its starting point; in truth, it has first to create for itself the revolutionary point of departure-the situation, the relations, the conditions under which alone modern revolution becomes serious.
Bourgeois revolutions like those of the eighteenth century storm more swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the day- but they are short-lived, soon they have reached their zenith, and a long Katzenjammer [crapulence] takes hold of society before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly.
On the other hand, proletarian revolutions, like those of the nineteenth century, constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals -- until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out:
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
[Here is the rose, here dance!]
(“Here is the rose, here dance!” From Aesop's fable, “The Swaggerer,” referring to one who boasted that he had made a gigantic leap in Rhodes (which also means “rose” in Greek) and was challenged: “Here is Rhodes, here leap!” Marx's paraphrase, “Here is the rose, here dance,” is from the quotation used by Hegel in the preface to his book Outlines of the Philosophy of Right (1821). -- Ed. )
Questions on Historical Materialism
- What separates human beings from other animals?
- What determines our consciousness, our ideas, and view of the world?
- What role do Marxist explain is played by individuals in history?
- What do we mean by 'class'?
- How long did human beings exist before society was divided into classes, and what caused that division?
- Which group of people constituted the first ruling class and why?
- What was the Asiatic Mode of Production?
- What was the cause of the decline and fall of Roman slave society?
- In what way did the exploitation of serfs differ from that of slaves?
- What ultimately undermined the class struggle of the peasantry against the landlords during feudal times?
- What did Marx mean by “primitive accumulation”?
- What part did the “revolutionising of the means of production” play in the development of capitalism?
- Describe some modern day examples of this process?
- What were the tasks of the bourgeois revolutions?
- What differentiates capitalism from earlier systems of exploitation?
- How does the exploitation of the wage worker differ from that of the serf?
- Explain what Marxists mean by “Imperialism”?
- During what period did capitalism cease playing a progressive role?
- Marx described the working class as the “gravediggers” of capitalism. Why?
- What are the tasks of the proletarian, socialist revolution?
Suggested Reading List
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels (£1.50) The German Ideology, Marx and Engels (£7.99)
- The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels (£6.99)
- Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels (£2.95)
- The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Man to Ape, Engels (£1.00)
- The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, Lenin (50 p)
- The History of the Russian Revolution, Trotsky (£20.00)
- The Civil War in France, Marx (£4.50)
- The Peasant War in Germany, Engels (on-line)
- The Eigteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Marx (£2.50)
- The Holy Family, Marx (on-line)
- Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Engels (£2.00)
- The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx (£5.00)
- The Development of the Monist View of History, Plekhanov (on-line)
- The Foundations of Christianity, Kautsky (on-line)
- On Marx and Engels, Lenin (£1.00)
- Preface and Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx (£1.00)
- The critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx (£1.65)
Po Box 2626
London N1 7SQ
You can also buy Marxist literature online from Wellred Books Online Bookshop
No comments:
Post a Comment