Chris Harman: Base and Superstructure (Summer 1986)

It seeks through these political, judicial and religious means to secure its own position. It creates a non-economic 'superstructure' to ... MIA  > Archive  > Harman   ChrisHarman   BaseandSuperstructure (Summer1986) FirstpublishedinInternationalSocialism2:32,Summer1986,pp. 3–44. RepublishedinChrisHarman,MarxismandHistory,Bookmarks,London,1998,pp. 7–54. OnlineeditionpreparedbyMarcNewman,June2003. CopiedwiththanksfromtheRedFlagArchive. MarkedupbyEindeO’CallaghanfortheMarxists’InternetArchive. Inthesocialproductionoftheirlife,menenterintodefiniterelationsthatareindependentoftheirwill,relationsofproductionwhichcorrespondtoadefinitestageofdevelopmentoftheirmaterialproductiveforces. Thesumtotaloftheserelationsofproductionconstitutestheeconomicstructureofsociety,therealbasisonwhichrisesalegalandpoliticalsuperstructureandtowhichcorresponddefiniteformofsocialconsciousness. Themodeofproductionofmateriallifeconditionsthesocial,politicalandintellectuallifeprocessingeneral. Itisnottheconsciousnessofmenthatdeterminestheirbeing,but,onthecontrary,theirsocialbeingthatdeterminestheirconsciousness. Atacertainstageintheirdevelopmentthematerialproductiveforcesofsocietycomeintoconflictwiththeexistingrelationsofproductionor–whatisbutalegalexpressionforthesamething–thepropertyrelationswithinwhichtheyhavebeenatworkhitherto. Fromformsofdevelopmentoftheproductiveforcestheserelationsturnintofetters.Thenbeginsanepochofsocialrevolution. Withthechangeoftheeconomicfoundationtheentireimmensesuperstructureismoreorlessrapidlytransformed. Inconsideringsuchtransformations,adistinctionshouldalwaysbemadebetweenthematerialtransformationofthematerialconditionsofproduction,whichcanbedeterminedwith theprecisionofnaturalscience,andthelegal,political,religious,aestheticorphilosophical–inshortideological–formsinwhichmenbecomeconsciousoftheconflictandfightitout. ...Wedonotjudgeaperiodoftransformationbyitsconsciousness;onthecontrarythisconsciousnessmustitselfbeexplainedfromthecontradictionsofmateriallife,fromtheexistingconflictsbetweenthesocialproductiveforcesandtherelationsofproduction. InbroadoutlinesAsiatic,ancient,feudal,andmodernbourgeoismodesofproductioncanbedesignatedasprogressiveepochsintheeconomicfoundationofsociety [KarlMarx:fromthePrefacetoAContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy]. ThereisaconfusionattheverycentreofMarxism.MarxandEngelsprovidedamethodofanalysingsocietywhichhasbeenofenormousfecundity.ThishasbeenshownineverygenerationsincethemethodwasfirstoutlinedinTheGermanIdeologyin1846.Everypronouncementofthe‘deathofMarxism’bybourgeoisideologueshasbeenprovedwrongwithinadecadeorsobyanewrangeofMarxiststudiesofsociety,theeconomyandhistory.YetwhenithascometospellingoutwhatexactlyistheMarxistapproachtherehasbeenenormousconfusion,with‘Marxists’sayingapparentlycontradictorythings. Theconfusioncentresaroundthecouplet‘base’and‘superstructure’.MarxwroteinthePrefacetoAContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomyof1857that‘theeconomicstructureofsociety’formsthe‘realbasis’onwhich‘risesalegalandpoliticalsuperstructure.’[1] Eversincethen,Marxistshavebeenarguingaboutthestatement.Whatisthe‘base’?Theeconomy?Theforcesofproduction?Technology?Therelationsofproduction?Whatisincludedinthesuperstructure?Obviouslythestate.Butwhataboutideology(andrevolutionarytheory)?Thefamily?Thestatewhenitownsindustry? Finally,whatistherelationbetweenthe‘base’andthe‘superstructure’?Doesthebasedeterminethesuperstructure?Ifso,whatexactlyisthenatureofthedetermination?Anddoesthesuperstructurehaveadegreeof‘autonomy’–andifso,howcanthisbereconciledwithtalkof‘determination’(evenifitisonly‘determinationinthelastresort’)?   Mechanicalmaterialismanditsaftermath Theanswersgiventothesequestionsleadtoverydifferentviewsabouthowsocietydevelops. Attheoneextreme,thereistheviewthatthebaseistheforcesofproduction,thattheyinevitablyadvance,andthatthisinturnleadstochangesinsociety. Politicalandideologicalstruggleisthenseenasplayingnorealrole.Humanbeingsareproductsoftheircircumstances,andhistoryproceedscompletelyindependentlyoftheirwill.Theoutcomeofwars,revolutions,philosophicalargumentsorwhat-notisalwaysdeterminedinadvance.ItwouldhavemadenotoneiotaofdifferencetohistoryifRobespierrehadwalkedunderacarriagein1788orifthesealedtrainhadcrashedinApril1917. ThisviewofMarxismisbaseduponacertainreadingofMarxhimself,inparticularuponapowerfulpolemicalpassageinThePovertyofPhilosophy: Inacquiringnewproductiveforces,menchangetheirmodeofproduction;andinchangingtheirmodeofproduction,inchangingtheirwayofearningaliving,theychangealltheirsocialrelations.Thehandmillgivesyousocietywithafeudallord;thesteammillsocietywithanindustrialcapitalist.[2] ItisintheyearsafterMarx’sdeaththatsuchamechanical,deterministviewofhistorycomestoberegardedas‘Marxist’orthodoxy.ItwasduringthisperiodthatMarxismcametohegemonisetheGermanworkers’movement,andthroughittheSecondInternational.ButitwasMarxismasseenthroughtheeyesofKarlKautsky,the‘PopeofMarxism’. ForKautsky,historicaldevelopmenthadinevitablyproducedeachmodeofproductioninturn–antiquity,feudalism,capitalism–andwouldeventuallyleadtosocialism.Therewasan‘inevitable...adaptationofformsofappropriationtoformsofproduction’.[3]Revolutionarymovementscouldnotalterthispatternofdevelopment.ThustheHussitesofthe15thcenturyandtherevolutionaryAnabaptistsofthe16thcenturyhadbeenabletofightcourageouslyandtopresentthevisionofanewsociety;but,forKautsky,theycouldnotaltertheinevitabledevelopmentofhistory: Thedirectionofsocialdevelopmentdoesnotdependontheuseofpeacefulmethodsorviolentstruggles.Itisdeterminedbytheprogressandneedsofthemethodsofproduction.Iftheoutcomeofviolentrevolutionarystrugglesdoesnotcorrespondtotheintentionsoftherevolutionarycombatants,thisonlysignifiesthattheseintentionsstandinoppositiontothedevelopmentoftheneedsofproduction. Violentrevolutionarystrugglescanneverdeterminethedirectionofsocialdevelopment,theycanonlyincertaincircumstancesacceleratetheirpace...[4] Thetaskofrevolutionarysocialistsundermoderncapitalismwasnottotrytocutshortthehistoricalprocess,butsimplytoreflectitsdevelopmentbycarefullybuildingupsocialistorganisationuntilcapitalismwasreadytoturnintosocialism.But,atthesametime,counter-revolutionariescouldnotstoptheonwardmarchoftheforcesofproductionand,therefore,ofhistoricalevolution.Kautskyinsistedthat‘regression’frommoreadvancedtomorebackwardforcesofproductionneveroccurred.[5]‘Economicdevelopment’,saidhismostinfluentialwork,hisintroductiontotheGermanSocialDemocraticParty’sErfurtProgramme,‘willleadinevitablytothe...conquestofthegovernmentintheinterestsofthe[working]class’.[6] VeryclosetoKautsky’sformulationswerethoseofthepioneerRussianMarxist,Plekhanov.Heheldthatthedevelopmentofproductionautomaticallyresultedinchangesinthesuperstructure.Thereisnowayhumanendeavourcanblockthedevelopmentoftheforcesofproduction.‘Socialdevelopment’isa‘processexpressinglaws’.[7]‘Thefinalcauseofthesocialrelationshipsliesinthestateoftheproductiveforces.’‘Productiveforces...determine...socialrelations,i.e.economicrelations’.[8] Heprovidesa‘formula’whichsetsoutahierarchyofcausationinhistory.The‘stateoftheproductiveforces’determinesthe‘economicrelations’ofsociety.A‘socio-politicalsystem’thendevelopsonthis‘economicbasis’.‘Thementalityofmenlivinginsociety[is]determinedinpartdirectlybytheeconomicconditionsobtainingandinpartbytheentiresocio-politicalsystemthathasarisenonthatfoundation.’Finally,the‘variousideologies...reflectthepropertiesofthatmentality’.[9] Hewouldassertthat‘historyismadebymen’,butthengoontoinsistthat‘theaverageaxisofmankind’sintellectualdevelopment’runs‘paralleltothatofitseconomicdevelopment’,sothatintheendallthatreallymattersistheeconomicdevelopment.[10] TheoutcomeofgreathistoricaleventsliketheFrenchRevolutiondidnotdependatallontheroleplayedbyindividualslikeMirabeauorRobespierre: Nomatterwhatthequalitiesofagivenindividualmaybe,theycannoteliminatethegiveneconomicrelationsifthelatterconformtothegivenstateoftheproductiveforces. Talentedpeoplecanchangeonlyindividualfeaturesofevents,nottheirgeneraltrend.[11] JustasKautsky’sinterpretationofMarxismdominatedinthepartiesoftheSecondInternational,Plekhanov’swastakenupastheorthodoxybytheStalinistpartiesfromthelate1920sonwards.[12]InthehandsofStalinandhis‘theoreticians’itbecameanunbendablehistoricallaw:developmentoftheforcesofproductioninevitablyledtocorrespondingchangesinsociety,sothegrowthofindustryinRussiawouldinevitablyleadfroma‘workers’state’to‘socialism’andfrom‘socialism’to‘communism’,regardlessofthemiseryandhardshipinvolved;bycontrast,theclearestindicationthatWesterncapitalismhadoutliveditslifespanwasthedeclineinitsforcesofproduction.   Thereactionagainstdeterminism StalinistMarxismdidnotlongoutlastStalinhimself.The‘newleft’ofthelate1950sandtheMaoistleftofthemid-1960sbothlaunchedassaultsonthecrudemechanicaldeterministaccountofhistory. Theyinsisted,rightly,thatinMarx’sownhistoricalwritings–theClassStrugglesinFrance,The18thBrumaireofLouisBonaparte,TheCivilWarinFrance–thereisnotahintofapassive,fatalisticapproachtohistoricalchange.TheyalsolaidgreatemphasisoncertainremarksEngelshadmadeinaseriesoflettershewroteattheveryendofhislife,inthe1890s,criticisinganover-crudeuseofhistoricalmaterialism.EngelshadwrittentoStarkenburg: Political,juridical,philosophical,religious,literary,artistic,etc.developmentisbasedoneconomicdevelopment.Buttheseallreactononeanotherandalsoupontheeconomicbasis.Itisnotthattheeconomicsituationiscause,solelyactive,whileeverythingelseisonlypassiveeffect.Thereisratherinteractiononthebasisofeconomicnecessitywhichultimatelyalwaysassertsitself.[13] AndtoBloch: Accordingtothematerialistconceptionofhistory,theultimatelydeterminingelementinhistoryistheproductionandreproductionofreallife.MorethanthatneitherMarxnorIhaveeverasserted.Henceifsomebodytwiststhisintosayingthattheeconomicelementistheonlydeterminingone,hetransformsthatpropositionintoameaninglessabstractsenselessphrase. Theeconomicsituationisthebasis,butthevariouselementsofthesuperstructure–politicalformsoftheclassstruggleanditsresults,towit:constitutionsestablishedbyvictoriousclassesafterasuccessfulbattle,etc.,juridicalformsandeventhereflexesoftheseactualstrugglesinthebrainsoftheparticipants,political,juristic,philosophicaltheories,religiousviewsandtheirfurtherdevelopmentintosystemsofdogmas–alsoexercisetheirinfluenceuponthecourseofthehistoricalstrugglesandinmanycasespreponderateindeterminingtheirform... Thereisaninteractionofalltheseelementsinwhich,amidalltheendlesshostofaccidents,theeconomicelementfinallyassertsitselfasnecessary.’[14] Thepost-1956newleftwentontoarguethateventheterms‘baseandsuperstructure’weresimplyametaphor,nottobetakentooseriously.The‘reciprocal’influenceofthesuperstructureonthebasemeantthat‘determination’wasnottobeseenasastrictcausalrelationship. TheMaoistleftdidnotbeginwithsuchanexplicitbreakwiththepast.Thedoyenofthisschool,LouisAlthusser,wasquitewillinginhisearly1960swritingstoquoteStalinhimselffavourably. ButtheAlthusserianscreatedanewtheoreticalstructurewhichdestroyedmostofthecontentoftheoldnotionsof‘base’,‘superstructure’and‘determination’.Societyconsistedofanumberofdifferentstructures–thepolitical,theeconomic,theideological,thelinguistic–eachdevelopingatitsownspeed,andhavinganimpactontheothers.Atanyparticularpointinhistoryitcouldbeanyoneofthemthatdominatedtheothers.Itwasonly‘inthelastinstance’thattheeconomicwas‘determinant’. ThenewleftandtheMaoist-Althusserianschoolswereinitiallyveryhostiletoeachother.[15]Yetbothofthemredefinedhistoricalmaterialisminawaythatopenedthedoortoagreatdoseofvoluntarism. Forthe1950snewleft,thismeantmovingawayfromanytightdefinitionofclassoranyrealconcernwithhowsocialbeingmightaffectsocialconsciousness.InthewritingsaboutcurrenteventsbythemostprominentBritishnewleftfigure,E.P.Thompson–rightthroughfromhis1960essay‘Revolution’[16]tohisanticruisemissilewritingsof1980–thereistheinsistentmessagethatenergyandgoodwillandarepudiationoftightcategoriescanbeenoughinthemselvestoopentheroadtovictory.Inhismoretheoreticalwritingsherejectstheviewthat‘economic’factorsplayanysortofdeterminingroleinhistory,oreventhattheycanbeseparatedoutfromotherfactorssuchastheideologicalorjudicial.[17] Althusser’stoneisdifferent:inhisearlierwritingsthekeytochangeisstillapartyofanessentiallyStalinistsort.ButthereisthesameelementofvoluntarismasinThompson:ifonlythepartyunderstandsthearticulationofthedifferentstructures,itcanforcethepaceofhistory,regardlessof‘economic’factors. Mostofhisfollowershaveabandonedanynotionof‘determination’,evenin‘thelastinstance’,andhavemovedtopositionsthatdenyanypossibilityofunderstandinghowsocietieschange.So,forinstance,oneEnglishpost-Althusserian,GarethStedmanJones,nowtellsusthattheonlywaytounderstandanyideologyisinitsowntermsandthatyoumustnotmakeanyattempttointerpretitsdevelopmentintermsofthematerialcircumstancesofthosewhoadheretoit.[18]Wearerightbacktotheoldempiricistadage,‘Everythingiswhatitisandnothingelse.’SuchisthemousethattheelephantinestructuresofAlthusserianismhavegivenbirthto. TheconvergenceoftheoldnewleftandtheAlthusserianshascreatedasortof‘commonsense’amongMarxistswhichholdsthatanytalkofbaseandsuperstructureisreallyoldhat.Sowidespreadhastheinfluenceofthis‘commonsense’beenthatithasevenaffectedpeoplewhorejectcompletelythepoliticalconclusionsofThompsonorAlthusser.[19] TheonlyconcertedresistancetothistendencyhascomefromadmirersoftheorthodoxanalyticalphilosopherG.A.Cohen.[20]ButhisdefenceofMarxinvolvesacompleteretreattothemechanicalinterpretationofKautskyandPlekhanov.   Therevolutionarymaterialistalternative Historically,however,therehasalwaysbeenarevolutionaryalternativetoeithermechanicalmaterialismorvoluntarism.ItexistedinpartevenintheheydayofKautskyisminsomeofthewritingsofEngelsandintheworkoftheItalianMarxist,Labriola.[21] ButtheneedforatheoreticalalternativedidnotbecomemorewidelyapparentuntiltheyearsoftheFirstWorldWarandtheRussianRevolutionprovedthebankruptcyofKautskyism.ItwasthenthatLeninrereadHegelandconcluded,‘Intelligent(dialectical)idealismisclosertointelligentmaterialismthanstupid(metaphysical)materialism’.[22] Intheyearsthatfollowed,thinkerslikeGeorgeLukács,KarlKorschandAntonioGramscialltriedtoprovideversionsofhistoricalmaterialismwhichdidnotseehumanactivityassimplyapassivereflectionofotherfactors.AndinhismagnificentHistoryoftheRussianRevolution,LeonTrotskyprovidedanaccountofaworldhistoricaleventwhichplacedmassiveemphasisonsubjectiveaswellasobjectivefactors–andwascriticisedfromaPlekhanovitepointofviewfordoingso.[23] Anon-mechanical,non-voluntaristversionofhistoricalmaterialismisabsolutelyvitaltoday.ItcaneasilybefoundintheworksofMarxhimself,ifyousupplementhisclassicaccountinthePrefacetoAContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomywithwhathesaysatvariouspointsinTheGermanIdeology,ThePovertyofPhilosophy,TheCommunistManifestoandelsewhere.   Productionandsociety MarxfirstsetsouthisaccountofhistoricalmaterialisminTheGermanIdeologyof1846. Hestartsfromamaterialistrecognitionthathumanbeingsarebiologicallypartofnature: Thepremisesfromwhichwestartarenotdogmas,butrealpremisesfromwhichabstractioncanonlybemadeintheimagination.Theyarerealindividuals,theiractivityandthematerialconditionsunderwhichtheylive,boththosewhichtheyfindexistingandthosewhichtheyproducebytheirownactivity. Thefirstfacttobeestablishedisthephysicalorganisationoftheseindividualsandtheirconsequentrelationshiptotherestofnature...Thewritingofhistorymustalwayssetoutfromthesenaturalbasesandtheirmodificationinthecourseofhistorythroughtheactionsofmen. Wemustbeginbystatingthefirstrealpremiseofhumanexistence,andthereforeofallhumanhistory,thepremisethatmenmustbeabletoliveinorderto‘makehistory’.Butlifeinvolvesbeforeeverythingelseeatinganddrinking,ahabitation,clothingandmanyotherthings.. [Thisis]afundamentalconditionofallhumanhistorywhichtodayasthousandsofyearsagomustbedailyandhourlyfulfilledmerelyinordertosustainhumanlife.[24] Sothereisacoreactivityatanypointinhistorywhichisapreconditionforeverythingelsewhichhappens.Thisistheactivityofworkonthematerialworldinordertogetfood,shelterandclothing. Thecharacterofthisactivitydependsupontheconcretematerialsituationinwhichhumanbeingsfindthemselves. Thisdeterminesthecontentofthemostbasicformsofhumanaction.Andsoitalsodetermineswhatindividualsthemselvesarelike. Themodeofproductionmustnotbeconsideredsimplyasbeingthereproductionofthephysicalexistenceoftheindividuals.Ratheritisadefiniteformofactivityoftheseindividuals,adefiniteformofexpressingtheirlife,adefinitemodeoflifeontheirpart. Asindividualsexpresstheirlifesotheyare.Whattheyarethereforecoincideswiththeirproduction,bothofwhattheyproduceandhowtheyproduce. Thenatureofindividualsthusdependsonthematerialcircumstancesdeterminingtheirproduction...[25] ThesepassagescannotbeproperlyunderstoodunlessMarx’scentralpointabouthumanactivity–bestexpressedintheThesesonFeuerbach(writtenatthesametimeasTheGermanIdeology)–isunderstood.ForMarxhumanityispartofnature.Itarisesasaproductofbiologicalevolution,andonemustneverforgetitsphysicaldependenceonthematerialworldaroundit.Allofitsinstitutions,ideas,dreamsandidealscanonlybeunderstoodasarisingfromthismaterialreality–eveniftheroutethroughwhichtheysoariseisoftenlongandcircuitous.AsLabriolaputit,‘Ideasdonotfallfromheavenandnothingcomestousinadream’.[26] Butthatdoesnotmeanhumansarenotqualitativelydistinctfromtherestofnature.Likeanyotherspecies,humanityhasitsowndefiningfeatures.ForMarxthekeysuchdefiningfeaturesarethathumanbeingshavetoreactbackuponthematerialcircumstancesinwhichtheyfindthemselvesinordertosurvive: Mencanbedistinguishedfromanimalsbyconsciousness,byreligionoranythingelseyoulike.Theydistinguishthemselvesfromanimalsassoonastheybegintoproducetheirmeansofsubsistence,astepwhichisconditionedbytheirphysicalorganisation.Byproducingtheirmeansofsubsistencemenareindirectlyproducingtheiractualmateriallife.[27] Humanscannotactindependentlyoftheircircumstances.Butthisdoesnotmeantheycanbereducedtothem.Theyarecontinuallyinvolvedin‘negating’thematerialobjectiveworldaroundthem,inreactinguponitinsuchawayastotransformbothitandthemselves. Ateachpointinhistory,humanbeingshavetofindsomewaytocopewiththeneedsofmaterialsurvival.Howtheycopeisnotsomethingindependentfromtheobjectivephysicalworld;ratheritisaproductofthatworld.Yetitcanneverbegraspedsimplyasamechanicalconsequenceofthephysicalconstitutionofnature.Itisnotmechanicalcausality,buthumanactionwhichmediatesbetweentheworldinwhichhumanbeingsfindthemselvesandthelivestheylead.   Socialproduction Productionisneverindividualproduction.Itisonlythecollectiveeffortofhumanbeingsthatenablesthemtogetalivelihoodfromtheworldaroundthem. Sothecentralcoreactivity–work–hastobeorganisedsocially.Everyparticularstageinthedevelopmentofhumanlabourdemandscertainsortsofsocialrelationshipstosustainit. InTheGermanIdeologyMarxreferstothesocialrelationsbetweenpeopleatanyparticularpointinhistoryasthe‘formofintercourse’.Andheinsiststhat,‘Theformofintercourseisagaindeterminedbyproduction’.[28] Thevariousinstitutionsthatembodyhumanrelationshipscanonlybeunderstoodasdevelopingoutofthiscoreproductiveinteraction: Thefactisthatdefiniteindividualswhoareproductivelyactiveinadefinitewayenterintothesedefinitesocialandpoliticalrelations...Thesocialstructureandthestatearecontinuallyevolvingoutofthelifeprocessesofdefiniteindividuals,butofindividuals,notastheyappearintheirownorotherpeople’simaginations,butastheyreallyare;i.e.astheyoperate,producemateriallyandhenceastheyworkunderdefinitemateriallimits,presuppositionsandconditionsindependentoftheirwill.[29] Inordertomaintaintheirmateriallives,humanbeingsareforcedtoactontheworldincertainways–toengageinmaterialproduction.Butthatrequirescertainformsofcooperationbetweenthem. Thesecorerelationshipsprovideaframeworkwhicheverythingelsehumansdohastofitonto.Everythingelseis,inthissense,basedonthem.Theyprovidethelimitstowhatispossibleinanysociety. So,forinstance,ahunter-gatherersocietydoesnothavethemeanstostorefoodformorethanafewdays,andcanonlysurviveifitsmembersarecontinuallyonthemovelookingformorefoodstuffs.Itisthereforerestrictedinanumberofways:itcannotbemadeupofbandsofmorethan20orsopeople;thewomeninitcannotbearmorethanonechildeveryfourorfiveyears,sincethechildrenhavetobecarriedwhenthebandlooksforfood;thereisnomeansbywhichonesectionofsocietycouldbefreedfromlabourinordertoengageinwriting,reading,higherarithmetic,etc. ThisisthenarrowestwayinwhichyoucangraspMarx’sargument.Butheseesitashavingevenwiderimplicationsthanthis.Therelationsofmaterialproductionnotonlylimittherestofrelationsinsociety,theyarealsothesourceofthecontentofthesewiderrelationsaswell. Thehistoryofsocietyisthehistoryofchangesinthewaysinwhichproductiontakesplace,eachassociatedwithchangesintherelationsbetweenhumanbeingsimmediatelyaroundtheproductiveprocess.Andthesechangesinturnthenexertapressureonalltheothersocialrelations. If,forinstance,abandofhunter-gatherersadoptsameofradicallyincreasingthefoodavailabletothem(by,sayplantingrootvegetablesforthemselvesinsteadofhavingsearchforthem)andofstoringfoodforlongperiodsoftime(forinstance,inearthenwarepots),thisnecessarilychangestheirsocialrelationswitheachother.Insteadofcontinuallymoving,theyhavetostayinonespotuntilthecropcanbeharvested;iftheyarestayinginonespot,thereisnolongeranynecessityforrestrictiononthenumberofchildrenperwomanthecropbecomessomethingwhichotherbandsofpeoplecanseize,soproviding,forthefirsttime,anincentiveforwarfare,betweenrivalbands. Changesinthewaymaterialproductiontakesplaceleadchangesintherelationsofsocietyingeneral. Andevenrelationsbetweenpeoplewhichdonotariseoutproduction–thegamespeopleplaywitheachother,theformssextakes,therelationsofadultsandyoungbabies–willaffected. Marxdoesnotatalldenytherealityofrelationsotherthandirectlyproductiveones.Nordoeshedenythattheycaninfluencethewayproductionitselftakesplace.AsheputsitinTheoriesofSurplusValue: Allcircumstanceswhich...affectman,thesubjectofproduction,havegreaterorlessereffectuponhisfunctionsandactivities,includinghisfunctionsandactivitiesascreatorofmaterialwealth,ofcommodities.Inthissenseitcanbetrulyassertedthatallhumanrelationsandfunctions,howeverandwherevertheymanifestthemselves,influencematerialproductionandhaveamoreorlessdeterminingeffectuponit.[30] Thisiseventrueinpre-classsocieties.Thereisatendencyforoldpatternsofworkingandlivingtocrystalliseintorelativelyinflexiblestructures.Theybecome‘sanctified’withthedevelopmentofsystemsofreligion,magic,taboos,ritualsandsoorAtfirstthesesystemsarecarriedonevenin‘badtimes’,whentheshorttermneedsordesiresoftheindividualmightleadtiactionswhichruinthelongterminterestsofthesocialcollectivity.But,bythisveryfact,theydiscourageinnovationandmovetonewformsofproduction,whichwouldbeoflong-termaswellasshort-termbenefit.   Exploitationandthesuperstructure Somethingmoreisneededthansimplecooperationbetweenpeoplefortheforcesofproductiontodevelopbeyondacertainpoint.Exploitationisalsoneeded. Whilethesurplusleftafterthesatisfactionofeveryone’sminimalneedsissmall,resourcescanonlybegatheredtogetherforfurtherdevelopmentoftheforcesofproductionifthesurplusiscontrolledbyasmall,privilegedminorityofsociety.Henceitisthatwhereverthereisthedevelopmentofagricultureproperoutofhorticulture,thegrowthoftrade,theuseofdamsandcanalsforfloodpreventionandirrigation,thebuildingoftowns,therearealsothebeginningsofapolarisationwithinsocietybetweenthosewhoexploitandthosewhoareexploited. Thenewexploitinggrouphasitsoriginsinitsroleinproduction:itisconstitutedoutofthosewhoweremostefficientinintroducingnewmethodsofagriculturalproduction,orthosewhopioneerednewsortsoftradebetweenonesocietyanditsneighbours,orthosewhocouldjustifythemselvesnotengaginginbackbreakingmanuallabourbecauseoftheirabilitytoforeseefloodpatternsordesignwaterworks.Butfromthebeginningthenewexploitinggroupsecuresitscontrolbymeansotherthanitsroleinproduction.Itusesitsnewwealthtowagewar,sofurtherenhancingitswealththroughbootyandthetakingofslaves.Itestablishes‘specialbodiesofarmedmen’tosafeguarditsoldanditsnewwealthagainstinternalandexternalenemies.Itgainscontrolofreligiousrites,ascribingtheadvanceofthesocialproductiveforcetoitsown‘supernaturalpowers’.Itrewritesoldcodesofbehaviourintonewsetsoflegalrulesthatsanctifyitsposition. Thenewexploitinggroup,inshort,createsawholenetworkofnon-productiverelationstosafeguardtheprivilegedpositionithasgainedforitself.Itseeksthroughthesepolitical,judicialandreligiousmeanstosecureitsownposition.Itcreatesanon-economic‘superstructure’tosafeguardthesourceofitsownprivilegesintheeconomic‘base’. Theveryfunctionofthese‘non-economic’institutionsmeansthattheyhaveenormouseconomicimpact.Theyareconcernedwithcontrollingthebase,withfixingexistingrelationsofexploitation,andthereforeinputtingalimitonchangesintherelationsofproduction,evenifthisalsoinvolvesstoppingfurtherdevelopmentoftheproductiveforces. InancientChina,forexample,arulingclassemergedonthebasisofcertainsortsofmaterialproduction(agricultureinvolvingtheuseofhydraulicinstallations)andexploitation.Itsmembersthensoughttopreservetheirpositionbycreatingpoliticalandideologicalinstitutions.Butindoingsotheycreatedinstrumentsthatcouldbeusedtocrushanynewsocialforcethatemergedoutofchangesinproduction(egoutofthegrowthofhandicraftsortrade).Onoccasionsthatmeantphysicallydestroyingthenewproductivemeans. Sogreatisthereciprocalimpactofthe‘superstructure’onthebase,thatmanyofthecategorieswecommonlythinkofas‘economic’areinfactconstitutedbyboth.So,forinstance,‘propertyrights’arejudicial(partofthesuperstructure)butregulatethewayexploitationtakesplace(partofthebase). ThewaythepoliticalandjudicialfeedbackintotheeconomicisabsolutelycentraltoMarx’swholeapproach.Itisthisalonewhichenableshimtotalkofsuccessive,distinct‘modesofproduction’–stagesinhistoryinwhichtheorganisationofproductionandexploitationisfrozenincertainways,eachwithitsdistinctiverulingclassseekingtomouldthewholeofsocietytofitinwithitsrequirements. Farfromignoringtheimpactofthe‘superstructure’onthe‘base’,asmanyignorantcriticshaveclaimedformorethanacentury,Marxbuildshiswholeaccountofhumanhistoryaroundit. Oldrelationsofproductionactasfetters,impedingthegrowthofnewproductiveforces.How?Becauseoftheactivityofthe‘superstructure’intryingtostopnewformsofproductionandexploitationthatchallengethemonopolyofwealthandpoweroftheoldrulingclass.Itslawsdeclarethenewwaystobeillegal.Itsreligiousinstitutionsdenouncethemasimmoral.Itspoliceusetortureagainstthem.Itsarmiessacktownswheretheyarepractised. Themassivepoliticalandideologicalstrugglesthatariseasaresult,decide,forMarx,whetherarisingclass,basedonnewforcesofproduction,displacesanoldrulingclass.Andsoitisanabsolutetravestyofhisviewstoclaimthathe‘neglects’thepoliticalorideologicalelement. Butthegrowthofsuperstructuralinstitutionsnotonlyfreezesexistingproductionrelations,itcanalsohaveprofoundeffectsontherelationsbetweenthemembersoftherulingclassthemselves,andthereforeonthewaytheyreacttotheotherclassesinsociety. Thosewhocommandthearmies,thepoliceandthepriesthoodsliveoffthesurplusobtainedbyexploitationjustasmuchasdothedirectexploiters.Buttheyalsodevelopparticularinterestsoftheirown:theywanttheirshareofthesurplustobeasgreataspossible;theywantcertainsortsofmaterialproductiontotakeplacetosuittheparticularneedsoftheirinstitutions;theywanttheirsortoflifestyletobevaluedmorehighlythanthatofthoseinvolvedindirectproduction. Theirattempttogaintheirownparticularaimscanleadtothebuildingofevermorecomplexinstitutions,toelaboraterulesaboutsocialbehaviour,toendlessbattlesforplaceandinfluence.Theendresultcanbelabyrinthinestructuresinwhichthesourceofwealthandprivilegeinmaterialproductioniscompletelyforgotten. Whenthishappens,thesuperstructurecangobeyondsimplyfreezingtheeconomicactivitiesonwhichitisbased.Itcanbecomeadrainonthemthatpreventstheirreproduction–and,indoingso,destroystheresourcesuponwhichthewholeofsociety,includingthesuperstructureitself,depends.Thenmaterialrealitycatchesupwithitandthewholesocialedificecomestumblingdown. Butnoneofthesedevelopmentstakeplacewithoutmassivepoliticalandideologicalstruggles.Itisthesewhichdeterminewhetheronesetofsocialactivities(thoseofthesuperstructure)crampadifferentsetofsocialactivities(thoseinvolvedinmaintaininganddevelopingthematerialbase).Itisthesewhichdecide,forMarx,whethertheexistingrulingclassmaintainsitspoweruntilitruinssociety,orwhetherarisingclass,basedonnewformsofproduction,displacesit. ‘Thehistoryofallhithertoexistingsocietyisthehistoryofclassstruggle’,wroteMarxandEngelsatthebeginningofTheCommunistManifesto.Buttheclassstruggleispreciselythestrugglebetweenthosewhousethepoliticalandideologicalinstitutionsofthesuperstructuretomaintaintheirpowerovertheproductive‘base’andexploitation,andthosewhoputupresistancetothem. Thesuperstructureexiststodefendexploitationanditsfruits.Anyrealfightagainsttheexistingstructuresofexploitationbecomesafightagainstthesuperstructure,apoliticalfight.AsLeninputit,‘Politicsisconcentratedeconomics.’ Marxismdoesnotseepoliticalstruggleassimplyanautomatic,passivereflectionofthedevelopmentoftheforcesproduction.Itiseconomicdevelopmentthatproducestheclassforcesthatstruggleforcontrolofsociety.Buthowthatstrugglegoesdependsuponthepoliticalmobilisationthattakesplacewithineachclass.   Thekeyroleofchangesinproduction WearenowinapositiontoreassessEngels’statementthat’variouselementsofthesuperstructure...alsoexercisetheirinfluenceonthecourseofhistoricalstrugglesandinmanycasespreponderateindeterminingtheirforms’.[31] Underanyformofclassrulearangeofstructuresarebuilttoreinforceandinstitutionaliseexploitation.Thoseincontroltheseinstitutionshaveinterestsoftheirown,whichinfluenceeverythingelsewhichhappensinsociety–includingthenatureofmaterialproductionitself. However,thatcannotbetheendofthematter,asthe‘voluntarist’renderingofEngels’remarksimplies.ThereisstillIquestionofwherethesuperstructuralinstitutionsthemselvescomefrom.Andthereistheall-importantquestionofwhathappensifthesuperstructuredevelopsinsuchwaysastoimpedethereproductionofitsownmaterialbase. Marxinsiststhatsimplytoassertthateverythinginsocietyinfluenceseverything–thesuperstructurethebaseaswellasviceversa–leadsnowhere.HetakesthepointupinThePovertyPhilosophy,hispolemicagainstProudhon,writtensoonafterTheGermanIdeology: Theproductionrelationsofsocietyformawhole.MProudhonconsiderseconomicrelationsassomanysocialphasesengenderingoneanother,resultingonefromtheother...Theonlydrawbacktothismethodisthatwhenhecomestoexamineasingleoneofthesephases,MProudhoncannotexplainitwithouthavingrecoursetoalltheotherrelationsofsociety;whichrelationshehasnotyetmadehisdialecticalmovementengender.[32] InhiswritingsMarxpointstothreedifferentconsequencesofsuchaviewofsocietyasanundifferentiatedwhole,witheverythinginfluencingeverythingelse. Firstly,itcanleadtoaviewinwhichtheexistingformofsocietyisseenaseternalandunchanging(theviewwhichMarxascribedtobourgeoiseconomists,seeingsocialrelationsasgovernedby‘eternallawswhichmustalwaysgovernsociety.Thustherehasbeenhistory,butthereisnolongerany’;itistheviewthatunderliesthebarrennessofthemodernpseudo-scienceofsociety,sociology). Secondly,itcanleadtoviewingthedynamicofsocietyaslyinginsomemysticalforcethatliesoutsidesociety(Hegel’s‘worldspirit’orWeber’s‘rationalisation’). Thirdly,itcanleadtotheviewthatwhatexiststodaycanonlybegraspedinitsownterms,throughitsownlanguageandideas,withoutanyreferencetoanythingelse(thepositionofthoseidealistphilosopherswhofollowedHegelin19thcenturyGermany,andofmorerecentthinkerslikeCollingwood,Winchandtheex-Althusserians). Marx’swayoutofthisimpasseistolocatetheoneelementinthesocialwholethathasatendencytocumulativedevelopmentofitsown.Thisistheactionofhumansinworkingontheirenvironmenttogetalivingforthemselves.Pastlabourprovidesthemeansforincreasingtheoutputofpresentlabour:bothmaterialmeans(tools,machines,accesstorawmaterials)andnewknowledge.Butinadoptingthenewwaysofworking,humansalsoadoptnewwaysofrelatingtoeachother. Thesechangeswilloftenbesosmallastobebarelyperceptible(achangedrelationshipbetweentwopeoplehere,anadditionalpersonengagedinaparticularlabourprocesssomewhereelse).Butiftheycontinue,theywillbringaboutsystematicmolecularchangeinthewholesocialstructure.Thesuccessionofquantitativechangesthenhasaqualitativeimpact. Marxdoesnotdenythepossibilityofchangesinotheraspectsofsociallife.Arulermaydieandbesucceededbyanotherwithaquitedifferentpersonality.Peoplemaytireofonegameandstartplayinganother.Theaccidentofbirthorupbringingmayproduceagiftedmusicianorpainter.Butallsuchchangesareaccidents.Thereisnoreasonwhytheyshouldleadtocumulativesocialchangeofanysort.Theycanproducerandomchangeinsociety,butnotadynamicwhichmovessocietyinanyspecificdirection. Materialproduction,ontheotherhand,doeshaveatendencytomoveinonedirectionratherthananother.Itsoutputiswealth,theresourcesthatallowlivestobefreefrommaterialdeprivation. Andtheseresourcescanbepiledupinevergreaterquantities. ThisdoesnotmeanthatforcesofproductionalwaysdevelopasKautsky,Plekhanovand,morerecently,G.A.Cohenhaveclaimed.Aswehaveseen,theclashbetweennewwaysofproducingandoldsocialrelationsisacentralfeatureinhistory. MarxnotedinTheCommunistManifestothat‘conservationoftheoldmodesofproductioninunalteredformwasthefirstconditionofexistenceofallearlierindustrialclasses’.[33]Theoutcomeoftheclashbetweenthenewandtheolddidnothavetobethedefeatoftheold.Itcouldbethestiflingofthenew.Therecouldbethe‘mutualdestructionofthecontendingclasses’.[34] ‘Regression’(frommoreadvancedformsofproductiontomorebackward)isfarfrombeingexceptionalhistorically.Civilisationaftercivilisationhascollapsedbackinto‘barbarism’(i.e.agriculturalproductionwithouttowns)–witnessthedead‘citiesinthejungle’tobefoundinLatinAmerica,southeastAsiaorcentralAfrica;thereareseveralinstancesofhunter-gathererpeopleswhoshowsignsofoncehavingbeenhorticulturalists(e.g.sometribesoftheAmazon).[35]Itdependsupontheparticular,historicallydevelopedfeaturesofanysocietywhetherthenewforcesofproductioncandevelopandtheclassesassociatedwiththembreakthrough.Atoneextreme,onecanimaginesocietieswhichhavebecomesoscleroticthatnoinnovationinproductionispossible(with,forinstance,closelycircumscribedreligiousritesdetermininghoweveryactofproductionisperformed).Attheotherextreme,thereismoderncapitalistsocietywherethebeallandendalloflifeismeanttobeincreasingtheproductivityoflabour. Infact,mosthumansocietieshavebeensomewhereinbetween.Becausehumanlifeisharsh,peoplehavewantedtoincreasethelivelihoodtheycangetforacertainamountoflabour,eventhoughcertainactivitieshavebeensanctifiedandotherstabooed.Generallyspeaking,therehasbeenaveryslowdevelopmentoftheforcesofproductionuntilthepointhasbeenreachedwhereanewclassbeginstochallengetheold.Whathashappenedthenhasdependedonthebalanceofclassforcesontheonehand,andtheleadershipandunderstandingavailabletotherivalclassesontheother. However,evenifthedevelopmentoftheforcesofproductionistheexception,notthenorm,itdoesnotinvalidateMarx’sargument.Forthosesocietieswheretheforcesofproductionbreakthroughwillthriveand,eventually,reachthepointofbeingabletodominatethosesocietieswheretheforcesofproductionhavebeenstifled.Veryfewsocietiesmovedonfromthestageofbarbarismtothatofcivilisation;butmanyofthosethatdidnotwereenslavedbythosethatdid.Againfeudalbaronsandorientaldespoticgentrywereusuallyabletobeatbackthechallengeofurbantradesmenandmerchants;butthisdidnotstopthemallbeingoverwhelmedbythewaveofcapitalismthatspreadoutfromthewesternfringeofEuropeinthe18thand19thcenturies. Itdidnotmatter,attheendoftheday,howgrandioseorelaboratethesuperstructureofanysocietywas.Itrestedona‘base’inmaterialproduction.Ifitpreventedthisbasefromdeveloping,thenthesuperstructureitselfwaseventuallydoomed.InthissenseEngelswasrighttosaythatthe‘economicelementfinallyassertsitselfasdominant’. Asamatterofhistoricalfact,theforcesofproductiondidsucceedinbreakingdownandtransformingthetotalityofsocialrelationsinwhichtheygrewup.   Base,superstructureandsocialchange MuchoftheconfusionwhichhasarisenamongMarxistsovertheinterpretationofMarx’sPrefacetoACritiqueofPoliticalEconomyliesinthedefinitionofthe‘base’onwhich‘thelegalandpoliticalsuperstructure’rises. Forsomepeoplethe‘base’has,ineffect,beenthematerialinteractionofhumanbeingsandnature–theforcesofproduction.Forothersithasbeenthesocialrelationswithinwhichthisinteractionoccurs,thesocialrelationsofproduction. YoucanjustifyanyoneofthesepositionsifyoutakeparticularquotationsfromthePrefaceinisolationfromtherestofthepassageandfromMarx’sotherwritings.Foratonepointhetalksofthe‘sumtotaloftheserelationsofproduction’as‘therealbasisonwhicharisesapoliticalandlegalsuperstructure’.Buthesaysearlierthat‘relationsofproduction...correspondtoadefiniteformofdevelopmentoftheirmaterialproductiveforces’,andhegoesontocontrast‘thematerialtransformationofthematerialconditionsofproduction,whichcanbedeterminedwiththeprecisionofnaturalscience’and‘legal,political,religious,aesthetic,orphilosophicalforms’.Itisthe‘materialproductiveforces’whichcomeintoconflictwith‘theexistingrelationsofproduction’. InfactheisnotmakingasingledistinctionintheCritiquebetween‘base’and‘superstructure’.Twodistinctionsareinvolved.Thereisthedistinctionbetweenthe‘forcesofproduction’andtherelationsofproduction.Andthenthereisthedistinctionbetweentherelationsofproductionandtheremainingsocialrelations. Thereasonfortheconfusionisthis.The‘base’isthecombinationofforcesandrelationsofproduction.Butoneoftheelementsinthiscombinationis‘morebasic’thantheother.Itisthe‘forcesofproduction’thataredynamic,whichgoforwarduntilthey‘comeintoconflict’withthestatic‘relationsofproduction’.Relationsofproduction‘correspond’toforcesofproduction,nottheotherwayround. Ofcourse,thereisacertainsenseinwhichitisimpossibletoseparatematerialproductionfromthesocialrelationsitinvolves.Ifnewwaysofworkingdoinvolvenewsocialrelations,thenobviouslytheycannotcomeintoexistenceuntilthesenewsocialrelationsdo. But,aswesawabove,therearereasonsforassigningprioritytotheforcesofproduction.Humangroupswhosucceedinchangingthewaystheyworkinordertodeveloptheforcesofproductionwillbemoresuccessfulthanthosethatdon’t.Small,cumulativechangesintheforcesofproductioncantakeplace,encouragingchangesintherelationsbetweenpeoplewhicharejustassmallbutalsojustcumulative.Peoplechangetheirrelationswitheachotherbecausetheywanttoproducethemeansoflivelihoodmoreeasily:increasingthemeansoflivelihoodistheaim,changesinthesocialrelationsofproductiontheunintendedconsequence.Theforcesofproductionrebelagainsttheexistingrelationsofproduction,nottheotherwayround. So,forinstance,ifhunter-gatherersdecidetochangetheirsocialrelationswitheachothersoastoengageinhorticulture,thisisnotprimarilyaresultofanybeliefthathorticulturalsocialrelationsaresuperiortohunter-gatherersocialrelations;itisratherthattheywantaccesstotheincreasedmaterialproductivityofhorticultureoverhuntingandgathering. Inthesameway,itisnotpreferenceforonesetofrelationsaroundtheproductionprocessratherthananotherthatleadstheburgherstobegintochallengefeudalsociety.Itisratherthatforthisparticulargroupingofpeoplewithinfeudalism,theonlywaytoincreasetheirowncontroloverthemeansoflivelihood(todeveloptheforcesofproductionundertheircontrol)istoestablishnewproductionrelations. Evenwhenthewayonesocietyisorganisedchanges,becauseofthepressureofanothersocietyonit(aswhenIndiawascompelledtoadoptaEuropeanstylelandtenuresysteminthe19thcentury,orwhenhunter-gatherershavebeenpersuadedbycolonialadministratorsandmissionariestoacceptasettledagriculturallife),thereasonthepressureexistsisthattheothersocietydisposesofmoreadvancedforcesofproduction(whichtranslateintomoreeffectivemeansofwagingwar).Andthe‘socialrelationsofproduction’willnotendureunlesstheyaresuccessfulinorganisingmaterialproduction–infindinga‘base’inmaterialproduction–inthesocietythatispressurisedintoadoptingthem.Wheretheydonotfindsucha‘base’(aswiththeIkinNorthernUganda)theresultcanevenbethedestructionofsociety.[36] Expansionofmaterialproductionisthecause,thesocialorganisationofproductiontheeffect.Thecauseitselfcanbeblockedbytheoldformoforganisationofsociety.Thereisnomechanicalprinciplewhichmeansthattheexpansionofmaterialproduction–andwithitthechangesinsocialrelations–willautomaticallyoccur.Butinanysocietytherewillbepressuresinthisdirectionatsomepointorother.Andthesepressureswillhavesocialconsequences,eveniftheyaresuccessfullyresistedbythosecommittedtotheoldsocialrelations. Thedistinctionbetweenforcesandrelationsofproductionispriortotheseconddistinction,between‘economicbase’andthesuperstructure.Thedevelopmentoftheforcesofproductionleadstocertainchangesintherelationsofproduction.Theseinturnresultinchangesintheotherrelationsofsocietybeingmade,untilawholerangeofinstitutionsofanon-economicsorthelpreproduceexistingeconomicrelations(andsoresistfurthereconomicchange). Thepointofthesedistinctionsistoprovideanunderstandingofhowsocietychanges.Iftheforcesofproductionarestatic,thenthereisnoreasonwhyanysocietyshouldundergosystematicchangeatall.Theexistingsocialrelationswillsimplytendtoreproducethemselves,sothatatmosttherecanberandom,accidentalchangesintherelationsofpeopletoeachother.Neitherthesocialrelationsofproductionnorthewidersocialrelationswillprovideanyimpetustotherevolutionarysocialchangesthatdooccur(egfromsocietiesofsmallbandstothoseofsettledvillages,orfromthoseofmedievalfeudalmanorstothoseofadvancedindustrialcapitalistcities). Thereisafurtherconfusioninsomeofthediscussiononforcesandrelationsofproduction.Thisconcernswhatthe‘relationsofproduction’are. AtonepointinthePrefaceMarxequatesthesocialrelationofproductionwithpropertyrelations.PeoplelikeCohenhavegiventhisviewacentralplaceintheirownaccountsofhistoricalmaterialism. Itseemstometolimitthenotionofthe‘socialrelationsofproduction’fartoomuch.MuchofthepowerofMarx’saccountofhistoryliesinthewayinwhichitshowshowsmallchangesintheforcesofproductionleadtosmall,cumulativechangesinthesocialrelationsarisingdirectlyatthepointofproduction,untilthesechallengethewiderrelationsofsociety.Thesesmallchangesmightinvolvenewpropertyrelations,butinmany,manyimportantcasesdonot. Forinstance,anincreaseinthenumberofjourneymenworkingfortheaveragemastercraftsmaninamedievalcityisnotchangeinpropertyrelations.Butitdoeschangethesocialrelationsinthetowninawaywhichmayhaveveryimportantimplications.Similarconsiderationsapplywithmanyothersignificanthistoricaldevelopments,fromthefirstplantingofseedbyhunter-gathererstochangesinproductionmethodsincapitalistcountriestoday. Tosumuptheargumentsofar.ThereisnotonedistinctioninMarx,buttwo.Theforcesofproductionexertpressureontheexistingrelationsofproduction.Andthoseinturncomeintoconflictwiththeexistingsuperstructure. Oncethisisgrasped,itispossibletodealwiththequestionswhicharesometimesraisedastowhetherparticularinstitutionsbelongtothebaseorthesuperstructure. Thereisasenseinwhichthequestionsthemselvesaremisframed.Thedistinctionbetweenbaseandsuperstructureisnotdistinctionbetweenonesetofinstitutionsandanother,witheconomicinstitutionsononesideandpolitical,judicial,ideological,etcinstitutionsontheother.Itisadistinctionbetweenrelationsthataredirectlyconnectedwithproductionandthosethatarenot.Manyparticularinstitutionsincludeboth. So,forinstance,themedievalchurchwasasuperstructuralinstitution,defendingideologicallyexistingformsoffeudalexploitation.Butitacquiredsuchlargelandholdingsofitsownthatnoaccountoftheeconomicstructureofmedievalsocietycanignoreit.Inthesameway,moderncapitaliststatesaroseoutoftheneedfor‘bodiesofarmedmen’toprotectparticularcapitalistrulingclasses.Butsuchprotectionhasrarelybeenpossiblewithoutthestateinterveningdirectlyinproduction. Inpre-capitalistsocieties,eventhequestionoftheclasspeoplebelongtocomestodependuponsuperstructuralfactors.Theattempttopreserveexistingrelationsofproductionandexploitationleadstoelaboratecodesassigningeveryindividualtooneorothercasteorestate.This,inturn,determinestheproductiveactivity(ifanyatall)opentothem.AsMarxputit:‘...whenacertaindegreeofdevelopmentisreachedthehereditarynatureofcastesisdecreedasasociallaw’.[37]And‘intheestate...anoblemanalwaysremainsanobleman,acommoneracommoner,apartfromhisotherrelations,aqualityinseparablefromhisindividuality’.[38] Thereisasenseinwhichitistruetosaythatonlyinbourgeoissocietydothereexist‘pure’classes–socialgroupingswhosemembershipdependsentirelyuponrelationstoexploitationintheproductiveprocess,asopposedtoprivilegesembodiedinjudicialorreligiouscodes.[39]Ofcourse,thesecodeshadtheirorigininmaterialexploitation,butcenturiesoffrozensocialdevelopmenthaveobscuredthatfact. Thesituationwiththecapitalistfamilyissomewhatsimilartothatofthemedievalchurchorthemodernstate.Itgrewuptopreserveandreproducealreadyexistingrelationsofproduction.Butitcannotdothiswithoutplayingaveryimportanteconomicrole(inthecaseoftheworkingclassfamily,organisingthevastamountofdomesticlabourthatgoesintothephysicalreproductionoflabourpower,inthecaseofthecapitalistfamilydefiningthewayinwhichpropertyispassedfromonegenerationtothenext).[40] Thishasledtoattemptstoassignittothe‘base’becauseofitseconomicrole.[41]Butthedistinctionbetweenbaseandsuperstructureisadistinctionbetweensocialrelationswhicharesubjecttoimmediatechangeswithchangesintheproductiveforces,andthosewhicharerelativelystaticandresistanttochange.Thecapitalistfamilybelongstothelatterratherthantheformercategory,eveninits‘economic’functionofreproducingthelabourforce. Changesinthewayreproductionisorganisedingeneralfollowchangesinthewayproductiontakesplace.Thesimplefactisthatthe‘forcesofreproduction’donothavethetendencytocumulativechangethattheforcesofproductiondo.Thepossiblewaysofrestrictingthenumberofbirthshardlychangedfromthehunter-gatherersocietiesof30,000yearsagountilthe20thcentury–whetherthesemeanswereuseddependednotonthesphereofreproductionatall,butonthesphereofproduction.(Forinstance,whileahunter-gatherersocietyisforcedtorestrictthenumberofbirths,manyagriculturalsocietieshaveaninterestinasmanybirthsaspossible.)Thematerialconditionsunderwhichchildrenarereareddochange–butasaby-productofmaterialchangestakingplaceelsewhereinsociety.[42] Finally,theseconsiderationsalsoenableustodisposeofanotherargumentthatissometimesraised–theclaimthatallsocialrelationsare‘relationsofproduction’.[43] Allpartsofanysocialstructureowetheirultimategenesistotherealmofproduction.ButwhatMarxquiterightlyemphasisedbytalkofthe‘superstructure’wasthat,oncegenerated,somepartsofthesocialstructurehavetheeffectofconstrainingthedevelopmentofothers.Theoldstandincontradictiontothenew.Theoldformoforganisationofthestate,forinstance,roseoutoftheneedsofexploitationatacertainpointinhistoryandhascontinuingeffectsonproduction.Butitstandsincontradictiontothenewrelationshipsthatarecontinuallybeingthrownupbyfurtherdevelopmentsofproduction.Tosaythatallsocialrelationsare‘relationsofproduction’istopaintapictureofsocialdevelopmentwhichignoresthisimportantelementofcontradiction.[44]   Baseandsuperstructureundercapitalism Sofarthisarticlehasbeenabouttherelationshipofbaseandsuperstructureingeneral.Buttherearecertainpeculiaritiesabouttheirrelationundercapitalismthatdeserveabriefmention. Firstisthepeculiareffectofrelationsofproductionontheforcesofproduction.Marxstressesthat,forpre-capitalistsocieties,theestablishedrelationsofproductiontendtoretardtheforcesofproduction.Undercapitalism,bycontrast,thesurvivalofeachindividualcapitaldependsuponexpandingtheforcesofproductionatitsdisposalmorerapidlythanitsrivals: Thebourgeoisiecannotexistwithoutconstantlyrevolutionisingtheinstrumentsofproductionandtherebytherelationsofproductionandwiththemthewholerelationsofsociety...Constantrevolutionisingofproduction,uninterrupteddisturbanceofallsocialconditions,everlastinguncertaintyandagitationdistinguishthebourgeoisepochfromallearlierones.[45] Marxholdsthatthecontradictionbetweentheforcesofproductionandtherelationsofproductionstillcomestotheforeeventually,butinaquitespecificway. Thegrowthofthesocialproductiveforcesofhumanity–increasedproductivity–involvescombiningevergreateramountsofpastlabourtoeachunitofpresentlabour.Undercapitalismthistakestheformofanincreaseintheratioofinvestmenttotheworkforce.Investmentgrowsmorerapidlythanthesourceofallpotentialprofit,livinglabour.Yetthemainspringofproductioninthissystemistherateofprofit,i.e.theratioofprofittoinvestment. Thecontradictionbetweenthedrivetoinvestandthelowlevelofprofittosustaininvestmentfindsexpression,forMarx,inagrowingtendencytostagnationinthesystem,evergreaterdisproportionsbetweenthedifferentelementsoftheeconomy,andeverdeepereconomiccrises.Forthoseofuswholiveinthe20thcentury,italsomeansaneverpresenttendencyforeconomiccompetitiontoturnintomilitaryconflict,withthethreatoftheforcesofproductionturningintofullfledgedforcesofdestruction.[46] Aseconddifferenceliesinthewayinwhichundercapitalismthereisnotonlyaconflictbetweenthedevelopmentofeconomicrelationsandnon-economicconstraintsonthem,butalsoaconflictbetweendifferentelementsoftheeconomy,someofwhichareseenbyMarxas‘morebasic’thanothers.Thesourceofsurplusvalueliesintherealmofproduction.Butgrowingoutoftherealmofproductionareawholerangeofactivitiestodowiththedistributionofthissurplusbetweendifferentelementsofthecapitalistclass–thebuyingandsellingofcommodities,thecreditsystem,thestockmarket,andsoon.Thesetakeonalifeoftheirowninasimilarwaytothedifferentelementsinthepoliticalandideologicalsuperstructure,andthatlifeaffectswhathappensintherealmofproduction.Yet,attheendoftheday,theycannotescapethefundamentalfactthatthesurplustheydisposeofcomesfromexploitationatthepointofproduction–somethingwhichexpressesitselfinthesuddenoccurrenceofcyclicalcrises. Noneofthismeansthatthedistinctionbetweenbaseandsuperstructureisredundantundercapitalism.Whatitdoesmeanisthatthereareevenmoreelementsofcontradictioninthissystemthanpreviously.Analysingtheseconcretelyisapreconditionforknowingthewaythesystemismovingandthepossibilitiesofbuildingadeterminedrevolutionaryoppositiontoit.   Superstructureandideology Whatistherelationshipofideasandideologytothedichotomyofbaseandsuperstructure? Marxisinsistentthatideascannotbedivorcedfromthesocialcontextinwhichtheyarise.Hesays:‘Definiteformsofsocialconsciousnesscorrespondto...theeconomicstructure,therealbasis’,‘themodeofproductionofmateriallifeconditionsthesocial,politicalandintellectuallifeprocessingeneral’,‘socialbeing...determines...consciousness’[myemphases]. TounderstandthesestrongassertionsyouhavetounderstandhowMarxseesideasandlanguageasdeveloping. Ideasarise,forhim,outofthematerialinteractionofhumanbeingswiththeworldandeachother: Theproductionofideasofconceptionsofconsciousnessisatfirstdirectlyinterwovenwiththematerialactivityandthematerialintercourseofmen,thelanguageofreallife.Conceiving,thinking,thematerialintercourseofmenappearatthisstageasthedirecteffluxoftheirmaterialbehaviour.Thesameappliestomentalproductionasexpressedinthelanguageofpolitics,laws,morality,religions,metaphysics,etcofapeople.Menaretheproducersoftheirconceptions,ideas,etc–realactivemen,astheyareconditionedbythedevelopmentoftheirproductiveforcesandtheformsofintercoursecorrespondingtothese,uptoitsfurthestforms.Consciousnesscanneverbeanythingelsethanconsciousexistence,andtheexistenceofmenistheiractuallifeprocess.[47] Everyideacanbeshowntohaveitsorigininthematerialactivityofhumans: Wesetoutfromrealactivemenandonthebasisofthiswedemonstratethedevelopmentoftheideologicalreflexesandechoesofthislifeprocess.Thephantomsofthehumanbrainarenecessarilysublimatesofmen’smateriallifeprocess,whichcanbeempiricallyestablishedandwhichisboundtomaterialpreconditions.[48] Heimpliesthereareanumberofstagesinthedevelopmentofconsciousness.Animalsdonotpossessconsciousness;atmosttheyareimmediatelyawareoffleetingimpressionsaroundthem.Humansbegintomovebeyondthisstageofimmediateawarenessonlyastheybegintointeractsociallywitheachotheronaregularbasis,inactingcollectivelytocontroltheirenvironment.Sohearguesthatitisonlywhenhumanshavedevelopedtothestageof‘primaryhistoricalrelationsdowefindthatmanalsopossesses“consciousness”.’[49] Intheprocessofactingtogethertogetalivelihood,humanscreateforthefirsttimeamaterialmediumthatenablesthemtofixfleetingimpressionsaspermanentconcepts: Fromthestartthe‘spirit’isafflictedwiththecurseofbeing‘burdened’withmatter,whichheremakesitsappearanceintheformofagitatedlayersofair,sounds,inshortinlanguage.Languageisasoldasconsciousness,languageispracticalconsciousnessthatexitsforothermenandforthatreasonaloneitreallyexistsformepersonallyaswell;languagelikeconsciousnessonlyarisesfromtheneed,thenecessityofintercoursewithothermen.[50] Or,asheputsitelsewhere,‘languageistheimmediateactualityofthought’.[51] Knowledge,then,isasocialproduct.Itarisesoutoftheneedforcommunication,whichinturnisaproductoftheneedtocarryoutsocialproduction.Consciousnessisthesubjectiveexpressionofobjectivelyexistingrelations.Itoriginatesasconsciousnessofparticipationinthoserelationships.Itsembodiment,language,isamaterialprocesswhichisoneoftheconstituentsoftheserelationships.‘Ideasandthoughtsofpeople,then,areideasandthoughtsaboutthemselvesandofpeopleingeneral...forit[is]theconsciousnessnotmerelyofasingleindividualbutoftheindividualinhisinterconnectionwiththewholeofsociety’.[52] Marx’smaterialismamountstothis.Mindisdevelopeduponthebasisofmatter.Itdependsforitsfunctioninguponthesatisfactionoftheneedsofthehumanbody.Itdependsfortheformofitsconsciousnessupontherealrelationshipsbetweenindividuals.Thecontentoftheindividualminddependsupontheindividual’smaterialinteractionwiththeworldandotherpeople. Butthehumanmindcannotsimplybereducedtomatter.Theindividualhumanbeingwhothinkshastheabilitytoact.Thesubjectivedevelopsoutoftheobjective,butisstillreal. AsMarxputitinthefirstoftheThesesonFeuerbach:‘Thechiefdefectofallhithertoexistingmaterialismisthatthething,reality,sensuousness,isconceivedonlyintheformofanobjectofcontemplation,butnotashumansensuousactivity,notsubjectively...Feuerbachdoesnotconceivehumanactivityitselfasobjectiveactivity.’ However,ifMarxassertstherealityofindividualthoughtandactivity,healsoemphasisestheirlimits.Thoughtarisesfromactivity.Andassoonasthelinkwithactivityisbroken,thoughtisseentolosesomeofitscontent:‘Manmustprovethetruth,i.e.therealityandpower,thethis-sidednessofhisthinking,inpractice.’ Sothinkingisonly‘real’insofarasithaspracticalapplication,insofarasitalterstheworld.Thereisanobjectiverealityapartfromhumanawareness.Butitisonlythroughtheiractivitythathumanscanmakecontactwiththisreality,linktheirconsciousnesstoit‘Thequestionofwhetherobjectivetruthcanbeattributedtohumanthinkingisnotaquestionoftheorybutisapracticalquestion...thedisputeovertherealityornon-realityofthinkingthatisisolatedfrompracticeisapurelyscholasticquestion’.[53] Itisinthecomingtogetherofhumanityandtheworldinactivitythatboththerealityoftheworldandthetruthofthoughtaredetermined. Marx’shistoricalmaterialismdoesnotholdthatwill,consciousnessandintentionplaynopartinhistory.Humanactioniscontinuallychangingtheworldinwhichhumanbeingsfindthemselves,andtheirrelationshipswitheachother. ThemechanicalmaterialistKautskyiteinterpretationofMarxismmakestheverymistakeMarxhimselfascribestoFeuerbach.Itfailstoseethathistoryisthehistoryofhumanactivity.Butsocialactivityinvolvesconsciousness. Itishumanbeingswithparticularideaswhoinventnewtools,challengeexistingwaysofliving,organiserevolutionarymovementsorfighttodefendthestatusquo.Thecontradictionsbetweentheforcesofproductionandtherelationsofproduction,betweenthebaseandthesuperstructure,findexpressioninarguments,organiseddisagreementsandbitterstrugglesbetweenpeople.Thesearepartoftherealdevelopmentofsociety.Todenythatistopresentapictureofsocietyinwhichexplosiveantagonismsnolongerexist. Butconsciousnessneverarisesinavoid.Itisasubjectivelinkbetweenobjectiveprocesses.Theideasofanyindividualorgroupdeveloponthebasisofmaterialrealityandfeedbackintothatreality.Theycannotbereducedtothatreality,butneithercantheybedivorcedfromit. ItisthislinkwhichenablesustomakesenseofMarx’snotionsof‘falseconsciousness’and‘ideology’.   Falseconsciousness Whenpeopleareengagedinmaterialpracticetheyhaveanimmediateawarenessoftheiractionandofthepartoftheworlditimpingesonwhichisunlikelytobefalse.Unlesstheyareblindorderangedtheyknowtheyarediggingintothegroundoraimingriflesatotherpeople,orwhatnot.Atthisleveltheiractivityandtheirconsciousnesscoincide.Butthecontentofthisconsciousnessisminimal.Infactithardlydeservesthename‘consciousness’atall. Butalongsidesuchimmediateawarenessthereisalwaysamoregeneralconsciousness.Thisattemptstogobeyondthatwhichpeopleimmediatelyknowandtoprovidesomeoverallconceptionofthecontexttheyfindthemselvesin.Ittellsthem,forinstance,thattheyarenotsimplydigging,butareprovidingthemselveswithafuturelivelihood,orthattheyarenotsimplyaimingtheirrifles,butaredefendingtheir‘fatherland’. Thereisnoguaranteeofthe‘truth’or‘reality’ofthisgeneralconsciousness.Aneconomiccrisiscanmeanthat,howeverhardyoudig,youwon’tbeabletosellthecropyougrowandgainalivelihood;yourriflemaybedefendingtheprofitsofamultinational,notsomealleged‘fatherland’. Whereasimmediateconsciousnessispartandparcelofyouractivityandthereforemustbe‘real’incertainverylimitedsenses,generalconsciousnesscanbenomorethanablindaccompanimenttoactivity.Inthissenseitfindsnoexpressionintheworld.Ithas,inMarx’swords,no‘this-sidedness’andno‘reality’.Ortheoutcomeoftheactivityitguidesisdifferenttowhatisexpected.Itsobjectivecontentisdifferenttoitssubjectivecontent.Itisatbestpartially‘real’.[54] YetMarxisinsistentthateven‘false’generalconsciousnessoriginatesinrealactivity.Soincriticisingoneparticularformof‘unreal’consciousness,the‘German’ideologyofidealistphilosophy,hewrites: Thephilosopherswouldonlyhavetodissolvetheirlanguageintotheordinarylanguagefromwhichitisabstractedtorecogniseitasthedistortedlanguageoftheactualworldandtorealisethatneitherthoughtnorlanguageinthemselvesformarealityoftheirown,thattheyareonlymanifestationsofactuallife... Forphilosophersoneofthemostdifficulttasksistodescendfromtheworldofthoughttotheactualworld.Languageistheimmediateactualityofthought.Justasphilosophershavegiventhoughtanindependentexistence,sotheyhadtomakelanguageintoanindependentrealm.Thisisthesecretofphilosophicallanguageinwhichthoughtsintheformofwordshavetheirowncontext.Theproblemofdescendingfromtheworldofthoughtstotheactualworldisturnedintotheproblemofdescendingfromlanguagetolife.[55] Wehaveseenthatthewholeproblemofthetransitionfromthoughttoreality,hencefromlanguagetolife,existsonlyinphilosophicalillusion.[56] SuchaviewofabstractphilosophicalthoughtleadsstraighttothecontemptforitexpressedintheThesesonFeuerbach:‘Sociallifeisessentiallypractical.Allthemysterieswhichmisleadtheoryintomysticismfindtheirrationalsolutioninhumanpracticeandinthecontemplationofthispractice.’ Onthefaceofit,theviewheputsforwardisveryclosetothatofphilosopherswhohavedeniedanypossibilityofgeneralphilosophical,socialorhistoricalnotions.ThusthelinguisticphilosophyofWittgensteinclaimsthatallthetraditionalproblemsofphilosophyarisebecausephilosophershavetakentheconceptsofordinarylifeandusedthemoutofcontext.[57] Inasomewhatsimilarway‘historicist’thinkershaveinsistedthatnoideaorsocialpracticecanbeunderstoodoutsidetheparticularhistoricalandculturalcontextinwhichitisfound;anyattemptatawiderexplanationmustbefalse.[58] ButMarx’sviewisverydifferenttothese.Theyseefalsenotionsasarisingasaresultofthestrangedesireofphilosopherstogeneralise,ofaweird‘mentalcramp’whichafflictspeople.Andtheyconcludethatallgeneralisationiswrong. Marx,bycontrast,seesfalsegeneralisation,theresultofthedivorceoftheoryfrompractice,asitselfhavingmaterialroots.Onlyinasocietywithoutclassescanthegeneralnotionsdevelopstraightoutoftheimmediateexperiencesofpeople,withoutdistortion.Foreveryoneinsocietyistheninvolvedinasingle,sharedcooperativeactivity.   Ideologyandclasssociety Oncethereisadivisionbetweenexploitingandexploitedclasses,and,basedonthat,agrowingdivisionbetweenmentalandmanuallabour,thesinglepracticedisintegratesandwithit,thepossibilityofasingleviewoftheworld. Inaclasssocietythesocialwholeiscontinuallyrentasunderbytheclashbetweenthedevelopmentoftheforcesofproductionandtheexistingrelationsofproduction,aclashwhichfindsexpressioninthestrugglebetweendifferentsocialgroups. Differentgroupswillhavedifferentpracticalaims,someinthepreservationofexistingsocialrelations,someintheiroverthrowsoastoallowthedevelopmentofnewsocialrelationsbaseduponnewforcesofproduction.Theresultisthatdifferentsectionsofsocietyhavedifferentexperiencesofsocialreality.Eachwilltendtodevelopitsownoverallviewofsociety,whichwillbemarkedlydifferenttothatdevelopedbytheothers. Suchviewsarenotonlyaccountsofwhatsocietyislike.Theyalsoservetobindpeopletogetherforthepracticaltaskofpreservingortransformingsociety,foreachprioritisessomesortsofpracticalsocialactivitytothedetrimentofothers. Itisonlyinthemindsofcertainempiricistphilosophersthatdescriptionandprescription,factandvaluearedistinct.Whatis‘good’or‘valuable’fromthepointofviewofonesocialgroupanditsactivitywillbe‘bad’foranothersocialgroup.Whatonesectionofsocietyseesasessentialtothepreservationofsociallife,becauseitpreservestheexistingrelationsofproduction,willbeseenasbadbyanotherbecauseitobstructsthedevelopmentofnewforcesofproduction.Categorieswhichwerepreviouslyunproblematic,simplydescriptionsofwhatwasnecessarytomaintainsocietyandhumanlife,becomeprescriptionsexpressingthedesiresofdifferent,opposedgroups. Thestruggleforsocialdominationbetweenthedifferentgroupsis,inpart,astrugglebyeachtoimposeitsviewofsociety,itswayoforganisingsocialactivity,upontheothers.Ithastoassertthatitsnotionsare‘true’andtheothers‘false’;oratleasttoshowthatthemeaninggivenbyothersocialgroupstotheiractivitiescanbesubordinatedtoitsownoverallvisionsoftheworld. Theattemptofphilosopherstomeasurerivalconceptionsoftheworldagainstasinglelodestoneof‘truth’ispanofthisstruggle.Theyattempttogeneralisetheexperienceofaparticularclassinsuchawayastoenableittodominatethethinkingofotherclasses.Butbecauseoftherealcontradictionsbetweentheexperiencesandinterestsofdifferentclasses,thisisanendlessquest.Anyphilosophicalviewcanalwaysbecounteredbyanother,sinceeachhasrootsinthecontradictoryexperiencesofmateriallife.Thatiswhyeverygreatphilosophyeventuallyslidesintomysticism. Butthisdoesnotmean,forMarx,thatdifferentviewsoftheworldareequallyvalid(orequallyfalse).Forsomeprovideamorecomprehensiveviewofsocietyanditsdevelopmentthanothers. Asocialgroupidentifiedwiththecontinuationoftheoldrelationsofproductionandtheoldinstitutionsofthesuperstructurenecessarilyonlyhasapartialview(oraseriesofpartialviews)ofsocietyasawhole.Itspracticeisconcernedwiththeperpetuationofwhatalreadyexists,with‘sanctifying’theaccomplishedfact.Anythingelsecanonlybeconceivedasadisruptionordestructionofavaluable,harmoniousarrangement.Thereforeevenattimesofimmensesocialcrisis,itspictureofsocietyisoneofanatural,eternallyrecurringharmonysomehowunderattackfromincomprehensible,irrationalforces.   Ideologyandscience Arisingsocialgroup,associatedwithanadvanceoftheproductiveforces,hasaquitedifferentapproach.Atfirst,atleast,hasnofearofnewformsofsocialactivitywhichdisrupttheoldrelationsofproductionandtheirsuperstructurealongwithit.Itidentifieswithandunderstandsthesenewformsofactivity.Yetatthesametime,becauseitisalsoincollisionwiththeoldorder,ithaspracticalexperiencesofthataswell.Itcandevelopsomesortofviewofsocietywhichseeshowallthedifferentelementsfittogether,theforcesofproductionandtherelationsofproduction,thebaseandthesuperstructure,theoppressedclassandtheoppressingclass. Becauseithasapracticalinterestintransformingsociety,itsgeneralideasdonothavetobeeitherablindcommentaryoneventsoramysticismaimedsimplyatpreservingthestatusquo.Theycanbeasourceofrealknowledgeaboutsociety.Theycanactnotjustasabannertorallypeoplebehind,butasaguidetoeffectiveaction.Theycanbescientific,despitetheirorigininthepracticeofonesocialgroup. Marxcertainlythoughtthiswasthecasewithclassicalpoliticaleconomy.Againandagainhereferstothe‘scientific’meritofthewritingsofAdamSmithandDavidRicardo,andevenofsomeofthemercantilistandphysiocraticeconomistswhoprecededthem. Theywere‘scientific’becausetheytriedtocutthroughthesuperficialappearancesofsocietytograspthe‘innerconnectionsbetweentheeconomiccategories–orthehiddenstructureofthebourgeoiseconomicsystem’,‘toattempttopenetratetheinnerphysiologyofbourgeoissociety...’[59] This‘esoteric’approach,whichlookstotheunderlyingsocialreality,isinmarkedcontrastwithasimply‘exoteric’approachwhichtakesforgrantedtheexistingexternalsocialforms.Theclassicalpoliticaleconomistsneversucceedfullyinbreakingwiththe‘exoteric’method,buttheybegintomoveinthatdirection,andindoingsolaythebasisforascientificunderstandingoftheinnerstructureofcapitalism. Theirabilitytodevelopascientificunderstandingisrelatedtotheclasstheyidentifywith–therisingindustrialcapitalists.MarxdescribedSmith,forinstance,as‘theinterpreterofthefranklybourgeoisupstart’[60],‘writingin‘thelanguageofthestillrevolutionarybourgeoisie,whichhasnotyetsubjectedtoitselfthewholeofsociety,thestate,etc’.[61] Becausetheindustrialcapitalistsdonotyetcontrolsociety,theyhavetoadoptacriticalviewofitsexternalfeatures,toseekanobjectiveanalysisoftheextenttowhichthesefeaturesfitinwiththedrivetocapitalaccumulation.Thisleadstotheattempttolocatetheproductionofwealthinthelabourprocess,andtocontrast‘productive’labourwhichcreatessurplusvaluewiththeparasiticfunctionsoftheoldstate,churchandsoon.   Ideologyandthesuperstructure Thesituationchangesradicallywhentherisingclasshasconsolidateditshold.Thenitnolongerhasanyuseforarevolutionarycriticalattitudetowardssocietyasawhole.Theonlypracticalactivityitisinterestedinisthatwhichreproducesexistingeconomicandsocialrelations.Andsoits‘theory’degeneratesintoattemptstotakedifferentsuperficialaspectsofexistingsocietyandpresentthemasiftheyprovidedgenerallawsaboutwhatallsocietiesmustbelike. ForMarx,‘ideology’isaproductofthissituation.Thedominantsocialclasscontrolsthemeansbywhichadistinctlayerofpeoplecanbefreedfromphysicallaboursoastoengageinintellectualproduction.But,dependentupontherulingclassfortheirsustenance,these‘intellectuals’willtendtoidentifywithit–therulingclassestablishesallsortsofmechanismstoensurethat. Identifyingwiththerulingclassmeansstoppingshortofanytotalcritiqueofexistingsocialrelationsandtakingforgrantedtheforminwhichtheypresentthemselves.Theparticularaspectsofexistingsocietyarethenseenasself-sustaining,aslackinganycommonrootinsocialproduction. Soyougetaseriesofseparate,self-containeddisciplines:‘politics’,‘neo-classicaleconomics’,‘psychology’,‘sociology’andsoon.Eachofthesetreatsaspectsofaunitarysocialdevelopmentasiftheyoccurredindependentlyofeachother.‘History’becomesamoreorlessarbitrarylinkingtogetherofeventsandpersonages.Andphilosophybecomestheattempttoovercometheseparationofthesedisciplinesthroughlookingattheconceptstheyuseatevergreaterdegreesofremotenessfromtheworldofmaterialproductionandintercourse. Suchwaysoflookingattheworldare‘ideological’,notbecausetheyarenecessarilyconsciousapologeticsfortheexistingrulingclass,butbecausetheverywayinwhichtheyarestructuredpreventsthemseeingbeyondtheactivitiesandideaswhichreproduceexistingsociety–andthereforealsotherulingclass–tothematerialprocessesinwhichthesearegrounded.Theysanctifythestatusquobecausetheytaketheconceptsitusesatfacevalue,insteadof-seeingthemastransitoryproductsofsocialdevelopment. ‘Ideology’inthissenseislinkedtothesuperstructure.Itplaysaboutwithconceptswhichariseinthesuperstructure,seekingtolinkandderiveonefromtheother,withoutevercuttingthroughsurfaceappearancestolookattherealprocessofsocialproductioninwhichthesuperstructureanditsconceptsarise. Itisthecontradictionsofsuch‘ideological’argumentsthatcanonly‘beresolvedbythedescentfromlanguagetolife’. Butthisdescentcanonlybemadebythinkerswhoidentifywitharisingclass.Fortheyaloneareidentifiedwithapracticewhichputsintoquestionallexistingsocialrelations,seekingtocriticisewhathappensonthesurfaceofsociety,linkingittounderlyingrelationsofmaterialproductionandexploitation. Whilethethinkersofanestablishedrulingclassareconfinedtocontinualelaborationintherealmofideology,thethinkersofarisingclasscanbegintodevelopascientificunderstandingofsocialdevelopment.   Ourtheoryandtheirs Arisingclass’thinkerscannotsimplyproclaimthattheyhavethetruth.Theyhavetoproveit. First,theyhavetoshowthattheycantakeupanddeveloptheinsightswhichthethinkersofearlierrisingclassesmade.So,forinstance,Marxsetoutinhiseconomicwritingsnotsimplytogivehisexplanationoftheworkingsofcapitalism,butalsotoshowhowhecouldcompletetheworkofclassicalpoliticaleconomybysolvingproblemsithadsetitselfwithoutsuccess. Second,ithastobeabletoshowhowthesuperficialsocialfeatureswhichideologydealswithcanbederivedfromtheunderlyingsocialprocessesitdescribes.AsMarxputsit,ithastobeabletoderivethe‘exoteric’fromthe‘esoteric’.SoascientificMarxistanalysisofanysocietyhastobeabletoprovideanunderstandingofthevariousideologicalcurrentsofthatsociety,showinghowtheyariseoutoftherealworld,expressingcertainaspectsofit,butinadistortedway. Finally,attheendoftheday,thereisonlyonerealtestofanyscience:itsabilitytoguidepractice.AndsoargumentswithinMarxismitselfcanonlybefinallyresolvedinthecourseofrevolutionaryworkingclassstruggle. Averyimportantpointunderliesallthisdiscussion.Notallideasaboutsocietyare‘ideological’.Thescientificunderstandingwhichthethinkersofarisingclassdevelopisnot.Noristheimmediateawarenesswhichpeoplehaveoftheiractions.Thisonlybecomes‘ideological’whenitisinterpretedthroughaframeworkofgeneralideasprovidedbyanestablishedrulingclass.Bycontrast,ifitisinterpretedthroughthetheoryofarisingclass,itisonitswaytobecomingthetrueself-consciousnessofasociety. ‘Ideology’ispartofthesuperstructureinthesensethatitisapassiveelementinthesocialprocess,helpingtoreproduceoldrelationsofproduction.Butrevolutionaryself-consciousnessisnot.Itisanactiveelement,arisingoutofpeople’smaterialcircumstances,butfeedingbackintothemtochangethem. Intherealworldthereareallsortsofhybridsetsofideaswhichliesomewhereinbetweenscienceandideology,betweentrueandfalseconsciousness.People’sexperiencecanbeofpartialchallengestotheexistingsociety.Theygainpartialinsightsintotherealstructureofsociety,butseektointerpretthemthroughpiecemealadjustmentstooldideologicalframeworks. Eventheoutputoftheideologiesoftheexistingordercannotbedismissedoutofhand.Theworstofthemcannotcompletelyignorethoseexperiencesofthemassofpeoplewhichchallengetherulingclass’sviewoftheworld:theirideologicalfunctionmeanstheyhave,somehow,totrytoprovethatthoseexperiencesarecompatiblewiththerulingclass’sview.SotheworsthackjournalistsorTVcommentatorshavetorecognisethatthereisoppositiontotherulingclass,reportingonstrikes,demonstrationsandsoon,ifonlytocondemnsuchstrugglesandtoisolatethoseinvolvedinthem.Theworstpulpnovelistshavetostartfromsomeimageofordinarypeople’slives,howeverdistorted,iftheyaretofindamassaudience.Themostreactionarypriestsareonlyeffectiveinsofarastheycanprovideillusoryrelieftotherealproblemsoftheirparishioners. Thisleadstoallsortsofcontradictionswithintherulingideology.Someofitsmostprominentproponentscanbethosewhomakemosteffortstorelatetopeople’slivedexperiences.Theideologyitselfencourages‘socialscientists’,historians,writers,artistsandeventheologianstomakeenormouseffortstofitempiricalobservationandexperienceintotheiraccountsofreality.Butthisinevitablyleadstocontradictoryaccounts,withsomeoftheideologuesbeginningtoquestionsomeofthetenetsoftheestablishedideology.Marxrecognisedthatagreatwriterorartistisabletoreflectallthecontradictoryexperiencesthatbesetpeoplewholiveinhisorhersociety,and,intheprocesstobegintogobeyondthelimitssetbyhisorherclassposition.Inafewcasesthisevenleadsthemtoabreakwiththeirownclassandtoidentifywiththerevolutionaryoppositiontoit. Ascientificunderstandingofsocialdevelopmentdemandsacompletebreakwiththewholemethodofthepseudo-socialsciencesofthosewhodefendtheexistingsocialorder.Butthatdoesnotmeanthatwecanneglecttheelementsoftruththatthosewhopractisethesedisciplinesstumbleacross.Stilllesscanweignoretheoftenquiteprofoundgraspofthesocialprocesstobefoundincertainnon-MarxisthistoriansoringreatnovelistslikeBalzacorWalterScott. Marxismshowsitssuperiorityoverbourgeoisthoughtnotbysimplytreatingallbourgeoisthinkerswithcontempt,butratherbyshowingthatitcanencapsulatetheadvancesmadebybourgeoisthinkersintoitsowntotalviewofreality–somethingwhichnobourgeois‘socialscientist’candoandwhichnobourgeoisthinkerhasattemptedsinceHegel.   Thecentralroleofclassstruggle TheMarxistapproachbegins,then,bypointingtothecontradictorywaysinwhichtheforcesofproductionandtherelationsofproduction,thebaseandthesuperstructure,materialrealityandpeople’sideas,develop.Butnoneofthesecontradictionssimplyresolvethemselves,asthemechanicalmaterialistsassert.Theirresolutiononlytakesplaceonthebasisofthestrugglesofhumanbeings,ofclassstruggles. Onceyouhavesocietiesdividedbetweenthosewhoproducedirectlyandthosewholiveoffasurplusproduct,anygrowthoftheproductiveforces,howeverslowandpiecemeal,leadstoacorrespondingchangeintheobjectiveweightofthedifferentclassesinsociety.Andsomewaysofdevelopingtheproductiveforcesleadtoqualitativechanges,tonewwaysofextractingasurplus,totheembryosofnewexploitingandexploitedclasses(and,eventually,totheformationofaclassthatcanrunsocietywithoutexploitinganyone). Butthenewwaysofproducingalwaysfaceresistancefromatleastsomeofthosewhoseinterestslieinpreservationoftheoldways.Theadvanceofeverynewmodeofproductionisalwaysmarkedbybitterclasswars(evenif,aswiththereligiouswarsofthe16thand17thcenturies,thesewaysdonotalwaysinvolvecleanbreaksbetweenclasses,butoftencomplicated,cross-cuttingalliancesbetweenthemostdynamicsectionoftherisingclassandcertaininterestgroupswithintheoldorder).Whetherthenewwaysofproducingbreakthroughdependsonwhowinsthesestruggles.Economicdevelopmentsareveryimportantinthis.Theydeterminethesizeofthedifferentclasses,theirgeographicalconcentration(andthereforetheeasewithwhichtheycanbeorganised),theirdegreeofhomogeneity,thephysicalresourcesattheirdisposal. Suchdirecteconomicfactorscancertainlycreateasituationinwhichtherisingclasscannotgainavictory,whateveritdoes.Theobjectivebalanceofforcesistoopowerfullyweightedtheotherway.Butwhentheobjectivefactorscreateasituationofnearequalityofforcesfortherivalclasses,whatcometomatterareotherfactors–theideologicalhomogeneity,theorganisationandtheleadershipoftherivalclasses. Forthemechanicalmaterialist,ideasaresimplyanautomaticreflectionofmaterialbeing.Butinrealhistoricalprocessesofsocialtransformationitisneverthatsimple. Theinstitutionsoftheoldrulingclassarecontinuallytryingtodefinethewaysinwhichpeoplethroughoutsocietyseethemselvesandtheirrelationswithothers.Themembersoftherisingclassatfirstacceptthesedefinitionsastheonlyonesavailabletothem:soforinstance,theearlymedievalburghersacceptedthepreceptsofmedievalCatholicismintheirtotality. Butthemembersofarisingclassgetinvolvedinpracticalactivitywhichcannoteasilybeencompassedbytheolddefinitions.Peoplebegintodothingswhichtheoldworldviewsaystheyshouldnot.Theinstitutionsthatenforcetheoldworldviewthenthreatenpunitiveactionagainstthem. Atthispointtwooptionsareopen.Thoseinvolvedinthenewformsofactivityconcedetothepressuresonthemfromtheoldorder,andthenewformsofactivitycease.Ortheygeneralisetheirclashwiththeoldideology,developingoutofelementsofitanewtotalworldview,behindwhichtheyattempttorallyallthoseinasimilarobjectivesituationtothemselves. Anewsystemofideasisnotjustapassivereflectionofeconomicchanges.Itisratherakeylinkintheprocessofsocialtransformation,mobilisingthoseaffectedbycumulativesmall-scalechangesinproductionintoaforcewhoseaimistochangesocialrelationsintheirentirety. Take,forinstance,theclassicdebateonProtestantismandtheriseofcapitalism.AccordingtoopponentsofMarxism,likeMaxWeber,itwastheautonomous‘non-economic’developmentofanewreligiousideologywhichaloneprovidedthegroundinwhichnewcapitalistwaysofproducingcouldtakeroot.Puritanismcausedcapitalism. Accordingtothemechanicalmaterialists,itwastheotherwayround.Protestantismwassimplyamechanicalreflectionofthedevelopmentofcapitalistrelations.Capitalismwasthecause,Protestantismwastheeffect. Eachmissedoutavitallinkinthechainofhistoricaldevelopment.ProtestantismdevelopedbecausesomepeopleinafeudalsocietybegantoworkandliveinwaysthatarenoteasilyreconcilablewiththedominantideologyofmedievalCatholicism.Theybegantoreinterpretsomeofitstenetssoastomakesenseoftheirnewformsofbehaviour.Butthisledtoclasheswiththeideologicalguardiansoftheoldorder(thechurchhierarchy).Atthispointaseriesoffiguresemergedwhotriedtogeneralisethechallengetotheoldideology–Luther,Calvin,etc.Wherethechallengewasunsuccessfulorwherethosewhomadeitwereforcedtocompromise(asinGermany,FranceandItaly),thenewwaysofworkingandlivingbecamenomorethanmarginalelementsinacontinuingfeudalsociety.Butwherethechallengewassuccessful(inBritainandtheNetherlands)itliberatedthenewwaysofworkingandlivingfromtheoldconstraints–itgeneralisedbourgeoisformsofproduction. Thesamerelationshipholdsbetweentheworkers’struggleundercapitalismandtheideasofrevolutionarysocialism. Initially,workerstrytofittheirexperienceoffightingbackagainstaspectsofcapitalismintoideologicalframeworksthatarebequeathedtothemfromthepast.Theseframeworksshapetheformtheirstrugglestake,sothatthestrugglesareneverasimplereflectionofmaterialinterests.‘Thedeadweightofthepasthangslikeanightmareonthebrainoftheliving’,asMarxputit.[62]Buttheprocessoftryingtointerprettheirnewexperiencesthrougholdframeworkscreatesatensionwithintheoldframeworks,whichisonlyresolvedaspeopletrytochangetheframeworks. AsAntonioGramsciputit,‘Theactivemanofthemassesworkspractically,buthedoesnothaveaclear,theoreticalconsciousnessofhisactions,whichisalsoaknowledgeoftheworldinsofarashechangesit.’Sothereare‘twosortsofconsciousness’,that‘implicitinhisactions’,andthat‘superficiallyexplicit,whichhehasinheritedfromthepastandwhichheacceptswithoutcriticism’: This‘verbal’conceptionisnotwithoutconsequences;itbindshimtoacertainsocialgroup,influenceshismoralbehaviourandthedirectionofhiswillinamoreorlesspowerfulway,anditcanreachthepointwherethecontradictionofconsciousnesswillnotpermitanyaction...[Therefore]theunityoftheoryandpracticeisnotagivenmechanicalfact,butahistoricalprocessofbecoming.[63] ThustheChartistsofthe1830sand1840sattemptedtocometotermswithnewexperiencesthrougholder,radicaldemocraticnotions.Butthiscreatedallsortsofcontradictoryideologicalformulations.ThatwaswhysomeofthemostpopularoratorsandwriterswerepeoplelikeBronterreO’Brien,JulianHarveyandErnestJoneswhobegantoarticulatepeople’sexperienceinnewer,moreexplicitlysocialistways. MarxismitselfwasnotasetofideasthatemergedfullyformedoutoftheheadsofMarxandEngelsandthenmagicallytookagripoftheworkingclassmovement.ThebirthofthetheorywasdependentonadistillationbyMarxandEngelsoftheexperiencesoftheyoungworkers’movementintheyearspriorto1848.Ithasbeenacceptedbyworkerssincethen,insofarasithasfittedinwithwhatstruggleswerealreadybeginningtoteachthem.Butitsacceptancehasthenfedbackintothestrugglestoinfluencetheiroutcome. Thetheorydoesnotsimplyreflectworkers’experienceundercapitalism;itgeneralisessomeelementsofthatexperience(thoseofstrugglingagainstcapitalism)intoaconsciousnessofthesystemasawhole.Indoingso,itgivesnewinsightsintohowtowagethestruggleandanewdeterminationtofight. Theorydevelopsonthebasisofpractice,butfeedsbackintopracticetoinfluenceitseffectiveness. Thepointisimportantbecausetheoryisnotalwayscorrecttheory.Therehavehistoricallybeenveryimportantworkers’struggleswagedundertheinfluenceofincorrecttheories: ProudhonismandBlanquisminFranceinthesecondhalfofthe19thcentury; LassallianisminGermany; NarodnismandevenRussianOrthodoxisminRussiaintheyearsbefore1905; PeronisminArgentina; CatholicismandnationalisminPoland; and,ofcourse,theterribletwins,socialdemocracyandStalinism. Inallofthesecasesworkershavegoneintostruggleinfluencedby‘hybrid’viewsoftheworld–viewswhichcombineacertainimmediateunderstandingoftheneedsofclassstrugglewithamoregeneralsetofideasacceptingkeyelementsofexistingsociety.Suchafalseunderstandingofsocietyinitstotalityleadstoenormousblunders–blunderswhichagainandagainhaveledtomassivedefeats. Inthefaceofsuchconfusionandsuchdefeats,nothingismoredangerousthantosaythatideasinevitablycatchupwithreality,thatvictoryiscertain.Forthisinvariablyleadstoadownplayingoftheimportanceofcombiningthepracticalandtheideologicalstruggle.   Theroleofthepartyinhistory Theothersideofthecointothemechanicalmaterialists’downgradingoftheideologicalstrugglehasbeenatendencyforcertainsocialistacademicstotreattheideologicalstruggleassomethingquiteseparatefrompracticalconflicts.ThisisespeciallytrueofthereformistsofthenowdefunctMarxismTodayandoftheLabourleft. Butthestruggleofideasalwaysgrowsoutofstruggleintheworldofmaterialpractice,whereideashavetheirroot,andalwaysculminatesinfurthersuchmaterialstruggles.Itwastheeverydayactivityofcraftsmenandmerchantsunderfeudalismwhichgaverisetoheretical,Protestant,religiousformulations.AnditwasthealltoorealactivityofarmieswhichfoughtacrossthelengthandbreadthofEuropewhich,attheendoftheday,determinedthesuccessorfailureofthenewideology. ThenewidealistsoftenclaimtheirtheoreticalinspirationfromAntonioGramsci,buthewasinsistentontheconnectionbetweentheoreticalandpracticalstruggle: Whentheproblemoftherelationoftheoryandpracticearises,itdoessointhissense:toconstructonadeterminedpracticeatheorythat,coincidingandbeingidentifiedwiththedecisiveelementsofthesamepractice,acceleratesthehistoricalprocessinact,makesthepracticemorehomogeneous,coherentandefficaciousinallitselements,thatis,givingitthemaximumforce;orelse,givenacertaintheoreticalproblem,toorganisetheessentialpracticalelementstoputitintooperation.[64] Ifyouwanttochallengecapitalism’sideologicalholdtoday,youcannotdosounlessyourelatetopeoplewhoseeverydaystrugglesleadthemtobegintochallengecertainofitstenets.Andifyouwanttocarrythechallengethroughtotheend,youhavetounderstandthattheideologicalstruggletransformsitselfintopracticalstruggle. Thetransformationofpracticeintotheoryandtheoryintopracticedoesnottakeplaceofitsownaccord.“Ahumanmassdoesnot‘distinguish’itselfanddoesnotbecomeindependent‘byitself’withoutorganisingitself,andthereisnoorganisationwithoutintellectuals,thatis,withoutorganisersandleaders...”[65] Arisingclassdevelopsaclearsetofideasinsofarasapolarisationtakesplacewithinit,andwhatis,atfirst,aminorityoftheclasscarryingthechallengetotheoldideologythroughtoitslogicalconclusion. Atacertainstageintheideologicalandpracticalstrugglethatminoritycrystallisesoutasaseparate‘party’(whetheritcallsitselfthatornot).Itisthroughthestruggleofsuchpartiesthatthedevelopmentoftheforcesandrelationsofproductionfindexpressioninnewideas,andthatthenewideasareusedtomobilisepeopletoteartheoldsuperstructureapart.InafamouspassageinWhatistobeDone?Leninsaidthat‘politicalideas’arebroughttotheworkingclassfromoutside.Ifhemeantthatworkersplayednopartintheelaborationoftherevolutionarysocialistworldviewhewaswrong.[66]Ifhemeantthatpracticalexperiencedidnotopenworkersuptosocialistideashewaswrong.[67]Butifhemeanttostressthatsocialistideasdonotconquertheclasswithouttheseparationoffofadistinctsocialistorganisation,whichisbuiltthroughalongprocessofideologicalandpracticalstruggle,hewasabsolutelyright. Thefamousdiscussionsofthemechanicalmaterialistswereaboutthe‘roleoftheindividualinhistory’.[68]Butitwasnottheindividual,buttheparty,whichbecamecentralforthenon-mechanical,non-voluntaristicmaterialismoftherevolutionaryyearsafter1917. Trotskyexplainsinhismasterpiece,theHistoryoftheRussianRevolution,thatrevolutionsoccurpreciselybecausethesuperstructuredoesnotchangemechanicallywitheverychangeintheeconomicbase: Societydoesnotchangeitsinstitutionsastheneedarisesthewayamechanicchangeshisinstruments.Onthecontrary,societyactuallytakestheinstitutionswhichhanguponitasgivenonceandforall.Fordecadestheoppositionalcriticismisnothingmorethanasafetyvalveformassdissatisfaction,aconditionofthestabilityofthesocialstructure.[69] The‘radicalturnswhichtakeplaceinthecourseofarevolution’arenotsimplytheresultof‘episodiceconomicdisturbances’.‘Itwouldbethecrudestmistaketoassumethatthesecondrevolution[of1917]wasaccomplishedeightmonthsafterthefirstowingtothefactthatthebreadrationwasloweredfromoneandahalfpoundstothreequartersofapound.’Anattempttoexplainthingsintheseterms‘exposestoperfectiontheworthlessnessofthatvulgarlyeconomicinterpretationofhistorywhichisfrequentlygivenoutasMarxism’.[70] Whatbecomedecisiveare‘swift,intenseandpassionatechangesinthepsychologyofclasseswhichhavealreadybeenformedbeforetherevolution’.[71]‘Revolutionsareaccomplishedthroughpeople,althoughtheybenameless.Materialismdoesnotignorethefeeling,thinking,actingman,butexplainshim’.[72] Partiesareanintegralpartoftherevolutionaryprocess: Theyconstitutenotanindependent,butneverthelessaveryimportantelementintheprocess. Withouttheguidingorganisation,theenergyofthemasseswoulddissipatelikesteamnotenclosedinapistonbox.Butnevertheless,whatmovesthingsisnotthepistonorthebox,butthesteam.[73] Butpartiesalwaysinvolveasubjectiveelementinthewaythateconomicforcesandtheformationofclassesdonot.Partieshavetobeorganisedaroundcertainideologicalpostulates,andthatrequirestheeffort,activityandargumentofindividuals. InRussiain1917thecontradictionsinmaterialrealitycouldnotberesolvedwithouttheworkingclassseizingpower.Buttheworkingclasscouldnotbecomeconsciousofthatneedwithoutaminorityintheclassseparatingitselfofffromtheideasofthemajority.Thereneededtobe‘thebreakoftheproletarianvanguardwiththepettybourgeoisbloc’.[74]Manyworkersbegantomove,underthepressureofevents,tomakethisbreak.Buttheywereheldbackatfirstfromconsummatingthebreakbecauseoftheirownconfusedideas:‘Theydidnotknowhowtorefusethepremiseaboutthebourgeoischaracteroftherevolutionandthedangeroftheisolationoftheproletariat’.[75]‘Thedictatorshipoftheproletariatwastobeinferredfromthewholesituation,butithadstilltobeestablished.Itcouldnotbeestablishedwithoutaparty’.[76] Thefactthatthehumanmaterialexistedtobuildapartybefore1917wasaresultofobjectivehistoricaldevelopments.Butthesedevelopmentshadtofindexpressionintheactivityandideasofindividuals.Andoncetherevolutionstarted,theactivityofthepartywasnotablindreflectionofreality.True,‘Thepartycouldfulfilitsmissiononlybyunderstandingit’,[77]butthatdependedontheabilityofdifferentindividualstoarticulateideasabouttheobjectivesituationandtowinpartymemberstothem. Thiswaswhere,forTrotsky,oneindividual,Lenin,didplayanunparalleledrole.Hewas‘needed’forthepartytounderstandeventsandacteffectively.‘Untilhisarrival,notoneoftheBolshevikleadersdaredtomakeadiagnosisoftherevolution.’ Hewasnota‘demiurgeoftherevolutionaryprocess’,actingonitasanarbitraryelementfromoutside.‘Hemerelyenteredintothechainofobjectivehistoricalforces.Buthewasagreatlinkinthatchain.’WithoutLeninmanyworkerswerebeginningtogropetowardsaknowledgeofwhatneededtobedone.Buttheirgropingneededtobegeneralised,tobecomepartofanewtotalviewoftherevolution.‘Lenindidnotimposeaplanonthemasses:hehelpedthemassestorecogniseandrealisetheirownplan.’[78] Theargumentswouldhavetakenplacewithouthim.Butthereisnoguaranteetheywouldhavebeenresolvedinawaywhichwouldhaveenabledthepartytoactdecisively: InnerstruggleintheBolshevikPartywasabsolutelyunavoidable.Lenin’sarrivalmerelyhastenedtheprocess.Hispersonalinfluenceshortenedthecrisis. Isitpossible,however,tosayconfidentlythatthepartywithouthimwouldhavefounditsroad?Wewouldbynomeansmakeboldtosaythat.Thefactoroftimeisdecisivehere,anditisdifficultinretrospecttotelltimehistorically. Dialecticalmaterialismatanyratehasnothingincommonwithfatalism.WithoutLeninthecrisis,whichtheopportunistleadershipwasinevitablyboundtoproduce,wouldhaveassumedanextraordinarilysharpandprotractedcharacter.Theconditionsofwarandrevolution,however,wouldnotallowthepartyalongperiodforfulfillingitsmission.Thusitisbynomeansexcludedthatadisorientedandsplitpartymayhaveletsliptherevolutionaryopportunityformanyyears.[79] Theindividualplaysaroleinhistory,butonlyinsofarastheindividualispartoftheprocessbywhichapartyenablestheclasstobecomeconsciousofitself. Anindividualpersonalityisaproductofobjectivehistory(experienceoftheclassrelationsofthesocietyinwhichheorshegrowsup,previousattemptsatrebellion,theprevailingculture,andsoon).Butifheorsheplaysaroleinthewayasectionoftheclassbecomesconsciousofitselfandorganisesitselfasaparty,heorshefeedsbackintothehistoricalprocess,becoming‘alinkinthehistoricalchain’. Forrevolutionariestodenythisistofallintoafatalismwhichtriestoshrugoffallresponsibilityfortheoutcomeofanystruggle.Itcanbejustasdangerousastheopposederrorofbelievingthattheactivityofrevolutionariesistheonlythingthatmatters. Thepointisabsolutelyrelevanttoday.InmoderncapitalismtherearecontinualpressuresonrevolutionaryMarxiststosuccumbtothepressuresofmechanicalmaterialismontheonehandandofvoluntaristicidealismontheother. MechanicalmaterialismfitsthelifeofthebureaucraciesoftheLabourmovement.Theirpositionsrestupontheslowaccretionofinfluencewithinexistingsociety.Theybelievethefuturewillalwaysbearesultofgradualorganicgrowthoutofthepresent,withouttheleapsandboundsofqualitativechange.ThatiswhyaMarxismwhichisadjustedtotheirwork(likethatoftheformerMilitanttendencyorthepro-RussianwingoftheoldCommunistParty)tendstobeaKautskyiteMarxism. Thevoluntarismofthenewidealismfitsinwiththeaspirationsofthenewmiddleclassandofreformistintellectuals.Theylivelivescutofffromtherealprocessofproductionandexploitation,andeasilyfallintobelievingthatideologicalconvictionandcommitmentalonecanremovefromtheworldthespectresofcrisis,famineandwar. RevolutionaryMarxismcanonlysurvivethesepressuresifitcangroupfightingminoritiesintoparties.Thesecannotjumpoutsidematerialhistory,butthecontradictionsofhistorycannotberesolvedwithouttheirown,consciousactivity. Notes 1.KarlMarx,AContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,London1971. 2.KarlMarxandFrederickEngels,CollectedWorks,ProgressPublishers,Moscow1975,Vol.6,p.166. 3.KarlKautsky,TheEconomicDoctrinesofKarlMarx,London,1925,p.365. 4.KarlKautsky,VorläuferderneurenSozialismus,ErsterBand:KommunistischeBewegungenimMittelalter,Berlin1923,p.365.AnEnglishtranslationofpartofthisworkwasproducedinthe1890s,butisvirtuallyunobtainabletoday.Thisisunfortunate,sincetheweaknessinKautsky’smethoddidnotpreventhimproducinginterestinghistoricalstudies. 5.KarlKautsky,EthicsandtheMaterialisticConceptionofHistory,London1906,p.81. 6.Likemostothermechanicalmaterialists,Kautskycouldnotstickrigidlytohisownmethod.Atpointshedoessuggestthathumanactivityhasanimportantroletoplay,aswhenhesuggestsinhisintroductiontotheErfurtProgrammethatunless‘societyshakesofftheburden’of‘thesystemofprivateownershipofthemeansofproduction’inthewaythatthe‘evolutionarylaw’decrees,thesystemwill‘pullsocietydownwithitintotheabyss’.TheClassStruggle,Chicago1910,p.87. 7.GeorgiPlekhanov,TheRoleoftheIndividualinHistory,inEssaysinHistoricalMaterialism,NewYork1940,p.41. 8.ibid. 9.GeorgiPlekhanov,FundamentalProblemsofMarxism,Moscown.d.,p.83. 10.ibid.,p.80. 11.Plekhanov,TheRoleoftheIndividualinHistory,op.cit.,p.44. 12.WhichisnotatalltoblamePlekhanov,whowasoftenquitesophisticatedtheoretically,forthecrudenessoftheStalinistuseofhiswritings. 13.Letterof25January1894. 14.Letterof21/22September1890.Cf.alsohisletterstoSchmidtof5August1890and27October1890,andhislettertoMehringof14July1893. 15.See,forinstance,E.P.Thompson’svigorouspolemicagainsttheAlthusserians,ThePovertyofTheory,London1978. 16.InNewLeftReview,No.3,May1960. 17.SeeThePovertyofTheory,op.cit.,pp.251-252. 18.See,forinstance,hisessay,RethinkingChartism,inLanguageofClass(Cambridge,1983). 19.See,forinstance,NorahCarlin’sremarkthat‘thedistinctionbetweenbaseandsuperstructureismisleadingmoreoftenthanitisuseful’,inIstheFamilyPartoftheSuperstructure?inInternationalSocialism,Vol.26;andAlexCallinicos’suggestionthattheMarxistmethodinvolves‘startingfromrelationsofproductionandtreatingthem,notforcesofproduction,astheindependent’,MarxismandPhilosophy,London1983,p.12. 20.G.A.Cohen,KarlMarx’sTheoryofHistory:aDefence,Oxford1978. 21.SeeA.Labriola,EssaysontheMaterialistConceptionofHistoryandSocialismandPhilosophy,Chicago1918. 22.V.I.Lenin,CollectedWorks,ProgressPublishers,Moscow,Vol.38,p.276. 23.SeethecriticismofTrotsky’spositioninIsaacDeutscher,TheProphetOutcast,pp.240-247. 24.TheGermanIdeologyinMarxandEngels,CollectedWorks,vol.5,pp.31,41-42.ThisarticlewaswrittenusinganoldertranslationwhichismarginallydifferentinplacesfromthatintheCollectedWorks. 25.ibid.,p.31. 26.Labriolaop.cit.,p.55. 27.TheGermanIdeology,op.cit.,p.31. 28.ibid.,p.32. 29.ibid.,p.35. 30.TheoriesofSurplusValue,PartI,Moscown.d.,p.280. 31.Quotedearlier. 32.ThePovertyofPhilosophy,op.cit.,p.166. 33.TheCommunistManifestoinMarx,Engels,Lenin,TheEssentialLeft,London1960,p.7. 34.ibid.,p.15. 35.ForanexcellentaccountofhowsuccessiveBronzeAgecivilisationscollapsedinto‘darkages’,seeV.GordonChilde,WhatHappenedinHistory,Harmondsworth1948,pp.134,135-136,165.For‘regression’intheAmazon,seeC.LeviStrauss,TheConceptofArchaisminAnthropologyinStructuralAnthropology,Harmondsworth,1968,pp.107-112. 36.Cf.C.Turnbull,TheMountainPeople,London,1974. 37.Capital,Vol.1,pp.339-340. 38.TheGermanIdeology,op.cit.,p.93. 39.ThisisthepointGeorgLukácsmakesinHistoryandClassConsciousness,London1971,pp.55-59. 40.SeethebriefoutlineofthisprocessinLindseyGerman,TheoriesofPatriarchyinInternationalSocialism,No.12. 41.Thisiswhatsomepatriarchytheoristsdo,andsodoesNorahCarlininIstheFamilyPartoftheSuperstructure?inInternationalSocialism,No.26. 42.NorahCarlingivesalotofattentiontothesechanges,butdoesnotconsiderwheretheyoriginate.Herrefusaltotakethecategoriesofbaseandsuperstructureseriouslypreventsherfromdoingso. 43.ThisistheargumentofSimonClarke,Althusser’sMarxism,inSimonClarkeetal.,OneDimensionalMarxism,London1980,p.20:‘Socialrelationsofproductionappearinspecificeconomic,ideologicalandpoliticalforms.’ 44.SimonClarkeendsuptryingtorelatetosuchcontradictionsbytalkingofthe‘extentthatanysocialrelationissubsumedunderthecapitalistrelations’.ThephrasingismuchmorecumbersomethanMarx’sown‘base’and‘superstructure’,anddoesnoteasilyenableonetodistinguishbetweenthecontradictionsofthecapitalisteconomyandotherelementsofcontradictionthatemergeatpointsintheconcretehistoryofthesystem.Allconflictsproducedbythesystemareseenasbeingofequalimportance.Politicallythisleadstoavoluntarismverysimilartothatofpost-Althusserianism. 45.Marx&Engels,TheCommunistManifestoinSelectedWorks,Moscow1962,Vol.1,p.37. 46.ForamuchfullerdevelopmentoftheseideasseemyExplainingtheCrisis,Bookmarks,London1984. 47.TheGermanIdeology,op.cit.,p.36. 48.ibid.,p.36. 49.ibid.,p.43. 50.ibid.,pp.43-44. 51.ibid.,p.446. 52.ibid.,p.83. 53.Marx&Engels,CollectedWorks,Vol.5,pp.3-5. 54.ThedistinctionbetweendifferentformsofconsciousnesswasoneofthefruitsofGermanphilosophyandistobefoundintheearlierpartofHegel,PhenomenologyofMind.Marx,ofcourse,givesadifferentsignificancetothisdistinctionthandoesHegel.Theproblemofhowitispossibletomovefrom‘immediate’consciousnesstoatruegeneralor‘mediated’consciousnessistheconcernofLukács’majorphilosophicalessay,ReificationandtheConsciousnessoftheProletariatinHistoryandClassConsciousness,op.cit.,p.446. 55.TheGermanIdeology,op.cit.,p.446. 56.Ibid.,p449. 57.ForacomparisonbetweenMarxandWittgenstein,seeA.MacIntyre,BreakingtheChainsofReason,inE.P.Thompson(ed.),OutofApathy,London1960,p.234. 58.Iuse‘historicist’hereinthetraditionalsenseofarelativismwhichsaysthattherearenogeneralcriteriaoftruthorfalsity,butthatthecorrectnessofideasdependsontheconcretehistoricalsituationinwhichtheyareputforward.Thisis,forinstance,thesenseinwhichthetermisusedbyGramsci.ItisnottobeconfusedwithKarlPopper’suseofitinThePovertyofHistoricismasatermofabusetorefertovirtuallyanygeneralaccountofhistory. 59.TheoriesofSurplusValue,London1951,p.202. 60.TheoriesofSurplusValue,Vol.1,Moscown.d.,p.279. 61.ibid.,p.291. 62.TheEighteenthBrumaireofLouisBonaparteinCollectedWorks,Vol.11,p.103.Itisnonsenseforpost-AlthusserianslikeGarethStedmanJonestoclaimthataMarxistapproachinvolvesanattemptto‘decode...politicallanguagetoreadaprimalandmaterialexpressionofinterest’,LanguageofClass,op.cit.,p.21. 63.AntonioGramsci,AvriamentoalloStudiodellaFilosofiadelMaterialismoStoricoinMaterialismoStorico(Turin1948),translatedinTheModernPrince,London1957,pp.66-67. 64.MaterialismoStorico,op.cit.,p.38. 65.ibid.,translatedinTheModernPrince,op.cit.,p.67. 66.Ashehimselflateradmitted.V.I.Lenin,CollectedWorks,Vol.6,p.491. 67.Notehiscommentin1905,‘Theworkingclassisinstinctively,spontaneously,socialdemocratic...’,quotedinChrisHarman,PartyandClassinTonyCliffetal.,PartyandClass,Bookmarks,London1996. 68.GeorgiPlekhanov,TheRoleoftheIndividualinHistory,op.cit. 69.LeonTrotsky,HistoryoftheRussianRevolution,London1965,PrefacetoVol.1,p.18. 70.ibid.,IntroductiontoVols.2&3,p.510. 71.ibid.,Preface,p.8. 72.ibid.,Introduction,p.511. 73.ibid.,p.9. 74.ibid.,Vol.1,p.334. 75.ibid.,p.302. 76.ibid.,p.343. 77.ibid.,p.343. 78.ibid.,p.339. 79.ibid.,p.343.   Topofthepage Lastupdatedon29.2.2012