| Home Prev | http://www.etext.info/Politics/AlternativeOrange/ Up | Home Next |
| (iii) Basis and Superstructure |  2003-10-29 | Colophon |
| The Alternative Orange (Vol. 4): An Alternative Student Newspaper | ||
|---|---|---|
| Prev | Marxism and the Theory of Knowledge | Next |
The materialist theory of history, as I have so far outlined it, can
be said to apply to all societies known to man, for where people
produce, so forces of production must determine production relations
and a superstructure arise out of an economic base. But although
production is a common feature of every society, the character or, as
Marx calls it, “the mode” of production differs from one
historical period to another. “In broad outline," Marx writes,
“the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modem bourgeois modes of
production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the
development of
society”[1]
and as economic formations or “modes of production” each
is more advanced than the one preceding it — technology has been
more extensively developed and new and “better” forms of
exploitation have been devised. Clearly we are not talking about
“progress” in any straightforward moral sense, for as
Engels has pointed out,
every step forward in production is at the same time a step
backward in the position of the oppressed
class.[2]
(a) the “Asiatic” mode (so called because of its
general geographical location) the land is still owned by the
community but the irrigation system which makes it possible to
develop agriculture is controlled and administered by kings and
priests who rely upon slaves to produce some of the wealth;
however the use of slavery and the production of goods for sale in
a market becomes much more dominant in
(b) the “ancient” or slave mode of production (so
called because it existed in ancient Greece and Rome) in which
with the development of trade and commodity production, the land
itself becomes privately owned; under
(c) the “feudal” mode of production: the exploitation
of slaves (in the sense of people owned like cattle by their
masters) gives way to the exploitation of serfs who are bound to
serve a particular lord by working so many days a year for him,
fighting his wars and paying dues to the church, etc. The highest
and the most deceptive form of exploitation exists however in
(d) the capitalist mode of production in which not only is the
production of commodities the overriding form of economic
activity, but people who have no wealth of their own are forced by
economic circumstances to hire out their services (or
“labour power") to a capitalist, so that people themselves
become commodities who are paid according to the amount of food
and shelter they need to continue functioning as wealth-producing
machines. When they are no longer required by the capitalist, he
simply sacks them.
so that although “potentially” things may get better, in
practice they get worse. Let us look briefly at what each of these
modes of production entails. In what Marx calls
It is worth remembering that each of these “modes of production” are extremely general categories and no actual society, past or present, will necessarily fit them exactly. They serve only as a guide to understanding the development of history and although as Marx puts it, each mode of production is an epoch “marking progress in the development of society," this does not mean that any particular society either has or has to progress through each of the four stages as though each society is preordained to clamber up the same historical ladder. In fact every society is in its particular form quite unique but these distinct features can only be appreciated when analyzed through the general concepts which apply to all societies of a particular kind. Thus for example, the concept of a “capitalist mode of production” — a general term — helps us to identify and explain the peculiar features of apartheid in the South African system. In other words, a general theory of history and Society is essential to any “concrete study of concrete conditions” because without it, we would not know where to begin. The materialist theory of history should never therefore be thought of as a “preconceived scheme” but rather as a guide to understanding historical realities as they really are.
Because, for example, capitalist relations of production had nowhere developed in Africa before the colonial period, this does not mean that before the people can build socialism they must endure a capitalist epoch! What we call the “historical laws” at work in a given mode of production relate to particular forces and relations of production which have developed and there is no reason why societies in Africa which are guided by a Marxist leadership and assisted by the socialist countries, cannot change these forces and relations so that they establish a socialist society based upon a socialist mode of production. There is nothing in the Marxist theory of history which says that everyone has to follow the identical path of development.
What the materialist theory of history seeks to establish is that while every society has its own specific features which fit generally into a mode of production ranging from “primitive communism” to developed socialism, nevertheless particular laws of development are themselves determined by the most basic and general historical law: the adaption of a society's relations of production to their productive forces. The law lies at the heart of the Marxist theory of history and it explains the development of all societies without exception.
In class-divided societies, as we have seen, forces and relations of production come into sharp conflict, whereas in societies in which class divisions are disappearing (as in the socialist countries), this conflict or “contradiction” between the forces and relations can be relatively smoothly and painlessly overcome (as for example happened in 1956/57 in the Soviet Union when new forms of planning were introduced), for now there are no entrenched class interests or privileged “ways of life” which social change threatens. In a society in which, as Marx puts it, “there are no more classes and class antagonisms” then “social evolutions will cease to be political revolutions,"[3] but although the state as the embodiment of class conflict withers away, and differences can be settled through persuasion, debate and the direct action of the people themselves, change continues as it always has and always must. There will always be a continual movement in the growth of productive forces, this will require the continuous adjustment of productive relations and society's superstructure and so we will need to continue studying the particular manifestations of the basic law of historical development which must rank as one of Marx's great scientific discoveries.
Those who claim therefore that Marxism contradicts itself by looking towards the establishment of some kind of “perfect” communist society in which historical development “runs out of steam” and grinds to a halt have not really understood what the materialist conception of history is all about. In fact the development first of social ism in which a planned economy is built and then of communism in which class divisions finally disappear and the machinery of the state dies out, represents the start of a new history for man — a history in which the forces of production can be consciously regulated and controlled, changes are made without wars or revolution and a new world arises which can be called human in the fullest sense of the term.
| [1] | Ibid. |
| [2] | The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, (Lawrence and Wisart, 1972), p.212. |
| [3] | "The Poverty of Philosophy", Collected Works 6, op. cit., p.212. |