125

[introduction.]

p Historical materialism does not impose preconceived patterns on history and does not adapt the events of past and present to fit its own conclusions. On the contrary, it is a scientific generalisation of history.

The conclusion that the history of mankind constitutes a succession of socio-economic formations is based on scientifically verified knowledge of the past. Mankind as a whole has passed through four formations—primitive-communal, slave, feudal, and capitalist— 126 and is now living in the epoch of transition to the next formation, the communist formation, the first phase of which is called socialism. In what follows, we shall try to describe only the most general features of the various socio-economic formations and refrain from entering into the details and secondary features in which the history of every country and every epoch abounds.

The Primitive-Communal System

p The primitive-communal system was historically the first form of society that arose after man emerged from the animal world, having acquired through a long process of labour the qualities which distinguish him from all other living creatures.

p The instruments of labour that mankind possessed in the early stages of the primitive-communal system were of the most primitive kind—the club, the stone axe, the flint knife, the stone-tipped spear, followed later by the bow and arrow. The means of subsistence were obtained by hunting and collecting natural foodstuffs; much later tillage by means of a hoe made its appearance. The only motive force employed in that epoch was man’s muscular strength.

p Production relations between people were in accordance with the level of development of the productive forces. With the instruments of labour then available it was impossible by acting in isolation to fight the forces of nature and to secure the means of subsistence. Only labour performed in common (common hunting, fishing and so on) by all the members of the primitive commune, their unity and mutual assistance enabled them to acquire the necessary means of subsistence. Common labour entailed common ownership of the means of production, which constituted the basis of the production relations in that epoch. All members of the commune shared the same relationship to the means of production; no one could deprive other members of the commune of the means of production and turn them into their own private property.

p Since there was no private property there could be no exploitation of man by man. The primitive instruments of labour, even when employed in common, provided such a meagre subsistence that there was scarcely enough to feed each member of the commune. There was simply no surplus that could be taken away from a producer and kept for other members of society. But since there was no exploitation of the labour of others there was also no need for a special apparatus of coercion.The simple functions of arranging the common affairs were either performed collectively or else entrusted to the most respected and experienced members of the commune.

p The special features of this formation are thus determined by the low level of production and the helplessness of man in the face of his formidable natural surroundings. Man’s dependence on nature, which confronted him as something alien and incomprehensible, was reflected 127 in childishly nai’vo religious ideas. People lived in submission to the power of the commune, clan and tribe, and they blindly followed tradition and custom. During this period co-operation and mutual aid applied only to the members of a given tribe. At times bloody conflicts broke out between the tribes. The primitive-communal system, though free of the deformities and repulsive features later inflicted upon society and people by the domination of the system of exploitation, was by no means a "golden age" for man.

p In the course of time the primitive-communal system reached a state of decline. The ultimate causes of the destruction of primitive society lay in the development of the productive forces. Men gradually mastered the secret of smelting metals. Stone and wooden implements were replaced by those of metal. The plough with a metal coulter, metal axes, bronze and iron tips for spears, arrows, etc., became widespread. Agriculture underwent further development. Domestication of animals and their use as draught power for tillage greatly increased the productivity of labour. The development of the productive forces—instruments of labour and production skills and the experience of the workmen—led to important social changes. Social division of labour arose. Agriculture and animal husbandry and then handicrafts emerged as special kinds of labour activity. Exchange of the products of labour began to develop, first between tribes, then within the commune itself. Gradually the need for common labour practised by the whole commune disappeared. The tribe and the clan, broke up into families, each of which became an independent economic unit. Labour became split up, private property appeared, and with it the possibility of exploitation, for production had now developed to such an extent that human labour power had begun to produce more than was required for the bare subsistence of the workman.

People were prompted to improve their instruments of labour and develop their skills by necessity, and by the desire to make their work easier and build up stocks against natural disasters. But by changing their instruments of labour they, unwittingly, unconsciously, not even suspecting what social consequences this would have, were paving the way for a profound social revolution—the replacement of the primitive-communal formation by the slave formation. The expanded productive forces of society required new production relations among people.

The Slave System

p The foundation of the production relations of this system was private property not only of the means of production, but also of the workmen themselves—of slaves. The slave-owner’s property right over the slaves and over all they produced was determined by the level of development of the productive forces of that epoch. This level was sufficiently high to give rise to the possibility of exploitation 128 of the working people. But at the same time it was still so low that exploitation of the workmen and appropriation of a part of what they produced could be accomplished only by reducing their consumption to the minimum and leaving them just enough to prevent them from dying of hunger. This could be done only by depriving the exploited of all rights, by reducing them to the position of "speaking tools" and using the cruelest methods of compulsion.

p The change of production relations gave rise to a revolution in other spheres of social life, too.

p The relations of co-operation and solidarity that had been characteristic of the primitive commune-were superseded by a relationship involving the domination of one section of society over the other, by relations of exploitation, oppression and implacable enmity. Society was divided into antagonistic classes—the class of slaveowners and the class of slaves.

p The epoch of slavery placed terrible burdens and hardships on the working people. "The lowest interests—base greed, brutal sensuality, sordid avarice, selfish plunder of common possessions—usher in the new, civilised society, class society; the most outrageous means—theft, rape, deceit and treachery—undermine and topple the old, classless, gentile society.”^^66^^ Thus Engels describes the period of transition from the primitive-communal system to that of slavery.

p The brutal exploitation of the slaves evoked bitter opposition on their part. In order to crush this opposition a special apparatus of coercion—the state—had to be created in place of the former clan and tribal institutions of administration. It was the function of the state to protect the property of the slave-owners and to ensure a constant supply of slaves from prisoners of war and also from bankrupt debtors, who were turned into slaves. The birth of the state gave rise to the birth of law, a system of juridical standards and prescriptions expressing the will of the ruling class and protected by the coercive power of the state. New customs and the specific ideology of slave society appeared. Scorn and contempt for physical labour, which now came to be considered an occupation unworthy of a free man, gradually spread among the oppressors; the idea of the inequality of men took firm root.

p Nevertheless the slave system was an important step forward in human progress. It brought a further development of the social division of labour—between agriculture and town crafts, and also between the various branches of handicrafts. In its turn, the division of labour entailed specialisation, improvement of tools, and an increase in skills. New branches of agriculture (cultivation of vegetables, fruit, etc.) came into being along with the production of grain crops. Instruments of labour such as the wheeled plough, the harrow and the scythe were invented. In addition to his own muscular power, man began to make extensive use of the strength of animals. The application of the labour of masses of slaves made possible the 129 construction of dams and irrigation systems, roads and seagoing ships, water mains and large city buildings. And the liberation—thanks to the exploitation of the slaves—of a section of the members of society from direct participation in production created conditions for the development of science and art.

p But the time came when the possibilities of progress inherent in the slave mode of production were exhausted, when its production relations turned more and more into fetters hampering the development of the productive forces. Having in their possession cheap slavelabour, the slave-owners made no effort to improve the instruments of production. What was more, the slave, who was not interested in the results of his labour, could not be entrusted with complex and costly tools. More and more insistently the needs of the development of the productive forces demanded the abolition of the old production relations.

This could only be accomplished by a social revolution. The classes and groups that suffered most from the slave system and therefore had most to gain from its abolition formed the driving force behind that revolution. For the most part, they were slaves and the poorest section of the freemen. As the contradictions in the old mode of production came to ahead, the class conflict grew more and more acute. It took all kinds of forms—from deliberate breaking of the instruments of labour to uprisings involving tens of thousands of people. In the end, under the combined blows of the uprisings of the working classes and the attacks of neighbouring barbarian tribes, which the slave-owning state, weakened by internal contradictions and conflicts, could no longer resist, the slave system crumbled. It was replaced by a new formation—feudalism.

The Feudal System

p The foundation of the production relations of this system lies in the feudal lords’ ownership of the means of production, primarily of the land (the very concept known as “feudalism” is derived from the Latin word “feodum”, the name given to the lands distributed by the king to his vassals in return for their military allegiance). The peasants were personally dependent on the feudals, but were no longer completely their property.  [129•*  The feudals had the right to the labour of the peasants, and the latter were obliged to do service for their lords.

p Feudal society was marked also by the peasants and craftsmen possessing their personal holdings: the peasant serf had his own plot of land, his personal holding, the products of which remained at his disposal after his obligations to the feudal lord had been met.

130

p This special character of the production relations opened up new possibilities for the growth of the productive forces. The direct producer now had a definite material interest in the results of his work. Accordingly, he no longer broke or spoiled his tools, but, on the contrary, looked after them carefully and went out of his way to improve them. Agriculture made further progress, the three-field system of cultivation was evolved and methods of land fertilisation were more and more widely adopted.

p Even more significant successes were achieved by the crafts supplying agricultural instruments, articles of daily life used by feudals and merchants, various kinds of utensils, and also weapons and military equipment. The development of crafts and trade led to the rise : of towns. In the course of time the towns became powerful economic, political and cultural centres, the cradle of the new capitalist mode of production.

p In the epoch of feudalism, many outstanding discoveries that had a great influence on the course of human history were made. Man learned to produce iron out of pig iron, to build sailing-ships with keels that were capable of making long voyages, to fashion simple optical instruments (spectacles, telescopes); the compass, gunpowder, i paper, book-printing, and mechanical clocks were invented. The muscular power of men and animals was supplemented on an ever wider scale by the force of the wind (windmills and sailing-ships) and of falling water (the water-mill and water-wheel were the simple and widespread engines of the Middle Ages).

p The replacement of slave production relations by feudal ones brought about changes in the whole life of society.

p The principal change was in class structure. The feudals, the owners of the land, became the ruling class. The other basic class of feudal society was the serfs. The relations between these two classes were antagonistic in character and based on an irreconcilable opposition of class interests. The forms of exploitation, although slightly milder than those of slavery, were of a very cruel kind. The exploitation of the peasants was still based on non-economic coercion. The serf experienced the economic stimulus of material incentive only when working on his own personal holding. The greater part of his : time was devoted to working for the feudal lord, for which labour he ’ received no reward whatsoever. Here the main incentive to work was fear of punishment, of physical violence, and also of the danger of losing all his personal property, which could be confiscated by the landlord.

p Compared with that of slave society, the class struggle in feudal society rises to a higher level. Peasant uprisings sometimes embrace \ large territories. The strength of the peasants’ resistance to the feudals is shown by the peasant wars which shook one country after i another: Wat Tyler’s Rebellion in England (14th century), the Jacquerie in France (14th–15th centuries), the Hussite wars in Bohemia 131 (15th century), the Peasant War in Germany (16th century), the Taiping Rebellion in China (19th century), the Sikh uprisings in India (17th-18th centuries), the uprisings of Bolotnikov and Razin (17th century) and of Pugachov (18th century) in Russia, etc.

p The political and ideological superstructure of feudal society reflects the forms of exploitation and class struggle peculiar to it. To exploit and hold down the serfs, the feudal state had constantly to resort to armed force, which was at the disposal not only of the central authority but also of each feudal lord, who was the absolute master within his own domains and could condemn and punish at will.

p The social and economic inequality of feudal society is embodied in legislation. Classes and their various internal strata constitute estates (feudal society being divided into such estates as the nobility, the clergy, the merchants, and the peasantry). The relations between the estates and within each of them are based on a system of strict subordination and personal dependence. The rigidity of social barriers impedes movement from one step of the feudal hierarchy to another. The spiritual life of feudal society is ruled by the Church and religion.

p In the course of time, the development of the productive forces comes into contradiction with the production relations prevailing in feudal society and the political and ideological superstructure determined by them. The peasants fight ever more stubbornly against feudal oppression for the right to dispose freely of the products of their economic activity. They endeavour to free themselves from feudal exactions so as to obtain the means for improving their . husbandry, etc. Large manufacturing establishments based on craft techniques but making extensive use of the division of labour and employing the labour of workmen free from personal dependence spring up alongside the small artisan workshops.

p The towns—the bulwark of the young bourgeoisie—vigorously developed. Trade assumed ever wider scope. Merchants with the help of the king’s forces seized new markets in overseas countries. The growth of exchange led in its turn to the rapid development of production, which was also facilitated by the scientific and technical discoveries of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

p In the midst of the feudal system a new, capitalist mode of production is gradually formed. Its development demands the abolition of the feudal order. The bourgeoisie—the class that now appears as the sponsor of the new mode of production—needs a “free” labour market, i. e., workers who are free both of serf dependence and of property, and whom hunger will drive to the factories. It needs a national market, the removal of tariff and all other barriers created by the feudals. It achieves the abolition of the taxes that pay for the upkeep of the court and the numerous retinue of the nobility, and the destruction of the privileges of the estates. Its aim is to be able to control affairs in all spheres of the life of society.

132

p The bourgeoisie rallies round it all the classes and groups that are dissatisfied with the feudal order, from the peasant serfs and lower strata of the towns, who live in conditions of poverty, humiliation and oppression, to the advanced scientists and writers, who, regardless of their origin, are stifled by the spiritual tyranny of feudalism and the Church.

Thus begins the epoch of bourgeois revolutions.

The Capitalist System

p The production relations of capitalism are based on the private ownership by capitalists of the means of production. The capitalist class exploits the class of wage-workers, who are free from personal dependence but are compelled to sell their labour-power because they are deprived of the means of production.

p The production relations of capitalism opened up broad opportunities for the development of the productive forces. Large-scale machine production, based on the harnessing of powerful forces of nature such as steam, and later electricity, and on the wide application of science to the process of production, comes into being and develops at a rapid pace. Capitalism brings about the division of labour not only within separate countries but between countries themselves, thus creating a world market, and then a world economic system.

p And again the changes in the mode of production are followed by changes throughout the life of society.

p The capitalist class and the working class become the main classes of society. As before, the relations between them remain antagonistic in character, since they are based on exploitation, on the oppression of the propertyless by the possessors of property. They are the relations of an implacable class struggle. But the methods of exploitation and oppression have radically changed, the prevailing form of compulsion has become economic. The capitalist, as a rule, does not require physical force to make people work for him. Deprived of the means of production, the worker is compelled to do so “voluntarily”— under threat of death by starvation. The relations of exploitation are veiled by the “free” hire of workers by the master, by the buying and sol!ing of labour-power.

p The changed methods of exploitation bring about a change in the methods of political rule. The transition takes place from the undisguised despotism of previous epochs to more refined forms of rule, to bourgeois democracy. The unlimited power of the hereditary monarch gives way to a parliamentary republic (or at least a constitutional monarchy), suffrage is introduced, citizens are declared to have certain political freedoms and to be equal before the law. This kind of system is most in accord with the principles of free competition and the free play of economic forces on which capitalism for a long time was based.

133

p All the differences between the political and ideological superstructure of bourgeois society and that of feudalism do not, however, alter the basic fact that it is still a superstructure erected upon relations of private ownership and exploitation. The dominant part of this superstructure is composed of the institutions and ideas of the oppressor class—the bourgeoisie—whose task it is to preserve bourgeois class domination and to ensure the obedience of the exploited masses.

p As has been proved today not only in theory but in social practice, the capitalist formation is also temporary, transitory. Increasingly profound antagonisms, above all the contradiction between the social character of production and the private form of appropriation, matured and deepened in the very heart of the system.  [133•*  The only way out of these contradictions is to effect the transition to social ownership of the means of production, i.e., to socialism.

But, as in the past, the transition to a new mode of production is only possible through a social revolution. The force destined to effect this revolution is generated by capitalism itself in the shape of the working class. Rallying to its side all the working people, the working class overthrows the power of capital and creates a new, socialist system free from the exploitation of man by man.

The Socialist System

p The socialist mode of production is based on social ownership of the means of production. The production relations of socialist society are therefore relations of co-operation and mutual assistance among workers liberated from exploitation. They correspond to the character of the productive forces, the social character of production being based on social ownership of the means of production.

Unlike the primitive-communal system, the socialisation of the means of production occurs now on the basis of tremendously developed productive forces, culture and man’s power over nature. The new system opens up for humanity unlimited opportunities of progress, both in the development of the productive forces and in all other spheres of the life of society.

p Such is a very general outline of the basic stages of the development of human society.

p Our knowledge of the past provides us with striking confirmation of the scientific validity of 1he materialist conception of history, the essence of which Marx formulated as follows in the preface to his book A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.

134

“In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, hut, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or—what is but a legal expression for the same thing—with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. "^^66^^