p In our opinion, we repeat, the actual course of the historical development of human societies cannot be expressed with due completeness by any single “formula”. It is, however, for that very reason that it may prove very useful to make another attempt to give schematic expression to that course.

p We shall ask the reader to take note of the following excerpt, or the length of which we apologise most sincerely in advance:

p “It is slowly and only through arduous struggle that the ruling order develops, under which people live and work. After a lengthy struggle, frequent setbacks, erroneous attempts and insistent efforts to move forward, an order is ultimately set up which, on the basis of past experience, meets present needs, and under the protection of which the individual forces will develop with the greatest advantage for the weal of society.But as soon as so favourable a situation is established, there appear new needs, previously unprovided for. There appears a striving to modify the existent and gradually alter it. To outweigh this striving there develops, on the other hand, a one-sided desire to preserve the old order of things in its entirety. The forms established with a view to the public good are obstinately clutched at, towards the end, by private and selfish interests. In the long run, the preservation of the old and unchanged forms is demanded only by false interests that do not understand the significance such forms once possessed. In conclusion, there often remains a single naked form, wholly unviable, next to which the new and fresh life finds expression in completely new forms, until the day comes when the old form is utterly destroyed, even in its external manifestations."  [510•* 

p Here we have before us something that also resembles a formula of social progress, the correctness of which will, we hope, not be denied even by the most indefatigable “critic”; definite social needs- engender definite forms of everyday life that are necessary for society’s further advance. However, that advance, which has become possible thanks to the given forms of everyday life, gives rise to new social needs that are no longer in keeping with the old forms of everyday life created by the former needs. Thus, there arises a contradiction which grows more and more under the influence of the continuing social advance and ultimately leads to the old forms of everyday life once created by society’s burning needs losing all useful content. They are then abolished after a more or less lengthy struggle, and yield place to new ones.

p This (objective) "formula of progress" expresses, as the reader will see, the mutual relation (the “interaction”) between content and form.  The content is the social needs, which have to be met; social institutions are the form. Content engenders form, thereby ensuring itself further development. The latter, however, renders its form unsatisfactory; a contradiction arises; contradiction leads to struggle, and struggle, to the destruction of the old form and its replacement by a new one, which, in its turn, ensures the further development of content, that makes the form unsatisfactory, and so on and so forth, until development comes to a standstill. This 511 is that very law of which the late Nikolai Chernyshevsky spoke in the following eloquent words:

p “An eternal change of forms; an eternal denial of form as engendered by a certain content or striving;in consequence of the increase of that striving, a higher development of the same content! Whoever has understood this great, eternal and universal law, whoever has learnt to apply it to any phenomenon—0, how calmly will he greet opportunities that others will eschew! Repeatingafter the poet:

p Ich hab ‘mein’ Sach auf Nichts gestellt Und mir gehort die game Welt,  [511•* ^^267^^

p he will not regret anything that has outlived its time, and wilt say: ’Happen what may, our day will come.’"

p This great law of the denial of form as engendered by certain content in consequence of the further growth of that content is indeed a universal law, because subordinate to it is the development, not only of social but also of organic life.  [511•**  It is indeed eternal in thesense that its operation will cease only when all development comes to an end. But this great, universal and eternal law is at the same time that "formula of contradictions” which, probably better than all the others, expresses Marx’s view of the course of social development.

p Here is what we read in Part II of Volume Three of Capital:

p "To the extent that the labour-process is solely a process between Man and Nature, its simple elements remain common to all social forms of development. But each specific historical form of thisprocess further develops its material foundations and social forms. Whenever a certain stage of maturity has been reached, the specific historical form is discarded and makes way for a higher one. Themoment of arrival of such a crisis is disclosed by the depth and 512 breadth attained by the contradictions and antagonisms between the distribution relations, and thus the specific historical form of their corresponding production relations, on the one hand, and the productive forces ... on the other hand. A conflict then ensues between the material development of production and its social form."  [512•* 

p Social man’s productive impact on Nature, and the growth of the productive forces involved in that impact—such is the content; society’s economic structure, its property relations provide the form, en gendered by a given content (the particular degree in the "development of material production”) and rejected in consequence of the further development of that content. Once it has arisen, the contradiction between form and content is not “blunted” but increases, thanks to the continuous growth of the content, which far outstrips the ability of the old form to change in keeping with the new needs. Thus a moment arrives sooner or later when the elimination of the old form and its replacement by a new one becomes necessary. Such is the meaning of the Marxist theory of social development.

p Whoever has realised this perfectly clear and at the same time most profound meaning has also understood the revolutionary significance of Marxist dialectics in its application to social questions. "In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary."  [512•** 

p Adopt the viewpoint of Marx’s dialectics, dear reader, and you will see how desperately feeble and how ridiculously clumsy are the efforts of those “critics” who are trying so hard to bring into Marx’s coherent theory a certain “blunting” element so dear to their hearts! Then you will not be embarrassed by the numerous and often amazing “obscurities” these esteemed gentlemen attempt to introduce into the interpretation of Marx’s theory. And if you finally lose all patience, and words of irritation burst from your lips, then it will not at all be because the imaginary force of their puerile arguments has irritated you, but because you will find impermissible and scandalous the claim some of them make to considering and calling themselves Marxists.  We fully understand that so ridiculous a claim merits the most severe condemnation, so we shall not at all be surprised if you exclaim in your impatience: "For heavens sake, Messrs, the critics! what kind of Marxists are you?! Marx has sown dragons, while you are only ... you are only ... well, in a word, you are organisms of quite a different calibre!..."

In our next article we shall see how unsuccessfully Mr. P. Struve, basing himself on “critical” philosophy, “criticises” Marx’s concept of social revolution. In it we shall get acquainted with his argumentation, which is levelled against what Messrs, the critics call Marx’s theory of the impoverishment of the proletariat, and comes out in defence of the theory of the blunting of the contradictions existing in capitalist society, which has long been put forward by the bourgeois apologists.