390

p In the wide range of social relations, the authors of The German Ideology underline men’s relations in the process of production as the basic and primary relations which determine all the other social relations: political and ideological. "Land has nothing to do with rent of land, the machine has nothing to do with profit" (1, 5; 230). Land brings rent to its owner in consequence of historically rooted social relations, which take shape independently of the will of the landowner and the tenant. Marx and Engels say that relations of production are above all property relations, which need to be distinguished from their material form. Thus, my frock-coat cannot be regarded "as my private property, since it does not enable me to command any, even the smallest, amount of other people’s labour" (1, 5; 230). This example illustrates the Marxist view of private property as a means of appropriating the labour of others. Marx and Engels were able to produce a scientific formulation of the task of socialist socialisation because they had drawn a clear distinction between private and personal property.

p They sketch out a picture of the historical development of the basic forms of property. The first of these, tribal property, corresponds to the embryonic state of production, when men engaged mainly in hunting, fishing and some farming. This was collective property, and with it is connected the existence of the patriarchal family, within whose entrails slavery emerges and exists in a latent form. The subsequent progress of the productive forces, the 391 growth of population and its requirements, the extension of external intercourse (barter trade, war) engender slaveholding relations of production. "The second form is the ancient communal and state property, which proceeds especially from the union of several tribes into a city by agreement or by conquest, and which is still accompanied by slavery. Beside communal property we already find movable, and later also immovable, private property developing, but as an abnormal form subordinate to communal property. The citizens hold power over their labouring slaves only in their community, and even on this account alone they are bound to the form of communal property" (1, 5; 33).

p The third form is feudal or estate property. The peculiar origination of feudal relations in Europe (the barbarian conquest of the Roman Empire, the partial destruction of the productive forces, the decline of the cities, of trade, etc.) cannot conceal the basic fact that the new relations of production allow of much greater development of the productive forces than they did in the slave-holding society. Feudal property, like slave-holding property, implies a division of society into opposite classes, one of which enslaves and exploits the other. "The hierarchical structure of landownership, and the armed bodies of retainers associated with it, gave the nobility power over the serfs. This feudal organisation was, just as much as the ancient communal property, an association against a subjected producing class; but the form of association and the relation to the direct producers were different because of the different conditions of production" (1, 5; 34).

p The guild organisation of the handicrafts in the cities corresponded to the feudal structure of landed property. The antithesis between serfs and feudal lords in the countryside and apprentices and masters in the cities, such were the relations between the basic social groups in feudal society. Without considering in greater detail the question of relations of production in pre-capitalist formations, as set forth in The German Ideology, let us note that despite the inadequacy of historical and, especially, economic data then at their disposal, Marx and Engels show the principal features of the primitive, slave-holding and feudal social systems. They had always eschewed efforts to schematise the socio-historical process, and identify the main features of each type of relations of production and the class structure 392 of society they determine. Their analysis of the concrete historical facts helps them to understand both the coherence and the diversity of world history.

p Progress of production in the feudal society inevitably erodes the corporate and communal forms of property, so reducing the producers’ personal dependence on the class exploiting them. Capitalist relations of production emerge, and private property gradually comes to dominate economic relations completely. Thus, the various forms of property, which existed throughout mankind’s history, evolve to "modern capital, determined by large-scale industry and universal competition, i.e., pure private property, which has cast off all semblance of a communal institution" (1, 5; 89-90). Wage-labour, free from feudal fetters, i.e., the new form of enslavement of producers, has its political expression in the bourgeois-democratic state, which, for that reason, is the political superstructure of the corresponding economic structure of capitalism. This explains the following remarks by Marx and Engels: "The modern state, the rule of the bourgeoisie, is based on freedom, of labour. ... Freedom of labour is free competition of the workers among themselves. ... Labour is free in all civilised countries; it is not a matter of freeing labour but of abolishing it" (7, 5; 205).

p The bourgeois ideologist regards labour free from feudal fetters as free labour in general, ignoring the fact that the proletarian is deprived of the means of production. This kind of labour, which is free from the means of production, i.e., which is dependent on the owners of the means of production, has to be abolished. Marx, and Engels write: "The proletarians, if they are to assert themselves as individuals, have to abolish the hitherto prevailing condition of their existence (which has, moreover, been that of "all society up to then), namely, labour" (1, 5; 80). Quite obviously, this is alienated labour, which is a "negative form of self-activity" (1, 5; 87), i.e., a negation of the latter. That is what Marx and Engels have in mind when they keep emphasising that labour "is here again the chief thing, power over individuals, and as long as this power exists, private property must exist" (7, 5; 64). This is what gives ground for a form of expression which is not very apt terminologically   [392•* , but for which there are good reasons. 393 Marx and Engels raise the question of a radical, communist transformation of the entire creative activity of men, which presupposes the "transformation of labour into self-activity" (7, 5; 88). "The communist revolution is directed against the hitherto existing mode of activity, does away with labour, and abolishes the rule of all classes with the classes themselves" (7, 5; 52). The objective necessity for this greatest revolution is determined by the development of the productive forces in bourgeois society, which spill over the narrow privateproperty relations of production alienating labour and its product.

p The proposition concerning the conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production in an antagonistic society, as the objective basis for social revolution, is the great discovery which crowns the elaboration of the principles of historical materialism by Marx and Engels. The relations of production—the key starting concept of historical materialism—are characterised as a historically definite social form of progress of the productive forces, which corresponds to their given level (and character). The conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production also springs from the fact that the ruling exploiting classes resist changes in the social relations of production. That is why this conflict is resolved only through social revolution, as a result of which "an earlier form of intercourse, which has become a fetter, is replaced by a new one corresponding to the more developed productive forces and, hence, to the advanced mode of the self-activity of individuals—a form which in its turn becomes a fetter and is then replaced by another" (7, 5; 82).

p In the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbiicher, Marx, in effect, reached the conclusion that the economic basis (civil society) determines the political and ideological superstructure. However, he had yet to formulate the concept of relations of production, and dealt mainly with property relations, which, as he subsequently said, are a legal expression of the relations of production. But in his articles in the Jahrbiicher 394 he does not yet speak of the key role of material production in the development of society. This is a discovery he made in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, in which, however, we do not yet find the relations-of-production concept. Only in The Holy Family, does Marx come close to the concept, which is systematically elaborated in The German Ideology. Developing the relations-of-production concept and tracing the historical succession of types of relations of production, Marx and Engels discover the basic uniformity of the revolutionary transition from one formation to another: "...all collisions in history have their origin, according to our view, in the contradiction between the productive forces and the form of intercourse" (1, 5; 74). Theoretically summing up historical experience in the light of the materialist view of history, Marx and Engels formulate the following conclusions: 1) the progress of material production within the framework of relations of production which have historically outlived themselves turns the productive forces into a destructive element. This negative social process naturally completes the development of the capitalist mode of production; 2) historically definite antagonistic relations of production determine the domination of one class over another. The state constitutes the political form of this domination. All revolutionary struggle is aimed against the dominant exploiting class; 3) the communist revolution differs radically from earlier social revolutions: it does not eliminate this or that distribution of private property in the means of production among the members of society, but private property as such, and puts an end to the domination by exploiting classes; 4) the communist revolution means not only abolition of the old economic and political relations, but also a massive change in men, massive generation of communist consciousness. The problems of the communist transformation of society can be solved only in a revolutionary way: "...the revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew" (Jf, 5; 53).

p It is hard to exaggerate the importance of this idea. In contrast to the bourgeois ideologists who reject the necessity of revolution and to the petty-bourgeois theoreticians who 395 are prepared to reconcile themselves with the revolution only because there is no alternative, Marx and Engels argue that the communist revolution cannot be replaced by any other, non-revolutionary way of eliminating capitalist relations. The communist revolution is of the greatest transformative significance!

p All these propositions, which in the main formulate the already shaped scientific view of history, show that materialism in sociology necessarily leads to communist conclusions. Not only an analysis of the capitalist mode of production, which is a relatively minor feature of The German Ideology, but also of the diverse contradictions of the whole history of the class society, shows that the antagonistic social relations can be overcome only through a communist restructuring of society.

p Marx and Engels say that communism is the highest form of social intercourse among men, which is not limited to the boundaries of a single country, a classless society without a state, and assert that communism cannot win in one single country. "Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples ’all at once’ and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with them" (/, 5; 49). In the mid-19th century, this approach was undoubtedly of outstanding progressive importance, because it signified a rejection of Utopian theories according to which communism could be established in any country (and even in a part of it) without a fundamental transformation of the state system and regardless of the level of its economic development. Considering that Marx and Engels had in mind the higher stage of communism, when neither classes nor the state will exist, their conclusion remains meaningful for the subsequent period as well. In.the new historical epoch—the epoch of monopoly capitalism—Lenin proved that "socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or prebourgeois" (5, 23; 79). The subsequent development of Marxist-Leninist theory led to the conclusion that the higher phase of communism can be built within the framework of a world socialist system even in the presence of a hostile world capitalist system.

p Thus, in The German Ideology, historical materialism 396 already appears as a scientific-philosophical theory which makes it possible to anticipate the future development of society by analysing its present and the trends in its development. Communism, Marx and Erigels say, is not only the future which is naturally to replace the capitalist system; it is also the present, namely, the communist movement, the proletariat’s struggle against the bourgeoisie: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the now existing premise" (1, 5; 49). This approach makes scientific communism fundamentally distinct from Utopian socialist doctrines which condemned capitalism as an immoral social order, but also condemned the class struggle. In place of the capitalist system, these Utopians wanted an abstract classless society, whose detailed description, they thought^ would compensate for the absence in their doctrines of any evidence of its objective necessity. Marx and Engeis were least of all concerned with a detailed description of the communist future: they confined themselves to sketching out some of its basic features, the material prerequisites for which take shape under capitalism. They concentrated on theoretically substantiating the proletariat’s emancipation movement. They examined the class structure of capitalism, the role of the bourgeois state as an instrument for putting down the oppressed and the exploited, and the economic and political prerequisites for the proletariat’s social revolution. This carried them to the idea of the proletarian dictatorship, i.e., to the basic content of the socialist revolution.

p According to Marx arid Erigels "...society has hitherto always developed within the framework of a contradiction— in antiquity the contradiction between free men and slaves, in the Middle Ages that between nobility and serfs, in modern times that between the bourgeoisie arid the proletariat" (1, 5; 432). The real basis of the state consists of opposite classes, an antithesis which springs from the character of the relations of production. Contrary to the illusions of bourgeois democrats, the state does not resolve the contradiction between group interests and trie interests of the social whole, because it represents the political domination of one class over another. Meanwhile, the 397 contradiction between private and common interests remains within the ruling class as well. Every member of the ruling class seeks to circumvent the laws laid down by the state, although as a whole the ruling class has a stake in their fulfilment. "Out of this very contradiction between the particular and the common interests, the common interest assumes an independent form as the state, which is divorced from the real individual and collective interests, and at the same time as an illusory community" (1, 5; 46).

p What is the relation between the will of the individual and the interests of a social group or class? Marx and Engeis consider the question of how the objectively determined interests of the individual are transformed into the common interests of the class. "How is it that personal interests always develop, against the will of individuals, into class interests, into common interests which acquire independent existence in relation to the individual persons, and in their independence assume the form of general interests? How is it that as such they come into contradiction with the actual individuals and in this contradiction, by which they are defined as general interests, they can be conceived by consciousness as ideal and even as religious, holy interests?" (1, 5; 245). Individual interests are transformed into class interests because they are shaped by economic conditions which are common to the whole class (or at any rate, to a sizable part of it), but because there are essential distinctions within these conditions which are common to the whole class, the transformation of individual interests into the interests of the whole class does not eliminate the contradictions between them.

p The ruling class is the dominant will in the state. However, "... the state does not exist owing to the dominant will, but the state, which arises from the material mode of life of individuals, has also the form of a dominant will" (1, 5; 330)   [397•* . This means that it is not the use of force, the 398 take-over or usurpation of power that constitutes the substance of the state, but the domination of a definite, given class, and not some other, which is determined by the economic structure of society. The state is "... the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests, and in which the whole civil society of an epoch is epitomised" (1, 5; 90).

p Marx and Engels note that Machiavelli and Hobbes, among others, were already aware that law and real force, which constituted its substance, were inseparable, but they saw the state and law as the use of force for the sake of the common good, despite the fact that in antagonistic society the state only appears to serve the interests of society as a whole. Thus, the bourgeois state "... is nothing more than the form of organisation which the bourgeois are compelled to adopt, both for internal and external purposes, for the mutual guarantee of their property and interests" (7, 5; 90).

p Unlike bourgeois democrats, Marx and Engels attach secondary importance to the forms of government ( monarchy, republic, etc.) and believe that the important thing is which class rules, which class wields the power.  [398•*  Accordingly, they draw a distinction between the basic types of state; slave-holding, feudal and bourgeois.

p Bourgeois democrats frequently absolutise the distinction between republic and monarchy, so confusing the question of the class nature of the state, especially of the bourgeoisdemocratic state, Marx and Engels stress that under capitalism the democratic state is itself a form of organisation for the political rule of the bourgeoisie. This does not mean, of course, that they fail to realise the difference between a 399 bourgeois monarchy and a bourgeois democracy. Like all proletarian fighters for democracy, they stress the importance of bourgeois-democratic transformations which help to create favourable conditions for the proletariat’s struggle for socialism, and they believe it to be their duty to blast the bourgeois-democratic illusions which hamper the working class in developing a socialist consciousness.

p They argue that every exploiting class seeking to win political power first acts as a representative of society as a whole, for in the period of struggle against the dominant reactionary class its interests largely coincide with those of the non-ruling classes. Its hostility to the interests of the other classes of society is fully brought out only after it takes over political power. Summing up the historical experience of bourgeois revolutions, Marx and Engels formulate the following uniformity: "Every new class ... achieves domination only on a broader basis than that of the class ruling previously; on the other hand the opposition of the non-ruling class to the new ruling class then develops all the more sharply and profoundly" (1, 5; 61). The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie has a broader social base than the dictatorship of the feudal lords, but the antagonistic contradictions in bourgeois society are more acute than ever before in history. It is this pattern of social revolutions that makes for the growing role of the masses in history.

Back in 1844, Marx and Engels formulated their proposition concerning the proletarian revolution, which overthrows the political power of the bourgeoisie, but they did not then consider the establishment of a dictatorship of the working class. The German Ideology carries them close to the formulation of this key problem, because it argues that "... every class which is aiming at domination, even when its domination, as is the case with the proletariat, leads to the abolition of the old form of society in its entirety and of domination in general, must first conquer political power" (1, 5; 47). From this it follows that the political power of the working class can also be exercised in a qualitatively new form constituting a transitional stage towards the elimination of classes. Consequently, the proletarian revolution cannot confine itself to overthrowing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The working class must win political power. This conclusion is closely linked with the entire content of The German Ideology, especially with the analysis of bourgeois

400 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1981/MMP495/20091123/495.tx" revolutions and the substance and development of the state and the class struggle.