TAKAHISA OISHI
Professor of Economics
Takushoku University
Tokyo, Japan
Introduction
In my latest paper[1], I examined the editing problems
of "I Feuerbach" of The German Ideology
(1845-1846)--hereafter FEUERBACH--. Here I am concerned
with the so-called 'materialist interpretation of history',
which has been said was formed in FEUERBACH, and its
relation to Marx's critique of political economy. I
pay special attention on the so-called "sharing
problem" between Marx and Engels, i.e., Marx's
and Engels' hand, to clarify the identities and differences
between the paragraphs written by them. However, we
must always bear in mind that Engels' hand does not
necessarily mean his thought. The main body of the
text was written in Engels' hand because Marx's hand
was unintelligible, so-called 'hieroglyphics'. Insertions,
supplements and notes can be identified by their hand.
Thus, we can sometimes distinguish between their views
in FEUERBACH.
Based on the edition I gave in my latest paper, I
will start my investigation summarising the 'materialist
interpretation of history' to specify the identity
between Marx's and Engels' thought (II). Then I shall
quote the important insertions, supplements and notes
in their hands (III) before examining the differences
between Marx's and Engels' views (IV). As no English
edition reproduces Marx's and Engels' hands, I believe
this is helpful for English readers. In the last chapter
(V), I shall investigate the relationship between the
'materialist interpretation of history' and Marx's
critique of political economy. In the following, sheet
numbers in Engels' hand and page numbers in Marx's
on the manuscripts of FEUERBACH are indicated by {
} and [ ] respectively.
THE MATERIALIST INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY IN "I FEUERBACH"
THE STRUCTURE OF "I FEUERBACH"
According to the edition I gave in the paper, the structure
of FEUERBACH is:
1) INTRODUCTION: The first volume of The German Ideology
has the aim of uncloaking these sheep (the Young-Hegelian
philosophers), who take themselves and are taken for
wolves; of how the boasting of these philosophic commentators
only mirrors the wretchedness of the real condition
in Germany.
2) {1}: The Introduction to FEUERBACH: The purpose of
FEUERBACH is to rate the true value of the German philosophic
charlatanry and to bring out clearly the pettiness
of the whole Young-Hegelian movement by looking at
the whole spectacle from a standpoint beyond the frontiers
of Germany.
3) {2}: "A PHILOSOPHY IN GENERAL, ESPECIALLY IN
GERMANY": German criticism has, right up to its
latest efforts, never quitted the realm of philosophy.
The Old-Hegelians had comprehended everything as soon
as it was reduced to an Hegelian logical category.
The Young-Hegelians criticised everything by attributing
to it religious concepts or by pronouncing it a teleological
matter. It has not occurred to any one of these philosophers
to inquire into the connection of German philosophy
with German reality, the relation of their criticism
to their own material surroundings.
4) {3} and after: Second Chapter ("B Feuerbach")
(1) {3}~{5}: The whole internal structure of a nation
itself depends on the stage of development reached
by its production and its internal and external intercourse.
The structure of the so-called precapitalist societies,
i.e., the Asiatic, the ancient, and the feudal modes
of production, are analysed as examples.
(2) {6}~{8}: The first premise of history: The production
of material life itself which consists of the following
five 'elements' or 'aspects': (a) the production of
the means of satisfaction, (b) the production of new
needs, (c) the production of other men (reproduction),
(d) this production of life appears as a natural and
social relationship. By social we understand the cooperation
of several individuals, no matter under what conditions,
in what manner and to what end' ([13]). (e) Man possesses
'consciousness'.
(3) {9}~{11}: The second premise of history is the succession
of the separate generations, each of which exploits
the materials, the capital funds, the productive forces
handed down to it by all preceding generations, and
thus, on the other hand, continues the traditional
activity in completely changed circumstances and, on
the other hand, modifies the old circumstances with
a completely changed activity.
(4) {20}~{21}: Supplement to this chapter on the materialist
basis of the ruling thought.
(5) {84}~{92}: Three stages in the historical development
of private property after 'landed property' in the
Middle Ages.
THE MATERIALIST INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY
From all the observations above, the so-called 'materialist
interpretation of history' can be summarised as follows:
The Young-Hegelian philosophers are devoid of premises,
but history has its materialist basis, i.e., the production
of material life. Thus, we must write history starting
from this production of life by social individuals.
The relations of production and intercourse form a
sum total, i.e., civil society. Consequently, we must
explain the form of social organisations, the State,
laws or consciousness from the form of civil society
which underlies them. Marx states:
Civil society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of the development of productive forces. . . . Civil society as such only develops with the bourgeoisie; the social organisation evolving directly out of production and intercourse, which in all ages forms the basis of the state and of the idealistic superstructure, has, however, always been designated by the same name ([68]).
The first point to be noted here is that the object
of Marx's investigation is the social production or
the cooperation of several individuals. The social
production by social individual has a double relationship,
i.e., a natural and a social. They represent the productive
forces and the relations of production and commerce.
The mode of cooperation is itself a productive force
and produces the mode of production corresponding to
it. Marx thinks that the productive forces and the
production relations are the two sides or abilities
of social individuals. In other words, the development
of social individuals is expressed in their productive
forces and production relations. Property is thought
to be the sum total of those relations of production
and commerce. For Marx, a definite form of production
is equivalent to a definite form of 'the division of
labour' and of property.
Secondly, we must understand the above propositions
regarding their historical backgrounds. Marx and Engels
write that 'to observe this fundamental fact [the production
of material life] in all its significance and all its
implication and to accord it its due importance' is
essential 'in any interpretation of history' ([11]).
They do not write that their interpretation is the
only interpretation of history. This remark should
be understood as a criticism of the Germans, who are
devoid of premises to history. On the other hand, we
should note their twofold estimation of the French
and the English. According to Marx and Engels, the
French and the English 'made the first attempts to
give the writing of history a materialistic basis'
but 'in an extremely one-sided fashion' ([11]). This
implies that mere economic analysis of civil society
is not enough, and that a definite form of civil society
should be comprehended as a form of production and
commerce of individuals. For example, the economic
laws must be comprehended from social activities of
individuals. In fact, Marx also says 'there exists
a materialistic connection of men with one another'
([13]).
Thirdly, the three forms of common property are ideal
types of the mode of existence of social individuals.
The development from the Asiatic to the feudal form
of property is a result of the development in the form
of cooperation of individuals, i.e., from natural to
social, or from spontaneous to a result of activities
of individuals. In the capitalist mode of production,
the direct cooperation is mediated by money, the zenith
of estrangement of social activity.
Fourthly, for the societies in which the capitalist
mode of production has developed, the three precapitalist
modes of production are in the past and have declined.
Thus, in capitalist countries, the mode of production
has developed from Asiatic via ancient to feudal. On
the other hand, those modes coexisted in Marx's days,
and do today. Thus, Marx and Engels have never written
that the European is the only or the necessary line
of development. They described the development of the
division of labour in the European countries from the
Asiatic, ancient, feudal, to the capitalist mode of
production and an 'association' of free men in future
({3}, {4}, [42] and thereafter)[2]. This is supported
by Marx's task, which was how Germany can 'attain a
practice à la hauteur des principes, i.e., a
revolution which will raise not only to the official
level of the modern nations but to the height of humanity
which will be the near future of these nations' (3
MEC 182).
Lastly, however, this does not mean that the preceding
modes are equal to the capitalist mode of production
from the viewpoint 'the development of social individual'.
As is stated in the Preface to A Critique of Political
Economy (1859): 'This social formation [capitalist
formation of society] brings, therefore, the prehistory
of human society to a close'[3].
Without doubt, in broad outline, Marx and Engels
share a similar interpretation of history. However,
a close investigation of their views clarifies the
differences between them in fine detail. Let us examine
some of them after reproducing the insertions by Marx's
and Engels' hands.
INSERTIONS BY MARX AND ENGELS
IMPORTANT INSERTIONS IN MARX'S HAND
In the following, insertions are indicated in single quotation marks and underlines original.
1) It follows from this that a certain mode of production,
or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain
mode of co-operation, or social stage, and 'this mode
of co-operation is itself a "productive force"'
({7}b=[13]).
2) For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into
being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere
of activity, which is forced upon him and from which
he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman,
'or a critical critic', and must remain so if he does
not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in
communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere
of activity but each can become accomplished in any
branch he wishes, society regulates the general production
and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today
and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish
in the afternoon, rear in the evening, 'criticise after
dinner', just as I have a mind, without ever becoming
hunter, fisherman, herdsman 'or critic' ({8}b=[17]).
3) 'Just because individuals seek only their particular
interest, which for them does not coincide with their
communal interest (in fact the general is the illusory
form of communal life), the latter will be imposed
on them as an interest "alien" to them, and
"independent" of them as in its turn a particular,
peculiar "general interest"; or they themselves
must remain within this discord, as in democracy. On
the other hand, too, the practical struggle of these
particular interests, which constantly really run counter
to the communal and illusory communal interest, makes
practical intervention and control necessary through
the illusory "general" interest in the form
of the State' (a marginal note on {8}b~c=[17]~[18]).
4) '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 premises now in existence'
(a marginal note on {8}c=[18]).
5) 'This "alienation" (to use a term which
will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of
course, only be abolished given two practical premises.
For it to become an "intolerable" power,
i.e., a power against which men make a revolution,
it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of
humanity "propertyless," and produced, at
the same time, the contradiction of an existing world
of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose
a great increase in productive power, a high degree
of its development. And on the other hand, this development
of productive forces (which itself implies the actual
empirical existence of men in their world-historical,
instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary
practical premise because without it want is merely
made general, and with destitution the struggle for
necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily
be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this
universal development of productive forces is a universal
intercourse between men established, which produces
in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the
"propertyless" mass (universal competition),
makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the
others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically
universal individuals in place of local ones. Without
this, (1) communism could only exists as a local event;
(2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not
have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers:
they would have remained homebred conditions surrounded
by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse
would abolish local communism. 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 communism' (a marginal
note on {8}c=[18]).
6) 'Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers--the
utterly precarious position of labour-power on a mass
scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction
and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived
of work itself as a secure source of life--presupposes
the world market through competition. The proletariat
can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism,
its activity, can only have a 'world-historical' existence.
World-historical existence of individuals means existence
of individuals which is directly linked up with world
history (a marginal note on {8}d=[19]).
7) 'The historical method which reigned in Germany,
and especially the reason why, must be understood from
its connection with the illusory of ideologists in
general, e.g., the illusions of the jurists, politicians
(of the practical statesmen among them, too), from
the dogmatic dreamings and distortions of these fellows;
this is explained perfectly easily from their practical
position in life, their job, and the division of labour'
({21}b=[34]).
8) The relation of the productive forces to the form
of intercourse is the relation of the form of intercourse
to 'the occupation or activity' of the individuals
(a correction of 'self-activity' in Engels' hand on
{89}a=[60]).
IMPORTANT INSERTIONS IN ENGELS' HAND
In the following, Engels' insertions are indicated in single quotation marks and underlines original.
1) 'It is the communal private property which compels
the active citizens to remain in this spontaneously
derived form of association over against their slave'
({3}c).
2) Where speculation ends--in real life--'there real,
positive science begins: the representation of the
practical activity, of the practical process of the
development of men.' . . . 'But they by no means afford
a recipe or schema, as does philosophy, for neatly
trimming the epochs of history. On the contrary, our
difficulties begin only when we set about the observation
and the arrangement--the real depiction--of our historical
material, whether of a past epoch or of the present.
The removal of these difficulties is governed by premises
which it is quite impossible to state here, but which
only the study of the actual life process and activity
of the individuals of epoch will make evident' ({5}d).
3) 'F[euerbach]'s error is not that he subordinates
the flatly obvious, the sensuous appearance to the
sensuous reality established by detailed investigation
of the sensuous facts, but that he cannot in the last
resort cope with the sensuous world except by looking
at it with the "eyes", i.e., through the
"spectacles", of the philosopher' ({6}a=[8]).
4) 'So much is this activity, this unceasing sensuous
labour and creation, this production, the basis of
the whole sensuous world as it now exists, that, were
it interrupted only a year, Feuerbach would not only
find an enormous change in the natural world, but would
very soon find that the whole world of men and his
own perceptive faculty, nay his own existence, were
missing. Of course, in all this priority of external
nature remains unassailed, and all this has no application
to the original men produced by generatio aequivoca,
but this differentiation has meaning only insofar as
man is considered to be distinct from nature. For that
matter, nature, the nature that preceded human history,
is not by any means that nature in which Feuerbach
lives, it is nature which today no longer exists anywhere
(except perhaps on a few Australian coral-islands of
recent origin) and which, therefore, does not exist
for Feuerbach' ({6}b~c= [9]~[10]).
5) 'Division of labour and private property are, moreover,
identical expressions: in the one the same thing is
affirmed with reference to activity as is affirmed
in the other with reference to the product' ({8}b~c=[17]~[18]).
6) 'And out of this very contradiction between the
interest of the individual and that of the community
the latter takes an independent form of the State,
divorced from the real interests of individual and
community, and at the same time as an illusory communal
life, always based, however, on the real ties existing
in every family and tribal conglomeration . . . and
especially, as we shall enlarge upon later, on the
classes, already determined by the division of labour,
which in every such mass of men separate out, and of
which one dominates all the others. It follows from
this that all struggles within the State, the struggle
between democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, the struggle
for the franchise, etc., etc., are merely illusory
forms -- altogether the general interest is the illusory
of common interests -- in which the real struggles
of the different classes are fought out among one another.
. . . Further, it follows that every class which is
struggling for mastery, even when its domination, as
is the case with the proletariat, postulates the abolition
of the old form of society in its entirety and of domination
itself, must first conquer for itself political power
in order to represent its interest in turn as the general
interest, which in the first moment it is forced to
do' (a marginal note on {8}b=[17]. Italics are Marx's
insertion).
7) This conception of history depends on our ability
to expound the real process of production, starting
out from the material production of life itself, and
to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with
this and created by this mode of production (i.e.,
civil society in its various stage), 'as the basis
of all history; and to show it in its action as State',
to explain all the different theoretical products and
forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics,
etc. etc. and trace their origins and growth from the
basis; by which means, of course, the whole thing can
be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the
reciprocal action of these various sides on one another)
({10}c=[24]. Italics are Marx's insertion).
8) In the whole conception of history up to the present
this real basis of history has either been totally
neglected or else considered as a minor matter quite
irrelevant to the course of history. 'History must,
therefore, always be written according to an extraneous
standard; the real production of life seems to be primeval
history, while the truly historical appears to be separated
from ordinary life, something extra-superterrestrial.
With this the relation of man to nature is excluded
from history and hence the antithesis of nature and
history is created' ({10}c=[25]).
9) This whole conception of history, together with
its dissolution and the scruples and qualms resulting
from it, is a purely national affair of the Germans
and has merely local interest for Germany, as for instance
the important question which has been under discussion
in recent times: how exactly one "passes from
the realm of God to the realm of Man"--as if this
"realm of God" had ever existed anywhere
save in the imagination, and the learned gentlemen,
without being aware of it, were not constantly living
in the "realm of Man" to which they are now
seeking the way; 'and as if the learned pastime (for
it is nothing more) of explaining the mystery of this
theoretical bubble-blowing did not on the contrary
lie in demonstrating its origin in actual earthy relations.
. . . The real, practical dissolution of these phrases,
the removal of these notions from the consciousness
of men, will, as we have already said, be effected
by altered circumstances, not by theoretical deductions.
For the mass of men, i.e., the proletariat, these theoretical
notions do not exist and hence do not require to be
dissolved, and if this mass ever had any theoretical
notions, e.g., religion, these have now long been dissolved
by circumstances' ({10}d~{11}a= [26]~[27], Italics
Marx's insertions).
10) 'It is also clear from these arguments . . . ,
and do not realise that these adverse conditions are
spirit of their spirit' (A marginal notes on {11}b~c=[28]~[29].
Almost all the text of {11}b=[28] and all that of {11}c=[29]
are crossed out).
11) 'Thus money implies that all previous intercourse
was only intercourse of individuals under particular
conditions, not of individuals as individuals. These
conditions are reduced to two: accumulated labour or
private property, and actual labour. If both or one
of these ceases, then intercourse comes to a standstill.
The modern economists themselves, e.g. Sismondi, Cherbuliez,
etc., oppose "association of individuals"
to "association of capital"' ({90}a~c=[64]~[65]).
12) The division of labour implies from the outset the
division of the conditions of labour, of tools and
materials, 'and thus the splitting-up of accumulated
capital among different owners, and thus, also, the
division between capital and labour, and the different
forms of property itself' ({90}a~c=[64]~[65]).
13) While in the earlier period self-activity and the
production of material life were separated, in that
they devolved on different persons, and while, on account
of the narrowness of the individuals themselves, the
production of material life was considered as a subordinate
mode of self-activity, they now diverge to such an
extent that altogether material life appears as the
end, and that which produces this material life, labour
'(which is now the only possible but, as we see, negative
form of self-activity)', as the means ({90}c=[66]).
14) 'In the case of the ancient people, since several
tribes live together in one town, the tribal property
appears as State property, and the right of the individual
to it as mere "possession" which, however,
like tribal property as a whole, is confined to landed
property only. Real private property began with the
ancient, as with modern nations, with movable property.--(Slavery
and Community) (dominium ex jure Quiritum )' ({91}b=[69]).
THE DISSIMILARITIES BETWEEN
MARX AND ENGELS
THE PRECAPITALIST MODES OF PRODUCTION
Firstly, the Asiatic mode of property is considered
in {3}b, while it is not in [68] and thereafter.
Secondly, in {3}b the 'ancient mode of property'
is defined with 'State property and private property'
while in [69] with 'State property' only. [69} says:
In the case of the ancient peoples, . . . the tribal property appears as State property, and the right of the individuals to it as mere "possession" which . . . is confined to landed property only ([69]).
The former definition is almost the same as that in
'formations which precede capitalist societies' in
Marx's Grundrisse (1857-58) and is undoubtedly Marx's
view. Thus, the latter, which differs a little from
the former, is probably Engels' view. With regard to
this, {3}b says that the ancient mode of property 'proceeds
especially from the union of several tribes into a
city by agreement or by conquest', while [68] says
that this property is 'determined . . . chiefly by
war'. The latter proposition appears at first sight
to contradict [62]~[63], a supplement on the role of
violence, war and robbery, etc.; but the first proposition
itself is an insertion by Engels. Therefore there is
no great difference between Marx and Engels on this
point.
Thirdly, in {3}d 'feudal property' is defined as
'landed property' in the country and 'corporative property'
in the town, whilst [69] says that the former developed
into the latter. According to {3}, country and town
are united in the Asiatic and the history of the ancient
property is the history of towns, thus the antagonism
between country and town begins, necessarily and essentially,
from the feudal property[4]. On the other hand, [41]
asserts that 'The antagonism between town and country
. . . runs through the whole history of civilisation
to the present day', but lacks the logic to comprehend
(begreifen ) the antagonism[5].
THE DIVISION OF LABOUR AND PROPERTY
In FEUERBACH, 'division of labour' is explained four
times as being essentially an identical expression
of property, but these explanations can be divided
into two types:
1) division of labour = the relations of production
and intercourse = property relations: {3}b and [52]
2) division of labour = the unequal distribution,
both quantitatively and qualitatively, of labour and
its products = private property: [16]~[17] and [64]~[65]
In broad outline, both coincide but the division of
labour does not necessarily result in private property,
as in the Asiatic. The latter (2)) interprets private
property mainly as the problem of distribution, i.e.
to whom the products and the means of production belong.
However, the former (1)) property as the relations
of production. The latter does not contain the Asiatic
common property, while the former does. With regard
to this, it is also noteworthy that Marx grasped the
essence of private property as 'the power to command
labour and products'[6] of other man in The Economic
Philosophical Manuscripts (1844)--hereafter EPM--by
rereading and reinterpreting Smith's concept of'command';
but the text in [17] incorrectly quotes this definition
of private property, saying:
This latent slavery in the family, though still very crude, is the first property, but even at this stage it corresponds perfectly to the definition of modern economists who call it the power of disposing of the labour-power of others' ([17]).
This difference between Marx and Engels, which I have already examined[7], runs through to their last works. The point is that Engels does not appreciate the concept 'the relations of production' and cannot understand Marx's concept 'property' as the sum total of the relations. It should be noted that the abolition of 'division of labour' or of 'labour' means the abolition of their capitalist form, but does not mean that there is no social division of labour or productive-activity in the future.
THE TWO ABILITIES OF THE SOCIAL INDIVIDUAL
In his letter to Annenkov (dated 28 December 1846),
Marx remarks that 'the social history of man is never
anything else than the history of his individual development,
whether he is conscious of this or not[8]. In Grundrisse
he states that 'Forces of production and social relations--two
different sides of the development of the social individual'[9].
Compared to these views, the statement in [61] that
the history of the conditions of production is 'the
history of the development of the forces of the individuals
themselves' seems to be one-sided. Engels does not
use the term 'estranged labour' as often as Marx[10],
because he does not comprehend social laws from the
social activities of individuals, as his view on economic
laws shows[11]. This is not his strong point but his
weak point.
Bagaturija distinguishes three formations in the
manuscripts of FEUERBACH and asserts that Marx and
Engels gradually gave up the term 'estrangement' as
time passed[12]. It is quite true that the first part
of the "big bunch" ([8] to [35]) was written
first, then the second part of the bunch and then the
"small bunch." It is also correct that the
term appears less and less in those formations, but,
still, Bagaturija's assertion is completely wrong.
He did not take authorial purpose, the logical dimensions
of the manuscripts nor the differences between Marx's
and Engels' views into account. The disappearance of
the term is mainly due to Engels' views and the authorial
purpose of {1} and {2}, which are the Introductions
and 'a few general observations' on the Young-Hegelian
movement. Bagaturija accepts what he should not, and
does not accept that which he should. He is a good
example of the best and the brightest of Soviet Marxists.
THE MATERIALIST INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY AND MARX'S CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
The term 'the materialist interpretation of history'
strictly belongs to Engels. Engels used the term for
the first time in his "Book Review: Marx's Contribution
to A Critique of Political Economy " (1859)[13],
indicating Marx's brief formulation of 'The general
result at which I [Marx] arrived, which, once won,
served as a guiding thread for my studies' in its Preface.
Engels used the term again in his Anti-Dühring
(1877-1878)[14]. On the other hand, Marx never uses
the term the 'materialist interpretation of history'.
Instead, as is quoted above, Marx himself called the
brief formulation the 'general result', to which he
was led by his critical investigation of the Hegelian
Philosophy of Right, as the 'guiding thread' for his
studies. In his "Preface to the Second Edition"
of Capital Marx called the 'general result' the 'materialist
basis for my [dialectical] method'[15].
Let us appreciate Marx's witness above in the context
of its background, i.e. as a criticism of Hegelian
and Young-Hegelian philosophy. Marx calls the 'general
result' 'the materialist basis' for his dialectical
method to distinguish the material transformation of
the economic conditions of production . . . , [from]
the legal, political, . . . , or philosophic -- in
short, ideological forms'[16]. So far, I do not see
any great dissimilarity between Marx and Engels. At
least for both of them, the 'general result' is not
the proposition that every political and social antagonism
ought to be explained from an economic antagonism.
However, the term 'the materialist interpretation
of history' diverts our attention from 'the materialist
basis' for his method to 'history' qua history. For
Marx, history is investigated in terms of the process
of production and reproduction, through which the economic
conditions of production are changed. The term 'history'
concerns change, as Marx's 'dialectical method' indicates
the method of inquiry which 'regards every historically
developed form as being in a fluid state, in motion,
and therefore grasps its transient aspect as well'[17].
Thus the 'general result' is equivalent to 'a guiding
thread' for his studies and the 'materialist basis'
for his method. This means that the terms Marx developed
in FEUERBACH, such as 'productive forces', 'relations
of production' and 'economic structure of society',
made it possible for him to comprehend the transient
aspect of capitalist society as being in motion.
Marx's critique of political economy is a critical
system of the economic categories. The economic categories
are understood as theoretical expressions of capitalist
relations of production and commerce. The historical
character and the intrinsic connection between capitalist
relations of production and commerce is expressed in
the definitions of economic categories. Capitalist
formation of society is dialectically comprehended
as a transient formation in history through his 'genetic
presentation' of economic categories. The term 'materialist
interpretation of history', albeit not so irrelevant
to the contents of FEUERBACH, is not explanatory at
all but misleading.
What really concerns Marx is the development of
the social individual and a revolution which transcends
the political emancipation of man in capitalist society.
Thus his concepts 'the means of production', 'the
relations of production' and 'property' should not
be understood, as Marx states in EPM, 'only in the
sense of direct, one-side consumption, of possession,
of having'[18] but in the sense of 'the sensuous appropriation
of the human essence and human life'[19].
Lastly, I examine the implications of Marx's testimony
that he arrived at the 'general result' through his
critical inquiry into the Hegelian Philosophy of Right.
This implies that he had already arrived at the result
by the time of EPM, and that EPM, Marx's first critique
of political economy, must have been guided by the
'general result', or he could not testify 'which, once
won, served as a guiding thread for my studies [critique
of political economy]'. On the other hand, FEUERBACH
is the first formulation of the 'general result' but
is not at all a critique of political economy. Consequently,
for a better understanding of Marx's critique of political
economy, we should investigate FEUERBACH then EPM,
albeit they were written in reverse order[20].
CONCLUSION
We have examined the so-called 'materialist interpretation
of history' in FEUERBACH and arrived at the following
result:
Firstly, the 'materialist interpretation of history'
is, as a matter of fact, the 'materialist basis' for
Marx's dialectical method of inquiry, which enables
us to understand a definite form of the State and laws
from a certain form of civil society, i.e., the sum
total of the relations of production and commerce.
The relations of production are the relations of immediate
producers to each other, i.e., the mode of cooperation.
Productive forces are the relationship of producers
to nature. Thus, productive forces contain not only
the means of production but also the cooperation of
individuals itself. Productive forces and the relations
of production are the two different sides of the social
individual. In other words, the development of the
social individual is expressed in the development of
productive forces and in the relations of production.
A new generation inherits certain conditions of production
from all preceding generations. It produces in completely
different circumstances and modifies the old circumstances.
In this way, a form of property has positive and negative
sides.
The relations of production develop from communal
to social, i.e. the direct unity with other men to
the product of social intercourse. In broad outlines Asiatic,
ancient, feudal and capitalist modes of production
can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic
formation of society. The capitalist mode of production
is the mode in which objects (the means of production)
subsume the subject (producers). It is the zenith of
the estrangement of life-activity but brings, therefore,
the prehistory of human society to a close. The capitalist
mode of production can be abolished positively, only
by an association of free men and by appropriating
universally developed productive forces which are a
result of the estrangement. These insights are expounded
through Marx's presentation of economic categories,
or his analysis of capitalist relations of production
and commerce, but not in FEUERBACH. Thus, for a better
understanding of Marx's thought and theories, we have
to investigate EPM, Grundrisse and Capital.
(In memory of Miss Gillian Clare Dood. I would like to thank Dr.Barry Dodd and Dr. Terrell Carver who looked over the draft and checked my English. Naturally any deficiencies are my own responsibility.)
NOTES
ä(TM)ññíç********************************
[1]. See my "The Editing Problems of The German Ideology " in: Journal of Social Studies, Takushoku University, Vol., 2, No. 1, 1994.
[2]. The term 'formation', 'epoch' and 'progressive' are technical terms of geology and are to be understood as such. 'Progressive' does not mean the line of development is the necessary and the only one.
[3]. David McLellan, Karl Marx Selected Writings, Oxford, p.390.
[4]. In the strict sense, the antagonism between country and town, begins in feudal property, albeit {3}c says 'We already find the antagonism of town and country' in the ancient mode of property.
[5] . In order to comprehend the antagonism between country and town, the essence of private property is to be grasped as 'commanding power over labour of other men', or, the advantages of capital over landed property cannot be comprehended. If Marx thought that civilisation begins only with the ancient mode of production, there might not be any large difference between Marx and Engels on this point, but I do not think it likely.
[6]. See KARL MARX-FREDERICK ENGELS Collected Works, Volume 3, p.247 or Karl Marx: Early Writings, Penguin ed., p.295.
[7]. See my "Individual, Social and Common Property" in: The Review of Takushoku University, No. 199, 1993.
[8]. KARL MARX-FREDERICK ENGELS Collected Works, Volume 38, p.96.
[9]. Grundrisse, Pelican ed., p.706 or MEGA2, II-1, Teil 2, S.582.
[10]. Engels had never used the term 'estrangement', but shared a similar view with Marx on capitalist production. For example:
What are we to think of a law [of competition] which can only assert itself through periodic upheavals? It is certainly a natural law based on the unconsciousness of the participants. . . . Carry on production consciously as human beings -- not as dispersed atoms without consciousness of your species -- and you have overcome all these artificial and untenable antitheses (KARL MARX-FREDERICK ENGELS Collected Works, Volume 3, pp.433-434).
[11]. See, e.g. chapter II section C.of my "Individual, Social and Common Property."
[12]. Bagaturija, "The Structure and the Contents of the First Chapter of The German Ideology by K. Marx and F. Engels" in: Problems in Philosophy, October-November, 1965.
[13]. F. Engels, "Book Review: Marx's Contribution to A Critique of Political Economy " (1859).
[14]. See Part III, Chapter II of his Anti-Dühring in: KARL MARX-FREDERICK ENGELS Collected Works, Volume 25, p.254 or Chapter III of his Socialism: Utopian and Scientific in: Marx/Engels Selected Works in one volume, Progress Publishers, p.411.
[15]. Capital, Volume 1, Pelican ed., p.102 .
[16]. David McLellan, op.cit. pp.389-390.
[17]. Capital, Volume 1, Pelican ed., p.103.
[18]. KARL MARX-FREDERICK ENGELS Collected Works, Volume 3, p.299 or Karl Marx: Eearly Writings, p.351.
[19]. Ebd.
[20]. Marx also writes in the Preface to A Critique of Political Economy that FEUERABCH was abandoned 'to the gnawing criticism of mice all the more willingly as we had achieved our main purpose -- self-clarification'. This 'self-clarification' has been used by the Soviet Marxists to negate Marx's works preceding FEUERBACH, especially EPM, in order to make Soviet society an exception to the criticism of 'crude communism' there. This has been successful so long as it found wider support among western followers, but it is a crude understanding of the passage. In the context, it does not support their views at all.