Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Philip Corrigan Source: Dialectical Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1987), pp. 65-82 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29790218 . Accessed: 08/07/2013 12:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Dialectical Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
65
PhilipCorrigan
In this centennial decade of Marx's death socialistswill be concerned to re-evaluate his political legacy and its relevance to our own times and struggles. This paper aims to contribute to that discussion. Its immediate stimulus was two seminal papers published several years ago in the pages of History and Teodor Workshop by Haruki Wada Shanin [1], on the significance of the
researches
essential kernal of evolutionism in Capital, and that Marx's final break with this "arch model of the time" only began to take shape with the turn of the 1870s. By evolutionism Shanin understands "the assumption of an
pre-ordained stages." Built into such
and particularly those on Russia. Wada Shanin argue that thereare importantshiftsin "late Marx". SubsequentMarxism has for the most part either ignoredor suppressed these, yet they are highly germane to socialist struggles in the 20th century. Our paper extends the general line of argument in both Wada and pieces. We show that the shifts in Marx with respect toRussia Shanin identify
have no
and writings
of Marx's
last decade,
evolutionism is "a highly optimistic teleology." Shanin allows that there were elements of multilinearism in Marx's view of to the 1870s, citinghis use of the historyprior Asiatic mode of production in concept of the plurality of possible routes out of primitive
communism. appearance unifier", But of 1853, and the Grundrisse's acceptance of a
texts of the 1870s and 1880s, notably the France. In draftsand textsof The Civil War in is there indeed short, something distinctive,
novel and
less important
counterparts
in other
of a basically evolutionist scheme.With the of evolution finally assume their global and
place". Thenceforth "the country a as capitalism for theMarx of 1867, "the "global iron laws
these remained
refinements
universal
which should cause us to rethinkhis political legacy as a whole. But first, it is necessary to qualify some aspects of the Wada/Shanin
argument.
important
about
"late
Marx",
Derek Alberta
Sayer
is Professor
and Chair
of Sociology, Ontario
University
of
that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future".At the end of theday capitalism is necessary, inevitable, and progressive. The political corollary is that such pre-capitalist social forces as seek to obstruct its forward march are objectively reactionary, however much they might engage our intuitive Hence Marx's rather sympathies.
embarrassing views on colonialism and
is Professor
of Sociology,
Institute for
in Education,
Toronto
peasants,
respectively expressed
in,
for
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66
instance, his 1853 articles on India and The Eighteenth Brumaire [2]. Shanin detects a twofold departure from thisposition byMarx in the 1870s and 1880s, which ismost in evidence in his writings on Russia. First,Marx moves beyond a picture of capitalism as straightforwardlyprogressive towards a more realistic grasp of the complexities and contradictions of what we would nowadays call dependent development. Second, he extends multilinearism to the Marx was envisaging future.By the late 1870s of roads of "a social multiplicity a within transformation, global frameworkof
mutual Marx's and differential picture re-evaluation
only form known to have impressedMarx) [4]. Darwin certainly did not believe in ordained stages." The essence of his theory is
random mutation. for whatever survive because, Species accidental reasons, they have "necessary development through pre?
which adapt them to developed characteristics theirenvironment theydo not acquire those characteristics inorder so to adapt. The latter is the Lamarckian view, not the Darwinian. Darwin's theory was specifically anti was part of why it so upset teleological 'this First, because whatMarx himselfwelcomed in Darwin's Origin of Species was precisely that, in his own words, "it deals the death-blow to teleology in the natural sciences [5]." And Darwin in this second, because in representing - not for the reveals Shanin way only time in his paper the extent to which he continues, Marx of Capital unquestioningly, to read the and before through the lens of a century of orthodoxy. The hoary parallel between a Hegelianized Marx and a Lamarckianized Darwin originatedwith Engels and theSecond International and remains a staple of Soviet Marxology to thisday. In this connection it is
worth to Margaret attention drawing of the well-worn excellent demolition Fay's myth the clerics). This matters for two reasons.
impact".
struggles in peripheral formations. Marx shifted his position on peasants, the obshchina, and the character of rulingclasses and State formson capitalism's periphery. In sharp contrast to thenext threegenerations of Marxists, Marx himself was "beginning to recognise forwhat they really are the nature, problems and debate concerning 'developing' and post-revolutionary societies of the
twentieth Wada's Marx's been century." story of the fate of the drafts of is a reminder
letter to Zasulich
that the
complaint against Shanin is that he concedes toomuch to the traditionalists. In brief, Marx
was never so consistent an evolutionist as
a merely academic Shanin's exercise. intervention is a timely one, for a new Marxist fundamentalism is resurgent [3], Our major
thatMarx sought to dedicate Volume II of Capital to the great biologists [6]. In fact, pace Shanin, Marx's hostility to was overt and of long teleology inall its forms The German Ideology, a work Shanin seems to regard as a paradigm of crude evolutionism.There Marx was quite clear that any notion that "later history is... the goal of earlier history" is "a speculative distortion"; "what is designated by the words 'destiny',
'germ' or 'idea' of earlier history is more from later than an abstraction nothing 'goal', standing. Such hostility is a recurrent motif of
Shanin implies.And his intimationsas to the specific structures of peripheral capitalism long pre-date the 1870s. These are not scholastic points, for they affect our and our political evaluation of interpretation
Marx's
It is not entirely irrelevant to begin by of characterization the questioning evolutionismwhich Shanin offers, at least as regards itsDarwinian variant (whichwas the
legacy as a whole.
history [7]." The teleology of Proudhon's "providential history" was to be mercilessly lambasted the following year [8]. Indeed what ismost strikingin The German Ideology and Marx's refusal, in otherworks of thisperiod is
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1877 letter to Otechestvenniye Zapiski, of '' historico-philosophical any overarching is rather offered is a program What theory." for investigating "real, profane history" of an [9] empiricistkind. It is in this spirit that Marx and Engels warn their readers that the sketch of historical development in The German Ideology which Shanin cites is no
more means than "some afford a avowedly -
wife's death to know or care what he was doing. The reservationsabout thisPreface in Marx's covering letter to Lavrov, cited by Wada, cannot seriouslybe read as relating to What we know of anything other than style.
Marx's
some would
say embarrassingly
December 1880 and January 1881,moreover, is simply wrong in the suggest Wada Marx took refuge from his grief in anything, work, compiling at this time his massive chronology of world history,while lettersto Engels and others indicate a continuing interest in matters intellectual and political [12]. Here, Wada comes uncomfortably close to the mode or argument whose nadir is Riazanov's suggestion that theZasulich drafts indicate the lateMarx's encroaching senility. There can be little doubt that Marx believed that socialism required at least the levels of social production only capitalism had (so far) historicallyproved capable of delivering, and continued to believe this to the end of his life. But this does not in itselfadd up to the kind of tightarch-model of evolutionismattributed toMarx by Shanin. Marx certainly at times employed an evolutionist idiom in presenting his conclusions, as in the 1859Preface. But we would suggestthat the major reason for seeing at Marx any point as an evolutionist in Shanin's full-blown sense lies less in anything Marx himself wrote than in the incredibly
legacy of received powerful interpretations from the late Engels onwards. for Why, we in do Marx's regarding example, persist abundant anomalies! departures from a supposed consequences of Jenny Marx's death if
study
and
correspondence
in
... abstractions",
illustrated
the epochs of philosophy, forneatly trimming history [10]." One can certainly find passages inMarx's work which speak of the achievements of But one equally finds such sentiments in the late Marx. His 1874 notes on Bakunin's
S tat ism and Anarchy capitalism as a presupposition for socialism.
neglected byWada
a propos Russia,
- a text unaccountably
of
revolution ... is only possible where with the industrial capitalist development an at least important proletariat occupies position among themass of thepeople", and derides Bakunin forwanting "the European social revolution, premised on the basis of capitalist production, to take place at the level
the Russian or Slavic peoples." Marx and agricultural this penned after the claims
pastoral supposed
was brought about by readingChernyshevsky. establishes his major contention thatby 1881 Marx had abandoned his formeropinion that an obshchina-bzsed socialism in Russia required a successfulproletarian revolution in West. Wada presents no evidence for this the other than Marx's failure to reiterate this requirement in the drafts of his letter to Zasulich, and has to dismissMarx's explicit endorsement of his former position, in the joint 1881 Preface to the Russian edition of the Manifesto, by the flimsyand speculative Marx was too devastated by his argument that
Relatedly, Wada never satisfactorily
sea-change
1870 as
in
addition to those conceded by Shanin, like Marx's untroubled acceptance in his 1857 General Introduction of the sui generis character of a society like pre-Columbian Peru, inwhich thehighest formsof economy, e.g. co-operation, a developed division of labour, etc., are found, even though there is no kind of money [13]." We want finally to question Shanin's
"departures"
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68
interpretationof the famous passage from Marx's Preface to the 1867 edition of Capital I, which Shanin treats as incontrovertible evidence ofMarx's evolutionism. Let us quote what Marx actually says in full:
In this work production, corresponding classic is used ground as I have to examine the capitalist to the present mode of
Marx actually writes. The only iron necessity he speaks of concerns theworking out of the
consequences of the "natural
Look,
moreover,
at what
list production", and theonly phases of deve? lopment to which he refers are those of
society", i.e., capitalism. Nothing
laws of capita?
"modern
of production Up
is the reason why England in the development the English reader shrugs his industrial fashion "De comforts te fabula that It is a
he says in any way way bears on the separate issue of whether capitalism as such is a neces? ral historical development. And
course, exactly what Marx was sary phase in a law-governed process
illustration of
If, however, or
the German
this is, of
to ma?
of gene?
himself
the thought
so bad;
Intrinsically,
lower degree of development result from the natural question working country of with these laws
the example
iron necessity
inevitable future.
that is more
developed
industrially
only
[15].
evolutionist Marx's
It was the fact thatGermany was already in the "whirlpool'' in 1867, not some general
"De "arch-model", te fabula narratur!" that Wada licensed is pro?
to lay bare the economic law of can clear neither it society by bold the obstacles development offered [14].
leaps, nor remove by legal enactment, by the successive phases of its normal
Marx thought Rus? bably right,however, that sia analogous to Germany in 1867 and later changed his mind on this specific point.
To turn now prehensions to the question of Marx's ap? as to the structures of dependent do not for a moment in his late texts. But
it?
Recall,
of Capital's
evolutionism. Marx
But
is
hing, in Germany, a book whose empirical material ismostly drawn fromEngland. He is understandably concerned to assert its rele? vance to German conditions. Since Germany is a society inwhich capitalism has already ta? ken hold, its "normal development" might reasonably be expected to follow a broadly "English" path. But this in no way implies any necessity for societies inwhich capitalism is not already established to do the same. In? ternal evidence from the same text,Capital I, suggests it highly unlikely thatMarx in 1867 would have expected, say, India or Ireland simply tomirror theEnglish pattern.We will
is publis?
gestMarx's picture of capitalist development was until the 1870s one of straightforward not just referringto his denunciations of the incidental brutalities of capitalist expansion here, but to his evaluation of itshistorical con? sequences.Marx knew that capitalist develop? ment could well sustain, strengthenor even
create forms of "backwardness" on progressiveness travesties the facts. We are
deny to sug?
phery, long before his studies of Russia. Some examples. The Poverty of Philosophy (1847)
asserted castrian an intimate relation between Lan?
its peri?
slavery is just as much thepivot of bourgeois industryas machinery, credits, etc. Without
"modernity"
and barbarism:
"Direct
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
69
slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry ... Slavery is an economic category of thegreatest importance [16]." The point is extended inMarx's wri? American civilwar: the slave sta? tingson the tes "grew and developed simultaneouslywith themonopoly of theEnglish cotton industry on theworld market [17]." The same articles severelyqualify the progressivistconclusions, referredto by Shanin, ofMarx's 1853 articles in India:
England misrule pays now, in fact, the penalty empire. The for her protracted two main obstacles at supplanting of
Russian revolutionaries might have drawn so? me lessons here, as Marx goes on to illustrate his point with the experience of theDanubian Principalities of theTsarist Empire. Later on unevenness inCapital he suggestsa systematic in capitalist development:
A new and international to the requirements division of labour, a division suited of the chief centers of modern
springs up, and converts one part of the globe agricultural which field of production, for supplying remains a chiefly industrial field [22].
to grapple with
in her attempts
cotton by Indian cotton are the want of means and transport throughout circumstances. Both state of the Indian peasant, favourable have themselves disabling
India, and the mi? him from im? the these difficulties
mentions Marx on Ireland. By Shanin himself was England Marx was quite clear that it 1867
that "struck down the manufactures of Ire?
land, depopulated her cities, and threw her people back upon the land". "Every time Irelandwas about to develop industrially,she
was crushed and land", reconverted one "forced agricultural into a purely to contribute
dia, Java, etc., with capitalist penetration, and the conversion of these countries into raw material suppliers for metropolitan industries. Far from Marx's Russian studies of the 1870s coming fromout of theblue to torpedo a secu? re evolutionism, theyfitted into- whilst, cer? tainly,deepening a set of apprehensions as to "the specificstructures of backward capita? lism" which were already very well established in his work.
of indigenous
manufactures
in In?
cheap labour and cheap capital to building up 'the great works of Britain' [19]." The same MS documents theunderdevelopment of Irish
land? agriculture itself by a predatory absentee ru? to the whose lordism, English importance in Marx underlines class many ling letters and speeches [20]. contemporary We do not wish to claim thatMarx had any?
not make
draw on Russia
something
of a simplification.
our attention
Marx did take up radically new positions in tional and Bolshevik) was silentafterhis death [23].What we want now to show is that such were by no means confined to his Russi? shifts an writings, but exist equally in other "late" texts.There is a wider rethinkin late Marx (of which laterMarxism has generally been no
more these texts, for the most part in directions on which mainstream Marxism Interna? (Second
thing like a worked out theoryof dependent development by 1867 (nor yet by 1883). Capi? taldoes however venture some pertinentgene?
ralizations:
[a]s soon as people, into the whirlpool the capitalist mode for export of slavery, horrors of overwork serfdom, whose production still moves within the
corvee-labour,
becoming
scured byWada's
and Shanin's
aware),
whose obsession
are ob?
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70
on. There is real novelty in the late Marx. But not the least interesting featureofMarx's late texts is theirrestatement,albeit in verymuch
more concrete E.P.
measures
pp.162, 159), but its potentialities as a politi? cal form. "Whatever themerits of the single re was its own organisation"
of course, "political of the Commune, its greatest measu? ...
cen? that
Marx,
forms
Marx's mature writings are hopelessly trapped within the conceptual net of thePolitical Eco? nomy theyare fighting[24] is exaggerated, but
the argument contains a kernel of truth as re? more overt preoccupations. It is gards Marx's
in the material conditions of life [27]." He did not therefore laud theCommunal Constituti? on in the abstract, but only insofar as itwas
a means towards the emancipation of labor:
surelyno accident that the concernswe will be discussing here should have been most to the fore during the two periods when Marx was most actively engaged in politics, namely the 1840s and from 1864 onwards. There is a con? tinuityof concern between the "early" and
the "late" focus on in areas with Marx, Marx the "mature" too exclusive of Grundrisse a
"Except on this last condition, theCommunal Constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion" (p.76). We will return to this below. But what ismore novel, and certainly far less often remarked, in these texts, is the stress Marx lays on the contrary dependence:
The working rent phases conditions class know that they have to pass through diffe? of class struggle. They know conditions of free and associated be made that the superseding
of the economical
and Capital has often obscured.We would ho? Marx pe that one resultof "discovering" late more us to seri? make therefore be take might ously his insightsinto theanatomy of bourge? ois civilization in texts like The German Ideology, "On the JewishQuestion" and the
Paris Manuscripts. This
of the slavery of labour by the labour can only be the pro? the Communal
gressive work of time ... But they know at the same time that great strides may at once through form of political
organisations
(pp. 154-5).
is particularly
impor?
ly, itdraws attention to the dangers involved in any simple and unilinear periodization of
work. will concentrate texts of Marx's here on some other key late years, the two We
The Commune "affords the rationalmedium through which the class struggle can run most rational through itsvarious phases in the and humane way" (p. 154).
The obverse
of this is a warning
socialists
Marx's
state-machinery
neglected
Fran? drafts and final textof The Civil War in ce. Marx saw farmore than the heroism of a
lost cause in the Paris Commune. It was "the
greatest revolution of this century" {Writings on the Paris Commune, p. 147) [26]. The
Commune was, moreover, a social
discovery
What so excitedMarx in theCommune was not itspolicies as such (whichhe saw as having "nothing socialist in them" and actingmainly "for the salvation of the middle class" -
emancipation
of labour."
Economic and social emancipation of labor requires political formswhich are themselves emancipatory. A century's experience since Marx's death during which socialism has repeatedlybeen deformed by statism (whether in Bolshevik or Social Democratic forms) underscores his point. That Marx himself thought this conclusion both extremely importantand a definite advance in termsof his own ideas is indicated not only by its
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
71
frequent reiteration in the second draft and final textof The Civil War, but above all by the fact that Marx and Engels again cite it,as self-criticism, in their Preface to the 1872 reissue of the Communist Manisfesto [28]. This Preface endorses the "general Manifesto, with theproviso principles" of the that theirapplication will always depend upon historical conditions. There then follows a and Engels say, should be placed on the original text.For
in view February Commune, political of the practical and where power Revolution, then,
The
itself
- that is to the state the Second - was the not against or republican against of society, a faction to break
of which formula
exhausting
legitimate,
It was a Revolution
specific correction.
"No
special
stress", Marx
the final form of this State usurpation. its definite negation, and, of the 19th century (pp.
The Commune
"revolutionary
measures"
proposed
in the
experience
gained,
first
in the
still more,
the proletarist
for the first time held this programme thing especially was working class State machinery,
antiquated.
the Commune,
that "the
simply lay hold of the ready-made and wield it for its own purposes."
Readers are then referredto The Civil War, "where thispoint is further developed." The dominant motif of the "revolutionary measures" in the Manifesto to which this in the hands of the State [29]." Engels later qualified another text contemporarywith the Manifesto along similar lines.His and Marx's call in 1850 for"the really revolutionaryparty
[in Germany] centralisation" on to carry through the strictest is now (1885) seen as "based a misunderstanding" of French history. administrative now machine "pro? it was passage relates is precisely "centralisation ...
To understand the full significance of this (which we would argue Marxism in general has not) [31]we need to look indetail at what the drafts and textof The Civil War have to say both about the State and about its antithesis the Commune. To do so is to highlight one of the oddest of gaps inMarx fullest discussion of the State since the mid-1840s. And this just happens to be the one area where Marx indicated he thought Capital most in need of his personal supplementation [32]. The Civil War offers both a historical sketch of the evolution of the French State and an implicittheoryof themodern State as
a political tous and clerical form. The roots of France's military, organs, "centra? commentary. For these texts contain Marx's
hes) the livingcivil society like a boaconstric tor" lie in the period of Absolutism. It was society in its struggleof emancipation from feudalism": seigneurial privileges were "transformed into the attributesof a unitary state power", feudal retinues replaced by a standing army, feudal dignitaries supplanted by salaried state functionaries,and "the che? quered (partycoloured) anarchy of medieval powers" superseded by "the regulatedplan of division of labour' (p. 148).
a Statepower, with a systematic and hierarchic first forged as "a weapon of nascent modern
which was "the most powerful lever of the was "a pure instrument of reaction from the beginning [30]." This brings us to the heart of Marx's argument.Quite simply, theCommune was a rational form for the emancipation of labor precisely to the extent that itwas not a State but specifically set out to smash it.He makes theiropposition unmistakeably clear:
whilst Napoleon's centralization
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72
The
and
"With its task to found national unity (to create a nation)" it"had to break down all lo? cal, territorial,townish and provincial inde?
pendence." also
organisation
In expanding
the "circumference
pernaturalist sway of real society" (p. 148). The ensuing national unity,Marx observes, "if originally brought about by political for? ce" become "a powerful coefficientof social production" (p. 75). The Napoleonic Empire perfected this "parasitical [excresence upon] civil society" (p. 148). At home it "served ... to subjugate theRevolution and annihilate all
liberties", popular ment of the French abroad Revolution it was "an instru? ... to create for
France on theContinent insteadof feudalmo? narchiesmore or less states after the image of France" (p. 149).
So "this
a means to break tion of the middle class, first down feudalism, then a means to crush the
emancipatory aspect now count. As
the modern and capital,
state power
aspirations
of
(p.
150). This
second
ac?
to the fore
only perfected the statemachinery instead of throwing off this deadening incubus" (p. 149). The Second Empire ofNapoleon III was the "last triumph of a State separate of and independent from society" (p. 151). "At first Marx writes: 'to view, apparently [elsewhere the eye of the uninitiated ...' - p. 150] the usurpatory dictatorship of the governmental body over society itself,risingalike above and humbling all classes, it has in fact, on the European Continent at least, become theonly possible state form inwhich the appropriating class can continue to sway it over the producing class" (p. 196). Professing to rest on the producing mass of the nation, the peasantry, and claiming to be above the labor/capital conflict, theEmpire "divest[ed] the state power from itsdirect form of class despotism" (p. 198). We come now to a delicate but critical distinction in Marx's analysis. On the one hand the State really "had grown so independent of society itself that a grotesquelymediocre adventurerwith a hungry band of desperadoes behind him sufficedtowield it" (p. 149). But on theother was not less a bourgeois State for that. hand it "Apparently the final victory of the was only the last degraded and the only possible form of that class ruling" (p. 150). This amounts to an implicit and important
criticism of the model of governmental power over society ... in fact it
labour
and form, the physiognomy of a striking change ...With the en? itself into a new phase, the phase of class
of its organized public force, the could not but change also ... and more and mo? as the instrument of class despotism, the social enslave? of the of wealth over by its appropriators, labour (p. 197).
of the producers
rule of capital
Successive popular revolutions (1830, 1848) served only to transferstate power from one fractionof the rulingclasses to another, while
with
which Marxists have habitually drawn from The Eighteenth Brumaire, of a genuinely independent state resting on a stalemate of class forces. In thepast such a model has been used to "explain" both Hitler and Stalin! Marx is writing here of France, and does not see French State forms as universals of capitalism. He notes that "peculiar historical
circumstances" corrupt vestries, ferocious poor-law counties" allowed jobbing
"Bonapartism"
ped and more mercilessly used" (p. 197). So too was the financial burden of the state on
the people,
every revolution "the repressive charac? ter of the state power was more fully develo?
England
"to
amounting
to "a
second
exploita?
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
73
France
classical representing "the .... of form the of bourgeois development government" (p. 75). Mechanical applications of this notion have sometimes had a baneful influence in English Marxist historiography, and we ought to remember that all histories
are
as
Marx's
peculiarities deviations from an otherwise "normal" model [33],But such qualifications elementsof should not blind us to the fruitful a general theoryof the bourgeois state to be - or much That the State is an instrument better,aform of organization of class power is a commonplace of Marxist theory. But other themes inMarx's analysis here usually
receive much found in these analyses.
"peculiar"
rather
than
understand
by
writings of the 1840s: that "civil - here society" meaning bourgeois society Gesellschaft] "must assert itself [b?rgerliche in its external relations as nationality and must organise itselfas State [36]." internally this occurred through the In France a quasi-independent central of development State bureaucracy, in England through the
gradual transformation, over a much longer
period, of existingformsand resources,giving more apparent continuity (and leaving Marxist historianswith thepseudo-problem of finding an English "equivalent" for 1789). But in both cases national state organization Max Weber called thenational citizen of those class [37] was essential to the formation of
modern
especially where they touch on the issues of the roots of themodern State form as such. The Marxist mainstream, taking itsdeparture in Engels' Anti-Duhring, identifies the State with government of people (as distinct from administrationof things) ingeneral and sees it as coterminouswith class society [34].Marx's usage here (though not everywhere in his writings) is notably more historically precise. Marx uses the termhere are States in the sense
modern inventions. The modern State as such
less prominence
in commentary,
gives the State this historical specificity, indeed constitutes it as a State, is its very separation from "civil society". The novelty of the bourgeois organization of its collective class power lies in theexerciseof this power through a distinct policy or arena of What depoliticized civil society, the realm of the individual, particular and private.Marx drew attention to this as early as 1843:
The establishment into individuals of the political state and the dissolution - whose relations with one in the ... is
capitalism.
general
interests,
whose
counterpart
is a
is specifically a form of organization of the class power of the bourgeoisie, a form forged against theworking class. This is not to say
that there was no coercive in struggles first against feudalism and then
depend on law, just as the relations of men on privilege system of estates and guilds depended by one and the same act [38]. accomplished
the bourgeoisie, merely that thisdid not take Marx's present the specific formof a State in
sense.
governance
before
The converse of this is equally important. Marx says inThe Civil War makes Everything it evident that for him State formationwas inseparable from, and indispensible to, the making of the capitalistmode of production. The State is an essential relation [35] of any normal sense of that unfortunate term. The State is not the political icing on the
economic cake but one of itsmost bourgeois society, not a "superstructure" in
employ the latterterm in his latewritings is central to both the analysis of theState inThe Civil War and Marx's insistenceon the need for socialism to smash it. The growing separation of theState, up to a point where it into "elaborated becomes seeming is a from 151), society" (p. independence sketch of the historical theme major summarized above. Marx repeatedly links this separation to the wider social divisions of
labor characteristic
and
it is instructive
that Marx
continues
to
important
of bourgeois
society.
It is
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74
division of labor a special organism separate from society" (to quote another "late" text) [39] that forms the specific target of his critique.What is new in the writings of the 1870s as against the 1840s is the greater materialism ofMarx's grasp of thisdivision of
labor.
As is clear fromMarx's analysis of the Second Empire, this independenceof theState is in one very material sense real. The specialization of themachinery of State did
allow
generally this specialization provides the key to the disjuncture Marx recognizes between the general character of the State as a bourgeois organization, and theparticulars of who commands its apparatuses at any given point in time. The institutional independence of theState allows thepossiblity of itscontrol, at different times, by competing fractions of the bourgeoisie or even by non-bourgeois forces (as inMarx's - dubious - analysis of the British Constitution in which the "aristocracy" wield State power) [40]. This recognition is fundamental to the empirical richness of Marx's political sociology, in which the State is clearly not just a pliant
bourgeois tool. It also allows due room for the
its capture
by an "adventurer".
More
what counts and can be practiced circumscribe as politics, not just conceptually but materially through themeans of action they make available or deny. The divisions of labor through which the State is constructed constituteand limitboth the permitted sphere of political debate and action and themodes to of political participation available individuals. located and groups differentially We are of course talking about the attempted ratherthan theachieved: this social geography is a landscape of struggle.But the point we want to emphasize here is that in thiswider context any "independence" of the State is purely illusory.Far frombeing independentof society, the State is an essential form of organization of b?rgerlicheGesellschaft itself. That iswhy it cannot be used by labor for its
own emancipation.
3. Socialist Against
as Revolution
wider
specific interestsof State servants. But this should not be confused with independence of the State from bourgeois relations in any
sense. Marx who State is equally adamant that no controls it, momentarily as such remains bourgeois. the It
Which brings us to theCommune, for Marx "the the social political form of precisely of the liberation of labor" (p. emancipation, 154).What then is this sphynx so tantalizing to the bourgeois mind? One way of readingThe Civil War is simply
as a manifesto would This focus of extreme political democracy. on Marx's enthusiasm for achievement were elections more of real represen? sifted, ne?
matter modern
remains bourgeois by virtue precisely of its form, that is, by virtue of its relationship to civil society. The modern State form as such is intrinsically bourgeois because the boundaries of political and private, general and personal, collective and individualwhich itpresupposes and articulates are those corresponding to the
conditions of
decisions
resources,
commodity instance,
regarding
for
the
production. are
Most
allocation
outside
of
the
political sphere (at best theState "intervenes" These boundaries in "The Economy").
ver delegates fuller representing the masses fromwhich theyhad sprung" - p. 147) and genuine public accountability, ensured by openness of sittings, publication of procee? dings and revocability of delegates. Some might perhaps pause to note thatadministrati? ve and judicial personnel were also to be elec? tive and revocable (pp. 140, 153, 200). And thosewith a materialist bentmight remind us that thisdemocratization of the polity was to be protected by disbanding the army, arming the people, and paying Communal functiona?
ries workmen's wages. If we add the caveat
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
75
that everythingis contingentupon "expropri? ating the expropriators" we will have reached thepoint Lenin does inhis commentaryon the text in The State and Revolution - a reading we cannot ignorebecause of itsauthority [41]. This is,we should be clear, to go a longway. Lenin's commentary highlights the silences and distortions of the Second International Marxists, remindsus of Marx's correction of theCommunist Manifesto, and above all in? Marx theState was somethingto sists that for be smashed. Nonetheless for Lenin (who did not, incidentally,know the drafts) The Civil War remained about "the reorganization of the state, thepurely political reorganizationof society [42]." The language is revealing. For Lenin - writing, we might note, in
Russia Tsarist autocratic, of armed men, simply "bodies the State prisons, was etc.",
published afterLenin's death. A knowledge of thesematerials and the drafts of The Civil War might perhaps have led Lenin to reason Historical experience since 1917 differently. should certainly lead us to reason differently. The gist ofMarx's argument is that since the existenceof a separate political sphere is itself testimony to the alienation of human social powers, any merely political emancipation remains partial (albeit still desirable):
Only when man as has recognised forces, and and organised social his "forces no longer have been
consequently
emancipation
accomplished
"a
For Marx what is needed is not so much political emancipation, as emancipation from politics, understood as the specialization of
social concerns into a particularized general set of activities, occasions, and institutions no matter how democratic. States presuppose
particular
introduced as "democracy fully and as at is all conceivable consistently [44]" is tantamount to smashing the State, inasmuch as it does away with such a special force. Lenin is explicit:
The Commune ... appears "only" to have replaced the smashed ... But ... this
bureaucratic-military
and regulate relations within which individuals cannot collectively control the conditions of theirreal lives in "civil society". The State is an "illusory community" which existswhere real communitydoes not [49]. So to smash it entails more than breaking the
obvious
state machine
by fuller democracy
a of certain "only" replacement signifies gigantic of a institutions institutions by other fundamentally is exactly a case of "quantity different type. This being transformed into quality" ... [45]
not just the class content of State power but the alienation inherent in the State form as
such.
apparatuses
of class
rule. The
issue is
This
emphases
leads Marx
from
to a different set of
The Commune's
Lenin's.
"the state begins to wither away" [46].Marx did not use the dangerously bland "withering away" formulation (it comes from Saint Simon viaAnti-Diihring) [47], he spoke of the need actively to smash. And he had inmind
far more than Lenin realizes.
It is, Lenin
continues,
"in
this sense"
that
primary significance lies in its being a social form throughwhich this alienation can be
challenged. Revolution It is, in a against the telling State "a contrast, ... a itself
had contrasted what he called human emancipation inhis essay and political of 1843 on the Jewish question, a textLenin ignores inThe State and Revolution (if indeed he knew of its contents). The argument is taken furtherin The German Ideology, only
Marx
resumptionby thepeople for thepeople of its own social life" (p. 150). At slightly more was length, it
the reabsorption by the popular instead of political artificial of the State power by society as its own it, living forces instead of as forces controlling masses themselves, force of the organised and subduing
force the
emancipation,
by their oppressors)
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76
force opposed to and them) of
organised
against
society
emancipation because, and to the extent that, it is a material and present challenge to those
relations which
is perhaps rather abstract, but it iass important to grasp the overall thrust of Marx's analysis (and note its continuitieswith 1843). The way he develops his argument, however, is highlymaterialist. Against the Anarchist absurdity that the State can be decreed away, Marx argued the necessity of transforming those material conditions of civil society which sustain it. The Commune "had no ready-madeUtopias to introducepar deer et du peuple" (p. 77). Time, and long class struggles, would be needed for labor to free itselffrom themuck of ages [50].The Commune was no more than This
a "rational
As
ordination. Central to the latter is the separa? tion between a specialized State and a civil so? ciety without social control. Breaking down this separation is thereforenot for Marx one
of communism's
perpetuate
labor's
sub?
dispensible part of any conceivable means for itsattainment. What needs to be understood is that Marx is being everybit as materialist here as in his critique of the Anarchists. If the ob? is labor's self-emancipation themeans jective
have
remote objectives,
but an in
medium"
for those
and parliamentarism but only the political
struggles:
are not the real general
the ruling classes, of their dominion, the social movement regeneration The Commune
and expressions
of the old order of things, so the Commune of the working but does of mankind, the organised class
of all classes
strives to the
Marx
of
(which the late Mao Tsetung would have appreciated [51]) between the class struggles
socialist construction and the centuries
goes
on
to draw
an
the only ones which will work. Extending the principles of election and revocability to administrative and juridical functionaries, for instance, is significant in this context as an extension of the sphere of social control beyond the realm of the polity as traditionally understood. So too are the Commune's infractions upon the erstwhile "private jurisdiction" of employers in "their" factories and mills, one of the very few measures Marx hails as being for the working class (p. 138). The Critique of the Gotha Programme extends this awareness of
the needs for certain
to be "prefigurative",
because
they are
explicit
parallel
long struggles through which slavery was transformed into feudalism and feudalism intocapitalism (pp. 154-55).This emphasis on the complexity and protractedness of class struggle after anything thatmight be called "the" socialist revolution is a general feature of Marx's latewritings [52]. what we might But thisdoes not legitimate call theBolshevik absurdity thata "proletarian State" can be used and will then either "wi? ther away" or be "thrown away" [53]. Sixty years after theOctober revolution, is itnot ti? me socialists abandoned thisamiable butmur? derous fantasy?There is not a whiff of it in The Civil War inFrance. The Commune can
be an appropriate form for labor's self
bourgeois right [54]. More generally,Marx celebrated the fact that "the initiative in all matters of social life [was] to be reserved to the Commune" (p. 200). What saves this from being a blueprint for totalitarian State is that the forms through which this "social control" was exercisedwere not in the least statelike, but part of a wider revolution within civil societyagainst any such alienation of social powers. This concept of "social control" isa key one in Marx [55].His meaning is exactly theopposite of that sense ithas since acquired in orthodox and radical sociologies alike. Marx is not referringto the attempted control of society by the State, but to members - a situationwhich in society by its his view would render States both impossible
conscious, collective and egalitarian control of aggrandizement of a strengthened central
despotic
inroads
upon
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
77 and unnecessary.
The measures on which Lenin focuses, for full political democracy, are of course an important part of this, but not in and of themselves (nor yet, we might add, when merely supplemented by expropriation of capitalists if the program for socialist constructionthenpursuedmakes use of Statist formsof economic and other regulation,as in theBolshevik case [56]).What Lenin neglects, andMarx attends to indetail - above all in the drafts- is thewider contextof revolutionizing circumstances and selves which alone makes
such socialist measures meaningful transformation. Marx elements of is clear that the
more importantfeatureof We have leftthe Marx's account until the end. The means for all thiswas a sustained attack on thedivisions of labor that constitute administration and functionsonly to be trustedto thehands of a trained caste" (p. 153). It is of the utmost importance, first, that Marx brands this, unequivocally, as "a delusion" (p. 153), and both can second, that it is a delusion he insists and must be materially challenged now, not in the communist hereafter.Breaking down this central and constitutive facet of capitalism's wider division of labor was not something to and requisite levels of popular education on the one hand and the technical sophistication of the machinery of centralgovernmenton the other, as The State and Revolution more than hints [58]. The Commune was such a challenge, and thatwas whyMarx hailed itas a social discovery ofmonumental significance for the emancipation of labor. He is clear:
The delusion as if administration transcendent trained and political governing were mysteries, the hands sycophants the with themselves the of a and functions only to be trusted to caste - stateparasites, richly paid in the higher posts, and turning and absorbing away the them against
government
as
"mysteries,
transcendent
Commune stood for a once and for all reduction in the scale, power and cost of any central societal authority. Abolition of the standing army has a multiple significance
here.
await development
of "the productive
forces"
revolution.But equally important toMarx, it was "the first economical conditio sine qua for all social improvements, discarding at once this source of taxes and state debts" (p. 152).Marx saw theCommune as arguring"all France organised into self-workingand self
governing communes
Yet,
it does
disarm
the
counter?
functions reduced to a few functions for general national purposes (p. 154).What was
sought was "the
stateparasites
removed
sinecurists, of
intelligence state
the masses
altogether
society
itself
political
unity
of French
through
the Communal
centralisation
which has done its service against feodality, mere unity of an artificial but has become the
body, armies, resting on
organisation"
instead
of "that
masters of the people into always removable haughteous servants, a mock responsiblity by a real responsiblity, as they act continuously under public supervision. Paid like skilled workmen pretentions consisting publicly, broad ... The whole was of done simple away sham of state-mysteries and state mostly [with] by a Commune, men ... doing their work complicated difficult and
working
repressing
simply, under
the most
and doing it ... for a few pounds, acting in daylight with no pretentions to infallibility, not hiding circumlocution offices, not ashamed to confess
"democratic
casuistically extractsfrom the final textof The Civil War [57]. It is abundantly clear from the Marx's approval was for a highly drafts that decentralized form of society, with local Communes being sovereign in all except the very few functionsgenuinely "necessitated by
the general and common wants of the
in one order the public by correcting them. Making functions real administrative, military, political trained caste instead of the hidden attributes of a functions, ... Whatever the merits of the single measures
workmen's
of
organisation
was the Commune, its greatest measure its own ... proving its life by its vitality, confirming its thesis by its action ... giving body to the aspirations of the class of all countries (p. 153).
working
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
78
and
can by
thus the
adopt
the positive
achievements to of first
system without capitalist having ... it can become the direct point its hardships system towards which modern cast off its old skin without and it can
full significance of Marx's later on when Russia theyare only emerges writings seen in context - the immediate context of Marx's otherwritings of the 1870s and 1880s (and thepolitical experiencewhich gave rise to them), and the broader context of the development of his thoughtas a whole. Wada effectively ignores the first,while Shanin in our view at least greatly oversimplifies the
second. Wada's and Shanin's articles are in
society
"It would, of course, be only a gradual change, which would begin by establishing the normal state of the community in itspresent form [62]." There exists already a basis for
socialist transformation in "the collective
mode
many ways path-breaking. They document real and important developments inMarx's thinking on peasants, the obshchina, and peripheral capitalism, and draw out relevant and timely implications for traditional evolutionist, progressivist readings of Marx. But their neglect or simplications of context
also means,
of production" in jointly-owned meadowlands, whilst thepeasants' familiarity with the artel would "greatly facilitate the transition from agriculture by individual plot to collective agriculture [63]." But thispossibility, indeed the obshchina's very existence, is threatenedby a conspiracy of powerful interests:
What menaces the life of the Russian nor a social community is neither historical have it is the oppression and cost of
respectsWada
importance
paradoxically,
that
in
other
necessity,
theory:
of "late Marx".
When read against the background of Marx's writings on the Paris Commune, for most strikingin thedrafts of instance,what is the letter to Vera Zasulich (and virtually
ignored exactly hand,
and
with
The State has acted as a "hothouse" [65] for capitalist development. Since the 1861Eman?
community was cipation "the Russian the State into an abnormal economic this "oppression conflicts within put by situati? it?
dualism"
development" [60] towards the disintegration of the community or towards socialism, the historical entirely on depending
environment.
The communal
mitivism responsible for perpetuating the isolation of communities [67].What is there? fore needed is firstand foremosta revolution against "this coincidence of destructive in?
fluences":
If such a revolution its forces community, element of superiority to assure takes place in time, if it concentrates all
One
alternative
is hopeful:
it [the village and existence of conditions scale. of The
ownership
of the rural the free development the regenerating this later will soon become it and the factor giving Russian society, the countries enslaved by the capitalist
appropriation,
over
production,
co-operative
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
79
- or be seen as a sustained reflection fruitfully better, a highly focussed and productive moment ina lifetime'sreflection,informed by Marx's deep involvement in the political strugglesof the time on appropriateforms
for socialist
over the political economy of capital [73]. Such egalitarian and collective formsof social life, forms which permit its conscious and democratic control by all in the interests of all,
are
now.
socialism's
one hand, for social forms within present which are capable modes of life and struggle of advancing the emancipation of labor, a call search for what we nowadays sense not in anyUtopian prefigurativeforms, but as material and effective means for
furthering socialist transformation. And a
transformation.
search,
on the
starting-point
The other, equally importantside of this is Marx's critique in his later textsof formsof bourgeois civilization which will not further the self-emancipationof labor, and therefore
cannot be treated
on theother hand, of the sober identification, myriad social formsand relations goingwell beyond manifest property relations [69]: State, division of labor, forms of social classification and identity"encouraged" by complexmodes of moral and legal regulation - which block that emancipation and fetter
that transformation.
amongst these is the State, and the wider divisions of labor in bourgeois society of which its separability is one expression. But the point applies more generally. Raymond Williams has put itwell:
There was is the one level at which we can say that a specific form and therefore historically historically productive - in to valuable that sense it was a major contribution human culture. But we must also be able to say, in a distinct but connected way, that it was a disastrously one can or powerful the its political of their contribution. productive which In the same way capacity of bourgeois oneself
This concern is not of course a feature of Marx's post-Capital writingsonly, though it is most developed there. His praise for the emancipatorypotential of theParis Commune (despite what he considered itsmany errors [70]) or the obshchina (notwithstanding its "private side") has antecedents inhis eulogies to the success of theTen Hours Bill and to the Address to the First International [71] though he well knew the extreme limitations
of co-operatives co-operative movement in his 1864 Inaugural
acknowledge
society,
institutions, and yet distance not only progress. later become, constitution human always were,
blocks on human
a current morality, and there ceases If you cannot make the second, I do not to the working class would be for
Wada's Marx's
and
Shanin's
no lover of the law. Going furtherback we find this salient comment on trade union
activities:
In order to rightly appreciate we must not allow insignificance all things the value ourselves of strikes and by
in a capitalist
world,
and was
(though reservations
about
the actual
takes
forms which
capitalist
to be blinded
in view
consequences
[72].
These are all what Marx calls "great facts" for socialism, prefigurative victories however
contradictory
or compromised
for
of the Capital itself,just as Marx's treatment in of his labor late texts State and thedivision should lead us to read anew his still marginalized writings of the 1840s. It would be a pity if Shanin's claims for "late Marx" (coupled perhaps with Thompson's labellingGrundrisse and Capital an "anti-Political Economy") had the same sort of effect on perceptions of Capital as Althusser's periodization of Marx had for a
is germane here. It ought too linear, too re-think our too economistic of reading
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80
time on evaluations of the "early writings". We do not argue a continuity in Marx's work in the sense of denying genuine discovery in thewritingsof the 1870s and 1880s.There was novelty aplenty, leading at times as we have shown to explicitor implicitself-criticism. But there is a continuityof concern and the real importance of Marx's late writings for his overall legacy lies in helping us see where this lies. For us the late writings put beyond any doubt the centralityof what are too readily dismissed as Utopian elementswithinMarx's thought, to the end of his days. Marx was never a Utopian socialist, still lesswas he an Anarchist. He foughtbitter struggles with the Anarchists in the 1870s, in the course of which he denounced "political indifferentism" with Swiftian irony [75]. But nor was he an instrumentalist,a despised "Realpolitiker" [76].He was as passionate a criticof Lassalle's "state socialism" as he was of Bakunin or does not Proudhon. Political indifferentism with the facts of But power. engage bourgeois to do because the so, Realpolitik only appears
means are themselves it employs forms of our In domination. times, the latter bourgeois seems pertinent lesson. We a lot from Marx's close attention to forms. the more can learn
to Engels, Edward
January
16,
1861.
(Moscow, makes
and Other
Marx
Offer no.
Capital
A Reassessment of Ideas,
Journal
of the
vol. XXXIX,
German
Ideology, of Phiosophy,
(Harmondsworth:
Penguin, injunctions
6, pp.
found
disturbing; 31-8.
remarks on Marx's (Harmondsworth: 10. MECW 11. 5, p. 37. In The First Harmondsworth, no. 2, Paris 12. See D. Note". 14. Capital 15. Letter Wada). 16. MECW, 17. K. Marx 18. In T. p.
of the Break",
in For Marx
International Penguin,
(ed. D.
Fernbach, as FI);
hereafter
cited
13. Grundrisse,
I, pp.
and F. Engels,
States
(New York:
International
NOTES
1. T. Shanin, "Marx and and the Peasant Revolutionary in T. Road (London: Commune", Russia", Shanin Routledge, and H. History (ed.), Late 983). A note on Wada Workshop Marx much and "Marx (12)
Ibid. p. 19. The text goes on to repeat The Poverty of of the indispensability of black analysis Philosophy's slavery to the English cotton industry. in K. Marx of a Report on the Irish Question", 19. "Outline and F. Engels for example Ireland 451. Ireland and
1981. Reprinted
(Moscow, on
the Russian
for An
Speech
reduced
is also available
collected
158-171.
British Rule
Results
22.
Ibid.,
further, Monthly
and 11, he
in India",
inMarx/Engels,
Collected
Review,,
pp.
general brilliant
law of
accumulation", and
I, pp. 643-4. essay in International" Left Books, Ramsay, Theory Review Harvie
of History: (London:
Oxford
Rousseau
Science (eds),
1972); Derek
and D.
inMarxist
Philosophy
(Brighton
1979) vol. 2.
(London:
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
81
1978) and "Bolshevism and the USSR", New 41. In his Selected Works pp. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., 312-327. p. 318. pp. 292, 317, 313. p. 317. pp. 316-7. p. 317. p. 307. The government of of things antithesis with it is when in the name is from Saint become in 3 volumes 1970) vol. 2,
Press,
Left
(Moscow,
important
persons/administration danger administered away. 48. MECW 49. MECW 50. The I, p. 168. 5, p. 83.
Sayer, Marx'sMethod
1983) ch.
persons
like things
of States withering
Press,
A Contributionto the 27. 1859 Preface to Critique ofPolitical 28. TheManifesto of theCommunistParty (Moscow, 1973)
pp. 7-9. 29. Ibid., pp. 74-5. 10, pp. 285-6n. A towering exception Harvie Ramsay, 1980). for Capital to Kugelmann on said that the volume on "capital isMao Derek Tsetung. Sayer, For 30. MECW Economy (London: Lawrence
Ideology: MECW
51. See above all his 4415Theses", inOn Khrushchev's ... Communism 1964). (Peking: FLP, 52. Compare 53. See e.g. Critique of the Gotha 1919 Lecture 19, p. 488. and Sayer, "How Programme, 346-7, and passim. for instance Lenin's Works 346-7. op. cit. its use in Capital vol.
pp. in his
on the State,
See Corrigan
the Law
Corrigan, his
Rules",
(London:
Macmillan, plans
for instance
Penguin,
1976 translated)
(Moscow,
and Revolution,
pp. 322-3. This should be read with the passage the lecture on the State cited in note 53 above. to Zasulich, 2nd draft, in P. Blackstock to Europe
the nearest,
1867, he came
and
for evaluating
the continuity
Menace
(London,
themes of the analysis thought of themajor in the 1840s. had developed 33. See E. P. Thompson's reprinted Herr Eugen brilliant English", 34. F. Engels, pp. 35. See "The 306-8. further MECW State as a 5, p. Relation 52; Corrigan, of in The Poverty Duhring's
& Unwin, 1953) p. 223. Cf. 3rd draft pp. 220, 221. Translations from this source amended throughout. 60. Ibid., 3rd draft, p. 221. 61. Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., in a 1st draft, p. 225. Marx famous passage p. 751, which power". 1st draft, p. 225. It is perhaps were to point out collectivized political also used the hothouse that (State) in Capital concludes I (Moore image and Aveling force "is pp. 221-2. 2nd draft, p. 224. 62. 63. 64. 65.
(Anti-Duhring)
(New York:
International
Publishers, Ramsay,
Production",
State Formation
4 passim.
eventually
work have discussed Marx's - in detail in and Sayer, "How the related topic Corrigan in B. Fryer, et al (eds), Law, State and Society Law Rules" (London: 39. Critique 40. "The Croom Helm, 1981). in FI, p. 356. MECW 14, pp. 53-6. of the Gotha Programme,
with predictably
disastrous
consequences. has only ever been at all successful when of existing co-operative community, as Marx suggests here, in China. See Jack Gray, "The Two
elements
in the peasant
British Constitution",
and as was
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82
in S. R. Schram to first International, formulations on the Paris Politics is in FI, pp. 78-9. Marx of The 138, 155. New
(ed), Authority,
Participation
and
73.
FI,
Commune,
(London:
of February imitated
23,
1865 (in of
FI,
pp.
148-153)
the gentleman he
But while
they invoked Prussian class, shook in so the proletariat. the interests ... while the be
of April to Frankel
in the interests of the middle Bismarck in the interests of justified is accustomed his nose as were more
gentlemen
than Lassalle,
to regard 'reality' of
before
things, must
Chartism".
MECW
12,
honestly
'revolutionary'
This content downloaded from 200.52.255.1 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:57:40 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions