WHAT IS ORTHODOX MARXISM? 12 HISTORY AND CLASS CON the capitalist social order But whether capitalism is rendered im- ne another and can be thought of as the dynamic dialectical mortal on economic or on ideological grounds, whether with naive aspects of an equally dynamic and dialectical whole. " The result nonchalance, or with critical refinement is of little importance. arrive at, "says Marx, " is not that production, distribution, Thus with the rejection or blurring of the dialectical method exchange and consumption are identical, but that they are all history becomes unknowable. This does not imply that a more or members of one totality, different aspects of a unit.... Thus a less exact account of particular people or epochs cannot be given definite form of production determines definite forms of consump- vithout the aid of dialectics. But it does put paid to attempts to tion, distribution and exchange as well as definite relations betueen understand history as a unified process.(This can be seen in the these different elements.. A mutual interaction takes place between ociologically abstract, historical constructs of the type of Spencer these various elements. This is the case with every organic body. I and Comte whose inner contradictions have been convincingly But even the category of interaction requires inspection. If by exposed by modern bourgeois historians, most incisive interaction we mean just the reciprocal causal impact of two Rickert. But it also shows itself in the demand for a philosophy otherwise unchangeable objects on each other, we shall not have of history'which then turns out to have a quite inscrutable rela come an inch nearer to an understanding of society. This is the tionship to historical reality. )The opposition between the descrip- case with the vulgar materialists with their one-way causal se tion of an aspect of history and the description of history as quences(or the Machists with their functional relations ). After all unified process is not just a problem of scope, as in the distinction there is e.g. an interaction when a stationary billiard ball is struck lar and universal history. It is rather a conflict by a moving one: the first one moves, the second one is deflected of method, of approach. Whatever the epoch or special topic from its original path. The interaction we have in mind must be the question of a unified nore than the interaction of otherwise unchanging objects. It must is inescapable. It is here that the crucial importance of the dialecti- go further in its relation to the whole: for this relation determine cal view of totality reveals itself. For it is perfectly possible for the objective form of every object of cognition. Every substantial someone to describe the essentials of an historical event and yet change that is of concern to knowledge manifests itself as a change e in the dark about the real nature of that event and of its in relation to the whole and through this as a change in the form function in the historical totality, i. e. without understanding it of objectivity itself. o Marx has formulated this idea in countless as part of a unified historical process. places. I shall cite only one of the best-known A typical example of this can be seen in Sismondi's treatment negro is a negro. He only becomes a slave in certain circumstances of the of 17 He understood the immanent tenden is a machine for spinning cotton. Only in cies in the processes of production and distribution. But ultimately ertain circumstances does it become capital. Torn from those he failed because, for all his incisive criticism of capitalism, he circumstances it is no more capital than gold is money or sugar remained imprisoned in capitalist notions of the objective and so necessarily thought of production and distribution as two inde- hus the objective forms of all social phenomena change pendent processes,"not realising that the relations of distribution constantly in the course of their ceaseless dialectical interactions are only the relations of production sub alia specia".He thus with each other. The intelligibility of objects develops in propor uccumbs to the same fate that overtook Proudhon's false dialec- tion as we grasp their function in the totality to which they belong tics;"he converts the various limbs of society into so many inde This is why only the dialectical conception of totality can enable s to understand reality as a social process. For only this conception We repeat: the category of totality does not reduce its various dissolves the fetishistic forms necessarily produced by the capitalist elements to an erentiated uniformity, to identity. The mode of production and enables us to see them as mere illusions apparent independence and autonomy which they possess in the which are not less illusory for being seen to be necessary. These capitalist system of production is an illusion only in so far as they unmediated concepts, these"laws'sprout just as inevitably from d ic dialectical relationship with the soil of sm and veil the real relations between objects
HISTORY AND CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS 15 They can all be seen as ideas necessarily held by the agents of the treat of things, but of the relations between persons and, in the capitalist system of production. They are, therefore, objects of last analysis, between classes; however, these relations are alway knowledge, but the object which is known through them is not bound to things and appear as things. 2 the capitalist system of production itself, but the ideology of its It is by virtue of this insight that the dialectical method and its concept of totality can be seen to provide real knowledge of Only when this veil is torn aside does historical knowledge what in society. It might appear as if the dialectic rela become possible. For the function of these unmediated concepts ons between parts and whole were no more than a construct that have been derived from the fetishistic forms of objectivity of thought as remote from the true categories of social reality as the is to make the phenomena of capitalist society appear as supra- unmediated formulae of bourgeois economics. If so, the superiority historical essences. The knowledge of the real, objective nature of dialectics would be purely methodological. The real difference, of a phenomenon, the knowledge of its historical character and however, is deeper and more fundamental e knowledge of its actual function in the totality of society At every stage of social evolution each economic category form, therefore, a single, undivided act of cognition. This unity is reveals a definite relation between men. This relation become shattered by the pseudo-scientific method. Thus only through the conscious and is conceptualised. Because of this the inner logic lectical method could the distinction between constant and f the movement of human society can be understood at once as variable capital, crucial to economics, be understood. Classical the product of men themselves and of forces that arise from their economics was unable to go beyond the distinction between fixed relations with each other and which have escaped their control. and circulating capital. This was not accidental. For "variable Thus the economic categories become dynamic and dialectical in capital is only a particular historical manifestation of the fund for a double sense. As'pure'economic categories they are involved providing the necessaries of life, or the labour-fund which the in constant interaction with each other and that enables us to labourer requires for the maintenance of himself and his family, understand any given historical cross-section through the evolu- and which whatever be the system of social production, he must tion of society. But since they have arisen out of human relations himself produce and reproduce. If the labour-fund constantly and since they function in the process of the transformation of flows to him in the form of money that pays for his labour, it is human relations, the actual process of social evolution becomes because the product he has created moves constantly away from visible in their reciprocal relationship with the reality underlying him in the form of ital.., The transaction is veiled by the their activity. That is to say, the production and reproduction fact that the product appears as modity and the commodity of a particular economic totality, which science hopes to understand as money. is necessarily transformed into the process of production and The fetishistic illusions enveloping all phenomena in capitalist reproduction of a particular social totality; in the course of thi society succeed in concealing reality, but more is concealed than transformation,pure' economics are naturally transcended the historical, i. e. transitory, ephemeral nature of phenomena. though this does not mean that we must appeal to any transcen- This concealment is made possible by the fact that in capitalist dental forces. Marx often insisted upon this aspect of dialectics. society mans environment, and especially the categories of For instance: 4"Capitalist production, therefore, under its aspect ppear to him immediately and necessarily in forms of a continuous connected process or as a process of reproduction of objectivity which conceal the fact that they are the categories produces not only commodities, not only surplus value, but it also of the relations of men with each other. Instead they appear as things produces and reproduces the capitalist relation itself, on the one nd the relations of things with each other Therefore, when the hand the capitalist and on the other the labourer. dialectical method destroys the fiction of the immortality of the categories it also destroys their reified character and clears the way to a knowledge of reality. According to Engels in his discus- sion of marxs critique of Political Economy, "economics does not To posit oneself, to produce and reproduce oneself-that is
HISTORY AND CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS WHAT IS ORTHODOX MARXISM reality. Hegel clearly perceived this and expressed it in a way standin e course of opposing a reactionary Hegelian closely similar to that of Marx, albeit cloaked in abstraction and movement reverting back to Kant. This movement exploited Hegel's obscurities and inner uncertainties in order to eradicate misunderstanding. "What is actual is necessary in itself, "he the revolutionary elements from his method. It strove to harmonise says in the Philosophy of Right. "Necessity consists in this that the the reactionary content, the reactionary conceptual mythology, hole is sundered into the different concepts and that this divided the vestiges of the contemplative dualism of thought and existence hole yiclds a fixed and permanent determinacy. However, this is with the consistently reactionary philosophy which prevailed in not a fossilised determinacy but one which permanently recreates the Germany of the day. itself in its dissolution. 25 The deep affinities between historical By adopting the progressive part of the Hegelian method materialism and Hegel's philosophy are clearly manifested here, namely the dialectic, Marx not only cut himself off from Hegels for both conceive of theory as the self-knowledge of reality. Never successors; he also split Hegels philosophy in two. He took the theless, we must briefly point to the crucial difference between historical tendency in Hegel to its logical extreme: he radica them. This is likewise located in the problem of reality and of the transformed all the phenomena both of society and of socialised nity of the historical process. man into historical problems: he concretely revealed the real sub- Marx reproached Hegel (and, in even stronger terms, Hegei's stratum of historical evolution and developed a seminal method uccessors who had reverted to Kant and Fichte)with his failure in the process. He measured Hegel's philosophy by the yardstick to overcome the duality of thought and being, of theory and he had himself discovered and systematically elaborated, and he practice, of subject and object. He maintained that Hegel's found it wanting. The mythologising remnants of the ' eternal of the historical process was a mere illusion: in the crucial point he alues which Marx eliminated from the dialectic belong basically on the same level as the philosophy of reflection which Hegel had failed to go beyond Kant. His knowledge is no more than know this material, human society came to know itself. As he remarks in against which he had pitted his entire philosophical method, with its ideas of process and concrete totality, dialectics and his- the decisive sentences of his critique, 6"Already with Hegel, tory. In this sense Marx,'s critique of Hegel is the direct continua the absolute spirit of history has its material in the masses, but tion and extension of the criticism that Hegel himself levelled at only finds adequate expression in philosophy. But the philosopher Kant and Fichte 7 So it came about that Marx's dialectical appears merely as the instrument by which absolute spirit, which method continued what Hegel had striven for but had failed to makes history, arrives at self-consciousness after the historical achieve in a concrete form. And, on the other hand the corpse movement has been completed. The philosopher's role in historyof the written system remained for the scavenging philologists and is thus limited to this subsequent consciousness, for the real tem-makers to feast movement is executed unconsciously by the absolute spirit. It is at reality itself that Hegel and Marx part company. Thus the philosopher arrives post festum. "Hegel, then, permits Hegel was unable to penetrate to the real driving forces of history absolute spirit qua absolute spirit to make history only in Partly because these forces were not yet fully visible when he For, as absolute spirit does not appear in the mind of the philosopher in the shape of the creative world-spirit created his system. In consequence he was forced to regard the until after the event. it follows that it makes history only in the ople and their consciousness as the true bearers of historical olution. But he did not discern their real nature because of the consciousness, the opinions and the ideas of the heterogeneous composition of that consciousness. So he mythol- only in the speculative imagination. "Hegel's conceptual mytho- gised it into the 'spirit of the people' But in part he remained logy has been definitively eliminated by the critical activity of imprisoned in the Platonic and Kantian outlook, in the duality the young Marx. of thought and being, of form and matter, notwithstanding his It is. however, not accidental that Marx achieved 'self-under very energetic efforts to break out. Even though he was the first
RTHODOX MARXISM 18 HISTORY AND CONSCIOUSNESS to discover the meaning of concrete totality, and even though ere theory and become a of only when thought was constantly bent upon overcoming every kind re of existence stands revealed as a social process can exist- abstraction, matter still remained tainted for him with the e seen as the product, albeit the hitherto unconscious stain of the specific'(and here he was very much the Platonist product, of human activity. This activity will be seen in its turn These contradictory and conflicting tendencies could not be as the element crucial for the transformation of existence, Man clarified within his system. They are often juxtaposed, unmediated, finds himself confronted by purely natural relations or social contradictory and unreconciled. In consequence, the ultimate forms mystified into natural relations. They appear to be fixed parent) synthesis had perforce to turn to the past rather than mplete and immutable entities which can be manipulated and the future 2s It is no wonder that from very early on bourgeois even comprehended, but never overthrown. But also this situation science chose to dwell on these aspects of Hegel. As a result the creates the possibility of praxis in the individual consciousness. even lor a y core of his thought became almost totally obscure raxis becomes the form of action appropriate to the isolated individual, it becomes his ethics. Feuerbach's attempt to supersede A conceptual mythology always points to the failure to under- Hegel foundered on this reef: like the German idealists, and to a stand a fundamental condition of human existence, one whose much greater extent than Hegel, he stopped short at the isolat effects cannot be warded off. This failure to penetrate the object ndividual of civil society is expressed intellectually in terms of transcendental forces which Marx urged us to understandthe sensuous world,, the object, construct and shape reality, the relations between objects, our reality, as human sensuous activity. 3 This means that man mus relations with them and their transformations in the course of history in a mythological fashion. By recognising that"the produc the subject and object of the socio-historical process. In feudal tion and reproduction of real life(is) in the last resort the decisive society man could not yet see himself as a social being because factor in history", 29 Marx and Engels gained a vantage point his social relations were still mainly natural. Society was far too from which they could settle accounts with all mythologie. unorganised and had far too little control over the totality of Hegel s absolute spirit was the last of these grandiose mythology relations between men for it to appear to consciousness as the cal schemes. It already cont the totality and its movemen ality of man.(The question of the structure and unity of feudal even though it was unaware of its real character. Thus in historic ociety cannot be considered in any detail here. )B materialism reason"which has always existed though not always society carried out the process of socialising society. in a rational form",a0 achieved that rational form by discovering destroyed both the spatio-temporal barriers between different its real substratum, the basis from which human life will really be inds and territories and also the legal partitions between the able to become conscious of itself. This completed the progran different 'estates'(Stande). In its universe there is a formal of Hegel's philosophy of history, even though at the cost of the equality for all men; the economic relations that directly deter destruction of his system. In contrast to nature in which, as Hegel mined the metabolic exchange between men and nature emphasises, 1 "change goes in a circle, repeating the same ty social being. Society becomes the reality for man. ively disappear Man becomes, in the true sense of the word, Thus the recognition that society is reality becomes possible only under capitalism, in bourgeois society. But the class which carried out this revolution did so without consciousness of its 5 nction; the social forces it unleashed, the very forces that The of al materialism is, we recall:"It is not rried it to supremacy seemed to be opposed to it like a second their existence but on the ture, but a more soulless, impenetrable nature than feudal tence that determines their conscious- ver was a3 It was necessary for the proletariat to be born for socia nes” only in the etched above can this premis reality to become fully conscious. The reason for this is that the
THAT IS ORTHODOX MARXISM 19 18 HISTORY AND CLASs to discover the meaning of concrete totality, and even though his beyond mere theory and become a question of praxis. On ought was constantly bent upon overcoming every kind of e core of existence stands revealed as a social process can exist- ence be seen as the product, albeit the hitherto unconscious abstraction, matte stain of the specific'(and here he was very much the Platonist) product, of human activity. This activity will be seen in its turn These contradictory and conflicting tendenc the element crucial for the transformation of existence. Man finds himself confronted by purely natural relations or social contradictory and unreconciled. In consequer forms mystified into natural relations. They appear to be fixed (apparent )synthesis had perforce to turn to the past rather than plete and immutable entities which can be manipulated and the future s It is no wonder that from very early on bourgeois even comprehended, but never overthrown. But also this situation of he rel. as a result the creates the possibility of praxis in the individual consciousnes evolutionary core of his thought became almost totally obscure Praxis becomes the form of action appropriate to the isolated individual, it becomes his ethics. Feuerbach' s attempt to supersede A conceptual mythology always points to the failure to und Hegel foundered on this reef: like the German idealists, and t fects cannot be warded off. This failure to penetrate the object is expressed intellectually in terms of transcendental for Marx urged us to understand"the sensuous world, the object, construct and shape reality, the relations between objects, our elations with them and their transformations in the course become conscious of himself as a so lological fashion. By recognising that"the prod the subject and object of the socio-h m加 tion and reproduction of real life(is) in the last resort the decisive society man could not yet see himself as a social being because d a vantage point his social relations were still mainly natural, Society was far from which they could settle accounts with all mythologies. organised and had far too little control over the totality Hegel's absolute spirit was the last of these grandiose mythologi- lations between men for it to consciousness al schemes, It already contained the totality and its movement reality of man. The question of the structure ar even though it wa ware of its real character. Thus in historical society cannot be considered in any detail here. )Bourgeois aterialism reason"which ys existed though not always ociety carried out the process of socialising society. Capitalism in a rational form,30 achieved that rational form by discovering emporal barriers between different its real substratum, the basis from which human life will really ands and territories and also the legal partitions between the able to become conscious of itself. This completed the p ost of the different en'(Stande). In its universe there is a formal shy of history, even though at the destruction of his system. In contrast to nature in which, as Hegel mined the metabolic exchange between men and nature progres change in history takes place"in the concept a he same thing disappear. Man becomes, in the true sense of the word,a social being. Socicty becomes the reality for man. surface. It is the concept itself which is corrected. Thus the recognition that society is reality becomes possible only unde carried out this revolution did so without consciousness of its function; the social forces it unleashed, the very forces the The premise of dialectical materialism is, we recall: "It is not med to be opposed to it like a second hat determines their existence, but on the Bnieary their social existence that determines their conscious- impenetrable nature than feudalism ever was a It was necessary for the proletariat to be born for social xt sketched above can thi reality to become ful scious. The this is that th