-
The Second Communist
Manifesto (A.B. Razlatzki)
-
 Introduction
for Western and World Readers
-
Introduction
(1999)
-
Foreword
-
-
Part
I: Bourgeois and Proletarian
-
-
Part
II: Proletariat - Boss
-
-
Part
III: The Crisis of the Workers Movement
-
-
Part
IV: Proletarian Dictatorship & Proletarian Democracy
-
-
Part
V: Classes and the Struggle for Socialism
USA,
Socialism, Us...
State
Imperialism Should be Distinguished from Economic Imperialism
Notes in the Margins of History
Turbulence
in Social Development and the Stratification of the Superstructure
|
Turbulence in Social Development and the Stratification of the Superstructure
A.B. Razlatsky
From a general point of view, history presents itself as a precise sequence
of social-economic formations which succeed one another. This sequence,
it would seem, is so obvious, so far beyond doubt, that, in considering
any state from any specific historical period, indicating its precise position
in this sequence would pose no difficulty.
However, anyone studying the concrete history knows that this is far
from the case. Detailed investigation at once reveals that in those states
which from time immemorial have been considered as slave owning states,
those states on the basis of which slave-ownership was studied and described,
in those very states, the slave owner's production methods did not play
a decisive role! Moreover, having clearly pinned a specific period to this
scale of social formations, it is revealed that the preceding period, no
less clearly belongs to a later, higher region of the scale. This is a
source of much confusion. It is no accident that even the most conscientious
and thoughtful investigators, confronted with such facts, either openly
place historical materialism, with its theory of the transformation of
one formation into another, in doubt, or cautiously evade a historical
materialist interpretation of the material under investigation. This situation
is not only to be found among the obvious, but also among the thoroughly
camouflaged vulgarizers. Without a moments hesitation they will distort
the historical data, squeezing them, by means of ready lies, into the scale
which itself remains beyond doubt.
The vulgarizers are wrong. Historical materialism is correct. But, what
is perhaps more surprising, is that those who have doubts about it are
far closer to the truth and to historical materialism, than those who are
afraid to retreat even one step from it.
Above all, the point is that historical materialism and specific historical
research are categorically, in principle, on incomparable scales. And there
is a real reason for this incomparability. That which at the highest level
of generalization appears to be a monotone (in the mathematical sense[1])
forward movement from formation to formation, appears, when considered
in detail, to be composed of altogether fantastic patterns. So, a long
chain can be considered to be a line and its sag can be described by a
mathematical formula, that of the catenary curve; but will we find any
expression of this conformity to law if we study a specific link in the
chain, or even just as small piece of such a link?
Speaking more precisely, the flow of history is not linear, not laminar[2],
but has a turbulent character; that is, while preserving its general direction,
it is composed of vortices[3], within which the motion
can go off at an angle, and even backwards.
In other words, for example, if we consider humanity's most remote past,
then finding itself in difficult conditions, let us say for climatic or
other reasons, that tribe or gens survived which was able to raise itself
to a higher level of organization, which found itself in a position to
master a more complicated form of cooperation. But, having lived through
the hard times, or, at the end of a migration, having arrived in a territory
more favourable for existence, such a tribe or gens lost the need to exert
themselves in order to maintain the higher organization, and returned to
the earlier, primitive organizational forms. And such spurts of development
recurred repeatedly until such time as, on the one hand, external conditions
compelled the tribe to consolidate the higher organizational forms, and
on the other hand, the experience of cooperation was accumulated within
the framework of such forms. Or rather, even the consolidation of the higher
forms over an extended period did not secure their stability, for with
the improvement of the conditions of existence they again disintegrated.
It was necessary for a definite stablization of conditions for an entire
region, for the aboriginal population, and even the presence of a tendency
for conditions to deteriorate, in order that the higher organizational
forms could become stable, and thereupon might be transformed into ever
higher organizational forms.
Population growth serves as a natural source of the tendency for the
conditions of existence to deteriorate, for the necessity to divide the
natural wealth among an increasing number of consumers. This is the most
important cause of the development of organizational forms. But, obviously,
it is not merely a cause but also a condition of such development. In any
case, for the realization of such higher forms, a certain minimum, we might
say a critical mass, of individuals is required. And, the higher the organizational
form, the larger the critical mass required for its existence. Consequently,
an altogether crucial role in social processes is played by simple population
growth, by the concentration of population in a particular area.
Another historically important factor consists in the fact that the
transition to a new organizational level is always tied to the mastery
of the elements of new, more effective, production methods which permit
the increase of the quantity of material goods, and so too the improvement
of the conditions of existence. But this improvement of conditions, in
its turn, produces a tendency toward disintegration of the newly achieved
forms, stimulating a return to previous, less developed relations.
In this way, the tendency toward degradation appears to be an attribute
of development itself. However, the elements of relations formed in the
development phase, do not disappear; they loose support through degradation,
but are maintained as cultural elements. They become imbued with a more
mystical, ritualistic meaning; destined in their own time for victory over
extraordinary difficulties, they later serve as mysterious remedies which
are used as a sort of ritual method for preparing for and overcoming minor
difficulties. In this form, they can be handed down from generation to
generation. This is the experience, which in conditions demanding a new
elevation, a new complexity of organization, permits this raising, this
jumping over the level of earlier achievements. In addition, in periods
of degradation, a synthesis of forms, inherited from various preceding
developments, may take place. This is the result of more complicated forms,
which when necessary can accommodate a more complicated content.
If, from a slaveholding society it was possible only to return to the
primeval condition, then higher forms were richer in this respect, in that,
for them, it was possible to return to any of the preceding forms. Profound
degradation may occur as a consequence of essential changes, pandemics,
climatic shock and so forth. As a result social formations from a lower
level may arise; however, within their cultural elements they maintain
a place for developments from times gone by. So, for example, within communal
social formations, the presence of collective agriculture provides evidence
of the previous achievement of the form of slave ownership; and individual,
family agriculture is evidence of past feudal forms that have been outlived.
However, in general, all the variation in cultural forms, appearing as
echos of of a past social elevation, still remain open for investigation
and clarification.
Now we must turn our attention once again to one of the particularities
of organizational structure, arising in the course of the development of
human society. The fundamental relations, characterizing the level of social
development are the relations between the class of immediate producers
and the ruling class. However, the ruling class itself may have quite a
complicated organization.
The point is that the new relations arising below supplant the previous
relations above, in the higher social layers. So in the slave holding period,
relations between the slave holders themselves retained the character of
all the various forms of the primeval relations. These too developed, and
the limit of their development is given by the level of relations of the
lower strata. That is, for example, relations amongst slave owners could
themselves take on the form of slave relations.
With the appearance of feudal relations, slave relations were reproduced
at a higher level. Whereas at higher levels still, relations similar to
the primeval could be maintained. Such a translocation or displacement
of relations is itself a process which accompanies the development of society
uninterruptedly.
In this sense, we have a right to consider the relations between the
immediate producers and the ruling class as fundamental; for as all the
superseded forms of relations in the superstructure are translocated, they
somehow stratify the superstructure into definite layers, clearly retaining
the characteristics of fundamental forms which had been superseded earlier,
and the higher up, the older the forms.
These relations, the stratification of the superstructure are subject
to the same historical law as
are the fundamental relations, that is they
are able to change, to develop and to degrade.
We have noted that periods of great social revolution transform the
fundamental relations into higher ones. However in history there are well
known examples of social cataclysms of a lesser scale which somehow fail
to bring about change in social relations. In actual fact this is wrong.
If changes in the fundamental relations do not result from revolutionary
events, this, as a rule, signifies that the revolutionary process confined
itself to changing relations in one or a number of the stratified layers
of the superstructure. But, as in the case of the fundamental relations,
this does not signify a final consolidation of the new stratification;
that is, afterwards, the processes of degradation are a real possibility,
turning the superstructure back to older and more backward structures.
Based on one and the same fundamental relations, the superstructure
can be stratified differently, expressing various historical paths along
which society can come into being, subject however to the condition that
the older the form, the higher the level of the layer in the superstructure
within which it is maintained.
That, in the course of great social revolutions, signifying a change
of formations, the superstructure suffers a radical rupture, does not mean
that the stratification of the superstructure has changed in a radical
fashion. However, it may, as a result, loose its upper layer, and must
gain a lower layer, corresponding to the fundamental relations of the past,
although this may not happen all at once.
Naturally, as the processes of development and degradation of social
organizations unfold over time, the presence of a multilayered stratification
of the superstructure greatly complicates the social picture of any society
which has actually existed in history and gives rise to numberless variations
in the real historical form which come into collision with concrete historical
investigation. But it is important to realize that it is precisely this
complexity and variation which is comprehended by the Marxist theory of
formations when considered at a scale comparable to the specific historical
investigation.
Historical materialism gives a broad picture of the movement of formations,
this permits the specific historian to attribute this or that event to
a definite epoch. But especially with events taking place at the boundary
of an epoch one should be extremely cautious, since from them a progressive
transformation to a more perfect form is not inevitable, degradation and
return to a preceding epoch is almost as likely.
The study of relations within the superstructure, in general ought to
correspond to the epoch, but only if account is taken of its stratification
since corresponding layers of the superstructure can retain a place for
the most ancient relations.
[1] In the mathematical sense, a monotone forward
movement is one which always goes forward and never goes back.
[2] A term from fluid dynamics denoting a smooth,
streamline flow.
[3] A whirlpool or eddy |
