we have already noted, Marx does speak in terns that would suggest that the revolution is a fore-gone conclusion. He anticipates, as we said before, that both the objective and subjective conditions of the
revolution will occur (and have in fact occurred) simultaneously under bourgeois capitalism. In spite of this, Avineri raises the question of whether the awakening of the revolutionary consciousness in the pro letariat is indeed inevitable, given the objective conditions. He argues that such a question takes us back once again to the problem
92
of "determinism versus voluntarism.” He adds, that in his view this dilemma is transcended by the dialectical nature of the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat. However, he insists that, instead of providing any guarantee concerning the success of the revolution prior to its occurrence or simply assuming a priori that the revolution will
93
succeed, Marx "only indicates its possibilities historically,"" That is, he indicates that the revolution will occur provided that there is a unity of theory and praxis , of the subjective and objective conditions
in history, Avineri sums up his argument thus;
If a revolutionary consciousness exists, then the revolution is bound to happen. The activist and practical elements of this consciousness imply that circumstances will change with the self-change of the proletariat. In other words, under these conditions the revolution is already taking place. If, on the other hand, such a consciousness is lacking, then the revolution lacks its main impulse and is stillborn. If the proletariat has self-consciousness, it will sustain the revolution. Its self-consciousness is already a major component of the revolutionary situation. If, however, the proletariat is still unaware of its own historical position, if it does not possess an adequate world view, then the
objective conditions by themselves will not create the revolu tion until and unless the proletariat grasps that by shaping its own view of the world it also changes it. 94
Thus, since the proletarian revolution is a contingent revolution, then, as Avineri explains, Marx is not concerned primarily with predicting
the inevitability of the revolution without paying regard to the nature and state of the revolutionary forces in history.
This interpretation of Marx is of special significance for our analysis of Marx's teaching about the historical inevitability of the revolution precisely because it raises the following questions; Will the proletariat really possess such a consciousness? If they do not, and, consequently, the revolution remains in the womb of history or is stillborn, do they still qualify for the title "proletariat" in the Marxian sense? Given that the capitalist class will not be able to
go beyond a certain point in preventing the revolution, and that "sin" is nothing more or less than historical alienation which man will ultimately transcend, who will ultimately bear the blame and responsi bility for the failure of theory and praxis to unite? Furthermore, what if men like Marx and Engels from the bourgeois class, or, more accurately, the bourgeois intelligentsia, are possessed of a messianic consciousness, but obviously are not the most deprived and dehumanized people in the world, do they qualify for the description "proletariat "?
In the latter case (as well as in the former) the question might be raised as to whether the "objective" conditions actually do obtain in either society, or not.
The proletarian revolution has not occurred as yet; it remains eschatological. Consequently the questions above remain rhetorical. However, they are critical, not only for an historical appraisal of Ma r x ’s "predictions", but also for a realistic and honest appraisal of all "revolutions" which are in one way or another connected with Marx's philosophy. All too often "revolutions" which were ostensibly
have
advocated and enacted on behalf of the "proletariat"/resuited in a state of oppression against man. While in some instances such failure leads to cynicism, disenchantment, and even despair, in others it stirs the utopian zeal to lead the "true proletarian revolution". In short, M a r x ’s "proletarian soteriology" continues to entice both proletarian worker and bourgeois revolutionary, self-styled or real.
E.
Marx and Engels - Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
Until now we have dealt with the "pre-capitalist economic formar- tions" and the development of communism from "crude communism" to positive, emancipating communism, as "separate" movements in history leading to the birth of bourgeois capitalism and as arising out of and abolishing capitalism totally, respectively. Such a separation is chronologically necessary since they occur in two different time periods: pre- and post-capitalist. However, they are bound together in an inseparable unity since their movement is dialectical. By this
107.
is meant the actual movement in history of one "mode" out of the one immediately preceding it which contained the necessary ingredients in its womb. Of course, from Ma r x ’s standpoint these "modes” are to be understood in terms of their socio-economic bases from which all
superstructures are dialectically derived. Dialectic also involves negation, for what comes out of it is something new and different from
95
its immediate precursor. ^ Nevertheless, an essential unity exists between the two modes. This negation, for Marx, borrowing from the
Hegelian dialectic, is the negation of the negation: the negation of all that negates man as authentic being, that which alienates man making him- a
mere thing, ^
This dialectical conception of reality - real, material, sensuous reality - is the primary argument used in support of the view that Marx was no determinist, be it teleological, economic, materialist, techno-
97
logical or mechanical. As Avineri explains:
Marx’s approach to communism demonstrates his belief that the crystallization of socialist forms of society cannot be achieved through a deterministic teleology, but grows out of the causal analysis of existing social forces. If communism cannot be understood otherwise than by its emergence from capitalist society, then the study of capitalism provides the best means to comprehend the development that will ultimately bring communism about. Moreover the emergence
of communism from the womb of capitalist society draws attention to the dialectical relationship between the two societies. The possibility for a development in the direc tion of communism thus depends on a prior development of capitalism, 93
It was noted earlier that, according to Marx, this dialectical relation ship between capitalism and communism also characterized the emergence of capitalism from its "pre-capitalist economic formations". Avineri concludes that "communism is nothing else than the dialectical abolition of those hidden potentialities which could not have been historically
99
interpretation does in fact take note of Marx's implicit assertion, in the Communist Manifesto, that "what the bourgeoisie produces is above all its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. ” 100 Commenting on this passage, Avineri says, "Capitalism thus creates urges that it cannot itself satisfy and it is in this sense that Marx refers to its digging its
101
own grave," It would be instructive for our purpose to examine in some detail the attempts by scholars to interpret Marx's ."dialectic" in light of the apparent controversy concerning the "inevitability"
with
of communism. We shall concern ourselves/the works of two scholars: William Shaw and Eertell Oilman,
In one of the most recent studies on Marx's theory of history, William H, Shaw declares his intention "to champion a technological-
102
determinist interpretation" in his- work. This interpretation, he explains further, "credits the forces of production with the determining
103
role in history," Finally, he attempts "to illuminate more precisely the primacy of the productive forces and their explanatory role within historical materialism. " 104 At first glance it would appear that Shaw's exposition of the foregoing purpose would be better placed under our discussion of Marx's materialist conception of reality. This conclusion follows the obvious concern of the writer with the
primacy of the productive forces over all other forces in the historical movement of man and society. According to Shaw, "Marx believes that
the introduction of new relations of production is contingent on the development of the productive forces in a way in which those forces
105
are not dependent on the relations," Shaw..adds that Marx was convinced that "without a sufficient level of productivity, communal production relations would only result in stagnation and decline in
109.
in the mode of production - from which class distinctions would re- 106
emerge,” In anticipation of criticism of this Marxian hypothesis, Shaw states furthers
A critic, even if he accepted this, might argue that given an adequate high level of the productive forces, certain supers true tural elements are still necessary for a change in production relations. In a sense Marx would agree with this, but he avers that the presence of those other factors stem from the existence of the new productive forces. The emergence of these forces (and, one supposes, m en’s
consciousness of this) both stimulates and makes possible the introduction of new relations of production, 107
But the conclusion that Shaw was concerned with Marx* s- materialist conception of history, does not rule out the possibility of his discussion of the dynamic change that Marx sees occurring in man,
108