The Social-Epoch ---------------- Comrade Mark, To continue my reply to your first post of 25th April, I take the second of the three issues contained therein, namely your definition of the 'epoch' you state:
"Anyway, let me begin to attempt to make a point or two in response to your replies. First, allow me to define "epoch" - It has several meanings in how it can be used. It is "an event or a time marked by an event that begins a new period of development; a memorable event or date; an extended period of time usu. characterized by a distinctive development or by a memorable series of events; an instant of time or a date selected as a point of reference. One of the concepts of epoch is that it is an indefinite period of time. Since there is no "definite period of time" equated to an epoch but rather it being, in the case of historical Russian capitalism, a historical period of time that was marked by a series of events that led to a new and distinctive development of fuedalism to capitalism, it is irrelevant that capitalism only lasted only 8 months as you say. I consider this point of view abstract. My view is that the epoch of capitalism is not just relevant to Russia, so the epoch of capitalism has been around much longer but as it relates to Russia, the epoch of capitalism in Russia was of course a short period of time which is why the reference to "backward capitalism" as it never fully developed into an advanced state of the mode of capitalist production." end of quote. You are absolutely correct comrade, the term epoch can be defined in any way that you extracted from a bourgeois dictionary even though they consider it applies to: "an event or a time marked by an event that begins a new period of development; a memorable event or date; an extended period of time usu. characterized by a distinctive development or by a memorable series of events; an instant of time or a date selected as a point of reference." But since the bourgeoisie do not have and even reject the scientific approach to the history of society, how could they even begin to 'define' the 'social epoch' as Marx has done? Since we are concerned with the 'social' epoch The last place one should look for a definition of the 'social-epoch'is in bourgeois sources. Marxism, very clearly and with great emphasis, places great importance on defining each epoch in the development of society. Each social epoch is identifiable and clearly defined, as Marx explained in his 'formulations': "In the Social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces of production. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society-the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness." And further: "In broad outlines Asiatic, ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs in the economic formation of society." Marx's 'Preface to critic. of Political Economy' There is nothing "indefinite" in the Marxist description of these historical periods of mankinds history, the social-epochs; they are identified by the relations of production that correspond to "the stage of development of the of their material forces of production" that together form a particular mode of production. The Marxist approach to the question does not treat the social-epoch in an arbitrary, indefinite way such as is suggested by the bourgeois definition. Marxism takes a given "economic formation of society" identified by its mode of production as part of a living process of transformation through the several stages of development of society each of these "designated" social-epochs come into being and and goes out of being like any living process in nature, a dialectical process where the old economic formation gives way to the new through a gradual quantitative process of development and then the sudden qualitative change. The first thing to understand is that a given epoch is the description given when viewing the world at a given time, identifying the dominant aspect in the struggle between the old and the new economic formation on a global scale. The dominant economic formation colours tha global scene, giving the world its global, its particular economic characteristic, hence the term, a social-epoch, is valid in relation to the dominant mode of production existing in the world at any given time. Now it will be understood that for the new economic formation, the new mode of production, to reach the position where it replaces the old dominant economic world order, with its own dominant political and economic characteristics on a global scale; thus establishing the new and higher social-epoch where it is accepted that society has passed to the new higher epoch of social development. There is the quantitative development that leads to this transformation to a new quality in the world economic order. This too must be understood in relation to the Qualitative change to a new social-epoch in the world as described above. All things in nature have a beginning and an end, social-epochs are no exception and since quantitative growth must precede qualitative change then if we are to understand the Marxist conception of the transition of the world from one social-epoch to the next higher in successive progression then we must accept that the first quantitative change in the world order from the lower to the higher social-epoch is the establishment of the *first* state established on the basis of the new "economic formation" of society. >From this point on, as more new states emerges to strengthen the challenge to the old economic formation, then, the closer the world comes to a leap in the global appearance of society from the lower to the higher, becoming dominant and the more rapidly by economic development and compulsion, transforming the world to the new epoch of social development. >From this understanding of the social-epoch and its development from the lower to the higher, we recognise the social-epoch as a description of the global content of society based on the dominant aspect in the struggle between the old and new order. At the same time it highlights the role of the *state* in the transition of society from the old to the new epoch, At present the world is sructured economically and politically on the capitalist nation state in its dominant and final imperialist stage. To return, comrade Mark, to Russia before February 1917, it was still a feudal state, the feudal state machinery was still in place, it was only after the Feb. 1917 revolution that it can be truly said that Russia was a capitalist state and in the bourgeois process of establishing its class dictatorship through the state; it was then that Russia had entered the epoch of capitalism in the true Marxist sense of state and revolution. To consider that Russia was a capitalist state before then, contradicts the essence of Marxism, it serves the bourgeois trend in our movement to consider that Russia had entered the epoch of capitalism before Feb 1917. That Russia had entered the epoch of capitalism while still under the feudal state. Such a view negates the role of the state and revolution. Lenin described the quantitative development of capitalism in the womb of feudal Russia as is well known, a development that made the qualitative change in the state inevitable. This is how I view the subject of epoch in its relation to the development of society, the social-epoch. You quoted Marx and Engels saying: "I draw your attention, in particular, to the sentance in which Marx and Engels emphatically state, "Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie...." Remember, this is 1848 and the epoch of the bourgeoisie is in existence! " I am well aware of Marx's understanding and recognition of the epoch of capitalism, as being the true reflection of the dominant aspect of society in the world in 1848. This, in spite of the fact that he was living in a feudal state, one of the 36 German feudal states that were approaching their bourgeois national-democratic revolution in the effort to enter the epoch of capitalism as a united capitalist Germany. They were also aware of neighboring Russia, still a vast feudal imperial state but of course they recognised the new and already dominant aspect that was transforming the world in 1848. In my next post I will reply to your assertion among others, that I negate the dialectical premise that Russia was an emerging capitalist state. Fraternally Alan. _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
