CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY: A Review of Themes, Concepts, and Perspectives (Part I) Mathieu Deflem
Deflem@gwm.sc.edu
www.mathieudeflem.netThis edition, January 1999.
This is Part One on:..Karl Marx..Max Weber Click here to go to Part Two on: Durkheim, Simmel, and Mead
.
KARL MARX (1818-1883): HISTORICAL
MATERIALISM AND THE CRITIQUE OF CAPITALISMLiterature:
(1843) On Hegel’s Philosophy of Rights
(1843) On the Jewish Question
(1844) Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts
(1846) The German Ideology
(1848) Manifesto of the Communist Party
(1867) Capital
(1878) Anti-Duhring (by Engels)
A. The Foundations of Historical Materialism 1. The Critique of Hegel and Feuerbach
a) The Critique of Hegel
The development of Marx’s approach to society can best be understood out of his critique on Hegel. While initially attracted to Hegel, Marx did not accept Hegel’s idealism, nl. that the state would precede the individual. Marx asserts that civil society, that is, the material, economic conditions under which men live, determine what type of state will develop. People are concrete, the state is an abstraction, i.e. the state originates in man but has come to lead a life of its own and puts itself above man. For instance, the democratic constitution only appears as a product of free men celebrating liberty and freedom, while in fact it is the socio-economic existence of society that determines the state. Likewise, man makes his religion (not the other way around): religion is the opium of the people, the people created it and they have become victims of their own creation (precisely because they do not see that it is their own creation).
Note that Marx states that once humans became conscious of the reality behind their social interactions, they would be able to make the changes necessary to create the society they wanted. Marx proposes that it is only through people’s real existence that social structures such as the state are created. All of this is quite Hegelian, but because Hegel mixed up of what is real (the state instead of individual man) and what is created (man instead of the state and society), his followers are unable to envision the concrete, real changes necessary for the abolition of exploitation. Marx envisions these changes coming about once people recognize that the social structures are humanity’s creations: "Hegel starts from an unreal antithesis and therefore achieves only an imaginary identity which is in truth again a contradictory identity." What is positive about Hegel is his conception of history as being essentially a process of different opposing trends (dialectics), a constant motion of movements and counter-movements. But this should be captured not in terms of the realization of a Spirit, but in terms of the material infrastructure (the social and economic conditions of man).
Note, as Giddens states, that the early Marx is directed at overcoming the alienation between the individual and the political community. The state is still the number one enemy, and the reform of human consciousness the goal (as Feuerbach had stated). But from then on, critique will no longer be enough to Marx: abstract negation is irrelevant to the real demands, i.e. the demands embodied in the proletariat. The proletariat embodies capitalism’s contradictions, and, therefore, its emancipation will liberate the whole of society.
b) The Critique of Feuerbach
Marx partly agrees with Feuerbach’s critique of Hegel. Marx shares with Feuerbach the view that idealist philosophy and religion are but creations of man. All existing philosophies should be criticized from this perspective: philosophy does not determine life, on the contrary, existence determines thoughts, ideology, philosophy. But Marx cannot agree with Feuerbach’s abstract notion of materialism: Feuerbach sees the materialist conditions as something eternal, abstract, unchangeable (which can only be revealed by the philosopher, standing outside and above it all). Marx will on the contrary show that these conditions have a particular history, the development of which can be historically traced and explained. Philosophy should be philosophy with a practical intent, with political motives: theory and praxis have to come together in order not just to think, but also to change the world (note: here also fits in Marx rejection of the abstract ideals of the French revolution with its egoistic man and abstract reason concept, and his critique of utopianism and anarchism).
2. The Early Marx: The Perspective of the Dehumanization of Man’s Real Existence
a) On the Jewish Question
It is not Judaism as a religion that Marx criticizes (contrary to Bauer). Religion is but a construct of man. But what determines this type of religion, that is what matters. Here Marx finds the socio-economic relations of ‘man’ of significant importance: man as a species-being is what matters, that is, the relations to other men and their collective existence based on universal needs.
Indeed, the competition between, and domination by, religious groups can only be overcome when people see themselves first as citizens. Once this is done, religion will fall away. Marx sees religion and God as constructs of man rather than man as the creation of God. Once man sees the error of his beliefs and realizes he no longer needs religion, it will fall away as an institution. Then, states Marx, man will be freed from egoistic concerns to become a `species-being’, one equally concerned with the needs of man in general, to himself in particular, recognizing that his own well being is inextricably tied with that of all. Marx asserts that the rights which the emerging democratic states of France and the North American states proposed as the universal rights of man (equality, liberty, security and property) are to be criticized because they relate only to men as individuals (human rights are egoistic rights), which do not take into account the universal needs of all. Throughout this discussion, Marx makes a distinction between man as citizen and man as egoistic man, the difference between the recognition that man is an integral part of the larger whole, i.e. civil society, and that he is only concerned with his own needs, as legitimated in the state.
Therefore, Judaism should not be criticized because of its religious intent, but because it refers to a particular type of economic organization, nl. one based on the accumulation of money and driven by greed. Judaism has a criticizable profane basis: it involves the accumulation of wealth. Note that this is the reason why Marx hardly discusses religion anymore in his later writings; religion will simply fall away once the economic conditions will have changed; the mature philosopher should therefore exclusively focus on those material conditions. In his critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Rights, for instance, Marx states that man makes religion, not the other way around. Once man abolishes religion by recognizing that he has created it and no longer needs it, the illusory happiness of man (based in the `other world’ of religion) will be replaced with real human happiness, attainable here and now. "The critique of religion ends with the doctrine that man is the supreme being for man."
Now, at this stage, the problem for Marx is to explain what is so bad about the accumulation of wealth. He does this by means of an analysis of alienation.
b) The Concept of Alienation
Marx starts with man’s real existence in capitalist societies, and finds that as a wage-laborer man is estranged, confronted with different types of alienation and objectification. In modern times, many of man’s own creations have started to lead a life of their own, they are thing-like objects, that seem to be above man, lead an objective life. Actually, however, a false ideology holds that man originated from them, though it is the other way around: the world is not the way man wants it to be, but man is caught up in a world that determines how things are thought to be and/or should be (see Manuscripts).
Note that the concept of alienation, as discussed in Manuscripts, already moves towards the materialist theory of capitalism (see below). The next part explains the lessons that Marx draws out of these analyses for his approach to society.
B. The Approach of Historical Materialism
1. From Alienation to Capitalism
a) The Manuscripts
In the Philosophical and Economic Manuscripts, which constitutes in many ways a draft of his work Capital, Marx merges the alienation perspective with a critique of capitalism. The problem of alienation will now be explained, it must cease to be a philosophical term.
The types of alienation: 1) man is alienated from the product of his labor: the product, under conditions of the division of labor and in the world of the "free" market of exchange, does not belong to the producer of that product; 2) the labor itself is alienating to man; the production activity appears as a meaningless fraction in the division of labor; 3) man also alienates from his social existence, all relations with other men are commodified, social relations are determined by their utility, in function of money; 4) man, in the end, also alienates from himself; he has himself become a commodity; he is no longer a species-being, but he sells his labor; wage-labor is alienated labor.
Capitalism works differently for wage-laborers; it is asymmetrical. Private property, and money as the over-powering fuel in the engine of capitalism, the "supreme" good, is both the product of estranged labor and the means by which labor alienates itself (note that, according to Marx, the workers of the Silesian uprising were directed at abolishing private property). Machine labor also contributes to this dehumanization, by putting the worker at a senseless machine from which the capitalist extracts the fruits. The worker has a large amount of capital but little, if any, humanity. There is, states Marx, no equilibrium point at which supply and demand can be in balance (see below on money). It is the specific historical form of capitalism which is the cause of alienation, not economy as such: capitalism makes the worker the slave of the object.
Marx here drops the word democracy for communism. Emancipation of the worker from estranged labor can only lie in communism as the abolition of private property, leading to universal emancipation. Communism is the positive expression of the abolition of private property. Then wealth will belong to the entire community. Communism is real and concerned with action (towards nature). The proletariat is private property’s opposite. In communism, the proletariat will abolish itself, it is compelled to establish its own liberation. Man will then be truly man; communism will re-establish the real individuality of man.
b) The Study of Capitalism
1) The core of the problem in capitalist societies is private property, which should be studied scientifically. What is the real underlying nature of the contradictions of capitalism, what are its inner laws? Here Marx criticizes the political economy where economic relations are only studied in their presumed functions, as if the whole matter is a natural one. Marx on the contrary will put emphasis on how the capitalist economy came about, how it was created by man (man being after all essentially a homo laborans, productive man). Man’s relation with nature is what matters in the first instance and which gets ‘distorted’ (cf. division of labor).
2) The division of labor leads to class antagonisms: the basic contradictions of capitalism refer to an antagonism between two different classes (proletariat and bourgeoisie) in a relation of domination. Crises in capitalism demonstrate this (example of Silesian uprising).
3) The contradictions cannot be overcome because they are inherent to the capitalist system: in the end, capitalism will destroy itself. The contradictions cannot be avoided and result in their final outcome, nl. the abolition of the class antagonism, the revolution of the proletariat (as a consequence of capitalism itself), and the eventual reign of communism.
In sum, the basic assumptions of the approach are: a) the history of society should be seen as a process of conditioned creation, and b) what are these conditions? That becomes Marx basic question (whereas in the earlier period he considered more the outcome, from the perspective of man, as a dehumanization process). So, Marx goes to search for the material conditions of capitalism. (note: does Marx go deeper into his mode of analysis as an attempt to explain the underlying factors of alienation?, or does this imply a change of perspective, nl. from the point of view of concrete man and de-humanization to the structural perspective).
2. The Basics of Capitalism
a) The Division of labor
The basic element in capitalism, according to Marx, is the division of labor, that can take on different directions (note that Marx can only post facto determine where an evolution will lead to in any particular society, since many different conditions have to be fulfilled; cf. ancient society of Rome did not lead to full development of capitalism, but to its own self-destruction, and history is after all a dialectic process, the result of many, often opposing trends). Historical materialism is essentially conceived under the heading of motion and opposition.
(Theoretical note: cf. Engels says that economy is not the only determinant element, but always a necessary one; religion, law, etc. do matter but only under the influence of the economy; likewise, free will does matter but only as part of the collective result).
b) The German Ideology
The German Ideology is Marx’s first work in his mature period since it contains the first explicit statements on the materialist thesis. The material core of a society is the capitalist economy (production/exchange). Production occurs in different stages; everything else is built on top of this, e.g. ideology, in order to sustain the capitalist mode of production. Consciousness is but the result of the conditions one is thrown in, it refers the ideas of the ruling class. The conditions refer to a concrete, historical and materialist evolution, revealing inherent antagonisms and contradictions, eventually leading to its own destruction.
Marx conceives this evolution in uni-linear terms, without providing all too much empirical back-up material (teleology). Basically, the expansion of the division of labor causes the growth of alienation and private property. It is nonsense for Marx to assume that there was a point when individual workers came together freely to form a community (see history of spread, below). In the end, there is reached a point in capitalism when a) the majority of humans is rendered propertyless, and b) at the same time, they are producing at previously unequalled levels. Big industry goes as far as to destroy all particular individualities (see below). But, thank god, big industry creates its own destruction, its own counterpart, in communism. Worse still, these conditions are mystified, lead a "natural" existence, sustained by the superstructure of law, state, philosophy, ideology.
3. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
The foregoing leads to identify some principles of Marx’s approach and some of his criticisms towards other theories and other conception of history, capitalism, and communism.
a) The Roots of Modern Socialism
Political thought preceding the French Revolution saw reason as the sole measure of everything, while in fact this view was just the idealized, historically unfounded "kingdom" of bourgeoisie. Likewise, utopianism did not represent the proletariat and sought rescue in an unhistorical individual man of genius (Saint-Simon linked the condition of the state to economic forces, but analyzed them in terms of idlers and workers; Fourier applied dialectics to the history of society, but predicted the destruction of the whole of civilization; Owen employed a materialistic conception of history, but based this on simple economic calculation). The utopian view of socialism is an eclectic mish-mash, independent of space and time.
b) The Development of Dialectics
The foundations of dialectics can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy (everything is conceived as changing, but details are studied in isolation) and metaphysics (things are seen as opposing one another, but the connections and motion of oppositions are overlooked). Dialectics sees things in their interconnections and in motion. Hegel was the first to conceive history as a process whose inner laws should be traced. Unlike the Hegelian idealist system, however, dialectical materialism also sees itself in the process of humanity as the necessary outcome of man’s history.
C. The Contradictions of Capitalism
In the theories of Marx a distinction is commonly made between his early and later works, but there is no agreement over the depth of "great divide" in Marx’s work. Giddens (1971:ix) argues that there is "no doubt that Marx did not abandon the perspective which guided him in his early writings" (for a different perspective, see Althusser).
1. The Material Forces of Capitalism
Introduction
Marx sees the central core of problems of capitalist societies in the existence of private property and the division of labor, leading to the formation of two antagonistic social classes: the bourgeoisie, which owns the means of production, and the propertyless proletariat forded to wage-labor. Marx conceives the modern state of capitalism as the result of a historical process that took place in different dialectical stages.
The basis of all social structure lies in the economic reality of society (the modes and means of production, and the exchange of products). The morality of different classes, for instance, is determined by their distinct economic conditions. The economy is the necessary determinant, but not the only element in history. Law, philosophy, religion and other social institutions do matter, but only under the dominating influence of economic development. Likewise, the will of individuals does matter, according to Marx, but only as part of the resulting, collective outcome.
a) The Medieval Stage
In feudal society, the individual laborers produced their own products with their own tools to satisfy their own individual needs (individual production). When more than was needed was produced, the products turned into commodities of exchange (anarchy in production).
b) The Rise of Capitalism
Gradually the means of production are concentrated in factories (socialization of production), and the owner of the means of production appropriates the products to turn them into commodities on the market (individual appropriation of social production). This leads to the first capitalist antagonism: production and the means of production are socialized, but exchange and appropriation are individual.
Further developments of capitalism lead to the fact that the individual means of production and their products become worthless. Now, the individual worker has to become a wage-worker under the capitalist (planned division of labor). The separation is now complete: the means of production and the products are in the hands of capitalists, while the producers possess nothing. The contradiction between socialized production and capitalistic appropriation now manifests itself as the antagonism between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Modern industry and the opening of the world-market leads to an antagonism between the organization of production in individual workshops and the anarchy of production in society in general. The perfecting of machinery brings about an excess of wage-workers (the industrial reserve army); the products of the workers lead to their own destruction. The accumulation of capital (in the bourgeoisie) corresponds to an accumulation of misery (in the proletariat). Inherent crises are manifested and this leads to the creation of joint-stock companies, trusts, and, eventually, the state which undertakes the direction of production. Now even the capitalists are forced out; the state becomes the national capitalist.
c) Capitalism and the Mode of Production
Marx conceives this transformation of production as a separation between town and country, involving a separation of commercial and industrial labor and agriculture (German Ideology). In the Middle Ages, ownership developed from the country (feudalism). The landowner stands over the enserfed small peasantry, and "As soon as feudalism is fully developed, there also arises antagonisms to the towns...; but the form of association and the relation to the direct producers were different because of the different conditions of production. [The] feudal system of landownership had its counterpart in the towns in the shape of corporative property, the feudal organization of trades... The growing competition of the escaped serfs swarming into the rising towns [and] the feudal structure of the whole country: these combined to bring about the guilds".
Once capitalist production is concentrated in the towns, its influences are no longer restricted to them. At first, production is concentrated in the towns in guilds. The capital created by the craftsmen united in the guilds "was directly connected with the particular work of the owner, inseparable from it and to this extent estate capital". Then, the class of the merchants was formed to distribute the products of the guilds into other areas. This created the possibility of "transcending the immediate neighborhood... The towns enter into relations with one another, new tools are brought from one town into the other, and the separation between production and commerce soon calls forth a new division of production between the individuals towns, each of which is soon exploiting a predominant branch of industry". In the towns then fully matures the capitalist mode of production. As Engels observed, this process increases the transgression of spacial boundaries: "Modern industry, which has taught us to convert the movement of molecules, something more or less universally feasible, into the movement of masses for technical purposes, has thereby to a considerable extent freed production from restrictions to locality. Water-power was local; steam-power is free. While water-power is necessarily rural, steam-power is by no means necessarily urban. It is capitalist utilization which concentrates it mainly in the towns and changes factory villages into factory towns... However much therefore urban concentration is a basic condition of capitalist production, each individual industrial capitalist is constantly striving to get away from the large towns necessarily created by this concentration, and to transfer his plant to the countryside... Capitalist industry has already made itself relatively independent of the local limitations arising from the location of sources of the raw materials it needs" (Engels, Anti-Dühring). The revolutionalization of the whole of production, in the end, will go hand in hand with the abolition of the separation of town and country.
d) Capitalism and The Means of production (Technology)
Modern industry leads to a contradiction between the organization of production in private workshops and the anarchy of production in society in general. The perfecting of machinery brings about an excess of wage-workers: the industrial reserve army (Capital). The accumulation of capital (in the bourgeoisie) corresponds to an accumulation of misery (in the proletariat). When crises are manifested, joint-stock companies and trusts are created, and, eventually, the state undertakes the direction of production.
The important changes that take place in the shifting nature of production in the towns are trade and the development of technology. The perfecting of machinery in the factories is one of the main driving forces of the division of labor. The automatic system of machinery develops, and this automation is "a moving power that moves itself; this automation consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages" (Grundrisse). The worker does not operate the machine like a tool, rather "it is the machine which possesses skill and strength in place of the worker, is itself the virtuoso, with a soul of its own in the mechanical laws acting through it" (Grundrisse). The worker is subjected to the machine to perform but mechanical duties, fragments of work. The worker is an appendix of the machine.
Marx explains further in Capital. The development of machinery entails a revolution in the instruments of labor; it becomes a man-made objectification. Machinery is thus crucial for the creation of surplus-value. First, the development of machinery enables to employ non-skilled workers (women and children). It also leads to lengthen the working-day: automated production never stops; the machines must keep on going. Next, machines also make labor more intensified. The machines are highly specialized, the worker’s task however are simple, and thus the workers form a homogeneous group. "Since the motion of the whole system does not proceed from the workman, but from the machinery, a change of persons can take place at any time without interruption of the work;... it is not the workman that employs the instruments of labor, but the instruments of labor that employs the workman" . The powers of technology in the factory are so overwhelming that no individual worker can escape its force. There is created in the factories a "barrack discipline": "The main difficulty [in the automatic factory] ... lay... above all in training human beings to renounce their desultory habits of work, and to identify themselves with the unvarying regularity of the complex automation"). Therefore, factory legislation was never intended to improve the workers’ conditions. The Factory Acts justify and intensify this process of "converting the workman into a living appendage of the machine". In the end, machinery makes human labor superfluous. There is created a number of wage-workers in excess of the needs of capitalism: the industrial reserve army.
e) Other Forces
The fetishism of commodities refers to the fact that the character of men’s labor is presented as a social relationship, while in fact this relationship between men is a relationship between the products, commodities, of their labor. Man-to-nature relationships are prior. Money is created into capital through the use-value, i.e. the consumption, of commodities.
f) The Proletarian Revolution
In the end, Marx contends, since the contradictions are inherent to the capitalist system and cannot be overcome within the system itself, modern industry will compel society to do away with the division of labor, and the whole of production will be revolutionized. When the social anarchy of production is recognized, the proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into state property; the state is transformed from demon to servant. After capital is liquidated, a just authoritarian state will rise. Then a communist mode of production will be introduced, at the point where "the development of the powers of production becomes a barrier for capital". The division of classes loses its historical validity, and men can truly make their own history.
2. The Capitalist Superstructure: Family, State, and Law
a) The Family: Past, Present, and Future
In The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (by Engels), three types of marriage are distinguished, corresponding with the main stages of human development: 1) group marriage, in prehistoric times, where men and women have equal positions; 2) pairing marriage: as wealth increased, the man got a more important status than the woman; 3) monogamy of civilization: the family based on economic conditions and leading to the first class antagonism (men/women). For the bourgeois class, this implies arranged marriages, and romantic love outside marriage; in the proletariat class, romantic love exists in marriage since both man and woman engage in wage-labor. With the abolition of capitalism and the passage of the means of production into common property, the individual family will no longer be the economic unit of society. Then there is real freedom in marriage, based on love, true monogamy without male dominance (with the possibility of divorce).
b) The Origin and Nature of the State
Already in his critique of Hegel, Marx denied that the state should be conceived as preceding the individual. Marx asserts that civil society, that is, the material economic conditions under which men live, determine what type of state will develop. People are concrete, the state is an abstraction. While the state originated in man, it has come to lead a life of its own to put itself above man. The state is a product of society; it is the force that proves that capitalist society has brought about an insolulable contradiction in itself. In putting itself above society, the state first and foremost fulfills an instrumental function in trying to moderate the conflicts of class-societies. The state tries to moderate the conflicts of class-societies and places itself above and alienates itself from that society. The state exercises its power by dividing its subjects according to territory, by the exercise of public power (means of coercion) and by demanding contributions from the citiziens (taxes).
As the state arises to master class conflicts, it is the state of the dominant economic class which now also becomes the politically dominant class. The democratic republic is the highest form of state development, for it totally disregards the property distinctions which have arisen out of the division of labor, the production of commodities for exchange, and the development of markets regulated by the blind laws of capitalism. In the end, the state will fall and production will be collective.
Marx notes that, since the existence of the state is to be explained in functional terms, it can transgress its territorial boundaries. The state is "nothing more than the form of organization which the bourgeoisie necessarily adopts both for internal and external purposes, for the mutual guarantee of their property and interests". The state serves the dominant economic class, which now also becomes the politically dominant class. "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force... The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas" (German Ideology).
The state can fulfill its role of sustaining unequal social relations in three ways. First, the state "divides its subjects according to territory... This organization of citizens according to locality is a feature common to all states. That is why it seems natural to us" (Family, State). Second, the state establishes a public power, consisting of the army, and "material adjuncts, prisons and institutions of coercion of all kinds... It grows stronger in proportion as class antagonisms within the state become more acute." And, third, to maintain its public power, the state demands taxes.
Marx’s concept of the state is instrumental: "The modern state is only an executive committee for administering the common business of the bourgeois class" (Manifesto). The state has nothing whatsoever to do with principles of justice or ethics. The democratic republic, for instance, is the highest form of state development, because it totally disregards the property distinctions which have arisen out of the division of labor and the development of markets regulated by the laws of capitalism. In the end, with the fall of the capitalist mode of production, the bourgeois state will be overthrown. Then, the proletariat will seize political power and transform the state from demon to servant. The division of classes will lose its historical validity, and men will be able to truly make their own history.
c) The Law as Capitalist Law
The materialist premises of Marx’s work are clear: "Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life" (German Ideology). Basically, the foundation of all social structure lies in the economic reality of capitalist society: the economic necessities of the market are meditated through diverse institutions. Politics, law and all other social and cultural institutions are economically determined superstructures. The morality of different classes, for instance, is determined by their distinct economic conditions. Like the state, law and philosophy are but ideological instruments of the ruling class. The main point about superstructures is not that they embody ideas, which they do too, but more than anything else they form a system of social relations which sustain a system of class domination. The ruling classes force upon the whole of society, and present as universal, their particular class interests directed against the interests of the working-class. The capitalist economy is so powerful that it eventually determines all distinctions between people along lines other than economic. This does not mean that law, philosophy, religion and other social institutions do not matter: they do have some life of their own but only under the dominating influence of economic development (Engels, Letters). Therefore, "the jurist imagines he is operating with a priori propositions, whereas they are really only economic reflexes". All social institutions, then, depend on the constitution of the economically determined state: "the State mediates in the formation of all common institutions and... the institutions receive a political form" (German Ideology). The law thus follows the laws of the market. Civil law, for instance is based on the ideology that property relations are the result of the free will. As such, the law only helps to maintain and further develop existing property relationships.
3. What Has To Be Done?
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx states that the bourgeoisie owns the means of production and employs wage-laborers. The contradiction between the two classes cannot be overcome in capitalism for it is rooted in the capitalist mode of production. The classes provide at once also the link with the superstructures of capitalism.
Communism strives towards the abolition of property relations. Communism is not idealist, because it is directed at the economic conditions which determine men’s social relationships. The communist movement is universal. It will first establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, then abolish the division of labor.
Back