Why Marx's 'Social Evolution Doctrine' Is Not True
------- A New Analysis of the History
M. Ahsanul Karim*
Karl Marx's "Social Evolution Doctrine'' is that the mode of social systems of human society are of five categories. On successive evolution, those are Primitive Communism, Slavism, Feudalism, Capitalism and Modern Communism. Of them, Primitive and Modern Communism are class-oppression-exploitation free egalitarian mode of social systems. And Slavism, Feudalism and Capitalism are class-oppression-exploitation based non-egalitarian mode of social systems. The mode of production and its evolution is the basis of corresponding mode of social systems and her evolution. On the other hand, mode of production relation i.e. the mode of ownership and corresponding self-developing production forces of the human society is the basis of mode of production. The basis of successive evolution to Slavism, Feudalism and Capitalism from Primitive Communism were origination of private ownership of wealth and its consequent development as well as development of the States and their continuity. The mode of production and social system has become gradually to more class-oppression-expletory character, as the inherent evolution of the private ownership and state are towards monopolistic. Capitalism is the highest prosperous and last stage of the production mode and social system under private ownership. Thereafter, the private ownership as well as state would be abolished automatically for inherent evolution of social production relation corresponding to self-developing production forces of social character. Consequently, modern Communism would be emerged as a last stage of social system based on social ownership system.
The preparatory stage of modern Communism is Socialism. In this stage, state system will exist and mode of production would be under increasing state ownership of capital. Marx also has professed for the easier path to inter into Socialism by nationalisation (in the sense of government ownership) of private ownership of the developed Capitalism. Therefore, the human society would enter into Communism instantly with the abolition of the State. However, how the state system would be abolished or how state ownership would be transferred to social ownership Marx' has not professed the path. Marx himself has mentioned his 'Social Evolution Doctrine' is scientific. Throughout the twenty century, Marx's Doctrine was very influential. After the fall of the Socialist system in Eastern Europe, the influence of Marx's Doctrine is gradually diminished. World has not seen the "Scientific Communism". But has historical experience of the Primitive Society, Slavish, Feudalism and Capitalism. Consequently, Marx's Doctrine has been taken as scientific analysis of social evolution of the history. The truthness of Marx's Doctrine' rests on the underlying Doctrine of the evolution of private ownership. Therefore, Marx's 'Social Evolution Doctrine' is true or not, ultimately depends on the truthness of the Doctrine: the inherent evolution of private ownership is monopolistic or not.
The Inheritance Law of Property (ILP) that one person would inherit the Property (i.e. wealth and capital) especially land Property was prevailed from very ancient in Euro Societies with few exceptions. That means, the prevailing ILP was unequal and undemocratic as well as monopolistic. If this monopolistic ILP would prevail, the land less people would be on increasing by generations if the population of a State society would on increasing. As the prevailing ILP was monopolistic, nature and evolution of private ownership of the Euro societies were towards monopolistic by generation. The religions, Say, Roman, Catholic, Christianity, etc. also upheld this monopolistic ILP. Both the Slavism and Feudalism are agrarian based societies. Owing to monopolistic ILP, the private ownership of land had become gradually towards monopolistic by generation. Consequently, production and social system of primitive society gradually turned to Slavism or Feudalism.
In the middle of 6th century BC, the Roman Emperor Justinian had introduced egalitarian ILP with `Will System’ in place of prevailing monopolistic ILP in Roman Empire. Consequently, the distribution of private ownership of wealth including land had been started to distribute in accordance with the numbers of inheritance by generation. Consequently, the pattern of private ownership of wealth and capital as well as the mode of production and society had become towards egalitarian and Democratic after one and half generations. As a result, the prevailing Monarchism also had become unstable. With the development of Democratic values, the Roman Empire had become Republic. Republic of Roman State was continued around for five hundred years (509-27 BC). With the influence of Roman egalitarian or Democratic ILP, the prevailing ILP of the vicinity States also had been reformed in that line and the Slavism had broken down in Euro Societies.
The reestablishment of monopolistic ILP including `Non-dividing law of agricultural land’ with `Will System’ again rooted the basis for emergence of Slavism in Euro Societies. But due to moral teaching of Catholic religion against Slavery, the stable Feudalism had emerged instead of Slavism. With the development of greater share and sovereignty of non-agricultural sectors with complementary financial institutions over the agricultural sectors, the European States had turned to Capitalism. With `Will System’, the egalitarian ILP has been introduced in France in 1808, in various states of USA after 1868, in Britain in 1925 and most of the European States after `World War-I’. With introduction of the egalitarian ILP and its gradual acceptance, the Euro-societies gradually transformed to Democratic or egalitarian social system by generation from Capitalism. If the egalitarian ILP had prevailed from the very beginning, the Euro societies would not passed successively through undemocratic Slavism, Feudalism and capitalism. The evidences of Asiatic States and Societies in addition to Roman experiences also prove the matter.
The original or conventional ILP of Hindu and Buddhist religions is identical. As there have egalitarian right of the male offsprings and virtually had no right of the female offsprings in the instate properties of the father, the original ILP of Hindu and Buddhist is Quasi-Democratic. For this Quasi-democratic ILP, the ownership or tenancy of land or capital of industry or commerce had been distributed equally among the male inheritances only by generations. From the practice, culture and regulation of quasi-democratic ILP, kinsman's professionalism and kin's marital custom as well as the social class based mode of production and quasi-democratic social system had emerged and instutionalised in India. In those Asian Societies including Japan and South-east Asia, where Hindu or Buddhist religion has spread and quasi-democratic ILP had been followed, more-or-less similar social-class system has been emerged and continued from ancient age. However, no Slavism or Feudalism or Capitalism or economic class based social system had been emerged for this quasi-democratic ILP. Rather, agricultural reforms those had been done in line of Feudal mode in India, Japan and south Asia, the land ownership or tenancy distribution gradually had been towards democratic with quasi-democratic social class system. For example, in 1793, land had been reformed in the line of feudal mode in Bengal of British-India. Though it was slowly, but due to prevailing Hindu and Islamic ILP, the pattern of the land ownership system was gradually transformed to democratic distribution.
The general characteristics of ILP of religion Islam is that a male inheritance has twice times right over a female inheritance, but the male inheritances or the female inheritances have equal right. The emergence and expansion of Islam is from medieval age. In the states or regions, where the religion Islam has been followed, no economic class or social class has been form for it’s optimum egalitarian ILP. Rather, with the introduction of the Muslim ILP, the prevailing Slavism or Feudalism or social class based social system has been dissolved to egalitarian or democratic society. And Capitalism also has not been grown up. Both the economic and social relations have foundational basis of their own. The main basis of economic relation is ILP. On the other hand, the main basis of social relation is kinship i.e. inheritance of social substance by marital or institutional sex relation. If the inheritance of economic property i.e. external property of human is being corresponding to inheritance of social property/substance i.e. internal property of human being are proportional, the socio-economic relation of individuals in society would be in natural balance. The character of Islam ILP may be ideal or natural egalitarian or democratic as it may be proportional to inheritance of social property. And for this reason, the Islam ILP creates ideal egalitarian or natural democratic distribution of wealth and consequently, no economic or social class is emerged. Perhaps, there might have an imbalance between inheritance of social property and prevailing egalitarian ILP in Euro-Societies. Because, with the introduction of it, divorce, Homo-marriage (!) and childcare problem are increasing. The introduction of egalitarian marriage law, 1955 and ILP 1956 are a revolutionary action in India. From the introduction of these two fundamental and universal institutions, the social classes based society of thousands years in India is gradually transferring to equalitarian Democratic society.
The analysis of the societies in Asia and Europe of last three thousand years reveal that the pattern and evolution of private ownership depend mainly on the nature of prevailing ILP. If the nature of prevailing ILP is monopolistic or undemocratic, the existing pattern and evolution of private ownership would be towards monopolistic or undemocratic. As a result, the mode and evolution of production, society and state will also be autocratic or undemocratic. On the other hand, if the nature of prevailing ILP is equalitarian or natural democratic, the existing pattern and evolution of the private ownership as well as production, Social and State system will be equalitarian or natural democratic. If the characteristic of the prevailing ILP is semi-democratic, the existing pattern and evolution of private ownership as well as mode of production, social and State system will be semi-democratic. Therefore, Doctrine of Marx that inherent evolution of private ownership is towards monopolistic is not true as well as the 'Social Evolution Doctrine' of Marx is not true. The production, social and State system are comprised of thousands of micro and macro institutions. Of them, some are basic and universal institutions. The modes of production, social and State system are primarily depends on the resultant forces of the basic and universal social, economic, cultural and political institutions. Among them, the Inheritance Law of Property (ILP) is one of the basic and universal micro economic institutions, which distributes the capital and property.
The allegiance and the culture of prevailing monopolistic ILP were so deeply rooted in Euro-Societies that the relation between prevailing ILP and capital-wealth distribution as well as the social system had not brought notice to the philosophers of state and society. Even the classical, neo-classical and modern economists have build up many theories or models regarding income distribution and their relation to capital formation and evolution. But none of them have build a theory and model between capital-wealth distribution and ILP as well as its influence on the current income or wealth distribution. Even three generations after the introduction of egalitarian or democratic ILP and the emergence of egalitarian or democratic societies, still the prevailing economic and social system is identified as Capitalism.
The pattern and evolution of private ownership and capital as well as the mode and evolution of production, society and state society do not depend on the nature of ILP only. The pattern and evolution of private ownership and capital depends on a number of economic institutions of a state as well as related foreign States.*
[*One of the basic economic institutions of a state is `State Area Unite Structure (SAUS}’. The concept of SAUS’ and its relation to production and marker/trade institutions are still unknown to present `Economics Literature’. The pattern and evolution of internal production and trading institutions in a state as well as stable expansion of inter-states trading i.e. globalization under private ownership are basically depend on SAUS. ]
Selective Readings:
1. Friedman, M. Essays in Positive Economics.
2. Hicks, J. R. Value and Capital
3. Karim, M. A Progressive Democracy, ‘91 (Book in native language Bengali)
4. ,, ---------- On Public Security, Democracy and Economic
Development (Article in native language Bengali)
5. Marx, K. Capital vol. I, II & III;
6. ,, ------- Communist Manifesto
7. Marshal, A. Principles of Economics
8. Samuelson, P. A. Foundations of Economic Analysis
9. -----------ed. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1989
--------------------
My book and Few published and unpublished Articles
Book: Progressive Democracy (in native language Bengali):
-- It is new thought of self-developing and self-sustaining of Democratic Social System.
It contains three Institutions:
--Basic Micro Institutions
--Basic Macro Institutions
-- Basic Integrating Micro and Macro Institutions
Articles (in native language Bengali):
1) Why Marx’s Social Evolution Doctrine is not true
2) On Administrative Reforms
3) Unitary Government, Bicameral Parliament & Bangladesh
4) On Public Security, Democracy and Economic Development of Bangladesh
5) Why the State System of Bangladesh is not Democratic
6) Foundations of Progressive Market Economy (Unpublished), etc.
In my book and articles, mentioned above, I have elucidated primarily three Basic Micro and Macro Institutions with simple Case Study of Great Britain, France, Japan, USA, British-Bengal, Bangladesh, etc. Those three are the basic Institutions for nature of economic, social, cultural and political system of a society and their evolution. Of them, (1) Basic Micro Institutions and (2) Basic Integrating Micro and Macro Institutions are vital for economic system of a society and their evolution.
---------------
|