Marx’s Critique of Capitalism: A Historical Review

Zhang Yibing, Zhou Jiaxin
           (Center for Marxist Social Theory Studies, Nanjing University)

The understanding and critique of capitalism was one of Marx and Engels’ (ME’s for short) main contributions. But recently, some western scholars, including Fernand Braudel, Tom Bottomore, Terrell Carver, Meghnad Desai etc., found that Marx had seldom emploied the term “capitalism”. With the different opinions on the translation of “bürgerliche Gesellschaft”, this situation has caused several debates in Chinese academe, which involved the attitude towards Marx’s critique of capitalism. From our standpoint, these discussions expressd a rethinking on the tranditional mode of Marxism, especially in the field of the studying on capitalism. The evident shortages of that mode was the simple replcement of premises by conclutions, and furthermore the overlook that there was a historical process in the forming of marxist critique of capitalism. The textual research was the first step in this rethinking, but they did not supply a complete elimination of prophetic and timeless trends. For the contemporary capitalism studying, the historical analysis on ME’s critique of capitalism, which was based on the historical materialism and the academic development, obtained a basal significance.
 As M. Dobb has indicated, the substantial method of ME’s crituque was to seek the essence of Capitalism in a particular mode of production. In other words, the basis of this critique of capitalist society was the analyses of the capitalist mode of production. But the useage of the correlative terms, such as “kapitalische Produktionsweise” and “bürgerliche Gesellschaft”, underwent a process in ME’s own works. And the logical development in ME’s critique of capitalism was reflected in this process, which was same with the profound revolution in their philosophical view. According to the development of capitalism (ME’s social and historical experience included), this process could be divided into five stages (modes), which were: 1, before 1844, the critique of Prussian feudalism by the political achievements of English and French revolutions, and fixing the exploration of “bürgerliche Gesellschaft” as the startingpoint; 2, 1844-1845 spring, studying political economics for the first time, and through the theory of “entfremdete Arbeit” viewing the capitalism as in human (nonsocial), separated and industrial capital controlling society; 3, 1845-1849, forming the scientific method based on the analysis of material production, observing the modern “bürgerliche Gesellschaft” historically, and considering calss struggle as the tool of realising communism; 4, 1850s-1860s, restudying economics and writing Das Kapital, anatomizing how the whole society was operated by the capital with the suplus value theory, and establishing the classic model of critique of capitalism; 5, up against the changed situation in capitalist society and new achievement in anthropology, the theorical progress made by Marx and Engels in late years.
The Terms Related to “Capitalism” and Their Usage
Although capitalism was the object of ME’s critique, the term of “cpaitalism” was a late invention, and was seldom used by Marx in his own works. However, this case could not depreciate the significance of Marx’s capitalism study, because “capitalism” is a term Marx uses to denote the economic system in which production is for the market. (Carver, 1987, 47) In ME’s works, “Kapitalistische Produktionsweise”, “bürgerliche Gesellschaft” and “öknomischen Gesellschaftsformation” were in common use. The first appeared usually in Das Kapital and later writings (“bürgerliche Produktionsweise” in Grundrisse more often), and more frequently the term “bürgerliche Gesellschaft” existed in ME’s works. While there were two kinds of Chinese translations of this term, espically in Marx’s early writings, which separately means “materiellen Lebensverhältnissen, …deren Gesammiheit” and “capitalist society”. The emergence of the last one was in the1850s, which indicated that Marx deepened his understanding on the capitalism, for the philosophical concept of “formation” had the meaning of having grasped the essence of the objective society. This point could also be confirmed by Marx’s attending to Hegel’s “idealism”, whose “ism” was of the similar signification to “capitalism”.
The Particularity of ME’s Critique and Its Meanings
In ME’s view, as a particular social formation, capitalism was of inner attributes and regulation, which contained two points: first, in all the “öknomischen Gesellschaftsformation”, because of the material mode of production, social consciousness was determined by social beings. Second, the particular essence of capitalism was determined by the capitalist mode of poduction; the characters of this particular “Produktionsweise” were capital in exchange for work force, the emergence of bourgeoisie and proletariate, and the capital becoming a power ruling all over the world. But the contradiction inside the capitalist mode of production brought its end of necessity, which was expressed by the trend of profits and economical crisis. That was to say, Marx and Engels found the secret of Capitalism, espically by surplus value theory, and supplied an illumination on the process that the nature of capital acquired its representation in social realities. According to both the points, the “bürgerliche Gesellschaft” obtained the meaning of “capitalism”. With the analyses on modes of production, there were two distinct methods in ME’s critique of capitalism, which could be described as total and hisorical viewpoints.
ME’s understanding of capitalism through production was of particularity, compared with the models from mind or market. (M. Dobb, 1947) And great influences had be produced by this kind of critique, such as the 2ed. International theories, Soviet Marxism, Western Marxism and Late Marxism etc..
Five Stages in the Development of ME’s Critique of Capitalism
First, before 1844, ME’s understanding of “capitalism” was started from the critique of Prussian feudalism, and after the political practices for the “Rheinische Zeitung”, the object of further study was fixed on the problem of “bürgerliche Gesellschaft”. Marx and Engels were mainly influenced by Bauer and Feuerbach in this period, within which there was a theorical change whose sign was Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie. In our opinion, the critique of real society was of too much philosophical speculation and the full understanding of real capitalism had not been formed, besides that, it should be emphasized that Engels was more advanced for his English experiences.
Second, 1844-1845 spring, influenced by Engels and Proudhon, Marx studied political (national) economics for the first time. In his Paris Manuscripts, private property and its movement were elucidated through the theory of “entfremdete Arbeit”. And capitalism was viewed as a inhuman (nonsocial), separated and industrial capital controlling society, including three points: 1, the conclusion that “there remain altoghther only two calsses of the population- the working calss and the class of capitalists”; 2, the notion of capitalsit industry and real history; 3, money as the ruling power over the whole society. Though the method of ME’s research was not scientific, they did supply a lot of important analyses that were of great influence.
Third, 1845-1849, Marx and Engels began to criticize capitalism with the analysis of material production, and observe the modern “bürgerliche Gesellschaft” historically based on modern industry. In their political practice, calss struggle was considered as the tool to realize communism. During this period, especially in The German Ideology, Marx and Engels established the general method of comprehending the cultural  history, which starting from the material production could be named the  “Generalized Historical Materialism”. And in The Poverty of Philosophy and Wag Labour and Capital, the analysis of production was developed, in which the historical essence of “Produktionsverhältnisse” and the dialectical relationship between “Produktivkräfte” and “Produktionsverhältnisse” got illuminated.
Fourth, 1850s-1860s, Marx restudied economics then writed Das Kapital. The great find in ME’s critique was the surplus value theory, from which the process that capital as a kind of “Produktionsverhältnisse” controlled the whole world was scientifically elucidated. And the classic model of critique of capitalism got established. (This pinot has been discussed above. ) There have been abundant researches on ME’s mature thought, but for lack of documents and rethinking on the way of study, there were 2 cruces worthy of our attentions: 1, the studies and practices of Marx and Engels in the early of 1850s, particularly Marx’s economic researches in the “Londoner Hefte”; 2, the full comprehension of Marx’s Capital, which menas considering ME’s critique from not only the political economics but also the social theory.
Fifth, Marx and Engels deepened the comprehension of capitalism in their late years. After the 1870s, they participated in the practices related to the 1st Internation and the Paris Commune. Meanwhile, confronted by new changes in capitalist societies and new accomplishment in anthropology research, they enriched the researches in Das Kapital and applied their theoretical achievement into the analysis of specific social formations and Communism. Marx concerned a lot over the problem of primitive and oriental society, which could be viewed as the development of ME’s critique of capitalism in 2 meanings: 1, the researches on the primitive society and Asian mode of production would help illuminate the inherent system and discipline of capitalist mode of production; 2, realistic social revolutions are instructed under scientific social theory, in particular the estimation on the revolutionary road of oriental countries and regions.