Social Scientist

Dialectics of Social Evolution: Morgan, Marx and Engels

Author(s): Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya
Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 10, No. 9 (Sep., 1982), pp. 3-20
Published by: Social Scientist
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516982 .
Accessed: 11/06/2014 04:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DEBIPRSSAD CHAROPADHYAYA

Dialecticsof Social Evolution:

Morgan,Marx and Engels

IT is possibleforus todayto ide1ltify threemainstagesof thegeneral

evolutionof humansociety.Theseare theprimitive pre-classsociety,
class societyand theclasslesssocietytaking shape before us overa
larvgearea of theworld. Sucha broaddivisionof secial evolutionis
not intended,of course,to overlookthe factof unevendevelopment
of diSerentpeoples. Nor is it meantto ignorethe sub-stagesof the
preclass societyand nlore particularlythose of the class society.
Whatnevertheless needsto be etnphasisedis that we are liable to
misssomething of basic significance abouthumanhistoryif we do not
beginwiththesemainstagesof social evolution,
Notwithstanding thegrave anxietycaused these days by the
development of thethermo-nuclear and biological weapons of mass
destruction,thenormalexpectationof humansurvivalon theearth-
and, therefore, alsoof the classless societyof the future is foran
immeasurabte periodof time. While looking back at the past, we
havea somewhatsimilar impression. The period covered by the
primitive pre-classsocietywas immeasurably longer than the career
of ckiss societt. On a rough estimatethe latter "is at best one
hundredth partof the timeduringwhichmenhavebeenactiveon our
planet."1
In the {ime-scale,tilerefore, comparedto theprimitive pre-class
societyof thepast and comparedalso to theclasslesssocietyof the
future,thelifeof classsocietyis rathertrifling, howsoeverspectacular
the humanachievements may be duringthis comparatively insigni-
ficantperiodand vastlycomplicatedthoughthecontemporary problem
is of man'smarchforward to theclasslesssociety.
That, historically speaking, theclasssocietyis onlya transitory
phenomenon was emphasisedover a hundredyears back by Lewis
HenryMorgan(1818-8l),to whose masterpieceof field anthropology
blarxand Engles owed tEleirfirstfull knowledgeof the primitive
pre-classsociety. NVhile liftingtheveilon thepast, Morganrevealed
also an inspiring \'ision of thefuture.Here is his judgment on private
property and class society:
"Since theadventof civilization,tbe outgrowthof property

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4 80CIAL SCIENTIST

hasbeensoimmense, itsforms so diversified, its uses so expanding

anditsmanagement in the interests
so intelligent ofitsowners,that
it hasbecome,on the partof the people, an unmanageable power.
Thehuman mindstandsbewildered in thepresence ofitsowncreation.
Thetimewillcome,nevertheless, whenhumanintelligence will rise
to themastery overproperty, anddefine the relations ofthe stateto
theproperty it protects,as wellas the obligationsandthelimitsof
therightofitsowners.Theinterestsof societyare paramount to
individualinterestsandthetwomustbe brought intojust and har-
monious relations.A mereproperty careeris notthefinaldestiny of
mankind, ifprogress is to be thetawof thefuture as it hasbeen of
thepast. Thetimewhicllhaspassedawaysince civilization beganis
buta fragment ofthe past duration of man's existence; and buta
fragn3entoftheages yet to come. The dissolution of societybids
fairto beconlethe termination ofa careerof whichproperty is the
endandaim; becausesucha careercontainsthe e]ementsof self-
destruction.Democracyin governments, brotherhood jD society,
equalityin rights and privilegesand universaleductionforeshadow
thenexthigS1e}plaz1eof socierzZ to lhicJtexperience,i1ltelligence a7td
kz10wledgeare steadilyteuSing.It willbe a revival,in a higherform,
of tSle libert,,^t,eqlralitl; azlul)'i ate) Hity of tlle anciez1t gentes.9'2
Wehaveadded emphasis to two pointsabove, becausethese
areinneedofsomediscussion.First,wllatis meantby"a revival,
in a higherfrom,oftheliberty, equalityandfraternityoftheancient
gentes"? We see ill this how, withoutany know ledge of the
writingsof Marx and Engles-and evenapparently withoutbeing
1nfluencedbyfIegel Morgan,bythesheerpressure ofhis ownobjec-
tiveresearches,was led brillislntlyto anticipatethe dialecticsof
social developmellt,themostgeneral lawof whichis "the negation
of the negations':tlle primitive pre-classsociety(evidencedfor
Morganbytheancient"gentes"or clans)wasnegatedbyclasssociety
characterisedbythe outgrowth ofprivateproperty,whiletheclass
societvin itsturnis goingto be negatedagainbythe classlesssociety
ofthefuture, ensuring formankind therevivaloftheancientequality
andliberty, thoughat an incomparably higherlevel. But moreof
thislater.
VisionoftheFuture: Marx and Engels
Forthepresent, letus concentrateon his otherpointempha-
sised above. What was he drivingat when he spokeof "the next
higher planeofsocietyto whichexperience, intelligenceand know-
ledgearesteadilytending"? Iyenough,
Evident Morganhadinmindthe
lawofsocialdevelopment. ofthislaw,hewasin his
As characteristic
ownwayevenpointitlg to the innercontradiction of class society
propellingitto theclasslesssociety.Thushe spokeoftheoutgrowth
ofproperty becoming"forthepeoplean unmanageable power" and

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICS OF SOC1ALEVOLUTION

of humanmindstanding"bewildered in the presenceof its own

creation". Such expressions cannotindeedbut be reminiscent of
the analogyused by Marx and Englesin the Manifestoof the
Communist Party: "likethe sorcerern whois no longer able to con-
trolthepowers ofthe nether worldwhomhehas called llponbyhis
spells".ForMarxandEngels,however, thewholethingwas,ofcourse
muchmorethana matter ofmereanalogy.Andit is precisely here-
i. e. fortheright understanding of man's march forward from class
society to the society
classless of the future that we have to leafire
Morgan's rather vagueexpressions like'sexperience intelligence and
knowledge" as tending to thenexthigherplane of society. Instead
of these,we lraveto dependfor the purposeon the analysisof
conternporary socaetyandtheprogramme ofactionbasedon it,which
wehavefronzMarx alld Engels. Withtheirprofoundly importaslt
discovery andanalysis nftheecononic and social laws operatingin
contemporary society--a knowledge whichis moreover enriched by
theirexperience ofactuallyparticipating in ;nslorganising -theworkw
ingclassmovement-Marx andEngelsenableus to understand with
farmoreclaritythe massivemarchof humanity to the classless
societyofthefuture.
Farfrom beinga piouswish-farfrom beangjusta spontaneous
processeither-itis above all a programme of activeintervention of
organisedrevolutionunderthe leadership of the class-conscious
working class. Butthisintervention this revolution-isassured of
successonlyto the extent to whichit is based on the clear under-
standing of the socio-economic laws actuallyoperatingin the
objective world. t11 otherwords,thefeasibility ofthecall to action
depends on theactualinsightinto these<3bjective Iaws. As Lenin
putsit,"MarxandEngelswerethefirst to explainin theirscientific
works thatsocialiszn is nc)ttheinvention of dreamers, but the final
ailllandnecessary resultofthedevelopment of productive forcesin
modern society....Theservices rendered byMarxand Engelsto the
vorking classmaybe expressed ina fewwordsthus:theytctught the
working classto knowitselfandbe conscious ofatself,and theysub-
stituted sciencefordream."3
Philosophically speaking,it is firstof all the questionof
knowledge andpower, offreedom andnecessity.Philosophers before
MarxandEngelsunderstood thequestion no doubt and evelldeve-
lopedthemonlentous foamulation thatfreedom is the recognition of
necessity.However, theyretainedthis understanding restrictedon
thewholeto the sphereof the naturalsciences. Anoutstanding
achievement ofMarxism wastheextension of this understanding to
thesocialsciencesas well. As Engelsverylucidlyexplained:

Active social forcesworkexactlylike naturalforces:blindly,

and reckonwith,
se longas wedo not understand,
destructively,

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

them. Butwhenonceweunderstand them,whenonce we grasp

theiraction,theirdirection,theireffects,it dependsonlyupon
ourselvesto subjectthemmoreandmoreto our own will, and by
neans of themto reachour own ends. And this holds quite
especially
ofthemighty productive forcesoftoday. As longas we
obstinately
refuseto understand the natureand the characterof
thesesocialmeansofaction,...solongtheseforcesare at workin
spiteofus,inopposition to us,so longtheymasterus.... Butwhen
oncetheirnatureis understood, theycan, in the handsof the
producersworking togetherS be transformed frommasterdemons
intowsllingservants.The difference is as that betweenthedes-
tructiveforceofelectricityin thelightning of the storm,
and the
electricity
undercommand in thetelegraph andthe voltaicarc;the
difference
betsveena conflagratlon,andfireworking in the service
ofman.4

How,then,aretheworking len aIldwomen going to use the

knowledge ofsocialforcesandtherebyattainmasteryoverthese?The
crllcialpointaboutit,as discovered
byMarxandEngles,transformed
socialism fromthedreamoftheearlierutopislnsintoan exactscience.
As Englescontinued:

Withthisrecognition,
at last,oftherealnatureof the productive
forcesoftoday,thesocialanarchyof productiongivesplace to a
secialregulation
ofproduction UpOll a definite
plan, accordingto
theneedsofthe community and of each individual.Then the
capitatistmodeofapproprisltion,in whichtheproductenslavesfirst
the producerand thenthe appropriator, is replacedby themodeof
appropriationof theprodllotsthatis based upon the natureof the
modernmeansof production;upon the one hand, direct social
appropriationfas meansto themaintenance and extensionof pro-
duction-on the other, direct individualappropriation, as means
ofsubsistenceandof enjoyment.Whilstthe capitalistmodeof
productionmoreandmorecompletely transformsthegreatmajority
ofthepopulation into proletarians,
it createsthe powerwhich,
underpenalty ofitsowndestruction,is torcedto accomplishthis
revoluation.Whilstit forceson moreandmorethetransformation
ofthevast meansof production, alreadysocialised,into state
property,
it showsitselfthewayto accomplishing this revolution.
Theproletariatseizespolitica1
poweran{ rurezs
thesneansof production
intostatep}opesty.5

Social intervention
thusbased upondefinite
knowledge
of social
forcesopensbeforemana newhorizonof humanfreedonl,a visionof
whichMorganwas evidentlygropingfor but which, in Marxism,
becomes innitely more importantbecause of being enrichedby

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICS OP SOCIAL EVOLUTION 7

content.Hereis theinspiring
scientific of it givenby
description
Engels:

Withtheseizingof themeansof preductionby society,prodllotion

of commedities is done awaywith, and, simultalleously, the
mastery of the productover the producer.Anarchyin social
production ls replacedbysystematic, definiteorganlsation.The
struggleforindividualexistencedisappears.Then for the lSrst
timeman,in a certain markedoff
sense,is fillally fromtherestof
theanimalkingdom, andemerges frommereanimalconditions of
existenceintoreall!human ones. The whole sphereofthe condi
tionsoflifewhichenvxron man,andwhichhavehitherto ruledman
nowcomesunderthedominion and controlof man,who for the
Srsttimebecomesthereal,consciouslordof Naturenbecausehe
hasno^ becomeInaster ofhisownsocialorganisation. The lawsof
hisownsocialaction,hitherto standing faceto face withman as
lawsofNatureforeign toanddominating him,willthenbeusednvith
andso mastered
fullunderstandillg, byhim.Man'sovvn socialorga-
hitherto
nisation, confrontinghimas a necessity imposedbyNature
andhistory, nowbecomestheresultof hisown freeaction. The
extraneousobjectiveforces thathavehitherto governedhistorypass
underthecontrol of manhimself.C)nlyfrom that timewill masl
himself,moreandmoreconsciously? makehis own history-only
fromthattime will the social causesset in movement by him
have, in the main aaldin a constantly growingnzeasure, the
resultsintendedby him. It is the ascentof man fromthe
killgdomofnecessity to thekingdom offreedon.6

Suchthens thevisionof tlle classlesssocietyof thefuture

thatinspired h4arxandEngelsJntheirwritings as well slS organi-
sationalactiv«ties.Fromthis followsa simplepoint. However
spectacular maybe thehumanachievements so farduring therather
periodof classsocietywearenotto be toodazzledby
insignificant
moreimportant
immensely
theseto be incapableofvisualisillg human
achievements in theagesto come, when man moves forward from
therealmofnecessity to thatof freedom.
Liftilgthe sveilQntse Past: Alorgan
However, thoughfrom thepointofveiwoftheallalysisof the
economic andsociallawsofthelast phase of class societymaling
roomfortheclasslesssociety,thewritings of Marx and Englesare
incomparablyricherthanthat of Morgan,nevertheless, theyvvere
indebted
basically to the discoveyof Morganfor theirown fuller
understanding HenceMorgan's
ofthedialecticsofsocialdevelopment.
researcheshavein an important sensebeen incorporated into the
fabricoftheMarxist sociology.What,then,are thesercsearches?

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 SOCIA L SCIENTIST

Thoughremembered as a pioneeroffieldanthropology, Morgan

wasbyprofession a lawyer practising in New York. Whatfirst drew
himto anthropology was his legal profession.A certainbusiness
organisation wasthentrying to deprivebyfraudtheAmerican Indian
tribecalledSeneca(belongang to theLeagueof theIroquois)oftheir
land. Morgansuccessfully defendedthemin a lawsuitagainstthe
company.Whiledoingthis,he developed an absorbinginterest in
thesetribsllpeopleandtheirsocialorganisation.He earnedso much
oftheirconfidence andlovethat he was formally adoptedintothe
Senecatribe something extraordinary for tribalpeoples to do. In
1851waspublished hisfirst majorworkon thetribalorganisation, the
Leagte oftheIroquois. In 1870waspublished his secondmajorwork,
Systenlsof Cozlsang7tinity cznd,4fifinity of the HalmanFamily. In this
he undertook theworkofa comprehensive collection ofthe termino-
logyofkinsllip current arnong diSerent peoplesofthe world,i. e ., as
faras waspossibleforhimto study.Oll thebasisof thishe putforth
thethesisthatkinshiptermsllave sociotogicalsignificance, often
beingpointers to anterior stagesofactualsocial relations.This"has
been the basis of sharpcontroversy amonganthropologists, wsth
recentevidence substantiating Morgan."7 Afternzoreyearsofsus-
tainedresearchS in 1877,Morganpublishedhis magnumopus the
Ancient Society.8 It was in this,as Engelssaid, he proceededto
reconstruct the"prehistoric foundation ofourwr;tten historyin its
mainfeatutes.'59
Let us first havea briefidoaof his procedurefor this reconv
struction.Its starting pointis theobserved factof unevendevelop-
mentofthediSerent peoplesof theworld,understood by Morganas
illustrating the sequenceof social evolutton.As heputat, "As
it is undeniablethatportionsof the llullln familyhaveexsted
in a state of s.lvagery, otherportionsin a stclte of learbarism,
andstillotherportions ill a stateof civilistltion, it seemsequallyso
thatthesethreedistinct conditions are conneeted witheacl1otherin
a 7latural
as 1ssell
as 7?ecessaZy seqlle71ce oyIJfogress. Moreover, thatthis
sequencehas beenlzistorically trlle oft1zeer1ti7e l)umanfamily up to
thestatusattainedbyeachbranchrespectively, is rendered probable
bytheconditions underwhichall plogressoccurs,andby the known
advancement ofseveralbranches ofthefamilythroughtwo or more
oftheseconditions.''10
Therefore, arguedMorgan, " tl1ereluote al1cestors of the
Arya11nationspresumptively passcdthrough an experience similarto
thatofexisting barbarous andsavagetribes. Thoughthe experience
ofthesenationsembodies all theinformatioIl necessary to illustrate
theperiodsofcivilisation, bothancientandmodern, togetherwitha
partof thatin thelaterperiodofbarbarlsn1, theiranterior experience
muchbe deduced, in themail1, fromthetraceableconnection between
tneelements oftheirexistinginstitutious al1dillventions,andsimilar

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICS OF SOC1ALEVOLUT1ON 9

elements stillpreservedin thoseofsavagealld barbaroustribes.''l1

Hencewashisconclusion: 'I7t studyingthe condition of tribes
andnations intheseseveralethnical periodswearedealing, substantially,
withtheancient history of ous OW}I senzote
and coslditioJt ancestors."12
Interestingly enough, basicallytllesameproposition wasacceptedby
themorethoughtful Greeks, before ithadtobe scrapped bythepoliti
calrequirements ofthedefence ofslavery. WequoteGeorge Thomson:
i; 'TheGreeks livedonceas thebarbarians live now'. ln these
memorable words Thucydides enunciated withcharacteristicinsightthe
principle of the comparative methodin social anthropology. The
sametruth in the writings
is implicit of ARschylus and Hippokrates.
That was the materialist tradition.But already,in the timeof
Thucydides, thereactionhadsetin. Thematerialist viewof social
evolution wasirreconcilable withthedoctrine, fostered bythegrowth
ofslavery7 thatGreekandbarbarian werediSerentbynature.If such
things as primitive conlmunism, groupmarriage, andmatriarchy were
admitted intothebeginnings ofGreekcivilisation, whatwouldbecome
ofthedogma,onwhichtheruling class leantmoreandmoreheavily
as thecity-state declined, thatits economic basisin prisateproperty,
slavelabour,andthesubjection ofwomen restedonnaturaljustice?'S13
MorganandLater Researches
Butletus returnto Morgan.He arguedthe above over a
yearsback.Immense
hul1dresd hassincethenbeen registered
progress
in thefieldofarchaeology,creatingbetter forreconstruc-
possibilities
tingtheprehistoricfoundation ofwrittenhistory.Butthis hasnot
undermined the basic sigDificance of Morgan'sworkand his
methodology.
Archaeologytellsus abouttheInaterialremains ofthe extinct
manandhisworks.Butit doesnot directly informus about their
norabouttheirbeliefs,ideasand otherinstitu-
socialorganisationf
tions.Thisgapmay,to a considerable extent, upbyinferences
be filled
on thebasisofanthropological data-fromwhatis directlyobserved
aboutpeoplesstillsurviving in certainpocketsof the worldunder
conditions
lnaterial analogous to thoseofthe extinctman. A good
dealofcautionis, ofcourse,necessary to avoid thisinference being
mplified.
over-si 14
SinceMorgan'stime,new materials arealso collectedby the
anthropologistsandothersfor our understanding of the primitive
society. Thesenecessitate-asis onlynaturalin all branchesof
investigation-modifications
scientific of manypointsof Morgan's
pioneering work. Stillhisbasicthesisremains, as thatof Darwin,
whosetheory ofbiologicalevolutionis not thTown outby the vast
progressin thebiologicalsciencesafterhim. As Engels,writing in
1891,said,"Duringthe fourteen yearsthathave elapsedsince the
publicationof his chiefwork(Altcient 1877)ourmaterial
SocietJn,

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
10
relating
to thehistory of primitive humansocietieshas been greatly
augmented. In additionto anthropologists,
travellers
andprofessional
pre-historians,studentsofcomparative lawhavetakenthefieldand
havecontributed newmaterial andnew pointsof view. As a conse-
quence,someofMorgan'shypotheses pertainingto particular
points
havebeenshaken, or evenbecomeuntenable.Butnowherehavethe
newly-collected dataledto thesupplantingofhisprincipalconceptions
byothers.In itsmainfeatures, theorderheintroduced intothestudy
of thehistoryof primitive societyholdsgood to thisday. We can
evensaythatit is finding increasingly
generalacceptance.''15
This is speciallytrueof classical field-anthropologists
like
Fison, Howitt,Spencer and Gillen in Australiawho not only
vigorouslydefendedMorgan'sconclusionsbut also collectednew
materials
in substantiation ofthose. Among others,Bandelier and
PowellinAmericaandBriffault in Englandwantedto proceedon the
basisofMorgan'sfindings andmethodologya
Resistanceto Morgan
Butthisis notthewholestory.Therealsogrewa strongresis-
tance againstMorganandthereis muchtalkamongsomeanthropolo-
giststhesedaysofrejectingMorganoutright.Someoftheprominent
representaztives
ofthis trendare Lowie, RadcliSe-Brown, Kroeber
andMalinowski.Butbefore puttingmuchconfidence in them, the
readersmayas wellconsulttheworks ofGeorgeThomson,WllO shows
whatliesbehindtheresistance to Morganandwhereit leadsto. We
shallbriefly
notesomeofthepointshe hasmade.
Olleobjectionto Morganis thathe is 1nuchtoo committed to
thelawsofsocialdevelopment andhistoricalprogress.
This,in other
words,amounts to thechargethehe wantsthatsociologiststo be too
severelyscientific
whentheyareinfactseekingconvenient modesof
evadingtherealitiesofdecayingcapitalismand its impendingdoom.
Hereis one example:

Lowie,oneofMorgan'sJater-day antagonists,
observesthathisbelief
in socialprogress"svasa naturalaccompaniment of the beliefin
historicallaws, especiallywhentingedwith the evolutionary
optimism oftheseventies. " So Lowiedoesnotbelievein historical
Iaws, especiatlywhentingedwiththe"evolutionary optimism of
theseventies". So Lowiedoes not believein Ilistorical laws. He
admitsthathisownviewofhistory is unscientific.Whythendoes
he askus to believeit? Whathe says hereis of coursequite true
in thesensethatMorgan'swork, 97hichhasjustlybeencompared
withDarwin's,was an intellectual masterpiece ofcapitalismin its
prime. It is also true that Lowie's disbeliefin social progress,
expressed in caustlcaphorisms about "that plaulesshodge-podge,
thatthingofshredsandpatches,calledcivilisations'is an eqllally

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICS OF SOCtAL EVOLUT1ON
ll

ofcapitalismin decay.16
product
characteristic

Flippantmethodology is calledfortojustify theflippancy of

theconclusion.Insteadoftile sustainedstudy ofthetribalpeople
intheirtribalconditions, theworkamonga fewstragglers degenera
ted by the commercialpenet<;ation of eapitalismis sometimes
considered enough forthepurpose ofoWsettingthereslultsreached by
theformer.RadoliSe-Brown's criticismof Howitt-who practically
worked lifelong amongtheAustralian tribesandwho, on the basis
ofhisownresearches, becamean enthusiast followerofMorgan-can
be mentioned as a typicalexample of this. Radcliffe-Brown himself
'Sinvestigated theKareraat a time whentheyhaddwindledto a few
dozenEnglish-speaking stragglers roundthesheep-stations".
hangillg
Onthebasisofthisheproposed to rejectHowitt'sfindings. Buthe
wouldhave done betteronlyif he heededto Howitt'swarning.
"Unless5', said Howitt,"an enquirer takesnote of the altered
conditions in whichtheremnants oftribesareliving...hisstatements
willconflict withthoseofearlierinvestigators whobasedtheirviews
on theruleswhichobtainedwhenthe tribespeople lived a savage
life.ss17
Much is writtenthese days againstMorgan'smethodof
inferring extinct socialrelations fromthestudyof kinshiptermino-
logy. Before passingonto these, let us have a briefidea of the
exactpointwhichis beingcontested."It is a fundamental postulate
ofhistoricallinguistics...that wordschangemoreslowlythanthe
meanings attached to them. Anexamination of theseterminologies
showsillalmosteverycase discrepancies betweenthe reIationships
actually existing andthoseimplied by the nomenclature of kinship,
anddiscrepancies ofthiskindareevidence thatthe nomenclature has
beeninherited from an anterior stagein whichit corresponded to the
reality.This principlewas enunciated by Morganat a timewhen
bothsciences,linguistics andetllnology, werein theirinfancy, and
thewholestudy ofevolution, physicalandsocial) has provedthatit
is correct.Justas biology,tl1e studyof the structure of extant
livingorganisms, is reinforcedbypalaeontology, the studyoffossils,
so byapplying the linguisticmethodto primitive peoples, whose
historymay be otherwise unknown, we canpenetratetheirpast.''1s
In thisowntime,Morgananalysed theevidenceof about 150
languages, to whichGeorgeThomsonhasaddedtheevidenceof130
morelanguages,andon thebasisof thislle felt convinced aboutthe
general soundness ofMorgan'sconclus10ns.19 Others,however, have
worked forobscuring whatis alreadyelicited,andthisbecauseofthe
factthatMorgan'sfindings, takenseriously, arepointers tohuman
conditions doingwithout privateproperty, modern marriage system,
policeandprison. To followthetrackof Morgan,as J.D. Bernal
hasobserved, "was toodallgerous foracadenaicanthropologists and

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 12 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

forthemissionaries andtraders whoweretheirchiefinformants from

thefield,forit struck at thebases ofgovernment, morality andpro-
perty."20 Manyoftheacademicanthropotogists have,therefore, tried
to pursueothertracks. Let us followGeorgeThomson to see where
theseothertrackswantto leadus to.
"Acceptingprivateproperty as something that 'was in the
beginning9, bourgeois thinkers haverealisedinstinctively thatMorgan
mustbe resistedall along the line. But, thoughunanimousin
opposinghim, theirfrontis not united,becausetheyhave been
totallyincapableoffinding an agreedalternative.''
Hereare onlya fewexamples ofthis.
As againstMorgan,Radcliffe-Brownhas arguedthat "thereis
no reasonwhatever to supposethat the kinshipterminology is a
survifiral
fromsome verydifferent formof social organisation in a
purelyhypothetical past." How,then,are weto explainthesetermi-
nologies? He hasarguedthat "as againstMorgan andthosewhofollow
himit canbe shownthatthereis a verythorough functionalrelation
between thekinship terminology of anytribeandthe social organi
sationas it existsat present."22
Butanother staunch opponent ofMorgan hasproposed to reject
suchan argument outrigllt.ThusKroeberhasdeniedatlpossibilities
ofexplaining thekinshipterminologies in the lightof social orga-
nisation. Onthecontrary, hehasarguedthatthe"termsof relation-
shiparedetermined primarily by linguisticfactors,...and thenin-
directlyrelatedto social circumstances."23 From the Kroeber's
point of view,therefore,Radcliffe-Brown's view of a thorough
flmotional relationbetweenkinshipterminology and the present
sociatorganisation ofthetribeis as fictitiousas Morgan'sview of
theseterminologies beingbutrelicsofthe past social organisations.
ButMalinowski hasin factsuggested an amazingly simple way
outoftheentirecontroversy. It is, as GeorgeThomson putsit, "to
remove thewholeproblem fromtherealm of reality". Malinowski
hasclaimedto havediscovered thatthekindof kinship terminology
creatingall theseproblems"does not exist andneverhasexisted".
Thus,in short,he has solvedthe problem by the simpledenialof
the enormous amountof factualdata compiledby Morganand
others,whichtheywantedto understand andexplain.
However, th1S iS notthewhole storyoftheresistance toMorgan
in the recentAnglo-American school of social anthropology.
Malinowski hasin fact confessedthat the representatives of this
schooldo notreallyknowwhattheyare talkingabout. As he has
putit:
"As a member oftheinne ring, I may say that, whenever I
meetMrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie,or discussmatters withRadcliffe-
Brownor Kroeber, I becomeat onceawaretllatmypartnerdoesnot
understand anyth-ing in thematter, andI endusuallywiththe feeling

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 I)IALECTICS OF SOCIAL EVOLUTION 13

thatthisalsoappliesto myself.Thisrefersto all our writings on

kinship andis fullyreciprocal."24
Whythenat all writeon thesubject?The answerseemsto
be thatit is feltthatsomehow or otherMorganhas to be resisted.
Butwhyis thereso muchof zeal for rejectingMorgan?The only
answer seemsto be thatMorgan'sresearches, takenseriously,
go to
provethat family,privateproperty and the state arenot eternal
adjunctsto humanexistence.Or as Engels,dependingon these
researches,pointedly said: "Theywillfallas inevitably
as theyarose
at an earlierstage."25
DialecticsofSocial Evolution
Thisleadsus to seehowothersreactedto Morgan'sresearches
andwhythesehavebecomeso powerful a factorin contemporary
soc;elogy associatedspecially withthenamesofMarxand Engels.
In a letterdated February 16, 1884.Engelswroteto Karl
Kautsky:
"Thereexistsan iznportant bookon theconditions of primitive
society,as important as Darwinis in biology,and of courseit is
againMarxwhodiscovered it: Morgan,Ancient Society,1877.Marx
spokeaboutit butmyheadwasfullofotherthings at that time and
he neverreturned to it. Thismusthave suitedhim, forhe himself
wantedtopublicise thebookamongtbeGermans, as I see fromthe
quiteextensisreextracts he made....IfI hadthetiEne I wouldworkup
thematerial, withMarx'snotes."26
Evidently, Englesfoundthetimeforit, forin the same 51ear
tl884)xvaspublishedhis T1leOriginof theFamily,PeivateProperty
andtAzeStateint/1e lightof the resecorc11esLelrisH. Morgan,and0ff7

thisnina sense,as "the fulfilment of a bequest. It was no lessa

personthanKarlMarxwho had plannedto presentthe resultsof
Morgan's researches in connection withtheconclusions arrivedat by
hisown-within certainlimitsI lnightsayour own-materialist in-
vestigation ofhistory andthustomakecleartheir wholesignificance....
MyworkcanoSerbuta meagre substituteforthatwhich mydeparted
friendwasnotdestined to accomplisl:l.However,I havebeforeme,
inhisextensive extracts fromMorgan, criticalnoteswhichI reproduce
herewherever thisis at all possible."27
Thisis nottheplace forus togointothedetailsof the works
ofMorgan andEngels. Butit is ofimportance to notehowMorgan's
researches helpedMarxandEngelsto arriveat theirfuIl fornlulation
ofthedialectics ofsocialevolution.Fromthispointof vew, what
is crucialaboutMorgan's workis thediscovery ofthefullfactcf the
primitivepre-classsocietyor primitive communism. In Morgan's
terminology, duringthe vast periodof humanexistencepriorto
reachingthe'UpperStageofBarbarism'whichbeganwiththetech-
niqueofthesrnelting of iron and whichpassed into the stageof

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
l SOCIAL SCIENTIST

Civilisation withthe invention of phonetic alphabet-human society

wasyetto witnesseitherfamilyin the uledernsense or private
propertyand thestate machinery.All theseare the mostsalient
features ofclass society.
Let us seewhythisdiscoverywas reallycrucialfor the full
formulation ofthedialecticsofsocial evolution as the foundersof
Marxism wantus to understand it.
It is well-known that, in 1847-48,whenMarx and Engels
drafted the Manifesto of t/eComrnunist Party,thefactofthepre-class
societyor primitive communism "was all but unknown".Hence
wastheformulation in the Manifesto:"The history of all hitherto
exist:ing socsetyis the historyof class struggles.J It is also well-
known thatan amendment hadeventually tobeaddedto thisformula-
tionspecially afterMarxandEngelsbecameacquainted withMorgan's
researches.In 1888,Engelsadded tlzisamendment, though in the
formof a note,because,alreadyin 1875,Marx and Engelsjointly
expressedthe view that " the Manifestohas becomea historical
document whichwehavenolongeranyrightto alter."28In this note
of 1888, Engelssaid, "The innerorganisation of this primitive
communistic societywaslaid bare in its typicalform, by Morgan's
crowning discovery ofthetruenatureofthe gensand its relation to
the tribe. With the dissollltion of these primaevalcommunities
societybeginsto be differentiated i:atoseparateandfinally antagonis-
tic classes."29
This, it mustbe noted, is morethan a mereadditionof
some technicaldata arrivedat by furtherresearches in social
sciences.Morgan'sworkshowedthat the primitivecommunistic
society-farfroin havingbeena pecllliarfeatureof some particular
humangroup represented a stageinthe naturalvs wellas necessary
sequencein thesocialevolution ofman. Moreover, in thetimescale,
it occupieda periodimmensely vasterthanthatofthe class society
as faras it wasknown to Morgan.30
Morgan'swork,in short,requiresof us a qualitatively new
understanding ofthepast evolutionofsociety,justas, comparedto
Morgan'srathervagueexpectation ofthe classlesssociety,the pro-
foundly important economic andpoliticalanalyses ofMarxandEngels,
require ofus a qualitativelynewunderstanding ofthefutureevolution
ofsociety. In dialecticalterminologies, whileMorganshowedhow
theprimitive pre-classsocietyhadto be negatedbyclass society,
MarxandEngelsshowedthatthe classsocietyin its turnhasgot to
be negatedbytheclasslesssoeietyofthefuture.Thedialecticalout-
look,forwhichtruthis thewhole,cannotviewthetwo negations in
theirmutualexclusion:thenegationofclasssocietybythe classless
societyofthefuture acquiresfulldialecticalsigniScance whenunder-
stoodin connection with or as a continuation ofthe same process
of thenegation of the pre-classsocietyof the past by the class

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICS OF SOCIAL EVOLUTION 15

societyofthe present.
It is of importanceto note another
pointinthis connection.
Thissocio-historicalprocessofthe negationofthe negation is pro-
pelledin factbythesameforce,namely, that ofthedevelopment of
thetechniqueormodeofproductionMorgansaw this in hisown
waywhilelooking backat pastsocietys
whileMarx foresaw it while
looking forward to thefuturesociety.Morgan'sresearchesled to the
assertionthatthe development of the techniqueof obtainingthe
meansofsubsistencebeginning fromthe earlystageof savagery,
reached, at whathe calledtheupperstageof barbarism, a situation
in whichconditions werecreatedfora qualitativetransformation of
thesocialorganisationthe emergence ofclass societyon the ruins
of thepre-classsociety. Accordingto the researchesofMarx and
lingels,the furtherdevelopmentof the technique of production
through thesuccessivestages of class society reached again under
moderneapitalisma situationthatcalled fora qualitative transfor-
mationin social organisation-theemergenceof classlesssociety on
theruinsof theclass society. Thereis thusa real connecting thread
betweentheresearchesof Morganand NIarx, to which Engels drew
ourattentionwhenhe said, "Morganrediscovered in America,in his
ownway,the materialistconceptionof historythat had been dis-
coveredbyMarxforty years ago. " 3 l

In short,theresearchesof Morgan and Marx are in need of

integration.Wllenintegrated, we havea fullerunderstanding of the
dialecticsof social evolutionas determined by thetechniqueof pro-
duction. We maybriefly recapitulatethemainpoints of this.
In theprimitive pre-classsociety,the techniqueof production
was so rudimentary that the labour of the entire community was
requiredto maintainit at theminimumlevelof subsistence. Human
labourpowerwas not5 et capable of producingany surplus,hence
therewas no queskionofone sectionof the community living on the
labourof another.Withthedevelopment of theproductivetechnique,
humanlabourpowerbecameable to producesurplus-i. e., morethan
was necessaryfor the bare maintenanceof the labourerhimself.
Objectiveconditionswerethuscreatedforone sectionof the society
to live on the labour of another. In otherwords,conditionswere
createdforthepossibledivisionof society into two broad classes,
namely,thatof thedirectproducersand of those that expropriated
theirsurplusproduct. Morgan, and followinghim Engels,showed
howthispossibilitywas actualisedin humanhistory. This was the
negationoftheprimitive pre-class
societybyearlyclasssociety,
i. e.,
as determined by the quantitative increaseof humanproductive
powerreaching a qualitativelynew level. The development of the
techniqueofproduction continued through thesuccessivestagesof
classsociety,
culminating in capitalism.Undercapitalism, however,
the development of the productivetechniquereachedagain a

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

qualitatively
new character as a resultofwhichitbecameincreasingly
incompatiblewiththe divisionof societyinto classess. In other
words,conditons werecreatedagainforthenegation of classsociety
bytheclasslesssocietyof the future or for communism, though this
at anincomparablyhigher level.
Such,then,arethemainpointsofthedialecticsofsocialdeve-
lopment as understoodin Marxism.
Morgan,MarxandEngels
Butletus return to thewritin^gs ofMarxandEngelsbeforethey
wereacquainted withthe most extensiveaccountof the pre-class
societyiIl Morgan'swork. We shallnoteheretwopointsaboutthese
writings.First,theiranalysisofthecapitalistmodeof production
ledthemto a positaon thatrequ«red thepostulationofthe primitive
pre-classsociety. Secondly, in defaultofa comprehensive account
ofit,whichtheyfirst cameacrossin Morgan'swork,theywereoften
usingwhatever evidence theycouldlaytheirhands onaboutprimitive
communism in pre-Morgan sociology,and thisfor the purposeof
arrivingat a fuxll
formulation of the dialecticsof socin}evolution.
We canthusunderstand wllytheAncient Societyprovedso enthralling
forthem.
First:theeconomic andsocialanalysisof capitalismledMarx
to theconclusion concerningthe impending and inevitabledoomof
cap;talism.Butthiswasnotall. Whatwasalso remarkable about
thisconclusionandon whichspecialemphasiswas put alreadyin
theM4nifesto32 wasthattheendof capitalism meant also theendof
theentirecareer ofclasssociety.It is onthispointthatthecommunist
revolution reallydiSersfromall thepreceding forms of socialrevolu-
tions. Because ofthe innercontradictions that developedwithin
slavery,forexample, theslavesystem had eventually to make room
forfeudalism.Butthiswas basicallytheoverthrow ofone form of
classsocietyin favour ofanotherformof it. Becauseof theinternal
contradictionsdeveloping within feudalism, again,the feudalsystem
hadeventually to makeroomforcapitalism. Howsoever revolutionary
thissocialtransformation might havebeen,this too wasthereplace-
ment,afterall, ofclass socaety in one formby another.Withthe
deepening oftheinnercontradictions ofcapitalism,however,whatMarx
andEngelssawas happening before theireyeswassomething qualita
tivelydifferent. Conditionswerebeing createdfor "thetotaldis-
appearance ofclassantagonisms", for"themostradicalrupture with
traditionalproperty relations". As theManifesto explains:
"All theprecedingclassesthat gottheupperhand,soughtto
fortifytheiralreadyacquiredstatusbysubjectingsocietyat largeto
theirconditions ofappropriation.The proletarians cannotbecome
masters oftheproductive forcesofsociety, exceptbyabolishing their
ownpreviousnzodeof appropriation, and thereby also everyother

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICS OF SOCIAL EVOLUTION 17

ofappropriation.
prtiousmode They have nothingof their own to
secureand to fortify; theirmissionis to destroyall previoussecurities
for,and insurances of,individual property".33

Thus,alreadyin the Manifesto Marxand Engelswere tryingto

visualise thepassingawayof classsociety,or, in thegeneralhistorical
canvas,of its inherenttransitoriness.Such an understanding ofthe
careerof class societyis requiredby thedialectical view, of course,
because,as EngelsrepeatedlyexplainWd, shorn of all mystifications,
dialecticsmeansnothingbutviewingthingsin their essential transi-
torinessor as involvedin the ceaselessprocessof change-a view"in
whichnothingremainswhat, where and as it was, bllt everytbing
moves,changes".34 But whatis meantby trans;toriness, bychange?
Thereis no doubtthatit means passing out of existenceor ceasing
to be, but nothing reallypclssesout oJexistence lvithout
coming into
being. Nothingis transitory if it is viewed as beginningless.Tran-
sitoriness, in short,means coming into being and passing out of
existence.
In otherwords,thedialecticalviewot)class societyis notjust
thevisualisationof theclass societywithering- awayor ceasingto be,
it also requiresthe admissionthatthe class society once came into
beingor thatit had a definitebeginning. So long as this beginning
is not tracedor known,the dialectical viewof the passingaway of
class societyremainsat best inadequatelyexplained. It was so with
Marxand Engelsin 184748, whentheydraftedthe Manifesto ofthe
CommunistParty. Theycouldsee,what their economicand political
analysisof capitalismled themto see, namely,the career of class
societycomingtowardsits end. But theywerenot yetawareof how
the class society emergedon the ruins (f the primitivepre-class
society. Hencewas theirtremendous enthusiasm forMorgan'swork,
whichforthefirsttimebnabledthemto see fullythatthe timewhich
has passedsincethe class societybegan is but a fragment of thepast
durationof man's existence.
enough,beforebeingacquasntedwiththeresearches
Significantly
of Morgan,Marxand Engelswereoftenusingeveryscrapofinforma-
tlionaboutthepre-ctasssociety or primitivecommunismthat they
could lay theirhandson and thisforthe purpose of movingtowards
a fullformulat,ion of thedialecticsof social development.
In a letterwrittenbyMarxto Engelson March25, 1868,we find
the mentionmainlyof twosuchevdences--- 1) theworksof G. Maurer
tl790-1872)dealingmainlywith thesurvivalof primitivecommunist
conditionsin theGerman"mark" or commune, and 2) certainobser-
vations of the Rol11anhistorianTacitus (c A. D. 55-120). Despite
beingoftenextremely cryptic almostaphoristic-thisletterof Marx
is exceedingly important forour understanding of howhe was then
trying to movethefullformulation ofthedialecticsofsocial evoltltion
depending on thescslntydata aboutprimitivecommunism. The letter

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SOCIA L SCIENTIST
18
needsto be read and rereadin full,thoughwe have thescope hereto
have onlya briefextractfromit:

It is the samewithhumanhistoryas withpalaeontology. Even the

bestmindsfail to see on principle,owing to a certain judicial
blindness thingswhichlie in frontof their noses. Later, when
themomenthas arrived,one is surprisedto findtraces everywhere
of whatone has failedto see. The firstreactionagainstthe French
Revolutionand theEntightenment whichis conIlectedwithit was
naturallyto regardeverything mediaevalas romantic;even people
like&rimmare not free fromthis. The secondreactionis to look
heyotel theMiddle Ages into the p)imitiaJe age of ezerynatioll,and
thatcorrespondsto t/7e socialistt7end,although those learned men
haveno idea thattheyhaveanyconnectionwithit. Then theyare
surprisedto fi71dwhatis nellestilt w11atis oldest evenequalitarians,
to a degreewhichwouldhctvemadeProudhonshudder.35

As is characteristicof Marx'shurriednotes, a considerable

numberof ideas and comments .Ippears to be crowdingthe letterjllSt
quoted. But the main driftof his thought-the central theme con-
nectinghis ideas and comnlents is not difficultto see. He comes
acrossa fewand fragmentary evidencesof primitivecommunismor
its survivalin Germanand Romallhistoryand, on thebasis of these,
givesusa glimpseofthedialecticsof social elevelopment inthefollowing
remlrkableexpressiolls:" t(slecoh. ..isatOt1Zelx1
ilz1itileage of s?ationn ez?e)

sndl/zatconespozJds lo t11e
soeralistt}encl....T/ley z e susp1*ised
tofind91hat
is nellestinlV/lAt is o/bGest--el
e7teqll(zlitat
fan.s,to a deg1ee llhicZlu ouldhave
madeProlwdhoz1 sXllldele1.sWithoutsiolentlydistorting Marxwe have to
adlmitthat"svhatis 31ewest"is ot course communismand "what is
oldest" is primitive commanism;henceto see whatis newestin what
is oldest"cc)rresponds to thesocialisttrend". It was preciselythe
samepointthat Morganalso wilntelto emphasise in his own way,
whenhe said: "Tt will be a revivcll, in a higherform,of the liberty,
equalityand fraternity of theancientgentes."However,in 186O,when
Marxwasmakingthis momentousformulationcontainin g the cruxof
thedialectics of social development,Morgan's Ancient Societywas
yetto appear. We can well understandMarx's enthusismforit, for
it containeda detailedand sustainedstud! of "whatis oldest'' or the
primitivepre-class society. Morgan, it needs to be remembered
here,"grappledwith his matelial for nearly fortyyears until he
completely masteredit. That is why his book is one of the few
epoeh-making worksof our time.'36
Whatis said above about Marx's observationis also trueof the
writings of Engelsbeforehe read Morgan'sezork.In the AntiDuX1ring,
published in 1878afterMarx wentthroughits entire manuscript37

Engelsexplaixledwith variousexclmples thelaw of theof thenegation

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICS OF SOCIAL EVOLUTION 19

negation,as "an extremely general-and for this reason extremely

farreachingandsmportantlaw of development of nature,history
and
thought'
s 38 In thiscollnect
ion he observed:

It is thesame{n history, as well. All civilizedpeoples begin with

the commonownewbhip of the land. With all peoples who have
passeda certainlzrimitive stage,tllis ccAmmon c)wnership becomes
in thecourseof the developnqent of (zgrieulture a (etter on pro-
duction. It is aboJished, negated,ancl after a longeror shorter
sersesof intermediilte stageis tr.lnsfolnled into privateproperty.
But at a higherSt.lr]vfagriculturoll development, brouglltaboutby
privatoproperty in land itself,privlteprnperty eonversely beeomes
a fetter on production, (1sis the ease tedy both with slllall tInd
lilrgel>-lndownership. The denlullldthcltit, too, should onee again
be transfornled in(o commc)npropert)!neeessarily arises. But this
demanddoes not me;llltherestol.ltien(rf the aborigin.lleommon
oznership,butthe institulionofa r;,,hig?lerand more devetoped
formof possessionialCOlNm(511 whiell,fw-,frombeinga llindrance to
production, on the eontr.Zry frrtl1efirsttimc will free production
frc)m all fettersand enableit to Iniakeftllluse (f 1nodernchemical
diseoveriesand n1eehalliea1 Jnventions.39

Such,then,is thedialecticsof soeiclldevclopment visualisedby

Engelsin the/71ti-DU111'i71g:eommonownership (primitive
communism)
negatedbyprivatoproperty, whiell,in its turn,is negatetlagain for
therevivalof communism on a higerlevel.For ourpresentdiscussion,
however,tl1equestion{s: WhatW(IS11 XS evideneetortl1estart3ngpoint
c)fthe f(rn1uliltitll--the cvidence, il1 ot!1Wr vords, of primitive
COI11mUI1;SIn
llaVi11ClzCen(111istorieullfelct'?In theAZti-1)1l1lli7tg
itself,
Engelsgt1ve us the impressiol1 of beingaw.lreof it onlyina few 1nd
fragn1ellt>l!f(lrnls!ofteninferredfromits sursivalsin the village
eommunities sttldiceli]1pre-Morgall sociology,speeially,as he says,in
i'Maurer'sepoeh-makingvritingson the primitiveconstitution of
the Germanmark...andof the ever-inere.lsing mass of literature,
chieflystimulcltedbyNlilurer, wh«chis devotedto provingthepr1mi-
tive commonownership of the land among all civilizedpeoples of
Europcand Asia, and to showingthevarious formsof its existence
;nd dissolution."40 But whatwasstheweightof all these evidences
comparedto thoseon vhich Morgan'sAncient Societrwas based? We
can judgeit fromEngel'sown observation. In 1885, writtl1g a new
perf.lceto theA7lti-Dz/1riz1gSEngelssaid thatone of the mairj points
C)11
NVIliChheWOZIId 11AVE liked to illter the book 'relnltes...totle
historyofprimitivesociety,thekeyto whichwas providedbyMorgsln
nnlyin 1877. But as I havesincethenhad the oppvrtunity, in my
work TB1e())igin of t./leFnlily, Plivb7tePropeetl! ad tXzeStafe (1884)> to
>or}; up thematerialsvhichin the meantimehad b*corneavailable

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 20 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

to me,a reference to thistaterworkmeetsthe case."41

If Engels'The Originof Family PrivateProperty and State has

becomefortheMarxists a classicfor the full understandingof the
dialecticsofsocialevolution,letus not forgetthe simplefact that
in thetitleofthebookEngelsremembered to add:"in thelight oftAte
researches
oJLewisH. Morgan."

l V GordonChilde,What Happened inHistory,Penguin, 1957,p 7.

2 L H Morgan,Ancient Society, p 561. Emphasisadded.
3 V I Lenin,Frederick
Engels.See Marxand Engels,SelectedWorks,Moscow,
1975,pp IS-16.
4 F Engels,"Socialism:Utopianand Scientific", in MarxandEngels, Selected
Works,Moseow,1975,p 423. 5 lbid. 6 lbifJ!, p 426.
7 B JStern,inEncyclopsedia ofSociaZSciences,
1954,Vol XI, p 13.
8 Thefulltitleof theworkis AecientSocietf,oe Researches in the Lines of
Progress
fromSswagery thlozagh
Barbarism to Civilisation.
9 Engels,Tl7eOrigi of theFasw1ily,
PrivaJeProperty nndtheState,Moscow,1952,
P lo.
10 Morgan,owcit,p 3. Emphasisadded. 11 Ibid,pp7-8.
12 lbid,p 18.ERmphasi s added.
I3 G Thomson, Stlks in Ancient GreekSociet, London,1949,Vol I, pp 142-143.
14 Ibid,p34f.
15 Engels,OrigilofFanzily..., opcit,pp32-33.
I 6 G Thomson, op cit,p 70.
17 Ibid,p 85el. 18 Ibid,p 59. 19 lbid,pp 59-60.
20 JD Bernal,ScienceinHistory, Penguins1969,p 1083.
21 Thomson,op cit,p 85. 22 Ibid,p 85. 23 Ibid,p 86.
24 Quoted by Tllomson,ibil,p 86.
25 Engels, Orzgiel
ofFasnily...,opcit,p284.
26 Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1975,p 347.
27 Engels, OriginofFaenil.y...,
op cit,pp7-8.
28 lWarsand Engels, Selected[Forks, op cit,p 3^.
29 Ibil,p 36n.
30 It needsto be notedthatduring Morgan'stimepracticallynothing was known
of theearlyclass societiesin Egyptand Mesopotemia, notto speakof Indus
Valley. Morganhadto dependmainlyon theevidencesof ancientGreece
andRome.
31 EEngels,OriginofFanwily...,opcit,p 7. Thispointis emphasised byEngelsin
hisotherwritings also. Forexample,see, MarxandEngels, Selected Cozres-
pondence,
op cit,p 347.
32 MarxandEngels.Manifesto oftheComniunist Party.See SelectedWorks,op cit,
p 52.
33 Ibid,p 45. Emp}lasisadded.Cf Engels,"SocialismUtopiaand Scientific",
in MarxandEngels,SelectedWorks, pp424-425.
34 Engels,Anti-Duhrixg, Moscow,1969,p 30.
35 MarxandEngels,Se1ected Corresponalence,opcit,p 189. }imphasisadded.
36 F>ngels,OriginofFamily...,op cit,p 10.
37 lingels,Anti-DlthrErzg,
opcit,pp 13-14.
38 Ihid,p 168. 39 Ibid,p 165. 40 lbid,p 211. 41 Ibid,p 15.

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.164 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 04:00:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions