Cite this entry Search the SEP Advanced Search Tools RSS Feed Table of Contents What's New

New Archives Projected Contents Editorial nfor!ation Abo"t the SEP Editorial #oard $ow to Cite the SEP S%ecial Characters S"%%ort the SEP Contact the SEP & 'eta%hysics Research (ab) CS( ) Stanford *niversity

+%en access to the SEP is !ade %ossible by a world,wide f"ndin- initiative. Please Read $ow /o" Can $el% 0ee% the Encyclo%edia Free

Karl Marx
First published Tue Aug 26, 2003; substantive revision Mon Jan 28, 2008 0arl 'ar1 23434,34456 is best 7nown not as a %hiloso%her b"t as a revol"tionary co!!"nist) whose wor7s ins%ired the fo"ndation of !any co!!"nist re-i!es in the twentieth cent"ry. t is hard to thin7 of !any who have had as !"ch infl"ence in the creation of the !odern world. Trained as a %hiloso%her) 'ar1 t"rned away fro! %hiloso%hy in his !id,twenties) towards econo!ics and %olitics. $owever) in addition to his overtly %hiloso%hical early wor7) his later writin-s have !any %oints of contact with conte!%orary %hiloso%hical debates) es%ecially in the %hiloso%hy of history and the social sciences) and in !oral and %olitical %hiloso%hy. $istorical !aterialis! 8 'ar1's theory of history 8 is centered aro"nd the idea that for!s of society rise and fall as they f"rther and then i!%ede the develo%!ent of h"!an %rod"ctive %ower. 'ar1 sees the historical %rocess as %roceedin- thro"-h a necessary series of !odes of %rod"ction) c"l!inatin- in co!!"nis!. 'ar1's econo!ic analysis of ca%italis! is based on his version of the labo"r theory of val"e) and incl"des the analysis of ca%italist %rofit as the e1traction of s"r%l"s val"e fro! the e1%loited %roletariat. The analysis of history and econo!ics co!e to-ether in 'ar1's %rediction of the inevitable econo!ic brea7down of ca%italis!) to be re%laced by co!!"nis!. $owever 'ar1 ref"sed to s%ec"late in detail abo"t the nat"re of

co!!"nis!) ar-"in- that it wo"ld arise thro"-h historical %rocesses) and was not the realisation of a %re,deter!ined !oral ideal.

3. 'ar1's (ife and Wor7s 9. The Early Writin-s o 9.3. +n the :ewish ;"estion o 9.9. Contrib"tion to a Criti<"e of $e-el's Philoso%hy of Ri-ht= ntrod"ction o 9.5. 34>> 'an"scri%ts o 9.>. Theses on Fe"erbach 5. Econo!ics >. Theory of $istory o >.3 The ?er!an deolo-y o >.9 34@A Preface o >.5 F"nctional E1%lanation o >.> Rationality @. 'orality #iblio-ra%hy +ther nternet Reso"rces Related Entries

1. Marx's Life and Works

0arl 'ar1 was born in Trier) in the ?er!an Rhineland) in 3434. Altho"-h his fa!ily was :ewish they converted to Christianity so that his father co"ld %"rs"e his career as a lawyer in the face of Pr"ssia's anti,:ewish laws. A %recocio"s schoolchild) 'ar1 st"died law in #onn and #erlin) and then wrote a PhB thesis in Philoso%hy) co!%arin- the views of Be!ocrit"s and E%ic"r"s. +n co!%letion of his doctorate in 34>3 'ar1 ho%ed for an acade!ic job) b"t he had already fallen in with too radical a -ro"% of thin7ers and there was no real %ros%ect. T"rnin- to jo"rnalis!) 'ar1 ra%idly beca!e involved in %olitical and social iss"es) and soon fo"nd hi!self havin- to consider co!!"nist theory. +f his !any early writin-s) fo"r) in %artic"lar) stand o"t. CContrib"tion to a Criti<"e of $e-el's Philoso%hy of Ri-ht) ntrod"ctionD) and C+n The :ewish ;"estionD) were both written in 34>5 and %"blished in the Be"tsch,FranEFsische :ahrbGcher. The Econo ic and !hilosophical Manuscripts) written in Paris 34>>) and the CTheses on Fe"erbachD of 34>@) re!ained "n%"blished in 'ar1's lifeti!e. The "er an #deolog$) co,written with En-els in 34>@) was also "n%"blished b"t this is where we see 'ar1 be-innin- to develo% his theory of history. The %o unist Mani&esto is %erha%s 'ar1's !ost widely read wor7) even if it is not the best -"ide to his tho"-ht. This was a-ain jointly written with En-els and %"blished with a -reat sense of e1cite!ent as 'ar1 ret"rned to ?er!any fro! e1ile to ta7e %art in the revol"tion of 34>4. With the fail"re of the revol"tion 'ar1 !oved to (ondon where he re!ained for the rest of his life. $e now concentrated on the st"dy of econo!ics) %rod"cin-) in 34@A) his

%ontribution to a %riti'ue o& !olitical Econo $. This is lar-ely re!e!bered for its Preface) in which 'ar1 s7etches o"t what he calls Cthe -"idin- %rinci%lesD of his tho"-ht) on which !any inter%retations of historical !aterialis! are based. 'ar1's !ain econo!ic wor7 is) of co"rse) %apital (olu e )) %"blished in 34HI) altho"-h (olu e 3) edited by En-els) and %"blished %osth"!o"sly in 34A>) contains !"ch of interest. Finally) the late %a!%hlet %riti'ue o& the "otha !rogra e 234I@6 is an i!%ortant so"rce for 'ar1's reflections on the nat"re and or-anisation of co!!"nist society. The wor7s so far !entioned a!o"nt only to a s!all fra-!ent of 'ar1's o%"s) which will event"ally r"n to aro"nd 3JJ lar-e vol"!es when his collected wor7s are co!%leted. $owever the ite!s selected above for! the !ost i!%ortant core fro! the %oint of view of 'ar1's connection with %hiloso%hy) altho"-h other wor7s) s"ch as the )8th *ru aire o& +ouis ,apoleon 234@96) are often re-arded as e<"ally i!%ortant in assessin- 'ar1's analysis of concrete %olitical events. n what follows) shall concentrate on those te1ts and iss"es which have been -iven the -reatest attention within the %hiloso%hical literat"re.

2. The Early Writings

The intellect"al cli!ate within which the yo"n- 'ar1 wor7ed was do!inated by the infl"ence of $e-el) and the reaction to $e-el by a -ro"% 7nown as the /o"n- $e-elians) who rejected what they re-arded as the conservative i!%lications of $e-el's wor7. The !ost si-nificant of these thin7ers was ("dwi- Fe"erbach) who atte!%ted to transfor! $e-el's !eta%hysics) and) thereby) %rovided a criti<"e of $e-el's doctrine of reli-ion and the state. A lar-e %ortion of the %hiloso%hical content of 'ar1's wor7s written in the early 34>Js is a record of his str"--le to define his own %osition in reaction to that of $e-el and Fe"erbach and those of the other /o"n- $e-elians.

2.1 On The Jewish

!estion"

n this te1t 'ar1 be-ins to !a7e clear the distance between hi!self and his radical liberal collea-"es a!on- the /o"n- $e-eliansK in %artic"lar #r"no #a"er. #a"er had recently written a-ainst :ewish e!anci%ation) fro! an atheist %ers%ective) ar-"in- that the reli-ion of both :ews and Christians was a barrier to e!anci%ation. n res%ondin- to #a"er) 'ar1 !a7es one of the !ost end"rin- ar-"!ents fro! his early writin-s) by !eans of introd"cin- a distinction between %olitical e!anci%ation 8 essentially the -rant of liberal ri-hts and liberties 8 and h"!an e!anci%ation. 'ar1's re%ly to #a"er is that %olitical e!anci%ation is %erfectly co!%atible with the contin"ed e1istence of reli-ion) as the conte!%orary e1a!%le of the *nited States de!onstrates. $owever) %"shin- !atters dee%er) in an ar-"!ent reinvented by inn"!erable critics of liberalis!) 'ar1 ar-"es that not only is %olitical e!anci%ation ins"fficient to brin- abo"t h"!an e!anci%ation) it is in so!e sense also a barrier. (iberal ri-hts and ideas of j"stice are %re!ised on the idea that each of "s needs %rotection fro! other h"!an bein-s. Therefore liberal ri-hts are ri-hts of se%aration) desi-ned to %rotect "s fro! s"ch %erceived threats. Freedo! on s"ch a view) is freedo! fro! interference. What this view overloo7s is the %ossibility 8 for 'ar1) the fact 8 that real freedo! is to be fo"nd %ositively in o"r relations with other

%eo%le. t is to be fo"nd in h"!an co!!"nity) not in isolation. So insistin- on a re-i!e of ri-hts enco"ra-es "s to view each other in ways which "nder!ine the %ossibility of the real freedo! we !ay find in h"!an e!anci%ation. Now we sho"ld be clear that 'ar1 does not o%%ose %olitical e!anci%ation) for he sees that liberalis! is a -reat i!%rove!ent on the syste!s of %rej"dice and discri!ination which e1isted in the ?er!any of his day. Nevertheless) s"ch %olitically e!anci%ated liberalis! !"st be transcended on the ro"te to -en"ine h"!an e!anci%ation. *nfort"nately) 'ar1 never tells "s what h"!an e!anci%ation is) altho"-h it is clear that it is closely related to the idea of non,alienated labo"r) which we will e1%lore below

2.2 #ontri$!tion to a #riti%!e of &egel's 'hiloso(hy of )ight* +ntrod!,tion"

This wor7 is ho!e to the 'ar1's notorio"s re!ar7 that reli-ion is the Co%iate of the %eo%leD) and it is here that 'ar1 sets o"t his acco"nt of reli-ion in !ost detail. :"st as i!%ortantly 'ar1 here also considers the <"estion of how revol"tion !i-ht be achieved in ?er!any) and sets o"t the role of the %roletariat in brin-in- abo"t the e!anci%ation of society as a whole. With re-ard to reli-ion) 'ar1 f"lly acce%ted Fe"erbach's clai! in o%%osition to traditional theolo-y that h"!an bein-s had created ?od in their own i!a-eK indeed a view that lon- %re,dated Fe"erbach. Fe"erbach's distinctive contrib"tion was to ar-"e that worshi%%in- ?od diverted h"!an bein-s fro! enjoyin- their own h"!an %owers. While acce%tin- !"ch of Fe"erbach's acco"nt 'ar1's criticiEes Fe"erbach on the -ro"nds that he has failed to "nderstand why %eo%le fall into reli-io"s alienation and so is "nable to e1%lain how it can be transcended. 'ar1's e1%lanation is that reli-ion is a res%onse to alienation in !aterial life) and therefore cannot be re!oved "ntil h"!an !aterial life is e!anci%ated) at which %oint reli-ion will wither away. Precisely what it is abo"t !aterial life that creates reli-ion is not set o"t with co!%lete clarity. $owever) it see!s that at least two as%ects of alienation are res%onsible. +ne is alienated labo"r) which will be e1%lored shortly. A second is the need for h"!an bein-s to assert their co!!"nal essence. Whether or not we e1%licitly reco-niEe it) h"!an bein-s e1ist as a co!!"nity) and what !a7es h"!an life %ossible is o"r !"t"al de%endence on the vast networ7 of social and econo!ic relations which en-"lf "s all) even tho"-h this is rarely ac7nowled-ed in o"r day,to,day life. 'ar1's view a%%ears to be that we !"st) so!ehow or other) ac7nowled-e o"r co!!"nal e1istence in o"r instit"tions. At first it is Cdevio"sly ac7nowled-edD by reli-ion) which creates a false idea of a co!!"nity in which we are all e<"al in the eyes of ?od. After the %ost,Refor!ation fra-!entation of reli-ion) where reli-ion is no lon-er able to %lay the role even of a fa7e co!!"nity of e<"als) the state fills this need by offerin- "s the ill"sion of a co!!"nity of citiEens) all e<"al in the eyes of the law. #"t the state and reli-ion will both be transcended when a -en"ine co!!"nity of social and econo!ic e<"als is created. +f co"rse we are owed an answer to the <"estion how s"ch a society co"ld be created. t is interestin- to read 'ar1 here in the li-ht of his third Thesis on Fe"erbach where he criticises an alternative theory. The cr"de !aterialis! of Robert +wen and others

ass"!es that h"!an bein-s are f"lly deter!ined by their !aterial circ"!stances) and therefore to brin- abo"t an e!anci%ated society it is necessary and s"fficient to !a7e the ri-ht chan-es to those !aterial circ"!stances. $owever) how are those circ"!stances to be chan-edL #y an enli-htened %hilanthro%ist li7e +wen who can !irac"lo"sly brea7 thro"-h the chain of deter!ination which ties down everyone elseL 'ar1's res%onse) in both the Theses and the Criti<"e) is that the %roletariat can brea7 free only by their own self,transfor!in- action. ndeed if they do not create the revol"tion for the!selves 8 -"ided) of co"rse) by the %hiloso%her 8 they will not be fit to receive it.

2.- Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts

The Econo ic and !hilosophical Manuscripts cover a wide ran-e of to%ics) incl"din!"ch interestin- !aterial on %rivate %ro%erty and co!!"nis!) and on !oney) as well as develo%in- 'ar1's criti<"e of $e-el. $owever) the !an"scri%ts are best 7nown for their acco"nt of alienated labo"r. $ere 'ar1 fa!o"sly de%icts the wor7er "nder ca%italis! as s"fferin- fro! fo"r ty%es of alienated labo"r. First) fro! the %rod"ct) which as soon as it is created is ta7en away fro! its %rod"cer. Second) in %rod"ctive activity 2wor76 which is e1%erienced as a tor!ent. Third) fro! s%ecies,bein-) for h"!ans %rod"ce blindly and not in accordance with their tr"ly h"!an %owers. Finally) fro! other h"!an bein-s) where the relation of e1chan-e re%laces the satisfaction of !"t"al need. That these cate-ories overla% in so!e res%ects is not a s"r%rise -iven 'ar1's re!ar7able !ethodolo-ical a!bition in these writin-s. Essentially he atte!%ts to a%%ly a $e-elian ded"ction of cate-ories to econo!ics) tryin- to de!onstrate that all the cate-ories of bo"r-eois econo!ics 8 wa-es) rent) e1chan-e) %rofit) etc. 8 are "lti!ately derived fro! an analysis of the conce%t of alienation. Conse<"ently each cate-ory of alienated labo"r is s"%%osed to be ded"cible fro! the %revio"s one. $owever) 'ar1 -ets no f"rther than ded"cin- cate-ories of alienated labo"r fro! each other. ;"ite %ossibly in the co"rse of writin- he ca!e to "nderstand that a different !ethodolo-y is re<"ired for a%%roachinecono!ic iss"es. Nevertheless we are left with a very rich te1t on the nat"re of alienated labo"r. The idea of non,alienation has to be inferred fro! the ne-ative) with the assistance of one short %assa-e at the end of the te1t C+n :a!es 'illD in which non, alienated labo"r is briefly described in ter!s which e!%hasise both the i!!ediate %rod"cer's enjoy!ent of %rod"ction as a confir!ation of his or her %owers) and also the idea that %rod"ction is to !eet the needs of others) th"s confir!in- for both %arties o"r h"!an essence as !"t"al de%endence. #oth sides of o"r s%ecies essence are revealed here= o"r individ"al h"!an %owers and o"r !e!bershi% in the h"!an co!!"nity. t is i!%ortant to "nderstand that for 'ar1 alienation is not !erely a !atter of s"bjective feelin-) or conf"sion. The brid-e between 'ar1's early analysis of alienation and his later social theory is the idea that the alienated individ"al is Ca %laythin- of alien forcesD) albeit alien forces which are the!selves a %rod"ct of h"!an action. n o"r daily lives we ta7e decisions that have "nintended conse<"ences) which then co!bine to create lar-e,scale social forces which !ay have an "tterly "n%redicted effect. n 'ar1's view the instit"tions of ca%italis! 8 the!selves the conse<"ences of h"!an behavio"r 8 co!e bac7 to str"ct"re o"r f"t"re behavio"r) deter!inin- the %ossibilities of o"r action. For e1a!%le) for as lon- as a ca%italist intends to stay in b"siness he !"st e1%loit his wor7ers

to the le-al li!it. Whether or not wrac7ed by -"ilt the ca%italist !"st act as a r"thless e1%loiter. Si!ilarly the wor7er !"st ta7e the best job on offerK there is si!%ly no other sane o%tion. #"t by doin- this we reinforce the very str"ct"res that o%%ress "s. The "r-e to transcend this condition) and to ta7e collective control of o"r destiny 8 whatever that wo"ld !ean in %ractice 8 is one of the !otivatin- and s"stainin- ele!ents of 'ar1's social analysis.

2.. Theses on /e!er$a,h"

The Theses on Fe"erbach contain one of 'ar1's !ost !e!orable re!ar7s= Mthe %hiloso%hers have only inter%reted the world) the %oint is to chan-e itN 2thesis 336. $owever the eleven theses as a whole %rovide) in the co!%ass of a co"%le of %a-es) a re!ar7able di-est of 'ar1's reaction to the %hiloso%hy of his day. Several of these have been to"ched on already 2for e1a!%le) the disc"ssions of reli-ion in theses >) H and I) and revol"tion in thesis 56 so here will concentrate only on the first) !ost overtly %hiloso%hical) thesis. n the first thesis 'ar1 states his objections to Call hitherto e1istin-D !aterialis! and idealis!. 'aterialis! is co!%li!ented for "nderstandin- the %hysical reality of the world) b"t is criticised for i-norin- the active role of the h"!an s"bject in creatin- the world we %erceive. dealis!) at least as develo%ed by $e-el) "nderstands the active nat"re of the h"!an s"bject) b"t confines it to tho"-ht or conte!%lation= the world is created thro"-h the cate-ories we i!%ose "%on it. 'ar1 co!bines the insi-hts of both traditions to %ro%ose a view in which h"!an bein-s do indeed create 8 or at least transfor! 8 the world they find the!selves in) b"t this transfor!ation ha%%ens not in tho"-ht b"t thro"-h act"al !aterial activityK not thro"-h the i!%osition of s"bli!e conce%ts b"t thro"-h the sweat of their brow) with %ic7s and shovels. This historical version of !aterialis!) which transcends and th"s rejects all e1istin- %hiloso%hical tho"-ht) is the fo"ndation of 'ar1's later theory of history. As 'ar1 %"ts it in the 34>> 'an"scri%ts) C nd"stry is the real historical relationshi% of nat"re O to !anD. This tho"-ht) derived fro! reflection on the history of %hiloso%hy) to-ether with his e1%erience of social and econo!ic realities) as a jo"rnalist) sets the a-enda for all 'ar1's f"t"re wor7.

-. E,ono0i,s
%apital Pol"!e 3 be-ins with an analysis of the idea of co!!odity %rod"ction. A co!!odity is defined as a "sef"l e1ternal object) %rod"ced for e1chan-e on a !ar7et. Th"s two necessary conditions for co!!odity %rod"ction are the e1istence of a !ar7et) in which e1chan-e can ta7e %lace) and a social division of labo"r) in which different %eo%le %rod"ce different %rod"cts) witho"t which there wo"ld be no !otivation for e1chan-e. 'ar1 s"--ests that co!!odities have both "se,val"e 8 a "se in other words 8 and an e1chan-e,val"e 8 initially to be "nderstood as their %rice. *se val"e can easily be "nderstood) so 'ar1 says) b"t he insists that e1chan-e val"e is a %"EElin%heno!enon) and relative e1chan-e val"es need to be e1%lained. Why does a <"antity of one co!!odity e1chan-e for a -iven <"antity of another co!!odityL $is e1%lanation is

in ter!s of the labo"r in%"t re<"ired to %rod"ce the co!!odity) or rather) the socially necessary labo"r) which is labo"r e1erted at the avera-e level of intensity and %rod"ctivity for that branch of activity within the econo!y. Th"s the labo"r theory of val"e asserts that the val"e of a co!!odity is deter!ined by the <"antity of socially necessary labo"r ti!e re<"ired to %rod"ce it. 'ar1 %rovides a two sta-e ar-"!ent for the labo"r theory of val"e. The first sta-e is to ar-"e that if two objects can be co!%ared in the sense of bein- %"t on either side of an e<"als si-n) then there !"st be a Cthird thin- of identical !a-nit"de in both of the!D to which they are both red"cible. As co!!odities can be e1chan-ed a-ainst each other) there !"st) 'ar1 ar-"es) be a third thin- that they have in co!!on. This then !otivates the second sta-e) which is a search for the a%%ro%riate Cthird thin-D) which is labo"r in 'ar1's view) as the only %la"sible co!!on ele!ent. #oth ste%s of the ar-"!ent are) of co"rse) hi-hly contestable. Ca%italis! is distinctive) 'ar1 ar-"es) in that it involves not !erely the e1chan-e of co!!odities) b"t the advance!ent of ca%ital) in the for! of !oney) with the %"r%ose of -eneratin- %rofit thro"-h the %"rchase of co!!odities and their transfor!ation into other co!!odities which can co!!and a hi-her %rice) and th"s yield a %rofit. 'ar1 clai!s that no %revio"s theorist has been able ade<"ately to e1%lain how ca%italis! as a whole can !a7e a %rofit. 'ar1's own sol"tion relies on the idea of e1%loitation of the wor7er. n settin- "% conditions of %rod"ction the ca%italist %"rchases the wor7er's labo"r %ower 8 his ability to labo"r 8 for the day. The cost of this co!!odity is deter!ined in the sa!e way as the cost of every otherK i.e. in ter!s of the a!o"nt of socially necessary labo"r %ower re<"ired to %rod"ce it. n this case the val"e of a day's labo"r %ower is the val"e of the co!!odities necessary to 7ee% the wor7er alive for a day. S"%%ose that s"ch co!!odities ta7e fo"r ho"rs to %rod"ce. Th"s the first fo"r ho"rs of the wor7in- day is s%ent on %rod"cin- val"e e<"ivalent to the val"e of the wa-es the wor7er will be %aid. This is 7nown as necessary labo"r. Any wor7 the wor7er does above this is 7nown as s"r%l"s labo"r) %rod"cin- s"r%l"s val"e for the ca%italist. S"r%l"s val"e) accordin- to 'ar1) is the so"rce of all %rofit. n 'ar1's analysis labo"r %ower is the only co!!odity which can %rod"ce !ore val"e than it is worth) and for this reason it is 7nown as variable ca%ital. +ther co!!odities si!%ly %ass their val"e on to the finished co!!odities) b"t do not create any e1tra val"e. They are 7nown as constant ca%ital. Profit) then) is the res"lt of the labo"r %erfor!ed by the wor7er beyond that necessary to create the val"e of his or her wa-es. This is the s"r%l"s val"e theory of %rofit. t a%%ears to follow fro! this analysis that as ind"stry beco!es !ore !echanised) "sin!ore constant ca%ital and less variable ca%ital) the rate of %rofit o"-ht to fall. For as a %ro%ortion less ca%ital will be advanced on labo"r) and only labo"r can create val"e. n %apital Pol"!e 5 'ar1 does indeed !a7e the %rediction that the rate of %rofit will fall over ti!e) and this is one of the factors which leads to the downfall of ca%italis!. 2$owever) as %ointed o"t by 'ar1's able e1%ositor Pa"l SweeEy in The Theor$ o& %apitalist -evelop ent) the analysis is %roble!atic.6 A f"rther conse<"ence of this analysis is a diffic"lty for the theory that 'ar1 did reco-nise) and tried) albeit "ns"ccessf"lly) to !eet also in %apital Pol"!e 5. t follows fro! the analysis so far that labo"r intensive ind"stries o"-ht to have a hi-her rate of %rofit than those which "se less labo"r. Not only is this e!%irically false) it is theoretically "nacce%table. Accordin-ly)

'ar1 ar-"ed that in real econo!ic life %rices vary in a syste!atic way fro! val"es. Providin- the !athe!atics to e1%lain this is 7nown as the transfor!ation %roble!) and 'ar1's own atte!%t s"ffers fro! technical diffic"lties. Altho"-h there are 7nown techni<"es for solvin- this %roble! now 2albeit with "nwelco!e side conse<"ences6) we sho"ld recall that the labo"r theory of val"e was initially !otivated as an int"itively %la"sible theory of %rice. #"t when the connection between %rice and val"e is rendered as indirect as it is in the final theory) the int"itive !otivation of the theory drains away. #"t even if the defender of the theory is still not ready to concede defeat) a f"rther objection a%%ears devastatin-. 'ar1's assertion that only labo"r can create s"r%l"s val"e is "ns"%%orted by any ar-"!ent or analysis) and can be ar-"ed to be !erely an artifact of the nat"re of his %resentation. Any co!!odity can be %ic7ed to %lay a si!ilar role. Conse<"ently with e<"al j"stification one co"ld set o"t a corn theory of val"e) ar-"inthat corn has the "ni<"e %ower of creatin- !ore val"e than it costs. For!ally this wo"ld be identical to the labo"r theory of val"e. Altho"-h 'ar1's econo!ic analysis is based on the discredited labo"r theory of val"e) there are ele!ents of his theory that re!ain of worth. The Ca!brid-e econo!ist :oan Robinson) in An Essa$ on Mar.ian Econo ics) %ic7ed o"t two as%ects of %artic"lar note. First) 'ar1's ref"sal to acce%t that ca%italis! involves a har!ony of interests between wor7er and ca%italist) re%lacin- this with a class based analysis of the wor7er's str"--le for better wa-es and conditions of wor7) vers"s the ca%italist's drive for ever -reater %rofits. Second) 'ar1's denial that there is any lon-,r"n tendency to e<"ilibri"! in the !ar7et) and his descri%tions of !echanis!s which "nderlie the trade,cycle of boo! and b"st. #oth %rovide a sal"tary corrective to as%ects of orthodo1 econo!ic theory.

.. Theory of &istory
'ar1 did not set o"t his theory of history in -reat detail. Accordin-ly) it has to be constr"cted fro! a variety of te1ts) both those where he atte!%ts to a%%ly a theoretical analysis to %ast and f"t"re historical events) and those of a !ore %"rely theoretical nat"re. +f the latter) the 34@A Preface to A %riti'ue o& !olitical Econo $ has achieved canonical stat"s. $owever) The "er an #deolog$) co,written with En-els in 34>@) is a vital early so"rce in which 'ar1 first sets o"t the basics of the o"tloo7 of historical !aterialis!. We shall briefly o"tline both te1ts) and then loo7 at the reconstr"ction of 'ar1's theory of history in the hands of his %hiloso%hically !ost infl"ential recent e1%onent) ?.A. Cohen.

..1 The German Ideology

n The "er an #deolog$ 'ar1 and En-els contrast their new !aterialist !ethod with the idealis! which had characterised %revio"s ?er!an tho"-ht. Accordin-ly) they ta7e %ains to set o"t the C%re!ises of the !aterialist !ethodD. They start) they say) fro! Creal h"!an bein-sD) e!%hasisin- that h"!an bein-s are essentially %rod"ctive) in that they !"st %rod"ce their !eans of s"bsistence in order to satisfy their !aterial needs. The satisfaction of needs en-enders new needs of both a !aterial and social 7ind) and for!s of society arise corres%ondin- to the state of develo%!ent of h"!an %rod"ctive forces. 'aterial life deter!ines) or at least CconditionsD social life) and so the %ri!ary direction

of social e1%lanation is fro! !aterial %rod"ction to social for!s) and thence to for!s of conscio"sness. As the !aterial !eans of %rod"ction develo%) C!odes of co,o%erationD or econo!ic str"ct"res rise and fall) and event"ally co!!"nis! will beco!e a real %ossibility once the %li-ht of the wor7ers and their awareness of an alternative !otivates the! s"fficiently to beco!e revol"tionaries.

..2 1123 'refa,e

n the s7etch of The "er an #deolog$) all the 7ey ele!ents of historical !aterialis! are %resent) even if the ter!inolo-y is not yet that of 'ar1's !ore !at"re writin-s. 'ar1's state!ent in 34@A Preface renders !"ch the sa!e view in shar%er for!. Cohen's reconstr"ction of 'ar1's view in the Preface be-ins fro! what Cohen calls the Bevelo%!ent Thesis) which is %re,s"%%osed) rather than e1%licitly stated in the Preface. This is the thesis that the %rod"ctive forces tend to develo%) in the sense of beco!in!ore %owerf"l) over ti!e. This states not that they always do develo%) b"t that there is a tendency for the! to do so. The %rod"ctive forces are the !eans of %rod"ction) to-ether with %rod"ctively a%%licable 7nowled-e= technolo-y) in other words. The ne1t thesis is the %ri!acy thesis) which has two as%ects. The first states that the nat"re of the econo!ic str"ct"re is e1%lained by the level of develo%!ent of the %rod"ctive forces) and the second that the nat"re of the s"%erstr"ct"re 8 the %olitical and le-al instit"tions of society8 is e1%lained by the nat"re of the econo!ic str"ct"re. The nat"re of a society's ideolo-y) which is to say the reli-io"s) artistic) !oral and %hiloso%hical beliefs contained within society) is also e1%lained in ter!s of its econo!ic str"ct"re) altho"-h this receives less e!%hasis in Cohen's inter%retation. ndeed !any activities !ay well co!bine as%ects of both the s"%erstr"ct"re and ideolo-y= a reli-ion is constit"ted by both instit"tions and a set of beliefs. Revol"tion and e%och chan-e is "nderstood as the conse<"ence of an econo!ic str"ct"re no lon-er bein- able to contin"e to develo% the forces of %rod"ction. At this %oint the develo%!ent of the %rod"ctive forces is said to be fettered) and) accordin- to the theory once an econo!ic str"ct"re fetters develo%!ent it will be revol"tionised 8 Cb"rst as"nderD 8 and event"ally re%laced with an econo!ic str"ct"re better s"ited to %reside over the contin"ed develo%!ent of the forces of %rod"ction. n o"tline) then) the theory has a %leasin- si!%licity and %ower. t see!s %la"sible that h"!an %rod"ctive %ower develo%s over ti!e) and %la"sible too that econo!ic str"ct"res e1ist for as lon- as they develo% the %rod"ctive forces) b"t will be re%laced when they are no lon-er ca%able of doin- this. /et severe %roble!s e!er-e when we atte!%t to %"t !ore flesh on these bones.

..- /!n,tional Ex(lanation

Prior to Cohen's wor7) historical !aterialis! had not been re-arded as a coherent view within En-lish,lan-"a-e %olitical %hiloso%hy. The anti%athy is well s"!!ed "% with the closin- words of $.#. Acton's The #llusion o& the Epoch= M'ar1is! is a %hiloso%hical farra-oN. +ne diffic"lty ta7en %artic"larly serio"sly by Cohen is an alle-ed inconsistency

between the e1%lanatory %ri!acy of the forces of %rod"ction) and certain clai!s !ade elsewhere by 'ar1 which a%%ear to -ive the econo!ic str"ct"re %ri!acy in e1%laininthe develo%!ent of the %rod"ctive forces. For e1a!%le) in The %o unist Mani&esto 'ar1 states that= CThe bo"r-eoisie cannot e1ist witho"t constantly revol"tionisin- the instr"!ents of %rod"ction.D This a%%ears to -ive ca"sal and e1%lanatory %ri!acy to the econo!ic str"ct"re 8 ca%italis! 8 which brin-s abo"t the develo%!ent of the forces of %rod"ction. Cohen acce%ts that) on the s"rface at least) this -enerates a contradiction. #oth the econo!ic str"ct"re and the develo%!ent of the %rod"ctive forces see! to have e1%lanatory %riority over each other. *nsatisfied by s"ch va-"e resol"tions as Cdeter!ination in the last instanceD) or the idea of CdialecticalD connections) Cohen self,conscio"sly atte!%ts to a%%ly the standards of clarity and ri-o"r of analytic %hiloso%hy to %rovide a reconstr"cted version of historical !aterialis!. The 7ey theoretical innovation is to a%%eal to the notion of f"nctional e1%lanation 2also so!eti!es called Cconse<"ence e1%lanationD6. The essential !ove is cheerf"lly to ad!it that the econo!ic str"ct"re does indeed develo% the %rod"ctive forces) b"t to add that this) accordin- to the theory) is %recisely why we have ca%italis! 2when we do6. That is) if ca%italis! failed to develo% the %rod"ctive forces it wo"ld disa%%ear. And) indeed) this fits bea"tif"lly with historical !aterialis!. For 'ar1 asserts that when an econo!ic str"ct"re fails to develo% the %rod"ctive forces 8 when it CfettersD the %rod"ctive forces 8 it will be revol"tionised and the e%och will chan-e. So the idea of Cfetterin-D beco!es the co"nter%art to the theory of f"nctional e1%lanation. Essentially fetterin- is what ha%%ens when the econo!ic str"ct"re beco!es dysf"nctional. Now it is a%%arent that this renders historical !aterialis! consistent. /et there is a <"estion as to whether it is at too hi-h a %rice. For we !"st as7 whether f"nctional e1%lanation is a coherent !ethodolo-ical device. The %roble! is that we can as7 what it is that !a7es it the case that an econo!ic str"ct"re will only %ersist for as lon- as it develo%s the %rod"ctive forces. :on Elster has %ressed this criticis! a-ainst Cohen very hard. f we were to ar-"e that there is an a-ent -"idin- history who has the %"r%ose that the %rod"ctive forces sho"ld be develo%ed as !"ch as %ossible then it wo"ld !a7e sense that s"ch an a-ent wo"ld intervene in history to carry o"t this %"r%ose by selectin- the econo!ic str"ct"res which do the best job. $owever) it is clear that 'ar1 !a7es no s"ch !eta%hysical ass"!%tions. Elster is very critical 8 so!eti!es of 'ar1) so!eti!es of Cohen 8 of the idea of a%%ealin- to C%"r%osesD in history witho"t those bein- the %"r%oses of anyone. Cohen is well aware of this diffic"lty) b"t defends the "se of f"nctional e1%lanation by co!%arin- its "se in historical !aterialis! with its "se in evol"tionary biolo-y. n conte!%orary biolo-y it is co!!on%lace to e1%lain the e1istence of the stri%es of a ti-er) or the hollow bones of a bird) by %ointin- to the f"nction of these feat"res. $ere we have a%%arent %"r%oses which are not the %"r%oses of anyone. The obvio"s co"nter) however) is that in evol"tionary biolo-y we can %rovide a ca"sal story to "nder%in these f"nctional e1%lanationsK a story involvin- chance variation and s"rvival of the fittest. Therefore

these f"nctional e1%lanations are s"stained by a co!%le1 ca"sal feedbac7 loo% in which dysf"nctional ele!ents tend to be filtered o"t in co!%etition with better f"nctioninele!ents. Cohen calls s"ch bac7-ro"nd acco"nts CelaborationsD and he concedes that f"nctional e1%lanations are in need of elaborations. #"t he %oints o"t that standard ca"sal e1%lanations are e<"ally in need of elaborations. We !i-ht) for e1a!%le) be satisfied with the e1%lanation that the vase bro7e beca"se it was dro%%ed on the floor) b"t a -reat deal of f"rther infor!ation is needed to e1%lain why this e1%lanation wor7s. Conse<"ently) Cohen clai!s that we can be j"stified in offerin- a f"nctional e1%lanation even when we are in i-norance of its elaboration. ndeed) even in biolo-y detailed ca"sal elaborations of f"nctional e1%lanations have been available only relatively recently. Prior to Barwin) or ar-"ably (a!ar7) the only candidate ca"sal elaboration was to a%%eal to ?od's %"r%oses. Barwin o"tlined a very %la"sible !echanis!) b"t havin- no -enetic theory was not able to elaborate it into a detailed acco"nt. +"r 7nowled-e re!ains inco!%lete to this day. Nevertheless) it see!s %erfectly reasonable to say that birds have hollow bones in order to facilitate fli-ht. Cohen's %oint is that the wei-ht of evidence that or-anis!s are ada%ted to their environ!ent wo"ld %er!it even a %re,Barwinian atheist to assert this f"nctional e1%lanation with j"stification. $ence one can be j"stified in offerin- a f"nctional e1%lanation even in absence of a candidate elaboration= if there is s"fficient wei-ht of ind"ctive evidence. At this %oint the iss"e) then) divides into a theoretical <"estion and an e!%irical one. The e!%irical <"estion is whether or not there is evidence that for!s of society e1ist only for as lon- as they advance %rod"ctive %ower) and are re%laced by revol"tion when they fail. $ere) one !"st ad!it) the e!%irical record is %atchy at best) and there a%%ear to have been lon- %eriods of sta-nation) even re-ression) when dysf"nctional econo!ic str"ct"res were not revol"tionised. The theoretical iss"e is whether a %la"sible elaboratin- e1%lanation is available to "nder%in 'ar1ist f"nctional e1%lanations. $ere there is so!ethin- of a dile!!a. n the first instance it is te!%tin- to try to !i!ic the elaboration -iven in the Barwinian story) and a%%eal to chance variations and s"rvival of the fittest. n this case CfittestD wo"ld !ean C!ost able to %reside over the develo%!ent of the %rod"ctive forcesD. Chance variation wo"ld be a !atter of %eo%le tryin- o"t new ty%es of econo!ic relations. +n this acco"nt new econo!ic str"ct"res be-in thro"-h e1%eri!ent) b"t thrive and %ersist thro"-h their s"ccess in develo%in- the %rod"ctive forces. $owever the %roble! is that s"ch an acco"nt wo"ld see! to introd"ce a lar-er ele!ent of contin-ency than 'ar1 see7s) for it is essential to 'ar1's tho"-ht that one sho"ld be able to %redict the event"al arrival of co!!"nis!. Within Barwinian theory there is no warrant for lon-,ter! %redictions) for everythin- de%ends on the contin-encies of %artic"lar sit"ations. A si!ilar heavy ele!ent of contin-ency wo"ld be inherited by a for! of historical !aterialis! develo%ed by analo-y with evol"tionary biolo-y. The dile!!a) then) is that the best !odel for develo%in- the theory !a7es %redictions based on the theory "nso"nd) yet the whole %oint of the theory is %redictive. $ence one !"st either loo7 for an alternative !eans of %rod"cin- elaboratin- e1%lanation) or -ive "% the %redictive a!bitions of the theory.

... )ationality
The drivin- force of history) in Cohen's reconstr"ction of 'ar1) is the develo%!ent of the %rod"ctive forces) the !ost i!%ortant of which is technolo-y. #"t what is it that drives s"ch develo%!entL *lti!ately) in Cohen's acco"nt) it is h"!an rationality. $"!an bein-s have the in-en"ity to a%%ly the!selves to develo% !eans to address the scarcity they find. This on the face of it see!s very reasonable. /et there are diffic"lties. As Cohen hi!self ac7nowled-es) societies do not always do what wo"ld be rational for an individ"al to do. Co,ordination %roble!s !ay stand in o"r way) and there !ay be str"ct"ral barriers. F"rther!ore) it is relatively rare for those who introd"ce new technolo-ies to be !otivated by the need to address scarcity. Rather) "nder ca%italis!) the %rofit !otive is the 7ey. +f co"rse it !i-ht be ar-"ed that this is the social for! that the !aterial need to address scarcity ta7es "nder ca%italis!. #"t still one !ay raise the <"estion whether the need to address scarcity always has the infl"ence that it a%%ears to have ta7en on in !odern ti!es. For e1a!%le) a r"lin- class's absol"te deter!ination to hold on to %ower !ay have led to econo!ically sta-nant societies. Alternatively) it !i-ht be tho"-ht that a society !ay %"t reli-ion or the %rotection of traditional ways of life ahead of econo!ic needs. This -oes to the heart of 'ar1's theory that !an is an essentially %rod"ctive bein- and that the loc"s of interaction with the world is ind"stry. As Cohen hi!self later ar-"ed in essays s"ch as CReconsiderin- $istorical 'aterialis!D) this !ay a%%ear one,sided) and i-nore other %owerf"l ele!ents in h"!an nat"re. S"ch a criticis! chi!es with a criticis! fro! the %revio"s sectionK that the historical record !ay not) in fact) dis%lay the tendency to -rowth in the %rod"ctive forces ass"!ed by the theory.

2. Morality
The iss"e of 'ar1 and !orality %oses a con"ndr"!. +n readin- 'ar1's wor7s at all %eriods of his life) there a%%ears to be the stron-est %ossible distaste towards bo"r-eois ca%italist society) and an "ndo"bted endorse!ent of f"t"re co!!"nist society. /et the ter!s of this anti%athy and endorse!ent are far fro! clear. Bes%ite e1%ectations) 'ar1 never says that ca%italis! is "nj"st. Neither does he say that co!!"nis! wo"ld be a j"st for! of society. n fact he ta7es %ains to distance hi!self fro! those who en-a-e in a disco"rse of j"stice) and !a7es a conscio"s atte!%t to e1cl"de direct !oral co!!entary in his own wor7s. The %"EEle is why this sho"ld be) -iven the wei-ht of indirect !oral co!!entary one finds. There are) initially) se%arate <"estions) concernin- 'ar1's attit"de to ca%italis! and to co!!"nis!. There are also se%arate <"estions concernin- his attit"de to ideas of j"stice) and to ideas of !orality !ore broadly concerned. This) then) -enerates fo"r <"estions= 236 Bid 'ar1 thin7 ca%italis! "nj"stLK 296 did he thin7 that ca%italis! co"ld be !orally criticised on other -ro"ndsLK 256 did he thin7 that co!!"nis! wo"ld be j"stL 2>6 did he thin7 it co"ld be !orally a%%roved of on other -ro"ndsL These are the <"estions we shall consider in this section.

The initial ar-"!ent that 'ar1 !"st have tho"-ht that ca%italis! is "nj"st is based on the observation that 'ar1 ar-"ed that all ca%italist %rofit is "lti!ately derived fro! the e1%loitation of the wor7er. Ca%italis!'s dirty secret is that it is not a real! of har!ony and !"t"al benefit b"t a syste! in which one class syste!atically e1tracts %rofit fro! another. $ow co"ld this fail to be "nj"stL /et it is notable that 'ar1 never concl"des this) and in %apital he -oes as far as to say that s"ch e1chan-e is Cby no !eans an inj"sticeD. Allen Wood has ar-"ed that 'ar1 too7 this a%%roach beca"se his -eneral theoretical a%%roach e1cl"des any trans,e%ochal stand%oint fro! which one can co!!ent on the j"stice of an econo!ic syste!. Even tho"-h one can criticiEe %artic"lar behavio"r fro! within an econo!ic str"ct"re as "nj"st 2and theft "nder ca%italis! wo"ld be an e1a!%le of this6 it is not %ossible to criticise ca%italis! as a whole. This is a conse<"ence of 'ar1's analysis of the role of ideas of j"stice fro! within historical !aterialis!. That is to say) j"ridical instit"tions are %art of the s"%erstr"ct"re) and ideas of j"stice are ideolo-ical) and the role of both the s"%erstr"ct"re and ideolo-y) in the f"nctionalist readin- of historical !aterialis! ado%ted here) is to stabilise the econo!ic str"ct"re. Conse<"ently) to state that so!ethin- is j"st "nder ca%italis! is si!%ly a j"d-e!ent a%%lied to those ele!ents of the syste! that will tend to have the effect of advancinca%italis!. Accordin- to 'ar1) any society the r"lin- ideas are those of the r"lin- classK the core of the theory of ideolo-y. Qiyad $"sa!i) however) ar-"es that Wood is !ista7en) i-norin- the fact that for 'ar1 ideas "nder-o a do"ble deter!ination in that the ideas of the non,r"lin- class !ay be very different fro! those of the r"lin- class. +f co"rse it is the ideas of the r"lin- class that receive attention and i!%le!entation) b"t this does not !ean that other ideas do not e1ist. $"sa!i -oes as far as to ar-"e that !e!bers of the %roletariat "nder ca%italis! have an acco"nt of j"stice which !atches co!!"nis!. Fro! this %rivile-ed stand%oint of the %roletariat) which is also 'ar1's stand%oint) ca%italis! is "nj"st) and so it follows that 'ar1 tho"-ht ca%italis! "nj"st. Pla"sible tho"-h it !ay so"nd) $"sa!i's ar-"!ent fails to acco"nt for two related %oints. First) it cannot e1%lain why 'ar1 never described ca%italis! as "nj"st) and second) it does not acco"nt for the distance 'ar1 wanted to %lace between his own scientific socialis!) and that of the "to%ian socialists who ar-"ed for the inj"stice of ca%italis!. $ence one cannot avoid the concl"sion that the CofficialD view of 'ar1 is that ca%italis! is not "nj"st. Nevertheless) this leaves "s with a %"EEle. '"ch of 'ar1's descri%tion of ca%italis! 8 his "se of the words Ce!beEEle!entD) CrobberyD and Ce1%loitationD 8 belie the official acco"nt. Ar-"ably) the only satisfactory way of "nderstandin- this iss"e is) once !ore) fro! ?.A. Cohen) who %ro%oses that 'ar1 believed that ca%italis! was "nj"st) b"t did not believe that he believed it was "nj"st. n other words) 'ar1) li7e so !any of "s) did not have %erfect 7nowled-e of his own !ind. n his e1%licit reflections on the j"stice of ca%italis! he was able to !aintain his official view. #"t in less -"arded !o!ents his real view sli%s o"t) even if never in e1%licit lan-"a-e. S"ch an inter%retation is bo"nd to be controversial) b"t it !a7es -ood sense of the te1ts.

Whatever one concl"des on the <"estion of whether 'ar1 tho"-ht ca%italis! "nj"st) it is) nevertheless) obvio"s that 'ar1 tho"-ht that ca%italis! was not the best way for h"!an bein-s to live. $ere %oints !ade in his early writin-s re!ain %resent thro"-ho"t his writin-s) if no lon-er connected to an e1%licit theory of alienation. The wor7er finds wor7 a tor!ent) s"ffers %overty) overwor7 and lac7 of f"lfill!ent and freedo!. Peo%le do not relate to each other as h"!ans sho"ld. Boes this a!o"nt to a !oral criticis! of ca%italis! or notL n the absence of any s%ecial reason to ar-"e otherwise) it si!%ly see!s obvio"s that 'ar1's criti<"e is a !oral one. Ca%italis! i!%edes h"!an flo"rishin-. 'ar1) tho"-h) once !ore refrained fro! !a7in- this e1%licitK he see!ed to show no interest in locatin- his criticis! of ca%italis! in any of the traditions of !oral %hiloso%hy) or e1%lainin- how he was -eneratin- a new tradition. There !ay have been two reasons for his ca"tion. The first was that while there were bad thin-s abo"t ca%italis!) there is) fro! a world historical %oint of view) !"ch -ood abo"t it too. For witho"t ca%italis!) co!!"nis! wo"ld not be %ossible. Ca%italis! is to be transcended) not abolished) and this !ay be diffic"lt to convey in the ter!s of !oral %hiloso%hy. Second) and %erha%s !ore i!%ortantly) we need to ret"rn to the contrast between scientific and "to%ian socialis!. The "to%ians a%%ealed to "niversal ideas of tr"th and j"stice to defend their %ro%osed sche!es) and their theory of transition was based on the idea that a%%ealin- to !oral sensibilities wo"ld be the best) %erha%s only) way of brin-inabo"t the new chosen society. 'ar1 wanted to distance hi!self fro! this tradition of "to%ian tho"-ht) and the 7ey %oint of distinction was to ar-"e that the ro"te to "nderstandin- the %ossibilities of h"!an e!anci%ation lay in the analysis of historical and social forces) not in !orality. $ence) for 'ar1) any a%%eal to !orality was theoretically a bac7ward ste%. This leads "s now to 'ar1's assess!ent of co!!"nis!. Wo"ld co!!"nis! be a j"st societyL n considerin- 'ar1's attit"de to co!!"nis! and j"stice there are really only two viable %ossibilities= either he tho"-ht that co!!"nis! wo"ld be a j"st society or he tho"-ht that the conce%t of j"stice wo"ld not a%%ly= that co!!"nis! wo"ld transcend j"stice. Co!!"nis! is described by 'ar1) in the %riti'ue o& the "otha !rogra e) as a society in which each %erson sho"ld contrib"te accordin- to their ability and receive accordin- to their need. This certainly so"nds li7e a theory of j"stice) and co"ld be ado%ted as s"ch. $owever it is %ossibly tr"er to 'ar1's tho"-ht to say that this is %art of an acco"nt in which co!!"nis! transcends j"stice) as ("7es has ar-"ed. f we start with the idea that the %oint of ideas of j"stice is to resolve dis%"tes) then a society witho"t dis%"tes wo"ld have no need or %lace for j"stice. We can see this by reflectin- "%on $"!e's idea of the circ"!stances of j"stice. $"!e ar-"ed that if there was enor!o"s !aterial ab"ndance 8 if everyone co"ld have whatever they wanted witho"t invadin- another's share 8 we wo"ld never have devised r"les of j"stice. And)

of co"rse) 'ar1 often s"--ested that co!!"nis! wo"ld be a society of s"ch ab"ndance. #"t $"!e also s"--ested that j"stice wo"ld not be needed in other circ"!stancesK if there were co!%lete fellow,feelin- between all h"!an bein-s. A-ain there wo"ld be no conflict and no need for j"stice. +f co"rse) one can ar-"e whether either !aterial ab"ndance or h"!an fellow,feelin- to this de-ree wo"ld be %ossible) b"t the %oint is that both ar-"!ents -ive a clear sense in which co!!"nis! transcends j"stice. Nevertheless we re!ain with the <"estion of whether 'ar1 tho"-ht that co!!"nis! co"ld be co!!ended on other !oral -ro"nds. There are certainly reasons to believe that 'ar1 did not want to !a7e !oral assess!ents at all) for e1a!%le) in the %o unist Mani&esto he writes that Rco!!"nis! abolishes O all reli-ion and all !orality) rather than constit"tin- the! on a new basisR. $owever) it !ay be that 'ar1 here is ta7in!orality in a rather narrow sense. +n a broad "nderstandin-) in which !orality) or %erha%s better to say ethics) is concernin- with the idea of livin- well) it see!s that co!!"nis! can be assessed favo"rably in this li-ht. +ne co!%ellin- ar-"!ent is that 'ar1's career si!%ly !a7es no sense "nless we can attrib"te s"ch a belief to hi!. #"t beyond this we can be brief in that the considerations add"ced in section 9 above a%%ly a-ain. Co!!"nis! clearly advances h"!an flo"rishin-) in 'ar1's view. The only reason for denyin- that) in 'ar1's vision) it wo"ld a!o"nt to a -ood society is a theoretical anti%athy to the word C-oodD. And here the !ain %oint is that) in 'ar1's view) co!!"nis! wo"ld not be bro"-ht abo"t by hi-h,!inded benefactors of h"!anity. ;"ite %ossibly his deter!ination to retain this %oint of difference between hi!self and the *to%ian socialists led hi! to dis%ara-e the i!%ortance of !orality to a de-ree that -oes beyond the call of theoretical necessity.

4i$liogra(hy
#olle,ted Works

0arl 'ar1 and Friedrich En-els) "esa tausgabe 2'E?A6) #erlin) 3AI@,.

English Translations

0arl 'ar1 and Frederic7 En-els %ollected /or0s. New /or7 and (ondon= nternational P"blishers. 3AI@.

5ele,ted Writings

1arl Mar.2 3elected /ritings) 9nd edition) Bavid 'c(ellan 2ed.6) +1ford= +1ford *niversity Press) 9JJJ. 3elected /or0s) 0arl 'ar1 and Frederic7 En-els) 9 Pol"!es) 'oscow= Forei-n (an-"a-es P"blishin- $o"se) 3AH9.

Life

'c(ellan) Bavid) 3AI5) 1arl Mar.2 4is +i&e and Thought) (ondon= 'ac!illan. Wheen) Francis) 3AAA) 1arl Mar.) (ondon= Fo"rth Estate.

+ntrod!,tions

Sin-er) Peter) 9JJJ) Mar.2 A (er$ 3hort #ntroduction) +1ford= +1ford *niversity Press. Wolff) :onathan) 9JJ9) /h$ 5ead Mar. Toda$6) +1ford= +1ford *niversity Press.

Other 5e,ondary 5o!r,es

Acton) $.#.) 3A@@) The #llusion o& the Epoch) (ondon= Cohen and West. Arth"r) C.:.) 3A4H) -ialectics o& +abour) +1ford= #asil #lac7well. Avineri) Shlo!o) 3AIJ) The 3ocial and !olitical Thought o& 1arl Mar.) Ca!brid-e= Ca!brid-e *niversity Press. #otto!ore) To! 2ed.6) 3AIA) 1arl Mar.) +1ford= #lac7well. #r"dney) Baniel) 3AA4) Mar.7s Atte pt to +eave !hilosoph$. Ca!brid-e) 'A= $arvard *niversity Press. Carver) Terrell) 3A49) Mar.7s 3ocial Theor$) New /or7= +1ford *niversity Press. Carver) Terrell 2ed.6) 3AA3) The %a bridge %o panion to Mar.) Ca!brid-e= Ca!brid-e *niversity Press. Cohen) :osh"a) 3A49) CReview of ?.A. Cohen) 1arl Mar.7s Theor$ o& 4istor$D) Journal o& !hilosoph$) IA= 9@5,9I5. Cohen) ?.A.) 9JJ3) 1arl Mar.7s Theor$ o& 4istor$2 A -e&ence) 9nd edition) +1ford) +1ford *niversity Press. Cohen) ?.A.) 3A44) 4istor$, +abour and Freedo ) +1ford= +1ford *niversity Press. Besai) 'e-nad) 9JJ9) Mar.7s 5evenge) (ondon= Perso. Elster) :on) 3A4@) Ma0ing 3ense o& Mar., Ca!brid-e= Ca!brid-e *niversity Press. ?eras) Nor!an) 3A4A) CThe Controversy abo"t 'ar1 and :"stice)D in A. Callinicos 2ed.6) Mar.ist Theor$) +1ford= +1ford *niversity Press) 3A4A. $oo7) Sidney) 3A@J) Fro 4egel to Mar.) New /or7= $"!anities Press. $"sa!i) Qiyad) 3AI4) C'ar1 on Bistrib"tive :"sticeD) !hilosoph$ and !ublic A&&airs) 4= 9I,H>. 0a!en7a) E"-ene)3AH9) The Ethical Foundations o& Mar.is (ondon= Ro"tled-e and 0e-an Pa"l. 0ola7ows7i) (esEe7) 3AI4) Main %urrents o& Mar.is ) 5 vol"!es) +1ford= +1ford *niversity Press. (eo%old) Bavid) 9JJI) The 8oung 1arl Mar.) Ca!brid-e= Ca!brid-e *niversity Press. ("7es) Ste%hen) 3A4I) Mar.is and Moralit$) +1ford= +1ford *niversity Press. 'a-"ire) :ohn) 3AI9) Mar.7s !aris /ritings) B"blin= ?ill and 'ac!illan. 'c(ellan) Bavid) 3AIJ) Mar. *e&ore Mar.is ) (ondon= 'ac!illan.

'iller) Richard) 3A4>) Anal$9ing Mar.) Princeton N:= Princeton *niversity Press. Peffer) Rodney) 3AAJ) Mar.is , Moralit$ and 3ocial Justice) Princeton= Princeton *niversity Press. Robinson) :oan) 3A>9) An Essa$ on Mar.ian Econo ics) (ondon= 'ac!illan. Roe!er) :ohn) 3A49) A "eneral Theor$ o& E.ploitation and %lass) Ca!brid-e 'a.= $arvard *niversity Press. Roe!er) :ohn 2ed.6) 3A4H) Anal$tical Mar.is ) Ca!brid-e= Ca!brid-e *niversity Press. Rosen) 'ichael) 3AAH) :n (oluntar$ 3ervitude) Ca!brid-e= Polity Press. Sober) E.) (evine) A.) and Wri-ht) E.+. 3AA9) 5econstructing Mar.) (ondon= Perso. SweeEy) Pa"l) 3A>9 S3AIJT) The Theor$ o& %apitalist -evelop ent) New /or7= 'onthly Review Press. Wolff) Robert Pa"l) 3A4>) ;nderstanding Mar. ) Princeton) N:= Princeton *niversity Press. Wood) Allen) 3A43) 1arl Mar.) (ondon= Ro"tled-eK second edition) 9JJ>. Wood) Allen) 3AI9) CThe 'ar1ian Criti<"e of :"sticeD) !hilosoph$ and !ublic A&&airs) 3= 9>>,49.

Other +nternet )eso!r,es

'ar1ists nternet Archive

)elated Entries
#a"er) #r"no U Fe"erbach) ("dwi- Andreas U $e-el) ?eor- Wilhel! Friedrich U history) %hiloso%hy of
Co%yri-ht & 9JJ4 by

:onathan Wolff V<=>ol&&?ucl=ac=u0W