Introduction

• For those joining the Communist movement in the 1940s, 1950s, or later, the major introduction to Marxist historiography was often through J.V. Stalin’s essay, ‘Dialectical and Historical Materialism’, written in September 1938 for the History of CPSU (B), Short Course.
• This essay was reprinted in various editions of Problems of Leninism.
• The essay provided a summary of the essence of Marxist world-outlook, with a rich selection of quotations and logical organization.
• However, as a summary, it tended to overlook many complexities, variations, and nuances.
• This was particularly true in its treatment of the historical part and especially the concept of ‘modes of production’.

Major formulations of Marxist historiography

• Marx’s views on history developed and enriched from the 1840s onwards, beginning with the Communist Manifesto (1848), which outlined the development of capitalism and its mode of exploitation.
• The manifesto emphasized class-struggles as a constant in history but lacked discussion on pre-capitalist forms of society.
• Two key elements missing in the Communist Manifesto:
  1. The evolution of capitalism was not seen as based on the expropriation of peasants, artisans, and colonial peoples.
  2. The context was limited to Western Europe, with little focus on Asia’s pre-capitalist social organization.
• In Capital, Vol. I (1867), Marx introduced the concept of ‘Primitive (or Primary) Accumulation’, emphasizing the exploitation of peasants and colonial peoples.
• In 1859, Marx added the ‘Asiatic mode of production’ to his list of modes of production, suggesting the existence of different structures in pre-British India.
• ‘Mode of production’ refers to the system of organizing labor and production in society.
• Marx did not intend to set a rigid succession of modes like slavery, feudalism, and capitalism; instead, he used broad outlines and recognized variations like the petty mode of production in Capital (written eight years after his 1859 Preface).
• Marx’s work explored Prehistory, a period before surplus production and class exploitation, which he viewed as primitive communism.
• Engels expanded these ideas in his book, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884).
• After the Soviet Revolution (1917), Marxists faced the challenge of addressing historical variations in non-European societies while promoting a unified revolutionary cause.
• The Soviet Union adopted a universalist approach, treating all societies as passing through the same succession of modes of production (e.g., primitive society, slavery, feudalism, capitalism).
• In China, feudalism was seen to rise earlier than in Europe (around the 3rd century BC with the Qin dynasty).
• The question arose: What was the essence of feudalism? Marxists agreed it involved serfdom and non-commodity production, but the exact features differed across regions.
• The debate on the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism (1950-1953) questioned whether capitalism arose directly from feudalism or from the petty mode of production (as in Western Europe post-1400).
• The conclusion suggests that capitalism arose not from feudalism but after its overthrow.
• The ‘Asiatic mode of production’ was revived in the 1950s-1960s under the term ‘Tributary Mode of Production’, focusing on tax-rent equivalence but neglecting the labor process.
• Marxist historians still disagree on the application of the Asiatic mode.
• Theoretical points related to Marxist historical method:
  1. Mao Zedong emphasized identifying the critical contradictions in a historical situation, important for both historical analysis and practical policy.
  2. Gramsci critiqued determinism and highlighted the role of ideas and human action in shaping history, stressing that productive forces are tied to human intellect and scientific revolutions.
• The fall of socialism in the USSR and Eastern Europe is attributed to contradictions in socialist economies and the shift in public mindset.