посткап / post-cap
Comrades from IGCL established contacts with our group and launched a debate on the issue of the party and the concept of the decadence of capitalism. Adopting the Left Communist faction’s theoretical developments of the late 1930s; IGCL defends the position that capitalism is in decline since 1914, which is similar to the permanent crisis. For this reason, advocates for the theory of the decline completely deny the dynamics and the need for the trade unions and parliamentary democracy. On the other hand, in the IGCL’s theses about the party question, the councilist’s influence is felt when they insist that the emancipation of the working class cannot be handled by the party. Continuing to protect a non-political definition of the class, IGCL preferred to criticize one of the most fundamental documents of the Left Communists «The origin and function of the party form» that was collected from Marx’s works over the years.
Since IGCL failed to publish our last response we would like to present it here.
Polemic on the party question and decadence
In our answer we tried to select the main questions.
1) The Party Question
First question – The proletarians involved in the economic struggle, can we call them a class?
What is a class?
Volume 3 of Capital has ended with the words:
«The first question to he answered is this: What constitutes a class?» (all quotes from Marxists.org)
and doesn’t give direct answer. so we’ll look at what Lenin said on this question:
«Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy.» Lenin A Great Beginning. Heroism Of The Workers In The Rear. «Communist subbotniks»
This is a great definition of the class, but is it enough? It says about the position in the society, the economic status, however, says nothing about the activity of the class.
Marx used at least two formulations:
1) the division between class in itself and class for itself, for example, in The misery of philosophy:
«Economic conditions had first transformed the mass of the people of the country into workers. The combination of capital has created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass is thus already a class as against capital, but not yet for itself. In the struggle, of which we have noted only a few phases, this mass becomes united, and constitutes itself as a class for itself. The interests it defends become class interests. But the struggle of class against class is a political struggle.»
2) In The German Ideology, the class is group of individuals in the struggle with other classes:
«The separate individuals form a class only insofar as they have to carry on a common battle against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms with each other as competitors.»
Therefore, the proletariat is a political class that performs its historic mission:
«The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a “world-historical” existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history.»
Competition among the proletarians means that proletariat (the historical class) does not exist.
«The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing.» Marx to Engels 18.2.1865
We are not obliged to bind to only one of the formulations. There is no contradiction between them; Marx separates the economic struggle from the political struggle and describes the transition first to the second:
|Fighting in the enterprise||Struggle uniting all workers|
|Competition among the workers||Organized workers|
|Economic class||The political class, Historical class|
|Class consciousness is not exists||Class consciousness is exists|
The best option would be to avoid usage of these formulations out of their context. Early Invariance and Bordigists after World War II prefer to call the class only the organized class, as opposed to other classes, because only in the political struggle the proletariat acts as a class. In the political struggle it learns about the interests of other classes, and, therefore, moves towards seizing the power, destruction of the bourgeois state, the establishment of its dictatorship, and the abolition of all classes and the state. We could choose a different formulation, if the situation requires it.
First answer — The proletarians involved in the economic struggle are passive. They compete against each other (class-in-itself), do not act as a class and cannot overthrow the bourgeois power.
Second question – The economic struggle. Can we call it the class struggle?
In fact, this is a rephrased the first question.
In The misery of philosophy and Manifesto of the Communist Party Marx has mentioned that struggle of class against class is a political struggle.
Lenin says same thing in Liberal and Marxist Conceptions of the Class Struggle:
«Every class struggle is a political struggle. We know that the opportunists, slaves to the ideas of liberalism, understood these profound words of Marx incorrectly and tried to put a distorted interpretation on them. Among the opportunists there were, for instance, the Economists, the elder brothers of the liquidators. The Economists believed that any clash between classes was a political struggle. The Economists therefore recognised as “class struggle” the struggle for a wage increase of five kopeks on the ruble, and refused to recognise a higher, more developed, nation-wide class struggle, the struggle for political aims. The Economists, therefore, recognised the embryonic class struggle but did not recognise it in its developed form. The Economists recognised, in other words, only that part of the class struggle that was more tolerable to the liberal bourgeoisie, they refused to go farther than the liberals, they refused to recognise the higher form of class struggle that is unacceptable to the liberals. By so doing, the Economists became liberal workers’ politicians. By so doing, the Economists rejected the Marxist, revolutionary conception of the class struggle.»
Thus, the economic struggle of the workers is only embryonic class struggle. Just as the human embryo can’t be called a real human, the same could said about embryonic class struggle that can’t be called a full-fledged class struggle. Neither the human, nor the class struggle can’t miss the stage of development of its embryo. Without the economic struggles, proletarians can only participate in the multiclass political movement, not proletarian political movement.
Second answer: The economic struggle is a necessary step to roll into the class struggle, but not the class struggle yet.
Third question — What is the relationship between the proletariat and the party?
The Manifesto of the Communist Party describes the transition from the economic struggle to the political struggle:
«Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.
This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves.»
The constitution of the proletarians into the class — the ascent of workers at the political level.
The proletariat, which as we pointed out earlier, is involved in the political struggle as a separate class, organized into a political party. This point of the program is stored in the later works of Marx and Engels.
In The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State:
«As long as the oppressed class – in our case, therefore, the proletariat – is not yet ripe for its self-liberation, so long will it, in its majority, recognize the existing order of society as the only possible one and remain politically the tall of the capitalist class, its extreme left wing. But in the measure in which it matures towards its self-emancipation, in the same measure it constitutes itself as its own party and votes for its own representatives, not those of the capitalists.»
In The Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political Action as adopted by the London Conference of the International, September, 1871:
«Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;
That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end — the abolition of classes;»
The process of becoming the political class and approval of its program is equivalent to the organization of the proletariat into the party. This is the one and the same process. Without a party proletariat (historical class) does not exist.
The proletariat acts in the history as a class, when he organized into a party (See on 5th thesis in Theses on Tactics).
Summing-Up Speech On The Report Of The C.C. Of The R.C.P.(B.) March 9 1921:
«The experience of all our hardships tells us how desperately hard it is to combat them. After two and a half years of the Soviet power we came out in the Communist International and told the world that the dictatorship of the proletariat would not work except through the Communist Party.«
Does this mean that the party is the proletariat?
There we should make a point that in addition to formal political party Marx also mentioned party «in the great historical sense» (Marx to Freiligrath 29.2.1860).
Such as party is not only a party formed in the approval process of the political class, with its formal membership, but as every human act belonging to the «the real movement which abolishes the present state of things» (The German Ideology ) even when the proletariat has not yet lead an open class struggle.
This notion of the party associated with the interest of the proletariat (and not with the name of The League of Communists) can be found at:
— The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850:
«In a word: The revolution made progress, forged ahead, not by its immediate tragicomic achievements but, on the contrary, by the creation of a powerful, united counterrevolution, by the creation of an opponent in combat with whom the party of overthrow ripened into a really revolutionary party.»
— The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte:
«During the June days all classes and parties had united in the party of Order against the proletarian class as the party of anarchy, of socialism, of communism.»
In February 1917, the Bolshevik Party consisted of only 24 thousand members, whereas in July the number of the party became 240 thousand. That means that historical party merged with the formal party during the revolutionary upsurge.
Similarly, as with the case of the class, we can use or not the concept of «historical party \ formal party» if circumstances require. The content of this concept is that the communist movement can’t be always closely tied to the formal membership.
Since the mid-1920’s the party loses to the State (of primitive accumulation of capital) and in 1933 the party is no longer in power. The communist movement in the Soviet Union lost its political force.
In these critical moments of real movement ceases to be headed by the party, especially when the party begins to degenerate into an ordinary bourgeois party, when it protects purely bourgeois interests.
Marx and Engels to August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Wilhelm Bracke and others 17-18 September 1879:
«As for ourselves, in view of our whole past there is only one path open to us. For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving force of history, and in particular the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; it is therefore impossible for us to co-operate with people who wish to expunge this class struggle from the movement. When the International was formed we expressly formulated the battle-cry: the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who say that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must first be freed from above by philanthropic bourgeois and petty bourgeois. If the new Party organ adopts a line corresponding to the views of these gentlemen, and is bourgeois and not proletarian, then nothing remains for us, much though we should regret it, but publicly to declare our opposition to it and to dissolve the solidarity with which we have hitherto represented the German Party abroad. But it is to be hoped that things will not come to that.»
Metaphysical method tries to find the exact time of a person’s birth or his death, recognizing only absolutely living and completely dead body.
We can’t define the exact time of birth of the party and the political class. «Theses of tactics» talks about the process of organizing the party. Due to the class struggle the Communist Party emerged, but it still could not take power, it still had to seek support in economic strikes, and then among the class-in-itself. That is why the proletariat and the party, in this text, are separated.
When the (formal) party is ready to take power over, the actual movement of the Communist workers, of course, is not only in the party.
In The Civil War in France, Marx wrote:
«They (working class) have no ideals to realize, but to set free the elements of the new society with which old collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant.»
The party sets free real movement from obstacles, and this movement is not only into a party («brain»), but also in the body of revolution.
In The Holy Family, The German Ideology, or in The Manuscripts 1844 Marx speaks of the Communist Workers, Communist Proletarians, Communist Artisans as a practical movement. They are communists in their being, but not in the communist writings. The Communist program is the result of their struggle.
If the class is being beheaded, losing its party, then it loses its developed program and theory, and must start all over again. When ICT, ICC said that Bordigism equated the party to the class, they did not understand the function of any party and its historical origins. Maybe they just want to justify spontaneous acts of non-party workers or wish to get rid of any enforcement on workers by the party. So, often fears of degeneration of the proletarian party lead to reflections on universal solution of the problem. These organizations want to limit the relationship between the party and the class by universal legal norms and forms of movement:
«socialism cannot be imposed on the proletariat by violence and force» The question of the state (Octobre, 1938)
— These legal principles repeat the mistakes of Enlightenment and utopian socialism. Communists have corrected these errors by two words — the class struggle. All that is invented beyond the class struggle, its dynamic development and directions, is utopianism. Destruction of the state is possible perhaps due to the abolishment of the classes, there is no need of political power, but not because the party becomes gracious to the proletariat (economic class), which poorly protected from the influence of bourgeois ideas when class located outside the party.
— After the seizure of the power by such legal principles it returns to the «weapon of criticism», to an attempt to influence on the erring non-party workers only by the power of persuasion. This is equivalent to the restoration of the domination of democracy and ideas of civil idealism.
“There is no possibility for the liberation of the working class or the establishment of a new social order, unless this springs from the class struggle itself. At no time and for no reason should the proletariat surrender its role in the struggle. It should not delegate its historical mission to others, or transfer its power to others — not even to its own political party” (Political Platform of the Partito Comunista Internazionalista, 1952).
Damen determines the working class only as a subject with a historical mission, but rejects the fact that proletariat is the political class, opposed to other classes, but only when organized into a party. If in the politics (i.e. in the class struggle) the proletariat will not be represented by party, then the party of the proletariat is only a thought, it is not entitled to any action that goes beyond theory. And then it is councilism, where the party is not a political one.
These ready-made recipes to preserve the party from degeneration is not practical. They return to the issue of violence (of the party of the proletariat), make it a principle, and therefore closer to Dühring who was refuted by Engels .
Third Answer — The practice of workers’ struggles contributes to the generation of the program and organizations in the class and the party. (Formal) party — a sign of maturity of the movement, the political class maturity. (Formal) party is required for the movement, but class movement is wider than (formal) party.
Fourth question — How can we characterize the dictatorship of the proletariat? Is this political or social dictatorship?
To begin with let us recall why the proletariat — a revolutionary class.
The proletariat, the most oppressed class in the capitalist society, is deprived of the conditions of their labor, alienated from the products of their labor, it has no reserves and any strong positions. Historically, the proletariat is different from all other productive classes by not-having (with economic coercion) and the lack of any property. Proletariat is able to sell only labor power, work-capacity, a special commodity.
But this is what causes the specific conditions of emancipation of the proletariat, which is different from the liberation of the oppressed classes of previous modes of production:
«Where, then, is the positive possibility of a German emancipation?
Answer: In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it; which can invoke no historical, but only human, title; which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat.» Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Emancipation of the proletariat from the conditions of oppression, alienation and exploitation — the transformation of the whole society and the abolition of any property and of classes in general.
«Since in the fully-formed proletariat the abstraction of all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is practically complete; since the conditions of life of the proletariat sum up all the conditions of life of society today in their most inhuman form; since man has lost himself in the proletariat, yet at the same time has not only gained theoretical consciousness of that loss, but through urgent, no longer removable, no longer disguisable, absolutely imperative need — the practical expression of necessity — is driven directly to revolt against this inhumanity, it follows that the proletariat can and must emancipate itself. But it cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of life of society today which are summed up in its own situation. Not in vain does it go through the stern but steeling school of labour. It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do. Its aim and historical action is visibly and irrevocably foreshadowed in its own life situation as well as in the whole organization of bourgeois society today.» The Holy Family
«The tireless propaganda carried on by these proletarians, their daily discussions among themselves, sufficiently prove how little they themselves want to remain “as of old”, and how little they want people to remain “as of old”. They would only remain “as of old” if, with Saint Sancho, they “sought the blame in themselves”; but they know too well that only under changed circumstances will they cease to be “as of old”, and therefore they are determined to change these circumstances at the first opportunity. In revolutionary activity the changing of oneself coincides with the changing of circumstances.» German Ideology
“while the proletariat surrenders this socialism to the petty bourgeoisie; while the struggle of the different socialist leaders among themselves sets forth each of the so-called systems as a pretentious adherence to one of the transit points of the social revolution as against another – the proletariat rallies more and more around revolutionary socialism, around communism, for which the bourgeoisie has itself invented the name of Blanqui. This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.” The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850
The proletariat, unlike other classes, in its release is not intended appropriation of means of production. It destroys all property rights:
«All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.»
Manifesto of the Communist Party
Dictatorship of the proletariat abolishes classes that means dictatorship of the proletariat is replaced free development of human (species).
If «Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another» (Manifesto of the Communist Party), then dictatorship of the proletariat is the class domination, hence, the political power.
Specific historical mission of the proletariat is to destroy all the conditions of the class society. The proletariat destroys the capital and value, proletariat destroys itself, thus, opens the door for the free development of human, for the real history of human species.
«Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to maintain itself, and thereby its opposite, the proletariat, in existence. That is the positive side of the antithesis, self-satisfied private property.
The proletariat, on the contrary, is compelled as proletariat to abolish itself and thereby its opposite, private property, which determines its existence, and which makes it proletariat. It is the negative side of the antithesis, its restlessness within its very self, dissolved and self-dissolving private property.» The Holy Family
Invariance mentions that the proletarian state has not a political, but social function. This is very confusing statement. Is this rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the class domination?
If we turn to some of the works by Marx, we find similar statements about the political function:
«Of all the instruments of production, the greatest productive power is the revolutionary class itself. The organization of revolutionary elements as a class supposes the existence of all the productive forces which could be engendered in the bosom of the old society.
Does this mean that after the fall of the old society there will be a new class domination culminating in a new political power? No.» The misery of philosophy
«It follows from all we have been saying up till now that the communal relationship into which the individuals of a class entered, and which was determined by their common interests over against a third party, was always a community to which these individuals belonged only as average individuals, only insofar as they lived within the conditions of existence of their class — a relationship in which they participated not as individuals but as members of a class. With the community of revolutionary proletarians, on the other hand, who take their conditions of existence and those of all members of society under their control, it is just the reverse; it is as individuals that the individuals participate in it. It is just this combination of individuals (assuming the advanced stage of modern productive forces, of course) which puts the conditions of the free development and movement of individuals under their control» German Ideology
«This subsuming of individuals under definite classes cannot be abolished until a class has taken shape, which has no longer any particular class interest to assert against the ruling class.» German Ideology
If Invariance renounced the dictatorship of the proletariat in 1965, then was Marx anti-political communist in 1845-1847?
The division between early Marx and late Marx, separation of the humanistic period in the life of Marx makes no sense for us.
Proletariat is not a new class and its dictatorship is the result of the downfall of the old society.
We will examine this process in more details. Reduction of working hours and the abolition of the useless and parasitic occupations and industries is a big blow to the capital. Abolition of market character of education and social services may be possible at the expense of the surplus product (see Critique of the Gotha Programme), and the involvement of all members of society with productive labor. Violent proletarianization of the middle classes and of the bourgeoisie is already the first step towards the abolishment of the wage labor. Distribution of productive labor on all members of society, the introduction of planning in physical terms together with the abolition of the law of value and the division of labor are gradually opening the doors to humanity to a society without classes.
As we can see, the transition period — a dynamic process. This bitter struggle between the proletariat and its opposite — the capital. Communist society does not come at a specific hour. Because dictatorship of the proletariat — a special political power, but at the same time it is the process of annulment (Aufheben) of politics in general. As violent class dictatorship — it is a politics, but it involves a fight with (impersonal) capital all members of society and in this sense the dictatorship of the proletariat is social.
So, for us there is no contradiction in the statement of Invariance, there is no difference between the concepts of transition period early Marx and late Marx.
Answer: The dictatorship of the proletariat — a dictatorship of a specific class, however, it focuses on the revolutionary interests of all mankind. Dictatorship of the proletariat has a political function, but the political function is already annulment (Aufheben) of politics, because the proletariat can’t destroy capital without destroying itself, can’t cancel wage labor without the spread of labour on the whole society. Abolition of classes — replacement and ousting of the political functions by social function.
2) The Concept of Decadence
The concept of decadence means that capitalism cannot be progressive since 1914 and that objective conditions are ready for the transition to a new mode of production.
We can’t agree with this theory.
Our guess that the concept of decadence originates from Rosa Luxemburg’s theory of crisis and Lenin’s work about imperialism.
For Luxemburg, «division of the world among great powers» follows from wrong statement that capitalism exhausts limits of accumulation within national borders so it must start to capture economically countries with undeveloped bourgeois relations. There are several works criticizing this theory; they propose that Luxemburg ignores all the complexity of capitalist society, there are more than two classes in it and capitalist relations dominates but doesn’t cover all social relations.
Capitalism reaches imperialist stage ’cause it develops its industry, commercial capital and interest-bearing capital. Law of value in the world trade (difference in the degree of productive forces between more or less developed countries) allows to extract much more bigger surplus value with the help of imperialist expansion. Russia entered the World War I, but its [absolute] limits of accumulation were not exhausted because the biggest part of its production wasn’t even capitalist.
«a country most backward economically (Russia), where modern capitalist imperialism is enmeshed, so to speak, in a particularly close network of pre-capitalist relations.» Lenin Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
«history would register as a series of bloody and agonising convulsions» (Bilan no. 11 1, op. cit.). According to Mitchell the characteristics of this were:
— «a general and constant industrial overproduction»;
— «permanent mass unemployment, aggravating class contrasta»;
— «chronic agricultural overproduction»;
— «a considerable slow-down in the process of capitalist accumulation resulting from the narrowing of the field for the exploitation of labour power (organic composition) and the continuous fall in the rate of profit». Philippe Bourrinet THE BORDIGIST CURRENT
These points are purely political, proclamation of capitalism’s death, attempt to wishful thinking.
We’ll try to describe our claims briefly.
We can speak about «constant overproduction» when we’re talking about anarchy of production, expropriation of small owners and constant overproduction of labor force (overcrowding), for example, as it proposed in Grundrisse. Crisis of overproduction could not be constant neither before 1914 nor after. History still allows us to distinguish production cycles [with growth and falling, not constant falling].
Mass unemployment existed before 1914 too, capitalism always holds part of labor force in surplus (Capital book 1 ch. 23)
Rising tendency of the rate of profit to fall is «an expression peculiar to the capitalist mode of production of the progressive development of the social productivity of labour» – Capital, Volume 3, chapter 13. But there are reasons that opposed this tendency, they are reviewed in Capital, Volume 3, chapter 14. That’s why the rate of profit can rise in post-crisis period.
If capitalism is in decadence then it means objective factors for the revolution were ready since 1914, so, proletariat needs only to find revolutionary consciousness in struggle, which means revolution required only subjective factor. But if world’s revolution didn’t happened since 1914 then social being doesn’t determine consciousness (what is wrong) or capitalism is still not in decadence and it is still progressive [relativity] [and it builds material base of communism].
We adhere to Marx’s position about capitalist mode of production:
«Although limited by its very nature, it (capital) strives towards the universal development of the forces of production, and thus becomes the presupposition of a new mode of production, which is founded not on the development of the forces of production for the purpose of reproducing or at most expanding a given condition, but where the free, unobstructed, progressive and universal development of the forces of production is itself the presupposition of society and hence of its reproduction; where advance beyond the point of departure is the only presupposition.
The barrier to capital is that this entire development proceeds in a contradictory way, and that the working-out of the productive forces, of general wealth etc., knowledge etc., appears in such a way that the working individual alienates himself [sich entäussert]; relates to the conditions brought out of him by his labour as those not of his own but of an alien wealth and of his own poverty» Grundrisse
Our positions on the trade unions and national liberation originates from determination of the role of the economic organizations of proletariat (according to the «Manifesto»), theory about periodization of capital (unpublished chapter of the «Capital»), understanding of social relation’s reproduction by capital (ch. 21 and ch.23 of «Capital» book 1), increase in number of middle classes («Theories of Surplus Value«), democracy («On the Jewish Question» and Marx’s letter to Engels 8.8.1851) and the peasant’s obshchina\community (Marx’s letter to Vera Zasulich, preface to the «Manifesto»). Perhaps we will try to solve these questions more precisely in special article.