การก่อรูปของเศรษฐกิจก่อนระบบทุนนิยม

Cuadernos de Pasado y Presente #20

by Karl Marx, ธเนศ อาภรณ์สุวรรณ (Translator), ปิยะวิทย์ เทพอำนวยสกุล (Editor)

"...ยุคโบราณให้ความพอใจที่จำกัดแก่เรา ขณะที่โลกสมัยใหม่ทิ้งความไม่พอใจให้แก่เรา
หรือถ้ามันมีความพอใจในตัวมันเอง ก็เป็นสิ่ง ‘สามานย์’ และ ‘ไร้ค่า’
----- บางส่วนจาก การก่อรูปของเศรษฐกิจก่อนระบบทุนนิยม (Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations) -----

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

การก่อรูปของเศรษฐกิจก่อนระบบทุนนิยม (Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations) โดย คาร์ล มาร์กซ (Karl Marx) แปลโดย ธเนศ อาภรณ์สุวรรณ

┈ ┉ ┈

'การก่อรูปของเศรษฐกิจก่อนระบบทุนนิยม' นี้เป็นตอนหนึ่งของต้นฉบับมหึมาที่ คาร์ล มาร์กซ เขียนขึ้นในปี 1857 - 1858 เพื่อตระเตรียมสำหรับนิพนธ์เรื่อง 'Critique of Political Economy' หรือ 'วิพากษ์เศรษฐศาสตร์การเมือง' และ 'Capital' หรือ 'ทุน'

┈ ┉ ┈

อีริค ฮอบสบอว์ม (Eric Hobsbawm) กล่าวไว้ในบทกล่าวนำของเล่มนี้ว่า 'การก่อรูปของเศรษฐกิจก่อนระบบทุนนิยม' จัดอยู่ในช่วงที่มาร์กซสุกงอมเต็มที่ มันเป็นผลจากทศวรรษแห่งการศึกษาอย่างเอาจริงเอาจังในอังกฤษ และแสดงถึงขั้นตอนในความคิดของมาร์กซอย่างแจ่มชัด ก่อนหน้าจะร่าง 'Capital' หรือ 'ทุน'

┈ ┉ ┈

กล่าวให้ถึงที่สุด 'Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations' หรือ 'การก่อรูปของเศรษฐกิจก่อนระบบทุนนิยม' คือคำตอบของคำถามที่ว่า ***ทำไมมาร์กซ์ถึงสนใจ 'ระบบทุนนิยม'***

┈ ┉ ┈

'การก่อรูปของเศรษฐกิจก่อนระบบทุนนิยม' เป็นเสมือนการให้แนวในการติดตามและศึกษาว่ามาร์กซใช้หลักฐานและข้อมูลต่างๆ ในทางประวัติศาสตร์และมานุษยวิทยา มาวิเคราะห์และสร้างโมเดลของรูปการณ์สังคมก่อนทุนนิยมอย่างไร

┈ ┉ ┈

มาร์กซพยายามทำให้เราเห็นตาม 'ข้อค้นพบ' และ 'ข้อสรุป' ของเขา นั่นคือการที่สังคมจะต้องสลายเพื่อจะก้าวเดินไปข้างหน้าตลอดเวลา มีการเปลี่ยนแปลงในความสัมพันธ์ทางการผลิต และรูปแบบของทรัพย์สินที่สอดคล้องกับความสัมพันธ์นั้นในแต่ละรูปแบบของสังคม

┈ ┉ ┈

มาร์กซทั้งคิดและเชื่อว่าแต่ละสังคมนับแต่ยุคโบราณได้พัฒนาไปสู่ระบบที่ซับซ้อนกว่า และที่มาร์กซเห็นได้ชัดคือ จุดหมายของ 'ทุนนิยม' ไม่ได้อยู่ที่มนุษย์เลย แต่กลับทำลายทุกอย่าง นั่นคือระบบนี้ได้แยก 'มนุษย์ผู้ผลิต' ออกจาก 'การผลิต' โดยสิ้นเชิง ซึ่งแตกต่างจาก 'ระบบก่อนทุนนิยม' ที่ผู้ใช้แรงงานยังมีความสัมพันธ์ที่ดีกับการผลิต

┈ ┉ ┈

แนวคิดและวิธีวิทยาของมาร์กซมีความเป็น ‘วิทยาศาสตร์แห่งสังคม’ (science of society) ทำให้การศึกษาและการวิเคราะห์สังคมสามารถทำได้ในหลากหลายมิติ และอย่างมีชีวิตจิตใจ เพราะแม้จะเป็นวิทยาศาสตร์ แต่ก็ไม่ละเลยความเป็นมนุษย์ของสังคมและการเมือง

┈ ┉ ┈

เป็นเวลากว่า 30 ปีมาแล้วที่ 'การก่อรูปของเศรษฐกิจก่อนระบบทุนนิยม' ในภาคภาษาไทยฉบับพิมพ์ครั้งแรกปรากฏขึ้น

┈ ┉ ┈

สำหรับการกลับมาอีกครั้งในครั้งนี้ ผู้แปลได้ทำการชำระใหม่ทั้งในส่วนเนื้อหาและบทกล่าวนำ ของ อีริค ฮอบสบอว์ม พร้อมทั้งเพิ่มเติมภาคผนวก "ปรัชญาประวัติศาสตร์ของลัทธิมาร์กซ" เอาไว้ท้ายเล่มด้วย

┈ ┉ ┈

หากยังเชื่อในการเปลี่ยนแปลงของสังคม และเชื่อว่าสังคมไม่เคยหยุดนิ่ง 'การก่อรูปของเศรษฐกิจก่อนระบบทุนนิยม' จะทำให้เห็นถึงพลังขับเคลื่อนการเปลี่ยนแปลงสังคมในรอบ 4000 ปีที่ผ่านมา

┈ ┉ ┈

และได้เห็นว่า ทำไมผู้ผลิตจึงกลายเป็นคนที่ 'สูญเสียกรรมสิทธิ์' ที่เป็น 'ของเขา' เอง / ทำไมมันจึงหลุดหายและกลายเป็นของ 'คนอื่น'

Genres: Economics, History, Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Sociology, Social Science

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1858

About the author

With the help of Friedrich Engels, German philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867-1894), works, which explain historical development in terms of the interaction of contradictory economic forces, form many regimes, and profoundly influenced the social sciences.

German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.

Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.

Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).

The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.

Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.

Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.

Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.

Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .

People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.

Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...

Reviews

[Mahnam · Rating 3 out of 5]

از شما می‌خواهیم که این تئوری (مارکسیسم-ماتریالیسم تاریخی) را از روی منابع اصلی مطالعه کنید و نه از منابع دست‌دوم... اما بدبختانه به‌کرات اتفاق می‌فتد که مردم فکر می‌کنند یک تئوری را کاملا فهمیده‌اند و می‌توانند بدون دردسر چندان، از لحظه‌ای که اصول عمده‌ی آن را به‌درستی ( و آن هم نه‌چندان) هضم کردند، به کار برند. من نمی‌توانم بسیاری از مارکسیست‌های اخیر را به‌خاطر این نوع برخورد، ببخشم زیرا مزخرفات فوق‌العاده‌خیره‌کننده‌ای در این عرصه نیز بروز کرده است.
انگلس به بلوک-۱۸۹۰

کتاب صورت‌بندی‌های اقتصادی پیشاسرمایه‌داری مجموعه‌ای از دست‌نوشته‌های مارکس است درباره‌ی شیوه‌های تولید و بازتولید پیش از به‌وجود‌آمدن انباشت و سرمایه. از چاپ و انتشار این کتاب تا سال ۱۹۵۲ به‌عمد جلوگیری شد چون این نوشته‌ها با پاره‌ای از تفکرات مارکسیست‌ها و کمونیست‌های زمانه در تعارض بود. درواقع منع انتشار این نوشته نشان می‌دهد که مارکسیست‌های اخیر تا چه اندازه از نگرش مارکسیستی که اصرار دارد بر بررسی علمی مستندات و سیر تاریخی و هم‌چنین پروردن تفکر انتقادی در زمینه‌های علمی و عملی (در مواجهه با هر تجربه‌ای ازجمله نظریات پیشین خود شخص) به دور بوده‌اند.
این نوشته کامل نیست متاسفانه و ویرایش هم نشده از سوی مؤلف. بنابراین بیشتر یادداشت‌های شخصی مارکس خطاب به خود اوست. همین امر باعث می‌شود خوانش آن تا اندازه‌ای دشوار گردد، پاره‌ای از موارد مثلا زیاد تکرار می‌شوند و به برخی از آن‌ها چندان پرداخته نمی‌شود. در مورد تکامل شیوه‌های تولید و جوامع مبتنی بر آن، اثر انگلس کلیت ‌و چارچوب مشخص‌تری دارد ( منشا خانواده، مالکیت خصوصی و پیدایش دولت). مشکل آن نوشته اما این است که نمونه‌های تاریخی موجود را ندانسته به تمام نقاط زمین تعمیم داده و شکل‌های متمایز جوامع را در نظر نگرفته. این شکل‌ها هر چند کوتاه و‌مختصر در این نوشته‌ی مارکس معرفی شده‌‌اند و نشان می‌دهند که مارکس به این مطلب و ضرورت تحقیق بیشتر در آن آگاه بوده.
در بخش مربوط به سرمایه هم به واکاوی مفهوم و‌منشا سرمایه پرداخته و تفاوت شکل تولیدی مبتنی بر آن با اشکال پیشین. هم‌چنین بر این امر پافشاری می‌کند که سلطه‌ی انسان بر انسان با انباشت به وجود نیامده و منشا سرمایه هم اختراع پول و به وجود آمدن ثروت پولی نبوده. سلطه‌ی انسان بر انسان قدمتی دیرینه دارد و با تملک شرایط عینی تولید(زمین، مواد خام و ابزار تولید) شروع می‌گردد اما سرمایه حاصل تغییر شیوه‌ی تولید مبتنی بر ارزش استفاده(حتی در حالتی که محصول مازاد بر استفاده تولید گردد) با تولید مبتنی بر ارزش مبادله است. البته این بخش در همان مقولات ابتدایی متوقف می‌شود و‌مسلما به اندازه‌ی کتاب سرمایه نمی‌تواند در این مورد بحث کند.

[Peter Harrison · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book contains a short but crucial extract from the notebooks Marx wrote for himself during the research that would eventually produce the three volumes of Capital (notebooks that we now known as the "Grundrisse") alongside an introductory essay by the renowned Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm which is justly famous in its own right.

In his notes Marx builds on the analytical framework of historical materialism (developed in "The German Ideology" and in particular summarised in the Introduction to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy") to analyse the economic structure of societies before the rise of capitalism based on the productive relations which underpinned those societies. In broad brush terms Marx outlines four basic separate groupings: primitive communism; ancient (based on slavery); feudal (based on non-economic coercion); and 'asiatic' (slow to change with property based on the village).

These groups were characterised in much subsequent Marxist work as a defined ladder of stages through which all societies must progress in order before reaching capitalism, with the 'asiatic' mode set to one side as a conservative dead end unable to develop further. In fact what strikes me about Marx's writing here is how much more subtle it is than this simple formulaic caricature. What we read here is Marx using the toolkit of historical materialism to describe the productive basis for each 'stage' based on the evidence available to him. It seems clear to me at least that Marx is not suggesting there is one single route through history. Rather these 'stages' provide a level of abstraction through which to make sense of different societies and the transition from one type of economic structure to another.

That mechanism for how a society transitions from one set of production relations to another, and what that means for wider society, is critical to establishing an analysis of history and has been carried forward by many others in the Marxist tradition (Perry Anderson, Ellen Meiksins Wood). In some ways, Marx's writing here is the source document for that subsequent thinking.

The 'asiatic' mode of production in particular has generated much subsequent debate. As Hobsbawm makes clear in his introductory essay, Marx's thinking here is based on a number of flawed assumptions built on incomplete evidence. As with so much of Marx's work we should treat his writing not as a fixed and immutable set of rules never to be changed, but as a demonstration of method to be built upon. The short extracts at the end of the book from the German Ideology and from his later correspondence provide examples of his own thinking developing over time as more information becomes available and his analysis deepens.

Hobsbawm's essay does a good job of providing the context within which Marx is working. It is particularly useful to understand the state of wider historical research into the periods Marx is analysing, and the works on which is analysis is based. He also encourages us to think about Marx's work as a starting point rather than an end, something which is all too often forgotten I think, and not to read his work through the lens of subsequent events. Reading Marx "on his own terms" as David Harvey suggests.

In short this is a superb short book, providing plenty of food for thought. It is fascinating to read Marx using his theories to write analytically rather than (as in Capital) explaining the theory itself (something I wrote about some years ago here: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...). As Hobsbawm suggests though this is not the final word on the economic structures before capitalism. Rather it is an analysis of its time that might usefully serve as a starting point.

You can also find this review on my blog here: https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...

[Rajita P. · Rating 4 out of 5]

สำหรับเรานี่คือ เศรษฐศาสตร์ปรัชญา
อ่านยากนะ แต่ชื่นชมสนพ.สมมติ ที่ใส่บทกล่าวนำ กล่าวตามจนพอเข้าใจมาได้

[Vik · Rating 3 out of 5]

He is trying to critique his own previous thesis of German Ideology that commodity production is not the source of historical progression, instead he advocates in the text that the property relations are.

I don't think so I am competent enough to analyze this particular text since it was a bit complicated for me to digest but nonetheless I am not impressed with his arguments and rational. I feel his other writings made much more sense to me.

[automathom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hobsbawm's introduction leaves a lot to be desired. His other work is very insightful, but the introduction to this very important Marx text is imprecise and intellectually lackluster.

Edited to include my response to Andrew
------------
I was probably less generous than I could have been with Hobsbawm's intro. This book is comprised of a short section of Marx's Grundrisse and Hobsbawm's lengthy introduction (not that length is a bad thing here). Hobsbawm appropriately points out that Marx's writings in the Grundrisse were intended only for self-clarification and not for publication. Because of this, clarification on these sections is needed in order for the reader to make much sense of them (unless the reader is very familiar with the rest of Marx's work, which I think you are!)

Anyways - Hobsbawm tries to step in and provide clarification. The introduction was published a long time before more recent scholarship on the "asiatic mode of production," and around a decade or so before the "Brenner debate" reinvigorated conversations about the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Hobsbawm also didn't (for whatever reason) have access to some of the Marx manuscripts that specifically talk about pre-capitalist economic formations that he was working on in the years leading up to Capital Vol. 1. All this is to say - Hobsbawm is working with limited material, and working through this limited material with a narrow view towards the so-called asiatic, ancient, and feudal modes of production.

The weaknesses of the introduction are basically grounded in incorrect statements made about Marx and the "Formen" manuscripts. He makes some incorrect statements about 'oriental' societies that go against Marx's work on the region (re: the "Eastern Question," "The Secret Diplomatic History," and the "Life of Lord Palmerston"). Hobsbawm argues that the expansion of the 'world market' is sufficient explanation for the disintegration of the so-called asiatic MoP and oriental society in general - I don't think this is correct, at least according to Marx. Marx's writing about the Mount Lebanon conflict especially speak against this.

Kevin Anderson's "Marx at the Margins" emphasizes the Marx writings from this period, especially those based on the Formen manuscripts, as emblematic of Marx as a "global" thinker. I think that this is correct. Hobsbawm seemingly sees different "stages" of history represented by various non-western, esp. 'oriental,' societies that are overcome or abolished wholesale by the supposedly expanding European world market in the nineteenth-century. Anderson's book, and Marx's own writings in the Tribune and the Sheffield Free Press, suggest a very different process!

Returning to Hobsbawm's incorrect statements about the Formen manuscripts - he argues that Marx makes no analytical statements about non-western and pre-capitalist economic formations in this period. Hobsbawm continues: "no other major excursions into the history of 'forms which precede the capitalist' occur in the last years of Marx and Engels." [Hobsbawm, 57] This is just not the case! The Formen manuscripts were written in 1857-1858, in the subsequent years, especially those leading up to Capital I, Marx and Engels spent quite a bit of time studying the Ottoman Empire, especially in relation to the European reactionary movement during this period. The two of them make vital connections between 'oriental' society and the development of European capitalism in this period.

Hobsbawm's introduction includes some vital background information, but it is a weak (and mostly incorrect) clarification on the Formen manuscripts. A lot of work has been accomplished since Hobsbawm wrote this. The infamous Brenner debate, the revival of the 'asiatic' debate, Jairus Banaji's monumental 'theory as history,' Ellen Meiksins Woods' work, etc. Despite this, Hobsbawm's introduction is still very prominent amongst some historians, esp. those working on Middle East history. The actual Marx manuscripts are fine, but better clarification is needed. Harvey's new guide to reading the Grundrisse is promising, but still, lacks the critical insights into non-Western and pre-capitalist economic formations that Hobsbawm gets so wrong.

[Michael’ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably Marx’s best work.

[Luís · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pequeno manuscrito fácil de ler sobre relações económicas e sociais da Idade Média. Fala sobre as comunas antigas, a propriedade coletiva, produção e faz uma pequena crítica ao capital e o seu efeito na evolução do trabalho e da sociedade.

[Sinan Öner]

Karl Marx ile Friedrich Engels'in "kapitalizm öncesi toplumların tarihi" ile ilgili yazdıklarından seçmelerle Sol Yayınları'nın yayınladığı "Kapitalizm Öncesi Ekonomi Biçimleri", Marxizm'in "kapitalizm öncesi toplumlar"ı nasıl anladığını merak edenler için vazgeçilmez bir kitap! Karl Marx da, Friedrich Engels de, "ilkel komünal toplumlar"la, "köleci toplumlar"la, "feodal toplumlar"la ilgili soruşturmalar yapıyorlardı, "toplumsal tarih"le ilgili sorularını "ilkel komünal toplumlar"ın gelişmesinden itibaren soruyorlar, "diyalektik tarihsel materyalist metodoloji"lerini uyguluyorlardı sorarken de! Karl Marx, "kapitalizm öncesi ekonomiler"i tartışırken, "kapitalist dünya"yı unutmuyordu, "Kapital"in önsözünde yazdığı "metod"u uyguluyordu, "ilkel toplumlar"ın "basit" yapısının nasıl evrildiğini, daha "karmaşık" bir "köleci toplum"un nasıl "ilkel toplumlar"dan oluştuğunu soruyordu. "Kapitalizm öncesi ekonomi biçimleri"ni tartışırken, "kapitalist toplum"u, 19. Yüzyıl'da "Sanayi Devrimi" ile gelişmiş "Kolonici Kapitalizm"i ihmal etmiyordu, Marxizm'e göre, "modern kapitalizm" "ilkel komünal toplumlar"ın, "köleci toplumlar"ın, "feodal toplumlar"ın gelişmesi ile oluşmuş bir yapı idi. Tarihçilik açısından, Tarihçinin incelediği toplumsal yapılara "dışarı"dan, "bugün"den yaklaşmasını öneriyordu Marxizm! Bir Tarihçi, "köleci toplum"u incelerken, "köleci sınıf"ın bakışıyla yetinmez, bir Tarihçi "objektivizm"i ile yaklaşır, nasıl ki "bugün", "modern kapitalist toplum"u incelerken yalnızca "kapitalist sınıf"ın bakışıyla yetinmez de "kapitalist toplum"da gelişmiş tüm "toplumsal sınıflar" açısından "kapitalist toplum"u anlar!

[Sinan Öner]

Karl Marx's works on the history of pre-capitalist production formations in one volume! Karl Marx worked on the history of pre-capitalist societies with Friedrich Engels wrote in "The German Ideology" in 1843, one of the causes of Karl Marx's writing "The Capital" was his studying on the history of pre-capitalist societies in the world. Karl Marx was thinking on the ancient histories of China, India, Egypt, Greece, Rome, others, when he was studying on the philosophy, then on the law history at university. On the primitive communal societies, on the slavery societies, on the feudal societies, Karl Marx wrote any pages! Friedrich Engels wrote his knowledge on the ancient history of the world in his all the books since his youth to his old years include "Anti-Dühring", Karl Marx, in his "The Capital", used his studying on the pre-capitalist production formations as the ground of his descriptions for the comprehension of modern capitalism in the world.

[Augusto Delgado · Rating 5 out of 5]

En realidad, este es un fragmento de un libro no destinado a la publicación. Eran las notas personales de estudio de Marx. No obstante, muchos académicos y otros encontraron imprescindible editarlo, intentando dilucidar las formaciones económicas precapitalistas, pese a que Marx es claro al decir que ...
Aquello que nos ocupa aquí en primer lugar: el comportamiento del trabajo con el capital, o con las condiciones objetivas del trabajo [presentes] como capital, presupone un proceso histórico, que disuelve las diversas formas en las cuales el trabajo es propietario o el propietario trabaja.

Es decir, incluso esta sección de los Grundrisse no está determinada a describir los modos de producción precapitalistas, como un objeto específico de estudio, sino mas bien los referencia como posibilidades previas de la evolución histórica.
Su investigación se centra en cómo las formaciones precapitalistas van disolviéndose en el nuevo modo de producción, el mecanismo que lo crea. Sin embargo, al hacer eso, Marx nos regala, casi de pasada, las menciones a los modos de producción Antiguo, Asiático, Germánico, y establece la analogía entre Oriente y la América precolombina (específicamente, México y Perú); obviamente no profundiza en ello dada la carencia de material confiable en ese entonces, y el objeto de su estudio: el modo de producción capitalista europeo.

Hobsbawm hace una interesante introducción en la cual dice ... en primer lugar, Marx se preocupa aquí ... de establecer el mecanismo de todo cambio social; la formación de las relaciones sociales de producción que corresponden a un estadio definido del desarrollo de las fuerzas materiales de producción; el desarrollo recurrente de conflictos entre las fuerzas y las relaciones de producción... Este análisis general no implica afirmación alguna sobre períodos históricos, fuerzas y relaciones de producción específicos."
Pero luego se lamenta porque Marx no haya profundizado, entonces, sobre los medios de producción alternos.

Marx insiste: Lo que nos interesa aquí en primer lugar es esto: el proceso de disolución que transforma a una masa de individuos de una nación, etc., en trabajadores asalariados δυνάμει [potenciales], (en individuos obligados al trabajo y a la venta de trabajo sólo a través de su carencia de propiedad), supone, por el otro lado, no que las fuentes de ingreso y, en parte, las condiciones de propiedad de estos individuos existentes hasta ese momento han desaparecido, sino, a la inversa, que sólo su utilización ha cambiado, que la índole de su existencia se ha transformado, que han pasado a otras manos como fondo libre o también que han quedado en parte en las mismas manos.

Queda claro el objeto de estudio, de ahí que el listado de modos de producción -Primitivo, Antiguo, Feudal y Capitalista- se refiere a lo que pasó allá en Europa, y cómo el penúltimo se disolvió en el último. Lo cual, es preciso señalar, fue convenientemente aprovechado por la reaccionaria burocracia stalinista, que embolsó los modos de producción no europeos dentro del modo Antiguo/esclavista. Les resultaba incómoda la mención a las sociedades comunitarias sin propiedad pero con castas gobernantes.

Lectura imprescindible, que puede ser abstraída de los Grundrisse, pero que no debe ser removida de su contexto.

[Bernardo Moreira · Rating 4 out of 5]

Manuscrito muito interessantes explorando as periodizações históricas dos modos de produção ao longo do processo de desenvolvimento do Capital. O texto data de 1857-1858, mesma época dos Grundrisse. Vai ser fundamental para problematizar o que Marx entende como a origem do Estado e qual a leitura que Deleuze e Guattari fazem disso.
A introdução de Hobsbawn é ótima btw, ajuda muito a entender as transformações dessas periodizações.

[Yonis Gure · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is extra saucy - no juice.
If you struggle comprehending what is meant when people say "historical materialism", and need a basic text that delineates Marx's theory of history, tracing - albeit in a cursory fashion - the whole contradictory development of society right down to its material origins, then voilà, this text is pour vous.

[Sunny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though the book is only 140 pages it’s Incredibly dense and boring to be honest. Marx discuses a great deal about pre-capitalist societies particularly feudalism and the asiatic mode of production which doesn’t appear in Marx’s latter writings. Hobsbawn introduction helps a great deal in understanding the text and shouldn’t be skipped.

[Loppe Daer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Outdated but still informative - especially the part about the transition into capitalism, which is non-coincidentally also probably the most up to date part.

[Tohid · Rating 2 out of 5]

کتاب های بهتری درین زمینه میشه پیدا کرد،صرفا قدمت این کتاب ارزشمندش میکنه

[sube · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book is neat, i suppose, it's an excerpt from a chapter in the grundrisse. it's a rough account of, as the title says, pre-capitalist economic formations. the most interesting parts are how capital is not formed through the disposession of workers, but capital, simply "unites the masses of hands and instruments which are already there. This and only this is what characterises it. It brings them together under its sway" (p. 111-112). The intro by Hobesbawm half doesn't even discuss the work itself - and instead focuses on the supposed humanism of marx etc. - and the second half is an ok part detailing basic argument, the historical issues, what marx could have known and known at his time, etc. It's neat, but not really necessary.

[Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a wonderful little gem. Eric Hobsbawm's introduction makes it immensely more rich reading. He provides the intellectual development of Marx's theory of historical materialism, showing how the Marx of the Communist Manifesto drew some quite different conclusions than the Marx of the 1880s about history and societies. After Marx wrote his fiery call for world revolution, he took to studying Chinese, Indian, Javanese, Russian, and early modern European history with passion. This book is a collection of his notes from writing the Grundrisse, which was written in preparation for Das Kapital. As Hobsbawm shows, Marx did not conceive of historical materialism as a "ladder" approach to history in which all societies move rung-by-rung up the ladder to the communist end. Rather, Hobsbawm tells us to see history as really an evolutionary tree: we have a materialist base trunk, but the various forms of societies all branch out of the tree in multifarious directions. The actual text written by Marx and the selected letters at the end of the book are fascinating reading that reveal an incredibly studious and intellectually honest person.

[Laura Cáceres · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aun no le entendí entre tantos conceptos económicos que sí son que no son, que se limitan a decir desde los setentas que ese pedo está mal, que capitalismo tardío, que se el autor se pelea y que le contesta al Marx porque don Vergas (perdón, don Eric Hobsbawm) que dice que sí, que dice que se equivoca pero que la lectura es estructural, que la madre, que la padre, que la cosa, que la no cosa, que no dice, que sí dice, que hace pero no hace y como siempre en todos los textos densos de maestros de la sospecha, requiere mucha revisión, actualización y matiz. Me gustan los textos marxistas nomas pa' mamonear tantito ¿Pa' que les voy a mentirs? Me gustan Marx y sus textos, pero no me los marxistas porque les falta calle, lo leí y no vi mucho más que seguro que alguna plática con peda me ayudará a entenderme con historiadore, pero fuera de esta densidad al menos me divertí ¿Para que les voy a mentir, la verdarks?

[Michael Thimsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was one of the more accessible Marx works that effectively spelled out his vision of how economic systems evolved as opposed to Darwin's focus on the biological.