Essays on the Materialist Conception of History

by Antonio Labriola

From the Introduction:

"In Memory of the Communist Manifesto:

In three years we can celebrate our jubilee. The memorable date of publication of the Communist Manifesto (February, 1848) marks our first unquestioned entrance into history. To that date are referred all our judgments and all our congratulations on the progress made by the proletariat in these last fifty years. That date marks the beginning of the new era. This is arising, or, rather, is separating itself from the present era, and is developing by a process peculiar to itself and thus in a way that is necessary and inevitable, whatever may be the vicissitudes and the successive phases which cannot yet be foreseen.

All those in our ranks who have a desire or an occasion to possess a better understanding of their own work should bring to mind the causes and the moving forces which determined the genesis of the Manifesto, the circumstances under which it appeared on the eve of the Revolution which burst forth from Paris to Vienna, from Palermo to Berlin. Only in this way will it be possible for us to find in the present social form the explanation of the tendency towards socialism, thus showing by its present necessity the inevitability of its triumph.

Is not that in fact the vital part of the Manifesto, its essence and its distinctive character?

We surely should be taking a false road if we regarded as the essential part the measures advised and proposed at the end of the second chapter for the contingency of a revolutionary success on the part of the proletariat -- or again the indications of political relationship to the other revolutionary parties of that epoch which are found in the fourth chapter. These indications and these measures, although they deserved to be taken into consideration at the moment and under the circumstances where they were formulated and suggested, and although they may be very important for forming a precise estimate of the political action of the German communists in the revolutionary period from 1848 to 1850, henceforth no longer form for us a mass of practical judgments for or against which we should take sides in each contingency. The political parties which since the International have established themselves in different countries, in the name of the proletariat, and taking it clearly for their base, have felt, and feel, in proportion as they are born and develop, the imperious necessity of adopting and conforming their programme and their action to circumstances always different and multiform. But not one of these parties feels the dictatorship of the proletariat so near or even the temptation to examine anew and pass judgment upon the measures proposed in the Manifesto."

Genres: History, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theory

Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1972

About the author

Antonio Labriola (Italian: [labriˈoːla]; July 2, 1843 – February 12, 1904) was an Italian Marxist theoretician. Although an academic philosopher and never an active member of any Marxist political party, his thought exerted influence on many political theorists in Italy during the early 20th century, including the founder of the Italian Liberal Party, Benedetto Croce and the leaders of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci and Amadeo Bordiga.

Reviews

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting reflections on the base-superstructure dialectic, as well as the basic of historical materialism in general; useful especially for Labriola's emphasis on employing historical materialism, laying guidelines and suggestions for Marxist historians to apply historical materialism and contribute to theory.

His brief foray and comments on "peasant stupidity" are disheartening, certainly discounting the progressive aspects of the peasantry more than necessary; I have read of influence from Labriola on Trotsky, I find this to be a possible connection.

Labriola's comments on the nature of the state in Chapter 8 are also interesting, positing that the state "creates around itself a circle of persons interested directly in its existence." While Labriola does not specify a socialist or capitalist state, but the nature of the state itself, this holds important consequences for the nature of a socialist state, something I think can be seen in "state of the whole people" as advanced by the Khrushchevite revisionists, the reaction against the Cultural Revolution in Mao's China, as well as the "Three Represents" theory advanced by the reactionary Jiang Zemin in the immediate post-Deng era; these revisionist (reactionary, even) theories seem to be direct manifestation of this "circle of persons interested directly" in the existence of state, finding ideological justification in the pause of socialist development or even a "Great Leap Backward" as posited by Bettelheim.