Page 234 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes tackling the complexities of the modern state, the general descriptions of the ideal as realizing true
democracy and Communism have proved to be extremely simplistic in providing the essential
institutions of a modern democratic state. Marx’s aversion to Utopian blueprinting made him
ignore the details that were necessary for managing a society based on equity, just reward and
freedom. The terms “true democracy” and “communism” hardly dealt with the complexities of
modern times.

12.8 Women and the Gender Question

Like in many other areas, even with regard to the question of women, Marx made Hegel the
starting point. Hegel regarded women as inferior, with less reasoning abilities, seeing the natural
differences between men and women as immutable. Marx did not say much on the role and
position of women. He took it for granted that Socialism would bring about their emancipation. In
the German Ideology and the Capital, he spoke of the natural and spontaneous division of labour
within the family. The natural relationship paved the way for a social one, and the first property
relationship was the one when the man regarded his wife and children as his slaves. The man had
power over them, and could do with their labour as he chose, though Marx did not explain how
this came about. Marx did not focus his attention on the position and role of women.
Engels, in the Origins, provided a materialist account of the origins of patriarchy, and linked
women’s subordination with the rise of private property. In the Holy Family, Marx and Engels
observed that the degree of emancipation of women could be used as a standard by which one
could measure general emancipation. Marx reiterated this view in a letter to Dr L. Kugelmann in
1868, that social progress could be assessed exactly by the social position of women. In 1845, Marx
warned against treating the family regardless of its specific historic setting. In his criticism of Max
Stirner (1805-1856), he observed that it was a misconception to speak of the family without
qualification. Historically, the bourgeoisie endowed the family with the characteristics of the
bourgeois family, whose ties were boredom and money.

12.9 The Asiatic Mode of Production

Marx’s views on the non-European world, like, his overall political theorizing, also flowed from
Hegelian prescriptions. But in the evolution of these two basic themes, there was an interesting yet
contradictory development. The contemporary analysis of Germany that Hegel offered was rejected
on the basis of a universalistic criterion, while the notion of the unchanging and static nature of the
non-European world was accepted without any critical examination. Marx used the phrase “Asiatic
Mode of Production” to describe the non-European societies. In this formulation, there was a clear
“discrepancy between the analytical and historical nature of the categories of ancient, feudal and
bourgeois modes of production and the mere geographic designation of the Asiatic one” .
Prior to 1852, Marx did not show any specific interest in the non-European world. His interest arose
as a result of a series of articles that he penned for the New York Daily Tribune (1852-1862). The Asiatic
Mode of Production assumed importance subsequently, in the theoretical and political debates
within Marxist circles. “The debates about the Asiatic Mode of Production has raised questions
concerning not only the relevance of Marxist concepts outside the European context, but also the
character of materialist explanations of class society, revolutionary change and world history”.
The underlying assumption among many post-Renaissance European thinkers who took an interest
in the non-European world was that there was a marked and qualitative distinction between the
advanced European cultures and other backward civilizations. Montesquieu was the pioneer of
this perception. Using climatic conditions as the yardstick, he noted that tropical climates were
unsuited for democracies and individual freedom. Smith clubbed China, Egypt and India together
for the special attention irrigation received in these societies. James Mill observed the difference
between European feudalism and governmental arrangements in Asiatic societies. Richard Jones

228 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY