Past and future relevance of Marx and Engels' works to anthropology

Abstract

For reasons discussed in this article, I be? lieve that the future of anthropology lies within historical materialism. It is therefore through this approach that I will consider a a few of the advances, mistakes and require? ments that may lead to further progress. The relevance of historical material to the future of anthropology should stand on three grounds: it must offer a proper description and understanding of societies which devel? oped before and beside capitalism (exo-capi talist societies). It should provide a proper theory of the impact of capitalism over these societies under the historical effect of trade, conquest, colonization, forced labor and neo? colonialism. Finally it should lead to a theory of development. The relevance of Marx and Engels' works to exo-capitalist societies is not immediately ob? vious. Marx's scientific research was limited to one mode of production: capitalism. Further? more, for the construction of his model of capitalism he made an assumption that ex? cludes relationships with exo-capitalist econo? mies: Marx has not produced a scientific work com? parable to Capital on primitive societies, nor on their relations to capitalism. Although some writings of Marx and Engels are devoted to colonialism and primitive societies, with many of their notations being meaningful and relevant, they were not built into a compre? hensive scientific theoretical body. Indeed, several statements from these authors are dis? putable: for instance, in the Formen the dis? tinctions made between former modes of pro? duction on the bases of the "property" of land**. Property is an institution which devel? oped late in history; it cannot define earlier societies, except negatively. Now, negative characterizations are not scientific; one must always search for positive characterizations. In early society, land is more often a patri? mony that is, a good transmitted only by transfer (gift or inheritance), and not by ex? change than a commodity. The introduc? tion of the notion of property in an historical period which ignores it, amounts to assuming the existence of social relationships that go along with it or of institutions related to it such as sale and purchase, exchange value, trade, money, "protection" against theft, etc. Marx was also misled in some of his writing when he speaks of the "natural" family. The In order to examine the object of our investigation in its integrity, free from all disturbing subsidiary circum? stances, we must treat the whole world as one nation, and assume that capitalist production is everywhere estab? lished and has possessed itself of every branch of industry. (Capital, I: 581, n. 1)*