The status of stages theory in Marx's writing is ambiguous. Passages from different writings lead to different conclusions. But I think the general trend of his writings was against a theory of mechanistic or organic progression through a predetermined series of stages. And there does seem to be development in his thinking on the issue. Remember that he was quite young when the Communist Manifesto was written and he spent a lot of time reading and thinking after that. His later writings do not contain a teleological or fatalistic theory of history. If the term stage is applied to his later writings it has a descriptive character. It is not a theory of stages but a periodization of history or a convenient abstraction. The stage does not determine the relations of social production, but the social relations and the relations of labour to nature determine or give definition to the stage. There is then no necessity that one stage follow another, and no necessity that each area of the world go through the same series of stages. That said, it is still necessary that there be a rough compatibility between the development of the material forces of society and the relations of production. -- or more concretely between technology and property rights. Rod -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
