64 ^ SOCIAL SCIENTIST in his debate with the Populists. If capitalism was still backward in Russia, it was because there was a lag in time, but there was no question about the historical direction of change. To him, as to Marx, Capital was indeed the universal category, the only social form that had generalised itself throughout the world. Once the econotoy of the nation bad been brought under the sway of Capital, there was no option left for going backward. To Lenin, therefore, the problem of ^retarded" or "infirm'^ capitalism, i e, of the "incompleteness1' of the transition, was simply: incomplete, that is, still to be completed* He could, consequently, argue with complete justificat ion that the Populists, in thinking that they could resist the penetration of capitalism by the strength of the village communities and thereby skip the stage of capitalism altogether and move directly on to a socialist phase, were being "backward-looking^ and "romantic". Today, almost a hundred years after Lenin's debate with the Populists, the question once again is : how are we to conceptualise in historical terms the problem of "retarded" or "infirm" capitalism? Do we still say: incomplete^ that is, still to be completed? Or are w^ to say : incomplete, that is, never to be completed? Should we continue to explain "retarded^ capitalism in terms of a historical lag? Or^re we to say that these "retarded'^ forms are precisely the expressions of the historical limits of capital, which it is byond its powers io tran&cend? This presents a theoretical choice, and a corresponding choice in method. Javeed points out that I had omitted any reference in my article to that well-known and oft^-quoted passage on method in the Grundrisse where Marx talks about the historical sequence of the-economic categories and their theoretical sequence where the order must be reversed. The omission was deliberate, for it was not my intention to follow this procedure. Marx's procedure flowed from the idea that Capital was indeed the universal category. Every other particular social form represented the Other of Capital, marked by its difference from Capital, and hence becoming pre-capitalist. These variable particular forms of pre-Capital, distinguished among themselves in their historical order of appearance as well as geographically, acquired their meaning solely in terms of the historical process of development towards the universal category of Capital. It is not my intention lo follow this procedure for the simple reason that it cannot be our task today to repeat the exercise of writing Capital. As I have said before, there is a theoretical choice facing us. How are we to conceptualise the variable form of capital? Are we to continue to regard Capital as the universal category, which cannot therefore have particular forms, or should we tyy to think of another universal category to which Capital can then become the Other and thus allow us to distinguish between its variable historical forms? Are we to expl^ift "retarded'* Capitalism simply in terms of a time-lag, or should we