METHOD. METAPHYSICS AND THEORY 61 excepting through their relationship to the modern bourgeois society, not superficially but as a consequence of his me thdo logical premises. Even if such attempts to reconstruct earlier social formations, independently of their relation to the bourgeois form are made, such efforts cannot be assimilated to a Marxist epistemology excepting through their relationship to the bourgeois society. This dependence is implicit in the whole notion of historical development. If one rejects this assumtion, one can do so only on grounds other than those Marx presupposed. If the preceding reading is not altogether incorrect, then it follows that one cannot separate Marx's theory and metaphysics beyond a certain point. By Marx's theory I mean all full-blown theoretical structures constituted by Marx himself by employing his methodology, as adumbrated above. Further, Marx's methodology presupposes a metaphysic about the validity of knowledge. Hence, dialectical materialism cannot be, in the final analysis, detached from his methodology in the name of improving, correcting or updating Marx. This is not to say that one must repeat simply whatever Marx said. It is simply to assert that to claim to work within Marx's framework is to accept the methodological, theoretical and metaphysical presuppositions of that framework. K RAGHAVENDRA RAO* 1 I am referring to Dr Sudipta Kaviraj's penetrating and lucid paper, "On the Status of Marx's Writings on India,', Soda! Scientist, Vol, 11, No. 9, Septemper 1983. However, while I am in broad agreement with his conclusions, I am somewhat sceptical about the need for using the arguments of intentionality and the allegedly Hegelian notion of the logic of contrastive definitions. A footnote is no place to go into my grounds for doing so, and, in fact, I am currently at work on a critique of this position. 2 For instance, in R W Bologh's fascinating work, Dialectical Phenomenology—Mar^s Method, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1979. 3 All references are to Karl Marx, Grundris^e, London, Penguin Books, 1973. Nicolaus's translation has been questioned on points, but I am not competent to go into this matter. I shall accept his version with all the consequences and entailments. *Department of Political Science, Karnataka University, Dharwad