one of the main concerns of marxist historiography is the question of the relationship between economics and politics in the capitalist epoch. Its central thesis can perhaps be outlined as follows: the sphere of politics represents, by and large, a super-structure of the specific economic and social system, and has the function of perpetuating that system. The existence of an autonomous political realm with its own self-determining laws is usually denied by marxist historians, and passing tendencies towards the development of such an autonomous political realm are ascribed to a temporary balance between the various social and economic forces. Politics as such are held to remain incomprehensible until those forces of economic and social development are elucidated, which determine the forms and substance of political life. All historical representations and analyses which do not attempt such an elucidation or which deny the point of such an attempt, are considered to be at best unscientific, at worst ideologically motivated justifications of the social status quo. The view that the economy gets the system of government which it needs is considered a better point of departure for historical enquiry than the saying that the people get the government which it deserves. It is not necessary to point out here that this marxist approach has proved its value in the practice of historical research and writing.