Warning: Illegal string offset 'is_jump' in /www/wwwroot/www/app/fxs/controller/chapter.php on line 244
ANTI-DuRING
投诉 阅读记录

第7章

Butalongsidethisprocessofformationofclassesanotherwasalsotakingplace。Thespontaneouslyevolveddivisionoflabourwithinthefamilycultivatingthesoilmadepossible,atacertainlevelofwell-being,theincorporationofoneormorestrangersasadditionallabourforces。

Thiswasespeciallythecaseincountrieswheretheoldcommonownershipofthelandhadalreadydisintegratedoratleasttheformerjointcultivationhadgivenplacetotheseparatecultivationofparcelsoflandbytherespectivefamilies。Productionhaddevelopedsofarthatthelabour-powerofamancouldnowproducemorethanwasnecessaryforitsmeremaintenance;themeansofmaintainingadditionallabourforcesexisted;likewisethemeansofemployingthem;labour-poweracquiredavalue。Butthecommunityitselfandtheassociationtowhichitbelongedyieldednoavailable,superfluouslabourforces。Ontheotherhand,suchforceswereprovidedbywar,andwarwasasoldasthesimultaneousexistencealongsideeachotherofseveralgroupsofcommunities。Uptothattimeonehadnotknownwhattodowithprisonersofwar,andhadthereforesimplykilledthem;atanevenearlierperiod,eatenthem。Butatthestageof“economicsituation“whichhadnowbeenattained,theprisonersacquiredvalue;onethereforeletthemliveandmadeuseoftheirlabour。Thusforce,insteadofcontrollingtheeconomicsituation,wasonthecontrarypressedintotheserviceoftheeconomicsituation。Slaveryhadbeeninvented。Itsoonbecamethedominantformofproductionamongallpeopleswhoweredevelopingbeyondtheoldcommunity,butintheendwasalsooneofthechiefcausesoftheirdecay。Itwasslaverythatfirstmadepossiblethedivisionoflabourbetweenagricultureandindustryonalargerscale,andtherebyalsoHellenism,thefloweringoftheancientworld。Withoutslavery,noGreekstate,noGreekartandscience,withoutslavery,noRomanEmpire。ButwithoutthebasislaidbyHellenismandtheRomanEmpire,alsonomodernEurope。Weshouldneverforgetthatourwholeeconomic,politicalandintellectualdevelopmentpresupposesastateofthingsinwhichslaverywasasnecessaryasitwasuniversallyrecognised。Inthissenseweareentitledtosay:

Withouttheslaveryofantiquitynomodernsocialism。

Itisveryeasytoinveighagainstslaveryandsimilarthingsingeneralterms,andtogiveventtohighmoralindignationatsuchinfamies。

Unfortunatelyallthatthisconveysisonlywhateveryoneknows,namely,thattheseinstitutionsofantiquityarenolongerinaccordwithourpresentconditionsandoursentiments,whichtheseconditionsdetermine。Butitdoesnottellusonewordastohowtheseinstitutionsarose,whytheyexisted,andwhatroletheyplayedinhistory。Andwhenweexaminethesequestions,wearecompelledtosay——howevercontradictoryandhereticalitmaysound——thattheintroductionofslaveryundertheconditionsprevailingatthattimewasagreatstepforward。Foritisafactthatmansprangfromthebeasts,andhadconsequentlytousebarbaricandalmostbestialmeanstoextricatehimselffrombarbarism。Wheretheancientcommunitieshavecontinuedtoexist,theyhaveforthousandsofyearsformedthebasisofthecruellestformofstate,Orientaldespotism,fromIndiatoRussia。

Itwasonlywherethesecommunitiesdissolvedthatthepeoplesmadeprogressofthemselves,andtheirnexteconomicadvanceconsistedintheincreaseanddevelopmentofproductionbymeansofslavelabour。Itisclearthatsolongashumanlabourwasstillsolittleproductivethatitprovidedbutasmallsurplusoverandabovethenecessarymeansofsubsistence,anyincreaseoftheproductiveforces,extensionoftrade,developmentofthestateandoflaw,orfoundationofartandscience,waspossibleonlybymeansofagreaterdivisionoflabour。Andthenecessarybasisforthiswasthegreatdivisionoflabourbetweenthemassesdischargingsimplemanuallabourandthefewprivilegedpersonsdirectinglabour,conductingtradeandpublicaffairs,and,atalaterstage,occupyingthemselveswithartandscience。Thesimplestandmostnaturalformofthisdivisionoflabourwasinfactslavery。Inthehistoricalconditionsoftheancientworld,andparticularlyofGreece,theadvancetoasocietybasedonclassantagonismscouldbeaccomplishedonlyintheformofslavery。Thiswasanadvanceevenfortheslaves;theprisonersofwar,fromwhomthemassoftheslaveswasrecruited,nowatleastsavedtheirlives,insteadofbeingkilledastheyhadbeenbefore,orevenroasted,asatastillearlierperiod。

Wemayaddatthispointthatallhistoricalantagonismsbetweenexploitingandexploited,rulingandoppressedclassestothisverydayfindtheirexplanationinthissamerelativelyundevelopedhumanlabour。

Solongasthereallyworkingpopulationweresomuchoccupiedwiththeirnecessarylabourthattheyhadnotimeleftforlookingafterthecommonaffairsofsociety——thedirectionoflabour,affairsofstate,legalmatters,art,science,etc——solongwasitnecessarythatthereshouldconstantlyexistaspecialclass,freedfromactuallabour,tomanagetheseaffairs;andthisclassneverfailed,foritsownadvantage,toimposeagreaterandgreaterburdenoflabourontheworkingmasses。Onlytheimmenseincreaseoftheproductiveforcesattainedbymodernindustryhasmadeitpossibletodistributelabouramongallmembersofsocietywithoutexception,andtherebytolimitthelabour-timeofeachindividualmembertosuchanextentthatallhaveenoughfreetimelefttotakepartinthegeneral——boththeoreticalandpractical——affairsofsociety。Itisonlynow,therefore,thateveryrulingandexploitingclasshasbecomesuperfluousandindeedahindrancetosocialdevelopment,anditisonlynow,too,thatitwillbeinexorablyabolished,howevermuchitmaybeinpossessionof“directforce“。

When,therefore,HerrDühringturnsuphisnoseatHellenismbecauseitwasfoundedonslavery,hemightwithequaljusticereproachtheGreekswithhavinghadnosteam-enginesorelectrictelegraphs。Andwhenheassertsthatourmodernwagebondagecanonlybeexplainedasasomewhattransformedandmitigatedheritageofslavery,andnotbyitsownnature(thatis,bytheeconomiclawsofmodernsociety),thiseithermeansonlythatbothwage-labourandslaveryareformsofbondageandclassdomination,whicheverychildknowstobeso,orisfalse。Forwithequaljusticewemightsaythatwage-labourcouldonlybeexplainedasamitigatedformofcannibalism,which,itisnowestablished,wastheuniversalprimitiveformofutilisationofdefeatedenemies。

Theroleplayedinhistorybyforceascontrastedwitheconomicdevelopmentisthereforeclear。Inthefirstplace,allpoliticalpowerisorganicallybasedonaneconomic,socialfunction,andincreasesinproportionasthemembersofsociety,throughthedissolutionoftheprimitivecommunity,becometransformedintoprivateproducers,andthusbecomemoreandmoredivorcedfromtheadministratorsofthecommonfunctionsofsociety。

Secondly,afterthepoliticalforcehasmadeitselfindependentinrelationtosociety,andhastransformeditselffromitsservantintoitsmaster,itcanworkintwodifferentdirections。Eitheritworksinthesenseandinthedirectionofthenaturaleconomicdevelopment,inwhichcasenoconflictarisesbetweenthem,theeconomicdevelopmentbeingaccelerated。

Oritworksagainsteconomicdevelopment,inwhichcase,asarule,withbutfewexceptions,forcesuccumbstoit。Thesefewexceptionsareisolatedcasesofconquest,inwhichthemorebarbarianconquerorsexterminatedordroveoutthepopulationofacountryandlaidwasteorallowedtogotoruinproductiveforceswhichtheydidnotknowhowtouse。ThiswaswhattheChristiansinMoorishSpaindidwiththemajorpartoftheirrigationworksonwhichthehighlydevelopedagricultureandhorticultureoftheMoorsdepended。Everyconquestbyamorebarbarianpeopledisturbsofcoursetheeconomicdevelopmentanddestroysnumerousproductiveforces。Butintheimmensemajorityofcaseswheretheconquestispermanent,themorebarbarianconquerorhastoadapthimselftothehigher“economicsituation“

{D。K。G。231}asitemergesfromtheconquest;heisassimilatedbythevanquishedandinmostcaseshehaseventoadopttheirlanguage。Butwhere——apartfromcasesofconquest——theinternalstatepowerofacountrybecomesantagonistictoitseconomicdevelopmentasatacertainstageoccurredwithalmosteverypoliticalpowerinthepast,thecontestalwaysendedwiththedownfallofthepoliticalpower。Inexorablyandwithoutexceptiontheeconomicdevelopmenthasforceditswaythrough——wehavealreadymentionedthelatestandmoststrikingexampleofthis:thegreatFrenchRevolution。If,inaccordancewithHerrDühring’stheory,theeconomicsituationandwithittheeconomicstructureofagivencountryweredependentsimplyonpoliticalforce,itisabsolutelyimpossibletounderstandwhyFrederickWilliamIVafter1848couldnotsucceed,inspiteofhis“magnificentarmy“,[85]ingraftingthemediaevalguildsandotherromanticodditiesontotherailways,thesteam-enginesandthelarge-scaleindustrywhichwasjustthendevelopinginhiscountry;

orwhythetsarofRussia,whoispossessedofevenmuchmoreforciblemeans,isnotonlyunabletopayhisdebts,butcannotevenmaintainhis“force“withoutcontinuallyborrowingfromthe“economicsituation“ofWesternEurope。

ToHerrDühringforceistheabsoluteevil;thefirstactofforceistohimtheoriginalsin;hiswholeexpositionisajeremiadonthecontaminationofallsubsequenthistoryconsummatedbythisoriginalsin;ajeremiadontheshamefulperversionofallnaturalandsociallawsbythisdiabolicalpower,force。Thatforce,however,playsyetanotherroleinhistory,arevolutionaryrole;that,inthewordsofMarx,itisthemidwifeofeveryoldsocietypregnantwithanewone,thatitistheinstrumentwiththeaidofwhichsocialmovementforcesitswaythroughandshattersthedead,fossilisedpoliticalforms——ofthisthereisnotawordinHerrDühring。Itisonlywithsighsandgroansthatheadmitsthepossibilitythatforcewillperhapsbenecessaryfortheoverthrowofaneconomicsystemofexploitation——unfortunately,becausealluseofforcedemoralisesthepersonwhousesit。Andthisinspiteoftheimmensemoralandspiritualimpetuswhichhasbeengivenbyeveryvictoriousrevolution!

AndthisinGermany,whereaviolentcollision——whichmay,afterall,beforcedonthepeople——wouldatleasthavetheadvantageofwipingouttheservilitywhichhaspenetratedthenation’smentalityfollowingthehumiliationoftheThirtyYears’War。Andthisparson’smodeofthought——dull,insipidandimpotent——presumestoimposeitselfonthemostrevolutionarypartythathistoryhasknown!

V。

THEORYOFVALUETItisnowaboutahundredyearssincethepublicationinLeipzigofabookwhichbythebeginningofthenineteenthcenturyhadrunthroughoverthirtyeditions;itwascirculatedanddistributedintownandcountrybytheauthorities,bypreachersandphilanthropistsofallkinds,andwasgenerallyprescribedasareaderforuseintheelementaryschools。ThisbookwasRochow’sKinderfreund。Itspurposewastoteachtheyouthfuloffspringofthepeasantsandartisanstheirvocationinlifeandtheirdutiestotheirsuperiorsinsocietyandinthestate,andlikewisetoinspireinthemabeneficentcontentmentwiththeirlotonearth,withblackbreadandpotatoes,serflabour,lowwages,paternalthrashingsandotherdelectationsofthissort,andallthatbymeansofthesystemofenlightenmentwhichwastheninvogue。Withthisaiminviewtheyouthofthetownsandofthecountrysidewasadmonishedhowwiselynaturehadordainedthatmanmustwinhislivelihoodandhispleasuresbylabour,andhowhappythereforethepeasantorartisanshouldfeelthatitwasgrantedtohimtoseasonhismealwithbitterlabour,insteadof,liketherichglutton,sufferingthepangsofindigestionorconstipation,andhavingtogulpdownthechoicesttit-bitswithrepugnance。ThesesameplatitudesthatoldRochowthoughtgoodenoughforthepeasantboysandgirlsoftheelectorateofSaxonyofhistime,areserveduptousbyHerrDühringonpage14andthefollowingpagesofhisCursusasthe“absolutelyfundamental“{D。Ph。150}basisofthemostup-to-datepoliticaleconomy“Humanwantsassuchhavetheirnaturallaws,andtheirexpansionisconfinedwithinlimitswhichcanbetransgressedonlybyunnaturalactsandonlyforatime,untiltheseactsresultinnausea,wearinessoflife,decrepitude,socialmutilationandfinallysalutaryannihilation……Agameoflifeconsistingpurelyofpleasureswithoutanyfurtherseriousaimsoonmakesoneblasé,or,whatamountstothesamethingexhaustsallcapacitytofeel。Reallabour,insomeformorother,isthereforethenaturalsociallawofhealthybeings……Ifinstinctsandwantswerenotprovidedwithcounterbalancestheycouldhardlybringuseveninfantileexistence,letaloneahistoricallyintensifieddevelopmentoflife。Iftheycouldfindsatisfactionwithoutlimitandwithoutefforttheywouldsoonexhaustthemselves,leavinganemptyexistenceintheformofboringintervalslastinguntilthewantswerefeltagain……Ineveryrespect,therefore,thefactthatthesatisfactionoftheinstinctsandpassionsdependsonthesurmountingofeconomicobstaclesisasalutarybasiclawofboththeexternalarrangementofnatureandtheinnerconstitutionofman“{D。C。14,15,16}——andsoon,andsoforth。

ItcanbeseenthatthecommonestcommonplacesoftheworthyRochowarecelebratingtheircentenaryinHerrDühring,anddoso,moreover,asthe“deeperfoundation“{11}oftheoneandonlyreallycriticalandscientific“socialitariansystem“{IV}。

Withthefoundationsthuslaid,HerrDühringcanproceedtobuild。Applyingthemathematicalmethod,hefirstgivesus,followingtheancientEuclid’sexample,aseriesofdefinitions。Thisisallthemoreconvenientbecauseitenableshimatoncetocontrivehisdefinitionsinsuchawaythatwhatistobeprovedwiththeirhelpisalreadypartiallycontainedinthem。Andsowelearnattheoutsetthatthegoverningconceptinallpriorpoliticaleconomyhasbeenwealthandthatwealth,asitreallyhasbeenunderstoodhithertoandasithasdevelopeditsswayinworldhistory,is“economicpowerovermenandthings“

{16-17}。

Thisisdoublywrong。Inthefirstplacethewealthoftheancienttribalandvillagecommunitieswasinnosenseadominationovermen。Andsecondly,eveninsocietiesmovinginclassantagonisms,wealth,insofarasitincludesdominationovermen,ismainlyandalmostexclusivelyadominationovermenexercisedbyvirtueof,andthroughtheagencyof,thedominationoverthings。Fromtheveryearlyperiodwhenthecaptureofslavesandtheexploitationofslavesbecameseparatebranchesofbusiness,theexploitersofslave-labourhadtobuytheslaves,acquiringcontrolovermenonlythroughtheirpriorcontrolofthings,ofthepurchasepriceoftheslaveandofhismeansofsubsistenceandinstrumentsoflabour。

ThroughouttheMiddleAgeslargelandedpropertywastheprerequisitebymeansofwhichthefeudalnobilitycametohavequit-rentpeasantsandcorvéepeasants。Andnowadaysevenasix-year-oldchildseesthatwealthdominatesmenexclusivelybymeansofthethingswhichithasatitsdisposal。

ButwhatisitthatmakesHerrDühringconcoctthisfalsedefinitionofwealth,andwhyhashetosevertheactualconnectionwhichexistedinallformerclasssocieties?Inordertodragwealthfromthedomainofeconomicsoverintothatofmorals。Dominationoverthingsisquiteallright,butdominationovermenisanevilthing;andasHerrDühringhasforbiddenhimselftoexplaindominationovermenbydominationoverthings,hecanonceagaindoanaudacioustrickandexplaindominationovermenoffhandbyhisbelovedforce。Wealth,asdominationovermen,is“robbery“{17}——andwiththiswearebackagainatacorruptedversionofProudhon’sancientformula:“Propertyistheft。”

Andsowehavenowsafelybroughtwealthundertwoessentialaspects,productionanddistribution:wealthasdominationoverthings——productionwealth,thegoodside;wealthasdominationovermen——distributionwealthuptothepresentday,badsideawaywithit!Appliedtotheconditionsoftoday,thismeans:Thecapitalistmodeofproductionisquitegoodandmayremain,butthecapitalistmodeofdistributionisnogoodandmustbeabolished。Suchisthenonsensewhichcomesofwritingoneconomicswithoutevenhavinggraspedtheconnectionbetweenproductionanddistribution。

Afterwealth,valueisdefinedasfollows:

“Valueistheworthwhicheconomicthingsandserviceshaveincommerce。”

Thisworthcorrespondsto“thepriceoranyotherequivalentname,forexamplewages“{D。C。19}。

Inotherwords,valueistheprice。Orrather,inordernottodoHerrDühringaninjusticeandgivetheabsurdityofhisdefinitionasfaraspossibleinhisownwords:valuearetheprices。Forhesaysonpage19:

“value,andthepricesexpressingitinmoney“——

thushimselfstatingthatthesamevaluehasverydifferentpricesandconsequentlyalsojustasmanydifferentvalues。IfHegelhadnotdiedlongago,hewouldhanghimself,withallhistheologieshecouldnothavethoughtupthisvaluewhichhasasmanydifferentvaluesasithasprices。

ItrequiresoncemoresomeonewiththepositiveassuranceofHerrDühringtoinaugurateanewanddeeperfoundationforeconomicswiththedeclarationthatthereisnodifferencebetweenpriceandvalueexceptthatoneisexpressedinmoneyandtheotherisnot。

Butallthisstilldoesnottelluswhatvalueis,andstilllessbywhatitisdetermined。HerrDühringhasthereforetocomeacrosswithfurtherexplanations。

“Speakingabsolutelyingeneral,thebasiclawofcomparisonandevaluation,onwhichvalueandthepricesexpressingitinmoneydepend,belongsinthefirstplacetothesphereofpureproduction,apartfromdistribution,whichintroducesonlyasecondelementintotheconceptofvalue。Thegreaterorlesserobstacleswhichthevarietyofnaturalconditionsplacesinthewayofeffortsdirectedtowardtheprocurementofthings,andowingtowhichitnecessitatesagreaterorlesserexpenditureofeconomicenergy,determinealso……thegreaterorlesservalue“,{19-20}andthisisappraisedaccordingto“theresistanceofferedbynatureandcircumstancestotheprocuringofthings{20}……Theextenttowhichweinvestourownenergyintothem“(things)“istheimmediatedeterminingcauseoftheexistenceofvalueingeneralandofaparticularmagnitudeofit“{21}。:

Insofarasthereisameaninginthis,itis:Thevalueofaproductoflabourisdeterminedbythelabour-timenecessaryforitsproduction;

andweknewthatlongago,evenwithoutHerrDühring。Insteadofstatingthefactsimply,hehastotwistitintoanoracularsaying。Itissimplywrongtosaythatthedimensionsinwhichanyoneinvestshisenergiesinanything(tokeeptothebombasticstyle)istheimmediatedeterminingcauseofvalueandofthemagnitudeofvalue。Inthefirstplace,itdependsonwhatthingtheenergyisputinto,andsecondly,howtheenergyisputintoit。Ifsomeonemakesathingwhichhasnouse-valueforotherpeople,hiswholeenergydoesnotproduceanatomofvalue;andifheisstiff-neckedenoughtoproducebyhandanobjectwhichamachineproducestwentytimescheaper,nineteen-twentiethsoftheenergyheputintoitproducesneithervalueingeneralnoranyparticularmagnitudeofvalue。

Moreoveritisanabsolutedistortiontotransformproductivelabour,whichcreatespositiveproducts,intoamerelynegativeovercomingofaresistance。Inordertocomebyashirtweshouldthenhavetosetaboutitsomewhatasfollows:Firstlyweovercometheresistanceofthecotton-seedtobeingsownandtogrowing,thentheresistanceoftheripecottontobeingpickedandpackedandtransported,thenitsresistancetobeingunpackedandcardedandspun,furthertheresistanceoftheyarntobeingwoven,thentheresistanceoftheclothtobeingbleachedandsewn,andfinallytheresistanceofthecompletedshirttobeingputon。

Whyallthischildishperversionandperversity?Inorder,bymeansofthe“resistance“,topassfromthe“productionvalue“,thetruebuthithertoonlyidealvalue,tothe“distributionvalue“,thevalue,falsifiedbyforce,whichalonewasacknowledgedinpasthistory:

“Inadditiontotheresistanceofferedbynature……thereisyetanother,apurelysocialobstacle……Anobstructivepowerstepsinbetweenmanandnature,andthispowerisonceagainman。Man,conceivedasaloneandisolated,facesnatureasafreebeing……Thesituationisdifferentassoonaswethinkofasecondmanwho,swordinhand,holdstheapproachestonatureanditsresourcesanddemandsaprice,whateverformitmaytake,forallowingaccess。Thissecondman……,sotospeak,putsataxontheotherandisthusthereasonwhythevalueoftheobjectstrivenforturnsoutgreaterthanitmighthavebeenbutforthispoliticalandsocialobstacletotheprocuringorproductionoftheobject……Theparticularformsofthisartificiallyenhancedworthofthingsareextremelymanifold。anditnaturallyhasitsconcomitantcounterpartinacorrespondingforcingdownoftheworthoflabour{23}……Itisthereforeanillusiontoattempttoregardvalueinadvanceasanequivalentinthepropersenseofthisterm,thatis,assomethingwhichisofequalworth,orasarelationofexchangearisingfromtheprinciplethatserviceandcounter-serviceareequal……Onthecontrary,thecriterionofacorrecttheoryofvaluewillbethatthemostgeneralcauseofevaluationconceivedinthetheorydoesnotcoincidewiththespecialformofworthwhichrestsoncompulsorydistribution。Thisformvarieswiththesocialsystem,whileeconomicvaluepropercanonlybeaproductionvaluemeasuredinrelationtonatureandinconsequenceofthiswillonlychangewithchangesintheobstaclestoproductionofapurelynaturalandtechnicalkind“[D。C。24-25]。

Thevaluewhichathinghasinpractice,accordingtoHerrDühring,thereforeconsistsoftwoparts:first,thelabourcontainedinit,and,secondly,thetaxsurchargeimposed“sword;inhand“。Inotherwords,valueinpracticetodayisamonopolyprice。Nowif,inaccordancewiththistheoryofvalue,allcommoditieshavesuchamonopolyprice,onlytwoalternativesarepossible。Eithereachindividuallosesagainasabuyerwhathegainedasaseller;thepriceshavechangednominallybutinreality——intheirmutualrelationship——haveremainedthesame;everythingremainsasbefore,andthefar-fameddistributionvalueisamereillusion——

Or,ontheotherhand,theallegedtaxsurchargesrepresentarealsumofvalues,namely,thatproducedbythelabouring,value-producingclassbutappropriatedbythemonopolistclass,andthenthissumofvaluesconsistsmerelyofunpaidlabour;inthisevent,inspiteofthemanwiththeswordinhishand,inspiteoftheallegedtaxsurchargesandtheasserteddistributionvalue,wearriveonceagainattheMarxiantheoryofsurplus-value。

Butletuslookatsomeexamplesofthefamous“distributionvalue“。

Onpage135andthefollowingpageswefind:

“Theshapingofpricesasaresultofindividualcompetitionmustalsoberegardedasaformofeconomicdistributionandofthemutualimpositionoftribute……Ifthestockofanynecessarycommodityissuddenlyreducedtoaconsiderableextent,thisgivesthesellersadisproportionatepowerofexploitation[135-36]……whatacolossalincreaseinpricesthismayproduceisshownparticularlybythoseabnormalsituationsinwhichthesupplyofnecessaryarticlesiscutoffforanylengthoftime“[137]andsoon。Moreover,eveninthenormalcourseofthingsvirtualmonopoliesexistwhichmakepossiblearbitrarypriceincreases,asforexampletherailwaycompanies,thecompaniessupplyingtownswithwaterandgas[see153,154],etc。

Ithaslongbeenknownthatsuchopportunitiesformonopolisticexploitationoccur。Butthatthemonopolypricestheseproducearenottorankasexceptionsandspecialcases,butpreciselyasclassicalexamplesofthedeterminationofvaluesinoperationtoday——thisisnew。Howarethepricesofthenecessariesoflifedetermined?HerrDühringreplies:Gointoabeleagueredcityfromwhichsupplieshavebeencutoff,andfindout!Whateffecthascompetitiononthedeterminationofmarketprices?Askthemonopolists——theywilltellyouallaboutit!

Forthatmatter,eveninthecaseofthesemonopolies,themanwiththeswordinhishandwhoissupposedtostandbehindthemisnotdiscoverable。Onthecontrary:incitiesundersiege,ifthemanwiththesword,thecommandant,doeshisduty,he,asarule,verysoonputsanendtothemonopolyandrequisitionsthemonopolisedstocksforthepurposeofequaldistribution。Andfortherestthemenwiththesword,whentheyhavetriedtofabricatea“distributionvalue“,havereapednothingbutbadbusinessandfinancialloss。WiththeirmonopolisationoftheEastIndiantrade,theDutchbroughtboththeirmonopolyandtheirtradetoruin。Thetwostrongestgovernmentswhicheverexisted,theNorthAmericanrevolutionarygovernmentandtheFrenchNationalConvention,venturedtofixmaximumprices,andtheyfailedmiserably。[86]Forsomeyearsnow,theRussiangovernmenthasbeentryingtoraisetheexchangerateofRussianpapermoney——whichitisloweringinRussiabythecontinuousemissionofirredeemablebanknotes——bytheequallycontinuousbuyingupinLondonofbillsofexchangeonRussia。Ithashadtopayforthispleasureinthelastfewyearsalmostsixtymillionrubles,andtherublenowstandsatundertwomarksinsteadofoverthree。IftheswordhasthemagiceconomicpowersascribedtoitbyHerrDühring,whyisitthatnogovernmenthassucceededinpermanentlycompellingbadmoneytohavethe“distributionvalue“ofgoodmoney,orassignatstohavethe“distributionvalue“ofgold?Andwhereistheswordwhichisincommandoftheworldmarket?

Thereisalsoanotherprincipalforminwhichthedistributionvaluefacilitatestheappropriationofotherpeople’sserviceswithoutcounter-services:thisispossession-rent,thatistosay,rentoflandandtheprofitoncapital。Forthemomentwemerelyrecordthis,toenableusto。statethatthisisallthatwelearnofthisfamous“distributionvalue“——All?No,notquite。Listentothis:

“Inspiteofthetwofoldstandpointwhichmanifestsitselfintherecognitionofaproductionvalueandadistributionvalue,thereisneverthelessalwaysunderlyingthesesomethingincommon,thethingofwhichallvaluesconsistandbywhichtheyarethereforemeasured。Theimmediate,naturalmeasureistheexpenditureofenergy,andthesimplestunitishumanenergyinthecrudestsenseoftheterm。Thislattercanbereducedtotheexistencetimewhoseself-maintenanceinturnrepresentstheovercomingofacertainsumofdifficultiesinnutritionandlife。Distribution,orappropriation,valueispresentinpureandexclusiveformonlywherethepowertodisposeofunproducedthings,or,touseacommonerexpression,wherethesethingsthemselvesareexchangedforservicesorthingsofrealproductionvalue。Thehomogeneouselement,whichisindicatedandrepresentedineveryexpressionofvalueandthereforealsointhecomponentpartsofvaluewhichareappropriatedthroughdistributionwithoutcounter-serviceconsistsintheexpenditureofhumanenergy,which……findsembodiment……

ineachcommodity“

Nowwhatshouldwesaytothis?Ifallcommodityvaluesaremeasuredbytheexpenditureofhumanenergyembodiedinthecommodities,whatbecomesofthedistributionvalue,thepricesurcharge,thetax?True,HerrDühringtellsusthatevenunproducedthings——thingswhichconsequentlycannothavearealvalue——canbegivenadistributionvalueandexchangedagainstthingswhichhavebeenproducedandpossessvalue。Butatthesametimehetellsusthatallvalues——consequentlyalsopurelyandexclusivelydistributivevalues——consistintheexpenditureofenergyembodiedinthem。Unfortunatelywearenottoldhowanexpenditureofenergycanfindembodimentinanunproducedthing。Inanycaseonepointseemstoemergeclearlyfromallthismedleyofvalues:thatdistributionvaluethepricesurchargeoncommoditiesextortedasaresultofsocialposition,andthetaxleviedbyvirtueoftheswordalloncemoreamounttonothingThevaluesofcommoditiesaredeterminedsolelybytheexpenditureofhumanenergy,vulgolabour,whichfindsembodimentinthem。So,apartfromtherentoflandandthefewmonopolyprices,HerrDühringsaysthesame,thoughinmoreslovenlyandconfusedterms,asthemuch-decriedRicardo-Marxiantheoryofvaluesaidlongagoinclearerandmorepreciseform。

Hesaysit,andinthesamebreathhesaystheopposite。MarxtakingRicardo’sinvestigationsashisstarting-point,says。Thevalueofcommoditiesisdeterminedbythesociallynecessarygeneralhumanlabourembodiedinthem,andthisinturnismeasuredbyitsduration。Labouristhemeasureofallvalues,butlabouritselfhasnovalue。HerrDühring,afterlikewiseputtingforward,inhisclumsyway,labourasthemeasureofvalue,continues:

this“canbereducedtotheexistencetimewhoseself-maintenanceinturnrepresentstheovercomingofacertainsumofdifficultiesinnutritionandlife“{D。C。27}。

Letusignoretheconfusion,duepurelytohisdesiretobeoriginal,oflabour-time,whichistheonlythingthatmattershere,withexistencetime,whichhasneveryetcreatedormeasuredvalues。Letusalsoignorethefalse“socialitarian“presencewhichthe“self-maintenance“ofthisexistencetimeisintendedtointroduce;solongastheworldhasexistedandsolongasitcontinuestoexisteveryindividualmustmaintainhimselfinthesensethathehimselfconsumeshismeansofsubsistence。

LetusassumethatHerrDühringexpressedhimselfinpreciseeconomicterms;thenthesentencequotedeithermeansnothingatallormeansthefollowing:Thevalueofacommodityisdeterminedbythelabour-timeembodiedinit,andthevalueofthislabour-timebythemeansofsubsistencerequiredforthemaintenanceofthelabourerforthistime。And,initsapplicationtopresent-daysociety,thismeans:thevalueofacommodityisdeterminedbythewagescontainedinit。

AndthisbringsusatlasttowhatHerrDühringisreallytryingtosay。Thevalueofacommodityisdetermined,inthephraseologyofvulgareconomics,bytheproductionoutlays;

Carey,onthecontrary,“broughtoutthetruththatitisnotthecostsofproduction,butthecostsofreproductionthatdeterminevalue“(KritischeGeschichte,p。401)。

Weshallseelaterwhatthereistotheseproductionorreproductioncosts;

atthemomentweonlynotethat,asiswellknown,theyconsistofwagesandprofitoncapital。Wagesrepresentthe“expenditureofenergy“embodiedincommodities,theproductionvalue。Profitrepresentsthetaxorpricesurchargeextortedbythecapitalistbyvirtueofhismonopoly,theswordinhishand——thedistributionvalue。AndsothewholecontradictoryconfusionoftheDühringiantheoryofvalueisultimatelyresolvedintothemostbeautifulandharmoniousclarity。

Thedeterminationofthevalueofcommoditiesbywages,whichinAdamSmithstillfrequentlyappearedsidebysidewithitsdeterminationbylabour-time,hasbeenbannedfromscientificpoliticaleconomysinceRicardo,andnowadayssurvivesonlyinvulgareconomics。Itispreciselytheshallowestsycophantsoftheexistingcapitalistorderofsocietywhopreachthedeterminationofvaluebywages,andalongwiththis,describetheprofitofthecapitalistlikewiseasahighersortofwages,asthewagesofabstinence(rewardtothecapitalistfornotplayingducksanddrakeswithhiscapital),asthepremiumonrisk,asthewagesofmanagement,etc。HerrDühringdiffersfromthemonlyindeclaringthatprofitisrobbery。Inotherwords,HerrDühringbaseshissocialismdirectlyonthedoctrinesoftheworstkindofvulgareconomics。Andhissocialismisworthjustasmuchasthisvulgareconomics。Theystandandfalltogether。

Afterall,itisclearthatwhatalabourerproducesandwhathecostsarejustasmuchdifferentthingsaswhatamachineproducesandwhatitcosts。Thevaluecreatedbyalabourerinatwelve-hourworking-dayhasnothingincommonwiththevalueofthemeansofsubsistencewhichheconsumesinthisworking-dayandtheperiodofrestthatgoeswithit。

Inthesemeansofsubsistencetheremaybeembodiedthree,fourorsevenhoursoflabour-timevaryingwiththestageofdevelopmentreachedintheproductivityoflabour。Ifweassumethatsevenhoursoflabourwerenecessaryfortheirproduction,thenthetheoryofvalueofvulgareconomicswhichHerrDühringhasacceptedimpliesthattheproductoftwelvehoursoflabourhasthevalueoftheproductofsevenhoursoflabour,thattwelvehoursoflabourareequaltosevenhoursoflabour,orthat12=7。Toputitevenmoreplainly:Alabourerworkingontheland,nomatterunderwhatsocialrelationshipsproducesinayearacertainquantityofgrain,saysixtybushelsofwheat。Duringthistimeheconsumesasumofvaluesamountingofforty-fivebushelsofwheat。Thenthesixtybushelsofwheathavethesamevalueastheforty-fivebushels,andthatinthesamemarketandwithotherconditionsremainingabsolutelyidentical;inotherwords,sixty=forty-five。

Andthisstylesitselfpoliticaleconomy!

Thewholedevelopmentofhumansocietybeyondthestageofbrutesavagerybeginsonthedaywhenthelabourofthefamilycreatedmoreproductsthanwerenecessaryforitsmaintenanceonthedaywhenaportionoflabourcouldbedevotedtotheproductionnolongerofthemeremeansofsubsistence,butofmeansofproduction。Asurplusoftheproductoflabouroverandabovethecostsofmaintenanceofthelabour,andtheformationandenlargement,outofthissurplus,ofasocialproductionandreservefund,wasandisthebasisofallsocial,politicalandintellectualprogress。Inhistory,uptothepresent,thisfundhasbeenthepossessionofaprivilegedclass,onwhichalsodevolvedalongwiththispossession,politicaldominationandintellectualleadership。Theimpendingsocialrevolutionwillforthefirsttimemakethissocialproductionandreservefund——thatis,thetotalmassofrawmaterials,instrumentsofproductionandmeansofsubsistence——areallysocialfund,bydeprivingthatprivilegedclassofthedisposalofitandtransferringittothewholeofsocietyasitscommonproperty。

Oftwoalternativecourses,one。Eitherthevalueofcommoditiesisdeterminedbythecostsofmaintenanceofthelabournecessaryfortheirproduction——thatis,inpresent-daysociety,bythewages。Inthatcaseeachlabourerreceivesinhiswagesthevalueoftheproductofhislabour;andthentheexploitationofthewage-earningclassbythecapitalistclassisanimpossibility。Letusassumethatthecostsofmaintenanceofalabourerinagivensocietycanbeexpressedbythesumofthreemarks。

Thentheproductofaday’slabour,accordingtotheabove-citedtheoryofthevulgareconomists,hasthevalueofthreemarks。Letusassumethatthecapitalistwhoemploysthislabourer,addsaprofittothisproduct,atributeofonemark,andsellsitforfourmarks。Theothercapitalistsdothesame。Butfromthatmomentthelabourercannolongercoverhisdailyneedswiththreemarks,butalsorequiresfourmarksforthispurpose。

Asallotherconditionsareassumedtohaveremainedunchanged,thewagesexpressedinmeansofsubsistencemustremainthesame,whilethewagesexpressedinmoneymustrise,namely,fromthreemarkstofourmarksaday。Whatthecapitaliststakefromtheworkingclassintheformofprofit,theymustgivebacktoitintheformofwages。Wearejustwherewewereatthebeginning:ifwagesdeterminevalue,noexploitationoftheworkerbythecapitalistispossible。Buttheformationofasurplusofproductsisalsoimpossible,for,onthebasisoftheassumptionfromwhichwestarted,thelabourersconsumejustasmuchvalueastheyproduce。Andasthecapitalistsproducenovalue,itisimpossibletoseehowtheyexpecttolive。Andifsuchasurplusofproductionoverconsumption,suchaproductionandreservefund,neverthelessexists,andexistsinthehandsofthecapitalists,nootherpossibleexplanationremainsbutthattheworkersconsumefortheirself-maintenancemerelythevalueofthecommoditiesandhavehandedoverthecommoditiesthemselvestothecapitalistforfurtheruse。

Or,ontheotherhand,ifthisproductionandreservefunddoesinfactexistinthehandsofthecapitalistclass,ifithasactuallyarisenthroughtheaccumulationofprofit(forthemomentweleavethelandrentoutofaccount),thenitnecessarilyconsistsoftheaccumulatedsurplusoftheproductoflabourhandedovertothecapitalistclassbytheworkingclass,overandabovethesumofwagespaidtotheworkingclassbythecapitalistclass。Inthiscase,however,itisnotwagesthatdeterminevalue,butthequantityoflabour;inthiscasetheworkingclasshandsovertothecapitalistclassintheproductoflabouragreaterquantityofvaluethanitreceivesfromitintheshapeofwages;andthentheprofitoncapital,likeallotherformsofappropriationwithoutpaymentofthelabourproductofothers,isexplainedasasimplecomponentpartofthissurplus-valuediscoveredbyMarx。

Incidentally,inDühring’swholeCursusofpoliticaleconomythereisnomentionofthatgreatandepoch-makingdiscoverywithwhichRicardoopenshismostimportantwork:

“Thevalueofacommodity……dependsonthequantityoflabourwhichisnecessaryforitsproduction,andnotonthegreaterorlessercompensationwhichispaidforthatlabour。”

IntheKritischeGeschichteitisdismissedwiththeoracularphrase:

“Itisnotconsidered“(byRicardo)“thatthegreaterorlesserproportioninwhichwagescanbeanallotmentofthenecessariesoflife“(!)“mustalsoinvolve……differentformsofthevaluerelationships!“{D。K。G。

215。}

Aphraseintowhichthereadercanreadwhathepleases,andisonsafestgroundifhereadsintoitnothingatall。

Andnowletthereaderselectforhimself,fromthefivesortsofvalueserveduptousbyHerrDühring,theonethathelikesbest:

theproductionvalue,whichcomesfromnature;orthedistributionvalue,whichman’swickednesshascreatedandwhichisdistinguishedbythefactthatitismeasuredbytheexpenditureofenergy,whichisnotcontainedinit;orthirdly,thevaluewhichismeasuredbylabour-time;orfourthly,thevaluewhichismeasuredbythecostsofreproduction;orlastly,thevaluewhichismeasuredbywages。Theselectioniswide,theconfusioncomplete,andtheonlythingleftforustodoistoexclaimwithHerrDühring:

“Thetheoryofvalueisthetouchstoneoftheworthofeconomicsystems!“

{499}

VI。

SIMPLEANDCOMPOUNDLABOURHerrDühringhasdiscoveredinMarxagrossblunderineconomicsthataschoolboywouldblushat,ablunderwhichatthesametimecontainsasocialistheresyverydangeroustosociety。

Marx’stheoryofvalueis“nothingbuttheordinary……theorythatlabouristhecauseofallvaluesandlabour-timeistheirmeasure。Butthequestionofhowthedistinctvalueofso-calledskilledlabouristobeconceivedisleftincompleteobscurity。Itistruethatinourtheoryalsoonlythelabour-timeexpendedcanbethemeasureofthenaturalcostandthereforeoftheabsolutevalueofeconomicthings;butherethelabour-timeofeachindividualmustbeconsideredabsolutelyequal,tostartwith,anditisonlynecessarytoexaminewhere,inskilledproduction,thelabour-timeofotherpersons……forexampleinthetoolused,isaddedtotheseparatelabour-timeoftheindividual。Thereforethepositionisnot,asinHerrMarx’shazyconception,thatthelabour-timeofonepersonisinitselfmorevaluablethanthatofanother,becausemoreaveragelabour-timeiscondensedasitwerewithinit,butalllabour-timeisinprincipleandwithoutexception——andthereforewithoutanyneedtotakefirstanaverage——absolutelyequalinvalue;andinregardtotheworkdonebyaperson,asalsoinregardtoeveryfinishedproduct,allthatrequirestobeascertainedishowmuchofthelabour-timeofotherpersonsmaybeconcealedinwhatappearstobeonlyhisownlabour-time。Whetheritisahandtoolforproduction,orthehand,oreventheheaditself,whichcouldnothaveacquireditsspecialcharacteristicsandcapacityforworkwithoutthelabour-timeofothers,isnotoftheslightestimportanceinthestrictapplicationofthetheory。Inhislucubrationsonvalue,however,HerrMarxneverridshimselfoftheghostofaskilledlabour-timewhichlurksinthebackground。

Hewasunabletoeffectathoroughgoingchangeherebecausehewashamperedbythetraditionalmodeofthoughtoftheeducatedclasses,towhomitnecessarilyappearsmonstroustorecognisethelabour-timeofaporterandthatofanarchitectasofabsolutelyequalvaluefromthestandpointofeconomics“{D。K。G。499-500}。

ThepassageinMarxwhichcallsforththis“mightierwrath“{501}onHerrDühring’spartisverybrief。Marxisexaminingwhatitisthatdeterminesthevalueofcommoditiesandgivestheanswer:thehumanlabourembodiedinthem。This,hecontinues,“istheexpenditureofsimplelabour-powerwhich,onanaverage,apartfromanyspecialdevelopment,existsintheorganismofeveryordinaryindividual……Skilledlabourcountsonlyassimplelabourintensified,orrather,asmultipliedsimplelabour,agivenquantityofskilledbeingconsideredequaltoagreaterquantityofsimplelabour。Experienceshowsthatthisreductionisconstantlybeingmade。

Acommoditymaybetheproductofthemostskilledlabour,butitsvalue,byequatingittotheproductofsimpleunskilledlabour,representsadefinitequantityofthelatterlabouralone。Thedifferentproportionsinwhichdifferentsortsoflabourarereducedtounskilledlabourastheirstandard,areestablishedbyasocialprocessthatgoesonbehindthebacksoftheproducers,and,consequently,appeartobefixedbycustom“。

Marxisdealingherefirstofallonlywiththedeterminationofthevalueofcommodities,i。e。,ofobjectswhich,withinasocietycomposedofprivateproducers,areproducedandexchangedagainsteachotherbytheseprivateproducersfortheirprivateaccount。Inthispassagethereforethereisnoquestionwhateverof“absolutevalue“——whereverthismaybeinexistence——butofthevaluewhichiscurrentinadefiniteformofsociety。Thisvalue,inthisdefinitehistoricalsense,isshowntobecreatedandmeasuredbythehumanlabourembodiedintheindividualcommodities,andthishumanlabourisfurthershowntobetheexpenditureofsimplelabour-power。Butnotalllabourisamereexpenditureofsimplehumanlabour-power;verymanysortsoflabourinvolvetheuseofcapabilitiesorknowledgeacquiredwiththeexpenditureofgreaterorlessereffort,timeandmoney。Dothesekindsofcompoundlabourproduce,inthesameintervaloftime,thesamecommodityvaluesassimplelabour,theexpenditureofmeresimplelabour-power?Obviouslynot。Theproductofonehourofcompoundlabourisacommodityofahighervalue——perhapsdoubleortreble——incomparisonwiththeproductofonehourofsimplelabour。Thevaluesoftheproductsofcompoundlabourareexpressedbythiscomparisonindefinitequantitiesofsimplelabour;butthisreductionofcompoundlabourisestablishedbyasocialprocesswhichgoesonbehindthebacksoftheproducers,byaprocesswhichatthispoint,inthedevelopmentofthetheoryofvalue,canonlybestatedbutnotasyetexplained。

Itisthissimplefact,takingplacedailybeforeoureyesinpresent-daycapitalistsociety,whichisherestatedbyMarx。ThisfactissoindisputablethatevenHerrDühringdoesnotventuretodisputeiteitherinhisCursusorinhishistoryofpoliticaleconomy;

andtheMarxianpresentationissosimpleandlucidthatnoonebutHerrDühring“isleftincompleteobscurity“byit。Becauseofhiscompleteobscurityhemistakesthecommodityvalue,whichaloneMarxwasforthetimebeingconcernedwithinvestigating,for“thenaturalcost“,whichmakestheobscuritystillmorecomplete,andevenforthe“absolutevalue“,whichsofarasourknowledgegoeshasneverbeforehadcurrencyinpoliticaleconomy。ButwhateverHerrDühringmayunderstandbythenaturalcost,andwhicheverofhisfivekindsofvaluemayhavethehonourtorepresentabsolutevalue,thismuchatleastissure:thatMarxisnotdiscussinganyofthesethings,butonlythevalueofcommodities;andthatinthewholesectionofCapitalwhichdealswithvaluethereisnoteventheslightestindicationofwhetherortowhatextentMarxconsidersthistheoryofthevalueofcommodities’applicablealsotootherformsofsociety。

“Thereforethepositionisnot。”HerrDühringproceeds,“asinHerrMarx’shazyconception,thatthelabour-timeofonepersonisinitselfmorevaluablethanthatofanother,becausemoreaveragelabour-timeiscondensedasitwerewithinit,butalllabour-timeisinprincipleandwithoutexception——andthereforewithoutanyneedtotakefirstanaverage——absolutelyequalinvalue“{D。K。G。500}。

ItisfortunateforHerrDühringthatfatedidnotmakehimamanufacturer,andthussavedhimfromfixingthevalueofhiscommoditiesonthebasisofthisnewruleandtherebyrunninginfalliblyintothearmsofbankruptcy。

Butsay,areweherestillinthesocietyofmanufacturers?No,farfromit。WithhisnaturalcostandabsolutevalueHerrDühringhasmadeustakealeap,averitablesaltomortale,outofthepresentevilworldofexploitersintohisowneconomiccommuneofthefuture,intothepure,heavenlyairofequalityandjustice;andsowemustnow,eventhoughprematurely,takeaglanceatthisnewworld。

Itistruethat,accordingtoHerrDühring’stheory,onlythelabour-timeexpendedcanmeasurethevalueofeconomicthingsevenintheeconomiccommune;butasamatterofcoursethelabour-timeofeachindividualmustbeconsideredabsolutelyequaltostartwith,alllabour-timeisinprincipleandwithoutexceptionabsolutelyequalinvalue,withoutanyneedtotakefirstanaverage。AndnowcomparewiththisradicalequalitariansocialismMarx’shazyconceptionthatthelabour-timeofonepersonisinitselfmorevaluablethanthatofanother,becausemoreaveragelabour-timeiscondensedasitwerewithinit——aconceptionwhichheldMarxcaptivebyreasonofthetraditionalmodeofthoughtoftheeducatedclasses,towhomitnecessarilyappearsmonstrousthatthelabour-timeofaporterandthatofanarchitectshouldberecognisedasofabsolutelyequalvaluefromthestandpointofeconomics!

UnfortunatelyMarxputashortfootnotetothepassageinCapitalcitedabove:“Thereadermustnotethatwearenotspeakinghereofthewagesorvaluethatthelabourergetsforagivenlabour-time,butofthevalueofthecommodityinwhichthatlabour-timeismaterialised。”

Marx,whoseemsheretohavehadapresentimentofthecomingofhisDühring,thereforesafeguardshimselfagainstanapplicationofhisstatementsquotedaboveeventothewageswhicharepaidinexistingsocietyforcompoundlabour。AndifHerrDühring,notcontentwithdoingthisallthesame,presentsthesestatementsastheprinciplesonwhichMarxwouldliketoseethedistributionofthenecessariesofliferegulatedinsocietyorganisedsocialistically,heisguiltyofashamelessimposture,thelikeofwhichisonlytoteefoundinthegangsterpress。

Butletuslookalittlemorecloselyatthedoctrineofequalityinvalues。Alllabour-timeisentirelyequalinvalue,theporter’sandthearchitect’s。Solabour-time,andthereforelabouritself,hasavalue。

Butlabouristhecreatorofallvalues。Italonegivestheproductsfoundinnaturevalueintheeconomicsense。Valueitselfisnothingelsethantheexpressionofthesociallynecessaryhumanlabourmaterialisedinanobject。Labourcanthereforehavenovalue。Onemightaswellspeakofthevalueofvalue,ortrytodeterminetheweight,notofaheavybody,butofheavinessitself,asspeakofthevalueoflabour,andtrytodetermineit。HerrDühringdismissespeoplelikeOwen,Saint-SimonandFourierbycallingthemsocialalchemists{D。K。G。237}。

Hissubtilisingoverthevalueoflabour-time,thatis,oflabour,showsthatheranksfarbeneaththerealalchemists。AndnowletthereaderfathomHerrDühring’sbrazennessinimputingtoMarxtheassertionthatthelabour-timeofonepersonisinitselfmorevaluablethanthatofanother{500},thatlabour-time,andthereforelabour,hasavalue——toMarx,whofirstdemonstratedthatlabourcanhavenovalue,andwhyitcannot!

Forsocialism,whichwantstoemancipatehumanlabour-powerfromitsstatusofacommodity,therealisationthatlabourhasnovalueandcanhavenoneisofgreatimportance。Withthisrealisationallattempts——inheritedbyHerrDühringfromprimitiveworkers’socialism——

toregulatethefuturedistributionofthenecessariesoflifeasakindofhigherwagesfalltothegroundAndfromitcomesthefurtherrealisationthatdistribution,insofarasitisgovernedbypurelyeconomicconsiderations,willberegulatedbytheinterestsofproduction,andthatproductionismostencouragedbyamodeofdistributionwhichallowsallmembersofsocietytodevelop,maintainandexercisetheircapacitieswithmaximumuniversality。Itistruethat,tothemodeofthoughtoftheeducatedclasseswhichHerrDühringhasinherited,itmustseemmonstrousthatintimetocometherewillnolongerbeanyprofessionalportersorarchitects,andthatthemanwhoforhalfanhourgivesinstructionsasanarchitectwillalsoactasaporterforaperiod,untilhisactivityasanarchitectisonceagainrequired。Afinesortofsocialismthatwouldbe——perpetuatingprofessionalporters!

Iftheequalityofvalueoflabour-time。meansthateachlabourerproducesequalvaluesinequalperiodsoftime,withouttherebeinganyneedtotakeanaverage,thenthisisobviouslywrong。Ifwetaketwoworkers,eveninthesamebranchofindustry,thevaluetheyproduceinonehouroflabour-timewillalwaysvarywiththeintensityoftheirlabourandtheirskill——andnotevenaneconomiccommune,atanyratenotonourplanet,canremedythisevil——which,however,isonlyanevilforpeoplelikeDühring。What,then,remainsofthecompleteequalityofvalueofanyandeverylabour?Nothingbutthepurelybraggartphrase,whichhasnoothereconomicfoundationthanHerrDühring’sincapacitytodistinguishbetweenthedeterminationofvaluebylabouranddeterminationofvaluebywages——nothingbuttheukase,thebasiclawoftheneweconomiccommune:Equalwagesforequallabour-time!Indeed,theoldFrenchcommunistworkersandWeitlinghadmuchbetterreasonsfortheequalityofwageswhichtheyadvocated。

Howthenarewetosolvethewholeimportantquestionofthehigherwagespaidforcompoundlabour?Inasocietyofprivateproducers,privateindividualsortheirfamiliespaythecostsoftrainingthequalifiedworker;

hencethehigherpricepaidforqualifiedlabour-poweraccruesfirstofalltoprivateindividuals:theskilfulslaveissoldforahigherprice,andtheskilfulwage-earnerispaidhigherwages。Inasocialisticallyorganisedsociety,thesecostsarebornebysociety,andtoitthereforebelongthefruits,thegreatervaluesproducedbycompoundlabour。Theworkerhimselfhasnoclaimtoextrapay。Andfromthis,incidentally,followsthemoralthatattimesthereisadrawbacktothepopulardemandoftheworkersfor“thefullproceedsoflabour“。[87]

VII。

CAPITALANDSURPLUS-VALUE“Tobeginwith,HerrMarxdoesnotholdtheacceptedeconomicviewofcapital,namely,thatitisameansofproductionalreadyproduced;onthecontrary,hetriestogetupamarespecial,dialectical-historicalideathattoyswithmetamorphosesofconceptsandhistory。Accordingtohim,capitalisbornofmoney,itformsahistoricalphaseopeningwiththesixteenthcentury,thatis,withthefirstbeginningsofaworldmarket,whichpresumablyappearedatthatperiod。Itisobviousthatthekeennessofnational-economicanalysisislostinsuchaconceptualinterpretation。

Insuchbarrenconceptions,whicharerepresentedashalfhistoricalandhalflogical,butwhichinfactareonlybastardsofhistoricalandlogicalfantasy,thefacultyofdiscernmentperishes,togetherwithallhonestyintheuseofconcepts“{D。K。G。497-98}——andsoheblustersalongforawholepage……

“Marx’sdefinitionoftheconceptofcapitalcanonlycauseconfusioninthestricttheoryofnationaleconomy……frivolitieswhicharepalmedoffasprofoundlogicaltruths……thefragilityoffoundations“{D。K。

G。498}andsoforth。

SoaccordingtoMarx,wearetold,capitalwasbornofmoneyatthebeginningofthesixteenthcentury。Thisislikesayingthatfullythreethousandyearsagometallicmoneywasbornofcattle,becauseonceuponatimecattle,amongotherthings,functionedasmoney。OnlyHerrDühringiscapableofsuchacrudeandineptmannerofexpressinghimself。IntheanalysiswhichMarxmakesoftheeconomicformswithinwhichtheprocessofthecirculationofcommoditiestakesplace,moneyappearsasthefinalform。

“Thisfinalproductofthecirculationofcommoditiesisthefirstforminwhichcapitalappears。Asamatterofhistory,capital,asopposedtolandedproperty,invariablytakestheformatfirstofmoney;

itappearsasmoneyedwealth,asthecapitalofthemerchantandoftheusurer……Wecanseeitdailyunderourveryeyes。Allnewcapital,tocommencewith,comesonthestage,thatis,onthemarket,whetherofcommodities,labour,ormoney,eveninourdays,intheshapeofmoneythatbyadefiniteprocesshastobetransformedintocapital。”HereonceagainMarxisstatingafact。Unabletodisputeit,HerrDühringdistortsit:Capital,hehasMarxsay,isbornofmoney!

Marxtheninvestigatestheprocessesbywhichmoneyistransformedintocapital,andfinds,first,thattheforminwhichmoneycirculatesascapitalistheinversionoftheforminwhichitcirculatesasthegeneralequivalentofcommodities。Thesimpleownerofcommoditiessellsinordertobuy;hesellswhathedoesnotneed,andwiththemoneythusprocuredhebuyswhathedoesneed。Theincipientcapitaliststartsbybuyingwhathedoesnotneedhimself;hebuysinordertosell,andtosellatahigherprice,inordertogetbackthevalueofthemoneyoriginallythrownintothetransaction,augmentedbyanincrementinmoney;andMarxcallsthisincrementsurplus-value。

Whencecomesthissurplus-value?Itcannotcomeeitherfromthebuyerbuyingthecommoditiesundertheirvalue,orfromthesellersellingthemabovetheirvalue。Forinbothcasesthegainsandthelossesofeachindividualcanceleachother,aseachindividualisinturnbuyerandseller。

Norcanitcomefromcheating,forthoughcheatingcanenrichonepersonattheexpenseofanother,itcannotincreasethetotalsumpossessedbyboth,andthereforecannotaugmentthesumofthevaluesincirculation。

“Thecapitalistclass,asawhole,inanycountry,cannotover-reachthemselves。”

Andyetwefindthatineachcountrythecapitalistclassasawholeiscontinuouslyenrichingitselfbeforeoureyes,bysellingdearerthanithadbought,byappropriatingtoitselfsurplus-value。Wearethereforejustwherewewereatthestart:whencecomesthissurplus-value?Thisproblemmustbesolved,anditmustbesolvedinapurelyeconomicway,excludingallcheatingandtheinterventionofanyforce——theproblembeing:howisitpossibleconstantlytoselldearerthanonehasbought,evenonthehypothesisthatequalvaluesarealwaysexchangedforequalvalues?

Thesolutionofthisproblemwasthemostepoch-makingachievementofMarx’swork。Itspreadtheclearlightofdaythrougheconomicdomainsinwhichsocialistsnolessthanbourgeoiseconomistspreviouslygropedinutterdarkness。Scientificsocialismdatesfromthediscoveryofthissolutionandhasbeenbuiltuparoundit。

Thissolutionisasfollows:Theincreaseinthevalueofmoneythatistobeconvertedintocapitalcannottakeplaceinthemoneyitself,norcanitoriginateinthepurchase,asherethismoneydoesnomorethanrealisethepriceofthecommodity,andthisprice,inasmuchaswetookasourpremiseanexchangeofequivalents,isnotdifferentfromitsvalue。Forthesamereason,theincreaseinvaluecannotoriginateinthesaleofthecommodity。Thechangemust,therefore,takeplaceinthecommoditybought;nothoweverinitsvalue,asitisboughtandsoldatitsvalue,butinitsuse-valueassuch,thatis,thechangeofvaluemustoriginateintheconsumptionofthecommodity。

“Inordertobeabletoextractvaluefromtheconsumptionofacommodity,ourfriend,Moneybags,mustbesoluckyastofind……inthemarket,acommodity,whoseuse-valuepossessesthepeculiarpropertyofbeingasourceofvalue,whoseactualconsumption,therefore,isitselfanembodimentoflabour,and,consequently,acreationofvalue。Thepossessorofmoneydoesfindonthemarketsuchaspecialcommodityincapacityforlabourorlabour-power。”Though,aswesaw,labourassuchcanhavenovalue,thisisbynomeansthecasewithlabour-power。Thisacquiresavaluefromthemomentthatitbecomesacommodity,asitisinfactatthepresenttime,andthisvalueisdetermined,“asinthecaseofeveryothercommodity,bythelabour-timenecessaryfortheproduction,andconsequentlyalsothereproduction,ofthisspecialarticle“;thatistosay,bythelabour-timenecessaryfortheproductionofthemeansofsubsistencewhichthelabourerrequiresforhismaintenanceinafitstatetoworkandfortheperpetuationofhisrace。Letusassumethatthesemeansofsubsistencerepresentsixhoursoflabour-timedaily。Ourincipientcapitalist,whobuyslabour-powerforcarryingonhisbusiness,i。e。,hiresalabourer,consequentlypaysthislabourerthefullvalueofhisday’slabour-powerifhepayshimasumofmoneywhichalsorepresentssixhoursoflabour。Andassoonasthelabourerhasworkedsixhoursintheemploymentoftheincipientcapitalist,hehasfullyreimbursedthelatterforhisoutlay,forthevalueoftheday’slabour-powerwhichhehadpaid。Butsofarthemoneywouldnothavebeenconvertedintocapital,itwouldnothaveproducedanysurplus-value。Andforthisreasonthebuyeroflabour-powerhasquiteadifferentnotionofthenatureofthetransactionhehascarriedout。Thefactthatonlysixhours’labourisnecessarytokeepthelaboureralivefortwenty-fourhours,doesnotinanywaypreventhimfromworkingtwelvehoursoutofthetwenty-four。Thevalueofthelabour-power,andthevaluewhichthatlabour-powercreatesinthelabour-process,aretwodifferentmagnitudes。Theownerofthemoneyhaspaidthevalueofaday’slabour-power;his,therefore,istheuseofitforaday——

awholeday’slabour。Thecircumstancethatthevaluewhichtheuseofitduringonedaycreatesisdoubleitsownvalueforadayisapieceofespeciallygoodluckforthebuyer,butaccordingtothelawsofexchangeofcommoditiesbynomeansaninjusticetotheseller。Onourassumption,therefore,thelabourereachdaycoststheownerofmoneythevalueoftheproductofsixhours’labour,buthehandsovertohimeachdaythevalueoftheproductoftwelvehours’labour。Thedifferenceinfavouroftheownerofthemoneyissixhoursofunpaidsurplus-labour,asurplus-productforwhichhedoesnotpayandinwhichsixhours’labourisembodied。Thetrickhasbeenperformed。Surplus-valuehasbeenproduced;

moneyhasbeenconvertedintocapital。

Inthusshowinghowsurplus-valuearises,andhowalonesurplus-valuecanariseunderthedominationofthelawsregulatingtheexchangeofcommodities,Marxexposedthemechanismoftheexistingcapitalistmodeofproductionandofthemodeofappropriationbasedonit;herevealedthecorearoundwhichthewholeexistingsocialorderhascrystallised。

However,thiscreationofcapitalrequiresthatoneessentialprerequisitebefulfilled:“Fortheconversionofhismoneyintocapitaltheownerofmoneymustmeetinthemarketwiththefreelabourer,freeinthedoublesense,thatasafreemanhecandisposeofhislabour-powerashisowncommodity,andthatontheotherhandhehasnoothercommodityforsale,isshortofeverythingnecessaryfortherealisationofhislabour-power。”

Butthisrelationbetweentheownersofmoneyorofcommoditiesontheonehand,andthosewhopossessnothingbeyondtheirownlabour-powerontheother,isnotanaturalrelation,norisitonethatiscommontoallhistoricalperiods:“Itisclearlytheresultofapasthistoricaldevelopment,theproduct……oftheextinctionofawholeseriesofolderformsofsocialproduction。”Andinfactwefirstencounterthisfreelaboureronamassscaleinhistoryattheendofthefifteenthandthebeginningofthesixteenthcentury,asaresultofthedissolutionofthefeudalmodeofproduction。

Withthis,however,andwiththebringingintobeingofworldtradeandtheworldmarketdatingfromthesameepoch,thebasiswasestablishedonwhichthemassoftheexistingmovablewealthwasnecessarilymoreandmoreconvertedintocapital,andthecapitalistmodeofproduction,aimedatthecreationofsurplus-value,necessarilybecamemoreandmoreexclusivelytheprevailingmode。

Uptothispoint,wehavebeenfollowingthe“barrenconceptions“

ofMarx,these“bastardsofhistoricalandlogicalfantasy“inwhich“thefacultyofdiscernmentperishes,togetherwithallhonestyintheuseofconcepts“。Letuscontrastthese“frivolities“withthe“profoundlogicaltruths“andthe“definitiveandmoststrictlyscientifictreatmentinthesenseoftheexactdisciplines“{D。K。G。498},suchasHerrDühringoffersus。

SoMarx“doesnotholdtheacceptedeconomicviewofcapital,namely,thatitisameansofproductionalreadyproduced“{497};hesays,onthecontrary,thatasumofvaluesisconvertedintocapitalonlywhenitincreasesitsvalue,whenitformssurplus-value。AndwhatdoesHerrDühringsay?

“Capitalisabasisofmeansofeconomicpowerforthecontinuationofproductionandfortheformationofsharesinthefruitsofthegenerallabour-power“{DC。40},Howeveroracularlyandslovenlythattooisexpressed,thismuchatleastiscertain:thebasisofmeansofeconomicpowermaycontinueproductiontoeternity,butaccordingtoHerrDühring’sownwordsitwillnotbecomecapitalsolongasitdoesnotform“sharesinthefruitsofthegenerallabour-power“——thatistosay,formsurplus-valueoratleastsurplus-product。HerrDühringthereforenotonlyhimselfcommitsthesinwithwhichhechargesMarx——ofnotholdingtheacceptedeconomicviewofcapital——butbesidescommitsaclumsyplagiarismofMarx,“badlyconcealed“{D。K。G。506}byhigh-soundingphrases。

Onpage262{D。C。}thisisfurtherdeveloped:

“Capitalinthesocialsense“(andHerrDühringstillhastodiscoveracapitalinasensewhichisnotsocial)“isinfactspecificallydifferentfromthemeremeansofproduction;forwhilethelatterhaveonlyatechnicalcharacterandarenecessaryunderallconditions,theformerisdistinguishedbyitssocialpowerofappropriationandtheformationofshares。Itistruethatsocialcapitalistoagreatextentnothingbutthetechnicalmeansofproductionintheirsocialfunction;butitispreciselythisfunctionwhich……mustdisappear“。

WhenwereflectthatitwaspreciselyMarxwhofirstdrewattentiontothe“socialfunction“byvirtueofwhichaloneasumofvaluesbecomescapital,itwillcertainly“atoncebecleartoeveryattentiveinvestigatorofthesubjectthatMarx’sdefinitionoftheconceptofcapitalcanonlycauseconfusion“{D。K。G。498}——not,however,asHerrDühringthinks,inthestricttheoryofnationaleconomybutasisevidentsimplyandsolelyintheheadofHerrDühringhimself,whointheKritischeGeschichtehasalreadyforgottenhowmuchusehemadeofthesaidconceptofcapitalinhisCursus。However,HerrDühringisnotcontentwithborrowingfromMarxthelatter’sdefinitionofcapital,thoughina“purified“form。

HeisobligedtofollowMarxalsointhe“toyingwithmetamorphosesofconceptsandhistory“{497},inspiteofhisownbetterknowledgethatnothingcouldcomeofitbut“barrenconceptions“,“frivolities“,“fragilityofthefoundations“{498}andsoforth。Whencecomesthis“socialfunction“

{D。C。262}ofcapital,whichenablesittoappropriatethefruitsofothers’

labourandwhichalonedistinguishesitfrommeremeansofproduction?

HerrDühringsaysthatitdoesnotdepend“onthenatureofthemeansofproductionandtheirtechnicalindispensability“{262}。

Itthereforearosehistorically,andonpage262HerrDühringonlytellsusagainwhatwehaveheardtentimesbefore,whenheexplainsitsoriginbymeansoftheoldfamiliaradventuresofthetwomen,oneofwhomatthedawnofhistoryconvertedhismeansofproductionintocapitalbytheuseofforceagainsttheother。ButnotcontentwithascribingahistoricalbeginningtothesocialfunctionthroughwhichaloneasumofvaluesbecomescapitalHerrDühringprophesiesthatitwillalsohaveahistoricalend。Itis“preciselythiswhichmustdisappear“{262}。Inordinaryparlanceitiscustomarytocallaphenomenonwhicharosehistoricallyanddisappearsagainhistorically,“ahistoricalphase“。Capital,therefore,isahistoricalphasenotonlyaccordingtoMarxbutalsoaccordingtoHerrDühring,andweareconsequentlyforcedtotheconclusionthatweareamongJesuitshere。Whentwopersonsdothesamething,thenitisnotthesame。[AparaphraseofadictumfromthecomedyAdelphoebytheRomanplaywrightTerentius(ActV,Scene3)——Ed。]WhenMarxsaysthatcapitalisahistoricalphase,thatisabarrenconception,abastardofhistoricalandlogicalfantasy,inwhichthefacultyofdiscernmentperishes,togetherwithallhonestyintheuseofconceptsWhenHerrDühringlikewisepresentscapitalasahistoricalphasethatisproofofthekeennessofhiseconomicanalysisandofhisdefinitiveandmoststrictlyscientifictreatmentinthesenseoftheexactdisciplines。

WhatisitthenthatdistinguishestheDühringianconceptionofcapitalfromtheMarxian?

“Capital。”saysMarx,“hasnotinventedsurplus-labour。Whereverapartofsocietypossessesthemonopolyofthemeansofproduction,thelabourer,freeornotfree,mustaddtotheworking-timenecessaryforhisownmaintenanceanextraworking-timeinordertoproducethemeansofsubsistencefortheownersofthemeansofproduction。”Surplus-labour,labourbeyondthetimerequiredforthelabourer’sownmaintenance,andappropriationbyothersoftheproductofthissurplus-labour,theexploitationoflabour,isthereforecommontoallformsofsocietythathaveexistedhitherto,insofarasthesehavemovedinclassantagonisms。Butitisonlywhentheproductofthissurplus-labourassumestheformofsurplus-value,whentheownerofthemeansofproductionfindsthefreelabourer——freefromsocialfettersandfreefrompossessionsofhisown——asanobjectofexploitation,andexploitshimforthepurposeoftheproductionofcommodities——itisonlythen,accordingtoMarx,thatthemeansofproductionassumethespecificcharacterofcapital。Andthisfirsttookplaceonalargescaleattheendofthefifteenthandthebeginningofthesixteenthcentury。

HerrDühringonthecontrarydeclaresthateverysumofmeansofproductionwhich“formssharesinthefruitsofthegenerallabour-power“{D。C。40},thatis,yieldssurplus-labourinanyform,iscapital。Inotherwords,HerrDühringannexesthesurplus-labourdiscoveredbyMarx,inordertouseittokillthesurplus-value,likewisediscoveredbyMarx,whichforthemoment3doesnotsuithispurpose。AccordingtoHerrDühring,therefore,notonlythemovableandimmovablewealthoftheCorinthianandAtheniancitizens,builtonaslaveeconomy,butalsothewealthofthelargeRomanlandownersofthetimeoftheempire,andequallythewealthofthefeudalbaronsoftheMiddleAges,insofarasitinanywayservedproduction——allthiswithoutdistinctioniscapital。

SothatHerrDühringhimselfdoesnothold“theacceptedviewofcapital,namely,thatitisameansofproductionalreadyproduced“

{D。K。G。497},butratheronethatistheveryoppositeofit,aviewwhichincludesincapitalevenmeansofproductionwhichhavenotbeenproduced,theearthanditsnaturalresources。Theidea,however,thatcapitalissimply“producedmeansofproduction“isonceagaintheacceptedviewonlyinvulgarpoliticaleconomy。Outsideofthisvulgareconomics,whichHerrDühringholdssodear,the“producedmeansofproduction“

oranysumofvalueswhatever,becomescapitalonlybyyieldingprofitorinterest,i。e。,byappropriatingthesurplus-productofunpaidlabourintheformofsurplus-value,and,moreover,byappropriatingitinthesetwodefinitesubformsofsurplus-value。Itisofabsolutelynoimportancethatthewholeofbourgeoiseconomyisstilllabouringundertheideathatthepropertyofyieldingprofitorinterestisinherentineverysumofvalueswhichisutilisedundernormalconditionsinproductionorexchange。

Inclassicalpoliticaleconomy,capitalandprofit,orcapitalandinterest,arejustasinseparable,standinthesamereciprocalrelationstoeachother,ascauseandeffect,fatherandson,yesterdayandtoday。Theword“capital“initsmoderneconomicmeaningisfirstmetwith,however,atthetimewhenthethingitselfmakesitsappearance,whenmovablewealthacquires,toagreaterandgreaterextent,thefunctionofcapital,byexploitingthesurplus-labouroffreelabourersfortheproductionofcommodities;

andinfactitwasintroducedbythefirstnationofcapitalistsinhistory,theItaliansofthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturies。AndifMarxwasthefirsttomakeafundamentalanalysisofthemodeofappropriationcharacteristicofmoderncapital;ifhebroughttheconceptofcapitalintoharmonywiththehistoricalfactsfromwhich,inthelastanalysis,ithadbeenabstracted,andtowhichitoweditsexistence;ifbysodoingMarxclearedthiseconomicconceptofthoseobscureandvacillatingideaswhichstillclungtoiteveninclassicalbourgeoispoliticaleconomyandamongtheformersocialists——thenitwasMarxwhoappliedthat“definitiveandmoststrictlyscientifictreatment“{498}aboutwhichHerrDühringissoconstantlytalkingandwhichwesopainfullymissinhisworks。

Inactualfact,HerrDühring’streatmentisquitedifferentfromthis。Heisnotcontentwithfirstinveighingagainstthepresentationofcapitalasahistoricalphasebycallingita“bastardofhistoricalandlogicalfantasy“{498}andthenhimselfpresentingitasahistoricalphase。Healsoroundlydeclaresthatallmeansofeconomicpower,allmeansofproductionwhichappropriate“sharesinthefruitsofthegenerallabour-power“{D。C。40}——andthereforealsolandedpropertyinallclasssocieties——arecapital;whichhoweverdoesnotintheleastpreventhim,inthefurthercourseofhisexposition,fromseparatinglandedpropertyandlandrent,quiteinthetraditionalmanner,fromcapitalandprofit,anddesignatingascapitalonlythosemeansofproductionwhichyieldprofitorinterest,ashedoesatconsiderablelengthonpage156

andthefollowingpagesofhisCursus。WithequaljusticeHerrDühringmightfirstincludeunderthename’locomotive“alsohorses,oxen,assesanddogs,onthegroundthatthese,too,canbeusedasmeansoftransport,andreproachmodernengineerswithlimitingthenamelocomotivetothemodernsteam-engineandtherebysettingitupasahistoricalphase,usingbarrenconceptions,bastardsofhistoricalandlogicalfantasyandsoforth;

andthenfinallydeclarethathorses,asses,oxenanddogsareneverthelessexcludedfromthetermlocomotive,andthatthistermisapplicableonlytothesteam-engine——AndsooncemorewearecompelledtosaythatitispreciselytheDühringianconceptionofcapitalinwhichallkeennessofeconomicanalysisislostandthefacultyofdiscernmentperishes,togetherwithallhonestyintheuseofconcepts;andthatthebarrenconceptions,theconfusion,thefrivolitiespalmedoffasprofoundlogicaltruthsandthefragilityofthefoundationsaretobefoundinfullbloompreciselyinHerrDühring’swork。

Butallthatisofnoconsequence。ForHerrDühring’sisthegloryneverthelessofhavingdiscoveredtheaxisonwhichalleconomics,allpoliticsandjurisprudence,inaword,allhistory,hashithertorevolved。

关闭