Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions.
|Published (Last):||1 September 2017|
|PDF File Size:||9.19 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.46 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Those canons require initially the scientific establishment of a text. There must be a stemma of manuscripts and editions whereby variant texts can be identified, as well as a list of conjectured readings for corrupted passages, etc.
Next, these canons require attribution of the textual passages to authors, to joint authors, or to some other hand. Where the composition period was brief, the temporal order of the several passages can be indicated; where composition or publication was more protracted, the passages can be dated as well. A third step which can be omitted for certain purposes is the interpretation of the established, attributed, and dated text in terms of themes, motives, intended audiences, etc.
Finally, the philological approach includes an evaluation, with suggestions for further study. An interesting and important topic of Marxist scholarship is the theoretical accord or divergence of Marx's and Engels' thought.
In cases such as the "Marx-Darwin correspondence," veracity is indeed impugned. But, in such a case, a credibility is questioned in terms of evidence independent of the text in question, and b the 'authority' in question must be of less than credible character anyhow; recall the "disreputable dog," Aveling, implicated in the "Marx-Darwin correspondence.
Attribution of authorship thereby turns illicitly upon the interpretation of the 'author's' motives. Before returning to Carver's main argument, consider for an instance his characterization of Engels' motives. He continues "Engels, it seems, was canny enough to avoid creating disagreements with Marx. There are several possibilities here. Marx makes an interesting reference in a letter to Wilhelm Freund which bears upon this issue. On 21 January , Marx asked Freund to remind Dr Moritz Traube to send along citations of Traube's writings, because Engels is "laboring on a work of philosophy and, as it happens, Traube's achievements are emphasized.
At this juncture, attention can properly focus on motives. At the personal level, this can be imputed to Marx's modesty and sense of propriety. At the political level, this can be imputed to Marx's and Engels' perception of the issue of Marx's 'authority' in the Continental working-class movement in the s.
In correspondence with Franz Mehring, Engels explains his relationship to Marx and incidentally sheds light on his acknowledgements of Then, when the greater man dies, the lesser easily gets overrated and this seems to me to be just my case at present.
Engels defines the subject matter of political economy at the beginning of Part II as "the science of laws governing the production and exchange of the material means of subsistence in human society. On the one hand, it suggests that the object of Marx's and Engels' political economic studies was not limited to bourgeois society. On the other hand, it has been proposed that Engels' characterization of political economy differs substantially from Marx's own.
Lucio Colletti, for instance, holds that the views of Engels and that of Marx represent "two profoundly different ways of seeing things. Were these charges true, of course, they would evidence a serious misspecification on Engels' part. When we turn to Engels' text, however, we quite another set of categories than those of Capital I applied to the historical cases.
Indeed Marx had addressed with great brevity this inverse relationship of communal property and impoverishment in his notebooks dating from the late s. As the Israelite patriarchal communal form was dissolving during the ninth and eighth centuries, the prophets reacted strongly to the ever increasing inequality among the populace.
In Ephraim, Amos condemned the extreme inequality manifested in debt-slavery Amos and foretold alienation of the land, i. For another instance: agriculture on a large scale corresponds to a class-antagonistic social structure, while agriculture on a small scale corresponds to the absence of such class antagonisms. Later, Kautsky and Lenin were to address the relationship of the scale of agricultural production and class antagonism; both Arthur Stinchcombe and Jeffrey Paige have recently made extensive studies of this relationship.
These categories may subsume those categories of Capital I; for example, 'capital' is subsumed under the more general 'property' or the category 'social antagonism'. Similarly, Marx's categories of Capital I subsume those of Capital III: for example, 'finance capital', 'industrial capital', and 'landed capital' are subsumed under the more general category 'capital'. But Engels cannot be convicted on this evidence of having confounded these several sets of categories.
These more general categories give rise to 'laws' of their own which may be nomothetically less satisfying than the laws of Capital say that treating the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. But Engels admits as much: "political economy in this wider sense has still to be brought into being. Such economic science as we possess up to the present is limited almost exclusively to the genesis and development of the capitalist mode of production.
This issue can be addressed rather directly, as Marx too has prepared a draft discussion of the topic. These sections indicate the subject matter of political economy. The third section addresses 'The Method of Political Economy'. These three sections comprise a whole; the understanding of any single section depends upon the comprehension of the whole.
Marx explicitly considers and rejects defining this stage in an historical account or by taking the stage in isolation. Both these analyses are based on the unreflective standpoint of the individual. Instead, he points out that each stage includes the moment common to several stages of production in general as well as the moment of specific differences of production between stages.
By way of illustration, the stage of finance capitalism is understood to incorporate the moment of capitalist relations i. This likewise suggests that Marx's political economic study was not to be restricted to bourgeois society. Further, each stage includes the moment of particular productive sectors as well as that of the totality of production , the conjuncture of the set of particular sectors.
Finally, these moments organically presuppose 'a definite social corpus' or social subject. It moreover moves from the inchoate terms of individualism or an ahistorical analysis to the articulated terms of the dialectic.
The logical form of this argument is explicated in the third section of Marx's 'Introduction'. In sum, it is thus the social corpus that is the object of analysis rather than the process or mode of production which is a characteristic albeit a crucial characteristic of the social form. Marx's argument in the second section of the 'Introduction' establishes the interrelationship of production in the 'narrower sense' , consumption, distribution, circulation and material exchange.
Analyzed superficially, Marx says, these are related as a syllogism: production is the general term, consumption is the individual term, distribution is the proportional middle term, and material exchange is the particular middle term.
This superficial analysis restricts itself to the distribution of the product. More profoundly analyzed, production is the presupposition of the moments of consumption and distribution of the products. Production, consumption, and distribution of the means of production are related as content and form or production, in the 'wider sense'.
Notice how the argument moves even more strikingly from the abstract formulation to the concrete, and from the inchoate to the dialectical. Amplifying upon his definition of the subject matter of political economy, that is "the science of the laws governing production and exchange," he argues that exchange to the extent it has emerged in a particular society presupposes production.
All this accords with Marx's analysis. Only the category of consumption is omitted from Engels' discussion here, perhaps because that category implicates that of the Person. Two points follow from this accord of Marx's and Engels' understanding of the subject matter of political economy.
The present context permits little more than mention of these points. Habermas, as is well known, has faulted 'historical materialism' for its 'instrumentalist' or 'technologistic' bias, its oversight of the symbolic moment of communicative action.
He differentiates anthropoids from hominids, not in terms of hominid symbolic behavior but in terms of development of the 'hunting mode of production'. The proto-human was a gatherer who occasionally 'hunted', thus at one with the anthropoids; the proto-human was accultured, a symbol and tool user, hence distinct from the anthropoids. When human social intercourse is acknowledged to incorporate communication, Habermas' critique of historical materialism must in large part be set aside.
Weeks, by contrast, has faulted Engels for his 'circulationist' bias as well as overlooking the role of force in societal transformations. Following Colletti, Weeks holds that Marx and Engels' "views on fundamental issues differed diametrically. On the one hand, the 'circulationist' theory of economic crises holds either inadequate aggregate demand or else the 'profit squeeze' generate the crisis.
In the nineteenth and even in the twentieth century, some social theorists held that society was politically conflictual in essence. These were not necessarily Social Darwinists. When he turns to the capitalist transformation, it is thus not surprising that Engels proceeds similarly. Plekhanov, in reviewing just this issue, pointed out that "conquests, confiscations and monopolies" have occurred throughout recorded history.
But, he continued, all these 'political' events, "far from determining the direction of economic development were, on the contrary, themselves determined by it in their forms and subsequent social effects.
Moreover, Weeks' blatant confounding of the 'logical process' of the accumulation of capital presented in Part VII of Capital I with the 'processes of reality' such as those of primitive accumulation described in Part VIII is precisely the "total lack of understanding" castigated by Colletti. Marx himself indicates at the beginning of Part VII that "an exact analysis of the process [of accumulation] demands that we In sum, where Habermas tries to differentiate Marx from Engels by alleging that the latter tended especially towards single-factor technologism, Weeks tries to differentiate the two by alleging that Engels tended towards a circulationist or even a 'revisionist' dualism while it was Marx who was the monist.
But Weeks' discussion withstands close scrutiny no better than does Habermas'. Thus it can be concluded that, in terms of their conceptions of the subject matter of political economy, Engels' and Marx's views hardly represent "profoundly different ways of seeing things.
Marx' argument in the third section of the 'Introduction' to the Critique of Political Economy establishes the method of political economy. Through the process of analysis of the immediate concept into its constituent genera and differentiae , increasingly abstract concepts such as class, wage-labor, price, etc.
Given the most simple terms, those terms and other terms subsumed within them articulate so as to represent the social corpus as an organic synthesis, a concrete unity. On the one hand it will not do to dispense with analysis and take society as it is experienced the 'process of reality'. As Georg Lukacs has commented on this section, "knowledge that is oriented in this way towards the immediately given reality always ends up with merely notational ideas.
These therefore have to be more exactly defined with the aid of isolating abstractions. Lukacs continues "inference by deduction from categorial ideas easily leads to unsupported speculative conceptions. Engels recounted that Marx examined the historical processes, the "processes of reality" in Colletti's terms, which characterize both the social corpus of mercantile capitalism and that of capitalism per se.
These were analyzed in terms of forms of property. Capitalistic private property sublates individual private property. But an expanding and deepening class struggle attends capitalistic production to the point where capitalistic property itself is sublated in social revolution.
Hence the synthesis : it is the negation of the negation. Thus it appears that Engels' and Marx's conceptions of the method of political economy are in accord no less than their conceptions of its subject matter. It would be the height of presumption to suggest that a topic so complex and rich as Marx and Engels' theoretical accord could be definitively addressed in this brief statement.
More modestly, it can be proposed that future discussions of this topic be obliged to be couched in scientific rather than doctrinaire terms. This is a timely proposal. On the one hand, the completion of the Gesamtausgabe MEGA and the English translation of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels have scientifically established the texts in the former and have made them readily accessible in the latter. On the other hand, the ever widening recognition of the scientific stature of historical materialism demands no less.
Anguelov follows Lenin here; see V. On this 'division of labor', see Marx's testimony in Herr Vogt , K.
Anti-Dühring: Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science
Engels began from the basic philosophical considerations of materialism and dialectics. These are of great importance for those who struggle for revolution, explaining how things change as a result of human action, not because of divine intervention. And not only do things change, but we can also understand how change occurs. For example he considers the relation of matter and motion in basic physics and the nature of evolution as discovered by Darwin. In his chapters on Morality and Law, Engels gives a brilliant historical explanation of the ideals of equality and freedom which have different meanings for the the capitalist and for the worker.
Works of Frederick Engels They exchanged a series of letters about him from January-March So Engels put aside his work on what would later become known as the book Dialectics of Nature. It would take over two years to complete. Later, beginning in , with the first separate edition, the first two chapters of this part were made into an independent general introduction to all three parts. The last chapter was actually written by Marx. Indeed, the sporadic delays in publication were largely due to their efforts.
The book is out of print, and can usually only be found in used bookstores or online. Engels later extracted a small portion of this larger work and it became the much more widely read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. The purpose of this article is to introduce a new generation to one of the most underutilized texts in the Marxist tradition. Young students and workers were naturally sympathetic to him and rallied to his defense when he was driven from a job at Berlin University. The new socialist theory was presented as the ultimate practical fruit of a new philosophical system. It was therefore necessary to examine it in connection with this system, and in doing so to examine the system itself. The modern reader is likely to be less interested.
It had previously been serialised in a periodical. There were two further German editions in Engels' lifetime. This work was Engels's major contribution to the exposition and development of Marxist theory. The short title recalls Julius Caesar 's polemic Anti-Cato.