When men originally sprang from the lower animals they came into

history, still half-wild animals, elementary, with no power over the

forces of nature, still unacquainted with their own powers, as poor as

the animals and hardly more productive than they. There prevailed a

certain equality in the conditions of life and as far as the heads of

families were concerned an equality of social condition--there was at

least an absence of those class distinctions which developed later in

the agricultural communities. In such a social state there were

certain common interests which overrode the interests of the

individual in certain respects, the settlement of disputes, the

repression of individuals who exceeded their rights, the looking after

the water supply, particularly in hot countries, and finally under the

conditions of life in the primeval forests, religious functions. We

find analogous communal duties exercised by communal officials at all

periods as well in the oldest German mark communities as in India

to-day. These are contemporaneous with a sort of beginning of

authority and state power in a rudimentary form. The productive forces

develop; a denser population produces common and then conflicting

interests between members of the society, the grouping of which in

accordance with a new division of labor causes the creation of new

organs for the purpose of maintaining the society on the one hand and

repressing the antagonistic interests on the other. These organs which

act for the entire group have different forms according to the varying

circumstances of the individual groups, partly through the natural

growth of a hereditary leadership in a world where everything proceeds

naturally and partly through a growing need owing to the development

of conflicts with other groups. How these social functions which were

subsidiary to society came in the course of time to triumph over

society; how the original servant, under favorable conditions became

transformed into the master, how, according to circumstances, this

master made his appearance as Oriental despot or satrap, as Greek

chieftain, as Celtic clan chief, etc., how far he relied on force for

this transformation and finally how the individual leaders associated

themselves into a dominant class we have here no opportunity to

consider. We can only state that real social duties lay at the base of

the political domination and that the political supremacy has only

existed as long as the politically supreme fulfilled these social

functions. How many despotisms have risen and fallen among the

Persians and Hindoos, and everybody knows quite well that the public

management of the irrigation was the prime necessity of agriculture in

those places. The "educated" English were the first to observe this

among the Hindoos; they let the canals and locks fall into disuse and

they have now discovered by the regular recurrence of famine that they

have neglected the only opportunity to make their rule at least as

righteous as that of their predecessors.

But there is another form of class distinction besides the one

described. The natural division of labor in the agricultural families

permitted at a certain point of prosperity the introduction of foreign

labor power. This was particularly the case in countries where the old

common ownership of the soil had disappeared or where at least the old

system of common cultivation had become supplanted by the cultivation

of separate plots by individual families. Production had so far

developed that the human labor force was able to produce more than was

necessary for the support of the individual laborer. The time was ripe

for the employment of more labor-power, labor-power had become a

value. But the limitations of the communal system did not afford any

attainable surplus labor power. Yet war did give such an opportunity

for getting surplus labor power and war was as old as the simultaneous

existence of groups of communal groups in close juxtaposition. Up to

this time men did not take prisoners of war, they killed them right

off, and, at a still earlier date, they ate them. But at the stage of

economic development of which we speak they had a value and they were

not only allowed to live but were set to work. So force instead of

being the master of economic conditions was pressed into the service

of those conditions. Slavery was discovered. It soon became the

dominant form of production among all people who had developed beyond

the tribal communal stage and as a matter of fact was at the end one

of the main reasons for the break up of the communal system. Slavery

first made the division of labor between agriculture and industry

completely possible and brought into existence the flower of the old

world, Greece. Without slavery there would have been no Grecian state,

no Grecian art and science and no Roman Empire. There would have been

no modern Europe without the foundation of Greece and Rome. We must

not forget that our entire economic, political and intellectual

development has its foundation in a state of society in which slavery

was regarded universally as necessary. In this sense we may say that

without the ancient slavery there would have been no modern socialism.

It is very easy to make preachments about slavery and to express our

moral indignation at such a scandalous institution. Unfortunately the

whole significance of this is that it merely says that these old

institutions do not correspond with our present conditions and the

sentiments engendered by these conditions. We do not however in this

way explain how these institutions came into existence, why they came

into existence and the role which they have played in history. And

when we enter upon this matter we are obliged to say in spite of all

contradiction and accusations of heresy that the introduction of

slavery under the conditions of that time was a great step forwards.

It is a fact that man sprang from the lower animals and has had to

employ barbaric and really bestial methods in order to rid himself of

barbarism. The old communal system where it persisted built up the

most elementary form of the state, Oriental despotism, from India to

Russia. Only where it has been dissolved has the people progressed and

the next economic step lay in the development of production by means

of slave labor. It is evident that as long as human labor was so

little productive that it afforded only a small surplus over the

necessary means of life, the development of the productive forces, the

institution of commerce, the development of the State and of law and

the foundation of art and science were only possible through an

increase in the subdivision of labor. This implied the broad division

between the mass of the workers and the directors of labor, trade,

state, state-business, and later the occupation of a few privileged

persons in art and science. The simplest and most natural form of this

subdivision of labor was slavery. In the conditions of the ancient,

and especially the Greek world, the advance to a society founded on

class distinction could only be for the slaves, the prisoners of war

from whom the majority of slaves were recruited instead of being

murdered as they would have been at an earlier date or instead of

being eaten as they would have been at a stage still earlier.

Here we add that all the historical antitheses of robbers and robbed of

master and subject classes find their explanation in the relatively

undeveloped productivity of human labor. As long as the actual working

people claim that they have no time left at the close of their necessary

labors to attend to the common business of society--the organization of

labor, the business of the government, the administration of justice,

art, science, etc., just so long will distinct classes exist which are

free from actual labor to carry on these functions. Naturally these

classes do not hesitate to lean more and more and more upon the

shoulders of the working class for their own advantage. The development

of the great industry with its enormous increase in the forces of

production for the first time permitted of the subdivision of labor in

all social grades and thus allowed of the reduction of the time

necessary for labor so that enough leisure remains for all to take part

in the actual public business--theoretical as well as practical. So that

now for the first time the dominant and exploiting classes have become

superfluous and even an obstacle to social progress, and so now for the

first time they will be unceremoniously brushed aside in spite of their

"pure force."

When Herr Duehring then shows his scorn of the Greek civilisation

because it was founded on slavery he might just as reasonably reproach

the Greeks for not having steam engines and electric telegraphs. And

when he explains that our modern wage slavery is only a somewhat

transformed and ameliorated inheritance of chattel slavery and not to

be explained from itself (that is from the economic laws of modern

society) it only signifies that wage slavery, like chattel slavery, is

a form of class domination and class subjection as every child knows,

or it is false. So we might with the same right maintain that wage

slavery is only a milder form of cannibalism, the established

original method of disposing of conquered enemies.

The role which force has played in history with respect to economic

development is therefore clear. In the first place, all political

force rests originally on an economic social function, and developed

in proportion as the old tribal communistic society was dissolved and

transformed into various grades of private producers, and the

administrators of the communal functions therefore became more widely

separated from the rest of the community. In the second place, when

political force, independent of society, has transformed itself from

the position of servant to that of master, it may work in two

directions. In the first place, it may work sensibly and in the

direction of general economic development. In this case there is no

quarrel between the two, economic development is advanced. Or it may

work against it and then with few exceptions it succumbs to the

economic development. These few exceptions consist of individual cases

of tyranny where barbaric conquerors have overcome a country and have

destroyed the economic forces which they did not know how to handle.

Thus the Christians in Spain destroyed the irrigation works upon which

the highly developed agriculture and horticulture of that country

depended. Every conquest by a more barbarous people interferes with

economic development and destroys numerous productive forces. But in

the great majority of instances of the permanent conquest of a

country, the more barbaric conquerors are obliged to adopt the higher

economic conditions into which their conquest has brought them. They

are assimilated into the conquered people and are compelled to adopt

their language. But where--apart from instances of conquest--the inner

political forces of a country comes in conflict with its economic

development, which at the present day is practically true of all

political force, the battle has always ended with the destruction of

the political force. Without exception and inexorably, economic

development has attained its goal. The last most striking example of

which we have already called attention to, the French Revolution. If,

as according to Herr Duehring's teachings, the economic development

and the economic conditions of a certain country are altogether

dependent upon political forces there is no explanation of the fact

that Frederick William IV after 1848 could not succeed, in spite of

his army, in attaching the guilds of the Middle Ages and other

romantic tomfooleries to the steam-engines, railroads and the newly

developing greater industry, or why the Czar who is still much more

powerful could not only not pay his debts but could not collect his

forces without drawing on the credit of the economic conditions of

Western Europe.

According to Herr Duehring force is the absolute evil. The first act

of force is to him the first fall into sin. His whole conception is a

preachment over the infection of all history up to the present time

with the original sin. He talks about the disgraceful falsifying of

all natural and social laws by the invention of the devil, force. That

force plays another role in history, a revolutionary role, that it is

in the words of Marx, the midwife of the old society which is pregnant

with the new, that it is the tool by the means of which social

progress is forwarded, and foolish, dead political forms

destroyed,--of that Herr Duehring has no word to say, only with sighs

and groans does he admit the possibility that force may be necessary

for the overthrow of a thievish economic system. He simply declares

that every application of force demoralizes him who uses it. And this

in spite of the moral and intellectual uplift which has followed every

victorious revolution. He says this in Germany, too, where a powerful

and necessary uprising would at least have the advantage of abolishing

the slavish snobbery of the national mind which has prevailed since

the humiliation of the Thirty Years War. And this foolish and

senseless sort of preaching is set up in opposition to the most

revolutionary party known to history.

_V. Theory of Value._

It is now about a hundred years since a book appeared in Leipsic which

by the beginning of this century had gone through thirty-one editions

and which was distributed throughout the towns and the country

districts by officials, preachers and humanitarians, of all sorts, and

which was universally adopted in the schools as a reader. This book

was called, "The Children's Friend" by Rochow. It had the object of

teaching the children of the peasant and laboring classes their

vocation in life and their duties to their social and political

superiors, and making them satisfied with their lot in life, with

black bread and potatoes, compulsory servitude, low wages, fatherly

beatings and other similar agreeable things. In pursuit of this end,

the youth in town and country was informed what a wise provision of

nature it was that man was obliged to get his food and enjoyment by

means of his labor, and how fortunate the peasant and handworker ought

to feel that they were able to spice their food with hard labor while

the spendthrift and the picture suffered the pangs of indigestion or

lack of appetite. These commonplaces which old Rochow thought good

enough for the peasant children of his day have been elevated into

the "absolute fundamental" of the newest political economy by Herr

Duehring.

Value is defined as follows by Herr Duehring "Value is what economic

goods and activities will fetch in exchange." What they will fetch is

shown "by the price or some other equivalent, wages for example." In

other words Value is price. Or not to do Herr Duehring an injury and

to show the absolute absurdity of his definition in his own language,

"Value is prices." On page 19 he says "Value and its prices expressed

in money" and he also affirms that the same value has very different

prices and therefore has different values. If Hegel had not died long

ago he would hang himself out of pure jealousy, for, with all his

theology, he could not have produced this value which has as many

different values as it has prices. One would have to possess the

confidence of Herr Duehring to begin a new and more profound treatment

of political economy with the declaration that there is no difference

between value and price except that one is expressed in terms of money

and the other is not.

(After gentle raillery of Duehring's statements Engels proceeds.)

The actual, practical value of an object according to Herr Duehring

consists in two things, first in the amount of human labor contained

in it and secondly in a forcibly imposed tax. In other words value as

it exists to-day is a monopoly price. If all wares have this monopoly

price, as according to this theory, only two things are possible.

Either every buyer, as buyer, loses what he made as seller, for prices

have only changed their names, they are really the same, everything

remains as it was and the much talked of exchange value is merely

imaginary, or the imposed cost represents real values, values

produced by the working value-making class, but taken by the

monopolising class, and this sum of values is simply unpaid labor. In

this latter case we come, in spite of the force theory, and the

compulsory taxation theory and the special exchange value theory back

again to the Marxian theory of value.

The fixing of the value of a commodity by wages which is frequently

confused by Adam Smith with the fixing of value by the time expended

in labor has been, since the time of Ricardo, denounced by political

economists and only to-day persists in popular economics. It is now

the sycophants of the existing capitalistic system who declare that

value is fixed by wages and therefore declare the profits of the

capitalists to be higher kind of wages, wages of abstinence, in that

the capitalist has not dissipated his capital, wages of

superintendence, premiums on risks, etc. Herr Duehring only differs

from them in that he calls profits robbery. In other words Herr

Duehring founds his socialism on the worst teachings of the popular

economists. His popular economics and his socialism stand or fall

together.

It is clear that what a workman accomplishes and what he costs are

different matters from what a machine makes and what it costs. The

value which a workman makes in a day of twelve hours has nothing in

common with the value of the means of life which he consumes in this

working day and the periods of rest in connection with it. There may

be one, three, four or seven hours of labor time incorporated in these

means of livelihood according to the stage of the productivity of

labor. Let us take seven hours as the necessary time for the

production of them. Then Herr Duehring and the vulgar economists

declare that the product of twelve hours labor has the value of the

product of seven hours labor or in other words twelve is equal to

seven. To make the matter more explicit, a peasant produces say twenty

hectolitres of wheat in a year. During this time he consumes a sum of

values which may be expressed by fifteen hectolitres. Then the twenty

hectolitres have the same value as the fifteen in the same market

under identical conditions. In other words 20 equals 15. And this is

called political economy!

The entire development of human society from the position of savagery

began from the day when the labor of a family resulted in the

production of more than was necessity for its support, from the day

when a part of the labor was no longer expended on mere means of

living but was transformed into means of production. A surplus of

labor product over and above the cost of the maintenance of labor, and

the creation and increase of a social production and reserve fund out

of this surplus was and is the foundation of all social, political and

intellectual development. In history up to the present time this fund

has been the property of a certain superior class which has, with its

possession, also the political mastery and the spiritual supremacy.

The approaching social revolution will make this social production and

reserve fund that is the entire mass of raw material, instruments of

production, and means of life for the first time really social

property, in that it will put an end to its monopolisation by the

superior class and make it the common possession of the entire

society.

It is one of two things. Suppose value shows itself in the cost of

maintenance of the necessary labor, that is in present society in

wages. If such is the case every worker gets the value of his product

in wages and the robbery of the working class by the capitalistic

class is an impossibility. Let it be granted that the cost of

maintaining a worker in a given society is three marks. Then the daily

product of the worker is, according to the popular economist, of the

value of three marks. Now let us consider that the capitalist who

employs this worker takes a profit on this product and sells it for

four marks. Other capitalists do the same thing. But thereupon the

worker can no longer maintain himself with three marks a day, it will

cost him four marks. Other conditions remaining the same, wages

expressed in terms of the means of life must remain the same and wages

expressed in gold will rise therefore from three to four marks daily.

What the capitalists gain in the form of profit on the working class

they have to return in the form of wages. So we are just where we were

at the beginning. If wages signify value, no plunder of the working

class by the capitalist is possible. But the creation of a surplus is

impossible if, according to our hypothesis the workers consume as much

as they produce. And since the capitalists produce no value it is

impossible to see how they can live. And if such a surplus of

production over consumption does exist, if such a production and

reserve fund exists in the hands of the capitalists there is no other

explanation possible than that the working class uses only enough

values for its own maintenance and turns over the rest of the goods

which it produces to the capitalist.

On the other hand, if this production and reserve fund actually exists

in the hands of the capitalist class, if it has really come into

existence through the piling up of profits, (we will leave rent out of

the question for the present); it necessarily comes from the

accumulated profits of the capitalist class taken from the working

class over and above the sums paid by the capitalist class to the

working class in the form of wages. Value therefore does not depend

upon wages, but upon amount of labor. The working class renders to the

capitalist class a greater amount of value than it receives in wages

and thus the profit of capital as of all other forms of the

appropriation of unpaid for products of labor is to be explained on

the simple ground of the surplus value discovered by Marx.

_VI. Simple and Compound Labor._

(The argument of Duehring against which Engels here directs his

efforts may be best summed up in Duehring's concluding words "Marx in

his utterances on value cannot escape the lurking ghost of highly

skilled labor. The prevalent notion of the intellectual classes has

been a hindrance to him in this matter, for according to this idea it

is an enormity to reckon the labor time of a barrow pusher and an

architect as economic equivalents.")

Engels thereupon says "the passage in the works of Marx which caused

this outbreak on the part of Duehring is very short." Marx is

examining the question as to the basis of the value of commodities and

answers it by the statement that it is the amount of human labor

contained in them. "This" he goes on "is the expression of that simple

labor force which belongs to the average human being without any

special development. Skilled labor is a power or rather a multiple of

simple labor, so that a small amount of skilled labor is equivalent to

a larger amount of unskilled labor. Practice shows that this reduction

to the terms of unskilled labor takes place. A commodity may be the

product of skilled labor, its value may be equivalent to a product of

unskilled labor skilled labor. The proportion in which different forms

of labor are reduced to their general standard in unskilled labor is

established by a social process going on behind the backs of the

producers, and appears to them merely customary."

Here Marx is only dealing with the value of commodities, that is of

objects produced and exchanged by private producers in a society

consisting of private producers producing for their own profit. He is

therefore not concerned here with "absolute value" whatever that may

be but only with the value which is realised in a given form of

society. This value under the given social conditions is shaped and

measured by the human labor incorporated in the commodities and this

human labor shows itself as the expression of simple human energy. But

every piece of work is not merely an expression of simple labor force.

Very many labor products require the expenditure of more or less time,

money, trouble, and acquired skill or knowledge. Do these kinds of

compound labor show at the same period of time the same commodity

values as simple labor, are they the expression of merely simple labor

force? Evidently not. The product of an hour of compound labor is a

commodity of higher, double or three times the value of a product of

an hour of simple labor. The value of the product of compound labor

can in this comparison be expressed through the measure of simple

labor; and this reduction of compound labor is carried on by means of

a social progress behind the back of the producer, by means of which

can here be established according to the theory of value but not

explained.

The thing which Marx states here is a simple fact which happens every

day before our eyes in the present capitalistic society.

(After some invective and satire hurled at Duehring Engels proceeds:)

Let us examine with regard to equality of value a little more closely.

All labor time is of equal value, that of the barrow pusher and that

of the architect. Therefore labor time and consequently labor itself

has a value. But labor is the creator of all values. It is the only

thing which gives the original products of nature a value in the

economic sense. Value in itself is nothing but the expression in a

given object of necessary, social, human labor. One might just as well

speak of and fix a value to labor as speak of the value of value, of

the weight, not of a specific body, but of gravity itself. Herr

Duehring calls people like Owen, St. Simon and Fourier, social

alchemists. When he invents a value for labor time, that is for labor,

he shows that he is far below these same alchemists.

For Socialism, which will emancipate human labor force from its place

as a commodity, the understanding that labor has no value and can have

none is a matter of the greatest importance. With an understanding of

it, all attempts made by Herr Duehring by means of his crude

worker-socialism (Arbeitersozialismus) to regulate the division of the

means of existence, as a kind of higher wages, fall to the ground.

From it there follows the broader view, since it is controlled by

purely economic motives, that distribution regulates itself in the

interests of production, and production is advanced in the greatest

degree by a method of distribution which permits all the social

departments to develop, maintain, and express their capacities to the

fullest possible extent. To the ideas of the intellectuals which have

come into Herr Duehring's possession, it must always seem to be an

enormity that it will abolish barrow pushing and architecture

simultaneously as professions, and that the man who has given half an

hour to architecture will also push the cart a little until his work

as architect is again in demand. It would be a pretty sort of

socialism which perpetuated the business of barrow-pushing.

If the equality of value of labor time has the significance that

workers produce equal products in equal periods of time it is

evidently false, unless an average is first taken. Of two workmen at

the same branch of industry the value of the product of their labor

time will differ according to the intensity of labor and their

respective ability. No scheme of economic equality, at least on our

planet, can remedy this unfortunate state of affairs. What then is

left of the equality of all and every sort of labor? Nothing but high

sounding phrases which have no economic value, nothing but the evident

inability of Herr Duehring to distinguish between the fixing of value

by labor and the fixing of value by the wages of labor, only the

ukase, which is the foundation of the new social economy, that wages

shall be equal for equal amounts of labor time. Really the old French

communists and Weitling had much better grounds for their equality of

wages theories.

How then do we solve the whole weighty question of the higher wages of

compound labor? In a society of private producers, private individuals

or their families have to bear the cost of creating intellectual

workers. An intellectual slave always commanded a better price, an

intellectual wage worker gets higher wages. In an organized socialist

society, society bears the cost and to it therefore belong the fruits,

the greater value produced by intellectual labor. The laborer himself

has no further claim. Whence it follows that there are many

difficulties connected with the beloved claim of the worker for the

full product of his toil.

_VII. Capital and Surplus Value._

("Marx does not have the usual economic idea of capital that it is

means of production already produced, but he seeks to endow it with a

special dialectic history in the metamorphosis of a historical idea.

Capital is expressed in gold, it creates an historical period which

has its beginning in the sixteenth century and the establishment of a

world-market. Any keen economic analysis is impossible with such a

notion. Such barren conceptions which are half historical and half

logical destroys the possibility of any proper discrimination with

respect to the matter." These remarks of Duehring are answered as

follows by Engels:)

According to Marx, then, capital manifested itself as gold at the

beginning of the sixteenth century. It is just as if anybody were to

say that specie had expressed itself as cattle for three thousand

years, because formerly cattle had performed the gold functions along

with others. Only Herr Duehring could be guilty of such a crude and

distorted expression. Marx in his analysis of the economic forms in

which the process of the circulation of commodities takes places

simply declares gold to be the last form. "This last product of the

circulation of commodities is the form in which capital first appears.

Historically capital comes with the possession of property in the form

of money, as hoards of money, merchant-capital, and usury-capital....

This history is going on every day before our eyes. New capital comes

on the scene, that is the market,--the market for commodities, the

labor market or the money market, simply as money, money which is

transformed into capital by a definite process." Again Marx states the

fact. It is useless for you to struggle against it, Herr Duehring,

Capital must express itself in gold.

Marx further examines the process by which money is transformed into

capital and discovers that the form in which money circulates as

capital is the inversion of the form in which it circulates as the

universal equivalent. The individual owner of commodities sells to

buy, he sells what he does not need, and buys with the money thus

obtained what he does need. The budding capitalist buys on the

contrary what he does not want himself, he buys to sell, and to sell

for a higher money value than he put into the business, he makes a

money profit, and this profit Marx calls surplus value.

What is the origin of this surplus value? Either the buyer buys goods

below their value or the seller sells them above their value. In both

cases gain and loss would balance one another, since every buyer is

also a seller. It can also not arise from extortion, for extortion

might enrich one at the expense of the other but it could not increase

the total sum of money neither could it increase the amount of

commodities in circulation. "The entire capitalist class of a country

cannot overreach itself."

Now, we find that the totality of the capitalist class in every

country grows richer before our very eyes, by the process of selling

dearer than it bought, by appropriating surplus value. So we are just

at the beginning of the discussion. Where does this surplus value come

from? This question has to be answered on purely economic grounds to

the exclusion of all cheating, and all invasion of force. How is it

possible to keep selling dearer than one buys under the assumption

that equal values are always exchanged for equal values?

The solution of this problem is the crowning glory of the work of

Marx. He sheds clear daylight in economic places where the earlier

socialists no less than the bourgeois economists have groped in utter

darkness. From his work dates the origin of scientific socialism.

The solution is as follows. The power of increase in money which is

transformed into capital cannot proceed from the money neither does it

depend upon trade, since the money only realizes the price of the

commodities and this price is, since we hold that only equal values

are exchanged, no different from its value. On the same grounds the

power of increase cannot come from the exchange of commodities. The

change therefore depends upon the commodities which are exchanged, but

not upon their value, since they are bought and sold at their value.

It arises from their consumption-value as such; that is the change

must arise out of the consumption of commodities. "In order for a

commodity to derive value from consumption our possessor of money must

be fortunate enough to discover a commodity whose use-value has the

peculiar property of being a source of value, whose consumption would

imply the expenditure of labor and thus be value-producing. And the

possessor of money finds such a specific commodity on the market in

the shape of labor-power." If, as we have seen, labor has no value

this is by no means the case with labor-force. This has a value, as it

is a commodity, and, as a matter of fact, it is a commodity to-day and

this value is fixed "like that of every other commodity by the amount

of labor time necessary for the production and reproduction of this

specific commodity." It is fixed by the labor time which is necessary

for the procuring of the means of livelihood required to maintain the

laborer in a condition to continue laboring and reproduce his kind.

Let us suppose that these means of livelihood represent, taking one

day with another, six hours labor-time a day. Our budding capitalist

who buys labor force for his business, that is hires a laborer, pays

this laborer the full daily value of his labor force, if he pays him a

sum of money which represents six hours of labor. If the laborer has

only expended six hours in the service of the capitalist he has got

the full return of his expenditure, the day's value of his labor-force

has been paid. But money could not be transformed into capital in this

fashion, it would have produced no surplus value. The buyer of

labor-power has quite another view of the nature of his business.

Since only six hours' work is necessary to maintain the laborer for

twenty-four hours, it does not follow that the laborer cannot work

twelve hours out of the twenty-four. The value of labor force and its

realization in the labor-process are two different magnitudes. The

owner of money pays out a day's value of labor-force but there belongs

to him its use for the day, the whole day's labor. That the value

which it produces in the course of a day is double its own value for

the day is fortunate for the buyer but according to the laws of

exchange no injustice to the seller. The laborer then costs the owner

of money according to our calculation the value product of six hours'

labor, but he gives him daily the value product of twelve hours'

labor. The difference to the credit of the owner of the money is six

hours' unpaid extra labor, an unpaid for surplus product, in which the

labor of six hours is incorporated. The trick is done. Surplus value

is produced, money is transformed into capital.

While Marx, in this way, proved how surplus value exists and the only

possible way in which it can exist, under the laws which regulate the

exchange of commodities he also exposed the present capitalistic

methods of production and the methods of appropriation resting upon

them and unveiled the secret upon which the whole arrangement of the

society of to-day depends.

There is a necessary presupposition to this origin and birth of

capital. "For the transformation of money into capital the money owner

must first find free laborers in the market, free in the double sense

that as a free person the laborer can use his labor power as a

commodity, that he has no other wares to sell, that he is unemployed

and that he is free of everything necessary to the realisation of his

labor power." But this condition of a possessor of money or

commodities on the one hand, and, on the other, of the possessor of

nothing, except his own labor force, is no natural condition of

affairs nor is it common to all periods of history; "it is clearly the

result of a historical development, the product of a whole series of

older forms of social production." And this free laborer first strikes

our notice as a historical phenomenon at the end of the fifteenth and

the beginning of the sixteenth century as a result of the dissolution

of feudal society. Thereupon with the creation of the world trade and

the world market which dates from the same period the foundation was

laid for the mass of moveable wealth to become more and more

transformed into capital and for the capitalistic system, directed

more and more to the production of surplus value, to become the

dominant system.

_VIII. Capital and Surplus Value (Conclusion)._

(Duehring having said that the term surplus value merely signifies in

ordinary language, rent, profit and interest, Engels still further

explains)

We have already seen that Marx does not say that the surplus product

of the industrial capitalist, of which he is the first owner, is

always exchanged for its value, as Herr Duehring points out. Marx

plainly says that trade profit only constitutes a portion of the

surplus value and under the foregoing conditions this is only possible

if the factory proprietor sells his product under value to the trader

and thus parts with a portion of the booty. Marx' contention

rationally put is How is surplus value transformed into its

subordinate forms, profit, interest, trade-profits, ground rents etc.?

and this question Marx undertakes to answer in the third volume of

Capital. But since Herr Duehring cannot wait long enough for the

second volume to appear he has in the meantime to take a close look at

the first volume. He thereupon reads that the immanent laws of

capitalistic production, the course of the development of capitalism,

realise themselves as the necessary laws of competition and thus are

brought to the consciousness of the individual capitalists as dominant

motives. That therefore a scientific analysis of competition is only

possible when the real nature of capital is grasped, just as the

apparent movement of heavenly bodies can only be understood by

apprehending their real movement, and not merely those movements which

are perceptible to the senses. So Marx shows how a certain law, the

law of value, appears under given conditions in the competitive system

and makes evident its impelling force. Herr Duehring might have

understood that competition plays an important role in the

distribution of surplus values, and, after sufficient thought, might

have grasped at least the outlines of the transformation of surplus

value into its subordinate forms from the examples given in the first

volume.

Herr Duehring finds competition to be the stumbling block in the way

of his comprehension. He cannot understand how competing

entrepreneurs can manage to sell the entire product of labor including

the surplus product for so much more than the natural cost of

production. Here again that "force" of his which, in his estimation,

is the very evil thing, comes into play. According to Marx, the

surplus product does not have any cost of production, it is the part

of the product which costs the capitalist nothing. If the

entrepreneurs were to sell the surplus product at its real cost of

production they would have to give it away. Is it not a fact that the

competing entrepreneurs really sell the product of labor every day at

its natural cost of production? According to Herr Duehring the cost of

production consists "in the expenditure of labor or force and

therefore in the last analysis must be measured by cost of

maintenance," and therefore, in present day society, is to be

estimated at the cost of the raw material, instruments of labor and

actual wages paid in distinction to taxation, profit and compulsory

raising of prices. It is well recognised that in modern society the

competing entrepreneurs do not sell their wares at the natural cost of

production but calculate on a profit and generally get it. This

question which Herr Duehring fancies will level the walls of Marxism

as the blast of Joshua did those of Jericho is a question which the

economic doctrines of Duehring have to meet also.

"Capitalistic property," he says, "has no practical value and only

realises itself because it implies the exercise of indirect power over

man. The testimony to the existence of this force is capitalistic

profit, and the amount of this latter depends upon the extent and

intensity of the power of 'force.'... Capitalistic profit is a

political and social institution which manifests itself very strongly

as competition. The entrepreneurs take their stand on this relation

and each one of them maintains his position. A certain amount of

profit is a necessity of the dominant economic condition."

We know quite well that the entrepreneurs are in a position to sell

the products of labor at a cost above the natural cost of production.

Surely Herr Duehring does not think so meanly of his public as to hold

the position that profit on capital stands above competition as the

King of Prussia used to stand above the law. The proceeding by which

the King of Prussia reached his position of superiority to the law we

all know, the methods by which profit has come to be mightier than

competition is just what Herr Duehring has to explain and what he

stubbornly refuses to explain. It is no argument when he says that the

entrepreneurs trade from this position and each one of them maintains

his own place. If we take him at his word, how is it possible for a

number of people each to be able to trade only on certain terms and

yet each one of them to keep his position? The gildmen of the Middle

Ages and the French nobility of 1789 operated from a decidedly

superior position, and yet they came to grief. The Prussian army at

Jena occupied an advantageous position and yet it had to abandon it

and surrender piecemeal. It is not enough to tell us that a certain

measure of profit is a necessary concomitant of domination in the

economic sphere, it is necessary to tell us why. We do not get a step

further by the statement of Duehring. "Capitalistic superiority is

inseparable from landlordism. A portion of the peasantry is

transformed in the cities into factory hands and in the final analysis

into factory material. Profit appears as another form of rent." This

is a mere assertion and only repeats what should have been explained

and proved. We can come to no other conclusion, then, except that

Herr Duehring does not like to tackle the answer to his own question

how the capitalists are in a position to sell products of labor for

more than the natural cost of production, in short Herr Duehring

shirks an explanation of profit. He takes the only path open to him, a

short cut, and simply declares that profit is the product of "force."

This has been stated by Herr Duehring in his economic theory under the

statement "force distributes." That is all very well; but the question

still persists what does force distribute? There must be something to

distribute otherwise force cannot distribute it. The profit which the

competing capitalists pocket is something actual and tangible. Force

may take but it cannot create. And if Herr Duehring still obstinately

persists in his statement that "force" takes the profits for the

entrepreneurs he is as silent as the grave as to whence it takes it.

Where there is nothing the Kaiser, as all other "force," ceases to

operate. From nothing comes nothing, particularly nothing in the shape

of profits. If capitalistic private property has not practical

actuality, and cannot realize itself, except by the exercise of

indirect force over men, the question still persists, in the first

place, how did the capitalist government come into possession of this

"force" and in the second place how has this force been transformed

into profits, and in the third place where does it get these profits?

(The remainder of this section is merely further elaboration of this

idea with more caustic satire at the expense of the antagonist of

Engels.)

_IX. Natural Economic Laws--Ground Rent._

(In this chapter Engels proceeds to examine what Herr Duehring called

the "fundamental laws" of his theory of economic science.)

LAW NO. I. "The productivity of economic instruments, natural

resources and human force are capable of being increased by invention

and discovery."

We are amazed. Herr Duehring treats us like that joke of Moliere on

the parvenu who was informed that he had talked prose all his life

without being aware of it. That inventions and discoveries increase

the productive force of labor in many cases (but in many cases not, as

the patent records everywhere show) we have been for a long time

aware.

LAW NO. II. "Division of Labor. The formation of branches of work and

the splitting up of activities increases the productivity of labor."

As far as this is true it is a mere commonplace since the time of Adam

Smith. How far it is true will appear in the third division of this

work.

LAW NO. III. "Distance and transportation are the most important

causes of the advance or hindrance of the organization of productive

forces."

LAW NO. IV. "The industrial state has incomparably greater capacity

for population than the agricultural state."

LAW NO. V. "In economics only material interests count."

These are the natural laws on which Herr Duehring founds his new

economics. He remains true to his philosophic methods.

(Hereupon Engels proceeds to the discussion of Duehring's opinions on

ground-rent.)

Herr Duehring defines ground-rent as "that income which the landowner

as such derives from ground and land." The economic idea of

ground-rent, which Herr Duehring undertakes to explain to us, is

transformed right away into the juristic concept so that we are no

further than at first. He compares the leasing of a piece of land with

the loan of capital to an entrepreneur but finds, as is so often the

case, that the comparison will not hold. Then he says "to pursue the

analogy the profit which remains to the lessee after the payment of

ground-rent, answers to that portion of the profit on capital which

remains to the entrepreneur who operates with borrowed capital after

the interest on the borrowed capital has been paid."

(To these arguments Engels replies:)

The theory of ground-rent is a special English economic matter, and

this of necessity because only in England does a mode of production

exist by which rent is separated from profit and interest. In England

there prevail the greater landlordism and the greater agriculture. The

individual landlords lease their lands in great farms to lessees who

are able to cultivate them in a capitalistic fashion and do not, like

our peasants, work with their own hands, but employ laborers just like

capitalistic entrepreneurs. We have here then the three classes of

bourgeois society, and the income which each receives--the private

landlord in the form of ground-rent, the capitalist in that of profit

and the laborer in the form of wages. No English economist has ever

regarded the profit of the lessee as Herr Duehring does and still less

would he have to explain that the profit of the lessee is what it

indubitably is, profit on capital. In England there is no use to

discuss this question for the question as well as its answer are

obvious from the facts and, since the time of Adam Smith, there has

been no doubt at all about it.

The case in which the lessee cultivates his own land, as the rule in

Germany, for the profit of the ground landlord does not make any

difference in this respect. If the landlord cultivates the land for

his own profit and furnishes the capital he puts the profit on capital

in his pocket as well as the ground-rent for it cannot be otherwise

under existing conditions. And if Herr Duehring thinks that rent is

something different when the lessee cultivates the land for himself it

is not so and only shows his ignorance of the matter.

For example:--

"The revenue derived from labor is called wages; that derived from

stock by the person who manages or employs it is called profit. The

revenue which proceeds from land is called rent and belongs altogether

to the landlord. The revenue of the farmer is derived partly from his

labor and partly from his stock.... When those three different sorts

of labor belong to different persons they are readily distinguished,

but when they belong to the same they are sometimes confounded with

one another at least in common language. A gentleman who farms part of

his own estate, after paying the expenses of cultivation, should gain

both the rent of the landlord and the profit of the farmer. He is apt

to denominate, however, his whole gain, profit, and thus confounds

rent with profit, at least in common language. The greater part of our

North American and West Indian planters are in this situation. They

farm, the greater part of them, their own estates, and accordingly we

seldom hear of the rent of a plantation but frequently of its

profit.... A gardener who cultivates his own garden with his own

hands, unites in his own person the three different characters of

landlord, farmer, and laborer. His produce, therefore, should pay him

the rent of the first, the profit of the second and the wages of the

third. The whole, however, is commonly considered as the wages of his

labor. Both rent and profit are in this case confounded with wages."

This passage is in the sixth chapter of the first book of Adam Smith.

The case of the landholder who tills his own land has been examined a

hundred years ago and the doubts which perplex Herr Duehring so much

are caused entirely by his own ignorance.

_X. With Respect to the "Critical History"._

This which is the concluding portion of the Second Division of the

work and which deals with Herr Duehring's estimates of economic

writers is omitted as being of too limited and polemic a character for

general interest.

PART III

CHAPTER IX

SOCIALISM

The first two chapters of this Division, which deal respectively with

the historical and the theoretical sides of Socialism, are omitted.

They have been already translated. The well known pamphlet "Socialism,

Utopian and Scientific" contains both of them. The second has also

been translated by R.C.K. Ensor and published in his "Modern

Socialism."

_Production._

For him (Herr Duehring) socialism is by no means a necessary product

of economic development, and, still less, a development of the purely

economic conditions of the present day. He knows better than that. His

socialism is a final truth of the last instance, it is "the natural

system of society." He finds its root in a "universal system of

justice." And if he cannot take notice of the existing conditions

which are the product of the sinful history of man up to the present

time in order to improve them that is so much the worse, we must look

upon it as a misfortune for the true principles of justice. Herr

Duehring forms his socialism as he does everything else on the basis

of his two famous men. Instead of these two marionnetes, as

heretofore, playing the game of lord and slave they are converted to

that of equality and justice and the Duehring socialism is already

founded.

Clearly in the view of Herr Duehring the periodic industrial crises

have by no means the same significance as we must attribute to them.

According to Herr Duehring they are only occasional departures from

normality and furnish a splendid motive for the institution of a

properly regulated system.

(Duehring attributes crises to underconsumption; to which Engels

replies:)

It is unfortunately true that the underconsumption of the masses and

the limitation of the expenditures of the great majority to the

necessities of life and the reproduction thereof is not by any means a

new phenomenon. It has existed as long as the appropriating and the

plundered classes have existed. Even in those historic periods where

the condition of the masses was exceptionally prosperous, as in

England in the fifteenth century, there was underconsumption; men were

very far from having their entire yearly product at their own

disposal. Although underconsumption has been a constant historical

phenomenon for a thousand years, the general break down in trade, due

to overproduction, has appeared, for the first time, within the last

fifteen years. Yet the vulgar political economy of Herr Duehring

attempts to explain the new phenomenon, not by means of the new factor

of overproduction, but by means of the exceedingly old factor of

underconsumption. It is just as if one were to try and explain a

change in the relation of two mathematical quantities, one of which is

constant and the other variable, not from the fact that the variable

quantity has varied, but that the constant has remained constant. The

underconsumption of the masses is a necessary condition of all forms

of society in which robbers and robbed exist, and therefore of the

capitalist system. But it is the capitalist system which first brings

about the economic crisis. Underconsumption is a prerequisite of

crises and plays a very conspicuous role in them, but it has no more

to do with the economic crisis of the present day than it had with the

former absence of such crises.

* * * * *

In every society in which production has developed naturally, to which

class that of to-day belongs, the producers do not master the means of

production but the means of production dominate the producers.

In such a society every new leverage of production is converted into a

new means of subduing the producers beneath the means of production.

This was the cause of that instrument of production, the mightiest up

to the time of the introduction of the greater industry, the division

of labor. The first great division of labor, the separation of the

city and country, doomed the inhabitants of the rural districts to a

thousand years of stupidity and the people of the towns to be the

slaves of their own handiwork. It denied the chance of intellectual

development to the one and of physical development to the other. If

the peasant had his land and the town dweller his handiwork, it is

just as true to say that the land had the peasant and the handiwork

the townsman. As far as there was a division of labor there was also a

division of man. The rise of one single fact slaughtered all former

intellectual and bodily capacities. This annexation of man grew in

proportion as the division of labor developed and reached its

culmination in manufacture. Manufacture distributes production into

its separate operations, makes one of these operations the function of

the individual worker, and imprisons the worker for his whole life to

a given function and to a given tool. "It forces the workingman to

become an abnormality, since it makes him concentrate his efforts on

detail at the expense of the sacrifice of a world of forces and

capacities.... The individual himself becomes subdivided, he is

transformed into the automatic tool of the division of labor" (Marx).

This tool in many cases finds its perfection in the literal crippling

of the worker, body and soul. The machinery of the greater industry

degrades the workingman from a machine to being the mere appendage of

a machine. "From the lifelong specialization of looking after a

machine there comes the lifelong specialization of serving a part of a

machine. The abuse of machinery transforms the worker from childhood

into a portion of a part of a machine" (Marx). And not only the

workingman but the classes which indirectly or directly plunder the

workingman are also themselves involved in the division of labor and

become the slaves of their own tools. The spiritually-barren bourgeois

is the slave of his own capital and his own profit-getting, the jurist

is dominated by his ossified notions of justice which rule him as a

self-contained force; the "refined classes" are dominated by the local

limitations and prejudices, by their own physical and spiritual

astigmatism, by their specialised education and their lifelong bondage

to this specialty, even though the specialty be doing nothing.

The Utopists were thoroughly aware of the effects of the division of

labor, of the effect on the one hand of crippling the worker and on

the other of crippling the work, the unavoidable result of the

lifelong, monotonous repetition of one and the same act. The rise of

the antagonism between town and country was regarded by Fourier as

well as Owen as the beginning of the rise of the old division of

labor. According to both of them the population should be divided into

groups of from six hundred to three thousand each, distributed over

the country. Each group has an enormous house in the midst of its

territory and the housekeeping is done in common. Fourier occasionally

speaks of towns but these only consist of four or five of the big

communal houses in close proximity to each other. By both of them the

work of society is divided into agriculture and industry. According to

Fourier, handwork and machine manufacture were both included in the

latter while Owen made the great industry play the most important

part, and the steam engine and machinery performed the work of the

community. But both in agriculture and manufacture the two writers

named gave the greatest possible variety of occupation to individuals,

and accordingly the education of the young provided for the most

universal technical training. Both of them think that there will be a

universal development of the human race as a result of a universal

practical participation in practical work, and that work will recover

its old attractiveness, which has been lost as a result of the

division of labor, by virtue of this variety and the shortening of the

time expended upon it.

* * * * *

Just as far as society obtains the domination of the social means of

production in order to organize them socially it abolishes the

existing servitude of man to his own means of production. Society

cannot be free without every member of society being free. The old

methods of production must be completely revolutionized and the old

form of the division of labor must be done away with above all. In its

place an organization of production will have to be made in which, on

the one hand, no single individual will be able to shift his share in

productive labor, in providing the essentials of human existence,

upon another, and on the other hand productive labor instead of being

a means of slavery will be a means towards human freedom, in that it

offers an opportunity to everyone to develop his full powers, physical

and intellectual, in every direction and to exercise them so that it

makes a pleasure out of a burden.

This is no longer at the present time a phantasy, a pious wish. Owing

to the present development of the powers of production, production has

proceeded far enough, provided that society endows itself with the

possession of the social forces and abolishes the checks and

impediments, as well as the waste of products and productive forces,

which springs from the capitalistic methods, to make a general

reduction of labor time, to an amount, small as compared with present

day ideas.

The abolition of the old method of division of labor is not an advance

which would not be possible except at the expense of the productivity

of labor, quite otherwise. It is a condition of production which has

come about spontaneously through the great industry. "The machine

industry does away with the necessity of constantly distributing

groups of workmen at the different machines by keeping the worker

constantly at the same task. Since the total product of the factory,

proceeds not from the worker but from the machine, a continual

changing about of individuals could not exist, without an interruption

of the labor-process. Finally the speed with which work at the machine

is learnt even by children does away with the necessity of training a

distinct class of workmen exclusively as machine laborers." But while

the capitalistic method of use of machinery does away with the old

limited particularity of labor, and, in spite of the fact, that

technique is rendered superfluous, machinery itself rebels against the

anachronism. The technical basis of the greater industry is

revolutionary. "Through machinery, chemical processes and other

methods, the functions of the working class and the social labor

process are revolutionized along with the technical basis of

production. The division of labor is also revolutionized and masses of

capital and labor are hurled incontinently from one branch of industry

to another. The nature of the greater industry demands mobility of

labor, a fluidity of functions and a complete adaptibility on the part

of the laborers. We have seen how this absolute contradiction shows

itself in the continual sacrifice of the working class, the most

complete waste of labor force, and the dominance of social anarchy.

But if the mobility of labor now appears to be a law of nature beyond

human control which realizes itself, in spite of all obstacles, it

also becomes a matter of life and death for the greater industry,

owing to its catastrophic character, to recognise the mobility of

labor and hence the greatest possible adaptibility of the working

class, as a universal law of social production, and to accommodate

circumstances to its normal development. It becomes a question of life

and death for the greater industry to keep an enormous number of

people on the edge of starvation always in reserve, in order that they

may be able to be placed at the disposal of the needs of capital as

these vary."

While the greater industry has taught us how to transform molecular

movement into mass movement in order to fulfill technical needs, it

has, in the same measure, freed industrial production from local

limits. Water power was local, steam power is free. If water power

belongs to the country, steam power is by no means limited to the

town. It is capitalistic practice which causes concentration into

cities and which makes manufacturing towns of manufacturing villages.

But thereby at the same time it undermines the essentials of its own

motive force. The first requisite of the steam engine and a prime

requisite of all branches of motive power is a sufficient quantity of

pure water. The factory town transforms all water into evil smelling

sewage. Therefore, in proportion as the concentration into cities is

the foundation of capitalistic production, each individual capitalist

tries to get away from the towns which have been necessarily produced

to the motive forces of the country. This process may be individually

observed in the textile districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The

greater industry creates new towns in the course of its progress from

the town to the country. The same phenomenon was to be observed in the

districts of the metal industry where somewhat different causes

produce identical results.

The capitalistic character of the greater industry is responsible for

this aimless blundering and these new contradictions. Only a society

which organizes its industrial forces according to a single great

harmonious plan, can permit industry to settle itself in such a manner

throughout the land as to secure its own development and the retention

and development of the most important elements of production.

The abolition of the antagonism between town and country is now not

only possible, it has become an absolute necessity for industrial

production itself. It has also become a necessity for agricultural

production, and is, above all, essential to the maintenance of the

public health. Only through the amalgamation of city and country can

the present poisoning of air, water, and localities, be put at an end

and the waste filth of the cities be used for the cultivation of

vegetation rather than the spreading of disease.

The capitalistic industry has made itself relatively independent of

local limitations for its raw materials. The textile industry works

with imported raw materials for the most part. Spanish iron ores are

worked up in England and Germany, and South American copper ores in

England. Every coal field supplies a yearly increasing number of

places beyond its own confines. The whole coast of Europe has steam

engines driven by English and, occasionally German and Belgian, coal.

A society freed from the limits of capitalistic production could make

still further advances. While it makes a sort of all round skilled

producers, who are acquainted with the scientific requirements of

general industrial production, and by whom every new succession of

branches of production is completely developed from beginning to end,

it creates a new productive force which undertakes the transportation

of a superabundance of raw material or fuel.

The abolition of the separation between town and country is no Utopia,

it is an essential condition of the proportionate distribution of the

greater industry throughout the country. Civilization has left us a

number of large cities, as an inheritance, which it will take much

time and trouble to abolish. But they must and will be done away with,

however much time and trouble it may take. Whatever fate may be in

store for the German nation, Bismarck may have the proud consciousness

that his dearest wish, the downfall of the great city, will be

fulfilled.

And now we can see the childishness of Herr Duehring's notion that

society can obtain possession of the means of production without

revolutionizing the old methods of production from the ground up and

above all doing away with the old form of the division of labor.

* * * * *

It is easy to see that the revolutionary elements which will abolish

the old division of labor together with the separation of town and

country and will revolutionize production as a whole are already in

embryo in the methods of production of the modern great industry and

their unfolding is only hindered by the capitalistic methods of

production of to-day. But to see all this, it is necessary to have a

broader outlook than the mere limitations of the Prussian Code, the

country where schnapps and beet sugar are the staple industries, and

you have to study industrial crises by way of the book-trade. (This is

a sneer at one of Duehring's illustrations: Ed.) One has to understand

the history and the present manifestations of the greater industry

particularly in that land where it has its home and where it has had

its classic development. It must not be imagined that modern

scientific socialism can be done away with by the specific Prussian

Socialism of Herr Duehring.

_Distribution._

We have seen that Duehring's economics depend upon the statement that

the capitalistic method of production is good enough and can be kept

up, but that the capitalistic method of distribution is bad and must

be done away with. We now discover that the "sociality" of Herr

Duehring is merely the imaginary putting into force of this statement.

In fact it appears that Herr Duehring has nothing to declare

respecting the method of production as such in a capitalistic society,

and that he will maintain the old division of labor in all its

essential features. So he has hardly a word to say about production in

his social state. Production is too dangerous a ground for him to

tread on. On the other hand, in his estimation, distribution is not

bound up with production but can be settled by an act of the will.

* * * * *

Let us consider all the ideas of Herr Duehring as realized. Let us

then assume that the society pays each of its members for his work a

sum in gold in which are incorporated six hours of labor, say twelve

marks. Let us now imagine that prices and values are in full accord,

so that under our hypothesis only the cost of raw materials, the wear

and tear of machinery, the use of tools and wages are comprehended. A

society then of a hundred working members produces daily goods of the

value of 1200 marks, and in a year of three hundred working days three

hundred and sixty thousand marks and expends the entire amount on its

working members and thus each member has his share of three thousand

six hundred marks a year. At the end of the year and at the end of a

hundred years the society is no better off than it was at the

beginning. Accumulation is entirely overlooked. Worse than that, since

accumulation is a social necessity and the hoarding of gold is an

elementary form of accumulation, the organization of a society on this

basis will necessitate private accumulation on the part of its members

and consequently the destruction of the society.

How can this difficulty with respect to the economic society be

overcome? Refuge might be taken in a forcible raising of proceeds and

the produce of the society sold at four hundred and eighty thousand

marks instead of for three hundred and sixty thousand. But all other

economic societies would be in the same fix and each would have to

make it out of the other with the result that they would only be

extorting tribute from their own members.

Or it might find an easy way out by paying for six hours work less

than the product of six hours work, eight marks a day instead of

twelve, prices remaining the same. It accomplishes in this way plainly

and openly what formerly it did secretly, it adopts the Marx surplus

value notion to the amount of one hundred and twenty thousand marks a

year, since it pays the members under the value of their work and

reckons the goods which they are only able to buy by its means at

their full value. His economic society therefore can only get a

reserve fund by adopting the truck system. Therefore one of two things

is certain, either the economic society practices "equal work for

equal work" and then it can get no funds for the maintenance and

development of industry except through private sources, or it does

create such a fund and ceases to practice "equal work for equal work."

This is the fact about the exchange in the economic society, but what

about the form of it? According to Herr Duehring in his economic

society money does not function as money between the members of the

society. It serves merely as a labor certificate; it corresponds with

the expression of Marx "only the share of the individual of the common

labor, and his individual claim to the consumption of a certain

portion of the common product" and in this function, says Herr

Duehring, it is just as little money as a theater ticket. In short it

functions in exchange like Owens "labor-time money." As far as the

mere calculating between amount due for production and the amount to

be expended in consumption of the individual member of the society is

concerned, paper markers or gold would serve the purpose equally well.

But it would not do for other purposes as will appear.

If the specie does not function as money among the members of a given

society, but as a mark of labor, it functions still less as money in

the exchange between different economic societies. According to the

theory of Herr Duehring, therefore, specie as money is entirely

superfluous. In fact it would be mere bookkeeping to set off the

products of equal labor against the products of equal labor, according

to the natural measure of labor-time, taking the labor-hour as a

unit--if the labor hours are first translated into terms of money.

Exchange is in reality only simple exchange; all surpluses are easily

and simply equalized by means of bills of exchange on other societies.

But when one community has a deficit in its dealings with another

community it can only make it up by increasing its labor output, if it

is not to suffer disgrace in the eyes of other communities. The reader

will notice here that this is no attempt at social reconstruction. We

are simply taking the notions of Herr Duehring and showing their

unavoidable conclusions.

Therefore neither in exchange among the individual members of a

society nor in exchange between different economic societies can gold

realize itself as money. Yet Herr Duehring says that the function of

money is carried out even in his "sociality." We must therefore

discover another field of activity for this money function. Herr

Duehring predicates a quantitatively equal consumption. But he cannot

compel that. On the other hand, he prides himself that in his

community one can do with his money as he will. He cannot prevent one

man, therefore, from saving money and another from not making his

wages sufficient. This is indisputable, for he recognises the common

property of the family in inheritance and talks about the duty of

parents to provide for their children. Thereby his quantitatively

equal consumption comes a cropper. The young unmarried man can get

along splendidly on twelve marks a day, but the widower with eight

young children has a hard time of it. On the other hand the community,

since it takes money in payment without ceremony, lets money be

acquired otherwise than by individual labor when the opportunity

offers. _Non olet._ It does not know whence it comes. But now arises

the chance for money which has up to now played the role of a standard

of work performed to operate as real money. The opportunities and the

motives arise for saving money on the one hand and squandering it on

the other. The needy borrows from the saver. The borrowed money taken

by the community in payment for means of living becomes again, what it

is in present day society, the social incarnation of human labor, the

real measure of labor, the universal means of circulation. All the

laws in the world are powerless against it, just as powerless as they

are against the multiplication table or the chemical composition of

water. And the saver of money is in a position to demand interest so

that specie functioning as money again becomes a breeder of interest.

So far as we have only dealt with the operation of specie inside of

Herr Duehring's economic society. But beyond the confines of that

society the world goes peacefully along its old way. Gold and silver

remain in the world-market, as world money, as the universal means of

purchase and payment, as the absolute social incorporation of wealth.

And in this ownership of the precious metals the individual societies

find a new motive for saving, for getting rich, for increasing their

supply,--the motive of becoming free and independent of the

communities beyond their borders and of converting into money their

piled up wealth in the world market. The profit hunters transform

themselves into traders in the means of circulation, into bankers,

into controllers of the means of production, though these may remain

forever as the property of the economic and trading communities in

name. Therewith the savers and profit mongers who have been converted

into bankers become the lords of the economic and trading communes.

The "sociality" of Herr Duehring is very distinct from the "cloudy

ideas" of the earlier socialists. It has no other end than the

resurrection of the high finance.

The only value with which political economy is acquainted is the value

of commodities. What are commodities? Products produced in a society

composed of more or less separated private producers and therefore

private products. But these private products first become commodities

when they are made not for private use but for the use of someone

else, that is for social use. They are converted into objects of

social use by means of exchange. The private producers are therefore

in a social relationship, they constitute a society. Their private

products, while the private products of each individual, are at the

same time, unconsciously and indeed involuntarily, social products

also. Wherein does the social character of these private products

consist? Plainly in two properties, in the first place because they

satisfy human needs but have no use-value for the producers, and in

the second place that, while they are the products of individual

private producers, they are at the same time plainly the products of

human labor, of human labor in general. In so far as they have a

use-value for other people they can be exchanged; in so far as they

all possess the common quality of human labor in general, they can be

mutually compared in exchange by means of this labor. In two similar

products under identical social conditions there may be unequal

amounts of private labor, but equal amounts of human labor in general.

An unskillful smith might take as long to make five horseshoes as it

would take a skillful smith to make ten. But society does not fix the

price according to accidental lack of skill of the one, it recognises

only human labor in general, the human labor of the ordinary normal

skilled smith. Each of the five horseshoes then made by the first does

not have any more value than each of the other ten which were made in

the same time as the five. Only so far as is socially necessary does

private labor comprehend human labor in general.

Therefore I maintain that a commodity has a certain value, 1st.

because it is a socially useful product, 2nd. because it is produced

by a private individual for private profit, 3d. because while it is a

product of private labor, it is, at the same time, unconsciously and

involuntarily a social product and exchanges socially according to a

definite social standard, 4th. this standard is not expressed in terms

of labor, in so many hours, but in another commodity. If, therefore, I

say that this clock is worth this piece of cloth and that they are

both worth fifty marks, I say that in the clock, the cloth and the

gold there is an equal amount of social labor. I also affirm that the

amounts of social labor time in them are socially measured and found

to be equal, not directly and absolutely however, as one measures

labor time in hours or days, but in a round about fashion, relatively,

by means of exchange. I cannot therefore express this certain amount

of labor-time in labor hours, since their number is not known to me,

but I can express it relatively in terms of another commodity, which

has the same amount of labor time incorporated in it. The clock is

worth as much as the piece of cloth.

But while the production of commodities and the exchange of

commodities compel the society resting upon them to take this

roundabout course, they are impelled to a shortening of the process.

They separate from the mass of commodities one sovereign commodity, in

which the value of all other commodities can be universally expressed,

a commodity which is the complete incarnation of social labor, and,

against which, all other commodities may be set in direct

comparison--gold. Gold already germinates in the idea of value, it is

only developed value. But since the commodity value exists in gold

also, itself being a commodity, a new factor arises in the society

which produces and exchanges commodities, a factor with new social

functions and operations. We can now examine this a little more

closely.

The economy of the production of commodities is by no means the only

science which has to reckon with relatively known factors. Even in

physics, we do not know how many single gas molecules there are in a

given volume of gas, pressure and temperature being given. But we

know, as far as Boyle's law is correct, that a given volume of that

gas has as many molecules as a similar volume of another selected gas

at the same pressure and the same temperature. We can therefore

compare the different volumes of different gases with respect to their

molecular content, and, if we take one litre of gas at 0 deg. Fahrenheit

as the unit we can refer the molecular content of each to this

standard. In chemistry the absolute atomic weights of separate

elements is unknown to us. But we know them relatively when we know

their mutual conditions. And just as the production of commodities and

their economy has a relative expression for the unknown quantities of

labor existing in commodities, since it compares these commodities

according to the relative amounts of labor which they contain, so

chemistry makes a relative expression for the amounts of atomic

weights unknown to it, since it compares the separate elements

according to their atomic weights and expresses the weight of the one

as multiples or factors of the other. And just as the production of

commodities elevates gold to the position of an absolute commodity, to

the universal equivalent for other commodities, the measure of values,

so chemistry elevates hydrogen to the position of a chemical

gold-commodity, since it fixes the atomic weight of hydrogen at 1 and

reduces the atomic weights of all the other elements in terms of

hydrogen and expresses them as multiples of its atomic weight.

The production of commodities is by no means the exclusive form of

social production. In the ancient Indian communities and the family

communities of the Southern Slavs products were not transformed into

commodities. The members of the community were directly engaged in

social production, the work was distributed as custom and

circumstances required as were the products as they came into the

realm of consumption. Direct social production and direct social

consumption exclude all exchange of commodities and hence the

transformation of products into commodities (at least within the

confines of the society) and therewith their transformation into

value.

As soon as society comes into direct possession of the means of

production and undertakes production as a society, the labor of each,

however distinctive its special useful character may be, becomes

direct social labor. The amount of social labor existing in a product

does not then have to be established in a roundabout way, daily

experience shows the average amount of human labor necessary. Society

can easily determine how many hours of labor there are in a steam

engine, how many in a hectolitre of wheat of last harvest, how many in

a hundred square yards of cloth of a given quality. It cannot

therefore happen that the quantities of labor embodied in commodities,

which will then be absolutely and directly known, will be expressed in

terms of a measure which is only relative, fluctuating, inadequate and

absolute, in a third product, and not in their natural, adequate and

absolute measure, time. This would not happen any more than in

chemistry. One would express the atomic weights indirectly by means of

hydrogen if it were possible to express them absolutely in their

adequate measure, that is in real weight, that is in billions or

quadrillions of grammes. Under the foregoing conditions, then, society

ascribes no value to products. The simple fact that a hundred yards of

cloth have taken a thousand hours in their production need not be

expressed in any distorted or foolish fashion, they would be worth a

thousand labor hours. Society would then know how much labor each

object of use required for its creation. It would have to direct the

plan of production in accordance with the means of production to which

labor-force also belongs. The advantageous effects of the different

objects of use and their relations to each other and the creation of

the necessary means of labor would be the sole determinants of the

plan of production. People make things very easily without any

interference on the part of the much discussed "value."

The value idea is the most universal and the most comprehensive

expression of the economic conditions of the production of

commodities. In the idea of value there is not only the germ of gold

but also of those more highly developed forms of commodity production

and exchange. Since value is the expression of the social labor

incorporated in individual products, there lies the possibility of a

difference between this and the individual labor embodied in the same

product. This difference becomes very apparent to a private producer

who abides by an old fashioned method of production while the social

method of production has taken a step forward. It then appears that

the sum of all the private manufacturers of a given commodity produce

an amount in excess of the social needs. Then, since the value of a

commodity is expressed only in terms of other commodities and can only

be realised in exchange with them, the possibility arises that either

exchange will cease or that the commodity will not realise its full

value. Finally, the specific commodity labor-force finds its value

like that of other wares in the social labor time necessary for its

production. In the value form of the product there is already in

embryo the entire capitalistic form of production, the antagonism

between the capitalists and the wage-workers, the industrial reserve

army, the crisis. The capitalistic system will be abolished by the

restoration of true value (just as Catholicism will be abolished by

the restoration of the true Pope), or by the restoration of a society

in which the producer finally dominates his product, by the doing away

of an economic category which is the most comprehensive expression of

the slavery of the producer to his own product.

When the society producing commodities has developed the inherent

value form of the commodities, as such, to the gold-form, various

germs of value hitherto hidden thereupon begin to sprout. The next

substantial step is the generalising of commodity forms. Gold makes

objects directly produced for use into commodities by driving them

into exchange. Thereupon the commodity and the gold smite the

community which is engaged in social production, break one social tie

after another and finally dissolve the society into a mass of private

producers. Gold establishes, as in India, individual cultivation of

the land in the place of communal cultivation, then it destroys the

system of regular distribution of communal lands among individuals and

makes ownership final, and lastly it leads to the division of the

communal wood land. Whatever other causes arising from the industrial

development may work along with it, gold is always the most powerful

instrument for the destruction of the communal society.

_The State, the Family, and Education._

(Herr Duehring says "In the free society there will be no religion,

since, in all its degrees, it tends to destroy the originality of the

child, in that it places something above nature or behind it, which

may be affected by means of works or prayers" also "a properly

constituted socialist state will do away with all the paraphernalia of

spiritualistic magic, and all the actual forms of religion." Engels

proceeds--)

Religion will be forbidden. Now, religion is nothing but the fantastic

reflection in men's minds of the external forces which dominate their

every day existence, a reflection in which earthly forces take the

form of the super-natural. In the beginning of history it is the

forces of nature which first produce this reflection and in the course

of development of different peoples give rise to manifold and various

personification. This first process is capable of being traced, at

least as far as the Indo-European peoples are concerned, by

comparative mythology, to its source in the Indian Vedas and its

advance can be shown among the Indians, Greeks, Persian, Romans, and

Germans, and, as far as the material is available, also among the

Celts, Lithuanians, and Slavs. But, besides the forces of nature, the

social forces dominated men by their apparent necessity, for these

forces were, in reality, just as strange and unaccountable to men as

were the forces of nature. The imaginary forms in which, at first,

only the secret forces of nature were reflected, became possessed of

social attributes, became the representatives of historical forces. By

a still further development the natural and social attributes of a

number of gods were transformed to one all-powerful god, who is, on

his part, only the reflection of man in the abstract. So arose

monotheism, which was historically the latest product of the Greek

vulgar philosophy, and found its impersonation in the Hebrew

exclusively national god, Jahve. In this convenient, handy and

adaptible form religion can continue to exist as the direct, that is,

the emotional form of the relations of man to the dominating outside,

natural, and social forces, as long as man is under the power of these

forces. But we have seen over and over again in modern bourgeois

society that man is dominated by the conditions which he has himself

created and that he is controlled by the same means of production

which he himself has made. The fundamental facts which give rise to

the reflection by religion therefore still persist and with them the

reflection persists also. And just because bourgeois economy has a

certain insight into the relations of the original causes of this

phenomenon, it does not alter it a particle. Bourgeois economy can

neither prevent crises, on the whole, nor can it stop the greed of the

individual capitalists, their disgrace and bankruptcy, nor can it

prevent the individual laborers from suffering deprivation of

employment and poverty. Man proposes and God (to wit, the outside

force of the capitalistic method of production) disposes. Mere

knowledge even though it be broader and deeper than bourgeois

economics is of no avail to upset the social forces of the master of

society. That is fundamentally a social act. Let us suppose that this

act is accomplished and society in all its grades freed from the

slavery to the means of production which it has made but which now

dominate it as an outside force. Let us suppose that man no longer

merely proposes but that he also disposes. Under such conditions the

last vestiges of the external force which now dominates man are

destroyed, that force which is now reflected in religion. Therewith,

the religious reflection itself is destroyed owing to the simple fact

that there is nothing more to reflect.

But Herr Duehring cannot wait until religion dies a natural death. He

treats it after a radical fashion. He out Bismarcks Bismarck, he makes

severe "May laws" not only against Catholicism but against all

religion. He sets his gendarmes of the future on religion and thereby

gives it a longer lease of life by martyrdom. Wherever we look we find

that Duehring's socialism has the Prussian brand.

After Herr Duehring has blithely got rid of religion he says "Man can

now, since he is dependent upon himself and nature alone,

intelligently direct the social forces in every way which open to him

the course of things and his own existence." Let us look for a little

while at that course of things to which the self-reliant human can

give direction.

The first in the course of things by which man becomes self-reliant is

being born. Then during the time of his immaturity his education is in

the hands of his mother. "This period may, as in the old Roman law,

reach to the age of puberty, that is to about fourteen years of age."

Only where the older boys do not respect the authority of the mother

does the father's assistance play a part and the public method of

education robs this of all harm. With puberty the boy comes under the

natural care of his father, where this is exercised in a truly

fatherly manner, in other cases society takes charge of his education.

As Herr Duehring has already maintained the position that it is

possible to convert the capitalistic methods of production into social

methods without disturbing the mode of production itself, so he here

seems to think that one can separate the modern bourgeois family from

its entire economic foundations without any change in the whole form

of the family. This form is so permanent in his estimation that he

thinks of the old Roman jurisprudence, in an "improved" form, as the

model of the family for ever, and he does not conceive of the family

otherwise than as a permanent unit. The Utopists have the superiority

over Herr Duehring here. In their estimation a really free mutual

condition would arise in all the family relations as a result of the

free association and the public ownership of the instruments of

production together with the institution of a system of public

education. And Marx has shown furthermore in his "Capital" how "the

greater industry, which takes widows, young persons and children of

both sexes from the home, and employs them in organized social

productive processes, lays the foundation for a higher form of the

family and better conditions for people of both sexes."

LANDMARKS OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM

APPENDIX

The foregoing pages will have given the reader some idea of the

infinite care which Engels expended in order to keep abreast of the

chief scientific discoveries of his times. He was as painstaking as a

genius. On the other hand, his modesty was almost absurd, for he never

ventured to claim anything for himself, and such ability as was

displayed in the laying of the economic political foundations of the

socialist movement was invariably credited by him to the superior

talent and comprehension of Marx.

There is no question that the work constitutes a most effective reply

to the arguments of Duehring, with whom, poor fellow, we need no

longer trouble ourselves. It constitutes, moreover, a very formidable

answer to all those who seek for a justification of the socialist

movement in those abstract conceptions which the average man finds it

so hard to escape. In fact, so removed is the point of view of the

writer of the foregoing pages from that of the man in the street that

it is doubtful whether it is possible for more than a comparatively

few students thoroughly to grasp the significance of the dialectic and

to apply it in a satisfactory and effective fashion. Still, there is

no question that this understanding of the socialist movement, as a

movement, is absolutely required of all who can be considered as

taking an intelligent and useful attitude with regard to social and

political questions.

The possession of this key gave the two founders of the modern

socialist movement such a comprehension of the tendencies of modern

civilization as enabled them to make those economic and political

predictions which have been so completely fulfilled.

There is little need to call attention to the fact that much of

Engels' argument is now antiquated in face of the growth of science

and the almost incredible development of mechanical invention and the

material progress consequent upon it. It could not have been

otherwise. The wonders of Engels' day are the commonplaces of our

existence. The machines, which he considered so wonderful and so

change-compelling have already been "scrapped" for new machines of

greater power and capacity for production. The remark that the

battleship had in his time arrived at a point where it was as

expensive as it was unfit for fighting sounds almost ridiculous in

face of the tremendous development of the engines of naval warfare

since he wrote, and the invention and use of the submarine. Still it

must be remembered that there has been no really great test of ships

of war since Engels' day and that the expense of modern navies is

worrying the governments to distraction. Only a few weeks ago Lord

Charles Beresford refused to accept the command of the Channel

Squadron unless provided with an equipment the expense of which seemed

almost intolerable to Great Britain, wealthy as that country is and

dependent as she is on the maintenance of the sea power. Great armies

are still on the increase and the expense of their support combined

with the unsatisfactoriness of their performances is by no means

reassuring to those who have the responsibility for national military

organization. The Boer War proved the unreliability of the armed

forces of one power, at all events, and the performances of great

masses of trained men in the Russo-Japanese conflict have not inspired

any very great respect for the effectiveness of these colossal and

expensive fighting machines. Together with the breakdown of armies and

navies, as a material fact, there has grown up a strong prejudice

against their employment, and the anti-war attitude of the

international proletariat has been supplemented and strengthened by

the distinct growth of an international peace spirit in certain

sections of the middle class. So that in spite of superficial

appearances it does not seem to be so very unlikely that the action of

the dialectic will be manifest in the destruction of modern armaments,

at least as far as the greater nations are concerned, though there is

little doubt that military forces will still be maintained for the

purpose of bullying and overawing the smaller and weaker peoples.

Mention has already been made of the fact that Engels never really

divested himself of the old "forty-eight" spirit. The notion that a

revolution would break out somewhere in the near future finds a

curiously fixed, if unexpressed, lodgment in his mind. One cannot help

feeling that he expected things to mature earlier than they have done

and that he anticipated that changes in the mode of production and the

development of industry would have made a stronger impression upon the

mind of the proletarian than history shows to have been the case. This

latent, but still persistent, notion is in curious contrast to the

almost detached way in which, particularly in his later years, he

views the course of economic and political events. He never really in

fact divested his mind of the notion of the imminence of social

revolution, for in his 1892 preface to "The Condition of the Working

Class in England in 1844" he says, "I have taken care not to strike

out of the text the many prophecies, amongst others that of an

imminent social revolution in England, which my youthful ardor induced

me to venture upon." His youthful ardor seems never to have really

abated in that respect. The dreams of boyhood seem to have haunted him

and the old fighter stirred uneasily in his study chair at the echoes

of past conflicts in which he also heard the bugles of the coming

fight. To those who have watched the development of Engels' thought,

as shown in his works, this philosophic, unemotional way of looking at

things proves the effect of experience and age upon the fighter. He

started with a heart inflamed with the wrongs of the suffering, as the

damning pages of the work above cited show; he ends with a calm and

dispassionate enquiry (apart from what he considered to be the

exigencies of controversy) into the fundamental causes of economic and

social progress. The burning enthusiasm and white-hot indignation had

died down in him ere he reached the stage of the Duehring controversy.

He finds that although not everything that is real is reasonable, to

use the phrase against which he has fulminated in "Feuerbach,"

nevertheless every step in human progress has been an essential step

and it is impossible to hurry things. To the proletarian he looks of

course as the next great actor in the drama of social development. But

the proletarian, while his destiny is indubitable, is still not a

being apart from existing conditions. He exists in the conditions, is

in fact part of the conditions, and, while at war with them, takes on

the color of his surroundings. The facts of life have driven him to

an unconscious rejection of old faiths and old philosophies but they

have not forced him to take up the sword against the actual realities

of modern life, to which he appears, in fact, to submit himself with a

humility which is at least provoking to the eager and enthusiastic

revolutionist.

What wonders of economic organization, what triumphs in mechanical

production have been achieved since Engels gave the last revision to

this book in 1894 we in the United States at least have cause to know.

The entire structure of production has been modified from top to

bottom, the old individual doctrine has fallen victim to its

dialectic, and concentrated industry and collective capital now rise

supreme over the ruins of that individualism which gave them birth and

to which they owe their existence. In the name of the individual the

individual is denied. The courts hand down decisions in the name of

individual liberty which have for their result the dethroning and

extermination of the individual. The conglomeration of individual

states which was considered the very foundation of the American

government, and the outward and visible sign of collective sovereignty

is already in its death throes. The dialectic of the United States is

in course of development and there comes about in consequence the

birth of the United Imperial Republic, a republic which is so only in

name, which is, in fact, as little of a republic as were those

oligarchies of the Middle Ages whose very existence defamed the name

of republic. The old things have passed away, all things have become

new.

Still there is one factor which has not really appreciably changed,

one factor which is always confronted by the same necessity, the

necessity of maintaining its existence. This factor is the working

class. The dialectic is at work with the working class also, and that

which according to the individualistic notion consisted of isolated

units seeking their daily bread in meek conformity with the laws of

contract and property will disappear into that great collective

organized body of labor which spurns the theories of contract and

thereby makes itself no longer subject but master.

AUSTIN LEWIS.

* * * * *

+-----------------------------------------------------------+

| Typographical errors corrected in the text: |

| |

| Page 40: socalled replaced with so-called |

| Page 85: "each single each single" replaced with |

| "each single" |

| Page 89: "self contained" replaced with "self-contained" |

| Page 102: "any any" replaced with "any" |

| Page 126: Boyles replaced with Boyle's |

| Page 128: prevailng replaced with prevailing |

| Page 134: stpuid replaced with stupid |

| Page 140: excepiton replaced with exception |

| Page 154: inaccurrate replaced with inaccurate |

| Page 171: "serve it is a midwife" replaced with |

| "serve it as a midwife" |

| Page 173: "a grain or barley" replaced with |

| "a grain of barley" |

| Page 175: discusion replaced with discussion |

| Page 181: unberable replaced with unbearable |

| Page 186: framers replaced with farmers |

| Page 192: "so so splendidly" replaced with |

| "so splendidly" |

| Page 192: bourgeoise replaced with bourgeoisie |

| Page 193: maunfacture replaced with manufacture |

| Page 194: inventivness replaced with inventiveness |

| Page 205: "these peasant" replaced with "these peasants" |

| Page 217: impossiblity replaced with impossibility |

| Page 219: devolpment replaced with development |

| Page 231: "on the first place" replaced with |

| "in the first place" |

| Page 233: entrepeneurs replaced with entrepreneurs |

| Page 250: communties replaced with communities |

| Page 251: horeshoes replaced with horseshoes |

| Page 257: himsel replaced with himself |

| Page 265: develment replaced with development |

| |

+-----------------------------------------------------------+