Jim Devine wrote:
Ted Winslow wrote:
This and the rest of the text confirm the interpretive hypothesis
that Marx's [sic -- the passage is not from Marx] account of
historical development appropriates Hegel's idea of the
"passions." Marx makes the "passion" invoked here - avarice as
"the thirst for gold" - a defining characteristic of the
"character mask" of capitalist relations in their initial
historical form at the point of transition from feudalism to
capitalism.<
I think the passage from Engels reflects the fact that he and Marx
learned their economic history at first from Hegel. They "turned old
GWF on his head," to emphasize material forces, but the basic content
came from Hegel. Later, they studied matters much more. For example,
Engels and Marx's theory of the rise of capitalism in the GERMAN
IDEOLOGY is quite different from that of Marx's CAPITAL. They
continued to study economic history after that, as with Marx's studies
of Russian or Engels' study of Morgan's anthropology. Like any
intelligent people, they changed their minds on various matters.
A text by Engels (usually not thought of as the more Hegelian of the
two) confirms an interpretive hypothesis about Marx by employing the
same Hegelian ontological and anthropological (in the philosophic
sense) assumptions as does Marx. That Marx employs them is
demonstrated by a great deal of textual evidence drawn from his late
as well as early writings (much of which I've reproduced on this list
over the years).
Here, for instance, is Marx in the Manifesto drawing the same
contrast between the "feudal" and the "bourgois" "passions" as does
Engels in this text.
"The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal
display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much
admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence.
It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It
has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman
aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that
put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades."
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
ch01.htm>
Here he is, in a Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy,
describing the capitalist "passion for enrichment" as "essentially
auri sacra fames."
"Money is not just an object of the passion for enrichment, it is the
object of it. This urge is essentially auri sacra fames."
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm>
Here he is, in Capital, contrasting the early capitalist "passions"
with the late and contrasting both with feudal "prodigality."
"As capitalist production, accumulation, and wealth, become
developed, the capitalist ceases to be the mere incarnation of
capital. He has a fellow-feeling for his own Adam, and his education
gradually enables him to smile at the rage for asceticism, as a mere
prejudice of the old-fashioned miser. While the capitalist of the
classical type brands individual consumption as a sin against his
function, and as “abstinence” from accumulating, the modernised
capitalist is capable of looking upon accumulation as “abstinence”
from pleasure.
'Two souls, alas, do dwell with in his breast;
The one is ever parting from the other.'
“At the historical dawn of capitalist production, - and every
capitalist upstart has personally to go through this historical stage
– avarice, and desire to get rich, are the ruling passions. But the
progress of capitalist production not only creates a world of
delights; it lays open, in speculation and the credit system, a
thousand sources of sudden enrichment. When a certain stage of
development has been reached, a conventional degree of prodigality,
which is also an exhibition of wealth, and consequently a source of
credit, becomes a business necessity to the ‘unfortunate’
capitalist. Luxury enters into capital's expenses of
representation. Moreover, the capitalist gets rich, not like the
miser, in proportion to his personal labour and restricted
consumption, but at the same rate as he squeezes out the labour-power
of others, and enforces on the labourer abstinence from all life's
enjoyments. Although, therefore, the prodigality of the capitalist
never possesses the bonâ-fide character of the open-handed feudal
lord's prodigality, but, on the contrary, has always lurking behind
it the most sordid avarice and the most anxious calculation, yet his
expenditure grows with his accumulation, without the one necessarily
restricting the other. But along with this growth, there is at the
same time developed in his breast, a Faustian conflict between the
passion for accumulation, and the desire for enjoyment.“
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm>
As in Hegel, these "passions" work without conscious intention on the
part of those motivated by them to facilitate the development of
"freedom," the "development of the human mind" expressed as "the
development of the productive powers of society." So motivated , the
capitalist creates the "material conditions" required for the
actualization of fully free "self-determination" in a "true realm of
freedom."
"Fanatically bent on making value expand itself, he ruthlessly forces
the human race to produce for production’s sake; he thus forces the
development of the productive powers of society, and creates those
material conditions, which alone can form the real basis of a higher
form of society, a society in which the full and free development of
every individual forms the ruling principle."
The way in which "seafaring" facilitates the "development of the
human mind" is indicated in the Hegel passage on the sea. This
points to features found in Hegel's elaboration of the idea of an
"educated man," an idea appropriated in Marx's idea of the
"universally developed individual."
As I've previously pointed out, Marx's notes on anthropology (in the
usual sense) confirm these interpretive claims.
Ted
