Duhring, however, bases a lot of his further argument on these two equal members of society, which Engels says, plays a similar role to that of the inhabitants of other planets, used by Duhring. In other words, what can be applied to them must, then, be applicable universally and eternally.
“Whenever a question of economics, politics etc., is to be solved, the two men instantly march up and settle the matter in the twinkling of an eye “axiomatically”. An excellent, creative and system-building discovery on the part of our philosopher of reality. But unfortunately, if we want to pay homage to truth, the two men are not his discovery. They are the common property of the whole eighteenth century.” (p 123)
They are to be found in Rousseau's Discours On Inequality (1754), and in the writing of Smith and Ricardo. In fact, Engels notes, for Rousseau, they prove the opposite of what Duhring asserts, and, for Smith and Ricardo, they are unequal in the sense of pursuing different occupations, as the basis of the exchange of commodities between them. For these theorists of the 18th century, however, such individuals serve merely an illustrative purpose to provide a simplified example of a basic concept.
“... Herr Dühring’s originality consists only in elevating this method of illustration into a basic method for all social science and a yardstick for all historical forms. Certainly it would be impossible to simplify the “strictly scientific conception of things and men any further”.” (p 123)
Rather, as with the abstractions previously discussed, such as the “point” in space and time, these Duhringian individuals cannot exist in the real world.
“They must be two people who are so thoroughly free from all reality, from all the national, economic, political and religious relations present in the world, from all sexual and personal characteristics, that nothing is left of either of them beyond the mere concept: human being, and then of course they are “completely equal”.” (p 123-4)
As other-worldly phantoms, these pure abstractions can serve whatever function Duhring, or anyone else, using this method, seeks to place upon them.
Its worth explaining the terms used in Duhring's argument, and Engels' response, to avoid confusion. Duhring posits these two individuals (men), each with an equal will. By will, here, is really meant an abstract right, so that, if both are equal, neither can demand anything of the other. It does not mean that one is strong-willed and the other weak-willed. Will could be replaced, in this context, by “desire”. This is important, here, and for Duhring's argument later, in which he explains the history of society, and the existence of inequality, injustice, exploitation and oppression on the basis of force. In other words, it is, again, a moralistic argument, reliant on subjectivism.
“The two wills can demand positively nothing from each other. Nevertheless, if one of them does so and has its way by force, this gives rise to a state of injustice; and it is by this fundamental scheme that Herr Dühring explains injustice, tyranny, servitude — in short, the whole reprehensible history of the past.” (p 124)
Engels notes that Rousseau had disproved this argument. Rousseau's argument is also used by liberals and libertarians, who claim that the world basically divides into those who are naturally entrepreneurial, willing to take risks etc., and those who are not. The former become employers, and the latter employed. Of course, this fails to account for the fact that, for millennia, there were no such employers nor employed, and that, under feudalism, that was also true, with the vast majority being self-sustaining peasants.
Rousseau argued that A cannot enslave B by force, but only by making himself indispensable to B. This is also the foundation of the argument put forward by liberals, in which the employers (capital) is indispensable to the employed (labour), because, without the employer providing capital (means of production and consumption) the workers cannot work. Of course, again, this does not explain why, then, for millennia, there were no such employer, and, indeed, no capital, and yet society continued along just fine without them, and proceeded not only to produce and increase its means of consumption, but also to increase and develop its means of production too. It does not explain how this situation, then, ceases to exist, and these means of production and consumption become centralised in the hands of just a few individuals. Duhring's answer to this is force, and this moralistic and subjectivist argument is echoed in the arguments of moralists down to today.
“Let us put the same thing in a slightly different way. Two shipwrecked people are alone on an island, and form a society. Formally, their wills are completely equal, and this is acknowledged by both. But from a material standpoint there is great inequality. A has determination and energy, B is irresolute, lazy and flabby. A is quick-witted, B stupid. How long will it be before A regularly imposes his will on B, first by persuasion, later by dint of habit, but always in a voluntary form?” (p 124)
No comments:
Post a Comment