In this chapter, Engels expands on the argument that force itself is a function of economic relations and production.
Also known as “The General”, because of his knowledge of military tactics and strategy, Engels draws on that knowledge to dismantle Duhring's argument. He begins, again, with Duhring's Robinson Crusoe example, in which he had spoken of Crusoe subjugating Friday “sword in hand”. But, where had this sword appeared from? Duhring simply assumes it into existence, thereby, removing all need to consider production or economic relations. Twenty years ago, I debated online with a number of Austrian School proponents whose approach, like that of neoclassical economists is the same. They seek to show that value and exchange-value/market price are the same thing, and that this value is subjective, determined by utility. In Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 20, Marx destroys this argument, first put forward by Samuel Bailey, decades before the emergence of the neoclassical school.
So, in one of these debates, my interlocutor posed the question, if you had a comb, and I had a razor, whilst you wanted the razor and I wanted the comb, would you exchange your comb for my razor. In other words, this is a version of the water-diamond paradox that I have dealt with elsewhere. So, I, of course, asked the question where did the comb come from, and where did the razor come from? The answer given to this inconvenient question, as with Duhring and the sword, was that they were “found behind the barn”! In other words, the question of production, and, thereby, of value, was swerved around.
As I pointed out to my interlocutor, if all commodities could be simply “found behind the barn”, they become free goods, with no value, no matter how much use-value/utility they might possess. The air we breathe has the greatest utility, but no value, because we discover it, not “behind the barn”, but each time we breathe. It require no labour for its production. It is a free gift of nature. If I could find one comb behind the barn, as an assumption, then, I can assume another 10, 100, or 1 million, so that determining an exchange rate for them against razors becomes meaningless. Indeed, I could assume that another look behind the barn provided a similar supply of razors, and anything else I might require!
Engels makes the same point against Duhring, noting that if it can be assumed that Robinson just discovers a sword, it can be assumed that Friday discovers a revolver, and so the force relation is reversed. Of course, it might be argued that Robinson was simply stronger, fitter and a more skilled fighter than Friday, without the need to resort to weapons, but the characteristics of strength and fitness are, themselves, functions of production, the ability to have had adequate nutrition and so on.
Moreover, if we move away from the fictional world of Robinson Crusoe, in the real world, we have collections of individuals living in tribes, clans and families. Taken over these collectives, the individual characteristics of strength, fitness and so on are averaged out so that there would be no such advantage of one group over another, other than where other factors were involved, for example, the better nutrition of one group, or its ability to have produced weapons, or better weapons. Again, that would mean that force was determined by productive and economic relations, not vice versa.
If we look within any such collective, we find that the rulers/exploiters form a small minority, and so any natural ability they might possess would be outweighed by the greater numbers confronting them. So, again, no explanation resting on force stands up for their initial subordination of the majority. That a ruling-class, having become ruling-class, is able to utilise that position, and the consequent inequality of distribution, to be able to acquire superior force, so as to maintain itself in power, is, of course, true. Not least of which is the armed power of the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment