[42] I confess that I have never been able to _understand_--however much I have considered the matter--the meaning of this pa.s.sage (which ought however to be very evident, since it is quoted so often without any comment), in the preface to the second edition of _Das Kapital_: 'Meine dialektische Methode ist der Grundlage nach von der Hegel'schen nicht nur verschieden, sondern ihr direktes Gegentheil. Fur Hegel is _der Denkprocess_, den er sogar unter dem Namen _Idee_ in ein selbstandiger subjeckt verwandelt, der Demjurg des Wirklichen, das nur seine aussere Erscheinung bildet. Bei mir ist umgekehrt _das Ideelle_ nichts Andres als das im Menschenkopf umgesetzte und ubersetzte Materielle.' (_Das Kapital_ I, p. xvii.) Now it seems to me that the _Ideelle_ of the last phrase has _no relation_ to the _Denkprocess_ and to the Hegelian _Idea_ of the preceding phrase, _cf._ above pp.

17. Some have thought that by the objections there stated, I intended to deny Marx's Hegelian _inspiration_. It is well to repeat that I merely deny the _logical relation_ affirmed between the two philosophical theories. To deny Marx's Hegelian inspiration would be to contradict the evidence.

[43] Answers to several of the questions suggested above are now supplied in the book already referred to, by GENTILE: _La Filosofia di Marx_.

[44] _Antiduhring_, pt. I. ch. xlii., especially pp. 138-145, which pa.s.sage is translated into Italian in the appendix to the book by Labriola referred to above: _Discorrendo di socialismo e di filosophia_, _cf._ _Das Kapital_, I. p. xvii, 'Gelingt dies und spiegelt sich nun das Leben des stoffs ideell wieder, _so mag es aussehen_, als habe man es mit einer Konstruction a priori zu thun.'

[45] LANGE, indeed, in reference to Marx's _Das Kapital_, remarked that the Hegelian dialectic, 'the development by ant.i.thesis and synthesis, might almost be called an _anthropological discovery_. Only in history, as in the life of the individual, development by ant.i.thesis _certainly does not accomplish itself so easily and radically, nor with so much precision and symmetry as in speculative thought_.' (_Die Arbeiterfrage_, pp. 248-9.)

[46] With regard to the _abstract_ cla.s.ses of Marxian economics and the _real_ or _historical_ cla.s.ses, see some remarks by SOREL in the article referred to in the _Journal des Economistes_, p. 229.

[47] G. GENTILE, _o.c._ in _Studi storici_, p. 421. _cf._ 400-401.

[48] Labriola has indeed an exaggerated dislike for what he calls the _scholastic_: but even this exaggeration will not appear wholly unsuitable as a reaction against the method of study which usually prevails among the mere men of letters, the n.i.g.g.ardly scholars, the empty talkers and jugglers with abstract thought, and all those who lose their sense of close connection between science and life.

[49] _Discorrendo di socialismo e di filosophia_, l. ix.

[50] _In torno alla storia della cultura_ (Kulturgeschichtein _Atti_ dell Accad. Pont.; vol. xxv. 1895, p. 8.)

[51] 'If by Christianity is meant merely the sum of the beliefs and expectations concerning human destiny, these beliefs'--writes Labriola--'vary as much, in truth, as in the difference, to mention only one instance, between the free will of the Catholics after the Council of Trent, and the absolute determination of Calvin!' (_L.c._ ix.)

[52] Without referring to the somewhat unmethodical work of Westermarck, _History cf Human Marriage_, see especially Ernst Grosse's book, _Die Formen der Familie und die Formen der Wirthschaft_, Freiburg in B., 1896.

[53] This connection is shortly but carefully dealt with by INGRAM, _History of Political Economy_, Edinburgh, A. & C. Black, 1888, p. 62.

[54] See, amongst many pa.s.sages, MARX, _Misere de la philosophie_, p.

167, _et seq._ ENGELS, _Antiduhring_, p. 1, _et seq._

[55] On the hedonistic maxima, _cf._ Bertolini-Pantaleoni, _Cenni sul concetto di ma.s.simi edonistici individuali e collectivi_ (_in Giorn, degli Econ._, s II vol. iv.) and Coletti, in the same _Giornale_, vol.

v.

[56] In regard to this metaphysical use of the word science; there even exists in Italy a _Rivista di polizia scientifica_! And the metaphor may pa.s.s here also.

[57] _Cours d'economie politique_, Lausanne, 1896-7.

[58] _Cf._ also his criticism of Marx already referred to: p. xviii.

[59] Sauf l'Angleterre, ou regne le libre echange _princ.i.p.alement parcequ'il est favourable aux interets de certains entrepreneurs_, le reste des pays civilises verse de plus en plus dans le protectionnisme (--. 964.)

[60] See the _Giornale degli economisti_, excellent in all its critical sections; and especially Pareto's _chronicles_ therein.

[61] It may be remarked that in the difficulty of distinguishing the purely scientific from the practical lies the chief cause of the dangers and poverty of the social and political sciences. And we may even smile at those scientists or their ingenious admirers, who claim to accomplish the salvation of the social and political sciences, by applying to them the methods, as they say, of the natural sciences.

(An Italian astronomer, ingenuous as clever, has suggested the formation of sociological observatories which, in a few years would make sociology something like astronomy!) Alas! the matter is not so simple; all sociologists intend indeed to apply exact methods; but how can this application succeed when one advances _per ignes_ or over ground which moves; _d'una e d'altra parte s come l'onda chefugge e s'appressa_? (From both sides like the wave which ebbs and flows.)

[62] See the preface of the German translation of _Misere de la philosophie_, 2nd ed. Stuttgart, 1892, and now also in French in the reprint of the original text of the same work (Paris, Giard et Briere, 1896.)

[63] The word _communism_ is also more appropriate, since there are so many _socialisms_ (democratic state, catholic, etc.). On the relation between the materialistic theory of history and socialism, see GENTILE, _op. cit._, _pa.s.sim_.

[64] _Pantagruel_, III, 39-43.

[65] The absurdity of this interpretation will come out clearly if it is merely remembered that there are many cases in which the capitalist manufacturer pays for the labour of his workman, _a price higher than what he then realises on the market_; cases, it is true, where the capitalist is proceeding towards ruin and bankruptcy; but which he cannot, on this account, always avoid. 'Marx part des recherches faites par cette ecole Anglaise, dont il avait fait une etude approfondie; et il veut _expliquer le profit sans admettre aucun brigandage_.' (SOREL, _art. cit._, p. 227.)

[66] See in _Antiduhring_, p. 303, the historical justification of cla.s.s divisions.

[67] From among the many pa.s.sages which support this interpretation, _cf. Antiduhring_, pp. 152-3, 206 and especially pp. 61-2, and the preface to the German translation of _Misere de la Philosophie_, 2nd ed. Stuttgart, 1892 pp. ix-x, _cf._ also Labriola, _o.c._ _Lett.

VIII._

[68] See LABRIOLA, _o.c. l. cit._, the remarks on the difficulty with which the theory of historical materialism meets owing to mental dispositions, and amongst those who wish _to moralise socialism_.

One instance, in some respects a.n.a.logous to this which arises from the discussions on Marx's ethics, is the traditional criticism of Machiavelli's ethics: which was refuted by De Sanctis (in the remarkable chapter devoted to Machiavelli, in his _Storia della letteratura_), but which continually recurs and is inserted even in Professor Villari's book, who finds this defect in Machiavelli: that he did not consider the _moral question_.

I have always asked myself for what reason, by what obligation, by what agreement, Machiavelli was bound to discuss all kinds of questions, even those for which he had neither preparation nor sympathy. Can it be said, by way of example, to some one who is researching in chemistry:--Your weak and erroneous spot is that you have not gone back from your detailed investigations to the general metaphysical enquiries into the principles of reality?--Machiavelli starts from the establishment of a fact: the condition of war in which society found itself; and gives rules suited to this state of affairs.

Why should he, who was not cut out for a moral philosopher, discuss the ethics of war? He goes straight to practical conclusions. Men are wicked--he says--and to the wicked it is needful to behave wickedly.

You will deceive him who would certainly deceive you. You will do violence to him who would do violence to you. These maxims are neither moral nor immoral, neither beneficial nor harmful; they become one of the two according to the subjective aims and the objective effects of the action, _i.e._ according to the _intentions_ and the _results_.

What is evident is that a morality which desired to introduce into war the maxims of peace would be a morality for lambs fit for the slaughter, not for men who wish to repel injustice and to maintain their rights. 'And if men were all good, this precept would not be good, etc., etc.' says Machiavelli himself. (_Principe_, ch. xviii).

Villari is also troubled by the old formula concerning the 'end which justifies the means' and the 'moral end' and the 'immoral means'. It is however sufficient to consider that the _means_, just because they are _means_, cannot be divided into _moral_ and _immoral_, but merely into _suitable_ and _unsuitable_. _Immoral means_, unless as an expression in current speech, is a contradiction in terms. The qualification moral or immoral can only belong to the end. And, in the examples usually given, an a.n.a.lysis made with a little accuracy shows at once, that it is never a question of immoral _means_ but of immoral ends. The height of the confusion is reached by those who introduce into the question the absurd distinction of _private_ and _public_ morality.

I may be pardoned the digression; but, as I said, questions which are really a.n.a.logous re-appear now in connection with the ethical maxims of Marxism.

[69] And it would be to the point to draw a comparison between the peasants' rebellions, with which modern Italy has supplied us with another example in recent years, and the political struggles of the German workmen, or the economic struggles of the Trade Unions in England.

[70] See in particular P.I. ch. ix., _Moral und Recht, Ewige Wahrheiten_.

[71] See, in particular, MARX'S ideas: _Ueber Feuerbach_, in 1845, in the appendix to Engels' book, _Ludwig Feuerbach und der Ausgang der Kla.s.sischen deutschen Philosophie_, 2nd ed. Stuttgart, 1895, pp.

59-62; and _cf._ ANDLER in _Revue de metaphysique_, 1897, LABRIOLA, _o.c. pa.s.sim_ and GENTILE, _l.c._, p. 319. From this point of view (_i.e._ limiting the statement to the theory of knowledge) we might speak like Labriola of historical materialism as a philosophy of practice, _i.e._ as a particular way of conceiving and solving, or rather of over-coming, the problem of thought and of existence. The philosophy of practice has now been designedly studied by Gentile in the volume referred to.

[72] Some interpretations would be merely verbal explanations. To some it will appear a very hard statement that socialism aims at abolishing the State. Yet it suffices to consider that the State, among socialists, is synonymous with difference of cla.s.ses and the existence of governing cla.s.ses, to understand that as in such a case, we can speak of the _origin_ of the State, so we can speak of its _end_; which does not mean the end of organised society (_cf. Antiduhring_, p. 302). The conception of _the way in which capitalist society will come to an end_ demands no little critical working out; on this point the thought of Marx and Engels is not without obscurities and inconsistencies (_cf. Antiduhring_, pp. 287 _et seq._ and p. 297).

[73] See CH. ANDLER, _Les origines du socialisme d'etat en Allemagne_, Paris, Alcan, 1897. Andler promises a book, and is now giving a course of lectures on the _decomposition of Marxism_.

_CHAPTER IV._ RECENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MARXIAN THEORY OF VALUE AND CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING THEM

I

_Labriola's criticism of method and conclusions of preceeding essays answered: His criticism merely destructive: Tendency of ether thinkers to arrive at like conclusions._

I have always discussed frankly the views expressed in the writings of my eminent friend Professor Antonio Labriola. I am therefore glad that he has taken the same liberty with me, and has subjected to a vigorous criticism (in the French edition of his book on _Socialismo e la filosofia_),[74] my interpretation of the Marxian theory of value.[75]

Labriola has been impelled to this also from a wish to prevent my opinions from appearing, 'to the reader's eyes,' as a supplement, approved by him, of his own personal ones. And though I do not think that 'to the reader's eyes' (I will however add _intelligent_ readers), this would be possible, since, I have always carefully indicated the points, and they are neither few nor unimportant, where we disagree: yet being convinced that clearness is never superfluous, I welcome his intention to make it still plainer that I am not he, and that he thinks with his mind whilst I think with mine.

Labriola rejects entirely the method adopted by me, which he describes variously as _scholastic_, _metaphysical_, _metaphorical_, _abstract_, _formal logic_. When I take pains to point out the differences between _h.o.m.o oeconomicus_ and man, moral or immoral, between personal interest and egoism,[76] he shrugs his shoulders, he does not refuse a certain indulgence to this _traditional scholasticism_, and compares me to the man in the street who speaks of the rising or setting of the sun, or of _shining light_ and _warm heat_. When I firmly maintain the theoretical necessity for a _general economics_ in addition to the heterogeneous considerations of sociological economics, he taxes me with creating, _in addition to all the visible and tangible animals, an animal as such_. And he charges me, moreover, with wishing to attack history, comparative philology and physiology in order to subst.i.tute for all these the plain _Logic_ of Port Royal, so that instead of studying examples of epigenesis which have actually occurred, such as the transitions from invertebrates to vertebrates, from primitive communism to private property in land, from undifferentiated roots to the systematic differentiation of nouns and verbs in the Ariosemitic group, it might suffice to register these facts in concepts pa.s.sing from the more general to the more particular, in the series A a^1 a^2 a^3 etc.

But I hardly know how to defend myself seriously from such accusations, because it obliges me to repeat what is too obvious, _i.e._, that to make concepts does not mean to _create ent.i.ties_; that to employ metaphors (and language is all metaphor), does not mean to _believe mythology_; that to construct experiences in thought, and scientific abstractions, does not mean to subst.i.tute either one or the other for _concrete reality_; that to make use, when needful, of formal logic, does not mean to ignore _fact_, _growth_, _history_.

When Marx expounds historical facts I know no way of approaching him except that of historical criticism, and when he defines concepts and formulates laws, I can only proceed to recognise the content of his concepts, and to test the correctness of his inferences and deductions. Thus I have followed this second method in studying his theory of value. If Labriola knows another and better one, let him state it. But what could this _other_ one possibly be? Real logic? In that case let us boldly re-establish Hegel, it will be the lesser evil, at least we shall understand one another. Or a still worse alternative, what monstrous empirical-dialectic or evolutionist method may it be, which confuses together and abuses two distinct procedures, and lends itself so readily to the lovers of prophecy? Or is it merely a question of new phraseology by which we shall go on humbly working, more or less well, with the old methods, whilst detesting the old words? Or again, is this dislike for formal logic nothing but a convenient pretext for dispensing with any vindication of the concepts which are employed?

Marx has stated his concept of _value_; has expounded a process of transformation of _value_ into _price_; has reconstructed the nature of profit as _surplus value_. For me the whole problem of Marxian criticism is confined within these limits:--Is Marx's conception substantially erroneous (entirely, owing to false premisses, and partially, owing to false deductions)? or, is Marx's conception substantially correct, but has it been subsumed under a category to which it does not belong, and has search been made in it for what it cannot supply, whilst what it actually offers has been ignored? Having come to this second conclusion I have asked myself: Under what conditions and a.s.sumptions is Marx's theory _thinkable_? And this question I have tried to answer in my essay.