We present the second part of this classic text of Friedrich Engels, unpublished until now on the Internet. This version is based on the translation of Wenceslao Roces, 1962. Ed Grijalbo. Spain
helpful to consider the test as pre-reading for anyone who starts reading Karl Marx's Capital, or to whom he begins training in revolutionary politics.
By Friedrich Engels
The eighteenth century, the century of revolution, also revolutionized Economy. But like all revolutions of this century unilateral sinned and were mired in contradictions such as the abstract spiritual * abstract materialism opposed to the monarchy to republic and the divine right of the social contract, we see no revolution economic might overcome the contradiction in question. The premises continued to walk everywhere, the materialism attacked the Christians scorn and humiliation of the man and simply oppose the man instead of the Christian God as absolute nature, politics is not even thought of entering research the basis on which rested the state in and of itself; and meanwhile, the economy is not passed through the lie stand to ask about the rationale of private property. Hence the new economy did not represent more than half a new development, could be seen bound to betray their own premises and deny them to resort to sophistry and hypocrisy to cover up the contradictions under which he wrapped and reach conclusions pushed the human spirit of the century that the premise that she was leaving. This caused the economy to adopt a philanthropic, withdrew his favor to the producers way to becoming consumers, apparently a holy aversion to the bloody horrors of the mercantile system and proclaimed the trade as a bond of friendship and harmony among nations and individuals. All appeared wrapped in beautiful colors, but the premises, which were still standing, soon prevail again and gave birth, in contrast with this splendid philanthropy, the Malthusian theory of population, the most brutal and barbarous that ever existed, a system based on the desperation that came to knock down all those speeches about love for humanity and cosmopolitanism, bred and brought up the factory system and modern slavery, which has nothing to envy to the former in terms cruelty and inhumanity. The new economy, the system of free trade based on Whealt of Nations, Adam Smith *, reveals the same traits of hypocrisy, inconsistency and immorality that they currently face in all fields of free human meaning.
Does this mean that the system of Adam Smith does not represent progress? No doubt represented him, and progress, as well as necessary. It was necessary, in effect, that the market system, with their monopolies and trade barriers are coming to land, that may prove with all their might the true implications of private property was necessary to pass the background all the little local and national considerations, so that the struggle of our time charged was widespread and a more humane, it was necessary that the theory of private property to abandon the purely empirical path, which was limited to investigate objectively, and assume a more scientific, were that he should also responsible for the consequences, thus leading the problem to a more general field human immorality contained in the old economy will see taken to its apex by the attempt to deny it, as if that would make her disappear, and the resulting hypocrisy corollary of such an attempt. This was implicit in the nature of the thing. Freely admit that only the foundations and practice free trade has put us in position to go back over the economy based on private property, but we also have the right to bring this freedom reduced to any invalid theory and practice.
And our view must be, by force, the harder the more they belong to the present day economists who we will prosecute. While Smith and Malthus were only found with loose fragments, later economists were already before the entire finished system, were in sight all the consequences, they were well pointed out the contradictions, despite which they were unable to enter analyze the premises, yet responsible for making the whole system. The closer you get economists to the present time, most are moving away from the principles of honesty. As time progresses, necessarily increase the sophistry aimed at keeping the economy at the height of the era. This makes Ricardo, for example, is more guilty than Adam Smith and Mac Culloch and Mill, more guilty than Ricardo.
Modern Economy can not even accurately judge the market system, because she herself is guilty of unilateral and is still steeped in the premise of it. And just be able to assign to each place that corresponds to the point of view that overlaps the contradiction between the two systems, critical of the assumptions common to each other and that part of a general basis and purely human. Advocates of free trade are, as will be shown, worse than the same old monopolistic mercantilist. And also it will show that under the false humanitarianism of modern lies a savagery of the ancients had no idea, that the conceptual confusion of these showed a certain simplicity and consistency, when compared with the logic of their ambiguity detractors, and that neither party can take on anything the other side do not have to incriminate herself.
* Wealth of Nations
Written in late 1843 and in January 1844
First published in the Deutsch-Französische Jarbücher, Paris, 1844.
continued ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment