“They“(taxesonconsumption)“mustbeveryheavytaxes，indeed，andveryinjudiciouslylevied，whichtheartisanwillnot，ofhimself，beenabledtopay，bysuperiorindustryandfrugality，withoutraisingthepriceofhislabour。”
ItisalmostasifRobertWalpolehimselfwerespeaking，especiallyifwealsotakeintoconsiderationthepassageintheessayon“publiccredit“
inwhich，referringtothedifficultyoftaxingthestate’screditors，thefollowingissaid:
“Thediminutionoftheirrevenuewouldnotbedisguisedundertheappearanceofabranchofexciseorcustoms。”
AsmighthavebeenexpectedofaScotchman，Hume’sadmirationofbourgeoisacquisitivenesswasbynomeanspurelyplatonic。Startingasapoorman，heworkedhimselfuptoaverysubstantialannualincomeofmanythousandsofpounds;whichHerrDühring(asheisherenotdealingwithPetty)
tactfullyexpressesinthisway:
“Possessedofverysmallmeanstostartwithhesucceeded，bygooddomesticeconomy，inreachingthepositionofnothavingtowritetopleaseanyone“{134}。
HerrDühringfurthersays:
“Hehadnevermadetheslightestconcessiontotheinfluenceofparties，princesoruniversities“{134}。
ThereisnoevidencethatHumeeverenteredintoaliterarypartnershipwitha“Wagener“，[98]butitiswellknownthathewasanindefatigablepartisanoftheWhigoligarchy，whichthoughthighlyof“Churchandstate“，andthatinrewardfortheseserviceshewasgivenfirstasecretaryshipintheEmbassyinParisandsubsequentlytheincomparablymoreimportantandbetter-paidpostofanUnder-SecretaryofState。
“InpoliticsHumewasandalwaysremainedconservativeandstronglymonarchistinhisviews。ForthisreasonhewasneversobitterlydenouncedforheresyasGibbonbythesupportersoftheestablishedchurch。”
saysoldSchlosser。
“ThisselfishHume，thislyinghistorian“reproachestheEnglishmonkswithbeingfat，havingneitherwifenorfamilyandlivingbybegging;“buthehimselfneverhadafamilyorawife，andwasagreat，fatfellow，fed，inconsiderablepart，outofpublicmoney，withouthavingmeriteditbyanyrealpublicservices“——thisiswhatthe“rude“plebeianCobbettsays。
Humewas“inessentialrespectsgreatlysuperiortoaKantinthepracticalmanagementoflife“{122}，iswhatHerrDühringsays。
ButwhyisHumegivensuchanexaggeratedpositioninKritischeGeschichte？Simplybecausethis“seriousandsubtlethinker“{121}
hasthehonourofenactingtheDühringoftheeighteenthcentury。
Humeservesasproofthat“thecreationofthiswholebranchofscience“(economics)“istheachievementofamoreenlightenedphilosophy“{123};
andsimilarlyHumeaspredecessoristhebestguaranteethatthiswholebranchofsciencewillfinditsclose，fortheimmediatelyforeseeablefuture，inthatphenomenalmanwhohastransformedthemerely“moreenlightened“
philosophyintotheabsolutelyluminousphilosophyofreality，andwithwhom，justaswasthecasewithHume，“thecultivationofphilosophyinthenarrowsenseofthewordiscombined——somethingunprecedentedonGermansoil——withscientificendeavoursonbehalfofthenationaleconomy“{D。Ph。531}
AccordinglywefindHume，inanycaserespectableasaneconomist，inflatedintoaneconomicstarofthefirstmagnitude，whoseimportancehashithertobeendeniedonlybythesameenviouspeoplewhohavehithertoalsosoobstinatelyhushedupHerrDühring’sachievements，“authoritativefortheepoch“
{D。K。G。1}。
***ThephysiocraticschoolleftusinQuesnay’sTableauéconomique，aseveryoneknows，anutonwhichallformercriticsandhistoriansofpoliticaleconomyhaveuptonowbrokentheirjawsinvain;ThisTableau，whichwasintendedtobringoutclearlythephysiocrats’conceptionoftheproductionandcirculationofacountry’stotalwealth，remainedobscureenoughforthesucceedinggenerationsofeconomists。Onthissubject，too，HerrDühringcomestofinallyenlightenus。
Whatthis“economicimageoftherelationsofproductionanddistributionmeansinQuesnayhimself。”hesays，canonlybestatedifonehas“firstcarefullyexaminedtheleadingideaswhicharepeculiartohim“。Allthemorebecausethesehavehithertobeensetforthonlywith“waveringindefiniteness“，andtheir“essentialfeaturescannotberecognised“
{105}eveninAdamSmith。
HerrDühringwillnowonceandforallputanendtothistraditional“superficialreporting“。Hethenproceedstopullthereader’slegthroughfivewholepages，fivepagesinwhichallkindsofpretentiousphrases，constantrepetitionsandcalculatedconfusionaredesignedtoconcealtheawkwardfactthatHerrDühringhashardlyasmuchtotellusinregardtoQuesnay’s“leadingideas“{105}，asthe“mostcurrenttextbookcompilations“
{109}againstwhichhewarnsussountiringly。Itis“oneofthemostdubioussides“{111}ofthisintroductionthatheretootheTableau，whichuptothatpointhadonlybeenmentionedbyname，isjustcasuallysnuffledat，andthengetslostinallsortsof“reflections“，suchas，forexample，“thedifferencebetweeneffortandresult“。Thoughthelatter，“itistrue，isnottobefoundcompletedinQuesnay’sideas“，HerrDühringwillgiveusafulminatingexampleofitassoonashecomesfromhislengthyintroductory“effort“tohisremarkablyshortwinded“result“{109}，thatistosay，tohiselucidationoftheTableauitself。Weshallnowgiveall，literallyallthathefeelsitrighttotellusofQuesnay’sTableau。
Inhis“effort“HerrDühringsays:
“Itseemedtohim“(Quesnay)“self-evidentthattheproceeds“(HerrDühringhadjustspokenofthenetproduct)“mustbethoughtofandtreatedasamoneyvalue{105-06}……Heconnectedhisdeliberations“
(！)“immediatelywiththemoneyvalueswhichheassumedastheresultsofthesalesofallagriculturalproductswhentheyfirstchangehands。
Inthisway“(！)“heoperatesinthecolumnsofhisTableauwithseveralmilliards“{106}(thatis，withmoneyvalues)。
Wehavethereforelearntthreetimesoverthat，inhisTableau，Quesnayoperateswiththe“moneyvalues“of“agriculturalproducts“，includingthemoneyvaluesofthe“netproduct“or“netproceeds“。Furtheroninthetextwefind:
HadQuesnayconsideredthingsfromareallynaturalstandpoint，andhadheridhimselfnotonlyofregardforthepreciousmetalsandtheamountofmoney，butalsoofregardformoneyvalues……Butasitishereckonssolelywithsumsofvalue，andimagined“(！)“thenetproductinadvanceasamoneyvalue“{106}。
Soforthefourthandfifthtime:thereareonlymoneyvaluesintheTableau！
“He“(Quesnay)“obtainedit“(thenetproduct)“bydeductingtheexpensesandthinking，’(！)“principally“(nottraditionalbutforthatmatterallthemoresuperficialreporting)“ofthatvaluewhichwouldaccruetothelandlordasrent“{1061。
Wehavestillnotadvancedastep;butnowitiscoming:
“Ontheotherhand，however，nowalso“——this“however，nowalso“isagem！——“thenetproduct，asanaturalobject，entersintocirculation，andinthiswaybecomesanelementwhich……shouldserve……tomaintaintheclasswhichisdescribedassterile。Inthistheconfusioncanatonce“(！)“beseen——theconfusionarisingfromthefactthatinonecaseitisthemoneyvalue，andintheotherthethingitself，whichdeterminesthecourseofthought“{106}。
Ingeneral，itseems，allcirculationofcommoditiessuffersfromthe“confusion“thatcommoditiesenterintocirculationsimultaneouslyas“naturalobjects“andas“moneyvalues“。Butwearestillmovinginacircleabout“moneyvalue“，for“Quesnayisanxioustoavoidadoublebookingofthenational-economicproceeds“{106}。
WithHerrDühring’spermission:InQuesnay’sAnalysisatthefootoftheTableau，thevariouskindsofproductsfigureas“naturalobjects“andabove，intheTableauitself，theirmoneyvaluesaregiven。SubsequentlyQuesnayevenmadehisfamulus，theAbbéBaudeau，includethenaturalobjectsintheTableauitself，besidetheirmoneyvalues。
Afterallthis“effort“，weatlastgetthe“result“。Listenandmarvelatthesewords:
“Nevertheless，theinconsequence“(referringtotheroleassignedbyQuesnaytothelandlords)“atoncebecomesclearwhenweenquirewhatbecomesofthenetproduct，whichhasbeenappropriatedasrent，inthecourseofthenational-economiccirculation。InregardtothisthephysiocratsandtheeconomicTableaucouldoffernothingbutconfusedandarbitraryconceptions，ascendingtomysticism“
{110}。
All’swellthatendswell。SoHerrDühringdoesnotknow“whatbecomesofthenetproduct，whichhasbeenappropriatedasrent，inthecourseofthenational-economiccirculation“(representedintheTableau)。Tohim，theTableauisthe“squaringofthecircle“{110}。Byhisownconfession，hedoesnotunderstandtheABCofphysiocracy。Afterallthebeatingaboutthebush，thedroppingofbucketsintoanemptywell，thehyinghitherandthither，theharlequinades，episodes，diversions，repetitionsandstupefyingmix-upswhosesolepurposewastoprepareusfortheimposingconclusion，“whattheTableaumeansinQuesnayhimself“{105}——afterallthisHerrDühring’sshamefacedconfessionthathehimselfdoesnotknow。
Oncehehasshakenoffthispainfulsecret，thisHoratian“blackcare“whichsathunchedonhisbackduringhisridethroughthelandofthephysiocrats，our“seriousandsubtlethinker“blowsanothermerryblastonhistrumpet，asfollows:
“ThelineswhichQuesnaydrawshereandthere“(inalltherearejustfiveofthem！)“inhisotherwisefairlysimple“(！)“Tableau，andwhicharemeanttorepresentthecirculationofthenetproduct“，makeonewonderwhether“thesewhimsicalcombinationsofcolumns“maynotbesuffusedwithfantasticmathematics;theyarereminiscentofQuesnay’sattemptstosquarethecircle{110}——andsoforth。
AsHerrDühring，byhisownadmission，wasunabletounderstandtheselinesinspiteoftheirsimplicity，hehadtofollowhisfavouriteprocedureofcastingsuspiciononthem。AndnowhecanconfidentlydeliverthecoupdegrâcetothevexatiousTableau:
“Wehaveconsideredthenetproductinthisitsmostdubiousaspect“{111}，etc。
SotheconfessionhewasconstrainedtomakethathedoesnotunderstandthefirstwordabouttheTableauéconomiqueandthe“role“
playedbythenetproductwhichfiguresinit——thatiswhatHerrDühringcalls“themostdubiousaspectofthenetproduct“！Whatgrimhumour！
ButinorderthatourreadersmaynotbeleftinthesamecruelignoranceaboutQuesnay’sTableauasthosenecessarilyarewhoreceivetheireconomicwisdom“firsthand“fromHerrDühring，wewillexplainitbrieflyasfollows:
Asisknown，thephysiocratsdividesocietyintothreeclasses:
(1)Theproductive，i。e。，theclasswhichisactuallyengagedinagriculture——tenant-farmersandagriculturallabourers;theyarecalledproductive，becausetheirlabouryieldsasurplus:rent。(2)Theclasswhichappropriatesthissurplus，includingthelandownersandtheirretainers，theprinceandingeneralallofficialspaidbythestate，andfinallyalsotheChurchinitsspecialcharacterasappropriatoroftithes。Forthesakeofbrevity，inwhatfollowswecallthefirstclasssimply“farmers“，andthesecondclass“landlords“。(3)Theindustrialorsterileclass;sterilebecause，intheviewofthephysiocrats，itaddstotherawmaterialsdeliveredtoitbytheproductiveclassonlyasmuchvalueasitconsumesinmeansofsubsistencesuppliedtoitbythatsameclass。Quesnay’sTableauwasintendedtoportrayhowthetotalannualproductofacountry(concretely，France)circulatesamongthesethreeclassesandfacilitatesannualreproduction。
ThefirstpremiseoftheTableauwasthatthefarmingsystemandwithitlarge-scaleagriculture，inthesenseinwhichthistermwasunderstoodinQuesnay’stime，hadbeengenerallyintroduced，Normandy，Picardy，Île-de-FranceandafewotherFrenchprovincesservingasprototypes。Thefarmerthereforeappearsastherealleaderinagriculture，asherepresentsintheTableauthewholeproductive(agricultural)
classandpaysthelandlordarentinmoney。Aninvestedcapitalorinventoryoftenmilliardlivresisassignedtothefarmersasawhole;ofthissum，one-fifth，ortwomilliards，istheworkingcapitalwhichhastobereplacedeveryyear——thisfiguretoowasestimatedonthebasisofthebest-managedfarmsintheprovincesmentionedabove。
Furtherpremises:(1)thatforthesakeofsimplicityconstantpricesandsimplereproductionprevail;(2)thatallcirculationwhichtakesplacesolelywithinoneclassisexcluded，andthatonlycirculationbetweenclassandclassistakenintoaccount;(3)thatallpurchasesandsalestakingplacebetweenclassandclassinthecourseoftheindustrialyeararecombinedinasingletotalsum。Lastly，itmustbeborneinmindthatinQuesnay’stimeinFrance，aswasmoreorlessthecasethroughoutEurope，thehomeindustryofthepeasantfamiliessatisfiedbyfarthegreaterportionoftheirneedsotherthanfood，andisthereforetakenforgrantedhereassupplementarytoagriculture。
Thestarting-pointoftheTableauisthetotalharvest，thegrossproductoftheannualyieldofthesoil，whichisconsequentlyplacedasthefirstitem——orthe“totalreproduction“ofthecountry，inthiscaseFrance。Themagnitudeofvalueofthisgrossproductisestimatedonthebasisoftheaveragepricesofagriculturalproductsamongthetradingnations。Itcomestofivemilliardlivres，asumwhichroughlyexpressesthemoneyvalueofthegrossagriculturalproductionofFrancebasedonsuchstatisticalestimatesaswerethenpossible。ThisandnothingelseisthereasonwhyinhisTableauQuesnay“operateswithseveralmilliards“{106}，tobeprecise，withfivemilliards，andnotwithfivelivrestournois。[99]
Thewholegrossproduct，ofavalueoffivemilliards，isthereforeinthehandsoftheproductiveclass，thatis，inthefirstplacethefarmers，whohaveproduceditbyadvancinganannualworkingcapitaloftwomilliards，whichcorrespondstoaninvestedcapitaloftenmilliards。Theagriculturalproducts——foodstuffs，rawmaterials，etc——whicharerequiredforthereplacementoftheworkingcapital，includingthereforethemaintenanceofallpersonsdirectlyengagedinagriculture，aretakeninnaturafromthetotalharvestandexpendedforthepurposeofnewagriculturalproduction。Since，aswehaveseen，constantpricesandsimplereproductiononagivenscaleareassumed，themoneyvalueoftheportionwhichisthustakenfromthegrossproductisequaltotwomilliardlivres。Thisportion，therefore，doesnotenterintogeneralcirculation。For，aswehavenoted，circulationwhichtakesplaceonlywithinaparticularclass，andnotbetweenoneclassandanother，isexcludedfromtheTableau。
Afterthereplacementoftheworkingcapitaloutofthegrossproductthereremainsasurplusofthreemilliards，ofwhichtwoareinmeansofsubsistenceandoneinrawmaterials。Therentwhichthefarmershavetopaytothelandlordsishoweveronlytwo-thirdsofthissum，equaltotwomilliards。Itwillsoonbeseenwhyitisonlythesetwomilliardswhichfigureundertheheadingof“netproduct“or“netincome“{106}。
Butinadditiontothe“totalreproduction“ofagricultureamountinginvaluetofivemilliards，ofwhichthreemilliardsenterintogeneralcirculation，thereisalsointhehandsofthefarmers，beforethemovementdescribedintheTableaubegins，thewhole“pécule“
ofthenation，twomilliardsofcashmoney。Thiscomesaboutinthefollowingway。
Asthetotalharvestisthestarting-pointoftheTableau，thisstarting-pointalsoformstheclosingpointofaneconomicyear，forexample，oftheyear1758，fromwhichpointaneweconomicyearbegins。
Duringthecourseofthisnewyear，1759，theportionofthegrossproductdestinedtoenterintocirculationisdistributedamongthetwootherclassesthroughthemediumofanumberofindividualpayments，purchasesandsales。
Thesemovementsseparated，followingeachotherinsuccession，andstretchingoverawholeyear，arehowever——aswasboundtohappeninanycaseintheTableau——combinedintoafewcharacteristictransactionseachofwhichembracesawholeyear’soperationsatonce。This，then，ishowatthecloseoftheyear1758therehasflowedbacktothefarmerclassthemoneypaidbyittothelandlordsasrentfortheyear1757(theTableauitselfwillshowhowthiscomesabout)，amountingtotwomilliards;sothatthefarmerclasscanagainthrowthissumintocirculationin1759。
Since，however，thatsum，asQuesnayobserves，ismuchlargerthanisrequiredinrealityforthetotalcirculationofthecountry(France)，inasmuchasthereisaconstantsuccessionofseparatepayments，thetwomilliardlivresinthehandsofthefarmersrepresentthetotalmoneyincirculationinthenation。
Theclassoflandlordsdrawingrentfirstappears，asisthecasesometimeseventoday，intheroleofreceiversofpayments。OnQuesnay’sassumptionthelandlordsproperreceiveonlyfourseventhsofthetwomilliardsofrent:two-seventhsgotothegovernment，andone-seventhtothereceiversoftithes。InQuesnay’sdaytheChurchwasthebiggestlandlordinFranceandinadditionreceivedthetithesonallotherlandedproperty。
Theworkingcapital(avancesannuelles)advancedbythe“sterile“classinthecourseofawholeyearconsistsofrawmaterialstothevalueofonemilliard——onlyrawmaterials，becausetools，machinery，etc。，areincludedamongtheproductsofthatclassitself。Themanydifferentroles，however，playedbysuchproductsintheindustrialenterprisesofthisclassdonotconcerntheTableauanymorethanthecirculationofcommoditiesandmoneywhichtakesplaceexclusivelywithinthatclass。
Thewagesforthelabourbywhichthesterileclasstransformstherawmaterialsintomanufacturedgoodsareequaltothevalueofthemeansofsubsistencewhichitreceivesinpartdirectlyfromtheproductiveclass，andinpartindirectly，throughthelandlords。Althoughitisitselfdividedintocapitalistsandwage-workers，itforms，accordingtoQuesnay’sbasicconception，anintegralclasswhichisinthepayoftheproductiveclassandofthelandlords。Thetotalindustrialproduction，andconsequentlyalsoitstotalcirculation，whichisdistributedovertheyearfollowingtheharvest，islikewisecombinedintoasinglewhole。ItisthereforeassumedthatatthebeginningofthemovementsetoutintheTableautheannualcommodityproductionofthesterileclassisentirelyinitshands，andconsequentlythatitswholeworkingcapital，consistingofrawmaterialstothevalueofonemilliard，hasbeenconvertedintogoodstothevalueoftwomilliards，one-halfofwhichrepresentsthepriceofthemeansofsubsistenceconsumedduringthistransformation。Anobjectionmightberaisedhere:Surelythesterileclassalsousesupindustrialproductsforitsowndomesticneeds;wherearetheseshown，ifitsowntotalproductpassesthroughcirculationtotheotherclasses？Thisistheanswerwearegiven:Thesterileclassnotonlyitselfconsumesaportionofitsowncommodities，butinadditionitstrivestoretainasmuchoftherestaspossible。Itthereforesellsthecommoditiesthrownbyitintocirculationabovetheirrealvalue，andmustdothis，aswehaveevaluatedthesecommoditiesatthetotalvalueoftheirproduction。This，however，doesnotaffectthefiguresoftheTableau，forthetwootherclassesreceivemanufacturedgoodsonlytothevalueoftheirtotalproduction。
SonowweknowtheeconomicpositionofthethreedifferentclassesatthebeginningofthemovementsetoutintheTableau。
Theproductiveclass，afteritsworkingcapitalhasbeenreplacedinkind，stillhasthreemilliardsofthegrossproductofagricultureandtwomilliardsinmoney。Thelandlordclassappearsonlywithitsrentclaimoftwomilliardsontheproductiveclass。Thesterileclasshastwomilliardsinmanufacturedgoods。Circulationpassingbetweenonlytwoofthesethreeclassesiscalledimperfectbythephysiocrats;circulationwhichtakesplacebetweenallthreeclassesiscalledperfect。
NowfortheeconomicTableauitself。
First(imperfect)Circulation:Thefarmerspaythelandlordstherentduetothemwithtwomilliardsofmoney，withoutreceivinganythinginreturn。Withoneofthesetwomilliardsthelandlordsbuymeansofsubsistencefromthefarmers，towhomone-halfofthemoneyexpendedbytheminthepaymentofrentthusreturns。
InhisAnalyseduTableauéconomiqueQuesnaydoesnotmakefurthermentionofthestate，whichreceivestwo-sevenths，oroftheChurch，whichreceivesone-seventh，ofthelandrent，astheirsocialrolesaregenerallyknown。Inregardtothelandlordclassproper，however，hesaysthatitsexpenditure(inwhichthatofallitsretainersisincluded)
isatleastasregardsthegreatbulkofit。unfruitfulexpenditure，withtheexceptionofthatsmallportionwhichisused“forthemaintenanceandimprovementoftheirlandsandtheraisingoftheirstandardofcultivation“。
Butby“naturallaw“theirproperfunctionconsistspreciselyin“provisionforthegoodmanagementandexpenditureforthemaintenanceoftheirpatrimonyingoodrepair“，or，asisexplainedfurtheron，inmakingtheavancesfoncieres，thatis，outlaysforthepreparationofthesoilandprovisionofallequipmentneededbythefarms，whichenablethefarmertodevotehiswholecapitalexclusivelytothebusinessofactualcultivation。
Second(perfect)Circulation:Withthesecondmilliardofmoneystillremainingintheirhands，thelandlordspurchasemanufacturedgoodsfromthesterileclass，andthelatter，withthemoneythusobtained，purchasesfromthefarmersmeansofsubsistenceforthesamesum。
Third(imperfect)Circulation:Thefarmersbuyfromthesterileclass，withonemilliardofmoney，acorrespondingamountofmanufacturedgoods;alargepartofthesegoodsconsistsofagriculturalimplementsandothermeansofproductionrequiredinagriculture。Thesterileclassreturnsthesameamountofmoneytothefarmers，buyingrawmaterialswithittothevalueofonemilliardtoreplaceitsownworkingcapital。
Thusthetwomilliardsexpendedbythefarmersinpaymentofrenthaveflowedbacktothem，andthemovementisclosed。Andtherewithalsothegreatriddleissolved:
“whatbecomesofthenetproduct，whichhasbeenappropriatedasrent，inthecourseoftheeconomiccirculation？”{110。}
Wesawabovethatatthestarting-pointoftheprocesstherewasasurplusofthreemilliardsinthehandsoftheproductiveclass。Ofthese，onlytwowerepaidasnetproductintheformofrenttothelandlords。Thethirdmilliardofthesurplusconstitutestheinterestonthetotalinvestedcapitalofthefarmers，thatis，tenpercentontenmilliards。Theydonotreceivethisinterest——thisshouldbecarefullynoted——fromcirculation;
itexistsinnaturaintheirhands，andtheyrealiseitonlyincirculation，bythusconvertingitintomanufacturedgoodsofequalvalue。
Ifitwerenotforthisinterest，thefarmer——thechiefagentinagriculture——wouldnotadvancethecapitalforinvestmentinit。Alreadyfromthisstandpoint，accordingtothephysiocrats，theappropriationbythefarmerofthatportionoftheagriculturalsurplusproceedswhichrepresentsinterestisasnecessaryaconditionofreproductionasthefarmerclassitself;andhencethiselementcannotbeputinthecategoryofthenational“netproduct“or“netincome“;forthelatterischaracterisedpreciselybythefactthatitisconsumablewithoutanyregardtotheimmediateneedsofnationalreproduction。Thisfundofonemilliard，however，serves，accordingtoQuesnay，forthemostparttocovertherepairswhichbecomenecessaryinthecourseoftheyear，andthepartialrenewalsofinvestedcapital;further，asareservefundagainstaccidents，andlastly，wherepossible，fortheenlargementoftheinvestedandworkingcapital，aswellasfortheimprovementofthesoilandextensionofcultivation。
Thewholeprocessiscertainly“fairlysimple“{110}。Thereenterintocirculation:fromthefarmers，twomilliardsinmoneyforthepaymentofrent，andthreemilliardsinproducts，ofwhichtwo-thirdsaremeansofsubsistenceandone-thirdrawmaterials;fromthesterileclass，twomilliardsinmanufacturedgoods。Ofthemeansofsubsistenceamountingtotwomilliards，onehalfisconsumedbythelandlordsandtheirretainers，theotherhalfbythesterileclassinpaymentforitslabour。Therawmaterialstothevalueofonemilliardreplacetheworkingcapitalofthislatterclass。Ofthemanufacturedgoodsincirculation，amountingtotwomilliards，onehalfgoestothelandlordsandtheothertothefarmers，forwhomitisonlyaconvertedformoftheinterest，whichaccruesatfirsthandfromagriculturalreproduction，ontheirinvestedcapital。Themoneythrownintocirculationbythefarmerinpaymentofrentflowsbacktohim，however，throughthesaleofhisproducts，andthusthesameprocesscantakeplaceagaininthenexteconomicyear。
AndnowwemustadmireHerrDühring’s“reallycritical“{D。
Ph。404}exposition，whichissoinfinitelysuperiortothe“traditionalsuperficialreporting“{D。K。G。105}。AftermysteriouslypointingouttousfivetimesinsuccessionhowhazardousitwasforQuesnaytooperateintheTableauwithmeremoneyvalues——whichmoreoverturnedoutnottobetrue——hefinallyreachestheconclusionthat，whenheasks，“whatbecomesofthenetproduct，whichhasbeenappropriatedasrent，inthecourseofthenational-economiccirculation？”——theeconomicTableau“couldoffernothingbutconfusedandarbitraryconceptions，ascendingtomysticism“{110}。
WehaveseenthattheTableau——thisbothsimpleand，foritstime，brilliantdepictionoftheannualprocessofreproductionthroughthemediumofcirculation——givesaveryexactanswertothequestionofwhatbecomesofthisnetproductinthecourseofnational-economiccirculation。Thusonceagainthe“mysticism“andthe“confusedandarbitraryconceptions“
areleftsimplyandsolelywithHerrDühring，as“themostdubiousaspect“andthesole“netproduct“{111}ofhisstudyofphysiocracy。
HerrDühringisjustasfamiliarwiththehistoricalinfluenceofthephysiocratsaswiththeirtheories。
“WithTurgot。”heteachesus，“physiocracyinFrancecametoanendbothinpracticeandintheory“{120}。
ThatMirabeau，however，wasessentiallyaphysiocratinhiseconomicviews;
thathewastheleadingeconomicauthorityintheConstituentAssemblyof1789;thatthisAssemblyinitseconomicreformstranslatedfromtheoryintopracticeasubstantialportionofthephysiocrats’principles，andinparticularlaidaheavytaxalsoonlandrent，thenetproductappropriatedbythelandowners“withoutconsideration“——allthisdoesnotexistfor“a“Dühring——
Justasthelongstrokedrawnthroughtheyears1691to1752removedallofHume’spredecessors，soanotherstrokeobliteratedSirJamesSteuart，whocamebetweenHumeandAdamSmith。ThereisnotasyllableinHerrDühring’s“enterprise“{9}onSteuart’sgreatwork，which，apartfromitshistoricalimportance，permanentlyenrichedthedomainofpoliticaleconomy。But，instead，HerrDühringappliestohimthemostabusiveepithetinhisvocabulary，andsaysthathewas“aprofessor“{136}inAdamSmith’stime。Unfortunatelythisinsinuationisapureinvention。Steuart，asamatteroffact，wasalargelandownerinScotland，whowasbanishedfromGreatBritainforallegedcomplicityintheStuartplotandthroughlongresidenceandhisjourneysontheContinentmadehimselffamiliarwitheconomicconditionsinvariouscountries。
Inaword:accordingtotheKritischeGeschichtetheonlyvalueallearliereconomistshadwastoserveeitheras“rudiments“{1}
ofHerrDühring’s“authoritative“{1}anddeeperfoundations，or，becauseoftheirunsounddoctrines，asafoiltothelatter。Inpoliticaleconomy，however，therearealsosomeheroeswhorepresentnotonly“rudiments“
ofthe“deeperfoundation“{D。C。11}，but“principles“{5}fromwhichthisfoundation，aswasprescribedinHerrDühring’snaturalphilosophy，isnot“developed“{353}butactually“composed“:forexample，the“incomparablygreatandeminent“{16}List，who，forthebenefitofGermanmanufacturers，puffedupthe“moresubtle“mercantilisticteachingsofaFerrierandothersinto“mightier“words;alsoCare，whorevealsthetrueessenceofhiswisdominthefollowingsentence:
“Ricardo’ssystemisoneofdiscords……itswholetendstotheproductionofhostilityamongclasses……hisbookisthetruemanualofthedemagogue，whoseekspowerbymeansofagrarianism，war，andplunder“;
Peoplewhowanttostudythehistoryofpoliticaleconomyinthepresentandimmediatelyforeseeablefuturewillcertainlybeonmuchsafergroundiftheymakethemselvesacquaintedwiththe“wateryproducts“，“commonplaces“
and“beggars’soup“{14}ofthe“mostcurrenttext-bookcompilations“{109}，ratherthanrelyonHerrDühring’s“historicaldepictioninthegrandstyle“{556}。
***What，then，isthefinalresultofouranalysisofDühring’s“veryownsystem“ofpoliticaleconomy？Nothing，exceptthefactthatwithallthegreatwordsandthestillmoremightypromiseswearejustasmuchdupedaswewereinthePhilosophy。Histheoryofvalue，this“touchstoneoftheworthofeconomicsystems“{499}，amountstothis:thatbyvalueHerrDühringunderstandsfivetotallydifferentanddirectlycontradictorythings，and，therefore，toputitatitsbest，himselfdoesnotknowwhathewants。The“naturallawsofalleconomics“{D。C。4}，usheredinwithsuchpomp，provetobemerelyuniversallyfamiliarandoftennotevenproperlyunderstoodplatitudesoftheworstdescription。Thesoleexplanationofeconomicfactswhichhis“veryown“systemcangiveusisthattheyaretheresultof“force“，atermwithwhichthephilistineofallnationshasforthousandsofyearsconsoledhimselfforeverythingunpleasantthathappenstohim，andwhichleavesusjustwherewewere。Insteadhoweverofinvestigatingtheoriginandeffectsofthisforce，HerrDühringexpectsustocontentourselvesgratefullywiththemereword“force“
asthelastfinalcauseandultimateexplanationofalleconomicphenomena。
Compelledfurthertoelucidatecapitalistexploitationoflabour，hefirstrepresentsitinageneralwayasbasedontaxesandpricesurcharges，therebycompletelyappropriatingtheProudhonian“deduction“(prélèvement)，andthenproceedingtoexplainitindetailbymeansofMarx’stheoryofsurplus-labour，surplus-productandsurplus-value。Inthiswayhemanagestobringaboutahappyreconciliationoftwototallycontradictorymodesofoutlook，bycopyingdownbothwithouttakinghisbreath。AndjustasinphilosophyhecouldnotfindenoughhardwordsfortheveryHegelwhomhewassoconstantlyexploitingandatthesametimeemasculating，sointheKritischeGeschichtethemostbaselesscalumniationofMarxonlyservestoconcealthefactthateverythingintheCursusaboutcapitalandlabourwhichmakesanysenseatallislikewiseanemasculatedplagiarismofMarx。Hisignorance，whichintheCursusputsthe“largelandowner“atthebeginningofthehistoryofthecivilisedpeoples，andknowsnotawordofthecommonownershipoflandinthetribalandvillagecommunities，whichistherealstarting-pointofallhistory——
thisignorance，atthepresentdayalmostincomprehensible，iswell-nighsurpassedbytheignorancewhich，intheKritischeGeschichte，thinksnotlittleofitselfbecauseof“theuniversalbreadthofitshistoricalsurvey“{2}，andofwhichwehavegivenonlyafewdeterrentexamples。
Inaword:firstthecolossal“effort“ofself-admiration，ofcharlatanblastsonhisowntrumpet，ofpromiseseachsurpassingtheother;andthenthe“result“{109}——exactlynil。
1877:Anti-Duhring——“Socialism“
PartIII:SocialismChapter1:Historical。
Chapter2:Theoretical。
Chapter3:Production。
Chapter4:Distribution。
Chapter5:State，Family，Education。
PartIII
SOCIALISMI。
HISTORICALWesawinthe“Introduction“*7howtheFrenchphilosophersoftheeighteenthcentury，theforerunnersoftheRevolution，appealedtoreasonasthesolejudgeofallthatis。
Arationalgovernment，rationalsociety，weretobefounded;everythingthatrancountertoeternalreasonwastoberemorselesslydoneawaywith。
Wesawalsothatthiseternalreasonwasinrealitynothingbuttheidealisedunderstandingoftheeighteenthcenturycitizen，justthenevolvingintothebourgeois。TheFrenchRevolutionhadrealisedthisrationalsocietyandgovernment。But，theneworderofthings，rationalenoughascomparedwithearlierconditions，turnedouttobebynomeansabsolutelyrational。
Thestatebaseduponreasoncompletelycollapsed。Rousseau’sContratSocialhadfounditsrealisationintheReignofTerror，fromwhichthebourgeoisie，whohadlostconfidenceintheirownpoliticalcapacity，hadtakenrefugefirstinthecorruptionoftheDirectorate，and，finally，underthewingoftheNapoleonicdespotism。[101]Thepromisedeternalpeacewasturnedintoanendlesswarofconquest。Thesocietybaseduponreasonhadfarednobetter。Theantagonismbetweenrichandpoor，insteadofdissolvingintogeneralprosperity，hadbecomeintensifiedbytheremovaloftheguildandotherprivileges，whichhadtosomeextentbridgeditover，andbytheremovalofthecharitableinstitutionsoftheChurch。Thedevelopmentofindustryuponacapitalisticbasismadepovertyandmiseryoftheworkingmassesconditionsofexistenceofsociety。Thenumberofcrimesincreasedfromyeartoyear。Formerly，thefeudalviceshadopenlystalkedaboutinbroaddaylight;thoughnoteradicated，theywerenowatanyratethrustintothebackground。Intheirstead，thebourgeoisvices，hithertopracticedinsecret，begantoblossomallthemoreluxuriantly。
Tradebecametoagreaterandgreaterextentcheating。The“fraternity“
oftherevolutionarymotto[102]wasrealisedinthechicaneryandrivalriesofthebattleofcompetition。Oppressionbyforcewasreplacedbycorruption;thesword，asthefirstsociallever，bygold。Therightofthefirstnightwastransferredfromthefeudallordstothebourgeoismanufacturers。Prostitutionincreasedtoanextentneverheardof。Marriageitselfremained，asbefore，thelegallyrecognisedform，theofficialcloakofprostitution，and，moreover，wassupplementedbyrichcropsofadultery。Inaword，comparedwiththesplendidpromisesofthephilosophers，thesocialandpoliticalinstitutionsbornofthe“triumphofreason“werebitterlydisappointingcaricatures。Allthatwaswantingwasthementoformulatethisdisappointmentandtheycamewiththeturnofthecentury。In1802Saint-Simon’sGenevalettersappeared;
in1808appearedFourier’sfirstwork，[103]althoughthegroundworkofhistheorydatedfrom1799;onJanuary1，1800，RobertOwenundertookthedirectionofNewLanark。
Atthistime，however，thecapitalistmodeofproduction，andwithittheantagonismbetweenthebourgeoisieandtheproletariat，wasstillveryincompletelydeveloped。Modernindustry，whichhadjustariseninEngland，wasstillunknowninFrance。Butmodernindustrydevelops，ontheonehand，theconflictswhichmakeabsolutelynecessaryarevolutioninthemodeofproduction，conflictsnotonlybetweentheclassesbegottenofit，butalsobetweentheveryproductiveforcesandtheformsofexchangecreatedbyit。And，ontheotherhand，itdevelops，intheseverygiganticproductiveforces，themeansofendingtheseconflicts。If，therefore，abouttheyear1800，theconflictsarisingfromthenewsocialorderwereonlyjustbeginningtotakeshape，thisholdsstillmorefullyastothemeansofendingthem。ThepropertylessmassesofParis，duringtheReignofTerror，wereableforamomenttogainthemastery。But，indoingso，theyonlyprovedhowimpossibleitwasfortheirdominationtolastundertheconditionsthenobtaining。Theproletariat，whichthenforthefirsttimeevolveditselffromthesepropertylessmassesasthenucleusofanewclass，asyetquiteincapableofindependentpoliticalaction，appearedasanoppressed，sufferingestate，towhom，initsincapacitytohelpitself，helpcould，atbest，bebroughtinfromwithoutordownfromabove。
Thishistoricalsituationalsodominatedthefoundersofsocialism。
Tothecrudeconditionsofcapitalistproductionandthecrudeclassconditionscorrespondedcrudetheories。Thesolutionofthesocialproblems，whichasyetlayhiddeninundevelopedeconomicconditions，theutopiansattemptedtoevolveoutofthehumanbrain。Societypresentednothingbutwrongs;
toremovethesewasthetaskofreason。Itwasnecessary，then，todiscoveranewandmoreperfectsystemofsocialorderandtoimposethisuponsocietyfromwithoutbypropaganda，and，whereveritwaspossible，bytheexampleofmodelexperiments。Thesenewsocialsystemswereforedoomedasutopian;
themorecompletelytheywereworkedoutindetail，themoretheycouldnotavoiddriftingoffintopurefantasies。
Thesefactsonceestablished，weneednotdwellamomentlongeruponthissideofthequestion，nowwhollybelongingtothepast。WecanleaveittotheliterarysmallfryàlaDühringtosolemnlyquibbleoverthesefantasies，whichtodayonlymakeussmile，andtocrowoverthesuperiorityoftheirownbaldreasoning，ascomparedwithsuch“insanity“{D。K。G。276，278，283}。Forourselves，wedelightinthestupendouslygrandthoughtsandgermsofthoughtthateverywherebreakoutthroughtheirfantasticcovering，andtowhichthesephilistinesareblind。
AlreadyinhisGenevaletters，Saint-Simonlaysdownthepropositionthat“allmenoughttowork“。
InthesameworkherecognisesalsothattheReignofTerrorwasthereignofthenon-possessingmasses。
“See。”sayshetothem，“whathappenedinFranceatthetimewhenyourcomradesheldswaythere;theybroughtaboutafamine。”
ButtorecognisetheFrenchRevolutionasaclasswarbetweennobility，bourgeoisie，andthenon-possessors，was，intheyear1802，amostpregnantdiscovery。In1816，hedeclaresthatpoliticsisthescienceofproduction，andforetellsthecompleteabsorptionofpoliticsbyeconomics。Theknowledgethateconomicconditionsarethebasisofpoliticalinstitutionsappearshereonlyinembryo。Yetwhatisherealreadyveryplainlyexpressedistheideaofthefutureconversionofpoliticalruleovermenintoanadministrationofthingsandadirectionofprocessesofproduction——thatistosay，the“abolitionofthestate“，aboutwhichrecentlytherehasbeensomuchnoise。Saint-Simonshowsthesamesuperiorityoverhiscontemporaries，whenin1814，immediatelyaftertheentryofthealliesintoParis，[104]andagainin1815，duringtheHundredDays’War，[105]heproclaimstheallianceofFrancewithEngland，andthenofboththesecountrieswithGermany，astheonlyguaranteefortheprosperousdevelopmentandpeaceofEurope。TopreachtotheFrenchin1815analliancewiththevictorsofWaterlooatanyraterequiredsomewhatmorecouragethantodeclareawaroflittle-tattleonGermanprofessors。[106]
IfinSaint-Simonwefindacomprehensivebreadthofview，byvirtueofwhichalmostalltheideasoflaterSocialists，thatarenotstrictlyeconomic，arefoundinhiminembryo，wefindinFourieracriticismoftheexistingconditionsofsociety，genuinelyFrenchandwitty，butnotuponthataccountanythelessthorough。Fouriertakesthebourgeoisie，theirinspiredprophetsbeforetheRevolution，andtheirinterestedeulogistsafterit，attheirownword。Helaysbareremorselesslythematerialandmoralmiseryofthebourgeoisworld。Heconfrontsitwiththephilosophers’
dazzlingpromisesofasocietyinwhichreasonaloneshouldreign，ofacivilisationinwhichhappinessshouldbeuniversal，ofanillimitablehumanperfectibility，andwiththerose-colouredphraseologyofthebourgeoisideologistsofhistime。Hepointsouthoweverywherethemostpitifulrealitycorrespondswiththemosthigh-soundingphrases，andheoverwhelmsthishopelessfiascoofphraseswithhismordantsarcasm。Fourierisnotonlyacritic;hisimperturbablyserenenaturemakeshimasatirist，andassuredlyoneofthegreatestsatiristsofalltime。Hedepicts，withequalpowerandcharm，theswindlingspeculationsthatblossomedoutuponthedownfalloftheRevolution，andtheshopkeepingspiritprevalentin，andcharacteristicof，Frenchcommerceatthattime。Stillmoremasterlyishiscriticismofthebourgeoisformoftherelationsbetweenthesexes，andthepositionofwomaninbourgeoissociety。Hewasthefirsttodeclarethatinanygivensocietythedegreeofwoman’semancipationisthenaturalmeasureofthegeneralemancipation。[107]ButFourierisathisgreatestinhisconceptionofthehistoryofsociety。
Hedividesitswholecourse，thusfar，intofourstagesofevolution——
savagery，thepatriarchatebarbarism，civilisation。Thislastisidenticalwiththeso-calledbourgeoissocietyoftoday。Heproves“thatthecivilisedstageraiseseveryvicepracticedbybarbarisminasimplefashionintoaformofexistence，complex，ambiguous，equivocal，hypocritical“，thatcivilisationmovesina“viciouscircle“，incontradictionswhichitconstantlyreproduceswithoutbeingabletosolvethem;henceitconstantlyarrivesattheveryoppositetothatwhichitwantstoattain，orpretendstowanttoattain，sothat，e。g。，“undercivilisationpovertyisbornofsuperabundanceitself“。
Fourier，aswesee，usesthedialecticmethodinthesamemasterlywayashiscontemporary，Hegel。Usingthesesamedialectics，hearguesagainstthetalkaboutillimitablehumanperfectibility，thateveryhistoricalphasehasitsperiodofascentandalsoitsperiodofdescent，andheappliesthisobservationtothefutureofthewholehumanrace。AsKantintroducedintonaturalsciencetheideaoftheultimatedestructionoftheearth，Fourierintroducedintohistoricalsciencethatoftheultimatedestructionofthehumanrace——
WhilstinFrancethehurricaneoftheRevolutionsweptovertheland，inEnglandaquieter，butnotonthataccountlesstremendous，revolutionwasgoingon。Steamandthenewtool-makingmachineryweretransformingmanufactureintomodernindustry，andthusrevolutionisingthewholefoundationofbourgeoissociety。Thesluggishmarchofdevelopmentofthemanufacturingperiodchangedintoaveritablestormandstressperiodofproduction。
Withconstantlyincreasingswiftnessthesplitting-upofsocietyintolargecapitalistsandnon-possessingproletarianswenton。Betweenthese，insteadoftheformerstablemiddleclass，anunstablemassofartisansandsmallshopkeepers，themostfluctuatingportionofthepopulation，nowledaprecariousexistence。Thenewmodeofproductionwas，asyet，onlyatthebeginningofitsperiodofascent;asyetitwasthenormalmethodofproduction——theonlyonepossibleunderexistingconditions。Nevertheless，eventhenitwasproducingcryingsocialabuses——theherdingtogetherofahomelesspopulationintheworstquartersofthelargetowns;thelooseningofalltraditionalmoralbonds，ofpatriarchalsubordination，offamilyrelations，overwork，especiallyofwomenandchildren，toafrightfulextent;
completedemoralisationoftheworkingclass，suddenlyflungintoaltogethernewconditions。Atthisjuncturetherecameforwardasareformeramanufacturer29yearsold——amanofalmostsublime，child-likesimplicityofcharacter，andatthesametimeoneofthefewbornleadersofmen。RobertOwenhadadoptedtheteachingofthematerialisticphilosophers:thatman’scharacteristheproduct，ontheonehand，ofheredity;ontheother，oftheenvironmentoftheindividualduringhislifetime，andespeciallyduringhisperiodofdevelopment。Intheindustrialrevolutionmostofhisclasssawonlychaosandconfusion，andtheopportunityoffishinginthesetroubledwatersandmakinglargefortunesquickly。Hesawinittheopportunityofputtingintopracticehisfavouritetheory，andsoofbringingorderoutofchaos。
Hehadalreadytrieditwithsuccess，assuperintendentofmorethanfivehundredmeninaManchesterfactory。From1800to1829，hedirectedthegreatcotton-millatNewLanark，inScotland，asmanagingpartner，alongthesamelines，butwithgreaterfreedomofactionandwithasuccessthatmadehimaEuropeanreputation。Apopulation，originallyconsistingofthemostdiverseand，forthemostpart，verydemoralisedelements，apopulationthatgraduallygrewto2，500，heturnedintoamodelcolony，inwhichdrunkenness，police，magistrates，lawsuits，poorlaws，charity，wereunknown。Andallthissimplybyplacingthepeopleinconditionsworthyofhumanbeings，andespeciallybycarefullybringinguptherisinggeneration。Hewasthefounderofinfantschools，andintroducedthemfirstatNewLanark。Attheageoftwothechildrencametoschool，wheretheyenjoyedthemselvessomuchthattheycouldscarcelybegothomeagain。Whilsthiscompetitorsworkedtheirpeoplethirteenorfourteenhoursaday，inNewLanarktheworking-daywasonlytenandahalfhours。Whenacrisisincottonstoppedworkforfourmonths，hisworkersreceivedtheirfullwagesallthetime。
Andwithallthisthebusinessmorethandoubledinvalue，andtothelastyieldedlargeprofitstoitsproprietors。
Inspiteofallthis，Owenwasnotcontent。Theexistencewhichhesecuredforhisworkerswas，inhiseyes，stillfarfrombeingworthyofhumanbeings。
“Thepeoplewereslavesatmymercy。”
Therelativelyfavourableconditionsinwhichhehadplacedthemwerestillfarfromallowingarationaldevelopmentofthecharacterandoftheintellectinalldirections，muchlessofthefreeexerciseofalltheirfaculties。
“Andyettheworkingpartofthispopulationof2，500personswasproducingasmuchrealwealthforsociety，as，lessthanhalfacenturybefore，itwouldhaverequiredtheworkingpartofapopulationof600，000tocreate。
Iaskedmyselfwhatbecameofthedifferencebetweenthewealthconsumedby2，500personsandthatwhichwouldhavebeenconsumedby600，000。”
Theanswerwasclear。Ithadbeenusedtopaytheproprietorsoftheestablishment5percentonthecapitaltheyhadlaidout，inadditiontoover£300，000
(6，000，000marks)clearprofit。AndthatwhichheldforNewLanarkheldtoastillgreaterextentforallthefactoriesinEngland。
“Ifthisnewwealthhadnotbeencreatedbymachinery，thewarsinoppositiontoNapoleon，andtosupportthearistocraticprinciplesofsociety，couldnothavebeenmaintained。Andyetthisnewpowerwasthecreationoftheworkingclass。”[108]
Tothem，therefore，thefruitsofthisnewpowerbelonged。Thenewly-createdgiganticproductiveforceshithertousedonlytoenrichindividualsandtoenslavethemasses，offeredtoOwenthefoundationsforareconstructionofsociety;theyweredestined，asthecommonpropertyofall，tobeworkedforthecommongoodofall。
Owen’scommunismwasbaseduponthispurelybusinessfoundation，theoutcome，sotosay，ofcommercialcalculation。Throughout，itmaintainedthispracticalcharacter。Thus，in1823，OwenproposedthereliefofthedistressinIrelandbycommunistcolonies，anddrewupcompleteestimatesofcostsoffoundingthem，yearlyexpenditure，andprobablerevenue。Andinhisdefiniteplanforthefuture，thetechnicalworkingoutofdetailsismanagedwithsuchpracticalknowledgethattheOwenmethodofsocialreformonceaccepted，thereisfromthepracticalpointofviewlittletobesaidagainsttheactualarrangementofdetails。
Hisadvanceinthedirectionofcommunismwastheturning-pointinOwen’slife。Aslongashewassimplyaphilanthropist，hewasrewardedwithnothingbutwealth，applause，honour，andglory。HewasthemostpopularmaninEurope。Notonlymenofhisownclass，butstatesmenandprinceslistenedtohimapprovingly。Butwhenhecameoutwithhiscommunisttheories，thatwasquiteanotherthing。Threegreatobstaclesseemedtohimespeciallytoblockthepathtosocialreform:privateproperty，religion，thepresentformofmarriage。Heknewwhatconfrontedhimifheattackedthese——outlawry，excommunicationfromofficialsociety，thelossofhiswholesocialposition。
Butnothingofthispreventedhimfromattackingthemwithoutfearofconsequences，andwhathehadforeseenhappened。Banishedfromofficialsociety，withaconspiracyofsilenceagainsthiminthepress，ruinedbyhisunsuccessfulcommunistexperimentsinAmerica，inwhichhesacrificedallhisfortune，heturneddirectlytotheworkingclassandcontinuedworkingintheirmidstforthirtyyears。Everysocialmovement，everyrealadvanceinEnglandonbehalfoftheworkerslinksitselfontothenameofRobertOwen。Heforcedthroughin1819，afterfiveyears’fighting，thefirstlawlimitingthehoursoflabourforwomenandchildreninfactories。[109]HewaspresidentofthefirstcongressatwhichalltheTradeUnionsofEnglandunitedinasinglegreattradeassociation。[110]Heintroducedastransitionmeasurestothecompletecommunisticorganisationofsociety，ontheonehand，co-operativesocietiesforretailtradeandproduction。Thesehavesincethattime，atleast，givenpracticalproofthatthemerchantandthemanufactureraresociallyquiteunnecessary。
Ontheotherhand，heintroducedlabourbazaarsfortheexchangeoftheproductsoflabourthroughthemediumoflabour-notes，whoseunitwasasinglehourofwork[111];institutionsnecessarilydoomedtofailure，butcompletelyanticipatingProudhon’sbankofexchange[112]ofamuchlaterperiod，anddifferingentirelyfromthisinthattheydidnotclaimtobethepanaceaforallsocialills，butonlyafirststeptowardsamuchmoreradicalrevolutionofsociety。
ThesearethemenonwhomthesovereignHerrDühringlooksdown，fromtheheightofhis“finalandultimatetruth“{D。Ph。2}，withacontemptofwhichwehavegivenafewexamplesintheIntroduction。Andinonerespectthiscontemptisnotdevoidofadequatereason:foritsbasisis，inessence，areallyfrightfulignoranceoftheworksofthethreeutopians。ThusHerrDühringsaysofSaint-Simonthat“hisbasicideawas，inessentials，correct，andapartfromsomeone-sidedaspects，eventodayprovidesthedirectingimpulsetowardsrealcreation“
{D。K。G。246}。
ButalthoughHerrDühringdoesactuallyseemtohavehadsomeofSaint-Simon’sworksinhishands，oursearchthroughthetwenty-sevenrelevantprintedpagesforSaint-Simon’s“basicidea“isjustasfruitlessasourearliersearchforwhatQuesnay’sTableau“meantinQuesnayhimself“{105}，andintheendwehavetoallowourselvestobeputoffwiththephrase“thatimaginationandphilanthropicfervour……alongwiththeextravagantfantasythatgoeswithit，dominatedthewholeofSaint-Simon’sthoughtcomplex“{252}！
AsregardsFourier，allthatHerrDühringknowsortakesintoaccountishisfantasiesofthefuture，paintedinromanticdetail。Thisofcourse“isfarmoreimportant“forestablishingHerrDühring’sinfinitesuperiorityoverFourierthananexaminationofhowthelatter“attemptsoccasionallytocriticiseactualconditions“{282}。Occasionally！Infact，almosteverypageofhisworksscintillateswithsparklingsatireandcriticismaimedatthewretchednessofourvauntedcivilisation。ItislikesayingthatHerrDühringonly“occasionally“declaresHerrDühringtobethegreatestthinkerofalltime。AndasforthetwelvepagesdevotedtoRobertOwen，HerrDühringhasabsolutelynoothersourceforthemthanthemiserablebiographyofthephilistineSargant，whoalsodidnotknowOwen’smostimportantworks——onmarriageandthecommunistsystem。
HerrDühringcanthereforegothelengthofboldlyassertingthatweshouldnot“assumeanyclear-cutcommunism“{301}inOwen。HadHerrDühringeverevenfingeredOwen’sBookoftheNewMoralWorld，hewouldmostassuredlyhavefoundclearlyexpressedinitnotonlythemostclear-cutcommunismpossible，withequalobligationtolabourandequalrightsintheproduct——equalaccordingtoage，asOwenalwaysadds——butalsothemostcomprehensivebuildingprojectofthefuturecommunistcommunity，withitsgroundplan，frontandsideandbird’s-eyeviews。Butifonelimitsone’s“first-handstudyofthewritingsoftherepresentativesofsocialistidea-complexes“{XIII}toaknowledgeofthetitleandatmostthemotto{294}ofasmallnumberoftheseworks，likeHerrDühring，theonlythinglefttodoismakesuchastupidandpurelyfantasticassertion。Owendidnotonlypreach“clear-cutcommunism“{301};
forfiveyears(attheendofthethirtiesandbeginningoftheforties)
heputitintopracticeintheHarmonyHallColony[113]inHampshire，theclear-cutqualityofwhosecommunismleftnothingtobedesired。Imyselfwasacquaintedwithseveralformermembersofthiscommunistmodelexperiment。ButSargantknewabsolutelynothingofallthis，orofanyofOwen’sactivitiesbetween1836and1850，andconsequentlyHerrDühring’s“moreprofoundhistoricalwork“{XIII}isalsoleftinpitch-blackignorance。HerrDühringcallsOwen“ineveryrespectaveritablemonsterofimportunatephilanthropy“{261}。ButwhenthissameHerrDühringstartstogiveusinformationaboutthecontentsofbookswhosetitleandmottohehardlyknows，wemustnotonanyaccountsaythatheis“ineveryrespectaveritablemonsterofimportunateignorance“，foronourlipsthiswouldcertainlybe“abuse“。
Theutopians，wesaw，wereutopiansbecausetheycouldbenothingelseatatimewhencapitalistproductionwasasyetsolittledeveloped。
Theynecessarilyhadtoconstructtheelementsofanewsocietyoutoftheirownheads，becausewithintheoldsocietytheelementsofthenewwerenotasyetgenerallyapparent;forthebasicplanofthenewedificetheycouldonlyappealtoreason，justbecausetheycouldnotasyetappealtocontemporaryhistory。Butwhennow，almosteightyyearsaftertheirtime，HerrDühringstepsontothestageandputsforwardhisclaimtoan“authoritative“{1}systemofanewsocialorder——notevolvedoutofthehistoricallydevelopedmaterialathisdisposal，asitsnecessaryresult——oh，no！——butconstructedinhissovereignhead，inhismind，pregnantwithultimatetruths——thenhe，whoscentsepigoneseverywhere，ishimselfnothingbuttheepigoneoftheutopians，thelatestutopian。
Hecallsthegreatutopians“socialalchemists“{237}。Thatmaybeso。
Alchemywasnecessaryinitsepoch。Butsincethattimemodernindustryhasdevelopedthecontradictionslyingdormantinthecapitalistmodeofproductionintosuchcryingantagonismsthattheapproachingcollapseofthismodeofproductionis，sotospeak，palpable;thatthenewproductiveforcesthemselvescanonlybemaintainedandfurtherdevelopedbytheintroductionofanewmodeofproductioncorrespondingtotheirpresentstageofdevelopment;
thatthestrugglebetweenthetwoclassesengenderedbythehithertoexistingmodeofproductionandconstantlyreproducedineversharperantagonismhasaffectedallcivilisedcountriesandisdailybecomingmoreviolent;
andthatthesehistoricalinterconnectionstheconditionsofthesocialtransformationwhichtheymakenecessary，andthebasicfeaturesofthistransformationlikewisedeterminedbythem，havealsoalreadybeenapprehended。
AndifHerrDühringnowmanufacturesanewutopiansocialorderoutofhissovereignbraininsteadoffromtheeconomicmaterialavailable，heisnotpracticingmere“socialalchemy“。Heisactingratherlikeapersonwho，afterthediscoveryandestablishmentofthelawsofmodernchemistry，attemptstorestoretheoldalchemyandtouseatomicweights，molecularformulas，thequantivalenceofatoms，crystallographyandspectralanalysisforthesolepurposeofdiscovering——thephilosopher’sstone。
II。
THEORETICALThematerialistconceptionofhistorystartsfromthepropositionthattheproductionand，nexttoproduction，theexchangeofthingsproduced，isthebasisofallsocialstructure;thatineverysocietythathasappearedinhistory，themannerinwhichwealthisdistributedandsocietydividedintoclassesorestatesisdependentuponwhatisproduced，howitisproduced，andhowtheproductsareexchanged。Fromthispointofviewthefinalcausesofallsocialchangesandpoliticalrevolutionsaretobesought，notinmen’sbrains，notinman’sbetterinsightintoeternaltruthandjustice，butinchangesinthemodesofproductionandexchange。Theyaretobesought，notinthephilosophy，butintheeconomicsofeachparticularepoch。Thegrowingperceptionthatexistingsocialinstitutionsareunreasonableandunjust，thatreasonhasbecomeunreason，andrightwrong，isonlyproofthatinthemodesofproductionandexchangechangeshavesilentlytakenplacewithwhichthesocialorder，adaptedtoearliereconomicconditions，isnolongerinkeeping。Fromthisitalsofollowsthatthemeansofgettingridoftheincongruitiesthathavebeenbroughttolightmustalsobepresent，inamoreorlessdevelopedcondition，withinthechangedmodesofproductionthemselves。Thesemeansarenottobeinvented，spunoutofthehead，butdiscoveredwiththeaidoftheheadintheexistingmaterialfactsofproduction。
Whatis，then，thepositionofmodernsocialisminthisconnection？
Thepresentstructureofsociety——thisisnowprettygenerallyconceded——isthecreationoftherulingclassoftoday，ofthebourgeoisie。
Themodeofproductionpeculiartothebourgeoisie，known，sinceMarx，asthecapitalistmodeofproduction，wasincompatiblewiththelocalprivilegesandtheprivilegesofestateaswellaswiththereciprocalpersonaltiesofthefeudalsystem。Thebourgeoisiebrokeupthefeudalsystemandbuiltuponitsruinsthecapitalistorderofsociety，thekingdomoffree。competition，ofpersonalliberty，oftheequality，beforethelaw，ofallcommodityowners，ofalltherestofthecapitalistblessings。Thenceforwardthecapitalistmodeofproductioncoulddevelopinfreedom。Sincesteam，machinery，andthemakingofmachinesbymachinerytransformedtheoldermanufactureintomodernindustry，theproductiveforcesevolvedundertheguidanceofthebourgeoisiedevelopedwitharapidityandinadegreeunheardofbefore。Butjustastheoldermanufacture，initstime，andhandicraft，becomingmoredevelopedunderitsinfluence，hadcomeinto-collisionwiththefeudaltrammelsoftheguilds，sonowmodernindustry，initsmorecompletedevelopment，comesintocollisionwiththeboundswithinwhichthecapitalisticmodeofproductionholdsitconfined。Thenewproductiveforceshavealreadyoutgrownthecapitalisticmodeofusingthem。Andthisconflictbetweenproductiveforcesandmodesofproductionisnotaconflictengenderedinthemindofman，likethatbetweenoriginalsinanddivinejustice。Itexists，infact，objectively，outsideus，independentlyofthewillandactionsevenofthementhathavebroughtiton。Modernsocialismisnothingbutthereflex，inthought，ofthisconflictinfact;itsidealreflectionintheminds，first，oftheclassdirectlysufferingunderit，theworkingclass。
Now，inwhatdoesthisconflictconsist？
Beforecapitalisticproduction，i。e。，intheMiddleAges，thesystemofpettyindustryobtainedgenerally，basedupontheprivatepropertyofthelabourersintheirmeansofproduction;{inthecountry，}theagricultureofthesmallpeasant，freemanorserf;inthetowns，thehandicrafts。Theinstrumentsoflabour——land，agriculturalimplements，theworkshop，thetool——weretheinstrumentsoflabourofsingleindividuals，adaptedfortheuseofoneworker，and，therefore，ofnecessity，small，dwarfish，circumscribed。
But，forthisveryreasontheybelonged，asarule，totheproducerhimself。
Toconcentratethesescattered，limitedmeansofproduction，toenlargethem，toturnthemintothepowerfulleversofproductionofthepresentday——thiswaspreciselythehistoricroleofcapitalistproductionandofitsupholder，thebourgeoisie。InPartIVofCapital，Marxhasexplainedindetail，howsincethefifteenthcenturythishasbeenhistoricallyworkedoutthroughthethreephasesofsimpleco-operation，manufactureandmodernindustry。Butthebourgeoisie，asisalsoshownthere，couldnottransformthesepunymeansofproductionintomightyproductiveforceswithouttransformingthem，atthesametime，frommeansofproductionoftheindividualintosocialmeansofproductiononlyworkablebyacollectivityofmen。Thespinning-wheel，thehand-loom，theblacksmith’shammer，werereplacedbythespinning-machine，thepower-loom，thesteam-hammer;
theindividualworkshopbythefactoryimplyingtheco-operationofhundredsandthousandsofworkmen。Inlikemanner，productionitselfchangedfromaseriesofindividualintoaseriesofsocialacts，andtheproductsfromindividualtosocialproducts。Theyarn，thecloth，themetalarticlesthatnowcameoutofthefactorywerethejointproductofmanyworkers，throughwhosehandstheyhadsuccessivelytopassbeforetheywereready。
Noonepersoncouldsayofthem:“Imadethat;thisismyproduct。”
Butwhere，inagivensociety，thefundamentalformofproductionisthatspontaneousdivisionoflabour，theretheproductstakeontheformofcommoditieswhosemutualexchange，buyingandselling，enabletheindividualproducerstosatisfytheirmanifoldwants。AndthiswasthecaseintheMiddleAges。Thepeasant，e。g。，soldtotheartisanagriculturalproductsandboughtfromhimtheproductsofhandicraft。Intothissocietyofindividualproducers，ofcommodityproducers，thenewmodeofproductionthrustitself。Inthemidstoftheolddivisionoflabour，grownupspontaneouslyanduponnodefiniteplan，whichhadgovernedthewholeofsociety，nowarosedivisionoflabouruponadefiniteplan，asorganisedinthefactory;sidebysidewithindividualproductionappearedsocialproduction。Theproductsofbothweresoldinthesamemarket，and，therefore，atpricesatleastapproximatelyequal。Butorganisationuponadefiniteplanwasstrongerthanspontaneousdivisionoflabour。
Thefactoriesworkingwiththecombinedsocialforcesofacollectivityofindividualsproducedtheircommoditiesfarmorecheaplythantheindividualsmallproducers。Individualproductionsuccumbedinonedepartmentafteranother。Socialisedproductionrevolutionisedalltheoldmethodsofproduction。
Butitsrevolutionarycharacterwas，atthesametime，solittlerecognisedthatitwas，onthecontrary，introducedasameansofincreasinganddevelopingtheproductionofcommodities。Whenitarose，itfoundreadymade，andmadeliberaluseof，certainmachineryfortheproductionandexchangeofcommodities:
merchants’capital，handicraft，wage-labour。Socialisedproductionthusintroducingitselfasanewformoftheproductionofcommodities，itwasamatterofcoursethatunderittheoldformsofappropriationremainedinfullswing，andwereappliedtoitsproductsaswell。
Inthemediaevalstageofevolutionoftheproductionofcommodities，thequestionastotheowneroftheproductoflabourcouldnotarise。
Theindividualproducer，asarule，had，fromrawmaterialbelongingtohimself，andgenerallyhisownhandiwork，produceditwithhisowntools，bythelabourofhisownhandsorofhisfamily。Therewasnoneedforhimtoappropriatethenewproduct。Itbelongedwhollytohim，asamatterofcourse。Hispropertyintheproductwas，therefore，baseduponhisownlabour。Evenwhereexternalhelpwasused，thiswas，asarule，oflittleimportance，andverygenerallywascompensatedbysomethingotherthanwages。Theapprenticesandjourneymenoftheguildsworkedlessforboardandwagesthanforeducation，inorderthattheymightbecomemastercraftsmenthemselves。Thencametheconcentrationofthemeansofproductioninlargeworkshopsandmanufactories，theirtransformationintoactualsocialisedmeansofproduction。Butthesocialisedmeansofproductionandtheirproductswerestilltreated，afterthischange，justastheyhadbeenbefore，i。e。，asthemeansofproductionandtheproductsofindividuals。
Hitherto，theowneroftheinstrumentsoflabourhadhimselfappropriatedtheproduct，because，asarule，itwashisownproductandtheassistanceofotherswastheexception。Nowtheowneroftheinstrumentsoflabouralwaysappropriatedtohimselftheproduct，althoughitwasnolongerhisproductbutexclusivelytheproductofthelabourofothers。Thus，theproductsnowproducedsociallywerenotappropriatedbythosewhohadactuallysetinmotionthemeansofproductionandactuallyproducedthecommodities，butbythecapitalists。Themeansofproduction，andproductionitselfhadbecomeinessencesocialised。Buttheyweresubjectedtoaformofappropriationwhichpresupposestheprivateproductionofindividuals，underwhich，therefore，everyoneownshisownproductandbringsittomarket。Themodeofproductionissubjectedtothisformofappropriation，althoughitabolishestheconditionsuponwhichthelatterrests。*8Thiscontradiction，whichgivestothenewmodeofproductionitscapitalisticcharacter，containsthegermofthewholeofthesocialantagonismsoftoday。Thegreaterthemasteryobtainedbythenewmodeofproductionoveralldecisivefieldsofproductionandinalleconomicallydecisivecountries，themoreitreducedindividualproductiontoaninsignificantresidium，themoreclearlywasbroughtouttheincompatibilityofsocialisedproductionwithcapitalisticappropriation。
Thefirstcapitalistsfound，aswehavesaid，wage-labourready-madeforthem。Butitwasexceptional，complementary，accessory，transitorywage-labour。Theagriculturallabourer，though，uponoccasion，hehiredhimselfoutbytheday，hadafewacresofhisownlandonwhichhecouldatalleventsliveatapinch。Theguildsweresoorganisedthatthejourneymanoftodaybecamethemasteroftomorrow。Butallthischanged，assoonasthemeansofproductionbecamesocialisedandconcentratedinthehandsofcapitalists。Themeansofproduction，aswellastheproduct，oftheindividualproducerbecamemoreandmoreworthless;therewasnothingleftforhimbuttoturnwage-workerunderthecapitalist。Wage-labour，aforetimetheexceptionandaccessory，nowbecametheruleandbasisofallproduction;
aforetimecomplementary，itnowbecamethesoleremainingfunctionoftheworker。Thewage-workerforatimebecameawage-workerforlife。Thenumberofthesepermanentwageworkerswasfurtherenormouslyincreasedbythebreaking-upofthefeudalsystemthatoccurredatthesametime，bythedisbandingoftheretainersofthefeudallords，theevictionofthepeasantsfromtheirhomesteads，etc。Theseparationwasmadecompletebetweenthemeansofproductionconcentratedinthehandsofthecapitalists，ontheoneside，andtheproducers，possessingnothingbuttheirlabour-power，ontheother。Thecontradictionbetweensocialisedproductionandcapitalisticappropriationmanifesteditselfastheantagonismofproletariatandbourgeoisie。
Wehaveseenthatthecapitalisticmodeofproductionthrustitswayintoasocietyofcommodityproducers，ofindividualproducers，whosesocialbondwastheexchangeoftheirproducts。Buteverysocietybasedupontheproductionofcommoditieshasthispeculiarity:thattheproducershavelostcontrolovertheirownsocialinterrelations。Eachmanproducesforhimselfwithsuchmeansofproductionashemayhappentohave，andforsuchexchangeashemayrequiretosatisfyhisremainingwants。Nooneknowshowmuchofhisparticulararticleiscomingonthemarket，norhowmuchofitwillbewanted。Nooneknowswhetherhisindividualproductwillmeetanactualdemand，whetherhewillbeabletomakegoodhiscostsofproductionoreventosellhiscommodityatall。Anarchyreignsinsocialisedproduction。Buttheproductionofcommodities，likeeveryotherformofproduction，hasitspeculiar，inherentlawsinseparablefromit;andtheselawswork，despiteanarchy，inandthroughanarchy。Theyrevealthemselvesintheonlypersistentformofsocialinterrelations，i。e。，inexchange，andheretheyaffecttheindividualproducersascompulsorylawsofcompetition。
Theyare，atfirst，unknowntotheseproducersthemselves，andhavetobediscoveredbythemgraduallyandastheresultofexperience。Theyworkthemselvesout，therefore，independentlyoftheproducers，andinantagonismtothem，asinexorablenaturallawsoftheirparticularformofproduction。
Theproductgovernstheproducers。
