Karl Polanyi: Christianity and Economic Life (undated, probably in the second half of the 1930s) (Karl Polanyi Archive, Con_19_Fol_22)

We made the attempt to create a readable version of the manuscript (see the copies of the original in the second half of the file). Special thanks to Tanja Bärlein who compiled the first transcript. Even if she tried to do her best, some doubts and open issues remain. In a few cases we were not able to make sense of some handwritten words, cancellations and/or corrections. We marked these sections with (.).

If you have suggestions, please do not hesitate to send a mail to: Claus.Thomasberger@htw-berlin.de

2

CHRISTIANITY AND ECONOMIC LIFE

Karl Polanyi, London

I. Community and Society.

Christianity is concerned with the relationship of man to God as revealed to us in Jesus. Economic

life, roughly, covers that sphere of social existence, in which man’s needs are satisfied with the

help of material goods. What is the relevance of Christianity to this or, for that matter, to any other

sphere of man’s social existence?

The answer which we can deduce from the Gospels is peculiar to Christianity. It is also the

key to the predominance of ethics in its social philosophy.

The Christian axiom about the essence of society is of the utmost boldness and paradox. It can

be put in the simple phrase that the society is a personal relationship of individuals. Now, to regard

society thus means to disregard altogether the share of institutional life of other impersonal forces

in social existence. In a sense it is the complete denial of the objective existence of society. A

tension is created between the phenomena and the essential aspect of man’s social existence, a

metaphysical hiatus which in Christianity is bridged by a definite ethical urge. It is our task to

make society conform to its essence. Christian social philosophy becomes the elaboration of

ethical axiom.

This position is the outcome of Jewish inheritance of Christianity. Jewish society was a

theocracy. Down to the most minute detail of its structure and functioning it was supposed to

conform to the revealed will of God. Jesus accepted this reference of the will of God to society as

self-evident. But his vision of society was different form the Jewish. For him society consisted of

individual human beings and the will of God was essentially concerned with the relation of these

individuals to one another.

3

The teachings of Jesus as well as the doctrines of the Church are, in this respect, merely

reassertions and clarifications of the basic relationship between human individuals. The doctrines

of love, of brotherhood, of the fatherhood of God, are parts of a definition of this kind of

relationship between human beings which belongs to this essence of society.

No word in the English language seems to designate unambiguously this aspect of social

existence. The nearest approach to it is community in the sense of an affirmative personal

relationship of human individuals, i.e. of a relation which is direct, unmediated, significant for its

own sake, “a personal response to a demand of persons”. Community is, therefore, for us, not

synonymous with society. Indeed, the dialectic of the relation in which they stand to one another is

the key to the social ethics of Christianity.

Two negative assertions seem to follow from this position. 1. Society as such, as an aggregate

of functional institutions conditioned by geophysical, technological and other environmental

factors is no concern of the Christian. His concern is with the individual in community, not with

society. 2. Neither is history as such his concern. The wars of races and nations, the pestilences

and earthquakes ravaging mankind, the spectacular making and unmaking of the fortunes of

individuals and groups of individuals in themselves nothing to him. Yet, interwoven with, and

embedded in, them is that which is his concern, the fulfilment of community.

On the other hand, according to the Gospels, community between human beings cannot exist

apart from actual society. According to the parable of the Good Samaritan, community between

persons consists in actual material sharing, not in the mere ideal sharing of common traditions and

creeds. According to numerous other parables, community, to be real, must be continuous. It is this

continuous actual sharing of life in its entirety which makes the Christian concept of community

coextensive with society, i.e. with the permanent form of the material organisation of human life.

In the same manner, it is as an obstruction to, or a vehicle of, the fulfilment of community that

history alone matters to the Christian.

Incidentally, this explains the Christian paradox. Christianity is indifferent towards society

and history as such. But if the claims of community press for change in society, the judgment

passed upon society is inexorable. And when history points to the next step in the achievement of

universal community, its claim to the allegiance of the Christian is unconditional.

4

II. The environmental factor in its relation to community and society.

Thus, in order to discover our actual relationship to God we must try to understand the relation of

community to society in a given time and place. All knowledge about society derives its relevance

to the Christian from the light it sheds on this point.

Community consists in a definite personal relationship of individuals. In the main they are the

same for particular groups of persons in a particular society, the technologically conditioned

relationships, such as the economic being necessary identical for all members of the group. Indeed

these relationships are, to some extent, the same for all members of a given society, whatever their

relative positions in it be. To this extent no single individual can escape the responsibility for the

continued existence of the particular society of which he is a member.

In a primitive society such as ancient Jewry the position is fairly simple. The old Jewish laws

defined the kind of society that God wanted his chosen people to live in. If they disobeyed the

laws it was not difficult to see, where and to what extent they had strayed from the path. Even in

medieval society it was possible to refer actual human relationships to the will of God working

towards the establishment of a universal community, also here again, as with the Jews, the whole

of society was justified by its positive reference to the will of God.

It is in our present competitive industrial order that has become almost impossible to trace

individual relations trough the indirect channels in society or, to refer the whole of society in a

final manner to the will of God.

The call for a “Christian Sociology” arises ultimately out of these conditions. Its concern is

with the achievement of community in society in terms of human relationships. Is an ordered

knowledge of social facts possible in modern civilisation which would help us to define actual

human relationships in such a manner as to enable us to judge how far our social organisation is

meeting the claims of community in a given time and place? This is the question.

The dialectic of the relationship between community and society must necessarily bear the

environmental factor, i.e. to the geophysical, technological, psycho-physiological and other

accessories of permanent human groupings. Much of the actual structure of society is determined

by this factor. It affects man as a physical being subject to the laws of mechanical causation; it

affects him also as an animal being subject to the psychological and psychological laws of organic

life. The urge towards community must seek expression inside the limits set by these laws which

5

determine 1) the measure in which social organisation can under given environmental conditions

be based on direct personal relationships as against indirect and functional ones; 2) the manner, in

which the love and the fear motive combine in closing the group externally.

The abstract ethics of community is transformed into the concrete ethics of a definite time and

place. But how can we discover whether a move towards community is or is not warranted by

man’s environment? And is it possible to point toward that aspect of social existence which

presents the immediate obstacle to such a move in a given time and place?

III. Marxism on community and society.

At this point Marxism must be regarded as an outstanding contribution to so-called “Christian

Sociology”, insofar as it takes its task seriously.

Almost exactly a hundred years ago Karl Marx started on his career as a philosopher with an

unpublished work called “Kleanthes” (1863) which he himself described as “A philosophical and

dialectical treaties on the nature of Divinity”, and its manifestations as pure Idea, as Religion, as

Nature, and as History.” Although Marx destroyed the manuscript it can be hardly doubtful that it

was the actual starting-point of all his later work. The recently discovered brilliant manuscript of

“Nationalökonomie und Philosophie”, another work not deemed worthy of publication by Marx,

proves that anthropology was the background of Marxian philosophy. Marx’ economics were, in

fact, an application of his sociology to a special aspect of capitalist society, while his sociology

itself was merely a part of his anthropology.

For the theologian, Marxism is essentially an effort to determine the actual relationship of

mankind to God. Its preoccupation is with the definition of that which Christians call the “fullness

of time”. It is an attempt to relate human time to eternal “time”.

According to Marx, history of human society is a process of the self-realisation of the true

nature of man. In our present society the urge of our nature towards direct, personal i.e. human

relationships is being thwarted. For the means of production are today the property of isolated

individuals. In spite of the division of labour obtaining in society, the very day process of material

production does not link up the producers in a conscious common activity, but keeps them apart

6

from one another. Economic life is separated from the rest of life. It is autonomous part of social

existence, governed by its own automatism. Such a condition of things might have been morally

indifferent as long as the material means of production could not be used or developed in any other

fashion. But once technological and other environmental changes in the economic sphere

permitted the ownership and use of the machines by society as a whole, the environmental

precondition of a move towards fuller realisation of community was given and social ethics

demanded a change in the property system.

The materialistic interpretation of history is an attempt to relate human time to eternal time,

i.e. define phases of history to the infinity of human evolution. This is achieved through the

introduction of the principle of adequacy resp. inadequacy of the social system in relation to the

environmental factor. According to Marx a social system is adequate if it safeguards the fullest use

of the means of production available while allowing human beings self-realisation.

The immediate obstacle to a fuller realisation of community lies therefore, at the present stage

in the economic sphere.

The implication of this proposition from the point of view cannot, however, be completely

understood without some future clarification of Marxist views on the nature of the economic order.

IV. Historical categories in economics.

The economic process, according to Marx, has a dual character. It is a process between man and

Nature, and between man and man.

The main economic process is production. In the course of this process by which mankind

secures its material existence in interaction with Nature, definite relationships between man and

man i.e. between the individual members of society are established.

Accordingly, the two original factors of production are man and Nature (or Labour and Land).

1. Labour. In the process of production man and Nature interact. Labour is the action of man

in this process.

7

2. Nature. Dependence upon Nature is another permanent feature of human life. Nature

determines the physical wants and needs of man; the amount of goods procurable by unarmed

labour, the alternative uses to which materials can be put; the rate at which raw materials can be

extracted, - in a word all that in the production of wealth which is due to the environment in which

man’s needs arise and press for their satisfaction.

Economic Laws and phenomena proper are those deriving from man’s relation to Nature.

These are, indeed, “natural” and “timeless” in contrast to the merely historical laws and

phenomena. The latter are an expression of the relations of man to man, i.e. of the actual economic

in a given time and place.

Thus we arrive at two series of laws and phenomena. The one: human labour; human wants

and needs; raw materials and goods; tools, plants and machines (or capital). They are economic

phenomena proper obtaining at all times and places.

The other: demand, supply, purchasing power, income, money, wage-earnings, profits,

interest, rent, Capital (with a C) are historical categories characteristic of our present economic

system.

The distinction is of general validity. It is of special importance when dealing with the term

“capital” in its two different meanings.

Capital proper is only another name for machinery, plant, tools or accumulated resources of

forms whatever which are the precondition of production of almost any kind. In this sense capital

is a “natural” and “timeless” category of economics.

Capital (with a C), as a fund of money value the ownership of which is a source of income, is

a historical phenomenon obtaining only under a definite organisation of economic life. Ultimately

it is the outcome of the system of private ownership of the tools plant, machinery and other means

of production, i.e. of capital proper.

In short, capital as a means of production is an economic category proper. Capital as a source

of income is a historical category i.e. it is part of a transient economic order.

But it is precisely as a historical category that capital assumes a dignity which is not its due,

i.e. that of an original factor of production alongside of man and Nature.

The semblance of the independent existence of capital is not, however, the only semblance of

an objective reality that we encounter in our present society in the economic sphere. The objective

8

or exchange value of commodities is an instance. Indeed the very commodity character of goods

under our present economic system is only another result of the working of that subtle process

which Marx coined the term of “fetishization”.

V. The fetish character of commodities.

What exactly did Marx mean by the term fetishization? And in what manner do the categories of

exchange value, Capital and so on result from the workings of this mysterious process? The theory

of the fetish character of commodities is rightly regarded as the key to Marx’s analysis of capitalist

society. It is, in fact, another outcome of Marx’s basic distinction between economies as a relation

between man and Nature and economics as a relation between man and man.

In dealing with the problem of price Ricardian economics was brought up against the question

of the origin of objective or exchange value in commodities. Commodities are goods produced for

sale on the market. Their value seems inseparable from them. They sell at a price more or less

determined by their value, they are exchanged for other commodities in proportion to their relative

values, they disappear from the market when prices fall below their value, they reappear again

when prices rise, in a word, they come and go, change hands remain on stock, or are consumed,

according to their objective or exchange value. Thus the movements of the commodities on the

market appear to be governed by a force (their value) which resides in the commodities themselves

as if these objects were endowed with a secret life or spirit of their own which makes them act

according to its will.

Of course, this is no more than a semblance. Like the stone or tree into which the savage

projects his own spirit turning thereby the lifeless object into a superstitiously revered fetish, the

goods produced for the market “possess an exchange value” as a result of a similar process of

unconscious introjection.

What appears to us as the objective exchange value of the goods, is, in reality, merely a reflex

of the mutual relationship of the human beings engaged in producing the goods. Though the

producers of boots or milk respectively are unaware of carrying on their production for one

another, the relative exchange values of the boots and of the milk are the outcomes of their

relationship as producers, more especially in reference to the cost expended on producing these

9

goods. Thus, in capitalism producers are determining the prices “behind their own backs”.

Unconsciously, they are the originators of a process upon the result of which their own economic

existence depends. Commodities are things ruling over their own creators. Still, when and where

production for the market is the rule, the fetish character of commodities is inevitable.

VI. What is Capital?

Now let us return to Marx’s inquiry into the Nature of Capital. Under the present economic system

Capital is the dominant factor in economic life. The flow of Capital determines the conditions of

the creation of wealth. Labour without the help of Capital is incapable of producing almost

anything. The ownership of Capital is a source of income. This income derives obviously from the

“productivity” of the Capital owned.

Whether Capital takes the form of plant or raw materials or the abstract form of money and

securities, it is the principal agency in economic life. Not only Labour but Nature herself seem

barren without the Capital necessary to gain access to her treasures and to make them available to

the industrial community. It is the scarcity of Capital which prevents potentially rich countries

from developing their natural wealth in spite of the abundant labour power at their disposal. If

there is one concept firmly established in middle class thinking it is that of Capital as a primary

factor of production.

In view of the Marxian analysis of the pseudo-reality historical economic categories the

illusionary character of this concept of Capital is obvious. A glance at society as a whole is enough

to destroy the superficial notion of capital as a primary factor of production alongside of nature

and human labour. For the tools, raw materials, machines or food supplies called capital (whether

conceived of in their actual reality or represented by the purchasing power necessary to acquire

them) are no more than different combinations of the two actual primary factors, human Labour

and Nature the result of the interaction of these.

The illusion that Capital is a primary factor of production is due to the social organisation of

economic life under our present order. This point is of the utmost importance. The private

ownership of the machines implies that the owners of the machine appropriate the result of the

work done with the help of the machine. Not the worker but the machine appears as the procreator

10

of the wealth produced with the help of the machine. Moreover, the productive services of the

tools are attributed not to the instruments themselves but to their owners, whose willingness to

supply them is essential in securing their participation in production. Ultimately, the creation of

the product is credited to the owner of the machine. The income derived from the mere ownership

of machine can be thus explained (and justified) as a result of the productive functions of

ownership. From here it is only a step to regard money as productive on account of the machines

and other means of production that can be procured by its help.

This series of imputations is an outcome of the false perspective created by the distortion of

economic phenomena proper in a society where the means of production are owned privately. It is

this false perspective which accounts for the common acceptance of the fetish-concept of Capital

under our present economic system.

Of all practical conclusions drawn from this phantastic concept of Capital one of the most

important is the interference that the solution of the social question lies in the cooperation of

Labour and Capital on an equal footing. Such a cooperation is regarded almost as the outcome of a

natural law which makes them joint partners in the task of production. Under the wage system this

is indeed truism. Nothing could be more “natural” than the two parties to a contract should have an

equal standing and should collaborate with one another as equals.

From the Christian point of view the notion of parity between Capital and Labour is a fantastic

misconception. It means the equation of humanity with a fetish. Labour is human and personal,

Capital is merely their distorted reflection. Its separate existence is a semblance which drives from

the system of private property. Where the means of production are not in private hands, neither

does there exist Capital as opposed to Labour – the only valid distinction is between present

Labour and past Labour, Labour spent on consumers’ goods and Labour spent on producers’

goods. The equation of Labour and Capital by Christian thinkers is worse than a misunderstanding

– it is a proof of the lack of any serious effort on their part of gauge the spiritual nature of modern

economics. The persistent reiteration in the resolutions of the various oecumenical conferences of

the suggestion of cooperation between Labour and Capital on a basis of parity as the solution of

the social problem must be regarded not only as an outstanding example of the failure of

representative Christian gatherings to formulate in adequate terms what is the greatest social

problem of our time but also as a symptom of a fateful decline of common religious sensibility.

11

VII. The abolishment of the private ownership of the means of production.

We can appreciate now more accurately the meaning of the Marxian proposition that at present the

inevitable obstacle to the self-realisation of man in society lies in the economic sphere.

In view of the double dependence of the individual for his material existence on Nature and on

his fellows, the important role of the means of production in determining the possible relationships

of human beings to one another is apparent. The sharing of material existence is part of human

community. The achievement of community cannot, therefore, be independent of the conditions of

material existence. These inevitably enter into the determination of the adequacy or inadequacy of

the actual organisation of society, whether political or economic proper.

It is this economic organisation of society proper which, according to Marx, forms the

immediate obstacle to the fulfilment of community at the present state of development.

The economic organisation of society is based to-day on the private ownership of the means

of production. This has come about by the introduction of machinery into a system of production

which was adapted to meet the demand of ever widening markets. Competitive machine

production destroys the imperfect community, the “democracies of unfreedom”, of the Middle

ages, but failed to create new community, a democracy of freedom.

I ~

Lll'll:t<,,· ·' ---'"'-

'

I.

~~1tY a!!d Sooif\y.

Cbrbtiaotty_ h co110eraed with the re\ationabi-p of man

to God as revealed to ue in Jesus • .Economic Uta~ rot1gb1y.,

covers tbat l!li).~re l)t sooiai exiiltenoe, in -whioll -n•s needs

are satisfied wltb the ilelil of material goods. \'.'hat is tbe ' ·relevance of Chri s tianity to this or·; for .that matter, to any . ~ .. ···~ .

other sphere of man•e socia l oxtstence?

The anSlfer w;'lioll we oa-n deduce from th.e Go ·s-pel.s le peculiar

to Chr t etianity. It is al.~o the key to tlle predominance of

etllics hi its aooia.l. t>b.iloeopby~

:~.~a.e Chrin tiau axiom about tile ee.s-enoe of society h1 of the

u t most boldness and paradoxy. It can he put l~. tho sim-ple -phrase

t i.Ja.t society is a per60aa.1 rel.a t\oneb.ip of lndiTidual.o. Now,

to regard society thus meana to disregard altogether the ohnre

ot inatituUona.l life aDd of q~b.er impersonal force s in socia l ;1;)). ...

exietence. In a eenee H ie'ftile courpl.ete denial. of t ne obJective

existence of society. A tenuion is crea ted between the phenQ~nal

sootal. elti.l!tefto~- a illeU.phyal~a.l bridgeQ_ by a detiol'te etlllcal'

' urge. It i8 ou~ taak to make ~ooi~ty conform to its eseenoe. -----Christian soolal pll1\o£Jo~~ beaolle& tlle e'Laberatlon of an etht-

" Cat a:do111< -~--------

j

.. •

This ~altioa is tb4 outcome of the ~ewiah iDberitauoe of 3/

Cb.rl(U a nUy. Jewis!l. &ooie~y was a t lleooracy. DoWB to t ile moat

af.wt.e detail of 1\H st~cture and functioning U. was sup-posed

to con to nn to tne retea.le<l w1 t l of Goc . J'-eaus aocepte4 tnts rer·e­

:ronoe ot' t he will of. God t <l fl.Oohty aa eetf-ftTf.dent. Dut h.io

Yl eion of eoctc<t.y wae d ltferent !:ro!ll the .Tew1&~ For lllm eooLet7 .-'J)~.Uj

oons hte4,(_of indiTi.dua.l lluaan

PI M Urt W concerned w\tn tile

btlngs ana ~n:'? 11 ot <:rod wa.e _,.

r e\atlon. of~1Yidaala to one

a.oo t her.

Tho t eaobiags of Jes us ae well as of ti:le c nuroll ~ \~

~re , to thl5 reepect . ~reaasertlous '

~nd clar1f1catlona of -~-'

eio r e lationship betwe en ~n lD4111dUala~ Tile doot~ine ot love ,

or brOtherllood, or tile !atUernood of Ood1 are parte. of a. d~f~nl->t_ J.a . • ~ ,....~ ..r. ~tr.> (b, ·~

tloo of ..... ldod of rel.ationull\p botwoex1 b.iu11atlb~--- \e

._. oeeence of eooiety.

No word in t he Ene'U eb 'language uems to doolsnnto unaJi,t­

guoualy this aal"t~ of aoo\ a 'l exis t ence. The neare at a;pproach

to tt i e oomcunity in t he seuse of an a!tirmattYe perso nal re-~

l.atio nsllip of lluman lAdividua 'ls, 1·•-~ or a ralation whiall i s

direct • unaedlated, e i gnittoant !or its ow& sake,~a persona\

r es'POnee to n demand of person& "• Ooumn;ntty i a • therefore, for

us , !!2.1 synqn~u& wttn_ llOO\ety. Indled~ tbe d i a 'leoti o of tbeit ;...,. ~ ~ ~-b ..V. ...., ~t-(~

r e \atloop tar ~s t t1el key t o tile aoc t n. t e tll10$of Clu'f.stiQnUy .

Two negat1Ye a~sertlon~ eeem to follow from thi s posi t ion.

1. SOcietY aa euob • a a an &SBrtsate of tuoct ion~l tnatitutloua

condi tioned b,y geop~ef.oat, teobnologio~l and ot her envlronaen-

2. Ne11;ller is lli!SU as &llcb niB concer~. Til.e "ar11 of raoes a·nd

na.t!.one, t r.• peatllenoos end eartbquakee r~'Yaging manldl!'ld• t.be

epoctacul.a:r _~~~!~old~ and u~~~~~aktag of the fortuaea of llldlvlduab ~ \.,et;"'~ rr,

and gr~upet~..mean 1.n the ... el.Te& nothing to b.i'm. Yet, intenoven

•t nd '- .. 1 "~ew t ;,.._t. hi " 1. .... 1 lh . a , a · eao~.edda" n¥ .. a s •• ..,.. 11. ct1 s .. e -concern; t he

f\tl.f'tl ... nt Of CO!IilllU'Ill,t.y. . 1 . , -··' Ml_ ~-~ 0., M.., .1_...,jfQ \110.~~~~~

On tile othu ha.rldrJ\~~u~al'YJ5ityeel! hUmtul Wigs oanm

! x}!;d; a par't frttm agtual .!!o.gi.et.y~ Accorc\ne tc.o- the pa.rli.bb of

t he ~ ~amarlta.c.;, .c.o·mmuuHy bet'l'i'earl -perao·n~ consists i.n actu-. ..,...Jr

a l -rua.t·eria1. sllarl.ngf - in ti~e mere• ide:al sha/.ing o.f. commo·n . ~~h

trnditlcrlll and creeds • .A:oc<~rding to lllmlerous other para~_,.

ooJ111L•.mltyt to be real, llllle-t be continuoua. [t h thi.n oont1nu­

oue actual ~>l1art ng of l.ife in its e.nt.ire.ty wl11otr makee the

Cbrl stta.n concept of 0'01!1r:lUUl ty coextens i.Ve wttb 804 t ety,. 1. e~

wl. fu the -perma.nertt f orm of tll\1 materia l orga.nien tion of human

1i:f'e. I n t.ne eume lllc'lnnar1 .n io · a.11_ an o-betruot.ion to, or a ve­

h.iole of. the fulfl.llment o£ oommnl ty t im.t hie tory al. one

mat ters to tile Clu:>i atian~

Incidentally, tllis explains tlle Christian -paradox. Chriet-ia­

n ft.y · h indifferent to<"ards $Ociety and bh tory ae sue a. J3ut lf

th.e claims of o.olDIIlUnity -preas f or change in society ,. tae judgment

-passed u-poo society is i:aexorable. And whe·o b.iatory points to

t b.e nex:t s tep in t ile· acbisTeiDent or universal commt1ntty -; its

claim. to tna a.Uegl1U:t.o.e of t ile Cbr-ie tia n ts uncondUional.

n.

Tile -&£"' ~ ~ r-<1.1-L..ow ~

eDT[rODID!!zita.t ] 1 j ' ! '4 COM!llUDl t :t . socletx •.

and

1'buw, ln order' to discover our actual retattonelli-p to God

W'e must try to llnderet.a.Dd tile reta.tt•n O.f collllllllnity ·,to , society . "

l.n a ·giTen time and place. Al 't lalowle.dge about £Oobt.7 derins

it.s rol.eY6l.DC'ft to tbe Ch:rht.i.an from t!le. iigbt it sh:e-ds en this

\)Oiot • . ~ ·w~s CollllWntty conehb i~ a definiter..r.elationehi'P ot lU q

~too a po tat: ~~-r'~Til'lllfuf-p 'ot-DlK! t:<t "tll&ft"Tif oh !'~l'ii'i'lt tor f d-UlNeli~ "••~uta&<lll"~~tt tt• C%'"ta- iiUht)looo a.t"ja t ile main i'6 ill/~

c\.t-~ the same for -pa.rtieul<'J.r itl'OUps of -persons in a. pa.rtioul.ar- 110-'

cie'ty,W t l1e teohno.tcgicall.y conditioned

ae tlle ecooom~ neces&ar11;y i.dent ica.l

Felattonelllpe , euc~

for all members of .,

the group. Illdoed t ue~e relatLoneulpa are, to some 'exien~ tha

same for all members of .a ei.:nn ~society., ~~hver their re l&tive . . ~"" 'l,\J"

-poe-itlous in it be. 'f o this e~tent JIQ tfJ.{I. ~,i,ncUvi.dua l oan ·'

escaP4t tllr~ responel bil.i ty ror .t_ua contiJIU&d e:xiilteuoe of tile

particular seeiety of wnioh ne i& a TOember.

In a primi t.i ve aooiety slloh as ancient J'e'ffry .t ne \)OSit ion

i s :Cairly simple. Til" o1d .i~JWish laws defined tlllil kind of a.o­

ciety tt.at God waat·ed h.h chosen 'POdple to Uve in. If tiuty dis­

obeyed t he taws it wa s not d ii'ficu 'l.t to s:eo, where and to wll.ll.t

extent tiley had

i t wa s \IO&sible

st.ayed from tne -p~t4. :;;veo in medieval

tll ~ actual h1m:;.n r;; latiooeb:i p~:; t o

society

of God working towards tile eeta.bl. hillaent of a universa l. oc~~~~~Nn1-

ru a.1.so , ilere ~ln,as with the Jews. ~lle wno le of a~clety

e.. was Ju~tU'i.e11 ey its po&itlTe rer,~ruce l o tl".a Tttll of God. It 1a

in our preoout com-petl tive t.r.duotx·i:tl ord.,.r t br.<. t it tlall become

alwcst im~osctble to trace

d irect ~uan~le t o eoc1ety

1adtvldual. rel.at.ionfl tbrougn tlie 1n.­

or. to ~ tr..s wt.olo or eociet7

i n t. final manner to tile wil.1 of Cod.

'l'":J.& ea l1. for n "Cb~ilitinn looi ol.oQ' • a rises 11H il'QA.tel.y out

of' ttlese oo ud i tiono. Its colloel'D i o wl. th the acai.eToment of

6-•.

Ili.

Marxism on community aDd 110-oie!:u_ .

• At this point Mar:ds111 must be rogal"ded a::; an outs.ta.ndine

contribUtio!~*t:tristian Soeiol.og:t•.r ....:.,,1 ... <4 ;t 1-..fv., ~h~;(.k.-: ou.). rf t.,)r&- -4- . . . .

Almost exactly a hur•dred year-s a.go Kar1 Marx ota.rted qn

hie career a.s a til.\ilo sop&or witb. e n u~:publi aned work; ca n ed

·~!~!:!!!!£•..!!.!: (183C) which he h.i,meelf dv.acr i bed. ·tetrt- t=&" d •W

li:otaoJ4'u'll as ".A,pt.i1osopuioa1.d d ialectical trec.tis.e on t!le

na.ture o£ Di.viuity ·'t , and its "' Pie' e u\ manii'eetati.ons a.e. pure

Idea,as Re 'Li&io n, as Nature, . a ut! aa iilstory. " Although Marx

d estroyed the wanusarip~~it.,~~~e~e ~ , ;-. , 1;,. j~- .N il..ff. {.0\.t~ liJ <--./I<'

~ t lla t it \VSS t ·O!S tza1't Stnrting-,a int Of- hi s l: , .. ,.< o( ~ .-. {..,-,;u,;.~ ~1[~. The reoant ty u i scovered;.. !lk"lW!lc ript .of "Na tiona l.Oll:o-

• i

nomie und of :pub-

uoauon by Ua~~~~~e==~~ . 5 I~. a ntilr:-po ~~p.M~~c~~~~ral~~~~:t.~r '/' ~1 ~ .tif, economics were., tn fac:t ...... an a,.·pliea tio-n of hie so-

J

!

:

7.

olo\ogr to a a~oial aa~ot of

aooi·olou ~~ waa~"' p&rt

~~

oa'PltaU st aoclet7, whlle bia

to

ll e term i. ne

taeoloaia~., ~xiam

t he-- actual relill.onehi'P ot llltl.nkl ad to God. 1\a 'Prt-

OOi:U\Iation to w1 th tile de!lnl1:1oa or tllat wlli okl Cilrhttcm11 J•

oa:n til11 • t1ll.l'O€se lt ti••· It t• a~ a ttempt to r el."'t te human

time

tion

u rgo o t' our natu::e towa1·da di r eot ., !)Orl!o nn.l i . e . hU!IIQD re\a­

tlOllllllipa i o bei cJ& tll•nar:.ed. li'or U~e r.~eane o£ '{lroductloa are

to-dtl;y tlte pro-;><trty of leola t&d lncHvtdua1.a. l"•li Jn tip1te /\' \,.. )v~;ul 'l--- ---- -----...

or the~~~~ 1!1Tldloo ___ or labO_;:,~ • the OTary d (cy· procuo ot

ma:e ria l produ.ot1on does no~ link u-p the prod<!cers 1D a con-

.BpotX1p1c j

no'IIIOI:B

lift b UP!U:,a ted fro• thg Fe.,tt ot\ttdit is

~nrt of eooiQ\ ext ete .... , gove rned by its

auto-

Suob a condition of tblng~ migat haT~ been morally

w;.tu au to~~a t hm. ,

l od l fferent · 1u

l.on~ I.U! the ma.tsrlal mea ne of o>rodllation a oul.cl not be used or .

developed in a ny o U1er t's al1ioD • But once t e ol:mol..ogioal and oi{.hr .

environ:aental olla.118ea lll .tilesooDO• i o B'Phere pomltted the owner-'

alllp a nd use of ta. maohinea b7 society asa wllole , tlle enTlron::-, ..

ment a l prcooodltionl of a .ov; towardeaa t ulltr re~liaatio• ot

-.:ci'Oliauni. t7 wall given a nd eoo1&1 ethioo demand~ a oil.ange 1u the

'Prcperty syst ...

1

8·

I , ./'.

The materlallst1e interpretation or histor,y ia an a tte•pt

to rel.a.tej clef'inite phasea of ill.f~tor,- t o the . lnf'lnUy or bUman

evo lutlon. 'l'hi.a i s a chieved tlu-ous h t. ll& io\roduoUon of tile

pr1no1ple or adequaoy reap. ina4,quaoy ottbe soc i a l eyetam in ~ ~. t'-'"' '·~~ .... -....;J.o4 ~ ~ 4~~~ ··~-----:----·---...

r el a tion t o t be environme.nt~>l factor. According to ~ a socia l

eystom is a dequa te w•dor the coadit~ooa gP,ea if t t saf eguards

!he impl ica tions ot tnls propoRltion from tbe aaaaropologl~al

~int ot view oGnno\ , iw~evar , b~ completely underetaod witnout

so111e furtner c\1\rifioi'>tion of lti\t'Xht •1ew·s oii.: t <ltl nature or t~e

....._ ecortomic ~. ci+'~.

l V .

:!:HJ~.!.Or\qel_ qa t egor ies io eco~:~o_g;i£.!!:..

'l'he ecoooa io process ; . dine to :IW.rx, has a dual clu.racter.

It l. s a prooeos betwaen man and lll'a ture , a nd between ma.n a nd wan.

Tile main economic prGceee 1& l)roduction. I n the course ot

tllis proces s by !ll'll ioh ~:~e.nki.nd secur e& it:; l'UO.ter i.a l existence in

interaction with Na ture, deflnite re l ationeblp& be t~een ~n and man

1 .~ . between t. lle individual JBOIIIber e of ~:;oc.iety are e stahl.isb.ed.

Aocordiog\y1

t ue two oriaim~l fac;or:; of 11roduotlou l'l.te man and :r( ·

Nature . ( ili' 2 SI t ' iiiH) 1 i..a.bour uud l.an<l. }

\ . Labour. I n ~ne vrooess of production r,;a n a nti ll;;. ture intera ot .

I

\

J.Q.bour la t he a~tion or man in thla -prooea~ .• . '~ ~c.p-/

2. ~~·· ~ .w='Pendenoe on J<ature la m1other p{lrTIIf.>llent f'ea-

tl1 r:l! o:f' .il\lm!.ll u re. Natu-re rte t.flrmiu ea tile· 'Pl:!.Yst.a<~l 'lfante: a nd net~dz

of !l'.c,nf -fhe a:r.cunt of 60ods LY.~::ocHrHble l1y U'IUI.rtilad l a:oour J t U!!

'-'lte~·nat1T~r uee.s · to wll.l.oh m. <}tAl" l ll-1R ea n be. l,)Ut. ; t uc r~te at w!liah

r;w{ ma:~eria1B c ::J.n be extratitcecl; - ia a wc.rd all t <w.t in t he

vrQduct i o r.. ot: \T•!a lth w:!l,ich i e · dtttl t~ f; l1.o ~nviromnent in wilich rOO.n • a

Eccnamio 1aw~' a.nd -phenot.lell6 lJroper are· :tuos·e oeri 1'1118 from

rnan •z rela:l;ionl to ,1\b. tU.ro . ·l'ns sa <>re, indued9 "naturo.l" Hnd

nttme1cee • in contrast to trhe -u;;}, r.isto.ria~S~L ·1.~~' •

i t! r _.

an ex'Prea t~ ton of: .t he d.e.fin v.te reu~t1or.e of'~ to Nn , !.. e . or.

t t1e ectut~l ~.g~ai~'!_u_ •! ~aon(;'l!lic 1~ v-, q~,.~ ..... ~~~-.. . . l'h~:<s we arr\ ~t:. a t two se.r i.ee of lnwa · t•{ld phenomer.;~~·

'~(71<.11 1 liU!llan l.::l.bour; uu!ll<~ n 'l!mnt;) <J;nd need a ; raw nla.t c:rl r, l :> <<tJd r;:oods

tool s . 'Plaat~.nd wa.cll inea ('or£Pita.l}~Frl<~eQnol!li-<: phenomena. pro:per,

obta ining at a ll times ~nd pl~Sf 'li. ~«:J)tl'lllUncli-:, su.,p1y, purcila.::dn,g p&wer, i ncome,. lllOiliiYt ·fJage-

<!arning , 1,1rofl ts, interest, rent, Calli t al. ( with a C) a re b.ia~orical

cate gories · cnara·ot l!:r.i.st.tc of .our Prl!1fent aconorll!o s ysteta • ~

~tilQ dPf&J.i a±lAl in::attt:c::H-;· ·LJYt :::tla.elact 1 7 f'lo'K ot...~

ba . ' .H (l f

~ a% i t.-rQ · ; :.;.~_; .-:tt:rn-- ave ftllfb:Od!t il'i 1n a g1 ve·e""F *''''I ··

I~

Tae distinctio n i.e ot g.eoer a l va lid ity .• ~t is of special.

iurpo r t a nce when de a Ur..g w itll '!;he term. " e a p it,\ t• i!Vt " f.··11o

diffe t'<> nt · r~aani~ s . Gapital pro'!)er tits obly a.!oft, other name f or n:3c ili.nc r ;y-

l.O.

•·· ' ·- '---.--~ :~~

p~ant ;-ioob or a.ccwmUtod ressourcee of\!11 J < t 'u• -tit"B« JJI&illlll

arc t he ~~&I !;>re'lon4:H.tor>~ · of Pl'OdilcHon tlf n. 'lroost nny

ki.nd. In thtli>. ~~~~} is !\. " na ·tu:r.a.l. " itnd • t'i.lt:e le·.es 11 ~d.teg·ory

Ccrpi k' l.. ( with a C) .;;.;,:.~ t'rnH1 or. ·money value tu0 o?~nP-r;;lli-p or ' >f.

whi-ch is <~ so\n·c e O'f i nco1t1e •. is a. hi. etvri. (~sl pbenome~n obta i:ni tif· .·

ot1ly Ull•h r a G!<J i'i n it<t org:;,nieJ-. l;iou of 6tHHl01'-'i O ti,.fa . Ultir.:ale 1y_,

i t I s t ~Je outco:;e of t he :;ryst em of priv•'l.te· O'IHier~hi-p of t ne too'l~

1?lant 1

waobi:!! 't".l . a n.d o·~·~H· ·mear..eof producti()ll i..e. of ~aj?ital

pr~·pa!""'*-/ ~ e 'i(e6 f;.,ut ;5 ,,., e ,., i1 alk.e .

lbt short •, , or..pi tu.'t «M> llW<'i/Os of protl •.! ci;i.on is arJ aconoOJJ.c ca t e ·. ,: · "'· ·•/ ~sj>4.d.1 .:(/ <t. k-J;,~,..~~ CJTJv.

gory pro-per J C:.;;p1t~1 a s n &O'UJ:'Oe o:t incomo hallistoric!tl ~ateesm

Th.i t i t ie i)rcciaely ;.ll a. l<i ll t oH.ca l category t <mt . o~p t.tii{, l . ~·· 6 J,;i(, . ~f

~ot);;i% ·~~ <iigritty whic\jfs n.ot its ~ue i ~ (l~ of an originnl ~Rfdl141&, C?J ., uot i on alongsi.de. of man Hn' lTi.t•.Ire .

tG1"i~~~~~.._...~u.~:t~(· · ~i~r=lC~le~. ·pG~~~.d~s~n~t~e~·x;i~s~· t~· E~·IWo:t -;;t"l,3at>i t a1 16 not , Wiw-. 1 av~ ··· t; ·.

evar t ile cui.y Si3roi't>l imctl o·f'~;,n,lLty t nat we. e ncounter ln o-ur preasnt

' 1 eooiaty in ·~l£e ttoamnut~ !lpher~ . • _,~ . -,

•i•• .. £=' 1w \Ui s ; Cll· rl,1le Qb.Je;ttve .or exetla'nge TIJ:.lue of oom-:nod it tl ties J.e a u ine tLnoe. tnde~d t i".Q very oolllluo.dity ·Ob;<r a c·tsr of goods

l.tnder ~ur p::asetlt eoonvll>ic eystem i s fHll.y aootile.r res~Alt o~th~ r.o r king cf t~ .. '1.t su.btle -proces s t "JfS t.t w" 6 \7h ioh

Marx oo t no-d t he term of '' !~t i slliza t ion" ~

" ~·

11 .

'·

CapHal and so on reeu.l.t from the· worki.nga of tb.h myater1ous

~rooesu? ~he ~he.ory of tbe feUstl character .of commodities 1a

rightly r_?f.a.rded as tllc key to Ma.rx;L/' na.l.ysis of cr.~-p\tali st

society. .• ill h7 ia f'ac.tr an~outooroe of Marx' e ba.e i o dte;..

t t octtoo betwaen aaohomhle as a ·relation .... between wan and

llature ana eeonomice a s a re l.a-tiot IPi 2'4 between ~~~an r.nd c a.n.

In dealing wi.tu thfJ probl.eTil of price lUcar(!ian econollliCii

was brought up a.ga inct the q;.~estlon of t he Ol!iein of o·r,jectiTe

or exchange· Ta lue in oommoditle .,.. C!ll!lmodittee are goo<le pro­~,....;

duced for"tt~a market. the i r va l ue se r;ro6 ·inee-pa.rable from tae ""IL '

cc stj t y '' SJ Lf-. The:; s.ell at a 1Jrica lJK)re· or le.ss deternli.ued

by t h,;ir vn1ue, ti>tlY •~re exchanged for oUu;r ooBllllodities ln

i>TOi>(lrtion to tlwt:l: rat~~ ti.ve valUEtS ·~ t hey d laa.p-pea.r rrom tue . lw··

markat When ~I'_!~~~~ .fal.l be-l.or. -vn.lue~ , th~y reapl(Od.I' again ~ . - / .

when pri.c~,e riee lr ir. a-o:rd ;. t he-y c·oue ;,nd uo , ei•u:tnee ha.nils

r eme.i n ont·f'too:t:, or .are 'CO nauE>e4,. ;,ccor q i r.z to t r.~e l..r- obj ea t t ve

AL~. or- exr:.haugo value. Th'u'e tb.o .nt.a of eo.lli>i.'Od ibhf> on t i1e...mar~ ··- ~ /

kat ~over~ed by a foro·~ ( t ue i:r· V:J.1.uci) whicb :tes id6:.. i n tile

~ ... to its wi 11~

or c·ourae ll t i.t\t; i s no more t uan a :~lance. .'L i kC:' ~he atone

OT tree into "histl t4·:.~ sa.T'~.t;n PI'OJec f<.e uts OV!D s:t•irit turning

t heni by the lifa'\.eefl object into a :>1Apent!.ti<Hlflly revoroo fe-·

ttah , t he _$00d.a ·produced for tile l!iarket " pou£es*n &x~h;~rl ,_;-e value~ M oo .. ~ .t1 ... We+' 1',.. , • · -

~·------- -.-~"' + ftJ r• aiml1ar 'OT'O.Ut!lll6 of UUOOil!lCi.OU G illtrOJ·eC •l..OD.- J

~ 1;""~ CV> till , . ,..~ wnat 11.-p:pea.r s).t · 1 the ollJ•:ottvo excb.an~o

T'l.lu~ of~ arl!ti:o; 1\t 111; r ea.tityl me t-e l.;;r a retl.e~t hle ...._:G.-(

r~ l.~t lonrhip o! t he ~u~~~ be\ug& e ugased ia prod~cinz t he £004o_

IS!IIINZ t;;::zl , Thou,Gh ti:l.fJ l.Jrod •H:~:re of ~ots or ;nll.k -respectiTel y

a r a ~=· of :u.rl')·tug o-n tfl:\r :product1on ~~-Qi:\'~j;";ft' "' ~

o atl anot har.. the r d.a t t va e::ccllnne<: Vf~ t ues· or t he boot s <• nd of tl,a. .~ ,....._..

1.W3 o i l.k Rra 'C ' ~etlG+edc·u Jal'ft! •• ot t heir relation-· e.

allip <lll produaeru , oo1·e e.&peaiall.y in rd'arnoe ~o ttlu c.,,.., eXtJund<!d OU protiUOll'l6 t!le Bll i!OOd Bo 1'bua , i Q 01\l.l l\a 1 tero 'P.l'O-

ducers a ro datcn11tnino t!le -pr1oee ·•i)el11nd tneir own bao:ta• .

Un~t; t ha:· o.r-e tlla or 'l.g ittr< tors of a ;;roo&llil L tba

r esu1.t o f wnioll t he i..r own e cooomtc e;d &tonce ... de ;endL Colll-4l.:...-. m

trtod l t\t'C! Ltr e ~ !'U1 ing over. t h,; i r <>W:'l c r~C;nto.:;;· r; . ~fhfln r,nd ..s·lp #AI

wilere tJ:roductlon (O!." R '1o W6l'lcct \ s t~e xu1u , t no fetl. atl ollar ac-

ter ;;£ ool!t:loditie r~ ts i noy.lt,,tb 'la .

Kow l et us r eturn to ::f.arx' s i nqui ry into t he tia ture of

C!i.'Pit<:.lo

Undec t be prGseut eooncmio s~stom c~pital. i o t be do~inant

factor 1n econolllic l U'e • '.flle t 'Low o f Cav~ta1 determines t ile

oouo ltloce c! t he cr eation of 'l'tealth. Labour without tll6 he1.p '

of CtlVita.1 i. s. 1no~J:pao'le of pr uduo l.ng o.lroo·et anytb1~. '.l'he owner-

shi.~ of Capite \ i s a souroe .of inco~M. Tbi.:s lnoo~~~e der\Yes ob-

C'.;.vh.-1. tr.kes tbe t'on< . ot -pl.aat or :ra-. materials or t ile al)s tract

fo rm or money !>Ud ee<mrlt~tt te t hll l)r1 nc1-p..>l a.ae~cy in eoo .. , . nomic life . Not onl7 Labonl' but Natu:r.o tle.rsel.f aee•• 'barren

wl taou.t t itit ·ca.pi t.a l ~ C to ea in· acoeas t o ller treasures

a Dd to Ulalce · tilet:a availa bl.e to tU. ir..dustrial coi!Q.loity. It i s

t he s carcity of c~~it4L w~i ch ~reYents f~tent1Rlly rich countr-

1ei3 frot~ deve1.opln£> t tl~\l' natu:ru. 'L lfenttb. i n svltb of the a bun-

riml ;,r eets.blisl1ed i.a ~ic;l<l l.e cl.Ase t h l nlti'!lg U l s t hnt or

Cd~ital ~s a ,._ .. , .. .&t•• .. Gd'=G'Ed'~t .. da~l vri~ry f actor or pro -

duct ton. . . .

In yiew of t tl !: !mrxi.a.n s:on\ysl ~> o f t he- -vseudo-:ronlHy of ..-- I !:;1:-.hi. :> toric:.-l e conomic cr·>h~Sor teu. tile illu.eionu.ry o'b.a~tor of

•, . ,r ,j tlli s concept of Cat>Hrll is ob-thus. A g 1.a ooe ·~t aoo lo t y f•a t~

whole i s .nough to cestroy t r.d oup. rfloia t notioo of capita l

ae ~Q~1~e~ f3otor of ~roduotiov ~lor~~ td ~ of na t ure and

euppl.ies t:ltLl.e!l orlpitv.l (whetl'l .• onolovud of i n t l lQir r.o~\Htl

rc;;.litJ. or r;,pre Ben "tell b; tlla vurolllil.sl. ne !'O?I<Jl' 11il<lO o~ary to

noqt; tre thcll) :ue t!O nore t~tl d li'fare:l t •om'oiuo.tioms of tlle .

..,. "-~~1~ilt:t, !~ctor.;,_hutlan !.al:>o :~r c.t .. cl :iatur'1t h<: l!la g .}Pt;f.­~ :•1 of the intera ct i on of t.lleotto

-ilo.t .u ... 'l'l:l.e 1 Hue t oo .. C:~pitat l • ~\ raotor of ~ro-

<luotion i.s •

due · t:o the IHlo t u'!, oreani ::mtton of coo-

nomic life unde r ouJ: :;>raee;lt ordo x: . Tilla -point tu of t ll6 utBOst

t~:~vor t<•ooa~ Tile pr iva t e oWllllrellL~<f~:oaclllnn iTGp'l.ioe tW.A~ ~(id ,~ :1( .... ~l ':f- IJ..::-'u:::!:::':II! uit

tis wvrk do~ \rit~ tt~ a.a1.:p c:f t he ma ohi nU" . 'l'fo·t t n.s · ~o rkt!!rf out

t he GU;.c;hinc a~p~:;;.~·iis the .tll'!lcreato:rt ot the we:;;Hb. -prod\lced with

the help ~ th~; waclti ns. l~''.t t he. prcd~aervtce.e D"t'

t he too ·L o:J al'e <d; t .t'i.l.w.t.ocG not to t hfi W. im:t.r-uHontec~ to t he ir

-I

1

o~men;·,, wl1oea <lt 1.'ti. ugne1!c ·to l-'U~'-£>1¥ t hem l. s o.ssent t s l l. n. securing ,

. :--: ~ 29-. ILUA -pc-t.rt ·lq ~:po:t i<in e!i ±As ; t:z:M tn p!.~oc·:.lotion. lGi R ;::; u .. xtycdCb , .>J.....l i--.

t he cro;Hi'Or. of t.M '[;Jr od'U.ct.""Q' "'tb,·«el rF os.edited to t he ormer 14....: ~ . of t.he wachine• ~ f hI' imtlc.le income Cl.-rt:red from t !le,o,'fner-

~ 1'-

ehii> of the ma(Hline can i:i~ ~lainad (e.nd jtt&l;~c;l ) as ;1. result

of tnt: tJroduot.t"ve fuu;:: t ·i oos o.f owlleJ:~>hi ;:~ . From ldPill I. t is on'Ly

.a atep to !'e,:!a~-~ley · s.e .,...._. \)r bdueti'lf.e on .r,:a:count of tl:te J(j~o i .. ~ ..

~ t!!zeL& and ot,w:r ~am:J of produc tion t h:l,t can be '!;lr.o~ured by o-Qe i l~

:.,hfta sGrios of i P .. t"'put.J.:t'ions ts an " tr1e <i i e tor t i on

!Je<: " .. ve CX'<ia a of e conomic

t ha lllfr<{l'l6 o !: "?.ro<!uct ton ::se ~

the Mu •'-·ti•~ a:::~e:p.h.nce of t h &

undtH our preaent econo.tlic system. '

fet1eh-concept of c~~ital

t 5 .

~ . collaborat e wlt n one o.uother a2 equu.tc. ""'-7-- r - •

.---. '-...,. .lo'rom t.he C:llri!Jti.ru'l '(lOint af vin tt1e noUon or

----­,.._ - ---- · .--

between CaJil\t.a'l. and U"bOIU' is -n pha.cta.atic mieconcopUoo.

It ll!t''IIIC. t he equ~<.tl.on or ~rua.ni. ty witll a fet1&t.. L..bo..:r ie hmlan

and iJ~rson"1; Ca:pitn1 i ll .J!:!§t'" lwr Labour, self-os~rc.nac)J• "kl.oour

r:epr.eeeute ·S.U S6grcgate of: llu;llliJ. t : Otl1UC: I> ; Ctti) i'ta 1 1.8 muu'ly

t he i:r rl l & tort·ed ret'lf!c tion. I to cep<.t:ra to e :d :.teno& ill a s<lmhl a nce Alt ·

~uich der 1vea f~os ~ SJO~or. or ~~iv~tc property . W~re t ue means -~~- e«.J.

of prcduot'lou are not ln "?rlv3.~tt .:l(lll:Jt , .:~either do(~~:;,..C:::.pital - /

~ •~li oppo»cd to .Lt..bo •a)/'t~e only valid .; i »t inot1on i :s betwoen

pre~enL Labour und yo.ot Labour , Lr·bour s~ant on oonvumcr&'goode

s o<J ' .. atour llr,.ent on producer~> • good e. '1'll.e a quat lor. o~ Labour a nd

CF.-.. pi t .. r.1 by Cu.rist·ian t ll\.akers b.:ad *he t uesCutt on e f t .1c i t ..-o l'a.a··

~.t ;on : D!ftiH:iJ ~ ;ft a £&£ :.z .&StlG•i tw «ens "'"" .r1 a.(. ~ - - - ~

llli6'.Wcl tJtr.hnd i.oi~ it is 1• w ~· (' D"3 't tkit ~rovf of t.!le lack

of arzy sor lous effort .,bat hl oo t ile lr part to gauge tlle a-pi­

rHual 110. tu:r:e of modurs eoooomi.oa~ .:il1l:l i)el'ei:aiont r~~ ~~M

of ~ ,;tC ;:L.. cooperr.tion ·oei;Voloe o r.: .. bol.ir ;XnJ ~!li:ta:1~c:.~; · ·the 1>0 :.uHou a! tua .soct&t J;Jro·u1e'Dl ill tl18 l'GIWluti.onc of

~~u1os.l oouference~~s;- be res~racd not col~ u~ ' di~ a=r.~i)ie of t.i::.e \e' 'HQ *"' taf'l.:,.;re of l'fi \lrusenl;.~ti.ve Gbr. i etlan

e:atherit~tJc1"to~· ~oru: .. iinc'ii in ·~equa.tu torllW w4at 111 tllo g ::-eaLe ~~ . ... . 1 ,. "~ "1o~:;: ::J;.r :Lime~\,!t~~-iao 'a eyu-ptolll o~· a fa~fu'l. ~-~,:-- ~'~~~ ~-~n~~~~~~L------ -------------~----~

16.

.- ·•: ·~Jhe a.bQ t luh!gat 0£ ~he Rr-i.Til.t§ O!ner&bh

or tilt 'f4eaQJ5 of pro.iuot iell"'

~ ...... >t'oo.J"'""-

or the

In v~ew .of tae do~bL<l .:i.s~ndanca- of' a:ar for · nil:! m?.terl a l

exi ettJnce on NG.tura and, ou lli!.< fe l J..ow.a , 1. ;;.;: iot~or t arrl: r~'l.e ,

tne achievcc~er.tof ccr~~<t"•~ ui ty cr..rmot., t;.ttn:efox·e '" b<> i tu;;a1•enc' ant of . ~~ ~

·t ru; t~oua it'iouc cf.' r~'1.t~ ·.ribl. exi.c1;encu .. ·rna--=•e~e·nt~·r •· • Tt;

int o t iHi detexmintJ. tiou or tlw r...tl aquao:::,• ox· ina.dc;qu&oy of t na

c f' ~;o/J~ l:J!f..r-. w;5~4 ""ccording to 11f<,rx, formn t he iwr>Jadiatc obstacle lfl; f:~ mroilni t~ at the .l)rer>ent ~; tate of •JevalorJm'lllt.

pl?i·vate ownel' stlip ol: the llleans of ?l'Ociuotion. 7hi s ha< come about , . !

b~ t~ouu.otion of ~~c•~tnery lnto a oye~t'lll of OJI'Cductiou t:~ ~-~>

~d<.p lr (,..to meet ·t nej<l cle1~~nd llf' e·;e r wid.ening oarkcts . Ccurpeti-

tivt!' ranchine produoti.on· deat.royed tile imperfect community , t he

''democracies of UDf;ceedom'' • of tlli$

crea te 11ew aom.a\HJlt ,: , a de]:uocra.cJ

Hi dd1.o ages , bu t f a iled to

of fraed oml·~~t:l;t:--