Marx on Man's Sociality by Nature: an Inexplicable Omission? Thomas O

Home , Franz Duncker, Sociality

International Journal of Social Economics Marx on Man's Sociality by Nature: An Inexplicable Omission? Thomas O. Nitsch Article information: To cite this document: Thomas O. Nitsch, (1992),"Marx on Man's Sociality by Nature: An Inexplicable Omission?", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 19 Iss 7/8/9 pp. 108 - 120 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000000490 Downloaded on: 31 May 2016, At: 22:12 (PT) References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 144 times since 2006*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald- srm:438659 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) *Related content and download information correct at time of download. International Journal of Social Marx on Man's Economics Sociality by Nature: 19,7/8/9 An Inexplicable Omission? 108 Thomas 0. Nitsch Creighton University, Omaha, USA

If man is social by nature, he will develop his true nature only in society, and the power of his nature must be measured not by the power of the separate individual but by the power of society (Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, 1845). The Critical Omission In the original and subsequent German editions of Das Kapital[1] Marx stipulated that, "man is by nature, if not, as Aristotle indicates, a political, at all events a social animal"; i.e. "der Mensch von Natur . . . ein gesellschaftliches Thier ist"[l]. Now, all the prominent English versions, variously based on those German exemplars, consistently omit that all-crucial "von Natur" specification in the postulate. These include what we might call: (1) the "conservative", "Western", Anglo-American editions (London, 1887 sqq.; Chicago: Kerr, 1906 = New York: Modern Library, undated); (2) the "official" ("party-line") versions from Moscow (Progress Publishers, 1954 sqq.) = London (Lawrence & Wishart, 1974) and New York (International Publishers, 1967); and, finally, (3) the most recent, "new-Marxist" edition — involving the closest approximation available to an entirely new translation and redaction — from Harmondsworth and London (Penguin Books and New Left Review, 1976 sqq.) [2]. Only the somewhat obscure and similarly independent rendering of the Pauls (London, Toronto, New York; 1930, 1974) is faithful to the German base in the present regard[3]. What are the implications of this omission? That is, if man is a social animal, is that not all that counts? What difference does it make if we specify "by nature" Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) or not? Might that not even be implied by "animal", hence the original "von Natur" stipulation essentially redundant? Is it not simply a matter of semantics? In the following analysis we attempt to show, first, that it makes all the difference in the world, and is not merely a matter of arbitrary choice of language. Secondly, we shall explore possible explanations of the omission, finding no really satisfactory ones to date. But, regardless of motive, and barring sheer accident coincidentally on the part of several separate translators/editors, there re- emerges the question of significance. Man's communal nature, the human being's

An earlier version of this article, entitled "Marx on Man's Sociality: Von Natur or Not?" was presented at the 4th WCSE in Toronto, 13-15 August 1986. The present version, which incorporates International Journal of Social enhancements of an original (October 1985) draft by John Elliott and of that (August 1986) by Economics, Vol. 19 Nos. 7/8/9. 1992, pp. 103-120. © MCB John C. O'Brien, was prepared for the Festschrift in honour of John E. Elliott presented at the University Press. 0306-8293 6th WCSE in Omaha, NE (USA) 9-11 August 1991. sociality by and from birth, literally drips from every page of the ' 'early works'', Marx on Man's the 1844 Manuscripts especially; but, how did Marx feel about all that at the Sociality by end? Is the concern in Capital still that totally social revolution, the full-human Nature liberation of "der Mensch" to completely realize her/his sociality? Is that what the equations, formulae, and "laws" populating those three volumes — "Senior's 'Last Hour' " and "the transformation problem" included — are really all about? 109 Context and Significance of the Omission: Human Solidarity, Social Divisions, and Class War The location of the passage in question is in the chapter on "Co-operation" ("Kooperation") of Volume I. There, Marx is trying to explain why "it is that a dozen persons working together, will, in their collective working-day of 144 hours, produce far more than 12 isolated men each working 12 hours, or than one man who works 12 days in succession". In this regard, he cites among other factors "a stimulation of the animal spirits" begotten by "mere social contact" which "heighten the efficiency of each individual workman". In the early works (e.g. On the jewish Question, 1843; Economic-philosophical Manuscript of 1844) Marx focused on the Feuerbachian figure of man as the Gattungswesen or "Species-being", the creature conscious of itself as a member of a species, conscious of the species as such[4]. Also, while that "communal Species-being" still appears at least on one occasion in the text of the Grundrisse of 1857-58, it is two other human-natural qualities with which Marx is concerned at the outset, namely sociability or gregariousness versus politicality(ness). Thus, while the social character of production, the most crucial of all human activities, and versus the "Robinsonadean" models of Smith and Ricardo, is the focus, Marx stresses that the human being is not merely a "sociable Animal" or "geselliges Thier", but a "zoon politikon,... an animal which can individuate itself only in society" [5]. In the passage cited in Kapital, that Aristotelian characterization had become apparently too restrictive for Marx's eventually-to-be-fully liberated, socialist Man of the Future. For, as he explained in the accompanying footnote, ' 'strictly, Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) Aristotle's definition is that man is by nature a town-citizen (Stadtbuerger). This", he continued, "is quite as characteristic of classical antiquity as Franklin's definition of man as by nature a tool-making animal (Instrumentmacher) is characteristic of Yankeedom". In other words, to Marx at the fullest development of his system, "man", human being, had become not merely sociable or gregarious, nor strictly political (Stadtbuergeliche or otherwise), but — in some superior or transcendent sense "soci(et)al", i.e. "gesellschaftliche" — by nature {"von Natur") as he ought to be. Marx, we might add, was certainly as emphatic about man's social nature as Hobbes was in his characterization of man's existence in the absence of a common power as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" [6]. We further note here that Marx was referring to all men, regardless of social class, etc. — much as Aristotle was with his "anthropos physei politikon zoon", and Adam Smith with his homo mercantilis, the emporikon zoon by nature [7]. When Marx International singled out one or more of the classes for special treatment or comparative Journal of Social purposes, this was always quite evident, as with Smith, e.g. when the latter Economics opposed the workers to the masters, "the great body of the people [or] working 19,7/8/9 poor" to "those of some rank and fortune", and the rich/property-owners to the poor and propertyless in various regards [8]. That Marx saw no fundamental conflict or antagonism between or among "men" as such — no Hobbesian helium omnium contra omnes — is very important to note. This is especially true for 110 those who posit the same social nature and solidarity of humankind, regardless of class or station, and hold that Marx's system virtually "creates" and "exploits" such divisions and finds violent, revolutionary struggle between them to be the only ultimate means of human liberation and transition (transcendence) to the highly humane, totally altruistic, and "almost Christian", classless society of the future — namely, the "higher phase" of communism[9]. Marx, need we add, recognizes the classes in a purely descriptive or positive fashion, as a salient phenomenon of socio-economic reality and classical political economy. He does not prescribe them or regard them as normative any more than Jesus did "the poor" when he stipulated their relative permanence (Matt. 26:6 and parallels). Alternatively, the classes are constitutional to capitalist (bourgeois, civil) society, which is in turn very unnatural, inhuman society, because of the antagonisms inherent in such divisions[10]. Marx, indeed, was a revolutionary. But his model was that of a genuinely social revolution. And, some of the most revealing insights into his concept of Man's social nature are to be found in his discussion of the social strife and process leading up to and involved in this social transformation. Class struggle, strife, and conflict were constitutional to capitalist society, and would persist until evolutionary forces had brought that system to the point where conditions were ripe for the necessary turnover. Such is always the case when a new social system is to spring forth from the ruins of the old. And, at that point, some form of force or political power would then be required to effect what he insisted had to be a totally social revolution; i.e. a radical, qualitative change in the fullest — human sense — mental and material, ideological and institutional. In most

Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) cases, this had, and would have, to be of a "violent" character, Marx further felt; but, not necessarily or inexorably so. Where the political sub-system had developed to the degree of representative government as in England and the USA, he noted (1872), the revolution could be of a "peaceful" character[11]. Thus, in the Third (1883) Edition of Capital I, in discussing the "different momenta of primitive accumulation", Marx calls attention to the "brute force" and ' 'power of the State'' which had been required, e.g. ' 'to hasten, in hothouse fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition" [12]. Whence, he observes in sum, "Force (Die Gewalt) is the midwife (Geburtshelfer) of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power (oekonomische Potenz)" (emphasis, etc., supplied). What is important to note here is that Marx is not talking about what is often termed a "revolutionary uprising" qua armed rebellion, military insurrection, etc., in this context. Such may (usually) be necessitated, but it is not universally inevitable[13]. Indeed, in his "Vorwort" Marx on Man's to the Zur Kritik of 1859, he rather clearly indicated that unless a society had Sociality by evolved to the point where "the material conditions for the existence of new Nature and superior relations of production have matured within the framework of the old society", any such "violent" revolt was doomed to failure insofar as the (eventually inevitable) revolutionary transformation is concerned[14]. The folly of such prematurity and partiality, Marx had already earlier noted (Vortvaerts!, 10 August 1844), was exemplified by "the first uprisings of the French 111 proletariat" (namely, the Lyons weavers in fall 1831 and spring 1834). And, it is here that Marx brings out the need for a mental or ideological transformation, as well as for a total social versus a (merely) partial political revolution. Such was particularly exemplified by the uprising of the Silesian weavers (the immediate subject in question) which "had a theoretical and conscious character" and recognized the true, material-social nature of their distress rather than seeing its source in the political will as had the Lyons workers. That is:

The more developed and universal the political understanding of a people, the more does the proletariat. . . squander its forces in senseless, useless revolts, which are drowned in blood. Because it thinks in the framework of politics, the proletariat sees the cause of all evils in the will, and all means of remedy in violence and in the overthrow of a particular form of state. Marx further underscores the social (versus the merely political) nature of a truly human revolution (like that of human being itself) in his concluding lines, to wit: Every revolution overthrows the old power [i.e. polity, qua "power subsystem"] and to that extent it is political. .. But whereas a social revolution with a political soul [a la A. Ruge under critique] is a paraphrase or nonsense, a political revolution with a social soul has a rational meaning. Revolution in general — the overthrow of the existing power [subsystem] and dissolution of the old ["material", socio-economic] relationships — is a political act. But socialism cannot be realised without [total-social] revolution. It needs this political act insofar as it needs destruction and dissolution. But, where its organising activity begins, where its proper object, its soul, comes to the fore — there socialism throws off the political cloak. Given this, and very instructively for our present purposes, what remains when that nascent socialist society of the future eventually doffs that "political cloak"? Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) Marx had already answered this several paragraphs earlier in discussing the "social alienation" — that "disastrous isolation of man from the community" — experienced by the workers (English, French, and Silesian) which, as both cause and effect, "every uprising" involves. Whence, the attendant revolution is "intended precisely to abolish this isolation". He continues:

But the community from which the worker is isolated is a community the real character and scope of which is quite different from that of the political community. The community from which the worker is isolated by his own labour, is life itself, physical and mental life, human morality, human activity, human enjoyment, [NOW] human nature. Human nature is the true community of men. The disastrous isolation from this essential nature is incomparably more universal, more intolerable, more dreadful, and more contradictory, than isolation from the political community. Hence, too, the abolition of this isolation — and even a partial reaction to it, an uprising against it [as per the Silesian workers that June, 1844] — is just as much more infinite as man is more infinite than the citizen, and human life more infinite than political life[l5]. International In the above light, which is a mere reduction and further application of the analysis Journal of Social more fully exposited in his slightly earlier essay "On the Jewish Question" Economics (Autumn, 1843), we can readily see why, in our critical passage in Capital, Marx 19,7/8/9 regards Aristotle's zoon politikon or "Stadtbuerger" as qualitatively less than his own "gesellschaftliches Thier" von Natur[16]. In fine, we might conclude that, no social scientist, philosopher or even theologian[17] was more convinced of Man's social — "sociable" and "societal" 112 — nature than Karl Marx; none more insistent on the fundamental solidarity of the human race, of the common ties, of everyone's at least potential awareness of his/her belonging to the species, of the common good, etc., which bind. While the Official Roman Church, most prominently, has accused Marxists and Marxism of regarding class divisions and warfare as natural and inevitable, it is this institution itself which has been foremostly adamant on the natural- and even supernaturalness of the "social stations" themselves — i.e. that they are naturally ordered and even supernaturally (pre?) ordained. And, similarly for the State[18]. Marx, for his part, had clearly recognized (1844, 1852) the historically relative and transitory character of the classes, class struggle, and the state in their transcendence to the communist society of the future. Thus, he averred, did his analysis supersede those of the bourgeois historians and economists who, "long before" him, had discovered "the existence of the classes in modern society [and] the struggle between them", and had "described the historical development of this class struggle and the economic anatomy of the classes". Whence, it remained for him: to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless [and, he had written in 1844, private propertyless and stateless] society[19]. But, in fairness, it should be added and even stressed that the criticism and denunciation noted above has perhaps been aimed more directly at the

Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) subsequent disciples and interpreters of Marx and the movement set afoot by him, especially in its more "doctrinaire", "ideological", "dogmatic", form(s), rather than specifically at Marx and his analysis proper. One may instructively consult here Weber's distinction between Calvinism and the teachings of Calvin himself, as Marx once distinguished carefully between the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth himself and Christianity itself[20].

Why the Omission: Hypothesis and Mysteries Now we come finally to the question, Why. Why has that philosophically, scientifically all-crucial "von Natur" stipulation been omitted from these English versions of Das Kapital? When the present writer originally put this question to several noted Marxologists or otherwise students of politico-economic thought[21], it was to very little avail. Each admitted (after essential unawareness) its curiousness, but has been unable to provide any rationale. Since, again, the omission is shared Marx on Man's by the official Moscow version, the original and still-prominent "Western" Sociality by editions, and — most recently — that of the New Left Review, any obvious Nature "conspiracy" hypothesis seems precluded. Otherwise, something more benign (or sinister!) may be afoot than readily leaps to the ordinary Marxological mind. The others' (cited) initial reaction, however, was opposed to imputing anything "sinister" and/or "conspirational" on the parts of the various translators and editors involved, which would have to include Engels himself[22]. 113 Subsequently, an hypothesis proffered was that the Anglo-American versions merely followed the French exemplar (trans. J. Roy, ed. Marx; 1872-75) in this regard[23]. However, this proves not to be the case. In that very special original translation "revised entirely" by Marx himself, as well as a later (1924-30) French rendering, much as the present writer expected, the critical "par nature" specification appears[24]. Similarly, we might note, for the Italian (1886), Russian (1872; 1906), and Spanish (1946; 1969) editions[25]. At the same time, one might hold, perhaps the original "von Natur" specification is implicit in the footnote immediately dropped at that point, namely the: "Strictly, Aristotle's definition is that man is by nature a town-citizen" elaboration. But, why would such a critical quality of humankind be relegated to an explanatory footnote, when stipulated "up front" in the original text? In other words, why do the translators/editors representing the diverse "interests" involved think it unnecessary, inexpedient, or otherwise untoward, inadvisable, injudicious, etc., to "stick to the script", as it were, in this case? Did Ben Fowkes, e.g. with his otherwise completely new/different rendering of the critical sentence and attending footnote, simply, blindly and unreflectively follow suit on this particular omission? The real problem with this explanation, however, is the fact that, where the German text has Marx presenting Franklin's characterization of man as an "Instrumentmacher" following Aristotle's "Definition" in that same footnote, this is also "von Natur". Yet, all the three major English versions omit that "by nature" as well. Thus, only in the case of Aristotle's characterization — versus that of Marx himself and Franklin's

Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) according to Marx — is "man" allowed by those responsible for these English versions to be what she/he is "by nature". Alternatively, John Elliott related that a professor of German in his 1988 Summer Faculty Seminar ventured the explanation that the English translators were the victims of Marx's complex German construction in the sentence in question[26]. But, the same would have to apply to all three sets of translators/editors; and, to the sentence in the accompanying footnote containing Franklin's definition of man as well. At the same time, why were the Pauls alone among English translators — along with those of the second French, both Russian, the Italian and Spanish editions — not similarly tripped up by the same difficult German syntax? Did they perchance follow Marx's personally revised French edition of 1872-75, while those former English translators relied solely — but unfortunately — on that tricky German original? Such would seem very unlikely. International Now, pending more enlightening reponses to inquiries addressed to Ben Fowkes Journal of Social in London and the editor of Progress Publishers in Moscow[27], we come to Economics the most plausible explanation advanced and encountered to date. This comes 19,7/8/9 from several sources, all of whom agree that, if anything, the translators and editors involved are respecting and protecting the fact that Marx would not want to be tied down to any given, static concept of human nature[28]. This is fine, and perhaps that is all there is to it. But, if it be the case, the fault lies with 114 those "protectors". For, again, philosophically, and at least in a truly Aristotelian- Marxian sense, to say that human being ("der Mensch") is naturally social, is- not to commit or condemn "Man" or Marx to such a "static" conception. Again, a thing's or one's nature (natura) is what one is born to be; and, to become. Marx intends a static conception, ultimately. And, it has to do with a human person who has become fully, perfectly social, i.e. socialized. A person who, by his/her nature, needs no political state to see to it that he/she voluntarily, and without hesitation or further deliberation, voluntarily "produces according to his ability and receives according to his needs". Such a fully realized human being being human, we might note further, would automatically treat his neighbour as himself, feed the hungry, etc. — until none such deprived or oppressed remained. The real difference here, between Marx and the self-appointed translators, interpreters, and otherwise "teachers" of that New Testament human morality is that, to Marx, the perfection of "Man" takes place in future society on this earth; according to Christian, and especially official Roman Catholic theology, social economy, and whatever, that perfection is only realized in the next world, "up there", when the union of (peak-of-perfection) body and (totally cleansed, purified) soul is restored, and "man" confronts "his" maker and liberator in that complete union where there is total absence of those only two real forms of alienation — human body and soul {soma and psyche), spirit and flesh (pneuma and sarx), from one another; and, anthropos from Theos.

Conclusion We conclude on the note that Karl Marx has been, if anything, primus inter pares as a postulant and promulgator of the sociability and solidarity of humankind;

Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) that, human being is social (sociable/societal) being[29], which includes — but is certainly not restricted to — political, economic, and, yes, perhaps even "religious" being, von Natur. Not only this, but totally in line with the same Roman Catholic officialdom who have purported to be the "first among (if not without) equals" in upholding and defending man's social nature and humankind's solidarity with, within and between the classes or stations, that same founder of "atheistic, dialectical materialism" has recognized as uniquely human man's self-awareness of "his" species-being. That is, as the Roman pontiffs might put it, man is the rational-social animal, alone in his ability to recognize himself as a member of one and the same species. And, of course, if this is not the case, what happens to the promise of salvation — i.e. admission to the Kingdom — as stipulated in Matthew 25:31ff. and repeated in James 2:15-16 if a Christian (or anyone else?) does not recognize those "least" et al. as one of us, ours — and himself/herself equally as one of them? Notes and References Marx on Man's 1. Karl Marx, Das Kapital, Bd. I, Verlag von Otto Meissner, Hamburg, 1867, p. 307; ibid., Sociality by 2te Aufl., Otto Meissner, Hamburg, 1872, p. 334; ibid., 3te Aufl., Otto Meissner, Hamburg, Nature 1883, pp. 324-5; ibid., 5te (= 4te, 1890) Aufl., hrsg. Friedrich Engels, Otto Meissners Verlag, Hamburg, 1903, p. 290; ibid., Volksausgabe, hrsg. Engels, Marx-Engels-Lenin- Institut, Moskau/ferlagsgenossenschaft Auslaendischer Arbeiter in der UdSSR, 1932, pp. 341-2; and ibid., in (a) Karl Marx: Oekonomische Schriften, Iter Bd., hrsg. Hans-Joachim Lieber und Benedikt Kautsky, Cotta-Verlag, Stuttgart, 1962, pp. 367-8, and (b) Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels; Werke (hereinafter, MEW), Bd. 23, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1962, pp. 345-6. 115 Both of these latter redactions are based on or represent Engels' fourth German edition (1890), and are touted by Emest Mandel as "the two most accurate, scientific editions of Capital Vol. I" (cf. his "Introduction" to the Penguin/New-Left English edition, cit. in note 2 below, p. 26f., fn. 22). 2. Capital, trans. 3rd (1883) German ed. by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, Frederick Engels (Ed.), Swan Sonnenschein, Lowrey & Co, London, 1887, p. 316; 8th reprint ed., Swan Sonnenschein, London, 1902; ibid., rev., etc., 4th (1890) German ed. by Ernest Untermann, Charles H. Kerr & Co., Chicago, 1906; and The Modern Library, New York, NY, (no date), p. 358; ibid., rev., with additional trans, from 4th German ed., by M. Sachey and H. Lamm, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, 1952 et al., p. 159a; ibid., trans. 3rd (1883) German ed. by S. Moore and E. Aveling, F. Engels (Ed.), Progress Publishers, Moscow 1954; reprint ed., 1978, p. 309; ibid, Internationa] Publishers, New York, NY, 1967; reproducing "the text of the English edition of 1887 ... as corrected by Progress Publishers ... in their edition of 1965", p. 326; and, ibid., trans. Ben Fowkes, Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth/New Left Review, London, 1976, p. 444. 3. Capital, trans. 4th German ed. by Eden and Cedar Paul, J.M. Dent & Sons, London and Toronto/E.P. Dutton & Co., New York, NY, 1930; reprint, 1932, p. 341; et cp. G.D.H. Cole's "Introduction", p. xi. Perhaps the obscurity of declasse nature of the present translation is best attested to by the fact that subsequent (re)translations/redactions cite only the Moore-Aveling and E. Untermann {Capital, Vol. II, Kerr, Chicago, 1909; versus ibid., trans. Paul, E. and Paul, C, Dent, London, New York, 1930; reprint, 1934) versions. Cf. Fowkes' "Preface", op. trans. (1976), pp. 85-6; and, Marx, Capital, Vol. II, trans. Institut Marxism-Leninism, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1956, p. (VII). Recently, the Pauls' translation has perhaps been at least partially rescued from (apparent) obscurity in a new/reprint edition, with an "Introduction" by Murray Wolfson, Dent, London, Melbourne and Toronto, New York, 1972; reprint, 1978, Vol. 1, pp. 897. 4. Cf. Marx, "On the Jewish Question" (1843), et op. al. (1844), in The Marx-Engels Reader,

Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) Tucker, R.C. (Ed.), 2nd ed., W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY, 1978, pp. 33-5 (incl. 33n-34n) et passim, as per "Index", p. 786b, sub "Species-being", "consciousness", and "life"; et cp. id., "Zur Judenfrage" (1843) et op. al., as per Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: Werke, Band I, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1956; reprint ed., 1983, pp. 354-6, 366, 370, et ibid., Iter Teil, Dietz, Berlin, 1968; 1981, "Die Entfremdete Arbeit", pp. 515-18, and "Kritik der Hegelschen Dialektik und Philosophie ueberhapt", pp. 574, 579, 583-4. 5. Marx, "Einleitung", Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Oekonomie (Rohentmirf), 1857-58, Verlag fuer Fremdsprachige Literatur, Moscow, 1939, p. 6: 18-21, though we still find man qua the "communal species-being" ("gemeinschaftliches Gattungswesen") mentioned in the text (p. 154:44) of this middle-years' work. Cf. the "Introduction" as in Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, trans. S.W. Ryazanskaya, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970 sq., p. 189, where the rendering is both inadequate and unacceptable; i.e. "geselliges" = sociable and not "social" = gesellschaftliches, and zoon [sic] politikon = political and not "social animal" as in the footnote. In the Grundrisse, trans. M. Nicolaus, Vintage Books, et al., New York, 1973, the rendering of "geselliges" as "gregarious" is much better (p. 84); but, Marx's "gemeinschaftliches Gattungswesen" is a communal and not simply "common Species-being" (p. 243), and cp. here the rendering International of "einem gemeinscliaftlichen und gemeinen Eigenthum" as "a piece of communal and common property", e.g. in the 1844 Ms on "Private Property and Communism", and Journal of Social the "communal activity and communal enjoyment" of "social man" ("die gemeinschaftliche Economics Taetigkeit und gemeinschaftlicheGenuss " ... "den gesellschaftlichen Menschen") which 19,7/8/9 Mows. (Ms cit., MECW:3, 294-8; NEW:le, 534-7.) 6. Hobbes, T., Leviathan (original English, 1651; Latin, 1668), Macpherson, C.B. (Ed.), Penguin Books, Ch. 13, 1968. 7. Smith, A., An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, A. Millar 116 and T. Caddell, London, 1776; 5th ed., 1789, Bk. I, ch. II and IV, opening paragraphs; Aristotle, Politics, trans. H. Rackham, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA/William Heinemann, London, 1944, sqq., I.i.9 (1253a:3), pp. 8,9; et cf. Nitsch, "On Human Nature Presuppositions in Economics: The 'Men' of Adam Smith, Karl Marx et al. — Part I", Midsouth Journal of Economics, Vol. 5 No. 2, 1981, pp. 21, 26. 8. Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 begin with that on the "Wages of Labour", where Adam Smith's discussion of the settlement reached between those two classes or "parties" — namely the "masters" and the "workmen" — in The Wealth of Nations (trans. Gamier, 1802; Bk. I, ch. VIII) is largely paraphrased. In his opening paragraph, already, Marx notes that "only for the workers is the separation of capital, landed property, and labour an inevitable, essential and detrimental separation", in Ch. XLVIII of Vol. III and last of Das Kapital (Engels, Ed., 1894), Marx rigourizes the so- called "Trinitarian (trinitarische) Formula", opening that chapter with: "Kapital — Profit (including Interest), Boden — Grundrente, Arbeit — Arbeitslohn, this is the trinitarian Form, that includes all the mysteries of the social production-process". Ch. LII and last is devoted to "Die Klassen". This was to be Marx's last great socio-economic analysis of the classes and the struggle between them as the natural outgrowth of the "capitalist period", according to Engels "Vorwort" (October 1894). It opens: "The owners of mere labour-power, the owners of capital, and the landowners ... form the three great classes of modern society resting on the capitalist mode of production (Produktionsweise)". Its text closes a mere page and a quarter later, noting the "unending splintering of interests and positions among labourers, capitalists and landowners created by the division of social labour (die Theilung der gesellschaftlichen Arbeit)". Smith, of course, had introduced that "trinitarian" model in his Chapter VI of Book I of the Wealth, "Of the Component Parts of the Price of Commodities", carefully noting how first the "owners of stock" and their "profits" naturally emerge in due course following that "early and rude state of society" where there is only "labour" and "the whole produce of labour belongs to the labourer"; whence, "as soon as stock has accumulated in the hands of particular persons,... the whole produce of labour does not always belong to the labourers". Then comes the privatization of land and the landowner "reaping (rent) Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) where he never sowed", etc. But, as Marx, and Rousseau even before Smith, had also employed a basic, two-class model — namely the producers and the appropriators of "'surplus-value'' — so Smith, following Rousseau's basic division between those who work but do not own and those who own but do not work, distinguishes only two "parties" at bottom. And it is no less than this basic social division, and the conflicting interest between them, that provides the raison d'être of "civil government" insofar as it is instituted for "the security of property", namely "the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property from those who have none at all" (Wealth, Bk. V., Ch. I, Pt II). This division, no doubt, is essentially the same as that made just subsequently (ibid., Pt II, Art. II) between "people of some rank and fortune", and "the common people" or "the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people" in discussing the need for compulsory/state-provided schooling to ameliorate the alienating effects of the advanced division of labour on the part of hoi polloi. 9. The present writer has "especially" in mind here the so-called "social" encyclical letters, allocutions and messages of the Roman Catholic pontiffs which denounce Marxism on the three primary grounds of its: (1) "atheistic" predications; (2) categorical negation of the natural right of private property; and (3) reliance on the "class struggle", while Marx on Man's seemingly purporting to be the foremost advocation of the natural sociability and solidarity of the human species. Thus, cf., for example, Leo XIII, "Rerum Novarum", 15 May 1891, Sociality by in Acta Sanctae Sedis, Vol. XXIII, Romae, 1890-91, esp. pp. 641-9, 659, 664-5; Pius XI, Nature "Quadragesimo Anno", 15 May 1931, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis (hereafter AAS), Vol. XXIII No. 6, 1 June 1931, esp pp. 177-8, 204-16, et id., "Divini Redemptoris", 19 March (feast of St Joseph) 1937, AAS, Vol. XXIX, No. 4, 31 March 1937, pp. 64-106 passim (authoritative English translations of the three foregoing encyclical letters are found in Five Great Encyclicals, Paulist Press, 1939, as, respectively, "The Condition of Labor", esp. Nos. 117 1-16, 30, 37-8; "Reconstructing the Social Order", esp. Nos. 1-2, 81-120; and "Atheistic Communism", passim; Pius XII, "Sertum Laetitiae" (Epistula Encyclica), 1 November 1939, AAS, Vol. XXXI No. 15, 25 November 1939), esp. pp. 643,654f., et id, Radio Message (Nuntius Radiphonicus) to the 73rd German Catholic Congress, Bochum (Westphalia), 4 September 1949, AAS, Vol. XXXXI No. 10, 6 September 1949, pp. 458-62, English trans. ("The Social Problem"), The Catholic Mind, Vol. XLVII, November 1949, pp. 701-4; John XXIII, "Mater et Magistra", 15 May 1961, Paulist Press, 1961/62, esp. Nos. 23-34, 155 (for example) and 219; id., "Pacem in Terris", 11 April 1963, Gibbons, W.J., (Ed.), Paulist Press, New York, 1963, Nos. 23, 31. John Paul II, "Laborem Exercens", 14 September 1981, L'Osservatore Romano, English weekly ed., 21 September 1981, esp. Nos. 8, 11, 13; and, finally, the undoubtedly papally approved, if not inspired, "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation' of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", in ib., 10 September 1984, esp. Vol. VII, Nos. 7-11, and Vol. VIII, Nos. 2-9; and, Marx and Engels, The Gentian Ideology, (1845-46), as in op. Tucker (Ed.), pp. 146-217, esp. 160-63; "Critique of the Gotha Programme" (1875/91) and both as in op. Tucker (Ed.), esp. pp. 532-3, 538 and 555. What must be recognized here is Marx's dual role as both positive or descriptive analyst and normative or prescriptive advocate. To recognize the inevitability of class struggle and (violent) revolution is one thing; to actively advocate a particular programme is quite another. Marx did both. For Thomas Hobbes' position on the natural inimicalness and bellicosity of man, and that innate tendency towards the "Warre of everyone against everyone", see his Leviathan[6, esp. pp. 185-90]; and, ibid., in Thomae Hobbes Malmesburiensis Opera Philosophica Quae Latina Scripsit Omnia, Molesworth, G. (Ed.), Vol. III, Apud Joannem Bohn, London, 1841; 2nd reprint, Scientia Verlag Allen, Germany, 1966, esp. pp. 100-3.

10. For the prescriptive or normative view of the same teacher re the same socio-economic dass(es), cf. Matt. 19:16-29 and parallels; and, Matt. 25:31-46. Also, cp. the normative Christian community of Acts 5:32-37 and Marx's distributional norm ("from each . . ., to each . . .") in The Gotha Programme of 1875.

Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) 11. Marx, "Preface", A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), trans. S.W. Ryazanskaya, Dobb, M. (Ed.), Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970; reprint, 1977, esp. pp. 20f.; id., Capital, Vol. I, Progress, 1954 sqq., p. 703, and Das Kapital, 3te Aufl., Otto Meissner, Hamburg, 1883, S. 777; id., "Critical Marginal Notes on the Article 'The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian [viz. Arnold Ruge]' ", as in MECW: 3, pp. 200-6; id., speech at Amsterdam, 8 September, 1972, qua "The Possibility of Non• violent Revolution" in Tucker, R.C. (Ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed., Norton, New York, NY, 1978, pp. 522-4; et cf. Tucker's "Introduction", ibid., pp. xxii, xxxvi; whence, cp. Engels, F., "Editor's Preface to the English Translation", Capital, Vol. I (Kerr = Modern Library, Progress, and/or Penguin Books editions), second-to-last sentence. The writer is grateful to John E. Elliott for a searching critique, clarification, and correction of the previous version of this section, wherein, inter alia, the terms "revolution" and "violent uprising (etc.)" were used more or less synonymously, with a further contradistinction between inexorable, spontaneous, etc., change, on the one hand, and that which is planned, organized, etc., on the other. Elliott (his letter of 24 March, 1986), distinguishes and notes the complementarity between the "objective social forces [which] propel the capitalist system [gradually, evolutionarily] toward its destiny", International on the one hand, and the abrupt, "revolutionary. . . transition to a new society [which] requires a human subject, the working class, to develop the consciousness, will, and resolve Journal of Social to make the change", on the other. The former, evolutionary change may be violent, he Economics further notes, just as "revolutionary change may be peaceful", on the other. 19,7/8/9 Cf./cp. John E. Elliott, "Social and Institutional Dimensions of Marx's Theory of Capitalism", Review of Social Economy, Vol. XXXVII, No. 3, December 1979, esp. pp. 270-3; et id., (Ed.), Marx and Engels on Economics, Politics, and Society, Goodyear, Santa Monica, CA, 1981, esp. pp. 332ff and 359ff. But, for the tendency of the official Church 118 to equate "revolution" with "violent uprising", see (again) Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, 1967, Nos. 30, 31; and, most recently, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Card. Joseph Ratzinger, prefect; John Paul II, Pope), "Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation", 5 April 1986, as per: (1) "Vatican Offers Rules for Fight Against Tyranny/Vatican City (AP)", Omaha World-Herald, Metro ed., 6 April, 1986, p. 5-A; (2) "Vatican Paper on Liberation Accepts 'Last Resort' Violence" by Marjorie Hyer, The Washington Post, 5 April, 1986, pp. Al, A13; and (3) "Spiritual points in liberation themes basic to Rome document/John Paul's thoughts permeate paper" by Hebblethwaite, P., National Catholic Reporter, 18 April, 1986, pp. 1, 15ff. This document, we note further, is reported — (1), (2) — as (in effect) affirming Paul VI (loc. cit.) in both rejecting "both 'police oppression' and 'the myth of revolution' ", on the one hand, but at the same time saying that "Christians should use armed struggle only as a last resort to end 'an obvious and prolonged tyranny'" (this latter principle being equated with the "Just War" doctrine), on the other. Cf. also, "The Holy Seesaw/Up and Down on Liberation Theology" by Woodward, K.L., with Stranger, T., Newsweek, 14 April 1968, p. 66; and, Stahel, T.H. (SJ), "The Other Shoe", America, Vol. 154 No. 15, 19 April, 1986, pp. 314-15, wherein J.P. II's case the official notification of the Pope's approval of the document and ordering of its publication are quoted. Finally, cf. Marx's OJO or ZJF of 1843, where Hobbes' bellum is posited as a feature of civil society {MECW:3, 155; MEW:1, 356)! 12. Here, we might add that, again, if revolution and suppression by violent force and armed rebellion are merely the praxeological norm or rule, as socioculturally (including politically) dictated, then such cannot be regarded as any sort of "natural law", social or otherwise, in Marx's system. Au contraire, one could suggest that Marx saw in Hegel's dialectic (properly inverted) a device that could restore man's social nature, i.e. for accomplishing the task of restoring a human community. No less did Pius XI regard the role and teaching authority of the Roman Church in his Quadragesimo Anno: On the Restoration of the Social Order of 15 May 1931, it might just further be noted. 13. Capital/Das Rapital, I, loc. cit. 14. "Preface", op. cit., p. 32; et cf. "Vorwort", Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, Verlag Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) von Franz Duncker, Berlin, 1859, p. VI. 15. "Marginal Notes [etc.,]", loc. cit. 16. Marx, essay cit., as in MECW:3, esp. pp. 146-68. 17. On Marxism qua theism and Marx(ism)'s "God", see Nitsch, T.O. and Malina, B.J., "On the Role of a Transcendent in Human Economy: Toward a New Synthesis", paper presented at the 59th annual Western Economic Association Conference, Las Vegas, 24-28 June, 1984, esp. pp. 3-5, 20, 54-5; edited version in Humanomics, Vol. I No. 3, 1985, esp. pp. 78-81. 18. Leo XIII, "Quadragesimo Anno", as in Five Great Encyclicals cit. supra, No. 83. 19. Marx, from his letter of 5 March, 1852 to Joseph Weydemeyer, in Tucker (Ed.), op cit., p. 220; et idem, "Estranged Labour" (1844), as in ibid., p. 84. 20. Among other things, Marx was there distinguishing between the dialectic of Plato, whose reality preceded his idea (ideality), and that of Jesus Christ, whose idea(l) preceded the reality into which it was transformed. Thus, whereas Plato's dialectic dead-ended in his normative model, for which he alone could be held responsible, Christ's idea(lity) had Marx on Man's to be translated into reality, for which subsequent "miscarriage" the crucified one could hardly be held accountable. See, in turn, Weber, M., The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit Sociality by- of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY, No. 7, 1958, Nature p. 220; and, Marx's Notebooks on the Epicurean Philosophy (1839), in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Collected Works (hereafter MECW), Vol. 1, International Publishers, New York, NY, 1975, pp. 49ff. 21. Bertell Oilman, New York University (Department of Politics), letter of 15 December 1982; Louis Dupré, Yale University (Religious Studies), telephone conversation, 1982/83; David 119 A. Reisman, University of Surrey (Economics), conversation at Third World Congress of Social Economics, Fresno, CA, August 1983; and, Andrew S. Skinner, University of Glasgow (Political Economy), interview in his office, 5 March 1985 — inter alios. 22. Cf. Engels' "Preface to the English Edition", 5 November 1886, as in Capital, Vol. I, Kerr, 1906, Modern Library (no date), pp. 27-32; ibid., Progress, 1954 sqq., pp. 13-17, and Penguin Books, 1976, pp. 109-13. 23. Murray Wolfson, letter of 15 October, 1985, who, and wherein he, strongly (more or less) suspected this to be the case; whence, my reply (22 October, 1985) peradventured that one would find "that the French of Roy retains the crucial qualification, and that . . . some edition of that version . . . will contain the equivalent 'de/per [sic] nature' ". 24. Marx, K., Le Capital: Critique del'Économic politique, Livre Premier, Traduction de Joseph Roy, entiérement revisée par l'auteur, La Chatre, Paris, 1872-75; reprint ed., Editions sociales, Paris, 1977, Tome Deuxième, ch. XIII, "La Co-operation", p. 19; ibid., ed. nouv., avec une "Introduction" par Paul Boccara, Juin 1975, Editions sociales, Paris, 1977, Ch. XIII, pp. 239, 622 (n. 7); ibid., Librairie du Progrés, 1875, ch. XIII, p. 142; et ibid., trans. J. Molitor, Alfred Costes, Paris, 1924-30, Ch. XI, "La Co-operation", pp. 215-16. 25. Marx, Carlo, II Capitate: Critica dell' Economia polilica (estratto dalla Biblioteca dell' Economista, terza serie [1886]), 3a ristampa, Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese, Torino, 1924, Ch. XIII, "Co-operazione", p. 264; Marks, K., Kapital: Kritika Politicheskoje Ekonomii, trans, from the German, Vol. I, Bk. I: The Process of Production of Capital, Polyakov, St Petersburg, 1872, "Kooperatsiya", p. 279; and, ibid., Fully Rendered from the 5th German ed. rev. by Fredric Engels, under the editorship of B. Bazarov or I. Smenakov, and with supervisory/final editor A. Bozdakof, Publishing House of J. Orenstein, Kiev/Publishing House of M.N. Maisel, New York, NY, (1906), "Kooperatsiya", p. 291, including fn. 13; and, Marx, K., El Capital: Critica de la Economia Politico, Vol. I, Traduccion de Wenceslao Roces, Fondo de Cultura Economica, Mexico, 1946; 2nd ed. 1959, reimpr. 1984, p. 263. The Spanish translation editions appear to have multiplied dramatically in the past ten years or so. Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) 26. The seminar, conducted at the University of Southern California, was sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities, and was entitled "Karl Marx as a Social Theorist" (confirmed by LDC 21 April 1991). 27. Fowkes never replied, nor was his letter returned undeliverable. Word was received from A.K. Avelichev, Editor-in-Chief of Progress Publishers (dated 17 November 1986), but was more disinformational than enlightening. Namely, ignorance is confessed as to why the English edition, first published while Marx was still alive, omitted the "von Natur" stipulation. A Xerox copy of the title page of the original, 1872 Russian version and of the page therein containing the critical passage were included, and the latter bore out the retention of "by nature" in that official, Russian edition. As already noted, the earliest English edition appeared in 1887, four years after Marx's death. It was edited by Engels, but not seen by Marx. Engels wrote in his "Preface" (p. ix): "When, soon after the author's death in 1883, it became evident that an English edition of the work was really required, Mr. Samuel Moore . . . consented to undertake the translation ... It was understood that I should compare the MS with the original work, and suggest such alterations as might seem advisable". Thus the Editor-in-Chief at Progress is mistaken International in implying that Marx himself knew/approved of the omission; Engels had the final say, and the deed would seem to befall him. Journal of Social A follow-up letter was sent (22 February 1991) to the attention of this same editor Economics indicating the impossibility of Marx's being aware of the omission, and — inter alia — 19,7/8/9 inquiring as to the availability of "the second volume of the collected works by Marx and Engels" which was to include the Volume I of Capital and "to take into account the differences in meaning between the English and German translations'', as promised in that earlier (November 1986) reply. No response to this further inquiry has been received 120 to date (5 September 1991). 28. Letter from John E. Elliott, dated March 24, 1986, noting that "the earlier English translations . . . were perhaps biased against phrases which might imply that Marx held notions about 'human nature' of 'Man' in general"; "Glossary of Key Terms" in Karl Marx, Early Writings, trans. R. Livingstone and G. Benton, Penguin Books, 1975 sqq., p. 430, sub "Essence, nature of man", which really hits our nail on the head; and, John C. O'Brien, telephone conversation of 15 May 1986, who — in an entirely different context — elaborated on Marx's dynamic, evolutionary conception of human nature. That is, according to Marx (but in our English!), "Man's" nature evolves with the changing character of the mode of production as human society progresses from feudalism, capitalism, etc., and towards Marx's "Omega point" — the classless, political-stateless, etc., "Second Phase". 29. A linguistic/semantic issue is possibly involved here, which the writer has raised and — perhaps, at least — partially resolved elsewhere. This is the point that Marx's (or anyone's) "gesellschaftliche" may be rendered "societal" as well as "social", and that these two adjectives are not necessarily synonymous. Indeed, several related terms have been used by Marx et al. in the present connection. Thus, the Latin sociabilis which appears in the papal documents is literally (and transliterally) rendered "sociable", while simply "social" would be socialis. Of the several constructions, "societal" is the more simply "clinical" and least value-laden, meaning merely "of or relating to society", or — alternatively — "noting or pertaining to large social groups, or to their activities, customs, etc."; while, "social" seems to be the most generic and inclusive. That Marx had something more than merely "societal" in mind in that passage in Das Kapital, as the various translators and editors involved seem to agree, would appear to be beyond dispute. At the same time, his earlier preference for Aristotle's "political" over a merely "Geselliges" animal in the "Introduction" to the Grundrisse, is perhaps a different matter. See/cf., Nitsch, "On Human Nature Presuppositions in Economics — Part II: Homo Oeconomicus and Homo Socio-economicus", Midsouth Journal of Economics, Vol. 7 No. 1, May 1983, esp. pp. 18-19; id., "Economic Man, Socio-economic Man, and Homo-economicus Humanus", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 9 Nos. 6/7, 1982, esp. p. 22, sub "Homo

Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) Socio-economicus" (where the tenth line should read: ... a gregarious or sociable ("geselliges") animal, ...); Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Meriam-Webster Inc., Springfield, MA, 1983, s.vv., pp. 1,118-19; and, The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged ed., Random House, New York, NY, 1966, pp. 1,350-51. This article has been cited by:

1. 1994. Karl Marx and His Vision of Salvation: The Natural Law and Private Property. Review of Social Economy 52:3, 377-390. [CrossRef] Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT)