La domanda esiste, sì, anche per chi non ha denaro, ma la sua domanda è un puro ente dell’immaginazione, che non ha nessun effetto, nessuna esistenza per me, per un terzo, per la […][1][XLIII]; e quindi resta per me stesso irreale, privo di oggetto. La differenza tra la domanda che ha effetto, in quanto è fondata sul denaro, e la domanda che non ha effetto, in quanto è fondata soltanto sul mio bisogno, sulla mia passione, sul mio desiderio, ecc., è la stessa differenza che passa tra l’essere e il pensare, tra la semplice rappresentazione quale esiste dentro di me e la rappresentazione qual è per me come oggetto reale fuori di me.
Quando non ho denaro per viaggiare, non ho nessun bisogno, cioè nessun bisogno reale e realizzantesi di viaggiare. Se ho una certa vocazione per lo studio, ma non ho denaro per realizzarla, non ho nessuna vocazione per lo studio, cioè nessuna vocazione efficace, nessuna vocazione vera. Al contrario, se io non ho realmente nessuna vocazione per lo studio, ma ho la volontà e il denaro, ho una vocazione efficace. Il denaro, in quanto è il mezzo e il potere esteriore, cioè nascente non dall’uomo come uomo, né dalla società umana come società, in quanto è il mezzo universale e il potere universale di ridurre la rappresentazione a realtà e la realtà a semplice rappresentazione, trasforma tanto le forze essenziali reali, sia umane che naturali in rappresentazioni meramente astratte e quindi in imperfezioni, in penose fantasie, quanto, d’altra parte, le imperfezioni e le fantasie reali, le forze essenziali realmente impotenti, esistenti soltanto nell’immaginazione dell’individuo, in forze essenziali reali e in poteri reali. Già in base a questa determinazione il denaro è dunque l’universale rovesciamento delle individualità, rovesciamento che le capovolge nel loro contrario e alle loro caratteristiche aggiunge caratteristiche che sono in contraddizione con quelle.
Sotto forma della potenza sovvertitrice qui descritta il denaro si presenta poi anche in opposizione all’individuo e ai vincoli sociali, ecc., che affermano di essere entità per se stesse. Il denaro muta la fedeltà in infedeltà, l’amore in odio, l’odio in amore, la virtù in vizio, il vizio in virtù, il servo in padrone, il padrone in servo, la stupidità in intelligenza, l’intelligenza in stupidità.
Poiché il denaro, in quanto è il concetto esistente e in atto del valore, confonde e inverte ogni cosa, è la universale confusione e inversione di tutte le cose, e quindi il mondo rovesciato, la confusione e l’inversione di tutte le qualità naturali ed umane.
Chi può comprare il coraggio, è coraggioso anche se è vile. Siccome il denaro si scambia non con una determinata qualità, né con una cosa determinata, né con alcuna delle forze essenziali dell’uomo, ma con l’intero mondo oggettivo, umano e naturale, esso quindi, considerato dal punto di vista del suo possessore, scambia le caratteristiche e gli oggetti gli uni con gli altri, anche se si contraddicono a vicenda. È la fusione delle cose impossibili; esso costringe gli oggetti contraddittori a baciarsi. Se presupponi l’uomo come uomo e il suo rapporto col mondo come un rapporto umano, potrai scambiare amore soltanto con amore, fiducia solo con fiducia, ecc. Se vuoi godere dell’arte, devi essere un uomo artisticamente educato; se vuoi esercitare qualche influsso sugli altri uomini, devi essere un uomo che agisce sugli altri uomini stimolandoli e sollecitandoli realmente. Ognuno dei tuoi rapporti con l’uomo, e con la natura, dev’essere una manifestazione determinata e corrispondente all’oggetto della tua volontà, della tua vita individuale nella sua realtà. Se tu ami senza suscitare una amorosa corrispondenza, cioè se il tuo amore come amore non produce una corrispondenza d’amore, se nella tua manifestazione vitale di uomo amante non fai di te stesso un uomo amato, il tuo amore è impotente, è un’infelicità.
Manoscritti economico-filosofici del 1844Karl Marx(1844) Denaro
No doubt the demand also exists for him who has no money, but his demand is a mere thing of the imagination without effect or existence for me, for a third party, for the [others],||XLIII| and which therefore remains even for me unreal and objectless. The difference between effective demand based on money and ineffective demand based on my need, my passion, my wish, etc., is the difference between being and thinking, between that which exists within me merely as an idea and the idea which exists as a real object outside of me.
If I have no money for travel, I have no need – that is, no real and realisable need – to travel. If I have the vocation for study but no money for it, I have no vocation for study – that is, no effective, no true vocation. On the other hand, if I have really no vocation for study but have the will and the money for it, I have an effective vocation for it. Money as the external, universal medium and faculty (not springing from man as man or from human society as society) for turning an image into reality and reality into a mere image, transforms the real essential powers of man and nature into what are merely abstract notions and therefore imperfections and tormenting chimeras, just as it transforms real imperfections and chimeras – essential powers which are really impotent, which exist only in the imagination of the individual – into real powers and faculties. In the light of this characteristic alone, money is thus the general distorting of individualities which turns them into their opposite and confers contradictory attributes upon their attributes.
Money, then, appears as this distorting power both against the individual and against the bonds of society, etc., which claim to be entities in themselves. It transforms fidelity into infidelity, love into hate, hate into love, virtue into vice, vice into virtue, servant into master, master into servant, idiocy into intelligence, and intelligence into idiocy.
Since money, as the existing and active concept of value, confounds and confuses all things, it is the general confounding and confusing of all things – the world upside-down – the confounding and confusing of all natural and human qualities.
He who can buy bravery is brave, though he be a coward. As money is not exchanged for any one specific quality, for any one specific thing, or for any particular human essential power, but for the entire objective world of man and nature, from the standpoint of its possessor it therefore serves to exchange every quality for every other, even contradictory, quality and object: it is the fraternisation of impossibilities. It makes contradictions embrace.
Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust, etc. If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person; if you want to exercise influence over other people, you must be a person with a stimulating and encouraging effect on other people. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return – that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent – a misfortune
Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 Power Of Money
Karl Marx Works 1844
Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts
of 1844 [1]
Written: Between April and August 1844;
First Published: 1932;
Source: Marx. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844;
Publisher: Progress Publishers, Moscow 1959;
Translated: by Martin Mulligan;
Transcribed: for marxists.org by Andy Blunden in 2000;
Proofed: and corrected by Matthew Carmody 2009;
See alternate translation.
See also PDF version in one file.
Contents
First Manuscript
Wages of Labour
Profit of Capital
1. Capital
2. The Profit of Capital
3. The Rule of Capital Over Labour and the Motives of the Capitalist
4. The Accumulation of Capitals and the Competition Among the Capitalists
Second Manuscript
Antithesis of Capital and Labour. Landed Property and Capital
Third Manuscript
Private Property and Labour
Private Property and Communism
Human Needs & Division of Labour Under the Rule of Private Property
The Power Of Money
Critique of the Hegelian Dialectic and Philosophy as a Whole
and
Hegel’s Construction of The Phenomenology, November 1844
Plan for a Work on The Modern State, November 1844
Preface
||XXXIX| I have already announced in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher the critique of jurisprudence and political science in the form of a critique of the Hegelian philosophy of law. While preparing it for publication, the intermingling of criticism directed only against speculation with criticism of the various subjects themselves proved utterly unsuitable, hampering the development of the argument and rendering comprehension difficult. Moreover, the wealth and diversity of the subjects to be treated could have been compressed into one work only in a purely aphoristic style; whilst an aphoristic presentation of this kind, for its part, would have given the impression of arbitrary systematism. I shall therefore publish the critique of law, ethics, politics, etc., in a series of distinct, independent pamphlets, and afterwards try in a special work to present them again as a connected whole showing the interrelationship of the separate parts, and lastly attempt a critique of the speculative elaboration of that material. For this reason it will be found that the interconnection between political economy and the state, law, ethics, civil life, etc., is touched upon in the present work only to the extent to which political economy itself expressly touches upon these subjects.
It is hardly necessary to assure the reader conversant with political economy that my results have been attained by means of a wholly empirical analysis based on a conscientious critical study of political economy.
(Whereas the uninformed reviewer who tries to hide his complete ignorance and intellectual poverty by hurling the “utopian phrase” at the positive critic’s head, or again such phrases as “quite pure, quite resolute, quite critical criticism,” the “not merely legal but social – utterly social – society,” the “compact, massy mass,” the “outspoken spokesmen of the massy mass,” [2] this reviewer has yet to furnish the first proof that besides his theological family affairs he has anything to contribute to a discussion of worldly matters.)
It goes without saying that besides the French and English socialists I have also used German socialist works. The only original German works of substance in this science, however – other than Weitling’s writings – are the essays by Hess published in Einundzwanzig Bogen [3] and Umrisse zu einer Kritik der Nationalökonomie by Engels in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, where also the basic elements of this work have been indicated by me in a very general way.
(Besides being indebted to these authors who have given critical attention to political economy, positive criticism as a whole – and therefore also German positive criticism of political economy – owes its true foundation to the discoveries of Feuerbach, against whose Philosophie der Zukunft and Thesen zur Reform der Philosophie in the Anekdota, despite the tacit use that is made of them, the petty envy of some and the veritable wrath of others seem to have instigated a regular conspiracy of silence.
It is only with Feuerbach that positive, humanistic and naturalistic criticism begins. The less noise they make, the more certain, profound, extensive, and enduring is the effect of Feuerbach’s writings, the only writings since Hegel’s Phänomenologie and Logik to contain a real theoretical revolution.
In contrast to the critical theologians of our day, I have deemed the concluding chapter of this work – a critical discussion of Hegelian dialectic and philosophy as a whole to be absolutely necessary, a task not yet performed. This lack of thoroughness is not accidental, since even the critical theologian remains a theologian. Hence, either he has to start from certain presuppositions of philosophy accepted as authoritative; or, if in the process of criticism and as a result of other people’s discoveries doubts about these philosophical presuppositions have arisen in him, he abandons them in a cowardly and unwarrantable fashion, abstracts from them, thus showing his servile dependence on these presuppositions and his resentment at this servility merely in a negative, unconscious and sophistical manner.
(He does this either by constantly repeating assurances concerning the purity of his own criticism, or by trying to make it seem as though all that was left for criticism to deal with now was some other limited form of criticism outside itself – say eighteenth-century criticism – and also the limitations of the masses, in order to divert the observer’s attention as well as his own from the necessary task of settling accounts between criticism and its point of origin – Hegelian dialectic and German philosophy as a whole – that is, from this necessary raising of modern criticism above its own limitation and crudity. Eventually, however, whenever discoveries (such as Feuerbach’s) are made regarding the nature of his own philosophic presuppositions, the critical theologian partly makes it appear as if he were the one who had accomplished this, producing that appearance by taking the results of these discoveries and, without being able to develop them, hurling them in the form of catch-phrases at writers still caught in the confines of philosophy. He partly even manages to acquire a sense of his own superiority to such discoveries by asserting in a mysterious way and in a veiled, malicious and skeptical fashion elements of the Hegelian dialectic which he still finds lacking in the criticism of that dialectic (which have not yet been critically served up to him for his use) against such criticism – not having tried to bring such elements into their proper relation or having been capable of doing so, asserting, say, the category of mediating proof against the category of positive, self-originating truth, (…) in a way peculiar to Hegelian dialectic. For to the theological critic it seems quite natural that everything has to be done by philosophy, so that he can chatter away about purity, resoluteness, and quite critical criticism; and he fancies himself the true conqueror of philosophy whenever he happens to feel some element [4] in Hegel to be lacking in Feuerbach – for however much he practises the spiritual idolatry of “self-consciousness” and “mind” the theological critic does not get beyond feeling to consciousness.)
On close inspection theological criticism – genuinely progressive though it was at the inception of the movement – is seen in the final analysis to be nothing but the culmination and consequence of the old philosophical, and especially the Hegelian, transcendentalism, twisted into a theological caricature. This interesting example of historical justice, which now assigns to theology, ever philosophy’s spot of infection, the further role of portraying in itself the negative dissolution of philosophy, i.e., the process of its decay – this historical nemesis I shall demonstrate on another occasion. [5]
(How far, on the other hand, Feuerbach’s discoveries about the nature of philosophy still, for their proof at least, called for a critical discussion of philosophical dialectic will be seen from my exposition itself.)||LX|
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm