F. Engels and K. Marx on the Origin of Private Property and the State: One Concept or Two?

A. A. Koryakovtsev
{"title":"F. Engels and K. Marx on the Origin of Private Property and the State: One Concept or Two?","authors":"A. A. Koryakovtsev","doi":"10.32603/2412-8562-2024-10-1-15-31","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The problem of incomplete coincidence of views of K. Marx and F. Engels has long been raised in marxology. On this topic, D. McLellan, M. Ryubel, K.N. Lubutin and P.N. Kondrashov spoke. However, they were limited to political economy and ontology. We will discuss the views of classics on the origin of private property and the state.Methodology and sources. In this article the textual analysis of the works «Origin of family, private property and state» by F. Engels and «Forms preceding capitalist production» and «Manuscripts of 1844» by K. Marx is taken. The author a dopts a historical-comparative approach, combining the ideas of the classics with those of later Marxist schools.Results and discussion. F. Engels explains the appearance of the state by class contradictions. However, it does not distinguish the concept of «class» from the concept of «estate» and ignores the fact that in the pre-capitalist era an individual opposed another individual as a representative of a community that provided a certain standard of living. In a paragraph entitled «Forms Preceding Capitalist Production» in the «Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1861», K. Marx describes how the state emerged as an organizer of forced community works. This coercion was determined not by socio-political factors but by natural factors. Labor created not only a social product, but also the very relationship of domination. We show the semantic connection of this concept with that which was embodied K. Marx in «Economical-philosophical manuscripts of 1844».Conclusion. In classical Marxism there is no unified concept of the origin of the state and private property; the concepts of K. Marx and F. Engels differ from each other in the interpretation of the role of labor in this process. F. Engels attributes a passive role to labor. For K. Marx, the role of labor is active: labor itself creates its opposite, private property, and with it the state, which arises and exists due to the limitations of labor.","PeriodicalId":505315,"journal":{"name":"Discourse","volume":"227 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2024-10-1-15-31","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. The problem of incomplete coincidence of views of K. Marx and F. Engels has long been raised in marxology. On this topic, D. McLellan, M. Ryubel, K.N. Lubutin and P.N. Kondrashov spoke. However, they were limited to political economy and ontology. We will discuss the views of classics on the origin of private property and the state.Methodology and sources. In this article the textual analysis of the works «Origin of family, private property and state» by F. Engels and «Forms preceding capitalist production» and «Manuscripts of 1844» by K. Marx is taken. The author a dopts a historical-comparative approach, combining the ideas of the classics with those of later Marxist schools.Results and discussion. F. Engels explains the appearance of the state by class contradictions. However, it does not distinguish the concept of «class» from the concept of «estate» and ignores the fact that in the pre-capitalist era an individual opposed another individual as a representative of a community that provided a certain standard of living. In a paragraph entitled «Forms Preceding Capitalist Production» in the «Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1861», K. Marx describes how the state emerged as an organizer of forced community works. This coercion was determined not by socio-political factors but by natural factors. Labor created not only a social product, but also the very relationship of domination. We show the semantic connection of this concept with that which was embodied K. Marx in «Economical-philosophical manuscripts of 1844».Conclusion. In classical Marxism there is no unified concept of the origin of the state and private property; the concepts of K. Marx and F. Engels differ from each other in the interpretation of the role of labor in this process. F. Engels attributes a passive role to labor. For K. Marx, the role of labor is active: labor itself creates its opposite, private property, and with it the state, which arises and exists due to the limitations of labor.
F.恩格斯和 K. 马克思论私有财产和国家的起源:一个概念还是两个概念?
导言。马克思和恩格斯观点不完全一致的问题在马克思主义学界早已提出。关于这个问题,D. McLellan、M. Ryubel、K.N. Lubutin 和 P.N. Kondrashov 都曾发表过讲话。然而,他们的发言仅限于政治经济学和本体论。我们将讨论经典作品中关于私有财产和国家起源的观点。本文对弗-恩格斯的《家庭、私有财产和国家的起源》、克-马克思的《资本主义生产的前期形式》和《1844 年手稿》进行了文本分析。作者采用历史比较的方法,将经典著作的思想与后来马克思主义流派的思想结合起来。弗-恩格斯用阶级矛盾解释了国家的出现。但是,它没有区分 "阶级 "概念和 "地产 "概念,忽视了在前资本主义时代,个人作为提供一定生活水准的共同体的代表与另一个人相对立的事实。在《1857-1861 年经济学手稿》中题为 "资本主义生产以前的形式 "的一段中,K. 马克思描述了国家是如何作为强制社区工程的组织者出现的。这种强制不是由社会政治因素决定的,而是由自然因素决定的。劳动不仅创造了社会产品,也创造了统治关系。我们展示了这一概念与 K. 马克思在《1844 年经济学-哲学手稿》中所体现的概念在语义上的联系。在经典马克思主义中,关于国家和私有财产的起源没有统一的概念;在对劳动在这一过程中的作用的解释上,马克思和恩格斯的概念彼此不同。恩格斯认为劳动的作用是被动的。在克-马克思看来,劳动的作用是主动的:劳动本身创造了它的对立面--私有财产,并随之创造了国家,而国家是由于劳动的局限性而产生和存在的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信