The State in Economic Theory 2 - by Joseph Belbruno

8/10/2019 The State in Economic Theory 2 - by Joseph Belbruno

1/23

THE STATE IN ECONOMIC THEORY

Property is theft. Proudhon Philosophie de la Misere

They s!y th!tpatriotism

Is the "!st refu#eTo $hi%h ! s%oundre" %"in#s.Ste!" ! "itt"e !nd they

Thro$ you in &!i"Ste!" ! "ot !nd

They '!(e you )in# *o+ ,y"!n in Whats a Sweetheart like You doing in aDump like This.

Property !s $e !re "e!rnin# in%re!sin#"y no$ th!t it is %on%entr!ted in e-er

fe$er h!nds is the e/%"usion of others fro' $h!t !re un!-oid!+"yso%i!" hu'!n resour%es. Resour%es or use -!"ues !re so%i!" not inthe sense th!t they !re sh!red +y indi-idu!"s +y hu'!n +ein#sunderstood !s !to's +ut r!ther in the sense th!t they !0e%t sin#"ehu'!n +ein#s in their -ery +ein# hu'!n &ust !s the E+o"! -irusdoes not !1i%t indi-idu!"s +ut !tt!%(s us !s spe%i'ens of the onespe%ies. M!r/2s dis%o-ery of the Doppelcharakterof produ%tion in%!pit!"is' %ontr!stin# the use -!"ue of hu'!n produ%tion $ith itse/%h!n#e -!"ue under %!pit!"is' $!s 'e!nt to hi#h"i#ht the f!%tth!t use -!"ues point $e"" +eyond the uni-erse of e%ono'i%s $ithits e/%h!n#e -!"ue to$!rd the multi-erse of hu'!n -!"ues. Th!t is$hy M!r/ thou#ht Proudhon2s f!'ous 'otto !+out property 3'oreth!n &ust !n !phoris' en%!psu"!tin# Rousse!u2s thesis in DelInegalite4 $!s so $orthy of !ppro+!tion. Yet e-en thou#h the notionof property is so o+-ious"y "e#!" !nd re5uires of ne%essity thee/isten%e of ! St!te !pp!r!tus to enfor%e it e-en M!r/ %ou"d %on%ei-ein his o$n %riti5ue of po"iti%!" e%ono'y th!t it $!s possi+"e to iso"!tethe ro"e of the St!te fro' th!t of property or the '!r(et or thee%ono'y !s !n o+&e%t of s%ienti6% in5uiry.

In $h!t %ou"d on"y +e the hei#htened per%epti-eness of ! poet *o+ ,y"!ninste!d +rin#s to#ether the e/isten%e of the St!te of the repu+"i% orpu+"i% thin# $hi%h is sh!red +y !"" %iti7ens $hi%h shou"d +e the!%'e of our sense of duty !nd de-otion to it !s the o+&e%ti6%!tion ofour so%i!" e/isten%e hen%e of our p!triotis' +e%o'es in re!"itythe "!st refu#e of s%oundre"s $ho end up +ein# '!de (in#s or'e'+ers of Con#ress or P!r"i!'ent +e%!use they o$n the 'ostproperty !nd therefore ste!" ! "ot $here!s it is those $ith the "e!stproperty those $ho ste!" ! "itt"e $ho end up in &!i"8 9h!t thisre-e!"s is th!t on"y s%oundre"s h!-e e-ery ri#ht to +e p!trioti% +e%!use the rest of us h!-e -ery "itt"e st!(e in the defen%e of thepu+"i% thin# of the repu+"i% !nd therefore of the St!te8

The t$in %rises of the E+o"! -irus !nd of the ISIS t$o 'ost -iru"ent dise!sesth!t thre!ten our -ery hu'!nity fro' opposite ends the 'i%ros%opi%


2/23

!nd the '!%ros%opi% : these t$in %rises +rin# prepotent"y +efore oureyes $h!t is the re!" dise!se of %!pit!"ist so%iety; the utter !ndde-!st!tin# i'possi+i"ity of true p!triotis' for those "i-in# under theru"e of the %!pit!"ist St!te. It is this %o""!pse of the "e#iti'!%y of the%!pit!"ist St!te !s repu+"i% th!t re5uires i'perious"y ! re!ssess'ent of its ro"e in e%ono'i% theory so th!t $e '!y e"!+or!te !

str!te#y of !tt!%( !#!inst ! '!%hine !n !pp!r!tus th!t #ro$s'ore "e!den !nd o+so"es%ent %orrupt !nd %orrosi-e $ith e-ery p!ssin#hour !nd th!t 6n!""y !s in Hon# )on# ri#ht no$ thre!tens our 'ost+!si% needs for freedo' !nd fu"6"'ent or !s in Me/i%o $ith theo+s%ene he%!to'+ of our student %o'r!des !t the h!nds of %orruptpo"i%e !nd #!n#sters thre!tens our -ery "i-es8

THE RO


3/23

naturalisth!t e/istedpriorto the est!+"ish'ent of the societas civilis!nd the St!te !s in the


4/23

neutr!"ity of the St!te h!d to pro%eed h!nd in h!nd $ith thedestitution of indi-idu!"s of !"" Ethi%oPo"iti%!" -!"ues !nd theirredu%tion fro' %iti7ens to e%ono'i% !to's $hose !%ti-ities %ou"d +e%!"%u"!ted !nd 'e!sured in iso"!tion fro' one !nother so !s to "ends%ienti6% e%ono'i% @!"ue to the uti"is!tion !nd produ%tion of so%i!"resour%es. *ut in f!%t !nd in re!"ity this rei6%!tion of hu'!n "i-in#

!%ti-ity its redu%tion to 'e!sur!+"e "!+ourpo$er is ! spe%i6%for' of so%i!" -io"en%e perpetr!ted +y the %!pit!"ist +our#eoisie.

E-en M!r/ in his criti(ueof po"iti%!" e%ono'y sou#ht to est!+"ish th!t in thepro%ess of %o''odity produ%tion !nd therefore of e%ono'i% -!"ue the%!pit!"ist deri-es ! pro6t +y e/tr!%tin# surp"us -!"ue fro' the "!+ourti'e so%i!""y ne%ess!ry to produ%e those %o''odities. *ut onesour%e of surp"us -!"ue th!t M!r/ spe%i6es !rises fro' the f!%t th!t the%!pit!"ist does not p!y $or(ers for the socialit%of their indi-idu!""!+ours for the f!%t th!t $h!t !re supposed"y indi-idu!" labours!re in re!"ity indi-isi+"e !spe%ts of social labour. Thus in his e0ort topresent his theory in ! s%ienti6% #uise M!r/ ne!t"y o+s%ures $h!t he

%"e!r"y re%o#ni7es th!t is to s!y th!t it is i'possi+"e to spe%ify !nd%!"%u"!te e%ono'i% @!"ue independent"y of the so%i!"ity of hu'!n"i-in# !%ti-ity $hi%h therefore "e!ds us ine-it!+"y to ethico)political-!"ues !s the re!" '!tri/ of economic-!"ue.

M!r/2s dis%o-ery of the Doppelcharakterof produ%tion in %!pit!"is'%ontr!stin# the use -!"ue of hu'!n produ%tion $ith its e/%h!n#e-!"ue under %!pit!"is' e%hoes the !n%ient Aristote"i!n distin%tion+et$een the oikonomia3the "!$s of the househo"d4 !nd thechrematistike3the spe%u"!tion of 6n!n%e4. It $!s 'e!nt to hi#h"i#htthe f!%t th!t use -!"ues point $e"" +eyond the uni-erse ofe%ono'i%s $ith its e/%h!n#e -!"ue to$!rd the multi-erse ofhu'!n -!"ues. Th!t is $hy M!r/ thou#ht Proudhon2s f!'ous 'otto property is theft 3'ore th!n &ust !n !phoris' en%!psu"!tin#Rousse!u2s thesis in De lInegalite4 $!s so $orthy of !ppro+!tion. Yete-en thou#h the notion of property is so o+-ious"y "e#!" !nd re5uiresof ne%essity the e/isten%e of ! St!te !pp!r!tus to enfor%e it e-en M!r/%ou"d %on%ei-e in his o$n criti(ueof po"iti%!" e%ono'y th!t it $!spossi+"e to iso"!te the ro"e of the St!te fro' th!t of property or the'!r(et or the e%ono'y !s !n o+&e%t of s%ienti6% in5uiry. There !ret$o senses of the so%i!" %!te#ory @!"ue $hi%h re>e%t theDoppelcharakterof so%i!" resour%es identi6ed +y M!r/. On one side$e h!-e 'thico)Political@!"ue !nd on the other $e h!-e 'conomic@!"ue. Our thesis in this re-ie$ of the ro"e of the St!te in e%ono'i%theory is th!t these t$o 'e!nin#s of @!"ue !re indeed insep!r!+"e !nd th!t their sep!r!tion is on"y the produ%t of the 'odern distortion ofso%i!" !nd po"iti%!" theory th!t %o'es $ith the rise of the %!pit!"ist+our#eoisie !nd of its s%ien%epar excellence e%ono'i% s%ien%e.

The iso"!tion of Ethi%oPo"iti%!" @!"ue fro' E%ono'i% @!"ue re5uires thespe%i6%!tion of ! s%ienti6% sphere for the "!tter su%h th!t its pre%ise


5/23

5u!ntit!ti-e deter'in!tion %!n !""o$ the St!te to +e%o'e technicall%neutral!nd to e/trude !"" other -!"ues fro' the sphere of e%ono'i%-!"ue. This is the %ontr!ry of $h!t H!+er'!s %ontends in Theor% andPractice$here he e5u!tes the !d-ent of the +our#eois St!te to thes%ienti7!tion of po"iti%s tout court. Yet !s is 5uite e-ident the %"!i' of"i+er!"is' is pre%ise"y the opposite th!t is to +e !+"e to free the

Po"iti%!" not +y s%ienti7in# it +ut +y iso"!tin# it s%ienti6%!""y fro' theE%ono'i%. Liberalism does not pretend that Politics can beturned into a science; its main claim and injunction on whichthe dictatorial rule of the capitalist bourgeoisie is based israther that Politics must not interfere with the science ofEconomics.Th!t is the entire r!tion!"e +ehind the ho'o"o#!tion ofPo"iti%s !nd E%ono'i%s +ehind +oth C"!ssi%!" !nd Neo%"!ssi%!" Political'conom% ! free so%iety !nd ! di%t!tori!" $or(p"!%e8

Here it is not &ust H!+er'!s2s thesis !+out the s%ienti7!tion of po"iti%s +ute-en Const!nt2s distin%tion +et$een the freedo' of Anti5uity !ndthe "i+erties or #u!r!ntees of Modernity th!t is ne!t"y surp!ssed !nd

side"ined. Indeed f!r fro' !%%eptin# th!t po"iti%s %!n +e turned into !s%ien%e Const!nt hi'se"f the #re!test theoreti%i!n of "i+er!"is' !fter


6/23

the e/isten%e of ! St!te. *ut our thesis here is th!t there is nopossi+i"ity of ! sep!r!tion of the E%ono'i% fro' the Po"iti%!" or of !%hoi%e or tr!deo0 +et$een state!nd market8 The notion of '!r(etis ! 6%tion +e%!use the 5uestion is not one of $hether hu'!n +ein#se/%h!n#e individual labours+ut it is r!ther one of ho$ hu'!n +ein#sorganisesocial labour8 3In this sense ,ur(hei' is the perfe%t !ntidote

to Ad!' S'ith2s spurious deri-!tion of the di-ision of "!+our +y$hi%h he 'e!nt indi-idu!" "!+ours fro' e/%h!n#e. H!d S'ithst!rted inste!d fro' the notion of so%i!" "!+our he $ou"d h!-eunderstood th!t indeed it is e/%h!n#e th!t is '!de possi+"e on"y +ythe 6%titious !nd %oer%i-e p!r%e"is!tion of so%i!" "!+our into indi-idu!""!+ours84

*our#eois e%ono'i% s%ien%e sin%e Ad!' S'ith is founded on the spurious%onundru' of e%ono'i% %oordin!tion; it !s(s ho$ is it possi+"e forse"finterested !to'i% indi-idu!"s to %oordin!te their !%ti-ities so th!te/%h!n#e is possi+"e +et$een the'B And the o+-ious !ns$er $hi%h%onde'ns !"" neo%"!ssi%!" theory to irre"e-!n%e is th!t it is utter"y

i'possi+"e for se"finterested !to'i% indi-idu!"s e-er to e/%h!n#e or to%oordin!te !nythin# !t !"" $ith one !nother8 As Ro+ert C"o$er h!sproper"y pointed out there %!n +e no '!r(et !s theorised in !""neo%"!ssi%!" e5ui"i+riu' theory +e%!use there is no 'e!nin#fu"'!r(et pro%ess +et$een hu'!n !to's; e-en 9!"r!s2s tatonnementdoes not !'ount to '!r(et pro%ess +e%!use pri%es !re not 6n!" unti"!"" '!r(ets %"e!r !nd #ener!" e5ui"i+riu' pri%es !re re!%hed. The5uestion fro' $hi%h $e 'ust st!rt inste!d is the e/!%t opposite; ho$is it possi+"e for hu'!n +ein#s $ho !re spe%ies%ons%ious +ein#s e-erto %re!te ! so%iety th!t enfor%es indi-idu!"is' on the'B This is $h!tRousse!u did $hen he in-erted the 5uestion of the e/isten%e ofproperty; inste!d of !ssu'in# th!t property ri#hts !re n!tur!" he!s(ed; ho$ !nd $hen did property +e%o'e ! so%i!" re!"ityB Si'i"!r"y$ith st!t!"ity $e !s( not ho$ the St!te !rises fro' %i-i" so%iety !s ifthe t$o spheres $ere insuper!+"e !ntino'i% 'et!physi%!" entities su%h!s +ody !nd sou" +e%!use there is no so"ution to ! pro+"e' set inthese ter's. R!ther $e 'ust !s( ho$ ! so%iety of pri-!te indi-idu!"s%!n !rise fro' hu'!n spe%ies%ons%ious +ein#.

Alchian-Demsetz, to give yet another example of the rampant stupidity of Nobel Prize laureates in economics, quiteincorrectly select a negativedefinition of capitalism the absenceof government in the economic process -

and completely leave out the individual!"

The '!r( of ! %!pit!"isti% so%iety is th!t resour%es !re o$ned !nd !""o%!ted +y su%h

non#o-ern'ent!" or#!ni7!tions !s 6r's househo"ds !nd '!r(ets. =irst senten%e ofProdu%tion Infor'!tion Costs !nd E%ono'i% Or#!ni7!tion.D

#his is quite clearly nonsense because, in practice and in reality, governments have historically played a crucial role inthe o$nership and allocation of %social& resources!' and in bourgeois economic theory, it is individuals, not

firms and households!, that must axiomaticallyta(e precedence over firms and households and mar(ets!)

*t is possible, of course, that by mar(ets! Alchian-Demsetz mean the economic exchange of atomisticindividuals+ Demsetz in any case $ill later ta(e a fresh loo( at competition as perfect decentralization!,

$hich requires the postulate of possessive individualism cf+ above all his reedom and .oercion! and


7/23

allacies in the /conomic Doctrine of /xternalities!0+ #he locus classicusof possessive individualism! is,of course, .1 2acpherson3s to$ering study by that name+

9h!t '!(es the in-ersion of this !#eo"d ne/us +et$een St!te !nd e%ono'ye-er 'ore pere'ptory !nd pressin# is the f!%t th!t no$ 'ore th!n

e-er $e !re $itnessin# ho$ it is not the e%ono'y th!t is thefound!tion of the St!te +ut 'u%h r!ther it is the #statalit%$of +ein#hu'!n th!t is %u"p!+"y o+fus%!ted +y e%ono'i% s%ien%e. The #re!tp!rt of Aristot"e2s study on the St!te the Politics is de-oted to $h!t hedee's to +e its found!tion the oikosor househo"d $hose re#u"!tionor "!$s 3nomia4 "end the n!'e to presentd!y e%ono'i%s 3oiko)nomia4. Sin%e Aristot"e !nd then th!n(s to his in>uen%e throu#hAnti5uity !nd the Christi!n Midd"e A#es it is the "!$s of the househo"dth!t found the reproductionof hu'!n so%iety intended !s societascivilis!nd not vice versa th!t is it is not the st!t!"ity of hu'!n+ein# th!t founds e%ono'i%s. 9ith Aristot"e the freedo' of the!n%ients !ns$ers to theph%sisof hu'!n +ein#s the&oon politikon.

This is the !%ti-e side of the animal socialein th!t hu'!n +ein#s see(ul)+lmentin Po"iti%s in the St!te. Hen%e the St!te is the ethi%opo"iti%!"perectionof its %iti7ens in the sense th!t the St!te2s ethi%opo"iti%!" di'ension 5uite distin%t fro' its po"i%e !nd 'i"it!ry fun%tionsis !n e'!n!tion fro' the %iti7ens !s animalia rationalia3r!tion!"!ni'!"s4 distin%t fro' other !ni'!"s +y the f!%u"ty of "!n#u!#e !ndtherefore of re!son.

In Aristote"i!n 'et!physi%s the n!ture 3ph%sis4 of !n entity is to produ%eor #ener!te its purpose 3telos4. The n!ture of !n entity is th!t$ithout $hi%h th!t entity %ou"d not e/ist; the pro#eny of !n entity isthe telosof itsph%sis. Hen%e it is in the n!ture of the househo"d to

#i-e rise to the St!te. The St!te e/ists +e%!use it is the e%sisten%e ofthe househo"d; the St!te is the telosof the househo"d. The St!te is thetelos3purpose4 of the f!'i"y househo"d !s the n!tur!" reprodu%ti-eunit $hose n!ture orph%sisit is to +rin# forth the St!te. *ut then!ture of the househo"d itse"f is %onstituted +y th!t $ithout $hi%hhu'!n +ein#s %ou"d not e/ist the union of '!n !nd $o'!n. Th!t is$hy for Aristot"e it is not the indi-idu!" +ut the househo"d th!t t!(espre%eden%e +e%!use no indi-idu!" %ou"d e/ist $ithout ! househo"d. Inturn Aristot"e %ontends the househo"d %ou"d not e/ist $ou"d not +ese"fsu%ient $ithout its 'ore de-e"oped pro#eny the St!te.

Yet it is not the St!te th!t s!n%tions the r!tion!"ity !nd ethi%opo"iti%!"

perfe%tion of its %iti7ens +ut it is the %iti7ens $ho ul)+l!ndper)ectthe'se"-es +y est!+"ishin# the St!te. In Aristot"e2s theory the %iti7ensp"!y !n activero"e in the for'!tion !nd "ife of the St!te understood !s! po"ity founded on the househo"d !s its n!tur!" reprodu%ti-e unit. *utthey !%hie-e this perfe%tion on"y in the ethico)politicalsphere not inthe reprodu%ti-e !nd e%ono'i% one of the househo"d8 *e%!use theSt!te is per%ei-ed !s !n !##"o'er!te of househo"ds so f!r !s thereprodu%ti-e !nd e%ono'i% spheres !re %on%erned the St!te ser-es'ere"y !s !n !d-entitious 'e%h!ni%!" instru'ent of prote%tion !#!inst


8/23

intern!" disruption 3po"i%e4 !nd e/tern!" ene'ies 3!r'y4. There is nost!t!"ity in the sphere of so%i!" reprodu%tion $hi%h is "eft entire"y tothe househo"d e/%ept $here the househo"d thre!tens so%i!" pe!%e+y e/%eedin# +y #oin# +eyond the +ounds of its reprodu%tion !ndthere+y defe!ts the pursuit of the ethi%!" ide!" of the #ood "ife.

Ho$e-er 'u%h Aristot"e '!y insist on its se"fsu%ien%y the St!te does notp"!y ! reprodu%ti-e ro"e in the so%iety he des%ri+es #i-en th!t its s%opeis "i'ited to intern!" !nd e/tern!" order. Here the !'+it of the St!te itsro"e in so%iety is 'ere"y %on6ned to the ethi%!" one of te'per!n%e!nd "i+er!"ity on the !%ti-e side !nd of po"i%in# !nd defen%e on thene#!ti-e side. *ut in the 6rst %!se the St!te turns out to +e ! $ho""yide!" 'or!" !nd ethi%!" entity !nd in the se%ond %!se ! pure"y'e%h!ni%!" !nd 'i"it!rist one. There si'p"y is no or#!ni% ne/us+et$een the e/isten%e of the St!te !nd the needs of househo"ds there is no st!t!"ity in the househo"ds $hi%h !re presented inste!d !sse"f%ont!ined !nd se"fsu%ient units8 ,espite his %ontention to the%ontr!ry the househo"d Aristot"e des%ri+es e/ists on"y ontogeneticall%

th!t is to s!y it is %!p!+"e of subsistingindependentl%of the St!te8 Inre!"ity it is p!infu""y e-ident fro' Aristot"e2s e/position of his po"iti%!"theory th!t the interests of the househo"d in e/p!ndin# its #eneti% !ndterritori!" re!%h its telosof popu"!tin# the e!rth $i"" ine-it!+"ythre!ten the inte#rity of the St!te !s ! re#u"!tor of househo"ds !nd !s! defender of the' !#!inst e/tern!" thre!ts +e%!use the e/p!nsion ofhouseho"ds $i"" '!(e the St!te "i!+"e to intern!" disso"ution if it isune-en !nd !"so ne%ess!ri"y to e/tern!" !tt!%( if it is e/%essi-e e/%ept for the entire"y ide!"isti% !nd 'or!"isti% Aristote"i!npres%ription of te'per!n%e !nd "i+er!"ity.

9h!t '!(es Aristot"e2s theory of the St!te ide!"isti% !nd -o"unt!rist is thef!%t th!t the interests of househo"ds !nd St!te do not %oin%ide $hi%his $hy Aristot"e h!s to !ppe!" p!ssion!te"y to the e/trinsi%phi"osophi%!" ide!" of "i-in# $e"". Of the t$o !spe%ts of the #ood "ife!s pres%ri+ed +y Aristot"e one te'per!n%e 3phronesisor pruden%e4shri-e"s into ! pious renun%i!tion of pro6teerin# +y pri-i"e#in# use-!"ues o-er e/%h!n#e -!"ues $hi"st the other "i+er!"ity or the pursuitof e/%e""en%e in the !rts de#ener!tes into the %yni%is' of (no$"ed#eis po$er.

The in%o'p!ti+i"ity of the interests of the househo"d in e/p!ndin# its f!'i"y!nd possessions !nd th!t of the St!te in re#u"!tin# this i'pu"se +y'e!ns of the phi"osophi% ide!" ofphronesisis '!de p!infu""ye-ident +y Aristot"e2s in-o%!tion of it !s ! %ure for the intrinsi% i""s ofthe househo"d e%ono'y !nd its ine-it!+"e des%ent into the +"indpursuit of $e!"th on $hi%h the ree( %ityst!te $!s founded to itsun!-oid!+"e detri'ent !nd undoin#. Thus the St!te in Anti5uity $!s+ound to re'!in ! superstru%tur!" entity th!t $!s understood on"y inits ethi%opo"iti%!" +ut not in its 'et!+o"i% reprodu%ti-e di'ension. TheSt!te "e#is"!tes on"y o-er the po"i%in# of autonomoushouseho"ds intheir re"!tions inter se!nd o-er the defense of the po"ity +e%!use the


9/23

househo"ds h!-e no or#!ni% re"!tion to one !nother; their interestsinter se !nd therefore -isF-is the St!te !re neither %oe/tensi-e norh!r'onious in f!%t they !re !nt!#onisti%. As ! resu"t e-en the!pp!rent disinterestedness of "eisure"y phi"osophi%!" pursuits $hi%h!re the de"i+er!ti-e !%ti-e found!tion of the ree( %ityst!te isu"ti'!te"y dependent on the material e%ono'i% !+i"ity of the

househo"d to support its '!ster the %iti7en $ho for's the St!te. *ut#i-en the o+-ious !nt!#onis' +et$een the '!teri!" interests ofindi-idu!" househo"ds this e%ono'i% side of the St!te $i"" ne-ersu%e to se%ure its sur-i-!" !s ! free de"i+er!ti-e !sse'+"y of %iti7ens8Aristot"e f!i"s to !pp"y to his o$n po"iti%!" theory the %riti5ue th!t hedep"oys to dis'iss P"!to2s !tte'pts in the ,epublic!nd the "awstopres%ri+e the for's of e/tern!" inter-ention of the St!te on the!utono'y of the househo"d; #i-en th!t the househo"d re'!ins thefund!'ent!" unit of the St!te !nd househo"ds h!-e %on>i%tin#interests it is i'possi+"e for the St!te to re%on%i"e the di-er#entinterests of househo"ds e/%ept in !n ide!"isti% !nd 'or!"isti% sensepres%ri+ed +yphronesis.

Indeed !s M!r/2s !nd other histori%!" !n!"yses of the !n%ient e%ono'y h!-esho$n 3)!r" Po"!nyi Moses =in"ey Perry Anderson4 Aristot"e2si'p!ssioned defen%e of the househo"d !nd -iru"ent %onde'n!tion of$e!"thsee(in# is dis!r'in#"y 'or!"isti% or -e""eit!ry in th!t thespe%u"!tion of %hre'!tisti%s 3%o''er%e for the s!(e of pro6t4 $hi%hso o+-ious"y end!n#ers the sur-i-!" of the ree( e%ono'y +!sed onthe househo"d %!n on"y +e te'pered +y the pursuit of the #ood"ife or e/%e""en%e epito'ised +y the "o-e of $isdo' or phi"osophy.*ut #i-en th!t the speculativedisinterestedness of phi"osophy issupported '!teri!""y +y the spe%u"!ti-e pursuit of $e!"th +y thehouseho"d 3%hre'!tisti%s or 6n!n%e4 it is 5uite si'p"y i'possi+"e forphi"osophy the re!" sour%e of phronesis to restr!in its '!teri!"spe%u"!ti-e %ounterp!rt in the %hre'!tisti%s +"ind"y pursued +y thehouseho"d8

In Aristot"e2s po"iti%!" theory economics3the "!$ of the househo"d4 isdistin#uished fro' chrematistics3the pursuit of !+str!%t $e!"th for itso$n s!(e4. Gust ho$ in%onsistent !nd spe%ious Aristot"e2s p"e! forte'per!n%e !nd &ust ho$ de6%ient his theory of the St!te !re %!n +einferred fro' ho$ the phi"osophi%!" spe%u"!tion th!t supposed"y"e!ds to te'per!n%e !nd "i+er!"ity tophronesis r!pid"y !ndine/or!+"y de#ener!tes into the 6n!n%i!" spe%u"!tion th!t he so-ehe'ent"y de%ries in the e/!'p"e of Th!"es the phi"osopher $ho$hen repro!%hed +y his peers for $!stin# his ti'e on point"essphi"osophi%!" spe%u"!tion deter'ined to sho$ ho$ knowledge%!nturn intopower+y spe%u"!tin# on the '!r(et for the produ%tion ofo"i-e oi" +y 'onopo"isin# o"i-e trees !nd oi"'!(in# e5uip'ent !t !ti'e $hen pri%es $ere "o$ on"y to '!(e ! fortune +y se""in# $henpri%es rose. The f!%t th!t (no$"ed#e 3sophia4 %!n de'onstr!te itspo$er on"y +y turnin# fro' phi"osophi%!" spe%u"!tion to 6n!n%i!"spe%u"!tion 3chrematistike4 sho$s &ust ho$ %ontr!di%tory !nd p!theti%


10/23

Aristot"e2s p"e!s for te'per!n%e !nd "i+er!"ity for "i-in# $e"" !re+e%!use they !re founded on his in%o'prehension of the ine-it!+"ein%onsistent dyn!'i%s of the ree( %ityst!te founded on pri-!tehouseho"ds. Here the spe%u"!tion of phi"osophy insidious"y turns intothe spe%u"!tion of %hre'!tisti%s &ust !s s$ift"y !nd ine-it!+"y !s the"!$ of the househo"d economia $!s +ound to turn +y its intern!"

%ontr!di%tions into th!t of 6n!n%e %hre'!tisti%s !nd there+y %o'eto thre!ten the -ery e/isten%e of the ree( %itySt!te8 3In si'i"!r -einErnst M!%h in 'rkenntnis und Irrtum%h!'pions pure s%ienti6% rese!r%h!#!inst its !pp"i%!tion for #!in.4

In his review of Classical political theory in Theorie und Praxis, Habermas istoo pre-occupied with decrying the abandonment of the ethico-political understanding of politics in Antiquity which he, following

Arendt [in The Human Condition, is very eager to praise - in thesocial theory of !homism and the mechanistic scientism of "achiavelliand Hobbes, and so fails to stress the purely #idealistic$moralistic% or#voluntarist% nature of Aristotelian politics& !his is the limit also of

Herman '& (aly)s #ecological economics% directed precisely at thisdistinction between the household and chrematistics& (aly condemnsmodern economics for promoting chrematistics by neglecting#economics% in the Aristotelian sense *see hisThe Common Good+& Hefails to see that economic science [chrematistics can return to theuse values of the household only once #the household% itself hasdisappeared with the abolition of the individual labours of the wagerelation& (aly sees #the irrational pursuit of wealth or echange valuefor its own sae% as did also Aristotle and .eber and the entire/cholastic opposition to usury but cannot eplain why the #use

values% pursued by the economics of #households% have led inevitablyto the echange values of chrematistics and therefore to capitalismand its #science%, economics0 !hus, his call for a return to theeconomics of the household, 1ust lie Habermas)s nostalgia for

Aristotelian politics, remains voluntaristicbecause it fails to see that itis not #economic science%, or Habermas)s #scienti2ed politicalscience% since "achiavelli and Hobbes, that is the problem but ratherthe intereststhat lie behind the imposition of the wage relation by thecapitalist /tate and its #private enterprise%&

Neither for Aristot"e nor for M!rsi"ius or *odin the 6rst theoreti%i!ns !fterAristot"e to in5uire on the n!ture of the St!te 3M!%hi!-e""i %"e!r"y didnot4 unti" Ho++es %!n the St!te %h!n#e either the n!tur!" or thedi-ine"yde%reed $!y in $hi%h ! %o''unity reprodu%es itse"f. *ut$here!s for Anti5uity the %entr!"ity of the househo"d %onditions theethi%!" ro"e of the St!te !nd thus !""o$s the !%ti-e p!rti%ip!tion of its%iti7ens in #o-ern'ent !"re!dy $ith the po"iti%!" thou#ht of the Midd"eA#es the fo%us shifts to the preser-!tion of social peacein ! histori%!"%onte/t in $hi%h the househo"d h!s +een rep"!%ed +y the feud.M!rsi"ius !nd *odin re>e%t on ! so%iety in $hi%h the p!rtition of "!nd +y"!r#e !risto%r!ti% "!ndo$ners is "i(e"y to de#ener!te into %i-i" $!r$ithout the St!te2s correctionof %orrupti+"e hu'!n n!ture not !s in


11/23

Anti5uity !s the foru' or e%%"esi! for theper)ection of the ethi%!" "ifeof its %iti7ens +ut r!ther !s the +rid#e or com)pletion of the #!p inso%i!" reprodu%tion "eft +y the !nt!#onisti% interests of househo"ds th!tpreser-es or %onser-es social peace+y 'e!ns of !+so"utist#o-ern'ent !nd the on"y 5uestion +e%o'es one of #o-ern!n%e.

Thou#h *odin %!n %on%ei-e of ! societas naturalise/istin# independent"y ofthe St!te the possi+i"ity of %i-i" $!r !nd its des%ent into ! st!te ofn!ture '!(es the e/isten%e of the St!te p!rt of the di-ine n!tur!" order3!s in the f!'i"y #o-erned +y thepateramilias %f. =i"'er2s Patriarcha4so th!t o+edien%e to the so-erei#n 'ust +e absolute. Here it is theR!tio the animal rationale th!t di%t!tes !+so"ute ru"e !nd the R!tio is6rst deri-ed fro' !nd !s%ri+ed to the ,i-inity !nd then '!nifested inN!ture. The !+so"utist St!te is &usti6ed +y Re!son !nd in turn its!%tions +e%o'e re!son!+"e !nd in%ontest!+"e a legibus solutae3!+so"ute e/e'pt fro' hu'!n "!$4. =or *odin !s for M!rsi"ius !nd=i"'er the St!te is ! deensor pacisfounded on the n!tur!" or di-inereprodu%ti-e order of the 'ono#!'ous f!'i"y !nd on the *i+"i%!"

'utu!" distrust !'on# hu'!n +ein#s the hu'!n propensity toperpetr!te e-i" fo""o$in# the *i+"i%!" !%%ount of the =!"".

The di0eren%e +et$een Aristot"e2sper)ection!nd *odin2s correction3%f.Const!nt2s freedo' !nd "i+erties4 $i"" "!ter +e%o'e He#e"2s %orre%tfor'u"!tion of the 5uestion of the St!te th!t it 'ust !ns$er to thefu"6"'ent of hu'!n +ein#s !nd not si'p"y ensure their prote%tion !sdeensor pacis3$here societas naturalisis possi+"e4 or creator pacis3!restauratio ab imis $here the st!te of n!ture either ori#in!" Ho++esDor de#ener!te Rousse!uD is %orre%ted +y thestatus civilis to found thesocietas civilis4. In 'odern po"iti%!" theory the sphere of so%i!" "ife to$hi%h +e"on# !"" so%i!" re"!tions independent of the St!te is (no$n !s%i-i" so%iety 3%f. A. =er#uson-n 'ssa% on !ivil Societ% on $hi%hAd!' S'ith re"ied for his %i-i"ised so%iety4 !nd the St!te is theorised!s the institution th!t %o'p"e'ents %i-i" so%iety +y %o'p"etin# or +ypreser-in# or %onser-in# it +y supp"yin# the order or "!$ or!d'inistr!tion $ithout $hi%h %i-i" so%iety $ou"d not +e !+"e to#o-ern itse"f not in !n e%ono'i% sense +ut r!ther in ! po"iti%!"sense #i-en th!t the Po"iti%!" in '!r(ed %ontr!st to the E%ono'y isthe sphere of pu+"i% opinion !nd therefore of un5u!nti6!+"e !nd oftenirr!tion!" +e"iefs. =or those po"iti%!" theories th!t see %i-i" so%iety !s !se"fsust!inin# sphere for $hi%h the St!te pro-ides 'ere"y !#u!r!ntee of so%i!" pe!%e 3


12/23

civilis %f. Ho++es !nd the negatives Denkenfro' S%hopenh!uer toNiet7s%he !nd the Austri!n S%hoo"4.

The +!si% +ui"din# +"o%(s of the St!te for %"!ssi%!" po"iti%!" theory fro'Aristot"e on$!rds !re !"'ost e/%"usi-e"y ontogenetic in the sense th!tthe St!te is seen !s thepoliticalpro)ductor constructof 'ore +!si%

e"e'ents su%h !s the indi-idu!" the f!'i"y househo"d the #roup ortri+e or -i""!#e 3oikos. vicus4 the %ity 3polis. civitas4 !nd 6n!""y thepeop"e or n!tion hen%e the n!tionSt!te. E-en in those po"iti%!"theories th!t identify the St!te i''edi!te"y $ith so%iety or %i-i"is!tion!s societas civilis!s !#!inst ! prest!t!" societas naturalis thest!t!"ity of hu'!n +ein# is ne-er %onsidered. There is ne-er !su##estion th!t the St!te '!y !%tu!""y +e ! ne%ess!ry pre%ondition ofhu'!n +ein# of +ein# hu'!n in !ph%logeneticsense in the M!r/i!nsense of spe%ies%ons%ious +ein# 3/attungs)wesen4 or th!t the St!teis !n essenti!" e"e'ent in the 'et!+o"i% produ%ti-e %!p!%ity of !so%iety. The St!te is thou#ht to +e fund!'ent!" to the est!+"ish'ent ofthe societas civilisnot +e%!use of the phy"o#eneti% !ttri+utes of hu'!n

+ein# +ut r!ther 'ere"y to preventthe de#ener!tion !nd des%ent ofn!tur!" so%iety into %i-i" $!r 3esthe %re!ti-e produ%ti-e potenti!" of %i-i" so%iety.D

To the e/tent th!t the reprodu%tion of so%i!" units is identi%!" $ith the +ro!d"ypo"iti%!" !spe%ts of so%i!" "ife !s societas civilisor civitasorpolisthen it is indistin#uish!+"e fro' the status civilisth!t fo""o$s the e/it ofhu'!nity fro' the st!te of n!ture into the St!te itse"f. *ut to thee/tent th!t this status civilis+e#ins to +e di0erenti!ted fro' thereprodu%tion of independent so%i!" units th!t '!y or '!y not %o!"es%einto ! St!te then the St!te is distin%t fro' this pre%edin# %i-i" so%iety.

This tenden%y to dr!$ ! %"e!r distin%tion +et$een so%i!" inter!%tion orso%i!" re"!tions on one side !nd so%i!" reprodu%tion or so%i!" re"!tionso production on the other side on"y +e%o'es pro'inent on%e thenotion of "!+our intended !s indi-idu!" "!+our !s ! sep!r!te sour%eof so%i!" $e!"th is iso"!ted fro' other for's of so%i!" inter!%tion fro'


13/23

Ho++es !nd


14/23

The s%his' the re!t ,i-ide in e%ono'i% theory is !"$!ys +et$een the'ethodo"o#i%!" indi-idu!"is' of the negatives Denken so%iety !ndthe e%ono'y !re produ%ts of spont!neous indi-idu!" %hoi%es for $hi%he%ono'i% theory %!n on"y pro-ide r!tion!" !"tern!ti-es 3! '!the'!ti%!"proof of e/isten%e 9!"r!s !nd e5ui"i+riu' theoryD or ! s%ien%e of%hoi%e -on Mises H!ye( !nd Ro++insD4 !nd the 'ethodo"o#i%!"

o+&e%ti-is' of the So&ialismusfor $hi%h so%i!" %hoi%es 'ust +ei'posed s%ienti6%!""y !nd %o""e%ti-e"y on indi-idu!" 'e'+ers. *ut%ru%i!""y in +oth inst!n%es $hether for indi-idu!"is' or for%o""e%ti-is' the St!te does not 6#ure !s ! fund!'ent!"indispens!+"e %onstituent in#redient of the s%ienti6% !nd pr!%ti%!"spheres of e%ono'i% !%tion. =or +oth "i+er!"is' !nd so%i!"is' 3!nde-en for 'ost M!r/is's4 the e%ono'y is !n 0b*ect3! neo)!nti!nthin#initse"f4 of s%ienti6% in5uiry $hose oper!tion %!n +edeter'ined o+&e%ti-e"y s%ienti6%!""y for the +ene6t of its indi-idu!"'e'+ers t!(en onto#eneti%!""y !s indi-idu!"s in !%%ord!n%e $iththe

(uanti+ableeither in ! relativesense 3@!"ue is the 'e%h!ni%!"resu"t!nt of the h!##"in# or %on>i%t of !to'i% indi-idu!"s $ithsu+&e%ti-e se"finterested uti"ity s%hedu"es !s in Neo%"!ssi%!"e5ui"i+riu' theory4 or in !n absolutesense 3so%i!"istM!r/ist notion of@!"ue !s so%i!""y ne%ess!ry "!+our ti'e4.

p unti" Ad!' S'ith set out to for'!"i7e the oper!tion or fun%tionin# of the'!r(et e%ono'i%s h!d not e/isted !s ! s%ien%e sep!r!te fro'theories of so%iety or indeed of the +ody po"iti%. Yet in this -eryseparationof e%ono'i% s%ien%e fro' other !spe%ts of so%i!" "ife !ndfro' its history "ies the f!t!" >!$ of this s%ien%e +e%!use on%e its'ethodo"o#y "e!ds it to e/%"ude non)economicso%i!" for%es !se/o#enous f!%tors or !s e/tern!"ities then it +e%o'es ! %"osedsyste' of pure "o#i%o'!the'!ti%!" re"!tions in $hi%h e%ono'i%f!%ts !re %o'p"ete"y depri-ed of !"" so%io"o#i%!" !nd en-iron'ent!"%ontent 3of $h!t S%hu'peter %!""ed e/tr!e%ono'i% e0e%ts4.Conse5uent"y e%ono'i% s%ien%e is in%!p!+"e of 3!4 spe%ifyin# thecontentof its su+&e%t'!tter !nd 3+4 e/p"!inin# historical changein%"udin# the tr!nsfor'!tion of e%ono'i% re!"ity itse"f tot!""y e/trudin#thus fro' its s%ope +oth the -!"ue 3in +oth senses of the $ord thee%ono'i% !nd the ethi%opo"iti%!"4 of its in5uiry !nd the -ery positi-ee'piri%!" e/perien%e on $hi%h it is supposed"y founded.

*n his revie$ of .omte and 2ach, inKnowledge and Human Interests, 4urgen 5abermas emphasises one aspect of

positivism as his crucial ob6ection to it - namely, that positivism as a philosophy of science is incapable ofunderstanding and explaining the historical evolution! of science! itself+ 7e partly agree $ith 5abermas'

but this can only serve as an internal! critique of positivism in terms of its internal consistency, $hereas as

$e $ill discuss more fully belo$ this type of criticism of positivist methods entirely misses the point about

their external! real practical political effectuality) *n short, 5abermas criticizes positivism in the name ofscience!, $hen in fact bourgeois science! is a real political practice that cannot be contradicted! in purely

scientific! terms) 8cience! simply does not have the politically-independent epistemological status that

5abermas3s neo-9antism assigns to it as 2ax 7eber sho$ed conclusively, although only obliquely cf+:b6e(tivitat! and 8cience as ;ocation!0+


15/23

Put in si'p"er ter's s%ien%e !s pr!/is 'ust +e !+"e to &ustify its intrinsi%hu'!n interest !nd it 'ust %o'+ine theory !nd f!%ts; s%ien%e $ithouthu'!n interest is !+u"i% or h!r'fu": theory $ithout f!%ts is e'pty !ndf!%ts $ithout theory !re +"ind. *ut the f!%ts th!t e%ono'i% s%ien%epretends to theorise !re the -ery -io"ent re!"ity th!t the %!pit!"ist+our#eoisie h!s !"re!dy i'posed on hu'!n so%iety8 *our#eois

e%ono'i% s%ien%e therefore pretends 'ere"y to o+ser-e e'piri%!""yits 'isdeeds or f!%ts !nd then to dress the' up !s hu'!n n!tureth!t #i-es rise to n!tur!" hu'!n ri#hts. This 'iser!+"e %o'+in!tionof s%ienti6%positivism!nd ethi%!"*usnaturalismis the -ery essen%e of+our#eois e%ono'i% s%ien%e8 At the h!nds of positi-is' !nde'piri%is' the Statikof e5ui"i+riu' theory %ontr!di%ts the D%namikof%!pit!"ist re!"ity; hen%e e(uilibriume/pe"s histor%stasissty'iesmetabole necessit%%h!ins reedom. Ho$ then to re%on%i"e theseirre%on%i"!+"e oppositesB Ho$ to e-!de !nd es%!pe these !ntino'ies!nd !poriesB

This cardinal (uasi)'uclidean axiom o the absolute atomicit% or in)dividualit%

and sel)seeking sel)interest o human beings is the mostindispensable postulate o all bourgeois social. economic and politicaltheories1=ittin#"y it $!s the En#"ish tr!ns"!tor of Eu%"id2s 'lements

Tho'!s Ho++es $ho 6rst de-ised this $or"d-ie$. In this $or"d-ie$there is no sp!%e for %o''on hu'!n interests 3inter esse %o''on+ein#4; the sy""o#isti% %on%"usion is th!t freedo' %!n +e de6ned !nde/ist not !s ! %o''on hu'!n #o!" +ut on"y !s freedo' th!t is tos!y !s !n e5ui"i+riu' of opposin# %on>i%tin# !nd irre%on%i"!+"eindi-idu!" $i""s. This e5ui"i+riu' the e5ui"i+riu' of ree( stasisor %i-i"$!r 3bellumcivium4 %!n +e o-er%o'e +y po"iti%!" %on-ention3tot!"it!ri!n de'o%r!ti% or e"it!ri!n4 on"y +e%!use the !to'i7ed hu'!nindi-idu!"s postu"!ted in Ho++es2s theory (no$ th!t the on"y out%o'eof su%h st!ti% e5ui"i+riu' of this stasis $i"" +e the $!r of !"" !#!inst !""3bellum omnium contra omnes4 th!t $i"" "e!d f!t!""y 3f!te here turnsinto de!th4 to the e/tin%tion of hu'!nity. E-en in its freedo' indeed !s 9e+er h!d sho$n especiall%in its freedo' hu'!n!%tion !nd "e!dership $i"" o+ey th!t %onditionin# %onstituted +y thedira necessitas 3the dire ne%essity4 the extrema ratio of se"fpreser-!tion. The u"ti'!te found!tion of 'e%h!ni%!" r!tion!"ity +othfor the Ho++esi!n po"iti%!" syste' !nd for its neo%"!ssi%!" pro#eny ine5ui"i+riu' theory is 5uite si'p"y se"fpreser-!tion the direne%essity of sur-i-in# in the st!te of n!ture $here homo homini lupus'!n is ! $o"f to '!n. =reedo' %onsists not in !%tin# irr!tion!""y +ut in!%tin# r!tion!""y; in short th!t de%ision is free th!t is t!(en rationall%+y respe%tin# the preciserelationship +et$een sub*ectivel%intendedide!" #o!"s !nd the ob*ective%onditions the !-!i"!+"e 'e!ns forthe i'p"e'ent!tion of those #o!"s st!rtin# fro' the !/io'!ti%postu"!te of the irre%on%i"!+"e se"finterests of indi-idu!" hu'!n +ein#s.

This is ho$ Ho++es '!n!#ed for the risin# %!pit!"ist +our#eoisie !nepiste'o"o#i%!" fe!t th!t h!s not +een e5u!"ed sin%e he $rote; he'!n!#ed th!t is to %o'+ine the positi-ist scienti+c h%pothesisof


16/23

!"i"eoNe$toni!n 'e%h!ni%s $ith the &usn!tur!"istpolitical conventionof inn!te hu'!n ri#hts !nd there+y to ere%t +our#eois po"iti%!"pr!%ti%e on e0e%tu!" s%ienti6% #rounds. Ho++es +e#ins $ith the

positivists%ienti6% hypothesis of the uni-ers!" %on>i%t +et$eenhu'!n +ein#s t!(en !s $ho""y e#oisti% !to'i% indi-idu!"s !nd fro'there he de-e"ops r!tion!""y $ith the r!tion!"ity of the "!$s of

'e%h!ni%s the*usnaturalistpo"iti%!" %on-ention 3%o''on$e!"th4th!t $i"" '!(e so%i!" "ife possi+"e +!sed on the n!tur!" ri#hts of these%on>i%tin# indi-idu!"s. 3This !stute t$inin# of positi-ist!uthorit!ri!nis' !nd &usn!tur!"ist %ontr!%tu!"is' is '!sterfu""yun&u'+"ed +y N. *o++io in Da 2obbes a Marx.4

In order to ere%t his po"iti%!" theory Ho++es st!rts fro' the Eu%"ide!n !/io'th!t e!%h hu'!n +ein# represents ! point or +ody entire"yun%onne%ted to other hu'!n points or +odies !nd entire"y se"finterested or 'e%h!ni%!""y put h!-in# its o$n 'o'entu' orappetitus or conatus $hi%h Ho++es %!""s Power. =ro' this!/io' he dedu%es th!t the ori#in!" 'ost n!tur!" st!te of hu'!n

+ein#s the st!te of n!ture or status naturae is ! st!te of %i-i" $!r3bellum civium4 or the $!r of !"" !#!inst !"" 3bellum omnium contraomnes4. This %"!sh of $i""s or !ppetites this $!r of !"" !#!inst !""%!n "e!d "o#i%!""y on"y to ! deter'inisti% mechanicale5ui"i+riu' in$hi%h there is no room or manoeuvre or the individual reedom othe will 3S%hu'peter 5uoted !+o-e4 +e%!use e!%h indi-idu!" $i"" is+ound +y the $i""s !nd +ound"ess !ppetites of other $i""s or e"se to the!ssured se"fdestru%tion of hu'!n +ein#s. This is Ho++es2s scienti+ch%pothesist!(en dire%t"y out of !"i"eoNe$toni!n 'e%h!ni%s.

The $!y out of e5ui"i+riu' or stasisis pro-ided +y the ultima ratio the!+so"ute"y indispens!+"e ri#ht to !nd need for se"fpreser-!tion $hi%h"e!ds these !to'i% se"finterested indi-idu!"s to re!%h reel%! po"iti%!"%on-ention !n !#ree'ent or so%i!" %ontr!%t th!t %!n !-ert 'utu!""y!ssured destru%tion. Here thepositivee'piri%!" e-iden%e of ! so%ietyth!t the +our#eoisie h!s redu%ed coercivel%to "itt"e 'ore th!n ! 'or!"

&un#"e fro' $hi%h !"" notion of n!tur!" "!$ h!s +een e/pun#ed 'eets$ith !nd s!tis6es the*usnaturalist3n!tur!""!$4 re5uire'ent th!tindi-idu!"s 'ust !#ree reel% and rationall%to ! po"iti%!" re#i'e th!t$i"" prote%t the' fro' %i-i" $!r. Ho++es !%(no$"ed#es th!t $h!t%oer%es indi-idu!"s to !%%ept this +our#eois po"iti%!" re#i'e +!sed onthe "!$s of the '!r(etp"!%e is the metus mortis the fe!r of de!th !tthe h!nds of !ny other indi-idu!". And #i-en th!t e!%h indi-idu!" is!/io'!ti%!""y de6ned !s +ein# e5u!" in the !+i"ity to h!r' !nother inthe st!te of n!ture then it fo""o$s !/io'!ti%!""y th!t e!%h indi-idu!"de%ides reel%3+ypolitical convention other$ise (no$n !s so%i!"%ontr!%t4 !nd rationall%3+y s%ienti6% h%pothesis fo""o$in# thede6nition of indi-idu!"s in %on>i%t4 to ere%t ! %o''on $e!"th orSt!te or status civilisth!t $i"" prote%t the' fro' %ert!in de!th.

The %entr!" fe!ture of %!pit!"is' is th!t the +our#eoisie h!s tried !s f!r !s ishu'!n"y possi+"e $ithout te!rin# !sunder the -ery f!+ri% of hu'!n


17/23

so%iety to redu%e this so%iety to the st!te of absolute possessiveindividualism. Th!t is $hy !"" !%%ounts of +our#eois e%ono'i% theory'ust st!rt $ith the !/io'!ti% postu"!te of this possessi-eindi-idu!"is'. Ho++es did not ne#"e%t to in%"ude in the possessi-ep!rt the !+i"ity of indi-idu!"s to +uy or se"" their o$n po$er 'e!nin#+oth their physi%!" possessions !nd their "!+ourpo$er in e/%h!n#e for

physi%!" possessions. In the "eviathan he des%ri+es the -!"ue or$orth or pri%e of ! '!n !s so much as would be given or the useohis power. C"e!r"y Ho++es h!d !"re!dy !n e'+ryoni% notion of $h!tM!r/ $ou"d theori7e "!ter !s "!+ourpo$er the %o''odi6ed for' of"i-in# "!+our in %!pit!"ist industry.

As


18/23

so%iety $i"" resu"t in the $itherin# !$!y of the St!te in its !trophy.Here $e %!n see ho$ He#e" sti"" posits ! st!ti%ity !n ethi%ity th!ten%o'p!sses or %ont!ins the E%ono'i% !nd therefore %!nnot +e!tt!ined so"e"y throu#h the E%ono'i%. =or M!r/ !#!in %ontr!ri"y toHe#e" the %ontr!di%tion of +our#eois !nd %itoyen %!n +e supersededon"y throu#h the e%ono'i% sphere of %i-i" so%iety $here+y the super

stru%tur!" St!te is rendered super>uous !nd there+y de%!ys or$ithers !$!y on%e the %ontr!di%tions of %!pit!"ist so%i!" re"!tions ofprodu%tion th!t o+t!in in %i-i" so%iety !re reso"-ed.

In this sense $here!s He#e" sti"" 5uite ri#ht"y8 insists on the need for %i-i"so%iety to +e%o'e re%on%i"ed $ith its st!ti%ity M!r/ denies th!t thisEthi%oPo"iti%!" superstru%tur!" sphere of the St!te %!n e-er p"!y !ro"e in the e/trinsi%!tion of the di!"e%ti%!" !nt!#onis' of %i-i" so%iety!nd of the $!#e re"!tion +e%!use it is 'ere"y the epipheno'eni%superstru%tur!" produ%t of the re!" sour%e of so%i!" !nt!#onis' $hosereso"ution "ies in the s%ienti6% re%ti6%!tion of so%i!" re"!tions ofprodu%tion th!t is sti"" in the sphere of !"ien!ted "!+our understood

!s '!teri!""y e/p"oited "!+our throu#h the theft of "!+ourti'e !nd"!+ourpo$er of surp"us -!"ue8 This (ind of -utomatik does note/ist in He#e" despite the spe%u"!ti-e %h!r!%ter of the di!"e%ti%denoun%ed +y M!r/ !"re!dy in the Paris Manuscripts!nd in the e!r"y!riti(ue;

He#e" is not to +e +"!'ed for des%ri+in# the St!te su%h !s it is $hi%h in !ny%!se $i"" +e !+sor+ed +y %i-i" so%iety in %o''unis'D +ut r!therfor presentin# the e/istin# St!te !s the ide!" St!te $hi%h for M!r/%"e!r"y is !n i'possi+i"ity +oth +e%!use the e/istin# St!te is not ide!"!nd +e%!use the ide!" St!te is one th!t $i"" +e !+o"ished8

There !re t$o types of es%h!to"o#y 3prophe%y for S%hu'peter4 in M!r/then; the 6rst is in the Manuscripts$here the o-er%o'in# of !"ien!tionstill incorrectl% intended as #ob*ecti+cation$ 567 is ! ne%ess!ry 6n!"st!#e of hu'!n history: !nd the se%ond is in8ur 9ritik$here thesupersession 3-u)hebung4 of !"ien!ted "!+our is the 6n!" out%o'e ofthe s%ienti6% !+o"ition of $!#e "!+our $ithin %i-i" so%iety !nd $ith itof the St!te superstru%ture !s $e"". 9e s!y th!t this is es%h!to"o#y+e%!use M!r/ f!i"s to see He#e"2s %orre%t positin# of the pro+"e'; n!'e"y th!t st!ti%ity 'ust +e re%on%i"ed $ith su+&e%ti-ity !nd th!tthe for'er ne%ess!ri"y rede6nes the E%ono'i% !s ! %!te#ory th!t'ust !"so +e Ethi%oPo"iti%!" in n!ture. It is i'possi+"e for He#e" to!%%ept the M!r/i!n sep!r!tion of stru%ture !nd superstru%ture +e%!usethe t$o %ou"d ne-er +e sep!r!te. It is possi+"e th!n(s espe%i!""y tothe /rundrisse to res%ue M!r/2s s%he'!ti% s%his' or si'p"ys%he'!ti%is' of +!se !nd superstru%ture +y !r#uin# th!t this'e%h!ni%!" di%hoto'y !pp"ies on"y to the prehistory of hu'!nityin the sense th!t on%e !"ien!ted "!+our is !+o"ished then Ethi%ity !ndE%ono'y $i"" +e re%on%i"ed. Sti"" !s Arendt 3:etween Pastand ;uture4!nd H!+er'!s 39nowledge and 2uman Interests4 h!-e insisted in tooide!"istpheno'eno"o#i%!" !nd neo)!nti!n ! f!shion respe%ti-e"y M!r/ h!d !"$!ys the tenden%y to redu%e the 5uestion of !"ien!ted


19/23

"!+our to the '!teri!"ist one of the theft of "!+our ti'e. 9h!tsee's %"oser to re!"ity inste!d is th!t the dis%ip"ine of "!+ourti'e or+etter the $!#e re"!tion is the spe%i6% for' of so%i!" -io"en%eperpetr!ted +y the +our#eoisie $h!t '!(es it %!pit!"ist; +ut thef!%t th!t it is -io"en%e 'e!ns th!t there is on"y ! po"iti%!" +!sis to the$!#e re"!tion !nd to e%ono'i% %!"%u"!tion !nd 'ost %ert!in"y not !

s%ienti6% one8

Indeed to the de#ree th!t the $!#e re"!tion is in%re!sin#"y "ess !+"e to'e!sure !%%ur!te"y the "e-e" of so%i!" -io"en%e needed +y the+our#eoisie to perpetu!te its %o''!nd o-er our "i-in# !%ti-ity to th!tde#ree the ne!t di-ision +et$een E%ono'i% @!"ue !nd Ethi%oPo"iti%!"@!"ue is disso"-in#. The entire re%ent e/perien%e of %entr!"+!n('onet!ry inter-ention to '!int!in the 6n!n%i!" pyr!'id throu#h5u!ntit!ti-e e!sin# %ert!in"y points in this dire%tion th!t is thein!+i"ity of %!pit!"ist St!te !uthorities to %ontro" the '!r(et pri%e'e%h!nis' of -!rious !ssets in ter's of pro6t!+i"ity !nd thereforeu"ti'!te"y in ter's of the +indin# !nd +itin# dis%ip"ine of the $!#e

re"!tion !t ! so%iet!" "e-e".

APPENDIX: Schumpeter and Classical Political Theory (Hobbes and Locke)

Auctoritas, non veritas, facit legem.The essence of laws, says Hobbes, is not their content; it is not

the truth of their injunction for the simple reason that there can be no universal Truth

of which the laws are dictates. The real essence of the law, its actual truth, is the very

fact of its enforcement the fact that a particular Will is able to impose it on the subjects

to which it applies and who are forced to obey it. It is the authority of the Sovereign, the

actual physical ability, to enforce the law that makes it law; it is certainly not the

correspondence of the law to an intersubjective universal human Truth that makes it the

law.

Hobbess political theory, therefore, contra Habermas, is clearly not an attempt to scientize

politics because for Hobbes it is quite impossible to give politics any scientific basis

again, for the simple reason that there can be no scientific truth upon which a

hypothetical ideal polity (a Utopia) can be founded. On the contrary, for Hobbes what

science dictates is that politics begins and ends with the authority of the Sovereign. But

this authority is legitimated contractually by the subjects of the common-wealth, of the

State, not because it is the settlement dictated by scientific truth but rather precisely

for the opposite reason (!), that is to say, that science shows conclusively that no

commonwealth or society or State can be founded on the dictates of science! It is this

negative conclusion the impossibility of a commonwealth or State that answers to asummum bonum or Truth that is the real foundation of the Hobbesian status civilis or

State as the supreme and ultimate endeavour of human beings to escape the otherwise

ineluctable state of civil war, the status naturae or bellum civium (war of all against all).

To reinforce his point, Hobbes distinguishes between laws or rights or moral rules that operate in

foro interno in the sense that each individual human being may repose credence in

them and the utter impossibility of applying these individual rules in foro externo by


20/23

virtue of the fact that these internal ethical rules can never coincide with the external

objective rule imposed by the State! The only rule or Value that can be agreed upon is

the scientific fact that human beings wish above all to preserve their individual life

from violent death at the hands of other human beings. And given the ability of any one

individual human being to threaten the life of any other individual, it is this metus

mortis, this fear of violent death, that can be the only scientific basis of the State. TheState is the deus mortalis in the sense that its godliness is not derived from theological

forces but from the very mortal forces of human voracity, of human appetite for endless

possession. The basis of the State is not rendered scientific thereby: or rather, the State

is scientific only to the extent that it constitutes the end of politics. (As Leo Strauss put

it in reference to Schmitt, Hobbes theorised a State that put an end to politics understood

as the state of nature, and Schmitt theorises a state of nature that reintroduces politics to

the State.)

It is evident therefore that for Hobbes there can be no distinction or separation of any sphere of

civil life, including the economic sphere, from the existence of the State: for Hobbes,

society and the State are one indivisible entity: there is simply no human society ornatural society or civil society possible outside the State. The State is a restauratio ab imis

of human society a total constitutional order founded solely on the ability of the

Sovereign to enforce its decisions (the law). It is equally impossible therefore for a law to

be natural and thus to be just independently of the State that enforces it: a rule is

just in a State that enforces it, and the very same rule can be unjust in a State that

proscribes it. A law can be right in one State and its very opposite can be equally

right in another State that enforces its opposite. The truth of the law is the authority

of the Sovereign, not an independent and intrinsic Value possessed by or contained in

that law.

The same applies of course to economic laws. All economic science is based on the exchange

of pro-ducts between individuals. But exchange implies by definition the existence of

property rights possessed by individuals over the pro-ducts that they are meant to

exchange. As we have shown, however, for Hobbes no such property rights can exist

outside of the State; and they cannot constitute therefore an objective scientific basis or an

ideal ethical basis for the science of economics.

To be sure, the analytical framework of Walrasian equilibrium is also beset with unscientific

ethico-political and indeed metaphysical problems. It is hard to imagine, for instance, a

moremetaphysicalnotion than that of utility, which is essential to neoclassical economic

theory. Or indeed even the notions of individual and self-interest that form the

mechanical elements of equilibrium theory. Yet equilibrium theory, exactly like Hobbess

notion of the state of nature or state of civil war, begins with theformal equalityof

individual market participants who are unequal or different only in the endowments

with which they conduct their perfectly competitive market exchange.

Indeed, it could be argued that the differences in initial endowments do not constitute

inequality given that no two individual human beings are alike! The central ethico-


21/23

political assumption of equilibrium theory is that individual market participants have a

legal rightto their initialendowments. Once this initial legal right is accepted, then the

entire settlement of equilibrium exchange transactions in accordance with utility

schedules is mathematically determined. The absence of profit or surplus value in

neoclassical equilibrium theory means that the problem of theDynamik, that is, the

problem of the mutation or trans-formation of the economic system, of its evolution, isnot even posed.

Just as in Hobbess theory it is thenecessary(to preserve ones life) yetfreeand rational (free

becauserational) decision of individuals to alienate their free-dom in exchange for the

totalitarianrule of the State, which establishes civil society and proclaims positive laws, so

in equilibrium theory self-interested individuals are governed from outside by the

quasi-Euclideantotalitarianaxioms of the theory which, as we saw earlier, transform

economic agents into the inert bodies of mechanical physics. Just as in Hobbess state

of nature individuals transfermechanicallytheirde factopossessions or power to the civilstate so that they may be socially recognized as legal possessions, so in equilibrium

theory the endowments of individuals are sanctioned axiomatically without any

question being posed abouthowandwith what rightthey came to acquire these initial

endowments. Neoclassical equilibrium theory is entirely analogous to Hobbesian

political theory in that its government is entirelyexternalto its governed individuals

who therefore acquire their possessions and formal equality before the law from the

State. The conflicting free-doms of individuals lead them to agree, on pain of mutually

assured destruction, to alienate their individual free-doms to the State. Because the

government is mechanically imposed on its subjects because thecontractum unionis

becomes instantly or mechanically acontractum subjectionis we call this equilibrium state

or political state a state by institution.

By contrast, in the case of SchumpetersDynamik, given the indeterminateness of prices caused by

the fact that the economic system is changingendogenously(from within and not from

outside as in equilibrium) through theinnovative actionsof economic agents

(Withschafts-subjekte) and changing incessantly, the question that comes up immediately

is not just howinitialentitlements or endowments are to be settled between economic

agents, but also howpresent and futureendowments or entitlements are justified! In other

words, the ethico-political questions raised by theDynamikrelate not just to theinitial

acquisition of property rights, to their transfer from the state of nature to the civil state,

but also and especially to thepresent and futurelegal claim over the pricing of all goods

and services for exchange on the market. In this case we have a Lockean state by

acquisition.

The contrast between John Lockes political theory and the Hobbesian theory lies centrally in the

fact that the first relies on the existence of natural rights possessed by individuals in the

state of nature which are then transferred to the civil state by agreement or social contract

so that they may be protected by the State. In other words, for Locke, unlike Hobbes,

natural rights existalreadyin the state of nature, and it is only for protection that


22/23

individuals contractually acquire a State to preserve these natural rights from violent acts

that would lead to a civil war. Unlike Hobbes, then, Locke does not believe that the state

of nature is a state of war of all against all in which no natural rights can be said to

exist, except for the right to preserve ones life! As a result, the Hobbesian State is

totalitarianin the sense that its citizens have alienated all their freedoms and possessions

to the State and the State is the sole source and guarantor of positive laws. By contrast,the Lockean State is aliberalstate by acquisition in the sense that the state of nature is

already one with natural rights that precede the formation of the State: therefore the State

issubordinateto these natural rights which itacquiredfrom the state of nature, and its role

is merely that of protecting its citizens - their life, liberty and estate - from eventual

infringements that might arise in the state of nature. Unlike the Hobbesian State, the

Lockean State does not determine thecontentof positive laws: it merely safeguards or

guaranteespre-existing natural rights: it is strictlyPolice the protector and enforcer of the

salus publica but subject to the division of powers. Whereas the rationale of the

Hobbesian State contains a genial mixture of both jusnaturalist (the preservation of life)

and therefore contractual, as well as positivist (it is the sole source of law) and therefore

totalitarianelements (there is no division of powers), because it is the last resort,the ultimaratio, the Lockean State instead is entirely a jusnatural and contractual orliberalinstitution

meant to protect natural rights already acquired in the state of nature.

It is easy to see, thus, the close analogy between the Hobbesian state and WalrasianStatik

equilibrium theory, on one side, and the Lockean state and SchumpetersDynamik, on the

other side. SchumpetersDynamikresembles the LockeanliberalState in the sense that the

claims laid by entrepreneurs toprofits, by capitalists tointerest, and by workers towages,

as well as by landlords torent, are based entirely on ethico-political grounds and not on

an axiomatic mechanical exchange derived from the logico-mathematical matching of

givenindividual utility schedules! Unlike the WalrasianStatik, in the Schumpeterian

Dynamiknothing is given there are no data because everything is acquired

ethico-politically by virtue of the actions of economic agents Schumpeters

Wirthschafts-subjekte who are no longer the unconsciousinert bodiesof equilibrium

theory but are ratherfree and creative individualswhoseinnovative actsenliven an

incessantly changingandmutatingeconomic system.

Just as in Hobbes, who is the archetype of bourgeois social and economic science (cf. the lyrical

rendition of a masterly intuition on the part of Hannah Arendt in Volume 2 ofThe Origins

of Totalitarianismquoted above), we find, on one side, the positive scientific hypothesis

orrationaleprovided by the framework of equilibrium whereby the capitalist system can

be ana-lysed as a balance of competitive and conflicting forces whoseultima ratiois that

metus mortis(fear of death) that pushes atomic self-interested individuals out of thestatus

naturae(state of nature), out of itsstasis(civil war), and out of its gravitational centre or

equilibrium, into themetabolic orbitof the political convention orstatus civilis(civil

society). The conflict of the state of nature is transformed into entrepreneurial activity


23/23

under the protection of the State. But under this commercial continuation of civil war by

other means (Constant), an ethical or political or rational-efficient productive-scientific

rationale must be found for the determination of prices (for the theory of distribution)

considering the separation between worker/product and

employer/worker/product. Thus, on the other side we find the jusnaturalist political

convention orrationalizationof thestatus civilis(civil society) that takes into account thepolitical and bureaucratic frictions and fictions and compromises, the conventions and

atavisms, all guaranteed by the Common-wealth, that is to say, the State, that drive the

political systembackinto the paralysis, stagnation or sclerosis and finally thestasis(civil

war) of thestatus naturae. Thus, jusnaturalism and positivism become Janus-faced or

enigmatic concepts, the one entering the other as it exits itself. The profit-seeking of pure

competition (jusnaturalism) drives out of equilibrium, but the profit-making of imperfect

competition (positivism) pulls back into equilibrium. Thetendencyhere is toward

entropy or paralysis due to the proliferation of protective measures and to the easier

reliance on conservatism leading to civil war (stasisorbellum civium).

Documents

The State in Economic Theory 2 - by Joseph Belbruno