3. Production¶
Core Argument¶
Chapter 3: Production¶
Herr Dühring’s socialism is not a necessary product of historical development but a final, ultimate truth rooted in a “universal principle of justice,” derived through his two-man method. He denies that crises have historical significance, explaining them not by over-production but by under-consumption—an “artificially produced” lag in popular consumption. Engels counters that under-consumption has existed for millennia, whereas crises are a phenomenon of only the last fifty years; under-consumption is a necessary condition of all exploiting societies but does not explain why crises exist now and not before. Dühring’s market notions are contradictory: he imagines capitalist production depends on the possessing classes, yet cites iron and cotton, whose output depends on mass use. His “natural system of society” consists of a federation of economic communes with freedom of movement, but competition among producers continues. The “publicistic right” of communes is contradictory, amounting to “an ownership which is at once both individual and social.” On the division of labour, Dühring offers only stale commonplaces about distilling and beet-sugar, and vague talk of natural conditions and personal inclinations. Engels argues that in all spontaneously developed societies, the means of production control the producers; the division of labour stunts and cripples both labourers and exploiters, chaining each to a narrow function.
Fourier and Owen both demanded the abolition of the town-country antithesis as the first prerequisite for ending the old division of labour. They proposed scattering the population in groups of 1,600 to 3,000 across the countryside, each occupying a communal palace. Both insisted every member of society engage in both agriculture and industry, with the greatest possible variety of occupation and short durations for each task, to restore labour’s attractiveness and achieve universal development through universal practical activity. They were far ahead of Herr Dühring, who still regarded the town-country antithesis as inevitable and perpetuated the crippling of individuals into fixed “economic species.”
Society cannot free itself unless every individual is freed. Productive labour must become a means of emancipation, offering each person opportunity to develop all faculties in all directions. This is no longer fantasy: socialisation of productive forces will reduce labour time dramatically. Modern industry itself necessitates variation of work, fluency of function, and universal mobility of the labourer, as Marx showed in Capital. The technical basis of modern industry is revolutionary, incessantly changing labour functions and social combinations. Abolition of the town-country antithesis is a direct necessity for industrial production, agriculture, and public health. Only a society organised on one vast plan can distribute industry harmoniously across the country. Dühring’s view that society can take possession of the means of production without revolutionising the old division of labour is puerile; he remains trapped in the narrow horizon of Prussian law and industry.