Clothing and Evolution

The Evolutionist who reads Genesis 3 carefully might notice what seems to have usually been overlooked in not only the popular understanding, but in the Literalist interpretation of this pivotal passage--that the first application of Human Knowledge is to the manufacture of clothing, i. e. to "girdles" made of "fig-leaves", which were specifically "sewed".  In other words, the proto-Human act in this presumed anti-Evolutionist account of Human History involves the use of the distinctive Human thumb to compensate for the lack of fur that most other species enjoy.  Thus, the clothing industry is born, a simple version of the more complex processes to come, processes that have been increasing in both efficiency and effectiveness--in the former case, from a quantity of two products to quantities in the thousands, and the latter case, incorporation of materials from fig-leaves to cotton to the nylon in spacesuits.  Now, except in the case of Adam and Eve, the manufacturers of clothing have themselves been clad.  Hence, the production of clothing has been a means to not merely its consumption, but to the further production of clothing.  But this circularity is not the vicious one that Marx seeks to eliminate--the circle of consumption that barely suffices for a return to another day of drudgery.  This pattern is, rather, that of a virtuous evolving spiral, which typifies the concept of Economics as a means to Evolving, including the Evolution of Economics itself.  And, the initial stages of the pattern can be found in the heart of the document that is generally conceived to be antithetical to Evolutionism.

Evolution and Practice

From the earliest part of its history, perhaps even in Eden, Humans have sought to control reproductive processes--not only by devices such as condoms, but by institutions such as arranged marriages, as well.  Now, Reproduction is the motor of History.  So, insofar as History is determined by an Evolutionist principle, Evolution has been Practical from the earliest days.  Now, though Reproduction has usually been conceived as determined by a Survival principle, eugenics, miscegenation, and the common parental instinct that their children have a life that is 'better than' theirs, are indications that in reproducing, the species seeks growth of some kind.  Thus, even if 'Evolutionism' is commonly conceived, following Darwin, as a Theory, i. e. a description, of the Human species as apes with a better survival potential than other apes, long before the appearance of that theory, Practical Evolutionism, by which the species has grown, is among the earliest of Human methods, even if it still has yet to be recognized as such.

Evolutionist Revolution and Economics

Copernicus' discovery that the Earth spins on its axis with respect to which the Sun is stationary, inspires in Kant what he calls a Copernican Revolution in Epistemology, according to which Cognition is essentially in motion, and, hence, is constituted by the adaptation of external data to the Form of Time, i. e. an Object of Cognition is temporally constructed.  Nevertheless, just as the Sun remains commonly conceived to rise and set, Cognition is still commonly conceived to correspond directly to an independent Object.  Similarly, one of the consequences of an Evolutionist concept of Human History, previously discussed, is what might be called an Evolutionist Revolution in Psychology.  This Revolution inverts the deeply ingrained concept of the relation between Action and Consumption, according to which, Human exertion is a means to eating and drinking, and the value of the Human thumb is as a means to securing food and water.  Instead, according to the inversion, biological replenishment is a means to behavior the fundamental principle of which is further increases in Human functional versatility, to the extent of unprecedented terrestrial adaptation, and, perhaps, beyond.  Nevertheless, despite the evidence grounding an Evolutionist Revolution, Economics remains commonly conceived as a means to Survival, corporeal or incorporeal.

Human History and Survival

Predominant Christianity and Darwinism share two theses: 1. The Human species originates at a single location, and 2. Survival is the fundamental drive of a Human, including qua the desire for immortality.  But, evidence relevant to what is subsequent to the event signified in #1 calls into question #2.  For, plainly since that origin, the species has dispersed to cover the entire Earth, has been integrating those dispersed parts, e. g. via telecommunications, and has ventured beyond the Earth,   Hence, there is strong evidence of a drive other than Survival determining Human existence, and that drive is, as has been previously discussed, Evolution, defined as an increase in complexity, or equivalently, an increase in adaptive versatility.  That #2 remains widely believed is no argument against its being supplanted, as is suggested by  the persistence of the popular beliefs that a deity exists in the sky, and that the Sun rises and sets, 500 years after Copernicus disproves them.

History, Economics, Environment

While, in the predominant Christian doctrine, the Salvation of the individual Human Soul is redemption from the punishment of the species, it is more immediately a liberation from corporeality.  But, then, it is, thus, a liberation from all Corporeality, not only that of the individual, and that of the Human species, but of the entire world.  Accordingly, abstraction from any physical Environment is a characteristic of the concept of Economics derived from the Christian concept of Human History.  Thus, in the latter, environmental influences are only extrinsic to cardinal Economic formulations, e. g. abundance or scarcity of a natural resource, which becomes intrinsic only when theologized, e. g. as a medium of divine reward or punishment.  In sharp contrast, insofar as Human History is an episode in Natural History, Human society is part of the universal ecosystem, so Economics is inherently Ecological.  Hence, the Evolutionist concept of Economics is likewise Ecological.  Thus, for example, current debates about the relation between Human society and Climate Change have their roots in these differing concepts of the relation between the Human species and the non-Human Natural world, and, thus, in the differing concepts of History, with the question of the legitimacy of the regulation of some industries notably at stake.

Christian Human History, Evolutionist Human History, Economics

According to a predominating Christian concept of Human History, the species is originally in a divinely-created Edenic condition which entails no need to reproduce and no need to work to satisfy basic needs.  Thus, the punishment for succumbing to sexual temptation is the revoking of the second privilege.  Hence, in that History, Economics is a science of a what is initially a Fallen condition, which may be the ultimate reason why it has been characterized as "dismal".  Eventually, Economics becomes the medium of the sequel in that History, the theme of which is the Salvation of members, individually, from the punishment of the species.  Thus, Capitalism, in which an Invisible Hand dispenses rewards to self-interested individual members of society, is an event in a Christian concept of Human History even prior to the Protestant appropriation of it that Weber describes, and even where the practice of it is apparently 'secular'.  Now, from the outset, Evolutionism immediately diverges from that History, in three ways.  For, insofar as, first, the Human species originates not as a divine creation, but as an evolution from apes, it, second, also inherently reproduces, and, third, must exert itself in order to satisfy vital needs.  Furthermore, Knowledge-seeking, i. e. discovering how to use its unique physiological characteristics, e. g. its versatile thumb, is essential to that exertion.  And, since this phase of Human History is not a punishment, Salvation from it is not a subsequent phase, so, nor is the isolation of its members a main theme in it.  In other words, an Evolutionist concept of Economics is radically distinct from that entailed in the predominating Christian Human History--it is not Individualistic, it is not a medium of Reward and Punishment, Techne is an asset, and it is not "dismal".

Human History, Theology, Evolutionism

The concept of History consists in a temporally ordered sequence of at least two events.  As Deleuze argues, even a repetition entails a difference between two terms, i. e. the second term, but not the first, has a predecessor, so a Repetition is a minimal History.  Thus, absent a differentiation into phases, the concept of mere Survival is insufficient to ground a History.  Now, the concept of a Human History, as opposed to more localized histories, e. g. national, requires that the terms are all humans, not merely some.  Hence, the Theological tradition according to which the first term is that described in either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2, and the final term is an 'end of days' that precedes some afterlife, offers a Human History.  In contrast, the Dialectical History of either Hegel or Marx does not, since a first term is lacking.  So, by positing a first event that is an alternative to the Theological one, Darwinism presents the foundation of an alternate concept of Human History, though the completion of the sequence remains indeterminate.  One possible completion is that the species settles into Survival, another is that it develops into a new species, and a third is a combination of the two, i. e. in which some Humans, like some apes, remain at that level of development, while others mutate into some unprecedented species.  Regardless of those differences, debates between Theology and Evolutionism have usually focused on the origin of the species, without considering the implications of Darwinism for its subsequent History.

Capitalism, Marxism, Evolutionism

Smith's Economic model is apparently a self-contained universe, with its highest good--Wealth, its behavioral principle--Profit-maximization, and deity--the Invisible Hand, systematically interdependent.  Marx undermines the apparent opacity of the model by asserting that it is merely an hypostasized phase of an historical process, while implying a mutability of behavioral principle that corresponds to the mutability of social structure.  Now, the Evolutionist concept of History outstrips the Marxist one, i. e. conceives Human history as an episode in Natural history.  Accordingly, an Evolutionist concept of behavior outstrips the Marxist concept, i. e. Evolutionist Psychology supplants that of Marxism, as well as that of Capitalism.  Thus, insofar as Human history is, as has been previously discussed, a process of Species-Origination, i. e. leading to some novel species, adapting to a new environment, then three cardinal characteristics of the principle of human behavior are: it is species-grounded, it aims ultimately at the development of a new species, and its concept of that species entails an  environment, i. e. it is not Individualistic, Wealth is not its highest good, and it is not independent of the Natural world.  In other words, Evolutionism, more emphatically than Marxism, conceives Capitalism as obsolete, and, hence, entails a concept of Economics that outstrips both of them.

Human History and Species-Origination

Bergson's concept of Evolution is not Darwinist, but still includes a distinct that is relevant to Darwinism.  He recognizes and distinguishes the possibilities of both Evolution and Survival, positing that some species continue to develop, while others reach a stage of development that they thereafter merely repeat.  The distinction is plainly applicable to Darwinism, i. e. to any species that has ceased to mutate, e. g. apes that have remained as such after the origin of the Human species.  So, the significant question is: which of the two principles applies to Human history?  And, while it may be a long time before it is definitively clear whether or not the Human species has leveled off, there is strong evidence that it has not.  That evidence is that after originating at one location, and then spreading to a degree of control of much of its terrestrial environment, it has recently begun to venture beyond that environment, a development that is already as radical as that of marine organisms venturing onto dry land.  So, if the latter is classified as 'evolving', and not merely 'surviving', then so, too, must the former be.  Accordingly, there is strong evidence that Human history is being determined by an Evolutionary principle, or, in other words, that it is itself a process, ongoing, of Species-Origination, and not merely a postscript to one, subsequently seeking merely the survival of the species.

Human Superiority and Extraterrestriality

The increase in Human longevity over the centuries might be taken as confirmation that Survival is the fundamental principle of Evolution.  However, while such evidence might indicate the superiority of some humans to others, it does not correspond to the fundamental Evolutionist premise of Human superiority with respect to other species.  So, better evidence for that premise might be the likelihood that a human with a rifle will outlive a rhinoceros with a tusk.  Nevertheless, another example of Human survival might be a better indication of its Evolutionist superiority to other species.  This is its ability to adaptively function where, according to the best evidence, no other species has been able to--in an extraterrestrial environment.  Such a change of habitat is even more radical than that of a marine species to land, since the new environment is, apparently, hitherto  uninhabited by any terrestrial life. Now, it might be out of instinctual worry about the long-term inhabitability of the Earth that has driven Humans elsewhere.  But, that such potential uninhabitability seems to be the product of Human invention, e. g. an effect of industrial pollution, itself tends to undermine that popular thesis.  So, the stronger hypothesis is that the extraterrestrial survival, as relatively short-lived as it has been thus far, that is unique to the Human species, is evidence of a superiority that consists in its greater functional complexity, the drive to which is its fundamental principle, i. e. is independent of the inhabitability, or not, of the terrestrial environment.

Evolution and Society

As has been previously discussed, Darwinism can be distinguished from Evolutionism.  For, the fundamental principle of the former is Survival, to which Evolution is a means, while the fundamental principle of the latter is Evolution, which entails Survival, just as Acceleration entails Motion.  But, Social Evolutionism is not merely the result of replacing in Social Darwinism one principle for the other.  For, the concept of Society is extrinsic to Darwinism, i. e. Survival can be that of an organism outside of any relation to organisms of the same species.  In contrast, Social Evolutionism, as has been previously discussed, is a Species drive that seeks Collective Versatility, which is constituted by an organization of its Members.  In other words, the concept of Society is entailed by the concept of Evolutionism, i. e. the qualifier 'Social' is redundant, though useful because instructive.  Any difficulty in grasping that Society per se, and not merely some particular variety of a society, is a product of Evolution, reflects the extent to which Darwinian Evolutionism has strayed from its original attribution to a Species, including in the popular imagination.

Survival of the Fittest and Evolution

Because most of the attention to Darwinism has focused on the data that has served as the basis of the theory, the lack of rigor in the interpretation of it has gone relatively unnoticed.  Thus, for example, taking the phrase 'survival of the fittest' at face value glosses over its double vagueness.  To begin with, while 'fittest' connotes the success of an Organism in adapting to an Environment, it does not distinguish between submission to the latter, mastery of it, or some relation in between--examples of submission as a survival strategy include camouflaging and following orders.  Hence, 'fitness' connotes nothing more than 'survival'. Likewise, the phrase 'survival of the fittest' means nothing more than the, if not trivial, at minimum, uninformative, 'survival of those that outlive others', which could apply to a cockroach in a nuclear holocaust, or a thief with a gun, as has been previously discussed.  Still, the deeper problem with the phrase is that it leaves undefined 'to live'.  Now, a fundamental problem for Darwinism is that it has introduced a definition of 'to live'--'to evolve', meaning 'to increase in complexity', without considering the possible inconsistencies between the two concepts, as has been previously discussed.  Thus, 'survival of the fittest' could connote 'the continuing to increase in complexity of the most greatly complex', but Darwin leaves that possibility undeveloped, as do most of his followers, including Social Darwinists.

Social Darwinism and Social Evolutionism

From the appropriation of Darwinism by Capitalism, i. e. the interpretation of 'survival of the fittest' as 'survival of the wealthiest', it follows that a thief with a gun is superior to their victim.  But any further implication that 'fitter' is equivalent to 'more highly evolved' exposes a fundamental confusion in Darwinism itself--between the Survival principle and the Evolutionist principle.  Illustrating that confusion is the widely-held hypothesis that a cockroach could survive a nuclear holocaust, though few would conclude that a cockroach is, therefore, more highly evolved, i. e. more complex, than a human.  For that reason, Social Darwinism is not equivalent to Social Evolutionism, which leaves the concept of Evolutionist Economics unsettled.  Instead, the fundamental principle of that concept must promote the Evolution of the Species, not the Survival of the Individual.  Now, as has been previously discussed, the human thumb illustrates that the process of Evolving consists in an increase in Complexity, or, equivalently, in Versatility. Thus, Collective Versatility is an example of a fundamental principle of Evolutionist Economics.

Versatility and Capitalism

As the human thumb illustrates, Versatility is a unity of multiple functions, the strength of which is that Unity, rather than in the any of its individual functions, or even in their assemblage.  Likewise, a versatile society is stronger than any assemblage of individuals.  It is thus because individual function, i. e. performance of some isolated entity, is inherently relatively feeble, the evaluation of such an isolated entity can measure only some passive characteristic.  Accordingly, quantity of possession of Wealth is the object of evaluation in an Individualistic doctrine such as Capitalism.  Likewise, the Social Darwinist equation of 'fittest' and 'wealthiest' unwittingly promotes only Evolutionary relative weakness, i. e. on the basis of that formulation a thief whose thumb functions to hold a gun is more highly 'evolved' than one of their victims.

Individuation, Diversification, Versatility

The pioneering expositions of Capitalism, Marxism, and Darwinism share a similar pattern: begin with a definition of Human, and proceed to present a system that focuses on individual humans.  In Wealth of Nations the focus is on the Self-Interest of Market-players; in the German Ideology, it is on the leisure activities of workers who have been liberated from Labor, and in Darwinism, it is on the survival of individual members of a Species.  However, as has been previously discussed, automation exposes the fundamental Collectivist character of Human society, i. e. that the fundamental function of automation is the mass satisfaction of vital needs.  So, restoring the initial Collectivist moment from which each system abstracts, apparent Individuation is revealed as Diversification, the ultimate beneficiary of which is the Whole that has been so diversified, not any of the Parts that have been so generated, and then isolated.  Accordingly, as is the case with the unprecedented human thumb, the fundamental value of Diversification is the increase of the Versatility of the Whole, not Individual profit, leisure, or survival.  The Individualist tradition that dominates Modern Political Philosophy, and informs not only Capitalism, but Marxism and Darwinism, can be revised on that basis.

Automation, Economics, Species

Insofar as a shovel can be used to dig a garden, the manufacturing of one exemplifies Marx's concept of the uniquely human practice of producing the means of satisfying needs.  Also, its handle reflects that it is designed to be used by the uniquely evolved human hand.  But, many tools far exceed those characteristics--automated tools.  The Economic significance of them, according to Marx, is the possibility of replacing human labor, and not merely abetting it.  Similarly, some automation can function without the unique human thumb.  So, what is missed in both the Marxist and the Evolutionist appreciations of automation is the basic function of the great increase in productive capacity, and, hence, in the capacity to the mass satisfaction of needs.  Nor does Capitalism, even though Smith's concept of Division of Labor anticipates the former capacity, appreciate the latter capacity, since the primary value of automation according to the doctrine is as an opportunity for profit.  Thus, what has gotten lost in the incorporation of automation into Economics over the past few centuries is that it expresses a not necessarily exclusively human impulse--a species drive, comparable to, say, a honeycomb.

Barter, Tools, Evolution

According to Smith, what distinguishes humans from other species is the propensity to "truck, barter, and exchange".  According to Marx, the "first premise of human existence" and "of all history" is the "production of the means to satisfy" fundamental needs.  In other words, according to the former, barter, etc. is the defining Human characteristic, while according to the latter, it is tool-making.  Now, according to Darwin, the distinctive Human characteristics are several physiological features, including thumbs of unprecedented versatility.  Plainly, the latter is the pre-condition of the making of and use of tools.  Furthermore, the objects of barter, etc. are all products of some manufacturing process.  Thus, Evolutionism is much closer to Marxism than to Capitalism in two respects--what the defining characteristic of Human is, and that the appearance of that characteristic marks the beginning of Human history.

Capitalism, Socialism, Evolutionism

Social Darwinism is an example of how Capitalists have been quicker than Socialists to incorporate Evolutionist elements.  It derives from Darwin's thesis that Variation has Evolutionary value as a process of determining superior types, with Egoism as a modification of Variation, i. e. via the interpretation of Variation as Individuation.  However, Darwin misses a different Evolutionary virtue of Variation--the promotion of Versatility, which strengthens a species.  So, that strength requires the maintaining of cohesion amongst the varieties, which modification to Egoism undermines, as Smith himself briefly recognizes when expressing worries about the tendency of his system towards social fragmentation.  Thus, there is an opportunity for Marxists to argue that a more cohesive society is a stronger society, and as a remedy for divisive Class Conflict, Socialism is more cohesive than Capitalism.  Likewise, they can argue more generally that a theory concerning the Biological success of a mutable Species has more in common with a doctrine that promotes historically variable Collectivism, than with a doctrine that promotes the individual pursuit of Wealth.

Marxism and Evolutionism

Evolutionary Logic consists in the following pattern: a novel element, e. g. a mutation, is introduced into a given structure, prompting a re-organization into a more complex structure.  So, a special case of Evolutionary Logic is the case of precisely two elements.  In other words Dialectical Logic is a special case of Evolutionary Logic.  Furthermore, there are two other ways that Evolutionism outstrips Marxism.  First, the Evolutionist concept of Natural History includes any concept of Human History, e. g. the Marxist concept.  Likewise, the Evolutionist concept of the Environment-Species relation includes any concept of the structure of Human society.  Accordingly, Marxist principles are subordinate to Evolutionist principles.  Thus, for example, the premise of the superiority of Socialism to Capitalism can be grounded on its greater effectiveness as a strategy of the adaptation of a species to its environment.

Marxism, Internal Critique, External Critique

The stated Marxist critique of Capitalism relies heavily on exposing its internal contradictions, most notably the Class antagonism they invoke to justify Revolution.  However, they not only under-appreciate the effectiveness of a type of external critique, but implicitly apply it themselves.  According to that type of critique, a more comprehensive concept supersedes a less comprehensive concept that it includes.  That criterion is entailed in the Dialectical concept of Sublation, and is utilized by Marxists when they posit that Capitalism is only a transient episode in a Dialectical History.  However, in doing so, they seem to be unaware that their concept of History could be or has been superseded--by the Evolutionist concept, according to which Human history is itself an episode in Natural history, and, so, derived from principles that govern that.  Thus, as effective as an Internal Critique of Capitalism might be, it is itself subject to an External Critique.

Economics and Ecology

One Moral criticism to which Capitalism is vulnerable is that it subordinates Wealth to Health, applicable to both one who profits and one who loses.  The Marxist repudiation of Capitalist Exploitation can be conceived as targeting such a subordination in the case of workers.  Another Moral criticism is that Capitalism dehumanizes all people, since its Atomism expresses a Physicist, i. e. Newtonian, concept of Human that is inadequate to a Biological, i. e. Organicist, concept of them as living beings.  The Marxist principle 'From each according to one's abilities' can be interpreted as implicitly exemplifying that criticism, as has been previously discussed. Now, the concept of Organism entails that of Environment.  Thus, the Biological judgment of an Economic doctrine is from the perspective of a more comprehensive context, i. e. an Ecological context, in which Economic activity is located, or, in other words, that it subjects Economics to Ecological principles.  Marxism does not fully develop such a critique, but does suggest some of its initial premises.

Marxism, Physics, Biology

Dialectical Materialism is a descriptive system, rivaling not only Hegel's Dialectical Idealism, but also the Analytical Atomisms of Democritus and Newton, as is expressed by Marx's Dissertation, and Engels' work on Physics, respectively.  Thus, Dialectical Materialism offers no basis for normative judgments, including any for the rejection of Capitalism and the condemnation of Exploitation.  In contrast, Marx's 'From each according to one's abilities' principle is not derived from Dialectical Materialism, but has another origin, as is suggested by the classification of it as Actionist, as has been previously discussed.  For Actionism can be recognized as an example of a Vitalist principle, and, hence as a Biological principle.  Now, Physicist explanations are mechanistic, and, hence, lack the capacity to distinguish between inanimate and animate phenomena.  Thus, the Marxist rejection of Capitalism, founded on the condemnation of Exploitation, is implicitly grounded on a superiority of Biology over Physics with respect to Economic activity--a capacity to recognize ill effects, e. g. the suffering of the victims of Exploitation.

Economics, Politics, Morality

The difference between Political-Economy and Macro-Economics is that while in the former, Economics is integral to Politics, and perhaps even its basis, e. g. Marxism, in the latter, the sphere of Economics is circumscribed within the Political realm, and, perhaps, is opaque with respect it.  In other words, Macro-Economics is a larger version of Micro-Economics, and similarly private.  Thus, as in the case of another circumscribed, opaque, activity, the sporting event, a Macro-Economic code of behavior might be independent of the Morality of the more general society, e. g. in boxing, Battery is not only permissible, but mandatory.  Accordingly, it is possible that Smith conceives the relation between Economic Self-Interest and Sympathy as that of an opaque specialized Ethos to general Morality.  But, if so, then the circumscription is permeable, given that poverty, for example, exceeds the confines of the Market.  Still, to judge Exploitation on general, not specialized, grounds, presupposes a general context, but it is unclear if Marx offers one.  For, if, as he proposes, Economics is the basis of all human activity, e. g. Leisure is a negation of Labor within that sphere, then the disapproval of Exploitation must be grounded on some Economic principle.  However, Marx seems to take that judgment for granted, perhaps as a tacit concession to one of Kant's Duties.  If so, then there is a larger human context within which Economics is located, opaquely or otherwise, in which case Economics is not the Base of Society or of Politics.  To explain what such a context might be requires a more elaborate characterization than his brief description, in the German Ideology, of hunting, fishing, etc., of what non-Labor life in that larger context might be like.  As is, his condemnation of Exploitation, and, thus, his repudiation of Capitalism, remains ungrounded.

Actionism and Marxism

'Actionism' can be defined as valuing Action for its own sake, with Action conceived as a continual process.  It is thus opposed to any Consequentialism, which privileges the final moment of that process, or any effects of that final moment, e. g. a product, or the enjoyment of a product. Actionism thus conceives food and rest as a preceding, not subsequent to, Action, thereby inverting a standard concept of behavior as a means to satisfying desire, whether vital or otherwise.  Thus, an exemplary Actionist, for whom performance is for its own sake, is a Musician.  Likewise, the athlete who enjoys playing regardless of outcome is an Actionist, while one for whom winning is all that matters is not.  Now, Profit-seeking is not Actionist, but it is unclear whether or not Marxism is.  For, insofar as it locates the source of Value of a product in the Labor that produces it, it is Actionist, but insofar as it aims for the liberation from Labor, to free the worker for leisure, it is not, perhaps because in the latter case, Marx does not distinguish drudgery from skilled work.  Hence, it is unclear whether or not his 'From each according to ones ability' is an Actionist principle, i. e. whether or not it is doubly opposed to Capitalist Profit-seeking behavior--as both Collectivist and Actionist.

Capitalism, Socialism, Collectivism

Smith does not explain the relation between the Profit-motive and Division of Labor.  Presumably, he believes that they are consistent insofar as involvement in the latter is a means to one's profiting.  However, that leaves unclarified the proper treatment of one's co-workers.  Nor does Marx seize upon the point that a collective consciousness might be developed in the context of working with others, instead focusing on the harm done to a person by specialization.  But, perhaps surprisingly, it is Hegel who conceives work relations Dialectically, and, so, posits that Self-Interest develops via that Logic into a General Will, i. e. that the promotion of one's own well-being is that of all others, as well.  Thus, Marx' 'From each according to one's ability', implicit in which is a Collective context, has more in common with Philosophy of Right than the Germany Ideology.  Still, that derivation shares Atomist premises with Smith's doctrine, i. e. that one begins as independent of others, with the difference that Capitalist Atoms remain mutually independent, while Dialectical ones interpenetrate.  Now, more sharply contrasting with those premises is either Holistic Collectivism, according to which the Whole precedes its Parts, or Organicist Collectivism, according to which the Whole and its Parts are coeval.  Still, any of these varieties of Collectivism grounds a Moral alternative to the Egoism that is the behavioral foundation of Capitalism.

Marxism and Morality

As is clear in the German Ideology, for Marx-Engels, Socialism is not an End in itself, but a Means to the elimination of Exploitation facilitated by Private Property, i. e. by private ownership of the Means of Production.  Now, it is easy to conceive Exploitation as a violation of Kant's principle that one should not treat another as a mere Means.  Hence, Marxist Socialism is, despite its other innovations, in that respect, merely an extension of Kantian Morality.  On the other hand, Marx' precept 'From each according to one's ability' does entail something new.  For, it conceives a Person as inherently part of a Collective, rather than as an entity that is essentially isolated from others, entering into relations with them only extrinsically.  The latter Atomist concept of a Person is implicit whenever relations with others are conceived as external encounters, even I-Thou, which is the case of the entire Moral tradition beginning with Aristotle.  In contrast, Marx' precept signals a transition from that tradition to Collectivist Morality, not necessarily restricted to Socialism, but plainly occasioned by it.

Capitalism, Socialism, Is, Ought

Marxism shares with Capitalism a profound methodological confusion--between Descriptive and Normative principles.  Just as Capitalists vacillate between the thesis that Profit-seeking is, as a matter of fact, the fundamental behavioral principle, and it ought to be the fundamental principle, Marxists sometimes posit Socialism as the inevitable Dialectical resultant of the contradictions of Capitalism, and sometimes prescribe Socialism as the cure for Capitalist Exploitation.  Now, clarity regarding a confusion that has sometimes been facilely rendered as the thesis that 'one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is"', can be gained from developing an insight from Hume together with one from Kant.  As the former observes, what 'is the case' is, more precisely, what 'has been the case', and, as the latter posits, there are two 'perspectives' involved.  So, combining them--a Descriptive principle pertains to past events, while a Prescriptive principle pertains to nascent future action.  Thus, not only the latter cannot be derived from the former, the former cannot be 'derived' from the latter via some simple Logical operation, either.  So, Marxism has been deficient in explaining why Capitalist Exploitation should be abolished, and why it should be replaced with Socialism, i. e. deficient in making explicit the Moral principle that it seems to presuppose.

Capitalism, Politics, Morality

Marx' thesis that Economics is the Base of Politics, not an extrinsic concern of it, is exemplified by Capitalism implicitly being a Plutocratic political system.  Thus, while the U. S. is nominally a Democracy, the Constitutional status of a corporation a Person, with its political expenditures Free Speech, makes it not only de facto but de jure a Plutocracy.  Still, Marx leaves unaddressed the status of Morality in his critique of Capitalism, though his rejection of Exploitation does presuppose some Moral principle.  Thus, he offers no diagnosis of the Capitalist principle that one ought to seek to maximize profit, which, as normative, qualifies as a Moral principle.  That classification is not evaded by the descriptive version of the principle, i. e. that Profit-seeking is the fundamental behavioral impulse, since the latter is still subject to normative evaluation, and possible correction, just like any impulse that meets disapproval. Thus, the criticism of that principle as an expression of Greed, previously discussed, is an example of a Moral criticism of Capitalism that has generally been lacking in Political-Economy discourse.

Money, Love, Greed

The popular precept 'Money is the root of all evil' is a gloss of 'The love of money is the root of all evil', from 1 Timothy.  But despite the significant nuance, the actual quote, like many popular precepts, still does not stand up to closer scrutiny.  For, to begin with, any of many counter-examples, e. g. jealousy, falsifies it.  Furthermore, as is, there is nothing obviously evil about loving money.  It thus may be to correct that vagueness that Luther renders the passage as 'Avarice is a root of all evil'.  But, while Avarice is a more clearly defined traditional Vice, and applicable to more than Money, the two quantifiers, 'a' and 'all', in combination with the singular term 'evil', is incoherent.  For example, avarice might lead to stealing, and jealousy to murder, without avarice being a root of the latter murder, and without stealing and murder being the same evil.  So, even pluralizing 'evil' to agree with 'all' does not make avarice the root of a murder out of jealousy.  Regardless, there is also a substantive problem with Luther's equating love of money and avarice.  As Aristotle argues, the latter is a Vice in two respects--a lack of self-control of the one who is greedy, and a deprivation of another.  In contrast, the love of money, or Chrematistic, as Aristotle characterizes it, is symbolized by Midas, i. e. the love of an inanimate object such as money de-humanizes a person, independent of those characteristics of Vice.  In other words, the self-de-humanization in the love of money gets lost in translation, and remains lost in modernity--even Marx seems to miss it.

Barter and De-humanization

The purpose of simple Barter is for each party to exchange what they have  in excess for what they need.  Thus, each has the expectation of an equitable exchange, or, conversely, a disappointment of that expectation would be the end of the practice.  Hence, Equitable Exchange is a fundamental normative principle of Barter.  Furthermore, as a result of an Equitable Exchange, each party has the same quantity of goods as at the outset, except now there is qualitative diversification in their possessions.  So, there has been an increase in the diversification of the Wealth of each, but no quantitative change in the total Wealth between them.  Hence, Smith's principle of an increase in one's personal Wealth, and his goal of an increase in total Wealth, stray significantly from the practice that he characterizes as the unique Human property.  Thus, it is not inappropriate to accordingly characterize that straying as 'de-humanization', i. e. the corruption of Need into Greed.