the ethnological notebooks of karl marx - Marxists Internet Archive

T A B LE VII. The Utilisation by Engels of M arx’s Excerpts from MorganEngels ° p. Marx ° p. Key words1 9 6 2 absolute control over food production27 10 political, philosophical, etc. systems35 96 Bachofen on punaluan lawlessness50 57 Innate casuistry of man51 16 Family and society in miniature55 16 Earlier, women were freer9 0 e 68 Savage peeps through91 e 69 Gentes older than mythology91 70 Pedantic philistines92 71 Humbler gentes - cf. Grote; Morgan’s reply to Grote(pedantic bookworms)94 73f. Gladstone and Yankee Republican95 d 74 The line about the scepter95f. e 74 Sort of military democracy150 79 Antagonism in gens“ Engels, Origin of the Family, Eng. tr., 1942. Morgan, Ancient Society, 1907. Marx, excerptnotes on Morgan.6 Insertion of „almost” by Engels reflects Marx’s exclamation at the exaggeration.c Engels here refers to Marx’s paraphrase of Morgan, Ancient Society, pp. 228 and 234.d Identified as a later added line by Eustathius. (Marx, Morgan excerpts, p. 74).e Engels here reproduces Morgan’s thought faithfully (cf. Morgan, Ancient Society, op. cit.,pp. 126, 256, 259, 282).was posited by Marx. Engels quoted Morgan about the deterioration ofman by property and the hope of return to the ancient gens as his ownperoration.153 Bernstein characterized Morgan’s work as being more likethat of the socialist theoreticians of the period 1825-1840, i.e., the Utopians: “ He nowhere oversteps in principle the boundary which separatesthe average cultural historian from the representatives of historicalmaterialism.” 154 Bernstein’s points are mutually contradictory, however.Morgan in truth does step over the boundary by his critique of the mereproperty career of mankind, hence is more than merely objective ordistanced from his subject, which is implicit in the reference by Bernsteinto the Durchschnitt der Culturhistoriker. But if Morgan’s work resemblesthat of the utopian socialists, then it cannot be regarded as whollyobjective. The counterposition to Bernstein’s criticism of Morgan’s pureobjectivity is Morgan’s interpenetration, however defective, of hisscientific objectivity and his subjectivity, i.e., his hopes for the future.The defect in Morgan lies elsewhere: his objectivity is concrete, hissubjectivity abstract. Thus, the dialectical passage in Morgan is one-sidedand partially developed, but nevertheless exists, and had a positive responsein Marx. Engels took up the line of criticism propounded by79