[p. 350]
|350| The first system of movement in the totality is thus this: that absolute identity be wholly hidden in it as feeling.
The second is the falling-apart of the universal and particular, and thus in movement a twofold one, either that the particular remains what it is, and the universal is thus only formal, – or that the universal is absolute and takes the particular completely up into itself; the former, first, is justice and war, the second education, culture, conquest and colonisation.
A.
The system of need has been conceived above formally as the system of universal reciprocal physical dependence on one another; no one is for himself for the totality of his need; his labour, or whatever manner of capacity for the satisfaction of his need, does not secure this satisfaction for him; it is an alien power over which he has no control, on which it depends whether the surplus which he possesses is for him a totality of satisfaction; its value, i.e. that which expresses the relation of the surplus to need, is independent of him, and changeable. This value itself depends on the whole of needs and on the whole of surplus; and this whole is a power that is little cognisable, invisible, incalculable, because in relation to quantity it is a sum of infinitely many singularities, and in relation to quality it is composed of infinitely many qualities. This reciprocal action of the singular upon the whole, which consists of the singular, and of the whole in turn, as ideal, upon the singular, as determining value, is a constantly rising and falling surge; in which singularity, determined by the whole as having a high value, accumulates its mass, and thereby becomes in the whole a surplus, taken up into the whole of need; through this determinacy the indifference of the whole, regarded as a multitude of the remaining qualities, appears as a relation of them,
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.