I spent a chunk of this afternoon looking through bits of Marx in German. It takes forever because my German isn’t very good. I was looking up what the term “power” is in Marx’s original.
In the section of Capital primitive accumulation, Marx writes “that in 17th century England “the colonies, the national debt, the modern mode of taxation, and the protectionist system” form different “momenta” or methods of primitive accumulation. These “depend in part on brute force (…) [b]ut, they all employ the power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the transition.” I don’t quite understand the relationship between state and force suggested here. In any case, what’s most interesting is this: “Force is (…) itself an economic power.”
“Force” is a translation of “Gewalt.” Elsewhere the term is rendered as “power.” For instance, in manuscript 2 of the 1844 manuscript, the power possessed by the capitalist is “Gewalt”. “Power to purchase” is “kaufende Gewalt” and “power to command” (or, in another translation, “governing power”) is “Regierungsgewalt.”
In the primitive accumulation section, “economic power” is a translation of “ökonomische Potenz.” A systematic survey of the uses of the various terms connected here (macht, kraft, gewalt, and potenz for sure, perhaps others), is beyond me. From the look through I’ve been able to do, though, I think “Potenz” means power in the sense of potential, capacity, or precondition. If I’m right on that then “economic power” here does not mean “power in motion” - in the sense that drawing a gun can be an act of power - but rather a condition for the economy.In other words, there is not a force vs economy distinction. Rather, there is a set of distinctions between brute force (direct physical force exerted by some people on others), state power (a set of forces one of which is brute force), and economic force. All are subsets of force or power, in the sense of coercion. Determinations other than brute force rely upon brute force for their preservation. Force or power (in the sense of Gewalt), whether brute force or the other forms exercised by the state, secure the potential (Potenz) for the economy to exist as a place where economic force (in the sense of Gewalt) can exist.
all i know is that gewalt is often translated “violence” and potenz is translated into the common “power” but, perhaps you have seen otherwise.
My impression is that “force” in enlish is quite close to “violence”, though I know how much you hate that word being bantered about.
Comment by tzuchien — December 12, 2006 @ 1:35 am
Yeah Gewalt is often translated as violence in the little I’ve looked. On the other hand, in the Critique of Violence Benjamin uses “gewalt” sometimes where it’s translated as “force” and as “power.” (I’d have to look to find the references.) In the piece “The Right to Use Force,” in the same Benjamin collection, “force” is “Gewalt.” Kant uses “Gewalt” in the third critique, where it’s translated as dominance or domination. In that bit, section 28 I think, he talks about Gewalt as the superior position in a relationship between a greater and a lesser might. Might is “macht,” which I believe is the “power” in Nietzsche’s “Will to Power.” I’m not 100% sure but Kant also says “kraft” on occasion, which in Marx is sometimes translated as power (like labor power, “arbeitskraft”), I don’t remember what it is in Kant. I’ve made nothing like a systematic study of the use of these terms, in part cuz my German’s not up to it, but from the little I’ve looked there doesn’t seem to be much reason for this vs that translation choice.
Comment by Nate — December 12, 2006 @ 3:04 am
If you remind me i can look through my german-german dictionary and do more research. Kraft and Macht are normal for power, the former being more connected to I don’t know like functioning? Macht being more like might or strength or something. I think you have potenz down and I’d have to look into Gewalt more. My suspicion is that the root for us would be like power over or force to.
Comment by todd — December 18, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
That’d be great Todd, thanks. That’s also quite interesting in relation to Holloway’s stuff on different forms of power, power over vs antipower.
Comment by Nate — December 19, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
Marx, in Capital v1,
“Illi unum consilium habent et virtutem et potestatem suam bestiae tradunt.”
“Die haben eine Meinung und werden ihre Kraft und Macht geben dem Tier.”
“There have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”
(Quote from Revelations on 181.)
“Macht des Geldes”, power of money. (229.)
Bit more of my notes on these German terms here - http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/11/04/is-disagreement/ - and here - http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/05/09/do-kant-and-badiou-have-to-do-with-each-other/
Comment by Nate — July 26, 2007 @ 10:32 am