Use correctly encoded markdown files

8 files changed, 31 insertions, 31 deletions

diff --git a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/capital.htm.md b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/capital.htm.md
index 267bfb8..9cbe34c 100644
--- a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/capital.htm.md
+++ b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/capital.htm.md
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
 <!-- context --> *||I, 2|*  What is the basis of *capital*, that is, of private property in the products of other men's labour?
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
-“Even if capital itself does not merely amount to theft or fraud, it still requires the cooperation of legislation to sanctify inheritance.” (Say, *Trait� d'�conomie politique*.)[[9]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn09)
+“Even if capital itself does not merely amount to theft or fraud, it still requires the cooperation of legislation to sanctify inheritance.” (Say, *Traité d'économie politique*.)[[9]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn09)
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 How does one become a proprietor of productive stock? How does one become owner of the products created by means of this stock?
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ The necessary result of this competition is a general deterioration of commoditi
 *Circulating capital* is a capital which is “employed in raising” provisions, “manufacturing, or purchasing goods, and selling them again. [... ] The capital employed in this manner yields no revenue or profit to its employer, while it either remains in his possession, or continues in the same shape. [...] His capital is continually going from him in one shape, and returning to him in another, and it is only by means of such circulation, or successive exchanges” and transformations “that it can yield him any profit.” Fixed capital consists of capital invested “in the improvement of land, in the purchase of useful machines and instruments of trade, or in such-like things.” (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 243-44](#TODO;../../../../../reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/ch01.htm))
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
-“Every saving in the expense of supporting the fixed capital is an improvement of the net revenue of the society. The whole capital of the undertaker of every work is necessarily divided between his fixed and his circulating capital. While his whole capital remains the same, the smaller the one part, the greater must necessarily be the other. It is the circulating capital <!-- context --> *[Marx uses the French terms *capital fix�* and *capital circulant*. - Ed.]* which furnishes the materials and wages of labour, and puts industry into motion. Every saving, therefore, in the expense of maintaining the fixed capital, which does not diminish the productive powers of labour, must increase the fund which puts industry into motion.” (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 257](#TODO;../../../../../reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/ch02.htm).)
+“Every saving in the expense of supporting the fixed capital is an improvement of the net revenue of the society. The whole capital of the undertaker of every work is necessarily divided between his fixed and his circulating capital. While his whole capital remains the same, the smaller the one part, the greater must necessarily be the other. It is the circulating capital <!-- context --> *[Marx uses the French terms *capital fixé* and *capital circulant*. - Ed.]* which furnishes the materials and wages of labour, and puts industry into motion. Every saving, therefore, in the expense of maintaining the fixed capital, which does not diminish the productive powers of labour, must increase the fund which puts industry into motion.” (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 257](#TODO;../../../../../reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/ch02.htm).)
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 It is clear from the outset that the relation of fixed capital and circulating capital is much more favourable to the big capitalist than to the smaller capitalist. The extra fixed capital required by a very big banker as against a very small one is insignificant. Their fixed capital amounts to nothing more than the office. The equipment of the bigger landowner does not increase in proportion to the size of his estate. Similarly, the credit which a big capitalist enjoys compared with a smaller one means for him all the greater saving in fixed capital – that is, in the amount of ready money he must always have at hand. Finally, it is obvious that where industrial labour has reached a high level, and where therefore almost all manual labour has become factory labour, the entire capital of a small capitalist does not suffice to provide him even with the necessary fixed capital. *As is well known, large-scale cultivation usually provides employment only for a small number of hands*. <!-- context --> *[Note by Marx in French]*
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ It is generally true that the accumulation of large capital is also *accompanied
 “On the average the prices of cotton-goods have decreased in England during the past 45 years by eleven-twelfths, and according to Marshall's calculations the same amount of manufactured goods for which 16 shillings was still paid in 1814 is now supplied at 1 shilling and 10 pence. The greater cheapness of industrial products expands both consumption at home and the market abroad, and because of this the number of workers in cotton has not only not fallen in Great Britain after the introduction of machines but has risen from forty thousand to one and a half million. <!-- context --> *|XII, 2|* As to the earnings of industrial entrepreneurs and workers; the growing competition between the factory owners has resulted in their profits necessarily falling relative to the amount of products supplied by them. In the years 1820-33 the Manchester manufacturer's gross profit on a piece of calico fell from four shillings 1 1/3 pence to one shilling 9 pence. But to make up for this loss, the volume of manufacture has been correspondingly increased. The consequence of this is that separate branches of industry experience over-production to some extent, that frequent bankruptcies occur causing property to fluctuate and vacillate unstably within the class of capitalists and masters of labour, thus throwing into the proletariat some of those who have been ruined economically; and that, frequently and suddenly, close-downs or cuts in employment become necessary, the painful effects of which are always bitterly felt by the class of wage-labourers.” (*op. cit.*, p. 63.)
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
-“To hire out one's labour is to begin one's enslavement. To hire out the materials of labour is to establish one's freedom.... Labour is man; the materials, on the other hand, contain nothing human.” (Pecqueur, *Th�orie sociale, etc*.)
+“To hire out one's labour is to begin one's enslavement. To hire out the materials of labour is to establish one's freedom.... Labour is man; the materials, on the other hand, contain nothing human.” (Pecqueur, *Théorie sociale, etc*.)
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
 “The material element, which is quite incapable of creating wealth without the other element. labour, acquires the magical virtue of being fertile for them [who own this material element] as if by their own action they had placed there this indispensable element.” (*op. cit.*)
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ It is generally true that the accumulation of large capital is also *accompanied
 *[Ricardo](https://marxists.org/glossary/people/r/i.htm#ricardo-david)* in his book [<!-- context --> **On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation**] (rent of land): Nations are merely production-shops; man is a machine for consuming and producing; human life is a kind of capital; economic laws blindly rule the world. For Ricardo men are nothing, the product everything. In the 26th chapter of the French translation it says:
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
-“To an individual with a capital of �20,000 whose profits were �2,000 per annum, it would be a matter quite indifferent whether his capital would employ a hundred or a thousand men.... Is not the real interest of the nation similar? Provided its net real income, its rent and profits be the same, it is of no importance whether the nation consists of ten or twelve millions of inhabitants.” – [t. II, pp. 194, 195.] “In fact, says M. Sismondi ([*Nouveaux principes diconomie politique*,] t. II, p. 331), nothing remains to be desired but that the King, living quite alone on the island, should by continuously turning a crank cause automatons to do all the work of England.”[[13]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn13)
+“To an individual with a capital of £20,000 whose profits were £2,000 per annum, it would be a matter quite indifferent whether his capital would employ a hundred or a thousand men.... Is not the real interest of the nation similar? Provided its net real income, its rent and profits be the same, it is of no importance whether the nation consists of ten or twelve millions of inhabitants.” – [t. II, pp. 194, 195.] “In fact, says M. Sismondi ([*Nouveaux principes diconomie politique*,] t. II, p. 331), nothing remains to be desired but that the King, living quite alone on the island, should by continuously turning a crank cause automatons to do all the work of England.”[[13]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn13)
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
 “The master who buys the worker's labour at such a low price that it scarcely suffices for the worker's most pressing needs is responsible neither for the inadequacy of the wage nor for the excessive duration of the labour: he himself has to submit to the law which he imposes.... Poverty is not so much caused by men as by the power of things.” (Buret, *op. cit.*, p. 82.)
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ It is generally true that the accumulation of large capital is also *accompanied
 Hence *over-production*.
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
-“More comprehensive combinations of productive forces ... in industry and trade by uniting more numerous and more diverse human and natural powers in larger-scale enterprises. Already here and there, closer association of the chief branches of production. Thus, big manufacturers will try to acquire also large estates in order to become independent of others for at least a part of the raw materials required for their industry; or they will go into trade in conjunction with their industrial enterprises, not only to sell their own manufactures, but also to purchase other kinds of products and to sell these to their workers. In England, where a single factory owner sometimes employs ten to twelve thousand workers ... it is already not uncommon to find such combinations of various branches of production controlled by one brain, such smaller states or provinces within the state. Thus, the mine owners in the Birmingham area have recently taken over the *whole* process of iron production, which was previously distributed among various entrepreneurs and owners, (See “*Der bergm�nnische Distrikt bei Birmingham*,” *Deutsche Vierteljahr-Schrift *No. 3, 1838.) Finally in the large joint-stock enterprises which have become so numerous, we see far-reaching combinations of the financial resources of many participants with the scientific and technical knowledge and skills of others to whom the carrying-out of the work is handed over. The capitalists are thereby enabled to apply their savings in more diverse ways and perhaps even to employ them simultaneously in agriculture, industry and commerce. As a consequence their interest becomes more comprehensive, <!-- context --> *||XVI, 2|* and the contradictions between agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests are reduced and disappear. But this increased possibility of applying capital profitably in the most diverse ways cannot but intensify the antagonism between the propertied and the non-propertied classes.” (Schulz, *op. cit.*, pp. 40-4l.)
+“More comprehensive combinations of productive forces ... in industry and trade by uniting more numerous and more diverse human and natural powers in larger-scale enterprises. Already here and there, closer association of the chief branches of production. Thus, big manufacturers will try to acquire also large estates in order to become independent of others for at least a part of the raw materials required for their industry; or they will go into trade in conjunction with their industrial enterprises, not only to sell their own manufactures, but also to purchase other kinds of products and to sell these to their workers. In England, where a single factory owner sometimes employs ten to twelve thousand workers ... it is already not uncommon to find such combinations of various branches of production controlled by one brain, such smaller states or provinces within the state. Thus, the mine owners in the Birmingham area have recently taken over the *whole* process of iron production, which was previously distributed among various entrepreneurs and owners, (See “*Der bergmännische Distrikt bei Birmingham*,” *Deutsche Vierteljahr-Schrift *No. 3, 1838.) Finally in the large joint-stock enterprises which have become so numerous, we see far-reaching combinations of the financial resources of many participants with the scientific and technical knowledge and skills of others to whom the carrying-out of the work is handed over. The capitalists are thereby enabled to apply their savings in more diverse ways and perhaps even to employ them simultaneously in agriculture, industry and commerce. As a consequence their interest becomes more comprehensive, <!-- context --> *||XVI, 2|* and the contradictions between agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests are reduced and disappear. But this increased possibility of applying capital profitably in the most diverse ways cannot but intensify the antagonism between the propertied and the non-propertied classes.” (Schulz, *op. cit.*, pp. 40-4l.)
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 The enormous profit which the landlords of houses make out of poverty. House rent stands in inverse proportion to industrial poverty.
diff --git a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/footnote.htm.md b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/footnote.htm.md
index 130b463..ad762b8 100644
--- a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/footnote.htm.md
+++ b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/footnote.htm.md
@@ -28,12 +28,12 @@ The *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 *was first published by the In
 In English this work was first published in 1959 by the Foreign Languages Publishing House (now Progress Publishers), Moscow, translated by Martin Milligan.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">2.</span> This refers to Bruno Bauer’s reviews of books, articles and pamphlets on the Jewish question, including Marx’s article on the subject in the *Deutsch-Franz�sche Jahrb�cher, *which were published in the monthly *Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung *(issue No. 1, December 1843, and issue No. IV, March 1844) under the title “*Von den neuesten Schriften �ber die Judenfrage*.” Most of the expressions quoted are taken from these reviews. The expressions “utopian phrase” and “compact mass” can he found in Bruno Bauer’s unsigned article, “*Was ist jetzt der Gegenstand der Kritik?*,” published in the *Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, *issue No. VIII, July 1844. A detailed critical appraisal of this monthly was later on given by Marx and Engels in the book *Die heilige Familie, oder Kritik der kritischen Kritik *(see this edition, Vol. 4, *The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism).*
+<span class="term">2.</span> This refers to Bruno Bauer’s reviews of books, articles and pamphlets on the Jewish question, including Marx’s article on the subject in the *Deutsch-Französche Jahrbücher, *which were published in the monthly *Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung *(issue No. 1, December 1843, and issue No. IV, March 1844) under the title “*Von den neuesten Schriften über die Judenfrage*.” Most of the expressions quoted are taken from these reviews. The expressions “utopian phrase” and “compact mass” can he found in Bruno Bauer’s unsigned article, “*Was ist jetzt der Gegenstand der Kritik?*,” published in the *Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, *issue No. VIII, July 1844. A detailed critical appraisal of this monthly was later on given by Marx and Engels in the book *Die heilige Familie, oder Kritik der kritischen Kritik *(see this edition, Vol. 4, *The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism).*
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <span class="term">3.</span> Marx apparently refers to Weitling’s works: *Die Menschheit, wie sie ist und wie sie sein sollte, *1838, and *Garantien der Harmonic und Freiheit, *Vivis, 1842.
 
-Moses Hess published three articles in the collection *Ein-und-zwanzig Bogen aus der Schweiz *(Twenty-One Sheets from Switzerland), *Erster Teil* (*Z�rich und Winterthur*, 1843), issued by Georg Herwegh. These articles, entitled “*Sozialismus und Kommunismus*,” “*Philosophie der Tat*” *and “Die Eine und die ganze Freiheit*,” were published anonymously. The first two of them had a note - “Written by the author of ’Europ�ische Triarchie’.”
+Moses Hess published three articles in the collection *Ein-und-zwanzig Bogen aus der Schweiz *(Twenty-One Sheets from Switzerland), *Erster Teil* (*Zürich und Winterthur*, 1843), issued by Georg Herwegh. These articles, entitled “*Sozialismus und Kommunismus*,” “*Philosophie der Tat*” *and “Die Eine und die ganze Freiheit*,” were published anonymously. The first two of them had a note - “Written by the author of ’Europäische Triarchie’.”
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <span class="term">4.</span> The term “element” in the Hegelian philosophy means a vital element of thought. It is used to stress that thought is a process, and that therefore elements in a system of thought are also phases in a movement. The term “feeling” (*Empfindung*) denotes relatively low forms of mental life in which no distinction is made between the subjective and objective.
@@ -45,13 +45,13 @@ Moses Hess published three articles in the collection *Ein-und-zwanzig Bogen aus
 <span class="term">6.</span> The expression “common humanity” (in the manuscript in French, “simple humanity”) was borrowed by Marx from the first volume (Chapter VIII) of Adam Smith’s *Wealth of Nations, *which he used in Garnier’s French translation *(Recherches sur la nature et les causes de la richesse des nations, *Paris, 1802, t. I, p. 138). All the subsequent references were given by Marx to this publication, the synopsis of which is contained in his Paris Notebooks with excerpts on political economy. This edition is reproduced on the MIA and Marx’s citations are linked to the text.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">7.</span> Marx uses the German term “National�konomie” to denote both the economic system in the sense of science or theory, and the economic system itself.
+<span class="term">7.</span> Marx uses the German term “Nationalökonomie” to denote both the economic system in the sense of science or theory, and the economic system itself.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <span class="term">8.</span> Loudon’s work was a translation into French of an English manuscript apparently never published in the original. The author did publish in English a short pamphlet - *The Equilibrium of Population and Sustenance Demonstrated, *Leamington, 1836.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">9.</span> Unlike the quotations from a number of other French writers such as Constantin Pecqueur and Eug�ne Buret, which Marx gives in French in this work, the excerpts from J. B. Say’s book are given in his German translation.
+<span class="term">9.</span> Unlike the quotations from a number of other French writers such as Constantin Pecqueur and Eugéne Buret, which Marx gives in French in this work, the excerpts from J. B. Say’s book are given in his German translation.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <span class="term">10.</span> From this page of the manuscript quotations from Adam Smith’s book (in the French translation), which Marx cited so far sometimes in French and sometimes in German, are, as a rule, given in German. In this book the corresponding pages of the English edition are substituted for the French by the editors and Marx’s references are given in square brackets (see Note 6).
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ Moses Hess published three articles in the collection *Ein-und-zwanzig Bogen aus
 <span class="term">12.</span>  The preceding page (VII) of the first manuscript does not contain any text relating to the sections “Profit of Capital” and “Rent of Land” (see Note 1).
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">13.</span> The whole paragraph, including the quotation from Ricardo’s book in the French translation by Francisco Solano Constancio: *Des principes de l’economie politique, et de 1’imp�t, *2-e �d., Paris, 1835, T. II, pp. 194-95 (see the corresponding English edition *On the Principles of Political Economy, and Taxation, *London, 1817), and from Sismondi’s *Nouveaux principes d’�conomie politique...*, Paris, 1819, T. II., p. 331, is an excerpt from Eug�ne Buret’s book *De la mis�re des classes laborieuses en Angleterre et en France*.... Paris, 1840, T. I, pp. 6-7, note.
+<span class="term">13.</span> The whole paragraph, including the quotation from Ricardo’s book in the French translation by Francisco Solano Constancio: *Des principes de l’economie politique, et de 1’impôt, *2-e éd., Paris, 1835, T. II, pp. 194-95 (see the corresponding English edition *On the Principles of Political Economy, and Taxation, *London, 1817), and from Sismondi’s *Nouveaux principes d’économie politique...*, Paris, 1819, T. II., p. 331, is an excerpt from Eugéne Buret’s book *De la misère des classes laborieuses en Angleterre et en France*.... Paris, 1840, T. I, pp. 6-7, note.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <span class="term">14.</span> The allusion is to the following passage: “In a perfectly fair lottery, those who draw the prizes ought to gain all that is lost by those who draw the blanks. In a profession where twenty fail for one that succeeds, that one ought to gain all that should have been gained by the unsuccessful twenty.” (Smith, *Wealth of Nations,* Vol. 1, Bk. 1, p. 94.)
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ The struggle between the industrial bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy over
 <span class="term">20.</span> The term “species-being” (*Gattungswesen*) is derived from Ludwig Feuerbach’s philosophy where it is applied to man and mankind as a whole.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">21.</span> Apparently Marx refers to Proudhon’s book *Qu’est-ce que la propri’et�*?, Paris, 1841.
+<span class="term">21.</span> Apparently Marx refers to Proudhon’s book *Qu’est-ce que la propri’eté*?, Paris, 1841.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <span class="term">22.</span> This passage shows that Marx here uses the category of wages in a broad sense, as an expression of antagonistic relations between the classes of capitalists and of wage-workers. Under “the wages” he understands “the wage-labour,” the capitalist system as such. This idea was apparently elaborated in detail in that part of the manuscript which is now extant.
@@ -115,10 +115,10 @@ The struggle between the industrial bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy over
 <span class="term">28.</span> The third manuscript is a thick notebook the last few pages of which are blank. The pages are divided into two columns by a vertical line, not for the purpose of dividing the text according to the headings but for purely technical reasons. The text of the first three sections comprises pp. I-XI, XIV-XXI, XXXIV-XXXVIII and was written as a supplement to the missing pages of the second manuscript. Pages XI-XIII, XVII, XVIII, XXIII, XXIV, XXVI, XXXIV contain the text of the concluding chapter dealing with the criticism of Hegel’s dialectic (on some pages it is written alongside the text of other sections). In some places the manuscript contains the author’s remarks testifying to his intention to unite into a single whole various passages of this section separated from each other by the text of other sections. Pages XXIX-XL comprise the draft Preface. Finally, the text on the last pages (XLI-XLIII) is a self-contained essay on the power of money in bourgeois society.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">29.</span> The manuscript has “als f�r sich seiende Tätigkeit.” For the meaning of the terms “für sich” and “an sich” in Hegel’s philosophy see Note 25.
+<span class="term">29.</span> The manuscript has “als für sich seiende Tätigkeit.” For the meaning of the terms “für sich” and “an sich” in Hegel’s philosophy see Note 25.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">30.</span> Marx refers to the rise of the primitive, crude equalitarian tendencies among the representatives of utopian communism at the early stages of its development. Among the medieval religious communistic communities, in particular, there was current a notion of the common possession of women as a feature of the future society depicted in the spirit of consumer communism ideals. In 1534-35 the German Anabaptists, who seized power in M�nster, tried to introduce polygamy in accordance with this view. Tommaso Campanella, the author of *Civitas Solis *(early 17th century), rejected monogamy in his ideal society. The primitive communistic communities were also characterised by asceticism and a hostile attitude to science and works of art. Some of these primitive equalitarian features, the negative attitude to the arts in particular, were inherited by the communist trends of the first half of the 19th century, for example, by the members of the French secret societies of the 1830s and 1840s (“worker-egalitarians,” “humanitarians,” and so on) comprising the followers of Babeuf (for a characterisation of these see Engels, “Progress of Social Reform on the Continent” (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Collected Works, *Volume 3, pp. 396-97)).
+<span class="term">30.</span> Marx refers to the rise of the primitive, crude equalitarian tendencies among the representatives of utopian communism at the early stages of its development. Among the medieval religious communistic communities, in particular, there was current a notion of the common possession of women as a feature of the future society depicted in the spirit of consumer communism ideals. In 1534-35 the German Anabaptists, who seized power in Münster, tried to introduce polygamy in accordance with this view. Tommaso Campanella, the author of *Civitas Solis *(early 17th century), rejected monogamy in his ideal society. The primitive communistic communities were also characterised by asceticism and a hostile attitude to science and works of art. Some of these primitive equalitarian features, the negative attitude to the arts in particular, were inherited by the communist trends of the first half of the 19th century, for example, by the members of the French secret societies of the 1830s and 1840s (“worker-egalitarians,” “humanitarians,” and so on) comprising the followers of Babeuf (for a characterisation of these see Engels, “Progress of Social Reform on the Continent” (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Collected Works, *Volume 3, pp. 396-97)).
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <span class="term">31.</span> This note is given by Marx on page V of the manuscript where it is separated by a horizontal line from the main text, but according to its meaning it refers to this sentence.
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ The struggle between the industrial bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy over
 <span class="term">38.</span> The preceding pages starting from p. XXI, which is partly taken up by a text relating to this section, contain the text of the concluding chapter.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">39.</span> In some of his early writings Marx already uses the term “*b�rgerliche Gesellschaft*” to mean two things: (1) in a broader sense, the economic system of society regardless of the historical stage of its development, the sum total of material relations which determine political institutions and ideology, and (2) in the narrow sense, the material relations of bourgeois society (later on, that society as a whole), of capitalism. Hence, the term has been translated according to its concrete meaning in the context as “civil society” in the first case and “bourgeois society” in the second.
+<span class="term">39.</span> In some of his early writings Marx already uses the term “*bürgerliche Gesellschaft*” to mean two things: (1) in a broader sense, the economic system of society regardless of the historical stage of its development, the sum total of material relations which determine political institutions and ideology, and (2) in the narrow sense, the material relations of bourgeois society (later on, that society as a whole), of capitalism. Hence, the term has been translated according to its concrete meaning in the context as “civil society” in the first case and “bourgeois society” in the second.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <span class="term">40.</span> The two previous pages of the manuscript contain the draft Preface to the whole work, which is published on pages 17-20.
@@ -154,13 +154,13 @@ The struggle between the industrial bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy over
 <span class="term">41.</span> Ontology – in some philosophic systems a theory about being, about the nature of things.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">42.</span> Originally the section on the Hegelian dialectic was apparently conceived by Marx as a philosophical digression in the section of the third manuscript which is published under the heading “Private Property and Communism” and was written together with other sections as an addition to separate pages of the second manuscript (see pp. 93-108 of this book). Therefore Marx marked the beginning of this section (p. XI in the manuscript) as point 6, considering it to be the continuation of the five points of the preceding section. He marked as point 7 the beginning of the following section, headed “Human Requirements and Division of Labour Under the Rule of Private Property,” on page XIV of the manuscript. However, when dealing with this subject on subsequent pages of his manuscript, Marx decided to collect the whole material into a separate, concluding chapter and mentioned this in his draft Preface. The chapter, like a number of other sections of the manuscript, was not finished. While writing it, Marx made special excerpts from the last chapter (“Absolute Knowledge”) of Hegel’s *Ph�nomenologie des Geistes, *which are in the same notebook as the third manuscript (these excerpts are not reproduced in this edition).
+<span class="term">42.</span> Originally the section on the Hegelian dialectic was apparently conceived by Marx as a philosophical digression in the section of the third manuscript which is published under the heading “Private Property and Communism” and was written together with other sections as an addition to separate pages of the second manuscript (see pp. 93-108 of this book). Therefore Marx marked the beginning of this section (p. XI in the manuscript) as point 6, considering it to be the continuation of the five points of the preceding section. He marked as point 7 the beginning of the following section, headed “Human Requirements and Division of Labour Under the Rule of Private Property,” on page XIV of the manuscript. However, when dealing with this subject on subsequent pages of his manuscript, Marx decided to collect the whole material into a separate, concluding chapter and mentioned this in his draft Preface. The chapter, like a number of other sections of the manuscript, was not finished. While writing it, Marx made special excerpts from the last chapter (“Absolute Knowledge”) of Hegel’s *Phänomenologie des Geistes, *which are in the same notebook as the third manuscript (these excerpts are not reproduced in this edition).
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <span class="term">43.</span> The reference is not quite accurate. On page 193 of the work mentioned, Bruno Bauer polemises not against the anti-Hegelian Herr Gruppe but against the Right Hegelian Marheineke.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">44.</span> Marx here refers to Feurbach’s critical observations on Hegel in �� 29-30 of his *Grunds�tze der Philosophie der Zukunft.*
+<span class="term">44.</span> Marx here refers to Feurbach’s critical observations on Hegel in §§ 29-30 of his *Grundsätze der Philosophie der Zukunft.*
 
 This note is given at the bottom of page XIII of the third manuscript without any indication what it refers to. The asterisk after the sentence to which it seems to refer is given by the editors.
 
@@ -171,19 +171,19 @@ This note is given at the bottom of page XIII of the third manuscript without an
 <span class="term">46.</span> At the end of page XVIII of the third manuscript there is a note by Marx: “continued on p. XXII.” However number XXII was omitted by Marx in paging. The text of the given chapter is continued on the page marked by the author as XXIII, which is also confirmed by his remark on it: “see p. XVIII.”
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">47.</span> Marx apparently refers here not only to the identity of Hegel’s views on labour and some other categories of political economy with those of the English classical economists but also to his profound knowledge of economic writings. In lectures he delivered at Jena University in 1803-04 Hegel cited Adam Smith’s work. In his *Philosophie des Rechts* (� 189) he mentions Smith, Say and Ricardo and notes the rapid development of economic thought.
+<span class="term">47.</span> Marx apparently refers here not only to the identity of Hegel’s views on labour and some other categories of political economy with those of the English classical economists but also to his profound knowledge of economic writings. In lectures he delivered at Jena University in 1803-04 Hegel cited Adam Smith’s work. In his *Philosophie des Rechts* (§ 189) he mentions Smith, Say and Ricardo and notes the rapid development of economic thought.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">48.</span> Hegel uses the term “thinghood” (*Dingheit*) in his work *Ph�nomenologie des Geistes *to denote an abstract, universal, mediating link in the process of cognition; “thinghood” reveals the generality of the specific properties of individual things. The synonym for it is “pure essence” (*das reine Wesen*).
+<span class="term">48.</span> Hegel uses the term “thinghood” (*Dingheit*) in his work *Phänomenologie des Geistes *to denote an abstract, universal, mediating link in the process of cognition; “thinghood” reveals the generality of the specific properties of individual things. The synonym for it is “pure essence” (*das reine Wesen*).
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">49.</span> These eight points of the “surmounting of the object of consciousness,” expressed “in all its aspects,” are copied nearly word for word from �� 1 and 3 of the last chapter (“Absolute Knowledge”) of Hegel’s *Ph�nomenologie des Geistes.*
+<span class="term">49.</span> These eight points of the “surmounting of the object of consciousness,” expressed “in all its aspects,” are copied nearly word for word from §§ 1 and 3 of the last chapter (“Absolute Knowledge”) of Hegel’s *Phänomenologie des Geistes.*
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <span class="term">50.</span> Number XXV was omitted by Marx in paging the third manuscript.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">51.</span> Marx refers to � 30 of Feuerbach’s *Grundsätze der Philosophie der Zukunft,* which says: “Hegel is a thinker who *surpasses *himself in thinking.”
+<span class="term">51.</span> Marx refers to § 30 of Feuerbach’s *Grundsätze der Philosophie der Zukunft,* which says: “Hegel is a thinker who *surpasses *himself in thinking.”
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <span class="term">52.</span> This enumeration gives the major categories of Hegel’s *Encyclopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften *in the order in which they are examined by Hegel. Similarly, the categories reproduced by Marx above (on p. 149), from “civil law” to “world history,” are given in the order in which they appear in Hegel’s *Philosophie des Rechts.*
diff --git a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/hegel.htm.md b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/hegel.htm.md
index 1806902..c37e5e1 100644
--- a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/hegel.htm.md
+++ b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/hegel.htm.md
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ Then: *The externality of this abstract thinking* ... *nature,* as it is for thi
 
 There is a double error in Hegel.
 
-The <b>first</b> emerges most clearly in the *Phänomenologie*, the birth-place of the Hegelian philosophy. When, for instance, wealth, state-power, etc., are understood by Hegel as entities estranged from the *human* being, this only happens in their form as thoughts ... They are thought-entities, and therefore merely an estrangement of *pure*, i.e., abstract, philosophical thinking. The whole process therefore ends with absolute knowledge. It is precisely abstract thought from which these objects are estranged and which they confront with their presumption of reality. The *philosopher* – who is himself an abstract form of estranged man – takes himself as the *criterion *of the estranged world. The whole *history of the alienation process* [*Ent�u�erungsgeschichte*] and the whole *process of the retraction *of the alienation is therefore nothing but the *history of the production *of abstract (i.e., absolute) *||XVII|*[^hegelootnote.htm#fn45] thought – of logical, speculative thought. The *estrangement*, [*Entfremdung*] which therefore forms the real interest of the transcendence [*Aufhebung*] of this alienation [*Ent�u�erung*], is the opposition of *in itself* and *for itself*, of *consciousness and self-consciousness*, of *object and subject* – that is to say, it is the opposition between abstract thinking and sensuous reality or real sensuousness within thought itself. All other oppositions and movements of these oppositions are but the *semblance*, the *cloak*, the *exoteric* shape of these oppositions which alone matter, and which constitute the *meaning *of these other, profane oppositions. It is not the fact that the human being *objectifies himself inhumanly*, in opposition to himself, but the fact that he *objectifies himself* [*selbst sich vergegenst�ndlicht*] in *distinction* from and in *opposition* to abstract thinking, that constitutes the posited essence of the estrangement [*Entfremdung*] and the thing to be superseded [*aufzuhebende*].
+The <b>first</b> emerges most clearly in the *Phänomenologie*, the birth-place of the Hegelian philosophy. When, for instance, wealth, state-power, etc., are understood by Hegel as entities estranged from the *human* being, this only happens in their form as thoughts ... They are thought-entities, and therefore merely an estrangement of *pure*, i.e., abstract, philosophical thinking. The whole process therefore ends with absolute knowledge. It is precisely abstract thought from which these objects are estranged and which they confront with their presumption of reality. The *philosopher* – who is himself an abstract form of estranged man – takes himself as the *criterion *of the estranged world. The whole *history of the alienation process* [*Entäußerungsgeschichte*] and the whole *process of the retraction *of the alienation is therefore nothing but the *history of the production *of abstract (i.e., absolute) *||XVII|*[^hegelootnote.htm#fn45] thought – of logical, speculative thought. The *estrangement*, [*Entfremdung*] which therefore forms the real interest of the transcendence [*Aufhebung*] of this alienation [*Entäußerung*], is the opposition of *in itself* and *for itself*, of *consciousness and self-consciousness*, of *object and subject* – that is to say, it is the opposition between abstract thinking and sensuous reality or real sensuousness within thought itself. All other oppositions and movements of these oppositions are but the *semblance*, the *cloak*, the *exoteric* shape of these oppositions which alone matter, and which constitute the *meaning *of these other, profane oppositions. It is not the fact that the human being *objectifies himself inhumanly*, in opposition to himself, but the fact that he *objectifies himself* [*selbst sich vergegenständlicht*] in *distinction* from and in *opposition* to abstract thinking, that constitutes the posited essence of the estrangement [*Entfremdung*] and the thing to be superseded [*aufzuhebende*].
 
 *||XVIII|* The appropriation of man’s essential powers, which have become objects – indeed, alien objects – is thus in the *first place* only an *appropriation* occurring in *consciousness*, in *pure thought, *i.e., in *abstraction: *it is the appropriation of these objects as *thoughts *and as *movements of thought*. Consequently, despite its thoroughly negative and critical appearance and despite the genuine criticism contained in it, which often anticipates far later development, there is already latent in the *Phänomenologie *as a germ, a potentiality, a secret, the uncritical positivism and the equally uncritical idealism of Hegel’s later works – that philosophic dissolution and restoration of the existing empirical world.
 
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a *suffering* being – and bec
 Thirdly, because this positing of thinghood is itself only an illusion, an act contradicting the nature of pure activity, it has to be cancelled again and thinghood denied.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
-*Re 3, 4, 5 and 6*. (3) This externalisation [*Ent�u�erung*] of consciousness has not merely a *negative* but a *positive* significance, and (4) it has this meaning not merely *for us *or intrinsically, but for consciousness itself.     *For consciousness *the negative of the object, its annulling of itself, has *positive *significance – i.e., consciousness *knows* this nullity of the object – because it alienates *itself; *for, in this alienation it *knows *itself as object, or, for the sake of the indivisible unity of *being-for-itself,* the object as itself.    (6) On the other hand, there is also this other moment in the process, that consciousness has also just as much superseded this alienation and objectivity and resumed them into itself, being thus *at home *in its *other-being* *as such.*
+*Re 3, 4, 5 and 6*. (3) This externalisation [*Entäußerung*] of consciousness has not merely a *negative* but a *positive* significance, and (4) it has this meaning not merely *for us *or intrinsically, but for consciousness itself.     *For consciousness *the negative of the object, its annulling of itself, has *positive *significance – i.e., consciousness *knows* this nullity of the object – because it alienates *itself; *for, in this alienation it *knows *itself as object, or, for the sake of the indivisible unity of *being-for-itself,* the object as itself.    (6) On the other hand, there is also this other moment in the process, that consciousness has also just as much superseded this alienation and objectivity and resumed them into itself, being thus *at home *in its *other-being* *as such.*
 
 As we have already seen, the appropriation of what is estranged and objective, or the annulling of objectivity in the form of *estrangement *(which has to advance from indifferent strangeness to real, antagonistic estrangement), means likewise or even primarily for Hegel that it is *objectivity* which is to be annulled, because it is not the *determinate* character of the object, but rather its *objective *character that is offensive and constitutes estrangement for self-consciousness. The object is therefore something negative, self-annulling – a *nullity*. This nullity of the object has not only a negative but a *positive *meaning for consciousness, since this nullity of the object is precisely the *self-confirmation *of the non-objectivity, of the *||XXVIII|* *abstraction *of itself. For *consciousness itself *the nullity of the object has a positive meaning because it *knows *this nullity, the objective being, as *its self-alienation; *because it knows that it exists only as a result of its own self-alienation....
 
diff --git a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/labour.htm.md b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/labour.htm.md
index 35196f9..4690a0c 100644
--- a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/labour.htm.md
+++ b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/labour.htm.md
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ If the product of labor does not belong to the worker, if it confronts him as an
 
 We must bear in mind the previous proposition that man’s relation to himself becomes for him *objective* and *actual* through his relation to the other man. Thus, if the product of his labor, his labor objectified, is for him an *alien*, *hostile*, powerful object independent of him, then his position towards it is such that someone else is master of this object, someone who is alien, hostile, powerful, and independent of him. If he treats his own activity as an unfree activity, then he treats it as an activity performed in the service, under the dominion, the coercion, and the yoke of another man.
 
-Every self-estrangement of man, from himself and from nature, appears in the relation in which he places himself and nature to men other than and differentiated from himself. For this reason religious self-estrangement necessarily appears in the relationship of the layman to the priest, or again to a mediator, etc., since we are here dealing with the intellectual world. In the real practical world self-estrangement can only become manifest through the real practical relationship to other men. The medium through which estrangement takes place is itself *practical. *Thus through estranged labor man not only creates his relationship to the object and to the act of production as to powers <!-- context --> *[in the manuscript *Menschen* (men) instead of *M�chte* (powers). – Ed.]* that are alien and hostile to him; he also creates the relationship in which other men stand to his production and to his product, and the relationship in which he stands to these other men. Just as he creates his own production as the loss of his reality, as his punishment; his own product as a loss, as a product not belonging to him; so he creates the domination of the person who does not produce over production and over the product. Just as he estranges his own activity from himself, so he confers upon the stranger an activity which is not his own.
+Every self-estrangement of man, from himself and from nature, appears in the relation in which he places himself and nature to men other than and differentiated from himself. For this reason religious self-estrangement necessarily appears in the relationship of the layman to the priest, or again to a mediator, etc., since we are here dealing with the intellectual world. In the real practical world self-estrangement can only become manifest through the real practical relationship to other men. The medium through which estrangement takes place is itself *practical. *Thus through estranged labor man not only creates his relationship to the object and to the act of production as to powers <!-- context --> *[in the manuscript *Menschen* (men) instead of *Mächte* (powers). – Ed.]* that are alien and hostile to him; he also creates the relationship in which other men stand to his production and to his product, and the relationship in which he stands to these other men. Just as he creates his own production as the loss of his reality, as his punishment; his own product as a loss, as a product not belonging to him; so he creates the domination of the person who does not produce over production and over the product. Just as he estranges his own activity from himself, so he confers upon the stranger an activity which is not his own.
 
 We have until now considered this relationship only from the standpoint of the worker and later on we shall be considering it also from the standpoint of the non-worker.
 
diff --git a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/needs.htm.md b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/needs.htm.md
index 0858a60..edf6ea3 100644
--- a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/needs.htm.md
+++ b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/needs.htm.md
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ As for the *essence of the division of *labour – and of course the division of
 In an *advanced state *of society “every man thus lives by exchanging and becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
-properly a commercial society.” (See Destutt de Tracy [, *�l�mens d’id�ologie*, Paris, 1826, pp. 68 and 78]: “Society is a series of reciprocal exchanges; commerce contains the whole essence of society.”) *... *The accumulation of capitals mounts with the division of labour, and vice versa.”
+properly a commercial society.” (See Destutt de Tracy [, *Élémens d’idéologie*, Paris, 1826, pp. 68 and 78]: “Society is a series of reciprocal exchanges; commerce contains the whole essence of society.”) *... *The accumulation of capitals mounts with the division of labour, and vice versa.”
 
 So much for Adam Smith.
 
diff --git a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/rent.htm.md b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/rent.htm.md
index 9504cd8..d22ffff 100644
--- a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/rent.htm.md
+++ b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/rent.htm.md
@@ -186,11 +186,11 @@ The final consequence is thus the abolition of the distinction between capitalis
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <strong>(1)</strong> We will not join in the sentimental tears wept over this by romanticism. Romanticism always confuses the shamefulness of *huckstering the land* with the perfectly rational consequence, inevitable and desirable within the realm of private property, of the *huckstering of private property* in land. In the first place, feudal landed property is already by its very nature huckstered land – the earth which is estranged from man and hence confronts him in the shape of a few great lords.
 
-The domination of the land as an alien power over men is already inherent in feudal landed property. The serf is the adjunct of the land. Likewise, the lord of an entailed estate, the first-born son, belongs to the land. It inherits him. Indeed, the dominion of private property begins with property in land – that is its basis. But in feudal landed property the lord at least *appears* as the king of the estate. Similarly, there still exists the semblance of a more intimate connection between the proprietor and the land than that of mere *material* wealth. The estate is individualized with its lord: it has his rank, is baronial or ducal with him, has his privileges, his jurisdiction, his political position, etc. It appears as the inorganic body of its lord. Hence the proverb *nulle terre sans ma�tre* <!-- context --> *[There is no land without its master. - Ed]*, which expresses the fusion of nobility and landed property. Similarly, the rule of landed property does not appear directly as the rule of mere capital. For those belonging to it, the estate is more like their fatherland. It is a constricted sort of nationality.
+The domination of the land as an alien power over men is already inherent in feudal landed property. The serf is the adjunct of the land. Likewise, the lord of an entailed estate, the first-born son, belongs to the land. It inherits him. Indeed, the dominion of private property begins with property in land – that is its basis. But in feudal landed property the lord at least *appears* as the king of the estate. Similarly, there still exists the semblance of a more intimate connection between the proprietor and the land than that of mere *material* wealth. The estate is individualized with its lord: it has his rank, is baronial or ducal with him, has his privileges, his jurisdiction, his political position, etc. It appears as the inorganic body of its lord. Hence the proverb *nulle terre sans maître* <!-- context --> *[There is no land without its master. - Ed]*, which expresses the fusion of nobility and landed property. Similarly, the rule of landed property does not appear directly as the rule of mere capital. For those belonging to it, the estate is more like their fatherland. It is a constricted sort of nationality.
 
 <!-- context --> *||XVIII, 2|*  In the same way, feudal landed property gives its name to its lord, as does a kingdom to its king. His family history, the history of his house, etc. – all this individualizes the estate for him and makes it literally his house, personifies it. Similarly those working on the estate have not the position *of day-labourers*; but they are in part themselves his property, as are serfs; and in part they are bound to him by ties of respect, allegiance, and duty. His relation to them is therefore directly political, and has likewise a human, intimate side. Customs, character, etc., vary from one estate to another and seem to be one with the land to which they belong; whereas later, it is only his purse and not his character, his individuality, which connects a man with an estate. Finally, the feudal lord does not try to extract the utmost advantage from his land. Rather, he consumes what is there and calmly leaves the worry of producing to the serfs and the tenants. Such is *nobility’s* relationship to landed property, which casts a romantic glory on its lords.
 
-It is necessary that this appearance be abolished – that landed property, the root of private property, be dragged completely into the movement of private property and that it become a commodity; that the rule of the proprietor appear as the undisguised rule of private property, of capital, freed of all political tincture; that the relationship between proprietor and worker be reduced to the economic relationship of exploiter and exploited; that all <!-- context --> *[...]* personal relationship between the proprietor and his property cease, property becoming merely *objective*, material wealth; that the marriage of convenience should take the place of the marriage of honor with the land; and that the land should likewise sink to the status of a commercial value, like man. It is essential that that which is the root of landed property – filthy self-interest – make its appearance, too, in its cynical form. It is essential that the immovable monopoly turn into the mobile and restless monopoly, into competition; and that the idle enjoyment of the products of other people’s blood and sweat turn into a bustling commerce in the same commodity. Lastly, it is essential that in this competition landed property, in the form of capital, manifest its dominion over both the working class and the proprietors themselves who are either being ruined or raised by the laws governing the movement of capital. The medieval proverb *nulle terre sans seigneur* <!-- context --> *[There is no land without its lord. - Ed]* is thereby replaced by that other proverb, *l’argent n’a pas de ma�tre*, <!-- context --> *[Money knows no master. - Ed]* wherein is expressed the complete domination of dead matter over man.
+It is necessary that this appearance be abolished – that landed property, the root of private property, be dragged completely into the movement of private property and that it become a commodity; that the rule of the proprietor appear as the undisguised rule of private property, of capital, freed of all political tincture; that the relationship between proprietor and worker be reduced to the economic relationship of exploiter and exploited; that all <!-- context --> *[...]* personal relationship between the proprietor and his property cease, property becoming merely *objective*, material wealth; that the marriage of convenience should take the place of the marriage of honor with the land; and that the land should likewise sink to the status of a commercial value, like man. It is essential that that which is the root of landed property – filthy self-interest – make its appearance, too, in its cynical form. It is essential that the immovable monopoly turn into the mobile and restless monopoly, into competition; and that the idle enjoyment of the products of other people’s blood and sweat turn into a bustling commerce in the same commodity. Lastly, it is essential that in this competition landed property, in the form of capital, manifest its dominion over both the working class and the proprietors themselves who are either being ruined or raised by the laws governing the movement of capital. The medieval proverb *nulle terre sans seigneur* <!-- context --> *[There is no land without its lord. - Ed]* is thereby replaced by that other proverb, *l’argent n’a pas de maître*, <!-- context --> *[Money knows no master. - Ed]* wherein is expressed the complete domination of dead matter over man.
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <!-- context --> *||XIX, 2|*  <strong>(2)</strong> Concerning the argument of division or non-division of landed property, the following is to be observed.
diff --git a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/second.htm.md b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/second.htm.md
index 292a15a..e8ecea3 100644
--- a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/second.htm.md
+++ b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/second.htm.md
@@ -31,9 +31,9 @@ But liberated *industry*, industry constituted for itself as such, and *liberate
 
 Thus, in the person of the *tenant farmer* the landlord *has* already become in essence a *common* capitalist.  And this must come to pass, too, in actual fact: the capitalist engaged in agriculture – the tenant – must become a landlord, or vice versa.  The tenant's *industrial hucksterism* is the *landowner's *industrial hucksterism, for the being of the former postulates the being of the latter.
 
-But mindful of their contrasting origin, of their line of descent, the landowner knows the capitalist as his insolent, liberated, enriched slave of yesterday and sees himself as a *capitalist* who is threatened by him.  The capitalist knows the landowner as the idle, cruel, egotistical master of yesterday; he knows that he injures him as a capitalist, but that it is to industry that he owes all his present social significance, his possessions and his pleasures; he sees in him a contradiction to *free* industry and to *free* capital – to capital independent of every natural limitation.  This contradiction is extremely bitter, and each side tells the truth about the other.  One need only read the attacks of immovable on movable property and vice versa to obtain a clear picture of their respective worthlessness.  The landowner lays stress on the noble lineage of his property, on feudal souvenirs or reminiscences, the poetry of recollection, on his romantic disposition, on his political importance, etc.; and when he talks economics, it is *only* agriculture that he holds to be productive.  At the same time he depicts his adversary as a sly, hawking, carping, deceitful, greedy, mercenary, rebellious, heartless and spiritless person who is estranged from the community and freely trades it away, who breeds, nourishes and cherishes competition, and with it pauperism, crime, and the dissolution of all social bonds, an extorting, pimping, servile, smooth, flattering, fleecing, dried-up rogue without honour, principles, poetry, substance, or anything else. (Amongst others see the Physiocrat *Bergasse*, whom Camille Desmoulins flays in his journal, *R�volutions de France et de Brabant* [[26]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn26); see von Vincke, Lancizolle, Haller, Leo, Kosegarten and also *Sismondi*.)
+But mindful of their contrasting origin, of their line of descent, the landowner knows the capitalist as his insolent, liberated, enriched slave of yesterday and sees himself as a *capitalist* who is threatened by him.  The capitalist knows the landowner as the idle, cruel, egotistical master of yesterday; he knows that he injures him as a capitalist, but that it is to industry that he owes all his present social significance, his possessions and his pleasures; he sees in him a contradiction to *free* industry and to *free* capital – to capital independent of every natural limitation.  This contradiction is extremely bitter, and each side tells the truth about the other.  One need only read the attacks of immovable on movable property and vice versa to obtain a clear picture of their respective worthlessness.  The landowner lays stress on the noble lineage of his property, on feudal souvenirs or reminiscences, the poetry of recollection, on his romantic disposition, on his political importance, etc.; and when he talks economics, it is *only* agriculture that he holds to be productive.  At the same time he depicts his adversary as a sly, hawking, carping, deceitful, greedy, mercenary, rebellious, heartless and spiritless person who is estranged from the community and freely trades it away, who breeds, nourishes and cherishes competition, and with it pauperism, crime, and the dissolution of all social bonds, an extorting, pimping, servile, smooth, flattering, fleecing, dried-up rogue without honour, principles, poetry, substance, or anything else. (Amongst others see the Physiocrat *Bergasse*, whom Camille Desmoulins flays in his journal, *Révolutions de France et de Brabant* [[26]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn26); see von Vincke, Lancizolle, Haller, Leo, Kosegarten and also *Sismondi*.)
 
-[See on the other hand the garrulous, old-Hegelian theologian Funke who tells, after Herr Leo, with tears in his eyes how a slave had refused, when serfdom was abolished, to cease being the *property of the gentry* [[27]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn27). See also the patriotic visions *of* *Justus M�ser*, which distinguish themselves by the fact that they never for a moment ... abandon the respectable, petty-bourgeois "*home-baked*", *ordinary*, narrow horizon of the philistine, and which nevertheless remain pure fancy.  This contradiction has given them such an appeal to the German heart.- *Note *by Marx.]
+[See on the other hand the garrulous, old-Hegelian theologian Funke who tells, after Herr Leo, with tears in his eyes how a slave had refused, when serfdom was abolished, to cease being the *property of the gentry* [[27]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn27). See also the patriotic visions *of* *Justus Möser*, which distinguish themselves by the fact that they never for a moment ... abandon the respectable, petty-bourgeois "*home-baked*", *ordinary*, narrow horizon of the philistine, and which nevertheless remain pure fancy.  This contradiction has given them such an appeal to the German heart.- *Note *by Marx.]
 
 Movable property, for its part, points to the miracles of industry and progress.  It is the child of modern times, whose legitimate, native-born son it is.  It pities its adversary as a simpleton, *unenlightened* about his own nature (and in this it is completely right), who wants to replace moral capital and free labour by brute, immoral violence and serfdom.  It depicts him as a Don Quixote, who under the guise of *bluntness*, *respectability,* the *general interest*, and *stability*, conceals incapacity for progress, greedy self-indulgence, selfishness, sectional interest, and evil intent.  It declares him an artful *monopolist*; it pours cold water on his reminiscences, his poetry, and his romanticism by a historical and sarcastic enumeration of the baseness, cruelty, degradation, prostitution, infamy, anarchy and rebellion, of which romantic castles were the workshops.
 
diff --git a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/wages.htm.md b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/wages.htm.md
index 32a6602..c88b126 100644
--- a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/wages.htm.md
+++ b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/wages.htm.md
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ But political economy knows the worker only as a working animal – as a beast r
 “Lord Brougham’s call to the workers – ‘Become capitalists’. ... This is the evil that millions are able to earn a bare subsistence for themselves only by strenuous labour which shatters the body and cripples them morally and intellectually; that they are even obliged to consider the misfortune of finding *such* work a piece of good fortune.” (*op. cit.*, p. 60.)
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
-“In order to live, then, the non-owners are obliged to place themselves, directly or indirectly, *at the service* of the owners – to put themselves, that is to say, into a position of dependence upon them.” (Pecqueur, *Th�orie nouvelle d’�conomie soc., etc.*.)
+“In order to live, then, the non-owners are obliged to place themselves, directly or indirectly, *at the service* of the owners – to put themselves, that is to say, into a position of dependence upon them.” (Pecqueur, *Théorie nouvelle d’économie soc., etc.*.)
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
 *Servants – pay: workers – wages; employees – salary* or *emoluments*. (*loc. cit*., pp. 409, 410.)
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ But political economy knows the worker only as a working animal – as a beast r
 “The average life of these unfortunate creatures on the streets, after they have embarked on their career of vice, is about six or seven years. To maintain the number of sixty to seventy thousand prostitutes, there must be in the three kingdoms at least eight to nine thousand women who commit themselves to this abject profession each year, or about twenty-four new victims each day – an average of *one* per hour; and it follows that if the same proportion holds good over the whole surface of the globe, there must constantly be in existence one and a half million unfortunate women of this kind.” (*op. cit.*, p. 229.)
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
-“The numbers of the poverty-stricken grow with their poverty, and at the extreme limit of destitution human beings are crowded together in the greatest numbers contending with each other for the right to suffer.... In 1821 the population of Ireland was 6,801,827. In 1831 it had risen to 7,764,010 – an increase of 14 per cent in ten years. In Leinster, the wealthiest province, the population increased by only 8 per cent; whilst in Connaught, the most poverty-stricken province, the increase reached 21 per cent. (Extract from the *Enquiries Published in England on Ireland*, Vienna, 1840.)” (Buret, *De la mis�re*, etc., t. 1, pp. 36, 37.)
+“The numbers of the poverty-stricken grow with their poverty, and at the extreme limit of destitution human beings are crowded together in the greatest numbers contending with each other for the right to suffer.... In 1821 the population of Ireland was 6,801,827. In 1831 it had risen to 7,764,010 – an increase of 14 per cent in ten years. In Leinster, the wealthiest province, the population increased by only 8 per cent; whilst in Connaught, the most poverty-stricken province, the increase reached 21 per cent. (Extract from the *Enquiries Published in England on Ireland*, Vienna, 1840.)” (Buret, *De la misère*, etc., t. 1, pp. 36, 37.)
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 Political economy considers labour in the abstract as a thing; labour is a commodity. If the price is high, then the commodity is in great demand; if the price is low, then the commodity is in great supply: the price of labour as a commodity must fall lower and lower. (Buret, *op. cit.*) This is made inevitable partly by the competition between capitalist and worker, partly by the competition amongst the workers.
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ Political economy considers labour in the abstract as a thing; labour is a commo
 The large workshops prefer to buy the labour of women and children, because this costs less than that of men. (*op. cit.*)
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
-“The worker is not at all in the position of a free seller vis-�-vis the one who employs him.... The capitalist is always free to employ labour, and the worker is always forced to sell it. The value of labour is completely destroyed if it is not sold every instant. Labour can neither be accumulated nor even be saved, unlike true [commodities].
+“The worker is not at all in the position of a free seller vis-à-vis the one who employs him.... The capitalist is always free to employ labour, and the worker is always forced to sell it. The value of labour is completely destroyed if it is not sold every instant. Labour can neither be accumulated nor even be saved, unlike true [commodities].
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
 “Labour is life, and if life is not each day exchanged for food, it suffers and soon perishes. To claim that human life is a commodity, one must, therefore, admit slavery.” (*op. cit.*, p. 49, 50.)