Improved conversion for draft manuscript portions

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/rent.htm.md b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/rent.htm.md
index d22ffff..2b89c16 100644
--- a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/rent.htm.md
+++ b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/rent.htm.md
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ Let us see now what the relations are between landlord and tenant.
 “Such parts only of the produce of land can commonly be brought to market of which the ordinary price is sufficient to replace the stock which must be employed in bringing them thither, together with its ordinary profits. If the ordinary price is more than this, the surplus part of it will naturally go to the rent of the land. If it is not more, though the commodity may be brought to market, it can afford no rent to the landlord. Whether the price is or is not more depends upon the demand.” (Adam Smith, *op. cit.*, Vol. I, p. 132.)
 
 <!-- class: indentb -->
-“Rent, it is to be observed, therefore, enters into the composition of the *price of commodities *in a *different way* from wages and profit. *High or low wages and profit* are the *causes* of high or low price; high or low rent is the *effect *of it.” (Adam Smith, [loc. cit., Vol. I, p. 132](#TODO;../../../../../reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch11.htm))
+“Rent, it is to be observed, therefore, enters into the composition of the *price of commodities* in a *different way* from wages and profit. *High or low wages and profit* are the *causes* of high or low price; high or low rent is the *effect* of it.” (Adam Smith, [loc. cit., Vol. I, p. 132](#TODO;../../../../../reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch11.htm))
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 *Food* belongs to the *products* which always yield a *rent*.
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ It is necessary that this appearance be abolished – that landed property, the
 <!-- 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.
 
-The *division of landed property *negates the *large-scale monopoly* of property in land – abolishes it; but only by *generalizing* this monopoly. It does not abolish the source of monopoly, private property. It attacks the existing form, but not the essence, of monopoly. The consequence is that it falls victim to the laws of private property. For the division of landed property corresponds to the movement of competition in the sphere of industry. In addition to the economic disadvantages of such a dividing-up of the instruments of labour, and the dispersal of labour (to be clearly distinguished from the division of labour: in separated labour the work is not shared out amongst many, but each carries on the same work by himself, it is a multiplication of the same work), this division [of land], like that competition [in industry], necessarily turns again into accumulation.
+The *division of landed property* negates the *large-scale monopoly* of property in land – abolishes it; but only by *generalizing* this monopoly. It does not abolish the source of monopoly, private property. It attacks the existing form, but not the essence, of monopoly. The consequence is that it falls victim to the laws of private property. For the division of landed property corresponds to the movement of competition in the sphere of industry. In addition to the economic disadvantages of such a dividing-up of the instruments of labour, and the dispersal of labour (to be clearly distinguished from the division of labour: in separated labour the work is not shared out amongst many, but each carries on the same work by himself, it is a multiplication of the same work), this division [of land], like that competition [in industry], necessarily turns again into accumulation.
 
 Therefore, where the division of landed property takes place, there remains nothing for it but to return to monopoly in a still more malignant form, or to negate, to abolish the division of landed property itself. To do that, however, is not to return to feudal ownership, but to abolish private property in the soil altogether. The first abolition of monopoly is always its generalization, the broadening of its existence. The abolition of monopoly, once it has come to exist in its utmost breadth and inclusiveness, is its total annihilation. Association, applied to land, shares the economic advantage of large-scale landed property, and first brings to realization the original tendency inherent in [land] division, namely, equality. In the same way association also re-establishes, now on a rational basis, no longer mediated by serfdom, overlordship and the silly mysticism of property, the intimate ties of man with the earth, since the earth ceases to be an object of huckstering, and through free labour and free enjoyment becomes once more a true personal property of man. A great advantage of the division of landed property is that the masses, which can no longer resign themselves to servitude, perish through property in a different way than in industry.