More progress on manuscripts

1 files changed, 185 insertions, 16 deletions

diff --git a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/_index.md b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/_index.md
index d0dab50..969512e 100644
--- a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/_index.md
+++ b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/_index.md
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ Let us take the three chief conditions in which society can find itself and cons
 
     Eventually, however, this state of growth must sooner or later reach its peak. What is the worker’s position now?
 
-3. “In a country which had acquired that full complement of riches both the wages of labour and the profits of stock would probably be very low [...] the competition for employment would necessarily be so great as to reduce the wages of labour to what was barely sufficient to keep up the number of labourers, and, the country being already fully peopled, that number could never be augmented.” ([Adam Smith](https://marxists.org/glossary/people/s/m.htm#smith-adam), *[Wealth of Nations, Vol. I, p. 84](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm).*)
+3. “In a country which had acquired that full complement of riches both the wages of labour and the profits of stock would probably be very low [...] the competition for employment would necessarily be so great as to reduce the wages of labour to what was barely sufficient to keep up the number of labourers, and, the country being already fully peopled, that number could never be augmented.” [[Adam Smith](https://marxists.org/glossary/people/s/m.htm#smith-adam), *[Wealth of Nations, Vol. I, p. 84](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm).*]
 
 The surplus would have to die.
 
@@ -205,11 +205,186 @@ Up to the present, industry has been in a state of war, a war of conquest:
 
 > “We are convinced ... as are the commissioners charged with the inquiry into the condition of the hand-loom weavers, that the large industrial towns would in a short time lose their population of workers if they were not all the time receiving from the neighbouring rural areas constant recruitments of healthy men, a constant flow of fresh blood.” (*op. cit.*, p. 362.)
 
-<!-- class: next -->
-[Preface and Table of Contents](#TODO;preface.htm) | [Profit of Capital](#TODO;capital.htm)
+## Profit of Capital
 
+### 1. Capital
+
+*||I, 2|*  What is the basis of *capital*, that is, of private property in the products of other men's labour?
+
+> “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*.) [^capital9]
+
+How does one become a proprietor of productive stock? How does one become owner of the products created by means of this stock?
+
+By virtue of *positive law*. (Say, t. II, p. 4.)
+
+What does one acquire with capital, with the inheritance of a large fortune, for instance?
+
+> “The person who [either acquires, or] succeeds to a great fortune, does not necessarily [acquire or] succeed to any political power [.... ] The power which that possession immediately and directly conveys to him, is the *power of purchasing*; a certain command over all the labour, or over all the produce of labour, which is then in the market.” ([Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, Vol. I, pp. 26-27](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch05.htm).) [^capital10]
+
+Capital is thus the *governing power* over labour and its products. The capitalist possesses this power, not on account of his personal or human qualities, but inasmuch as he is an *owner* of capital. His power is the *purchasing* power of his capital, which nothing can withstand.
+
+Later we shall see first how the capitalist, by means of capital, exercises his governing power over labour, then, however, we shall see the governing power of capital over the capitalist himself.
+
+What is capital?
+
+> “A certain quantity of *labour stocked* and stored up to be employed.” (Adam Smith, *op. cit.*, Vol. I, p. 295.)
+
+Capital is *stored-up labour*.
+
+> (2) *Fonds*, or stock, is any accumulation of products of the soil or of manufacture. Stock is called *capital* only when it yields to its owner a revenue or profit. (Adam Smith, *op. cit.*, p. 243)
+
+### 2. The Profit of Capital
+
+> The *profit* or *gain of capital* is altogether different from the *wages of labour*. This difference is manifested in two ways: in the first place, the profits of capital are regulated altogether by the value of the capital employed, although the labour of inspection and direction associated with different capitals may be the same. Moreover in large works the whole of this labour is committed to some principal clerk, whose salary bears no regular proportion to the *||II, 2|* capital of which he oversees the management. And although the labour of the proprietor is here reduced almost to nothing, he still demands profits in proportion to his capital. (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 43](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch06.htm)) [^capital11]
+
+Why does the capitalist demand this proportion between profit and capital?
+
+> He would have no *interest* in employing the workers, unless he expected from the sale of their work something more than is necessary to replace the stock advanced by him as wages and he would have no *interest* to employ a great stock rather than a small one, unless his profits were to bear some proportion to the extent of his stock. (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 42](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch06.htm))
+
+The capitalist thus makes a profit, first, on the wages, and secondly on the raw materials advanced by him.
+
+What proportion, then, does profit bear to capital?
+
+> If it is already difficult to determine the usual average level of wages at a particular place and at a particular time, it is even more difficult to determine the profit on capitals. A change in the price of the commodities in which the capitalist deals, the good or bad fortune of his rivals and customers, a thousand other accidents to which commodities are exposed both in transit and in the warehouses – all produce a daily, almost hourly variation in profit. (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 78-79](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm).)
+
+But though it is impossible to determine with precision what are the profits on capitals, some notion may be formed of them from the *interest of money*. Wherever a great deal can be made by the use of money, a great deal will be given for the use of it; wherever little can be made by it, little will be given. (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 79](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm).)
+
+The proportion which the usual market rate of interest ought to bear to the rate of clear profit, necessarily varies as profit rises or falls. Double interest is in Great Britain reckoned what the merchants call a good, moderate, reasonable profit, terms which mean no more than a *common and usual profit*. (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 87](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm).)
+
+What is the *lowest* rate of profit? And what the *highest?*
+
+> The *lowest* rate of ordinary profit on capital must always be *something more* than what is sufficient to compensate the occasional losses to which every employment of stock is exposed. It is this surplus only which is neat or clear profit. The same holds for the lowest rate of interest. (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 86](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm))
+
+*||III, 2|*  The *highest* rate to which ordinary profits can rise is that which in the price of the greater part of commodities eats *up the whole of the* rent *of the* land, and reduces the wages of labour contained in the commodity supplied to the *lowest rate,* the bare subsistence of the labourer during his work. The worker must always be fed in some way or other while he is required to work; rent can disappear entirely. For example: the servants of the East India Company in Bengal. (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 86-87](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm))
+
+Besides all the advantages of limited competition which the capitalist may *exploit* in this case, he can keep the market price above the natural price by quite decorous means.
+
+> *For one thing*, by keeping *secrets in trade* if the market is at a great distance from those who supply it, that is, by concealing a price change, its rise above the natural level. This concealment has the effect that other capitalists do not follow him in investing their capital in this branch of industry or trade.
+
+*Then* again by keeping *secrets in manufacture*, which enable the capitalist to reduce the costs of production and supply his commodity at the same or even at lower prices than his competitors while obtaining a higher profit. (Deceiving by keeping secrets is not immoral? Dealings on the Stock Exchange.) *Furthermore*, where production is restricted to a particular locality (as in the case of a rare wine), and where the *effective demand* can never be satisfied. *Finally*, through *monopolies* exercised by individuals or companies. Monopoly price is the highest possible. (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 53-54](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch07.htm))
+
+Other fortuitous causes which can raise the profit on capital:
+
+> The acquisition of new territories, or of new branches of trade, often increases the profit on capital even in a wealthy country, because they withdraw some capital from the old branches of trade, reduce competition, and cause the market to be supplied with fewer commodities, the prices of which then rise: those who deal in these commodities can then afford to borrow at a higher rate of interest. (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 83](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm))
+
+The more a commodity comes to be manufactured – the more it becomes an object of manufacture – the greater becomes that part of the price which resolves itself into wages and profit in proportion to that which resolves itself into rent. In the progress of the manufacture of a commodity, not only the number of profits increases, but every subsequent profit is greater than the foregoing; because the capital from which <!-- context --> *||IV, 2|* it is derived must always be greater. The capital which employs the weavers, for example, must always be greater than that which employs the spinners; because it not only replaces that capital with its profits, but pays, besides, the wages of weavers; and the profits must always bear some proportion to the capital. ([op. cit., Vol. I, p. 45](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch06.htm))
+
+Thus the advance made by human labour in converting the product of nature into the manufactured product of nature increases, not the wages of labour, but in part the number of profitable capital investments, and in part the size of every subsequent capital in comparison with the foregoing.
+
+More about the advantages which the capitalist derives from the division of labour, later.
+
+He profits doubly – first, by the division of labour; and secondly, in general, by the advance which human labour makes on the natural product. The greater the human share in a commodity, the greater the profit of dead capital.
+
+> In one and the same society the average rates of profit on capital are much more nearly on the same level than the wages of the different sorts of labour. (*op. cit.*, Vol. I, p. 100.) In the different employments of capital, the ordinary rate of profit varies with the certainty or uncertainty of the returns.
+
+The ordinary profit of stock, though it rises with the risk, does not always seem to rise in proportion to it. (*op. cit.*, Vol. I, pp. 99-100.)
+
+It goes without saying that profits also rise if the means of circulation become less expensive or easier available (e.g., paper money).
+
+### 3. The Rule of Capital over Labour and the Motives of the Capitalist
+
+> The consideration of his own private profit is the sole motive which determines the owner of any capital to employ it either in agriculture, in manufactures, or in some particular branch of the wholesale or retail trade. The different quantities of *productive labour* which it may put into motion, *||V, 2|* and the different values which it may add to the annual produce of the land and labour of his country, according as it is employed in one or other of those different ways, never enter into his thoughts. (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 335](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/ch05.htm).)
+
+The most useful employment of capital for the capitalist is that which, risks being equal, yields him the greatest profit. This employment is not always the most useful for society; the most useful employment is that which utilises the productive powers of nature. (Say, t. II, pp. 130-31.)
+
+The plans and speculations of the employers of capitals regulate and direct all the most important operations of labour, and *profit* is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the decline of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this class, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two.... The particular interest of the dealers in any particular branch of trade or manufactures is always in some respects different from, and frequently even in sharp opposition to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the sellers' competition is always the interest of the dealer.... This is a class of people whose interest is never exactly the same as that of society, a class of people who have generally an interest to deceive and to oppress the public. (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 231-32](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch11c-3.htm))
+
+### 4. The Accumulation of Capitals and the Competition among the Capitalists
+
+> The *increase of stock,* which raises wages, tends to lower the capitalists' profit, because of the competition amongst the capitalists. (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 78](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm).)
+
+If, for example, the capital which is necessary for the grocery trade of a particular town “is divided between two different grocers, their competition will tend to make both of them sell cheaper than if it were in the hands of one only; and if it were divided among twenty, *||VI, 2|* their competition would be just so much the greater, and the chance of their combining together, in order to raise the price, just so much the less.” (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 322](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/ch05.htm).)
+
+Since we already know that monopoly prices are as high as possible, since the interest of the capitalists, even from the point of view commonly held by political economists, stands in hostile opposition to society, and since a rise of profit operates like compound interest on the price of the commodity (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 87-88](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm)), it follows that the sole defence against the capitalists is *competition*, which according to the evidence of political economy acts beneficently by both raising wages and lowering the prices of commodities to the advantage of the consuming public.
+
+But competition is only possible if capital multiplies, and is held in many hands. The formation of many capital investments is only possible as a result of multilateral accumulation, since capital comes into being only by accumulation; and multilateral accumulation necessarily turns into unilateral accumulation. Competition among capitalists increases the accumulation of capital. Accumulation, where private property prevails, is the *concentration* of capital in the hands of a few, it is in general an inevitable consequence if capital is left to follow its natural course, and it is precisely through competition that the way is cleared for this natural disposition of capital.
+
+We have been told that the profit on capital is in proportion to the size of the capital. A large capital therefore accumulates more quickly than a small capital in proportion to its size, even if we disregard for the time being deliberate competition. *|VI||*
+
+*||VIII, 2|*  [^capital12] Accordingly, the accumulation of large capital proceeds much more rapidly than that of smaller capital, quite irrespective of competition. But let us follow this process further.
+
+With the increase of capital the profit on capital diminishes, because of competition. The first to suffer, therefore, is the small capitalist.
+
+The increase of capitals and a large number of capital investments presuppose, further, a condition of advancing wealth in the country.
+
+> “In a country which had acquired its full complement of riches [ ... ]the ordinary rate of clear profit would be very small, so the usual [market] rate of interest which could be afforded out of it would be so low as to render it impossible for any but the very wealthiest people to live upon the interest of their money. All people of [...] middling fortunes would be obliged to superintend themselves the employment of their own stocks. It would be necessary that almost every man should be a man of business, or engage in some sort of trade.” (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 86](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm))
+
+This is the situation most dear to the heart of political economy.
+
+> “The proportion between capital and revenue, therefore, seems everywhere to regulate the proportion between industry and idleness; wherever capital predominates, industry prevails; wherever revenue, idleness.” (Adam Smith, *op. cit.*, Vol. I, p. 301.)
+
+What about the employment of capital, then, in this condition of increased competition?
+
+> “As stock increases, the quantity of stock to be lent at interest grows gradually greater and greater. As the quantity of stock to be lent at interest increases, the interest ... diminishes (i) because the market price of things commonly diminishes as their quantity increases. ... and (ii) because with *the increase of capitals* in any country, “it becomes gradually more and more difficult to find within the country a profitable method of employing any new capital. There arises in consequence a competition between different capitals, the owner of one endeavouring to get possession of that employment which is occupied by another. But upon most occasions he can hope to jostle that other out of this employment by no other means but by dealing upon more reasonable terms. He must not only sell what he deals in somewhat cheaper, but in order to get it to sell, he must sometimes, too, buy it dearer. The demand for productive labour, by the increase of the funds which are destined for maintaining it, grows every day greater and greater. Labourers easily find employment, <!-- context --> *|IX, 2|* but the owners of capitals find it difficult to get labourers to employ. Their competition raises the wages of labour and sinks the profits of stock.” (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 316](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/ch04.htm).)
+
+Thus the small capitalist has the choice: (1) either to consume his capital, since he can no longer live on the interest – and thus cease to be a capitalist; or (2) to set up a business himself, sell his commodity cheaper, buy dearer than the wealthier capitalist, and pay higher wages – thus ruining himself, the market price being already very low as a result of the intense competition presupposed. If, however, the big capitalist wants to squeeze out the smaller capitalist, he has all the advantages over him which the capitalist has as a capitalist over the worker. The larger size of his capital compensates him for the smaller profits, and he can even bear temporary losses until the smaller capitalist is ruined and he finds himself freed from this competition. In this way, he accumulates the small capitalist's profits.
+
+Furthermore: the big capitalist always buys cheaper than the small one, because he buys bigger quantities. He can therefore well afford to sell cheaper.
+
+But if a fall in the rate of interest turns the middle capitalists from rentiers into businessmen, the increase in business capital and the resulting smaller profit produce conversely a fall in the rate of interest.
+
+> “When the profits which can be made by the use of a capital are diminished the price which can be paid for the use of it [...] must necessarily be diminished with them.” (Adam Smith, [loc. cit., Vol. I, p. 316](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/ch04.htm))
+
+> “As riches, improvement, and population have increased, interest has declined,” and consequently the profits of capitalists, “after these [profits] are diminished, stock may not only continue to increase, but to increase much faster than before. [...] A great stock though with small profits, generally increases faster than a small stock with great profits. Money, says the proverb, makes money.” ([op. cit., Vol. I, p. 83](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm).)
+
+When, therefore, this large capital is opposed by small capitals with small profits, as it is under the presupposed condition of intense competition, it crushes them completely.
+
+The necessary result of this competition is a general deterioration of commodities, adulteration, fake production and universal poisoning, evident in large towns.
+
+*||X, 2|*  An important circumstance in the competition of large and small capital is, furthermore, the relation between *fixed capital* and *circulating capital*.
+
+> *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](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/ch01.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  *[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](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/ch02.htm).)
+
+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*. *[Note by Marx in French]*
+
+It is generally true that the accumulation of large capital is also *accompanied* by a proportional concentration and simplification of fixed capital, as compared to the smaller capitalists. The big capitalist introduces for himself some kind of organisation of the instruments of labour. *||XI, 2|*
+
+> “Similarly, in the sphere of industry every manufactory and mill is already a comprehensive combination of a large material fortune with numerous and varied intellectual capacities and technical skills serving the common purpose of production.... Where legislation preserves landed property in large units, the surplus of a growing population flocks into trades, and it is therefore as in Great Britain in the field of industry, principally, that proletarians aggregate in great numbers. Where, however, the law permits the continuous division of the land, the number of small. debt-encumbered proprietors increases, as in France; and the continuing process of fragmentation throws them into the class of the needy and the discontented. When eventually this fragmentation and indebtedness reaches a higher degree still, big landed property once more swallows up small property, just as large-scale industry destroys small industry. And as larger estates are formed again, large numbers of  propertyless workers not required for the cultivation of the soil are again driven into industry.” (Schulz, *Bewegung der Production*, pp. 58, 59.)
+
+> “Commodities of the same kind change in character as a result of changes in the method of production, and especially as a result of the use of machinery. Only by the exclusion of human power has it become possible to spin from a pound of cotton worth 3 shillings and 8 pence 350 hanks of a total length of 167 English miles (i.e., 36 German miles), and of a commercial value of 25 guineas.” (*op. cit.*, p. 62.)
+
+> “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. *|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.)
+
+> “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*.)
+
+> “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.*)
+
+> “Supposing that the daily labour of a worker brings him on the average 400 francs a year and that this sum suffices for every adult to live some sort of crude life, then any proprietor receiving 2,000 francs in interest or rent, from a farm, a house, etc., compels indirectly five men to work for him; an income of 100,000 francs represents the labour of 250 men, and that of 1,000,000 francs the labour of 2,500 individuals (hence, 300 million [Louis Philippe] therefore the labour of 750,000 workers).” (*op. cit.*, pp. 412-13.)
+
+“The human law has given owners the right to use and to abuse – that is to say, the right to do what they will with the materials of labour.... They are in no way obliged by law to provide work for the propertyless when required and at all times, or to pay them always an adequate wage, etc. (*loc. cit.*, p. 413.) “Complete freedom concerning the nature, the quantity, the quality and the expediency of production; concerning the use and the disposal of wealth; and full command over the materials of all labour. Everyone is free to exchange what belongs to him as he thinks fit, without considering anything other than his own interest as an individual” (*op. cit.* p. 413.)
+
+> “Competition is merely the expression of the freedom to exchange, which itself is the immediate and logical consequence of the individual’s right to use and abuse all the instruments of production. The right to use and abuse, freedom of exchange, and arbitrary competition – these three economic moments, which form one unit, entail the following consequences; each produces what he wishes, as he wishes, when he wishes, where he wishes, produces well or produces badly, produces too much or not enough, too soon or too late, at too high a price or too low a price; none knows whether he will sell, to whom he will sell, how he will sell, when he will sell, where he will sell. And it is the same with regard to purchases. <!-- context --> *||XIII, 2|* The producer is ignorant of needs and resources, of demand and supply. He sells when he wishes, when he can, where he wishes, to whom he wishes, at the price he wishes. And he buys in the same way. In all this he is ever the plaything of chance, the slave of the law of the strongest, of the least harassed, of the richest.... Whilst at one place there is scarcity, at another there is glut and waste. Whilst one producer sells a lot or at a very high price, and at an enormous profit, the other sells nothing or sells at a loss.... The supply does not know the demand, and the demand does not know the supply. You produce, trusting to a taste, a fashion, which prevails amongst the consuming public. But by the time you are ready to deliver the commodity, the whim has already passed and has settled on some other kind of product.... The inevitable consequences: bankruptcies occurring constantly and universally; miscalculations, sudden ruin and unexpected fortunes, commercial crises, stoppages, periodic gluts or shortages; instability and depreciation of wages and profits, the loss or enormous waste of wealth, time and effort in the arena of fierce competition.” (*op. cit.*, pp. 414-16.)
+
+*[Ricardo](https://marxists.org/glossary/people/r/i.htm#ricardo-david)* in his book [**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:
+
+> “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.” [^capital13]
+
+> “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.)
+
+> “The inhabitants of many different parts of Great Britain have not capital sufficient to improve and cultivate all their lands. The wool of the southern counties of Scotland is, a great part of it, after a long land carriage through very bad roads, manufactured in Yorkshire, for want of capital to manufacture it at home. There are many little manufacturing towns in Great Britain, of which the inhabitants have not capital sufficient to transport the produce of their own industry to those distant markets where there is demand and consumption for it. If there are any merchants among them, <!-- context --> *||XIV, 2|* they are properly only the agents of wealthier merchants who reside in some of the greater commercial cities.” (Adam Smith, [Wealth of Nations, Vol. I, pp. 326-27](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/ch05.htm).)
+
+> “The annual produce of the land and labour of any nation can be increased in its value by no other means but by increasing either *the number of its productive labourers*, or the *productive power of those labourers* who had before been employed.... In either case an additional capital is almost always required.”  (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 306-07](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/ch03.htm).)
+
+> “As the *accumulation* of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour, so labour can be more and more subdivided in proportion only as stock is previously more and more accumulated. The quantity of materials which the same number of people can work up, increases in a great proportion as labour comes to be more and more subdivided; and as the operations of each workman are gradually reduced to a greater degree of simplicity, a variety of new machines come to be invented for facilitating and abridging those operations. As the division of labour advances, therefore, in order to give constant employment to an equal number of workmen, an equal stock of provisions, and a greater stock of materials and tools than what would have been necessary in a ruder state of things, must be accumulated beforehand. But the number of workmen in every branch of business generally increases with the division of labour in that branch, or rather it is the increase of their number which enables them to class and subdivide themselves in this manner.” (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 241-42](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/intro.htm).)
+
+> “As the accumulation of stock is previously necessary for carrying on this great improvement in the productive powers of labour, so that accumulation naturally leads to this improvement. The person who employs his stock in maintaining labour, necessarily wishes to employ it in such a manner as to produce as great a quantity of work as possible. He endeavours, therefore, both to make among his workmen the most proper distribution of employment, and to furnish them with the best machines which he can either invent or afford to purchase [...]. His abilities in both these respects <!-- context --> *|XV, 2|* are generally in proportion to the extent of his stock, or to the number of people whom it can employ. The quantity of industry, therefore, not only increases in every country with the increase *of the stock* which employs it, but, in consequence of that increase, the same quantity of industry produces a much greater quantity of work.” (Adam Smith, [op. cit., Vol. I, p. 242](https://marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/intro.htm).)
+
+Hence *over-production*.
+
+> “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.)
+
+The enormous profit which the landlords of houses make out of poverty. House rent stands in inverse proportion to industrial poverty.
+
+So does the interest obtained from the vices of the ruined proletarians. (Prostitution, drunkenness, pawnbroking.)
+
+The accumulation of capital increases and the competition between capitalists decreases, when capital and landed property are united in the same hand, also when capital is enabled by its size to combine different branches of production.
+
+Indifference towards men. Smith's twenty lottery-tickets. [^capital14]
+
+Say's net and gross revenue. *|XVI||*
 
-## Footnotes
 
 [^preface1]:
     The *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* is the first work in which Marx tried to systematically elaborate problems of political economy from the standpoint of his maturing dialectical-materialist and communist views and also to synthesise the results of his critical review of prevailing philosophic and economic theories. Apparently, Marx began to write it in order to clarify the problems for himself. But in the process of working on it he conceived the idea of publishing a work analysing the economic system of bourgeois society in his time and its ideological trends. Towards the end of his stay in Paris, on February 1, 1845, Marx signed a contract with Carl Leske, a Darmstadt publisher, concerning the publication of his work entitled *A Critique of Politics and of Political Economy.* It was to be based on his *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* and perhaps also on his earlier manuscript *Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law.* This plan did not materialise in the 1840s because Marx was busy writing other works and, to some extent, because the contract with the publisher was cancelled in September 1846, the latter being afraid to have transactions with such a revolutionary-minded author. However, in the early 1850s Marx returned to the idea of writing a book on economics. Thus, the manuscripts of 1844 are connected with the conception of a plan which led many years later to the writing of *Capital*.
@@ -245,23 +420,17 @@ Up to the present, industry has been in a state of war, a war of conquest:
 
 [^wagesfn08]: 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 Eugéne Buret, which Marx gives in French in this work, the excerpts from J. B. Say’s book are given in his German translation.
+[^capital9]: 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).
+[^capital10]: 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).
 
-<!-- class: fst -->
-<span class="term">11.</span> The text published in small type here and below is not an exact quotation from Smith but a summary of the corresponding passages from his work. Such passages are subsequently given in small type but without quotation marks.
+[^capital11]: The text published in small type here and below is not an exact quotation from Smith but a summary of the corresponding passages from his work. Such passages are subsequently given in small type but without quotation marks.
 
-<!-- class: fst -->
-<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).
+[^capital12]:  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’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.
+[^capital13]: 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.)
+[^capital14]: 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.)
 
 <!-- class: fst -->
 <span class="term">15.</span> See Note 12.