diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/_index.md | 56 |
1 files changed, 26 insertions, 30 deletions
diff --git a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/_index.md b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/_index.md index 1f621ca..d0dab50 100644 --- a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/_index.md +++ b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/_index.md @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ It is hardly necessary to assure the reader conversant with political economy th It goes without saying that besides the French and English socialists I have also used German socialist works. The only original German works of substance in this science, however – other than [Weitling’s](https://marxists.org/glossary/people/w/e.htm#weitling-wilhelm) writings – are the essays by *Hess* published in *Einundzwanzig Bogen* [^preface3] *and Umrisse zu einer Kritik der Nationalökonomie* by Engels in the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher,* where also the basic elements of this work have been indicated by me in a very general way. -(Besides being indebted to these authors who have given critical attention to political economy, positive criticism as a whole – and therefore also German positive criticism of political economy – owes its true foundation to the discoveries of *[Feuerbach](https://marxists.org/glossary/people/f/e.htm#feuerbach-ludwig)*, against whose *Philosophie der Zukunft* and *Thesen zur Reform der Philosophie *in the *Anekdota,* despite the tacit use that is made of them, the petty envy of some and the veritable wrath of others seem to have instigated a regular conspiracy of *silence.* +(Besides being indebted to these authors who have given critical attention to political economy, positive criticism as a whole – and therefore also German positive criticism of political economy – owes its true foundation to the discoveries of *[Feuerbach](https://marxists.org/glossary/people/f/e.htm#feuerbach-ludwig)*, against whose *Philosophie der Zukunft* and *Thesen zur Reform der Philosophie* in the *Anekdota,* despite the tacit use that is made of them, the petty envy of some and the veritable wrath of others seem to have instigated a regular conspiracy of *silence.* It is only with *Feuerbach* that *positive,* humanistic and naturalistic criticism begins. The less noise they make, the more certain, profound, extensive, and enduring is the effect of *Feuerbach’s* writings, the only writings since [Hegel’s](https://marxists.org/glossary/people/h/e.htm#hegel) *Phänomenologie* and *Logik* to contain a real theoretical revolution. @@ -33,11 +33,9 @@ In contrast to the *critical theologians* of our day, I have deemed the concludi (He does this either by constantly repeating assurances concerning the *purity* of his own criticism, or by trying to make it seem as though all that was left for criticism to deal with now was some other limited form of criticism outside itself – say eighteenth-century criticism – and also the limitations of the *masses,* in order to divert the observer’s attention as well as his own from the *necessary* task of settling accounts between *criticism* and its point of origin – Hegelian *dialectic* and German philosophy as a whole – that is, from this necessary raising of modern criticism above its own limitation and crudity. Eventually, however, whenever discoveries (such as *Feuerbach’s*) are made regarding the nature of his own philosophic presuppositions, the critical theologian partly makes it appear as if *he* were the one who had accomplished this, producing that appearance by taking the results of these discoveries and, without being able to develop them, hurling them in the form of *catch-phrases* at writers still caught in the confines of philosophy. He partly even manages to acquire a sense of his own superiority to such discoveries by asserting in a mysterious way and in a veiled, malicious and skeptical fashion elements of the Hegelian *dialectic* which he still finds lacking in the criticism of that dialectic (which have not yet been critically served up to him for his use) against such criticism – not having tried to bring such elements into their proper relation or having been capable of doing so, asserting, say, the category of mediating proof against the category of positive, self-originating truth, (...) in a way *peculiar* to Hegelian dialectic. For to the theological critic it seems quite natural that everything has to be *done* by philosophy, so that he can *chatter away* about purity, resoluteness, and quite critical criticism; and he fancies himself the true *conqueror of philosophy* whenever he happens to *feel* some element [^preface4] in Hegel to be lacking in Feuerbach – for however much he practises the spiritual idolatry of “*self-consciousness*” and “mind” the theological critic does not get beyond feeling to consciousness.) -On close inspection *theological *criticism – genuinely progressive though it was at the inception of the movement – is seen in the final analysis to be nothing but the culmination and consequence of the old *philosophical, *and especially the *Hegelian, transcendentalism, *twisted into a *theological caricature. *This interesting example of historical justice, which now assigns to theology, ever philosophy’s spot of infection, the further role of portraying in itself the negative dissolution of philosophy, i.e., the process of its decay – this historical nemesis I shall demonstrate on another occasion. [^preface5] - -(How far, on the other hand, *Feuerbach’s *discoveries about the nature of philosophy still, for their *proof *at least, called for a critical discussion of philosophical dialectic will be seen from my exposition itself.) *||LX|* - +On close inspection *theological* criticism – genuinely progressive though it was at the inception of the movement – is seen in the final analysis to be nothing but the culmination and consequence of the old *philosophical,* and especially the *Hegelian, transcendentalism,* twisted into a *theological caricature.* This interesting example of historical justice, which now assigns to theology, ever philosophy’s spot of infection, the further role of portraying in itself the negative dissolution of philosophy, i.e., the process of its decay – this historical nemesis I shall demonstrate on another occasion. [^preface5] +(How far, on the other hand, *Feuerbach’s* discoveries about the nature of philosophy still, for their *proof* at least, called for a critical discussion of philosophical dialectic will be seen from my exposition itself.) *||LX|* ## First Manuscript @@ -127,7 +125,7 @@ In theory, rent of land and profit on capital are *deductions* suffered by wages When society is in a state of decline, the worker suffers most severely. The specific severity of his burden he owes to his position as a worker, but the burden as such to the position of society. -But when society is in a state of progress, the ruin and impoverishment of the worker is the product of his labour and of the wealth produced by him. The misery results, therefore, from the *essence *of present-day labour itself. +But when society is in a state of progress, the ruin and impoverishment of the worker is the product of his labour and of the wealth produced by him. The misery results, therefore, from the *essence* of present-day labour itself. Society in a state of maximum wealth – an ideal, but one which is approximately attained, and which at least is the aim of political economy as of civil society – means for the workers *static misery.* @@ -214,7 +212,7 @@ Up to the present, industry has been in a state of war, a war of conquest: ## 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*. + 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*. The *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts* is an unfinished work and in part a rough draft. A considerable part of the text has not been preserved. What remains comprises three manuscripts, each of which has its own pagination (in Roman figures). The first manuscript contains 27 pages, of which pages I-XII and XVII-XXVII are divided by two vertical lines into three columns supplied with headings written in beforehand: “Wages of Labour,” “Profit of Capital” (this section has also subheadings supplied by the author) and “Rent of Land.” It is difficult to tell the order in which Marx filled these columns. All the three columns on p. VII contain the text relating to the section “Wages of Labour.” Pages XIII to XVI are divided into two columns and contain texts of the sections “Wages of Labour” (pp. XIII-XV), “Profit of Capital” (pp. XIII-XVI) and “Rent of Land” (p. XVI). On pages XVII to XXI, only the column headed “Rent of Land” is filled in. From page XXII to page XXVII, on which the first manuscript breaks off, Marx wrote across the three columns disregarding the headings. The text of these pages is published as a separate section entitled by the editors according to its content “Estranged Labour.” @@ -226,30 +224,29 @@ Up to the present, industry has been in a state of war, a war of conquest: In order to give the reader a better visual idea of the structure of the work, the text reproduces in vertical lines the Roman numbers of the sheets of the manuscripts, and the Arabic numbers of the columns in the first manuscript. The notes indicate where the text has been rearranged. Passages crossed out by Marx with a vertical line are enclosed in pointed brackets; separate words or phrases crossed out by the author are given in footnotes only when they supplement the text. The general title and the headings of the various parts of the manuscripts enclosed in square brackets are supplied by the editors on the basis of the author’s formulations. In some places the text has been broken up into paragraphs by the editors. Quotations from the French sources cited by Marx in French or in his own translation into German, are given in English in both cases and the French texts as quoted by Marx are given in the footnotes. Here and elsewhere Marx’s rendering of the quotations or free translation is given in small type but without quotation marks. Emphasis in quotations, belonging, as a rule, to Marx, as well as that of the quoted authors, is indicated everywhere by italics. - The *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* was first published by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism in Moscow in the language of the original: Marx/Engels, *Gesamtausgabe, Abt. *1, Bd. 3, 1932. + The *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* was first published by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism in Moscow in the language of the original: Marx/Engels, *Gesamtausgabe, Abt.* 1, Bd. 3, 1932. 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 --> -[^preface2]: 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).* +[^preface2]: 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).* [^preface3]: 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* (*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’.” + 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’.” [^preface4]: 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. -[^preface5]: Shortly after writing this Preface Marx fulfilled his intention in *The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism, *written in collaboration with Engels (see Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Collected Works,* Vol. 4). +[^preface5]: Shortly after writing this Preface Marx fulfilled his intention in *The Holy Family, or Critique of Critical Criticism,* written in collaboration with Engels (see Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Collected Works,* Vol. 4). -[^wagesfn06]: 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. +[^wagesfn06]: 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. [^wagesfn07]: Marx uses the German term “Nationalökonomie” to denote both the economic system in the sense of science or theory, and the economic system itself. [^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 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). @@ -261,7 +258,7 @@ Up to the present, industry has been in a state of war, a war of conquest: <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.) @@ -289,7 +286,7 @@ 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. @@ -307,25 +304,25 @@ The struggle between the industrial bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy over <span class="term">26.</span> This refers to *Revolutions de France et de Brabant, par Camille Desmoulins. Second Trimestre, contenant mars, avril et mai, Paris, l’an 1ier*, 1790, N. 16, p. 139 sq.; N. 23, p. 425 sqq.; N. 26, p. 580 sqq. <!-- class: fst --> -<span class="term">27.</span> This refers to Georg Ludwig Wilhelm Funke, *Die aus der unbeschrdnklen Theilbarkeit des Grundeigenthums hervorgehenden Nachtheile, Hamburg und Gotha*, 1839, p. 56, in which there is a reference to Heinrich Leo, *Studien und Skizzen zu einer Vaturlehre des Slaates, *Halle, 1833, p. 102. +<span class="term">27.</span> This refers to Georg Ludwig Wilhelm Funke, *Die aus der unbeschrdnklen Theilbarkeit des Grundeigenthums hervorgehenden Nachtheile, Hamburg und Gotha*, 1839, p. 56, in which there is a reference to Heinrich Leo, *Studien und Skizzen zu einer Vaturlehre des Slaates,* Halle, 1833, p. 102. <!-- class: fst --> <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. <!-- class: fst --> -<span class="term">32.</span> This part of the manuscript shows clearly the peculiarity of the terminology used by Marx in his works. At the time he had not worked out terms adequately expressing the conceptions of scientific communism he was then evolving and was still under the influence of Feuerbach in that respect. Hence the difference in the use of words in his early and subsequent, mature writings. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 *the word “socialism” is used to denote the stage of society at which it has carried out a revolutionary transformation, abolished private property, class antagonisms, alienation and so on. In the same sense Marx used the expression “communism equals humanism.” At that time he understood the term “communism as such” not as the final goal of revolutionary transformation but as the process of this transformation, development leading up to that goal, a lower stage of the process. +<span class="term">32.</span> This part of the manuscript shows clearly the peculiarity of the terminology used by Marx in his works. At the time he had not worked out terms adequately expressing the conceptions of scientific communism he was then evolving and was still under the influence of Feuerbach in that respect. Hence the difference in the use of words in his early and subsequent, mature writings. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* the word “socialism” is used to denote the stage of society at which it has carried out a revolutionary transformation, abolished private property, class antagonisms, alienation and so on. In the same sense Marx used the expression “communism equals humanism.” At that time he understood the term “communism as such” not as the final goal of revolutionary transformation but as the process of this transformation, development leading up to that goal, a lower stage of the process. <!-- class: fst --> -<span class="term">33.</span> This expression apparently refers to the theory of the English geologist Sir Charles Lyell who, in his three-volume work *The Principles of Geology *(1830-33), proved the evolution of the earth’s crust and refuted the popular theory of cataclysms. Lyell used the term “historical geology” for his theory. The term “geognosy” was introduced by the 18th-century German scientist Abraham Werner, a specialist in mineralogy, and it was used also by Alexander Humboldt. +<span class="term">33.</span> This expression apparently refers to the theory of the English geologist Sir Charles Lyell who, in his three-volume work *The Principles of Geology* (1830-33), proved the evolution of the earth’s crust and refuted the popular theory of cataclysms. Lyell used the term “historical geology” for his theory. The term “geognosy” was introduced by the 18th-century German scientist Abraham Werner, a specialist in mineralogy, and it was used also by Alexander Humboldt. <!-- class: fst --> <span class="term">34.</span> This statement is interpreted differently by researchers. Many of them maintain that Marx here meant crude equalitarian communism, such as that propounded by Babeuf and his followers. While recognising the historic role of that communism, he thought it impossible to ignore its weak points. It seems more justifiable, however, to interpret this passage proceeding from the peculiarity of terms used in the manuscript (see Note 32). Marx here used the term “communism” to mean not the higher phase of classless society (which he at the time denoted as “socialism” or “communism equalling humanism”) but movement (in various forms, including primitive forms of equalitarian communism at the early stage) directed at its achievement, a revolutionary transformation process of transition to it. Marx emphasised that this process should not be considered as an end in itself, but that it is a necessary, though a transitional, stage in attaining the future social system, which will be characterised by new features distinct from those proper to this stage. @@ -343,7 +340,7 @@ 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. @@ -352,13 +349,13 @@ 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. @@ -369,20 +366,19 @@ 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.* - +<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.* |