1 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/second.htm.md b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/second.htm.md
index e8ecea3..3fd6f2e 100644
--- a/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/second.htm.md
+++ b/content/marx/economic-and-philosophic-manuscripts/second.htm.md
@@ -25,15 +25,15 @@ The relations of private property contain latent within them the relation of pri
 
 It is therefore another great achievement of modern English political economy to have declared rent of land to be the difference in the interest yielded by the worst and the best land under cultivation; to have [exposed] the landowner's romantic illusions – his alleged social importance and the identity of his interest with the interest of society, a view still maintained by *Adam Smith* after the Physiocrats; and to [have] anticipated and prepared the movement of the real world which will transform the landowner into an ordinary, prosaic capitalist, and thus simplify and sharpen the contradiction [between capital and labour] and. hasten its resolution.  *Land* as *land*, and *rent* as *rent*, have lost their *distinction of rank* and become insignificant *capital* and *interest* – or rather, *capital* and *interest* that signify only money.
 
-The *distinction* between capital and land, between profit and rent, and between both and wages, and *industry*, and *agriculture*, and *immovable* and *movable* private property – this distinction is not rooted in the nature of things, but is a *historical* distinction, a *fixed* historical moment in the formation and development of the contradiction between capital and labour.  In industry, etc., as opposed to immovable landed property, is only expressed the way in which [industry] came into being and the contradiction to agriculture in which industry developed.  This distinction only continues to exist as a *special *sort of work – as an *essential*, *important* and *life-embracing* distinction – so long as industry (town life) develops *over* and *against* landed property (aristocratic feudal life) and itself continues to bear the feudal character of its opposite in the form of monopoly, craft, guild, corporation, etc., within which labour still has a *seemingly social* significance, still the significance of the *real* community, and has not yet reached the stage of *indifference* to its content, of complete being-for-self[[25]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn25), i. e., of abstraction from all other being, and hence has not yet become *liberated* capital.
+The *distinction* between capital and land, between profit and rent, and between both and wages, and *industry*, and *agriculture*, and *immovable* and *movable* private property – this distinction is not rooted in the nature of things, but is a *historical* distinction, a *fixed* historical moment in the formation and development of the contradiction between capital and labour.  In industry, etc., as opposed to immovable landed property, is only expressed the way in which [industry] came into being and the contradiction to agriculture in which industry developed.  This distinction only continues to exist as a *special* sort of work – as an *essential*, *important* and *life-embracing* distinction – so long as industry (town life) develops *over* and *against* landed property (aristocratic feudal life) and itself continues to bear the feudal character of its opposite in the form of monopoly, craft, guild, corporation, etc., within which labour still has a *seemingly social* significance, still the significance of the *real* community, and has not yet reached the stage of *indifference* to its content, of complete being-for-self[[25]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn25), i. e., of abstraction from all other being, and hence has not yet become *liberated* capital.
 
-But liberated *industry*, industry constituted for itself as such, and *liberated capital*, are the necessary *development* of labour.  The power of industry over its opposite is at once revealed in the emergence of *agriculture* as a real industry, while previously it left most of the work to the soil and to the slave of the soil, through whom the land cultivated itself.  With the transformation of the slave into a *free* worker – i.e., into a *hireling* – the landlord himself is transformed into a captain of industry, into a capitalist – a transformation which takes place at first through the intermediacy of the *tenant farmer*.  *The tenant farmer*, however, is the landowner's representative – the landowner's revealed *secret: *it is only through him that the landowner has his *economic* existence – his existence as a private proprietor – for the rent of his land only exists due to the competition between the farmers.
+But liberated *industry*, industry constituted for itself as such, and *liberated capital*, are the necessary *development* of labour.  The power of industry over its opposite is at once revealed in the emergence of *agriculture* as a real industry, while previously it left most of the work to the soil and to the slave of the soil, through whom the land cultivated itself.  With the transformation of the slave into a *free* worker – i.e., into a *hireling* – the landlord himself is transformed into a captain of industry, into a capitalist – a transformation which takes place at first through the intermediacy of the *tenant farmer*.  *The tenant farmer*, however, is the landowner's representative – the landowner's revealed *secret:* it is only through him that the landowner has his *economic* existence – his existence as a private proprietor – for the rent of his land only exists due to the competition between the farmers.
 
-Thus, in the person of the *tenant farmer* the landlord *has* already become in essence a *common* capitalist.  And this must come to pass, too, in actual fact: the capitalist engaged in agriculture – the tenant – must become a landlord, or vice versa.  The tenant's *industrial hucksterism* is the *landowner's *industrial hucksterism, for the being of the former postulates the being of the latter.
+Thus, in the person of the *tenant farmer* the landlord *has* already become in essence a *common* capitalist.  And this must come to pass, too, in actual fact: the capitalist engaged in agriculture – the tenant – must become a landlord, or vice versa.  The tenant's *industrial hucksterism* is the *landowner's* industrial hucksterism, for the being of the former postulates the being of the latter.
 
 But mindful of their contrasting origin, of their line of descent, the landowner knows the capitalist as his insolent, liberated, enriched slave of yesterday and sees himself as a *capitalist* who is threatened by him.  The capitalist knows the landowner as the idle, cruel, egotistical master of yesterday; he knows that he injures him as a capitalist, but that it is to industry that he owes all his present social significance, his possessions and his pleasures; he sees in him a contradiction to *free* industry and to *free* capital – to capital independent of every natural limitation.  This contradiction is extremely bitter, and each side tells the truth about the other.  One need only read the attacks of immovable on movable property and vice versa to obtain a clear picture of their respective worthlessness.  The landowner lays stress on the noble lineage of his property, on feudal souvenirs or reminiscences, the poetry of recollection, on his romantic disposition, on his political importance, etc.; and when he talks economics, it is *only* agriculture that he holds to be productive.  At the same time he depicts his adversary as a sly, hawking, carping, deceitful, greedy, mercenary, rebellious, heartless and spiritless person who is estranged from the community and freely trades it away, who breeds, nourishes and cherishes competition, and with it pauperism, crime, and the dissolution of all social bonds, an extorting, pimping, servile, smooth, flattering, fleecing, dried-up rogue without honour, principles, poetry, substance, or anything else. (Amongst others see the Physiocrat *Bergasse*, whom Camille Desmoulins flays in his journal, *Révolutions de France et de Brabant* [[26]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn26); see von Vincke, Lancizolle, Haller, Leo, Kosegarten and also *Sismondi*.)
 
-[See on the other hand the garrulous, old-Hegelian theologian Funke who tells, after Herr Leo, with tears in his eyes how a slave had refused, when serfdom was abolished, to cease being the *property of the gentry* [[27]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn27). See also the patriotic visions *of* *Justus Möser*, which distinguish themselves by the fact that they never for a moment ... abandon the respectable, petty-bourgeois "*home-baked*", *ordinary*, narrow horizon of the philistine, and which nevertheless remain pure fancy.  This contradiction has given them such an appeal to the German heart.- *Note *by Marx.]
+[See on the other hand the garrulous, old-Hegelian theologian Funke who tells, after Herr Leo, with tears in his eyes how a slave had refused, when serfdom was abolished, to cease being the *property of the gentry* [[27]](#TODO;footnote.htm#fn27). See also the patriotic visions *of* *Justus Möser*, which distinguish themselves by the fact that they never for a moment ... abandon the respectable, petty-bourgeois "*home-baked*", *ordinary*, narrow horizon of the philistine, and which nevertheless remain pure fancy.  This contradiction has given them such an appeal to the German heart.- *Note* by Marx.]
 
 Movable property, for its part, points to the miracles of industry and progress.  It is the child of modern times, whose legitimate, native-born son it is.  It pities its adversary as a simpleton, *unenlightened* about his own nature (and in this it is completely right), who wants to replace moral capital and free labour by brute, immoral violence and serfdom.  It depicts him as a Don Quixote, who under the guise of *bluntness*, *respectability,* the *general interest*, and *stability*, conceals incapacity for progress, greedy self-indulgence, selfishness, sectional interest, and evil intent.  It declares him an artful *monopolist*; it pours cold water on his reminiscences, his poetry, and his romanticism by a historical and sarcastic enumeration of the baseness, cruelty, degradation, prostitution, infamy, anarchy and rebellion, of which romantic castles were the workshops.
 
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ The *real* course of development (to be inserted at this point) results in the n
 
 Those states which sense something of the danger attaching to fully developed free industry, to fully developed pure morality and to fully developed philanthropic trade, try, but in vain, to hold in check the capitalisation of landed property.
 
-*Landed property* in its distinction from capital is private property – capital – still afflicted with *local* and political prejudices; it is capital which has not yet extricated itself from its entanglement with the world and found the form proper to itself – capital *not* yet *fully developed.  *It must achieve its abstract, that is, its *pure*, expression in the course of its *cosmogony*.
+*Landed property* in its distinction from capital is private property – capital – still afflicted with *local* and political prejudices; it is capital which has not yet extricated itself from its entanglement with the world and found the form proper to itself – capital *not* yet *fully developed. * It must achieve its abstract, that is, its *pure*, expression in the course of its *cosmogony*.
 
 The character of *private property* is expressed by labour, capital, and the relations between these two.  The movement through which these constituents have to pass is:
 
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ Capital and labour are at first still united.  Then, though separated and estran
 
 [*Second.*] *The two in opposition*, mutually excluding each other.  The worker knows the capitalist as his own non-existence, and vice versa: each tries to rob the other of his existence.
 
-[*Third*.] *Opposition* of each *to* itself.  Capital = stored-up labour = labour.  As such it splits into *capital itself *and its *interest*, and this latter again into *interest and profit*.  The capitalist is completely sacrificed.  He falls into the working class, whilst the worker (but only exceptionally) becomes a capitalist.  Labour as a moment of capital – its costs.  Thus the wages of labour - a sacrifice of capital.
+[*Third*.] *Opposition* of each *to* itself.  Capital = stored-up labour = labour.  As such it splits into *capital itself* and its *interest*, and this latter again into *interest and profit*.  The capitalist is completely sacrificed.  He falls into the working class, whilst the worker (but only exceptionally) becomes a capitalist.  Labour as a moment of capital – its costs.  Thus the wages of labour - a sacrifice of capital.
 
 Splitting of labour into *labour itself* and the *wages of labour*.  The worker himself a capital, a commodity.