Remarks on the theoretical s,ignificance of Marx's Grundrisse

Keith Tribe

Economy and Society

Vol 3 No.2 May 1974


In recent years much play has been made with the significance of the Grundrisse for the reinterpretation of Marx's thought. The text has been represented as a vindication of those who have treated :'-.Iarx·s work as a relatively direct development from the early writings of

1843 and 1844, and a rebuttal of those who have sought to establish that Marx's later works constitute a radically distinct project from that of his youth, the two projects being separated by an epistemological break. This paper examines the theoretical structure of the Grundrisse, the kind of concepts that it contains and the objects constructed by these concepts. I argue that the result of such an examination demonstrates that the latter of the two positions outlined here is the correct one. The Grundrisse is shown to be an incoherent, transitional work, and its ambiguities an index of the presence of a number of theoretical obstacles.

I. lntroductlon!

In 1968 and 1969 three separate articles, appearing in the C.~ .. \ .. Britain and France (Howard, 1969; Nicolaus, 1968; Sernprun, ll)hSl, drew attention to the importance of seven of Marx's notebooks, J.ltt.·J August 1857-April 1958, published in Moscow first in 1939 under t:.t· title Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Gkonomie (Rohcnucwl '. followed in 19+1 by a supplementary volume. These were then r cpublished in 1953 as one volume by Dietz Verlag. Berlin. French ;w.j

• I

Italian editions appeared in the 'sixties, but we have had to wart u.I:~:'

the middle of 1973 for Nicolaus' much heralded English tr:lfl~lJt:on. Sections have however already appeared in English: the' 1857 11,::0- duction', originally in ] 904 and in several other versions; a ~l'I.:t:(Hl entitled 'Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations' in 196+; the sterian I':~ machines in Economy and Society in 1972; and Mcl.ellan's fragmcnt~ .n 1971•

A remarkable amount of significance has been attached to thc:;t'~ notes; they arc 'the centrepiece of Marx's thought; any sekctio~l. o! Marx's writings that does not quote fairly widely from the GrzmuTUJ< must be judged severely inadequate; and any discussions of the r~!ltinuit v of 'Ian's thought that docs not take account of the Gru1lJn.J.l'

. ~.-, .... oft the theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrisse

... . .

tioaId be doomed from the stare (McLellan, 1971: p. 3); 'the only trtdr complete work on political economy that Marx ever wrote' ,SicoJaUS, 1972/68: p. 3°9); 'the Grundrisse challenges and puts to the ~ every serious interpretation of Marx yet conceived' (Nicolaus, "9i3: p. 7)· Currently, the 4 theme' of 'a~ien.ation' provides the chief :.:s of debate in attempts to prove a contmwty between the early and Jarrr works of Marx, together with more specific disputes concerning

· die relation of the Grundrisse to Capital by reference to the working

· plans of 1857~ and 1865. In fact, the only book so far written on •. Gntndrisst, Rosdolsky's Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des MarxscketJ .'Kapitaf directs itself to this second problem, containing the only kDgtby discussion of it (see Appendix I). These disputes are not jaotxent of course, for the stake is the status of Marx's project, the.

· ~tiDuists' representing a humanist attack on orthodox Marxism and

· iii strOOgest contemporary champions, the Parisian school. Semprun

· ItIkS this quite clearly:


In fact, Marx's manuscripts of 18S7-S8-and no-one can invoke the plea 9£ ignorance any more since they are accessible in . French-render precarious, if not the project, at least the. aaentials produced by the work of Althusser and his friends.

(Semprun, .~968: p. 61)· .

· kill anforbn)ate that such weight should be placed on what remains a transitional and incomplete work, and it is apparent that those .who make .ach inflated claims for the Grundrisse display a lamentabIe. ipNaiw:e, of TMories of Surplus Value and Capital. This is indicated .. N"'1fIO)aus' article of 1968, where in emphasising the novelty of the .~ he points to its theories of unequal exchange and capitalist . . 1Iraldown~ apparently unaware that the first is subsequently revised ~. the second abandoned, both being effects of a process of theo~ transition.

The object of this paper however is not to discuss and evaluate· a series ofconunentaries on the Grundrisse, but to establish the transitional nature of the work. It is tempting to approach this through the constru~tlOn of terminological biographies (as has been done with 'aliena-

natlo~ example),1 but this mode of procedure is unsatisfactory in that

It . O}'I the unity of texts and converts concepts into words. Corre-

res~ondl11g1y, any adequate treatment of the Grundrisse founders if a sen,es or 'good bits' are selected and presented as the core of the work, as for""'ttlple McLellan does. The principal feature of the Grundrisse, usuall)~ ~·by any honest reader, is its unrelenting repetition and confuslOn;.:tbit·is however an effect of Marx's theoretical struggle, his

attempt,,: pose problems without the means of correctly formulating them. . Ielection of quotable quotes obscures this and thus represents a distortion of the significance of the text. The Grundrisse is an incoherent work, producing a number of distinct objects which alternate and over-


Keith Tr,bt

lap." Its lahyrinthine nature stems directly from this plurality and stamps it as a transitional work.

The method adopted in this paper to deal with this problem '. , begin by outlining elements of the structure of Capital, specif\'in IS h'o

. f . forrnati d d f - g t. C"

necessity 0 ItS concept ormation an or er 0 exposition in the "(

duction of its ob~ect, the. analysis of th~ la:v of motion of the capit~ii:: ?f production and Its representation in c~mretition. I then go on to indicate where the structure of the Grundrisse s concepts rl'pr<.:,,<.~;t ?bs~c~es t~ an ~lla.lysis of. the capita~is~ o:ode of production (tht. implicit object). I'his constitutes the limitation of this paper, for it represents only the beginning of work which can locate the Grulldrisu as a theoretical moment in the transformation of Marx's work, :h<.: theoretical work necessary to support such an enterprise having scarcelv begun. Chronologically the Grundrisse can be easily located as a Wl)~~ of transition, but this can only be theorised currently in a clurnsv fashion. Ranciere (1965) is perhaps one of the few to have innsti[!Jtc:j the nature of the epistemological break inaugurated by :'Ilan;, but ;:1 doing so he confined himself to the Paris Manuscripts and Capital, without venturing into the process of transition. Such work takes a" 1:' point of departure the labour of theoretical transformation w:;:,:. separates Marx from the Classical Political Economists, which has olll:-' recently been identified as the site of crucial difficulties. An example oi this is the conceptual couple fixed/circulating capital, described ,1.\ 'ersatz' concepts below, whose site in the theoretical structure of theGrundrisse seems to be that of constant/variable capital in Capital.' Tne 'fit' is however not exact for they do not operate in the same way withm the structure, This is the problem of conceptual ising a struct\;:.1.1 transformation without lapsing into a historicism (simple chronology) or a structuralism (simple combinatory of 'pigeon-holes').

Digression-The Marx-Engels correspondence

It may be of use to make some remarks concerning the corresponJ,'::cc covering the time from the start of Marx's work on the GrulIJrnu :.:> the publication of Capital, Vol. 1. Here again selection has. k,! r" certain interpretations of Marx's theoretical development which ,ue faulty, for the correspondence docs not provide the kind of cr~;J~

. h b I h 1\1 t -rcd \\ ~JlC ••

running commentary on teo stac es t at . arx encoun l

might be expected, and which some writers have implied. , ,

For example, we know that Marx started work on the 'Introduct;un at end of August 1857, and then went on frantically working at h,i~ nL't~

• • r .. ~""C'

for seven months until he fell ill. But in the letters no mention I~ .. .

• • ~ • J .,-.:.,'

at this time of the developing economic crisis which, It IS ;l,;,;un,l,.', ' .•

the stimulus for this work; perhaps because for once _Engels ,IS.:; directly involved, since he is convalescing for a period. 111 [\;in 10

'I" f' . fl' . es In \ .10'

l"·",rh. lit' nst p:bSllle; r e <'r<,nec to t ic crrsis corne -

, 183·

__ ·at St. Helier on October 311. 1857 (MarX, 1963b: p. 205). ~ith :1IIgtls' return to Manchester an analysis is begun, and it is only by a ftlDUk in a letter dated December 8, 1857, that Marx first registers .. theoretical work:

1 am working like mad through the night pulling my economic studies together, so that at least I have the fundamental .outlines (Gnmdrisse) clear before the deluge. (Marx, 1963b:


::'I1tat is all. Further, it is tacked on as an afterthought to a discussion

: .. contemporary aspects of the crisis. .

" Occasionally Marx does give an account of his theoretical work, but tbrre are two distinct forms: first, to people such as Lassalle and' KuceImann, Marx concentrates on giving an overview of how his work

. tppars to him at that particular time. Second, there are a few detail~ itUcn to Engels where Marx: has stumbled on a new development, so ... imttad of waiting until they next meet, he devotes an unusual amount til space to a particular problem and asks for a quick response from f.Dcda. The kind of argument that these two forms will support must dacrcfore be strictly distinguished.

A much-used example is the following:

By the way, I'm getting some pretty developments, e.g. I have . ~wn the whole theory of profit as it was. I have been . ptatly aided in the method of working, that, by mere accident- . Fmligi-ath found a few volumes of Hegel originally belonging . to Bakunin· and sent them to me as a present-I had leafed . ; Hegel's Logic. (Marx:, 1963b: pp: 2Sg-(0)5 .

• ~ 4. • •• • • . . •

:~ this time Marx had not seen Engels for several months, so it . is Mcult to locate when Marx believed that he had accomplished this ~ Stated in this way, of course, emphasis is placed on the chrono-

logical location, rather than on the logical location which is the real ~lroblem If Marx has made an advance, it is not necessarily a once and

for all Itfon ~ db'" I d . h h hi

-r rorwaro, ut IS mtirnate y connecte Wit ot er ac ieve-

.~CUlties, and is a mark of the process of detachment that

. bears with respect, in this case, to the classical theory of

profit , So far, if We take Marx at his word. But there remain difficulties, outlined. below, and it will become clear that' Marx is anticipating, that 111 c:..erta111fC:spects Marx has not won free of the classical theory of pr~ftt, l'! that he continues working at this problem in the early 1860s. W aat 1IriIh to show here is that it is dangerous to support arguments conCter~lg the theoretical developments of Marx with his own statemen Sw what he thinks h . doi . hi h . f

. . e IS omg at anyone tlme-w ic 15 one 0

the baSIC lessons of Marxist theory, and should be applied to Marx as to anyone else.

184 "

Keith Tribe

2. The structure of 'Capital' (a) Some general observations

One of the earliest debates concerning Capital was that of the relation of the price theory of Vol. III to the value theory of Vol. 1. This discussion continues in the dispute on the transformation prohlem von Bortkiewicz's neo-Ricardian solution re-emerging in vogue With the rise of a contemporary neo-Ricardian school around the work oi Sraffa. The difficulty is an important one, since any attempted answer to the question of the unity/difference of the volumes leads directl\" to statements concerning the epistemological status of Capital. l~hus although discussion of the simplistic problem of the comparative status of the volumes tends to lead nowhere (in much the same way that discussion of the two 'plans' does), it introduces some real diffi~ultil's that have up until recently remained largely concealed.

Establet (1965: p. 337) identifies two versions of the relationship: one formulated first by Sombart and Schmidt, saw the progression from I to III as a journey from the 'abstract' to the 'real', with the law of value operating as a 'logical fact' or a 'necessary fiction'. The second he attributes to Godelier, who views the journey as one from microeconomics to macro-economics, or 'abstract models' to 'complex realities' (Establet, 1965: p. 340). These are variants of an incorrect understanding of the theoretical status of Capital, a work which never leaves the sphere of the abstract, but rather advances from principles developed for one branch of production (value, the Worker, Capital) to more complex forms where branches interact (productive money. commodity capital, reproduction process, competition, equalisation of the rate of profit). Vol. III is just as 'abstract' as Vol. I, since neither of them at any point deviate from the theoretical object, which is not empirically given, but is constructed in the text by the work of a set oi concepts. In Vol. I we deal with the concept of the structure and irs general effects, whereas in Vol. III we pass to the structure's particular effects; from the abstract in thought to the thought-concrete (Althusser, 1970: pp. 189-{)0).

The problem which arises from this is that of the necessity of the order of exposition; why docs Marx in Capital develop his argument in the way that he docs, what is the nature of the 'mode of presentati,)n' (Darstellungsweise) as he called it in the 'Afterword' to the Sl'con,l German edition? It was to this problem that Establet and ""Iachert'~: addressed themselves in their contributions to the 1965 edition 0:

Lire le Capital, but unfortunately they fail to add anything to the suggestions thrown out by Althusser. As a consequence, this sectIon will be confined to sketching some problems of the order of eXposltlllO•

For several years, the theoretical achievement of Marx has been thought out with respect to his relation to Hegel, casting into the shade


perhaps 'more interesting' predecessor, Ricardo. It can easily be :.. ited that Marx in some nebulous -way 'revolutionised' Ricardo and (:bssica1 Political Economy, but it is a fact that many versions of Marx's 'economics' fail to provide any material differentiation between Ricardo and Marx. This is crucial when we consider that Marx respected Ricardo as a scientific economist who, albeit with the use of 1oJ'ced abstractions', investigated the real law of motion of capitalist production; Ricardo is not Marx however, and the theoretical gap between them is central to any grasp of Capital. This 'gap', which is .GOt' a simple space but is constituted by the radical intervention of an epistemological break, was not forged overnight, but was painstakingly constrUcted; therefore this distinction Marx/Ricardo is of importance , trhen considering transitional works such as the Grundrisse •

. &&\ccording to Marx, one of Ricardo's errors, associated with his 'faulty architectonic', was the way in which his Principles attempts to , deal with contradictions all at once:

One can therefore see that not only are commodities introduced' in this first chapter-and nothing further should be introduced if value as such is under investigation-but also wage-labour, capital, profit, even the general rate of profit, as they arise in

the process of circulation, just as the distinction of 'natural and, market price', which last indeed plays a decisive role in the following chapters, 'On Rent' and 'On Rent of Mines'.

(MaJ?C, 1967: p. 165)

,So Marx emphasises that one cannot deal with everything at once, and " farther, that the starting point is not arbitrary, but directly associated with the object of investigation. Accordingly, he starts Vol. I with 1JIrlw-., In all the many discussions of this, it is usually assumed that '" Kan's mode of representation is adequate, and arguments are presented • jtutify the given order. This is in my opinion an error, but I will CIGIl6ne remarks to indicating the consequences of such an order.t

-Value' represents the social aspect of the capitalist production JIIOttaa, existing only at the level of the mode of production as a whole. 1\e creation of value is performed not by an individual but by social 1Ibour, the 'Total Labourer' (Gesamtarbeiter) referred to by Marx . ... Claaaica.l Political Economy, by contrast, value was treated as the IItIl nature of the object, to which price by some mechanism approximated -9S such this concept of value is concerned with an analysis of

wealth. In Marx, this problematic is dissolved, value denoting the , soci~l .conditions of commodity production, while price denotes the "~ ~f its circulation. By beginning thus with value the relations _~ction specific to the capitalist mode of production are intro .. .. • and the way is clear for a progressive exposition of the elements

-DIode of production, a determinate combination of relations and forces of production. Simultaneously a new conception of causality

and structure is inaugurated, for the mode is not built up around

( , . . . h ') b an

essence e.g. man mteractmg Wit nature ut as a process wi tho t

subject (the process of production and reproduction). U a

One of the central analytical problems that Marx is engaged on .

Capital is the explanation of the creation of surplus-value. Classicl~ Political Economy concentrated on particular forms (rent, wage-labou~ profit), seeking to break away from previous explanations, such as that of Steuart, which derived it from circulation. They were unsucce%it:i however, and Marx's task is to explain how commodities exchange at their values and still produce surplus-value. (Marx, 1962: p. 180) As a means of doing this, Marx distinguishes between productive anJ unproductive labour, but unfortunately this distinction remains ambig_ uous, and the site of many contemporary difficulties. In Theon'es of Surplus Value any labour performed within the capitalist mode of production is productive whatever the use-value created-i.e. is determined by the relations of production. When Marx came to Capital Vol. II however he tended to define productiveness according to whether it created a commodity or not, and so the commercial labour employed in the physical circulation of commodities was deemed unproductive, although within the capitalist mode of production. There is here a shift between definition according to use value on the one hand and relations of production on the other; despite these difficulties however the distinction remains an essential one in the construction of a theory of surplus value, since failure to recognise it can easily result in a relapse to the position of Smith. Below it will be seen that where Marx has not developed the concept of productive and unproductive labour, even to the ambiguous level of the 'sixties, it is the index of a theoretical failure.

However, apart from the place of these particular concepts, it 1~ necessary to conceive of the mode of representation in Capital as more than a pedagogic device, for it is intimately connected with the conception of the relationship between the 'real' and 'apparent' movcmerr;-. Only in Vol. III does Marx consider the way in which the production process is represented to its bearers through the operation of compvtition:

If, as the reader to his regret has recognised, the analysis of r~r real, inner relationships of the capitalistic production proc~~ I~ a very involved thing and a very detailed work of labour: If I: I" a labour of science, which reduces superficial, merely apparent movement to the real internal movement, so it is quite understandable that ideas (Vorstellungen) must be built up ir: the heads of the agents of production and circulation concernmg the laws of production which completely deviate from rhcse laws, and arc only the conscious expression of the apparent movement. The ideas (V orstellungen) of a salesman, specubtor. banker, arc necessarily completely inverted (ganz verkehrt).



Those of the factory owners are falsified by the acts of circulation to which their capital is subject, and by the equalisation of the general rate of profit. Competition necessarily plays in these heads also a completely inverted role. (M:arx, 196~: pp. 324-5)

Which brings us to the concept of representation .

. (~) .. 'Darrtellung': the concept of representation

Marx's emergent concept of Darstellung is the concept of the mode of presence of the structure (the articulated modes of production) in its effecb-as we saw above, the specification of the material necessity of the appearances given in competition. This is perhaps the central and decisive advance on Ricardo, and is at the root of the gradual development through Volumes I and II to the beginning of III where we are first able to examine the forms (Gestaltungen) produced by the production process. Marx sununarised Ricardo's method as followsr

He starts out from the determination of commodity value by labour time and then investigates whether the remaining· economic relations, categories, contradict this determination of nlue or how far they modify it. One can see at once the , historical justification of this mode of procedure, its scientific .,' necessity in the history of economics, but also simultaneously its ICi.entific insufficiency, an inadequacy not only shown by the (formal) means of representation (Darstellungsart), but leads to : erroneous results, since it leaps over necessary internal . .

. connections and seeks to demonstrate in a direct manner the

mutual congruence of economic categories. (Marx, 1967: p. 161)7

_ .• more logical way than Smith, Ricardo 'leaps over' the connection .ween the real and the apparent movement, or to be more specific, Ire .haa DO means of showing how the first is present in the forms, tfrtcU of the second. As such the concept of Darstellung plays a double . -.It, ~g the real from the apparent, and then producing the =::::?"L.. of the appearance as an effect of the real movement. To' -~g1 analyse the capitalist mode of production this concept is : DtiaI; for example, without it the extraction of surplus value .... ~ the exchange of labour-power .against capital cannot be

istd. Several of the economists (e.g.' Bastiat and Carey) against =,~ pol~micises represent this as a 'fair', 'equal' exchange, in

. Deither gains at the expense of the other. The Ricardian socialists

denounced this ha . d d

, exc nge, and asserted that since labour pro uee

everything I the product should belong entirely to the worker. This is a short - circuit of the theory Marx went on to build up, for it is a .

moralistic AI'aI 1ft't Ant hich d kn 1 d f hv

-D-"~ W oes not produce any ow e ge 0 W Y


Keith Tribe

this precisely does not occur. What Marx had to do was to show how a surplus c~uld be obtained from an equal ex~han~e, or rather, how the real relations could represent themselves m this form in the ide

ff . I d as

assigned to the bearers. In order to e ectrve y emolish the argum~nt.

of a Nassau Senior, a Bastiat, Marx needed to show how this necessar:' appearance was produced. In the Grundrisse, however, Marx remain"s at the level of Ricardo in this, re~pect, ~abotaging h!mself by starting ou~ from mo~ey and t~en:f~re universal exchange .. F rom this starting_ point, and with the Ricardian mode of representation, Marx is unable to produce a refutation of Bastiart, he can merely denounce him.

This problem is reinforced by the structural absence of relations of production, which results from the starting-point of universal exchange: instead of Worker and Capitalist as representatives of wage-labour and capital, they confront each other in the pages of the Grundrisse as individuals.

Further, it can be shown that where the concept of representation is most noticeably absent in the text of the Grundrisse this is the precise site of a passage evoking the alienation of the subject-is therefore symptomatic of a theoretical struggle in whch lapses occur. An example is the following passage:

Circulation is the movement in which the general alienation appears as a general appropriation and general appropriation a!' general alienation. As much, then, as the whole of this movement appears as a social process, and as much as the individual moments of this movement arise from the conscious will and particular purposes of individuals, so much does the totality of the process appear as an objective interrelation, which arises spontaneously from nature; arising, it is true, from the mutual influence of conscious individuals on one another, but neither located in their consciousness, nor subsumed under them as a whole. Their own collisions with one another produce an alien social power standing above them, produce their mutual interaction as a process and power independent of them. (Marx, 1973: pp. 196-7)

The absence of the relations of production as moments of the circulation process, signified by circulation being considered as between indiciduolsleads to the inability to account for the representations of the '1O~1" viduals' with respect to the process of circulation-we are trapped In a phenomenology, unable to go beyond the appearance of the proce;5..~ to its posited subject. And also, in the distinction made in fn. 7, we do not know whether these are 'Vorstellungen' or ·Einbildungen·-th~·r~ is no means of analysing the material basis of these appearances. 1 he analysis moves in this way from the appearance of a social whole for an individual (i.e. the ideological society/individual problematical) to.~ confirmation of the estrangement of the individual from the SOC1'

..-IIS on the theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrlste


.,hole. Thus where the concept ?f Darstellung and its associated word js:most noticeably absent, .we have the site of support for a humanistic teJding of the Grundrisse.8

3 ... Two exchange processes

As emphasised above, the concept of the relations of production is not etIcctively present in the pages of the Grundrisse, and this is most apparent when Marx talks directly of the exchange of labour against

capital: . . .

The reciprocal and all-sided dependence of individuals who are indifferent to one another forms their social connection. This social bond is expressed in exchange-value, by means of which alone each individual's activity or his product becomes an activity and a product for him; he must produce a general" product-exchange-value, or, the latter isolated for itself and . individualised, money. On the other side, the power which each individual exercises over the activity of others or over social . wealth exists in him as the owner of exchange-values, of 11W1'iey. The individual carries his social power, as well as his bond with· society, in his pocket. Activity, regardless of its individual .. manifestation (Erscheinungsfonn), and the product of activity, .regardless of its particular make-up, are always exchange-fJalue, and exchange-value is a generality, in which all individuality and peculiarity are negated and extinguished. (Marx, 1973:

pp~ 156-7)

1Mirid~ are related to each other by undifferentiated social bonds. a.:h is equal before the great leveller, exchange-value, which is the sole criterion by which individuals can be divided into two groups:

.~ this is not the only difficulty, for what exchanges against what is -, far from clear. Take this example:

"'.hat the worker exchanges with capital is his labour itself (the ~ty.of disposing over it); he divests himself of it (entiuJ3ert ~). ~' he obtains as price is the value of this divestitute. (ErnauBerung). He exchanges value-positing activity for a pre...detennined value, regardless o(the result of his activity.

,~tarx, 1973: pp. 322-3)

:-f*'t;Utheti~ re~ark in the first sentence takes us to the heart of . .~ for It does not simply add to the previous statement, but

contradicts U. The two versions are thus:

(I) Labour . . capital

(2) labour power .. capital

When Marx talks of exchange in the Grundrisse these two are r

- together, introducing a confusion which permits 'labour' to be read un the essence of the worker, which in exchange is alienated, the anthrr., pology from which Marx was breaking away." In Capital Vol. I the distinction is made in the following way: C

(I) labour (no intrinsic value)


embodied in commodity


(2) labour power


labour process in which labour directed by

capital. (Marx, 1962: p. 563)

This confusion is compounded by a failure to distinguish between productive and unproductive labour, associated with a concentration on exchange value. The exchange process is treated as exchange I):" usc-value (from the worker) for exchange-value (from the capitalist) whether or not the usc-value is in fact employed to create surplus-value or is a deduction from it, which has as a root the absence of a concq't of the mode of production within which the exchanges are made:

The exchange between the worker and the capitalist is a" simple exchange; each obtains an equivalent; the one obtains money, the other a commodity whose price is exactly equal to the money paid for it; what the capitalist obtains from this simple exchange is a use-value: disposition over alien labour. From the worker's side-and service is the exchange in which he appear~ as seller-it is evident that the use which the buyer makes of the purchased commodity is as irrelevant to the specific form oi relation here as it is in the case of any other commodity, of anv other usc-value. What the worker sells is his disposition oyer his labour, which is a specific one, specific skill, etc. What the capitalist does with his labour is completely irrelevant, althouc»

of course he can usc it only in accord with its specific .

characteristics .... If the capitalist were to content himself WIth merely the capacity of disposing, without actually making the worker work, e.g. in order to have his labour as a reserve. ... then the exchange has taken place in full .... In general nrrus. the exchange-value of his commodity cannot be determined by the manner in which his buyer uses it but onlv by the amount of labour required to reproduce the w~rker hi~sdf. For t~e usc-value which he offers exists onlv as an ability, a capaCIty (Verrnogen) of his bodily existence;- he has no existence apart from that. (Marx, 1973: pp. 281-2)


ne consequences of this analysis, which although starting out from the ·tide of the w?rker, generalises. on .this ~nstead of procee~ing to the side of the capitalist (and .lat:r made his point of .de~a:rure) IS to reduce the -worker and the capitalist to the level of individuals. As a result a humanist reading becomes possible which departs from these indiyjdua1s as human subjects, and the reading then transferred to Capital Cere the exposition of the capitalist mode of production is read as the ~ of the alienation of the subject. The error of such a reading of Capitol is clearly that it imposes subjects on the text; which such a trading of the Grundrisse is erroneous in that it fails to pose the problem. of what significance these 'subjects' have for the structuring of the text. A, 1 have argued they in fact constitute obstacles for a rigorous analysis . of the capitalist mode of production.

But the division of 'labour' into productive and unproductive elements is not the only form of this couple: capital is also divided in this way, and the necessary concept of productive capital then in turn requires t..'le concepts of constant and variable capital, which scarcely figure in: the Grundrisse. We find in their place instead fixed and circulating:

C2pital, the first in a series of 'ersatz' categories.

4. Fixed and circulating capital versus constant and variable .... ~> ~larx mentions in passing the terms constant and variable capital once in the Grundrisse, referring to them as proper to the production phase; . be then passes directly to a discussion of competition. He again refers to ~nat we earlier called the constant part of capital' (my translation, ~brx. 1953: p. 630; Marx, 1973: p. 743) at the very end of the second tc"ttion of the chapter on capital. The formula C + V + S = value of OJmmodity occurs once, but does not constitute part of the theoretical Knacture. Instead, we find capital systematically divided into fixed and cirtuIating elements, a distinction proper to the circulation process. As QsctI by the Classical Political Economists the two were distinguished .: ~ ~ time they took to circulate, fixed capital having the slower rate ~ It only depreciated gradually. Marx's concepts of constant and t'Iriab,le .capital on the other hand belong to the sphere of production '~~nguish between that part of capital devoted to raw materials, ~mgs, machinery (so-called 'dead labour') and that part which rnamtams the labour force ('living labour'). The distinction is essentially ~ the fixed/circulating couple remains a technological distinction,

'v~ 11 e constant and variable capital on the other hand denote respectively

f le COnditions of labour and the labourer himself. Marx was not the

irst to, make such a distinction however:

.~ Principle merit of Ramsey:

(~ that ~e in fact makes a distinction between constant and

:'. ·CQ.Jntal. True it occurs in such a form that he retains as


Keith Tribe

_ solitary names the distinctions, taken over from the circulation process, between fixed and circulating capital, but explains

fixed capital in such a way that it includes all the elements of constant capital. By fixed capital he understands therefore not only instruments, buildings in which the labour process goes on or the result of labour is stored, work and breeding cattle, hut also all raw-material (half-fabricated, etc.) ....

. . . One can understand therefore that by 'circulating capital' he understands nothing but the part of capital, dissolved in wage-labour, and by fixed capital the part dissolved in objectiv<: conditions-means of labour and labour material. The error is indeed that this division, taken out of the direct production process of capital, is identified with the distinction stemming from the circulation process. This is the result of holding fast to the economic tradition. (Marx, 1968: pp. 320-1)

It is necessary to emphasise that these two couples are not logical equivalents, present respectively in the sphere of production and circulation. This kind of conception of the process of transition between theoretical structures certainly makes life easier-it can be maintain. d that at a crucial moment Marx 'perceives an error' in his work, and effects a shift from the process of circulation to that of production I,y 1 generalised exchange of conceptual equivalents, the transition is effected by swapping homologies, This conception would- however be: incorrect, for it assumes that the set of concepts appropriate to ('at'li sphere exist in a homologous combinatory; such an explanation i~ therefore structuralist in that it conceives of theoretical transitions .15 the mass replacement of elements of homologous structures, In fact the transition from the sphere of circulation to that of production is 1 complex process which results in a conceptual structure specific to the: concepts set to work in that sphere, In this transition process, rixcd and circulating capital can at times function in ersatz roles, as :\I.:~\ showed above with respect to Ramsey, but the examination 01 ILi, belongs in a logical reconstruction of Marx's theoretical re\'o!ulion,

In the Grundrisse Marx is on the way to breaking with the C!:l~,;c;t1 conception which distinguished capital according to time. but 1:1<' partial nature of this is demonstrated by his position on the [<:rn>duction of fixed capital, essentiaIly the same as that of the Cb~<I'-::,1 theorists, who simply assumed that as fixed capital deprl'l:i3tl'~' It 1< simultaneously renewed. .

This problem of reproduction in fact designates the ersatz nature cor the concept of fixed capital in the Grundrisse as the following ra~,;1"~ indicates, where Marx talks spccificaIly of the depreciation of mJclll:ll'~~ as fixed capital:

Its total value is completely reproduced, i.e. is fully returned via circulation only when it has been completely consumed as

; 01"1 the theoretical significance of Marx·s Grundrlsse


use value in the production process. As soon as it is completely

dissOlved into value, and hence-completely absorbed into -

circulation, it has completely passed away as use value and

hence must be replaced, as a necessary moment of production,

by a new use value of the ~am.e ~ind,. i.e. must be. rep~oduc.ed. The necessity of reproducing It, i.e, Its reproduction time, IS detennined by the time in which it is used up, consumed within the production process. With circulating capital, reproduction is detennined by circulation time; with fixed capital, circulation is de-tennined by the time in which it is consumed as use value, in its material presence, within the act of production, i.e. by theperiod of time within which it is reproduced. (Marx, 1973: - - -. pp.681-2)

'-)n eo f~r as Marx specifies the process of reproduction, this is conceived ._ 2 result of the activity of the worker, not of a particular branch of the

- production process:

He therefore replaces the old labour-time by the act of working itself, not by the addition of special labour-time for this - purpose. (Marx, 1973: p. 356)

Although the site of this statement' is in a discussion of the preservation of the means of production free of charge by the labourer, it does iDdicate that Marx has not clearly distinguished between the main-

tenance Df value and the reproduction of the means of production .. The ,RprOduction process is not yet conceived as a particular department of production, although it must be emphasised that this is not an obstacle by the nature of the concept of fixed capital. The orga composition ai.c:-pital constructed in the Grundrisse consists of fixed and circulating capstal, the principal difference with the organic composition of capital ii, CqitaJ (Constant and variable capital) being in its effects on the rate of profit. Fluctuations in the value of fixed capital resulting from the l1~uction of new techniques will in the Grundrisse directly affect the

, ctpQic composition of capital and the rate of profit, while in Capital ~ same fluctuations could be compensated for by e.g. the cheapening

~f r'_l~' ~!erials, leaving the rate of profit unaltered. It was not until the early saties that Marx broke decisively with the Classical theory, as is indic~ted by a detailed letter to Engels criticising Ricardo's rent theory .. b. dais letter Marx presents an organic composition of capital based on ,~ and variable portions (Marx to Engels, August 2, 1862; Marx, 't64b: p. 2&]). This seems to be associated with Marx's theoretical digesti~n of Quesnay's Tableau Economique, a work of crucial importance which js DOt referred to at all in the Grundrisse.v? (See Appendix I.) Apart from the significance of the reproduction schemes that Marx then

not sure ,I:1t ~ ~ construct, the use of an ersatz organic composition of capital

. ,:PInicular for a central area of the Grundrisse : the specific break-

Keith Tribe

down of the capitalist mode of production, and the general probl . f

., f . , f em 0

conceiving 0 transrtions rom one mode of production to another.

5. Capitalist crisis or production breakdown?

-\ difficulty touched on above is that the Gruudrisse does not pose as its object the capitalist mode of production, rather it could be said tl) direct itself to capitalist society. In the section entitled 'Forms \\hil'~\ precede capitalist production' some have claimed that Marx lavs {Jut m analysis of the structure and pcriodisation of modes of proJ~cril)n. This is not strictly true, as can be demonstrated by Marx's disC:'I.:;-;iojj )f crisis and breakdown in these forms. When Marx writes of caritali~t crisis in Capital, Vol. III, he clearly specifics the contradictions which specify this:

The contradiction of this capitalist mode of production consists rather in its tendency to the absolute development of its productive forces, which continually conflict with the specific conditions of production, in which capital moves and can only move. (Marx, 1964a: p. 268)

The real barrier of capitalist production is Capital itself, that is: that capital and its self-realisation appears as a point of departure and arrival, as moti ve and aim of production; that production

is only production for capital, and not the other way around,

the means of production are merely a means for a constantly extended formation of the life-process for the society of producers. (Marx, 1964a: P: 260)

It is not necessary here to go into Marx's theory of crisis and transit ir '·1 as developed in Capital, what is central is that in order to specify t:it· particular forces which generate the contradictory tendel1cil'S it l~ necessary to form the concept of a mode of production, In d:~~ Grundrisse this is absint : instead we arc presented with a theory ,.! socio-economic 'forms'. Attempts have been made to elevate this :::.,': a theory of modes of production, but without a great deal of succv-. .. · . It is important to recognise that at this stage Vlarx has not pr(l,h:,:·_t an adequate theory of periodisation and transition, the e!emt'n,s , .' : .1 mode of production remain implicit in these passages, resllltir.~ 1~1 .< particular way of conceiving of the transition:

The survival of the commune as such in the old mode rl"quirl'~ the reproduction of its members in the presupposed objecti.n· conditions. Production itself, the advance of population (thitoo belongs with production), necessarily suspends these . conditions little hy little: destroys them instead of rcproJudr.!!

them, etc, and with that the communal system declines and

-~ on the theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrisse


falls. together with the property. relations on which it is based. (MarX. 1973: p. 486. See also p. 493)

What Hobsbawm presents as a more sophisticated analysis than the '' succession ~f modes in the 1~59 'Preface' (Hobsbawm, 1964: p. 36) is in fact the md~x of a theore~lcal weakness, for although Marx docS not imply determinate succession of stages here, he has correspondingly no means of accounting for the rise and decline of fonns: the form simply overproduces itself, and this overproduction is not )oc:ated in a region specific for any form. The transition simply occurs, itt precondition being the collapse of the old form, which is at root a

UUtOlogy. ,

Given that there are severe weaknesses with Marx's analysis of the Jaw of motion of economic forms in general, it is only to be expected that the theory of crisis that he presents for capitalist society suffers as .• 'ri:sult. As mentioned earlier in the Introduction, Nicolausat one" time drew attention to Marx's statements concerning capitalist breakdown in the Grundrisse, although interestingly he does not repeat them in his Foreword, in fact implying that he disclaims such a position ~icolaus, 1973: p. 51). In the Grundrisse two forms of crisis mustbe distinguished, the periodic spasms which recreate the conditions for production on an extended scale, and also the final breakdown of

apitalism: '


Beyond a certain point, the development of the powers of , production become a barrier for capital; hence the capital ~1ation for the development of the productive powers of labour. When it has reached this point, capital, i.e. wage-labour, enters into the same relation towards the development of social wealth and of the forces of production as the guild system, serfdom, slavery, and is necessarily stripped off as a fetter. The last form of servitude assumed by human activity, that of wage-labour on one side, capital, is thereby cast off like a skin, and this casting off itself is the result of the mode of production corresponding to capital; the material and mental conditions of the negation

of earlier unfree forms of social production, are themselves the result of its production process. The growing incompatibility ., ~~en the productive development of ,society and its hitherto UlStmg relations of production expresses itself in bitter

. contradictions, crises, spasms. The violent destruction of capital "by relations external to it, but rather as a condition of its ,:-:;«-Pteservation, is the most striking in which advice is given

, to be ~ne and to give room to a higher state of social

prodUction. (Marx, 1973: pp. 749-50)

::._ ~t th~~. continues, stressing the role of fixed capital in the profitabilIty, and then the position is restated:


Keith Tribe

These contradictions, of course, lead to explosions, crises, in which momentary suspension of all labour and annihilation of great part of the capital violently lead it back to the point Whl"~ it is enabled (to go on) fully employing its productive powers without committing suicide. Y ct, these regularly recurring catastrophes lead to their repetition on a higher scale, and finally to its violent overthrow. (Marx, 1973: p. 750)

Earlier on this idea of the conditions and limitations of the capitali .. : production process is also elaborated:

However, these limits come up against the general tendency~ of capital (which showed itself in simple circulation, where money as medium of circulation appeared as merely vanishing, withour independent necessity, and hence not as limit and barrier) to forget and abstract from:

(I) necessary labour as limit of the exchange value of living labour capacity; (2) surplus as the limit of surplus labour and development of the forces of production; (3) money as the limit of production; (4) the restriction of the production of use YJIUl'S by exchange value.

Hence overproduction: i.e. the sudden recall (Errinerung) of all these necessary moments of production founded on ; hence general devaluation in consequence of forgetting them. (Marx, 1973: p. 416)


There are three major points to be made concerning these sections where Marx discusses crises. The first of these concerns the difference in the foundation of the two forms. The periodic crisis is developed on the basis of particular tendencies.'! which act together tn produce temporary suspensions, which refound the possibility of

her capitalist production. This is formally similar to the theory uf crisis presented in Capital, although it must be emphasised that here: we have an ersatz organic composition of capital.

Second, the idea of the final collapse of capitalism is not ba~eJ on factors different from those which produce periodic crises, but r .lthl'r rests on an assertion of the development of the form to its sclf-abolitil}l1. In the first passage quoted above there is no indication of the SOll[l:t" of this 'overthrow'<-whether it is an automatic process of collapse .. or whether it posits revolutionary class struggle. The passage

res the nature of the collapse, as such is indicative not of :\\:,

'insight' but of a lack of theoretical development. . .

It might be objected that Marx does sketch out a theory of tr.lOS!tl~n specific to capitalism in his section on machines, which brings us ~ll t~~ d point. For this objection introduces yet another ambiguity III Hie Grundrisse, that of the nature of capital, for these machines arc [l:p~~~ sen ted as the most adequate expression of fixed capital (:\larx, 1 t) i -~.

r .:'.-. on the theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrisse ,,~ .. " 694). The quot~s above can be read as similar to p~ges. in Capftal

, ~ the reservatlOns already made) only so long as capital u concewed

( II social relation. The problem is that Marx is not consistent on this "~ the Gruntirisse, and this is shown precisely in the section on machines. nws although there are many passages where Marx emphasises the . , .1ocia1 nature of the original accumulation of capital and the social bonds . . of capital, when he com~s to dis~~ reproduction ~s is conceived ?f . at a heaping up of machines, a piling up of fixed capital. Here Marx in &ct reverts to the Classical conception of fixed capital, tending to asociate machinery in general with capitalism, which in Capital Vol. I iI represented as an error committed by Classical Political Economy

.' (}tarx. 1962: p. 465). So again there is a region of the Grundrisse where . • struggle with Classical theory is still under way, and concepts have . - DOl yet been consistently formulated with which to effect a definitive .. :

brak.. . : .....


6. Conclusion

nus . paper cannot of course do justice to the complexities of the GrDIlri.sse; it is limited to indicating its transitional nature, drawing attention to the fact that the significance of the text does lie in new (enriched) theoretical revelations, but that it more simply shows Marx It work forging the necessary concepts for an adequate analysis of the apitalist mode of production. For what we have in the Grundrisse is Man's fIItH:k of investigation; an often incoherent review of the works from which he was breaking away. One of the principal difficulties of tackling the Grundrisse in the way done here is precisely its transitional

. .cure., for aU too often Marx's varies the use of his concepts (as shown

. with respect to fixed capital), such that it would be possible in some. cases to extract passages which proved that Marx had here, for example, ~loped an adequate theory of surplus value. This is not however the pomt.. for what is contended in this paper is that the inconsistency of • Gnmdrisse must be posed as the fundamental problem. The work .~ ~Y be made coherent by the imposition of a problematic external :.~. £1\"en the current lack of means theorising processes of transition.

painful ~econciliation of the apparent incongruencies with quotes and ~~o1(ls the necessity of taking these problems as the point of

-~re for new theoretical effort. '

.hDallYt two political consequences of the text can be isolated:

.(a)b Since the analysis proceeds in the sphere of circulation it is not POSS! lc to theorise the production of surplus value, since in circulation t~15 ~ of the process are posited as equals. The clearest index of t llS. t the text begins with money, exchanging which equalises the agents .. money holders abstracted from the process by which the means of exchange are distributed. Obscuring the relations of pro-


Keith Tribe

duction in which surplus value is produced, this results in the conceal_ ment of the dominant characteristic of the capitalist mode of production the appropriation of a surplus through commodity exchange. Th~ analysis of surplus value therefore rests, in the last analysis, not on a theory of appropriation but on a (moral) principle of exploitation although this is concealed by certain categories. '

(2) The 'theory' of capitalist breakdown is in fact lacking theoretical support, and no criteria are advanced which differentiate this from the mechanisms of periodic crisis. Further, the role of the working class is left obscure, and the text can lead to an economism by which the capitalist mode of production is held to break down of Its own accord with the working class performing at the most perhaps a coup de grace:

APPENDIX I: The 'Two Plans'

Up until now, discussion of the theoretical relationship between the Grundrisse and Capital has been blocked by concentration on a chronological problem, the relation of the two plans of 1857-8 and IS()5-6. The so-called 'historical' approach (Rosdolsky, Morf) concentrates on establishing whether these two plans are really the same, and when any shifts occurred. This tends to divert attention from the problem of theoretical transition, but in so far as the questions posed are relevant some aspects of the debate are worth discussing.

It has been asserted many times that the four volumes of Capital (including Theories of Surplus Value) represent merely the first of six books planned in 1857-8:

(1) Capital

(2) Landed Property (3) Wage Labour

(4) The State

(5) International Trade (6) World Market

The basis for this assertion varies from ignorance (:\IcLellan) to formalism (Rosdolsky) to an insufficient grasp of Marx's theon:tioca! object (Nicolaus). Rosdolsky conducts his argument by discusslf:~ whether bits of the Grundrisse are similar to bits of the J 865-6 schcmv. that of Capital more or less as it subsequently appeared; by this mcar.s he raises the score to three out of six. I will not discuss his argument at length here since this has been done by Brewster (1972). ~ icoJau,.;, n:~ the other hand emphasises 'the inner method and logic of the WhOlt: .

The inner structure (of Capital) is identical in the main lin,:s to the Grundrisse, except that in the Grundrisse the structure ltc~ . lin 11ll" "',rf:I(O(" like " scatr"ldinl!;, whil« in Capital it is bUilt 111,

, ~ on the theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrisse


and this inner structure is nothing other than the materialist dialectic method. In the Grundrisse the method is visible; in Capital it is deliberately, consciously hidden, for the sake of more graphic, concrete, vivid and therefore more materialistdialectical presentation .... The fact that much content in the Grundrisse is not carried over into Capital-particularly the 'directly, outspokenly 'revolutionary' passages-is due precisely to the requirements of the method of presentation employed in Capital. (Nicolaus, 1973: pp. 60-1)18

Both these positions are erroneous, for the only adequate criterion for • discussion of the plans is the theoretical divisions which they presuppose. It has been shown that despite 'the same method' in the twc works Marx comes up with some very different answers, and that the: tupposedly 'revolutionary' passages have been left out for a more sounc rason than some form of cosmetics. Nicolaus is correct to emphasis( the distinction between the mode of investigation and the mode- OJ rtpreseI1tation, but by becoming entangled in 'problems of m~ does not see that this distinction centres around the order and mode 03 exposition of the object; the analysis of the capitalist mode of productiee cannot be initiated arbitrarily but is subject to its own laws. The seven difficulties present in the Grundrisse (for example, the pre-occupatior with the sphere of circulation) are theoretical in nature and not just the results of a preliminary investigation armed with a trusty method

" Rosdolsky's is unfortunately marred by his vice-like grip on a pail.sciSsors and a jar of paste. His book is chiefly long quotes from'~~

, GraJrisse and Capital, which does indicate an extensive knowledge' of '~ \\'Or~ but results in a work which reads like a soo-page ~nten~ . inda. This is not the most suitable form in which to present an argu1 .,1Dtnt, and it is consequently difficult to summarise; indeed it might

&'aIOnably be doubted that a coherent argument exists. '. " :: " Rosdolsky identifies the principal analytical movement in Capital.24 tht development from 'capital in general' to the 'many capitals ~oL I-Vol. III), and accordingly identifies the Grundrisse as a ~,~ .. prou:ss, remaining in the sphere of 'capital in general" ...... Q .• ~

aner a confusion here, apart from the fact that Rosdolsky pr~ !"" ~~ent to support his assertion. In Capital Vol. I Marx examine ~ ~ general' in such a way that he can introduce money apait , .... prtce, which belongs to the, analysis of competit~on, the equali~a. "s of. the ~te'of profit and PrIces (Vol. III), But 10 the GnmdruS! . , .... iltA: not mtroduced in such a notional way, but is part of the sam.

altGado g at once' that marks the early chapters of Ricardo's Principle~ fe ,~ laky were right in identifying 'capital in general' as the crucial .. ~, of..Vol. I, then the Grundrisse, dealing also with this, could not " ~ clearly from Capital in the way that it does: instead

seems unable to deal with the real confusions of th~


Keith Tri~

Grundrisse, and iso~ates on~ of the more o?vious. 's!miiarities', which because. of the r~le ItfPlays illfthe stMructureh IS no sUllllarity at all. After assembling a series 0 quotes rom i arx, e concludes:

Readers familiar with the content of Marx's Capital will certainly know how to appreciate the meaning of these quotations from the Rohentiourf. For what Marx sketched in 1857-8 is in fact also the programme of his later work. (Rosdolsky, 1969: p. 71)

The 'reason' for this change is as follows:

The change of plan seems to be explained by completely different reasons than those touched on in the course of Our investigation: namely, that after Marx has completed a considerable part of his work-the analysis of industrial capital-the old 'self-understood' structure becomes superfluous. (Rosdolsky, 1969: p. 75)

The 'reasons touched on' were those of Kautsky and Grossmann. In t:\C latter case, Rosdolsky quotes Grossmann to the effect that the change is one from an empirical to a theoretical treatment of the production process, inserts an exclamation mark, pastes in a criticism of this fro-n Fr. Behrens, and then remarks that their effectively common position is obvious.

Grossmann is totally misrepresented by Rosdolsky, for he in Iact produced a remarkable argument which was the first attempt to dC.l1 with the theoretical development of Marx, and remains unsurpassc.I. Since the Grundrisse was not published in 1929, Grossmann's source for the six-part scheme is the 1859 'Preface' to the Contribution t-, ~J:f Critique of Political Economy, but the plan is here identical to that of 1857-8 so that the argument remains the same. He poses the f:1:n;!i.l~ question for the first time: is Capital complete, or is it a fragment of .I more extensive work? Grossmann opens by presenting a continuist argument and then criticising it:

- I And although this can be seen from a first glance, the fact 01 t.JC

change of plan of Marx's Capital escapes Professor

R. Wilbrandt-in spite of bows that he makes before this

'extraordinary work', which is more or less a duty in his .

capacity as author of his work on Marx. In so far as he gOl':> In!'-'

the background (Entstehungsgeschichte) of the work and .

presents the original plan of 1859 as the plan of a six-part ~or~,., he then announces to the world that the single volume of (a/' ... ·· that Marx himself edited remains a torso in a double scnsl'. :-';ot only because it is 'only the first of several volumes', b.ut '. secondly 'it is only the first volume of a work which In turn I~

, id db,'

part of a whole: the first of six parts, which were cons I ere .

the author as the solution of many problems, which in the first part of the complete work, in Capital, he withheld from ,ettIing, holding them over for later works'. (Grossmann,

1929: p. 3°7) .-

It:. rather disturbing to see the same arguments as are current now .... :iuced over. forty years. ag~ in the ~ame. simpl~ form; in the. case of ~(cLenan, his argument IS ~lrtu~lly Identlca~ with .that ~f Wllbra.ndt {}lcLellan- cites Grossmann in hIS Introduction, rrusquotmg the title, bat gives no indication that he is acquainted with Grossmann's arguaieIlt). Wilbrandt ~inta~ed that ~h~ presentation of wage-Iab~ur is ~ete in Capital, without noticmg that a change of plan intera:ned. Kautsky on the other hand had noted this, but had never cYCStigated it. Grossmann locates in the correspondence of the early .&uia the signs of theoretical struggle, Marx stating that he has had to ~ly . reorganise his work (Marx to Engels, August 15, .1~63; Mant J¢4b·~·: p. 368). Grossmann associates this directly with the ~a.king through by Marx of the reproduction schemes:

It is the task of the following presentation to show that there is . not merely an external connection between the change of plan - of Marx's work and the methodological construction of the reproduction schemas, but also a necessary inner connection, that the methodological viewpoint in fact followed in the final ronstruction of Capital-the articulation of empirical material according to the functions performed by capital in its circular flow-therefore the change of the original 1859 plan, must have necessarily followed from the way in which Marx conceived the problem. This problem, as I will show elsewhere, is: since exchange value in capitalist production-the increase of - .. ndtange value-is the direct goal, it is important to know how to calculate it. (Grossmann, 1929: p. 313)

:~·I wish to stress here is not the attempt to solve the reason fo~ ... ~ge by emphasising an empirical problem-that belongs to a .. 'fUi&e study of Grossmann's work. What is important is that Grossmann points to the recovery of Quesnay as of prime importance· ~ Maa's work .

. ". ",Ot.:.aay in the Tableau Economique constructed a reproduction ,;::iile !or a ~pi:alist. (agricultural) society, based on exchanges

leen productlve agriculture and 'unproductive' manufacture, who

Inere V·_..L d h .

. ~ ~ -ua.e up t e products of agriculture, Out of these two sectors

~.. ii devel~ped the c~ass distincti~ns of the capitalist ~ode of , 't~ . or'Nat whIch Were rejected by Smith, who however retained the

orm the di ti 0 b diff .. b . 1 d

:. ~ IS n~t.ton y 1 erentianng etween agricu ture an

e. In this way Smith created an obstacle to an accurate treatment of the-.circulation of commodities, and Marx in returning to




. .. ::


Keith T,,~

- Quesnay replaced the pro~uctivefunproductive distinction with h. two departments of productlOn--{l) the production of constant . ',:' and (II) the production of the means of consumption. This S\"s~:r~11t~.'. treatment of the reproduction process of the capitalist mode of '~~':.'_ duction, based on the concepts of constant and variable capital, \\\~.~ crucial step forward for the theory of Capital. In the Grllndrisse 0:1 -:',,~ other hand the only Physiocratic work referred to is the Dain: c,!i"'''': of 1846, and from this Marx only notes Quesnay's article on fa!'~~.:;

(Fermiers) in a few places. .

Perhaps the argument of this paper with respect to the 'two P:Jr.:.' can be summarised as follows:

(1) Theoretically, the Grundrisse is unevenly developed C()!!IPC1~, : with Capital, and as a direct result of this is much more C;In\ ',. luted.

(2) Materially, the Grundrisse represents the first book of the si,part scheme, which was later developed. If the comparison Pl::.': be made, it can be said that Capital covers the first three hr,'.;', of the 1857-8 scheme in some way, and in any case :'Il:!rx «(1;:_ sidered that it was in these first three books that the'): theoretical work would take place, the last three to be based "("'. the first three, except perhaps for the relation of state for n .... :" varying economic structures of society (the articulation of r::,,,!c, of production in social formations) which would require :~1<),\' work. (Marx to Kugelmann, December 28, 1862; Xlarx, If/" .. !' p.639)14

APPENDIX II: Translations of'I857 Introduction'

Kautsky first published the '1857 Introduction' in 1\:('1/(' Zeit in I: r..: : a revised version constitutes pp. 5-31 of the 1939-41 '\.:JitiOl.1 n: ::~( Grundrisse. ('Revised' means that an improved transcription ot \L:'l' almost illegible handwriting has been made.) The first Eng;ish tr.l1l':.ltion appeared as an appendix to A Contribution to the Critiqi« < Political Economy translated by ~. I. Stone (1904). This is the l':':"'~ that Mcl.ellan has relied on, but contrary to his claim to have a:::c:dc.: its weaknesses, he reprints unaltered save for a few gr~!Illll\.lti,i..'" improvements. In 1971 the new Moscow translation oi thc ::<:" Contribution appeared, translated from the r'Verke edition ot. 1,('1

d ) b S W k h duction' [,It';"l"! ~

(Ban 13 y , . Ryazans aya; t e 'Intro uction was pu_.: ...

an appendix (Marx, 1971: pp. 188-217). Finally );icolaus r~()\"IUl'" •• J with yet another translation, this time from the 1930 -+1 cdltlon, ,_,,~

What I wish to show in this appendix is that there are flaw~ III "'"1", of these translations, and that this important theoretical rcxt ~ suffered at the hands of 'simplifying' translators.

i~:;-~ ~~ theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrisse 203 -

ow"_ •

~"t ••• r" '1' .....

~oftexts _--

,'_ ,_ .... \."'.

_£;"..:;hit.l; (Marx, 1953: p. 10)

~ resumieren: Es gibt allen Produktionsstufen gemeinsame Bestim-

~ die vom Denken als allgemeine fixiert werden-aber die £ ten allgemeinen Bedingungen aller Produktion sind nichts als :::":uakten Momente, mit denen keine wirkliche geschichtliche

Ftoduttionsstufe begriffen ist.' - _

'~_:1904: p: ~74): 'To sum up:. all the stages ,of ~roduction have etirain destinabons m common, which we generalise in thought; but * so-called general conditions of all production are nothing but ~ conceptions which do not go to make up any real stage in the

.. .,. of production.' " ,

• ...:.t,_ • •

(Mtl..dlan, 1971: pp. 21-2) Identical with Stone.

~. 1971: p. 193) 'To recapitulate: there ar~ categories ~~ch :afti'common to all stages of production and are estabhshed by reasomng . • pr.u categories; the so-called general conditions of all and any poduction. however, are nothing but abstract conceptions which ~,o-_

,_ '«fine any of the actual historical stages of production.' , .t., -_-._ ,

- '

{'SClaus, 1973: p. 88) 'To summarise: There are characteristics' - , "_

'1Iiida all the stages of production have in common, and which are established as general ones by the mind; but the so-called getleTal P!'e4 - :-;'

conditions of all production are nothing more than these abstract::.._ '. , moments, with which no real historical stage of production' can be , ' I 1JIIptd..' (Nicolaus' translation is the most satisfactory and I would - " , ~'wiIb to make any alterations to it.) _. - -, :--{. :l

. .' .-"

~-.,is cl?Sing a critique of attempts, typified by Mill, to specify conditions m whose absence no production is possible. He admits that' .~on of 'production in general', a set of pre-requisites, does have •. ~ usefulness, in that it 'saves repetition' (Marx, 1953: p. 7), ~ II purely abstract, it has nothing to do with the real movement.

,. ~ are abstract moments of a process, not as the Stone transla-

:~' eel by.McLellan and Moscow, suggests, conceptions in a

:!:; IIad of thi~ process. A specific social formation, dominated by f '.' of productIon, cannot be adequate?, analysed by breaking it

(0\\&11 ~ a set of 'general conditions', constituting the essence of

pro uction in that db· f . d' . Th

' ~. me e, nor y speer ymg pre-con mons. ese

catezones cannot ~C> 'I hi . 1 f d . 'l'

~ e- asp any rea istonca stage 0 pro ucnon, lor as

we shall see later. the historical stage is an articulated combination, not a statI~ set . of elements, The Stone translation shifts the sentence around so that __ 'real historical stage of production' becomes a 'stage in

the historv ,ofprodu t' t d'·· -

~ cnon', isplacing the meamng from the real process

., ,


Keith Tr,bt

to its reproduction in thought. This identifies the history of prOUuc( with the real develop~ent of production, cOl:fusing t~e conceptionl~~ the real movement with the real movement Itself; this introduces empiricism unjustified by the original, positing a subject when: no~~ was before.

Exhibit 2: (:\1arx, 1953: pp. 20-1)

'Das Resultat, wozu wir gelangcn, ist nicht, daf Produktion, Distr:b:;_ tion, Austausch, Konsumtion identisch sind, sondern daG sie alk Glieder einer Totalitat bilden, Unterschiede innerhalb einer Einht"lt_ ... Eine bestimrnte Produktion bestimmt also bestimmte Konsurnti% Distribution, Austausch und bestimmte Verhdltnisse dieser t.erschirdnn« Momente zueinander .... Es findet Wechselwirkung zwischen J,.:) vcrschiednen Momenten statt. Dies der Fall bei jedem organisdltr; Ganzen.'

(Stone, 1904: pp. 291-2) 'The result we arrive at is not that production, distribution, exchange, and consumption are identical,' rut that they are all members of one entity, different sides of one unit .. __ A definite (form of) production thus determines the (forms of) C01~' sumption, distribution, exchange and also the mutual relations bettcrr« these 'various elements .... A mutual interaction takes place between the various elements. Such is the case with every organic body.'

(Mcl.ellan, 1971: p. 33) The same, except substitutes 'aspects' for 'sides'.

(Moscow, 1971: pp. 204-5) 'The conclusion which follows from tL:is not that production, distribution, exchange and consumption arc identical, but that they arc links of a single whole, different aspects of one unit .... A distinct mode of production thus determines the sprl"lti( mode of consumption, distribution, exchange and the specific rela!ICJII' of these different phases to one another .... There is an interJ(:i"_~ between the various aspects. Such interaction takes place in any org.ln:' entity.'

(Nicolaus, 1973: pp. 99-100) 'The conclusion we reach is no! thJt production, distribution, exchange and consumption are identic;!l. b-al that they all form members of a totality, distinctions within a unitv. : -

A definite production thus determines a definite consumption, dl~t_rJt"J~ tion and exchange as well as definite relations between these d~!_I<'r('r:: moments .... Mutual interaction takes place between the d;tft-rcll:moments. This is the case with every organic whole.' (I let :'\icola>,;' version stand.)

This passage is important for Marx's conceptions of totality, at; structure. 'Totality> is a whole which is internally ditfercntl3:.~ determined by the moment of production, but with a complex rrUi. -


?~:~on. ~n so far as much of f:h~ terminology .can be called ::'tJkFIian', it is lfilpOrtant to pr~rve. this in the translation .

• . . :" .. Thert are two fo~ of ~rror In th!s set ~f tra~sl~tions: first, .simple ... ··~de ('orgam~ body, (~to~e): ,organic en~lty (M~cow) instead :..: . .,. 'organic whole'; whole, . entity instead o.f. t,otahty~. Seco~d are ,: .. .".c s)"stematic errors r~ultmg fro:n an emplnc~s,t reading, This. can ...... found in the. =.: asp,ects, SIdes of a ,Ulllt, for 'Unte?Chlede .: .,balb einer Einheit ; and elements, phases for Momenten. These .>_ falsifications, 'distinctions' are not 'aspects' or 'phases' because: ..

.. c~ .(. -'_'j, I. :_ .....r. . ..

~":t:(i)' they cannot be conceived simultaneously as constituting a totality,

i. ~, .. ~,instead first one 'aspect' is displayed and then another; .

. ~ '. '(2) thus an essential unity is broken down, a differentiated fDhole

.. , .' . becomes a collection of elements; .

. :~:. ti). termssuch as 'aspect' and 'side' refer to notions of vision,'· the , .. ' : .. ~. 0.:'.. apect& being 'visible' from particular angles, positing a subject' .

. for whom the aspects appear, diverting the process of movement

: ' .. :. .,' . from the whole to the perception of it by a subject. This is

.<.,,:: ..... paralleled in the translations of 'Moment'. ' ...

• ~ .1 •

Tbt Nicolaus translation, which is a good rendering of the original, ~. dtcrly does not posit a knowing subject in its language, unlike the ... .t.r translations.

. ,

~J.1aibit.3: (Marx, 1953: p. 28)

, '

~"~".~ also untubar und falsch, die okonomischen Kategorienin der :.,'ofp .aufeinanderfolgen zu lassen, in der sie historisch die bestim-

'~'.I waren. Vielmehr ist ihre Reihenfolge bestimmt durch die i~ I -ung. die sie in der modemen biirgerlichen Gesellschaft auf-

i' m wdcr haben, und die genau das umgekehrte von dem ist, was als . :- 1ft ~ erscheint oder der Reihe der historischen Entwicklung

" ~icht. Es handelt sich nicht urn das Verhaltnis, das die okono-

: • 1 cLea Verhaltnisse in der Aufeinanderfolge veschiedner Gesell-

< ri lhIforDten historisch einnehmen. N och weniger um ihre Rei.. ~~Ifa!F u,in der Idee" (Proudhon) (einer verschwimmelten Vorstellung . :":L.;_.~ Bew:gung). Sondern urn ihre Gliederung innerhalb ':~ -:-la1trnen bUrgerlichen Gesellschaft.'

..•.... , - ,.

: .. n., IC)O.f.: p. 304) 'It would thus be .. impractical and wrong to

.. '~ the economic categories in the order in which they were the

.determining- £acto . th f h' Thei d f .

. h ~~_.;S in e course 0 istory. err or er 0 sequence IS

;.~ _;r ~hourgeoUWlCQ' by the relation to which they bear to one another in

.mocern IS' soci ty d hi h ] h . f ha

.;,. .. ere ,an W ic IS t e exact opposite 0 W

seems·to be the· 1 d

ment ~'.l\'hat Ir natu~a or er o~ th.e order of their histo~ical develo~-

relations we. ~e mterested in IS not the place which economic ~'_"'" .,,;~.~ ... in the historical succession of different forms of

society .. Still 1-- ar .' d i h " U'

- . ...._ e w e mtereste in t e order of their succession In


Keith Tri~

i~ea" (Proudhon~ which is .but a. hazy (?~ concepti~n of the course of history. We are Interested In their organic connection within mod

b . . , crn

ourgeois society.

(McLellan, I971: pp. 41-2) As Stone, except for 'in the idea' and th omission of the question mark after 'hazy'. . C

(Moscow, I97I: p. 2I3) 'It would be inexpedient and wrong therefo •. to present the economic categories successively in the order in whi~~ they have played the dominant role in history. On the contrary, their order of succession is determined by their mutual relation in modern bourgeois society and this is quite the reverse of what appears to ~ natural to them or in accordance with the sequence of historical development. The point at issue is not the role that various economic relations have played in the succession of various social formati()~~ appearing in the course of history; even less is it their sequence "as concepts" (Proudhon) (a nebulous notion of the historical process) blot their position within modern bourgeois society.'

(Nicolaus, I973: pp. 107-8) 'It would therefore be unfeasible an.I wrong to let the economic categories follow one another in the same sequence as that in which they were historically decisive. Their sequence is determined, rather, by their relation to one another in modern bourgeois society, which is precisely the opposite of that which seems to be their natural order or which corresponds to historical den lopment. The point is not the historic position of the economic relations in the succession of different forms of society. Even less is it their sequence "in the idea" (Proudhon) (a muddy notion of historic movement). Rather, their order within modern bourgeois society.' (I would like tr) substitute 'social formations' here for 'forms of society', and 'combin.ltion' for 'order' in the last sentence.)

There are two issues here: the relation of concepts to a real pn',f"'~o and the nature of these concepts. Since the latter relates to proble:::, raised in the two previous exhibits, I will discuss only the proble:n of concepts. The social whole is a social formation, a 'set' of mO::1C:::; dominated by the moment of production in a capitalist social forf11at:c:l. This 'set' is not a static combination, there are no general conJlt,I':_r.~ for its existence; their articulation specifies the social formation,. ~ ::r economic relations of previous societies are not just 'lying around, 1:\ A modern 'society'; they arc part of a specific process. The term 'Gl:{oJ,::-:

Tung' does not refer to the static presence of a set of elements, but w. tI~: process of their combination-their articulation. If this is not e!llph~:~~ the concept of a social formation based on the concept of the m~C . production collapses into the ideological notion of 'society', .1 ~~~\~~: empirical summing of an unspecified set of levels, elements, etc, " ,J

, I d' , f d ction' Jl~'U"""

problem corresponds to the genera con mons 0 pro u -

in Exhibit I.


.. ~ ,"

: '. I wish to express my thanks to Mike Bleaney, Maurice Dobb, Stuart .,~tyre ~d Bob ~owthom for the hel~fu1 suggestions th~t t~e~ ~e ::..,mg revisIon of this paper. There remain certain substantial 1 lIIU tat ions to t.e argmnent, primarily its formalism whereby the 'weaknesses of the t~ are registered in a recurrent reading by a comparison with the ;~" of Capital': !his is discussed further ~ .Fn. 4, but I would

. rb".ise that the posrtions adopted here are PTOfJISl.Onal, necessary '~cs to an adequate assessment of the development of Marx's ... wetica1 work -.

. ~: .. )tazaroS (1970) argues as follows:

..:,. . (I) Develop a theory of alienation from early and pre-Marxist writings :::. (2) Assert its fundamental character for Marx's work (e.g. p. 96) .

'.' (,) "Prove' by comparative quotation that the word turns up in later

:. .. works, and hope that the reader does not notice some rather strange

; •. ~, ftriations (e.g. pp. 222-5) . ,

': •. (4) Discredit the discontinuist (orthodox) thesis by confining attacks to'

.. backs such as Bell and Tucker (pp. 225-'7)

.F. all Meszaros' undoubted scholarship, it appears that the effect on ~ for him of Marxist theory is zero, as witnessed by the last two .~ in his book, particularly his collapse into the banalities of the

: ~ economy' line of analysis (pp. 301-2).

"So 'ar eum.ple: '

.. . tal nature of money form in general

:,{. (b) periodisation of economic forms .

:.:~: (e) conceptualisation of circulation process in capital-society-not in the ~.: .: mode of production .

. :. I UIe the tenn 'ersatz' categories to draw attention to certain

~ •• Iiuological resemblances which at one level of a direct comparison of, .

. -- QQ be read as substitutes for one another. They might take the fonn .... ~.'word' which is the same, or a combination of terms which are

:J 1 IioIous in their mutual relationships. Such concepts typify transitional

...... where to a certain extent they prop up the exposition of an object·. : ..... directly given, the use of the term 'ersatz' drawing attention to later '~nts in these regions. This of course introduces an element of'

: teleology', but in this paper I use the term strictly to draw attention to the " wL fimilarity of sets of concepts present in two works of Marx. This

~!' - is made possible by the incoherence of the Grundrisse, an .

incohe~ which makes it difficult to construct criteria of adequacy for the ; text; F~ Precisely this reason an analysis of the Grundrisse at this level is \_ce~ ~ ~ 'st::ucturalism', establishing its adequacy by reference to the

. . li~ilY/infenority of another text.

it. na. actually a few days wrong, judging from internal evidence. ~.a.1" ~tain that the order of exposition of Capital is not definitive,

....... b ad aJodibon for the development of Marx' s ~heoretical work is to .

I a an on the ..... ..: d h

~;'A . -~p~on ma e ere. .

.'. ~ on temunology: 'Darstellung' has the sense of presenting

somethmg ·.L_, . di . heatrical

ITt U11:re as in a iscursrve representatum or a t eatn

pe ~rmanc~,. & such it posits no subject for its process, and also suggests 'an mten_tlOnal manipulative operation. A distinction also exists in German conce~l1ng. the presentations of a subject (ideas, imagination, in English):

Xtn :dea .~,~eU..founded then it is a VOTrt~lltmg; if it is, or tums out to be, a se. ~ It II an Einbildung, There is a tendency for 'imaginations of the


Capitalist' to be read in the second sense. It must be emphasised that :\lao; when describing how the relations of production are represented in the ' production process to its bearers, always uses 'Vorstellung', i.e. the ideas have a material base, they are not ill-founded. As the foundation for a theory of the ideological process of the capitalist mode of production, the bearers are P?sited by th~ production process an~ assigned subjectivity, they do not empirically pre-exist the mode of production, . 8. Given the nature of this text's handling of Capital and the GrundrisSi!

it might be contended that I am operating an anti-humanist double- . standard: on the one hand maintaining the disunity of the Grundn'sse and through this presenting 'humanist' passages as obstacles; on the other maintaining the unity of Capital and denying the importance or even existence of similar passages in it. This would be a misrepresention of the reading made of the two texts, which centres on the conceptual structure and its development. This introduces criteria for assessing the logical hierarchy of a text. Such a reading opposes the simple comparison of passages from different texts without recognising the problematic of which they are a part. However, as an illustration here is a 'humanist' passage

from Capital Vol. I II :

According to its contradictory, contrasting nature, the capitalist mode

of production proceeds, wasteful of the life and health of the workers, depressing the very conditions of existence to economise in the application of constant capital and as a means of raising the profit-

rate .... Capitalist production is absolutely, in all niggardliness, wasteful of human material, just as on the other side, thanks to the method of distributing its products through trade and its manner of competition proceeds very wastefully with material means, and on the one side loses for the society what it gains for the single capitalist on the other. (Marx, 1964a: pp. 96-7)

These passages and several occurring in this chapter (Ch. s-Economy in !~ Use of Constant Capital) could perhaps be utilised for an interpretation centering on the human subject as alienated by the social process of production, which proceeds arbitrarily as a force which dominates himindeed the word 'Entfremdung' appears just before this passage. This

chapter however deals with all forms of economy in the utilisation of

capital, and Marx is here discussing the anarchistic nature of the capitah-t mode of production, where the regulation of production is effected by the competition of capital against capital. One reading of these passages could

be of the human condition under capitalism; but this plays a quite subordinate role in the structure of thc argument, and such humar.i,tic (ideological) statements are observations on the empirical effects of capitult,t production. Marx emphasises in Capital that Worker and Capitalist are simply personifications of the relations of production, the production

process is not conceived of as an empirical process. This is not h()\wn'r entirely clear in the Grundrisse, and a humanistic reading of this text I' to that extent justified. It is quite a difTerent thing however to represent \\ ~.,! are in fact the theoretical obstacles of the Grundrisse as the site of :\Iarx s greatest achievement.

9. In such a reading two ways in which Marx uses 'alienation' are run together-alienation in the Feuerhachian sense, and also in the way that , Steuart spoke of 'profit upon alienation'-in the sense of a deductIon m.h.e when a product was sold. For a discussion of some distortions that have arisen, see G. A. Cohen's excellent short review of the Grundrisse

(197z: p. 374)·

,._... on the theoretical signfficance of Marx's Grundrisse

Tbe Tableau is me~tio?e~ in the. Poverty of Philosophy (Marx, 1959:... - ) but there is no indication from the context that Marx had read or ... P!eeo a copy of it. Even if he had, this is not the point, for it was only !"7.: sixties that Marx comprehended the significance of Quesnay's work. .. }lDbsbawm's introduction (1964) in fact goes beyond a presentation of ;.:; teSt and attempts to construct a theory of transition where none is

On the Asiatic mode of production see Godelier (1965) . ..-:=.. .. Iy the falling rate of profit. This is an ersatz category for the

IS. .~QWU f orzani . be f d i h

_ reasons as the category 0 organic composrtron to e roun In t e

~t be mentioned that Morf has another thread of continuity: the '::.. pIIDI are unitary, since they are both based on the analysis of the three cIIIIa of bourgeois society and their antagonistic interests. Morf represents

.arty high point in wilful irrelevance (1970: ~. I05~. . .

.... Man in this letter presents a summary of his project m his first ktw to Kugelmann.


1M I. L., Ranciere, J., and

'.u'.ny, P. (1965) Lire le Capital, \'aI. t, Paris: Maspero.

.... IF, L., Balibar, E., and

......... R. (1965) Lire le Capital, _ ttel lL Paris: Maspero .

.. at n. L., and Balibar, E. (1970) .... ClI/'itDl. London: New Left

...... -

.£1 ... R. (ed.) (1972) Ideology in .... &intet. London: Fontana/Collins. ....... B. (1972) 'Introduction to ...... "Sores on Machines" " ....,adSocitty. Vol. I, NO.3,

A. (1972) 'Thoughts on the "', Afamsm Today.

~ 16, !'io. la. pp. 372-4.

:..__ 'l!1, R .. (r~5) 'Presentation du ;:;' ~ In Althusser, Balibar

A....L..a._~ PP·333-401.

-. M. (1965) 'La notion de ;-a.~roduction asiatique·. Les .... ..".,_,. No. 228. pp, 2002--27. .. .. .H. (1929) 'Die Anderung ~ Aufbauplans des ... Ktlpital und ihre Ursachen', ..".;- ~chte des Sozialismus

&. D_ _ ~ng. Vol. XIV. 1':3&. ~nnted In Grossmann .JbrIrIit=r :rur Kristntheorie. ~1L~1.: Archiv sozialistischer .. , ~" .... .:

..... =::;!).-J. (1964) 'Introduction' ~'Dic:. pp. «M>5.

~'n.; (1<)69) 'On Defonning ......... ' ~~ch Translation of L..~-....u and Society, Vol. 33.

~~~ COfI~tion to the ~It" ..... .: " ..... _Eamotn,:. trans.

........ _,,------co: Chari H K

. es . err.


Marx, K. (195.J1) Gnmdrisse der Kritik der politischen uk~ (Rohentwrnf). Frankfurt a.M.: Europllische Verlagsanstalt. (Reproduction of Dietz edition 1953.)

Marx, K. (1959) Werke Bd. 4. Berlin: . Dietz Verlag .

Marx, K. (1961) Werke Bd. 13. Berlin:

Dietz Verlag. . Marx, K. (1962) Das Kapital Bd, 1,Werke Bd. 23. Berlin: Dietz Verlag. . Marx, K. (1963a) Das Kapital Bd. II, .. Werke Bd. 24. Berlin: Dietz Verlag • Marx, K. (1963b) Briefe JanutlT I856- -

Dezember 1859, Werke Bd. 29. Berlin: ~

Dietz Verlag.

Marx, K. (I 96411) Dos Kapitlll Bd. III, Werke Bd. 25. Berlin: Dietz Verlag. Marx, K. (1964b) Briefe JtmUIlr I86oSeptember I864, Werke Bd. 30. Berlin:

Dietz Verlag.Marx, K. (1964C) Pre-Capitalist &01I0mic Formations, London: Lawrence & Wishart. Marx, K. (1965) Theorien aber den Mehrtcert Teill. Werke Bd. 26.1.

Berlin: Dietz Verlag.

Marx. K. (1967) Theorien aber den Mehruiert Tei12. Werke Bd. 26.2. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.

Marx, K. (1968) Theorien aber den Mehricert Teil 3. Werke Bd. 26.3. Berlin r Dietz Verlag .

Marx, K. (1971) A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, trans.

S. W. Ryazanskaya. London:

Lawrence and Wishart .

Marx, K. (1972) 'Notes on Machines', Economv and Society, Vol. I. NO.3, PP·235-42•

Marx, K. (1973) Grundrisse=Founda- . tions of the Critique of Political &onomy . London: Penguin Books.


McLellan, D. (1971) Marx's 'Grundnsse', London: Macmillan. Nicolaus, M. (1968) 'The Unknown Marx', New Left RL"l1<'W ':-':0. 48,

pp. 41--(lI. Cited as in Blackburn (1972). Nicolaus, M. (1973) 'Foreword' to Marx (1973), pp. 7--63.

Mesznios, I. (1970) Marx's Theory of Alienation. London: Merlin Press. Morf, O. (1970) Geschichte und

Keith Tribe

Dialektik in der politischen (jkonOtnit Frankfurt a.M.: Europaische . Verlagsanstalt,

Rosdolsky, R. (1969) Zur Enlsle_ hunllsgesc~ichte des j\;~arxs(hen . Kapila/' . znd ed. f rankfutt: buropalsche Verlagsanstalt.

Semprun, J. (1968) 'Economie poli'iq .. et philosophie dans les 'Grundrisse' 'de ~C Marx', L'Homme et la Societe, :'\0. ;,

pp. 59-68. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful