S&S Quarterly, Inc.

Guilford Press

Marx and Mathematics

Author(s): Dirk J. Struik
Source: Science & Society, Vol. 12, No. 1, A Centenary of Marxism (Winter, 1948), pp. 181-196
Published by: Guilford Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40399882 .
Accessed: 08/05/2014 14:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Science &Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARX AND MATHEMATICS

DIRK J. STRUIK
receivedhis early trainingin mathematicsat the Gymnasium of Trier (Trves), the Rhineland citywherehe was
born. At his graduation,in 1835, his knowledgeof mathematics was consideredadequate. This means that he startedhis career
with some knowledgeof elementaryarithmetic,algebra to the quadratic
equations, and plane and solid geometry.He also may have had trigonometry,and a little higher algebra, analyticalgeometryand calculus.
There are no indicationsthat he showedany interestin mathematics
during the turbulentyears before and after 1848, in which he and
Engels developed theiroutlook on the world. The firsttoken that Marx
had returnedto his studyof mathematicsis fromthe period in whichhe
had settledin London and was workingon his great scientificprojects.
In a letter to Engels of Jan. 11, 1858,1he wrote:
During the elaboration of the economic principlesI have been so
damned delayedby computationalerrorsthatout of despairI undertook
again a quick scanningof the algebra.Arithmeticwas alwaysalien to me.
Via the algebraicdetour,however,I catch up quickly.
From this period until his death in 1883 Marx showed continued
interestin the studyof mathematics,oftenreturningto it as a diversion
during his many days of illness.
His study of algebra was followed by that of analytical geometry
and the calculus. In a letter to Engels of July 6, 1863 he reported
progress:
and integralcalculus. Apropos!
In my spare time I do differential
I have plentyof books on it and I will send you one if you like to tackle
that field.I considerit almost necessaryfor your militarystudies.It is
also a much easier part of mathematics(as far as the purely technical
side is concerned)than for instance the higher parts of algebra. Aside
stuffno
from knowledgeof the common algebraic and trigonometric
conic
the
with
is
needed
general
acquaintance
except
study
preparatory
sections.2
It seems thereforethat Marx found algebra easier than arithmetic
and the calculus easier than algebra. But he was not so much interested
drawn to the age-old
in the techniqueof the calculus. He was irresistibly
l Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe (Berlin, 1930), Abt. Ill, Bd. 11,p. 273.
2 Ibtd., ni, p. 14g.

181

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

182

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

questionof the foundationof the calculus,the moreso sincein the

bookswhichhe consulted
thissubjectwastreatedin a mostunsatisfactory
in a controversial
and occasionally
way.Marx,like so manydialectical
thinkersbeforeand afterhim, found unendingfascinationin the
as is shown
of the derivativeand the differential,
different
definitions
found
was
which
material
amount
of
a
amonghis
by large
manuscript
papers.
In the yearsafter1870Marx even triedto develophis own views.
Engelsreportson thisphase in the prefaceto the secondvolumeof
Capital:
The
set in again,mainlydue to sickness.
After1870an intermission
of thisperiodconsistsof
contentof themanynotebooks
withabstracts
Americanand especiallyRussianagrarianrelations,
money,
agronomy,
and finallynaturalscience,geologyand
marketand bankingsystems,
mathematical
and especiallyindependent
papers.8
physiology,
conMarx,in the laterdaysof his life,castsomeof his reflections
form
and
a
readable
calculusinto
dispatched
cerningthe differential
to Engels.A letterof August18, 1881showsthatEngels
themanuscript
had studiedthem:
YesterdayI foundat last the courageto studyyourmathematical
and I was glad to see
to textbooks,
evenwithoutreference
manuscripts
thatI did notneed them.I compliment
youon yourwork.The matter
that we cannotbe amazedenough
clear (sonnenklar)
is so perfectly
it.4
insistupon mystifying
how the mathematicians
Engelscontinuesto presentMarx' viewpointin his own wordsand
to compareit withHegel'sviews,withwhichbothhe and Marx were
familiar.He endswiththewords:
thoroughly
has takensucha holdofme thatit notonlyturnsaround
The matter
in myhead thewholeday,but thatalso last weekin a dreamI gave
and thisfellowran awaywith
a fellowmyshirtbuttonsto differentiate
them[und diesermirdamitdurchbrannte]*
Marx,who at thattimewas preoccupiedwithhis wife'ssicknessshe died in Decemberof thesameyear-did not,it seems,returnto the
When,however,Engelsresubjectin his subsequentcorrespondence.
an
on
to
Marx
21,
exchangeof lettersbetween
(November 1882)
ported
himand theirfriendSam Mooreon thesubjectof Marx'mathematical
S Capital (Chicago, 1919), u, p. 10.
4 Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe,Abt. Ill, Bd. iv, p. 513.
BIbid., p. 514.

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARX AND MATHEMATICS

183

theories,Marx made a prompt reply the next day. We returnto this

correspondencelater in this article.
Marx died beforehe could add anythingmore to his ideas. Engels
later thoughtof publishing Marx' mathematicalmanuscriptstogether
with his own on the dialectics of nature. In the prefaceto the second
edition of the Anti-Dhring (1885) he mentions his own studies in
mathematicsand the natural sciences,and adds that he had to discontinue them afterthe death of Marx. He concludes: "there will perhaps later be an opportunityto collect and to publish the obtained
results,togetherwith the posthumous,and veryimportant,manuscripts
of Marx."6
Engels did not findthe time to accomplishthiswork,and the papers
of Marx and Engels dealing with the exact sciences remained in the
archives.The German Social Democrats,who inheritedthe papers of
Marx and Engels,wereunable to appreciatethedialecticsof mathematics,
physicsand chemistry.Understandinghad to wait until the Russians
began to show the fundamentalimportanceof Marx' and Engels*philosophical work. Lenin's Materialismand Empirio-criticism(1908) was a
trail blazer, but it did not become known outside of strictlyRussian
circlesuntilit was publishedin German,long aftertherevolutionof 1917.
Later the Russians published Engels' Dialectics of Nature; firstin
Russian, then (1927) in the original German.
Both Lenin's and Engels' books are now available in English,Lenin's
in a translationof 1927,Engels' in a translationof 1940.
Still later some of the most characteristicof Marx' mathematical
manuscriptswere published, but only in a Russian translation.7Our
studyis based on the papers publishedby the Russians.It is to be hoped
that all of his mathematicalnote books will eventuallybe published,
not only in Russian, but also in the original German.
6 Antt-Dhring
(New York,1939),p. 17.
of
iMarksiimi Estestvoznanie
(Moscow:Partisdat,1933).The Russiantranslation
themanuscripts
occupiesp. 5-61;it is followedby articlesby . Kolman,S. Ianovskaia,
D. J. Struik,H. J. Mllerand others.The originalGermantextof the manuscript
has not, as far as I know,been published,thoughthereseem to have been plans;
see Unterdem Bannerdes Marxismus(1935),no. 9, p. 104,n. 1. I receivedin 1935
manua typewritten
copyof theoriginalGermantextof the publishedmathematical
Institutein Moscow,and the quotationsin the present
scriptsfromthe Marx-Engels
fromthis text.
articleare translated
of the900pagesof Marx mathe8 The information
thegeneralcharacter
concerning
is takenfromS. Ianovskaia,"O Matematicheskich
maticalmanuscript
Rukopisiakh
See also E. Colman,Scienceat theCrossRoads (London,1931).
K. Marksa,"p. 136-180.
P. 133-135.

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

184

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

The extent of Marx' interestin mathematicsis shown by the fact

that the Marx-Engels-LeninInstitute in Moscow has obtained, since
1925, photographiccopies of about 900 pages of Marx' mathematical
manuscripts,all of which have been deciphered and put in order.8
They consistessentiallyof abstractsof textbooks,studied by Marx, often
with notes; of comprehensiveaccounts of special subjects,and of indestagesin Marx' studies,from
expressingdifferent
pendent investigations,
to
finished
sketches
manuscriptsprobably prepared for the
preliminary
are devoted
benefitof Engels. Only a few pages, hardly twenty-four,
to computational work.
By far the most voluminousof thesemanuscriptsdeal with algebra,
which Marx studied fromLacroix', Maclaurin's and perhaps fromother
texts. Most of this algebra deals with the solution of equations of
higherdegree,but Marx also showedan interestin series,notablydivergent series. There are also abstractsdealing with analytic geometry,
notablyfroma book by Hymers.
Other manuscriptscontain Marx' reflectionson the differential
calculus. There are again plenty of abstractsand comprehensiveaccounts based on the textbooksof Lacroix, Boucharlat and Hind, supplemented by those of Hall and Hemming, all popular school texts
fromthe earlydecades of the nineteenthcentury.This workdeals mainly
with the conceptionof functionand of series,of limit and of derivative,
the seriesof Taylor and Maclaurin, and the determinationof maxima
and minima. Marx showed particular interestin Lagrange's famous
use of the Taylor seriesfor the "algebraic" foundationof the calculus,
and compared the differentdefinitionsof the derivativeand the differentialin the various texts.Marx, in one of his own notes,reproduces
the derivationof the binomial theoremfrom Taylor's theorem,and
remarksthat "Lagrange,on the contrary,derivesTaylor's theoremfrom
the binomial theorem,"a fact which he oftenrepeats and to which he
devotessome thought.One of his manuscriptpapers is entitled"A somewhat modifieddevelopmentof Taylor's theoremon purelyalgebraicbase
according to Lagrange,"9 others have such significantheadings as:
"Taylor's theorem-is based on the translationfromthealgebraiclanguage
of the binomial theoreminto the differential
way of expression,"and
"Maclaurin'stheoremis also only translationfromthe algebraiclanguage
of the binomial theoreminto the differential
language." Two notebooks,
"Nach Lagrange somewhat modified Entwicklung des Taylorschen Theorems auf
bloss algebraischerGrundlage."

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARX AND MATHEMATICS

185

probablydating froma later period in Marx*life, contain examples of

the methodof differentiation
which Marx eventuallypreferred,as well
as a paper on the differential
and a historicalsketchof the methodsof
differentiation
used by Newton, Leibniz, D'Alembert and Lagrange.
These notebookspresentthe positionwhich Marx seems to have placed
beforeEngels. They also contain a long paper on the integralcalculus,
whichcontainsa criticalanalysisof Newton's "Analysisper aequationes
numero terminoruminfinitas."Their published contentsformthe subject of the presentarticle.
Marx studied the calculus from textbookswhich were all written
tinder the direct.influenceof the great mathematiciansof the late
seventeenthand the eighteenthcenturies,notably of Newton, Leibniz,
Euler, D'Alembertand Lagrange. He was not so much interestedin the
and integrationas in the basic principles
technique of differentiation
on whichthecalculus is built,thatis, in theway the notionsof derivative
are introduced.He soon found out that a considerable
and differential
of opinion existedamong the the leading authorsconcerning
difference
these basic principles,a differenceof opinion often accompanied by
confusion.This confusiononly increasedin the school textbookswritten
by the minor authors.11Differentanswerswere given on such questions
as whetherthe derivative is based on the differentialor vice versa,
is small and constant,small and tendingto zero,
whetherthe differential
or absolutelyzero, etc. Marx felt the challenge offeredby a problem
which had attractedsome of the keenestminds of the past and which
dealt with the veryheart of the dialectical process,namely the nature
of change. Not findingany satisfyinganswerin the books, he tried to
reach an answer for himselfin his own typical way: by going to the
sources, comparing the results, and forgingbeyond them into new
regions.It mayperhapsstrikethe reader that among the sourcesstudied
by Marx thereseemsto be no referenceto AugustinCauchy-at any rate
as faras we can judge fromthe publishedmaterial.Cauchy'swork,which
underliesthe expositionof the foundationof the calculus in our present
day textbooks,could have been available to Marx.12The reason that
Marx took no notice of Cauchy may be that Cauchy's ideas only slowly
penetratedinto textbooks,so that theymighthave escaped Marx, who
11A good survey of the various theories is given by F. Cajori, "Grafting of the
Theory of Limits on the Calculus of Leibniz," Am. Math. Monthly, xxx (1923),
P. 223-34.

12A. Cauchy,Rsum des leons donnesa l Ecole Royale Polytechnique

sur le

calcul infinitsimal(Paris, 1823).

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

186

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

did notmoveamongprofessional
mathematicians.18
A morelikelyreason
is thatCauchy'sway of definingthe derivative
thatof
was essentially
so thatMarxdid notconsiderhis methoda newone.
D'Alembert,
WhateverMarx*reasonswereto ignoreCauchy'swork,his feeling
was shared
of dissatisfaction
withthewaythe calculuswas introduced
of his day.
mathematicians
by someof theleadingyounger
professional
hisstudyofmathematics,
In thesameyear(1858)in whichMarxresumed
in hiscase while
RichardDedekindat Zrichfeltsimilardissatisfaction,
thatin his lesfirst
stated
in
he
the
calculus.
teaching
Writing 1872,
evidenceto explainthenotionof a
sonshe had recourseto geometrical
limit;thenhe wenton:
calculuscan
But thatthisformof introduction
into thedifferential
thisfeeling
no onewilldeny.Formyself
makenoclaimtobeingscientific,
thatI made the fixedresolveto
of dissatisfaction
was so overpowering
on thequestiontill I shouldfinda purelyarithmetic
keep meditating
ana perfectly
rigorousfoundationfor the principlesof infinitesimal
calculus.14
of
This led Dedekindto a newaxiomaticapproachto theconception
and irrational
whichwasone ofthegreatpioneering
continuum
number,
Someyears
of mathematics.
in whatwe call the arithmetization
efforts
laterone of theotherpioneersof the new methodsof rigorin matheexclaimed:
matics,Paul Du Bois Reymond,
in its published
would deny that-especially
What mathematician
the conception
form-the conceptionof limitand its closestassociates,
theinfinitely
ofthelimitless,
small,theirrational,
largeand theinfinitely
etc.,still lack rigor?The teacherin writand wordis used to hurry
in orderto roam
thisquestionableentranceto analysis,
quicklythrough
on thewellblazedroadsof thecalculus.15
Uiemorecomfortably
underthe
It wasnotuntilthelastdecadesof thenineteenth
century,
and
as wellofWeierstrass
ofDedekindand Du BoisReymond,
influenc
of
the
of
the
calculus
Cantorthatthe thorough
overhauling
principles
13 The preface to the sixth edition of Boucharlat's book (1856), which Marx consulted, though mentioning in detail the work of Newton, Leibniz, D'Alembert and
Lagrange, is silent about Cauchy. One of the firstwidely used textbooks which explicitly used Cauchy's methods was C. Jordan, Cours d'analyse, which appeared in
1882.
MR, Dedekind, Stetigkeitund Irrationalzahlen (1872). Translated in "Essays on the
Theory of Numbers" (Chicago, 1901), p. 1 f.
15 P. Du Bois Reymond, Die allgemeine Funktionentheorie,i. (1882), p. 2. The
author was the brother of the physiologistEmil, who framed the slogan of agnosticism: "Ignorabimus."

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARX AND MATHEMATICS

187

tookplacewhichunderlies
andhasshownthatCauchy's
modernmethods,
can
lead
to
full
work
This
approach
rigor.
appearedtoolate to influence
Marx and Engels.16
The resultis thatMarx'reflections
on thefoundationsof the calculusmustbe appreciatedas a criticism
of eighteenth
methods.
We
feel
that
his
however
work,
century
developedcontemof
but
with
of
the
leadingmathematicians
poraneously
independently
to
the
now
contributes
thesecondhalfof thenineteenth
even
century,
of themeaningof the calculus.
understanding
We shouldneverforget,
of course,thatMarx neverpublishedhis
and
is
that
not
evenan indicationthathe intendedpubthere
material,
lication,eventhoughEngelsseemsto have playedwiththe idea. Marx
in sparehours,forrelaxation,oftenin hours
workedon mathematics
of sickness,
guidedby somebookswhichhe happenedto have in his
whichintroducedthe principlesof diflibrary,such as Boucharlat's,
in an unsatisfactory
ferentiation
way.He lookedforelucidationin the
sourcesquotedin Boucharlatand similarbooks,whichled himto Newton,Leibnitz,D'Alembertand Lagrange.His noteswere in the first
afterreadingthoseclassicsin
place intendedforhis own clarification,
Struckby theunsatisfactexts.
often
obscure
understand
the
to
attempts
in
characteristic
tried
in
these
he
formulations
books,
way to
tory
himself.
for
difficulties
out
the
straighten
whichMarx triedto overcomeare at presentas real
The difficulties
elaborated
as in histime,evenifour formalapparatusis morecarefully
old
of Elea
difficulties
as
Zeno
These
are
as
and practically
foolproof.
and as youngas the latestphilosophicalor physiological
attemptto
howrestcan passintomotion,and howmotioncan lead to
understand
the conception
rest.This is the reasonwhyMarx studiedso carefully
of a functionand the relatedconceptionof the diof the derivative
He foundthatthereare threemain methodsby whichthese
ferential.
havebeendeveloped.Marxclassified
them,calledthemthe
conceptions
method
and
the
rational
the
(connectedwith the
algebraic
mystical,
and
D'Alembert
and
namesof Newton-Leibnitz,
Lagrangerespectively),
the derivative,
thenopposedto themhis own mode of understanding
and thecalculusin general.Let us explainthedifficulty
thedifferential,
the function
wayscriticized
y=x8 in thedifferent
by
by differentiating
Marx.
information
on theworkof thegreatGerman
l It is evendoubtfulif anypertinent
reachedMarxand Engels.
of thesecondhalfof thenineteenth
mathematicians
century
as wellas physics
The Englandof theirdayswas an excellentplace to studycapitalism,
and biology,but it was backwardin mathematics,
and chemistry
exceptin somespeand algebra.
cializedbranchesof geometry

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

188

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

- x changes
1) Newton-Leibnitz*
("The mysticaldifferential
calculus").17
into x + xt in Newton,into x + dx in Leibnitz;we followLeibnitz.Then
y changesintoni=j> + dyand
yi =y + dy- (x + dx)*- x*+ 3x2dx + 3x (dx)*+ (dx)*.
as comparedwith3x2dx,theymay
Since (*)2 and (dx)*are infinitesimal
be dropped,and we obtainthe correctformula
dy 3x2dx.
does not disappearif we first
and the mystery
This is highlymysterious,
dividedyby dx
dy/dx= 3x2+ 3xdx+ (dx)2
and thenlet h = dx be zero. It is truethatwe obtainthe rightformula
but as Marx remarks:
here
ofAis not permittedbeforethe firstderivedfunction,
thenullification
3x' has been liberatedfromthefactorh by division,hence(y' - y)/h = 3*2
The
the finitedifference.
+ 3xh+ h2.Only thencan we annul (aufheben)
coefficient
differential
dy/dx= 3x2 must thereforealso originallybe dedy= 3x2dx.
velopedbeforewe can obtainthedifferential
In otherwords,we knewin advance whattheanswermustbe, and build
up some reasoningto make it plausible. It was this loose way in which
Newtonand Leibnitzusuallyfoundedthecalculuswhichled BishopBerkeley
in TheAnalysts
of 1734. Here he askedwhetherthedx
to hisfamouscriticism
are zero or not zero, called them"ghostsof departedquantities"and conwho believedtheseabsurditiescould reasoncluded thatno mathematician
ably object to the miraculoustenetsof religion.It has not been the only
in science have been exploitedfor
case in which foundationdifficulties
idealistand obscurantist
reasons.
Mathematiciansfeltthe difficulty
and triedto cope withit by suggesting
moreexact waysof foundingthe calculus.18The mostimportantcontributionswerethoseofD'Alembertand Lagrange.
In Marx' words:
("The rational
2) D'Alembert
calculus").19
differential
D'Alembertstartsdirectlyfromthe startingpointof Newtonand Leibnitz
xi = x + dx
but he makes immediatelythe fundamentalcorrectionxi = x + Ax,that
17Leibnitz issued his firstpublication on the calculus in 1684, Newton his in 1693.
18See e.g. F. Cajori, A History theConceptions Limitand Fluxionin GreatBritain
of
of
from
Newtonto Woodhouse
(Chicago and London, 1919).
19D'Alembert on "Diffrentiel"in Diderot's
(1754)
Encyclopdie

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARX AND MATHEMATICS

189

which
but primafaciefiniteincrement,
means,Axbecomesan undetermined,
he calls A. The transformation
of thisA or Ax intodx (he used the Leibnitz
notation,likeall Frenchmen)is onlyfoundas thelast resultof thedevelopment or at least just beforeclosinghour (knappvor Torschiusi),while it
of thecalculus:
appears as startingpointwiththe mysticsand theinitiators
h
A
xi - x
Now, by placing h = o, the expression|/(x + A) - f(x)j/h changes
h

into-J-:

:--*-/

is verymuchakinto Cauchy's
The wayin whichD' Alembertdifferentiates
method.We writeat presentwithCauchy
dy lim /(* + A) -/(*).
A
dx h+o
Marx' objectionto this methodis that thoughit is formallycorrect,the
derivative/ (x) is alreadypresentin 3 x2+ 3xh + A2,that is, beforedifIt is simplythe firsttermof a sum, 3 x2+ 2 xh+ A2,and
ferentiation.
D'Alembert'smethodonlyconsistsin devisinga way in which to get rid
of the member(or members)of the sum whichfollows3 x2.Marx calls this
(separation);while the correctmethodshould be Entwicklung
Loswicklung
(development):
is the same as in Leibnitzand Newton,but the
The derivationtherefore
fromits further
algebraicway separated
ready-madederivativeis in strictly
but a separationof the/'(*), here 3x221
There is no development
context.20
fromitsfactorAand thememberswhichappear nextto it in theothermembersmarchingon in rankand file.What has reallybeen developedis theleft
hand symbolicside,namelydx,dyand theirratio,the symbolicdifferential
=
coefficient
dy/dxor o/o(ratherin the otherway o/o dy/dx),whichin its
turnagain provokedsome metaphysicalshudders,thoughthe symbolwas
mathematicallyderived. D'Alembert had, by strippingthe differential
calculusfromitsmysticalgarb,made an enormousstepahead.
Marx' evaluationofD'Alembert'sworkas "an enormousstepahead" still
ofmathestands.This is themoreremarkable,sinceevenmodernhistorians
maticshave a way of glossingoverit. Marx nextproceedsto Lagrange.
3)

calculus").
Lagrange (" lhe purely algebraic differential

= *+ 3*2*
+ A'
+ 3*A
*-(* + h)%
10"losgewickeltvon ihremsonstigenZusammenhang."
11"Es ist keine Entwicklung,
sonderneine Loswickimgdes/ (*)."

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

190

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

ofAas thederivative:
Lagrangesimplydefinesthecoefficient
j = /'(*) = 3x2,or moregenerallyby Taylor'stheoremfora general/(x):
ax

+ dh
+ g + . . .
yx= f{x+ h)-, (or/*)

Marx thenparaphrasesLagrange'smethodin thewords:

In the firstmethod(1), as well as in the rationalone (2), the required

is fabricatedreadymade by the binomialtheoremand can
real coefficient
be foundalreadyas secondtermof the seriesexpansion,hencein the term
containsA1.The whole furtherdifferential
whichnecessarily
procedure,be
shed the
it as in (1) or be it as in (2), is therefore
luxury.Let us therefore
uselessballast.We knowonce and forall fromthe binomialexpansionthat
is thefactorofA,thesecondone thatofA1,etc. These
thefirstreal coefficient
are nothingbut thederived
coefficients
real differential
functions
oftheoriginal
in x, expandedbinomiallyin succession. . . The wholereal problem
function
reduceditselfto the findingof methods(algebraicones) of expandingall
kindsof functionsof x + A into integralascendingpowersof A, whichin
u
many cases cannot be effectedwithoutgreatprolixityof operations. Up
to now thereappears nothingin Lagrange,but what can be founddirectly
fromD'Alembert'smethod(since thisalso includesthe wholedevelopment
of themystics).
The objectionwhichMarx raisedagainsttheclassicalwriterswas thatall
fourhad thederivativealreadypreparedbeforetheprocessofdifferentiation
reallybegins.Marx wanteda methodwhichactuallyfolowedtheprocessof
variationof the variableand in thisprocessitselfdefinedthe derivativeas
The deriva-,
o/oyin whichcase it can be endowedwitha new symboldy/dx.
ofdifferentiation,
notbe protive,he claimed,shouldbe derivedby a process
duced fromthe beginningby the binomialtheorem.
Whetherwe startfalselyfromx + dx or correctlyfromx + A, if we substitutethisundetermined
binomialintothe givenalgebraicfunction
ofx,we
changeit intoa binomialofa definite
degree,e.g. (x + A)1insteadofx1,and
thisin a binomialin whichin one case dxyin theothercase A,figuresas its
last member.Hence it also figuresin the expansiononly as a factor,with
whichthefunctions,
derivedfromthe binomial,are externally
affected.21
This lack of internaldevelopmentcan be avoided in the methodwhich
Marx suggests,
say for^ = xs:

j, -/()-,
/(*i) -/(*) - J>i- J>- * - * - (*i - *) M + **i + x')

fMjzM
. ym
. 4 + XXl
+A
- X
X'
X' - X

MWe now know that oftenit cannot be done at

all, but thisrequiresan extensionof the
functionalconceptionbeyond Lagrange's horizon.

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARX AND MATHEMATICS

191

Whenx = x', or x - x' = o, we obtain:

xx

x2ss3x2m

+
+
-sss^ssx2
o
dx
In thismethod,writesMarx,we obtainfirsta preliminary
derivative,
namely
x2+ xxi + x2, and this passes by x = x' into the definite
derivative.
This
i*
passingfromx' to x does away withany "infinitesimal"
approximation,
showsthat the derivativeis actuallyo/o,obtainedwhen xi - x is actually
zero:
Here we see in striking
form:
to
obtain
the
derivative
we must place x' = *, hence x' - x = o
Firstly;
in thestrict
mathematical
sense,withouta traceof only infinitesimal
approximation.
Secondly:
Throughthe factthatx' has been placed = *, hence x' - x = o,
nothingsymbolicentersinto the "derivative."The quantityx', originally
introducedby the variationof *, does not disappear,it is onlyreduced
to its
minimalboundaryx. It remainsan elementintroducedas new into the
whichby itscombinationpartlywithitself,partlywiththe
originalfunction,
x of the originalfunctionproducesat the end the "derivative,"that is the
"derivative"reducedto itsminimumvalue.
preliminary
. . . The transcendental
or symbolicaccident(o/o = dx/dy= 3x2)occurs
on
the
left
hand
but
it has alreadylostitsterror,
as it appearsnow
side,
only
only as the expressionof a processthatalreadyhas shownits real content
on therighthand side of theequation.24
At themomentthatx' = x thequotientAy/Axbecomes0/0.Since in this
expression0/0everytraceofitsoriginand ofitsmeaninghas disappearedit
is replacedby the symboldy/dx,
in whichthe finitedifferences
Ayand A*

or vanished(verschwundene)
appear in symbolical formas liquidated(aufgehobene)

At thismomentalgebradisappearsand thedifferential
differences.
calculus,
whichoperateswiththesymbolsdy/dx,
begins.
In orderto understandMarx' intentions
better,we translateherepartof
theletterwhichEngelswrotehimAugust18, 1881,afterhe had read Marx'
manuscript:
When we say thatin y = f(x) the x and y are variables,thenthisis, as
long as we do not move on, a contentionwithoutall further
consequences,
and x andy stillare, pro tempore,constantsin fact.Only whentheyreally
change,thatis insidethefunction,
theybecomevariablesin fact.Only in that
- notofboth
case is it possiblefortherelation
quantitiesas such,but oftheir
- whichstillis hidden in the
variability
originalequation,to reveal itself.
28"nur als Faktor, womit die durch das Binom
abgeleiteten Funktionen usserlich
behaftetsind."
*4"Das transzendentaleoder symbolische
Unglck ereignet sich nur auf der linken
Seite, hat aber seine Schreckenbereitsverloren,da es nun als Ausdruck eines Prozesses
erscheint,der, seinen wirklichenGehalt bereits auf der rechten Seite der Gleichung
bewhrthat."

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

192

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

The firstderivativeAy/Axshowsthisrelationas it occursin thecourseofthe

real change,thatis in everygivenchange; the finalderivativedy/dxshows
it in its generality,
Ax,
pure. Hence we can come fromdy/dxto everyAy/
whilethisitself(Ay/Ax)onlycoversthe specialcase. However,to pass from
thespecialcase has to be liquidated
thespecialcase to thegeneralrelationship
as such (als solcher
Hence, afterthe functionhas passed
werden).
aufgehoben
throughtheprocessfromx to xfwithall itsconsequences,xrcan be quietly
allowedto becomex again,it is no longertheold x, whichwas onlyvariable
and the resultof the changerein name, it has passed throughrealchange,

mains, even ifwe liquidate it again itself(auchwennwirsie selbstwiederaufheben).

have claimedfor
We see hereat last clearly,what manymathematicians
a long time,withoutbeing able to presentrationalreasonsforit, that the
dx and dyare derived.
is theoriginal,thedifferentials
derivative

betweenMarx' methodand D'Alembert'smethod(and

The difference
and rejectedas trivialor
also thatof Cauchy) shouldnot be misunderstood
=
=
A
versus
xf
x
x
as I see it, was per+
Marx,
(xf
A).
insignificant
is
D'Alembert's
method
correct.
that
satisfied
However,he
formally
fectly
of the processof differentiation
itself.
wantedto come to an understanding
Is the derivativeobtainedby lettingx (and y) pass througha sequenceof
constantvalues,or is it necessaryto let x (andy) reallychange?Thus understood,we see theold "paradox" ofZeno emerging:can themotionofa point
be obtainedby followinga sequenceof positionsof thispointat rest?Zeno
showedthata sequenceofsuch positionswill neverproducemotion;he also
showedby a similarreasoningthat Achilleswill neverreach the tortoise.
a mode of thoughtwhich
D'Alembert'smethod,Marx claimed,represents
does not do justice to the actual eventwhichhappenswhen a functionis
What happensis a real change,and thisis betterunderstood
differentiated.
ofx and an entirely
newx', and then
whenwe firstwriteAy/Axas a function
let x = xr. Moreover,A = x' - x does not only approach
zero, A becomes
zero. Emphasisis placed on the factthatthe derivativeonlyappearswhen
both Ay and Ax are absolutelyzero. This never became clear with the
and appearedas an accidentalthingin D'Alem"mystics"Leibnitz-Newton,
is
so
It
little
understoodthatin some popular texts,such
bert-Lagrange.25
the
as Hogben's Mathematics
Million,the impressionis given that the
for
of
differentiation
is
true.Butevenin ourmodern
onlyapproximately
process
use
a
formal
textbooks,thoughthey
apparatuswhich is unimpeachable,
someofthe thoughtbehindtheapparatusis notfullyclarified.
Let us take,as an example,thetextbookPureMathematics
ofG. H. Hardy,
who is one ofour greatestlivingmathematicians.
The derivativeis explained
in the Cauchy-D'Alembert
way:
,M _ lim 0(s + A) 4>(x)
26More informationin F. Cajori, "The
Historyof Zeno's Argumentson Motion," vi,
Am.Math. Monthly
xxn (1915), p. 143-149.

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARX AND MATHEMATICS

193

whichmeansthat {<f>
(* + h) - <f>
(*)} /h tendsto a limitwhen h tendsto
zero. What does thismean?We are told that0 (y) tends to the limit/ as y
tendsto zero,if,whenany positivenumber8, howeversmall,is assigned,we
can choose^o(5) so that |4 (y) - /| < wheno <y J>o($).26
is exact, in the sense that we have a correctand subtle
This definition
to
criterium testany limit.But 4>{y) alwayshoversnear thelimit,sincewe
are told thaty "tends" to zero. Similarly,4>f(*) is definedby meansof an
h which"tends" to zero. The questionis, is the eventh = o ever reached?
it. The usual moderntextbookdefinition
Marx notonlyaffirms
it,he stresses
because it is satisfiedwitha pragmatic
does not take thisquestionseriously,
whichallowsus to recognizea limitwhenit appears.27
criterium
The resultis thatmuchteachingof theelementsof thecalculusproceeds
- and I confessto it myself
in myown teaching.First,it is shown
as follows
thata limitcan be approachedas closelyas we like,butneverreached.Then
the derivativeis definedwiththe aid of thisconceptionof limit.And then
suddenlywe begin to work with this derivative,which could never be
as ifit actuallyhad been reached.
reached(as we have beforedemonstrated)
The case h = o, xr = #,thoughpresentin theformalapparatus,is somehow
obscuredin the reasoning.An exceptionis foundin the workof Moritz
Pasch, who in his verycarefulanalysisof the derivativedevelopsa formal
apparatusin whichthereis fullroomforthecase h = o.28
who insiston utmost
Marx therefore
belongedto thatschoolof thinkers
a formalapparatus.His positioncontrasts
clarityof thoughtin interpreting
sharplyto that of those mathematiciansor mathematicalphysicistswho
believe that the formalapparatus is the only thingthat matters.Marx'
who insiststhatsignificant
mathematics
positionwas thatof thematerialist,
mustreflectoperationsin thereal world.
to noticethatthedifferences
betweenMarx' and D'AlemIt is interesting
bert's formalapparatus diminishwhen we consider more complicated
For the casey = sinx the derivative,in the D' Alembertway of
functions.
but byy = log x
is stillobtainedby separation(Loswicklung),
differentiation,
Ax by lettingh pass through
the derivativecan only be obtainedfromAy/
a real change.
28G. H. Hardy, Pure Mathematics
(Cambridge UniversityPress, 6th ed., 1933) esp. p.
116, 198. This definitionoflimitis valid when7 tendsto zero by positivevalue. In a similar
way a definitionof limitcan be reached when^ytends to zero by negativevalues.
27See e.g. F. Cajori, Am. Math. Monthly,xxn (1915), p. 149, concerning variables
reachingtheirlimits:"In moderntheoryit is not particularlya question of argument,but
ratherofassumption.The variable reachesitslimitifwe will thatit shall; it does not reach
its limit,ifwe will thatit shall not." Such a reasoningseems to lead to the conclusionthat
it depends on our will whetherAchilles will reach or will not reach the tortoise.
28M. Pasch, "Der Begriffdes Differentials,"in Mathematik
am Ursprung
(Leipzig 1927)
p. 46-73, esp. p. 61, 68.

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

194

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

is establishedas theresultofa real change,itbecomesitself

As soonas dy/dx
on
calculus.Marx, in a manuscript
thesubjectofa calculus,thedifferential
derivedas one of the firstformulasof this
the meaningof the differential,
ofx, is givenby
calculus,thatthederivativeofy = uz, u and z functions
du
dz
dy
When uz =/(*), thendy/dxcan be written
/'(*), and "the/'(x) stands
own
as
its
to
symbolicexpression,as its double or symbolic
opposed dy/dx
equivalent."
has becomean independent
coefficient
The symbolicdifferential
pointy
starting
whosereal equivalenthas firstto be found.The initiativehas been moved
fromthe righthand pole, the algebraicone (in dy/dx=/'(*)) to the left
calculus
hand one, the symbolicone. With this,however,the differential
of
kind
as
a
also
independalready
operating
computation,
specific
appears
Its startingpointsdu/dx,dz/dxare mathematical
entlyon itsown territory.
to thiscalculusand characterizeit. And
which
exclusively
belong
quantities
this reversal(Umschlag)of the method resultedhere fromthe algebraic
of uz- The algebraicmethodchangesautomaticallyinto its
differentiation
method.
opposite,thedifferential
Now, by removingin the equation (a), -r = Z x + u L *e common
denominatordx, we obtain (b), d (uz) = dy= udz + zdu, in which every
traceofitsoriginfrom(a) has been removed.
valid in thecase thatu and z dependon x as well as in the
It (b) is therefore
case that theyonly depend on each otherwithoutany relationto x. It is
fromthe beginninga symbolicequation and can servefromthe beginning
as a symbolicoperationalequation.
- we wouldsayan operational
a symbolicform
is therefore
The differential
form dy=/'(*) dx appears as just anotherformof dy/dx= /'(x) and is
will
form.Modern mathematicians
alwaysconvertibleinto the differential
haveno faulttofindwiththismethod,and V. Glivenkohas speciallyshown29
how Hadamard, the Frenchmathematician,had stressedthe operational
Marx does not mention,however,the now
characterof the differential.
that dyshould be/'(x)Ax, obtainedby arbitrarily
commoninterpretation
dy,whichdates back to Cauchy,
placingdx = Ax.This way ofrepresenting
ofthe
forhisintroduction
Marx
Boucharlat
criticizes
have
(he
escaped
may
We
believe
is
an
Boucharlat's
method
but
differential,
antiquated one).
howeverthatMarx wouldin anycase haveobjectedto thisequationdx = Ax,
which establishedan identitybetweentwo conceptionswith an entirely
ofdybyCauchy,whichhas
different
operationalmeaning.The interpretation
19V. Glivenko, "Der Differentialbegriff
bei Marx und Hadamard," UnterdemBanner
des Marxismus(1935) no. 9, p. 102-110; Russian text in Pod Znamenem
Marksi&na 1934,
no. 5. See J. Hadamard, Coursd'analyse,i (Paris, 1927), p. 2 and 6.

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARX AND MATHEMATICS

195

founditsway in all our texts,is mechanicaland can onlybe justifiedby the

use to whichthe formulady= /' (x) dx can be put as an approximationto
And the
certainchangesof a constantx into an equally constantx + A#.80
factthatthisdifference
betweendx and Ax,dyand Aycan be neatlyrepresented in a figurewould not have impressedMarx and Engels, whose
of the symbolsof the
interestwas in the arithmetical-algebraic
relationship
calculuswiththereal processofchange.This maybe shownfromthefollowbetweenMarx and EngelsafterSam Moore had written
ingcorrespondence
materialofMarx:
his opinionon themanuscript
Enclosed firsta mathematicalattemptby Moore. The resultthat "the
methoddisguised"refersof course
algebraicmethodis onlythe differential
and is therealso relaonlyto his own methodof geometricalconstruction
tivelycorrect.I have writtento him thatyou do not care about theway in
in thegeometrical
theapplicawhichthematteris represented
construction,
tionto theequationofthecurvesis indeedsufficient
(reiche
ja hin).Moreover,
difference
betweenyouand theold methodis thatyoumake
thefundamental
x changeinto*', hencemake themreallyvary,whiletheotherone departs
fromx + ,whichis alwaysonlythe sum of two quantities,but neverthe
even whenit has passed through
variationof a quantity.Your x therefore,
x1 and has again become x, is yet anotherthan before;while x remains
constantduringthewholeperiodwhenh is firstadded to x and lateragain
of the variationis
subtracted.However, every graphical representation
of thepast process,of the result,hence of a
necessarilythe representation
quantitywhichbecame constant,the line x; its complementis represented
as x + A,twosegmentsofa line. Fromthisalreadyfollowsthata graphical
of how x becomesx1 and x* again becomes x is impossible
representation
(Engelsto Marx, Nov. 21, 1882).31
Marx5answerfollowedthenextday:
criticizestheanalyticalmethodwhichI
Sam, as you have seenimmediately,
have used by simplypushingit aside, and insteadkeepshimselfbusywith
the geometrical
application,to whichI did not devoteone word
damitabspeisen)
thedevelopment
I could in thesame way getrid of (konnte
- beginningwith the mystical
method
of the properso-calleddifferential
method
withtherationalist
methodofNewtonand Leibnitz,thencontinuing
of D'Alembertand Euler, and finishing
withthe strictly
algebraicmethod
of Lagrange (whichhoweveralwaysstartsfromthe same originalprinciple
- I could get rid of thiswhole historicaldevelopment
as Newton-Leibnitz)
of analysisby sayingthatpractically
nothingessentialhas changed in the

10Compare C. De la Vallee Poussin,Coursd'analyseinfinitesimale

, i (Louvain, Paris, 1923),
"For the substitutionofdxforA* in the equation d/(x) =/ (x)Axthereis no necessity,
52:
p.
but it is hallowed by customand this customis justified."
11The words between quotation marks are in English in the letter- see Marx-Engels
Abt. Ill, Bd. u, p. 571.
Gesamtausgabe,

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

196

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

geometrical
applicationofthedifferential
calculus,thatis,in thegeometrical
representation(Versinnltchung).32

This last remarkof Marx showsaffinity

withthatof Dedekind,who also
endeavoredto build up the calculusindependentof the geometricalrepresentationofthederivative.We can considerthisas one ofthecharacteristics
of Marx' analysis,in whichit agreedwithour modernapproach.Another
importantfeaturewas his insistenceon the operationalcharacterof the
differential
and on his search for the exact momentwhere the calculus
do
from
the underlying
springs
algebra as a new doctrine."Infinitesimals"
notappear in Marx' workat all. In hisinsistence
on theoriginofthederivativein a real changeof the variablehe takesa decisivestepin overcoming
the ancientparadox of Zeno- by stressingthe task of the scientistin not
in the real worldbut to establishthe bestmode
denyingthe contradictions
in whichtheycan existside by side.32Here his positionis directlyopposite
to thattakenby Du Bois Reymond,who thoughtthattheincrements
dx,dy
have to be takenas beingat rest,invariable,33
or of the modernmathematicianTarski,who denies the existenceof variable quantitiesaltogether.34
Marx' positionin thisrespectwill be appreciatedby mostmathematicians.
We believethatthissurveyofMarx' opinionson theoriginofthecalculus
demonstratesthat publicationof his other mathematicalmanuscriptsis
also desirable.
MassachusettsInstituteof Technology.
82Marx-Engels
Abt. Ill, Bd. iv, p. 572. Compare Marx, Capital,Part I,
Gesamtausgabe,
ch. 3, Section 2: "The Metamorphosis of Commodities," (Engl. translation,ed. 1889,
p. 76).
83Du Bois
Reymond, op. cit., p. 141, states his dislike for the conception of dx as a
widerdenMann) quan"quantit vanouissante,"since he disapproves (gehtmirentschieden
titieswhich begin to move only when we look at the formulas:''As long as the book is
closed, profoundrestprevails.As soon as I open it, the race to zero beginsof all quantities
provided with the d" Marx, withoutcoming to Du Bois Reymond's conclusion,might
have shared his criticism,since he wanted to expressnot only a change on paper, but a
change in reality.
34A Tarski, Introduction
to Logic (New York, 1941), p. 4.

This content downloaded from 147.188.128.74 on Thu, 8 May 2014 14:27:21 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions