This article was downloaded by: [Ingenta Content Distribution - Routledge] On: 7 December 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription

number 791963552] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Rethinking Marxism

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

The emergence of a theory: the importance of Marx's notebooks exemplified by those from 1844
Jürgen Rojahna a Amsterdam-based International Institute of Social History (IISH),

To cite this Article Rojahn, Jürgen(2002) 'The emergence of a theory: the importance of Marx's notebooks exemplified by

those from 1844', Rethinking Marxism, 14: 4, 29 — 46 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/008935690212331340931 URL:

Full terms and conditions of use: This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

a large number of notebooks. such as addresses.S. a total of 50 of the projected 122 volumes has been published. he left. political constraints and biases affected the editorial work in many ways. on the initiative of the IISH. the MEGA2 was an ambitious scholarly project. The Emergence of a Theory: The Importance of Marx’s Notebooks Exemplified by Those from 1844 Jürgen Rojahn When Marx died in 1883. National Endowment for the Humanities has agreed to support the U. The MEGA2 is published in four sections: I. including the European Union. Recently. the MEGA2 has become the most important international project of its kind. Italy. the U. So far. team. it includes. an international network. in the wake of the changes in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s. the MEGA2 has been published by the respected Berlin Akademie Verlag. notes and marginalia. Correspondence. besides Marx’s and Engels’s own letters. When completed it will include all of Marx’s notebooks as well as all drafts for. They include scholars from Germany. was set up. Some of them are ordinary notebooks (Notizbücher) in which Marx jotted down various things. the politically independent Internationale Marx-Engels Stiftung (IMES). Also. Capital and its preparatoty works. and the United States. and new MEGA2 teams responsible for particular volumes have been formed. the editorial guidelines have been revised. II. the first volumes were published in (East) Berlin. the Moscow and (East) Berlin Institutes of Marxism-Leninism. and two Russian institutions. IV.S. Thus. Excerpts. all letters from third parties. until the collapse of the Eastern European Communist regimes. Since 1998. the entire project has been reorganized: a new editorial committee has been appointed. articles and drafts (except Capital and its preparatory works). Marx’s Capital. Undoubtedly. work began on it in the late 1960s. Works. scholars throughout the world pressed for the continuation of the MEGA2. and editions of. the Trier Karl Marx House. France. In 1990. which at present includes the IISH. Denmark. Under the auspices of the IMES. After all. Russia.Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 part of the Marx-Engels papers. III. However. Major funding has come from Western European sources. Nevertheless. the project was administered by party institutes. titles of books. agreed to support the MEGA2. In fact. besides a lot of incompleted manuscripts and drafts. ideas . even specialists who did not share the editors’ political beliefs recognized that the overall quality of the volumes published was quite high. In 1975. Japan.MEGA Symposium 29 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . the Netherlands. the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences.

After Engels’s death in 1895. After his death. the editors realized that it was useless to publish just a list of the notebooks. Engels added the major part of that collection to his own. began to discuss plans for a new MEGA. Some General Remarks on the Significance of Marx’s Exzerpte As early as November 1837. But at that time the MEGA1 was already doomed. Sometimes.1 They will all be published in the fourth section of MEGA². where he often quoted not from the book but from his exzerpte. which are now held by the Moscow-based Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii (RGASPI). since the 1930s. Marx built up a collection of more than one thousand books. Some notebooks. after Stalin’s death. Harstick 1977. have been published separately (Krader 1972. After they eventually agreed. During his lifetime. scholars from Moscow and Berlin. Winkelmann 1982.” as some critics have assumed. . As work on the MEGA1 advanced. the number of scholars interested in Marx’s notes grew. was confiscated by the Nazi authorities. At the time. in the possession of the Amsterdam-based International Institute of Social History (IISH).Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 which occurred to him. in the MEGA1. Marx told his father that he had adopted the habit of making extracts from the books he read and incidentally scribbling down his reflections (MEGA² III/1. However. In the third. The first scholar who recognized the importance of Marx’s notebooks was David Riazanov. but must be regarded as an integral part of it. GDR. The major part is. making exzerpte was a common way to collect relevant information. and mathematical calculations. 1. He kept this habit throughout his life. When. 12). and main. this will be demonstrated in respect of Marx’s notes from 1844—that is. they were merely listed. in fact. Thus. For Marx. However.2 Marx’s exzerpte and other notes not only help us to better understand his work. this collection was incorporated into the German Social-Democratic Party’s Library in Berlin which. notebooks in which he wrote down extracts from books. Sperl. Müller 1992). the period in which his historical-materialist theory emerged. a minor part came into the possession of the former CPSU Central Party Archives. it was also a way to come to grips with what he read.100 volumes) have been identified. 17). thanks to the protracted search carried out mainly by German and Russian scholars. the greater part of the more than two thousand books could be traced: to date.3 Marx not only carefully preserved his notes but also used to reread them from time to time in order to better remember them (Lafargue 1890–1. Most of them show traces of Marx’s intensive reading. Sharing that library’s fate. they took up Weller’s proposal. when he felt that his perspective had changed or when he needed additional information. 1. section of this paper. he would again consult the book in question. Paul Weller (1994) suggested the inclusion of all of Marx’s notes in a special. Otherwise he just used his notes for his later writings. The majority are exzerpte notebooks (Exzerpthefte)—that is. after Hitler’s rise to power in 1933. MECW 1.30 Rojahn Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . Most of these notebooks—about 200—have been preserved. in turn. the first volume of the fourth section of the MEGA² was published in 1976. 2. A preparatory publication for MEGA² IV/32 (Harstick. Engels’s collection was dispersed throughout Europe during the subsequent years. 3. and Strauß 1999) contains an annotated list of these works.450 works (2. fourth section. In this paper. However. the party authorities did not like the idea (Dlubek 1994). Meanwhile. Müller 1981. he also made exzerpte from books from his own collection. Only some were published in full. Marks/Marx 1971. started by him in the 1920s. 15. I will try to show that the comprehensive publication of Marx’s notebooks is not a mere “relics cult.

[On the] World Market. In fact. The Holy Family (1845). was to be comprehensive and universal. Schelling. it was to be up to date and it was also to be supported by all relevant empirical knowledge. which would be divided into four books. MECW 40. 231). he decided to publish the whole work “in successive instalments” (MEGA² III/9. he realized that more studies were required (456). 2. the “Grundrisse. For instance.Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 . MECW 3. it is not by chance that twentieth-century debates on Marx received such strong impetus from 4. but primarily from the peculiar nature of his work. he soon reached the conclusion that “a complete revision of the manuscript” would be necessary (MECW 44. On Wage Labour. 4. Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . However. [On] International Trade. as an analysis of the development of the real world. . Marx pursued the aforementioned plan. according to his letter of 22 February 1858 to Ferdinand Lassalle. obliging himself to write a “Critique of Politics and Political Economy” to be published in two volumes (MEGA² III/1. Having produced a voluminous draft. in “The German Ideology”. titles given to his uncompleted manuscripts or drafts by later editors are put in quotation marks. Kant. On Capital . the work on that ambitious project proved to be a never ending story. Leske. 5. However. particularly Bruno Bauer. On 1 February 1845. in a series of distinct. he once more changed his plans. Now he projected a work on “Capital” only. devoted all his life to one great project: the critique of political economy. On Landed Property. After having produced his Manuscripts of 1844. of the history of ideas. Marx.4 “settled accounts” with their “former philosophical conscience” (MEGA² II/2. After having completed part 1 (1859).” he intended.. in 1843. ethics. exzerpte have been included in the complete writings of Leibniz. in this paper only the titles of books published by himself are italicized. the dynamic development of all sciences and the fact that Marx’s views changed as well. the importance of exzerpte and other notes made by an author is widely recognized. 314. 231). As regards Marx’s works. Fichte. 6. Indeed. he then decided to attack Bauer in a separate pamphlet. he signed a contract with the German publisher. etc. As a scholar. modifying it again. This critique. he did not start to write his critique of political economy until 1857. The particular significance of Marx’s notes results not just from the fact that such a large quantity of them has survived. when he set to work. and others. he and Engels. 152) and again plunged into new studies. from 1843–4 on. Marx planned to write a critique of politics “in the form of a critique of the Hegelian philosophy of law” (MEGA² I/2. Some months later. Simultaneously. to divide the final version of the work into six books: “1. he decided to publish “the critique of law. As for the following two books. Given the rapid economic and social changes from the 1840s on. politics. Marx actually realized only a small part of his great project. this sort of material is an extremely valuable source of information for studies. Mill. Originally. or thorough analyses of the development of the work of the author in question. 3. 101–2. However. he completed only book 1 (1867). biographical studies. Thus.” the first dealing with political economy (324. MECW 29. 851–2). 264).” Again. 72–3. On the State.MEGA Symposium 31 At present. . 270). independent pamphlets. At that time he had dissociated himself from the Young Hegelians and this project was a part of the discussion with his former friends.

depending on which language he was reading. including his notes. in the MEGA1 and by Landshut and Mayer in 1932). and it is all his writings. and ethnology. such as those for the second and third books of Capital (as edited by Engels in 1884 and 1895. . MECW 38. chemistry. “both as regards matter and style. they reveal motives and ideas that Marx had not elaborated in subsequent works. Usually his way of summarizing a passage leaves no doubt about what he thought. To some extent. philosophy. in August 1846. Rather. mathematics.32 Rojahn the posthumous publication of some of his unpublished manuscripts. they show how his reading affected the development of his ideas. and reprinted in the German Democratic Republic in 1953).5 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . “the all but completed manuscript of the first volume” of the promised book. it was not a mere excuse when. he told Leske that he had to revise. the Manuscripts of 1844 and “The German Ideology” (as edited. 51). political economy. plans. 24. and the Manuscripts of 1857–8 (as edited in Moscow in 1939–41. German. It is only from these notebooks and some letters that we know in what way his ideas developed during that period. agriculture. For this reason. publish word for word what he wrote 6 months earlier” (MEGA² III/2. French. On the one hand. transforming a draft into a work that could be published repeatedly meant much more than merely polishing it up. which included a broad variety of fields. which show how he intended to use the material in question and in what direction he planned to go. what books he read. or Russian expressions. Also. yet again. and what he was particularly interested in. how he came to select just these books. history. This was not only a matter of form: in the case of Marx. his notebooks also are informative about plans that never materialized. geology. Sometimes he was more explicit.Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 The Rise of the 1844 Manuscripts The close interconnection between the notes Marx made in the course of his reading and his other writings can best be exemplified by the manuscripts and notes from 5. such as law. They contain a lot of information about his sources—that is. . with English. simultaneously. technology. Very often he summarized long passages in his own words. . mixing up his native language. that document that process. physics. Nowadays no serious scholar interested in Marx would confine himself to studying only the writings published by Marx himself. and first drafts. Marx’s exzerpte notebooks show the wide range of his studies. interrupting the exzerpte by his own comments. On the other hand. we are inclined to see Marx’s work as a process of lifelong. This is particularly true for Marx’s notebooks from the last years of his life. Marx himself did not consider them to be an adequate expression of what he wanted to say. uncompleted studies. Thus. Sometimes Marx copied relevant passages literally. the debates resulted from the ambiguous status of those manuscripts. Moreover.” He added: “It goes without saying that a writer who works continuously cannot . respectively). his notebooks contain theses.

failed to mention that their edition was based on photocopies that Riazanov had received in 1923. in the MEGA1. have tended to blur that interconnection rather than to clarify it (see Rojahn 1985). Another manuscript numbered IV was edited in an appendix. “Manuscript 6. access has been strictly limited. From the late 1970s on.” giving a “well-founded idea of Marx’s Marxism” (Thier 1950. For a detailed description of the original manuscripts. unfolds his ideas. “a manuscript” that. can be regarded as a work at all. It was seldom noticed that the manuscripts in question in the two 1932 editions had been reproduced in different ways. 8. see Rojahn (1983) and MEGA² I/2. stored at that time in the Berlin-based SPD Party Archives. Fromm 1961). cut short by Hitler’s rise to power in 1933. compared to Marx’s later works.8 It was usually assumed that Marx wrote this work after having “read and excerpted fifteen works on economics. and especially by those who strongly emphasized the eminent importance of the Manuscripts of 1844. comprised the manuscripts numbered.Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 . II. gave a description that was partly incorrect. it is questionable whether the Manuscripts of 1844. De Man 1932). Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . put another way. and IV. they were published in another order. appeared to be divided in “chapters” written one after another— was ignored. No one took the trouble to go back to the originals. which also included some of Marx’s exzerpte from that time. The LandshutMayer collection of Marx’s early writings contained. except for the first French edition (Marx 1937). The editors of MEGA1 I/3. II. who had access to the originals. The crucial issue was how much new light those manuscripts threw on Marx or. However. The MEGA1 editors.6 Among scholars interested in Marx. in fact. for their part.7 However. and III. Since the 1930s. the publication of his 1844 Manuscripts in 1932 caused considerable sensation (Marcuse 1932. However. 163). Generally.MEGA Symposium 33 1844 published respectively in MEGA² I/2 and IV/2. His Manuscripts of 1844 literally grew out of his exzerpte from that period. MEGA² I/2 and IV/2. for many Western scholars they were “in a way the most central work of Marx” (Landshut and Mayer 1932). did not really start until after the Second World War. as they have survived. 4–5). on the other hand. published in 1981–2. the fact that the MEGA1 editors had rearranged the various parts of Marx’s manuscripts— which. Ricardo and Say” (McLellan 1970. under the title “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844” (Ökonomischphilosophische Manuskripte aus dem Jahre 1844). due to their extremely poor condition. Most scholars considered the MEGA1 edition to be superior and. until the 1960s. published three manuscripts. If by “work” we understand a coherent text in which the author. Most of these editions did not include “Manuscript IV. only little attention was paid to the textual evidence and editorial problems. Unfortunately. III. III–II–IV. including Adam Smith. as a result. some included only its concluding part on “estranged labour” (Thier 1950. Landshut and Mayer. the original manuscripts have been in the posession of the IISH. While orthodox communists. how much importance should be attached to them. under the title “Political Economy and Philosophy” (Nationalökonomie und Philosophie). which they numbered I. systematic way. 7. The description they gave was incomplete. tended to play down the importance of the Manuscripts of 1844. “a first outline of his system. subsequent ones were based on that version. the discussion.” As far as the First Manuscript was concerned. in a more or less premeditated.

Tübingen. As Marx stated himself in the “Preface” to his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. In that period. where he contrasted the backward Germans to the advanced nations. MECW 29. probably the Second Manuscript. A close analysis of the texts. 1817). he began to study political economy after he arrived in Paris in the fall of 1843 (MEGA² II/2. on the other hand. Nor can a clear distinction be made between the two groups according to their outward appearance (format. I do not want to say that the various subjects Marx discussed in his Manuscripts of 1844 were unconnected in his mind. After that. division of the pages in columns. a summary of the last chapter of Hegel’s Phänomenologie des Geistes (edited by J. vol. However. and Heinrich Friedrich Osiander (Die Enttäuschung des Publikums über die Interessen des Handels. Part One of 1859.9 To prevent any misunderstanding. 100.” do not differ substantially. of 9. of the prohibitive system.Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 . Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . 262). a large part of the First Manuscript consists of exzerpte. 1. style of the page numbering). der Industrie und der Landwirthschaft. 1842. he said that while “one of the major problems of modern times”—namely. “the relation of industry. its relationship to the other manuscripts is far from clear. Stuttgart. “manuscripts” and “notebooks. the author being regarded in France as “the proto-parens” and “the patriarch of the economists” at that time (Proudhon 1840. The notebooks represent the basis from which his reflections lifted off. 69. some notebooks include Marxian comments of considerable length. Berlin. On the one hand. 1841). It appears that these studies were connected to his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law.. What I do want to say is that to students interested in the development of Marx’s ideas. 1843)..34 Rojahn IV” is. in fact. The Third Manuscript consists of several additions to a text written before.. Tübingen. 1841). 104). 1840). The First Manuscript is not a homogeneous text. Schulze. have survived and we do not know what the preceding pages contained. With regard to content. If there was any (draft of a) work. Tübingen. 2 vols. a process driven by his reading and by the discussions he participated in. including the notebooks. and laid the foundations of his historical materialistic theory. it would have been the Second Manuscript. Marx’s ideas developed very quickly: he entered the field of political economy. Stuttgart. 2d ed. and Ueber den Handelsverkehr der Völker. moreover. leads to the conclusion that the Manuscripts of 1844 are not a systematic exposition of a world-view. He probably started with Jean-Baptiste Say’s Traité d’économie politique (3d ed. to the political world”—was beginning to engage the attention of the Germans “in the form of protective duties. Paris. Introduction. but rather. numbered by Marx xl–xliii.. Marx read works of three German economists: Carl Wolfgang Christoph Schüz (Grundsätze der NationalOeconomie. Nor do I want to suggest that those manuscripts are unimportant for the understanding of his later writings. the emergence and development of new ideas. his manuscripts and notes from 1844 give a fascinating insight into one of the most exciting phases of that process.” In this essay. embraced communism. they themselves contain a part of those reflections. Friedrich List (Das nationale System der politischen Oekonomie. show Marx’s thought in motion—that is. of this manuscript only the last four pages. of the world of wealth generally. the two groups. 2 vols.

value. feeling again that he did not know enough about the “prerequisite” of political life—that is. when he read the French translation of Smith’s Wealth of Nations (trad. 174. the emergence of the modern state. 345). summarizing a passage from Osiander’s Ueber den Handelsverkehr der Völker. .” synonymously. Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . nouv. But apart from the fact that the journal in which he had begun this critique. the state. 179). society. in a second sequence (MEGA² IV/2.10 he was already moving more freely. 90. focusing on what Smith said about the division of labor. he suddenly stopped. Marx focused now on the history of the French Revolution—that is. DeutschFranzösische Jahrbücher. MEGA² IV/2. par G. probably in May or June 1844. He copied a great number of passages word for word. chap. Although the notebook in which Marx started his exzerpte from Smith’s work contains only a few. turning now to Adam Smith. he soon. In his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law. profits of stock. and rent of land. 11. he proceeded very quickly. On the other hand. According to Smith. Garnier. the difference of the different classes” (529). resumed his studies of political economy. When he arrived at page 227 of the second volume of the French edition (book 2.” which were “the three great. in French translation. where Osiander said that the division of labor resulted in the formation of different “classes [Klassen] of society. 356). Apparently. it is extremely interesting. 1802). 5 vols. original and constituent orders of every civilized society” or. “the rule of society over wealth” (MEGA² I/2. “[les] trois grandes classes” (cf. 8) and. civil society—and inspired by Moses Hess’s article “Über das Geldwesen” (Cornu and Mönke 1961. At that time. He went back to page 129 of the first volume (book 1. prices. 346–64). Probably.11 Marx made his exzerpte in that notebook in what seems to have been two sequences.” for his part used the term “estates” (Stände) (MEGA² IV/2. MECW 3. In a first sequence (MEGA² IV/2. Marx read British authors in French translation. 547). before his first stay in England in the summer of 1845. and money. they formed the revenue of “three orders of people. “estate” and “class.” the problem in France and England was “political economy”— that is.” he wrote: “The principle of the civil estate or of civil society is enjoyment and the capacity to enjoy” (MEGA² I/2. MECW 3. At that time. wages of labor.. It is noteworthy that Marx. he reached the conclusion that the matter was too complex for an article. Marx had previously criticized List for not mentioning the “division of enjoyment [Genußtheilung]. However. chap. He now summarized entire paragraphs in his own words. he also felt that he himself still did not know enough about “the world of man. For some time he seems to have intended to write a “History of the Convention” (Nerrlich 1886. made extensive exzerpte from the chapters on the various kinds of income—that is. Paris. From Marx’s exzerpte from Say’s Traité it can be seen that he had entered a new field. It reveals how Marx came to discover what was to become fundamental for his further work: the economic foundations of class formation. Marx planned to continue his critique of Hegel’s philosophy of law. Later. he still used both terms. 80–1).Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 10.MEGA Symposium 35 national economy. brief comments of his own. 332–46).” According to Arnold Ruge. 2). 329–48). ceased publication.

From the outset. i. the decisive question for him was: “What in the evolution of mankind is the meaning of this reduction of the greater part of mankind to abstract labour?” 12. 28). Winterthur. 106 ff. considered the deplorable social conditions of the age to be the result of the historical development of “production. Charles Loudon (Solution du problème de la population et de la subsistance. where Smith treats the historical development of landed property. Constantin Pecqueur (Théorie nouvelle d’économie sociale et politique. at least initially.). iv. Marx excerpted from that book only a few passages on modern industry. for instance. .” “Profit of Capital. xiv . a collection that comprised Buret’s entire work. xix. he took a second sheet. blank—first page and compile a list of books on the third (MEGA² IV/7. xviii. he later continued his exzerpte from Smith’s work in another notebook. and then a third. ii. iii. and referred to. When he realized that one sheet would not be sufficient. Starting on pages viii and xi. 2 vols. Marx first filled the column “Wages of Labour. partly copying relevant exzerpte from his notebooks. see Rojahn 1983. and so on. From the curious order of the written and numbered pages of this manuscript and from the way Marx filled them. 15. probably in 1850.13 On pages i–vii. 48). When continuing his exzerpte in Brussels in 1845.Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 When Marx arrived at page 401 of the second volume—that is. Paris.” he skipped page vii and continued his discussion of Smith’s views on pages viii–xi. 1842) and Eugène Buret (De la misère des classes laborieuses en Angleterre et en France.36 Rojahn Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution .15 At this stage. Leaving the last page of this notebook blank.” and “Rent of Land.12 took a sheet of paper. 1840) in the columns “Wages of Labour” and “Profit of Capital.” Then he filled these columns. The nine sheets together. MEGA² I/2. he entered exzerpte from books by Wilhelm Schulz (Die Bewegung der Production. Anyway. xxvii (for further details. on the following pages. To a large extent. during his stay in Paris he made exzerpte from. which he then entitled “Wages of Labour. When dealing with “Profit of Capital” and “Rent of Land. it is true. . Marx was not interested in history. 14. After that. Zurich. did Marx note “Heft I” on the—until then. xvi. that volume only. he continued his exposition of “Rent of Land. 13. folded it and divided the pages in three columns. . 1843). it can be seen that he.” On page vii he continued the text on this subject in the second and third columns. partly expounding his views in his own words. respectively. the end of book 2 —he stopped again. xv. Paris. he implicitly referred to book 3. Apparently he interrupted his reading at this point.” a development he described in his Bewegung der Production. Only some years later. After nine empty pages. tenancy. he used the Cours complet d’économie politique (Brussels. the numbered pages succeed in the following order: xvii.” Buret’s book proved to be so important that he decided to continue his exzerpte from it in a special notebook.” Marx again copied some passages from Smith out of his notebook. 35–6. starting on page xi of his manuscript. were sewn together—literally!—only afterward. xx . he then resumed his study of Smith’s work.” On page xvi he quoted three passages directly from Smith’s work and. 1842). . 1843). Apparently.. . forming the First Manuscript.14 Concluding his exposition of “Profit of Capital. Schulz. Marx here continued his comments on primogeniture found in “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law” (cf. and towns. It appears that Marx possessed only the first volume of the 1840 edition of Buret’s work. had no far-reaching plan. Paris.

However.” he tried “to grasp how private property . 1809). Paris. Nor does he seem to have already had a clear idea of how man came “to alienate .Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 . Marx had stated in his exzerpte notebook: “By transferring the problem back to primeval times. 241). in his notebook. 1842. he noticed several trends that could be derived from what “the economist” said himself: a progressive concentration of capital. 336).” the last paragraphs of his manuscript show that he himself had not yet a clear idea of what “truly human property” would be. . regarded as an indisputable fact.. 244. 266). . . . had observed that political economy was based on private property.17 So he resumed his studies. etc. he focused on the fact that “the hostile antagonism of interests. he now expounded. “the abolition of the distinction between capitalist and landowner. 281).” explaining that the latter estranged the worker not just from the product of his labor but also from the act of production. 279). Michel Chevalier’s Cours d’économie politique (Année 1841–2.16 When making exzerpte from Say’s Traité. taking up an idea borrowed from Moses Hess that he had already adopted in his “On the Jewish Question. mentions only one author by name: Proudhon. including “Réflexions du traducteur sur le système de Ricardo. still tentative. 17. 319). whose positive proposals he regarded as inadequate. 270). political economy (trad. and that it also “creates the relation to it of the capitalist”—that is. 260). . though in reality it was “a fact without necessity” (MEGA² IV/2..” Even having just begun his study of political economy. . the progressive deterioration of the conditions of the working class. 208.. and finally. Proceeding from this “actual economic fact”. By this. Marx. Paris. he has not gotten rid of it” (MEGA² IV/2. 1825). Charles Ganilh’s Des systèmes d’économie politique (2 vols. the master of labor. The translation given here deviates from that given in MECW. which in my view is not quite adequate. Paris. de l’anglois par G. However. Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . leading “necessarily . his labour” (245–6. 1929). insights. MECW 3. how this whole estrangement is intrinsically connected with the money system” (235. and what that meant for “the worker. “Private property thus results by analysis from the concept of alienated labour” (MEGA² I/2. on pages xxii–xxvii. Geneva. MECW 3. But at that point he had the future rather than the past in mind. Marx. Année 1842–3. the war is recognised throughout political economy as the basis of social organisation” (195. he hoped to have demonstrated that private property only appeared to be “something external to man. 281). Paris. apart from the fact that so far he had said nothing about the “money system. in this last part of the First Manuscript.” the fourth and fifth parts of Antoine Louis Claude 16. 1844). the struggle. he did not then elaborate upon these. so that there remain only two classes of the population—the working class and the class of capitalists” (229. Marx now read Fryderyk Skarbek’s Théorie des richesses sociales (2 vols. to revolution” (234. . from his species-being—as both nature and his spiritual species-property—and from the other man.” being in fact a result of his labor. 316. “This new formulation of the question already contains its solution” (246. Paris. . John Ramsay MacCulloch’s Discourse on . 271).MEGA Symposium 37 (MEGA² I/2. In the First Manuscript. Prevost. With regard to Smith. his thoughts on “estranged labour. Instead.

MEGA² I/2. Clash of mutual contradictions” (255 f. Paris.. “Critical Marginal Notes . At the end of July he wrote an article. which indicate what that manuscript did not contain. As for the exzerpte from Ricardo’s and Mill’s books. After that. All these books were in his possession by that time.). I think. He dealt with the worker as “the subjective manifestation of the fact that capital is man wholly lost to himself. The concluding part of the Second Manuscript is to some extent related to Marx’s summary of Engels’s “Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy” (Deutschfranzösische Jahrbücher. Marx. In the beginning of the Third Manuscript. capital. . Paris. Marx made no exzerpte from Chevalier’s Cours while those from Ganilh’s work date from 1845. valid.-B. 248. made a number of additions. in this concluding part. MEGA I/2. My previous criticism of the arguments of the latter (Rojahn 1983.. The movement through which these constituents have to pass is: First. 2d ed. development of the contradiction between capital and labour” (MEGA2 I/2. 476–7) in his “Critical Marginal Notes” (cf. 1–2. 1826). for the Paris Vorwärts!.Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 . 19. At this point Marx stopped. 289). he went back to his manuscript again—that is. 30) remains. It is however beyond doubt that Marx read Mill’s book before writing the Third Manuscript (cf. [Second. Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution .” began to pay attention to the development of political-economic theory itself. prosaic capitalist. MEGA² IV/2. 1823). . 283.] The two in opposition . he made them after writing the Third Manuscript.. at least as regards the exzerpte from Mill’s Elements. 2 vols. Unmediated or mediated unity of the two . according to the Berlin editors of MEGA² I/2. 451) and he quoted from his exzerpte from Skarbek (328–9) and Destutt de Tracy (489) in the Third Manuscript (311). and James Mill’s Elements of political economy (trad. de l’anglais par T.” which was directed against Ruge. in the beginning of August. . considering the content and style of Marx’s comments.19 On the four pages of the Second Manuscript which have survived. he made exzerpte from nearly all of them. in his first addition (pages i–iii).” and then with the movement “which will transform the landowner into an ordinary. the Second Manuscript—and rereading its last pages. . . Paris 1844. MECW 3. According to the Moscow editors of MEGA² IV/2. 250. he may have made all or some of these exzerpte only after having written the Second.” and with capital as “the objective manifestation of the fact that labour is man lost to himself. . Even the Second Manuscript shows that Marx. David Ricardo’s On the principles of political economy. 311 f. he 18. Nevertheless. Marx made these exzerpte before writing the Second Manuscript. Constancio. avec des notes explicatives et critiques par J. and taxation (trad. On the other hand. Parisot. Marx used his exzerpte from MacCulloch (cf. as a result of his continued studies and particularly his reading of MacCulloch’s Discourse and his rereading of Engels’s “Outlines. 286. 283. Say. Apparently. and the relations between these two. 1835). 285). or even the Third. the Berlin editors seem to be right.18 However.-J.S. 86–114) which follows his exzerpte from MacCulloch’s Discourse in the same notebook. . Marx repeated much of what he had said in the First Manuscript. there is no clear evidence of when exactly they were made. . outlined his own view on the development of political economy: “The character of private property is expressed by labour. manuscripts. de l’anglais par F.38 Rojahn Destutt de Tracy’s Elémens d’idéologie (Paris.” stressing that the traditional difference between capital and land was only “a fixed historical moment in the .

MECW 3. after that he wanted to write a history of the Convent. wealth. political economy had to be guided by the moral ideas of the epoch. 73. 270). 263. In any case. In his “Critical Marginal Notes.” Modern political-economic theory. It is worth noticing that as late as 1858. . had “to be regarded on the one hand . equals humanism. . as a result of contemporary debates. development of modern industry and made it a power in the realm of consciousness. 19).” is not comprehended “in its internal relation” (260. 450–1. that theory did not solve the contradictions in which it got involved. published in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (no. Since 1789. 192). as a product of modern industry—and on the other hand. 257–8. demanded the annulment of capital “as such”) to Fourier (who. published in the Paris Vorwärts! (19 June 1844).Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 . 21. recognizing labor as its principle. independent of him. . MECW 40. and Ruge’s ensuing discussion with Heinrich Börnstein on the question of by what the existing order was to be replaced (22 June and 6 July). which he received at the beginning of August. as fully developed naturalism. Chevalier’s Cours was already mentioned. . In his third addition (starting on page iii). 22. He always wants to write about what he read most recently” (quoted from Cornu 1962. An article by Ruge. he switched to another subject: “The transcendence of self-estrangement follows the same course as selfestrangement” (261. Marx.”20 Demonstrating that man himself was the essence of what appeared as “something . finally he wanted to write a critique of all socialists. in his letter of 22 February to Lassalle. considered agricultural labor “to be at least the exemplary type”). the . Mill.21 However. 296). since Ruge pretended that his former partner’s views did not much differ from his own. and particularly an article by Edgar Bauer on Proudhon. Saint-Simon (who declared “that industrial labour as such is the essence”). there may also have been other reasons. right to call Adam Smith the Luther of Political Economy. equals naturalism” (MEGA² I/2. but became more and more cynical “from Smith through Say to Ricardo. Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution .22 As for what Marx read at that time. . may have prompted Marx to expound his communist views—all the more so. “Engels was . 290–1). etc. Marx mentioned his plan to write a “critique and history of political economy and socialism” (MEGA² III/9. from the existing socialist or communist doctrines. the crucial issue had been freedom. According to the Saint-Simonist Chevalier. . and communism (as “the positive expression of annulled private property”). MECW 3. April 1844).” (MEGA² I/2. In his second addition (page iii). Moreover. proceeding from Proudhon (who.MEGA Symposium 39 elaborated upon this.” Marx called English political economy “the scientific reflection of English economic conditions” (MEGA² I/2. Marx stressed that the antithesis of lack of property and property. like the Physiocrats. . and as fully developed humanism. so long as it is not grasped as “the antithesis of labour and capital. as a force which has quickened . . describes the movement of the transcendence of self-estrangement in “logical” rather than chronological terms. MECW 3. 5. Marx may have felt the need to delineate his evolving concept of “communism. 293–4). . these doctrines were intensely present in his thinking at that time. The 20. The immediate reason for this switch may have been the discovery itself of the alleged analogy. On 29 August Ruge reported to Max Duncker: “Marx intended to criticise Hegel’s natural law from a communist point of view. considering private property in its objective aspect. .” that is. 294).

On the other hand. who coined that term (371). Edouard de Pompéry’s Exposition de la science sociale constituée par C. 296). Also. under the auspices of peace.” unconstrained and joyful manner. in harmony with one another. that the required affluence could only be created in a world in which everyone could exercise their various faculties in a “normal.” Marx in de Pompéry’s book found a number of ideas that concurred with his own and may have stimulated their development: that man. dealt with the movement of the “transcendence of selfestrangement” only briefly. 1842). an ennobled heart. in paragraphs (3). in a community in which the particular interests of each individual member would be an integral part of the common interest. the emancipation of the second half of the tiers état. Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution .). 201). by nature. (4). he at length expounded his ideas of communism as “the real appropriation of the human essence” (MEGA² I/2. 471 f. for Marx then “the true conqueror of the old philosophy” (MEGA² I/2. Chevalier’s Cours may have drawn Marx’s attention to the achievements of modern industry. and particularly Weitling’s Garantien der Harmonie und Freiheit (Vivis. man.) Especially. that man lives in society and only lives through work. Chevalier considered competence to be indispensable. Marx appreciated “Weitling’s brilliant writings. Subsequently. “rendered animal-like by misery.40 Rojahn current task was “to complete. In antiquity as well as the following centuries. to develop the productive forces of society” (48). without getting lost in it. was indeed able to become “the master of the universe” (12). MECW 3. Emphasizing the material prerequisites of freedom. the large majority of people lived in awful misery. Paris. According to de Pompéry. Fourier (2d ed. is not a human being any more. and refined senses. he followed Proudhon (1840) and Lorenz Stein (1842). rather. lives through his five senses. that man feels the need to love and to be loved. and new means of communication. 263. That could not be altered by another distribution of the scarce production. associations and institutions where people could find “solidarity. Man then would be truly human: with a developed intellect. 328). it was necessary “to increase production. On the other hand. this would be realized by free “association”—that is. Chevalier put his hope in industry—that is. that the only way to elevate the human race was by freeing man from the necessities of material life. which as regards theory are often superior even to those of Proudhon” (459. in the third addition. Marx. Marx did not share that author’s program. Besides a similar critique of present society in which the proletarian. 35 f.Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 . protection. and (5) (pages iv–xi). the advance of the sciences.. the rural and urban working classes” (1842.” Concerning this. is an active being. he criticized “unlimited competence” and pleaded for restraining it by “organization”— that is. De Pompéry’s stress on “passion” as the driving force of life fitted in with the anthropology of Feuerbach. Paragraphs (1) and (2) (pages iii–iv) are exclusively devoted to the critique of “crude communism. “material labor in all its forms” (3). 276. as a result of the enormous growth of those forces. MECW 3. primarily. At the present time. On the one hand. safety” (1844. 1840) appealed to Marx. that man.

305). in paragraph (3). in paragraph (6)—that is. . he observed that “for the socialist man the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labour” (274. in that of the economy. It appears that he then also aired plans for a new attack on Bauer. Simultaneously. Concluding. 356). this switch may have come from the run-on quality of his ideas. are only particular modes of production. pressed Marx to publish a critique of Bauer’s journal (436–7). MECW 3. in his letter of 3 July. he implicitly refers to articles by Bruno Bauer and Melchior Hirzel. published respectively in numbers 5 and 6 (cf. whom he had criticized before in his “On the Jewish Question. in this case. private property is the material. in this paragraph. its transcendence therefore embraces both aspects” (MEGA I/2. Its movement . is therefore the positive transcendence of all estrangement . . Jung’s letter may also have induced Marx to write paragraph (7) (pages xiv–xvii) where he dealt with how. MECW 3. partly in the same words. art. he informed Feuerbach about his plan “to publish a small booklet attacking this aberration of criticism” (MEGA² III/1. is the fact that. Marx.” He continues: “This material .” While Moses Hess. MECW 3. . However. . Heinrich Jung. still within the framework of his third addition dealing with the “transcendence of self-estrangement”—he again switched to another subject: “This is perhaps the place at which . . . Again. Apparently.. 326–7). also says why he pursued his study of political economy.MEGA Symposium 41 Somewhat casually.Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 23. and fall under its general law. in his letter to Feuerbach. “It is easy to see that the entire revolutionary movement necessarily finds both its empirical and theoretical basis in the movement of private property—more precisely. is the perceptible revelation of the movement of all production until now . in letters to friends. 902–5). state. regarded a new attack as pointless (MEGA² III/3. . Marx accused the latter of a “complete lack of awareness” about that “really vital question” (MEGA I/2. 434–5). 65. . 297). 326). . . whereupon. . Marx had already critically assessed numbers 1–4 of Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung.23 On 11August. Jung sent copies of numbers 5–7 of the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung. 263–4. Later. too. . MEGA² I/2. An indication that Marx wrote paragraph (6) only after having received the above mentioned copies of numbers 5–7 of the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung. edited by Bruno Bauer. etc. at the end of paragraph (5). 275–6. During the previous spring. family. The positive transcendence of private property . Marx now made up his mind. . Religion. other reasons seem to have been decisive. law. Religious estrangement as such occurs only in the realm of consciousness . science. What follows the already quoted introduction to paragraph (6) (pages xi–xiii) leaves no doubt that his critique of Hegelian dialectic was at the same time the core of his critique of “modern German criticism” and particularly Bauer. perceptible expression of estranged human life. we might offer some considerations in regard to Hegelian dialectic” (275. . but economic estrangement is that of real life. under private property. morality. he repeated. 275. . in his letter of 31 July. “the multiplication of needs and of Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . what he had said in paragraph (6).

is .” (299. that he .” Marx regarded the fact that. transformed political economy in philosophy. Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . . . “as the supersession of private property. Heidelberg. . that Hegel conceives the self-creation of man as a process . 332). if self-consciousness is “at home in its other-being as such. Hegel came to conceive thinghood as “a something which has no objectivity outside the knowing” (298. Formulated in philosophical terms. . 308). the state. 339). Marx stopped numbering the paragraphs and alternately dealt with Hegelian philosphy (pages xiii/xvii–xviii. that is.. but also . . 332–3). . 437). but still in an estranged form” (285.Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 . because real man—as the outcome of man’s own labour .” it actually “confirms it in this alienated shape . 331). However. in the concluding part of the First Manuscript. 333–4). the privileged property owners. “inasmuch as it depicts man’s estrangement . xxxiv–xxxviii). the advent of practical humanism” (301. it was comparable to atheism. limitations. Marx observed: “Self-consciousness is rather a quality of human nature. mystifying and still uncertain criticism”—containing. comprehends objective man—true. Bauer told him recently that it was necessary to criticize “not just society. etc. 338). he wanted to demonstrate “Hegel’s . into the real appropriation of his objective essence through the annihilation of the estranged character of the objective world”—that is. on page xxii of the Third Manusscript he does the opposite: “The outstanding achievement of Hegel’s Phänomenologie and its final outcome. . for Hegel. all the elements of criticism . the Hegelian dialectic was “the estranged insight into the real objectification of man. The summary of its contents at the end of paragraph (6) and the references to its “separate sections” on pages xiii/xvii–xviii indicate that he reread that work. .. “being the supersession of God. etc. . . Before doing this. of the human eye. . the proletarians. While Marx. society itself derived” (MEGA² III/1. As far as the Hegelian philosophy is concerned. As for the “estranged form. . is . “the emergence of species-consciousness and species-life. . as it were. which. 333). 1830). that the critique of the wealthy. . which. as they are displayed in the final chapter” (292. Resuming his critique on page xxii. and with the role of money. etc.” and to communism. As a result of this. On page xviii he characterized the Phänomenologie in its entirety as “a hidden.. . According to Jung. . Marx also quoted from part 1 of Hegel’s Encyclopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften (3d ed. . Here is the root of Hegel’s false positivism” as shown “vis-à-vis religion. xx–xxi. property. In this exposition. “the birth-place of the Hegelian philosophy” (284. it is not human nature that is a quality of self-consciousness” (293. Hegel’s standpoint is that of modern political economy” (292–3. . . . xxii–xxxiv). political economy (pages xviii– xix. Indicating his own position.” From this point of view. 24. . 334).24 After that. the dialectic . . from the understanding of their subhuman and unworthy condition. and communism (page xix).” Jung added: “as if it was not just from the critique of the latter. “the object of consciousness is nothing else but self-consciousness”—whose own alienation “posits thinghood”—as the “main point” (293–4. he now focused on Hegel’s Phänomenologie. is the advent of theoretical humanism.42 Rojahn the means [of their satisfaction] breeds the absence of needs and of means” (280. 341–2). he probably made his summary of that very chapter.

. .” published in the Paris Vorwärts! (28 August 1844). where he ordered his material.MEGA Symposium 43 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . i. on pages xxxix–xl. On the one hand.” At this point. 317. the 1844 Manuscripts show “the boiling over of a thought seeking to express itself” (1962. the sixteen sheets of the Third Manuscript and the sheet containing the summary of the last chapter of Hegel’s Phänomenologie were sewn together only afterward. announcing that he would demonstrate “the negative dissolution of philosophy. Following this. However. 26. 314. directly from the book. etc. he resumed his reading. this would be followed by a work. 323). influenced his views and lead to a change of perspective. The same passage was quoted by his friend Georg Weber in the latter’s article “Das Geld. already this first pamphlet was to comprise a concluding chapter containing “a critical discussion of Hegelian dialectic and philosophy as a whole.Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 Returning to political economy on page xxxiv. after additional remarks on the victory of industrial capital over landed property. 27. further reflections on the relation of man’s passions to their sensuous object and on the power of money. the process of its decay . Marx wrote. just as they came into his mind. 231–4). on the one hand that human life required private property for its realisation. was to be the first of a series developing “the critique of law. he compared Smith’s.”25 Later on. Gattungs-). “the procurer between man’s need and the object” (435. The “Preface” shows that Marx was still undecided as to the purpose of the “pamphlet” that he planned to publish. he had to say. he afterward deleted most of this polemic. 321). He now also paid attention to an aspect that he had so far neglected: “of course the division of labour had to be conceived as a major driving force in the production of wealth as soon as labour was recognised as the essence of private property” (309. dealing with political economy. Marx used the concept of species (Gattung. focusing on the division of labor. form of human activity as an activity of the species” (309. Having said what. he added.27 which. As Émile Bottigelli aptly put it. for the time being. xxxviii).. In his comments on Prevost’s “Réflexions. and Mill’s views on that subject. Except for the first parts of the First Manuscript. on another occasion” (MEGA² I/2. Marx. he just continued the study of political economy in order to extend his still scarce knowledge of that field. in the case of Mill.”. “the estranged . MECW 3.” he used the term “social” (gesellschaftlich) (MEGA² 25. Characteristically. . ethics. In this final part. in the concluding part of the First Manuscript. on pages ix–xliii. this pamphlet. For instance. Marx quoted from Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens. politics. and the last parts of the Third Manuscript. in turn. the “Preface. where he used relevant books and exzerpte. Marx. which seems to indicate that this pamphlet was to be the “small booklet” that he had mentioned in his letter to Feuerbach some days before. the consultation of books that contain information helpful for the solving of a specific problem. so far as they have survived.e. Skarbek’s. On the other hand.26 Like those of the First Manuscript. turned to the political economists’ concept of society. Quoting relevant passages from his exzerpte notebooks or. where Marx would try to show “the interrelationship of the separate parts” and also attempt “a critique of the speculative elaboration of that material”. 317). Marx at that time did not follow the typical scholarly procedure—that is. He concluded that precisely in the fact that the division of labor was so closely connected to private property “lies the twofold proof. in his manuscripts. Rather. . expounded his ideas rather spontaneously. and on the other hand that it now requires the supersession of private property” (313. 317). Say’s. which again manifested itself in a change of concepts. . Marx again fell into fierce polemics with Bruno Bauer.

” without using the term. he may have done so without being aware of it. non-human property. While the exzerpte from Say’s. in the course of his studies. the division of labor “the economic expression of the social character of labour within the estrangement” (MEGA² I/2. The exzerpte from Say’s Traité. at times interrupting the exzerpte by his own comments which. 354. 29. he critically assessed political economy’s “laws” themselves: they were mere abstractions and. and Mill’s books include detailed discussions of the author’s views. they were only interested in “the abstract movement of the material. the comments he made in his notebooks show the progress of his thinking. . Marx’s comments.28 After that. in his letter to Feuerbach. at a later time Marx dropped the term “estrangement” as well.” it did not matter whether. and so on belonged to a specific.” in this sense. 529).30 those from MacCulloch’s. This did not mean that he came to interpret the phenomena of the “real world” in a different way. MECW 3. ignoring the diametrically opposed interests that are its result. The 28. 483).” preoccupied with “the general law. For instance. Ricardo himself. only once: in his “On the Jewish Question” (MEGA² I/2. considerably grew in length. the concept of the human species brought down from the heaven of abstraction to the real earth. 63. from whose movement we.” “the individual real human beings” (MEGA² IV/2. or if the individual’s interest . .” According to him. which is based on real life differences between men. and Smith’s works contain only some brief critical remarks. he developed this view in more detail and concluded: “The true law of political economy is chance. Mill. he mainly criticized “the Ricardians”— that is. Schüz’s. he observed that List presented the division of labor as agreement. he used this term more and more frequently. In his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law. Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . contain only one short comment made afterward. Marx made the latter comments. but also in his notebooks. 163. MECW 3. 317). However. what is this but the concept of society?” (MEGA² III/1. 309. calling. Marx previously used the term “social. is social”. the economist “must consider reality to be accidental and the abstraction to be something real” (405). When making exzerpte from Prévost’s “Réflexions. cf. 30. of society and the individual are identical. 168). Skarbek’s. estrangement. by the working of this law. Even in the first parts of the First Manuscript he described what he afterward called “estrangement. for example. “thousands were ruined” (482).Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 . the scientific men. . for their ruthless “cynicism. take up several pages. “He contents himself with the word ‘social labour’” (MEGA² IV/2. to give them any distinct meaning.44 Rojahn IV/2.)29 As indicated above.” he observed that to “the Ricardians. soon afterward. isolate certain factors arbitrarily in the form of laws” (447. 482: “if the interests . 317). on the right half of the page which Marx had left empty (see the facsimile in MEGA² IV/2. also. the third of the ten sections dealing with money. With regard to Mill’s Elements. However. 211). Ricardo’s. he came to realize that the concepts of species. 42). MECW 3. As is well known. for instance. he observed: “The unity of man with man. in his notebook. in section 8 of chapter 3 of Mill’s book—that is. When making exzerpte from Ricardo’s book. When making exzerpte from List’s work. Like Marx’s various manuscripts.” he employed only one time the expression “social essence” (sociales Wesen) (45. At first. .” whithout caring about “real life. When making exzerpte from Mill’s book. 480). Marx expounded his views not just in his manuscripts. German philosophical discourse which was different from the discourse in which he now intended to participate. List’s. when he had arrived at page 137. MECW 3. and MacCulloch.

their style does not differ significantly from those expositions. . but rather. his labour”. Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . “A particular commodity. affirmed himself and the other person . 1844–1845. and Third Manuscripts. . answered the questions he had asked in the concluding part of the First Manuscript: “how private property . isolated from his notebooks of that period. 218). For instance. Only the ensemble of these notes. and particularly the additions made in the Third Manuscript. In fact. stressing that the essence of money “is not.” To summarize: Marx’s Manuscripts of 1844 must not be seen as a distinct entity. At this stage of his work. as well as in the comments he made when he arrived at page 253 of Mill’s book. is estranged from man” (447. .MEGA Symposium 45 last parts of the Third Manuscript show that the role of money more and more occupied his mind. Paris: Éditions sociales. or even “the Fourth Manuscript. he declared: “Each of us would have . and what “truly human property. Vol. he gave an exposition of his views on money. apart from this. would be. comments. Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag. as also how it becomes price” (455. He did that alternately in his notebooks and his manuscripts. . Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature” (465. Their various parts do not form a properly thought out “work” based on preceding studies. In fact. A. Leben und Werk. . social act by which man’s products mutually complement one another. how man came “to alienate . 1962. Continuing his comments in his notebook. and further exzerpte. 227–8). that property is alienated in it.” he stated: “Mill very well expresses the essence of the matter .Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 References Bottigelli. reflect different stages of the development of his ideas. The comments by which Marx interrupted his exzerpte from Mill’s Elements surpass in clarity most of the expositions given in the First. convenient for the business of exchange. the human. In Karl Marx: Manuscrits de 1844 (Économie politique et philosophie). 2.. vii–lxix. It is important to note that Marx himself did not make any difference between those additions and his comments in his notebooks. proceeding at a rapid pace at that time. as a medium. . Présentation. in the first place. Cornu. seen as a sequence of exzerpte. As to truly human production. was fueled by continued reading. also wrote down his thoughts. by characterising money as the medium of exchange. . . how [the] whole estrangement is intrinsically connected with the money system”. Second. summaries. É. etc. Marx only in these comments. Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels. Marx made his exzerpte but. However. . when making his comments on Mill. he at a certain point remarked: “How this value is more precisely determined must be described elsewhere. which. gives an adequate idea of how his views developed.” or truly human production. . he switched to that subject. 1962. . it did not matter to him where he developed his ideas. at the same time. reflections. With reference to section 7. but that the mediating activity or movement.” Subsequently. the comments by which he interrupted his exzerpte from Mill can be regarded as a sequel to the Manuscripts of 1844. 212).

“ÖkonomischPhilosophischen Manuskripte aus dem Jahre 1844. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.. Exzerpte und Manuskriptentwürfe 1851–1861. Thier. H. Die Frühschriften. The ethnological notebooks of Karl Marx. Warsaw: Ksiaz˘ [ka i Wiedza. 1978. Przyczynki do historii polskiej. Die Marxschen Manuskripte aus dem Jahre 1844 in der neuen Marx-EngelsGesamtausgabe (MEGA). P. B. J.. S. Molitor. K. H. Der Socialismus und Communismus des heutigen Frankreichs. Krader. [1971. With a translation from Marx’s Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts by T. In Quellen und Grenzen von Marx’ Wissenschaftsverständnis. Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution . Moses Hess: Philosophische und sozialistische Schriften 1837–1850. Man. McLellan. 2d ed. Bottomore. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Frankfurt: Ullstein. Assen: Van Gorcum. Weller. and R. Die Entstehung der zweiten Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe im Spannungsfeld von legitimatorischem Auftrag und editorischer Sorgfalt. A. Nerrlich. Marks/Marx. ed. H. ed. no. 6. Phear. H. 1932... 1983. eds. Karl Marx: Die technologisch-historischen Exzerpte.-E. Vergleichende Studien zur Geschichte des Grundeigentums 1879–80. Die Gesellschaft 9 (2): 136–74. Marx before Marxism. Économie politique et philosophie. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Brocard. R. D. (Re$kopisy z lat 1863–1864)/ Beiträge zur Geschichte der polnischen Frage (Manuskripte aus den Jahren 1863–1864). Die Neue Zeit 9/1. Harstick. In Karl Marx: Nationalökonomie und Philosophie. P. R.-P. P. London: Macmillan. 1890–1. 1932. xi–xli. Strauß. Mönke. eds. Sperl. 1961. Zur Edition der Exzerpte in der MEGA1 (1935). Annotiertes Verzeichnis des ermittelten Bestandes. Der Fall der sog. Landshut. Idéologie allemande (1re partie). Sperl. 1961. Paris: Costes. Marx’s concept of man. Marxismus—Marx—Geschichtswissenschaft. Maschinerie und Industrie. ed. P. Kapital und industrielle Revolution. Der Kampf 25: 224–9. Œuvres philosophiques. 1: 10–17.46 Rojahn Dlubek. Leipzig: Otto Wigand. L. Vol. Cologne: G. 1–127. ed. Proudhon. S. Cornu.” International Review of Social History 28 (1): 2–49. 1. Vollgraf.] 1986. Rojahn. 1842. 1981. Trans. 2: 37–42. no. 267–77. Lafargue. Marx. L. 1994). ed. K. Hamburg: Argument. Paris: J. (= Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung. 1886. Maine. W. Marcuse. Taubert. Die Anthropologie des jungen Marx nach den Pariser ökonomisch-philosophischen Manuskripten. Lubbock). Persönliche Erinnerungen. J. Probleme und Fragen zur Datierung der “Ökonomisch-philosophischen Manuskripte” von Karl Marx. Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 25: 647–63. 1982.] 1974. ed. Frankfurt: Campus. de. Karl Marx. Neue Folge. 1985. Frankfurt: Ullstein. Der neu entdeckte Marx. E. Einleitung. 1970.Routledge] At: 22:21 7 December 2010 . Vol. Mayer. ———. 1977. Ein Beitrag zur Zeitgeschichte. 1999. I. 1. (Studies of Morgan. MEGA-Studien 1994/1: 60–106. and W. 1994. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. In Karl Marx: Der historische Materialismus. Harstick. R.-P. and J.. Die Bilbliotheken von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels.-F. ———. 1932. C. Müller. Hecker.. 2d ed. E.-P. Neue Quellen zur Grundlegung des historischen Materialismus. P. [1972. Dietz. 1840. Karl Marx: Exzerpte über Arbeitsteilung. 1950. Winkelmann. H. Eine Auswahl. Kiepenheuer. Beiträge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung 3: 17–35. Arnold Ruges Briefwechsel und Tagebuchblätter aus den Jahren 1825– 1880. Stein. 1937. 1994. Stuttgart: J. ed. and H. New York: Ungar. vol. 1992. Fromm. ed. Qu’est-ce que la propiété? Ou recherches sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement. H. Mayer. R.. J. P. Karl Marx über Formen vorkapitalistischer Produktion. Landshut and J.. 200–07. Leipzig: Kröner. Karl Marx über Maschinerie.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful