epub Archive of Marx and Engels IV (Theories of Surplus Value) Selected Correspondence Marx and Engels, Selected Works of Karl Marx. mobi Archive of Marx and Engels. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of · The Holy Family, Wage Labour and Capital, The Poverty of. Das Kapital by Karl Marx; 48 editions; First published in ; Subjects: Capital, Economics, History, Socialisme, Économie politique, Marx, Karl, ; People: Karl Marx; Times: 19th century. Read eBook · DAISY for print-disabled Download ebook for print-disabled (DAISY) · PDF · ePub · MOBI · Plain text. .
|Language:||English, Spanish, Arabic|
|Genre:||Health & Fitness|
|ePub File Size:||16.55 MB|
|PDF File Size:||20.88 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Aug 15, Το κεφάλαιον by Karl Marx Note, Translation of: Das Kapital Downloads, downloads in the last 30 days. EPUB (with images). Read "Das Kapital (Mobi Classics)" by Karl Marx,Samuel Moore (Translator), Edward Aveling (Translator) available from Rakuten Kobo. Sign up today and get . Apr 8, Capital by Karl Marx in PDF. This is a free version of Capital by Karl Marx for download below in PDF. Das Kapital downloads in the following formats: Capital Karl Marx PDF · Capital Karl Marx ePub · Capital Karl Marx MOBI.
Further, edition is free, based on a public domain copyright. Therefore, please download my complete version of Capital by Karl Marx for free. I zipped the files because of the size. All files contain all three volumes of his works and a short introduction by me. My downloads are secure and virus free. My name is Mark Biernat and I am a college Economics professor. I am provide the works of great Economics of the past because I love Economic theory and the history of Economics.
In the context of his time, Marx was writing about, a transition from feudalism to industrialization. During feudalism, people had rights to have their own animals and farm in the commons. However, with the passage of the Enclosure acts in the 18th century in England, land ownership and use became restrictive and migration to the cities limited workers to factory work for making a means of employment.
In the factories, factory workers were employed at substance wages and children were use as cheap labor.
The classes were the factory owners or the Bourgeoisie and the workers or the proletariat.
The capitalist system is based on a system that encourages inequality. Through education of the proletariat and eventual revolution that would over thought the system, a new system where all people were treated equal. Further the capital and businesses were community owned, this system was called communism.
It was the abolition of private property. Marx used Hegelian logic, dialectical materialism in his theory. In another twist of irony, in one sense Marx was the first hyper consumer, as all that exists in the world was material, rather than spiritual transcendence and meaning.
Therefore, his system of happiness util maximization was based on satiation through material equality and intellectual pursuits, not a soulful transcendence. Nothing is more useful than water: A diamond , on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it — Adam Smith.
Value is not determined by labor input or any objective measure but by supply and demand, it is subjective, whatever value people ascribe value to it. You are not as indentured to your job and your career as you think. These are seen as the two social values that are parlayed to create a society that is just. Justice as the ultimate good.
They have to be balanced with both equality and freedom which are limited goods. You do not want the freedom to yell fire in a crowded movie if it was not true, or allow children to smoke. Nor do you want to make everyone so equal that it crushes the human spirit.
Society as a whole should strive for to maximize justice. Marx had an inordinate emphasis on equality which brought societies which espouse his ideology to a lower social medium. Compare North Korea to South Korea. What was once West Berlin or East Berlin. Hong Kong to mainland China before China became a mixed economy. If you believe that humans are naturally good than, if you maximize freedom justice will prevail. I believe humans are both good and competitive, not in aggregate exploitative.
In aggregate you will find exceptions, but not a rule. Understanding the difference between healthy competition and straight exploitation is something that you have to decided. I would recommend looking at the people who live next to you or you are in relationship with. Are they fundamentally bad people or someone like yourself, someone with dreams and hopes that they are trying to actualize?
Does self actualization go beyond the tangible goods and economic prosperity, perhaps faith and God is the center rather than material goods like Marx theorized? Well Mr, Have you not read the Communist Manifesto?!
Marx has nothing to do with equal society. On the contrary, what he proposes is quite simple: Some are born to work while some are luckier to exploit because of the existing conditions of the any old social system.
Therefore; working people or the labor class who inevitably have to work must attack any old system when they are strong enough and build a system of their own. Das Kapital downloads in the following formats: Above are the links for the three volumes of in one book: Karl Marx was a classical economist and wrote in a time that echoes our times in a strange twist of irony.
Is there a new theory for Marx? Adam Smith contrasted with Karl Marx While Adam Smith believed capitalism was motivated by enlighten self-interest, people create value to satiated demand. What was the theory of Marx? Marx articulated Alienation Entfernung — Marx believed the work was a fundamental source of happiness in people. However, people needed to see their work in the objects they created.
Since the modern world and capitalism is focused on specialization this alienates the workers product from the worker. Marx believe this alienation or entfernung was the first wrong of capitalism. Modern work is insecure — Workers are inputs that can be replaced.
Marx saw profit as a thief of worker surplus. Profit is another term for exploitation of talent and effort. Capitalism is unstable — Because of the boom and bust cycle which are endemic and caused by a crisis of over production and abundance from the efficiency of specialization.
This overabundances causes unemployment as not everyone is needed. His answer was redistribute the wealth of producer surplus to worker surplus. Commodity fetishism Warenfetischismus — Capitalism puts emotional strain on capitalistic — Whether it is marriage or the internal struggles they go through.
Their economic interest override humanistic concerns. So is Marx correct? Marx eventually had to flee Germany and reside in London. Marx cooperated with Engels. As to the prejudices of so-called public opinion, to which I have never made concessions, now as aforetime the maxim of the great Florentine is mine:. To the present moment Political Economy, in Germany, is a foreign science. Thus the soil whence Political Economy springs was Edition: This "science" had to be imported from England and France as a ready-made article; its German professors remained schoolboys.
The theoretical expression of a foreign reality was turned, in their hands, into a collection of dogmas, interpreted by them in terms of the petty trading world around them, and therefore misinterpreted. The feeling of scientific impotence, a feeling not wholly to be repressed, and the uneasy consciousness of having to touch a subject in reality foreign to them, was but imperfectly concealed, either under a parade of literary and historical erudition, or by an admixture of extraneous material, borrowed from the so-called "Kameral" sciences, a medley of smatterings, through whose purgatory the hopeless candidate for the German bureaucracy has to pass.
Since capitalist production has developed rapidly in Germany, and at the present time it is in the full bloom of speculation and swindling. But fate is still unpropitious to our professional economists.
At the time when they were able to deal with Political Economy in a straightforward fashion, modern economic conditions did not actually exist in Germany. And as soon as these conditions did come into existence, they did so under circumstances that no longer allowed of their being really and impartially investigated within the bounds of the bourgeois horizon.
In so far as Political Economy remains within that horizon, in so far, i. Let us take England. Its political economy belongs to the period in which the class-struggle was as yet undeveloped.
Its last great representative, Ricardo, in the end, consciously makes the antagonism of class-interests, of wages and profits, Edition: But by this start the science of bourgeois economy had reached the limits beyond which it should not pass. Already in the lifetime of Ricardo, and in opposition to him, it was met by criticism, in the person of Sismondi. The succeeding period, from to , was notable in England for scientific activity in the domain of Political Economy.
It was the time as well of the vulgarising and extending of Ricardo's theory, as of the contest of that theory with the old school. Splendid tournaments were held. What was done then, is little known to the Continent generally, because the polemic is for the most part scattered through articles in reviews, occasional literature and pamphlets. The unprejudiced character of this polemic—although the theory of Ricardo already serves, in exceptional cases, as a weapon of attack upon bourgeois economy—is explained by the circumstances of the time.
On the one hand, modern industry itself was only just emerging from the age of childhood, as is shown by the fact that with the crisis of it for the first time opens the periodic cycle of its modern life. On the other hand, the class-struggle between capital and labor is forced into the background, politically by the discord between the governments and the feudal aristocracy gathered around the Holy Alliance on the one hand, and the popular masses, led by the bourgeoisie on the other; economically by the quarrel between industrial capital and aristocratic landed property—a quarrel that in France was concealed by the opposition between small and large landed property, and that in England broke out openly after Corn Laws.
The literature of Political Economy in England at this time calls to mind the stormy forward movement in France after Dr.
Quesnay's death, but Edition: With the year came the decisive crisis. In France and in England and bourgeoisie had conquered political power. Thenceforth, the class-struggle, practically as well as theoretically, took on more and more outspoken and threatening forms. It sounded the knell of scientific bourgeois economy. It was thenceforth no longer a question, whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful to capital or harmful, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not.
In place of disinterested enquirers, there were hired prize-fighters; in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetic. Still, even the obtrusive pamphlets with which the Anti-Corn Law League, led by the manufacturers Cobden and Bright, deluged the world, have a historic interest, if no scientific one, on account of their polemic against the landed aristocracy.
But since then the Free Trade legislation, inaugurated by Sir Robert Peel, has deprived vulgar economy of this its last sting.
mobi eBook Archive of Marx and Engels
The Continental revolution of also had its reaction in England. Men who still claimed some scientific standing and aspired to be something more than mere sophists and sycophants of the ruling-classes, tried to harmonise the Political Economy of capital with the claims, no longer to be ignored, of the proletariat.
Hence a shallow syncretism, of which John Stuart Mill is the best representative. It is a declaration of bankruptcy by bourgeois economy, an event on which the great Russian scholar and critic, N. Tschernyschewsky, has thrown the light of a master mind in his "Outlines of Political Economy according to Mill. In Germany, therefore, the capitalist mode of production came to a head, after its antagonistic character had already, in France and England, shown itself in a fierce strife of Edition: And meanwhile, moreover, the German proletariat had attained a much more clear class-consciousness than the German bourgeoisie.
Thus, at the very moment when a bourgeois science of political economy seemed at last possible in Germany, it had in reality again become impossible. Under these circumstances its professors fell into two groups. The one set, prudent, practical business fold, flocked to the banner of Bastiat, the most superficial and therefore the most adequate representative of the apologetic of vulgar economy; the other, proud of the professorial dignity of their science, followed John Stuart Mill in his attempt to reconcile irreconcilables.
Just as in the classical time of bourgeois economy, so also in the time of its decline, the Germans remained mere schoolboys, imitators and followers, petty retailers and hawkers in the service of the great foreign wholesale concern. The peculiar historic development of German society therefore forbids, in that country, all original work in bourgeois economy; but not the criticism of that economy. So far as such criticism represents a class, it can only represent the class whose vocation in history is the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production and the final abolition of all classes—the proletariat.
The learned and unlearned spokesmen of the German bourgeoisie tried at first to kill "Das Kapital" by silence, as they had managed to do with my earlier writings. As soon as they found that these tactics no longer fitted in with the conditions of the time, they wrote, under pretence of criticising my book, prescriptions "for the tranquillisation of the bourgeois mind.
An excellent Russian translation of "Das Kapital" appeared in the spring of The edition of copies is already nearly exhausted. As early as , A. Sieber, Professor of Political Economy in the University of Kiev, in his work "David Ricardo's Theory of Value and of Capital," referred to my theory of value, of money and of capital, as in its fundamentals a necessary sequel to the teaching of Smith and Ricardo.
That which astonishes the Western European in the reading of this excellent work, is the author's consistent and firm grasp of the purely theoretical position. That the method employed in "Das Kapital" has been little understood, is shown by the various conceptions, contradictory one to another, that have been formed of it. Thus the Paris Revue Positiviste reproaches me in that, on the one hand, I treat economics metaphysically, and on the other hand—imagine! In answer to the reproach in re metaphysics, Professor Sieber has it: Petersburg, in an article dealing exclusively with the method of "Das Kapital" May number, , pp.
It says: But in point of fact he is infinitely more realistic than all his fore-runners in the work of economic criticism. He can in no sense be called an idealist.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
After a quotation from the preface to my "Critique of Political Economy," Berlin, , pp. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life.
Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing; to show, by rigid scientific Edition: For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it.
Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness.
That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves.
But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given Edition: In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology.
The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals.
Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, 8c. Marx, e. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too.
Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have.
The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, and death a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one.
And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has. Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method? Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry.
The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, Edition: Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction. My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite.
To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i. The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of "Das Kapital," it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in the same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing's time treated Spinoza, i.
The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell. It its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things.
In its rational form it is a scandal Edition: The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis.
That crisis is once again approaching, although as yet but in its preliminary stage; and by the universality of its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new, holy Prusso-German empire. On the contrary, an explanation might be expected why this English version has been delayed until now, seeing that for some years past the theories advocated in this book have been constantly referred to, attacked and defended, interpreted and mis-interpreted, in the periodical press and the current literature of both England and America.
When, soon after the author's death in , it became evident that an English edition of the work was really required, Mr. Samuel Moore, for many years a friend of Marx and of the present writer, and than whom, perhaps, no one is more conversant with the book itself, consented to undertake the translation which the literary executors of Marx were anxious to lay before the public.
It was understood that I should compare the MS. When, by and by, it was found that Mr. Moore's professional occupations prevented him from finishing the translation as quickly as we all desired, we gladly accepted Dr.
Aveling's offer to undertake a portion of the work; at the same time Mrs. Aveling, Marx's youngest daughter, offered to check the quotations and to restore the original text of the numerous passages taken from English authors and Bluebooks and translated by Marx into German.
This has been done throughout, with but few unavoidable exceptions. The following portions of the book have been translated by Dr. The Working Day , and XI. Wages, comprising Chapters XIX. Chapters XXVI. All the rest of the book has been done by Mr.
While, thus, each of the translators is responsible for his share of the work only, I bear a joint responsibility for the whole. The third German edition, which has been made the basis of our work throughout, was prepared by me, in , with the assistance of notes left by the author, indicating the passages of the second edition to be replaced by designated passages, from the French text published in This MS.
Sorge of Hoboken N. It designates some further interpolations from the French edition; but, being so many years older than the final instructions for the third edition, I did not consider myself at liberty to make use of it otherwise than sparingly, and chiefly in cases where it helped us over difficulties.
In the same way, the French text has been referred to in most of the difficult passages, as an indicator of what the author himself was prepared to sacrifice wherever something of the full-import Edition: There is, however, one difficulty we could not spare the reader: But this was unavoidable.
Every new aspect of a science involves a revolution in the technical terms of that science. This is best shown by chemistry, where the whole of the terminology is radically changed about once in twenty years, and where you will hardly find a single organic compound that has not gone through a whole series of different names.
Political Economy has generally been content to take, just as they were, the terms of commercial and industrial life, and to operate with them, entirely failing to see that by so doing, it confined itself within the narrow circle of ideas expressed by those terms. Thus, though perfectly aware that both profits and rent are but sub-divisions, fragments of that unpaid part of the product which the laborer has to supply to his employer its first appropriator, though not its ultimate exclusive owner , yet even classical Political Economy never went beyond the received notions of profits and rent, never examined this unpaid part of the product called by Marx surplus-product in its integrity as a whole, and therefore never arrived at a clear comprehension, either of its origin and nature, or of the laws that regulate the subsequent distribution of its value.
Similarly all industry, not agricultural or handicraft, is indiscriminately comprised in the term of manufacture, and thereby the distinction is obliterated between two great and essentially different periods of economic history: It is, however, self-evident that a theory which views modern capitalist production as a mere passing stage in the economic history of mankind, must make use of terms Edition: A word respecting the author's method of quoting may not be out of place.
In the majority of cases, the quotations serve, in the usual way, as documentary evidence in support of assertions made in the text. But in many instances, passages from economic writers are quoted in order to indicate when, where, and by whom a certain proposition was for the first time clearly enunciated.
This is done in cases where the proposition quoted is of importance as being a more or less adequate expression of the conditions of social production and exchange prevalent at the time, and quite irrespective of Marx's recognition, or otherwise, of its general validity. These quotations, therefore, supplement the text by a running commentary taken from the history of the science.
Our translation comprises the first book of the work only. But this first book is in a great measure a whole in itself, and has for twenty years ranked as an independent work. The second book, edited in German by me, in , is decidedly incomplete without the third, which cannot be published before the end of When Book III. And in England, too, the theories of Marx, even at this Edition: But that is not all.
The time is rapidly approaching when a thorough examination of England's economic position will impose itself as an irresistible national necessity. The working of the industrial system of this country, impossible without a constant and rapid extension of production, and therefore of markets, is coming to a dead stop. Free trade has exhausted its resources; even Manchester doubts this its quondam economic gospel. While the productive power increases in a geometric, the extension of markets proceeds at best in an arithmetic ratio.
The decennial cycle of stagnation, prosperity, overproduction and crisis, ever recurrent from to , seems indeed to have run its course; but only to land us in the slough of despond of a permanent and chronic depression.
The sighed-for period of prosperity will not come; as often as we seem to perceive its heralding symptoms, so often do they again vanish into air. Meanwhile, each succeeding winter brings up afresh the great question, "what to do with the unemployed;" but while the number of the unemployed keeps swelling from year to year, there is nobody to answer that question; and we can almost calculate the moment when the unemployed, losing patience, will take their own fate into Edition: Surely, at such a moment, the voice ought to be heard of a man whose whole theory is the result of a life-long study of the economic history and condition of England, and whom that study led to the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means.
He certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a "pro-slavery rebellion," to this peaceful and legal revolution. The fourth edition of this work required of me a revision, which should give to the text and foot notes their final form, so far as possible.
The following brief hints will indicate the way in which I performed this task. After referring once more to the French edition and to the manuscript notes of Marx, I transferred a few additional passages from the French to the German text. I have also placed the long foot note concerning the mine workers, on pages , into the text, just as had already been done in the French and English editions. Other small changes are merely of a technical nature.
Furthermore I added a few explanatory notes, especially in places where changed historical conditions seemed to require it.
All these additional notes are placed between brackets and marked with my initials. A complete revision of the numerous quotations had become necessary, because the English edition had been published in the mean time.
Marx's youngest daughter, Eleanor, had undertaken the tedious task of comparing, for this edition, all the quotations with the original works, so that the quotations from English authors, which are the overwhelming majority, are not retranslated from the German, but taken from the original texts.
I had to consult the English edition for this fourth German edition. In so doing I found many small inaccuracies. There were references to wrong pages, due either to mistakes in copying, or to accumulated typographical errors of three editions. There were quotation marks, or periods indicating omissions, in wrong places, such as would easily occur in making copious quotations from notes. Now and then I came across a somewhat inappropriate choice of terms made in translating.
Some passages were taken from Marx's old manuscripts written in Paris, , when he did not yet understand English and read the works of English economists in French translations. This twofold translation carried with it a slight change of expression, for instance in the case of Steuart, Ure, and others. Now I used the English text. Such and similar little inaccuracies and inadvertences were corrected. And if this fourth edition is now compared with former editions, it will be found that this whole tedious process of verification did not change in the least any essential statement of this work.
There is but one single quotation which could not be located, namely that from Richard Jones, in section 3 of chapter XXIV. Marx probably made a mistake in the title of the book. All other quotations retain their corroborative power, or even increase it in their present exact form. I have heard of only one case, in which the genuineness of Edition: Since this case was continued beyond Marx's death, I cannot well afford to ignore it.
The Berlin Concordia, the organ of the German Manufacturer's Association, published on March 7, , an anonymous article, entitled: It was denied that the statement: It says just the reverse. Marx has formally and materially lied in adding that sentence. Marx, who received this issue of the Concordia in May of the same year, replied to the anonymous writer in the Volksstaat of June 1. As he did not remember the particular newspaper from which he had clipped this report, he contented himself with pointing out that the same quotation was contained in two English papers.
Then he quoted the report of the Times, according to which Gladstone had said: I must say for one, I should look almost with apprehension and with pain upon this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power, if it were my belief that it was confined to classes who are in easy circumstances.
This takes no cognizance at all of the condition of the labouring population. The augmentation I have described and which is founded, I think, Edition: In other words, Gladstone says here that he would be sorry if things were that way, but they are. This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power is entirely confined to classes of property.
And so far as the quasi official Hansard is concerned, Marx continues: Gladstone was wise enough to eliminate a passage, which was so compromising in the mouth of an English Lord of the Exchequer as that one.
By the way, this is an established custom in English parliament, and not by any means a discovery made by Lasker to cheat Bebel. The anonymous writer then became still madder. Pushing aside his second-hand sources in his reply in the Concordia, July 4, he modestly hints, that it is the "custom" to quote parliamentarian speeches from the official reports; that the report of the Times which contained the added lie "was materially identical" with that of Hansard which did not contain it ; that the report of the Times even said "just the reverse of what that notorious passage of the Inaugural Address implied.
Nevertheless he feels that he has been nailed down, and that only a new trick can save him. Hence he decorates his article, full of "insolent mendacity," until it bristles with pretty epithets, such as "bad faith," "dishonesty," "mendacious assertion," "that lying quotation," "insolent mendacity," "a completely spurious quotation," "this falsification," "simply infamous," etc.
This second article is published in the Concordia of July Marx replied once more in the Volksstaat of August 7, quoting also the reports of this passage in the Morning Star and Morning Advertiser of April 17, Both of them agree in quoting Gladstone to the effect that he would look with apprehension, etc.
But this augmentation was entirely confined to classes possessed of property. Both of these papers also contain the "added lie" word for word. Marx furthermore showed, by comparing these three independent, yet identical reports of newspapers, all of them containing the actually spoken words of Gladstone, with Hansard's report, that Gladstone, in keeping with the "established custom," had "subsequently eliminated" this sentence, as Marx had said.
Online Library of Liberty
And Marx closes with the statement, that he has no time for further controversy with the anonymous writer. It seems that this worthy had gotten all he wanted, for Marx received no more issues of the Concordia.
Thus the matter seemed to be settled. It is true, people who were in touch with the university at Cambridge once or twice dropped hints as to mysterious rumors about some unspeakable literary crime, which Marx was supposed to have committed in Capital.
But nothing definite could be ascertained in spite of all inquiries. Karl Marx, who Gladstone tampered with the report of his speech in the Times of April 17, , before it was published in Hansard, in order to eliminate a passage which was, indeed, compromising for the British Chancellor of the Exchequer.
When Brentano demonstrated by a detailed comparison of the texts, that the reports of the Times and of Hansard agreed to the absolute exclusion of the meaning, impugned to Gladstone's words by a craftily isolated quotation, Marx retreated under the excuse of having no time. This, then, was the kernel of the walnut! Thus he lay, and thus he handled his blade in his "masterly attack," this Saint George of the German Manufacturers' Association, while the fiery dragon Marx quickly expired under his feet "in deadly shifts!
However, this Ariostian description of the struggle serves only to cover up the shifts of our Saint George. There is no longer any mention of "added lies," of "falsification," but merely of "a craftily isolated quotation.
Eleanor Marx replied in the monthly magazine To-day, February, , because the Times refused to print her statements. She reduced the discussion to the only point, which was in question, namely: Was that sentence a lie added by Edition: Whereupon Mr.
Sedley Taylor retorted: Gladstone's speech or not" was, in his opinion, "of a very inferior importance" in the controversy between Marx and Brentano, "compared with the question, whether the quotation had been made with the intention of reproducing the meaning of Mr. Gladstone or distorting it. Gladstone intended to say. To-Day, March, The comic thing about this retort is that our mannikin of Cambridge now insists on not quoting this speech from Hansard, as is the "custom" according to the anonymous Mr.
Brentano, but from the report of the Times, which the same Brentano had designated as "necessarily bungling. It was easy for Eleanor Marx to dissolve this argumentation into thin air in the same number of To-Day. Either Mr. Taylor had read the controversy of In that case he had now "lied," not only "adding," but also "subtracting. Then it was his business to keep his mouth shut. At any rate, it was evident that he did not dare for a moment to maintain the charge of his friend Brentano to the effect that Marx had "added a lie.
But this same sentence is quoted on page 5 of the Inaugural Address, a few lines before the alleged "added lie. Of course, he does not undertake to reconcile Edition: And the final summing up in Eleanor Marx's reply is this: He rather has restored and rescued from oblivion a certain sentence of a Gladstonian speech, which had undoubtedly been pronounced, but which somehow found its way out of Hansard.
This was enough for Mr. Sedley Taylor. The result of this whole professorial gossip during ten years and in two great countries was that no one dared henceforth to question Marx's literary conscientiousness. In the future Mr. Sedley Taylor will probably have as little confidence in the literary fighting bulletins of Mr.
Brentano, as Mr. Brentano in the papal infallibility of Hansard. THE wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as "an immense accumulation of commodities," 10 its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.
A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Every useful thing, as iron, paper, 8c.
It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the various use of things is the work of history. The diversity of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention. The utility of a thing makes it a use-value. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity.
A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use-value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use-value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron.
The use-values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value. Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort, 15 a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.
A given commodity, e. Instead of one exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great many. But since x blacking, y silk, or z gold, 8c. Therefore, first: Let us take two commodities, e. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: What does this equation tell us?
It tells us that in two different things—in 1quarter of corn and x cwt. The two things must therefore Edition: Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third. A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base into the altitude.
In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.
This common "something" cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use-values.
But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use-value. Then one use-value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity. Or, as old Barbon says, "one sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value An hundred pounds' worth of lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds' worth of silver or gold.
If then we leave out of consideration the use-value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use-value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use-value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing.
Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, Edition: Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.
Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour-power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour-power has been expended in their production, that human labor is embodied in them.
When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are—Values. We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use-value. But if we abstract from their use-value, there remains their Value as defined above.
Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed.
For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form. A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article.
The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour-time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours. Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production.
The labour, however, that forms the substance of Edition: The total labour-power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour-power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour-power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary.
The labour-time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power looms into England probably reduced by one half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour's social labor, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.
We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour-time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour-time required for its production also remained constant.
But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions.
For example, the same amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth's surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour-time.
Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in , had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years ' average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value.
With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it. A thing can be a use-value, without having value.
This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, 8c. A thing can Edition: Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use-values, but not commodities.
In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use-values, but use-values for others, social use-values. Lastly, nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value. At first sight a commodity presented itself to us as a complex of two things—use-value and exchange-value.
Later on, we saw also that labour, too, possesses the same two-fold nature; for, so far as it finds expression in value, it does not possess the same characteristics that belong to it as a creator of use-values. I was the first to point out and to examine critically this two fold nature of the labour contained in commodities.
As this point is the pivot on which a clear comprehension of political economy turns, we must go more into detail. The coat is a use-value that satisfies a particular want. Its existence is the result of a special sort of productive activity, the nature of which is determined by its aim, mode of operation, subject, means, and result.
The labour, whose utility is thus represented by the value in use of its product, or which manifests itself by making its product a use-value, we call useful labour. In this connexion we consider only its useful effect. As the coat and the linen are two qualitatively different use-values, so also are the two forms of labour that produce them, tailoring and weaving.
Were these two objects not qualitatively different, not produced respectively by labour of different quality, they could not stand to each other in the Edition: Coats are not exchanged for coats, one use-value is not exchanged for another of the same kind.
To all the different varieties of values in use there correspond as many different kinds of useful labour, classified according to the order, genus, species, and variety to which they belong in the social division of labour.
This division of labour is a necessary condition for the production of commodities, but it does not follow conversely, that the production of commodities is a necessary condition for the division of labour.
In the primitive Indian community there is social division of labour, without production of commodities. Or, to take an example nearer home, in every factory the labour is divided according to a system, but this division is not brought about by the operatives mutually exchanging their individual products.
Only such products can become commodities with regard to each other, as result from different kinds of labour, each kind being carried on independently and for the account of private individuals. To resume, then: In the use-value of each commodity there is contained useful labour, i. Use-values cannot confront each other as commodities, unless the useful labour embodied in them is qualitatively different in each of them. In a community, the produce of which in general takes the form of commodities, i.
Anyhow, whether the coat be worn by the tailor or by his customer, in either case it operates as a use-value. Nor is the relation between the coat and the labour that produced it altered by the circumstance that tailoring may have become a special trade, an independent branch of the social division of labour.
Wherever the want of clothing forced them to it, the human race made clothes for thousands of years, without a single man becoming a tailor. But coats and linen, like every other element of material wealth that is not the spontaneous produce of nature, must invariably owe their existence to a Edition: So far therefore as labour is a creator of use-value, is useful labour, it is a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race; it is an eternal nature-imposed necessity, without which there can be no material exchanges between man and Nature, and therefore no life.
The use-values, coat, linen, 8c. If we take away the useful labour expended upon them, a material substratum is always left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter. We see, then, that labour is not the only source of material wealth, of use-values produced by labour. As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth its mother. Let us now pass from the commodity considered as a use-value to the value of commodities.
By our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the linen. But this is a mere quantitative difference, which for the present does not concern us. We bear in mind, however, that if the value of the coat is double that of 10 yds. So far as they are values, the coat and the linen are things of a like substance, objective expressions of essentially identical labour.
But tailoring and weaving are, qualitatively, different kinds of labour. There are, however, states of society in which one and Edition: Moreover, we see at a glance that, in our capitalist society, a given portion of human labour is, in accordance with the varying demand, at one time supplied in the form of tailoring, at another in the form of weaving.
This change may possibly not take place without friction, but take place it must. Productive activity, if we leave out of sight its special form, viz.
Tailoring and weaving though qualitatively different productive activities, are each a productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles, and in this sense are human labour. They are but two different modes of expending human labour-power. Of course, this labour-power, which remains the same under all its modifications, must have attained a certain pitch of development before it can be expended in a multiplicity of modes.
But the value of a commodity represents human labour in the abstract, the expenditure of human labour in general. And just as in society, a general or a banker plays a great part, but mere man, on the other hand, a very shabby part, 22 so here with mere human labour.
It is the expenditure of simple labour-power, i. Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times, but in a particular society it is given. Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labour, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labour, represents a Edition: For simplicity's sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making the reduction.
Just as, therefore, in viewing the coat and linen as values, we abstract from their different use-values, so it is with the labour represented by those values: As the use-values, coat and linen, are combinations of special productive activities with cloth and yarn, while the values, coat and linen, are, on the other hand, mere homogeneous congelations of indifferentiated labour, so the labour embodied in these latter values does not count by virtue of its productive relation to cloth and yarn, but only as being expenditure of human labour-power.
Tailoring and weaving are necessary factors in the creation of the use-values, coat and linen, precisely because these two kinds of labour are of different qualities; but only in so far as abstraction is made from their special qualities, only in so far as both possess the same quality of being human labour, do tailoring and weaving form the substance of the values of the same articles.