Contents
Foreword by Martin Nicolaus Note on the Translation GRUNDRISSE
FIRST VINTAGE BOOKS EDITION Translation and F...
45 downloads
1223 Views
26MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Contents
Foreword by Martin Nicolaus Note on the Translation GRUNDRISSE
FIRST VINTAGE BOOKS EDITION Translation and Foreword copyright © Martin Nicolaus, 1 973 Notes copyright © Ben Fowkes, 1973 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States by Random House, Inc., New York, and simultaneously in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. Originally published in the United States by Random House, Inc., in 1 97 3 , and in England b y Penguin Books Ltd., in 1 973 . Originally published in Germany as Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Okonomie (Rohentwurf) in 1939. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Marx, Karl, 1 8 1 8-1883. Grundrisse. (The Marx library ) Translation of Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Okonomie. 1. Marxian economics. I. Title. II. Title: Foundations of the critique of political economy. 3 3 5 .4 73-1 6340 [HB97.5.M3 3 1 3 1 973b] ISBN 0-394-72001-6 Manufactured in the United States of America
Analytical Contents List Introduction
81
The Chapter on Money The Chapter on Capital Bastiat and Carey
883
7
65
69 115
239
Note on the Previo s Editions of the Works of Marx and Engels 894
�
�..,;.u-: :.:-- ...... �
__
Chronology of the Works of Marx and Engels 895
Foreword
This is a series of seven notebooks rough-drafted by Marx, chiefly for purposes of self:cIari:lfcation, during the winter .of 1 857-8. The manuscript became lost in circumstances still unknown and was first effectively published, in the German original, in 1953.1 Among the many of Marx's works which first appeared in print in the twentieth century, the Grundrisse represents unquestionably ce the most significant new development, comparable in i only to the Theories of Surplus Value and the Economic-Philo sophical Manuscripts of 1844 ('Paris Manuscripts'). Marx con sidered these workbooks to contain the first scientific elaboration of the theoretical foundations of communism. Besides their great biographical and historical value, they add much new material, and stand as the only outline of Marx's full political-economic project. The manuscripts display the key elements in Marx's development and overthrow of the Hegelian philosophy. They cast a fresh light on the inner logic of Capital, and are a sourcebook of inestimable value for the study oCMarx's method of inquiry. The Grundrisse challenges and puts to the test every serious interpretation of Marx yet conceived.
mjJOrtaii
1. A limited edition was published by Foreign Language Publishers in Moscow in two volumes, 1939 and 1941 respectively, under the editorship of the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute, Moscow. The first volume contained the Introduction and the seven notebooks (hereafter M E L I) translated here. The second added fragments from Marx's 1851 notebooks of excerpts from Ricardo, the fragment 'Bastiat and Carey' (also included in this translation), and miscellaneous related material ; also extensive annotations and sources. A photo-offset reprint of the two volumes bound in one, minus illustrations and facsimiles, was issued by Dietz Verlag, Berlin (E.), in 1953, and is the basis of the present translation. It is referred to hereafter as Grundrisse (MELI). Rosdolsky states that only three or four copies of the 1939-41 edition ever reached 'the western world '. (R. Rosdolsky, Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Marxschen Kapital. Der Rohentwurf des Kapital, 1857-8, 2 vols., Frankfurt and Vienna, 1968, p. 7n.)
8 Foreword 1
In Marx's life, the Gnmdrisse stands midway between the Mani festo of the Communist Party (1848) and the pUblication of the first volume of Capital in 1 867. It was the onset of the economic crisis of 1 857 which stimulated Marx to s�d�e
eCoiiOnici studies of a decade and a half, but this was only the trigger. The force originated in the revolutions of 1 848-50, or more precisely in the defeat of these revolutions. In a series of insurrections and civil wars in virtually every nation-state, kingdom and principality of continental Europe, the 'spectre' of communism, to which the Manifesto gave speech, made its first appearance as a cohesive body on the political stage, was everywhere bloodily crushed, and became a ghostly presence again, bottled up in fragile little magazines edited and read by refugees in foreign-speaking ghettoes of London and New York. As the clearest and most determined voices of the 'left wing' of the democratic-radical forces, and as leading spokesmen of the most advanced workers' organization, the League of Communists, Marx and Engels were notorious to the governments of Prussia, France and Belgium. Officially expelled and banished, with arrest warrants out for them, Marx and Engels moved to London and, for the first couple of years, like the whole German exile com munity, kept their coats on, awaiting the break that would signal a new revolution. As the forces of reaction began to settle in for a long reign, however, it was the exiles who broke first. After the defeat of the workers' insurrection in Paris, in July 1850 Marx and Engels a,9"'yanced_the thesis that revolution hadbeco� impossible in t'heimmediately fo:teseeabl�e, thiirara�d not be counted on, and that the tasks of the League of Com munists must be reset accordingly to give first priority to the work of education, study and development of revolutionary theory. It fell like cold water on the flames of exile fantasy. Although Marx and Engels won the League's London central committee over to their position by a slim majority - and thus' remained its de jure London representatives - the great majority of the exiles stood against them, even the workers. 'I want at most twelve people in our circle, as few as possible,' Marx stated, and, under taunts of being counter-revolutionaries, anti-proletarians and impractical literati - taunts which they later repaid with compound interest Marx and Engels withdrew from organizational and practical
Foreword 9 political activity; Engels to Manchester to earn a living, Marx to the British Museum to begin his economic studies anew from the beginning.2 There they remained for more than a decade. Through out the period of reaction which. fastened itself upon Europe in the 1850s, the German public heard next. to nothing from Marx or Engels. The League dissolved in 1 852. It was Marx's second withdrawal from the political stage into /"" his study. But while in the first period (1843-7) Marx's �nC"enf's .- had been various - to learn to speak competeq,tly on "questions of material interest, to become familiar with the French theories of socialism and communism, to battle a 'storm of doubts' regarding the Hegelian philosophy - now a single foc,Us is apparent from the beginning;3 Marx's and Engels's summary and analysis of the character of the 1 848 revolutions,. andl1leCa:us-esof1rs-dereaf, bring out the nature of thts aIm. I�c]asSeS composed the revolutionary camp, the working class and t e�o�r-middle class or petite bourgeoisie. Owing to e po tical inexperienreof the'WOrking class and1lle illusions and limitations of its leaders, . the latter class had held the initiative and leadership of the re volutionary movement as a whole. This was the outstanding cause of defeat. ' In each of the provisional governtiiemS whlch were formed in all the rebellious regions,' wrote Engels, who had fought in the civil war in southern Germany, 'the majority was repre sentative of this part of the people, and its performance may there fore rightly be taken as the measure of what the German petty bourgeoisie is capable of - as we shall see, of nothing else. but to ruin every movement which confides itself into its hands.'4 It was a lesson paid for in blood. Worse was the political decay that. flourished after the working-class uprising was crushed by the army. A new politics arose, callingitself'Social-Democracy', in which'... the social demands of the proletariat had their revo lutionary point broken off and were given a democratic bent, the. democratic appeals of the petty bourgeoisie [were] stripped of their merely political form, their socialist point brought out'.s The weaker it became, the more did the entire small bourgeoisie take to calling itself'socialist' and 'red', and to stamping its every demand, every measure, speech and banality with this imprint, 2. Marx-Engels Werke (hereafter MEW) VITI, pp. 591, 598-9. 3. See Preface to the Critique of Political Economy. MEW XIII, p. 8. 4. Revolution and Counterrevolution in Germany, MEW VIII, p. 99. 5. Eighteenth Brumaire, MEW vm, p. 141.
10
Foreword
whose nub and essence was that the workers '... should remain wage workers as before, only the democratic petty bourgeois wish better wages and a more secure· existence for them, and hope to achieve this by having the state supply jobs for part of them, and through welfare measures ; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with more or less hidden doles and, by making their condition momentarily bearable, to break their revolutionary power. ,6 The defeat of this influence, next time, and the elevation of the working class to the position of leadership of the revo lutionary camp as a whole, next time, was the overriding aim of Marx's studies. Marx chose as his principal theoretical antagonists in the Grundrisse two figures who stood as giants in their respective arenas. These were David Ricardo, the British political economist, and Pierre Joseph Proudhon, a Frenchman and self-proclaimed socialist:-Ricardo had been dead for some thirty-five years already, but his repute had risen despite the numerous errors his critics were able tq prove against him. He had been the able teacher and theoretical champion of the British mal!!ifacturers and industrial �ts d...reriiigTh ir troubled adolesceticel!Lt . .!ie fii"�decalem of grasping thaUtIs iA:I?otion. TilIS step ofTogic is rendered more difficult by the fact thafin the or dinary course of events it is by no means obvious that this is so. Only when things suddenly crack and break apart does it become obvious that there was a dynamic within them all the time; but ordinarily, things present an appearance of rest. This surface of calm over unceasing restlessness Hegel called Dasein, or pre;:. ence; ana wl1en t�are-brOught intothe -relation, it be comes the appe-anrnce of things. Hegel wlttilydefineatliiS'Presence as ' having-the form of theone-sided� immediate unity' of the op posites beneath its surface.24 This 'presence' or appearance of one-sided immediate unity, of surface rest and harmony, Was. useful to Marx in working out the main lines of the sphere of simple circulation, and its relation to ...: t --.J. the remainder. The market-place is the most public, the m.:.:.o:.s� appar�!J1!e.-mos_CpresenI.:ieI__Qf relations of. capliaiist.�91:1ety; and the ideology abstracted from it is a complex not only of frus appearance, but also of the further steps, semblance and iIIusion. The market-place is where the forms ofliberty and equality present themselves; where the distinction between buyer and seller vanishes into their unity. 'It is impossible to find any trace of distinction, not to speak of contradiction, between them; not even a difference' (p. 241). This presence is neither accidental nor irrelevant. It is only the surface, and displays only the ' one-sided immediate unity' of the process beneath, but it is an objective ' moment' of the whole and must be included in its concept. This�a.det�minat!-_o!l�; it is somethin�.Ls.pecific ql!fLJ.lliE�and _!p'-.91.�9TICr:._1D� be. quantified and measured. The ideas which people may form about this-presence m:a.ybepure delusion and fantasy, because they do notg�t past its one-sided unity with itself. Nevertheless, as surface, this presence is also a limit (boundary, batTier), because it opposes itself from the outset to the thing's infinite expansion. Th�� equivalent exchange, that is.,.Jhe law of value, is such a limit to the expansion Ot capItaI�mit which forms an objective part of the surface process of capitalism. It is a Jimit as quantity (mass of ex�
__
24. Logic I
(Werke V), p. 113.
change ,:alues in money form, ultimately wages); as measure (labour tIme as measure of value); and as quality (requirement to labour at all in order to create wealth); on this question, the Grundrisse contains numerous passages (for example pp. 270, 324-5, 334-5, 405-23 etc.) . .To treat this surface process therefore as. �e!-el�e�rmality, as only nominally important, is to falI..!n graspmg the whole; this is an error of, for instance, Ricardo on the question-of1ffi5Dey (pp. 331-3). H wever,. t ��...!�e surface and become eriraptured by , the ��edIacy of Its bemg' IS to ran into 'pure illusion'. Cir culation - the surface - 1s the phenomenon oJa process taking place be�in� it' (p. 255). To get a grasp on the whole requires . penetr�g mto Its essence; frQ!!J. Money to Capital. Here, behind the 'no trespassmg' SIgns, barbed-wire fences, armed patrols and guar� dogs, contradiction ceases to be a mere reflection and may be studIed at the source. In Hegel's view, negation is the creative force. �ere, the harder the worker negates himself, or is negated by c�pltal, the more wealth does he create. (Numerous passages, �or ��st�ce p. 3�8.) For Hel?el, negation creates its opposite, . poSItIo.n (to pOSIt); �n� negatIon therefore not only gives a thing Its speCIfic character III Itself (Ansich) but, as position gives it its character/or-others.25 Here in the essence of capital, a; the worker negates hImself, not onl does he osit su.rnlus val eft»:..o.thers, but he also creat.es and re-creates the . relation of wage labour in themsefves, hImself as wage-slave and cap-itat' as capital. As lor the worker and the capitalist, taE:n individually, they figure in the process only.a.s 'wage lab?ur' and ' capital'for-themselves (p. 303), as any qualitI�s or relatIOns they may otherwise have are sup �ressed by, or Irrelevant to, the production process. The produc tIon process as a whole tends to limitlessness in itself, first to abso lute .negation o� t.he �orker, then to infinite sharpening of the relatIve contradIctIon; It pushes and drives against all boundaries. If the society as a whole is to be grasped in motion, in process, it is �st and fore�ost essential to comprehend the dynamics of the dIrect productIOn process, �ecause - as Hegel said - the energy, the dnve of the whole has ItS source in its underlying contradic, tion.26 Now to consider what is included in the concept so far. Two pr�S§Y� _2ne the surface process, resulting in one-sided�i;:n:: ' me��ate identifY,-an aIac1§iiK !.§" motive pow� for its own Ie._ .
25. ioilcT, pp� 116, no.:.3C
_ . :_-. 100-108). At the outset here, Marx des cribes nyo Journeys, or paths, which political-economic inquiry has take:tL'tl1e first takes ' li�g...wholes�s it�Jloint of depa�ure, for instance a givennation�state, France, England etc., and finIshes ' by discovering through analysis a smaJl:numbeI..Qf determinant, abstract, general relations such as division of labour, money, valu�-etc.' (p. lOO).Theother journey moves in the reverse direc tion, beginning with the simple, abStract, general relations, and arriving at the ' living wholes ' at the end. ''IheJatieJ,' Marx concludes, ' is obviously the scientifically correct method.'3'4 It seems here as if the doubts Marx had earlier encountered about the propriety of beginning with the category ' material production' - surely as simple, general and abstract a relation as one could wish - were now laid to rest. Immediately, however, a fresh doubt arises from a different quarter: ' But do not these
276).
33. See Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks (Collected Works XXXVTI,I p. 34. In a sense, Hegel's Logic is concerned with little else but this question of the two journeys. The metaphor, the outlines, even the formulation of the concrete as a concentrate of many abstractions are from that work, see Logic II, pp. 276, 296, 326, 360. It is Hegel, too, who insisted that the latter is the scientifically correct method.
simpler categories also have an independent historical or natural existence predating the more concrete ones? ' (p. 102). In other words, if one begins with a category such as ' material production', must one nol' therefore begin with neolithic man and his flint "':: tools, and then, step by step, wind one's way laboriously up to the intended subject proper, namely material production in the capitalist form of society? Marx's profound reflections on this.;.._ . - ::; question - these pages contain the basic principles f Maixlst - historiography - lead him to the conclusion that·this would be an error. The prsm�:::beginn!qgjs..n.o.Lw..th the dawn of history, but rather_ with tnat cate� which occupies a predominant position \. within the partIc'iIfar social formatIOn bemg studied . (p. 107-8). It wocld seem to follow, though Marx Goes not S'Q=state it, that the proper beginning for the critique of the bourgeois economic categories (and system) would be not ' material production in , " general ' but rath.e.c..capital ', or at least ' production for exchange va.J.Ue' ; for these are the categories which rule this historic .. society. � question of the proper beginning remains unsettled in Marx's Introduction. What he says about it in the summary para graph (p. 108) is inconclusive : ' The order obviously has to be (1) . the general, abstract determinants which obtain in more or less all forms of society, but in the above-explain�d sense.' This, however, is a manifest impossibility, since the ' above-explained sense' is precisely that �t the categ9ries_ob!a!11il].K.�.. mor�.Q��1l societies, but rathe� those whiph domin�te a panicular socit;:ty in being. For example, the simplest ec�noffi1c category, say e.g. exchange value, presupposes population, moreover a popUlation producing in specific relations ; as well as a certain kind of family, or commune, or state, etc. It can never exist other than as an abstract, one-sided relation within an already given, concrete, living whole. As a category, by contrast, exchange value leads an antediluvian existence. Therefore to the ki�d of consciousness - and this is characteristic of the hi1oso. phical conSCIOusness - for which conceptual thinking is the real human being, and for which the conceptual world as such is thus the only reality, the movement of the categories appears as the real act of production - which only, unfortunately, receives a jolt from the outside-whose product is the world ; and -but this is again - a ta�tology - this is correct in so far as the concrete totality is a totality of thoughts, concrete in thought, in fact a product of thinking and comprehending; but not in any way a product of the concept which thinks and generates itself outside or above obser vation and conception ; a product, rather, of the working-up of observation and conception into concepts. The totality as it appears in the head, as a totality of thoughts, is a product of a thinking head, which appropriates the world in the only way it can, . from the artistic, religious, practical and mental a way dIfferent appropriation of this world. The real subject retains its autono mous existence outside the head just as before; namely as long as _
�
_ ,,� --
102 Introduction
tical. the head's conduct is merely speculative, merely theore musty, societ t, subjec Hence, in the theoretical method, too, the tion. pposi presu always be kept in mind as the endent But do not these simpler categories also have an indep ones? ete concr historical or natural existence predating the more ophy Philos the s begin tly That depends. Hegel, for example, correc cal juridi est simpl t's subjec the being this of Right with possession, or family the ding prece ssion posse no is there relation. But ns. relatio ete concr more master-servant relations, which are far families or However, it would be correct to say that there are rty. The prope no have but s, posses y merel still clan groups which as a rty prope to n simple category therefore appears in relatio y it societ r highe the In s. group relation of simple families or clan But n. izatio organ ped develo a of n relatio r appears as the simple n is always the concrete substratum of which possession is a relatio possessing as savage dual presupposed. One can imagine an indivi relation. al juridic a not is sion posses something. But in that case family. the into ically histor ps develo ssion posse that It is incorrect te concre 'more this Possession, rather, always presupposes , much this n remai s alway still juridical category '. There would of sions expres the are ries catego simple the however, namely that have relations within which the less developed concrete maymany more the d posite g already realized itself before havin the in sed expres lly menta is which n sided connection or relatio concrete more concrete category ; while the more developed y may Mone . lation r preserves the same category as a subordinate : before eXIsted, l capIta before ically, exist and did exist histor in this banks existed, before wage labour existed, etc. Thus s the expres can ry respect it may be said that the simpler catego sub those else or , whole ped dominant relations of a less develo a had y alread which whole ped develo more a of ordinate relations ion direct the in historic existence before this whole developed the path of expressed by a more concrete category. To that extentined, would comb the to e simpl the from abstract thought, rising ss. proce iGal histor real the to correspond are very developed It may be said on the other hand that there society, in which of forms e matur less but nevertheless historically , a developed ration coope e.g. my, econo of the highest forms is no kind there h r, etc., are found, even thoug division of labou . money also, s unitie comm Slav of money, e g. Peru. Among the
Introduction 103
and the exchange which determines it play little or no role within the individual communities, but only on their boundaries, in traffic with others; it is simply wrong to place exchange at the centre of communal society as the original, constituent element. It originally appears, rather, in the connection of the different communities with one another, not in the relations between the different members of a single community. Further, although money � ever�here plays a :ole f�om. very early on, it is nevertheless a pre�-.....< ';"- :. dOffil�ant element, In antIqUIty, only within the conf!p.es of"certain one-SIdedly developed nations, trading nations. And even in the most advanced parts of the ancient world, among the Greeks and Romans, the full development of money, which is presupposed in modem bourgeois society, appears only in the period of their dis solution. This very simple category, then, makes a historic appearance �n its full intensity only in the most developed conditIons of. socIet�. By no means does it wade its way through all e�onoffilc relatIOns. For example, in the Roman Empire, at its highest point of development, the foundation remained taxes and payments in kind. The money system actually completely developed there only in the army. And it never took over the whole oflabour. Thus, although the simpler category may have existed historically before. the more ·concrete, it can achieve its full (intensive and ext�nsIVe) development precisely in a combined form of society, while the more concrete category was more fully developed in a less developed form of society. Labour seems a quite simple category. The conception of labour in this general form - as labour as such - is also immeasur ably old. Nevertheless, when it is economically conceived in this simplicity, 'labour' is as modem a category as are the relations which create this simple abstraction. The Monetary System,19 for example, still locates wealth altogether objectively, as an external thing, in money. Compared with this standpoint, the commercial, or manufacture, system took a great step forward by locating the 19. Marx considered that the Monetary System, as defined here, covered economists from the sixteenth century to the Physiocrats. However, within the Monetary System there arose what he calls here the 'commercial, or manu facture system' but elsewhere the Mercantile System (known to economics textbooks as Mercantilism). He distinguishes between the two systems on pp. 327-8, but his normal practice is to link them together since 'the Mer cantile System is merely a variant of the Monetary System' (A Contribution to the Critique ofPolitical Economy, London, 1971, p. 158). .
104 Introduction
source of wealth not in the object but in a subjective activity - in commercial and manufacturing activity - even though it still always conceives this activity within narrow boundaries, as money making. In contrast to this system, that of the Physiocrats posits a certain kind of labour - agriculture - as the creator ofwealth, and the object itself no longer appears in a monetary disguise, but as the product in general, as the general result of labour. This product, as befits the narrowness of the activity, still always remains a naturally determined product - the product of agri culture, the product of the earth par excellence. It was an immense step forward for Adam Smith to throw out every limiting specification of wealth-creating activity - not only manufacturing, or commercial or agricultural labour, but one as well as the others, labour in general. With the abstract universality of wealth-creating activity we now have the universality of the object defined as wealth, the product as such or again labour as such, but labour as past, objectified labour. How difficult and great was this transition may be seen from how Adam Smith himself from time to time still falls back into the Physiocratic system. Now, it might seem that all that had been achieved thereby was'to discover the abstract expression for the simplest and most ancient relation in which human beings - in whatever form of society - play the role of producers. This is correct in one respect. Not in another. Indifference towards any specific kind of labour presupposes a very developed totality of real kinds of labour, of which no single one is any longer pre dominant. As a rule, the most general abstractions arise only in the midst of the richest possible concrete development, where one thing appears as common to many, to all. Then it ceases to be thinkable in a particular form alone. On the other side, this ab straction of labour as such is not merely the mental product of a concrete totality of labours. Indifference towards specific labours corresponds to a form of society in which individuals can with ease transfer from one labour to another, and where the specific kind is a matter of chance for them, hence of indifference. Not only the category, labour, but labour in reality has here become the means of creating wealth in general, and has ceased to be orgariically linked with particular individuals in any specific form. Such a state of affairs is at its most developed in the most modern form of existence of bourgeois society - in the United States. Here, then,
Introduction 105
for the first time, the point of departure of modern economics, namely the abstraction of the category ' labour', ' labour as such', labour pure and simple, becomes true in practice. The simplest abstraction, then, which modern economics places at the head of its discussions, and which expresses an immeasurably ancient relation valid in all forms of society, nevertheless achieves practical truth as an abstraction only as a category of the most modern society. One could say that this indifference towards particulaf-"'- : kinds of labour, which is a historic product in tl).e United -States, appears e.g. among the Russians as a spontaneous inclination. But there is a devil of a difference between barbarians who are fit by nature to be used for anything, and civilized people who apply themselves to everything. And then in practice the Russian in difference to the specific character of labour corresponds to being embedded by tradition within a very specific kind of labour, from which only external influences can jar them loose. This example of labour shows strikingly how even the most abstract categories, despite their validity - precisely because of their abstractness - for all epochs, are nevertheless, in the specific character of this abstraction, themselves likewise a product of historic relations, and possess their full validity only for and within these relations. Bourgeois society is the most developed and the most complex historic organization of production. The categories which express its relations, the comprehension of its structure, thereby also allows insights into the structure and the relations of production of all the vanished social formations out of whose ruins and elements it built itself up, whose partly still unconquered remnants are carried along within it, whose mere nuances have developed explicit significance within it, etc. Human anatomy contains a key to the anatomy of the ape. The intimations of higher development among the subordinate animal species, however, can be under stood only after the higher development is already known. The bourgeois economy thus supplies the key to the ancient, etc. But not at all in the manner of those economists who smudge over all historical differences and see bourgeois relations in all forms of society. One can understand tribute, tithe, etc., if one is acquainted with ground rent. But one must not identify them. Further, since bourgeois society is itself only a contradictory form of develop ment, relations derived from earlier forms will often be found
Introduction 107
106 Introduction within it only in an entirely stunted form, or even travestied. For example, communal property. Although it is true, therefore, that the categories of bourgeois economics possess a truth for all other forms of society, this is to be taken only with a grain of salt. They can contain them in a developed, or stunted, or caricatured form etc. , but always with an essential difference. The so-called his torical presentation of development is founded, as a rule, on the fact that the latest form regards the previous ones as steps leading up to itself, and, since it is only rarely and only under quite specific conditions able to criticize itself - leaving aside, of course, the historical periods which appear to themselves as times of decad ence - it always conceives them one-sidedly. The Christianreligion was able to be of assistance in reaching an objective understanding of earlier mythologies only when its own self-criticism had been accomplished to a certain degree, so to speak, auv &:fLe: �. 2 0 Likewise, bourgeois economics arrived at an understanding of feudal, ancient, oriental economics only after the self-criticism of bour geois society had begun. In so far as the bourgeois economy did not mythologically identify itself altogether with the past, its critique of the previous economies, notably offeudalism, with which it was still engaged in direct struggle, resembled the critique which Christianity levelled against paganism, or also that of Protestant ism against Catholicism. In the succession of the economic categories, as in any other historical, social science, it must not be forgotten that their sub ject - here, modern bourgeois society - is always what is given, in the head as well as in reality, and that these categories therefore express the forms of being, the characteristics of existence, and often only individual sides of this specific society, this subject, and that therefore this society by no means begins only at the point where one can speak of it as such; this holds for science as well. This is to be kept in mind because it will shortly be decisive for the order and sequence of the categories. For example, nothing seems more natural than to begin with ground rent, with landed property, since this is bound up with the earth, the source of all production and of all being, and with the first form of production of all more or less settled societies - agriculture. But nothing would be more erroneous. In all forms of society there is one specific kind of production which predominates over the rest, 20. See p. 91, n.l3.
whose relations thus assign rank and influence to the others. It is a general illumination which bathes all the other colours and modifies their particularity. It is a particular ether which de termines the specific gravity of every being which has materialized within it. For example, with pastoral peoples (mere hunting and fishing peoples lie outside the point where real development begins). Certain forms of tillage occur among them, sporadic ones. Landed property is determined by this. It is held in COtpJIlGfli.-.- :.:. and retains this form to a greater or lesser degre��ccording to· the greater or lesser degree of attachment displayed by these peoples to their tradition, e.g. the communal propertY of the Slavs. Among peoples with a settled agriculture this settling already a great step - where this predominates, as in antiquity and" in the feudal order, even industry, together with its organization and the forms of property corresponding to it, has a more or less landed proprietary character; is either completely dependent on it, as among the earlier Romans, or, as in the Middle Ages, imitates, within the city and its relations, the organization of the land. In the Middle Ages, capital itself - apart from pure money-capital in the form of the traditional artisans' tools etc., has this landed proprietary character. In bourgeois society it is the opposite. Agriculture more and more becomes merely a branch of industry, " and is entirely dominated by capital. Ground rent likewise. In all forms where landed property rules, the natural relation still pre dominant. In those where capital rules, the social, historically created element. Ground rent cannot be understood without capital. But capital can certainly be understood without ground rent. Capital is the all-dominating economic power of bourgeois society. It must form the starting-point as well as the finishing point, and must be dealt with before landed property. After both have been examined in particular, their interrelation must' be examined. It would therefore be unfeasible and wrong to let the economic categories follow one another in the same sequence as that in which they were historically decisive. Their sequence is deter mined, rather, by their relation to one another in modern bour geois society, which is precisely the opposite of that which seems " to be their natural order or which corresponds to historical de velopment. The point is not the historic position of the economic relations in the succession of different forms of society. Even less
�
_ -
Introduction 109
108 Introduction notion is it their sequence ' in the idea' cP.roudhon)2.1 �a muddy bourmodern wIthin order theIr , Rather ent). of historic movem . geois society. . The purity (abstract specIficIty) m whIch the trad�ng peop�es ed I determ IS world old the in appear ? ginians Phoenicians, Cartha al, precisely by the predominance of t�e agricultura� peo�les. CapI! tIOn abstrac this I s as trading-capital or as money-capItal, appear � t of precisely where capital is not yet the predommant elemen the s toward n positio same the up take Jews rds, societies. Lomba agricultural societies of the Middle Ages. As a further example of the divergent positions which the same category can occupy in different soci�l stages : o�e of the latest also forms of bourgeois society, joint-stock companze.s: These monoed prlVlleg great, the appear, however, at its beginning, in poly trading companies. . ?e The concept of national wealth creeps mt� t�e work of t ? WIt partly umg economists of the seventeenth century - contll� IS lth · we that notIO the of form the � � those of the eighteenth - in . created only to enrich the state, and that It� power IS prOp?rtIOnate to this wealth. This was the still unconscIOusly hypocntlcal form in which wealth and the production of wealth proclaimed them selves as the purpose of modern states, and regarded these states henceforth only as means for the production of wealth. . The order obviously has to be (1) the general, abstract deterrmn ants which obtain in more or less all forms of society, but i� the above-explained sense. (2) The categories wh�ch make up the mner structure of bourgeois society and on whIch the fund��ental classes rest. Capital, wage labour, landed propero/. TheIr mter relation. Town and country. The three great socIal classes. Ex (3) change between them. Circulation. Credit system (private). state. the of form the in Concentration of bourgeois society Viewed in relation to itself. The ' unproductive' classes. Taxes. State debt. Public credit. The population. The �olonies. Em!gra tion. (4) The international relation of productIOn. Inte�attonal . division of labour. International exchange. Export and Import 2 crises.2 and market world The (5) ge. Rate of exchan .
.
'
21. Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Systeme des contradictions philosophie de fa misere, Paris, 1846, Vol. I, p. 146. 22. See p. 54, n.53.
.
economiques ou
(4) P R O D U C T I O N .
M E A N S OF P R O D U C T I O N AND R E L A T I ONS
O F P R O D U C T I O N . R E L A T I O N S O F P R O D U CT I O N AND R E L A T I O N S O F C I R C U L A T I O N . FORMS O F THE STATE AND FORMS O F C O N S C I O USNESS I N R E L A T I O N T O RELATIONS O F P R OD U C T I O N AND C I R C U L A T I O N . L E G A L RELATIONS. FAMILY RELATIONS.
Notabene
in
regard to points to be mentioned here and not to-Qe-roduction (represented by the price) at which the quarter of wheat is obtained is = to the de-, creased productivity of capital in all other forms. The surplus used to purchase grain must correspond to a deficit in the purchase of all other products and hence already a decline in their prices. With or without metallic money, Of.money of any other kind, the nation . would find itself in a crisis not confined to· grain, but extending to all . other branches of production, not only because their productivity would have positively diminished and the price of their production depreciated as compared to their value, which is determined by the normal cost of production; but also because all contracts, obli gations etc. rest on the average prices of products. For example, x bushels of grain have to be supplied to service the state's indebted .ness, but the cost of producing these x bushels has increased by a given factor. Quite apart from the role of money the nation would tbus find itself in a general crisis. If we abstract not only from money but from exchange value as well, then products would have depreciated and the nation's productivity diminished �h!le all �ts economic relations are based on the average prodUctiVIty of Its labour. A crisis caused by a failure in the grain crop is therefore not at .aJl created by the drain of bullion, although it can be aggravated .by obstacles set up to impede this drain. In any case, we cannot agree with Proudhon either when he says that . the crisis stems from the fact that the precious metals alone possess an authentic value in contrast to the other com modities ; for the rise in the grain price first of all. means only that more gold and silver have to be given in exchange for a certain quantity of grain, i.e. that the price of gold and silver has declined
130 Notebook I relative to the price of grain. Thus gold and silver participate with all other commodities in the depreciation relative to grain, and no privilege protects them from this. The depreciation of gold and silver relative to grain is identical with the rise of the grain price (not quite correct. The quarter of grain rises from 50s. to 100s., i.e. by 100 %, but cotton goods fall by 80. Silver has declined by 50 relative to grain; cotton goods (owing to declining demand etc.) have declined by 80 % relative to it. That is to say, the prices of other commodities fall to a greater extent than those of grain rise. But the opposite also occurs. For example in recent years, when grain temporarily rose by 100 %, it never entered the heads of the industrial products to decline in the same proportion in which gold had declined relative to grain. This circumstance does not im mediately affect the general thesis). Neither can it be said that gold possesses a privilege because its quantity is precisely and authentic ally defined in the coin form. One thaler (silver) remains under all circumstances one thaler. But a bushel of wheat is also always a bushel, and a yard of linen a yard. The depreciation of most commodities (labour included) and the resultant crisis, in the case of an important crop mishap, cannot therefore be crudely ascribed to the export of gold, because de preciation and crisis would equally take place if no gold wha�ever were exported and no grain imported. The crisis reduces itself simply to the law of supply and demand, which, as is known, acts far more sharply and energetically, within the sphere of primary needs - seen on a national scale - than in all other spheres. Ex ports of gold are not the cause of the grain crisis, but the grain crisis is the cause· of gold exports. Gold and silver in themselves can be said to intervene in the crisis and to aggravate its symptoms in only two ways : (1) When . the export of gold is made more difficult by the metal reserve re quirements to which the banks are bound ; when the measures which the banks therefore undertake against the export of gold react disadvantageously on domestic circulation; (2) When the export of gold becomes necessary because foreign nations will accept capital only in the form of gold and not otherwise. Difficulty No. 2 can remain even if difficulty No. 1 is removed. The Bank of England experienced this precisely during the period when it was legally empowered to issue inconvertiblenotes.7 These in 7. A reference to the period during which the Bank: Restriction Act was operation (1797-181 9).
The Chapter on Money 131
notes . decl�ed in rela�on to gold 1;>ullion, but the mint price of . . �old likeWIse declmed m relation to Its bullion price. In relation to th� note, gold had become a special kind of commodity. It can be SaId that �e note. still remained. dependent on gold only to the ext�nt f!tat It nominall y represented a certain quantity of gold for which .It �ould not in �act be exchanged. Gold remained its de�omma�on, although It was no longer legally exchangeable for this quantity of gold at the bank. There can be . hardly a doubt (?) (this is to be exa.mmed t�t� and does not dIrectly belong with the subject under discussion) that as long as paper money retains its denomination in gold (i.e. so lon� as a £5 note for. e��ple is the paper representative of5 sovereIg;ns), the convertibilIty of the note into gold remains its econOIDIC law, whether this law also exists politically or not. The Bank of England's notes continued during the years 1799-1819 to state tha� they represented the value of a given quantity of gold. How can �his assertion be put to the test other than by the fact that the note mdeed c?mmands so-and-so-much bullion? From the moment when bullion to the value of 5 sovereigns could no longer !'e had fo� a £5 note, �e note was depreciated even though it was mconve�ble. The eq�valenc:e of the note with an amount of gold equal to ItS face-value ImmedIately entered into contradiction with th� f�ctu�l non-equivalence between banknotes and gold. The pomt � di�putc? among the English who want to keep gold as the ?enOIDInation ?f �otes is not in fact the convertibility of the note mto gold - which IS only the practical equivalence of what the face Of the note �xp�ess�s theoretically - but ra�her the question how . convertibility IS to be secured; whether through this limits imposed b� law on the bank or whether the bank is to be left to its o� d.eYIC:s. Th� advocates of the latter course assert that this con ve�bIlity . IS achieved on the average by a bank of issue which lends agamst bIlls of exchange and whose notes thus have an assured refll;lX' and charge that their opponents despite everything never achieved better than this average measure of security. The latter is a fa�. The average, by the way, is not to be despised, and cal �ulations on the basis ?f averages have to form the basis for banks Just a.s well as for all msurance companies etc. In this regard the Sc�ttish ��s are above all, and rightly, held up as a model. The stn.ct bullionIsts say for their part that they take convertibility as a senous matter, th�t the bank's obligation to convert notes keeps the notes convertIble, that the necessity of this convertibility is
...,-
� .
•
--
132 Notebook I
given by the denomination of the notes theID:selves, that this forms a barrier against over-issue, and that theIr opponent� are pseudo-defenders of inconvertibility. Between these . two sId�s, various shadings, a mass of little ' species '. 8 Th� d�fenders of. In convertibility, finally, the determined anti-bulliomsts, a�e,. �Ith out knowing it, just as much pseudo-defenders of convertIbI�ty as their opponents are of inconvertibility, because th:y retaIn �he denomination of the note and hence make the practIcal equatIOn between a note of a given denomination and a given quantity of gold the measure oftheir notes ' full value. Prussia �as �aper money of forced currency. (A reflux is secured by the obligatIOn to pay a portion of taxes in paper.) These paper thalers are no� drafts on silver; no bank will legallY convert them. They are not Issued by a commercial bank against bills of exchange but by the gov�rnment to meet its expenses. But their denomination is that of sdve�. A . paper thaler proclaims that it represents the same value as a sIlver thaler. If confidence in the government were to be thorou¥hly shaken, or if this paper money were issued in greater pro�ortIOns than required by circulation, then the paper thaler would In �rac tice cease to be equal to the silver thaler and w?uld be d�preclated because it had fallen beneath the value proclaImed on Its face. It would even depreciate if neither of the above conditions o�tained but if a special need for silver, e .g. for exports, ga�e �dv:r a . Into privileged position vis-a-vis the pape.r thaler. ConvertIbIlIty gold and silver is therefore the practIcal measure of the value �f every paper currency denominated in gold or silver, whether t�IS paper is legally convertible or not. Nominal value runs alongSIde its body as a mere shadow; whether the two balance can be shown only by actual convertibility (exchangeability). � ��ll o.f real value beneath nominal value is depreciation. ConvertIbIlIty IS when the two really run alongside each other and change place� with ea�h. other. The convertibility of inconvertible notes shows Itself not III the bank's stock of bullion but in the everyday exchange b:tween paper and the metal whose denomina� on the paper carnes. In practice, the convertibility of convertIble notes IS already �n dangered when this is no longer confirmed by everyday ro�tIlle exchange in all parts of the country, but has to be establIshed specifically by large-scale operations o� the part of the bank. In the Scottish countryside paper money IS even preferred to metal 8. A play /on the two meanings of the French word 'especes' : (1) sorts ; (2) specie.
The Chapter on Money 133
money. Before 1845, when the English law of 18449 was forced upon it, Scotland naturally took part in all English social crises, and experienced some crises to a higher degree because the clear ing of the land proceeded more ruthlessly there. Nevertheless, Scotland never experienced a real monetary crisis (the fact that a few banks, exceptions, collapsed because they had made careless loans is irrelevant here) ; no depreciation of notes, no complaints and no inquiries into the sufficiency or insufficiency of the cur;;een exchanged with other commodities (materialized
labour time) in production; it is their quantitatively determined e�ha�ili.1Y. Two commodlties;-e:g:-�fYard oCcoftonan(ra measure of oil, considered as cotton and as oil, are different by nature, have �ifferent properties, are measured by different measures, are Incommensurable. Considered as values all com modities �ua�vel� eq�.!.and differ only quantitati;ely, hence can be measured against each other and substitutecnorone another (are I?ut.ually ex�hangeable, mutually convertible) ip. ceftalrf-quantItatIve relatIOns. Value is their social relation their econo.,gllc q?�_ A book which possesses a-certruii-valu� ancCa-Toaf oforeacrpossessing the same value are exchanged for one another, are the same value but in a different material. As a value a com mo�ty is an equivalent for all other commodities in' a given relatIOn .. As�value, the commodity is an e�J ; as an equiva-w� it nolonger takes lent, all lt� natural properties are _extin up !I: speCIal, qualitative relationship towards the- otlier coi::iiiilo n rarmeasilie -as well as the general dities;-Duf1SYrunefffi:e"gee repr�s�ntative, the gene�.l!!�.9J@l 9f_exchange of all other com modIties. -4��alue, i�'!z.�ney: But becau-se-t@_CO.Ill.IRillil,lY or � rather the proCIliCtOr the Instrument of production is different from its value, i�.existence as value is different from'its existence . �product. Its prop"erty ofbeiliga value -noToii1ycan�15urmust achieve an existence different from its natural one. Why? Because cOJ?IDodities as values are different from one another only quanti tatIvel?, ; therefore each commodity must be qualitatively different from Its own value. Its value must therefore have an existence which is qualitatively distinguishable from it, and in actual ex change this separability must become a real separation, because the . n�tur�J�istinctn�2�()Qjtie.s_.Ill.u�t.come.int9 �q9lJ1l:�4ktion W!th theIr economic equivalence, and because both can exist to gether only iftliecolIun6ilityachleves a double existence, not only a natural but also a purely economic existence, in which latter it is a mere s�bol, a cipher for a relation of production, a mere sym b?l �or It� �wn value. �s_a._val:ge, eY��_SQmmg,dit)!..is equally . diYISlble; In Its natural existence this is not the case. As a value it remains the same no matter-how many metamorphoses and forms of existence it goes through; in reality, commodities are ex c�anged only because they are not the same and correspond to different systems of needs. As a value, the commodity is general; as a real commodity it is particular. As a value it is always ex changeable; in real exchange it is exchangeable only if it fulfils _
_
'
�
---
The Chapter on Money 143
142 Notebook I particular conditions. As a value, the measure of its exchange ability is determined by itself; exchange value expresses precisely the relation in which it replaces other commodities ; in real ex change it is exchangeable only in quantities which are linked with its natural properties and which correspond to the needs of the participants in exchange. (In sho�erties which may be cited as tb,� cs12ecial qualities of money are properties of t1leCom modit)Las.excbange.:v.aJ.lie, of the product as value-asruSbnct from the value as product.) (The exchange value of a commodity, as a separa!�_XoIIILoLexistence accmiij:,anying ti;commoclity}fs"clf; is money ; the fOl1I!in-wmch --aucommooities equate, compare, m:easure themselves ; into which all �Qmm9dities dissolve _ them selves ; that which dissolves itself Inio all cOIDmoruiies; -the urii"'- -versal equivalent.) Every moment, in calculating, accounting etc., that we transform commodities into value symbols, we fix them as mere exchange values, making abstr�ction from the matter they are composed of and all their natural q.es. On paper, in the head, this metamorphosis proceeds by means of mere abstraction; but ll:!_the real exc!I@g�J�t��e�s � real mecl£atio��_�_X�l!iJSl!i, a means to accomplish this abstraction:1n Ifs-natural existence, with its naturat properties, in �afidentity with itself, the commodity is neither constantly exchangeable nor exchangeable against every otner commodlij;; this lfi"S"6ril yas something dIfferent from itsclf, s�ething dIstinct from itself, as exchange value. We must first transp-2s�Jl:J.�_ gQI!!-!Dodity into-itself �s_ exchange val�e in order then to be able to compare this exchangevalU:e-with other ex change values and to exchange it. In the_crudestbarter, when two commodities are exchanged for one another, each is first equated with a symbol which expresses their exchange value, e.g. among certain Negroes on the West African coast, = x bars. One com modity is = 1 bar; the other = 2 bars. They are exchanged in this relation. The commodities are first transformed into bars in the head and in speech before they are exchanged for one another. They are appraised before being exchanged, and in order to ap praise them they must be brought into a given numerical relation to one another. In order to bring them into such a numerical relation, in order to make them commensurable, they must obtain the same denomination (unit). (The bar has a merely imaginary existence,jUst as, in general: a relation can obtain a particular em bodiment and become individualized only by means of abstrac tion.) In order to cover the excess of one value over another in
_
exchange, in order to liquidate the balance, the crudest barter, just as with international trade today, requires payment in money. Products (or activities) are exchanged only as commodities ; comm.-2c(lil!Jl�§j �-e�_c..�ange exist only as values ; only as values are they comparable. In order lO deteriiiine--what amount of bread I nee!i in order to exchange it for a yard of linen, I first equate the yard of linen with its exchange value, i.e. =
�
hours oflabour tl,mk';"_ Similarly, I equate the pound of bread with its exchange 'value, =
! or � etc. hours of labour time. I equate each of the commodities x x
with a third ; i.e. not with themselves. This third, which differs from them both, exists initially only in the head, as a conception, since it expresses a relation ; just as, in general, relations can be established as existing only by being thought, as distinct from the subjects which are in these relations with each other. In becoming an exchange value, a product (or activity) is not only transformed into a definite quantitative relation, a relative number - that is, a number which expresses the quantity of other commodities which equal it, which are its equivalent, or the relation in which it is their equivalent - but it must also at the same time be transformed qualitatively, be transposed into another element, so that both com modities become magnitudes of the same kind, of the same unit, i.e. commensurable. The commodity first has to be transposed into labour time, into something qualitatively different from itself (qualitatively different (1) because it is not labour time as labour time, but materialized labo1!l:.. tirut; labour time not in tile form of mOl!9n, but at rest ; no1]ii}he fOIJIl_OUlie.JlE