Introduction The aim of this book is to present as comprehensive and balanced a selection of Marx's writings as possible. I have forgone the opportunity of writing an extended introduction offering either 'potted biography or an interpretation of Marxs thought. a biography can readily be obtained elsewhere and such contextual details as are necessary for an under standing of each extract are provided with it. An interpretation -to be worthwhile-would have to be fairly lengthy and involve the exclusion of some of Marx's texts. Nevertheless a few words on the principles of selection are necessary. The most evident difficulty confronting a portrayal of Marx's thought is that he is politic ally a controversial figure. And there is the additional difficulty that Marx was a prolific writer, in different styles and contexts, and left half of it unpublished so that it only emerged piecemeal during the years after his death. Up until very recently the most accessible large selection of Marx's works was issued by the Russian Communists and their allies who claimed to be the political incarnation of Marx's ideas Naturally, they saw Marx from their own point of view and their selection had two deficiencies. First, it ignored Marx's early writings. These were published around 1930 and reveal a more philosophical, humanist Marx, that many thought incompatible with the economic, materialist Marx of stalinist orthodoxy Although there was considerable controversy about whether the young or the old Marx was the real Marx and whether there was or was not a continuity in Marxist thought, any selection that ignored these early writings would be seriously deficient. So recent editions of Marx have tended to make selections from the Moscow selections and supplement them with some of the early writings. But the Moscow selections had another drawback: they consisted almost entirely of Marx's political writings together with some simple summaries of his economic doctrines. Over recent years increasing attention has been paid to the three works that Marx produced between 1857 and 1867-the Grundrisse, the Theories of Surplus Value, and Capital. On almost any reading of Marx these constituted his main theoretical contribution: yet, apart from a few pages of Capital, they are absent from the Moscow selection which tends to concentrate on Marx's political writings. Believing that it was not enough just to augment the Moscow selection yet again with some extracts from Capital, I have tried to have a fresh look at the whole corpus of Marx's writings in the light of recent scholarship. This has involved translating certain passages that have never been published in England before and being prepared to include very short extracts when necessary-although i have tried to avoid being too bitty'. The main interest in recent years among interpreters of Marx has focused on his methodology and on his contribution to the science of political economy. Thus any selection satisfying these interests must contain large excerpts from the
Introduction The aim of this book is to present as comprehensive and balanced a selection of Marx’s writings as possible. I have forgone the opportunity of writing an extended introduction offering either ‘potted’ biography or an interpretation of Marx’s thought. A biography can readily be obtained elsewhere and such contextual details as are necessary for an understanding of each extract are provided with it. An interpretation—to be worthwhile—would have to be fairly lengthy and involve the exclusion of some of Marx’s texts. Nevertheless a few words on the principles of selection are necessary. The most evident difficulty confronting a portrayal of Marx’s thought is that he is politically a controversial figure. And there is the additional difficulty that Marx was a prolific writer, in different styles and contexts, and left half of it unpublished so that it only emerged piecemeal during the years after his death. Up until very recently the most accessible large selection of Marx’s works was issued by the Russian Communists and their allies who claimed to be the political incarnation of Marx’s ideas. Naturally, they saw Marx from their own point of view and their selection had two deficiencies. First, it ignored Marx’s early writings. These were published around 1930 and reveal a more philosophical, humanist Marx, that many thought incompatible with the economic, materialist Marx of Stalinist orthodoxy. Although there was considerable controversy about whether the young or the old Marx was the real Marx and whether there was or was not a continuity in Marxist thought, any selection that ignored these early writings would be seriously deficient. So recent editions of Marx have tended to make selections from the Moscow selections and supplement them with some of the early writings. But the Moscow selections had another drawback: they consisted almost entirely of Marx’s political writings together with some simple summaries of his economic doctrines. Over recent years increasing attention has been paid to the three works that Marx produced between 1857 and 1867—the Grundrisse, the Theories of Surplus Value, and Capital. On almost any reading of Marx these constituted his main theoretical contribution: yet, apart from a few pages of Capital, they are absent from the Moscow selection which tends to concentrate on Marx’s political writings. Believing that it was not enough just to augment the Moscow selection yet again with some extracts from Capital, I have tried to have a fresh look at the whole corpus of Marx’s writings in the light of recent scholarship. This has involved translating certain passages that have never been published in England before and being prepared to include very short extracts when necessary—although I have tried to avoid being too ‘bitty’. The main interest in recent years among interpreters of Marx has focused on his methodology and on his contribution to the science of political economy. Thus any selection satisfying these interests must contain large excerpts from the
KARL MARX: SELECTED WRITINGS Grundrisse and the Theories of Surplus Value which, together with Capital, constitute the centrepiece of Marx's work. To avoid overloading the text with footnotes i have added an annotated name index as well as a full subject inder NOTE Most of the extracts have been previously published elsewhere. In those which I translated myself, i have made a few minor alterations for the present collection
2 | karl marx: selected writings Grundrisse and the Theories of Surplus Value, which, together with Capital, constitute the centrepiece of Marx’s work. To avoid overloading the text with footnotes I have added an annotated name index as well as a full subject index. NOTE Most of the extracts have been previously published elsewhere. In those which I translated myself, I have made a few minor alterations for the present collection
The early Writings 1837-1844
I The Early Writings 1837–1844
Introduction n these early writings we can trace Marxs evolution to a position where he was able to articulate his theory of historical materialism -which formed the basis of what later came to be known as Marxism. but although the writings in this section represent Marx before Marxism, they are nevertheless essential for an understanding of what follows: many of the positions worked out in these early writings are simply taken for granted in his later works for example, the view that productive interchange with nature is the most basic of human activities Engels said of Marx that his ideas were based on a synthesis of German idealist philosophy, French political theory, and English classical economics. Marx's writings up to 1844 show his struggle to come to terms with the german philosophical tradition, and above all Hegel; with his move to Paris in 1843, Marx had to confront the french versions of socialism; by 1844, particularly in the Economic and Philosophical Manu- scripts, he had begun to incorporate into his thought the classical political economy coming from britain Marx started out life as an idealist. As he explained in the lengthy letter to his father, written when he was 19 from his student residence in berlin he believed in a romantic opposition of what is and what ought to be. But he soon found himself forced to succumb to the hegelian philosophy which was then predominant in Berlin: if the gods before had dwelt above the earth they had now become its centre Marxs struggle to come to terms with Hegel was central to all his early writings and to an important extent, continued throughout his life. For however much he was to criticize hegel, accuse him of idealism, and try to stand his dialectic on its feet Marx was the first to admit that his method stemmed directly from his master of the 1830s In his greatest work The Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel traced the development of mind, or spirit, reintroducing historical movement into philosophy and asserting that the human mind can attain to absolute knowledge. He analysed the development of human conscious- ness from its immediate perception of the here and now to the stage of self-consciousness the understanding that allowed human beings to analyse the world and order their own actions accordingly. Following this was the stage of reason itself, understanding of the real after which spirit, by means of religion and art, attained to absolute knowledge, the level at which human beings recognized in the world the stages of their own reason. These stages Hegel called alienations, insofar as they were creations of the human mind yet mistakenly thought of as independent and superior to the human mind. this absolute knowledge was at the same time a sort of recapitulation of the human spirit, for each successive stage retained elements of the previous ones at the same time as it went beyond them. this movement hich suppressed and yet conserved, Hegel called Aufhebung a word that has this double
Introduction In these early writings we can trace Marx’s evolution to a position where he was able to articulate his theory of historical materialism—which formed the basis of what later came to be known as Marxism. But although the writings in this section represent Marx before Marxism, they are nevertheless essential for an understanding of what follows: many of the positions worked out in these early writings are simply taken for granted in his later works— for example, the view that productive interchange with nature is the most basic of human activities. Engels said of Marx that his ideas were based on a synthesis of German idealist philosophy, French political theory, and English classical economics. Marx’s writings up to 1844 show his struggle to come to terms with the German philosophical tradition, and above all Hegel; with his move to Paris in 1843, Marx had to confront the French versions of socialism; by 1844, particularly in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, he had begun to incorporate into his thought the classical political economy coming from Britain. Marx started out life as an idealist. As he explained in the lengthy letter to his father, written when he was 19 from his student residence in Berlin, he believed in a romantic opposition of what is and what ought to be. But he soon found himself forced to succumb to the Hegelian philosophy which was then predominant in Berlin: ‘if the gods before had dwelt above the earth, they had now become its centre’. Marx’s struggle to come to terms with Hegel was central to all his early writings and, to an important extent, continued throughout his life. For however much he was to criticize Hegel, accuse him of idealism, and try to stand his dialectic ‘on its feet’, Marx was the first to admit that his method stemmed directly from his master of the 1830s. In his greatest work, The Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel traced the development of mind, or spirit, reintroducing historical movement into philosophy and asserting that the human mind can attain to absolute knowledge. He analysed the development of human consciousness from its immediate perception of the here and now to the stage of self-consciousness, the understanding that allowed human beings to analyse the world and order their own actions accordingly. Following this was the stage of reason itself, understanding of the real, after which spirit, by means of religion and art, attained to absolute knowledge, the level at which human beings recognized in the world the stages of their own reason. These stages Hegel called ‘alienations’, insofar as they were creations of the human mind yet mistakenly thought of as independent and superior to the human mind. This absolute knowledge was at the same time a sort of recapitulation of the human spirit, for each successive stage retained elements of the previous ones at the same time as it went beyond them. This movement, which suppressed and yet conserved, Hegel called Aufhebung, a word that has this double
INTRODUCTION sense in German. Hegel also talked of ' the power of the negative thinking that there was always a tension between any present state of affairs and what it was becoming For any present state of affairs was in the process of being negated, changed into something else This process was what Hegel meant by dialectic. Hegel had died in 1832. Although thought of as a rather conservative thinker with the owl of Minerva only rising at dusk and looking backwards his legacy proved ambivalent. In particular, emphasis on the negative and dialectical side of Hegel's philosophy could obvi ously give it a radical bent -a development associated with a group of intellectuals known as the Young Hegelians whose central figure was bruno bauer, a university lecturer who became Marxs mentor. They embarked on a process of secularization, progressing from a critique of religion to one of politics and society. It is important to recognize that marx in hi early writings looked at his ideas in interaction with the members of this close-knit move- ment. His doctoral thesis clearly refected the Young Hegelian climate: its field-post- Aristotelian Greek philosophy-was one of interest to the Young hegelians who felt that they lived in the shadow of Hegel much as the post-Aristotelians had to find something to say after the great Aristotle had summed it all up When Bruno Bauer was dismissed from his university post for the same sort of anti- religious idealism that permeated Marx's doctoral thesis, the latter had to abandon his ambition of an academic career. He briefly became a journalist and editor of the liberal newspaper Rheinische Zeitung. Although still ambivalent about the communist ideas spread ing from France, Marx dealt with such topics as the privatization of previously commonly held timber and the poverty of the Moselle wine growers. These subjects, as he stated later, provided the first occasions for occupying myself with economic questions. In so doing Marx came to realize how closely the laws were formed by the interests of the ruling class in this case the forest and vineyard owners. The Rheinische Zeitung was suppressed by the government in October 1842. Marx took the opportunity, as he put it later, to withdraw from the public stage into the study. Here he read a lot on the French Revolution and meditated on the question of why a revolution which proclaimed the excellent principles of liberty, fraternity, and equality did not result in a society which actually embodied these principles. He also became increasingly interested in the philosophy of his fellow Young Hegelian Ludwig Feuerbach. Although Engels exagger- ated when he said later that we all became Feuerbachians this influence was profound Feuerbach was fundamentally interested in religion and his main thesis was that god was merely a projection of human attributes, desires, and potentialities. If human beings once realized this, they would be in a position to appropriate these attributes for themselves by realizing that they had created god, not god them and thus be in a position to restore to themselves their alienated 'species-being or communal essence. The main result of Marx's study was a lengthy paragraph-by-paragraph commentary on Hegels great political treatise The Philosophy of Right. What interested Marx was the ation of Feuerbach's approach to Hegel's philosophy, which Feuerbach regarded as the last bulwark of theology, in that Hegel started from the ideal rather than the real. Feuerbach wrote:The true relationship of thought to being is this: being is the subject, thought the
6 | introduction sense in German. Hegel also talked of ‘the power of the negative’, thinking that there was always a tension between any present state of affairs and what it was becoming. For any present state of affairs was in the process of being negated, changed into something else. This process was what Hegel meant by dialectic. Hegel had died in 1832. Although thought of as a rather conservative thinker, with the Owl of Minerva only rising at dusk and looking backwards, his legacy proved ambivalent. In particular, emphasis on the negative and dialectical side of Hegel’s philosophy could obviously give it a radical bent—a development associated with a group of intellectuals known as the Young Hegelians whose central figure was Bruno Bauer, a university lecturer who became Marx’s mentor. They embarked on a process of secularization, progressing from a critique of religion to one of politics and society. It is important to recognize that Marx in his early writings looked at his ideas in interaction with the members of this close-knit movement. His doctoral thesis clearly reflected the Young Hegelian climate: its field—postAristotelian Greek philosophy—was one of interest to the Young Hegelians who felt that they lived in the shadow of Hegel much as the post-Aristotelians had to find something to say after the great Aristotle had summed it all up. When Bruno Bauer was dismissed from his university post for the same sort of antireligious idealism that permeated Marx’s doctoral thesis, the latter had to abandon his ambition of an academic career. He briefly became a journalist and editor of the liberal newspaper Rheinische Zeitung. Although still ambivalent about the communist ideas spreading from France, Marx dealt with such topics as the privatization of previously commonly held timber and the poverty of the Moselle wine growers. These subjects, as he stated later, ‘provided the first occasions for occupying myself with economic questions’. In so doing Marx came to realize how closely the laws were formed by the interests of the ruling class— in this case the forest and vineyard owners. The Rheinische Zeitung was suppressed by the government in October 1842. Marx took the opportunity, as he put it later, ‘to withdraw from the public stage into the study’. Here he read a lot on the French Revolution and meditated on the question of why a revolution which proclaimed the excellent principles of liberty, fraternity, and equality did not result in a society which actually embodied these principles. He also became increasingly interested in the philosophy of his fellow Young Hegelian Ludwig Feuerbach. Although Engels exaggerated when he said later that ‘we all became Feuerbachians’, this influence was profound. Feuerbach was fundamentally interested in religion, and his main thesis was that God was merely a projection of human attributes, desires, and potentialities. If human beings once realized this, they would be in a position to appropriate these attributes for themselves by realizing that they had created God, not God them, and thus be in a position to restore to themselves their alienated ‘species-being’ or communal essence. The main result of Marx’s study was a lengthy paragraph-by-paragraph commentary on Hegel’s great political treatise The Philosophy of Right. What interested Marx was the application of Feuerbach’s approach to Hegel’s philosophy, which Feuerbach regarded as the last bulwark of theology, in that Hegel started from the ideal rather than the real. Feuerbach wrote: ‘The true relationship of thought to being is this: being is the subject, thought the