Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

Marx's Grundrisse: Footnotes

<"18"> 18. The first few pages of the Chapter on Capital (pp. 239-50) were entitled by Marx 'Chapter on Money as Capital'.

<"19"> 19. Charles Ganilh (1758 - 1836), French neo-Mercantilist economist, an advocate of the Napoleonic Continental System), Des systèmes d'économie politique, de leurs inconvéniences, de leurs avantages, et de la doctrine la plus favorable aux progrès de la richesse des nations, Paris, 1809. Vol. II. pp. 64-5.

<"20"> 20. Say, Traité d'économie politique, Vol. II, pp. 480-82.

<"21"> 21. Sein für andres is a basic concept of Hegel's logic, described in the Science of Logic (p. 119 of the translation by A. V. Miller, London, 1969) as 'a negation of the simple relation of being to itself which is supposed to be determinate being'. However, it is paired, not with Sein für sich, but with Sein in sich (being in itself, described as 'something returned into itself out of the being for other'). In any case, it is difficult to detect any relation between Marx's use of Sein für andres and Hegel's use. The situation is different with the concept of Sein für sich, since Hegel described being for self in the Lesser Logic (p. 179 of the translation by W. Wallace, Oxford, 1892) in the following way: 'Being for self is a self-subsistent, the One', and added 'The readiest instance of being for self is found in the "I".' This comes close to Marx's 'each individual... as an end in himself'.

<"22">22. Institutes, Bk II, Title IX, para. 3 'A slave, who is in the power of another person, can have nothing of his own' (The Institutes of Justinian, tr. J. B. Moyle, Oxford, 1906, p. 58).

<"23"> 23. See Marx's critique of Proudhon's doctrine of exchange value in Poverty of Philosophy, pp. 37—8.

<"24">24. The socialist opponents of Bastiat, in particular Proudhon. This passage is in fact a critique of the discussion between Bastiat and Proudhon, printed as F. Bastiat et P.-J. Proudhon, Gratuité du crédit, Paris, 1850, pp. 1-20, 32-47 and 285-6.

<"25">25. Say, Traité d'économie politique, Vol. II, pp. 428-30 and 478-80.

<"26">26. The German text has here 'the other', but since the reference back is to 'landed property itself' this has been replaced with 'the latter'.

<"**">** Just as exchange value, i.e. all relations of commodities as exchange values, appears in money to be a thing, so do all aspects of the activity which creates exchange values, labour, appear in capital.

<"27">27. The German reads 'as', the sense seems to require 'the'.

<"28">28. Cf. Hegel, Science of Logic (tr. A. V. Miller), p. 71: 'That into which the movement returns as into its ground is (also) result.'

<"29">29. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Vol. II, pp. 355-6.

<"30"> 30. The reference is to Marx's own excerpt-book; the quotation is from Ganilh, Des systèmes d'économie politique, Vol. II, pp. 11--12.

<"31">31. Cf. Hegel, Science of Logic, pp. 106-4, 129-31.

<"32">32. The reference is to Marx's own excerpt-book; the quotation is from Say, Traite d'économie politique, Vol. II, p. 185.

<"33">33. Sismondi, Nouveaux Principes d'économie politique, Paris, 1827, Vol. I, p. 89.

<"34">34. Marx used brackets (shown here by < and >) to indicate a digression.

<"35">35. Bastiat et Proudhon, Gratuité du credit, p. 250.

<"36">36. ibid., pp. 177-80.

<"37">37. Constituted value is 'valeur faite'; most perfect value is 'valeur la plus parfaite', ibid., p. 183.

<"43">43. Storch, Cours d'économie politique, Vol. I, p. l54.

<"44">44. As in Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Vol. I, pp. 131-2.

<"45">45. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Vol. II, pp. 355-85.

<"46">46. Storch's views in Considérations, pp. 38-50; Senior's in Principes fondamentaux, pp. 284-308.

<"47">47. Steuart, An Inquiry, Vol. I, p. 45.

<"48">48. Edward Gibbon Wakefield (1796--1862) was an English diplomat and economist, who put forward his views on the colonies in A View of the Art of Colonization, with Present Reference to the British Empire, London, 1849. He proposed that the government should reserve land in the colonies and put a higher price on it than prevailed in the open market.

<"49"> 49. Cf. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Vol. I, pp. 104--5.

<"50"> 50. A reference to the abstinence theory advanced by Nassau Senior (Principes fondamentaux, pp. 307-8).

<"51">51. As in Charles Babbage, Traité sur l'économie des machines et des manufactures. Traduit de l'anglais sur la troisième édition, Paris, 1833, pp. 329--51.

<"52"> 52. Simon Linguet, (1736--94) was a French lawyer and historian, a conservative critic of the Enlightenment and of the economics of the Physiocrats, an opponent of the French Revolution. He was guillotined during the Terror. The reference here is to his book Théorie des lois civiles, ou principes fondamentaux de la société, published anonymously in London, 1767, Vol. II, pp.462--8.

<"53">53. The manuscript breaks off here, and the following page (page 29) is missing. Marx noted its contents as follows:'Capital a merely objective power vis-à-vis the worker. Without personal value. Distinction from the performance of service. Purpose of the worker in the exchange with capital - consumption. Must always begin anew. Labour as the capital of the worker' (Grundrisse (MELI), p. 953).

<"pagenote267">* Is not value to be conceived as the unity of use value and exchange value? In and for itself, is value as such the general form, in opposition to use value and exchange value as particular forms of it? Does this have significance in economics? Use value presupposed even in simple exchange or barter. But here, where exchange takes place only for the reciprocal use of the commodity, the use value, i.e. the content, the natural particularity of the commodity has as such no standing as an economic form. Its form, rather, is exchange value. The content apart from this form is irrelevant; is not a content of the relation as a social relation. But does this content as such not develop into a system of needs and production? Does not use value as such enter into the form itself, as a determinant of the form itself, e.g. in the relation of capital and labour? the different forms of labour?—agriculture, industry etc.—ground rent?—effect of the seasons on raw product prices? etc. If only exchange value as such plays a role in economics, then how could elements later enter which relate purely to use value, such as, right away, in the case of capital as raw material etc.? How is it that the physical composition of the soil suddenly drops out of the sky in Ricardo? [Ed: for Ricardo's discussion of the effects of difficulties of cultivation on rent, see On the Principles of Political Economy, pp 55-75.] The word ware [commodity] (German Güter [goods] perhaps as denrée [good] as distinct from marchandise [commodity]?) contains the connection. The price appears as a merely formal aspect in it. This is not in the slightest contradicted by the fact that exchange value is the predominant aspect. But of course use does not come to a halt because it is determined only by exchange; although of course it obtains its direction thereby. In any case, this is to be examined with exactitude in the examination of value, and not, as Ricardo does, to be entirely abstracted from, nor like the dull Say, who puffs himself up with the mere presupposition of the word 'utility'. [Ed: see Say, Traité d'économie politique, Vol. I, pp.2-6.] Above all it will and must become clear in the development of the individual sections to what extent use value exists not only as presupposed matter, outside economics and its forms, but to what extent it enters into it. Proudhon's nonsense, see the 'Misère'. [Ed.: The 'Misère': Proudhon's Système des contradictions économiques, ou philosohie de la misère. His doctrine of exchange value is put forward in Vol. I, pp 39-50.] This much is certain: in exchange we have (in circulation) the commodity—use value—as price; that it is, apart from its price, a commodity, an object of need, goes without saying. The two aspects in no way enter into relation with each other, except in so far as the particular use value appears as the natural limit of the commodity and hence posits money, i.e. its exchange value, simultaneously as an existence apart from itself, in money, but only formally. Money itself is a commodity, has a use value for its substance.

<"pagenote272">** But only this economic (social) substance of use values, i.e. of their economic character as content as distinct from their form (but this form value, because specific amount of this labour), comes into question when searching for an antithesis to capital. As far as their natural differences are concerned, none of them excludes capital from entering into them and making their bodies its own, so long as none excludes the character of exchange value and of the commodity.