38.Marx’s letter of thanks, 31 May 1858, ibid., pp.156f, 329f, and 317f respectively. The details in the agreement with Duncker are evident from many letters from this time, for example to Engels, 29 March 1858, ibid., pp. 115f, 309f, and 295 respectively. Against a certain amount of compensation, Duncker pledged to publish three instalments that Marx would deliver on a continuing basis. After three instalments, Duncker would evaluate the results and, if it proved successful, would draw up a formal contract. Marx would only finish one instalment and delivered it later than promised.
39.Marx’s index of the Grundrisse in MEGA III/2, pp. 3–14 and CW 29, pp. 421–9. He then wrote an initial version of the instalment at a rapid pace, ibid., pp. 19–94 and pp. 430–507 respectively.
40.The preface, MEGA II/2: pp. 99–103, CW 29, pp. 261–265. In the German original, it says ‘erst zu bewiesende Resultate’, that is, stronger than the ‘substantiated’ of the English translation (‘results that still have to be substantiated’).
41.Gerald Allen Cohen, Karl Marx’ Historieteori: Ett försvar (Lund: Arkiv, 1978), pp. 278–296. MEGA II/6, p. 278, CW 35, p. 281.
42.Leitfaden corresponds to the less expressive ‘guiding principle’ in the English translation.
43.‘Base’ in the Grundrisse, MEGA II/1.2, pp. 380f, CW 28, pp. 400f. In the Collected Works, ‘Basis’ is translated as ‘foundation’ (CW 29, pp. 265), while Cohen starts out from the translation ‘basis’. The meaning is the same.
44.The analysis of the commodity, and use and exchange value, in MEGA II/2, pp. 107–30, CW 29, pp. 269–92. The accumulation of commodities, MEGA II/2, p. 107 and MEGA II/5, p. 17, CW 29, p. 269.
45.The historical overview, MEGA II/2, pp. 130–9, CW 29, pp. 292–302. Theorien über den Mehrwert was published by Karl Kautsky in a three-volume edition between 1905 and 1910. The text can be found in MEW 26, vols 1–3; it is found in a scientifically more satisfying edition in MEGA II, p. 3. The English translation in CW vols 31 and 32. Steuart’s influence on Hegel is brought out in a large amount of literature on Hegel. One fundamental work is Paul Chamley, Économie poli- tique et philosophie chez Steuart et Hegel (Strasbourg: Muh-Le Roux, 1963).
46.Methods of research and presentation in the postscript to the second edition of Capital (1872), MEGA II/6, p. 709, CW 35, p. 19.
47.All Marx’s digressions in parentheses, MEGA II/1.1, pp. 94ff, CW 28, pp. 98ff.
48.The globalized world of the department store, MEGA II/2, p. 158, CW 29, p. 324.
49.The pillar saints, MEGA II/2, p. 201, CW 29, p. 367.
50.Going from value to price, MEGA II/2, pp. 162f, CW 29, pp. 338ff.
51.Postage from Engels: Letter from Marx to Engels, 21 and 22 January 1859, MEGA III/9, pp. 519ff, MEW, pp. 385ff, CW 40, p. 369. Marx on getting to work on the second part in a letter to Engels, 21 February 1859, MEGA III/9, p. 318, MEW 29, p. 399, CW 40, p. 389. (The publishers of Marx Engels Werke have clearly misunderstood what he was saying, and believe that he was referring to the first instalment; compare note 332, MEW 29, p. 701. But that instalment had already been completed and printed!)
52.Engels’s reviews in Das Volk, 6–20 August 1859, MEGA II/2, pp. 246–55, CW 16, pp. 465–77.
53.Marx himself reproduced the remark in a letter to Engels, 22 July 1859, MEW 29, p. 463, CW 40, p. 473.
54.‘the real …’, MEGA II/1.1, pp. 168f, CW 28, p. 176.
55.The socialists’ mistake, ibid., pp. 171f and 180 respectively.
56.Marx on power, ibid., pp. 266 and 278 respectively.
57.‘Society does not …’, pp. 188 and 195 respectively.
58.The text on various pre-capitalist modes of production can be found in MEGA II/1.2, pp. 378–415, CW 28, pp. 399–439.
59.Eric Hobsbawm, How to Change the World: Marx and Marxism, 1840–2011 (London: Little, Brown, 2011), pp. 127–75. Gianni Sofri, Det asiatiska produktionssättet (Stockholm: Prisma, 1969).
60.On Spivak’s preference for the Grundrisse, see Kemple, Reading Marx Writing, p. vii. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Selected Subaltern Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988) provides a useful compilation of subaltern studies. The quote from the preface to A Contribution, MEGA II/2, p. 101.
61.Marx’s starting point, MEGA II/1.2, p. 399, CW 28, p. 419. The tautology, ibid., pp. 393 and 413 respectively.
62.Marx’s statements on the Asiatic production are quite scanty; see above all ibid., pp. 380f and 400ff respectively.
63.On property, the most concentrated (and difficult to read!), ibid., pp. 398ff and 416f respectively, and passim.
64.Hobsbawm, How to Change the World, pp. 154ff.
65.Grundrisse, MEGA II/1.2, pp. 368f, CW 28, pp. 387f.
66.‘eternal right’, pp. 407 and 428 respectively.
67.Marx promises more on landed property, ibid., pp. 400 and 421 respectively.
68.On work before, during, and after capitalism, ibid., pp. 498–502 and 529–33 respectively. ‘Really free work …’ and ‘Work involved …’, ibid., pp. 499 and 530.
69.David McLellan, ‘Introduction’, Karl Marx’s Grundrisse (London: Macmillan, 1971), p. 15. Martin Nicolaus, ‘The Unknown Marx’, Ideology in Social Science: Readings in Critical Social Theory (Suffolk: Fontana/Collins, 1972), p. 333.
70.Kemple, Reading Marx Writing.
11The Unfinished Masterpiece
1.Marx writes about his attempt to become a railroad employee in a letter to Ludwig Kugelmann, 28 December 1862, MEGA III/12, p. 297, MEW 30, p. 640, CW 41, p. 436.
2.The letter about Mary Burns’s death and Engels’s reactions, 7, 8, 13, 24, and 26 January 1863, MEGA III/12, pp. 307–16, MEW 30, pp. 309–18, CW 41, pp. 441–8.
3.Wolff’s will is commented on in a number of letters in Marx and Engels’s correspondence, for example from Engels to Marx, 3 June 1864, and from Marx to Engels, 7 June 1864, MEGA III/12, pp. 377f and 381, MEW 30, pp. 405–9, CW 41, pp. 535–8. Marx genuinely mourned his friend. He wrote about the funeral in a letter to Jenny on 13 May 1864 (MEGA III/12, pp. 528f, MEW 30, pp. 659f, CW 41, pp. 525f), which indicates among other things that Marx himself spoke at the graveside and was so touched that his voice failed him several times. Wolff, during his years in England, had worked as a respected private teacher in Manchester.
4.Marx’s carbuncles had been a recurrent theme in his correspondence since the autumn of 1863. Sperber, Karl Marx, pp. 350f.
5.For the development of Marx’s economic criticism after 1850, see Marcello Musto, ‘Marx und die Kritik der politischen konomie: von den frühen Studien bis zu den “Grundrissen”, Kapital und Kritik (Hamburg: VSA Verlag, 2011), pp. 130–54, and Michael Heinrich, ‘Entstehungs– und Auflösungsgeschichte des Marxschen “Kapital”’, Kapital und Kritik (Hamburg: VSA Verlag, 2011), ibid., in particular pp. 159f.
6.On ‘the economic stuff’ and ‘the vile business’, respectively (in both cases, Marx uses a much coarser German word, Scheiss, ‘shit’), Marx to Engels, 2 April 1851, MEGA III/4, p. 85, MEW 27, p. 228, CW 38, p. 325, and 14 August 1867, not yet in MEGA, MEW 31, p. 321 and CW 42, p. 400.
7.Marx to Kugelmann 28 December 1862, MEGA III/12, pp. 296ff, MEW 30, pp. 639ff, CW 41, pp. 435ff.
8.The manuscripts between 1861 and 1863 comprise six parts of the MEGA – more precisely, MEGA II/3–6. These correspond to Volumes 30–34 of the CW. ‘Value, price and profit’ is reproduced in MEGA II/4.1, pp. 385–432, but in CW 20, pp. 101–49. The lecture was held on two occasions, 20 and 27 Jun 1865.
9.The work is ‘an artistic whole’, letter to Engels, 31 July 1865, MEGA III/13, p. 510, MEW 31, p. 132, CW 42, p. 173.
10.The letter about creative intoxication and the outbreak of a new illness, to Engels, 10 Feb 1866, MEW 31, pp. 174f, CW 42, p. 223f.
11.Marx communicates his hopes of being finished in August to Engels, 7 July 1866, MEW 31, p. 232, CW 42, p. 289. The hopes of being finished in a week, 10 Nov. 1866, MEW 31, p. 263, CW 42, p. 332.
12.On his stay with the Kugelmanns, see the letters to Engels, 24
Apr. and 7 May 1867, MEW 31, pp. 299ff and 296–9 respectively, CW 42, pp. 259–62 and 370–4 respectively.
13.Marx’s question to Engels in a letter dated 24 Aug. 1867, MEW 31, p. 327, CW 42, pp. 407f.
14.Engels’s letter to Marx, 27 Apr. 1867, MEW 31, p. 292, CW 42, p. 362.
15.Engels’s review for Elberfelder Zeitung is reproduced in MEW 16, pp. 214f, CW 40, pp. 214f. Engels’s review in Rheinische Zeitung, MEW 16, pp. 210–13, CW 20, pp. 210–13. The quote, p. 213 in both.
16.The review intended for Fortnightly Review, ibid., pp. 288–309 and 238–59 respectively.
17.Dühring’s review of Capital was originally published in Eugen Dühring, Cursus der Philosophie als streng wissenschaftlicher Weltanschauung und Lebensgestaltung (Leipzig: Erich Koschny, 1867), pp. 182–6.
18.Marx’s letter to Engels, 8 Jan 1868, and to Kugelmann 11 Jan and 6 Mar 1868, MEW 32, pp. 9, 533, and 538 respectively, CW 42, 514, 522, and 543f respectively.
19.On Marx’s relationship to Russian populism, see Maximilien Rubel, ‘Karl Marx et le socialisme populiste russe,’ La revue socialiste (1947) and Henry Eaton, ‘Marx and the Russians,’ Journal of the History of Ideas (41/1, 1980). 1980 and above all Teodor Shanin, Late Marx and the Russian road: Marx and ‘The Peripheries of Capitalism’ (London, Melbourne, Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983). See further below, p. 572.
20.The statement of the Russian censors after Jacques Attali, Karl Marx ou l’esprit du monde (Paris: Fayard, 2005), p. 362f.
21.Marx’s letter to Danielson, 7 Oct 1868, MEW 32, p. 563, CW 43, p. 123ff.
22.The section ‘Ergänzungen und Veränderungen zum ersten Band des Kapitals’, which was prepared between December 1871 and January 1872, can be found in MEGA II/6, 1–54. The apparatus volume related to it provides additional detailed information. ‘Afterword to the Second German Edition’ on its greater scientific ‘strictness’, ibid., 700, CW 35, p. 12.
23.Marx on Roy’s translation efforts in a letter to his son-in-law Paul Lafargue, 21 Mar 1872; to the Russian translator Nikolai Frantsevich Danielson, 28 May 1872; to Friedrich Adolph Sorge, 21 Dec 1872; to Maurice Lechâtre, 12 May 1873; MEW 33, pp. 437, 477, 552 and 626 respectively, CW 44,347, 385, 460, and 495 respectively. Marx 1875, new critical edition in MEGA II/7. Engels did not include all Marx’s corrections, ibid., 12*. On the unique position of the French version, see Heinrich 2011, p. 160f.
24.On the new reading of Marx, see Werner Bonefeld and Michael Heinrich, Kapital und Kritik: nach der ‘neuen’ Marx-Lektüre (Hamburg: VSA:Verlag, 2011).
25.On use value, exchange value, and value, see the second edition of Capital, MEGA II/6, 69–113, CW 35, pp. 45–80. On sharpening the distinction between value and exchange value, see the editorial investigation, 27*, and Marx’s own ‘Ergänzungen und Veränderungen …’, 7 and passim. The otherwise very readable Johan Fornäs, Capitalism: A Companion to Marx’s Economic Critique (London and New York: Routledge, 2013) asserts that the distinction between exchange value and value is ‘slightly confusing’, which probably refers to the text of the first edition. Every misunderstanding is cleared away after Marx’s explanation in the second edition.
26.Adam Smith uses the term ‘productive force’ at the very beginning of The Wealth of Nations; Adam Smith, Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 13. The quote from Capital is from the English translation, CW 35, p. 50; the original is in MEW II/6, p. 74. It can be questioned whether the English translation of Produktivkraft with ‘productiveness’ is reasonable; Produktivkraft is, however, a specific, technical term in Marx as it was previously in Smith.
27.On commodity fetishism, MEGA II/6, pp. 102–113, CW 35, pp. 81–94; the quote 102 and 81f respectively. The account of commodity fetishism breaks stylistically from the section preceding it. No one has described this better than David Harvey. Marx was now writing in a literary style; his language is ‘metaphoric, imaginative, playful and emotive, full of allusions and references to magic, mysteries, and necromancies’. David Harvey, A Companion to Marx’s Capital (London and New York: Verso, 2010), p. 38.
28.The formula C–M–C, pp. 131 and 115 respectively, The linen, the Bible, and the whisky, pp. 135 and 120 respectively.
29.Marx’s definition of the machine, pp. 364f and 376f respectively.
30.The inevitable end of capitalism, pp. 683 and 751 respectively.
31.A detailed and competent account for the creation of Volume II is given in the MEGA edition, II/13, pp. 497–548 (apparatus volume). On the statement from 1864, p. 502.
32.Engels on Marx’s condition in the foreword, MEGA II/13, pp. 5ff, CW 36, pp. 7ff. The literature on Engels’s editing of Marx’s manuscripts included Carl-Erich Vollgraf and Jürgen Jungnickel, ‘Marx in Marx’ Worten? Zu Engels Edition des Hauptmanuskripts zum dritten Buch des ‘Kapitals,’ MEGA-Studien 1994/2, pp. 3–55; Michael Heinrich, Engels’ Edition of the Third Volume of ‘Capital and Marx’ Original Manuscript, Science and Society 60:4 (1996–97), pp. 452–66; Michael Krätke, ‘Das Marx-Engels-Problem: warum Engels das Marxsche Kapital nicht verfälscht hat’, Marx–Engels Jahrbuch (2006), pp. 142–70; and Ingo Elbe, ‘Die Beharrlichkeit des “Engelsismus”: Bemerkung- en zum Marx-Engels-Problem’, Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch (2007), pp. 92–105.
33.‘locate and describe’ in Marx’s manuscript, MEGA II/4.2, p. 7, MEW 25, p. 33, CW 37, p. 27.
34.‘Our present analysis …’, MEGA II/4.2, p. 251, MEW 25, p. 174, CW 37, p. 164.
35.‘the nature …’, ibid., 287, 223, and 211 respectively. The German original has Wesen, essence, and not Natur.
36.‘most external …’, ibid., pp. 461, 404, and 355 respectively.
37.The Trinity Formula, ibid., pp. 834ff, 822ff, and 801f respectively. Engels here wrote about Marx’s original text; to a great extent he abbreviated and simplified it, bringing it into closer harmony with Volume I.
38.Eric Hobsbawm, How to Change the World: Marx and Marxism, 1840–2011 (London: Little, Brown, 2011), pp. 179ff.
39.Eugen Böhm-Bawerk, ‘Zum Abschluss des Marxschen Systems’ (1896), in Eugen Böhm Bawerk, Gesammelte Schriften (Wien: Holder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1924).
40.On Hilferding’s life and work, see William Smaldone, Rudolf Hilferding: The Tragedy of a German Social Democrat (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1998). On the similarities between the concentration of wealth before 1914 and in the 2010s, see Thomas Piketty, Le Capital au XXIe siècle (Paris: Seuil, 2013), pp. 75ff and passim.
41.Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital, trans. by Agnes Schwarzschild (London: Macmillan & Kegan Paul, 1951).
42.V. I. Lenin, Imperialismen som kapitalismens högsta stadium (Göteborg: Proletärkultur, 1983). Rosa Luxemburg, Världskriget och de europeiska revolutionerna: Politiska skrifter i urval 1914–1919 (Lund: Arkiv, 1985), p. 83.
43.Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousnes: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, trans. by Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1967).
44.There is substantial literature on the Frankfurt School; Rolf Wiggershaus, Die Frankfurter Schule: Geschichte, Theoretische Entwicklung, Politische Bedeutung (München: Dt. Taschenbuch Verlag, 1997) and Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996) provide good introductions.
45.Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy, Monopolkapitalet (Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren, 1966).
46.Louis Althusser, Lire Le capital (Paris: Maspéro, 1966), second edition Louis Althusser and Étienne Balibar, Att läsa Kapitalet (Sta anstorp: Cavefors, 1970).
47.‘continent of history’, Louis Althusser, Filosofi från en revolutionär klasståndpunkt, Göran Therborn (ed.) (Lund: Caverfors, 1976), p. 56.
48.Examples of early capital-logic works are Helmut Reichelt, Zur logischen Struktur des Kapitalbegriffs bei Karl Marx (Frankfurt am Main: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1970) and Hans-Jørgen Schanz, Til rekonstruktionen af kritikken af d
en politiskeøkonomis omfangslogiske status (Aarhus: Modtryk, 1973).
49.On the movement in general, Ingo Elbe, Marx im Westen: die neue Marx-Lektüre in der Bundesrepublik seit 1965 (Berlin: Politische Ideen, 2010) and Werner Bonefeld and Michael Heinrich, Kapital und Krikik: nach der ‘neuen’ Marx-Lektüre (Hamburg: VSA: Verlag, 2011).
50.Hans-Georg Backhaus, Dialektik der Wertform. Untersuchungen zur Marxschen Ökonomierkritik (Freiburg im Breisgau: ça ira-Verlag, 1997). His own version of how die neue Marx-Lektüre arose and what characterizes it is presented in a longer introductory text, pp. 9–40. Reichelt summarizes his efforts even later in Helmut Reichelt, Neue Marx-Lektüre: zur Kritik sozialwissenschaftlicher Logik (Freiburg im Breisgau: ça ira, 2013).
51.Prokla was founded in 1970. Altvater has now left the Greens and gone over to Die Linke (The Left).
52.Michael Heinrich’s most important work is Die Wissenschaft vom Wert: Die Marxsche Kritik der politischen Ökonomie zwischen wissenschaftlicher Revolution und klassischer Tradition (Verlag Westphälisches Dampfboot, 2011). On the polemic with Backhaus/Reichelt, pp. 171f. On the particular level of theory in Marx, pp. 17f and passim. Heinrich’s most accessible exposition of the monetary theory is found in Michael Heinrich, An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital, trans. by Alexander Locascio (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004), pp. 180ff.
53.Hans-Georg Backhaus, ‘Materialen zur Rekonstruktion der Marxschen Werttheorie’, Gesellschaft: Beiträge zur Marxschen Theorie 3 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1975), p. 123.
54.Peter Ruben, ‘Über Methodologie und Weltanschauung der Kapitallogik’, Sopo 42 (1977), pp. 40–64.
A World to Win Page 82