Preface to Marx-Engels Collected Works Volume (30)

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Volumes 30 to 34 of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels contain Marx’s manuscript, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, written between August 1861 and July 1863. Consisting of 23 notebooks with on-going pagination (overall volume: about 1,472 large pages), the manuscript represents an important stage in the development of Marx’s economic theory. It investigates the economic laws governing the movement of capitalist production and brings out the content of the converted forms in which this movement is manifested on the surface of bourgeois society. It was through the critique of bourgeois political economy that Marx arrived at his discoveries, and this critique is presented in detail in the central section, Theories of Surplus Value.

In view of its great bulk the manuscript is published in five volumes. Volume 30 includes notebooks I to VII, comprising three sections of the chapter on the production process of capital and the beginning of the Theories of Surplus Value (pp. 1-210 and 220-99 of the manuscript).

Published in Volume 31 are notebooks VII to XII, which contain the continuation of the Theories of Surplus Value (pp. 300-636 of the manuscript).

Volume 32, corresponding to notebooks XII-XV, contains the conclusion of the Theories of Surplus Value (pp. 636-944 of the manuscript).

Volume 33 includes notebooks XV to XVIII, V (the closing part), XIX and XX (pp. 944-1157, 211-19, 1159-1251).

Volume 34 contains notebooks XX-XXIII (pp. 1251-1472 of the manuscript) and also the draft of the concluding part of Book I of Capital (Chapter Six. The Results of the Direct Process of Production).

The fundamentals of proletarian political economy were formulated in the late 1850s. In his economic manuscript of 1857-58 (see present edition, vols 28 and 29), which represents the first version of Capital, Marx revealed the inner mechanism of bourgeois society and showed that the development of capitalism’s contradictions was inevitably leading to its replacement by a more highly organised social system.

This conclusion followed from Marx’s theory of surplus value. By working out his economic doctrine he had turned the materialist conception of history, first formulated by him and Engels as early as the 1840s, from a hypothesis into “a scientifically proven proposition” (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1986, p. 142).

In 1859, Marx began to publish the results of his research in a work entitled A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Part One, which contained an exposition of his theory of value and theory of money. In this work, as Marx put it, “the specifically social, by no means absolute, character of bourgeois production is analysed straight away in its simplest form, that of the commodity” (present edition, Vol. 40, p. 473).

Marx originally intended to follow this first part with a second instalment, devoted to the analysis of capital, the dominant relation of production in bourgeois society. He characterised the second instalment as being “of crucial importance. It does, in fact, contain the pith of all the bourgeois stuff” (present edition, Vol. 40, p. 523).

Initially, the manuscript of 1861-63 was written as the direct continuation of Part One, under the same overall title, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, with the subtitle “Third Chapter. Capital in General”. Since it was, in effect, the second version of Capital, the manuscript of 1861-63 covered practically all the problems which Marx intended to deal with in his principal work. About half of it is taken up by the “Theories of Surplus Value”, described by Engels as a detailed critical history of the pith and marrow of political economy. The manuscript also works out the theory of productive and unproductive labour, and of the formal and real subsumption of labour under capital, and also many questions of the theory of crises which he never specifically discussed elsewhere. In the final version of Capital Marx confined himself to general conclusions, summing up the research into these problems which he had conducted in the present manuscript.

In the manuscript of 1861-63 Marx used the key propositions of his theory of value and surplus value, evolved in the 1850s, to continue his analysis of the relations between labour and capital, investigating a broad range of questions relating to the antagonistic contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, and the condition and struggle of the working class in bourgeois society.

In his study of the genesis of surplus value Marx demonstrated the correspondence between the process of capitalist exploitation—the production and appropriation of surplus value—and the law of value, of the exchange of equivalents. This constitutes one of his major theoretical achievements. “The economists have never been able to reconcile surplus value with the law of equivalence they themselves have postulated. The socialists have always held onto this contradiction and harped on it, instead of understanding the specific nature of this commodity, labour capacity, whose use value is itself the activity which creates exchange value” (Notebook I, p. 47). In the manuscript of 1857-58 Marx began the analysis of the commodity “labour power” (or, in his terminology of the 1850s and early 1860s, “labour capacity”). In the manuscript of 1861-63 he examines this specific commodity in a more detailed, indeed comprehensive manner.

To begin with, he reveals its distinctive feature—the capacity to create surplus value. Bourgeois economists treated the capitalist relations merely as relations of simple commodity owners confronting each other on the market, and regarded surplus value as deriving, in effect, from commercial fraud, from the violation of the principle of equal exchange between seller and buyer. Marx, in contrast, shows that the capitalist relation of production, far from being reducible to simple commodity-money relations, is their more developed form. “...The formation of the capitalrelation demonstrates from the outset that it can only enter the picture at a definite historical stage of the economic development of society—of the social relations of production and the productive forces. The capital-relation appears straight away as a historically determined economic relation, a relation that belongs to a definite historical period of economic development, of social production” (1-19). It is only at a definite stage of the economic development of society that the money owner finds on the market the worker deprived of all means of labour and possessing only one commodity for sale—his labour power. It was impossible to find out the source of surplus value without making a distinction between labour capacity and the labour process proper. Marx therefore stresses: the commodity offered by the worker is merely the potential possibility of labour, separated both from labour itself and from the conditions for its realisation.

Like any other commodity, it has use value and value. The use value consists in the fact that the consumption of this commodity, the process of its realisation, constitutes the process of labour itself. But since labour as such is a perennial condition of social life, the vulgar economists, seeking to prove that bourgeois society is an eternal, “natural” institution, treat capitalist production in terms of production in general. “...The apologists of capital confuse or identify it with a moment of the simple labour process as such” (1-33).

However, the process of capitalist production is not merely a process of labour, but simultaneously a process of the selfvalorisation of value. And here the value of the commodity “labour power”, the way it compares with the value newly created in the labour process, moves to the fore.

In substantiating his theory of surplus value, Marx attached extraordinary importance to determining the value magnitude of the commodity “labour power” (labour capacity) and of its monetary expression, wages. Bourgeois economists, beginning with the Physiocrats, had regarded the value of this commodity (they spoke of the “value of labour”) as an immutable magnitude independent of the stage of historical development. They put forward the theory of the “minimum wage”, maintaining that the magnitude of wages was determined by the value of a set of means of subsistence—given once and for all—that was necessary for the physical existence of the worker. In the manuscript of 1861-63, Marx for the first time demonstrated that this theory was untenable, and he was thereby enabled to justify the struggle of the working class for higher wages and a shorter working day.

Marx shows that “the extent of the so-called primary requirements for life and the manner of their satisfaction depend to a large degree on the level of civilisation of the society, are themselves the product of history” (1-22). Therefore determining the magnitude of wages, as well as of the value of “labour power”, is not simply a matter of determining the ultimate limit of physical necessity, although the capitalists do seek to reduce the value and price of labour power to the minimum. Hence the economic necessity for the working class to pursue an unrelenting struggle for higher wages and shorter working hours.

In the 1861-63 manuscript Marx not only demonstrated the need for such a struggle, but also the possibility of waging it. The minimum wage theory was itself a product of historical conditions. At a certain stage of development of bourgeois economic theory, Marx emphasised, it had served a useful purpose, for it made possible the realisation that surplus value was value created by the worker over and above the value of his labour power. It also helped Marx’s predecessors to establish that wage increases do not increase the value of commodities, but only reduce the capitalists’ rate of profit. The credit for drawing this important conclusion belongs to Ricardo, but it was Marx who provided the definitive proof. Marx also went beyond the inconsistent outlook of classical bourgeois political economy, which did allow that wage rises could cause commodity values to rise, for from Adam Smith on wages had been regarded as a constituent element of the value of commodities (see VI-263, 265). This mistaken premiss led to the mistaken conclusion that the workers’ struggle for higher wages was pointless since wage increases inevitably brought higher commodity prices in their wake.

Considerable space in the manuscript is taken up by the analysis of the capitalist mode of production in its historical development. For the first time, Marx examines in detail the essence and stages of the formal and real subsumption of labour under capital, with the production of absolute surplus value playing the dominant part at the first stage and of relative surplus value at the second.

At the first stage capital subjects the actual production process to itself only in form, without changing anything in its technological organisation. The salient feature of this stage is that the labour process and the worker himself are brought under the control, or command, of capital. Compared with the precapitalist modes of production only the nature of coercion changes. Direct, extraeconomic coercion is replaced by coercion based on the “free”, purely economic, relation between seller and buyer. The real subsumption of labour under capital results from the technological subordination of labour, the worker being unable to function as such outside the production process organised along capitalist lines.

Marx discusses in detail what he calls the transitional forms, which develop within the framework of the precapitalist formations and under which capital exploits labour even before it has assumed the form of productive capital, or labour has taken on the form of wage labour. He shows the role played by commercial and usurer’s capital in the transition to capitalist production and notes that the transitional forms are constantly reproduced within, and partly reproduced by, the bourgeois mode of production itself (XXI-1314).

Marx traces the genesis of the formal subsumption of labour under capital and describes the historical conditions that made possible the rise of capitalist relations, which supplant either slavery and serfdom, or the independent labour of peasants and artisans. While causing no change in the technical characteristics of the mode of production, the transition to capitalist exploitation within the framework of the formal subsumption of labour under capital increases the continuity and, hence, the intensity and productivity of labour. Moreover, it alters the very substance of relations between the exploiters and the exploited. The transformation of the serf or slave into a wage labourer appears here as a rise to a higher social stage. The changed relations make the activity of the free worker more intensive, more continuous, more agile and more skilful than that of the slave, not to mention the fact that they make him capable of entirely different historical action (XXI-1305).

At the same time, Marx points out that the formal subordination of labour, “the assumption of control over it by capital” (1-49), although historically preceding the actual subordination, which presupposes the establishment of the specifically capitalist mode of production, is fully retained at the stage of developed capitalism, as is its result, absolute surplus value. All the social strata which do not directly take part in material production live on the surplus labour of the workers, obtaining the material means of subsistence and the free time they need for carrying on some non-productive activity or just for idleness. The free time enjoyed by others means excessive labour for the workers. “The whole of civilisation and social development so far has been founded on this antagonism,” Marx writes in this manuscript (III-105).

Marx deployed a wealth of statistics, drawn above all from the reports of British factory inspectors, to demonstrate capital’s tendency to increase surplus labour beyond every limit. He presents an appalling picture of capitalist exploitation. Excessive labour at the early stages of bourgeois society, within the framework of the production of absolute surplus value, reduces the period of the normal functioning of labour power, accelerates the “destruction” of its value, which is a violation of the normal conditions under which the worker sells his labour capacity. Marx describes the historically conditioned task that is being accomplished by the capitalist mode of production and defines the place capitalism holds in preparing the premisses for the society of the future. He writes (the text here is in English): “The capitalistic production is ... most economical of realised labour.... It is a greater spendthrift than any other mode of production of man, of living labour, spendthrift not only of flesh and blood and muscles, but of brains and nerves. It is, in fact, only at the greatest waste of individual development that the development of general men is secured in those epochs of history which prelude to a socialist constitution of mankind” (II-92).

Capitalist production has a direct stake in extracting excessive labour from the working class, and only the resistance of organised workers can counteract the realisation of capital’s boundless claims. The isolated efforts of individual workers can do nothing to curb this exorbitant lust for surplus labour. What is required is resistance from the working class as a whole. Marx stresses that the workers in themselves—unless they act as a class upon the state, and, through the state, upon capital—are unable to save from the predatory claws of capital even what leisure is needed for their physical survival (XX-1283).

He analyses the working-class struggle which led to the legal limitation of the working day in Britain and a number of other European countries. He notes that, although the relevant laws not infrequently became a dead letter, this process as a whole had an extremely beneficial effect in improving the physical, moral and intellectual condition of the working classes in England, as the statistics demonstrate (V-219).

The formal subsumption of labour under capital, and, corresponding to this, the production of absolute surplus value—while of course constituting the basis of the capitalist relation, of capital’s command over labour—sets very narrow limits to the development of the capitalist mode of production. In this connection Marx emphasises that “only in the course of its development does capital not only formally subsume the labour process but transform it, give the very mode of production a new shape and thus first create the mode of production peculiar to it” (1-49). This point highlights the importance of Marx’s theory of the formal and real subsumption of labour under capital for further developing and concretising the materialist conception of history: the active role played by the capitalist production relation in changing the mode of production is used here as an example demonstrating the powerful retroactive effect of the production relations on the development of the productive forces.

In his analysis of the real subsumption of labour under capital, Marx stresses the growing dominance of things, of material wealth, over the individual under capitalist conditions. The creation of great wealth existing in the form of things appears as the end, to which the labour capacities are merely the means, an end which is only attained by these capacities themselves being turned into something one-sided and dehumanised (XXI-1319). At the same time, in describing the formal and real subsumption of labour under capital, the production of absolute and relative surplus value respectively, he notes that it is the tendency of capital to develop surplus value simultaneously in both forms (XX-1283).

But the resistance of the working class sets certain limits to the growth of surplus value obtained through lengthening the working day, in other words to the production of absolute surplus value. Apart from this, there is also a purely physical barrier to this lengthening. The capitalist class seeks to overcome these limits by developing the productive forces, i.e. by raising the productivity of labour, thus ensuring the growth of relative surplus value. The volume of the means of subsistence consumed by the worker may increase in the process, though their value declines. The possible improvement of the worker’s living conditions, Marx points out, “in no way alters the nature and the law of relative surplus value—that a greater part of the working day is appropriated by capital as a result of rises in productivity. Hence the preposterousness of wanting to refute this law by statistical demonstrations that the material condition of the worker has improved here or there, in this or that aspect, as a result of the development of the productive power of labour” (IV-140/141).

In the manuscript of 1861-63 Marx, for the first time ever, analyses in detail three successive stages in the growth of labour productivity within the framework of the capitalist mode of production, stages which he calls “Cooperation”, “Division of Labour” and “Machinery. Utilisation of the Forces of Nature and of Science”. They represent, simultaneously, three stages in the development of the real subsumption of labour under capital and hence in the intensification of capitalist exploitation.

Cooperation, the joint action of many workers to achieve a common result, while constituting a special historical stage in the development of capitalism, is also “the general form on which all social arrangements for increasing the productivity of social labour are based” (IV-143). Cooperation makes labour more efficient. The sphere of its action is expanded, the time required to obtain a certain result is reduced, and such a development of the productive power of labour is achieved as is absolutely beyond the reach of the isolated worker. To the extent that cooperation reduces necessary labour time, it increases the relative surplus value appropriated by the capitalist for nothing. In this sense, “cooperation, which is a productive power of social labour, appears as a productive power of capital, not of labour” (IV-146). A “displacement” of this kind occurs in respect of all the productive forces of bourgeois society; what takes place here is “a process of divestiture of labour, of alienation, whereby its own social forms are presented as alien powers” (V-184).

Under the conditions of capitalist cooperation, when the interconnection of workers is a relation alien to them, there emerges a specific kind of labour, the labour of supervision. The function of directing labour is an objective necessity where there is concentration of workers, but the form which the direction of the labour process is bound to take “in conditions of association”, says Marx, has nothing in common with the command of labour under capitalism.

The division of labour in capitalist manufactories is characterised by Marx as a developed form of cooperation, highly effective in raising productivity and increasing relative surplus value. The manufactory division of labour develops on the basis of the social division of labour, the latter giving rise to commodity exchange, and represents the cooperation of specialised, “partial” kinds of labour to produce a single use value. In the manuscript of 1861-63 Marx investigates in detail the interaction of the two types of division of labour and notes, in this context, that the division of labour “is in a certain respect the category of categories of political economy” (IV-151). The division of labour within society corresponds to commodity relations in general, that within production is a specifically capitalist form. The fact that the two principal types of division of labour condition each other—this was discovered by Marx—implied that “the general laws formulated in respect of the commodity ... first come to be realised with the development of capitalist production, i.e. of capital”, and “only on the basis of capital, of capitalist production, does the commodity in fact become the general elementary form of wealth” (V-185).

Historically, the division of labour within the process of capitalist production “presupposes manufacture, as a specific mode of production” (IV-151). Manufacture, which initially consisted in the bringing together of workers producing one and the same commodity and the concentration of the means of labour in one workshop, under the direction of the capitalist, contained all the prerequisites for the development, within it, of the division of labour and hence for the growth of labour productivity. This, precisely, gave capital a decisive advantage over patriarchal guild-based production. Marx demonstrates that, contrary to the assertions of bourgeois economists, capitalist manufacture was characterised not by the distribution of the different kinds of labour among the workers, but, conversely, by the distribution of the workers among the different labour processes, “each of which becomes the exclusive life-process of one of them” (IV-158). The obverse of this distribution is the combination of labour in manufacture. The workers are merely “the building blocks” of this combination and they are entirely dependent on the mechanism as a whole.

In discussing the genesis of manufacture, Marx makes an important methodological remark: Just as in the case of the succession of the different geological formations, so also in that of the rise of the different socio-economic formations, one should not think in terms of periods which suddenly occur, or are sharply divided off from each other (XIX-1199). Marx draws attention to the fact that such important inventions as that of gunpowder, the compass, or printing were made in the craft period of bourgeois society. The general law, operating at all stages, is that the material prerequisites for the -subsequent form are created within the preceding one—both the technological conditions and the corresponding economic structure of the factory (XIX-1199).

Marx discusses the differentiation and specialisation of the instruments of labour as the technological prerequisites of machine production. He regards the dispute about the distinction between tool and machine as purely scholastic and shows that what is required is such a revolution in the means of labour employed as transforms the mode of production and therefore also the relations of production (XIX-1160). The industrial revolution affects first the working parts of the machine, then its motive force. This second process, the employment of the steam engine as a machine producing motion, is described by Marx as the second revolution (XIX-1162).

Characteristic of large-scale machine production is the massive application by capital of the forces of nature and science. Earlier, in his manuscript of 1857-58, Marx noted the tendency to turn science into a direct productive force. Now he concretises this important proposition by pointing out that capitalist production for the first time turns the material process of production into the application of science to production—science introduced into practice (XX-1265). This process is manifested in the creation of social productive forces of labour, above all machinery and automatic factories, which embody the achievements of science, but are appropriated by capital and utilised by it alone. There takes place an exploitation of science, of the theoretical progress of mankind (XX-1262). Moreover, capital turns science, as a social productive force, against the workers. Science appears as an alien force, hostile to labour and ruling over it (XX-1262).

The mode of production based on the application of machinery finds its classical expression in the automatic factory. The automatic factory is the perfected mode of production corresponding to machinery, and it is the more perfected the more complete a system of mechanisms it constitutes and the fewer individual processes still need to be mediated by human labour (XIX-1237).

Considerable space in the section on machinery is devoted to the prerequisites for and effects of the capitalist application of machines. As with any advance in the productive forces taking place on the basis of capitalism, the introduction of machinery aims above all at reducing the paid part of the working day and lengthening the unpaid part, i.e. increasing surplus labour time. Therefore, as Marx shows, the introduction of new machines requires, first and foremost, concentration of the conditions of labour and their joint, hence more economical, employment by the associated workers. Only owing to this can they be used in such a way that their higher efficiency in the labour process is accompanied by lower expenses (XIX-1235). Marx discusses the tendency of machine production to combine originally independent branches and turn them into a continuous system of production. His detailed statistical analysis of spinning and weaving, based on factory reports, led him to conclude that combined enterprises are characterised by a higher degree of concentration of production, more intensive use of energy and more economical employment of labour power.

The absolute or relative lengthening of labour time is an objective tendency of machine production. This tendency, the capitalist’s striving to speed up the replacement of the fixed capital and ensure its uninterrupted functioning, is manifested in the introduction of night work and the intensification, “condensation”, of labour. In the manuscript of 1861-63 Marx brings out the dual impact of the capitalist intensification of labour on the condition of the working class. He points to the link between the legal introduction of the ten-hour working day in Britain and the subsequent technological progress which raised the intensity of labour. The great expansion in industrial production which resulted was enforced by the external limit which legislation set to the exploitation of the workers (V-218). This limit did not cause the profits of the British manufacturers to decline. At the same time, Marx shows that at every given stage of the development of production the intensification of labour comes up against objective limits.

One of the most important effects of technological progress is the replacement of manual labour by machinery and the ousting of workers from production proper. Marx draws attention to the tendency of the industrial proletariat to decline in relative terms, although, as he points out, its absolute numbers grow. “Although the number of workers grows absolutely, it declines relatively, not only in proportion to the constant capital which absorbs their labour, but also in proportion to the part of society not directly involved in material production or indeed engaged in no kind of production whatsoever” (V-179). The capitalist employment of machinery thus objectively results in a new stage in the development of the real subsumption of labour under capital. Only when this stage has been reached, does the formation of a superfluity of workers become a pronounced and deliberate tendency operating on a large scale (XX-1257). The antagonistic contradiction between labour and capital reaches its highest expression here, because capital now appears not only as a means of depreciating living labour capacity but also of rendering it superfluous (XX-1259). At the same time Marx points to the opposite tendency of machine production—the constant enlistment of fresh workers, the expansion of the sphere of exploitation.

The manuscript of 1861-63 deals at considerable length with the problem of productive and unproductive labour in capitalist society. Marx notes that to work out a criterion of productive labour means to develop and concretise the basic propositions of the theory of surplus value. “Productive labour is only a concise term for the whole relationship and the form and manner in which labour capacity figures in the capitalist production process. The distinction from other kinds of labour is however of the greatest importance since this distinction expresses precisely the specific form of the labour on which the whole capitalist mode of production and capital itself is based” (XXI-1322). “Productive labour is therefore—in the system of capitalist production—labour which produces surplus value for its employer, or which transforms the objective conditions of labour into capital and their owner into a capitalist” (XXI-1322).

The concept of productive labour is therefore socially conditioned. Marx points out, with reference to bourgeois society, that one and the same kind of labour may be productive if organised along capitalist lines, and unproductive if it merely serves to satisfy the requirements of the working individual. “A singer who sells her singing for her own account is an unproductive labourer. But the same singer commissioned by an entrepreneur to sing in order to make money for him is a productive labourer; for she produces capital” (XXI-1324).

Defining productive labour as labour producing surplus value implies recognition of the fact that what matters under the capitalist mode of production is not labour productivity as such, but only the relative growth of labour productivity—growth of the rate and volume of surplus value. From the viewpoint of the capitalist, all of the workers’ necessary labour is therefore unproductive labour. Speaking of the class of productive workers itself, “the labour which they perform for themselves appears as ‘unproductive labour’” (VII-309).

But as well as defining productive labour in terms of capitalist production, Marx also defines it as labour realised in commodities, in material wealth. This definition proceeds from the material content of the process of social production. Marx considered a twofold definition essential because labour in material production must be distinguished from any other kind of labour. “This difference must be kept in mind and the fact that all other kinds of activity influence material production and vice versa in no way affects the necessity for making this distinction” (XVIII-1145).

The theory of productive labour enables Marx to draw a number of important conclusions about the position of the working class in bourgeois society. Above all, he shows that the growth of labour productivity logically leads to a relative decline in the number of those employed in material production. “A country is the richer the smaller its productive population is relatively to the total product...” (IX-377). Here we see a further advance in the theory of scientific socialism. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party (see present edition, Vol. 6, p. 494) Marx and Engels wrote that as bourgeois production develops “the other classes decay and finally disappear”. Now Marx, proceeding from his comprehensive analysis of the capitalist mode of production, in particular from his investigation of the production of relative surplus value, demonstrates that there is an objective basis for the “longevity” of the intermediate strata under capitalism. The relative decrease in the number of industrial workers leads to the growth of the non-productive sphere, the proletarianisation of some sections of the productive classes, an increase in the intermediate strata standing between worker and capitalist. Marx speaks of “the constantly growing number of the middle classes, those who stand between the workman on the one hand and the capitalist and landlord on the other. The middle classes maintain themselves to an ever increasing extent directly out of revenue, they are a burden weighing heavily on the working base and increase the social security and power of the upper ten thousand” (XIII-746).

In analysing productive labour, Marx also draws the important conclusion that the capitalist mode of production artificially divides mental and physical labour. On the other hand, as capitalism develops the material product increasingly becomes the fruit of the efforts of representatives of both kinds of labour. People engaged in either kind now appear as wage labourers in relation to capital (see XXI-1330). Here, therefore, Marx registers an expansion of the scope of wage labour and the sphere of material production. Included among the productive workers are now “all those who contribute in one way or another to the production of the commodity, from the actual operative to the manager or engineer (as distinct from the capitalist)” (VII-303).

In the course of his critical analysis of Ricardo’s theory of accumulation in the manuscript of 1861-63, Marx works out his own theory of reproduction and, based on it, his conception of economic crises under capitalism. In contrast to the classical bourgeois political economists, who focussed on the surplus product and failed to give due attention to constant capital, he put the replacement of constant capital in the centre of his theory of reproduction. Marx asserts that there is a portion of the aggregate product which is not reducible to income (Smith and other economists held t*hat all of the product was income) and which can only be consumed productively. In this manuscript Marx put forward, for the first time ever, a proposition of supreme importance for the theory of reproduction: that the product must be replaced in two senses, in line with the two basic aspects of the reproduction process—it must be replaced in value and in its natural form (VI-272). He also considered in detail the division of social production—and, correspondingly, of the social product— into two basic categories according to the natural form of the product: the production of means of production, and the production of objects for consumption (XIV-855/856). His detailed analysis of the theory of reproduction enabled Marx to draw a whole series of important conclusions on the nature of crises under capitalism.

Earlier on, in the economic manuscripts of 1857-58, Marx pointed out that even the simplest economic relation, the act of sale and purchase, contained the abstract possibility of crises. However, the theory of economic crises demonstrating the inevitably cyclical development of capitalism can only be derived, as Marx stressed in the manuscript of 1861-63, “from the real movement of capitalist production, competition and credit” (XIII-715). In considering the problem of capitalist crises one can no longer proceed, e.g., from the assumption that all commodities are sold at their value. A specific analysis of the capitalist economy is required here.

Marx showed that the Ricardians’ denial of the possibility of overproduction was to a considerable extent due to a failure to understand “the actual composition of society”. In this connection he notes that bourgeois society “by no means consists only of two classes, workers and industrial capitalists”, and that “therefore consumers and producers are not identical categories” in it (XIII-704). At the same time, he demonstrates further on that bourgeois political economy seeks to abstract from the contradictions of capitalist production by presenting it as production for the sake of consumption and treating the various moments of capitalist reproduction as forming a unity. It ignores their antagonistic nature and turns a blind eye to the real disproportions of capitalist production. Bourgeois economists identify the capitalist mode of production either with simple commodity production or with the fiction of a harmoniously developing system of production, i.e. they regard capitalism “as social production, implying that society, as if according to a plan, distributes its means of production and productive forces in the degree and measure which is required for the fulfilment of the various social needs” (XIII-722). Since they treat capitalism as an eternal, absolute mode of production, bourgeois economists speak of production in general, of consumption in general, of the limitless nature of human needs, etc. In reality, however, it is essential to consider needs backed by money, and their level is artificially kept down. Overproduction “is only concerned with demand that is backed by ability to pay. It is not a question of absolute overproduction” (XIII-712). In the context of capitalist society it is not a matter of overproduction seen in relation to absolute needs, but of relative overproduction—in relation to effective demand. As far as satisfaction of the vital needs of the working people is concerned, “on the basis of capitalist production, there is constant underproduction in this sense” (XIII-721).

Without undertaking to give, at this stage, a comprehensive theory or picture of actual crises, Marx does use his preceding analysis to characterise the general conditions under which overproduction precipitates a crisis. He links them to the objective laws of capitalist reproduction. The general form of the movement of capital, M—C—M’, is the form in which reproduction takes place under capitalism. Any disturbance in the conditions of reproduction involves an interruption in the normal functioning of capital. Just as in Marx’s theory of reproduction, so also in his views on crises does a special place belong to constant capital, which forms the link between different branches of capitalist production. The close interlinking of the reproduction processes of individual capitals forms the specific “connection between the mutual claims and obligations, the sales and purchases, through which the possibility [of a crisis] can develop into actuality” (XIII-715).

The replacement of the capital advanced, both in its natural form and in value, is one of the principal conditions of reproduction. The fluctuations of market prices—whether upward or downward—upset the hitherto existing ratio between the magnitudes of the money expression of value and use value in the reproduction process of capital, and therefore lead to complications in this process and, as a result, to crises.

In the manuscript of 1861-63 considerable attention is given to the specific forms of manifestation of value and surplus value. An analysis of the inner structure of the capitalist mode of production would be incomplete if it failed to give the derivation of the converted forms in which capitalism’s intrinsic categories figure on the surface of capitalist society. At the end of 1861, parallel with his investigation into the production of relative surplus value, Marx began writing the section “Capital and Profit”, in which the analysis of the capitalist mode of production was to be completed by stating the form in which the general law of capitalist production, the law of surplus value, is manifested. In this section, too, Marx took an important step forward compared with the manuscripts of 1857-58.

Already in that earlier manuscript, the first version of Capital, Marx showed, in general terms, that profit as a converted form of surplus value appears as the immediate regulator of capitalist production. In the manuscript of 1861-63 he formulates this more closely, stating that the real embodiment of this regulator is average profit and the average rate of profit. Empirical or average profit, therefore, can only be the distribution of the total profit (and the total surplus value, or total surplus labour, represented by it) among the individual capitals in each individual sphere of production at equal rates or, which is the same thing, according to the difference in the magnitude of the capitals rather than in the proportion in which they directly represent the production of this total profit (XVI-992). Although Marx initially did not propose to consider the actual mechanism of calculating average profit, he wrote, even then, that one agency by which this calculation is brought about is the competition of capitals among themselves (XVI-992). The effect of competition, he wrote, was also manifest in the fact that the intrinsic laws of capitalist production appeared on the surface in a distorted form. Hence the vulgar economists’ tendency to describe capitalist relations in the form in which they appear in competition. Marx makes the trenchant observation that vulgar political economy explains everything it does not understand by competition. In other words, to express a phenomenon in its most superficial form means the same to it as uncovering its laws (XVI-994).

In this part of the manuscript, Marx develops his views, first formulated in the manuscripts of 1857-58, on the factors behind the law that as capitalist production progresses the rate of profit has a tendency to decline, and the way this law operates (XVI-999). Bourgeois political economy was unable to explain the decline in the rate of profit it predicted. Marx provided the solution by pointing to changes in the organic composition of capital, i.e. in the ratio of constant capital to variable, changes brought about by technological progress and the growth of fixed capital.

The analysis of this law, the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, shows that capitalism is conditioned historically and is historically transient. The development of the productive forces of social labour is the historical task and justification of capital. It is precisely by doing this that it unconsciously creates the material conditions for a higher mode of production. On the other hand, it is precisely with the development of the productive forces that profit—the stimulus of capitalist production and also the condition for and urge to accumulation—is endangered by the very law which governs the development of production. Displayed in this in a purely economic way, from the standpoint of capitalist production itself, is its limit, its relativity, the fact that it is not an absolute but merely a historical mode of production, one corresponding to a definite limited period in the development of the material conditions of production (XVI-1006).

Originally Marx did not intend to consider the conversion of value into the price of production in detail, but in the course of his polemic against Rodbertus in the Theories of Surplus Value on the theoretical basis of the possibility of absolute rent he came to the conclusion that this problem had to be considered already at this stage, along with the problem of rent in general—as an illustration of “the difference between value and price of production” (XVIII-1139). For the very question as to whether absolute rent was at all possible could not be answered without bringing out the general laws of the capitalist mode of production, on the one hand, and demonstrating the untenability of the notions bourgeois political economy held on the matter, on the other.

Marx shows that classical political economy in the persons of Adam Smith and David Ricardo made it appear that the competition among capitals, by evening up the rate of profit, caused commodities to be sold at their value. Proceeding from this Ricardo concluded that absolute rent was impossible. But the differences in the organic composition of capital and other specific factors operating in different spheres of production, on the contrary, ought to have suggested to the bourgeois economists that competition brings about a general rate of profit “by converting the values of the commodities into average prices, in which a part of surplus value is transferred from one commodity to another” (X-451). Marx traces the modification of the law of value into the law of the price of production under the impact of two kinds of competition.

The first kind takes place within a given sphere of production and brings about a uniform market value for the given kind of commodity. “Thus competition, partly among the capitalists themselves, partly between them and the buyers of the commodity and partly among the latter themselves, brings it about here that the value of each individual commodity in a particular sphere of production is determined by the total mass of social labour time required by the total mass of the commodities of this particular sphere of social production and not by the individual values of the separate commodities or the labour time the individual commodity has cost its particular producer and seller” (XI-544).

The second kind of competition takes place between the different branches of production and leads to the evening up of the different rates of profit in the different branches, resulting in a general or average rate of profit, and to the transformation of the market value into the price of production, according to which the total surplus value is divided. “The capitalists, like hostile brothers, divide among themselves the loot of other people’s labour which they have appropriated so that on an average one receives the same amount of unpaid labour as another” (X-451). In this way Marx’s critique advances beyond the view held by Smith and Ricardo that value and price of production are identical and shows that they were unable to explain the apparent contradiction between the determination of the value of the commodity by the labour expended, and the reality of capitalism expressed in the fact that equal capitals yield equal profit. Ricardo, says Marx, “did not understand the genesis of the general rate of profit” (XIV-846), hence his erroneous conception. In connection with this analysis Marx emphasises a basic methodological proposition of his theory, the need for introducing the mediating links, which make it possible to resolve the apparent contradiction between the universal and the converted, superficial forms of existence of value and surplus value. In this connection he discusses the difference between surplus value and profit (and, accordingly, the difference between the rate of surplus value and the rate of profit), the determination of the organic composition of capital in different branches of production and, lastly, the mechanism by which the various rates of profit are evened up in the average profit. It was by thus concretising his theoretical investigation that Marx obtained confirmation of the thesis that the price of production “can be comprehended only on the basis of value and its laws, and becomes a meaningless absurdity without that premiss” (XIV-789).

It was, furthermore, this analysis of the conversion of value into the price of production which enabled Marx to discuss more concretely the converted forms of surplus value—rent and interest, and also commercial profit.

His solution of the problem of rent is based on the difference between the organic composition of capital in industry and that in agriculture, and on the monopoly of private property in land as the real relation that sets limits to the freedom of competition. He points out that there existed, in the nineteenth century, a historically evolved difference in the ratio between the component parts of capital in industry and agriculture, so that the surplus value produced in agriculture exceeded the average rate of surplus value obtained in industry. But owing to the monopoly of private property in land, value here is not converted into the price of production. Landed property fixes the excess surplus value in the form of absolute rent. In contrast to certain bourgeois political economists who sought to explain absolute rent exclusively by the sale of agricultural products above their value, Marx demonstrated that absolute rent was possible on the basis of the law of value. Moreover, he was able, in the context of the problem of market value, to give a more detailed theoretical justification for differential rent and to demonstrate the limitations of Ricardo’s theory of rent. He points to Ricardo’s one-sided understanding of the formation of market value in agriculture and stresses that the law under which “the market value cannot be above the individual value of that product which is produced under the worst conditions of production but provides a part of the necessary supply, Ricardo distorts into the assertion that the market value cannot fall below the value of that product and must therefore always be determined by it” (XI-580). Thus the theory of rent, as set forth in the manuscript of 1861-63, further substantiates and concretises the theory of average profit and the price of production.

By way of expanding his theory of the average rate of profit and the price of production Marx, in the manuscript of 1861-63, for the first time considers such converted forms of surplus value as commercial profit and interest, giving a detailed analysis of commercial and loan capital. He examines these two special forms of capital from the historical angle, tracing their rise in the course of development of money circulation and discussing the transformation of merchant’s capital into commercial capital, and of usurer’s capital into loan capital. He shows the part these “antediluvian” forms played in history and demonstrates that, once the capitalist mode of production has developed, commercial and money capital are merely forms of productive capital which operate in the sphere of circulation, and their specific functions should be explained by the form of the commodity’s metamorphosis, hence by the movements of the form which are peculiar to circulation as such (XV-960). But the changes of form accompanying the sale and purchase of commodities, though admittedly involving an expenditure of labour time, create no surplus value for the capital employed in the sphere of circulation. Where, then, does the profit of the commercial and money capitalist come from? The predominant view in bourgeois political economy was that commercial profit derived simply from a surcharge on the value of the commodity. In contrast to this view Marx, in the manuscript of 1861-63, for the first time explains commercial profit and interest by the law of value and the law of surplus value. Commercial capital as such creates neither value nor surplus value. But it reduces circulation time and thereby helps productive capital in the creation of surplus value. The merchant’s participation, alongside productive capital, in the reproduction of the commodity entitles him to share in the total surplus value and to receive the average rate of profit in the form of commercial profit, even though he is not immediately involved in its production.

In the manuscript of 1861-63 Marx also discusses, likewise for the first time, the difference between wage workers in commerce and workers employed directly in the sphere of material production. He takes as his point of departure the distinction between the sphere of direct production and that of reproduction as a whole: The clerk’s relation to the direct reproduction of alien wealth is the same as the worker’s relation to its direct production. His labour, like the worker’s, is only a means for the reproduction of capital as the power ruling over him, and just as the worker creates surplus value, the clerk helps to realise it, both doing so not for themselves but for capital (XVII-1033).

In his further analysis of the movement of capital, Marx traces the process by which interest becomes established as a special form of surplus value. The separation of interest-bearing capital from industrial capital “is a necessary product of the development of industrial capital, of the capitalist mode of production itself” (XV-902). At the same time, the separation of interest is conditioned by the fact that money appears now as a converted form of capital. Money assumes the property of being directly representative of capital and in this form becomes the specific source of interest as the money capitalist’s revenue. Parallel with this, wages and rent acquire independent existence as the two other basic forms of revenue. Marx emphasises that this is an objective process. “This assumption of independent forms by the various parts [of surplus value] — and their confrontation as independent forms—is completed as a result of each of these parts being related to a particular element as its measure and its special source...” (XV-912). In this way the connection with the inner processes of capitalist production is completely mystified.

The results of this process—interest, profit, every form of revenue in general—increasingly appear as its conditions, both with respect to the individual capital and capitalist production as a whole. The separation of the specific forms of surplus value turns the antagonism of the worker-capitalist relation into its exact opposite, the “harmony of interests” proclaimed by the vulgar economists. As a result, the agents of capitalist production appear on the surface of bourgeois society, and also in the notions of bourgeois apologists, as mutually indifferent and neutral persons, and therefore, Marx points out, the impression arises that “they do not stand in any hostile connection to one another because they have no inner connection whatsoever” (XV-922).

This phenomenon of bourgeois thinking exists not merely in theory, it reflects actual processes at work in capitalist production when its results — the various forms of surplus value—become ossified and fixed as its premisses. In the everyday consciousness of the capitalist and in his practical activity they are such in reality, too, since rent and interest appear to him as portions of the production costs which he has advanced. As Marx points out, to the vulgar economist, to whom the mediating links in the analysis of the production and circulation of capital do not exist and who proceeds from these ossified forms of surplus value, it is quite “obvious” that each part of surplus value derives from a different source based on its own material elements.

Marx concludes his theoretical examination of the capitalist mode of production with a discussion of the process of reproduction in the shape of revenues and their sources, thus taking his analysis up to the forms in which the capitalist relations of production appear on the surface, divorced from the concealed and completely mystified inner connection.

The manuscript of 1861-63 is significant in another way, too: in it, for the first time, Marx provides a comprehensive presentation of the history of bourgeois political economy. Above all, he traces the evolution of views on surplus value, the central concept of economic theory. As he critically analyses the reflection of capitalist production relations in the minds and theories of bourgeois economists, he arrives at a complete conception of bourgeois production.

Two features characterise Marx’s research into the history of bourgeois views on capitalist production. First, he shows that they are conditioned by the level of development of the society’s productive forces and of class antagonisms, and he lays bare the class nature of the various economic concepts, showing the material interests of the ruling classes of capitalist society that underlie them. Second, he shows the methodological roots of these economic theories and consistently demonstrates how the advantages and disadvantages of the method used by individual bourgeois economists affect their arguments.

Marx’s conclusions are corroborated by the whole history of bourgeois economic science. He determines the place and role of a given economist in the history of economic thought by the degree of adequacy with which his views reflected the economic realities of his age. From this angle, Marx studies the entire history of bourgeois political economy, from its birth (mercantilism), through its classical period (the Physiocrats, Adam Smith and David Ricardo), and up to its decline (the disintegration of the Ricardian school, and vulgar political economy).

In considering the mercantilists Marx discovers that their views were conditioned by the initial period in the development of the capitalist mode of production, the period of the primitive accumulation of capital. They expressed “the standpoint of emerging capitalist society, to which what matters is exchange value, not use value; wealth, not enjoyment” (IX-400). Not fortuitously, it was in the heyday of merchant’s and usurer’s capital that mercantilism’s principal proposition was put forward: that wealth as such is money. The notion that surplus value derived from circulation was based on a whole series of contemporary economic realities. At the same time, the views of the spokesmen of the nascent bourgeoisie were clearly coloured by their class affiliation. For instance, the polemic waged by some seventeenth-century English economists against interest as an independent form of surplus value “reflects the struggle of the rising industrial bourgeoisie against the old-fashioned usurers, who monopolised the pecuniary resources at that time” (XV-899).

The Physiocrats’ view that agricultural labour was the only productive kind of labour stemmed, Marx says, from the preponderance of farming in the French economy. The limitations of their outlook, expressed in their overestimation of agricultural production, led them to proclaim Nature the ultimate source of surplus value.

In contrast to the Physiocrats, Adam Smith’s theoretical system reflects the industrial stage in the development of capitalism in Britain, the stage of manufacture proper. The antagonistic contradictions inherent in bourgeois production being as yet undeveloped, he was able to advance, from the position of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, “the view that the capitalist mode of production is the most productive mode (which it absolutely is, in comparison with previous forms)” (VIII-357). On the other hand, it was precisely because the social productive forces were as yet inadequately developed that Adam Smith held the Physiocratic view of agricultural labour as being the most productive. With him political economy for the first time becomes a comprehensive system. Bourgeois production appears in it in a dual shape—in its concealed inner structure and in its superficial aspect, in which the intrinsic connection of the categories is manifested in the phenomena of competition. This feature of Adam Smith’s method, Marx notes, makes ^ possible to vulgarise his theory—fully to divorce one mode of presentation from the other. To a certain extent, this was indeed the case with Adam Smith himself, for his examination of the inner physiology of bourgeois society and his description of the external phenomena of its life “proceed independently of one another” (XI-524).

David Ricardo was the central figure of the classical school of bourgeois political economy. His theory strikingly displays the furthest point a scientist moving within the scope of the bourgeois outlook is capable of attaining in the study of economic reality. The historical limitations of bourgeois science as the ideology of a particular exploiting class are also plain in Ricardo’s theory. As a witness of an increasingly accelerated growth of large-scale industry, Ricardo glorifies the development of the productive forces of his age and regards their capitalist form as most fully corresponding to the needs of this development. “Ricardo’s conception,” Marx wrote, “is, on the whole, in the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie, only because, and in so far as, its interests coincide with those of production or the productive development of human labour. Where the bourgeoisie comes into conflict with this, he is just as ruthless towards it as he is at other times towards the proletariat and the aristocracy” (XI-497). Ricardo considers that this development is expressed in the growth of society’s wealth, the rise of its value, and he therefore concerns himself, among other things, with the question of how the value that has been created is distributed among the different classes.

Ricardo’s merit, Marx says, is that, in discussing distribution, he analyses the inner structure of capitalist production, that he “exposes and describes the economic antagonism of classes—as shown by the intrinsic nexus—and that consequently political economy perceives, discovers the root of the historical struggle and development” (XI-525). However, Ricardo’s class narrowness is immediately revealed at this point: he considers the antagonism of labour and capital in bourgeois society a natural relation. To him the capitalist organisation of production is its only true organisation. “Ricardo regards bourgeois, or more precisely,

capitalist production as the absolute form of production, whose specific forms of production relations can therefore never enter into contradiction with...the aim of production...“ (XIV-775). Attempts to overcome this narrowness to a certain extent were made, on the one hand, by Sir George Ramsay, Antoine Cherbuliez and Richard Jones, Ricardo’s bourgeois followers, who declared “the capitalist form of production, and consequently capital, to be not an absolute, but merely an ‘accidental’, historical condition of production“ (XVIII-1087), and, on the other hand, by the Ricardian socialists who concluded from his theory that “the capitalist as functionary of production has become just as superfluous to the workers as the landlord appears to the capitalist with regard to bourgeois production“ (XV-919). But both groups remained the prisoners of bourgeois narrow-mindedness. Marx demonstrated this specifically when discussing the views of Ricardo’s proletarian opponents, who said,”’We need capital, but not the capitalists’” (XV-878).

In analysing the history of bourgeois political economy Marx attached great importance to characterising its method. The service rendered by classical political economy (above all Adam Smith and David Ricardo) consisted in that it was able “to reduce the various fixed and mutually alien forms of wealth to their inner unity by means of analysis and to strip away the form in which they exist independently alongside one another. It seeks to grasp the inne r connection in contrast to the multiplicity of outward forms“ (XV-920). Marx notes that on this path, by ultimately reducing all forms of revenue to unpaid labour, the classical school came very close to comprehending the essence of surplus value. But here the limitations of its method were also displayed to the full: classical political economy, Marx writes, “is not interested in elaborating how the various forms come into being, but seeks to reduce them to their unity by means of analysis, because it starts from them as given premisses“ (XV-921). Manifest in this are the lack of an historical approach and the class bias of the bourgeois economists, who regarded the material conditions of the capitalist system not only as ready-made, but as the eternal, natural prerequisites of any production. Marx uses the disintegration of the Ricardian school as an example of the way in which the misconceptions of classical political economy increasingly lead it towards an abandonment of its original starting-point the exclusive determination of value by labour time.

Even in Ricardo, Marx repeatedly noted an absence of interest in the genetic derivation of the more highly developed forms, a tendency to reduce them one-sidedly and forcibly to simple ones. For all his efforts, Ricardo, for instance, failed to reconcile the equality of profits on equal capitals with the principle of value. In defending his doctrine against Malthus, Ricardo’s followers sought to eliminate this and other contradictions in his views. But they retained his method. As Marx points out, “here the contradiction between the general law and further developments in the concrete circumstances is to be resolved not by the discovery of the connecting links but by directly subordinating and immediately adapting the concrete to the abstract. This moreover is to be brought about by a verbal fiction” (XIV-793).

While the Ricardian school was disintegrating, vulgar political economy was taking shape as an independent trend within bourgeois political economy. In proportion as the antagonistic inner contradictions of capitalist production developed and the working-class struggle rose to a higher pitch, the vulgar trend became predominant in bourgeois economic science. The Ricardian school, for all its shortcomings, was concerned with the contradictions in Ricardo’s doctrine, above all those which reflected the inner contradictions of capitalist production. The vulgar economists were increasingly preoccupied with the superficial forms of capitalist production and with the opinions and motives of individual capitalists. “Vulgar political economy does nothing more than express in doctrinaire fashion this [the individual capitalists’] consciousness, which, in respect of its motives and notions, remains in thrall to the appearance of the capitalist mode of production. And the more it clings to the shallow, superficial appearance, only bringing it into some sort of order, the more it considers that it is acting ‘naturally’ and avoiding all abstract subtleties” (XV-912).

This incapacity of the bourgeoisie to further develop political economy as a science clearly coincides with that stage of bourgeois society at which the proletariat begins to become conscious of being a class in its own right. Only after this stage had been reached, and the working class had developed its standpoint as the agent of a new type of social progress, did the revolution accomplished in political economy by Marx through applying the method of dialectical materialism to the study of capitalist reality become possible.

Also included in this group of economic volumes in the present edition is the draft of the concluding part of Book I of Capital Written before the summer of 1864, it is entitled: Chapter Six. The Results of the Direct Process of Production. It was not included in the final text of Capital.

According to Marx’s original intention, the chapter was to provide an interim summary of the analysis of capitalist production and also, in its closing section, a transition to Book II—the process of capital circulation (p. 441 of the manuscript).

Among other things, Chapter Six examines the formal and real subsumption of labour under capital, and also productive labour, which had been discussed in considerable detail in the manuscript of 1861-63.

The chapter gives a rather extensive analysis of capitalist production as the production and reproduction of the specifically capitalist relation of production. The process of capitalist production reproduces not only the means of production and labour power, but also the capitalist relation and, hence, the social status of the agents of production in relation to each other. Marx notes that the capitalist relation differs only externally from other, more direct forms of enslavement of labour and property in labour by the owners of the conditions of production (p. 493). But in contrast to the previous forms, under which those enslaved could only be kept in subjection by direct non-economic compulsion, capitalism formally creates the free worker, and the capitalist keeps him in subjection by economic compulsion alone. An analysis of the reproduction of capital shows that within the framework of the bourgeois system the worker is not in a position to break out of these fetters.

In Chapter Six Marx comes back to the historical role of capitalist production. He characterises capitalism as a necessary stage in creating the unlimited productive forces of social labour which alone can form the material basis of a free human society (p. 466).

The reproduction of the capitalist relations of production involves the creation of new productive forces which in turn influence the mode of production and thereby bring about a complete economic revolution (p. 494). This revolution will create the conditions for a new mode of production which will supersede the contradictory, capitalist relations. In other words, it will create the material basis of a newly organised social life-process and thereby of a new social formation (ibid.).

* * *

The Economic Manuscript of 1861-63, which makes up volumes 30 to 34 of the present edition, is reproduced here in accordance with its new publication in the languages of the original in Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA). Zweite Abteilung. Bd. 3, Teile 1-6. Berlin, 1976-1982. Only the part of the manuscript comprising the Theories of Surplus Value was published in English previously. Chapter Six, The Results of the Direct Process of Production, in Volume 34, has been checked against the text in Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), 11/4. 1, Berlin, 1988.

In preparing the present publication, a few minor alterations have been made in the text of the manuscript as compared with MEGA. In particular, Marx’s excerpts from the manuscripts of 1857-58 have been transferred to the relevant passages in the main body of the text.

Obvious slips of the pen in Marx’s text have been corrected by the Editors without comment. The proper and geographical names and other words abbreviated by the author are given in full. Defects in the manuscript are indicated in footnotes, places where the text is damaged or illegible are marked by dots. Where possible, editorial reconstructions are given in square brackets.

Foreign words and phrases are given as used by Marx, with the translation supplied in footnotes where necessary. English phrases, expressions and individual words occurring in the original are set in small caps. Longer passages and quotations in English are given in asterisks. The passages from English economists quoted by Marx in French are given according to the English editions used by the author. In all cases the form of quoting used by Marx is respected. The language in which Marx quotes is indicated unless it is German.

The text of and notes to Volume 30 were prepared by Mikhail Ternovsky (notebooks I-V) and Lyubov Zalunina (notebooks VI-VII). The Preface was written by Mikhail Ternovsky. The volume was edited by Larisa Miskievich (Institute of MarxismLeninism of the CC CPSU). The name index, the index of quoted and mentioned literature and the index of periodicals were compiled by Vardan Azatian (Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the CC CPSU).

The translation was done by Ben Fowkes (Lawrence and Wishart) and edited by Victor Schnittke and Andrei Skvarsky. The section from the Theories of Surplus Value was translated by Emile Burns and edited by Salo Ryazanskaya and Natalia Karmanova (Progress Publishers). The volume was prepared for the press by Alia Varavitskaya (Progress Publishers).

Scientific editor for this volume was Vitaly Vygodsky (Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the CC CPSU).