Marx Preface

1/27/2016
Economic Manuscripts: Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
KarlMarx1859
AContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy
Preface
Source: K. Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Progress
Publishers, Moscow, 1977, with some notes by R. Rojas.
I examine the system of bourgeois economy in the following order: capital, landed
property, wagelabour the State, foreign trade, world market.
The economic conditions of existence of the three great classes into which modern
bourgeois society is divided are analysed under the first three headings; the
interconnection of the other three headings is self-evident. The first part of the first
book, dealing with Capital, comprises the following chapters: 1. The commodity, 2.
Money or simple circulation; 3. Capital in general. The present part consists of the
first two chapters. The entire material lies before me in the form of monographs,
which were written not for publication but for self-clarification at widely separated
periods; their remoulding into an integrated whole according to the plan I have
indicated will depend upon circumstances.
A general introduction, which I had drafted, is omitted, since on further
consideration it seems to me confusing to anticipate results which still have to be
substantiated, and the reader who really wishes to follow me will have to decide to
advance from the particular to the general. A few brief remarks regarding the course
of my study of political economy are appropriate here.
Although I studied jurisprudence, I pursued it as a subject subordinated to
philosophy and history. In the year 1842-43, as editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, I
first found myself in the embarrassing position of having to discuss what is known as
material interests. The deliberations of the Rhenish Landtag on forest thefts and the
division of landed property; the official polemic started by Herr von Schaper, then
Oberprasident of the Rhine Province, against the Rheinische Zeitung about the
condition of the Moselle peasantry, and finally the debates on free trade and
protective tariffs caused me in the first instance to turn my attention to economic
questions. On the other hand, at that time when good intentions to push forward
often took the place of factual knowledge, an echo of French socialism and
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm
1/5
1/27/2016
communism, slightly tinged by philosophy, was noticeable in the Rheinische

Zeitung. I objected to this dilettantism, but at the same time frankly admitted in a
controversy with the Allgemeine Augsburger Zeitung that my previous studies did
not allow me to express any opinion on the content of the French theories. When the
publishers of the Rheinische Zeitung conceived the illusion that by a more
compliant policy on the part of the paper it might be possible to secure the
abrogation of the death sentence passed upon it, I eagerly grasped the opportunity to
withdraw from the public stage to my study.
The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical
re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law; the introduction to this work
being published in the DeutschFranzosische Jahrbucher issued in Paris in 1844.
My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms
could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general
development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the
material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of
English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term
civil society; that the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in
political economy. The study of this, which I began in Paris, I continued in Brussels,
where I moved owing to an expulsion order issued by M. Guizot. The general
conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guiding principle
of my studies can be summarised as follows.
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite
relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production
appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of
production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic
structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political
superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The
mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political
and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their
existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain
stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict
with the existing relations of production or this merely expresses the same thing in
legal terms with the property relations within the framework of which they have
operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these
relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes
in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole
immense superstructure.
2/5
1/27/2016
In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the

material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be
determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious,
artistic or philosophic in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious
of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he
thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its
consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the
contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of
production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before
all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new
superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material
conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.
Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer
examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material
conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.
In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient,[A] feudal and modern bourgeois modes of
production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic
development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic
form of the social process of production antagonistic not in the sense of individual
antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social
conditions of existence but the productive forces developing within bourgeois
society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The
prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation.
Frederick Engels, with whom I maintained a constant exchange of ideas by
correspondence since the publication of his brilliant essay on the critique of
economic categories (printed in the DeutschFranzsische Jahrbcher, arrived by
another road (compare his Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England) at the same
result as I, and when in the spring of 1845 he too came to live in Brussels, we decided
to set forth together our conception as opposed to the ideological one of German
philosophy, in fact to settle accounts with our former philosophical conscience. The
intention was carried out in the form of a critique of post-Hegelian philosophy. The
manuscript [The German Ideology], two large octavo volumes, had long ago reached
the publishers in Westphalia when we were informed that owing to changed
circumstances it could not be printed. We abandoned the manuscript to the gnawing
criticism of the mice all the more willingly since we had achieved our main purpose
self-clarification. Of the scattered works in which at that time we presented one or
3/5
1/27/2016
another aspect of our views to the public, I shall mention only the Manifesto of the
Communist Party, jointly written by Engels and myself, and a Discours sur le libre
echange, which I myself published. The salient points of our conception were first
outlined in an academic, although polemical, form in my Misere de la
philosophie..., this book which was aimed at Proudhon appeared in 1847. The
publication of an essay on WageLabour [Wage-Labor and Capital] written in
German in which I combined the lectures I had held on this subject at the German
Workers' Association in Brussels, was interrupted by the February Revolution and
my forcible removal from Belgium in consequence.
The publication of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in 1848 and 1849 and
subsequent events cut short my economic studies, which I could only resume in
London in 1850. The enormous amount of material relating to the history of political
economy assembled in the British Museum, the fact that London is a convenient
vantage point for the observation of bourgeois society, and finally the new stage of
development which this society seemed to have entered with the discovery of gold in
California and Australia, induced me to start again from the very beginning and to
work carefully through the new material. These studies led partly of their own accord
to apparently quite remote subjects on which I had to spend a certain amount of
time. But it was in particular the imperative necessity of earning my living which
reduced the time at my disposal. My collaboration, continued now for eight years,
with the New York Tribune, the leading Anglo-American newspaper, necessitated
an excessive fragmentation of my studies, for I wrote only exceptionally newspaper
correspondence in the strict sense. Since a considerable part of my contributions
consisted of articles dealing with important economic events in Britain and on the
continent, I was compelled to become conversant with practical detail which, strictly
speaking, lie outside the sphere of political economy.
This sketch of the course of my studies in the domain of political economy is
intended merely to show that my views no matter how they may be judged and
how little they conform to the interested prejudices of the ruling classes are the
outcome of conscientious research carried on over many years. At the entrance to
science, as at the entrance to hell, the demand must be made:
Qui si convien lasciare ogni sospetto
Ogni vilta convien che qui sia morta.
[From Dante, Divina Commedia:
Here must all distrust be left;
All cowardice must here be dead.]
4/5
1/27/2016
Karl Marx
London, January 1859
A. As a second footnote to the Communist Manifesto, Engels wrote in 1888:
In 1847, the pre-history of society, the social organization existing previous to
recorded history, [was] all but unknown. Since then, August von Haxthausen
(1792-1866) discovered common ownership of land in Russia, Georg Ludwig
von Maurer proved it to be the social foundation from which all Teutonic races
started in history, and, by and by, village communities were found to be, or to
have been, the primitive form of society everywhere from India to Ireland. The
inner organization of this primitive communistic society was laid bare, in its
typical form, by Lewis Henry Morgan's (1818-1861) crowning discovery of the
true nature of the gens and its relation to the tribe. With the dissolution of the
primeval communities, society begins to be differentiated into separate and
finally antagonistic classes. I have attempted to retrace this dissolution in The
Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, second edition, Stuttgart,
1886.
Thus, as the science of understanding pre-history progressed (pre-history being that

time before written records of human civilization exist), Marx & Engels changed
their understanding and descriptions accordingly. In the above text, Marx mentions
Asiatic modes of production. At the time, they had thought Asian civilization was
the first we could speak of humanity (an understanding based on Hegel, see: The
Oriental Realm). After writing TheGrundrisse, they dropped the idea of a distinct
Asiatic mode of production, and kept four basic forms: tribal, ancient, feudal, and
capitalist.
[Seealso:theAbstractedversion]
Next:I.TheCommodity
TableofContents|MarxEngelsArchive
5/5

Marx Preface

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marx Preface

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marx Preface

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/27/2016

Economic Manuscripts: Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Economic Manuscripts: Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

communism, slightly tinged by philosophy, was noticeable in the Rheinische

Economic Manuscripts: Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the

Economic Manuscripts: Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Economic Manuscripts: Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Thus, as the science of understanding pre-history progressed (pre-history being that

You might also like