MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I present summary of article “Engels’ Edition of the Third Volume of Capital and Marx’s original Manuscript”by Micchael Heinrich in “Science&Society” vol60 no.4(1996-1997;TheGuilford Press) In fear of warping, I attach my original paper. He point out that in 1993, Marx’s manuscript of 1864-65,used by Engels as the basis for Volume?of capital ,became available as Part of New MEGA. And he analyse this manuscript compared with forth edition. Although Engels wrote” I tried my best to preserve the character of the first draft whenever it was sufficiantly clear”, there are large number of transpositions,additions, contractions, and alteration. 1. In overview of Engels’ Textual Modification, He summarize the “modification” into 6 points. a. Design of titles and headings Engels turned the title From “ Gestaltungen des Gesasamptproyesses(Formations of the Process as a Whole) into “Der Gesamptprozess der Kapitalistischen Produktion(The Processs of Captalist Production as a whole). I think probably that Marx wanted to describe from essence of capital to appearance form of capital, but In Engels edition, this point became obscure. Engels also made a detailed segmentation of the text. The original manuscript was divided into only seven chapters with few or no subdivisions. Engels turned the seven chapters into seven parts with 52 chapters and a number of subparagraphs. Marx’s text consists of 34 headings(and five construction points which are only numbered),while Engels’ edition contain 92 headings. By putting this material together into chapters and inserting headings, this draft character is concealed. The reader can no longer tell at what point in the manuscript” “presentation” turns into “ inquiry” The difference between presentation and inquiry is of central importance for Marx’s own methodological understanding. To Marx “presentation” does not just mean the moire´ or less skillful assembly of final results. The factural correlation of the conditions presented should be expressed by the correct presentation of the categories, by” advancing from the abstract to the concrete”. To Marx, the search for an adequate presentation isn an essential part of his process of inquiry. But this difference is concealed by Engels. Additionally, Engels tried to strengten the coherence of the text, so readers do not learn that a large part of Marx’ manuscript is open and undicided. b. Textual transpositions- Engels transposed large number of pieces . The transposed pieces consists of part of a sentenc,and the rearrangement of whole text complex ass in th fifth chapter(Part?in Engels edition) At this stage, a serious error of Engels has to be mentioned. Marx wanted to begin his seventh chaptert,” Revenues(Income)and their Sources” with”1) The Trinity Formula”, Engels nelieved he had gound three independent fragments concerning this point, two smaller ones which he labaled ?and,?、 and a longer one labeled ?。This last fragment also had a gap, which Engels pointed out to the readers. But in fact, these are not three independent fragments. The fragments labeled?and?by Engels form a continuous text which exactly fills the gap in fragment ?
c. Text omission- Engels made a number of deletions of single words. Part.
And sentence. For example, the reflections on the transition from chapter
?to ?(MEGA ?4,2 282-83)
d. Text conversions- Engels changed the relevalence of many text passages.
Footnotes were integrated into main text, many brackets in the main texts
were omitted. Most of Marx´´s emphases were deleted. Such differentiations
disappear in Engels´ presentation. For example, the famous passage on the
poverty of the mass as the “ultimate reason for all real crisis( Capital?
484),which ia often quoted as a proof of the existence of an
underconsumption theory in Marx´s work,happened to be inside such a bracket
and was integrated into the main text by Engels.. And replacement exists For
example “mode of production by “ production”
e. Insertions and textual extensions- They concerns single words or parts,
sentences,. Even relativitation of and reservations to Marx´´s texts can
be found. The alteration of marx´´s methodological remarks is especially
critical to the understanding of the text.
f. Modification of minor importance- These consist of textual condensations,
terminological alterations, stylistic change, alteration, replacement of
mathematical example.
Heinlich continues as “ interpretatory handicaps caused by Engels´
´Edition”
a. crisis theory-Marx did not structure the third chapter pf his manuscript,
which deal with the “ Law of the tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall”
Engels divided the corresponding part of his edition into three
chapters(Chapter XIII o XV)o¨ the first two chapters follow Marx´´s
argumentations, which is adequately elaborated in the original. Later,
Marx´´s chapter passes into a large mass pd remarks,additions, and
argumentative approach , in unelaborated and incomplete form. At this point,
Marx´s presentation is no longer a systemic one. Due to Engels giving this
material a problematic chapter heading(“Exposition of the Internal
Contradiction of the Law”), introducing additional substructure, inserting
headings and increasing the coherence of the text by deleting paragraphs and
omitting brackets, the material in the original manuscript is considerably
upgraded. And this chapter XV-created by Engels −has been considered a
vastly complete “Crisis theory” based on the law of the tendency of the
rate
of profit to fall. It is not even clear whether the material adapted by
Engels was actually to constitute an independent paragraph. Several option
were possible for later elaboration- Marx could have tried to turn this
material into an independent chapter in direct relation to the presentation
of the law of the falling tendency of the rate of profit. He could have
tried to formulate an independent paragraph on capitalist crises,
integrating further material from the sphere of the credit system, for
instance, he could also have distributed the presentation of the various
crisis phenomena mentioned into different chapters, avoiding an autonomous
crisis theory, or perhaps he would not have wanted to use a larger part pf
what he had written about crisis within the three volumes of Capital. Engels
also directly interfered with Marx´´s text whenever it contradicted the
interpretation he himself favored. For instance, Marx wrote on the
overproduction of capital( which Engels calls “overaccumulation of
capital”
at this point) −“Die na¨here Untersuchung daru¨ber
geho¨rt in die
Betrachtung
der erscheinden Bewegugs des Capitals, wo Zinscapital etc Credit etc
entwickelt(the closer analysis pf this issue belongs to the studz of the
appearing movement pf capital, where interest-bearing capital etc credit etc
will be presented) and we agree editor of MEGA who argue in the annotation
that “ ersheinende Bewegung des Capitals”(appearing movement of capitals)
does not belong to the matters dealt with in Capital(MEGA ?4,2 1255).
Engels, however, turned Marx´´s remark into opposite. He ommited
Marx´´s
text and wrote instead “its closer analysis follows later”(Capital ?251)
In fact, some remarks on overproduction, or overaccumulation, of capital
actually follow. Marx thought the subject cannot be negotiated on the given
level of abstraction. This turned into the opposite by Engels.
b-Credit theory- a similar situation arises in the fifth chapter of Marx´s
original manuscript. Here at least Engels gave an idea, in the preface ,of
the extent of the transpositions he had made. In this chapter too Marx´s
presentation soon changed into the protocol of a research process containing
a large amount of not fully accomplished reflections. By Engels´´editing,
the impre3ssion is again given the elementary problems have been solved to a
vast extent and that it is merely a questions pf a not quite completed
presentation. In fact the emphasis in the fifth chapter was to be
interest-bearing capital. Marx divided this chapter into six subchapters.
The first four points correspond to the first four chapters of Part? in the
Engels edition(Chapter ???to ????in Capital?). Marx titled point ?
“Credit, fictitious Capital、”(MEGA ?4,2 469). Engels composed his
chapters ???to ???? from this material. In doing this, he made many
textural rearrangements, put footnotes into text, distributed a whole
chapter(“ The Confusion”),introduced a fair number of transitional
remarks
and thus obscured the passage where Marx´s text was no longer a mature
presentation but a “ process of inquiry” or sometimes even just an
excerpt. Thus Marx´´s point ?(“ pre-capitalist Relationship”)
corresponds to the last chapter of Part ?in Engels Edition. The structure
lists credits as the last subpoint in the presentation of interest-bearing
capital. Engels designs 11chapters from this fifth point. Not just because
of its size but also owing to the structuring of the material, the
impression arises that the presentation of interest-bearing capital is just
ana introduction to the discussion od credit. This also prevails in the
terminology-Part ? is often called the “Part on Credit” ,even though
credit is not even mentioned in the title.
In this chapter, Engels also made textual changes as soon as the original
text got in the way of his own interpretation. Marx introduced the point 5
“ Credit,, fictitious Capital” with the following sentence” As
analysis
of the credit system and of the instruments which it cerates for its own
use,like credit-money etc. lies behind our plan(MEGA?4,2
469). Engels introduced the word “exhaustive” here. An exhaustive
analysis
pf the credit system and of the instruments which it creates for its own
use(credit-money etc) lies beyond our plan”(Capital ? 400)
he had made a similar alteration earlier on. In the first chapter of Marx
´s manuscript, the following remark folloews under the subtitle”
Appreciation, Deprecation, Release and Tie-up pf Capital”
the phenomena analysed in this §require for their full
development the credit systen and competition on the world−market…. These
more definitive forms of capitalist production can 1. onlz be presented
,however, after the general nature of capital is understood, and 2 . they do
not come within the scope of this work and belong to its continuation(MEGA
?4,2 178)
Thus, although Marx repeatedly declares that the presentation of the credit
system lies beyond his plan, Engels introduced the word “
comprehensively”
into thr second sentence.
Although Heinlich remains credit system analysis unsolved in his own , we
are nearly to solve “ credit problem” from Marx´´s manuscript
We will show this proble practically important after suspension of specie
payment between dollar and gold, because it was unclear that why and how
dollar circulate as if money.
I present summary of an article
Description: MS-Word document
