Chapter Three. Capital
A) The Process of Production of Capital
1. The Transformation of Money into Capital
As a result of the simple circulation, capital exists above all in the simple form of money. However, the reified independence which holds it down in this form as hoard, as opposed to circulation, has disappeared. On the contrary, the being of capital in the form of money, adequate expression of the universal equivalent, merely implies that it is indifferent to the particularity of all the commodities and can assume the form of any commodity whatsoever. It is not this or that commodity, but can be metamorphosed into any commodity and continues to be in each of them the self-same value magnitude and to-itself-related value as its own end. Existing above all in the form of money, capital does not, therefore, remain opposed to circulation; on the contrary, it must enter into it. Nor is it lost within circulation as it passes from the form of money to the form of commodity. Its being as money is rather only its being as adequate exchange value which can pass into any commodity whatsoever. In any of these, it remains self-sufficient exchange value. But the exchange value become independent can be capital only when capital itself is established with respect to a third, in a certain relationship with a third.
//Its being in the form of money is two-fold: it can exchange itself for any commodity whatsoever, and, as universal exchange value, is not tied to the particular substance of any commodity; secondly, it remains money even when it becomes commodity; in other words, the material in which it exists is not an object for individual gratification, but materialisation of the exchange value which assumes this form only so as to preserve and expand itself.// This third is not commodities. For capital is money which from its form of money passes into any form of commodity whatsoever, without being lost within it as an object of individual consumption. Instead of excluding money, the whole range of commodities, all commodities, appear as so many incarnations of money. As for the natural physical difference between the commodities, none prevents money from taking its place within it and making it a part of its own body, since none of them excludes the determination of money in the commodity. The whole reified world of wealth now appears as the body of money in the same way as gold and silver, and it is merely the formal difference between money in the form of money, and money in the form of commodity that makes it capable of equally assuming the one form or the other, and passing from the form of money into the form of commodity. (The process of becoming independent already consists in that the exchange value firmly maintains itself as exchange value, whether it exists in the form of money or in the form of commodity, and it passes into the form of commodity only in order to valorise itself.)
Money is now objectified labour, irrespective of whether it possesses the form of money or of a particular commodity. None of the reified modes of being of labour confronts capital, but each of them appears as a possible mode of its existence which it can assume through a simple change of form, passage from the form of money into the form of commodity. The only opposite of reified labour is unreified labour, and the opposite of objectified labour, subjective labour. Or, the opposite of past labour, which exists in space, is living labour, which exists in time.v As the presently existing unreified (and so also not yet objectified) labour, it can be present only as the power, potentiality, ability, as the labour capacity of the living subject. The opposite of capital as the independent, firmly self-sufficient objectified labour is living labour capacity itself, and so the only exchange by means of which money can become capital is the exchange between the possessor of capital and the possessor of the living labour capacity, i.e. the worker.
The exchange value can become independent as exchange value in general only with respect to the use value confronting it as such. Only within the framework of this relationship can exchange value establish itself as such, as such be posited and function. In money, the exchange value should retain this independence through an abstraction from the use value, and this active abstraction — remaining in opposition to use value — would here in effect appear as the sole method for preserving and augmenting the exchange value as such. Now, however, the exchange value, in its being as use value, in its real, and not only formal being as use value, must preserve itself as exchange value — as exchange value in use value as use value — and create itself out of it. The real being of use values is their real negation, their absorption, their annihilation in consumption. Consequently, it is in this their real negation as use values, in this negation immanent to themselves [B"-17] that the exchange value must certify itself as maintaining itself with respect to the use value, or, rather, make the active being of the use value the confirmation of the exchange value. It is not a negation in which the exchange value as price is merely a formal determination of the use value in which the latter is notionally sublated, while actually the exchange value only appears as a fleeting formal determination of the use value. Nor is it its fixation in gold and silver where a hard-and-fast substance appears as a petrified being of the exchange value. In actual fact, it is posited in money that the use value is mere materialisation, reality of the exchange value. But this is merely an imaginary tangible existence of its abstraction. But in so far as the use value as use value, i.e. the consumption of the commodity itself, is determined as the positing of the exchange value and as a mere means for positing it, the use value of the commodity is, in fact, the actualisation of the exchange-value-in-process. The real negation of the use value which exists not in an abstraction from it (not in a stoppage tensely opposed to it) but in its consumption, this real negation of it, which is at the same time its actualisation as use value, must for that reason become an act of self-assertion, self-actualisation of the exchange value. But this is possible only in so far as the commodity is consumed by labour, in so far as its consumption itself appears as the objectification of labour and so as the creation of value. That is why if it is to preserve and actualise itself, not only formally, as in money, but also in its real existence as commodity, the exchange value objectified in money must appropriate labour itself, exchange itself for it.
For money, use value is now no longer an article of consumption in which it loses itself, but only a use value through which it preserves and increases itself. No other use value exists for money as capital That is precisely the relation of capital as exchange value to use value. Labour is the only use value which can present an opposite and a complement to money as capital, and it exists in labour capacity, which exists as a subject. Money exists as capital only in connection with non-capital, the negation of capital, in relation to which alone it is capital. Labour itself is the real non-capital The first step made by money to become capital is its exchange with the labour capacity so as by means of the latter to transform the consumption of the commodities, i.e. their real positing and negation as use values, simultaneously into their actualisation of exchange value.
The exchange through which money becomes capital cannot be its exchange with commodities [in general] but can only be one with its conceptually determined opposite, the commodity which is itself a conceptually determined opposite of it — labour.
The exchange value in the form of money confronts the exchange value in the form of the particular use value. But all particular commodities, as particular modes of the being of objectified labour, are equally expressions of the exchange value into which money can pass without being lost. It is, therefore, not through the exchange with these commodities, since it can now equally be assumed that it exists in the one form or the other, that money can lose its simple character. But through the exchange, first with the only form of use value which it is not immediately itself — namely, unreified labour — and simultaneously with the immediate use value which is exchange-value-in-process for it— labour once again. It is, therefore, only through the exchange of money with labour that its transformation into capital can be effected. The use value for which money as potential capital can exchange itself can only be the use value out of which the exchange value itself arises, produces itself and multiplies. And this is labour alone.
The exchange value can realise itself as such only by confronting the use value — not this or that — but the use value correlated to itself. This is labour. Labour capacity itself is the use value whose consumption directly coincides with the objectification of labour, i.e. the creation of the exchange value. For money as capital, labour capacity is the immediate use value for which it has to exchange itself. In the simple circulation, the content of the use value was indifferent, [B"-18] dropped out of the economic determination of form. Here it is its essential economic moment. For the exchange value is determined as firmly established in exchange above all because it is exchanged with a use value confronting it in its own form determination.
The condition for the transformation of money into capital is that the owner of the money can exchange money for the alien labour capacity as a commodity. In other words, that within circulation the labour capacity is offered as a commodity for sale, since within the simple circulation the exchangers confront each other only as buyers and sellers. The condition is, therefore, that the worker offers for sale his labour capacity as a to-be-used commodity and, so, is a free worker. The condition is that the worker, first, disposes of his labour capacity as a free proprietor, and treats it as a commodity; to do so he must be a free proprietor of his labour capacity. And second, that he must exchange his labour no longer in the form of another commodity, of objectified labour, but so that the only commodity he has to offer, to sell, is his own living labour capacity contained in his living corporeality, and that, consequently, the conditions for the objectification of his labour, the reified conditions of his labour exist on the other side of circulation as alien property, as commodities located beyond his own self.
That the possessor of money — or money, since the former is for us so far only its personification in the economic process itself—finds the labour capacity on the market, within the limits of circulation, as a commodity, this premiss from which we here proceed and from which the bourgeois society proceeds in its production process is evidently the result of long historical development, the outcome of many economic upheavals, and implies the decline of other modes of production (other social relationships of production) and a determined development of the productive forces of social labour. The determined past historical process contained in that premiss will be formulated even more determinately in the subsequent examination of this relationship. But this historical stage in the development of economic production — whose product itself is already the free worker—is the premiss for the emergence and even more so for the being of capital as such. Its existence is the result of a lengthy historical process in the economic formation of the society.
It is made quite definite at this point that the dialectical form of presentation is right only when it knows its own limits. The examination of the simple circulation shows us the general concept of capital, because within the bourgeois mode of production the simple circulation itself exists only as preposited by capital and as prepositing it. The exposition of the general concept of capital does not make it an incarnation of some eternal idea, but shows how in actual reality, merely as a necessary form, it has yet [B"-19] to flow into the labour creating exchange value, into production resting on exchange value.
It is essentially important to establish the point that the relationship, which here takes place as a simple relationship of circulation (initially still entirely belonging to it and going beyond the limits of the simple circulation only through the specific use
%18-785 value of the exchanged commodity), is only a relationship of money and commodity, equivalents in the form of both opposite poles as they appear in the simple circulation, within circulation, and that the exchange between capital and labour, once it itself exists as the simple relationship of circulation, is not the exchange between money and labour, but the exchange between money and living labour capacity.
As use value, the labour capacity is realised only in the activity of labour itself, but in much the same way as with a bottle of wine which is bought and whose use value is realised only in the drinking of the wine. Labour itself falls as little within the simple circulation process as does the drinking. The wine as a capacity, 8uvap.ei,(1) is something drinkable, and the buying of the wine is appropriation of the drinkable. So is the buying of the labour capacity the appropriation of the ability to dispose over the labour.
Since the labour capacity exists in the vitality of the subject itself and manifests itself only as his own expression of life, the buying of the labour capacity, the appropriation of the title to its use naturally places the buyer and the seller in the act of its use in another relationship to each other than that in the buying of objectified labour existing as an object outside the producer. This does not affect the simple relationship of exchange. It is only the specific nature of the use value bought with the money — namely, that its consumption, the consumption of the labour capacity, is production, labour time which objectifies, consumption which posits exchange value; that its real being as use value is creation of exchange value — that makes the exchange between money and labour the specific exchange M—C—M in which the exchange value itself is posited as the aim of the exchange, and the bought use value is immediate use value for the exchange value, i.e. is value-positing use value.
It does not matter whether money is considered here as simple means of circulation (means of purchase) or as means of payment. In so far as someone selling me, for instance, the 12-hour use value of his labour capacity, his labour capacity for 12 hours, will in fact sell it to me only when, if I so insist, he has worked off 12 hours, i.e. has delivered his labour capacity sold for 12 hours at the end of the 12 hours, it is in the nature of this relationship that money here appears as means of payment; the buying and selling are not realised at once, simultaneously, by both sides. What is here important is only that the means of payment is the universal means of payment, money, and that for this reason the worker does not enter with the buyer — as a result of some particular primitive way of payment — into other relationships than those of circulation. He transforms his labour capacity immediately into the universal equivalent, and as its possessor maintains the same relationship — within the scope of its value magnitude — the same relationship in the general circulation as any other; similarly, the aim of his sale is universal wealth, wealth in its universal social form and as a possibility of all gratification."
[ Additional Notes]
T H E A E S T H E T I C PROPERTY O F G O L D
"Gold is flaming fire,
Because it sparkles in the night,
Mainly standing out among haughty wealth"
Pindar3
Invariable Value of Money
"As means of payment, money — money for itself — should represent value as such; in fact, however, it is only an identical quantum [of some homogeneous substance] of variable value."b
Money as Money ( World Coin, etc.)
Money is the negation of the means of circulation as such, of coin. But it at the same time includes it as its determination: negatively, since it can always be reconverted into coin; positively, as world coin; but as such it is indifferent to its form determination and is essentially commodity as such, ubiquitous commodity, not locally determined. This indifference expresses itself above all in that money is now money only as gold and silver, and not as a symbol, with the form of coinage. Hence the façon" put on money as coinage by the State has no value, only its metallic content gives value to the coin. As such a general commodity, as world coin, gold and silver do not have to return to their point of departure, the movement of circulation as such is not necessary at all. Example: Asia and Europe. Hence the lamentation of the adherents of the mercantile system that gold vanishes among the heathens, and does not return.(1) (We are not yet concerned here with the fact that, as the world market itself develops, the world coin is itself gradually involved in circulation and rotation.)
Money is the negation of itself as simple realisation of the prices of commodities, where the particular commodity always remains the essential factor. Rather, money becomes price realised in itself, and as such also the material representative of universal wealth.
Money is also negated in the determination in which it is only a measure of exchange values. For it itself is the adequate reality of the exchange value, and it is such in its metallic existence. The determination of measure must here be posited in it itself. It is its own unit, and the measure of its own value, its measure as wealth, as exchange value, is the quantity of itself which it represents. The number of its own measuring unit. As a measure, its amount was of no consequence; as a means of circulation, its substance, the material of which its unit is composed, was of no consequence; as money in this third determination, its own amount as a definite material quantity (for instance, the number of pounds) is essential. Given its quality as general wealth, there is no further distinction in it other than the quantitative one. It represents a greater or lesser amount of general wealth, depending on whether a greater or lesser number of a determinate measure magnitude of itself is possessed. If it is general wealth, one is the richer the more of it one possesses, and the sole right process is its accumulation. By its concept, it has withdrawn from circulation. Now this withdrawal from circulation, its hoarding, appears as an essential object of the greed for enrichment, and as the essential process of enrichment. In gold and silver I possess general wealth in its pure form; the more of it I hoard up, the more general wealth I appropriate to myself. If gold and silver are general wealth, then, as certain quantities, they represent it only to a certain degree, i.e. inadequately. The whole must keep driving beyond its own limits. This accumulation of gold and silver, which takes on the appearance of their repeated withdrawal from circulation, is simultaneously the safeguarding of general wealth against circulation, in which it continually gets lost in exchange for some particular wealth which eventually disappears in consumption.
"The [Greek] tragedians contrast SCxv and xep8os"(2) FORM OF PROPERTY
The property in the alien labour is mediated through the property in one's own labour.
Draft Plan of the Chapter on Capital[1]
I. The Process of Production of Capital
1) Transformation of money into capital
a) Transition
Nothing is expressed if capital is designated as a mere sum of values (II, 12). HOARDING of money is not capitalisation (ibid.). II (13, 14, 15). VI, 23, 24. VII, 28 (bottom. Capital and money).
Circulation and exchange value originating from circulation— the presupposition of capital (II, 16) (17) (II, 18).
II, 19, 20 (capital as exchange value confronts labour as use value).
II (21) (II, 22). Sismondi VII, 19 (bottom). Merchant capital and capital in general Merchant and handi-craftsman VII, 52 bottom. 53, 54, 55 (Opdyke).
[2] ß) Exchange between commodity and labour capacity
(II, 22) (II, 23) (II, 25, 26, 27, 28). VI, 13. II, 29. Ill, 8. Ill, 14. VI, 37, 38.
The repetition of sale on the part of the worker (III, 8).
Wages not productive (III, 8). The circulation of the worker as C—M—C (III, 9). Condition of this exchange is the non-property of the worker (III, 9). V, 3, 4, 5, 6-7.
Abstract labour confronts capital (III, 9) (10, 26). Exchange value of labour (II, 14, 15) (III, 22, 27). Consumption of the use-value here falls within the economic process (III, 17). IV, 23, 24 (capital creating wage labour). IV, 48, 49, 50.
18* Historical condition of the relationship of wage labour and capital V, 8. VII, 12, 13.
Labour capacity (VI, 7). Average wages (VII, 39. In our examination it is necessary to assume the minimum).
Carey's doctrine of profit VI, 7, 8. Rossi (VI, 11, 12). Material component parts of capital Do wages belong to the essence of capital? VI, 38.
Conditions of exchange. Worker a virtual pauper (VI, 15) (16). Torrens. Capital, not labour, determines the value of the commodity (VII, 38, 39) (confusion among the Ricardians. Distribution of surplus value among the capitalists).
[3] 7) The labour process
(III, 10, 11, 12, 13). PRODUCTIVE CONSUMPTION (VII, 47, top. Newman).
[4] 8) The valorisation process
III, 17, 18, 19, 20, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. IV, 2 (IV, 7).
General concept of surplus value (III, 21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28, 29) (30) (IV, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. IV, 13. VI, 12).
Increase in productive power, quantity and quality (IV, 4) VII, 20. With a given productive power and absolute labour time, the number of simultaneous working days must be increased (IV, 7, 8) (IV, 14).
Simultaneous working days ibid. Population IV, 14, 15. Increase in productive power identical with growth of the constant part of capital as compared with its variable part (IV, 9).
How capital must grow in order to apply the same number of workers with an increasing productive force (IV, 9-13).
Disposable time (IV, 14).
Combination of labour (IV, 50). McCulloch (VII, 50).
[5] 2) Absolute surplus value
(III, 23, 32, 33).
Absolute and necessary labour time V, 24. VI, 16, 17 (VI, 15, 16, 17. Surplus labour. Surplus population). Surplus labour time (VI, 19. Ramsay, Wade). Surplus labour and necessary labour (VII, 21) (VII, 44, top). Senior (VII, 41, 42).
[6] 3) Relative surplus value
III, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. IV, 12, 13.
a) Cooperation of masses
V, 22, 23
ß) Division of labour
Slave labour more productive than free labour, if the latter is not combined. Wakefield VI, 18.
[7] -y) Machinery
IV, 13, 14. VI, 43. VII, 1, 2, 13 (bottom). VII, 22, 39, 40, 42, 43 bottom.
Gain of raw material (saving) through the machinery. VII, 39 (The Economist). Prices of commodities. Proudhon (IV, 26-32).
4) Primitive accumulation
(III, 20, 21. IV, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53).
Surplus product. Surplus capital (IV, 42, 43, 45). Capital produces wage labour (IV, 43, 44) (45) (47). V, 15. Primitive accumulation V, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8-15, 16. Concentration of labour capacities (VI, 10, 11) (VI, 11. Rossi. Association).
Surplus value in various forms and through various means VII, 22, 23, 24.
Connection of relative and absolute surplus value VII, 23, 24. Multiplication of branches of production VII, 23. Population (VII, 23).
[8] 5) Wage labour and capital
II, 14 (II, 28, 29) (III, 13) (III, 14) (15, 16) (VII, 40 bottom and 41 top). Ill, 23.
Capital, COLLECTIVE FORCE, CIVILISATION. (VI, 9, 10 Wade) (VI, 11. Babbage).
Capital=advances VI, 29 bottom. Reproduction of the worker through the wages VI, 38. Self-transcending limits of the capitalist production VII, 2, 3. DISPOSABLE TIME VII, 3, 4. Labour itself transformed into social labour (ibid., 4). Owen (VII, 5, bottom).
Real economy. Saving of labour time. But not antagonistically (VII, 5).
Manifestation of the law of appropriation in the simple commodity circulation. Inversion of this law
(II, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) (IV, 45) (50). VII, 44.
II. Circulation Process of Capital
Valorisation process of capital simultaneously its devaluation process (IV, 15, 16).
Contradictions (IV, 16, 17) (18). //This belongs in Section II: Competition of capitals.[107]//
Capital is the unity of production and valorisation as process (IV, 18) (19, 20).
Propaganda tendency of capital (IV, 18). Civilising tendency of capital (IV, 18, 19). Contradiction between production and valorisation (IV, 22) IV, 24, 25.
Transformation of commodity into money (IV, 40, 41) (VI, 8). Circulation of capital (V, 16, 17. VI, 14. Chalmers) (VI, 36) VII, 9. To Chalmers: Blake VII, 29. VII, 47.
Production process, circulation process (V, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22). Dormant capital (VI, 8, 9). Different time of production VI, 14, 15. VI, 36. [10] /. St. Mill: time of circulation (VI, 19) (DORMANT CAPITAL).
Turnover of capital VI, 19, 20. VII, 47, bottom. Costs of circulation (VI, 20) (21) (22) (VI, 23, 24, 25) VI, 37. Circulating capital(1) VI, 20, 21. Fixed capital ibid. VI, 27. Transition to circulating and fixed capital as two particular kinds VII, 2.
Turnover (VI, 21, 22). The number of turnovers VI, 31-35. VII, 7. Time of circulation VI, 22, 23, 25. Commodity-, money-, and industrial capital (VI, 26).
Year as measure of the turnovers of capital (VI, 26, 27). Fixed capital. Circulating capital (VI, 27, 28, 29). VI, 39, 40, 41, 42-44. VII, 8 (bottom), 10, 11, 13, 14, 15.
Greater and lesser circulation VI, 37, 38, 39. Three-fold determination of circulation as a whole VI, 39. Fixed capital. Circulating capital. In both, the social determination of labour is transferred to capital (VII, 1) (VII, 6).
[11] Longer time of circulation=smaller number of acts of reproduction or smaller quantity of capital caught up in production process. Continuity [of production process] becomes necessary with development of fixed capital. Interruption [in this process] thereby becomes loss of the preposited value (VII, 2).
FIXED CAPITAL and DEMAND FOR LABOUR (VII, 28. Barton). Fixed capital VII, 2, 3. Relationship between fixed and circulating capital in society VII, 3. VII, 4. A higher degree than circulating capital I.e., 4.
Durability of fixed capital VII, 4. VII, 21, 22. Money, fixed and circulating capital VII, 6. Fixed and circulating capital in relation to the individual consumption (VII, 6, bottom, and 7).
Average turnover of total capital (in relation to its valorisation). Relationship between turnover of fixed and circulating capital. Continuity. Difference between interruptions in production for circulating capital and fixed capital. Time of reproduction of fixed capital becomes measuring unit of the ECONOMIC CYCLE. Phase of total reproduction (VII, 7).
Different return of circulating and fixed capital (VII, 8). [12] Fixed capital whose use value enters into circulation (VII, 9). Production of fixed capital and circulating capital (VII, 9, 10). Frais d'entretien" of fixed capital (VII, 11).
Revenue of fixed capital and circulating capital (VII, 12) (return of fixed and circulating capital I.e.)
Determination of the time of reproduction by the use value of the commodity (VII, 15).
[14] III
III. Capital and Profit
Rate of profit and surplus value (IV, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. VI, 10) (VI, 12, 13) (17, 18) (39) (43).
Capital and profit (VII, 15) (16) (17) (20, 21) (22) (40) (41). Growth of capital with an increased productive power so as to apply the same mass of labour (IV, 9-13).
Risk. Interest. Production costs VII, 8. Profit in equal measure on all parts of capital VII, 8.
Wages and profit, forms of production and therefore of distribution, etc. (VII, 19).
Interest and profit VII, 51, 52.
[ IV.] Varia
Definitions of capital: Capital, "merely an instrument of production" (II, 15) (capital conceived of as a thing ibid.) (capital, not simple relationship, but process. Ibid. II, 16). Capital and product (II, 18).
Productive and unproductive labour (II, 21, 22) (III, 14). Agriculture, landed property and capital (II, 23). Market (II, 24, 25).
Grounds for profit (III, 19, 20) III, 22, 23. Production costs (III, 20).
Not dépenses, but avances(1) of capitalists (Storch VII, 50. Against the theory of savings ibid.).
Proudhon and interest, etc. (Ill, 20). His extra-economic origins of landed property (V, 3). SURPLUS VALUE (VI, 27) (Price (Richard) and Proudhon VII, 47, 48).
Bastiat on wage system (III, 22). On profit, etc. (VII, 18, 19). Agriculture (the same, industrially. 15th century VII, 29. Harrison). Money capital (III, 44). Ricardo. The origin of surplus value. Wages and profit merely dividends (VI, 1, 2). (Wakefield against Ricardo VI, 8) (Malthus versus wages as proportion VI, 12) (13) VII, 8.
Malthus. Theory of value (VI, 3 sqq.) (VI, 12, 13). Smith's sacrifice of labour. Senior's sacrifice of abstinence (VI, 17) (18).
Smith's origin of profit (VI, 18). Opposed by Lauderdale VI, 43. McCulloch's origin of surplus value VI, 18. WAGES, part of worker's own product idem, VI, 19.
Wage labour and SLAVERY. Steuart VII, 25, 26. Idem: MACHINES I.e., 26.
Endnotes
[1] This is the concluding part of Marx's economic manuscript of 1857-1858. Consisting of seven large notebooks, which Marx numbered I-VII, the manuscript is the first rough draft of Capital. On the cover of the last, seventh, notebook, Marx wrote Political Economy, Criticism of in English and "Fortsetzung [Continuation]" in German. This implies that Notebook VII is a continuation of the preceding six notebooks and that Marx did not consider it to be the concluding one. The words Political Economy, Criticism of can be regarded as the author's title for the whole manuscript. The words "rough draft" are taken from Marx's letter to Engels of November 29, 1858 in which Marx calls his economic manuscript of 1857-1858 a Rohentwurf (Rough Draft). The manuscript is, indeed, a rough draft, for it is unfinished and breaks off in mid-sentence. A major part of the manuscript is included in Volume 28 of the present edition and begins with Chapter II—"Chapter on Money", followed by a long third chapter, "Chapter on Capital". Notebook VII contains the conclusion ot this chapter, followed by fragments intended as additions to the two chapters — on money and on capital. The Economic Manuscript of 1857-1858 is being published in the sequence given by Marx. The numbers of the notebooks are indicated in Roman numerals and the pages in Arabic ones, in square brackets. The square brackets in the manuscript are, therefore, replaced by oblique lines. Some passages have been transposed — as indicated by Marx in the manuscript or where there are obvious additions relevant to the preceding text. All such cases are mentioned in the footnotes, which also indicate passages crossed out by Marx and sometimes reproduce them. Where Marx, in quoting, gives references to pages of his excerpt notebooks, these have been supplemented, in brackets, with references to the pages of the editions Marx used. Where he merely gives the authors' names, the titles of the quoted works have been supplied. Foreign words and expressions, including Greek and Latin, are preserved when the author used them for stylistic or terminological purposes. English phrases, expressions and separate words are given in small caps. Quotations from English sources are given according to the editions used by the author. In all cases the form in which Marx quoted is respected. The language in which Marx quotes is indicated, unless it is German. The manuscript was first published in full in the language of the original (German) in Karl Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Oekonomie (Rohentwurf). 1857-1858, Moscow, 1939-41 and reproduced by Dietz Verlag, Berlin, in 1953. In English, the manuscript was published in full in Karl Marx, Grundrisse. Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy (Rough Draft). Translated with a foreword by Martin Nicolaus. Penguin Books in association with New Left Review, London, 1973. Separate extracts had been published previously in Marx's Grundrisse, ed. David McLellan, Macmillan Press Ltd., London, 1971.—Title-page
[107] According to the original plan Marx intended to divide his economic work in