政治经济学批判序言英文版

KarlMarx1859AContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomyPrefaceSource: K.Marx, AContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,ProgressPublishers,Moscow,1977,withsomenotesbyR.Rojas.Iexaminethesystemofbourgeoiseconomyinthefollowingorder: capital,landedproperty,wage-labour;theState,foreigntrade,worldmarket.Theeconomicconditionsofexistenceofthethreegreatclassesintowhichmodernbourgeoissocietyisdividedareanalysedunderthefirstthreeheadings;theinterconnectionoftheotherthreeheadingsisself-evident.Thefirstpartofthefirstbook,dealingwithCapital,comprisesthefollowingchapters:1.Thecommodity,2.Moneyorsimplecirculation;3.Capitalingeneral.Thepresentpartconsistsofthefirsttwochapters.Theentirematerialliesbeforemeintheformofmonographs,whichwerewrittennotforpublicationbutforself-clarificationatwidelyseparatedperiods;theirremouldingintoanintegratedwholeaccordingtotheplanIhaveindicatedwilldependuponcircumstances.Ageneralintroduction,whichIhaddrafted,isomitted,sinceonfurtherconsiderationitseemstomeconfusingtoanticipateresultswhichstillhavetobesubstantiated,andthereaderwhoreallywishestofollowmewillhavetodecidetoadvancefromtheparticulartothegeneral.Afewbriefremarksregardingthecourseofmystudyofpoliticaleconomyareappropriatehere.AlthoughIstudiedjurisprudence,Ipursueditasasubjectsubordinatedtophilosophyandhistory.Intheyear1842-43,aseditorofthe RheinischeZeitung, Ifirstfoundmyselfintheembarrassingpositionofhavingtodiscusswhatisknownasmaterialinterests.ThedeliberationsoftheRhenishLandtagonforesttheftsandthedivisionoflandedproperty;theofficialpolemicstartedbyHerrvonSchaper,thenOberprasidentoftheRhineProvince,againstthe RheinischeZeitung abouttheconditionoftheMosellepeasantry,andfinallythedebatesonfreetradeandprotectivetariffscausedmeinthefirstinstancetoturnmyattentiontoeconomicquestions.Ontheotherhand,atthattimewhengoodintentions“topushforward”oftentooktheplaceoffactualknowledge,anechoofFrenchsocialismandcommunism,slightlytingedbyphilosophy,wasnoticeableinthe RheinischeZeitung. Iobjectedtothisdilettantism,butatthesametimefranklyadmittedinacontroversywiththe AllgemeineAugsburgerZeitung thatmypreviousstudiesdidnotallowmetoexpressanyopiniononthecontentoftheFrenchtheories.Whenthepublishersofthe RheinischeZeitung conceivedtheillusionthatbyamorecompliantpolicyonthepartofthepaperitmightbepossibletosecuretheabrogationofthedeathsentencepasseduponit,Ieagerlygraspedtheopportunitytowithdrawfromthepublicstagetomystudy.ThefirstworkwhichIundertooktodispelthedoubtsassailingmewasacriticalre-examinationoftheHegelianphilosophyoflaw;theintroductiontothisworkbeingpublishedinthe Deutsch-FranzosischeJahrbucher issuedinParisin1844.Myinquiryledmetotheconclusionthatneitherlegalrelationsnorpoliticalformscouldbecomprehendedwhetherbythemselvesoronthebasisofaso-calledgeneraldevelopmentofthehumanmind,butthatonthecontrarytheyoriginateinthematerialconditionsoflife,thetotalityofwhichHegel,followingtheexampleofEnglishandFrenchthinkersoftheeighteenthcentury,embraceswithintheterm“civilsociety”;thattheanatomyofthiscivilsociety,however,hastobesoughtinpoliticaleconomy.Thestudyofthis,whichIbeganinParis,IcontinuedinBrussels,whereImovedowingtoanexpulsionorderissuedbyM.Guizot.ThegeneralconclusionatwhichIarrivedandwhich,oncereached,becametheguidingprincipleofmystudiescanbesummarisedasfollows.Inthesocialproductionoftheirexistence,meninevitablyenterintodefiniterelations,whichareindependentoftheirwill,namelyrelationsofproductionappropriatetoagivenstageinthedevelopmentoftheirmaterialforcesofproduction.Thetotalityoftheserelationsofproductionconstitutestheeconomicstructureofsociety,therealfoundation,onwhicharisesalegalandpoliticalsuperstructureandtowhichcorresponddefiniteformsofsocialconsciousness.Themodeofproductionofmateriallifeconditionsthegeneralprocessofsocial,politicalandintellectuallife.Itisnottheconsciousnessofmenthatdeterminestheirexistence,buttheirsocialexistencethatdeterminestheirconsciousness.Atacertainstageofdevelopment,thematerialproductiveforcesofsocietycomeintoconflictwiththeexistingrelationsofproductionor–thismerelyexpressesthesamethinginlegalterms–withthepropertyrelationswithintheframeworkofwhichtheyhaveoperatedhitherto.Fromformsofdevelopmentoftheproductiveforcestheserelationsturnintotheirfetters.Thenbeginsaneraofsocialrevolution.Thechangesintheeconomicfoundationleadsoonerorlatertothetransformationofthewholeimmensesuperstructure.Instudyingsuchtransformationsitisalwaysnecessarytodistinguishbetweenthematerialtransformationoftheeconomicconditionsofproduction,whichcanbedeterminedwiththeprecisionofnaturalscience,andthelegal,political,religious,artisticorphilosophic–inshort,ideologicalformsinwhichmenbecomeconsciousofthisconflictandfightitout.Justasonedoesnotjudgeanindividualbywhathethinksabouthimself,soonecannotjudgesuchaperiodoftransformationbyitsconsciousness,but,onthecontrary,thisconsciousnessmustbeexplainedfromthecontradictionsofmateriallife,fromtheconflictexistingbetweenthesocialforcesofproductionandtherelationsofproduction.Nosocialorderiseverdestroyedbeforealltheproductiveforcesforwhichitissufficienthavebeendeveloped,andnewsuperiorrelationsofproductionneverreplaceolderonesbeforethematerialconditionsfortheirexistencehavematuredwithintheframeworkoftheoldsociety.Mankindthusinevitablysetsitselfonlysuchtasksasitisabletosolve,sincecloserexaminationwillalwaysshowthattheproblemitselfarisesonlywhenthematerialconditionsforitssolutionarealreadypresentoratleastinthecourseofformation.Inbroadoutline,theAsiatic,ancient,[A] feudalandmodernbourgeoismodesofproductionmaybedesignatedasepochsmarkingprogressintheeconomicdevelopmentofsociety.Thebourgeoismodeofproductionisthelastantagonisticformofthesocialprocessofproduction–antagonisticnotinthesenseofindividualantagonismbutofanantagonismthatemanatesfromtheindividuals'socialconditionsofexistence–buttheproductiveforcesdevelopingwithinbourgeoissocietycreatealsothematerialconditionsforasolutionofthisantagonism.Theprehistoryofhumansocietyaccordinglycloseswiththissocialformation.FrederickEngels,withwhomImaintainedaconstantexchangeofideasbycorrespondencesincethepublicationofhisbrilliantessayonthecritiqueofeconomiccategories(printedinthe Deutsch-FranzösischeJahrbücher, arrivedbyanotherroad(comparehis LagederarbeitendenKlasseinEngland)atthesameresultasI,andwheninthespringof1845hetoocametoliveinBrussels,wedecidedtosetforthtogetherourconceptionasopposedtotheideologicaloneofGermanphilosophy,infacttosettleaccountswithourformerphilosophicalconscience. Theintentionwascarriedoutintheformofacritiqueofpost-Hegelianphilosophy.Themanuscript[TheGermanIdeology],twolargeoctavovolumes,hadlongagoreachedthepublishersinWestphaliawhenwewereinformedthatowingtochangedcircumstancesitcouldnotbeprinted.Weabandonedthemanuscripttothegnawingcriticismofthemiceallthemorewillinglysincewehadachievedourmainpurpose–self-clarification.Ofthescatteredworksinwhichatthattimewepresentedoneoranotheraspectofourviewstothepublic,Ishallmentiononlythe ManifestooftheCommunistParty, jointlywrittenbyEngelsandmyself,anda Discourssurlelibreechange, whichImyselfpublished. Thesalientpointsofourconceptionwerefirstoutlinedinanacademic,althoughpolemical,forminmy Miseredelaphilosophie...,thisbookwhichwasaimedatProudhonappearedin1847.Thepublicationofanessayon Wage-Labour [Wage-LaborandCapital]writteninGermaninwhichIcombinedthelecturesIhadheldonthissubjectattheGermanWorkers'AssociationinBrussels,wasinterruptedbytheFebruaryRevolutionandmyforcibleremovalfromBelgiuminconsequence.Thepublicationofthe NeueRheinischeZeitung in1848and1849andsubsequenteventscutshortmyeconomicstudies,whichIcouldonlyresumeinLondonin1850.TheenormousamountofmaterialrelatingtothehistoryofpoliticaleconomyassembledintheBritishMuseum,thefactthatLondonisaconvenientvantagepointfortheobservationofbourgeoissociety,andfinallythenewstageofdevelopmentwhichthissocietyseemedtohaveenteredwiththediscoveryofgoldinCaliforniaandAustralia,inducedmetostartagainfromtheverybeginningandtoworkcarefullythroughthenewmaterial.ThesestudiesledpartlyoftheirownaccordtoapparentlyquiteremotesubjectsonwhichIhadtospendacertainamountoftime.Butitwasinparticulartheimperativenecessityofearningmylivingwhichreducedthetimeatmydisposal.Mycollaboration,continuednowforeightyears,withthe NewYorkTribune, theleadingAnglo-Americannewspaper,necessitatedanexcessivefragmentationofmystudies,forIwroteonlyexceptionallynewspapercorrespondenceinthestrictsense.SinceaconsiderablepartofmycontributionsconsistedofarticlesdealingwithimportanteconomiceventsinBritainandonthecontinent,Iwascompelledtobecomeconversantwithpracticaldetailwhich,strictlyspeaking,lieoutsidethesphereofpoliticaleconomy.Thissketchofthecourseofmystudiesinthedomainofpoliticaleconomyisintendedmerelytoshowthatmyviews–nomatterhowtheymaybejudgedandhowlittletheyconformtotheinterestedprejudicesoftherulingclasses–aretheoutcomeofconscientiousresearchcarriedonovermanyyears.Attheentrancetoscience,asattheentrancetohell,thedemandmustbemade:QuisiconvienlasciareognisospettoOgniviltaconvienchequisiamorta.[FromDante,DivinaCommedia:Heremustalldistrustbeleft;Allcowardicemustherebedead.]KarlMarxLondon,January1859A. AsasecondfootnotetotheCommunistManifesto,Engelswrotein1888:In1847,thepre-historyofsociety,thesocialorganizationexistingprevioustorecordedhistory,[was]allbutunknown.Sincethen,AugustvonHaxthausen(1792-1866)discoveredcommonownershipoflandinRussia,GeorgLudwigvonMaurerprovedittobethesocialfoundationfromwhichallTeutonicracesstartedinhistory,and,byandby,villagecommunitieswerefoundtobe,ortohavebeen,theprimitiveformofsocietyeverywherefromIndiatoIreland.Theinnerorganizationofthisprimitivecommunisticsocietywaslaidbare,initstypicalform,byLewisHenryMorgan's(1818-1861)crowningdiscoveryofthetruenatureofthegensanditsrelationtothetribe.Withthedissolutionoftheprimevalcommunities,societybeginstobedifferentiatedintoseparateandfinallyantagonisticclasses.Ihaveattemptedtoretracethisdissolutionin TheOriginoftheFamily,PrivateProperty,andtheState,secondedition,Stuttgart,1886.Thus,asthescienceofunderstandingpre-historyprogressed(pre-historybeingthattimebeforewrittenrecordsofhumancivilizationexist),Marx&Engelschangedtheirunderstandinganddescriptionsaccordingly.Intheabovetext,Marxmentions“Asiatic”modesofproduction.Atthetime,theyhadthoughtAsiancivilizationwasthefirstwecouldspeakofhumanity(anunderstandingbasedonHegel,see: TheOrientalRealm).TheylaterdroppedtheideaofadistinctAsiaticmodeofproduction,andkeptfourbasicforms:tribal,ancient,feudal,andcapitalist.