PrefacesandAfterwords
KarlMarxCapitalVolumeOnePrefacesandAfterwords
1867:DedicationtoWilhelmWolff1867:PrefacetotheFirstGermanEdition（Marx）1872:PrefacetotheFrenchEdition（Marx）1873:AfterwordtotheSecondGermanEdition（Marx）1875:AfterwordtotheFrenchEdition（Marx）1883:PrefacetotheThirdGermanEdition（Engels）1886:PrefacetotheEnglishEdition（Engels）1890:PrefacetotheFourthGermanEdition（Engels）1867:Marx’sThankYouLettertoEngelsDedicationKarlMarxCapitalVolumeOneDEDICATEDTOMYUNFORGETTABLEFRIEND
WilhelmWolffINTREPID，FAITHFUL，NOBLEPROTAGONISTOFTHEPROLETARIAT
BorninTarnauonJune21，1809
DiedinexileinManchesteronMay9，1864
1867PrefaceKarlMarxCapitalVolumeOne1867
PREFACETOTHE
FIRSTGERMANEDITION
Thework，thefirstvolumeofwhichInowsubmittothepublic，formsthecontinuationofmyZurKritikderPolitischenOekonomie（A
ContributiontotheCriticismofPoliticalEconomy）publishedin1859。
Thelongpausebetweenthefirstpartandthecontinuationisduetoanillnessofmanyyears’durationthatagainandagaininterruptedmywork。
Thesubstanceofthatearlierworkissummarisedinthefirstthreechaptersofthisvolume。Thisisdonenotmerelyforthesakeofconnexionandcompleteness。Thepresentationofthesubject—matterisimproved。Asfarascircumstancesinanywaypermit，manypointsonlyhintedatintheearlierbookarehereworkedoutmorefully，whilst，conversely，pointsworkedoutfullythereareonlytoucheduponinthisvolume。Thesectionsonthehistoryofthetheoriesofvalueandofmoneyarenow，ofcourse，leftoutaltogether。Thereaderoftheearlierworkwillfind，however，inthenotestothefirstchapteradditionalsourcesofreferencerelativetothehistoryofthosetheories。
Everybeginningisdifficult，holdsinallsciences。Tounderstandthefirstchapter，especiallythesectionthatcontainstheanalysisofcommodities，will，therefore，presentthegreatestdifficulty。Thatwhichconcernsmoreespeciallytheanalysisofthesubstanceofvalueandthemagnitudeofvalue，Ihave，asmuchasitwaspossible，popularised。[1]Thevalue—form，whosefullydevelopedshapeisthemoney—form，isveryelementaryandsimple。Nevertheless，thehumanmindhasformorethan2，000
yearssoughtinvaintogettothebottomofitall，whilstontheotherhand，tothesuccessfulanalysisofmuchmorecompositeandcomplexforms，therehasbeenatleastanapproximation。Why？Becausethebody，asanorganicwhole，ismoreeasyofstudythanarethecellsofthatbody。Intheanalysisofeconomicforms，moreover，neithermicroscopesnorchemicalreagentsareofuse。Theforceofabstractionmustreplaceboth。Butinbourgeoissociety，thecommodity—formoftheproductoflabour？orvalue—formofthecommodity？istheeconomiccell—form。Tothesuperficialobserver，theanalysisoftheseformsseemstoturnuponminutiae。Itdoesinfactdealwithminutiae，buttheyareofthesameorderasthosedealtwithinmicroscopicanatomy。
Withtheexceptionofthesectionofvalue—form，therefore，thisvolumecannotstandaccusedonthescoreofdifficulty。Ipre—suppose，ofcourse，areaderwhoiswillingtolearnsomethingnewandthereforetothinkforhimself。
Thephysicisteitherobservesphysicalphenomenawheretheyoccurintheirmosttypicalformandmostfreefromdisturbinginfluence，or，whereverpossible，hemakesexperimentsunderconditionsthatassuretheoccurrenceofthephenomenoninitsnormality。InthisworkIhavetoexaminethecapitalistmodeofproduction，andtheconditionsofproductionandexchangecorrespondingtothatmode。Uptothepresenttime，theirclassicgroundisEngland。ThatisthereasonwhyEnglandisusedasthechiefillustrationinthedevelopmentofmytheoreticalideas。If，however，theGermanreadershrugshisshouldersattheconditionoftheEnglishindustrialandagriculturallabourers，orinoptimistfashioncomfortshimselfwiththethoughtthatinGermanythingsarenotnearlysobad;Imustplainlytellhim，"Detefabulanarratur！"
Intrinsically，itisnotaquestionofthehigherorlowerdegreeofdevelopmentofthesocialantagonismsthatresultfromthenaturallawsofcapitalistproduction。Itisaquestionoftheselawsthemselves，ofthesetendenciesworkingwithironnecessitytowardsinevitableresults。
Thecountrythatismoredevelopedindustriallyonlyshows，tothelessdeveloped，theimageofitsownfuture。
Butapartfromthis。WherecapitalistproductionisfullynaturalisedamongtheGermans（forinstance，inthefactoriesproper）theconditionofthingsismuchworsethaninEngland，becausethecounterpoiseoftheFactoryActsiswanting。Inallotherspheres，we，likealltherestofContinentalWesternEurope，suffernotonlyfromthedevelopmentofcapitalistproduction，butalsofromtheincompletenessofthatdevelopment。Alongsidethemodernevils，awholeseriesofinheritedevilsoppressus，arisingfromthepassivesurvivalofantiquatedmodesofproduction，withtheirinevitabletrainofsocialandpoliticalanachronisms。Wesuffernotonlyfromtheliving，butfromthedead。Lemortsaisitlevif！
ThesocialstatisticsofGermanyandtherestofContinentalWesternEuropeare，incomparisonwiththoseofEngland，wretchedlycompiled。ButtheyraisetheveiljustenoughtoletuscatchaglimpseoftheMedusaheadbehindit。Weshouldbeappalledatthestateofthingsathome，if，asinEngland，ourgovernmentsandparliamentsappointedperiodicallycommissionsofinquiryintoeconomicconditions;ifthesecommissionswerearmedwiththesameplenarypowerstogetatthetruth;ifitwaspossibletofindforthispurposemenascompetent，asfreefrompartisanshipandrespectofpersonsasaretheEnglishfactory—inspectors，hermedicalreportersonpublichealth，hercommissionersofinquiryintotheexploitationofwomenandchildren，intohousingandfood。Perseusworeamagiccapdownoverhiseyesandearsasamake—believethattherearenomonsters。
Letusnotdeceiveourselvesonthis。Asinthe18thcentury，theAmericanwarofindependencesoundedthetocsinfortheEuropeanmiddle—class，sothatinthe19thcentury，theAmericanCivilWarsoundeditfortheEuropeanworking—class。InEnglandtheprocessofsocialdisintegrationispalpable。
Whenithasreachedacertainpoint，itmustreactontheContinent。Thereitwilltakeaformmorebrutalormorehumane，accordingtothedegreeofdevelopmentoftheworking—classitself。Apartfromhighermotives，therefore，theirownmostimportantinterestsdictatetotheclassesthatareforthenoncetherulingones，theremovalofalllegallyremovablehindrancestothefreedevelopmentoftheworking—class。Forthisreason，aswellasothers，Ihavegivensolargeaspaceinthisvolumetothehistory，thedetails，andtheresultsofEnglishfactorylegislation。Onenationcanandshouldlearnfromothers。Andevenwhenasocietyhasgotupontherighttrackforthediscoveryofthenaturallawsofitsmovement？anditistheultimateaimofthiswork，tolaybaretheeconomiclawofmotionofmodernsociety？itcanneitherclearbyboldleaps，norremovebylegalenactments，theobstaclesofferedbythesuccessivephasesofitsnormaldevelopment。Butitcanshortenandlessenthebirth—pangs。
Topreventpossiblemisunderstanding，aword。Ipaintthecapitalistandthelandlordinnosensecouleurderose。Buthereindividualsaredealtwithonlyinsofarastheyarethepersonificationsofeconomiccategories，embodimentsofparticularclass—relationsandclass—interests。
Mystandpoint，fromwhichtheevolutionoftheeconomicformationofsocietyisviewedasaprocessofnaturalhistory，canlessthananyothermaketheindividualresponsibleforrelationswhosecreaturehesociallyremains，howevermuchhemaysubjectivelyraisehimselfabovethem。
InthedomainofPoliticalEconomy，freescientificinquirymeetsnotmerelythesameenemiesasinallotherdomains。Thepeculiarnatureofthematerialsitdealswith，summonsasfoesintothefieldofbattlethemostviolent，meanandmalignantpassionsofthehumanbreast，theFuriesofprivateinterest。TheEnglishEstablishedChurch，e。g。，willmorereadilypardonanattackon38ofits39articlesthanon1/39ofitsincome。Now—a—daysatheismisculpalevis，ascomparedwithcriticismofexistingpropertyrelations。Nevertheless，thereisanunmistakableadvance。Irefer，e。g。，totheBluebookpublishedwithinthelastfewweeks:"CorrespondencewithHerMajesty’sMissionsAbroad，regardingIndustrialQuestionsandTrades’
Unions"。TherepresentativesoftheEnglishCrowninforeigncountriestheredeclareinsomanywordsthatinGermany，inFrance，tobebrief，inallthecivilisedstatesoftheEuropeanContinent，radicalchangeintheexistingrelationsbetweencapitalandlabourisasevidentandinevitableasinEngland。Atthesametime，ontheothersideoftheAtlanticOcean，Mr。Wade，vice—presidentoftheUnitedStates，declaredinpublicmeetingsthat，aftertheabolitionofslavery，aradicalchangeoftherelationsofcapitalandofpropertyinlandisnextupontheorderoftheday。Thesearesignsofthetimes，nottobehiddenbypurplemantlesorblackcassocks。
Theydonotsignifythattomorrowamiraclewillhappen。Theyshowthat，withintheruling—classesthemselves，aforebodingisdawning，thatthepresentsocietyisnosolidcrystal，butanorganismcapableofchange，andisconstantlychanging。
Thesecondvolumeofthisbookwilltreatoftheprocessofthecirculationofcapital（BookII。），andofthevariedformsassumedbycapitalinthecourseofitsdevelopment（BookIII。），thethirdandlastvolume（BookIV。），thehistoryofthetheory。
EveryopinionbasedonscientificcriticismIwelcome。Astoprejudicesofso—calledpublicopinion，towhichIhavenevermadeconcessions，nowasaforetimethemaximofthegreatFlorentineismine:
"Seguiiltuocorso，elasciadirlegenti。"
["Followyourowncourse，andletpeopletalk。"]KarlMarxLondonJuly25，1867Footnotes[1]Thisisthemorenecessary，aseventhesectionofFerdinandLassalle’sworkagainstSchulze—Delitzsch，inwhichheprofessestogive"theintellectualquintessence"ofmyexplanationsonthesesubjects，containsimportantmistakes。IfFerdinandLassallehasborrowedalmostliterallyfrommywritings，andwithoutanyacknowledgement，allthegeneraltheoreticalpropositionsinhiseconomicworks，e。g。，thoseonthehistoricalcharacterofcapital，ontheconnexionbetweentheconditionsofproductionandthemodeofproduction，&c。，&c。，eventotheterminologycreatedbyme，thismayperhapsbeduetopurposesofpropaganda。Iamhere，ofcourse，notspeakingofhisdetailedworkingoutandapplicationofthesepropositions，withwhichIhavenothingtodo。
1872PrefaceKarlMarxCapitalVolumeOne1872
PREFACETOTHE
FRENCHEDITION
TothecitizenMauriceLachatreDearCitizen，Iapplaudyourideaofpublishingthetranslationof"DasKapital"asaserial。Inthisformthebookwillbemoreaccessibletotheworkingclass，aconsiderationwhichtomeoutweighseverythingelse。
Thatisthegoodsideofyoursuggestion，buthereisthereverseofthemedal:themethodofanalysiswhichIhaveemployed，andwhichhadnotpreviouslybeenappliedtoeconomicsubjects，makesthereadingofthefirstchaptersratherarduous，anditistobefearedthattheFrenchpublic，alwaysimpatienttocometoaconclusion，eagertoknowtheconnexionbetweengeneralprinciplesandtheimmediatequestionsthathavearousedtheirpassions，maybedisheartenedbecausetheywillbeunabletomoveonatonce。
ThatisadisadvantageIampowerlesstoovercome，unlessitbebyforewarningandforearmingthosereaderswhozealouslyseekthetruth。Thereisnoroyalroadtoscience，andonlythosewhodonotdreadthefatiguingclimbofitssteeppathshaveachanceofgainingitsluminoussummits。Believeme，dearcitizen，Yourdevoted，KarlMarxLondonMarch18，1872
1875AfterwordKarlMarxCapitalVolumeOne1875
AFTERWARDTOTHE
FRENCHEDITION
Mr。J。Roysethimselfthetaskofproducingaversionthatwouldbeasexactandevenliteralaspossible，andhasscrupulouslyfulfilledit。
Buthisveryscrupulosityhascompelledmetomodifyhistext，withaviewtorenderingitmoreintelligibletothereader。Thesealterations，introducedfromdaytoday，asthebookwaspublishedinparts，werenotmadewithequalcareandwereboundtoresultinalackofharmonyinstyle。
Havingonceundertakenthisworkofrevision，Iwasledtoapplyitalsotothebasicoriginaltext（thesecondGermanedition），tosimplifysomearguments，tocompleteothers，togiveadditionalhistoricalorstatisticalmaterial，toaddcriticalsuggestions，etc。Hence，whatevertheliterarydefectsofthisFrencheditionmaybe，itpossessesascientificvalueindependentoftheoriginalandshouldbeconsultedevenbyreadersfamiliarwithGerman。
BelowIgivethepassagesintheAfterwordtothesecondGermaneditionwhichtreatofthedevelopmentofPoliticalEconomyinGermanyandthemethodemployedinthepresentwork。KarlMarxLondonApril28，1875
1873AfterwordKarlMarxCapitalVolumeOne1873
AFTERWARDTOTHE
SECONDGERMANEDITION
Imuststartbyinformingthereadersofthefirsteditionaboutthealterationsmadeinthesecondedition。Oneisstruckatoncebytheclearerarrangementofthebook。Additionalnotesareeverywheremarkedasnotestothesecondedition。Thefollowingarethemostimportantpointswithregardtothetextitself:
InChapterI，Section1，thederivationofvaluefromananalysisoftheequationsbywhicheveryexchange—valueisexpressedhasbeencarriedoutwithgreaterscientificstrictness;likewisetheconnexionbetweenthesubstanceofvalueandthedeterminationofthemagnitudeofvaluebysociallynecessarylabour—time，whichwasonlyalludedtointhefirstedition，isnowexpresslyemphasised。ChapterI，Section3（theFormofValue），hasbeencompletelyrevised，ataskwhichwasmadenecessarybythedoubleexpositioninthefirstedition，ifnothingelse。？Letmeremark，inpassing，thatthatdoubleexpositionhadbeenoccasionedbymyfriend，Dr。LKugelmanninHanover。Iwasvisitinghiminthespringof1867whenthefirstproof—sheetsarrivedfromHamburg，andheconvincedmethatmostreadersneededasupplementary，moredidacticexplanationoftheformofvalue。？Thelastsectionofthefirstchapter，"TheFetishismofCommodities，etc。，"haslargelybeenaltered。ChapterIII，SectionI（TheMeasureofValue），hasbeencarefullyrevised，becauseinthefirsteditionthissectionhadbeentreatednegligently，thereaderhavingbeenreferredtotheexplanationalreadygivenin"ZurKritikderPolitischenOekonomie，"Berlin1859。ChapterVII，particularlyPart2[Eng。ed。，ChapterIX，Section2]，hasbeenre—writtentoagreatextent。
Itwouldbeawasteoftimetogointoallthepartialtextualchanges，whichwereoftenpurelystylistic。Theyoccurthroughoutthebook。NeverthelessIfindnow，onrevisingtheFrenchtranslationappearinginParis，thatseveralpartsoftheGermanoriginalstandinneedofratherthoroughremoulding，otherpartsrequireratherheavystylisticediting，andstillotherspainstakingeliminationofoccasionalslips。Buttherewasnotimeforthat。ForI
hadbeeninformedonlyintheautumnof1871，wheninthemidstofotherurgentwork，thatthebookwassoldoutandthattheprintingofthesecondeditionwastobegininJanuaryof1872。
Theappreciationwhich"DasKapital"rapidlygainedinwidecirclesoftheGermanworking—classisthebestrewardofmylabours。HerrMayer，aViennamanufacturer，whoineconomicmattersrepresentsthebourgeoispointofview，inapamphletpublishedduringtheFranco—GermanWaraptlyexpoundedtheideathatthegreatcapacityfortheory，whichusedtobeconsideredahereditaryGermanpossession，hadalmostcompletelydisappearedamongsttheso—callededucatedclassesinGermany，butthatamongstitsworking—class，onthecontrary，thatcapacitywascelebratingitsrevival。
TothepresentmomentPoliticalEconomy，inGermany，isaforeignscience。
GustavvonGulichinhis"HistoricaldescriptionofCommerce，Industry，"
&c。，[1]especiallyinthetwofirstvolumespublishedin1830，hasexaminedatlengththehistoricalcircumstancesthatprevented，inGermany，thedevelopmentofthecapitalistmodeofproduction，andconsequentlythedevelopment，inthatcountry，ofmodernbourgeoissociety。ThusthesoilwhencePoliticalEconomyspringswaswanting。This"science"hadtobeimportedfromEnglandandFranceasaready—madearticle;itsGermanprofessorsremainedschoolboys。
Thetheoreticalexpressionofaforeignrealitywasturned，intheirhands，intoacollectionofdogmas，interpretedbythemintermsofthepettytradingworldaroundthem，andthereforemisinterpreted。Thefeelingofscientificimpotence，afeelingnotwhollytoberepressed，andtheuneasyconsciousnessofhavingtotouchasubjectinrealityforeigntothem，wasbutimperfectlyconcealed，eitherunderaparadeofliteraryandhistoricalerudition，orbyanadmixtureofextraneousmaterial，borrowedfromtheso—called"Kameral"sciences，amedleyofsmatterings，throughwhosepurgatorythehopefulcandidatefortheGermanbureaucracyhastopass。
Since1848capitalistproductionhasdevelopedrapidlyinGermany，andatthepresenttimeitisinthefullbloomofspeculationandswindling。
Butfateisstillunpropitioustoourprofessionaleconomists。AtthetimewhentheywereabletodealwithPoliticalEconomyinastraightforwardfashion，moderneconomicconditionsdidnotactuallyexistinGermany。
Andassoonastheseconditionsdidcomeintoexistence，theydidsoundercircumstancesthatnolongerallowedoftheirbeingreallyandimpartiallyinvestigatedwithintheboundsofthebourgeoishorizon。InsofarasPoliticalEconomyremainswithinthathorizon，insofar，i。e。，asthecapitalistregimeislookeduponastheabsolutelyfinalformofsocialproduction，insteadofasapassinghistoricalphaseofitsevolution，PoliticalEconomycanremainascienceonlysolongastheclass—struggleislatentormanifestsitselfonlyinisolatedandsporadicphenomena。
LetustakeEngland。ItsPoliticalEconomybelongstotheperiodinwhichtheclass—strugglewasasyetundeveloped。Itslastgreatrepresentative，Ricardo，intheend，consciouslymakestheantagonismofclassinterests，ofwagesandprofits，ofprofitsandrent，thestarting—pointofhisinvestigations，naivelytakingthisantagonismforasociallawofNature。Butbythisstartthescienceofbourgeoiseconomyhadreachedthelimitsbeyondwhichitcouldnotpass。AlreadyinthelifetimeofRicardo，andinoppositiontohim，itwasmetbycriticism，inthepersonofSismondi。[2]
Thesucceedingperiod，from1820to1830，wasnotableinEnglandforscientificactivityinthedomainofPoliticalEconomy。ItwasthetimeaswellofthevulgarisingandextendingofRicardo’stheory，asofthecontestofthattheorywiththeoldschool。Splendidtournamentswereheld。
Whatwasdonethen，islittleknowntotheContinentgenerally，becausethepolemicisforthemostpartscatteredthrougharticlesinreviews，occasionalliteratureandpamphlets。Theunprejudicedcharacterofthispolemic？althoughthetheoryofRicardoalreadyserves，inexceptionalcases，asaweaponofattackuponbourgeoiseconomy？isexplainedbythecircumstancesofthetime。Ontheonehand，modernindustryitselfwasonlyjustemergingfromtheageofchildhood，asisshownbythefactthatwiththecrisisof1825itforthefirsttimeopenstheperiodiccycleofitsmodernlife。Ontheotherhand，theclass—strugglebetweencapitalandlabourisforcedintothebackground，politicallybythediscordbetweenthegovernmentsandthefeudalaristocracygatheredaroundtheHolyAllianceontheonehand，andthepopularmasses，ledbythebourgeoisie，ontheother;economicallybythequarrelbetweenindustrialcapitalandaristocraticlandedproperty——aquarrelthatinFrancewasconcealedbytheoppositionbetweensmallandlargelandedproperty，andthatinEnglandbrokeoutopenlyaftertheCornLaws。TheliteratureofPoliticalEconomyinEnglandatthistimecallstomindthestormyforwardmovementinFranceafterDr。Quesnay’sdeath，butonlyasaSaintMartin’ssummerremindsusofspring。Withtheyear1830camethedecisivecrisis。
InFranceandinEnglandthebourgeoisiehadconqueredpoliticalpower。
Thenceforth，theclass—struggle，practicallyaswellastheoretically，tookonmoreandmoreoutspokenandthreateningforms。Itsoundedtheknellofscientificbourgeoiseconomy。Itwasthenceforthnolongeraquestion，whetherthistheoremorthatwastrue，butwhetheritwasusefultocapitalorharmful，expedientorinexpedient，politicallydangerousornot。Inplaceofdisinterestedinquirers，therewerehiredprizefighters;inplaceofgenuinescientificresearch，thebadconscienceandtheevilintentofapologetic。Still，eventheobtrusivepamphletswithwhichtheAnti—CornLawLeague，ledbythemanufacturersCobdenandBright，delugedtheworld，haveahistoricinterest，ifnoscientificone，onaccountoftheirpolemicagainstthelandedaristocracy。ButsincethentheFree—tradelegislation，inauguratedbySirRobertPeel，hasdeprivedvulgareconomyofthisitslaststing。
TheContinentalrevolutionof1848—9alsohaditsreactioninEngland。
Menwhostillclaimedsomescientificstandingandaspiredtobesomethingmorethanmeresophistsandsycophantsoftheruling—classestriedtoharmonisethePoliticalEconomyofcapitalwiththeclaims，nolongertobeignored，oftheproletariat。HenceashallowsyncretismofwhichJohnStuartMillisthebestrepresentative。Itisadeclarationofbankruptcybybourgeoiseconomy，aneventonwhichthegreatRussianscholarandcritic，N。Tschernyschewsky，hasthrownthelightofamastermindinhis"OutlinesofPoliticalEconomyaccordingtoMill。"
InGermany，therefore，thecapitalistmodeofproductioncametoahead，afteritsantagonisticcharacterhadalready，inFranceandEngland，shownitselfinafiercestrifeofclasses。Andmeanwhile，moreover，theGermanproletariathadattainedamuchmoreclearclass—consciousnessthantheGermanbourgeoisie。Thus，attheverymomentwhenabourgeoisscienceofPoliticalEconomyseemedatlastpossibleinGermany，ithadinrealityagainbecomeimpossible。
Underthesecircumstancesitsprofessorsfellintotwogroups。Theoneset，prudent，practicalbusinessfolk，flockedtothebannerofBastiat，themostsuperficialandthereforethemostadequaterepresentativeoftheapologeticofvulgareconomy;theother，proudoftheprofessorialdignityoftheirscience，followedJohnStuartMillinhisattempttoreconcileirreconcilables。Justasintheclassicaltimeofbourgeoiseconomy，soalsointhetimeofitsdecline，theGermansremainedmereschoolboys，imitatorsandfollowers，pettyretailersandhawkersintheserviceofthegreatforeignwholesaleconcern。
ThepeculiarhistoricaldevelopmentofGermansocietythereforeforbids，inthatcountry，alloriginalworkinbourgeoiseconomy;butnotthecriticismofthateconomy。Sofarassuchcriticismrepresentsaclass，itcanonlyrepresenttheclasswhosevocationinhistoryistheoverthrowofthecapitalistmodeofproductionandthefinalabolitionofallclasses？theproletariat;
ThelearnedandunlearnedspokesmenoftheGermanbourgeoisietriedatfirsttokill"DasKapital"bysilence，astheyhadmanagedtodowithmyearlierwritings。Assoonastheyfoundthatthesetacticsnolongerfittedinwiththeconditionsofthetime，theywrote，underpretenceofcriticisingmybook，prescriptions"forthetranquillisationofthebourgeoismind。"Buttheyfoundintheworkers’press？see，e。g。，JosephDietzgen’sarticlesintheVolksstaat？antagonistsstrongerthanthemselves，towhom（downtothisveryday）theyoweareplp;[3]
AnexcellentRussiantranslationof"DasKapital"appearedinthespringof1872。Theeditionof3，000copiesisalreadynearlyexhausted。Asearlyas1871，N。Sieber，ProfessorofPoliticalEconomyintheUniversityofKiev，inhiswork"DavidRicardo’sTheoryofValueandofCapital，"referredtomytheoryofvalue，ofmoneyandofcapital，asinitsfundamentalsanecessarysequeltotheteachingofSmithandRicardo。ThatwhichastonishestheWesternEuropeaninthereadingofthisexcellentwork，istheauthor’sconsistentandfirmgraspofthepurelytheoreticalposition。
Thatthemethodemployedin"DasKapital"hasbeenlittleunderstood，isshownbythevariousconceptions，contradictoryonetoanother，thathavebeenformedofit。
ThustheParisRevuePositivistereproachesmeinthat，ontheonehand，Itreateconomicsmetaphysically，andontheotherhand？imagine！？confinemyselftothemerecriticalanalysisofactualfacts，insteadofwritingreceipts（Comtistones？）forthecook—shopsofthefuture。Inanswertothereproachinremetaphysics，ProfessorSieberhasit:"Insofarasitdealswithactualtheory，themethodofMarxisthedeductivemethodofthewholeEnglishschool，aschoolwhosefailingsandvirtuesarecommontothebesttheoreticeconomists。"M。Block？"LesTheoriciensduSocialismeenAllemagne。ExtraitduJournaldesEconomistes，JuilletetAout1872"？makesthediscoverythatmymethodisanalyticandsays:"ParcetouvrageM。Marxseclasseparmilesespritsanalytiqueslespluseminents。"Germanreviews，ofcourse，shriekoutat"Hegeliansophistics。"TheEuropeanMessengerofSt。Petersburginanarticledealingexclusivelywiththemethodof"DasKapital"（Maynumber，1872，pp。427—436），findsmymethodofinquiryseverelyrealistic，butmymethodofpresentation，unfortunately，German—
dialectical。Itsays:"Atfirstsight，ifthejudgmentisbasedontheexternalformofthepresentationofthesubject，Marxisthemostidealofidealphilosophers，alwaysintheGerman，i。e。，thebadsenseoftheword。Butinpointoffactheisinfinitelymorerealisticthanallhisforerunnersintheworkofeconomiccriticism。Hecaninnosensebecalledanidealist。"Icannotanswerthewriterbetterthanbyaidofafewextractsfromhisowncriticism，whichmayinterestsomeofmyreaderstowhomtheRussianoriginalisinaccessible。
Afteraquotationfromtheprefacetomy"CriticismofPoliticalEconomy，"
Berlin，1859，pp。IV—VII，whereIdiscussthematerialisticbasisofmymethod，thewritergoeson:
"TheonethingwhichisofmomenttoMarx，istofindthelawofthephenomenawithwhoseinvestigationheisconcerned;andnotonlyisthatlawofmomenttohim，whichgovernsthesephenomena，insofarastheyhaveadefiniteformandmutualconnexionwithinagivenhistoricalperiod。Ofstillgreatermomenttohimisthelawoftheirvariation，oftheirdevelopment，i。e。，oftheirtransitionfromoneformintoanother，fromoneseriesofconnexionsintoadifferentone。Thislawoncediscovered，heinvestigatesindetailtheeffectsinwhichitmanifestsitselfinsociallife。Consequently，Marxonlytroubleshimselfaboutonething:toshow，byrigidscientificinvestigation，thenecessityofsuccessivedeterminateordersofsocialconditions，andtoestablish，asimpartiallyaspossible，thefactsthatservehimforfundamentalstarting—points。Forthisitisquiteenough，ifheproves，atthesametime，boththenecessityofthepresentorderofthings，andthenecessityofanotherorderintowhichthefirstmustinevitablypassover;andthisallthesame，whethermenbelieveordonotbelieveit，whethertheyareconsciousorunconsciousofit。Marxtreatsthesocialmovementasaprocessofnaturalhistory，governedbylawsnotonlyindependentofhumanwill，consciousnessandintelligence，butrather，onthecontrary，determiningthatwill，consciousnessandintelligence……Ifinthehistoryofcivilisationtheconsciouselementplaysapartsosubordinate，thenitisself—evidentthatacriticalinquirywhosesubject—matteriscivilisation，can，lessthananythingelse，haveforitsbasisanyformof，oranyresultof，consciousness。Thatistosay，thatnottheidea，butthematerialphenomenonalonecanserveasitsstarting—point。Suchaninquirywillconfineitselftotheconfrontationandthecomparisonofafact，notwithideas，butwithanotherfact。Forthisinquiry，theonethingofmomentis，thatbothfactsbeinvestigatedasaccuratelyaspossible，andthattheyactuallyform，eachwithrespecttotheother，differentmomentaofanevolution;butmostimportantofallistherigidanalysisoftheseriesofsuccessions，ofthesequencesandconcatenationsinwhichthedifferentstagesofsuchanevolutionpresentthemselves。Butitwillbesaid，thegenerallawsofeconomiclifeareoneandthesame，nomatterwhethertheyareappliedtothepresentorthepast。ThisMarxdirectlydenies。Accordingtohim，suchabstractlawsdonotexist。Onthecontrary，inhisopinioneveryhistoricalperiodhaslawsofitsown……Assoonassocietyhasoutlivedagivenperiodofdevelopment，andispassingoverfromonegivenstagetoanother，itbeginstobesubjectalsotootherlaws。Inaword，economiclifeoffersusaphenomenonanalogoustothehistoryofevolutioninotherbranchesofbiology。Theoldeconomistsmisunderstoodthenatureofeconomiclawswhentheylikenedthemtothelawsofphysicsandchemistry。Amorethoroughanalysisofphenomenashowsthatsocialorganismsdifferamongthemselvesasfundamentallyasplantsoranimals。Nay，oneandthesamephenomenonfallsunderquitedifferentlawsinconsequenceofthedifferentstructureofthoseorganismsasawhole，ofthevariationsoftheirindividualorgans，ofthedifferentconditionsinwhichthoseorgansfunction，&c。Marx，e。g。，deniesthatthelawofpopulationisthesameatalltimesandinallplaces。Heasserts，onthecontrary，thateverystageofdevelopmenthasitsownlawofpopulation……
Withthevaryingdegreeofdevelopmentofproductivepower，socialconditionsandthelawsgoverningthemvarytoo。WhilstMarxsetshimselfthetaskoffollowingandexplainingfromthispointofviewtheeconomicsystemestablishedbytheswayofcapital，heisonlyformulating，inastrictlyscientificmanner，theaimthateveryaccurateinvestigationintoeconomiclifemusthave。Thescientificvalueofsuchaninquiryliesinthedisclosingofthespeciallawsthatregulatetheorigin，existence，development，deathofagivensocialorganismanditsreplacementbyanotherandhigherone。
第1章