A maior rede de estudos do Brasil

616 pág.

Pré-visualização | Página 3 de 50

It was the
intention of Marx to eliminate this section and to reconstruct
it in such a way that i¢ would conform to his wider grasp
of the subject. This gave rise to Manuscript VIII, contain-
ing only 70 pages in quarto. A comparison with section
III, as printed after deducting the paragraphs inserted out
of Manuscript II, shows the amount of matter compressed
_by Marx into this space.
Manuscript VIII is likewise merely a preliminary pre-
sentation _f the subject, and its main object was to ascertain
and develop the new points of view not set forth in Manu-
script II, while those points were ignored about which there
was nothing new to say. An essential part of Chapter XVII,
Section II, which is more or less relevant to Section III, was
at the same time drawn into this discussion and expanded.
The logical sequence was frequently interrupted, the treat-
ment of the subject was incomplete in various places, and
especially the conclusion was very fragmentary. But Marx
expressed as nearly as possible what he intended to say on
the subject.
This is the material for Volume II, out of which I was
supposed "to make something," as Marx said to his daughter
Eleanor shortly before his death. I have interpreted this
request in its most literal meaning. So far as this was pos-
sible, I have confined my work to a mere selection of the
various revised parts. And I always based my work on the
last revised manuscript and compared this with the preced-
ing ones. Only the first and _hird section offered any real
difficulties, of more than a technical nature, and these were
Lndeed considerable. I have endeavored to solve them ex-
.elusively in the spirit of the author of this work.
For Volume IIt, the following manuscripts were avail-
able, apart from _he corresponding sections of the above-
12 Preface.
named manuscript, entitled "A Contribution _ the Crit-
ique of Political Economy," from the sections in Manu-
script III likewise mentioned above, and from a few occa-
sional notes scattered through various extracts: The folio
manuscript of 1864-65, referred to previously, which is about
as fully elaborated as Manuscript II of Volume II; further-
more, a manuscri_ dated 1875 and entitled "The Relation
of the Rate of Surplus Value to _he Rate of Profit," which
treats the subject in mathematical equations. The prepara-
tion of Volume III for the printer is proceeding rapidly.
So far as I am enabled to judge at present, it will present
mainly technical difficulties, with the exception of a few
very important sections.
I avail myself of this ,opportunity to refute a certain
charge which has been raised against Marx, first indistinctly
and at various intervals, but more recently, after Vhe death
of Marx, as a statement of fact by the German state and
university socialists. It is claimed that Marx plagiarized
the work of Rod.bertus. I have already expressed myself
on the main issue in my preface to the German edition of
Marx's "Poverty of Philosophy" (1885), but I will now
produce the most convincing testimony for the refutation
of this charge.1
To my knowledge this charge is made for the first time in
R. Meyer's "Emancipationskampf des Vierten Standes"
(Struggles for the Emancipation of the Fourth Estate),
page 43: "It can be demonstrated that Marx has gathered
the greater part of his critique from these publications"--
meaning the works of Rodbertus dating back to the last
half of the thirties of this century. I may well assume,
until such time as will produce further proof, that the
"demonstration" of this assertion rests on a statement made
by Rodbertus to Mr. Meyer. Furthermore, Rodbertus him-
self appears on the stage in 1879 and writes to J. Zeller
1 In the pretace to *'The Povert7 of Phlloaoph.y." A Iteply' to Proudhon'e ,' Phllo6o-
phy of Poverty," by Karl Marx. Translated Into Oerman b_, E. Bernstein and K. Kau_kT,
Stuttgart, lSSS.
Preface. 18
(Zeitschrift fiir die Gesammte Staatswissenschaft, Tiibin-
gen, 1879, page 219), with reference to his work "Zur Er-
kenntniss Unserer Staatswirthschaftlichen Zustiinde" (A
Contribution to the Understanding of our Political and
Economic Conditions), 1842, as follows: "You will find
that this line of thought has been very nicely used . . . by
Marx, without, however, giving me credit for it." The pub-
lisher of Ro4bertus posthumous works, Th. Kozak, repeats
his insinuation without further ceremony. (Das Kapital
yon Rodbertus. Berlin, 1884. Introduction, page XV.)
Finally in the "Briefe und Sozialpolitische Aufsatze von Dr.
Rodbertus-Jagetzow," (Letters and Essays on Political Econ-
omy by Dr. Rodbertus-Jagetzow), published by R. Meyer ill
1881, Rodbertus says directly: "To-day I find that I am
robbed by Schiiffie and Marx without having my name men-
tioned" (Letter No. 60, page 134). And in another place,
the claim of Rodbertus assumes a more definite form: "In
my third letter on political economy, I have shown prac-
ticaily in the same way as Marx, only more briefly and
clearly, the source of the surplus value of the capitalists."
(Letter :No. 48, page 111.)
Marx never heard anything definite about any of these
charges of plagiarism. In his copy of the "Emancipations-
kampf" only that part had been opened with a knife which
related to the International. The remaining pages were not
opened until I cut them myself after his death. The "Zeit-
schrift" of Tiibingen was never read by him. The "Let-
¢ers," etc., to R. Meyer likewise remained unknown to him,
and I did not learn of the passage referring to the "robbery"
of which Rodbertus was supposed to be the victim until Mr.
Meyer himself called my attention to it. However, Marx
$,as familiar with letter No. 48. Mr. Meyer had ,been kind
enough Co presen¢ the original to the youngest daughter of
Marx. Some of the mysterious whispering about the secret
source of his critique and his con_ction with Rodbertus
having reached the ear of Marx, he showed me this letter
with the remark that he had at last disoovered authentic
14 Preface.
information as to what Rodbertus claimed for himself; if
that was all Rodbertus wanted, he Marx, had no objection,
and he could well afford to let Rodbertus enjoy the pleasure
of considering his own version the briefer and clearer one.
In fact, Marx considered the matter settled by this letter of
He could so much the more afford this, as I know posi-
tively that he was not in the least acquainted with the liter-
ary activity of I_dbertus until about 1859, when his own
critique of political economy had been completed, not only
in its fundamental outlines, but also in its more important
details. Marx began his economic studies in Paris, in 1843,
starting with the prominent Englishmen and Frenchmen.
Of German economists he knew only Rau and List, and he
did not want any more of them. Neither Marx nor I heard
a word of Rodbertus' existence, until we had to criticise, in
the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung," 1848, the speeches he made
as the representative of Berlin and as Minister of Commerce.
We were both of us so ignorant that we had to ask the Rhen-
ish representatives who this Rodbertus was that had become
a Minister so suddenly. But these representatives could not
tell us anything about the economic writings of Rodbertus.
On the other hand, Marx showed that he knew even then,
without the help of Rodbcrtus, whence came "the surplus
value of the capitalists," and he showed furthermore how it
was produced, as may be seen in his "Poverty of Philoso-
phy," 1847, and in his lectures on wage labor and capital,
delivered in Brussels in 1847, and published in Nos. 2fl4-69
of the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung," 1849. Marx did not
learn that an economist Rodbertus existed, until Lassalle
called his attention to the fact in 1859, and thereupon Marx
looked up the "Third Letter on Political Econ6my" in the
British Museum.
This is the actual