53. The original text has ‘personifications’, evidently referring back to ‘conditions’.
54. Sein für andres is a basic concept of Hegel’s logic, described in the Science of Logic (p. 119 of the translation by A. V. Miller, London, 1969) as ‘a negation of the simple relation of being to itself which is supposed to be determinate being’. However, it is paired, not with Sein für sich, but with Sein in sich (being in itself, described as ‘something returned into itself out of the being for other’). In any case, it is difficult to detect any relation between Marx’s use of Sein für andres and Hegel’s use. The situation is different with the concept of Sein für sich, since Hegel described being for self in the Lesser Logic (p. 179 of the translation by W. Wallace, Oxford, 1892) in the following way: ‘Being for self is a self-subsistent, the One’, and added ‘The readiest instance of being for self is found in the “I”.’ This comes close to Marx’s ‘each individual … as an end in himself’.
55. Having themselves become = having themselves undergone the process of becoming, as indicated on pp. 459–60.
56. On 22 February 1858, Marx wrote to Lassalle that he was planning three works: (1) a critique of the economic categories or the system of bourgeois economy critically presented, (2) a critique and history of political economy and socialism, and (3) a short historical sketch of the development of economic relations or categories (Marx-Engels Selected Correspondence, Moscow n.d., p. 125). Marx referred here to the third work, which he never produced in a completed form. Pages 459–514 of the present edition would no doubt have formed part of it.
57. Do ut facias: I give that you may do; facio ut des: I do that you may give; do ut des: I give that you may give. (Roman law.)
58. That is, with the free workers in manufactures (hand crafts).
59. Steuart, An Inquiry, Vol. I, p. 40.
60. Marx did not in fact mention this in the Chapter on Money but rather on pp. 272–3, in the Chapter on Capital.
61. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Vol. I, pp. 104–5.
62. State property.
63. The word Stamm here refers broadly to any extended kinship grouping; e.g. clan, tribe, gens, etc.
64. Geschlechter may also refer to the sexes, linguistic groups, generations, etc. It is not entirely certain which of these distinctions Marx had foremost in mind here.
65. This is one possible reconstruction of the sentence beginning ‘The commune’, which has a number of grammatical loose ends in the original. Two other possible variants are presented in Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations, tr. J. Cohen, London, 1964, p. 73.
66. Craftsmen, workers.
67. Georg Niebuhr, Römische Geschichte. Erster Theil. Zweyte, völlig umgearbeitete, Ausgabe, Berlin, 1827, p. 245.
68. The property of the quirites, i.e. the Romans.
69. ‘No Roman citizen was permitted to earn a livelihood as a tradesman or artisan’ (Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Roman Antiquities, Bk IV, Ch. 25).
70. The passages in pointed brackets, on pp. 477–8, are taken from Niebuhr’s Römische Geschichte. Erster Theil, and in this order: (1) p. 148; (2) pp. 435–6; (3) pp. 614–15 and footnotes 1224 and 1225; (4) pp. 317–18; (5) pp. 326–35.
NOTEBOOK V: The Chapter on Capital (continuation)
1. Cicero, Letters to Atticus, Vol. V, 21, lines 10–13; Vol. VI, 1, lines 3–7; Vol. VI, 2, lines 7–10.
2. P.-J. Proudhon, Système des contradictions économiques, Vol. II, p. 265.
3. Latin plural of iugerum, a Roman measure of land.
4. Political animal; literally, city-dweller.
5. The term Gemeinwesen also carries the nuances ‘common essence’, ‘common system’ and ‘common being’.